• Neato@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    The regulatory bodies didn’t like ActiBlizzard,

    But they did allow it, unfortunately. And MS could simply argue that it already has dominance in the PC space as 96% of PC gamers are Windows users. So owning Steam is just buying 1 out of many stores (here they tout Epic, Amazon, etc).
    I mean it's a bad argument but MS made a lot of bad arguments to get their way and they seemingly worked.

    • lorty@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Activision-Blizzard-King isn't a dominant company in any segment. You can't say the same for steam. Regulators would have a much easier time blocking such an acquisition.

      • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Plus, at least from my perspective, Activision-Blizzard was already bad enough that if MS made it worse, it wouldn't affect me because they were already bad enough that I'd swore off their games. MS owning them was an improvement or at worst more of the same.

        That's absolutely not the case for Valve. They are one of the few large companies that I respect plus they are playing a big role in breaking the windows stranglehold over OSes when you like to play games.

        The level of popular opposition to MS acquiring Valve would be on a whole other level than the opposition to the blizzard acquisition. It might even rival the opposition to Nvidia acquiring ARM.