Look, I get it, Microsoft buying Actiblizz is bad for competition and growth, but any argument saying its a monopoly is plainly false. Microsoft+Actiblizz doesnt even make up half of the available content in the gaming world, and im not counting steam trash or vis novels. In the gaming world a title by an idie studio could come out of nowhere and outperform any game put forth by the big 6 (now 5) companies.
This is a straw man. Nobody is saying they’re a monopoly. They’re saying Microsoft has a history of anti competitive behavior.
If this is a strawman, where is the anti-competitive behaviour in this deal?
A history of anti-competitive choices should not be resolved by undoing some random, unrelated choice. The only reason they would have to block Microsoft’s acquisition is if it was anti-competitive.
Yes, it’s literally a straw man. OP constructed an argument (Microsoft is a monopoly) that was not present in any comments nor the article, and then attacked that.
