LurkerJ said:
NintendoPie said:
not to agree with classicgamingwizzz as that'd be an unfortunate look but, if outside of this thread (and even this case of MS/ABK) you largely support corporatization and big-business, i don't think there'd be anything anyone could convince you of to change your mind about this one case. i started off with a basis of being against big-business and for legal safeguards in the economy to prevent them getting too large. that's why i came with this question as i was wondering why this one case was getting much more praise than other acquisitions in recent memory. largely, i'm starting to understand now why it's not as bad as i first thought. even so, that doesn't change the fact that i'm still mainly against this type of practice and am ultimately disappointed with capitalism and its tools in general. just like how you seem to be very pro-capitalism and its tools, from what i can tell. |
It's important to remember that the COD offer to SONY was limited to 3 years, this increased to 5, then to 10 and eventually to "as long as the playstation exists". A lot of these commitments were born because the acquisition was challenged and scrutinised. To suggest the camp that opposed the acquisition the day it was announced had no good reason or rationale to object to it is disingenuous, the EC actually shares the CMA concerns over the deal, they disagree on what they think are acceptable concessions. The EC has got further concessions from MS and the CMA seems to be in the process of doing so as well. |
did you mean to respond to my post with this? i agree the EC acted well in this instance.
Essay Pro