2, Amazon runs the platform that people use while playing the games - Twitch
3, Amazon runs the platform that hosts the servers to play the games - AWS
4, Amazon runs the platform that you play the game on - Luna
5, Amazon runs the platform that creates the games - EA
how is this not anti-competition for anyone running a company that competes in only one of these fields..
Though I suspect the claim that "We at least compete with this other giant tech company hell bent on crushing competition" is probably not the most sympathetic argument in the current antitrust atmosphere.
What current antitrust atmosphere? What was the last trust busted?
Like with the mainstream media and the fact that no one has put the Murdochs in a rocket to Mars
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/28/technology/ftc-lina-khan-...
If both were to cooperate and segment their markets in secret, it would be highly anticompetitive.
It only takes one mistake for them to lose a lot of that engagement.
How true is this? Because YouTube and Google have made plenty of mistakes yet it continues to dominate.
However, critical mass is very hard to move, because platform switch would be revenue loss for streamers.
1) that's only available on Luna sold via Amazon
2) DLC only downloadable with Twitch participation/Prime membership
3) Amazon force EA to use AWS
Instead of making their product compete with their 'competitors', they buy the customers (EA) and force them to use their product. At that point, taking AWS for example, GCP/Azure are no longer 'competitors' and if the end-consumer (me and you), want to play a title, we pay extra because there's no competition in the chain...
"The Games" - No. Some games yes. The people I game with pretty much despise EA and look at them as the company that buys up smaller studios and destroys the culture.
There's also BioWare - but their last few releases have been disastrous.
Edit: Oh, more recently I loved the Command & Conquer remaster - that maybe counts as an EA game? It was published by them, but I don't think Peteoglyph is owned by EA.
They also have what's basically a renegade sequel
The FTC probably knows it is overdue to break up the Big Tech takeovers, but needs more evidence of this consolidation and behaviour to outright prevent more of this and eventually break them all up.
It's a lot harder to regulate 1000s or multiples of 1000s of smaller businesses.
Regulation also includes targeted political censorship in this case.
Workers had no other options but to live in that company town and spend their money in company town stores.
All vertical integration means is that a company has direct control over most/all of the supply chain they need to get their product made and sold. They don't need 3rd parties to supply them with any of the steps in the process.
That obviously gives them a competitive advantage, but it doesn't involve directly removing other competitors the way horizontal integration does.
I think there’s a certain point where executives run out of ideas but have to be doing something. Then you have investment bankers and advisors pushing these ideas and copycatting each other for that sweet, sweet commission payday.
And it’s not so much that these are great ideas, it’s can they sound okay enough to get that payday before everyone realizes it was all a stupid waste of time five years later. That is, after the acquired company gets its souls sucked out, the talent leaves, and the acquirer discards the husk at a discount.
This is a self-correcting phenomenon.
The issue isn't Amazon buying something. The issue is Amazon buying something to force them to use their services hence circumventing competition.
EA may previously have used GCP to host their services because they provide a better service and are cheaper. This forces AWS to do better to compete against GCP and the end-consumer purchasing the game will pay less.
I think it would be way easier to make a case that Microsoft shouldn't be able to buy Activision. It seems like major gaming studios are slowly getting acquired by either Tencent or Microsoft
Anti-competitive practices are business or government practices that prevent or reduce competition in a market.
Amazon purchasing a company and forcing them to use their services means their services no longer have to compete against their 'competitors'...
But also: do they disallow competitors to use their services/sell their games? AFAIK antimonopoly litigation requires the existence of an actual market obstruction, not its hypothetical existence.
It's fairly well established that vertical integration is not only not anti-competitive, but benefits both corporations and consumers.
I'm going to need some more details before it being accepted as a fact...
Vertical integration should be pursued by any and every company.
The alternative to VI is every single piece of your stack is another company seeking its own piece of whatever pie you’re building (and that company in turn facing the exact same dilemma — nobody builds original things anymore, it’s b2b saas Lego all the way down)
I'm suggesting the optimum for human freedom, welfare and prosperity is achieved when striving closer to the former rather than the latter, not that companies should strive to depend on others as much as possible.
(Though my use of "minimal" in the original post might've been misleading.)
It is illegal for businesses to act together in ways that can limit competition, lead to higher prices, or hinder other businesses from entering the market.
That's from the FTC.