He industry unawareness of video games by regulatory bodies is something more than remarkable. The clearest evidence was to suggest the sale of Call of Duty as a move that would make the purchase of Activision Blizzard one with less monopoly risk. The idea has serious deficiencies, denoting that they have little or no experience in the field.
It’s a problem when those in charge of allowing or blocking the largest technology purchase on record don’t have notion about the functioning of the video game market. Although it would be better to live this whole situation in capable hands, it is better to approach these issues as tactfully as possible.
The lack of awareness of the video game industry by regulatory bodies must be addressed very sensitively
the competition is leveled in favor of Sony, is seen in hardware sales and in the bulk of social media communities. Phil Spencer declares to The Times that he is baffled to see how day by day regulators support the largest company in the video game industry, in favor of keeping it in force, and they do this using the excuse of monopoly risk in favor of PlayStation. He is almost laughable.
Placing a visible example, the mobile market has two competitors, this being a much more polarized market than that of consoles. Phil Spencer is pleased that there are three competitors, each one offering alternatives for the varied tastes of users. The industry’s reading is complex, and it does a disservice to the case that regulators don’t measure up. The inexperience with issues of the console market and the increasingly growing market for cloud services is very evident.
The head of Xbox has noticed in his multiple meetings a deep ignorance of the video game industry by regulatory bodies. There have been many occasions in which Phil Spencer has given himself the task of clarifying and educating about certain topics to the novice regulators. The fact that an industry that largely depends on their decisions is alien to them is worrying to say the least.