It is the three-year anniversary of one of the most poorly-aged articles that I have ever read. Writing in The Wall Street Journal, opinion columnist and former hedge fund manager Andy Kessler lampooned the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and its former commissioner, Lina Khan. He made some frankly stupid claims about video games, and I really just want to debunk them here.
Kessler’s article was written in the context of Microsoft’s then-ongoing acquisition of Activision Blizzard. The FTC tried to block this $69 billion acquisition on the grounds of a monopoly in the gaming industry. The FTC failed in the end, with the acquisition going through. Kessler, a washed-up corporate drone, published this article while the legal proceedings were still ongoing. Kessler rambles about the video game industry and shills for corporate technology, and it becomes abundantly clear he knows nothing about how video games actually work, ultimately using the piece as an excuse to rail against Lina Khan and FTC policies under her leadership.
Kessler claims that the FTC should not even worry about this deal because video game consoles will be replaced by smart TVs when they eventually have graphic engines as powerful as consoles. But this isn’t true. The history of video games proves that graphical power isn’t what matters most, it’s the creative quality of games that matters. For a long time, computers have had more powerful graphics than consoles, but they didn’t make consoles obsolete. Instead, consoles thrived on their unique concepts, accessibility, and (most importantly) their great games.
Furthermore, if you look at functionality, smart TVs have massive constraints. There is a lack of customization, and it’s harder to move around than most other gaming platforms. The idea of pursuing “innovation” above all else is a flawed one, especially without even thinking about the various trade-offs of different platforms.
There is also the vast world of mobile games, which eclipses both consoles and computers in popularity despite being less powerful than either. The constant race to better graphics is only a small part of the world of gaming.
“The next war is over online worlds,” Kessler writes. He talks about interactive virtual reality worlds as if they’re the next holy grail that’ll save gaming, but the true story is more complex.
Mark Zuckerberg’s idea of the Metaverse failed, but the idea of virtual reality worlds is actually quite successful. Originating from a passionate duo of game developers, VRChat has become an incredibly popular social channel. It peaked with almost 150,000 users during the New Year’s 2026 celebration, showing that there’s still room for growth. It turns out, games are successful not because of corporate funding and executive egos, but because of actual creativity and good design.
The major battleground has become creativity, not technology; this is what corporations never understand. Microsoft and company were raised in a different environment than actual game developers, causing them to get left behind. For example, just a few years ago, one developer managed to create a viral game all by himself. The developer started creating games on Roblox when he was just 10 years old. In 2023, he created his magnum opus: Lethal Company, a horror game that generated over $100 million in revenue. The barrier to entry for developing video games has decreased, and it’s far easier to get your game on different consoles nowadays. Because of this, there are a massive number of high-quality indie games that are easily found on various platforms. This explosion in indie games is wonderful because it allows for a cutthroat environment where only the most creative games survive. The Wall Street Journal and all these corporate executives need to understand indie games if they want to understand gaming as a whole.
The irony is that in the end, Microsoft’s acquisition of Activision Blizzard actually hurt them. Their flagship franchise, “Call of Duty,” has become a dumpster fire. The latest game, “Call of Duty: Black Ops 7,” was lauded for its use of AI-generated assets and had much lower sales than its predecessor.
How can large tech companies be so ignorant about video games? One reason could be that Google is even more divorced from reality than Microsoft, launching its ineffective Google Stadia. They marketed it as a revolution, but they forgot to actually launch games with their platform!
Our only conclusion that can be drawn from corporate domination is that corporations are just stupid. That applies to video games and many other things as well.
Atharv Dimri is a member of the class of 2029 and can be reached at adimri@wesleyan.edu.
Leave a Reply