Problems with Few Companies and Media Ownership.

 1. Advertisement is a lucrative business, and with the recent state of the media to a wide public, it has made its way to be the backbone and face of the media. 

The media we consume is heavily influenced by money, and advertisement has become the main source of promotion, although with different faces. Convergences in toys, in movies, in games, and in synergy are just some of the ways a product, in this case, a video game, makes it way, knowingly or unknowingly, into your mind to be bought. Films and games are trending on a path in which money is more important than the artistical or cultural value they provide.

This has become more apparent with fewer and fewer companies holding control over the outlets of media we have access to. 

Conglomerates is the term used to describe a company holding control over many smaller, independent companies or businesses. These accurately describe the current state of the biggest companies, such as Disney, Nintendo, Google, Apple, and many, many more. The problem is, these few companies own almost everything in the market. Nintendo grew out of just games, expanding into film and toys. DIsney expanded from entertainment in cartoons to entertainment in streaming services, toys, theme parks, and movies. Apple and Google are furthering their expansion into domination over the technology market.

As conglomerates, advertisement becomes that much simpler. For example, if Disney wanted to promote a new film coming out, they would have be able to easily advertise it on its owned streaming services or on its already existing toy lines with its owned companies. If Google wanted to advertise a new type of technology, they could promote it on YouTube, which they also own. These can all be done without the additional cost of having a different company allowing the advertisement time, as they already own it. 

Because of these advertisement cycles, there is a lack of diversity, as the same forms of media would be constantly recycled and controlled by one company. 

These companies still have room to grow. Companies can go past the usual synergies in the market and actually merge with other companies as well. Because of the domination of conglomerates, and smaller companies being simply unable to grow because of them, merges with bigger companies are the only way for them to make any sort of progress or success. 

As a result of conglomerates, the pinnacle of fewer and fewer companies controlling the media market, diversity would lack, smaller companies would fail, and what we can consume as a large population is controlled by just a few people, which is never good. 

Other arguments against media ownership by fewer and fewer companies come metaphorically, such as moguls being influential as individuals as their status. 

2. To say "bigger is always better" is a false statement altogether, but rewriting it to "bigger is better" has its merits. Speaking only of video games a medium for this statement, this sentence is mostly effective. For example, a bigger company could produce better and more games, especially a conglomerate like Nintendo. The extent of this reaches the fact that the games will start lacking originality and diversity, as only one umbrella company makes these games. Sometimes, an individual could create something great and original, such as Minecraft, one of the most popular games ever, originally made by only one person.