4 ms·

Gaming platforms are single use platforms. Mobile phones much like a PC are general purpose devices that peoples entire lives revolve around.

by cdash 6y ago

pjmlp 6y ago
Just like portable game consoles, with their app stores and internet connection.
cgriswald 6y ago
That's not a particularly compelling argument to me. I'd rather see direct comparisons made. Do gaming platforms require a 30% cut of all sales on the platform, including subscriptions? Do they forbid applications from discussing other subscription options? Etc. I'd say the GP isn't really playing devil's advocate, because he hasn't shown the comparison is apt nor that if it is apt, the gaming platforms aren't also a problem for consumers.
- cygx 6y ago
  The 30% 'platform tax' originated with Nintendo. It included the cost of cartridge manufacturing, but nowadays, 'everyone' (Apple, Google, Nintendo, Sony, Valve, Microsoft) takes it. [1] I have no idea how their pricing models differ regarding in app purchases, subscription, etc, and feel disinclined to investigate for a one-off comment... [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-08-19/epic-games-fortnite-battle-with-apple-and-google-can-be-traced-to-nintendo-tax https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-08-19/epic-game...
- csharptwdec19 6y ago
  Well in some cases there are tax implications. No clue whether it's the case here, but by example in the EU, a 'Computer' has different import duties/etc compared to a 'Game Console' (there was some speculation that the PS3's 'Other OS' mode was an attempt to get that better classification.) So my question would be whether there are tax implications.
mlindner 6y ago
Software is software. What it does isn't the point here. If Apple's use of the Apple store is illegal, so are all the game consoles and they'll be forced to allow people to run any apps they want on them and have competitor app stores.
- Qwertious 6y ago
  Sidestepping the whole apple/freedom/consistency argument, are consoles actually good for consumers? Consoles are fundamentally locked down, as the platform-holder (Nintendo/Microsoft/Sony) sell the console at a loss to drop the market price (impossible for commodity hardware that can be used for other purposes), then recoup their money by taking a fee from every copy of every game sold for their console. This used to make sense because consoles used to be unique specially-designed hardware that kind of necessitated purpose-designed codebases, but nowadays consoles don't really have a difference compared to commodity PCs. In fact, the latest generation moved to x86 specifically so that they would be more similar to PCs! That was for the sake of letting devs use PC dev tools and it, but IMO there wouldn't be much loss if the consoles were actually 100% compatible OOTB with normal PC applications. The main reason consoles exist with broken compatibility is: 1. Simpler, potentially more reliable purchasing experience (there's only 1-3 hardware devices that can run your console game, thereby sidestepping the paradox of choice) 2. Social-network lock-in (bad for consumers IMO) 3. Slightly lower upfront costs. Except that's basically not true, it only applies for a specific arbitrary standard of minimum graphical fidelity. A Raspberry Pi will always be cheaper, and a cheap x86 PC should be able to run 2010 games just fine. Batman: Arkham Asylum was from 2009, and is no slouch in terms of graphics. Arguably, consoles are better upfront value for money. 4. Potentially simpler dev target - only one configuration, means QA is easier. 5. Exclusives. In theory it gives devs the chance to make something they wouldn't have made otherwise, or gives them the chance to develop the game specifically around the one hardware architecture, but I'm not convinced either of these are real problems. 6. This isn't related to compatibility but debatably consoles have a better UI than HTPCs. Also, being gamepad-only means you don't get rekt when joining a lobby with KB+M players in FPSes. Personally, I don't think so. There's more analysis to be done but I'm ending this comment here.
  - 6y ago

Gaming platforms are single use platforms. Mobile phones much like a PC are general purpose devices that peoples entire lives revolve around.

by cdash 6y ago

Gaming platforms are single use platforms. Mobile phones much like a PC are general purpose devices that peoples entire lives revolve around.

pjmlp 6y ago

Just like portable game consoles, with their app stores and internet connection.

cgriswald 6y ago

That's not a particularly compelling argument to me. I'd rather see direct comparisons made. Do gaming platforms require a 30% cut of all sales on the platform, including subscriptions? Do they forbid applications from discussing other subscription options? Etc. I'd say the GP isn't really playing devil's advocate, because he hasn't shown the comparison is apt nor that if it is apt, the gaming platforms aren't also a problem for consumers.

cygx 6y ago
The 30% 'platform tax' originated with Nintendo. It included the cost of cartridge manufacturing, but nowadays, 'everyone' (Apple, Google, Nintendo, Sony, Valve, Microsoft) takes it. [1] I have no idea how their pricing models differ regarding in app purchases, subscription, etc, and feel disinclined to investigate for a one-off comment... [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-08-19/epic-games-fortnite-battle-with-apple-and-google-can-be-traced-to-nintendo-tax https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-08-19/epic-game...
csharptwdec19 6y ago
Well in some cases there are tax implications. No clue whether it's the case here, but by example in the EU, a 'Computer' has different import duties/etc compared to a 'Game Console' (there was some speculation that the PS3's 'Other OS' mode was an attempt to get that better classification.) So my question would be whether there are tax implications.

mlindner 6y ago

Software is software. What it does isn't the point here. If Apple's use of the Apple store is illegal, so are all the game consoles and they'll be forced to allow people to run any apps they want on them and have competitor app stores.

Qwertious 6y ago
Sidestepping the whole apple/freedom/consistency argument, are consoles actually good for consumers? Consoles are fundamentally locked down, as the platform-holder (Nintendo/Microsoft/Sony) sell the console at a loss to drop the market price (impossible for commodity hardware that can be used for other purposes), then recoup their money by taking a fee from every copy of every game sold for their console. This used to make sense because consoles used to be unique specially-designed hardware that kind of necessitated purpose-designed codebases, but nowadays consoles don't really have a difference compared to commodity PCs. In fact, the latest generation moved to x86 specifically so that they would be more similar to PCs! That was for the sake of letting devs use PC dev tools and it, but IMO there wouldn't be much loss if the consoles were actually 100% compatible OOTB with normal PC applications. The main reason consoles exist with broken compatibility is: 1. Simpler, potentially more reliable purchasing experience (there's only 1-3 hardware devices that can run your console game, thereby sidestepping the paradox of choice) 2. Social-network lock-in (bad for consumers IMO) 3. Slightly lower upfront costs. Except that's basically not true, it only applies for a specific arbitrary standard of minimum graphical fidelity. A Raspberry Pi will always be cheaper, and a cheap x86 PC should be able to run 2010 games just fine. Batman: Arkham Asylum was from 2009, and is no slouch in terms of graphics. Arguably, consoles are better upfront value for money. 4. Potentially simpler dev target - only one configuration, means QA is easier. 5. Exclusives. In theory it gives devs the chance to make something they wouldn't have made otherwise, or gives them the chance to develop the game specifically around the one hardware architecture, but I'm not convinced either of these are real problems. 6. This isn't related to compatibility but debatably consoles have a better UI than HTPCs. Also, being gamepad-only means you don't get rekt when joining a lobby with KB+M players in FPSes. Personally, I don't think so. There's more analysis to be done but I'm ending this comment here.
- 6y ago