3 ms·

> If this sets a precedent, and does become the new "interpretation" for anti-monopoly laws, it would also make console business model or Amazon Kindle business

by WWLink 6y ago

> If this sets a precedent, and does become the new "interpretation" for anti-monopoly laws, it would also make console business model or Amazon Kindle business model illegal. It sounds like you think such a thing would be scandalous, but that's how it used to be. There was a time when game studios would just give Nintendo and Atari the middle finger and produce a cartridge that worked with their consoles anyway. Back in those days, the computers and consoles weren't restricted to only running software signed and approved by the manufacturer.

ascagnel_ 6y ago
> It sounds like you think such a thing would be scandalous, but that's how it used to be. There was a time when game studios would just give Nintendo and Atari the middle finger and produce a cartridge that worked with their consoles anyway. Back in those days, the computers and consoles weren't restricted to only running software signed and approved by the manufacturer. You're partially right. In the case of Atari, there was no technical enforcement mechanism. Third parties figured out how to make their own cartridges, but lack of control on the market led to a glut of new games in 1982. That glut triggered rapid price reductions (as retailers were often stuck with unsold inventory that couldn't be returned to the publisher), which eventually cratered the entire business, shrinking it by about 97%.[0] For Nintendo, they did have a technical protection mechanism present in the NES (the 10NES chip). They were allowed to enforce market restrictions based on the presence of the chip.[1] [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_crash_of_1983 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_crash_of_1983 [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_Games_Corp._v._Nintendo_of_America_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_Games_Corp._v._Nintendo_....

by WWLink 6y ago

ascagnel_ 6y ago

> It sounds like you think such a thing would be scandalous, but that's how it used to be. There was a time when game studios would just give Nintendo and Atari the middle finger and produce a cartridge that worked with their consoles anyway. Back in those days, the computers and consoles weren't restricted to only running software signed and approved by the manufacturer. You're partially right. In the case of Atari, there was no technical enforcement mechanism. Third parties figured out how to make their own cartridges, but lack of control on the market led to a glut of new games in 1982. That glut triggered rapid price reductions (as retailers were often stuck with unsold inventory that couldn't be returned to the publisher), which eventually cratered the entire business, shrinking it by about 97%.[0] For Nintendo, they did have a technical protection mechanism present in the NES (the 10NES chip). They were allowed to enforce market restrictions based on the presence of the chip.[1] [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_crash_of_1983 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_crash_of_1983 [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_Games_Corp._v._Nintendo_of_America_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_Games_Corp._v._Nintendo_....