6 ms·

> I think platforms have no moral right to siphon off a (large!) share of the money flowing through their platform. Does this proposed law also cover video gam

> I think platforms have no moral right to siphon off a (large!) share of the money flowing through their platform. Does this proposed law also cover video games sold on platforms run by Sony and Microsoft, or only video games sold on platforms run by by Apple and Google?

kelnos 5y ago
I would hope it covers all platforms. I think locked-down general-purpose computers that only run code blessed by the manufacturer should just not be legal at all. These days Xboxes and Playstations are just as general-purpose as a phone or a laptop.
- simondotau 5y ago
  At least that has the benefit of being consistent. But I would contend that such a world would have a universally more expensive consumer experience because you'd basically replace all games consoles with Windows PCs.
  - kelnos 5y ago
    I'm not sure I'd expect that. It might be more expensive, sure, because console makers would expect less revenue from their cut of game sales. So they'll compensate by making the console more expensive. But I expect that'll still be cheaper than buying a high-end gaming PC, and the experience of plugging in a console with made-for-purpose wireless controllers will always be better than essentially building your own, and I expect people will still be ok paying for that.
    - simondotau 5y ago
      Without game exclusives, anyone can build a game console. Without access to software exclusives, there's no incentive for companies likes Sony and Nintendo to front development costs with the hope of strong revenues for the overall program. Because anyone can come along and make equivalent hardware that plays the same games. In short, consoles would just be PCs.
      - wpietri 5y ago
        Consoles also have the benefit of standardization, plus major companies with consumer relationships. And console-makers would still be well placed to act like studios. So consoles would still probably be consoles, but the economics would be different. The economies of scale for manufacturing and game development would still apply, though, so it definitely wouldn't be just like PCs.

kelnos 5y ago

I would hope it covers all platforms. I think locked-down general-purpose computers that only run code blessed by the manufacturer should just not be legal at all. These days Xboxes and Playstations are just as general-purpose as a phone or a laptop.

simondotau 5y ago
At least that has the benefit of being consistent. But I would contend that such a world would have a universally more expensive consumer experience because you'd basically replace all games consoles with Windows PCs.
- kelnos 5y ago
  I'm not sure I'd expect that. It might be more expensive, sure, because console makers would expect less revenue from their cut of game sales. So they'll compensate by making the console more expensive. But I expect that'll still be cheaper than buying a high-end gaming PC, and the experience of plugging in a console with made-for-purpose wireless controllers will always be better than essentially building your own, and I expect people will still be ok paying for that.
  - simondotau 5y ago
    Without game exclusives, anyone can build a game console. Without access to software exclusives, there's no incentive for companies likes Sony and Nintendo to front development costs with the hope of strong revenues for the overall program. Because anyone can come along and make equivalent hardware that plays the same games. In short, consoles would just be PCs.
    - wpietri 5y ago
      Consoles also have the benefit of standardization, plus major companies with consumer relationships. And console-makers would still be well placed to act like studios. So consoles would still probably be consoles, but the economics would be different. The economies of scale for manufacturing and game development would still apply, though, so it definitely wouldn't be just like PCs.