3 ms·

Counterpoint: It's gaming. It is a space with a low barrier to (indie) entry and it is not part of some critical infrastructure. Maybe it is lamentable, but I a

Counterpoint: It's gaming. It is a space with a low barrier to (indie) entry and it is not part of some critical infrastructure. Maybe it is lamentable, but I am not sure antitrust would be my way to go for this.

inetknght 5y ago
> It is a space with a low barrier to (indie) entry and it is not part of some critical infrastructure. How many indie games are there for Xbox?
- mbg721 5y ago
  More than you might think. Manifold Garden is one that comes to mind; if you're looking for them in the online store thing, you can find them, although of course they're not the games with discs and cases at Walmart or Target or wherever.
- vlozko 5y ago
  A lot? Certainly far more than I can ever get to. Even more on PS and PC. Not exactly sure what you're getting at.
  - dmonitor 5y ago
    and microsoft still takes 30% of their revenue
- whynaut 5y ago
  Microsoft has been championing indie games for three generations now. This was the wrong question for sure.
parkingrift 5y ago
It will be tough to sell $60 games when you can get the entire library of Microsoft games, plus their partner networks, for $10/month. Not to mention the potential platform abuses whereby MS can now gate their property behind Windows and Xbox. And I’m not even that creative. Surely MS will get a return on their $70,000,000,000 investment whether it’s better for the gaming economy and consumers, or not.
- ChildOfChaos 5y ago
  I get this, but this is what bothers me sometimes with these laws, because getting all these games for $10 is better for the consumer, that is why it dominates the market. Breaking it up just means you end up with a worst product for the consumer and a higher expense.
  - parkingrift 5y ago
    I think you need to have a longer time horizon. Microsoft cannot justify spending $70B to offer the entire catalog of games for $10/month. They'll use this economic advantage to muscle out the competition and then they'll start adding tiers, raising prices, and other anti-consumer behavior. This is a common tactic to win public approval for anti-consumer acquisitions. It's always better for there to be more competition, not less.
- smileybarry 5y ago
  The games industry is trying to push $70 MSRP this generation, so I see the savings in Game Pass and potential pressure on standalone pricing to be good. Given that nearly every popular $60 game now has microtransactions, loot boxes, (paid) season passes, and maybe even (paid) DLC, there's absolutely no reason for the price increase. They're already making buckets of cash (and turning a profit) at the "just $60" price point.
unethical_ban 5y ago
Self-reply: The more I think about it, the more ridiculous it is. Call of Duty, Minecraft, Warcraft, Doom and TES are under one roof where they were under five (or non-existent) 15 years ago. Whether or not it's legal, it should not be celebrated.

inetknght 5y ago

> It is a space with a low barrier to (indie) entry and it is not part of some critical infrastructure. How many indie games are there for Xbox?

mbg721 5y ago
More than you might think. Manifold Garden is one that comes to mind; if you're looking for them in the online store thing, you can find them, although of course they're not the games with discs and cases at Walmart or Target or wherever.
vlozko 5y ago
A lot? Certainly far more than I can ever get to. Even more on PS and PC. Not exactly sure what you're getting at.
- dmonitor 5y ago
  and microsoft still takes 30% of their revenue
whynaut 5y ago
Microsoft has been championing indie games for three generations now. This was the wrong question for sure.

parkingrift 5y ago

It will be tough to sell $60 games when you can get the entire library of Microsoft games, plus their partner networks, for $10/month. Not to mention the potential platform abuses whereby MS can now gate their property behind Windows and Xbox. And I’m not even that creative. Surely MS will get a return on their $70,000,000,000 investment whether it’s better for the gaming economy and consumers, or not.

ChildOfChaos 5y ago
I get this, but this is what bothers me sometimes with these laws, because getting all these games for $10 is better for the consumer, that is why it dominates the market. Breaking it up just means you end up with a worst product for the consumer and a higher expense.
- parkingrift 5y ago
  I think you need to have a longer time horizon. Microsoft cannot justify spending $70B to offer the entire catalog of games for $10/month. They'll use this economic advantage to muscle out the competition and then they'll start adding tiers, raising prices, and other anti-consumer behavior. This is a common tactic to win public approval for anti-consumer acquisitions. It's always better for there to be more competition, not less.
smileybarry 5y ago
The games industry is trying to push $70 MSRP this generation, so I see the savings in Game Pass and potential pressure on standalone pricing to be good. Given that nearly every popular $60 game now has microtransactions, loot boxes, (paid) season passes, and maybe even (paid) DLC, there's absolutely no reason for the price increase. They're already making buckets of cash (and turning a profit) at the "just $60" price point.

unethical_ban 5y ago

Self-reply: The more I think about it, the more ridiculous it is. Call of Duty, Minecraft, Warcraft, Doom and TES are under one roof where they were under five (or non-existent) 15 years ago. Whether or not it's legal, it should not be celebrated.