3 ms·

Surely this will be the Rubicon for FTC to take a serious look at the gaming industry, assuming this actually gets announced?

blitzar 4y ago
Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo, Amazon, Google, Meta, Steam... that is more companies and thus competition than there are movie studios or streaming services.
- tiahura 4y ago
  TTWO, UBSFY, Epic, Gameloft, ...
  - blitzar 4y ago
    Tencent Games; forgot them
    - CrazedGeek 4y ago
      Embracer Group, too
micromacrofoot 4y ago
or you know… amazon
- krageon 4y ago
  Given that it hasn't been investigated yet, I don't see why this change specifically will make a legislator wake up. It's more of the same.
qzx_pierri 4y ago
Consolidation doesn't equal monopoly. A monopoly is defined as "the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service" - As long as indie game studios exist, the FTC will pay the gaming industry no mind. As long as games, as a commodity, can be created out of "thin air" (code), the FTC will pay the gaming industry no mind. Huge companies buying every major studio is definitely a "dick move" (lack of a better term), but it's not a monopoly, and it never could be. Some of the most impactful games of the past 5 years were released by small teams and amassed cult followings.
- bogwog 4y ago
  I'm not an expert on the law on this subject (or any subject lol), but I wonder how much a strict definition of the word "monopoly" actually matters? I would assume that the important thing is for the FTC to take action against businesses/practices that harm consumers, rather than focusing on the narrow definition of a single word. Also, where did you get that definition of "monopoly" you quoted? There are a lot of definitions of that word flying around the internet, so I'm curious if you got that from like the FTC's website or something? I'm wondering because back when antitrust law was created, the issue at the time was railroad companies monopolizing transportation; however, what you're saying about indie games could also be said about transport: trains are not a monopoly, and they never could be as long as horses still exist! > As long as games, as a commodity, can be created out of "thin air" (code) Games are not created out of "thin air", they're created through very expensive labor, which is not only programming.
- mamonster 4y ago
  FTC has more powers than investigating monopolies. It can investigate and sanction both unfair competition between businesses and deceptive, anti consumer practices. And there is a lot of practices in gaming industry that could potentially be investigated (console exclusives, lootboxes, platform commissions, etc).
  - qzx_pierri 4y ago
    Good point. +1
ParksNet 4y ago
No one can making any money except platform holders. 30% commissions are egregious. These aquisitions are just the side effect. We need a commission cap on all platforms that do over $1billion in annual sales. The Apple vs Epic trial revealed 80% margins for Apple on the App Store: https://9to5mac.com/2021/05/01/apple-runs-app-store-with-78-profit-margin-according-to-court-testimony/ https://9to5mac.com/2021/05/01/apple-runs-app-store-with-78-... A cap of 10-15% should do it.
- bogwog 4y ago
  I don't think a cap is the right solution. Better would be regulations, controls, etc to enable competition for marketplaces (at least for those of a certain size) Like on iOS, if there was actual competition for app stores, Apple would face pressure from a competitive market to reduce their commission percentage. Developers will not want to put their apps/games on Apple's store if they continue to charge outrages fees, and they have alternative, realistic distribution options. However, I don't know what regulation would look like there. Even if Apple is forced to allow third-party stores, it could still end up like the browser wars, where one company manages to secure a monopoly anyways. If we can't even fix the browser situation, I don't have high hopes for the appstore market.
  - ParksNet 4y ago
    Mandating payment provider or store competition has no clear end result, with significantly more overhead for everyone. Countries around the world already regulate pricing on things like Credit Card transaction fees. This should be no different. In Australia for example: "Each scheme's average interchange fee, weighted by the value or volume of transactions in each interchange category, is required to be below a benchmark of 0.50 per cent for credit cards, and 8 cents for debit and prepaid cards." https://www.rba.gov.au/payments-and-infrastructure/review-of-card-payments-regulation/q-and-a/#:~:text=Specifically%2C%20each%20scheme's%20average%20interchange,for%20debit%20and%20prepaid%20cards https://www.rba.gov.au/payments-and-infrastructure/review-of....

blitzar 4y ago

Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo, Amazon, Google, Meta, Steam... that is more companies and thus competition than there are movie studios or streaming services.

tiahura 4y ago
TTWO, UBSFY, Epic, Gameloft, ...
- blitzar 4y ago
  Tencent Games; forgot them
  - CrazedGeek 4y ago
    Embracer Group, too

micromacrofoot 4y ago

or you know… amazon

krageon 4y ago
Given that it hasn't been investigated yet, I don't see why this change specifically will make a legislator wake up. It's more of the same.

qzx_pierri 4y ago

Consolidation doesn't equal monopoly. A monopoly is defined as "the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service" - As long as indie game studios exist, the FTC will pay the gaming industry no mind. As long as games, as a commodity, can be created out of "thin air" (code), the FTC will pay the gaming industry no mind. Huge companies buying every major studio is definitely a "dick move" (lack of a better term), but it's not a monopoly, and it never could be. Some of the most impactful games of the past 5 years were released by small teams and amassed cult followings.

bogwog 4y ago
I'm not an expert on the law on this subject (or any subject lol), but I wonder how much a strict definition of the word "monopoly" actually matters? I would assume that the important thing is for the FTC to take action against businesses/practices that harm consumers, rather than focusing on the narrow definition of a single word. Also, where did you get that definition of "monopoly" you quoted? There are a lot of definitions of that word flying around the internet, so I'm curious if you got that from like the FTC's website or something? I'm wondering because back when antitrust law was created, the issue at the time was railroad companies monopolizing transportation; however, what you're saying about indie games could also be said about transport: trains are not a monopoly, and they never could be as long as horses still exist! > As long as games, as a commodity, can be created out of "thin air" (code) Games are not created out of "thin air", they're created through very expensive labor, which is not only programming.
mamonster 4y ago
FTC has more powers than investigating monopolies. It can investigate and sanction both unfair competition between businesses and deceptive, anti consumer practices. And there is a lot of practices in gaming industry that could potentially be investigated (console exclusives, lootboxes, platform commissions, etc).
- qzx_pierri 4y ago
  Good point. +1

ParksNet 4y ago

No one can making any money except platform holders. 30% commissions are egregious. These aquisitions are just the side effect. We need a commission cap on all platforms that do over $1billion in annual sales. The Apple vs Epic trial revealed 80% margins for Apple on the App Store: https://9to5mac.com/2021/05/01/apple-runs-app-store-with-78-profit-margin-according-to-court-testimony/ https://9to5mac.com/2021/05/01/apple-runs-app-store-with-78-... A cap of 10-15% should do it.

bogwog 4y ago
I don't think a cap is the right solution. Better would be regulations, controls, etc to enable competition for marketplaces (at least for those of a certain size) Like on iOS, if there was actual competition for app stores, Apple would face pressure from a competitive market to reduce their commission percentage. Developers will not want to put their apps/games on Apple's store if they continue to charge outrages fees, and they have alternative, realistic distribution options. However, I don't know what regulation would look like there. Even if Apple is forced to allow third-party stores, it could still end up like the browser wars, where one company manages to secure a monopoly anyways. If we can't even fix the browser situation, I don't have high hopes for the appstore market.
- ParksNet 4y ago
  Mandating payment provider or store competition has no clear end result, with significantly more overhead for everyone. Countries around the world already regulate pricing on things like Credit Card transaction fees. This should be no different. In Australia for example: "Each scheme's average interchange fee, weighted by the value or volume of transactions in each interchange category, is required to be below a benchmark of 0.50 per cent for credit cards, and 8 cents for debit and prepaid cards." https://www.rba.gov.au/payments-and-infrastructure/review-of-card-payments-regulation/q-and-a/#:~:text=Specifically%2C%20each%20scheme's%20average%20interchange,for%20debit%20and%20prepaid%20cards https://www.rba.gov.au/payments-and-infrastructure/review-of....