3 ms·
> Video games are not a utility and have no control over utilities This is true, but the laws around this don't only apply to utilities. In fact, they don't fu
by geuis 4y ago
> Video games are not a utility and have no control over utilities
This is true, but the laws around this don't only apply to utilities. In fact, they don't fully apply there at all (but I'll circle back to that).
As a big example, look at movie production companies and theater chains. Way back when, lots of the most popular chains were owned by production companies. So if you wanted to see certain movies, they were only available at the theaters owned by the companies that produced the film.
Sounds a lot like what we've seen in video games for years now, where lots of AAA games are exclusive on Xbox, Playstation, Nintendo (biggest example), or PC. And let's not forget MacOS and even Linux. Pretty much only the roughly equivalent spread of so many platforms has forced the big publishers to largely do multi-platform releases of popular titles. Let Microsoft own Activision-Blizzard and we could be seeing lots of existing titles and new ones be PC and Xbox only.
In regards to the big utilities, the last major one of those to be broken up was AT&T in the 80's. But beyond that, most of the major utilities can't really be "broken up" because of what they do. Power generation, water, and sewage. Those all require shared public infrastructure for the most part. Because of that, small pure commercial enterprises aren't possible. But for the most part the companies that provide those services are still commercial entities, but they have a few extra layers of government oversight that notionally should be monitoring them for good governance and civic oversight. Sadly we see where that falls apart like in Flint, MI.
Only didn't mention trash/recycling pickup because that's a lot more flexible. Much easier to have competing services, although in places like SF we only have Recology.