8 ms·

The real issue is Sony has many exclusives which gives Microsoft a better case (despite the judge saying it's NOT about Sony). It certainly harms consumers, so

The real issue is Sony has many exclusives which gives Microsoft a better case (despite the judge saying it's NOT about Sony). It certainly harms consumers, so I don't see how the court still approved this especially with the judge's comment against the comparison to Sony. Almost all mergers of this size harm consumers, the fact that it's allowed by default is the crucial issue. If the FTC still had a spine they would go after all of these kinds of exclusive deals - and not just limited to games. The film industry was famously broken up such that the production companies couldn't own theaters yet in 2023 that rule (if it still exists) is so weak that most production companies have their streaming service and aggressively pressure theaters into exclusivity Windows. At the end of the day this only strengthens the trend to PC gaming which only benefits Microsoft and can only hurt Sony. It would only be a minor surprise if Sony joined the Proton/WINE effort with Valve to get around Microsoft exclusives. (Which does help consumers but in a 3D chess kind of way).

QuesnayJr 3y ago
A judge ended the rule that studios couldn't own theaters in 2020: https://www.forbes.com/sites/tomnunan/2020/08/07/judge-decrees-studios-can-own-theater-chains-for-first-time-in-71-yearswhat-lies-ahead/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/tomnunan/2020/08/07/judge-decre...
- deutschepost 3y ago
  It is a very weird coincidence that every major film studio started streaming services after that law ended. I thought it was more general like a cut between production and distribution not production and theatres. Now we are in the same position as a hundred years ago. At that time you would have to go into a theatre by the production company and now you have to go to the streaming service of the production company. That split between production and distribution has to come back.
  - Sai_ 3y ago
    > That split between production and distribution has to come back. What if Netflix had made and won that argument before 2020 to prevent production companies from also streaming content? I think Netflix missed a trick here.
    - rgun 3y ago
      But then it wouldn't have been long before competitors emerged in the market threatening Netflix's content deals. I believe only way to reinforce their position was to make their own content.
      - Sai_ 3y ago
        Netflix with decades of experience in streaming and negotiating content deals would have had some incumbency/first mover advantages. It could have led the distribution/streaming industry instead of being just another content/streaming player.
  - johnnyanmac 3y ago
    I mean, if theatres weren't utterly destroyed by COVID something may have actually happened with theatres. But investing in a theatre in the current decade is like investing in cable at this point. The only coincidence is this repeal happening during a time where it mattered least.
cman1444 3y ago
I disagree with the opinion that it harms consumers. The economist has an article it recently published that argues that this deal actually helps consumers by speeding up the transition to "streaming" games and cloud gaming as an option. I tend to agree. Just because one large company is buying another large company doesn't mean the deal should be blocked.
- NovaDudely 3y ago
  > argues that this deal actually helps consumers I'm listening... > by speeding up the transition to "streaming" games and cloud gaming Ewww... no thanks!
  - topkai22 3y ago
    I love Xbox game pass streaming, for many of the reasons I like streaming music, tv, and movies. It’s cheap to try things- I can fire up a new game without waiting to download 40+ GB. If the play engages me I’ll keep playing, if not I’ll move on. I’m not a very good with high speed games anyways, so the increased latency isn’t generally noticeable in the games I play.
    - jonhohle 3y ago
      The issue isn’t about trying out games, it’s about having access to those games in 5, 10, 20 years or later. There is a growing list of digital only titles that are no longer available to new players and may be unavailable to people who “bought” them. I have a bricked Wii with digital games that are tied to the physical console, not any account. There is no way to recover them. Steam has done a remarkable job staying open for 20 years (My copy of Half Life 2 is right where I left it). Sony has done a reasonable job. I don’t know about Microsoft. Nintendo has failed several times, but may have finally figured it out with the Switch. I know I can buy discs and cartridges from any previous era and as long as I have a system (or emulator), I can play them, lend them, or sell them. Digital versions allow me to play, but for how long. I can’t lend or sell them. If I get the urge to play Resogun in 2033 and don’t have it downloaded, am I going to be able to? I do think there may be a generational component to it as well. I’ve always thought Gen X is more tied to the idea of “owning” a copy (music, movies, games), while younger generations are more comfortable with digital only releases, or even subscription catalogues that change over time as the primary means of entertainment.
Etherlord87 3y ago
> At the end of the day this only strengthens the trend to PC gaming which only benefits Microsoft and can only hurt Sony. Microsoft and Sony aren't the only companies making video games. Windows isn't the only PC operating system. In large part thanks to Steam, a lot of video games work on Linux nowadays. Sony is free to implement their OS in such a way that you can play PC games on Playstation. Of course Sony doesn't want that, because it is Sony's strategy to wall off their ecosystem. SONY IS THE BAD GUY HERE. Strengthening PC market is a good news for consumers. Strengthening Microsoft - not necessarily…
- tapoxi 3y ago
  Sony sells their hardware at a loss or break even, why would they then let you use a PlayStation in "PC" mode so Valve or Microsoft get royalties instead?
  - coremoff 3y ago
    I find it strange that people complain about the cost of printer ink but not computer games
    - extasia 3y ago
      I don't. Computer games take a huge amount of intellectual effort to make, does printer ink? (maybe at some point yes, but certainly not now!) Edit: Though maybe you're talking flappy bird and I'm talking triple-A, actually impressive boundary pushing game. We may just be talking past one another
    - juicy1nonly 3y ago
      I am not playing 3D games developed by team by hundred of people on the color of my printer paper. Thats why. And if you complain buy a laser printer and never complain again.
      - nathants 3y ago
        true. black and white laser printer is the only way to print.
Projectiboga 3y ago
Uh that rule was based on a 75 year long 'temporary' agreement that has expired. That is another part of this whole Writers and Actors striking that the media isn't talking about. I think the agreement was to settle a case before the Supreme Court in 1948, it just ended and it is now Game On for the studios to take over the theaters again.

QuesnayJr 3y ago

A judge ended the rule that studios couldn't own theaters in 2020: https://www.forbes.com/sites/tomnunan/2020/08/07/judge-decrees-studios-can-own-theater-chains-for-first-time-in-71-yearswhat-lies-ahead/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/tomnunan/2020/08/07/judge-decre...

deutschepost 3y ago
It is a very weird coincidence that every major film studio started streaming services after that law ended. I thought it was more general like a cut between production and distribution not production and theatres. Now we are in the same position as a hundred years ago. At that time you would have to go into a theatre by the production company and now you have to go to the streaming service of the production company. That split between production and distribution has to come back.
- Sai_ 3y ago
  > That split between production and distribution has to come back. What if Netflix had made and won that argument before 2020 to prevent production companies from also streaming content? I think Netflix missed a trick here.
  - rgun 3y ago
    But then it wouldn't have been long before competitors emerged in the market threatening Netflix's content deals. I believe only way to reinforce their position was to make their own content.
    - Sai_ 3y ago
      Netflix with decades of experience in streaming and negotiating content deals would have had some incumbency/first mover advantages. It could have led the distribution/streaming industry instead of being just another content/streaming player.
- johnnyanmac 3y ago
  I mean, if theatres weren't utterly destroyed by COVID something may have actually happened with theatres. But investing in a theatre in the current decade is like investing in cable at this point. The only coincidence is this repeal happening during a time where it mattered least.

cman1444 3y ago

I disagree with the opinion that it harms consumers. The economist has an article it recently published that argues that this deal actually helps consumers by speeding up the transition to "streaming" games and cloud gaming as an option. I tend to agree. Just because one large company is buying another large company doesn't mean the deal should be blocked.

NovaDudely 3y ago
> argues that this deal actually helps consumers I'm listening... > by speeding up the transition to "streaming" games and cloud gaming Ewww... no thanks!
- topkai22 3y ago
  I love Xbox game pass streaming, for many of the reasons I like streaming music, tv, and movies. It’s cheap to try things- I can fire up a new game without waiting to download 40+ GB. If the play engages me I’ll keep playing, if not I’ll move on. I’m not a very good with high speed games anyways, so the increased latency isn’t generally noticeable in the games I play.
  - jonhohle 3y ago
    The issue isn’t about trying out games, it’s about having access to those games in 5, 10, 20 years or later. There is a growing list of digital only titles that are no longer available to new players and may be unavailable to people who “bought” them. I have a bricked Wii with digital games that are tied to the physical console, not any account. There is no way to recover them. Steam has done a remarkable job staying open for 20 years (My copy of Half Life 2 is right where I left it). Sony has done a reasonable job. I don’t know about Microsoft. Nintendo has failed several times, but may have finally figured it out with the Switch. I know I can buy discs and cartridges from any previous era and as long as I have a system (or emulator), I can play them, lend them, or sell them. Digital versions allow me to play, but for how long. I can’t lend or sell them. If I get the urge to play Resogun in 2033 and don’t have it downloaded, am I going to be able to? I do think there may be a generational component to it as well. I’ve always thought Gen X is more tied to the idea of “owning” a copy (music, movies, games), while younger generations are more comfortable with digital only releases, or even subscription catalogues that change over time as the primary means of entertainment.

Etherlord87 3y ago

> At the end of the day this only strengthens the trend to PC gaming which only benefits Microsoft and can only hurt Sony. Microsoft and Sony aren't the only companies making video games. Windows isn't the only PC operating system. In large part thanks to Steam, a lot of video games work on Linux nowadays. Sony is free to implement their OS in such a way that you can play PC games on Playstation. Of course Sony doesn't want that, because it is Sony's strategy to wall off their ecosystem. SONY IS THE BAD GUY HERE. Strengthening PC market is a good news for consumers. Strengthening Microsoft - not necessarily…

tapoxi 3y ago
Sony sells their hardware at a loss or break even, why would they then let you use a PlayStation in "PC" mode so Valve or Microsoft get royalties instead?
- coremoff 3y ago
  I find it strange that people complain about the cost of printer ink but not computer games
  - extasia 3y ago
    I don't. Computer games take a huge amount of intellectual effort to make, does printer ink? (maybe at some point yes, but certainly not now!) Edit: Though maybe you're talking flappy bird and I'm talking triple-A, actually impressive boundary pushing game. We may just be talking past one another
  - juicy1nonly 3y ago
    I am not playing 3D games developed by team by hundred of people on the color of my printer paper. Thats why. And if you complain buy a laser printer and never complain again.
    - nathants 3y ago
      true. black and white laser printer is the only way to print.

Projectiboga 3y ago

Uh that rule was based on a 75 year long 'temporary' agreement that has expired. That is another part of this whole Writers and Actors striking that the media isn't talking about. I think the agreement was to settle a case before the Supreme Court in 1948, it just ended and it is now Game On for the studios to take over the theaters again.