5 ms·

The internet discourse around this topic has been awful since it naturally attracts the console wars crowd, and people with an axe to grind against one of the c

by bogwog 3y ago

The internet discourse around this topic has been awful since it naturally attracts the console wars crowd, and people with an axe to grind against one of the console makers. Personally, I think the entire "console" industry is just a bunch of predatory anti consumer bullshit, and all 3 of those companies should be forced to end a huge list of harmful business practices. The part that always confuses me is why the heck does the government keep deciding to protect Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo's monopolies? These 3 companies always seem to get special treatment, such as with the DMCA exception and the recent California right to repair exception for game consoles. This literally only protects 3 nonessential entertainment companies, two of which aren't even from the US. The piracy argument doesn't hold up to scrutiny, so I don't get it. ESA lobbyists are probably really good at their jobs I guess.

sosull 3y ago
I think there's a reasonable case to be made that consoles (and the vertically integrated business structure that they represent) inherently encourage more diverse kinds of games development while also attracting new buyers. Their business practices aren't ideal, granted. But it's not entirely clear to me that a walled garden constitutes a true monopoly. That is to say that the console makers aren't using their control over their own systems to force their way into adjacent, unrelated markets. Also, the standard for what constitutes anti-competitive behaviour is different in the Americas, Europe, and Asia. The US uses higher pricing as the prime signal, whereas the EU uses a lack of viable competitiors.
didibus 3y ago
Agreed. Too many people debating it like arguing for their favorite football team. It does not matter what the industry is, a 70 billion acquisition from one of the only trillion-dollar companies just is not a good thing. We live in an unprecedented amount of consolidation, meaning that in every market, there are less and less players competing against each other. How is that a good thing exactly?

by bogwog 3y ago

sosull 3y ago

I think there's a reasonable case to be made that consoles (and the vertically integrated business structure that they represent) inherently encourage more diverse kinds of games development while also attracting new buyers. Their business practices aren't ideal, granted. But it's not entirely clear to me that a walled garden constitutes a true monopoly. That is to say that the console makers aren't using their control over their own systems to force their way into adjacent, unrelated markets. Also, the standard for what constitutes anti-competitive behaviour is different in the Americas, Europe, and Asia. The US uses higher pricing as the prime signal, whereas the EU uses a lack of viable competitiors.

didibus 3y ago

Agreed. Too many people debating it like arguing for their favorite football team. It does not matter what the industry is, a 70 billion acquisition from one of the only trillion-dollar companies just is not a good thing. We live in an unprecedented amount of consolidation, meaning that in every market, there are less and less players competing against each other. How is that a good thing exactly?