2 ms·
It is the purpose of copyright, explicitly, to incentivize creative work with the promise of monopoly power over its distribution. So it's a bit disingenuous to
by noqc 3y ago
It is the purpose of copyright, explicitly, to incentivize creative work with the promise of monopoly power over its distribution. So it's a bit disingenuous to assert that microsoft is not a monopoly because other game companies exist.
Tech companies have long understood, and in fact may be entirely predicated upon the understanding that you can leverage one monpoly to create another.
If I make a game that can only run on your platform, then you gain a monopoly on platforms that can run that game. These platforms then become not fungible, and therefore de facto monopolies. There is a certain amount of "we haven't tried to port our game to other platforms", which probably shouldn't be an explicit violation of the law, but entering an exclusivity contract with a game studio is, in my opinion, a pretty clear restraint of trade.
- linkgoron 3y agoAll consoles have console exclusives. Nintendo has Mario/Zelda/Metroid/Pokemon, Sony has The Last of Us, and God of War Ragnarok, and others.
- noqc 3y agoIf you think I was arguing that Nintendo and sony do not have monopolies, then I believe you misread my argument. This is why I named Microsoft et al.
- linkgoron 3y agoWhat I'm trying to say is that games that are differentiators between consoles are common, and this cannot be a basis of blocking such a deal. Indeed, it's no different than applications running only on ARM or x86, or requiring ray-tracing, or a specific Vulkan version support.
- noqc 3y agoI believe if you read my argument, you would see that I explicitly name entering an exclusivity contract as the anticompetitive behavior.