17 ms·

Great, but don't forget to open up the Nintendo eShop and the PlayStation store as well.

Jensson 3y ago
There is an order of magnitude difference in number of devices there, smaller brands that ship an order of magnitude less devices isn't a target for legislative action. Legislation might cover them but there is no reason to target them specifically since they are too small to matter.
- CharlesW 3y ago
  Why would that make any difference, unless we want the government to punish success? And if ~140 million Switch consoles sold doesn’t constitute “success”, where is that line?
  - infotainment 3y ago
    In order to get to a monopoly position, quite a bit of success is generally required. Given that, anti-monopoly laws are by their very nature, punishing “success”. That kind of “success” for an individual company doesn’t necessarily lead to the best outcomes for the customer.
    - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
      This category of law is broadly referred to as competition law, because that's what it's concerned with. If you had five "competitors" but they all conspire to divide up the market between them so they don't have to compete with each other, this is problematic in the same way as a monopoly. But that's exactly what the game consoles do. Alice has a PlayStation, Bob has an Xbox, Carol has a Switch. If you want to sell your game to Alice, Bob and Carol you can't just strike an agreement with one of the console makers because that only allows you to reach a third of the market. You can't play Sony and Microsoft against each other to get the lowest fees because you need both of them rather than being able to choose the one offering the best deal. The best argument for why game consoles aren't like phones is that a non-trivial number of people have multiple game consoles, whereas hardly anyone carries two phones in their pocket. But even then, there are a large number of people who only have one console -- large enough that game developers still can't ignore them -- and few people who have all of them. Likewise, there are companies other than console makers who might like to make a game store, or make one that services all types of devices. Those companies are locked out of the market, even though their presence would be likely to drive down margins. So competition law should be concerned with this, because it's limiting competition.
      - Jensson 3y ago
        > there are a large number of people who only have one console Iphone or Android, yeah. Basically nobody only have a Playstation or a Nintendo.
        AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        There are definitely people who only have one console. Consoles cost money. Some people aren't rich.
        Jensson 3y ago
        Phones are game consoles, people who only have one game console today have a phone.
        AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        Phones are power-constrained devices with small screens. Consoles consume >100 watts under load with correspondingly higher performance and are connected to televisions. These are not the same market. They don't play the same games. Arguably gaming PCs (i.e. fast PCs with a suitable GPU) are in the same market, but this hasn't really added a competitor because Xbox and gaming PCs are both Microsoft, and most people don't have gaming PCs either.
        Jensson 3y ago
        > Consoles consume >100 watts under load with correspondingly higher performance and are connected to televisions Not handheld consoles. And you can connect phones to large screens if you want. > They don't play the same games. Genshin impact and fortninte? They could play the same kind of games, they have weaker hardware so graphics wont be there true but they are still devices people play all kinds of games on. > These are not the same market Why not? Wasn't the original argument that these things are the same and therefore should be regulated the same? How do you differentiate "gaming console" from other computers? People will only buy gaming consoles as long as they are better for gaming than phones are, since people already have smartphones. That means that game consoles always face heavy competition from phones and need to stay ahead of them to sell anything at all.
  - Jensson 3y ago
    We want governments to prevent dominant players from cornering the market. Android has billions of active devices, the Switch is a tiny system in comparison so it isn't a dominant player. Or are you trying to say that consoles are a separate category of devices and shouldn't be compared to number of phones? Then why are you even arguing here, they are separate! So either these consoles are too tiny to be dominant players and therefore doesn't need to be regulated like dominant players, or they are a separate category and shouldn't be regulated with the same laws as phones.
    - CharlesW 3y ago
      > Android has billions of active devices, the Switch is a tiny system in comparison so it isn't a dominant player. But it is in console gaming. Even if you include Xbox and PS5, the Switch's market share of consoles is far higher than Apple's of smartphones. And of course, Switch absolutely dominates if we're specifically talking about the handheld game console market. So what I'm asking is: How is Apple a monopoly in a market where they don't dominate and there's lots of choice, while Nintendo is not in a market where there are 3 vendors that matter, and they completely dominate the handheld segment?
      - Jensson 3y ago
        How do you define "console gaming" that doesn't include smart phones? That was the whole point of this sub thread, arguing that consoles are just another general computing device. If you say they are different in a significant way then why would they have the same regulations?
  - notnullorvoid 3y ago
    It's not a punishment of "success", it's a restriction on monopolistic control of everyday devices which at this point are a basic utility. Game consoles are not ubiquitous devices, and certainly aren't a basic utility of modern day living.
    - CharlesW 3y ago
      If you had to classify the iPhone as either a console or a general-purpose computer, I think the answer is obvious. (For good reason: A relatively safe app store is a feature, not a bug, for average users.) Apple doesn't have monopolistic control over anything. The smartphone marketplace is full of competition, so consumers have lots of choices in every segment.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
        > If you had to classify the iPhone as either a console or a general-purpose computer, I think the answer is obvious. Sure, it's obviously a computer. > Apple doesn't have monopolistic control over anything. The smartphone marketplace is full of competition, so consumers have lots of choices in every segment. How do you figure? If you want a phone, you're getting Android or iOS. In practice it is at best a duopoly.
        notnullorvoid 3y ago
        Yup it's a duopoly when it comes to marketplaces, and there's a strong argument to be made that Apple is a monopoly on the phone market as a whole. In many countries iPhones account for 50% or more of the phone market. Where as no company making Android devices controls 50% of the phone market, at least not in the west.
  - Rapzid 3y ago
    It's punishing success like cutting the grass or trimming the bushes is punishing success.
gjsman-1000 3y ago
Never going to happen. Nobody has any interest in going after the gaming market (1), and the EU DMA was carefully written to not affect game console stores (2). (1) If “phones” are a category in most people’s minds, it’s a two horse race. Most people, however, think of “gaming devices” as the category, not “game consoles” like techies do - in which case, it’s like an eight horse race between PC, PlayStation, Xbox, Nintendo, Steam Deck, smartphones themselves, GeForce Now, etc. Unlike smartphones, where if 2 companies decide to not service you, you’re screwed; you’ve got tons of alternative ways to play, even within most households. Much harder to show anticompetitive interests. (2) One of the provisions of the DMA is that there must be over 10,000 titles for sale. Needless to say, even the prolific Nintendo Switch is under 5,000. Edit: And before anyone objects to me considering PC and game consoles in the same market; think like a lawyer. The very fact that people ask daily, “console or PC?” shows they are in the same market.
johnnyanmac 3y ago
I think they aren't targets due to 1) not being a general purpose OS. Sony actually took at away that ability in the PS3 so they aren't trying to pretend they do more than play media 2) the hardware and software is ephemeral. In 10 years IOS and Android will exist. We will likely be on the PS6 and 2 more generations of Nintendo in that time. There's less incentive to bother opening up an OS that is abandoned every generation. 3) due to the model of consoles, most of them lose money on sales so they can invoke more software sales. And on top of that, larger studios get direct support from Nintendo/Sony. There is negative incentive for a studio to ruin this relationship unless more companies start making consoles themselves.
- lambda_lord 3y ago
  Your second point is why the stores need to be opened up. Nintendo breaks compatibility almost every generation, so if you want to replay old games you already purchased on a previous console, you have to repurchase the ported versions or buy Nintendo’s subscription service. I’ve dropped hundreds in the eShop but worry I’ll lose access one day, when the Switch is EOL. In comparison, I’ve been able to run my Steam games on multiple devices through the years because PC is a much more open platform. There are multiple shops, so Steam has incentive to keep games forward compatible.
  - filoleg 3y ago
    That seems like a very uniquely Nintendo problem rather than a modern console problem. Yeah, PS3 was from the era of consoles where backwards compatibility wasn’t as heavily demanded (given that Steam was in its infancy too), so they went with a notoriously and uniquely overcomplicated making games for it (and, by extension, compatibility). But PS4 era and onwards, any digital purchase you made back then for PS4 is accessible on PS5 as well. And hell, even for PS3 digital purchases it is still kind of true. Unfortunately, PS4/5 cannot play PS3 games natively, but if you purchased a digital PS3 game back then, you are able to stream it using PS Remote Play on your PS4/5. As far as I am aware, a similar thing happened in the Xbox space as well. Xbox One generation and onwards, any digital purchases you made back then are available on the most recent Xbox consoles. And for older games that aren’t natively compatible (and even a bunch of those that are compatible), they provide streaming too (through xCloud). Though don’t quote me on the exact details about how it works for Xbox consoles, as I haven’t used one since the Xbox360 days. Meanwhile, Nintendo resells SNES era games in their “virtual console” section of Switch eShop at a pretty significant premium.
pnw 3y ago
All of the recent legislation on this topic, including the EU Digital Markets Act, has a numerical unit cutoff which basically exempts all video game consoles.
- codedokode 3y ago
  Absolutely unfair.
  - pnw 3y ago
    If you view EU regulation as essentially a tax on US dominance of tech, it makes perfect sense.
bee_rider 3y ago
They should. But, more people have phones than consoles. It is not even that shocking for a phone to be somebody’s only computing device. It is more important, and governments need to prioritize.
seanmcdirmid 3y ago
It isn't compelling to say that all these competing app stores form a monopoly. You have single someone out or the argument becomes weak.
summerlight 3y ago
Those are not big enough to bother about and the power dynamic between the platform and its publishers is more even than those App Store/Play Store. Remember, regulation takes lots of resources.
- Razengan 3y ago
  Wow that’s a heck of a flimsy excuse, whenever this topic comes up
crazygringo 3y ago
Yup, this is what bothers me the most. Either there's a principle here behind opening app stores or there isn't. If we're opening them up, then let's open them all up. The idea that video games or stores below a certain mega size should be exempt is absurd.
- smoldesu 3y ago
  Consoles ship at a hardware loss, iPhones don't. The business comparison has always been a tough stretch, and the functional comparison of an iPhone to an Xbox/Keurig/dishwasher has always been absurd. Apple's service revenue channel is unprecedented, and so far unchallenged. In cases like Apple Music and the App Store, it is unquestionably at-odds with fair competition. Now, countries like Europe and Japan are using their markets as collateral at the negotiation table. Seems fair to me, given that Apple and Google are comfortable treating their userbases the same way.
  - codedokode 3y ago
    > Consoles ship at a hardware loss First, it might not be true (because all console contains is a PCB and several chips). Second, if you sell something cheaper than you could it doesn't mean you get some kind of privilege and exception from the law.
    - smoldesu 3y ago
      There are definitely cases where console hardware does sell at a profit, but even late in a console's lifecycle it probably won't make half the hardware margins of an Apple product at launch. They're different markets, and while they do have overlapping jurisdiction it doesn't contradict legislation like the EU's DMA.
  - crazygringo 3y ago
    > Consoles ship at a hardware loss, iPhones don't. This isn't true anymore. Consoles don't follow the razor-and-blades business model anymore -- that's long since gone. Sometimes they don't make a profit at launch, but they do soon after in the hardware cycle, which is fine because they sell for years and years. Nor are things like extra controllers or headsets subsidized either. So the idea that consoles need to make up losses via a cut of game sales isn't true, and hasn't been true for at least a couple of decades. And so there's no good reason to treat them differently from smartphone app stores. (The idea comes from the 80's and 90's, back when it was widely understood to be the business model.)
gyomu 3y ago
Sony and Nintendo are Japanese companies. From the article: > Japanese companies would be able to run dedicated game stores on iOS devices, as well as use payment systems with lower fees from Japanese fintech companies. It’s not hard to read between the lines. This is all about letting domestic gaming companies like Nintendo and Sony make more money from those mobile platforms. The techie demographic likes to get lost into arguments about the technology and philosophy of computing platforms, but as far as the EU and Japan are concerned it’s just realpolitik to give their domestic companies a leg up.
- Nevermark 3y ago
  You left out any companies selling a service on their iOS app which wouldn't normally require a middleman like Apple supplying (and taxing) payment services. Or selling an app who would like to pay less than 30%. So, basically everyone who's customers are willing, or can be guided, to use another app store. Even developers who needed to also be on Apple's store for visibility or cred, would love to be in other popular stores with better terms. Likely Apple would suddenly lower their 30% and other restrictions as fast as they needed to, to keep most potential deserters in the fold. But that doesn't change the point.
lozenge 3y ago
You can buy multiple consoles. You can't practically carry and use multiple phones as they will have different phone numbers.
- averageRoyalty 3y ago
  Have you tried signing into 5 consoles with one PSN/XBL login? You'll quickly run into issues.
modeless 3y ago
As soon as Switch or Playstation are used by >40% of the adult population for multiple hours a day every day on average, sure!

There is an order of magnitude difference in number of devices there, smaller brands that ship an order of magnitude less devices isn't a target for legislative action. Legislation might cover them but there is no reason to target them specifically since they are too small to matter.

CharlesW 3y ago
Why would that make any difference, unless we want the government to punish success? And if ~140 million Switch consoles sold doesn’t constitute “success”, where is that line?
- infotainment 3y ago
  In order to get to a monopoly position, quite a bit of success is generally required. Given that, anti-monopoly laws are by their very nature, punishing “success”. That kind of “success” for an individual company doesn’t necessarily lead to the best outcomes for the customer.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    This category of law is broadly referred to as competition law, because that's what it's concerned with. If you had five "competitors" but they all conspire to divide up the market between them so they don't have to compete with each other, this is problematic in the same way as a monopoly. But that's exactly what the game consoles do. Alice has a PlayStation, Bob has an Xbox, Carol has a Switch. If you want to sell your game to Alice, Bob and Carol you can't just strike an agreement with one of the console makers because that only allows you to reach a third of the market. You can't play Sony and Microsoft against each other to get the lowest fees because you need both of them rather than being able to choose the one offering the best deal. The best argument for why game consoles aren't like phones is that a non-trivial number of people have multiple game consoles, whereas hardly anyone carries two phones in their pocket. But even then, there are a large number of people who only have one console -- large enough that game developers still can't ignore them -- and few people who have all of them. Likewise, there are companies other than console makers who might like to make a game store, or make one that services all types of devices. Those companies are locked out of the market, even though their presence would be likely to drive down margins. So competition law should be concerned with this, because it's limiting competition.
    - Jensson 3y ago
      > there are a large number of people who only have one console Iphone or Android, yeah. Basically nobody only have a Playstation or a Nintendo.
      - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        There are definitely people who only have one console. Consoles cost money. Some people aren't rich.
        Jensson 3y ago
        Phones are game consoles, people who only have one game console today have a phone.
        AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        Phones are power-constrained devices with small screens. Consoles consume >100 watts under load with correspondingly higher performance and are connected to televisions. These are not the same market. They don't play the same games. Arguably gaming PCs (i.e. fast PCs with a suitable GPU) are in the same market, but this hasn't really added a competitor because Xbox and gaming PCs are both Microsoft, and most people don't have gaming PCs either.
        Jensson 3y ago
        > Consoles consume >100 watts under load with correspondingly higher performance and are connected to televisions Not handheld consoles. And you can connect phones to large screens if you want. > They don't play the same games. Genshin impact and fortninte? They could play the same kind of games, they have weaker hardware so graphics wont be there true but they are still devices people play all kinds of games on. > These are not the same market Why not? Wasn't the original argument that these things are the same and therefore should be regulated the same? How do you differentiate "gaming console" from other computers? People will only buy gaming consoles as long as they are better for gaming than phones are, since people already have smartphones. That means that game consoles always face heavy competition from phones and need to stay ahead of them to sell anything at all.
- Jensson 3y ago
  We want governments to prevent dominant players from cornering the market. Android has billions of active devices, the Switch is a tiny system in comparison so it isn't a dominant player. Or are you trying to say that consoles are a separate category of devices and shouldn't be compared to number of phones? Then why are you even arguing here, they are separate! So either these consoles are too tiny to be dominant players and therefore doesn't need to be regulated like dominant players, or they are a separate category and shouldn't be regulated with the same laws as phones.
  - CharlesW 3y ago
    > Android has billions of active devices, the Switch is a tiny system in comparison so it isn't a dominant player. But it is in console gaming. Even if you include Xbox and PS5, the Switch's market share of consoles is far higher than Apple's of smartphones. And of course, Switch absolutely dominates if we're specifically talking about the handheld game console market. So what I'm asking is: How is Apple a monopoly in a market where they don't dominate and there's lots of choice, while Nintendo is not in a market where there are 3 vendors that matter, and they completely dominate the handheld segment?
    - Jensson 3y ago
      How do you define "console gaming" that doesn't include smart phones? That was the whole point of this sub thread, arguing that consoles are just another general computing device. If you say they are different in a significant way then why would they have the same regulations?
- notnullorvoid 3y ago
  It's not a punishment of "success", it's a restriction on monopolistic control of everyday devices which at this point are a basic utility. Game consoles are not ubiquitous devices, and certainly aren't a basic utility of modern day living.
  - CharlesW 3y ago
    If you had to classify the iPhone as either a console or a general-purpose computer, I think the answer is obvious. (For good reason: A relatively safe app store is a feature, not a bug, for average users.) Apple doesn't have monopolistic control over anything. The smartphone marketplace is full of competition, so consumers have lots of choices in every segment.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
      > If you had to classify the iPhone as either a console or a general-purpose computer, I think the answer is obvious. Sure, it's obviously a computer. > Apple doesn't have monopolistic control over anything. The smartphone marketplace is full of competition, so consumers have lots of choices in every segment. How do you figure? If you want a phone, you're getting Android or iOS. In practice it is at best a duopoly.
      - notnullorvoid 3y ago
        Yup it's a duopoly when it comes to marketplaces, and there's a strong argument to be made that Apple is a monopoly on the phone market as a whole. In many countries iPhones account for 50% or more of the phone market. Where as no company making Android devices controls 50% of the phone market, at least not in the west.
- Rapzid 3y ago
  It's punishing success like cutting the grass or trimming the bushes is punishing success.

gjsman-1000 3y ago

Never going to happen. Nobody has any interest in going after the gaming market (1), and the EU DMA was carefully written to not affect game console stores (2). (1) If “phones” are a category in most people’s minds, it’s a two horse race. Most people, however, think of “gaming devices” as the category, not “game consoles” like techies do - in which case, it’s like an eight horse race between PC, PlayStation, Xbox, Nintendo, Steam Deck, smartphones themselves, GeForce Now, etc. Unlike smartphones, where if 2 companies decide to not service you, you’re screwed; you’ve got tons of alternative ways to play, even within most households. Much harder to show anticompetitive interests. (2) One of the provisions of the DMA is that there must be over 10,000 titles for sale. Needless to say, even the prolific Nintendo Switch is under 5,000. Edit: And before anyone objects to me considering PC and game consoles in the same market; think like a lawyer. The very fact that people ask daily, “console or PC?” shows they are in the same market.

johnnyanmac 3y ago

I think they aren't targets due to 1) not being a general purpose OS. Sony actually took at away that ability in the PS3 so they aren't trying to pretend they do more than play media 2) the hardware and software is ephemeral. In 10 years IOS and Android will exist. We will likely be on the PS6 and 2 more generations of Nintendo in that time. There's less incentive to bother opening up an OS that is abandoned every generation. 3) due to the model of consoles, most of them lose money on sales so they can invoke more software sales. And on top of that, larger studios get direct support from Nintendo/Sony. There is negative incentive for a studio to ruin this relationship unless more companies start making consoles themselves.

lambda_lord 3y ago
Your second point is why the stores need to be opened up. Nintendo breaks compatibility almost every generation, so if you want to replay old games you already purchased on a previous console, you have to repurchase the ported versions or buy Nintendo’s subscription service. I’ve dropped hundreds in the eShop but worry I’ll lose access one day, when the Switch is EOL. In comparison, I’ve been able to run my Steam games on multiple devices through the years because PC is a much more open platform. There are multiple shops, so Steam has incentive to keep games forward compatible.
- filoleg 3y ago
  That seems like a very uniquely Nintendo problem rather than a modern console problem. Yeah, PS3 was from the era of consoles where backwards compatibility wasn’t as heavily demanded (given that Steam was in its infancy too), so they went with a notoriously and uniquely overcomplicated making games for it (and, by extension, compatibility). But PS4 era and onwards, any digital purchase you made back then for PS4 is accessible on PS5 as well. And hell, even for PS3 digital purchases it is still kind of true. Unfortunately, PS4/5 cannot play PS3 games natively, but if you purchased a digital PS3 game back then, you are able to stream it using PS Remote Play on your PS4/5. As far as I am aware, a similar thing happened in the Xbox space as well. Xbox One generation and onwards, any digital purchases you made back then are available on the most recent Xbox consoles. And for older games that aren’t natively compatible (and even a bunch of those that are compatible), they provide streaming too (through xCloud). Though don’t quote me on the exact details about how it works for Xbox consoles, as I haven’t used one since the Xbox360 days. Meanwhile, Nintendo resells SNES era games in their “virtual console” section of Switch eShop at a pretty significant premium.

pnw 3y ago

All of the recent legislation on this topic, including the EU Digital Markets Act, has a numerical unit cutoff which basically exempts all video game consoles.

codedokode 3y ago
Absolutely unfair.
- pnw 3y ago
  If you view EU regulation as essentially a tax on US dominance of tech, it makes perfect sense.

bee_rider 3y ago

They should. But, more people have phones than consoles. It is not even that shocking for a phone to be somebody’s only computing device. It is more important, and governments need to prioritize.

seanmcdirmid 3y ago

It isn't compelling to say that all these competing app stores form a monopoly. You have single someone out or the argument becomes weak.

summerlight 3y ago

Those are not big enough to bother about and the power dynamic between the platform and its publishers is more even than those App Store/Play Store. Remember, regulation takes lots of resources.

Razengan 3y ago
Wow that’s a heck of a flimsy excuse, whenever this topic comes up

crazygringo 3y ago

Yup, this is what bothers me the most. Either there's a principle here behind opening app stores or there isn't. If we're opening them up, then let's open them all up. The idea that video games or stores below a certain mega size should be exempt is absurd.

smoldesu 3y ago
Consoles ship at a hardware loss, iPhones don't. The business comparison has always been a tough stretch, and the functional comparison of an iPhone to an Xbox/Keurig/dishwasher has always been absurd. Apple's service revenue channel is unprecedented, and so far unchallenged. In cases like Apple Music and the App Store, it is unquestionably at-odds with fair competition. Now, countries like Europe and Japan are using their markets as collateral at the negotiation table. Seems fair to me, given that Apple and Google are comfortable treating their userbases the same way.
- codedokode 3y ago
  > Consoles ship at a hardware loss First, it might not be true (because all console contains is a PCB and several chips). Second, if you sell something cheaper than you could it doesn't mean you get some kind of privilege and exception from the law.
  - smoldesu 3y ago
    There are definitely cases where console hardware does sell at a profit, but even late in a console's lifecycle it probably won't make half the hardware margins of an Apple product at launch. They're different markets, and while they do have overlapping jurisdiction it doesn't contradict legislation like the EU's DMA.
- crazygringo 3y ago
  > Consoles ship at a hardware loss, iPhones don't. This isn't true anymore. Consoles don't follow the razor-and-blades business model anymore -- that's long since gone. Sometimes they don't make a profit at launch, but they do soon after in the hardware cycle, which is fine because they sell for years and years. Nor are things like extra controllers or headsets subsidized either. So the idea that consoles need to make up losses via a cut of game sales isn't true, and hasn't been true for at least a couple of decades. And so there's no good reason to treat them differently from smartphone app stores. (The idea comes from the 80's and 90's, back when it was widely understood to be the business model.)

gyomu 3y ago

Sony and Nintendo are Japanese companies. From the article: > Japanese companies would be able to run dedicated game stores on iOS devices, as well as use payment systems with lower fees from Japanese fintech companies. It’s not hard to read between the lines. This is all about letting domestic gaming companies like Nintendo and Sony make more money from those mobile platforms. The techie demographic likes to get lost into arguments about the technology and philosophy of computing platforms, but as far as the EU and Japan are concerned it’s just realpolitik to give their domestic companies a leg up.

Nevermark 3y ago
You left out any companies selling a service on their iOS app which wouldn't normally require a middleman like Apple supplying (and taxing) payment services. Or selling an app who would like to pay less than 30%. So, basically everyone who's customers are willing, or can be guided, to use another app store. Even developers who needed to also be on Apple's store for visibility or cred, would love to be in other popular stores with better terms. Likely Apple would suddenly lower their 30% and other restrictions as fast as they needed to, to keep most potential deserters in the fold. But that doesn't change the point.

lozenge 3y ago

You can buy multiple consoles. You can't practically carry and use multiple phones as they will have different phone numbers.

averageRoyalty 3y ago
Have you tried signing into 5 consoles with one PSN/XBL login? You'll quickly run into issues.

modeless 3y ago

As soon as Switch or Playstation are used by >40% of the adult population for multiple hours a day every day on average, sure!