5 ms·

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 “succes

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.
        AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        > Not handheld consoles. Which is why handheld consoles are not in the same market either. > And you can connect phones to large screens if you want. Neither the user interface nor the input method is designed for this. > 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. There are kinds of games you can't play on a phone. Phones aren't part of the market for those kinds of games, and you can't get out of that by finding some different games that can run on a phone. > 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? They should be regulated the same because it's the same anti-competitive business practice -- tying app distribution to the platform and preventing third party competitors. Far from contradicting the claim, being separate markets is the entire problem -- instead of having a common market for console games or apps in general where anyone can be a distributor for any platform, each platform is segmented into a separate market with only a single distributor. What makes things be in the same market is the ability to substitute them for one another. If you need a wrench and they're sold at both Amazon and Walmart, you can substitute one store for the other. But if you need a wrench for your Xbox and only Amazon has wrenches that work on an Xbox whereas Walmart only has wrenches that work on PlayStations, you can't get what you need from Walmart anymore so Walmart is out of the market. > 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. But it's trivial for them to do this because they have different design constraints. A phone runs on battery and has to fit in your pocket, so it can't use or dissipate >100 watts and it's easy to make a console that can which is significantly faster. Then all of the games requiring that level of performance are exclusive to the devices with that level of power consumption.

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.
        AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        > Not handheld consoles. Which is why handheld consoles are not in the same market either. > And you can connect phones to large screens if you want. Neither the user interface nor the input method is designed for this. > 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. There are kinds of games you can't play on a phone. Phones aren't part of the market for those kinds of games, and you can't get out of that by finding some different games that can run on a phone. > 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? They should be regulated the same because it's the same anti-competitive business practice -- tying app distribution to the platform and preventing third party competitors. Far from contradicting the claim, being separate markets is the entire problem -- instead of having a common market for console games or apps in general where anyone can be a distributor for any platform, each platform is segmented into a separate market with only a single distributor. What makes things be in the same market is the ability to substitute them for one another. If you need a wrench and they're sold at both Amazon and Walmart, you can substitute one store for the other. But if you need a wrench for your Xbox and only Amazon has wrenches that work on an Xbox whereas Walmart only has wrenches that work on PlayStations, you can't get what you need from Walmart anymore so Walmart is out of the market. > 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. But it's trivial for them to do this because they have different design constraints. A phone runs on battery and has to fit in your pocket, so it can't use or dissipate >100 watts and it's easy to make a console that can which is significantly faster. Then all of the games requiring that level of performance are exclusive to the devices with that level of power consumption.