4 ms·

What no one seems to be able to explain to my satisfaction is why this logic doesn't also apply to game consoles. The "well they sell it at a loss" argument is

What no one seems to be able to explain to my satisfaction is why this logic doesn't also apply to game consoles. The "well they sell it at a loss" argument is not persuasive. That's Nintendo/Sony/Microsoft's choice as a business, it's not the government's role to make their loss-leader business model possible.

ProfessorLayton 3y ago
Regulations come into place when there's consumer harm, and consumers have TONS of choices in regards to games. The vast majority of the library on Xbox/PS is cross platform. PC gamers are enjoying their vast Steam library and there's plenty of Switch clones that can handle everything from AAA gaming to indy titles. Also the largest gaming market is on mobile phones by far. So here we are with this antitrust suit.
asadotzler 3y ago
Consumers are not terribly harmed by this because gaming is a leisure activity while smartphones are critical components of everyday life. Also, no game company has billions of users and there are several players with little moat who actually have to compete to win users so prices come down even if there isn't much cross OS play.
dragonwriter 3y ago
> What no one seems to be able to explain to my satisfaction is why this logic doesn't also apply to game consoles. Sony is currently facing antitrust litigation in multiple jurisdictions over it; more generally, the fact that a particular other actor has not yet been successfully sued under a law for actions similar to those for which some actor is currently being sued does not mean the law does not apply to their actions. It just means they haven't been successfully sued yet.