Monopolies

[Wictorian]

Do you think monopolies are fine with streaming services or gaming platforms? If yes then what is the difference with other forms of monopolies? If no do you like having 10 apps on your computer just for gaming? 

Edited October 28, 2021 by PmpkinPaul
cleanup

[Vishera]

There are a lot of streaming services types, do you mean something like Twitch or something like GeForce Now?

And monopolies in which industry?

[Wictorian]

4 minutes ago, Vishera said:

There are a lot of streaming services types, do you mean something like Twitch or something like GeForce Now?

And monopolies in which industry?

Streaming services : Twitch, Youtube, Netflix, Amazon Prime etc.

Does the industry of a monopoly matter?

[Sauron]

No, but having 10 platforms with exclusive content is not a solution. The solution is getting rid of exclusive digital vendor rights. If a game or piece of media is for sale then its sale should be allowed on any storefront, digital or otherwise, without depending on any other for it to work.

[Vishera]

4 minutes ago, Wictorian said:

Does the industry of a monopoly matter?

It matters,but it also depends on the situation.

Overall as long as those services don't collide with their monopolistic interests i think it will be fine.

[Skiiwee29]

There is no monopoly on the streaming service, game or video content since there are multiple platforms independent from one another, each with there own content from all the big channels as well as in house produced things. Monopolies overall though are bad as they are at there core anti consumer and limit the choices and availability and can charge pretty much any price they want without competition keeping them in check. 

[suedseefrucht]

If a company's product reaches a certain size and affects many people, politics should make some rules to represent these many people, so that the company don't get too much power over these people.

 

For example, if there is one company building a small private road, it's fine. They can make their own rules for this road as long as they dont break any rules.

But if a company builds private roads in a whole town, it starts affecting many people. Loud vehicles can be disturbing many people, if 5 different companies build 5 different private road systems, there would be roads everywhere without space for people to live, without space for nature. So politics should start to make rules about roads.

So if a small company makes a gaming platform, it's fine. Nobody cares.
But if it gets bigger, it starts to affect many people. (But that's hard to describe, because some extra software is not as clearly disturbing as a town full of roads )
So hmmmm...
I think the power is important. If a big gaming platform company decides to publish a game, which is bad for children, it's a danger to many people, so politics should make rules. If a big gaming platform company decides not to publish a strategy game to make their own strategy game a monopol, it's a pretty hard decision.

On the one hand, it doesn't hurt anyone but the game developers. On the other hand, there is no non company gaming platform and small game developers would never have a chance.

 

It's like a supermarket. If a supermarket doesn't want to sell snickers, it doesn't have to.

But can a big supermarket decide, not to sell any fruits? That would endanger many people's health, so politics should make rules.

 

The problem with gaming is: It's not needed for health or survival. That's what makes it so hard.

Edited October 28, 2021 by PmpkinPaul
cleanup

[Vishera]

12 minutes ago, Sauron said:

No, but having 10 platforms with exclusive content is not a solution. The solution is getting rid of exclusive digital vendor rights. If a game or piece of media is for sale then its sale should be allowed on any storefront, digital or otherwise, without depending on any other for it to work.

According to the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914, 15 U.S.C. § 14 Exclusivity deals/agreements are illegal:

Quote

It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, to lease or make a sale or contract for sale of goods, wares, merchandise, machinery, supplies, or other commodities, whether patented or unpatented, for use, consumption, or resale within the United States or any Territory thereof or the District of Columbia or any insular possession or other place under the jurisdiction of the United States, or fix a price charged therefor, or discount from, or rebate upon, such price, on the condition, agreement, or understanding that the lessee or purchaser thereof shall not use or deal in the goods, wares, merchandise, machinery, supplies, or other commodities of a competitor or competitors of the lessor or seller, where the effect of such lease, sale, or contract for sale or such condition, agreement, or understanding may be to substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce.

Also the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 may apply as well:

Quote

Section 1:

Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal.^[11]

 

[Wictorian]

29 minutes ago, Vishera said:

According to the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914, 15 U.S.C. § 14 Exclusivity deals/agreements are illegal:

Also the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 may apply as well:

 

Exclusivity can also act against monopoly. 
 

Also, Ford can’t just sell Tesla cars. Why can this happen with games?

 

I think the developer should decide if they want to make a game exclusive, at least to some platforms, which they will obviously not want because it would decrease the sales. 

[Wictorian]

6 hours ago, suedseefrucht said:

-snip-

Yeah some laws are needed. But I don’t think what you say has ever happened (A platform refusing to feature a game)

 

So it would be more efficient if countries focused on managing monopolies instead of preventing them. Monopolies are more efficient, no?

Edited October 28, 2021 by PmpkinPaul
cleanup

[Vishera]

1 minute ago, Wictorian said:

Also, Ford can’t just sell Tesla cars. Why can this happen with games?

 

That's not the same.

It's fine and dandy when it's a first party thing (you can't really sign an exclusivity deal with yourself),

But when exclusivity agreement is signed with a third party entity - There lies the issue (both legally and morally).

Because now they use the exclusivity to prevent others from selling a product made by a third party which means that even if competing businesses want to sell the product - they can't.

It gives an anti-competitive advantage,since withholding a competing business from selling a product while allowing others to sell it hurts competition.

And the act can be monopolistic.

[suedseefrucht]

29 minutes ago, Grand Admiral Thrawn said:

If something bothers people, they ditch it. No need for politics to get involved.

Sometimes, ditching it is not an option.
For example: If microsoft would be allowed to make edge the only possible browser on windows, many people will not like it.
But because they still need windows for gaming, office and other stuff, they have to take it.

 

Back to gaming platforms:
If there are only 1 or 2 big gaming platforms and you want to play a specific online game, they can tell you No.

Now you can decide to play their online game or no online game at all.

So unless you dont want to play online games at all, they have the power to tell you what to play and what not to play.

 

That's why there should be rules.

[suedseefrucht]

18 minutes ago, Wictorian said:

I don’t think what you say has ever happened (A platform refusing to feature a game)

But refusing other payment methods.
Like "Apple vs. Epic".

[Wictorian]

31 minutes ago, suedseefrucht said:

But refusing other payment methods.
Like "Apple vs. Epic".

I think it is their right to take a cut from the revenue.

[Sauron]

1 hour ago, Vishera said:

According to the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914, 15 U.S.C. § 14 Exclusivity deals/agreements are illegal:

Clearly there's some loophole with intellectual property because there are plenty of movies, series and games that I just can't purchase outside of the storefront with the exclusive for it.

[Vishera]

14 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Clearly there's some loophole with intellectual property because there are plenty of movies, series and games that I just can't purchase outside of the storefront with the exclusive for it.

As far as i know the FTC selectively enforces antitrust laws.

Ignoring some laws entirely.

If you remember the executive order that was signed earlier this year you will see the president told the FTC to enforce antitrust laws,

Mainly because of the monopoly on repair (Manufacturers monopolizing repair of the products they make) which is a violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890.

[suedseefrucht]

22 minutes ago, Wictorian said:

I think it is their right to take a cut from the revenue.

Sounds fair.

But we should keep an eye on big powerful companies, because if they are really big and they are the game developers' only chance to sell their product, 

the gaming platform can raise prices until the game developers suffer and they have to take it because they can't afford leaving the gaming platform.

 

Nature is cruel and so is a free market.
So if we dont want the big ones to become bigger while the little ones suffer, we have to make rules.

[Vishera]

17 minutes ago, suedseefrucht said:

But we should keep an eye on big powerful companies, because if they are really big and they are the game developers' only chance to sell their product, 

the gaming platform can raise prices until the game developers suffer and they have to take it because they can't afford leaving the gaming platform.

Just like how Nintendo does with their store on the Switch or Sony on the Playstation.

Sony has a monopoly over digital Playstation game stores,and Nintendo has a monopoly on Switch digital game stores .

For example if i want to establish a store for the Playstation 4 - I can't because Sony actively put safeguards to prevent competing game stores on their platform.

So that they can capitalize on this monopoly and get that sweet money all for themselves from the developers that are forced selling the game on the Playstation Store, if they want to sell their game for the console.

 

  

17 minutes ago, suedseefrucht said:

Nature is cruel and so is a free market.
So if we dont want the big ones to become bigger while the little ones suffer, we have to make rules.

The laws to combat this exist,they are just ignored.

The Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 and the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914 are adequate to combat this kind of anti competitive behavior.

[WkdPaul]

5 hours ago, suedseefrucht said:

Sometimes, ditching it is not an option.
For example: If microsoft would be allowed to make edge the only possible browser on windows, many people will not like it.

[...]

That's why there should be rules.

There are rules, and MS tried that and was slapped with huge fines for antitrust behaviour already ;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corp._v._Commission

 

I get that it's a bit old, but this should be common knowledge in tech.

 

 

As for the rest of the thread, seems like there's some misunderstanding between companies MAKING media (games, movies, TV shows, etc..), and companies DISTRIBUTING media. A company can be either, or both. Issue can arise when a company does both, rarely when they only do one of the 2.

 

A distribution platform by itself is NOT a monopoly, a monopoly would be if there was only one distributor/platform. It's not the case right now. 

[SansVarnic]

Bit of a mute topic since there is no such monopoly, never really has been. Theory and conjecture.

[Wictorian]

On 10/28/2021 at 12:12 PM, suedseefrucht said:

Sounds fair.

But we should keep an eye on big powerful companies, because if they are really big and they are the game developers' only chance to sell their product, 

the gaming platform can raise prices until the game developers suffer and they have to take it because they can't afford leaving the gaming platform.

 

Nature is cruel and so is a free market.
So if we dont want the big ones to become bigger while the little ones suffer, we have to make rules.

Then the game developers won’t sell their games.

[Wictorian]

On 10/29/2021 at 6:26 AM, SansVarnic said:

Bit of a mute topic since there is no such monopoly, never really has been. Theory and conjecture.

Steam?

[Skiiwee29]

15 minutes ago, Wictorian said:

Steam?

Except steam doesn't set the price of the games, that's on the developers/publishers, so its not a monopoly per say. 

[Wictorian]

Just now, Skiiwee29 said:

Except steam doesn't set the price of the games, that's on the developers/publishers, so its not a monopoly per say. 

What I understand by the term monopoly is a corporation that dominates a market. If it has a different meaning then that might be the cause of my confusion.

[Skiiwee29]

Just now, Wictorian said:

What I understand by the term monopoly is a corporation that dominates a market. If it has a different meaning then that might be the cause of my confusion.

In a sense, you're not wrong with that. Steam was the most well known platform for games to be on. There have always been other options to purchase directly from the developers, or even some had there own platform they distributed games through as well over the years, such as battle.net, uplay, etc.. More recently you start to see more competition in the space with Epic and Microsoft/Xbox trying to take on Steam for an all developer/publisher distribution platform with there game stores. A lot of it is also familiarity. I have most of the launchers installed, and yes I do loathe having 100 and 1 different launchers installed, but it is what it is. Like for example, I own Red Dead Redemption 2 on Epic, but in order to be able to play it, I have to have Rockstar's launcher and platform installed as well. Same with say Rainbow Six Siege. I own it on Steam, but have to have uPlay installed and logged in to actually play. 

 

We no longer live in the era where we look at a book shelf and ponder which CD case to grab to throw into the CD rom or DVD player to play a game anymore. Always digital, Always online is the way the world is these days and will only keep getting further into that as time progresses and technology advances.