Great, but don't forget to open up the Nintendo eShop and the PlayStation store as well.
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.
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.
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.
In the 2nd paragraph, i missed a word and meant to say “[…] they went with a Cell chip, making gamedev experience for it notoriously and uniquely overcomplicated.”
I don't think so for PlayStaion. PS3 and PS2 had compatibility to older PS by implement old chip. I think why there's no PS3 compatibility is because PS3 unique Cell architecture was dead end.
So yeah, as you pointed out, for Sony it seems like their compatibility goes a bit further into the pre-PS3 era, but for other console makers it wasn't quite the case. Couldn't play original Xbox games on Xbox360 (there is a list of like a dozen games that are backwards compatible, and even then there are issues with some of them like framerate), and neither could you do that with Nintendo/Sega consoles. In that sense, Sony was a bit of an outlier in that they came early to the backwards compatibility game. But these days, 2 out of 3 major console manufacturers pretty much standardized backwards compatibility as a simple "plug and play" feature.
I assume you can turn on your old console and replay those games right?
Why does the next generation console has to guarantee to work with older games?
This is just assuming the conclusion. They're general purpose computers that could run arbitrary custom code if their owners weren't locked out of them.
And so are appliances and HVAC systems and so on, which is exactly why the owners shouldn't be locked out of them -- this has significant implications for the entire concept of ownership, right to repair and environmentalism etc. They're all general purpose computers, and they should be.
> 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.
But this is making exactly the opposite argument -- it should be opened up because otherwise it will be abandoned and no one else can support it. Likewise, the newer system should be opened up so people can make it run the older games, or the games from other systems from other vendors, whenever possible.
> 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.
This is called a predatory business model, the equivalent of printer makers selling the printer below cost so they can stick you for the ink. There is a serious argument for banning it outright; it's certainly nothing we need to worry about protecting.
Sounds good.
This won't really benefit anyone but the largest studios, even if they open it up to game consoles. But it could be a first step. But a step with a lot less support.
Allowing competing stores is a major component of opening up the OS. The competing stores would be able to install and run code on the device, with the permission of the owner rather than the OEM. And suffocating alternatives to paying them the vig is a major reason they close the device to begin with, so without that they'd be less likely to stand in your way anymore.
But that's what the story is about, even with Google:
>And although Google permits third-party app distribution platforms, it still generally requires apps to use its billing system.
>These effective monopolies on in-app payments can lead to users paying more for the same content or services on mobile devices than on personal computers.
Alternate app stores and Android essentially being an "open OS" (with forced Google installation on many devices) outside the store wasn't enough to protect Google from being involved. And the focus of the rationale is focused on the app purchase and their control over suspected price hikes.
For example the Apple M-series SOC only exists in Apple phones and tablets.
Meanwhile the PS5, Xbox Series S/X, Steam Deck all use the AMD Zen 2 series CPUs. It's basically off-the shelf hardware with generic well-documented interfaces.
The only reason we're not using the Xbox as a cheap Linux gaming machine is because it's absolutely closed up for all hacking.
I can get a Series X for less than the price of a decent GPU. During the GPU price boom I actually got a PS5 _and_ a Series X for less :)
I don't think iOS and Android are general purpose either. Phones and tablets are used for games as much as the consoles if not more in certain demographic
I'm struggling to think of something you can't do on a phone/tablet these days. Dual monitor support seems to be beyond most devices I tried it with. Maybe some government applications for security purposes.
> 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.
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.
(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.
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.
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.
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.)
Despite being someone who wants consoles to be a more open platform, it's trivial to see why they have an argument and Apple doesn't. Apple is a hardware company using their de-facto software control to bolster profits and prevent competition. Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo are essentially software companies, selling DRM-enabled clients to ensure their continued profitability. It's up to the court to make a ruling, but I have a hard time believing consoles are any more relevant than Blu-Ray players or Nespresso machines.
Apple treats their iPhones like Microsoft and Sony treat their consoles: some kind of brand experience that makes you part of a distinguished group of Brand Name customers who enjoy their Brand Name lifestyle. If we're preventing Apple and Google from pulling this bullshit, we should take on consoles too.
It doesn't really matter what functionality consoles offer or not. These things could run Windows if it weren't for the DRM that locks them down, and some Chinese stores will sell you boards using the same CPU/GPU but running Windows instead. They have HDMI, USB ports, ethernet, and all the hardware to be used as a serious device. Their OS and APIs are a bit weird but I can't see a reason why you couldn't used them as a basic home PC if you install a browser and an office suite, other than that their vendors won't let you download software outside of their walled gardens.
What will happen to Apple Retail, 7-11, Costco and Walmart?
That kind of “success” for an individual company doesn’t necessarily lead to the best outcomes for the customer.
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.
Iphone or Android, yeah. Basically nobody only have a Playstation or a Nintendo.
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.
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.
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.
Actually, I'm curious; what are those games?
I guess "GTA 5" is an acceptable answer. But if you're satisfied with 2fps, even that should run through Rosetta/Box86 and GPT/Proton. Both modern Android and modern iOS devices should have the API coverage to enable DirectX12 via-translation, even if their hardware isn't particularly amicable to it.
You can play Resident Evil 4 natively on an iPhone. You can play Half Life and Fallout: New Vegas locally on Android. It's not really a contradiction of your claim, but I don't think anything really stops iPhones and Android phones from providing PC or console-quality game APIs anymore.
This is not "runs" in a practical sense. It has to be a reasonable substitute for the console.
Here's the money question: If you're the developer of this game, can you reasonably stop selling it for consoles and paying the vig to the console makers by telling people to play it on their phone instead?
Didn't people do this a ton? It started with a trickle of poor but sellable ports of stuff like Call of Duty to the Wii and Grand Theft Auto for iPhone. All of that stuff was signed-off by publishers. The ports came through even faster on Nintendo Switch, despite it being both less powerful than most phones and a different architecture from most consoles at the time. Then there's even the Steam Deck, which crossed the rubicon of running Windows games without Windows. At no point during any of that history did publishers tell people to stop playing the "inferior" ported version. Some might even say they didn't care, as long as you bought a full-price copy of the game and enjoyed it.
So... yeah. Consoles will exist, and people will port games to them because gamers will buy and own them. But smartphones are simply more popular, and the software pipeline required to get PC games running on the hardware you already own and use exists and is usable today. Console releases haven't correlated with quality since forever, the majority of people I know would rather play Fallout: New Vegas on a phone than Fallout: 76 on a PS5.
If consoles were required to be open then they'd likely merge with PCs, since a console is basically a PC but closed. This is another aspect of the anti-competitive nature of the industry -- if consoles were "basically a PC" and open then a non-Microsoft console would be a Linux PC sitting in a hundred million living rooms, which is a threat to Microsoft's desktop monopoly, and a major reason they created the Xbox. By subsidizing the sale price of the Xbox and making it back by shaking down game developers, they make an open console an uphill battle because it would have to charge more for hardware and less for games, which reduces initial adoption and the network effect, pressuring its primary competitors to do the same thing and be closed.
And then you get game developers targeting PlayStation instead of SteamOS, the latter of which would have made the games also run on any other desktop Linux, and general purpose software developers targeting Windows but not Linux because there aren't a hundred million general purpose Linux "consoles" in living rooms.
I want a different experience when I sit down to my big PC or a PS5. I want to play the games designed for that device and that experience (at the desk, back on the couch). With enough finagling, you can replicate a shallow version of this experience on a phone, but it sucks, the things runs out of power and/or gets super hot, and if push comes to shove, the games are the first thing getting ejected from my phone if I need to make space.
I can play games on my phone, but the whole experience is nowhere near replacing what I get on, say, Steam.
From a technical perspective though, disregarding the UX side (because frankly that's a personal decision), phones can game. Not just some games either, most modern Android phones will support Vulkan 1.2 which will run a whole host of DXVK games. The limit is how fast you can translate x86 code into ARM, really.
So... in the interest of hacking (fancy that), I want to enable people to do the "movie night on iPhone" equivalent for PC games. The limitations of phone gaming will be subjective just like the limitations of console gaming are, but at this point it's an inevitability.
Not every single person who plays video games is so hardcore about it that they must own the entire generation of consoles.
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.
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?
If you say they are different in a significant way then why would they have the same regulations?
Game consoles are not ubiquitous devices, and certainly aren't a basic utility of modern day living.
Apple doesn't have monopolistic control over anything. The smartphone marketplace is full of competition, so consumers have lots of choices in every segment.
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.