Regulation of the gaming industry.

[Sonic]

The purpose of this thread is to discuss if there should be more or less regulation of the gaming industry and what form it should take. From the MS thread it is clear there many here have varying opinions on how the gaming industry should or shouldn't be regulated. I'd like to delve into this deeper. So I'll post up a few points/questions to see if we can get some decent discussion going. I'd like to keep the discussion as civil as possible and on topic as possible. If discussion gets too far off into the political realm then I ask for it to be moved to RPSP.


What if any kind of regulation should there be on platform holders purchasing 3rd party devs/publishers?

What if any kind of regulation should there be on platform holders making exclusive deals with 3rd party devs/publishers?

If a platform holder purchases a 3rd party that historically releases content for multiple platforms maintain that for a period of time?

Should 3rd parties be requires to offer the same revenue share for all platform holders?

I suppose storefronts on mobile devices and PC's can be considered platform holders for the sake of this discussion.

 

[eastmen]

For me personally, If a platform holder is going to buy a developer or publisher, I would rather they just have everything exclusive. I rather the purchase and know that I have to buy that platform for the game vs 3rd party exclusives where my favorite developer might one day have a contract for a game on console a and then another game only on console b and then yet another game on console c and then yet another one only locked to a pc store front.

I also don't believe the size of the company should matter in the purchase a purchase is a purchase. However if we are going to see regulation I obviously think the market leaders should be more constrained than new entries into the market or those with much lower in market share.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I think there should be regulation. I don't want consolidation down to specific libraries attached to certain nigh-identical hardware products. Gaming should be like other media consumption, device agnostic. One console should play everything.

The old model was exclusives were needed to drive platform adoption and cover expenses of developing these machines. Now subscription incomes are so immense, consoles don't need exclusive libraries. They can sell on other merits like price, performance, controller, and services. Consumers are free to pick their preferred box and play all the games, the console company making plenty enough money from service payments that it doesn't matter they don't own a massive share of the market.

I'm not sure what type of regulation would be required. Immediate thoughts would be all console companies would have to split into hardware and software and all publishers would have to release cross platform, but that's bonkers and removes legitimate choices like focussing on specific platforms for developer's sanity.

Maybe put a cap on how much talent a corporation can own and not allow them to gain more beyond that? If you want another studio, you need to release one you already own.

Whatever, a world where Sony and MS and Nintendo each own a third of the content would be the worst possible future. Objectively - in terms of environmental impact, three boxes that can do the work of one is wasteful. We don't need four TVs in the living room, one to watch each of Paramount, Netflix, HBO and Disney. We shouldn't need one hardware for each game library either.

 

[Seanspeed]

I also don't believe the size of the company should matter in the purchase a purchase is a purchase.

So you just dont believe in anti-trust practices at all? :/

 

[Seanspeed]

I think there should be regulation. I don't want consolidation down to specific libraries attached to certain nigh-identical hardware products. Gaming should be like other media consumption, device agnostic. One console should play everything.

The old model was exclusives were needed to drive platform adoption and cover expenses of developing these machines. Now subscription incomes are so immense, consoles don't need exclusive libraries.

According to MS, Gamepass only brings in like 15% of Xbox's total revenue, so not as 'immense' as you think. And I dont think I've ever heard of exclusives being needed to cover expenses of developing the machines. Quite the opposite in fact - games developed exclusively early on for new systems need to be technically impressive(so reasonably expensive) while also being released to the smallest install base out there. Sure, you get better attachment rates, but still, they are not meant to be money makers at all. They are there purely to draw people into buying a console and becoming an ecosystem user. They're a long term investment.

And even beyond the earlier window of a new generation console release, exclusives still dont need to be giant money makers to justify themselves. Again, the point is to just build up a decent library of 'games you cant play elsewhere', which gets people to buy your console, where you then hope they start buying all their 3rd party games on and whatnot, which is where the real money is at. Ecosystem users. Most people do not own multiple major platforms, so using exclusives to lure people to your specific platform is very important and lucrative long-term.

There would be a whole lot less incentive to have all these 1st party studios if you couldn't use them to make exclusive games. They aren't there just to add to the general pile of gamers for all gamers out there. So if you regulate platform owners to the point where you say they cant make exclusive games at all, then they will simply not want all these 1st party studios in the first place. It will mean less games for gamers, even if it only affects users of a specific platform.

I have never had any problem with most 1st party exclusives because they're mostly games that otherwise wouldn't exist. It's only all the 'bought' exclusivity stuff that bothers me so much.

That said, I'm also very much against all this consolidation going on. Microsoft buying up Bethesda for instance was basically just the largest case of 'bought exclusivity' in gaming history. Regulating stuff like this is gonna be extremely difficult.

 

[eastmen]

So you just dont believe in anti-trust practices at all? :/

Not in markets like video games or entertainment. When it comes to things like internet providers / gas providers / power providers and so on then yes I do believe in it.

In MS's case the entry to play all their titles is what $18 a month ? No dedicated hardware required. Everyone has access to it there isn't a finite amount of that resource.

 

[Tkumpathenurpahl]

For context, I believe copyright should expire after 50 years from first publication, and the reason we're in such cultural stagnation with popular media is because of the stultifying effect of the likes of "70 years after the death of the creator" copyright protections. Especially in an age where living to ~100 is somewhat feasible.

Would Disney have pissed away billions on Star Wars if there were only 20 years left before any old clown could make their own versions? Likewise for MS and Activision/CoD?

The difficulty here compared to other media is the innate fact that the content is specifically programmed to hardware. But in the age of streaming, maybe we have something of a solution in our midst.

10 year maximum exclusivity for 3rd party content, 15 years for 1st party content. After that, if MS want to port or emulate, for example, the very first Uncharted game, that should be fine. Sony would still own the IP until ~2057, but an XBox gamer should be able to hop on the PlayStation store, buy the game, then download and run it on their XBox.

But let's say MS don't want to port/emulate (or there are technical issues etc) said early PS3 game. An XBox gamer should be able to hop on the PlayStation store, buy Uncharted, and then stream it on their XBox without having to pay an additional subscription fee in the form of PS+. Then it's just on MS if they'd want to support such a feature, to what level of quality etc

That might be enough to just nudge the industry into behaving a bit more like all other media. Maybe MS don't want to host Sony games for streaming and vice versa, but they could reach an agreement to have their streaming networks talk to each other, for example.

 

[WhiningKhan]

But let's say MS don't want to port/emulate (or there are technical issues etc) said early PS3 game. An XBox gamer should be able to hop on the PlayStation store, buy Uncharted, and then stream it on their XBox without having to pay an additional subscription fee in the form of PS+. Then it's just on MS if they'd want to support such a feature, to what level of quality etc

That might be enough to just nudge the industry into behaving a bit more like all other media. Maybe MS don't want to host Sony games for streaming and vice versa, but they could reach an agreement to have their streaming networks talk to each other, for example.

That sounds messed up. Sony would have to carry the burden of providing the content but not getting income from subscription?

How is that in any way like all other media?
HBO does not have Stranger Things in their catalog but no worries - their customers can just watch it from Netflix with their HBO subscription... Or did I miss something?

Ah ok, I missed the part of purchasing the game from Sony.

 

[Tkumpathenurpahl]

A bit off topic, but I think that should be the case more broadly: I should be able to buy Stranger Things and stream it on whatever streaming service I like.

I strongly dislike not being able to own media, and having to just hope streaming services stay up and running, as well as hoping they don't alter our censor based on the social trend du jour.

Heck, permanent media (or at the very least access to prior versions) may even be a justification for the blockchain/permanent ledger.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

A bit off topic, but I think that should be the case more broadly: I should be able to buy Stranger Things and stream it on whatever streaming service I like. I strongly dislike not being able to own media, and having to just hope streaming services stay up and running, as well as hoping they don't alter our censor based on the social trend du jour.

I still buy some media on disc, then rip it to whatever format I want (which I am legally allowed to do), which in practise means I store TV shows and movies on my NAS, and stream to locally or over the internet to whatever device I want. My TV, my phone, my iPad, my console.

Other countries and more-restrictive laws are available.

 

[Shortbread]

Let's be honest, Sony wants Microsoft gone, as Microsoft wants Sony gone. Wanting each other gone for different reasons. The problem with one getting rid of the other, is that Sony doesn't have the money Microsoft has on continuing a prolong battle, and Microsoft doesn't enjoy the same worldwide branding recognition or broader distributions channels which Sony enjoys. Rather than both trying to eat each other for lunch, they should be working more closely with each other on reducing game development cost, development length, consumer pricing, and other factors towards growing the gaming industry, especially in the console gaming space. But no, console warriors only want conflict and their particular side to win, but never no middle-ground.

 

[eastmen]

Let's be honest, Sony wants Microsoft gone, as Microsoft wants Sony gone. Wanting each other gone for different reasons. The problem with one getting rid of the other, is that Sony doesn't have the money Microsoft has on continuing a prolong battle, and Microsoft doesn't enjoy the same worldwide branding recognition or broader distributions channels which Sony enjoys. Rather than both trying to eat each other for lunch, they should be working more closely with each other on reducing game development cost, development length, consumer pricing, and other factors towards growing the gaming industry, especially in the console gaming space. But no, console warriors only want conflict and their particular side to win, but never no middle-ground.

Right now MS offers you titles on dedicated hardware like xbox series s/x or pc via steam or windows store/ xbox app. They also offer xcloud through a sub model that lets you play it across andriod/ios / windows and a bunch of other platforms. They are also now starting to allow third parties to stream the software on their platforms.

MS has decreased the consumer pricing while growing consumer choice.

Lets take for example three big games this year, Starfield/Spider-man 2/zelda

For starfield I can play it on an xbox via the s or x. If I don't like the resolution or frame rates or both , I can go ahead and play it on a gaming pc and upgrade my pc if needed. You also have the option to stream it if you don't want a dedicated piece of hardware. You can stream it to your phone or tablet or fire stick or your tv or whatever. Now you have choices there too , you can stream it from xcloud and get the series x experience , you can pay for a premium geforce now experience and run it on a top of the line gaming pc and then there are other options out there for everything in-between. This s is all day one . If you buy it on ms's platform you can switch between xbox /pc/streaming for a single cost

For Spiderman 2 you have a single option which is playstation 5. if you can't afford a ps5 your sol , if the game isn't at the resolution or frame rate you want , well you can't play it on a pc day one. What are the streaming options for a gamer ? There are none.

For zelda its the same thing, you have to buy a switch to play it , if the performance isn't what you want good luck , can't stream it on geforce now on a 4090ti.

So I certainly think MS has been lowering the cost of entry and growing the industry. They are actually giving us a huge amount of choice compared to any other console generation

 

[Nesh]

Let's be honest, Sony wants Microsoft gone, as Microsoft wants Sony gone. Wanting each other gone for different reasons. The problem with one getting rid of the other, is that Sony doesn't have the money Microsoft has on continuing a prolong battle, and Microsoft doesn't enjoy the same worldwide branding recognition or broader distributions channels which Sony enjoys. Rather than both trying to eat each other for lunch, they should be working more closely with each other on reducing game development cost, development length, consumer pricing, and other factors towards growing the gaming industry, especially in the console gaming space. But no, console warriors only want conflict and their particular side to win, but never no middle-ground.

That would have happened if we werent living in capitalism. A competitor is always afraid of another competitor backstabbing them. Only in cartels close collaborations happen between former competitors and that's a collusion against the consumer or against another competitor.

Someone has to pay for the potential profits that companies want to maximize. Either it is a competitor or a consumer or a combination. If the aim was to maximize utility for the market, instead of capital accumulation, such wonderful partnerships would have been common. We wouldnt even have had competition nor monopoly or oligopoly. Only one console with all the content sold at an affordable price and being distributed to as many people as possible.

 

[Tkumpathenurpahl]

That would have happened if we werent living in capitalism. A competitor is always afraid of another competitor backstabbing them. Only in cartels close collaborations happen between former competitors and that's a collusion against the consumer or against another competitor.

Someone has to pay for the potential profits that companies want to maximize. Either it is a competitor or a consumer or a combination. If the aim was to maximize utility for the market, instead of capital accumulation, such wonderful partnerships would have been common. We wouldnt even have had competition nor monopoly or oligopoly. Only one console with all the content sold at an affordable price and being distributed to as many people as possible.

To quote the first two words of Animal Farm: "a fairytale."

 

[see colon]

Someone has to pay for the potential profits that companies want to maximize. Either it is a competitor or a consumer or a combination. If the aim was to maximize utility for the market, instead of capital accumulation, such wonderful partnerships would have been common. We wouldnt even have had competition nor monopoly or oligopoly. Only one console with all the content sold at an affordable price and being distributed to as many people as possible.

That scenario would only require the establishment of a hardware standard. This was the dream of 3DO. Make a system with a licensed, standardized hardware spec much like other forms of media, and let everyone make games for it. Much like a DVD movie plays on any DVD player regardless of brand. Unfortunately, it was a fairytale.

 

[WhiningKhan]

Unfortunately, it was a fairytale.

MSX did it better 10 years earlier.

 

[Nesh]

That scenario would only re7quire the establishment of a hardware standard. This was the dream of 3DO. Make a system with a licensed, standardized hardware spec much like other forms of media, and let everyone make games for it. Much like a DVD movie plays on any DVD player regardless of brand. Unfortunately, it was a fairytale.

That's not what I had in mind. It sounds like what I described but it isnt. It still suffered from all the problems of profiteering. The manufacturers were trying to profit from the hardware, making it unaffordable, while it was still competing with other platforms the same way as any other traditional platform. Now if MS, Sega, Nintendo, 3DO and Sony created a joint venture, shared resources and expenses to create a common hardware and defined software and hardware prices on the real cost and revenue required to keep the business going (instead of a cartel) it would have been closer to what I described. But there is zero incentive to do that.

 

[arandomguy]

That scenario would only require the establishment of a hardware standard. This was the dream of 3DO. Make a system with a licensed, standardized hardware spec much like other forms of media, and let everyone make games for it. Much like a DVD movie plays on any DVD player regardless of brand. Unfortunately, it was a fairytale.

Doesn't this already exists with the PC ecosystem?

The console market has a fundamental accepted practice that that consumers favor (for obvious reasons) yet is inherently any anticompetitive tactic which is predatory pricing below cost (let's also keep in mind real cost, not just accounting/BOM tricks). Any truly open ecosystem in the long run would require the hardware to be actually long term business profitable, but would the current console demographic accept that?

 

[see colon]

Doesn't this already exists with the PC ecosystem?

The console market has a fundamental accepted practice that that consumers favor (for obvious reasons) yet is inherently any anticompetitive tactic which is predatory pricing below cost (let's also keep in mind real cost, not just accounting/BOM tricks). Any truly open ecosystem in the long run would require the hardware to be actually long term business profitable, but would the current console demographic accept that?

Kind of, but the 3DO concept was a fixed hardware platform, unlike PCs which have infinite configurations. Even though games are mostly written for a standard (DirectX for example), the performance profile is wildly different between the hardware. The 3DO variants did have some different features, they still all conformed to the standard put forth by the 3DO company.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Kind of, but the 3DO concept was a fixed hardware platform, unlike PCs which have infinite configurations. Even though games are mostly written for a standard (DirectX for example), the performance profile is wildly different between the hardware. The 3DO variants did have some different features, they still all conformed to the standard put forth by the 3DO company.

Steam attempted this with the Steam Box, but it's difficult to do something like that in the PC market due to consumer expectations of being able to control and upgrade the hardware in your device. And doing that also made it not price competitive with consoles since the hardware makers would need to make a profit on each box sold. At which point, who is the customer for it?

I remember rumors of MS potentially thinking about something like an Xbox spec console for OEMs to manufacture and sell, but the problem arises in how to make it price competitive with other consoles (PlayStation) while incentivizing OEMs to sell it. Sharing the proceeds from game sales makes for less incentive for MS to do that but not doing that means no reasons for OEMs to do it.

Regards,
SB