The Monopoly Discussions [2021]

[Deleted member 11852]

What kind of "driver" would that be?

I was replying to your comment. This one!! Am I the only one of us reading what you write!?!

 

[tuna]

I was replying to your comment. This one!! Am I the only one of us reading what you write!?!

I wrote: "You make a driver to interface with a piece of hardware, not to run a specific program." You wrote that you can make a driver for "applications".

So I ask again, what kind of "driver" would that be? What would that "driver" actually do?

 

[Deleted member 13524]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law#Monopoly_and_power

First, the alleged monopolist must possess sufficient power in an accurately defined market for its products or services. Second, the monopolist must have used its power in a prohibited way. The categories of prohibited conduct are not closed, and are contested in theory. Historically they have been held to include exclusive dealing, price discrimination, refusing to supply an essential facility, product tying and predatory pricing.

Buying a publisher with all their gaming IPs to block a competitor product out of getting access to those IPs definitely falls under product tying.
This might also be the reason why Microsoft is apparently considering launching at least the most popular Bethesda IPs on the Playstation (Doom, Elder Scrolls, Fallout, ...?) after a timed exclusivity. Could also be the reason we have e.g. Minecraft on the PS4.
Following this logic, I think it's perfectly possible we'll never see Starfield on the PS5, considering it's a new IP with no precedent.

Microsoft is very obviously under the authorities' radar for monopolistic practices, all the time. For starters, it's always within the top 5 most valuable companies in the world and those are always under tight scrutiny. Secondly, because they have a history of being charged with monopolistic practices and repeat offenders are usually an easier case for the accusation.
It's also the company that the FTC's official page shows as an example for the definition of monopolization.




That said, I don't think Microsoft will just keep buying studios non-stop because they're rich. Microsoft didn't get where they are by acting like spoiled brats who splurge their parents' money, and buying whole publishers while they're at top performance isn't that good of a deal (otherwise it would happen more often).
Purchasing Zenimax didn't just mean the massive initial investment of $7.5B. After the acquisition, Microsoft will also have to pay the salaries of all the ~2500 workers they don't fire (which according to the news should be almost everyone) plus the all their office rentals, utilities, license renewals, new equipment, etc. We're probably looking at well over $250M a year.

As I mentioned before I do prefer Microsoft on top of Bethesda's IPs over the bean counters at Zenimax, but Phil Spencer will now be under a massive pressure to recover those $7.5B under a certain time span. If this fails, Satia Nadella and the rest of the board will start closing down the studios that don't make money, whatever they are. The announcement of bringing the Elder Scrolls VI development forward doesn't just come because "gamers want it".

 

[Deleted member 11852]

I wrote: "You make a driver to interface with a piece of hardware, not to run a specific program." You wrote that you can make a driver for "applications".

So I ask again, what kind of "driver" would that be? What would that "driver" actually do?

No, I didn't say that, I said the opposite. This was the exchange:

Liams: How much of an uproar would there be if game dev made an ultra super amazing driver that didn't use the windows driver API, that only supported their own game that completely broke every 6 months with each windows update?

Tuna: You make a driver to interface with a piece of hardware, not to run a specific program. There have been a lot of cases when drivers for one version of Windows do not work on later versions.

DSoup: Not to mention on Windows it's impossible [for applications/games] to directly access the hardware, which is kind of the point. Some of the stuff being posted here is just ignorant lunacy.

 

[Ethatron]

Windows is pretty much the last closed operating system. Ask yourself, why doesn't Microsoft open it up? Think about this in the context of the last page of this thread. If you can't work it, I don't know what to tell you.

Well, to some degree that's correct.

I guess it's a bit difficult, because what OS means. Is it only the kernel, is it the kernel + all the toolkits (APIs), and plus all the drivers? Not sure where you draw the line.

OS X is build on the mach kernel, which is absolutely open-source: https://github.com/apple/darwin-xnu
So, you don't have libs/toolkit/AP interfaces as sources, which is a big bummer. But, you can iterate over the kernel and make a better one and even publish it. A good kernel is an opportunity for some.

Android also open-source: https://source.android.com
You get everything you wish for, and can basically substitute a Linux install with an Android install. What you don't get is Google's "private" code in the apps. When a chinese phonemaker was threadened by US sanctions, they announced to just ship a "custom" Android, which is allowed and possible.

Chrome OS is also open-source: https://www.chromium.org/chromium-os
And it mostly comes ready-to-go, although the OS is kind of comparable to BeOS in a way (LOL, regarding adoption). Same sharing and specialization as with Android is happening (public foundation, private firmware stuff and tools/apps)

So, Microsoft published the Windows NT sources on MSDN for learning, they certainly didn't allow the modification and distribution of it to anyone. No recent update that I know of. And that's basically it.

In a way Windows is the least free, and also least open [source] operating system. But OS X is not far behind. The other OSs are fairly free and open.

 

[dobwal]

As I already stated before MS in 90s and early 2000s is different from the current one because it has no monopoly in anything. What competition MS had in 2000s? It had even a good share of mobile market.


I know the topic about breaking tech - usually means Google, Amazon, Facebook and Apple. It is just the concerns about MS monopoly started to appear across gaming (specifically) community more since the purchase of Bethesda. These days MS is not a monopoly in anything in any market and nowhere close to it. Maybe Office only?

There is no MS monopoly appearing across gaming. Does MS own the majority of the console market? Does MS publish or develop the majority of games that appear on either consoles or PC? Are the majority of PC and console games sold through its stores?

To run afoul you don't even need a monopoly, you just have a heavy influence on a market and use it to negatively affect customers in some way either directly or through the harm of other competitors.

What evidence do we have of that negative influence?

MS would need to buy a ton more publishers or devs before any gov't became honestly concerned about the potential of MS harming consumers. EA, Ubisoft, Take2, Activision, Sony, Nintendo and Apple are all major publishers.

And technically the biggest pub in the world is Tencent. Tencent makes more from games in a quarter than EA does all year.

 

[HLJ]

Windows is not a "closed garden" like the ones Apple or Sony has created, so this monopoly debate is hilarious to read for me...

 

[PSman1700]

Its kinda clear here what companies next gen console gabe newell thinks is better. He has no stake in it, he claims.

 

[eastmen]

There is no MS monopoly appearing across gaming. Does MS own the majority of the console market? Does MS publish or develop the majority of games that appear on either consoles or PC? Are the majority of PC and console games sold through its stores?

To run afoul you don't even need a monopoly, you just have a heavy influence on a market and use it to negatively affect customers in some way either directly or through the harm of other competitors.

What evidence do we have of that negative influence?

MS would need to buy a ton more publishers or devs before any gov't became honestly concerned about the potential of MS harming consumers. EA, Ubisoft, Take2, Activision, Sony, Nintendo and Apple are all major publishers.

And technically the biggest pub in the world is Tencent. Tencent makes more from games in a quarter than EA does all year.

MS would have to stop Epic game store , steam and a host of other clients from even being able to install before anyone can claim they have a monopoly. At this point they even publish their titles on steam.