• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Google agreed to pay $360 mln to Activision to stop competition, Epic Games alleges

It is because the stores would compete for lower cuts. It might ultimately not lower prices for the consumer and the studio/publisher get a bigger cut though.

That's not really driving competition then since the savings in store royalties are almost never passed along to the consumer.
 

reksveks

Member
That's not really driving competition then since the savings in store royalties are almost never passed along to the consumer.
There is three parties here, it's competition for the 'producers' aka publishers/devs that would be increased.

You could be right if you are arguing that competition for consumers hasn't increased (obviously as a consumer, that's what you primarily care about) but to say there is 'no change in competition' to me is an oversimplification however it has been how the courts/governments have been looking at it largely.
 
There is three parties here, it's competition for the 'producers' aka publishers/devs that would be increased.

You could be right if you are arguing that competition for consumers hasn't increased (obviously as a consumer, that's what you primarily care about) but to say there is 'no change in competition' to me is an oversimplification however it has been how the courts/governments have been looking at it largely.

To me, this is all that matters.

The context of the discussion is how this may help MS's case for buying Activision. But if regulators see competition as ultimately driving down costs for consumers then this won't help their case. That's my point.
 
Last edited:

reksveks

Member
To me, this is all that matters.

The context of the discussion is how this may help MS's case for buying Activision. But if regulators see competition as ultimately driving down costs for consumers then this won't help their case. That's my point.
Governments and regulators are looking at market competition in new ways imo, see the ftc decision around penguin and random house etc.

https://ncjolt.org/blogs/lina-khan-wants-to-change-the-antitrust-argument-against-big-tech/

I think the link to the MS case is minimal, said it in an earlier post.
 
Governments and regulators are looking at market competition in new ways imo, see the ftc decision around penguin and random house etc.

https://ncjolt.org/blogs/lina-khan-wants-to-change-the-antitrust-argument-against-big-tech/

I think the link to the MS case is minimal, said it in an earlier post.

Competition in different markets can mean different things, yes. But I don't think that the FTC and international regulators are going to start redefining competition in the gaming market that still largely exists as a major consumer product and service industry.
 
Last edited:

reksveks

Member
Competition in different markets can mean different things, yes. But I don't think that the FTC and international regulators are going to start redefining competition in the gaming market that still largely exists as a major consumer product and service industry.
It's not about specific markets, its about the viewpoint/priorities of the regulators and how they are looking at harm. The issue with just looking at the prices paid by consumer then you could be missing harm in other places.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Brandeis_movement

It's not related to games being different to books.
 
Last edited:

lukilladog

Member
"More money going to developers, better games."

el-risitas-juan-joya-borja.gif
 
Didn’t epic lose money from their store because of exclusives or free games or whatever?

Also all these people calling for competing app stores. Enjoy signing up to multiple ones because every company is going to want their own store to have your data and payment details.
 
Top Bottom