Less competition is generally bad for consumers. There are exceptions... but in general the more companies that compete the better it is for consumers.
Bad for the job market, too. Less jobs. Less pay for lack of competitive wages.
The market for computer games is extremely competitive, with an enormous number of game developers and very low cost of entry into the market. To the extent that monopoly concerns for the gaming market are even serious, the threat is government restrictions on who can make games, not mergers.
This isn't like a market where there are only four major companies and two want to merge, or it takes billions of dollars to enter the market. Some new game developers are as little as a single person with some talent and ideas.
Well, talk to Amazon's employees and competition in other markets, and see what they think.
Not like this is major game developer like Nintendo trying to buy out a big competitor like SQENIX, more like as if Walmart made a bid for UPS.
I mean sure, AGS is "making" games but are by no means necessarily successful much less dominant in the sector.
So? It was just some comments about the bad effects of monopolies, and even neo-monopolies. Do you see Amazon staying where they are right now, as far as gaming? They have a lot of money at their disposal due to their neo-monopoly on merchandising, and they are reaching out into all things tech. Even space. Should we be concerned about the direction we are going in gaming, and as well the bigger picture?
Amazon dips their toes and then swallows things whole. Just look at their history. Sever hosting, shipping (remember when they were just going to supplement other shippers.. lol... they run about 100 cargo planes now), health (they are working to put online pharmacies out of business). Same will happen here. Maybe it's EA. Maybe it isn't. But they will buy someone big and push to become market dominant.
Some markets naturally lend themselves to monopolies, while others are naturally far more competitive. Being a larger online retailer naturally means that you can offer a better service than a smaller one. If Jeff Bezos had never been born and Amazon had never existed, someone else would have become the dominant online retailer instead of Amazon.
Computer game development doesn't have such network effects. Nor does it have large costs to entry. If Amazon could somehow buy out every single game publisher and developer in the world, then stopped their acquisition spree, within a decade they'd have less than 50% market share of new game sales, and possibly a lot less. It would be a rough several years until new games started by new studios launched to provide competition, but competition would return.
It's also completely impractical for Amazon to buy out everyone else. If they started doing so, then other publishers and developers who hadn't yet been bought would see what was happening and demand more money before they sell. Soon, Amazon would have to pay 2x or 3x the cost to buy another studio as compared to what it would have cost if it had been the first studio they bought. Late holdouts could easily demand 10x or 20x fair market value if they knew that Amazon would pay whatever they asked. People would start new studios just for the sake of getting bought out. Amazon doesn't have nearly enough money to buy them all.
Less competition is generally bad for consumers. There are exceptions... but in general the more companies that compete the better it is for consumers.
Bad for the job market, too. Less jobs. Less pay for lack of competitive wages.
The market for computer games is extremely competitive, with an enormous number of game developers and very low cost of entry into the market. To the extent that monopoly concerns for the gaming market are even serious, the threat is government restrictions on who can make games, not mergers.
This isn't like a market where there are only four major companies and two want to merge, or it takes billions of dollars to enter the market. Some new game developers are as little as a single person with some talent and ideas.
Well, talk to Amazon's employees and competition in other markets, and see what they think.
Not like this is major game developer like Nintendo trying to buy out a big competitor like SQENIX, more like as if Walmart made a bid for UPS.
I mean sure, AGS is "making" games but are by no means necessarily successful much less dominant in the sector.
So? It was just some comments about the bad effects of monopolies, and even neo-monopolies. Do you see Amazon staying where they are right now, as far as gaming? They have a lot of money at their disposal due to their neo-monopoly on merchandising, and they are reaching out into all things tech. Even space. Should we be concerned about the direction we are going in gaming, and as well the bigger picture?
Amazon dips their toes and then swallows things whole. Just look at their history. Sever hosting, shipping (remember when they were just going to supplement other shippers.. lol... they run about 100 cargo planes now), health (they are working to put online pharmacies out of business). Same will happen here. Maybe it's EA. Maybe it isn't. But they will buy someone big and push to become market dominant.
Some markets naturally lend themselves to monopolies, while others are naturally far more competitive. Being a larger online retailer naturally means that you can offer a better service than a smaller one. If Jeff Bezos had never been born and Amazon had never existed, someone else would have become the dominant online retailer instead of Amazon.
Computer game development doesn't have such network effects. Nor does it have large costs to entry. If Amazon could somehow buy out every single game publisher and developer in the world, then stopped their acquisition spree, within a decade they'd have less than 50% market share of new game sales, and possibly a lot less. It would be a rough several years until new games started by new studios launched to provide competition, but competition would return.
It's also completely impractical for Amazon to buy out everyone else. If they started doing so, then other publishers and developers who hadn't yet been bought would see what was happening and demand more money before they sell. Soon, Amazon would have to pay 2x or 3x the cost to buy another studio as compared to what it would have cost if it had been the first studio they bought. Late holdouts could easily demand 10x or 20x fair market value if they knew that Amazon would pay whatever they asked. People would start new studios just for the sake of getting bought out. Amazon doesn't have nearly enough money to buy them all.
I didnt say they would buy everybody. But I said they will go far beyond dipping their toe in the water. They will buy a major player. Maybe more than one. Theer is zero doubt in my mind.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Less competition is generally bad for consumers. There are exceptions... but in general the more companies that compete the better it is for consumers.
Bad for the job market, too. Less jobs. Less pay for lack of competitive wages.
The market for computer games is extremely competitive, with an enormous number of game developers and very low cost of entry into the market. To the extent that monopoly concerns for the gaming market are even serious, the threat is government restrictions on who can make games, not mergers.
This isn't like a market where there are only four major companies and two want to merge, or it takes billions of dollars to enter the market. Some new game developers are as little as a single person with some talent and ideas.
Well, talk to Amazon's employees and competition in other markets, and see what they think.
Not like this is major game developer like Nintendo trying to buy out a big competitor like SQENIX, more like as if Walmart made a bid for UPS.
I mean sure, AGS is "making" games but are by no means necessarily successful much less dominant in the sector.
So? It was just some comments about the bad effects of monopolies, and even neo-monopolies. Do you see Amazon staying where they are right now, as far as gaming? They have a lot of money at their disposal due to their neo-monopoly on merchandising, and they are reaching out into all things tech. Even space. Should we be concerned about the direction we are going in gaming, and as well the bigger picture?
Amazon dips their toes and then swallows things whole. Just look at their history. Sever hosting, shipping (remember when they were just going to supplement other shippers.. lol... they run about 100 cargo planes now), health (they are working to put online pharmacies out of business). Same will happen here. Maybe it's EA. Maybe it isn't. But they will buy someone big and push to become market dominant.
Some markets naturally lend themselves to monopolies, while others are naturally far more competitive. Being a larger online retailer naturally means that you can offer a better service than a smaller one. If Jeff Bezos had never been born and Amazon had never existed, someone else would have become the dominant online retailer instead of Amazon.
Computer game development doesn't have such network effects. Nor does it have large costs to entry. If Amazon could somehow buy out every single game publisher and developer in the world, then stopped their acquisition spree, within a decade they'd have less than 50% market share of new game sales, and possibly a lot less. It would be a rough several years until new games started by new studios launched to provide competition, but competition would return.
It's also completely impractical for Amazon to buy out everyone else. If they started doing so, then other publishers and developers who hadn't yet been bought would see what was happening and demand more money before they sell. Soon, Amazon would have to pay 2x or 3x the cost to buy another studio as compared to what it would have cost if it had been the first studio they bought. Late holdouts could easily demand 10x or 20x fair market value if they knew that Amazon would pay whatever they asked. People would start new studios just for the sake of getting bought out. Amazon doesn't have nearly enough money to buy them all.
I didnt say they would buy everybody. But I said they will go far beyond dipping their toe in the water. They will buy a major player. Maybe more than one. Theer is zero doubt in my mind.
Is that a bad thing if they do?
I mean, any worse than if Tencent or Microsoft did?
I don't hate Amazon...I buy stuff from them when it suits me, watch Prime TV, played a game they distributed.....
Oh, and if they are gathering data on my spending habits....so what?
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Less competition is generally bad for consumers. There are exceptions... but in general the more companies that compete the better it is for consumers.
Bad for the job market, too. Less jobs. Less pay for lack of competitive wages.
The market for computer games is extremely competitive, with an enormous number of game developers and very low cost of entry into the market. To the extent that monopoly concerns for the gaming market are even serious, the threat is government restrictions on who can make games, not mergers.
This isn't like a market where there are only four major companies and two want to merge, or it takes billions of dollars to enter the market. Some new game developers are as little as a single person with some talent and ideas.
Well, talk to Amazon's employees and competition in other markets, and see what they think.
Not like this is major game developer like Nintendo trying to buy out a big competitor like SQENIX, more like as if Walmart made a bid for UPS.
I mean sure, AGS is "making" games but are by no means necessarily successful much less dominant in the sector.
So? It was just some comments about the bad effects of monopolies, and even neo-monopolies. Do you see Amazon staying where they are right now, as far as gaming? They have a lot of money at their disposal due to their neo-monopoly on merchandising, and they are reaching out into all things tech. Even space. Should we be concerned about the direction we are going in gaming, and as well the bigger picture?
Amazon dips their toes and then swallows things whole. Just look at their history. Sever hosting, shipping (remember when they were just going to supplement other shippers.. lol... they run about 100 cargo planes now), health (they are working to put online pharmacies out of business). Same will happen here. Maybe it's EA. Maybe it isn't. But they will buy someone big and push to become market dominant.
Some markets naturally lend themselves to monopolies, while others are naturally far more competitive. Being a larger online retailer naturally means that you can offer a better service than a smaller one. If Jeff Bezos had never been born and Amazon had never existed, someone else would have become the dominant online retailer instead of Amazon.
Computer game development doesn't have such network effects. Nor does it have large costs to entry. If Amazon could somehow buy out every single game publisher and developer in the world, then stopped their acquisition spree, within a decade they'd have less than 50% market share of new game sales, and possibly a lot less. It would be a rough several years until new games started by new studios launched to provide competition, but competition would return.
It's also completely impractical for Amazon to buy out everyone else. If they started doing so, then other publishers and developers who hadn't yet been bought would see what was happening and demand more money before they sell. Soon, Amazon would have to pay 2x or 3x the cost to buy another studio as compared to what it would have cost if it had been the first studio they bought. Late holdouts could easily demand 10x or 20x fair market value if they knew that Amazon would pay whatever they asked. People would start new studios just for the sake of getting bought out. Amazon doesn't have nearly enough money to buy them all.
I didnt say they would buy everybody. But I said they will go far beyond dipping their toe in the water. They will buy a major player. Maybe more than one. Theer is zero doubt in my mind.
Suppose that they don't just buy one major developer or publisher. Suppose that they buy several and end up with 10% of the market. To that I say, so what? If even a really, really big fish has only 10% of the market, then that's a highly competitive market without serious monopoly concerns.
I would like to see them blocked on anti-competitive concerns from buying major players in markets that are naturally far less competitive, such as game stores that sell games other than their own (e.g., Valve, Epic, or GOG), or game engines that get licensed for use other than by the company that made them. The former is already competing somewhat in Amazon's core market of online sales, and the latter creates substantial anti-competitive concerns, especially if Amazon were to require using AWS as Lumberyard does.
But sometimes the system works and mergers that should be blocked do get blocked. See how the FTC unanimously killed Nvidia's attempt at buying ARM, for example.
Less competition is generally bad for consumers. There are exceptions... but in general the more companies that compete the better it is for consumers.
Bad for the job market, too. Less jobs. Less pay for lack of competitive wages.
The market for computer games is extremely competitive, with an enormous number of game developers and very low cost of entry into the market. To the extent that monopoly concerns for the gaming market are even serious, the threat is government restrictions on who can make games, not mergers.
This isn't like a market where there are only four major companies and two want to merge, or it takes billions of dollars to enter the market. Some new game developers are as little as a single person with some talent and ideas.
Well, talk to Amazon's employees and competition in other markets, and see what they think.
Not like this is major game developer like Nintendo trying to buy out a big competitor like SQENIX, more like as if Walmart made a bid for UPS.
I mean sure, AGS is "making" games but are by no means necessarily successful much less dominant in the sector.
So? It was just some comments about the bad effects of monopolies, and even neo-monopolies. Do you see Amazon staying where they are right now, as far as gaming? They have a lot of money at their disposal due to their neo-monopoly on merchandising, and they are reaching out into all things tech. Even space. Should we be concerned about the direction we are going in gaming, and as well the bigger picture?
Amazon dips their toes and then swallows things whole. Just look at their history. Sever hosting, shipping (remember when they were just going to supplement other shippers.. lol... they run about 100 cargo planes now), health (they are working to put online pharmacies out of business). Same will happen here. Maybe it's EA. Maybe it isn't. But they will buy someone big and push to become market dominant.
Some markets naturally lend themselves to monopolies, while others are naturally far more competitive. Being a larger online retailer naturally means that you can offer a better service than a smaller one. If Jeff Bezos had never been born and Amazon had never existed, someone else would have become the dominant online retailer instead of Amazon.
Computer game development doesn't have such network effects. Nor does it have large costs to entry. If Amazon could somehow buy out every single game publisher and developer in the world, then stopped their acquisition spree, within a decade they'd have less than 50% market share of new game sales, and possibly a lot less. It would be a rough several years until new games started by new studios launched to provide competition, but competition would return.
It's also completely impractical for Amazon to buy out everyone else. If they started doing so, then other publishers and developers who hadn't yet been bought would see what was happening and demand more money before they sell. Soon, Amazon would have to pay 2x or 3x the cost to buy another studio as compared to what it would have cost if it had been the first studio they bought. Late holdouts could easily demand 10x or 20x fair market value if they knew that Amazon would pay whatever they asked. People would start new studios just for the sake of getting bought out. Amazon doesn't have nearly enough money to buy them all.
I didnt say they would buy everybody. But I said they will go far beyond dipping their toe in the water. They will buy a major player. Maybe more than one. Theer is zero doubt in my mind.
Suppose that they don't just buy one major developer or publisher. Suppose that they buy several and end up with 10% of the market. To that I say, so what? If even a really, really big fish has only 10% of the market, then that's a highly competitive market without serious monopoly concerns.
I would like to see them blocked on anti-competitive concerns from buying major players in markets that are naturally far less competitive, such as game stores that sell games other than their own (e.g., Valve, Epic, or GOG), or game engines that get licensed for use other than by the company that made them. The former is already competing somewhat in Amazon's core market of online sales, and the latter creates substantial anti-competitive concerns, especially if Amazon were to require using AWS as Lumberyard does.
But sometimes the system works and mergers that should be blocked do get blocked. See how the FTC unanimously killed Nvidia's attempt at buying ARM, for example.
We will see. Do not discount the power and influence that AWS brings to the discussion though.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Less competition is generally bad for consumers. There are exceptions... but in general the more companies that compete the better it is for consumers.
Bad for the job market, too. Less jobs. Less pay for lack of competitive wages.
The market for computer games is extremely competitive, with an enormous number of game developers and very low cost of entry into the market. To the extent that monopoly concerns for the gaming market are even serious, the threat is government restrictions on who can make games, not mergers.
This isn't like a market where there are only four major companies and two want to merge, or it takes billions of dollars to enter the market. Some new game developers are as little as a single person with some talent and ideas.
Well, talk to Amazon's employees and competition in other markets, and see what they think.
Not like this is major game developer like Nintendo trying to buy out a big competitor like SQENIX, more like as if Walmart made a bid for UPS.
I mean sure, AGS is "making" games but are by no means necessarily successful much less dominant in the sector.
So? It was just some comments about the bad effects of monopolies, and even neo-monopolies. Do you see Amazon staying where they are right now, as far as gaming? They have a lot of money at their disposal due to their neo-monopoly on merchandising, and they are reaching out into all things tech. Even space. Should we be concerned about the direction we are going in gaming, and as well the bigger picture?
Amazon dips their toes and then swallows things whole. Just look at their history. Sever hosting, shipping (remember when they were just going to supplement other shippers.. lol... they run about 100 cargo planes now), health (they are working to put online pharmacies out of business). Same will happen here. Maybe it's EA. Maybe it isn't. But they will buy someone big and push to become market dominant.
Some markets naturally lend themselves to monopolies, while others are naturally far more competitive. Being a larger online retailer naturally means that you can offer a better service than a smaller one. If Jeff Bezos had never been born and Amazon had never existed, someone else would have become the dominant online retailer instead of Amazon.
Computer game development doesn't have such network effects. Nor does it have large costs to entry. If Amazon could somehow buy out every single game publisher and developer in the world, then stopped their acquisition spree, within a decade they'd have less than 50% market share of new game sales, and possibly a lot less. It would be a rough several years until new games started by new studios launched to provide competition, but competition would return.
It's also completely impractical for Amazon to buy out everyone else. If they started doing so, then other publishers and developers who hadn't yet been bought would see what was happening and demand more money before they sell. Soon, Amazon would have to pay 2x or 3x the cost to buy another studio as compared to what it would have cost if it had been the first studio they bought. Late holdouts could easily demand 10x or 20x fair market value if they knew that Amazon would pay whatever they asked. People would start new studios just for the sake of getting bought out. Amazon doesn't have nearly enough money to buy them all.
I didnt say they would buy everybody. But I said they will go far beyond dipping their toe in the water. They will buy a major player. Maybe more than one. Theer is zero doubt in my mind.
Suppose that they don't just buy one major developer or publisher. Suppose that they buy several and end up with 10% of the market. To that I say, so what? If even a really, really big fish has only 10% of the market, then that's a highly competitive market without serious monopoly concerns.
I would like to see them blocked on anti-competitive concerns from buying major players in markets that are naturally far less competitive, such as game stores that sell games other than their own (e.g., Valve, Epic, or GOG), or game engines that get licensed for use other than by the company that made them. The former is already competing somewhat in Amazon's core market of online sales, and the latter creates substantial anti-competitive concerns, especially if Amazon were to require using AWS as Lumberyard does.
But sometimes the system works and mergers that should be blocked do get blocked. See how the FTC unanimously killed Nvidia's attempt at buying ARM, for example.
We will see. Do not discount the power and influence that AWS brings to the discussion though.
Firm I work for hired away a bunch of bright Amazon Tech Execs, we fear no AWS.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Some markets naturally lend themselves to monopolies, while others are naturally far more competitive. Being a larger online retailer naturally means that you can offer a better service than a smaller one. If Jeff Bezos had never been born and Amazon had never existed, someone else would have become the dominant online retailer instead of Amazon.
Computer game development doesn't have such network effects. Nor does it have large costs to entry. If Amazon could somehow buy out every single game publisher and developer in the world, then stopped their acquisition spree, within a decade they'd have less than 50% market share of new game sales, and possibly a lot less. It would be a rough several years until new games started by new studios launched to provide competition, but competition would return.
It's also completely impractical for Amazon to buy out everyone else. If they started doing so, then other publishers and developers who hadn't yet been bought would see what was happening and demand more money before they sell. Soon, Amazon would have to pay 2x or 3x the cost to buy another studio as compared to what it would have cost if it had been the first studio they bought. Late holdouts could easily demand 10x or 20x fair market value if they knew that Amazon would pay whatever they asked. People would start new studios just for the sake of getting bought out. Amazon doesn't have nearly enough money to buy them all.
I didnt say they would buy everybody. But I said they will go far beyond dipping their toe in the water. They will buy a major player. Maybe more than one. Theer is zero doubt in my mind.
Suppose that they don't just buy one major developer or publisher. Suppose that they buy several and end up with 10% of the market. To that I say, so what? If even a really, really big fish has only 10% of the market, then that's a highly competitive market without serious monopoly concerns.
I would like to see them blocked on anti-competitive concerns from buying major players in markets that are naturally far less competitive, such as game stores that sell games other than their own (e.g., Valve, Epic, or GOG), or game engines that get licensed for use other than by the company that made them. The former is already competing somewhat in Amazon's core market of online sales, and the latter creates substantial anti-competitive concerns, especially if Amazon were to require using AWS as Lumberyard does.
But sometimes the system works and mergers that should be blocked do get blocked. See how the FTC unanimously killed Nvidia's attempt at buying ARM, for example.
We will see. Do not discount the power and influence that AWS brings to the discussion though.
That's why there are monopoly concerns over things that could get vertically integrated with AWS. You don't want Amazon to buy a major game engine and then tell developers, in order to use AWS, you must use our engine, or that in order to use our engine, you must use AWS. That sort of things presents serious monopoly concerns.
But merely buying a normal game developer or publisher does not. If anti-monopoly rules are to be serious, you can't be stupid about it. Some mergers or acquisitions simply don't present any plausible monopoly concerns, and thus shouldn't be blocked on anti-competitive grounds.
Let's see.... everyone hates Amazon Games and everyone hates EA and now they will merge into one...... Hmmm, I can't comprehend the amount of hate the company will have now! Is despise a good word for it? lol
The Golden Poop Award will be upgraded to straight out diarrhea.
Less competition is generally bad for consumers. There are exceptions... but in general the more companies that compete the better it is for consumers.
Bad for the job market, too. Less jobs. Less pay for lack of competitive wages.
The market for computer games is extremely competitive, with an enormous number of game developers and very low cost of entry into the market. To the extent that monopoly concerns for the gaming market are even serious, the threat is government restrictions on who can make games, not mergers.
This isn't like a market where there are only four major companies and two want to merge, or it takes billions of dollars to enter the market. Some new game developers are as little as a single person with some talent and ideas.
Well, talk to Amazon's employees and competition in other markets, and see what they think.
Not like this is major game developer like Nintendo trying to buy out a big competitor like SQENIX, more like as if Walmart made a bid for UPS.
I mean sure, AGS is "making" games but are by no means necessarily successful much less dominant in the sector.
So? It was just some comments about the bad effects of monopolies, and even neo-monopolies. Do you see Amazon staying where they are right now, as far as gaming? They have a lot of money at their disposal due to their neo-monopoly on merchandising, and they are reaching out into all things tech. Even space. Should we be concerned about the direction we are going in gaming, and as well the bigger picture?
Amazon dips their toes and then swallows things whole. Just look at their history. Sever hosting, shipping (remember when they were just going to supplement other shippers.. lol... they run about 100 cargo planes now), health (they are working to put online pharmacies out of business). Same will happen here. Maybe it's EA. Maybe it isn't. But they will buy someone big and push to become market dominant.
Some markets naturally lend themselves to monopolies, while others are naturally far more competitive. Being a larger online retailer naturally means that you can offer a better service than a smaller one. If Jeff Bezos had never been born and Amazon had never existed, someone else would have become the dominant online retailer instead of Amazon.
Computer game development doesn't have such network effects. Nor does it have large costs to entry. If Amazon could somehow buy out every single game publisher and developer in the world, then stopped their acquisition spree, within a decade they'd have less than 50% market share of new game sales, and possibly a lot less. It would be a rough several years until new games started by new studios launched to provide competition, but competition would return.
It's also completely impractical for Amazon to buy out everyone else. If they started doing so, then other publishers and developers who hadn't yet been bought would see what was happening and demand more money before they sell. Soon, Amazon would have to pay 2x or 3x the cost to buy another studio as compared to what it would have cost if it had been the first studio they bought. Late holdouts could easily demand 10x or 20x fair market value if they knew that Amazon would pay whatever they asked. People would start new studios just for the sake of getting bought out. Amazon doesn't have nearly enough money to buy them all.
You cant possibly know what market share they can get down the road. You think game software development is somehow different than OS software development? Ever hear of a company called Microsoft that dominates for a few decades with OS software development?
Its obvious Amazon is looking to bundle this gaming software on their platform with Prime, probably going to make a game pass situation. Once there is only 1 or 2 major platforms with massive bundles, it will be hard for little guys to get listed and they will just be nudged out which is exactly what Amazon has been doing for all the small businesses on their platform now, Amazon takes over the hot selling products and kicks the original creators to the curb. Walmart does the exact same thing, they start taking all the products inhouse on their own label, you sell to them for peanuts or you pack your bags.
This is exactly what monopolies do. Not really that hard to see.
[...] You think game software development is somehow different than OS software development? [...]
Yes of course operating system development is different from gaming software development, who would even ask such a stupid question ?
Good luck using a game designer to write operating software code. Game designers are artists, not software programmers. They might at best write some scripts, but thats about it. They dont actually code the engine.
For creating a modern game, you need like 5 programmers for the engine and hundreds of game designers to create the textures, animations, sounds etc. And of course the story behind it.
[...] You think game software development is somehow different than OS software development? [...]
Yes of course operating system development is different from gaming software development, who would even ask such a stupid question ?
Good luck using a game designer to write operating software code. Game designers are artists, not software programmers. They might at best write some scripts, but thats about it. They dont actually code the engine.
For creating a modern game, you need like 5 programmers for the engine and hundreds of game designers to create the textures, animations, sounds etc. And of course the story behind it.
You think the company Microsoft does not have any texture, animations or sound? Clue up geez.
People programming games come from the same degrees and schools as any other industry programmers. You are trying to split a hair but failing.
Are you saying its impossible for a OS programmer to be a game designer or vice versa? Get real.
Anyways you missed the entire point I was making. In that the "Gaming Industry" can be dominated like any other industry, nothing makes it special or immune to monopolization.
Just to add to this, one of the most popular games EVER was made by a software engineer that worked for GUESS WHO, MICROSOFT.
So? It was just some comments about the bad effects of monopolies, and even neo-monopolies. Do you see Amazon staying where they are right now, as far as gaming? They have a lot of money at their disposal due to their neo-monopoly on merchandising, and they are reaching out into all things tech. Even space. Should we be concerned about the direction we are going in gaming, and as well the bigger picture?
Amazon dips their toes and then swallows things whole. Just look at their history. Sever hosting, shipping (remember when they were just going to supplement other shippers.. lol... they run about 100 cargo planes now), health (they are working to put online pharmacies out of business). Same will happen here. Maybe it's EA. Maybe it isn't. But they will buy someone big and push to become market dominant.
Some markets naturally lend themselves to monopolies, while others are naturally far more competitive. Being a larger online retailer naturally means that you can offer a better service than a smaller one. If Jeff Bezos had never been born and Amazon had never existed, someone else would have become the dominant online retailer instead of Amazon.
Computer game development doesn't have such network effects. Nor does it have large costs to entry. If Amazon could somehow buy out every single game publisher and developer in the world, then stopped their acquisition spree, within a decade they'd have less than 50% market share of new game sales, and possibly a lot less. It would be a rough several years until new games started by new studios launched to provide competition, but competition would return.
It's also completely impractical for Amazon to buy out everyone else. If they started doing so, then other publishers and developers who hadn't yet been bought would see what was happening and demand more money before they sell. Soon, Amazon would have to pay 2x or 3x the cost to buy another studio as compared to what it would have cost if it had been the first studio they bought. Late holdouts could easily demand 10x or 20x fair market value if they knew that Amazon would pay whatever they asked. People would start new studios just for the sake of getting bought out. Amazon doesn't have nearly enough money to buy them all.
You cant possibly know what market share they can get down the road. You think game software development is somehow different than OS software development? Ever hear of a company called Microsoft that dominates for a few decades with OS software development?
Its obvious Amazon is looking to bundle this gaming software on their platform with Prime, probably going to make a game pass situation. Once there is only 1 or 2 major platforms with massive bundles, it will be hard for little guys to get listed and they will just be nudged out which is exactly what Amazon has been doing for all the small businesses on their platform now, Amazon takes over the hot selling products and kicks the original creators to the curb. Walmart does the exact same thing, they start taking all the products inhouse on their own label, you sell to them for peanuts or you pack your bags.
This is exactly what monopolies do. Not really that hard to see.
Well of course game development is very different from operating system development. The operating system market naturally leads to monopolies. Very few people want more than one operating system for a given form factor. Furthermore, you're probably going to use whatever operating system it seems like every one else is using, as that's going to be the one that has the software support and driver support that you want.
The market for operating systems being a natural monopoly is such a strong tendency that when a new entrant that becomes a major competitor is likely to kill off the former market leader entirely, not just supplement it. Remember when HPCs ran on Windows? Now it's all Linux. Remember when the major operating systems for smart phones were made by BlackBerry and Palm?
The market for computer games is pretty much the opposite of that. Few gamers want to play just one game and stick with it forever. Furthermore, if a game whether a game is very popular or not has little bearing on whether you enjoy the game or not. People can play and enjoy thousands of different games at once, and even a given person may play dozens or hundreds of games over the years.
Furthermore, it's very hard to break into the market for operating systems. It takes an enormous software investment, then extensive subsidies for hardware and software to try to get enough of an ecosystem to be viable. You pretty much have to spend billions of dollars just to have a chance, and even if you do, you might still completely fail. Remember Windows Phone?
In contrast, it's very easy to break into the market for computer games--much easier than it was a few decades ago, even. No-budget indie games made by a single person can get listed on Steam and be available to millions. Most low-budget indie games deservedly languish in obscurity, but a handful catch fire and become huge hits. And even those that don't become huge hits can still have their own niche of fans.
So? It was just some comments about the bad effects of monopolies, and even neo-monopolies. Do you see Amazon staying where they are right now, as far as gaming? They have a lot of money at their disposal due to their neo-monopoly on merchandising, and they are reaching out into all things tech. Even space. Should we be concerned about the direction we are going in gaming, and as well the bigger picture?
Amazon dips their toes and then swallows things whole. Just look at their history. Sever hosting, shipping (remember when they were just going to supplement other shippers.. lol... they run about 100 cargo planes now), health (they are working to put online pharmacies out of business). Same will happen here. Maybe it's EA. Maybe it isn't. But they will buy someone big and push to become market dominant.
Some markets naturally lend themselves to monopolies, while others are naturally far more competitive. Being a larger online retailer naturally means that you can offer a better service than a smaller one. If Jeff Bezos had never been born and Amazon had never existed, someone else would have become the dominant online retailer instead of Amazon.
Computer game development doesn't have such network effects. Nor does it have large costs to entry. If Amazon could somehow buy out every single game publisher and developer in the world, then stopped their acquisition spree, within a decade they'd have less than 50% market share of new game sales, and possibly a lot less. It would be a rough several years until new games started by new studios launched to provide competition, but competition would return.
It's also completely impractical for Amazon to buy out everyone else. If they started doing so, then other publishers and developers who hadn't yet been bought would see what was happening and demand more money before they sell. Soon, Amazon would have to pay 2x or 3x the cost to buy another studio as compared to what it would have cost if it had been the first studio they bought. Late holdouts could easily demand 10x or 20x fair market value if they knew that Amazon would pay whatever they asked. People would start new studios just for the sake of getting bought out. Amazon doesn't have nearly enough money to buy them all.
You cant possibly know what market share they can get down the road. You think game software development is somehow different than OS software development? Ever hear of a company called Microsoft that dominates for a few decades with OS software development?
Its obvious Amazon is looking to bundle this gaming software on their platform with Prime, probably going to make a game pass situation. Once there is only 1 or 2 major platforms with massive bundles, it will be hard for little guys to get listed and they will just be nudged out which is exactly what Amazon has been doing for all the small businesses on their platform now, Amazon takes over the hot selling products and kicks the original creators to the curb. Walmart does the exact same thing, they start taking all the products inhouse on their own label, you sell to them for peanuts or you pack your bags.
This is exactly what monopolies do. Not really that hard to see.
Well of course game development is very different from operating system development. The operating system market naturally leads to monopolies. Very few people want more than one operating system for a given form factor. Furthermore, you're probably going to use whatever operating system it seems like every one else is using, as that's going to be the one that has the software support and driver support that you want.
The market for operating systems being a natural monopoly is such a strong tendency that when a new entrant that becomes a major competitor is likely to kill off the former market leader entirely, not just supplement it. Remember when HPCs ran on Windows? Now it's all Linux. Remember when the major operating systems for smart phones were made by BlackBerry and Palm?
The market for computer games is pretty much the opposite of that. Few gamers want to play just one game and stick with it forever. Furthermore, if a game whether a game is very popular or not has little bearing on whether you enjoy the game or not. People can play and enjoy thousands of different games at once, and even a given person may play dozens or hundreds of games over the years.
Furthermore, it's very hard to break into the market for operating systems. It takes an enormous software investment, then extensive subsidies for hardware and software to try to get enough of an ecosystem to be viable. You pretty much have to spend billions of dollars just to have a chance, and even if you do, you might still completely fail. Remember Windows Phone?
In contrast, it's very easy to break into the market for computer games--much easier than it was a few decades ago, even. No-budget indie games made by a single person can get listed on Steam and be available to millions. Most low-budget indie games deservedly languish in obscurity, but a handful catch fire and become huge hits. And even those that don't become huge hits can still have their own niche of fans.
I get you want to give a history lesson of what has happened. Ummm Duh, I know that OS industry can be monopolized, its already happened, that's pretty much a no brainer. If you would have actually predicted and acted on that knowledge BEFORE it happened, you could have been one of the richest people in the world.
The problem is predicting what future industry that is currently very diversified will be monopolized, that's extremely hard to know. You have ZERO ability to know for a fact that Amazon couldn't control the gaming universe in the future if allowed too.
One thing is almost for certain however, is that in the long term, less choices to customers is bad for customers. Its foolish to think its impossible for Amazon to control a huge portion of the gaming industry in the future. Will it happen? Who knows, they sure have the means and money to do it if anyone can.
Comments
Computer game development doesn't have such network effects. Nor does it have large costs to entry. If Amazon could somehow buy out every single game publisher and developer in the world, then stopped their acquisition spree, within a decade they'd have less than 50% market share of new game sales, and possibly a lot less. It would be a rough several years until new games started by new studios launched to provide competition, but competition would return.
It's also completely impractical for Amazon to buy out everyone else. If they started doing so, then other publishers and developers who hadn't yet been bought would see what was happening and demand more money before they sell. Soon, Amazon would have to pay 2x or 3x the cost to buy another studio as compared to what it would have cost if it had been the first studio they bought. Late holdouts could easily demand 10x or 20x fair market value if they knew that Amazon would pay whatever they asked. People would start new studios just for the sake of getting bought out. Amazon doesn't have nearly enough money to buy them all.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
I mean, any worse than if Tencent or Microsoft did?
I don't hate Amazon...I buy stuff from them when it suits me, watch Prime TV, played a game they distributed.....
Oh, and if they are gathering data on my spending habits....so what?
I hide in plain sight.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I would like to see them blocked on anti-competitive concerns from buying major players in markets that are naturally far less competitive, such as game stores that sell games other than their own (e.g., Valve, Epic, or GOG), or game engines that get licensed for use other than by the company that made them. The former is already competing somewhat in Amazon's core market of online sales, and the latter creates substantial anti-competitive concerns, especially if Amazon were to require using AWS as Lumberyard does.
But sometimes the system works and mergers that should be blocked do get blocked. See how the FTC unanimously killed Nvidia's attempt at buying ARM, for example.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
But merely buying a normal game developer or publisher does not. If anti-monopoly rules are to be serious, you can't be stupid about it. Some mergers or acquisitions simply don't present any plausible monopoly concerns, and thus shouldn't be blocked on anti-competitive grounds.
The Golden Poop Award will be upgraded to straight out diarrhea.
Look for Amazon Games service coming to your computer SOON!!!
Something like this would make more sense to me than other theories.
Its obvious Amazon is looking to bundle this gaming software on their platform with Prime, probably going to make a game pass situation. Once there is only 1 or 2 major platforms with massive bundles, it will be hard for little guys to get listed and they will just be nudged out which is exactly what Amazon has been doing for all the small businesses on their platform now, Amazon takes over the hot selling products and kicks the original creators to the curb. Walmart does the exact same thing, they start taking all the products inhouse on their own label, you sell to them for peanuts or you pack your bags.
This is exactly what monopolies do. Not really that hard to see.
Good luck using a game designer to write operating software code. Game designers are artists, not software programmers. They might at best write some scripts, but thats about it. They dont actually code the engine.
For creating a modern game, you need like 5 programmers for the engine and hundreds of game designers to create the textures, animations, sounds etc. And of course the story behind it.
They a hundred percent deserve each other.
Now if you could also get people to stop using Amazon or buying EA games, that would be the crown.
People programming games come from the same degrees and schools as any other industry programmers. You are trying to split a hair but failing.
Are you saying its impossible for a OS programmer to be a game designer or vice versa? Get real.
Anyways you missed the entire point I was making. In that the "Gaming Industry" can be dominated like any other industry, nothing makes it special or immune to monopolization.
Just to add to this, one of the most popular games EVER was made by a software engineer that worked for GUESS WHO, MICROSOFT.
The market for operating systems being a natural monopoly is such a strong tendency that when a new entrant that becomes a major competitor is likely to kill off the former market leader entirely, not just supplement it. Remember when HPCs ran on Windows? Now it's all Linux. Remember when the major operating systems for smart phones were made by BlackBerry and Palm?
The market for computer games is pretty much the opposite of that. Few gamers want to play just one game and stick with it forever. Furthermore, if a game whether a game is very popular or not has little bearing on whether you enjoy the game or not. People can play and enjoy thousands of different games at once, and even a given person may play dozens or hundreds of games over the years.
Furthermore, it's very hard to break into the market for operating systems. It takes an enormous software investment, then extensive subsidies for hardware and software to try to get enough of an ecosystem to be viable. You pretty much have to spend billions of dollars just to have a chance, and even if you do, you might still completely fail. Remember Windows Phone?
In contrast, it's very easy to break into the market for computer games--much easier than it was a few decades ago, even. No-budget indie games made by a single person can get listed on Steam and be available to millions. Most low-budget indie games deservedly languish in obscurity, but a handful catch fire and become huge hits. And even those that don't become huge hits can still have their own niche of fans.
I get you want to give a history lesson of what has happened. Ummm Duh, I know that OS industry can be monopolized, its already happened, that's pretty much a no brainer. If you would have actually predicted and acted on that knowledge BEFORE it happened, you could have been one of the richest people in the world.
The problem is predicting what future industry that is currently very diversified will be monopolized, that's extremely hard to know. You have ZERO ability to know for a fact that Amazon couldn't control the gaming universe in the future if allowed too.
One thing is almost for certain however, is that in the long term, less choices to customers is bad for customers. Its foolish to think its impossible for Amazon to control a huge portion of the gaming industry in the future. Will it happen? Who knows, they sure have the means and money to do it if anyone can.