Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

If consoles are sold at loss to gain "monopoly power", then that is anti competitive and should not be allowed. This would lead (or maybe already resulted) to pathetic printer and ink cartridge situation


I'm ambivalent about consoles.

However, for the consoles to make sense, they _have_ to be an oligopoly. There can't be 100 brands of competing consoles.

The main feature of traditional consoles that would be lost in this scenario: guaranteed compatibility of games.


Why not? Game devs want to be compatible with multiple consoles. Users want games to be compatible to be with their console.

So, who is causing this friction? Console companies. Now, there may be technical limitations due to games being such a unique kind of software. But at the end of day, they are software. Games can be packaged to support multiple formats or a standard interface.


> Why not? Game devs want to be compatible with multiple consoles.

Console games are typically highly optimized for particular console hardware. This coupling allows great-looking games for hardware that is cheap to make.

As a result, it's typical for consoles to far outperform regular PCs of the same price range. Especially at the beginning of the console lifecycle.

So it can be argued that consumers benefit from this arrangement: they get cheap special-purpose devices for gaming that can't be obtained if consoles are prohibited.

> Games can be packaged to support multiple formats or a standard interface.

Sure. But for AAA-type games that push the envelope, it's not at all trivial.

However, it seems that this pattern is fading with the recent consoles. So perhaps they also need to be unbundled.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: