duh
that's why unrestrained capitalism is bringing us into a hellscape
The Antitrust Implications of Google Stadia are Dire and No One is Questioning it. *Not a Single Journalist has Covered it.*
- Thread starter Deleted member 8752
- Start date
that's why unrestrained capitalism is bringing us into a hellscape
OP
OP
just because another company exists doesn't mean there isn't a monopoly though. If I make a search engine and get 1% of the market and everyone else dies but google has 99% of the market. it's still a bloody monopoly. MS was broken up way before they got as big as they are even now, and google is even bigger than that. Competition has been dead in America for a long time.
Can't believe how people can't see the issue with this when Google was already fined for that type of behavior.
If the most important search engine and video platform decides to put you at the back of the list because they want to sell their thing, there's absolutely nothing you can do about it.
If the most important search engine and video platform decides to put you at the back of the list because they want to sell their thing, there's absolutely nothing you can do about it.
Where have they done that? This is all speculation that Google is suddenly going to have streaming buttons on every gaming related video or massively jump in front of Twitch in streams despite it being the overwhelming leader in the space
I said if, but yes we're speculating because Stadia isn't even available.
Google is not easing the barrier to entry in the video game market---in fact, it is going to increase them by augmenting switching costs.
The issue is potentially there. The fact that it's not covered is because gaming journalists don't have competencies in the field.
OP
OP
If platform businesses (eg. steam, Nintendo, Microsoft, Sony, Etc.) are harmed by anticompetitive behavior, consumers and developers will be harmed by extension.
This example of vertical integration on its own is not anticompetitive you've not made a strong case. We don't have nearly enough information on how the integration is going to look for the final product this is just fear-mongering.
With Stadia, games no longer require a local dedicated hardware unit to play and time from purchase to play is significantly reduced. How does that not reduce barrier to entry? I don't see how Stadia increases switching costs any more than the existing industry setup.
Yeah. The world is not America. Google will have to be very careful in how they approach this. EU is already watching them with a close eye, and in the EU what matters is if Google's position makes it too difficult for other services too compete, which very well might happen.
For the same reason Gmail increased switching costs in the e-mail service market.
Umm that's exactly what it means. Google does have competition as a search engine. Whether you like using it or not doesn't change that fact. A monopoly can only exist if there is no competition for that product.
I don't follow at all. What's the switching cost of moving away from Gmail for a user?
I agree but the US courts have changed their view on that decades after ruling indirectly like this. Maybe in other countries can be immediately done but in the US it will take a lot of time and effort relatively.
That's not the benchmark for when anti-trust regulation or policy is imposed. Concentrated market power which harms consumers is sufficient grounds. The market doesn't have to be a monopoly.
It will inevitably lead to anti trust issues like with the Google shopping tab.
Google will 100% make their algorithms try to show you game videos with Stadia integration over game videos of competitors.
They'll essentially leverage the monopoly they have with YT to get a leg up in the game streaming business. That's a textbook anti trust issue.
Google will 100% make their algorithms try to show you game videos with Stadia integration over game videos of competitors.
They'll essentially leverage the monopoly they have with YT to get a leg up in the game streaming business. That's a textbook anti trust issue.
Now that's when shit gets juicy. It wouldn't surprise me if something like this happens and ends up going to court. However, it seems silly to be preemptively worried about a large tech company contesting a market that is currently controlled by a small number of other large tech companies*. Let them fight it out, and if Stadia turns out to be so wildly successful then I'm sure Microsoft will be very happy to finance lawsuits against them.
*And also a goofy Japanese toy company, but Nintendo is unkillable and will be making Mario for our mutant overlords after the apocalypse.
Meanwhile, the EU just fined Google (again) $1.5 billion, this time for blocking rival online search advertisers.
There is no competition to Youtube for game trailers, Let's Play videos, etc. It doesn't matter what browser you use, you would still be able to see ads and links to games to buy on Stadia. You would just get a prompt to switch to Chrome if you wanted to play.
Stadia is the centralization of the entire video games industry. Playing, sharing, buying...everything.
There is no competition to Youtube for game trailers, Let's Play videos, etc. It doesn't matter what browser you use, you would still be able to see ads and links to games to buy on Stadia. You would just get a prompt to switch to Chrome if you wanted to play.
Stadia is the centralization of the entire video games industry. Playing, sharing, buying...everything.
It will be interesting to see if the current call from both Democrats and Republicans to look at the tech sector for antitrust pursuits actually pans out
hard to say right now but its a good time to start looking at it.
So what? Investors are feckless, amoral, borderline evil pricks who only care about lining their pockets.
I'll use Firefox all day long but Bing just can't compete in the search engine space and I need quick and accurate results to properly do my job.
What?!
You can use Google to search for and the install Firefox, you can use Google to search for bing and then make it your home page on chrome. They don't stop you doing that?!
You can use Google to search for and the install Firefox, you can use Google to search for bing and then make it your home page on chrome. They don't stop you doing that?!
That's literally the definition of antitrust. They have a monopoly on search and streaming video and are using their dominant market position to leverage a lead into other markets.
The fact that it is integrated with/tied to other Google services.
Similarly to loyalty cards which create switching costs by incentivizing the consumer to be faithful to a company without exploring alternatives.
Add to this Google's dominant position.
Similarly to Microsoft's Internet Explorer: of course consumers could choose another browser but Internet Explorer was already installed on Windows PC so why bother?
If someone can offer a clearly superior service like this, should they have the right to press their advantage, if competitors can't or won't offer something similar?
If Google fails to highlight the alternatives, or does so in fashion that can be reasonably considered second-rate, then that's certainly a case for antitrust concern. We can probably start by looking at how they handle searches for music, books, movies and tv shows now to gauge how they'll handle games once stadia arrives, since they already have an ecosystem for those various digital product types. In general the search results for these things returns the various ways you can consume these products from a list of services, not just Google's, although Google's service will generally appear at or towards the top of the list.
As I see it, as long as Google clearly lays out the alternatives, and don't do anything to arbitrarily increase the difficulty of accessing a competing service then they shouldn't be held as antitrust for simply being able to offer a legitimately better way.
But that "better way" is also highly subjective. It should be readily apparent by now that not everyone considers instant access to games only via network in a browser as the superior experience, which is probably why most journalists aren't really considering an antitrust angle yet.
It's more subtle than that. It has been proven, though, that Google engine search privileges specific contents to generate more revenues. Google was also fined because Google Shopping wasn't neutral in showing results.
Whether it meets the definition of "anti-trust," people shouldn't be hand-waving this away. This is a legitimate concern - we are already in a world where tech control is falling under the umbrella of too few companies and Google using it's search/video content platform to further consolidate another tech sector is problematic.
I've not read those, but that is clearly the case. The EU doesn't just let companies abuse their market position because there's technically some competition.
The internet went from hating MS for this same thing to sucking Googles peen for it. I don't get it. But hey the internet is a place where everyone is celebrating the fox/disney merger cause they can now have more superhero movies, so atleast they're consistent.
Whenever google enters a new market you should be a little worried
Whenever google enters a new market you should be a little worried
Last edited:
This has the air of The United States v. Microsoft Corporation. Though I have no faith in our current government to pursue antitrust cases.
Good point. I forgot about needing a Gmail account for the Playstore and Yotube. I acknowledge and previously mention the risk surrounding Youtube integration.
I wouldn't class this as increasing barrier to entry though. Barrier to entry and switching costs are two different things.
But Steam games only run through the Steam client.
PS4 games only run on PS4.
Journalists cover press events and press releases first and foremost. Less work, more clicks and the company giving you (potentially) access.
And no, not just gaming journalism.
With all the caping he does for PDP, fuck no, dude's just as bad as the rest of them.