That would destroy the console industry as we know it.
Consoles are sold at close to break even with money made back through game sales.
If EU allowed third party stores and stripped their commissions it would trigger a mass consolidation where Sony, Nintendo etc would buy developers, game engine vendors etc en masse and force exclusivity.
Indie developers in particular would have no way to compete. And consumers would be forced to buy multiple consoles.
Mandating consoles be opened up would destroy the console industry as we know it, but that would be a good thing - the only reason consoles were a good thing in the first place was because they were specialist devices that drove hardware innovation that simply wasn't feasible otherwise. Nowadays consoles aren't specialist hardware; they're PCs that have been slightly modified. The value proposition for consoles have almost nothing to do with new hardware capabilities like the N64 or PS3 promised (PS3 promised; the PS3's launch flopped due to Sony's arrogance and failure to cater to devs, not due to lack of power in the hardware itself - as later PS3 games demonstrate).
So suppose consoles were forced to open up - if Sony and Nintendo bought devs en masse, then 1) that sounds like an end-run and could easily open them up to a product-tying suit, 2) that would lose them tons of money, because now they're losing money on their hardware and their devs (because forcing exclusives loses more than half of your potential sales base), and 3) indies wouldn't give a shit, because Steam already exists and in fact could be one of those third-party stores that the EU specifically forced consoles to allow, in this hypothetical.
This wouldn't catch the industry completely flatfooted either, because back in the Windows 8 era Microsoft managed to scare Valve enough that they started investing in Linux as a backstop. The Steam Machines were a flop, but they've since released the Steam Deck to fill the portable console niche, and they've kept working on SteamOS and Big Picture mode to fill the gaming HTPC niche.
Also, you're claiming that Microsoft might buy Unreal Engine or Unity in order to force it to be Xbox-exclusive; that would bring the antitrust hammer down like nothing else. The only result of consequence in the 0.0002ns before the EU carpetbombs Redmond, would be a huge upsurge in suppport for Godot. Godot isn't ready for primetime just yet (especially in 3D) and games can't practically switch engine mid-development, but people are already on edge from Unity's recent "charge per download" (scandal? controversy? worrying incident? whatever you call it.)
Also, there are entire markets where game consoles don't have all that much penetration. China, in particular, who had banned consoles entirely until 2015, and restricted them until at least 2018. Convincing the Chinese market to buy even one console, let alone multiple, is unrealistic and platform holders know it.
> the only reason consoles were a good thing in the first place was because they were specialist devices that drove hardware innovation that simply wasn't feasible otherwise. Nowadays consoles aren't specialist hardware; they're PCs that have been slightly modified
Not just that. They're a standard spec that people build to, and wring performance out of, and consult to game/engine manufacturers, and they sponsor tournaments and do marketing. They're also sold below cost, both because they can order in bulk, but also because they can assume future components will be cheaper for the same spec, and they might be able to lower their internal costs eventually.
You can already buy a PC and play games on it. Consoles are an additional thing you can buy, and removing them removes choice.
> Also, you're claiming that Microsoft might buy Unreal Engine or Unity in order to force it to be Xbox-exclusive; that would bring the antitrust hammer down like nothing else. The only result of consequence in the 0.0002ns before the EU carpetbombs Redmond, would be a huge upsurge in suppport for Godot.
It won't be this simple. It'll just be better support on Microsoft platforms, and cross-play between PC and Xbox, to drown out Steam a little and Playstation a lot.
There are people out there - typically classed as "console warriors", who primarily having seen the Microsoft-Activision purchase - who genuinely believe console companies should buy major third-parties, to bolster their first party line-up, because first party titles typically meant console exclusivity. On other hand, I consider platform exclusives, including that coming as byproduct of being made by a first party dev, as well as exclusive sports/brand licenses[1] as anti-competitive.
[1] See Electronic Arts holding the exclusive Porsche license for several years, or how they were basically monopolizing American/gridiron football market by having the exclusive NFL license.
Also: (I originally replied this part only)
>Convincing the Chinese market to buy even one console, let alone multiple, is unrealistic and platform holders know it.
The greater Asian market is more of a mobile game continent, to be fair. Look at Japan with their "gacha" game subculture; on top of the standard stuff surrounding mobile games, there's also the parasocial aspect associated with them that makes them popular.
I don't know how you arrive at those conclusions. None of this make sense to me. The thing you fear is already reality. Console manufacturers have always been trying to force exclusivity. Which they can because they own the store. For a long time exclusives were the only thing carrying console sales, and forcing customers to buy multiple consoles.
Why would anyone want to be bought? There would be nothing to gain for devs. No one would need to accept any deals to get on a platform since they wouldn't need to use the manufacturer's store. Currently the deal is "Money + Access to the platform". Third party stores would cut this deal down to just "Money". Thus exclusivity deals would get a lot more expensive for Sony, Nintendo etc. Thus they would be able to buy less "developers, game engine vendors etc en masse".
Indie devs would have a much easier time competing without having to bow to the gatekeepers demands. I really don't get your reasoning.
Things have pretty visibly been getting pushed away from exclusivity by the console makers. MS commits to bringing all first party Xbox games to PC and Sony has ported over a lot of its most popular titles as well.
>The question you should answer is: how much would an unsubsidised console cost?
(I'm not the person you replied to, but)
About as much as a gaming PC, because that's exactly what it is these days. Except actual gaming PCs of the same price would have lower TCO, since you don't need to pay for an Xbox Live/PSN subscription.
> Except actual gaming PCs of the same price would have lower TCO, since you don't need to pay for an Xbox Live/PSN subscription.
Gaming PCs should still cost a bit more, because:
1. they aren't sold in vast quantities with the same spec, and so supplier can't negotiate vast discounts
2. they often don't have games nearly as optimised for them, because different PCs have different configurations, so you need to buy much specs for the same performance
3. consoles likely factor in total procurement costs over the lifetime of the console, and so they can be cheaper initially and lower price more slowly than they lower costs, to recoup some of the deficit
However of course in practice if you can't subsidise your game console with game sales, then (2) and (3) probably vanish.
That is what i am saying. It already happens. Opening more markets makes it less attractive for games companies to accept getting bought, doesn't it? If manufactures had the money to buy all the devs on masse they would already. Third party markets would only lessen their negotiation power. Devs could just go somewhere else. Especially with your other point below.
> how much would an unsubsidised console cost?
More and they would sell less of them? Making it less attractive for game devs to develop for said console. So what am i missing?
> Opening more markets makes it less attractive for games companies to accept getting bought, doesn't it?
Not really, unless it suddenly becomes easy to develop and market a game for all platforms. Pushing your code to a shop instead 3 shops won't be an amazing saving.
> More and they would sell less of them? Making it less attractive for game devs to develop for said console. So what am i missing?
Well - if fewer consoles exist, each with 10 different store fronts you have to now push to, presumably that means games cost more, as they're selling fewer units, and (less important, but still painful) they have to figure out which store should have which integrations / price / deals/ etc.
The EU can't fix what isn't broken. They can break what's working, perhaps, but I doubt they'll do it as the results would be too obviously bad in this case.
My real point is in asking: why are people not allowed to sell what they want, without massive fines coming their way (that don't come the way of others doing what they do)?
