The Antitrust Implications of Google Stadia are Dire and No One is Questioning it. *Not a Single Journalist has Covered it.*

[Deleted member 8752]

Imagine having an internet platform where all trailers of games live. It's so pervasive that your competitors rely upon it to stream their press conferences and upload their video game trailers. Imagine every time someone wants to get information about a video game, they need to use your search engine to find it too. Now imagine also being able to instantly sell such video games as simple hyperllink, without a storefront, without hardware, and without an install. It simply exists in your browser. The browser is the hardware. The browser is the storefront. The opportunities to undermine your competitors under such circumstances are virtually endless.

This is a huge issue and I'm surprised that no one has written about it yet. Every time you Google a multiplatform game, Google will get the first opportunity to sell it to you. Every time you see a trailer for a game, Google will have the first opportunity to sell it to you. Heck, if Nintendo/Microsoft/Sony uploads a trailer for a new game on YouTube, Google can run a YouTube advertisement that plays for 30 seconds PRIOR to the trailer for a similar game or potentially the SAME GAME with a "play now" link before you ever see the competitor's ad.

This platform is, very clearly, designed in a way to undermine fair competition in the video game industry. It's really shocking that no one is at least questioning its legality or the ethics that surround it.

I have not seen a single journalist raise this issue.... (hint hint)

EDIT: I'm seeig a lot of confusion about what antitrust behaviors are present here.

THE ISSUE IS OF VERTICAL INTEGRATION - a type of monopoly that is different from horizontal monopolies people are referencing. The concern is that vertical integration may allow a dominant firm in one market to leverage market power into another market in such a way that undermines otherwise would-be horizontal competitors.

So, in this instance, a search engine, video platform, and browser that controls the information you see about video games, that also exists to sell you video games. Merging the functionality of these separate applications can be considered to be a VERTICAL integration that undermines competition.

The basic premise is: If your in the business of delivering search results, you should not be allowed to deliver such results in a way that undermines competition of non-search competitors in favor of your own non-search related products. In this case, the non-search product is access to video games.

Here's a link:

https://academic.oup.com/jleo/article-abstract/33/4/653/3091191?redirectedFrom=PDF

 

[Dinobot]

It's not antitrust because Google's search engine and YouTube are services and products that Google offers. Consumers have alternative choices for search engines and game footage websites.

Google just happens to have the most popular
video platform and search engine globally.

Edit: I done fucked up, fam.

 

[Johnny956]

Google does this with all their services so I don't see why this is any different. If I use google on Firefox I get an ad for google chrome. If I search yahoo mail I'll get an advertisement for gmail. The list goes on so this isn't any different. As long as there is competing platforms and google doesn't have a monopoly on the market there is no antitrust issue

 

[Feep]

Nope. Not an issue.

 

[Deleted member 1476]

Well, they can use Bing if they want to.

 

[Deleted member 9317]

Glad you're bringing my points to full frontal scrutiny.

Antitrust is a big issue here, if Google can just add a "Play Now" button to trailers for games playing on Youtube that are also in their store, and redirect all users, there then there is an issue. I mean YouTube videos are already consolidating content that belongs to certain games under one header, it'll be very easy to have the user redirect to their own store.

And that's the point. Google wants YouTube viewers and Google search users to not go anywhere else but stay in Google infrastructure. Companies can cry "antitrust" but I doubt much will happen.

And it's not just YouTube that's the issue: Google owns everything and have all the right to do what they please, antitrust or not.

 

[gabegabe]

Yeah, it's best that we just stay with Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo making consoles/gaming platforms.

Spoiler

it's a joke

 

[RadzPrower]

You issue immediately breaks down when you bring up Nintendo if nothing else. You will NOT be able to play Nintendo games on Stadia, nor will you for Sony games. Microsoft is really into the software as service, so they might.

The antitrust implications are no worse than Steam is now since it's the default option on PC...the primary place Stadia will impact. Hell, Steam is so antitrust that their consumers will DEFEND them and ATTACK potential competitors.

 

[Deleted member 6730]

How long before the next bad faith thread about this comes along?

 

[TheJackdog]

yeah i see a lot of issues with it, i think the battle has to be won the same way netflix did: original content.

i also think the fears a lot of people have about google killing products fast and without warning extends to the corporate world. Stadia is a platform, developing for a new platform has inherit risks. I wouldnt expect a massive amount of games on stadia for a little while. as of right now the install base is zero and we dont even know how its being motitized.

google still has an EXTREMELY uphill battle

 

[Thizzles]

Probably because google isn't the only search engine out there. Are they the biggest? Sure. The only time you're gonna have an issue is if they're the only one.

 

[Kill3r7]

It's not a huge issue. You are framing it in a way that it is most favorable to your argument while ignoring the fact that competition exists in everyone of the services/sectors you mentioned

Probably because google isn't the only search engine out there. Are they the biggest? Sure. The only time you're gonna have an issue is if they're the only one.

Click to shrink...

This isn't exactly true. We know that exclusive pre-installed apps can be an anti-trust issue.

 

[DeuceGamer]

I was thinking about this in terms of YouTube, but your mention of the Google search engine makes it even more concerning. They could even advertise similar games that are available on Google in an attempt to sway your purchasing decisions.

It's defijitely worth a discussion in my opinion.

 

[New Username]

Edit: deleted post

 

[Captain Harlock]

The Cycle is already as follows

• Person - "I want to look up this new game"
• Opens Chrome Browser
• Goes to Google (Automatic Homepage of Chrome)
• Types in "New Game Title"
• First thing that pops up - Links to YouTube for trailer of the Game

Now you have a Google Service that would be able to play that game in the Browser window

• Google Side bar or Ad (as OP suggested) "Hey Play this Game NOW in your Browser"
• Purchase game
  • Lets say it works relatively well and you enjoy experience
• Future games the Person looks up in Google are all tied into one sphere.
• Chrome > Google Search > YouTube > Stadia

As OP stated now Google would be luring people away from Steam, Origin, Epic, etc.
They in a sense have created a one-stop shop for gaming, never having to leave the Google Sphere.

If it takes off, OP is right (theoretically) that Google has created an Unfair advantage over competition.

 

[VAD]

That is a very interesting point. I guess it doesn't stand for exclusive games as you can't play them on stadia.

 

[the_wart]

Vertical integration is not generally an antitrust problem. Offering many different connected products and/or services is not intrinsically an antitrust issue unless you are actively preventing other markets from entering a market. Same reason Amazon buying Whole Foods was not an antitrust issue.

 

[OrdinaryPrime]

It's not antitrust because Google's search engine and YouTube are services and products that Google offers. Consumers have alternative choices for search engines and game footage websites.

Google just happens to have the most popular video platform and search engine globally.

Click to shrink...

Perhaps I'm not following this but if Google features only Stadia on YouTube, a platform that holds 99% of non-subscription based media streaming on the net, I'm not sure how it's not? I'm no lawyer tho, just an internet expert.

 

[Deleted member 48897]

When you think about it, MatPat might be the only game-related figure whose financial security is both inextricably linked to the fate of youtube and who isn't an obvious nazi

 

[SCB360]

Do you

A.) Understand Anti Trust at all?
B.) Realise that there are competitors to Google, who by the way, do not block you from using on their products?

I'm guessing you're a little pissed about the Disney acquisition of Fox as well then ?

 

[Deleted member 4783]

It's not antitrust because Google's search engine and YouTube are services and products that Google offers. Consumers have alternative choices for search engines and game footage websites.

Google just happens to have the most popular video platform and search engine globally.

Click to shrink...

Google is literally the biggest search engine rn.

OP has a good point.

 

[PopcornMegaphone]

I'm going to guess the op is not a lawyer.

 

[808s & Villainy]

Perhaps I'm not following this but if Google features only Stadia on YouTube, a platform that holds 99% of non-subscription based media streaming on the net, I'm not sure how it's not? I'm no lawyer tho, just an internet expert.

Click to shrink...

What competitors have similar functionality that Google is blocking from Youtube?

Not to mention your original claim isn't entirely true anyway

https://techcrunch.com/2018/10/25/y...p-with-twitch-on-live-streaming-report-finds/

Twitch continues to dominate the live streaming market, with approximately 2.5 billion hours watched by viewers in the third quarter of 2018, according to a new industry report out this morning. While YouTube still trails, it's begun to close the gap with Twitch, it appears. YouTube's live streaming platform, YouTube Live, started the year with 15 percent of the overall live streaming market's viewership, but by September 2018, it had grown to roughly 25 percent of all live streaming hours viewed.

Click to shrink...

 

[kaishek]

not sure about the logic in the OP but break up google and give it to its workers regardless imo

 

[Xx 720]

Just use Yahoo or some other search engine, plus theres Twitch if you don't want to look at gaming stuff on youtube

 

[bsigg]

You should send this to Elizabeth Warren. It seems like it would add to her criteria from "Break Em Up" lol

 

[the_wart]

Do you

A.) Understand Anti Trust at all?
B.) Realise that there are competitors to Google, who by the way, do not block you from using on their products?

I'm guessing you're a little pissed about the Disney acquisition of Fox as well then ?

Click to shrink...

Most people believe that a company being large and visible is intrinsically an antitrust issue.

Antitrust concerns about Disney buying Fox would make more sense, as that's a case of absorbing a competitor in the same market.

 

[Glio]

This is how vertical monopolies work

 

[Instro]

I don't think it would be a problem, however Google is now also an ISP(albeit a small one atm), so there is an increasing chance of them being able to undertake anti-competitive measures on their own platform for users of their internet service. If there reach as an ISP broadens, I do think there would be a case to be made.

 

[spam musubi]

How long before the next bad faith thread about this comes along?

Click to shrink...

Oh I'm sure the next few years are going to be just unbearable if you're actually interested in the notion of streaming games. Probably gotta wait like a generation or two until a new gaming audience comes in and the current """hardcore""" crowd becomes a minority even on enthusiast forums. Happened over gen 7 brought in a much bigger audience with console gamers so the enthusiast space wasn't just PC players anymore, and now this forum is mainly console gamers who are very attached to that paradigm. Paradigms change over time and the old will always resist the new. Sure, there's legitimate criticisms of game streaming but this crowd doesn't seem interested in those as much as they are in hot takes just to pile on.

 

[ListeningGarden]

The bigger issue that I see here is that Stadia will likely be using proprietary technology that will block non-Chromium browsers from being able to use it. Anyone familiar with Web Standards and Mozilla's constant struggle against developers who code exclusively for Chrome will be familiar with this. Firefox users in particular can probably list off a bunch of services either by Google or third-parties which provides reduced functionality or gives them an error message telling them they can't use the service, even if a user agent change can bypass this with little error. Here, it's likely that you'll have no way to use Stadia on Firefox or browsers with alternative rendering engines - that is indeed a problem.

 

[s3ltz3r]

It's not antitrust because Google's search engine and YouTube are services and products that Google offers. Consumers have alternative choices for search engines and game footage websites.

Google just happens to have the most popular video platform and search engine globally.

Click to shrink...

This. Google is poised to lay the smackdown on the industry. Thats the difference between being a visionary, and just making products.

 

[yuraya]

I think MS and Sony will both do less 3rd party marketing deals next gen as a result. I mean what is the point of a nice Youtube trailer with an Xbox logo in the end if Google just gonna let you click a "Stream Now" button? Its kind of funny really but at the same time this is Googles infrastructure. And it kinda justifies them entering this market.

 

[aevanhoe]

If Epic signed a deal with Google to offer a Play Now link for EGS in YouTube for every game trailer, people here would rage-explode.

Anyway, yes, Google always scares me, but also, I have a feeling they will lose interest in this in a few years anyway.

 

[Deleted member 8752]

I'm seeing a lot of confusion about what type of monopolistic behavior I'm referring to. I'm updating the OP.

See op. It's about VERTICAL antitrust behavior. Not horizontal (which is the more common issue that people are incorrectly identifying). Many legal papers have been written about this with regard to Google.

 

[Keym]

Switch to Firefox and use Bing

Vote with your browser

 

[Captain Harlock]

Do you
I'm guessing you're a little pissed about the Disney acquisition of Fox as well then ?

Click to shrink...

That's off topic a bit but ..... Yeah a lot of people are and worried about it and there has been numerous articles warning on the dangers of Disney having so many media companies under it's power.

So yeah it's reason to be concerned.

 

[s3ltz3r]

How long before the next bad faith thread about this comes along?

Click to shrink...

You mean astroturfing? Stadia must really be a threat.

 

[Deleted member 135]

Its almost as if some of us have been saying that Google is too big and that none of us should want them in the mainstream gaming space.

 

[Dekuman]

Google is competing with a Microsoft , Apple and Amazon in the west. In that context there are no antitrust concerns because competition is there

The concern could be more about privacy and giving one company power over too.much. so far games have been their own things.

 

[Atheerios]

Nobody is forcing you to use Chrome instead of Firefox.
Or YouTube instead of Twitch.
Or Google instead of Bing.
Or Stadia instead of xCloud.

 

[Dinobot]

Perhaps I'm not following this but if Google features only Stadia on YouTube, a platform that holds 99% of non-subscription based media streaming on the net, I'm not sure how it's not? I'm no lawyer tho, just an internet expert.

Click to shrink...

Google is literally the biggest search engine rn.

OP has a good point.

Click to shrink...

Yes but Google isn't the only search engine available. Nor is youtube the only video streaming website.

If it was, then you'd have an antitrust case.

 

[TylersProphecy]

Wow. Lots of people not only negative but literally afraid of the stadia. Interesting. Not saying they're wrong but damn.

 

[tokkun]

Personally I watch a lot more game trailers on Steam than I do on Youtube. And there is a big Buy Now button next to those videos.

 

[the_wart]

The Cycle is already as follows

• Person - "I want to look up this new game"
• Opens Chrome Browser
• Goes to Google (Automatic Homepage of Chrome)
• Types in "New Game Title"
• First thing that pops up - Links to YouTube for trailer of the Game

Now you have a Google Service that would be able to play that game in the Browser window

• Google Side bar or Ad (as OP suggested) "Hey Play this Game NOW in your Browser"
• Purchase game
  • Lets say it works relatively well and you enjoy experience
• Future games the Person looks up in Google are all tied into one sphere.
• Chrome > Google Search > YouTube > Stadia

As OP stated now Google would be luring people away from Steam, Origin, Epic, etc.
They in a sense have created a one-stop shop for gaming, never having to leave the Google Sphere.

If it takes off, OP is right (theoretically) that Google has created an Unfair advantage over competition.

Click to shrink...

I don't see how this is an "unfair advantage" -- in this scenario people are using Google's services because it is easier and more convenient. A pessimistic take would be that it's because people won't know about any alternatives, but it's not illegal to have a strong brand that people know about.

If they start, e.g., deliberately blocking information about competitors from appearing on searches or on Youtube or something, then that would probably be an antitrust issue.

 

[Deleted member 20831]

.. The browser is the storefront ..

Click to shrink...

This might seem like a joke, but what is stopping all storefront's from pursuing the same line by promoting their store pages to be landing pages for community videos?
And I shall specifically take an example of Steam store pages, the horrible streaming capability of videos from my geographical location (the videos basically halt streaming, automatically downgrade streaming quality until I either refresh or opening again).

 

[OrdinaryPrime]

Yes but Google isn't the only search engine available. Nor is youtube the only video streaming website.

If it was, then you'd have an antitrust case.

Click to shrink...

When Microsoft had their issue with Internet Explorer, it wasn't that they were the only browser, it was as variety of issues where they would put their product over competitors simply because they owned the platform. Or perhaps I'm summarizing that incorrectly.

 

[sangreal]

It's not antitrust because Google's search engine and YouTube are services and products that Google offers. Consumers have alternative choices for search engines and game footage websites.

Google just happens to have the most popular video platform and search engine globally.

Click to shrink...

Not of that makes it not antitrust. Even Standard Oil had competitors

 

[808s & Villainy]

I think MS and Sony will both do less 3rd party marketing deals next gen as a result. I mean what is the point of a nice Youtube trailer with an Xbox logo in the end if Google just gonna let you click a "Stream Now" button? Its kind of funny really but at the same time this is Googles infrastructure. And it kinda justifies them entering this market.

Click to shrink...

You realize video uploaders, not Google control their videos, right? I very much doubt they're going to allow Google to auto add Stream Now buttons if the trailer is exclusive for a specific platform holder or in their YouTube account. It will most definitely be feature that can be toggled

 

[Acorn]

Yeah I was thinking about this at the announcement too. I wonder if their algorithm will push stadia streamers or videos with games higher in recommendations and search results.