cookyt said:
I've definitely been thinking about the same thing in regards to console curation and the like, and you are making some legit points here. However, the conclusion I've come to here is this: The difference between software curation and coffee curation seems to be part intent, part how it's done, part industry tradition, and part market position.
The first console known for locking out unapproved games is the original NES (aka the Famicom), which ironically played a major part in bringing consoles back into relevance after the legendary Crash of '83. The major downfall that led to the Crash was the video game market being absolutely flooded with cheap, shitty, often-nonfunctional games (with E.T. and the Atari 2600 port of Pac Man being commonly seen as the straws that broke the camel's back); which lead to general consumers to lose faith in the industry as a whole and stop buying games. Nintendo's curation system meant that games at least had to fit a certain standard before being released on the NES, which played a massive part in revitalizing consumer trust after the Crash. This directly lead to such a curation system becoming standard in all future consoles, Nintendo or otherwise, leading to the scenario we see today.
Another factor that plays into console curation, especially these days, is the fight against piracy. While consoles do have a piracy problem, it's still
much lower than on PC's at least early-on in a console's lifespan. Unlike with coffee, piracy is a notable issue that all devs and publishers have to deal with, and a system that actually works at curtailing it (unlike most DRM) and doesn't generally stop legitimate consumers from playing their games (unlike most DRM, again) is going to be met with a lot more welcome. In other words, the DRM serves multiple clear purposes as these two paragraphs show, unlike the DRM on coffee which seems to only serve an anti-competitive role.
There's also how they go about the restrictions. With most console exclusives, you have the product being limited to a platform, rather than the platform being limited to a product. It doesn't seem like much of a difference at first, but the idea of the game dev or publisher limiting itself to a specific console as opposed to a console limiting itself to a game make it come across as far more consumer friendly. If this was coffee, this would be like Keurig limiting it's brand of coffee to one brewer, rather than limiting it's brewer to one brand of coffee.
This takes me to my last point - Keurig's position in the coffee market. In the video game's industry, no publisher, game developer, or console manufacturer is anywhere near large enough to create a monopoly via things like curation or exclusivity. If some company like Sony came out and said "only first party titles on our new system", then they'd be out of business by the end of the year. Keurig, on the other hand, seemingly
is big enough that locking down their brewer to only their coffee could shut down any and all competitors in the market, and their apparent past record of trying to stifle competition leaves credence to that (if true). That's where it really get's problematic, on both a legal an a consumer level.
Anyway, that's my take on it. I explained this
horribly I admit, but I've already spent way too long on this post and want to cut it off here. Later!
Captcha: "roll over"
EDIT: Minor edits all over, mostly for better clarity.
