1. The market in question is called "video game platforms", in which there are currently 6* notable participants:immortalfrieza said:Copied from Dictionary.comAzuaron said:That's not what "monopoly" means...immortalfrieza said:This is the reason why, in the U.S. at least, monopolies are supposed to be illegal. However, due to copyright and patent law nobody but Sony is able to produce and distribute the PS3, Vita and it's games, which is a monopoly, but I never hear anybody being arrested for it.
mo·nop·o·ly
   [muh-nop-uh-lee]
noun, plural mo·nop·o·lies.
1.
exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices. Compare duopoly, oligopoly.
2.
an exclusive privilege to carry on a business, traffic, or service, granted by a government.
3.
the exclusive possession or control of something.
4.
something that is the subject of such control, as a commodity or service.
5.
a company or group that has such control.
Which is what I said, maybe not in those exact words but I did say it. So yes, Sony and similar companies are in fact monopolies because nobody else is allowed to produce and distribute any system or game that they created and still possess the rights and patents to.
Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, Windows**, Android and Apple**. So at best we have an oligopol, but really, there's a healthy dose of competition going.
Control of their own platform does not constitute a monopoly.
If you want to argue "video games" rather than platforms, see 3.
* There may be other participants, but if so, their names escape me ATM
** Both Microsoft and Apple have multiple platforms, ie Windows, XBOX and WinPhone / OSX and iOS, but for the sake of brevity I lumped them together.
2. No government that I know of has officially banned gaming platforms other than one specific one in their country. Ever. So no monopoly there, either.
3. Each of the market participants has "complete" control over their respective market segments*, but that doesn't constitute a monopoly, either. Unless you want to argue that say Ford only allowing engines with specific form factors for their cars constitutes a monopoly.
So while Sony et al. may be in control over what gets released on their respective platforms, you're always able to just switch platforms. No monopoly there either.
4. Like 3, just with the respective services, i.e. PS+/XBox live/Play Store/AppStore. You're always welcome to change platforms, so no monopolies there. One _could_ in theory argue that it _should_ be possible to use PS+ on the 360, say, but that's no monopoly in a legal sense.
5. Noun used for the matter. Irrelevant.
So no, no monopoly there, as much as I dislike the current gaming industry landscape, and especially Sony.
Speaking of which... please, give me a reason to buy the Vita. Give me 5 games worth it, 5 games that my PSP can't give me. PLEASE. No? Well then, I'm going to invest my money elsewhere.
Like with the PSP before, I really _want_ to like the Vita. But the library is just too lackluster. Only bought the PSP when with KH:BBS there finally was a 5th game I wanted for the darn thing. And that was in 2010.