The console wars—competition for market share among console manufacturers—have always been tied to platform exclusivity. A robust exclusive games library draws customers into purchasing console hardware, growing the console’s player base. Network effects then amplify this growth, attracting even more players and developers. This dynamic facilitates the establishment of “walled gardens,” allowing console manufacturers to lock users into specific hardware, social networks, and content libraries that they cannot easily escape.
Platform exclusivity and walled gardens pose significant harms to consumers, developers, and competition. These harms are compounded by the increasing concentration of the gaming sector. This Note argues that intervention to promote an open and interoperable console gaming ecosystem is warranted. Antitrust law may at first glance seem a natural fit for such intervention, but it is ill-suited for remedying the harms at issue. In an industry with three dominant players, there is no monopoly for antitrust law to prevent. Furthermore, modern antitrust’s atomistic approach to anti-competitive conduct cannot sufficiently address the types of harms wrought by exclusivity and closed platforms. This Note argues instead that a targeted legislative framework offers a more effective solution, drawing on successful precedents both domestic and international.