Ps5 games are specifically programmed for that architecture and sometimes studios are paid for exclusivity. The written word is universal.

PS5 doesn't have a monopoly over the console market, Amazon does.

Sony almost certainly has more marketshare of the console market than Amazon does of anything. The numbers that came out for sales of XBox were... sobering for how badly Microsoft is throwing cash to stay in the game.

So with Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo: Sony has about 50% market share and Microsoft and Nintendo have about 25.

That’s a very different (I’d argue healthier) world than online retailers where Amazon has like 36% but the next largest (Walmart) is like 6%.

You need to weigh the market share against the number of players in the space.

Also that’s not to mention how all 3 major game console players have some kind of moat or walled garden (exclusives.)

Most online retailers are basically interchangeable, but Amazon is still the single largest player by far at 36%

Note that I don't mean one to be a defense of the other. It can be argued well that both markets are unhealthy. :D

To your numbers, though, I'm not sure I see the argument? I'd be very surprised if that 25 is evenly split between Nintendo and Microsoft. And where is Valve in that?

Playing into your argument, is Walmart really only 6%? Of all sales that happen period, how is the online/offline split? From my perspective, folks love to hate tech companies. You'll see silly headlines about 1 in 169 people work for Amazon. You don't often see similar headlines for Walmart, which has twice the associates, if I recall...

And even in consoles, you have the option of never buying one: you can play videogames on PC, on a tablet or on a mobile phone. And now you even have the cloud option with NVIDIA or MS' Game Pass Ultimate.

With Amazon however, it's more complicated since they control so many businesses. Visiting a website? Very probably it's hosted on AWS, or on a platform that runs on AWS. Visiting a friend with a smart doorbell thingy? Quite probably an Amazon Ring. Want to buy an e-book to read? Sell your soul to either Apple, Google or Amazon, or other smaller platforms (or pirate the book or buy it physically).

Note that AWS is actually not a part of this lawsuit. So that is mostly not relevant.

No, but it still is part of Amazon. In fact, as others have commented, AWS helps subsidise parts of the Amazon store that would otherwise result in losses.

But how is it at all relevant to this story? And if it is a vital point, why not get mentioned by the FTC?

I don't think there is nothing at all there. However, most of the criticisms you will see in the wild about how AWS pays for retail are almost certainly from ignorance of how retail had to literally seed AWS.

And don't take my criticism of that point as some sort of promotion of Amazon. I can be critical of the complaints without having to worship them.

Is that explicitly the case? Because the same antics apply to the marketplace and the copying of ecosystem participant services there too..

Is what explicitly the case? The PDF for the allegations of this case are in the link. No mention of AWS.

But Amazon is mentioned and Amazon owns AWS and many of the abuses described with respect to the e-commerce marketplace are also relevant to the AWS marketplace. I hear you on how they are not directly and literally mentioned in the text explicitly however one can understand why there's a thematic overlap and certainly I can imagine if I were AWS I would be sweating right now

You can't think of a few reasons this is not a great comparison? Like, base expectations to begin with would disqualify this analogy as useful.

My kids have been confused on why I have to buy separate copies of many indie games for both Steam and Playstation and/or Switch. And... it actually is rather obnoxious.