Exclusivity creates oligopolies and we need an antitrust case before industries collapse

I'm normally in favor of antitrust, but what exactly do you want in this case? You listed at least eight providers for both movies and games, that's a lot. Who do you want to break up? All of them? How would you split them up? How would breaking up companies prevent exclusives? Are exclusives even inherently anti-consumer, or are they just bad when used by a monopoly to crush competition?

We want exclusives to die just like they died in old cinema. It doesn't really matter who we strike but rather the ramifications of the strike, quoting from the Wikipedia article :

The major film studios owned the theaters where their motion pictures were shown, either in partnerships or outright. Thus specific theater chains showed only the films produced by the studio that owned them. The studios created the films, had the writers, directors, producers and actors on staff (under contract), owned the film processing and laboratories, created the prints and distributed them through the theaters that they owned: In other words, the studios were vertically integrated, creating a de facto oligopoly

That's mostly what you see in those platforms ^

Should game studios be forced to support multiple platforms, because otherwise it would be a de facto 'exclusive'?

I do believe so as long as the platform which they're going in is ready to pay them of course.

Sorry for bombarding you with questions, you don't have to answer all of them. I just don't quite know what you want antitrust to accomplish here.

Break up producers and content distributors because that's 80% of what exclusives are in those services and therefore producers should be on as many platforms as possible because they're no longer profiting from the exclusivity. It's simply more profitable for them that way.

As for streaming services, it's not entirely the case, the content distributor may buy an exclusive license and well, I don't think that should be possible because it creates a vertical oligopoly for that content - the consumer doesn't have the choice of the service, they can only watch it there.

Atleast, that's my understanding and point of view.

It's not mandatory just like going to the cinema was never mandatory when United States v. Paramount Pictures, inc. happened, it's simply to avoid an oligopoly. Producers and Content distributors shouldn't be one and the same otherwise it's asking for a vertically integrated system.

The comparison to food is interesting but no one person can own the hamburger, they all have their different variants, I'm not sure if that holds up...

I think monopolies should take a priority. It's not like you don't have a lot of choices there. That's a lot of providers.
Every provider will have something exclusive to grab costumers.

Exclusivity is an anti-feature that creates only one choice for that content and that means the consumer can't decide if the platform is good, they can only pay for the service or not watch the content. It's an oligopoly.

If you're to argue against most broadband companies, I'd be much more inclined to agree. In many places, there is a monopoly such that people have 1 or 2 options for internet service (besides satellite, which still seems pretty bad from what I've heard).

That's another can of worms, really. That wasn't really the subject at hand.

My point is that an oligarchy is not inherently wrong. Some industries require large companies if they are to survive. Would someone suggest breaking up Intel because they're one of the few designing and fabricating their own processors? Doubtful, because barrier to entry is absurdly high regardless, and breaking up the company will just make those products more expensive.

Well, with CPUs there's different architectures competing. The problem with Intel is that their platform is based on x86's IP protection meaning no one can enter the market. That's why there's ARM selling licenses to manufacturers to make their own and have a slightly better market, RISC-V which wants to go without licenses all together and PowerPC which is a little odd. Point being, the CPU market does have competition simply not really in the x86 market because of how it's created.

Exclusivity isn't a problem in my book. Companies have to differentiate themselves in some way.

And that way is features, user interface, etc. Sell your service, not the content on your service. Otherwise, the user doesn't get to choose what service they want, they're forced into it.

This would of course completely blow up the industry if they were forced to do it, but it's an intriguing idea. It'd be like if theaters competed on the biggest, best experience possible, all without restrictions of physical space affecting them (i.e. you aren't likely to drive 100 miles to a better theater, but that's a moot issue for streaming).

That's exactly what United States v. Paramount Pictures, inc is all about. That's what happened but nowadays the market is free.

The gaming industry would face even more issues though as there are much more costs in making content playable on any device, such as an Xbox or computer, so mandating they not engage in the practice of exclusives creates substantial technical issues and costs.

I think it'd be ridiculous to ask for your game to work on all hardware, I think more so that the game shouldn't be tied a content distributor. This is only really present on PCs where we have a bazillion stores. On console, you use whatever the console manufacturer and that's it but it's an interesting thought.