All that talk about fairness and treating everyone the same is nice and all, but then he’s the same one that pays off publishers for exclusive deals. So why can he make special deals but Google can’t?
Also it’s sorta weird how the interviewer asked where he was on the day he missed from the trial.
There’s a huge difference in market control between the two companies, so while I think it’s scummy to have exclusives, I don’t think it’s the same at all compared to a dominant service doing the same.
In other words, if Epic pays for exclusivity, they’re essentially buying customers. If Google or Valve pays for exclusivity, that could be considered monopolistic behavior.
I agree with you, and I think the jury reached the wrong conclusion, at least from my understanding of the lawsuit.
But that’s irrelevant, I’m merely making the point that a smaller competitor can and should get away with a lot more crap because they don’t have a commanding share of the market. Epic paying for exclusivity is desperation, Steam doing it is monopolistic, because one has a dominant position while the other doesn’t.
Imo it’s shitty regardless of how big the competition is. The entire reason steam got to the position it’s in now is by being an extremely consumer friendly platform with little bullshit. No amount of exclusives makes the epic games client a genuinely preferable option, just a shitty requirement, and unless they stop with this shit, they’ll never genuinely be a competitor with steam, as far as players are concerned.
I agree, but again, that’s irrelevant. We’re talking about whether they should be allowed to do stuff like pay for exclusives, restrict payment options, etc. Market leaders are held to a much different standard vs underdog competitors.
I have never and probably will never buy anything from EGS because Steam is just a better experience.
All that talk about fairness and treating everyone the same is nice and all, but then he’s the same one that pays off publishers for exclusive deals. So why can he make special deals but Google can’t?
Also it’s sorta weird how the interviewer asked where he was on the day he missed from the trial.
There’s a huge difference in market control between the two companies, so while I think it’s scummy to have exclusives, I don’t think it’s the same at all compared to a dominant service doing the same.
In other words, if Epic pays for exclusivity, they’re essentially buying customers. If Google or Valve pays for exclusivity, that could be considered monopolistic behavior.
It’s such a monopoly that anyone is completely free to launch a competitor at any time and succeed on their own merits!
I agree with you, and I think the jury reached the wrong conclusion, at least from my understanding of the lawsuit.
But that’s irrelevant, I’m merely making the point that a smaller competitor can and should get away with a lot more crap because they don’t have a commanding share of the market. Epic paying for exclusivity is desperation, Steam doing it is monopolistic, because one has a dominant position while the other doesn’t.
Imo it’s shitty regardless of how big the competition is. The entire reason steam got to the position it’s in now is by being an extremely consumer friendly platform with little bullshit. No amount of exclusives makes the epic games client a genuinely preferable option, just a shitty requirement, and unless they stop with this shit, they’ll never genuinely be a competitor with steam, as far as players are concerned.
I agree, but again, that’s irrelevant. We’re talking about whether they should be allowed to do stuff like pay for exclusives, restrict payment options, etc. Market leaders are held to a much different standard vs underdog competitors.
I have never and probably will never buy anything from EGS because Steam is just a better experience.