22
Epic CEO Tim Sweeney: the post-trial interview
(www.theverge.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 14 Dec 2023
22 points (86.7% liked)
Games
16728 readers
534 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
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.