LogFAQs > #960970858

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, Database 9 ( 09.28.2021-02-17-2022 ), DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Final Fantasy 7: Remake finally coming to PC next Week...
adjl 12/16/21 2:42:18 PM #47:	Veedrock- posted... False equivalency. Epic isn't selling knockoffs, it's selling the genuine item. It's not the best analogy, but the argument can be made that the launcher is part of the experience of playing the game. While "genuine" is a bit of an odd term to apply here, you can definitely say that Epic is providing an inferior version. Veedrock- posted... Let me clarify: I'm not telling anybody to like it. My statement was to counter the notion that Epic hasn't done anything to "deserve" exclusives. I mean, nobody ever "deserves" exclusives unless they develop them personally, but that's beside the point. The question is not whether they deserve exclusives, it's whether they deserve my business. Veedrock- posted... It's been three years, yet Valve hasn't changed their policies to remain competitive. By all accounts Valve is letting this happen, but somehow they escape criticism and Epic is the bad guy. It's ass backwards. Because in three years, Valve hasn't lost enough business to Epic for them to need to make any changes to remain competitive. Yes, Epic is the bad guy, because they've done such a poor job of competing that they haven't managed to motivate Valve to do any better. To be clear, I don't mind competition for Steam. In fact, I think competition is a good thing, since there's plenty of room for Steam to improve, but Valve has little incentive to really invest in doing so because of their monopoly. That competition needs to involve providing a better service, though. "Competing" by forcibly depriving competitors of what would otherwise be shared products while providing an inferior service doesn't give those competitors any way to improve except to outbid Epic for exclusives, and that's just a whole bunch of money thrown around in a way that doesn't help consumers at all. In a nutshell: Competing by providing a better service=good for consumers. Competing by forcing your competitors to provide a worse service=bad for consumers. Epic is overwhelmingly doing the latter, which is a real shame because they've got a lot of potential to shake up the market in favour of developers with their more favourable revenue split. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. <cite>adjl posted [p:960970858] in Final Fant... [t:79803886]...</cite> <quote>Veedrock- posted... </cite> <quote>False equivalency. Epic isn't selling knockoffs, it's selling the genuine item.</quote> It's not the best analogy, but the argument can be made that the launcher is part of the experience of playing the game. While "genuine" is a bit of an odd term to apply here, you can definitely say that Epic is providing an inferior version. Veedrock- posted... </cite> <quote>Let me clarify: I'm not telling anybody to like it. My statement was to counter the notion that Epic hasn't done anything to "deserve" exclusives.</quote> I mean, nobody ever "deserves" exclusives unless they develop them personally, but that's beside the point. The question is not whether they deserve exclusives, it's whether they deserve my business. Veedrock- posted... </cite> <quote>It's been three years, yet Valve hasn't changed their policies to remain competitive. By all accounts Valve is letting this happen, but somehow they escape criticism and Epic is the bad guy. It's ass backwards.</quote> Because in three years, Valve hasn't lost enough business to Epic for them to need to make any changes to remain competitive. Yes, Epic is the bad guy, because they've done such a poor job of competing that they haven't managed to motivate Valve to do any better. To be clear, I don't mind competition for Steam. In fact, I think competition is a good thing, since there's plenty of room for Steam to improve, but Valve has little incentive to really invest in doing so because of their monopoly. That competition needs to involve providing a better service, though. "Competing" by forcibly depriving competitors of what would otherwise be shared products while providing an inferior service doesn't give those competitors any way to improve except to outbid Epic for exclusives, and that's just a whole bunch of money thrown around in a way that doesn't help consumers at all. In a nutshell: Competing by providing a better service=good for consumers. Competing by forcing your competitors to provide a worse service=bad for consumers. Epic is overwhelmingly doing the latter, which is a real shame because they've got a lot of potential to shake up the market in favour of developers with their more favourable revenue split. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1