6 ms·
You're getting downvoted, but Epic is extremely anti-competitive. This is likely the reason.
by dimgl 6y ago
You're getting downvoted, but Epic is extremely anti-competitive. This is likely the reason.
- paulryanrogers 6y agoEpic's store offers a cheaper alternative to a near monopoly on digital game distribution on PC. How are they anti-competitive?
- 22c 6y agoThe enemy (Godot) of my enemy (Unity) is my friend. Is essentially what this thread is talking about. At this point (ie. Epic sitting on truck loads of cash), lost revenue for Epic Games competitors is almost as good as revenue for Epic Games. That is what people are talking about when they say anti-competitive. It's another form of a price squeeze.
- paulryanrogers 6y agoSo Unity is suffering because a rich competitor is funding more competition? Having used Unity and Godot I don't think the former needs to sweat this modest sharing of the wealth with the latter. If anything well regulated markets might tax oversized competitors to fund upstarts to maintain a balanced, competitive landscape. There's room for more than just two game-making tools.
- phire 6y agoPeople like being able to buy their games in a single online store. They don't like having 5 different stores just to play their collection of games. Therefore, Epic's exclusivity deals rub some people the wrong way.
- srg0 6y agoThe friction of having another store has a cost. I still got my copy of Borderlands 3 on Steam sale, I didn't even know it was initially an Epic exclusive. I think I'm not alone.
- jfkebwjsbx 6y agoEpic paid obscene amounts of money to studios to force them come to their store and force exclusivity on them. They basically exploited their Fortnite money-making machine to try to become a monopoly on PC. How is that not anti-competitive? For reference, Steam has never forced exclusivity on partners to distribute their games. As for cheaper, Epic didn't become they couldn't charge the same. As simple as that.
- paulryanrogers 6y agoHow is obscene amounts of money forcing anything? This sounds good for developers all around, and a minor inconvenience for gamers who are free to buy from as many stores as they like on PC. Yet could benefit gamers long term as it motivates Steam to be more competitive. Anti competitive would be buying up competing battle royale franchises to reduce consumer choice.
- jfkebwjsbx 6y ago> How is obscene amounts of money forcing anything? Indie game studios have a very hard time surviving. Giving them instantaneous access to a huge pile of money that allows them to declare success even before releasing a project is something most people cannot reject. > Anti competitive would be buying up competing battle royale franchises to reduce consumer choice. That is what they are doing but with game stores. They are effectively buying everything to dry the rest of the stores, reducing other stores choice of customers. > This sounds good for developers all around Not really. Devs get money, but they lose the product. Indie devs are not independent anymore. Etc. If Epic had success building the monopoly, everyone would have suffered, not just devs.
- comex 6y agoWhat monopoly? There is a monopoly today; it's called Steam. It has an immense userbase and plenty of user loyalty; it's not going anywhere. If Epic succeeds, there will be two major stores rather than one.