4 ms·

> I think Sweeney is correct, although I also think Epic tried to do the same. Their success with some of their games created capital that they used to create t

> I think Sweeney is correct, although I also think Epic tried to do the same. Their success with some of their games created capital that they used to create their own platform. Maybe as a defense mechanism or maybe because they wanted part of the pie. I agree but people who are criticizing Epic for this are missing the real point. It is good if Epic can actually take a big chunk of the pie. Sure you could say they're being hypocrites, but from the point of view of users and developers, it's good to have more competition in the platform arena. Currently it's basically duopoly between Google and Apple. A new actor like Epic can change the dynamics and that is good.

chii 6y ago
Epic's platform is not a monopoly even if they successfully made one. steam is not a monopoly, even if they currently have a large market share, because the user is able to install their software outside of the steam platform. Some games choose to not release on multiple platforms - but that's not a monopoly. And other games _do_ choose to release on multiple platforms, or choose to release independently of a platform. This means the best _game_ wins. Ditto with software.
- LegitShady 6y ago
  Epic phase to have the monopoly on certain unique products while Tim Sweeney says he values consumer choice. Sweeney is a liar.
- pjmlp 6y ago
  Just like 80% of the world choses not to use Apple devices.
- cocktailpeanuts 6y ago
  > Epic's platform is not a monopoly even if they successfully made one Same goes for Apple. The term "monopoly" is not really useful in this discussion. It's more about having a small number of gatekeepers. There are currently exactly 2 gatekeepers of mobile devices in the entire world: Apple and Google. It is possible that Epic could get into a similar position as what Apple is today, but for games. My point is that I support something like this happening, even though people may think that Epic is just another gatekeeper. Gatekeepers can't be avoided, so the solution is to have more gatekeepers, so they can't abuse their power easily.
- damnyou 6y ago
  Whether something is a "monopoly" or not is immaterial to US antitrust law. What is relevant is concentration of market power and the facts of how it's being wielded.

chii 6y ago

Epic's platform is not a monopoly even if they successfully made one. steam is not a monopoly, even if they currently have a large market share, because the user is able to install their software outside of the steam platform. Some games choose to not release on multiple platforms - but that's not a monopoly. And other games _do_ choose to release on multiple platforms, or choose to release independently of a platform. This means the best _game_ wins. Ditto with software.

LegitShady 6y ago
Epic phase to have the monopoly on certain unique products while Tim Sweeney says he values consumer choice. Sweeney is a liar.
pjmlp 6y ago
Just like 80% of the world choses not to use Apple devices.
cocktailpeanuts 6y ago
> Epic's platform is not a monopoly even if they successfully made one Same goes for Apple. The term "monopoly" is not really useful in this discussion. It's more about having a small number of gatekeepers. There are currently exactly 2 gatekeepers of mobile devices in the entire world: Apple and Google. It is possible that Epic could get into a similar position as what Apple is today, but for games. My point is that I support something like this happening, even though people may think that Epic is just another gatekeeper. Gatekeepers can't be avoided, so the solution is to have more gatekeepers, so they can't abuse their power easily.
damnyou 6y ago
Whether something is a "monopoly" or not is immaterial to US antitrust law. What is relevant is concentration of market power and the facts of how it's being wielded.