2 ms·
I'm strictly talking about the ones that are paid timed exclusives, nothing else. No where did I say anything about being anyone being required to do anything.
by rstat1 3y ago
I'm strictly talking about the ones that are paid timed exclusives, nothing else. No where did I say anything about being anyone being required to do anything. You added that.
If a publisher chooses to do a single store front, then fine w/e. I don't have a problem with that. Its when a storefront bribes a publisher to keep a product exclusive to one store, in an attempt to force consumers on to that store that they likely otherwise wouldn't have used, that I have problem with.
- ThatPlayer 3y agoI was going off your initial point of what you want: No exclusives. Not just paid timed exclusives. >Its when a storefront bribes a publisher to keep a product exclusive to one store That's not a bribe, that's a business transaction. Do you bribe a store to give you a product? >If a publisher chooses to do a single store front, then fine w/e. This contrasts with your previous: "as long as its not limited to one" So now publishers are allowed to choose one storefront, but somehow they can't be paid to make that choice? How should they be making that choice if not by how much each storefront is offering?
- zirgs 3y agoAW2 was funded by Epic. They are thr publisher in this case.