4 ms·
Well let's stick with the exclusive discussion because I'm not sure where the other is going either. >The former are in Valve's control, the latter are not. W
by ThatPlayer 3y ago
Well let's stick with the exclusive discussion because I'm not sure where the other is going either.
>The former are in Valve's control, the latter are not.
Why does this distinction make a difference in how anti-consumer it is? The store owner or Valve's (lack of) control doesn't make it any better for me as a consumer.
To summarize my position here to avoid more confusion: Exclusives deals don't make exclusive games any more anti-consumer. Because the deal or lack thereof doesn't effect me as a consumer.
So my original reply is that all of these exclusive games are the same level of anti-consumer. But you only notice when it's not Steam exclusives, because that's your platform of choice. I'm not blaming Valve for anything, I'm just using games on their store as an example of games you don't think of as exclusives or anti-consumer.
- soulofmischief 3y agoValve doesn't do exclusive deals. Even some of their best first-party titles made it to consoles. I don't know how you can blame them for not having more competitors.
- ThatPlayer 3y agoI don't know how you keep thinking I'm blaming Valve for anything when I've reiterated that I'm not multiple times. I'm just using games on their store as an example of games you don't think of as exclusives or anti-consumer.
- soulofmischief 3y agoYour argument just makes no sense. Exclusive deals are extremely different from a game simply releasing on one store out of convenience.
- ThatPlayer 3y agoI'm not arguing about the differences, just that they're the same in one aspect. You're saying one is bad because it is anti-consumer. I'm pointing out that the other is the same level of anti-consumer, and that you have just not noticed. Deal or no deal is not relevant to the consumer so it doesn't change how anti-consumer it is.