Or Epic could sell games cheaper than Steam, undercutting competitors in a manner that benefits consumers rather than removing consumer choice while using the devs as a meat shield against the backlash. A demonstrably "consumer adversarial" strategy, to use Tim's phrase.
-
-
IIRC that policy is just for Steam keys.
0 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @Pkeod @PleaseCapcom and
No, it only refers to Steam keys. You can't sell *Steam keys* for cheaper on other stores. The game itself can be sold for whatever the publisher wants. Publishers don't want to devalue their game, so they won't make it cheaper elsewhere.
1 reply 0 retweets 9 likes -
If Valve had such a policy for game prices in general *and publishers agreed*, that would be the definition of a cartel. Valve et al could be pursued for antitrust violations. Just like successfully coercing competitors to adopt a lower distribution fee through back room bribes.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Mortiel @PleaseCapcom and
Valve was bleeding AAA publishers before Epic Store existed you know, they only started giving AAA publishers a better cut after they started to feel the pain of not getting their games.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Pkeod @PleaseCapcom and
"Bleeding AAA publishers" Yes, because AAA publishers are in financial dire straights, obviously. Might want to look at some financial figures occasionally. AAA publishers were merely wanting any means to lower costs to improve profit margins. Not to benefit consumers.pic.twitter.com/oJGe58aGPW
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Mortiel @PleaseCapcom and
The Steam platform relies on big AAA publishers putting their games on Steam. It is not a sustainable platform without it. Why exactly does giving every game to Steam to distribute inherently benefit customers? I think you mean benefit Steam users who never want to leave Steam.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Pkeod @PleaseCapcom and
Read what I said carefully: I said publishers cut costs to increase profit margins, not to benefit consumers. I said nothing about where a game is sold.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
This is the core economic fallacy in the r/fuckepic contingent: this idea that stores may as well charge 30% because if stores lowered their taxes, the profits will just go to greedy middlemen and not developers. This position essentially rejects free market economics.
-
-
Replying to @TimSweeneyEpic @Pkeod and
Except evidence disagrees with you: Games that EA hosts exclusivity on Origin... Are they cheaper because EA pays no distribution fee? Nope, because it rolled up into EA's profit margin. Mind you, I'm not criticising that. I'm merely point out how things are.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.