By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
JRPGfan said:
RolStoppable said:

Yeah, right.

I'd love to see the likes of EA and Ubisoft (Origin and UPlay or whatever their stores are called) try to pull this stunt on PlayStation and then see what you have to say about it. Something tells me that you wouldn't side with EA and Ubisoft.

If Epic games wins this, and it also applies to consoles.
Good, it means cheaper games for the consumer.

If your willing to buy games from which ever storefront is currently cheaper.
The guestion becomes if EA is willing to make a storefront for consoles? and what this means to online play, do they need to host their own servers?
If their willing, and have better prices than Sony or MS, why not?

Cheaper games (from more competition from stores) = better for the consumer.

That’s a fantasy land you’re describing. The price of a commodity to the consumer is dependent on the max profitability of the producer, not its cost to manufacture. You literally have to get governments to step in to regulate markets to make it anything but, and corporations fight this tooth and nail - even buying political speech to fight for their right to screw their customers as hard as the market allows. This is especially true for industries with low intrinsic value relative to the cost - such as data, 50 USD for something that literally costs pennies? This includes live services where the justification for a product’s existence is generally based on the size of corporate ROIs it benefits to the corporation as a whole, not whether or not it’s profitable.

In other words, this contention Epic has is NOT motivated by the price to the consumer, but their cut of the revenue share on Apple and Google platforms. In the wider scope of things, Epic is not going to suddenly become benevolent toward its consumer base simply because they’ve increased their ROIs, this violates the basic nature of Liberal economics that’s been true since before it was outlined in Wealth of Nations and Das Kapital. Benevolence such as “player first” is all marketing and appearance, the corporations spend up to billions of dollars a year to push out positivity toward their brand. I can’t imagine a CEO being hired for their benevolent nature - they are hired for one reason, maximization of ROIs to the shareholders; and this probably includes you, as I doubt the main thing you look for in your statements is how companies treat their consumers, it’s how much money you’ve made on your investments.

We have a whole system set up to remove the guilt disincentive to investors. It’s a system that basically creates a psychopathic collective entity without its participants realizing their greed or hypocrisy. The only thing about consumers investors care about are what the they (the consumers) are willing to pay - and the investors don’t even have to be aware of that to drive it. Think of it this way, its likely true that you don’t look much deeper into your investments beyond the ROI statements. You might, out of curiosity find a way to see what entities you’re invested in, but I doubt you’d go any further than that - to dig into secondary and tertiary levels of investment because what really matters is the bottom line: money made. The advocates for investors hire boards to ensure corporations maximize their profits, and the market determines the secondary and tertiary sources those products come from. This economic culture is so ingrained in our society that we’ve literally fought wars over it, killed millions, justified the destruction of vast amounts of our own planet, and even justified near-slavery conditions around third world. All of this while allowing the investors to criticize these situations as harshly as they want and ignore the fact that they’re the ones driving the massacres, the near-slavery, and destruction of the planet. And that’s no hyperbole, that’s the depth of the system.

In the end, this it breaks down to some capitalists vs. other capitalists. The interests of the consumers are not the interests of Epic, Google, or Apple - their investors only care about the bottom line.

It’s interesting how you only seem to be blaming Apple for this and praise Google despite identical actions. You believe Epic has consumer rights in mind and ignore the fact that they are the ones guilty of this breakdown of service. I am guessing your anti-Apple sentiment is a result of being pro-Android. You feel this way because you’ve bought into the marketing.

If Epic, or anyone, was interested in you having cheaper games, their products would be SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper than they currently are. The proof is that the cost to be on the platform is a percentage, not a flat rate, and Epic already makes substantial profits.

This has nothing to do with the consumer and won’t result in cheaper games under any outcome.

I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.