JEMC said:
The card itself is ok-ish as you say, the problem comes wihen you compare it to the rest of the Ampere cards already released. That the 3070 blows past the 2080 and 2080S and goes on par with the 2080Ti and the 3060Ti not only beats the 2070 and 2070S, but it also goes past the 2080 and ends on par with the 2080S. And the 3060 now released? It's "just" on par with the 2070 from the previous generation, it can't even come close to the 2070S. So well, it's an ok card by itself but, compared to the rest of the family, it doesn't perform as well as them. |
Sure, not much to argue here. If you're willing to pay more for better value, the 3060 doesn't seem like a great choice.
JEMC said:
If I'm honest, the whole Epic vs Apple situation is the result of both sides being dicks, begining with Epic that tried to be smarter than everyone else by bypassing Apple's paying system to get 100% of the money to Apple overreacting and blocking Epic from its store entirely. Beyond that, there are a lot of things I don't know that could shed some light into the data requested. Is the data from games released on both the Apple store and Steam? That could be understandable to make a fair comparion between stores. Does Valve get a cut from every microtransaction made in-game, even if the purchase doesn't go through Steam payment methods? Other than that, I fail to see how Epic can win this lawsuit. PC is an open ecosystem with lots of manufacturers to choose from and several stores to use to purchase your games. With Apple that's not the case, it's a closes system and you know you'll be forced to use Apple's control to do anything. And when it comes to the Apple store, I'm sure any publisher signs a contract stating the terms of service, and Epic clearly violated those. It's a lost cause. |
Epic is definitely being a dick, with both Apple and Valve, albeit in somewhat different ways. The point about the 30 % cut being too large is a good one though, but at the same time Epic is making itself look greedy. The whole situation is a bit of a mess, and seems like an expensive one for everyone involved. In the only, publishers will be the biggest winners, with consumers potentially being another if Apple's closed ecosystem somehow ends up opening as a result.
On PC there's no lawsuit and one wouldn't make sense anyway. With Apple, I can actually see this lawsuit making some sense, because Apple's closed ecosystem is actually not great for competition. The same goes for consoles and probably a lot of other stuff as well, so there's definitely been time for closed ecosystems on closed platforms to fall in courts, but that hasn't happened yet so it seems reasonable to assume that they are indeed legal. However, I'm sure Epic wouldn't have gone to court unless they thought they had a real chance to win. Indeed, the chance most lilkely is there (somewhere). And just to clarify, I doubt Epic breaking the terms of Apple's service are anything that's being discussed in the court; It was just the trigger for the lawsuit, which to my understanding is being pressed for formally different reasons.
(As for the 30 % cut, it's way harder for me to imagine there actually being anything that Epic can win. That's probably one reason why they decided to target Apple instead of Valve.)
