But in the same way VC funding artificially lowers the costs/prices to the consumer until they've captured a market and then bam, time to pump them for all they've got.
I use it to just grab a game if it's free... and every time I realise they still haven't added dark mode to checkout to match the rest of the app, and get my retinas burnt by the sudden contrast flip.
There are no saints, and acting like Epic has the moral high ground because they fight for the little guy ( no, they fight for themselves) with what they did to do that is disingenuous at best.
they were different and compelling enough to get Microsoft to adopt most (maybe all, by now) of what he insisted upon.
How is Epic the bad guy here when Steam is in a monopoly position? Epic should be commended for taking them on (and Apple and Google).
Appeals to quality don't seem particularly meaningful when the price of both is 0.
someone wanna explain this logic to me?
The logic the GP was using was that exclusivity deals and "the first hit is free" tactics are not ultimately in the customer's interest.
the thing EGS IS doing differently, however, is being much more fair to creators of these games, and basing their fees on the actual costs they must incur, instead of just taking as much as they can, which is very much in the consumer's best interest. it's in everyone's best interest, because more profit for most game devs means more games from those devs, and more games are what consumers want.
Nope.