Remedy and Annapurna announce a strategic cooperation agreement on Control 2 - eviltoast
Remedy and Annapurna announce a strategic cooperation agreement on Control 2 and bringing Control and Alan Wake to film and television

Remedy and Annapurna announce a strategic cooperation agreement on Control 2 and bringing Control and Alan Wake to film and television

  • masterspace@lemmy.caEnglish
    111·
    2 months ago

    A creative work which you made yourself, which you can sell wherever you want.

    Should you sell it everywhere so as many people can play it as possible? Sure. Do you have to? No.

    We’re not talking about what you currently have to do, we’re talking about anti- competitive behaviour and what you should do.

    If you set up your own shop to avoid paying a middle man for something you can do yourself fine. If you set up your own shop and then use your exclusive games to grow your shop into something bigger, then that’s anti-competitive tying. Your shop is not competing on its merits as a shop.

    Let’s reverse the roles for a second: EGS is the big player and Steam is just getting started. EGS suddenly starts paying all publishers to only publish on their platform. Does that sound like competition to you? You don’t break a monopoly by using tools used by monopolies.

    There is a fundamental difference between using anti-competitive behaviour to break a monopoly, and using it to entrench a monopoly. That’s like arguing that a bully using violence and someone standing up to a bully using violence is the same thing.

    They don’t even need 21 years of infrastructure for most of these, they just need to fund development of it. Which they seem to be unwilling to do so.

    Where do you think the funding for Valve’s system came from? 21 years of taking 30% of virtually every single PC game sale.

    • Passerby6497@lemmy.worldEnglish
      91·
      2 months ago

      There is a fundamental difference between using anti-competitive behaviour to break a monopoly, and using it to entrench a monopoly.

      Yes, and as we all know, a company that gets to the top using scummy tactics will definitely change them once they’re on top. /s

      How fucking naive are you? There’s no difference between the two because the later turns into the former every time. You’re just defending your favored party using shit tactics, which is why you can’t defend the opposite.

      That’s like arguing that a bully using violence and someone standing up to a bully using violence is the same thing.

      If you have to use violence constantly to survive and thrive, violence is your only tool. Once the bully is defeated, the victim will begin bullying, continuing the cycle of violence. This is no different.

      • masterspace@lemmy.caEnglish
        11·
        2 months ago

        How fucking naive are you? There’s no difference between the two because the later turns into the former every time. You’re just defending your favored party using shit tactics, which is why you can’t defend the opposite.

        Lol no. It’s called competition. It’s the literal entire basis of how our economic system is supposed to work and remain balanced, and having two competitors inherently creates more competition than just one where their inherently is no competition.

        If you have to use violence constantly to survive and thrive, violence is your only tool. Once the bully is defeated, the victim will begin bullying, continuing the cycle of violence. This is no different.

        Now who’s naiive, you really think that every time someone has stood up for themselves that they’ve gone on to become a bully?