• conciselyverbose@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    That doesn’t even resemble a coherent argument. A price point doesn’t change whether hardware manufacturers have any kind of obligation to open their platform or not.

    It’s also a lie. Nintendo doesn’t sell jack shit at a loss and never will.

    • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      I agree more with the “not a monopoly” argument. While there are three main players, there are dozens of game systems out there. Whereas there are only two “real” app stores (Play Store and AppStore), and each has a (near) monopoly in a different market.

  • JamesFire@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    Because trying to sue 4 giant companies at once on shaky legal ground is exceedingly stupid.

    While trying to sue just 1 giant company on shaky legal ground is inadvisable.

  • dynamojoe@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    if I understand correctly, he’s arguing that since consoles are sold at a loss and the store has to make up the difference, Epic is ok with the 30% on the console stores. But Google and Apple charge full price for hardware so 30% for the google or apple app store is just being greedy and Epic’s not OK with that.