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:
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.
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.
Nintendo has not sold a console at a loss in 30 years.
The suit(s) over this kinda thing that already exist are ridiculous.
What’s next? Are these clowns gonna argue that competing stores having sales or lower prices than their own is anticompetitive?
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.
