this post was submitted on 04 Dec 2023
26 points (96.4% liked)

Nintendo

17938 readers
37 users here now

A community for everything Nintendo. Games, news, discussions, stories etc.

Rules:

  1. No NSFW content.
  2. No hate speech or personal attacks.
  3. No ads / spamming / self-promotion / low effort posts / memes etc.
  4. No linking to, or sharing information about, hacks, ROMs or any illegal content. And no piracy talk. (Linking to emulators, or general mention / discussion of emulation topics is fine.)
  5. No console wars or PC elitism.
  6. Be a decent human (or a bot, we don't discriminate against bots... except in Point 7).
  7. All bots must have mod permission prior to implementation and must follow instance-wide rules. For lemmy.world bot rules click here

Upcoming First Party Games (NA):

Game | Date


|


Luigi's Mansion 2 HD | Jun 27 Nintendo World Championships: NES™ Edition | Jul 18 The Legend of Zelda: Echoes of Wisdom | Sep 26 Super Mario Party Jamboree | Oct 17 Mario & Luigi: Brothership | Nov 7 Donkey Kong Country Returns HD | Jan 16, 2025 Metroid Prime 4 | 2025

Other Gaming Communities


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 6 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] conciselyverbose@kbin.social 23 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

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 2 points 7 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 6 points 7 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.

[–] AlwaysNowNeverNotMe@kbin.social 2 points 6 months ago

Nintendo has not sold a console at a loss in 30 years.

[–] dynamojoe@lemmy.world 1 points 7 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.

[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net -1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

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?