What the fuck?

>Maybe I should actually buy the new Anno ga-

Yeah, they kinda are sweety.

Valve are such cucks, pathetic

Yes, thats what I'm saying idiot.

This, they are slapping both epic and steam.

>implying I would even consider buying something that forced me to install uplay

Attached: 1449894324167.png (480x550, 317K)

I'll just wait until it's on Steam.

Yeah, they are entitled to keep their games on a platform sweety

They aren't actually

>buying ubisoft games in 2019
I've added them to my boycott list desu
not only are their games awful rehashes but their business practices are scummy too, I'll just my money to support japanese devs instead

Really doesn't matter. As long as it requires Uplay I'm not buying it anyway.

Ill wait for the GOG release

What the fuck? What is going on bros, I have 5 games on steam I don't want to lose my games!

Okay, this is epic.

Of course, Epic deals seems to allow other key stores if they're somehow related to developer/publisher. That and Humble Store.

kek
explain how this is illegal and where in the world it would be illegal

Who says it?

Lmao, I haven't played a single Ubishit game since 2006. You all support this shitshow by either buying their games from their store or from steam. And even by pirating.
It's all your own fault, get over it.

>I'll just my money to support japanese devs instead
This.
I'd much rather support Jap devs that are either part owned by Tencent, or that use Epic's Unreal 4 Engine.

>Given that exclusivity over a supplier’s products is granted to a single distributor within an area, interbrand competition (between products of competing brands) may be enhanced, but intrabrand competition (between different distributors of the same product) is virtually eliminated. This can have indirect consequences on price, and may raise concerns under Section 1 of the Sherman Act. As a result, the Supreme Court originally treated such restraints as per se illegal. Until 1977, the per se rule established in the seminal Dr. Miles case applied to exclusive distribution.[1]

> Representatives of the Chicago School – Judge Richard Posner in particular – even argued that exclusive distribution should be legal per se.[3] Nevertheless, the courts have not fully accepted this position, and will look at the specific conditions of the exclusive distributorship in each scenario (length of time of the exclusivity, geographic area, interbrand competition) before coming to a decision as to the legality of the scheme in question

>It is rare that exclusive distribution agreements will be considered part of an attempt to monopolize in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act.[7] However, it is more likely that these agreements will be deemed unlawful in the event that either the supplier or the buyer hold a dominant position.[8] For Section 2 to apply, an intention to eliminate competitors through the exclusive distribution contract would need to be demonstrated; that is to say, the restrictions would have to be part of a wider anti-competitive scheme.[9]

While this particular case will surely not be considered illegal by US courts, they are certainly coming close to the point where a judge might be asked to rule on it.