should pc get some exclusive skins?

[KnossosTNC]

15 minutes ago, PublikDomain said:

What difference does a PC exclusive storefront exclusive becoming just a storefront exclusive make in business decision-making, and for which business? Who does this distinction matter to?

You're trying to do it again; find even the most narrow arbitrary qualifier to try to justify your broader claim, i.e. that the PC platform doesn't matter as a distinct entity.

The demonstration was meant to make a point. The point was not that someone cares about that very specific circumstance. The point was that the broader distinction exists, and that people cares about that broader distinction, which is why PC exclusives exist. Your specific line of questioning has zero value to the broader point. I will not get into the exhaustive details of this arbitrary and moot technicality with you.

[PublikDomain]

1 hour ago, KnossosTNC said:

I will not get into the exhaustive details of this arbitrary and moot technicality with you.

Then this "arbitrary and moot technicality" does not matter to the discussion.

[KnossosTNC]

17 minutes ago, PublikDomain said:

Then this "arbitrary and moot technicality" does not matter to the discussion.

And the broader point stands.

[PublikDomain]

10 minutes ago, KnossosTNC said:

And the broader point stands.

Yes, the broader point that PC exclusivity is a matter of circumstance. Something is a PC exclusive only because the developer hasn't put it on consoles, not because some spooky shadow entity that "owns PC" won't let them. Either the engine the game is made in won't port without more effort than it's worth, or the game's genre is a poor fit, or consoles lack the input density or hardware to support the gameplay, or the game isn't likely to do well due to market preferences, or any number of other circumstances. Something being a PC exclusive doesn't do anything to prevent it from making it to other platforms, because no* entity exists that can pay for that exclusivity in the first place.

Kindly remember that even Warframe was once a PC exclusive, right up until the point where it wasn't.

[KnossosTNC]

24 minutes ago, PublikDomain said:

Yes, the broader point that PC exclusivity is a matter of circumstance. Something is a PC exclusive only because the developer hasn't put it on consoles, not because some spooky shadow entity that "owns PC" won't let them. Either the engine the game is made in won't port without more effort than it's worth, or the game's genre is a poor fit, or consoles lack the input density or hardware to support the gameplay, or the game isn't likely to do well due to market preferences, or any number of other circumstances. Something being a PC exclusive doesn't do anything to prevent it from making it to other platforms, because no* entity exists that can pay for that exclusivity in the first place.

Kindly remember that even Warframe was once a PC exclusive, right up until the point where it wasn't.

Having no hard mechanism to prevent PC exclusives from being ported to other platforms still doesn't justify your attempt to arbitrarily discard the PC platform as having "no real value" and is "just a generic term." A difference in mechanism does not devalue the weaker mechanism, it just means there is a distinction. A negative influence is still influence. You do not get to hand-wave it away with nothing more than an arbitrary and nebulous "who cares."

So, once again;

1. Roll with it.
2. Agree to disagree.
3. Come up with better argument.

These are your options. Pick one.

[PublikDomain]

35 minutes ago, KnossosTNC said:

Having no hard mechanism to prevent PC exclusives from being ported to other platforms still doesn't justify your attempt to arbitrarily discard the PC platform as having "no real value" and is "just a generic term."

I've refuted this before but I guess I have to do it again: where have I attempted to discard the PC platform? I've said that PC exclusivity has no real value.

On 2021-05-11 at 10:16 PM, PublikDomain said:

We don't need to equate "storefront exclusive" and "PC exclusive" equally either, since the latter has no real value: no one is paying for that PC exclusivity, only storefront exclusivity. The storefront exclusivity is the only part with any value to anyone, while the latter is just happenstance.

See? You're conflating the two separate terms. The term "PC platform" is not the same as "PC exclusivity". What value does PC exclusivity have and why would a company pay to have it, when it restricts the number of places they can sell their product and prevents them from maximizing revenue?

And if PC isn't a generic term, which entity trademarks it?

Round and round we go. This is fun though, gives me something to do.

[ClosedBetaTester]

Sure give PC exclusive skins. As long as it takes the hate for founders. ;-;

 

[KnossosTNC]

9 hours ago, PublikDomain said:

I've refuted this before but I guess I have to do it again: where have I attempted to discard the PC platform? I've said that PC exclusivity has no real value.

See? You're conflating the two separate terms. The term "PC platform" is not the same as "PC exclusivity". What value does PC exclusivity have and why would a company pay to have it, when it restricts the number of places they can sell their product and prevents them from maximizing revenue?

I never said they were the same; you're the one trying to smash multiple distinct entities together, by equating "storefront exclusives" with "PC exclusives." Another argument you cooked out of thin air. In your attempt to argue your point, however, you went and devalued the PC platform by setting arbitrary conditions to reach to be considered of value, such as:

On 2021-05-08 at 10:06 AM, PublikDomain said:

Well yeah no S#&$... No one is saying otherwise, my dude. PC is a generic term, just like "consoles". When someone says "Warframe on consoles", who do you think of? Xbox, Playstation, and Switch. Duh. When someone says "Warframe on PC", who do you think of? Steam and maybe EGS or the standalone launcher if you're weird. Duh. Heck, OP's example was Nvidia. There is no Mr. PC DE can call up and talk to, you've said this yourself. That's nonsense and no one is saying otherwise. There are however major PC gaming storefronts like Steam and EGS which fill the exact same role as their counterparts in console gaming. For example, Discord's PC-exclusive marketplace offered *the exact same kind of skins we're talking about*.

Conditional on a singular body to represent it to be considered distinct from the storefronts and launchers, as well as something more than just "a generic term."

On 2021-05-08 at 3:04 PM, PublikDomain said:

There are software platforms like Steam, and then there are platforms like Xbox which involve both. Referring to Xbox as a platform means both the hardware and the software: the two are inseparable and the same company controls both. This isn't the case on PC, where there are many interchangeable hardware and software platforms available to consumers. Since there is no standard hardware specification, PC gaming is instead all about the software platforms - whether that's big storefronts like Steam or EGS or small ecosystems built directly by developers. That's why the question "who owns PC?" was so nonsensical. No one owns PC as a hardware platform, so that question doesn't make sense. What does make sense is talking about the various PC-based software platforms like Steam or EGS, which as we agree are analogous to their console-based counterparts.

Conditional on standardised hardware to be considered of value, thus arguing only the storefronts have value to PC gaming.

You're even doing it again in the very post I'm replying to:

9 hours ago, PublikDomain said:

And if PC isn't a generic term, which entity trademarks it?

Conditional on an entity having term or mark that is eligible for trademark protection to have value beyond "generic term."

Just because there is no single entity to negotiate for it, it does not have standardised hardware, and it cannot receive trademark protection, does not mean exclusives that belong to it has no value, and therefore it is safe to appropriate a term that refers to something that comes about from a very different mechanism. In your attempt to devalue PC exclusives, the PC platform itself seems to have become your collateral damage. I'm asking you to either argue your point more directly if that was your intention, or clean up your mess.

[Ascarith]

This thread seems to have gone slightly off the rails, but just pointing out that folks don't seem to be engaging with trademarks in a logical manner.

7 hours ago, PublikDomain said:

And if PC isn't a generic term, which entity trademarks it?

If the point being argued here is that "PC platform" is a generic term because no entity has registered the term as a trademark, then this...doesn't make a lot of sense.

A generic term cannot be registered as a trademark. Thus, it would appear logical to say that if something is a registered trademark, the (word) mark is not generic. But formal logic tends to only hold up in a closed universe, which this is not, since a registered trademark can later become a generic term. Also worth noting that you need not register a trademark (in the US, at least) in order to benefit from trademark protection, so just because a (word) mark isn't registered doesn't mean that it couldn't be registered (i.e., doesn't mean that the (word) mark is generic).

If you want to argue that "PC platform" is a generic term, then you're probably better off just arguing that on its own merits.

6 hours ago, KnossosTNC said:

Conditional on an entity being trademark-able to have value beyond "generic term."

Just because there is no single entity to negotiate for it, it does not have standardised hardware, and it cannot be trademarked, does not mean exclusives that belong to it has no value, and therefore it is safe to appropriate a term that refers to something that comes about from a very different mechanism. In your attempt to devalue PC exclusives, the PC platform itself seems to have become your collateral damage. I'm asking you to either argue your point more directly if that was your intention, or clean up your mess.

No entity is "trademark-able." Marks, and not entities, are what trademark protection is for (e.g., an entity's name might be a trademark). It's possible you knew that, but what you wrote doesn't really engage with the question that was posed.

Additionally, you appear to be using "PC platform" inconsistently (possibly to save on having to write a separate sentence). Specifically, "PC platform" is presumably the antecedent for your "it" pronouns. If that's the case, then when you say "it cannot be trademarked," the "it" should be referring to "PC platform" as the term itself, and not actual (e.g., physical) platforms. In every other instance of "it," however, you seem to be referring to the actual platform and not the term "PC platform." 

I'd like to say that people will probably understand what you meant regardless, but after (slightly less than?) 7 pages of...whatever this thread became...I don't know what to think anymore.

[KnossosTNC]

45 minutes ago, Ascarith said:

No entity is "trademark-able." Marks, and not entities, are what trademark protection is for (e.g., an entity's name might be a trademark). It's possible you knew that, but what you wrote doesn't really engage with the question that was posed.

Additionally, you appear to be using "PC platform" inconsistently (possibly to save on having to write a separate sentence). Specifically, "PC platform" is presumably the antecedent for your "it" pronouns. If that's the case, then when you say "it cannot be trademarked," the "it" should be referring to "PC platform" as the term itself, and not actual (e.g., physical) platforms. In every other instance of "it," however, you seem to be referring to the actual platform and not the term "PC platform." 

I'd like to say that people will probably understand what you meant regardless, but after (slightly less than?) 7 pages of...whatever this thread became...I don't know what to think anymore.

Yeah, I admit I was just done cooking and eating my pasta (penne with ham & mushroom carbonara) at the time, so I wasn't really thinking things in detail. And you're right, trademark protection is for marks and terms, not entities. I knew that from my past following stories such as the "Edge" trademark saga and controversy over Arsenal FC's (which I support, so I had a vested interest) 2002 logo redesign. Again, my brain was on pasta at the time. I suppose a more precise sentence I should have written would probably be something like "conditional on the entity having a mark or term that can be trademarked," before presumably slapping my hand on my forehead.

Honestly, I don't know what this thread has become. I'm just about on autopilot at the moment. Read, dissect, rebut, repeat. Anyway, thank you very much for the clarifications.