El Pit wrote on Jun 26, 2019, 13:21:
Beamer wrote on Jun 26, 2019, 13:18:
Bumpy wrote on Jun 26, 2019, 13:01:
Fion wrote on Jun 26, 2019, 12:43:
The moment games start selling for $45 on EGS, while they are $60 everywhere else - because EGS takes a smaller piece of the pie - is the moment I'll believe any of this bullshit and install the software.
What if, instead of lowering the price, they increase the budget for the game, resulting in a game that has some combination of more content, fewer bugs, better graphics, etc.? Or they make no changes but they reduce the break-even volume, and therefore the game is more likely to be considered a success and be supported longer, get more DLC, and be more likely to get a sequel?
Would that make you happy? I doubt it, because those are invisible benefit that most people would still be very angry about.
It only this would be true... Our economy works like this: any money you don't invest or can even rip out of a product is given to the shareholder and does not go back into the production or the wallets of the employees. It is like Apple does it: cut the productions costs where possible but keep the price up and give all the bonus to the shareholders. And be loved by them.
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Yes, shareholders are all our economy seems to care about these days. But no, budgets are made based upon forecasts. Forecasts change when costs get cut. Budgets are often tied to an expected margin. When the costs permanently go down, the margin improves. Often, this is reinvested, rather than seen as a windfall.