19.
 
Re: Evening Interviews
May 9, 2021, 14:30
19.
Re: Evening Interviews May 9, 2021, 14:30
May 9, 2021, 14:30
 
Orogogus wrote on May 9, 2021, 11:59:
I believe game prices are set according to what companies think people are willing to pay, making the MFN clause mostly irrelevant. I think companies agree to it since it doesn't bother them.
Of course it doesn't bother the companies. They make more money this way. This is bad for consumers, for you.

GOG does have a restrictive policy in their "No DRM" clause. From all appearances there are lots of companies who can't live with that. According to you they should be going out of business because everyone "told them to fuck off".
GOG has been barely holding on for years and barely grown, and it had massive layoffs a couple of years ago. Every year they make a few 10s of thousands of profit, compared to Valve's billions. They're lucky in that they need not stand on their own two feet. If they have a few red quarters, they can be supplemented with CP77 profits.

It's more like you said that it's impossible to survive a 100 MPH crash and then got snarky and mad when I pointed out guys who did. And in point of fact I picked out the two games that invented their own genres and made megabucks, which is the main situation where ducking the distributor's cut is worthwhile.
The point is that a couple of independent megahits do not make an industry. Relying on winning the lottery is no way to run a business.

I don't think we're arguing from the same perception of reality. You're just going to call me a Nazi or a capitalist or whatever, but I believe 1) increasing revenue is harder than simply raising your prices, and 2) if it were that easy, then companies would do it all the time regardless of how much they "needed" the extra revenue. There's a fundamental disagreement, because as far as I can tell you believe companies set out to make <x> amount of money and then stop. Like, you think there should be lots of examples of games selling only on GOG or Kartridge or the Microsoft Store, but not on Steam because the developers just didn't need any more money. To you, the fact that hardly anyone does this means that they're not making their "<x> amount of money" goals, whereas I think any normal company just wants to make as much money as possible. You're demanding a situation where it's impossible for developers to make any more money if they sell on Steam, and I think that's absurd.
Not at all, I think that storefronts should be able to set prices for the products they sell, not have those prices determined by a monolithic competitor. In most industries stores buy products at cost, then set their own prices. That's price competition. I can go to my local toyshop and pay $30 for a Lego set and get the benefits of shopping there (personal service, expertise, location convenience) or I can drive to the suburbs and get that same set from the rundown Walmart for $25. If my local toyshop could dictate Walmart's price, why would I ever go Walmart?
If Russia stops fighting, the war ends. If Ukraine stops fighting, Ukraine ends. Slava Ukraini!
Avatar 22024
Date
Subject
Author
1.
May 7, 2021May 7 2021
2.
May 7, 2021May 7 2021
3.
May 7, 2021May 7 2021
7.
May 8, 2021May 8 2021
9.
May 8, 2021May 8 2021
4.
May 8, 2021May 8 2021
5.
May 8, 2021May 8 2021
6.
May 8, 2021May 8 2021
13.
May 9, 2021May 9 2021
11.
May 8, 2021May 8 2021
14.
May 9, 2021May 9 2021
17.
May 9, 2021May 9 2021
 19.
May 9, 2021May 9 2021
    Re: Evening Interviews
23.
May 9, 2021May 9 2021
8.
May 8, 2021May 8 2021
10.
May 8, 2021May 8 2021
12.
May 8, 2021May 8 2021
15.
May 9, 2021May 9 2021
16.
May 9, 2021May 9 2021
18.
May 9, 2021May 9 2021
20.
May 9, 2021May 9 2021
21.
May 9, 2021May 9 2021
22.
May 9, 2021May 9 2021