23.
 
Re: Evening Interviews
May 9, 2021, 17:35
23.
Re: Evening Interviews May 9, 2021, 17:35
May 9, 2021, 17:35
 
jdreyer wrote on 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.
That's a different argument, then, since you're talking about forcing the game developers and publishers to do something different, not Valve. You were saying the companies would tell Valve to "fuck off", and now you're saying it's good for them.

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.
Citation, please. Because I think you're talking about the time in 2019 when GOG laid off 12 people while hiring 20, mentioning that Epic's 12% cut was putting pressure on them. Which is another incidental factor -- if you race to the bottom, it squeezes out the small competitors before the big companies are forced to fold, and the end result is that profits are sent overseas, where they can make do with less.

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.
What you said was that developers have to sell on Steam or they'll go broke. There are indie games that started off on platforms like Kongregate or itch.io, or on their own websites (Mount & Blade, Factorio, Defender's Quest, Dwarf Fortress), before jumping onto Steam to make more money. What you seem to want is a legislative solution that makes it so developers can't possibly make more money by selling on Steam. Not because of their MFN clause or any anticompetitive practices, the goal appears to be just smashing any company that builds a large enough audience that game companies would want to sell there.

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?
It's not the monolithic competitor setting prices to $60, or $70. It's the game companies, who have determined that this is where their maximum revenue is on the demand curve, and it's independent of the developer cut. As I said, this is a separate discussion, since you could eliminate Steam's MFN clause, and in fact eliminate Steam altogether, and it wouldn't change that price. You don't want to remove the MFN rule, you want to create a new rule binding companies to the same selling profit/unit from Valve/Epic/etc.

And In your analogy, you're rooting for the rundown Walmarts, not the local toyshops, which isn't a great look.
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
 23.
May 9, 2021May 9 2021
     Re: Evening Interviews
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