this post was submitted on 03 Dec 2024
639 points (91.8% liked)

Games

32770 readers
2269 users here now

Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.

Weekly Threads:

What Are You Playing?

The Weekly Discussion Topic

Rules:

  1. Submissions have to be related to games

  2. No bigotry or harassment, be civil

  3. No excessive self-promotion

  4. Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts

  5. Mark Spoilers and NSFW

  6. No linking to piracy

More information about the community rules can be found here.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Nothing more disappointing to me than seeing a game I might enjoy... and then it's only available on PC on Epic Games store. Why can't it be available on Epic, Xbox game store and Steam? It's so annoying, like you have no choice but to use Epic... which I would literally do ANYTHING not to use.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Bronzebeard@lemm.ee -2 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

All retail establishments utilize loss leaders. It's not some underhanded duplicitous tactic, it's just a common business strategy

[–] stardust@lemmy.ca 2 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago) (1 children)

Loss leaders that lead to buying other things that lead to overall profitability for that section of the business.

This entire division is operating at a loss. Point isn't that it is unusual or underhanded. It's that because of the way the division is currently run it is not a business model to point to as being sustainable.

[–] Bronzebeard@lemm.ee 1 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Well yeah, fighting for market share against an entrenched monopoly isn't cheap. That's not a reason to cheer on the monopoly though.

[–] stardust@lemmy.ca 1 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

That's not what the conversation was about. It was about whether the business model is actually viable.

If the business of that section is turning a profit it lends more support as opposed to being seen as a side project that doesn't need to turn a profit. Which is why I included GOG into the mix, since Microsoft and Epic are huge companies with alternative revenue streams.

[–] Bronzebeard@lemm.ee 1 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

No it wasn't. We were taking about streams monopoly status and epic being one of the few alternatives.

YOU were the one trying to deflect the conversation into business viability. Which your entire side tangent really only reinforces how obscene the monopoly hold off stream is, that trying to break into the market is so expensive.

[–] stardust@lemmy.ca 1 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

If the point of cuts is given then business viability is quite important. Especially when it raises questions of whether GOG could sustain a lower cut. Those options you provided like Microsoft and Epic are multibillion dollar corporations capable of burning through money endlessly.

[–] Bronzebeard@lemm.ee 1 points 5 hours ago

Do you know why 30% was chosen? It was the typical cut retail took. Physical stores selling goods take that much to cover their lease, logistics in moving those good to the store and employees.

Online stores do not share most of those costs. 30% is not needed.