583
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 Dec 2024
583 points (92.4% liked)
Games
39400 readers
639 users here now
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Rules
Authorized Regular Threads
Related communities
Video games
Generic
- !gaming@Lemmy.world: Our sister community, focused on PC and console gaming. Meme are allowed.
- !cozygames@Lemmy.world: Because not everything has to explode to make a good game
- !photomode@feddit.uk
Help and suggestions
- !TipOfMyJoystick@retrolemmy.com : You are searching for a game, but can't remember the name? Someone will find it for you here.
- Videogame Suggestions : Can't find a game to play in among the hundred you already own? Find another one to add to your library here.
- Patient Gamers: Gaming isn't only about having the latest great games. Good old games are there too.
Platform specific
- Linux Gaming : For everything related to gaming on Linux platform, be it on Steam Deck or Desktop Linux.
- Steam Deck : A Steam Deck specific community
Game specific
Language specific
Others
PM a mod to add your own
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
All retail establishments utilize loss leaders. It's not some underhanded duplicitous tactic, it's just a common business strategy
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.
Well yeah, fighting for market share against an entrenched monopoly isn't cheap. That's not a reason to cheer on the monopoly though.
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.
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.
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.