Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Submissions have to be related to games
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
No excessive self-promotion
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
No linking to piracy
More information about the community rules can be found here.
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.
Epic is running a loss leader at this point so it's not an business model to point to, since it's subsidized by unreal and fortnite.
Microsoft on Xbox is taking a 30% cut so it wouldn't be farfetched to assume cut is more a strategy to try to expand market share and are willing to increase down the line if they got market share. And Microsoft is Microsoft so has lot of other profitable divisions to be able to run things at a loss.
One actually better to point to might be GOG which is also taking 30%, but in 2021 had a 1 million dollar loss. https://www.pcgamer.com/gog-looks-like-its-in-a-much-healthier-spot-after-a-hairy-2021/
Which raises the question. What is actually sustainable? Especially the lower cut offered have other much more profitable divisions that are covering potential losses and not being the main source of revenue.
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.
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.