4 ms·
Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that console hardware is usually sold below cost to get people into the ecosystem and make that back as people
by Eridrus 8y ago
Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that console hardware is usually sold below cost to get people into the ecosystem and make that back as people buy games.
So forcing console makers to allow other stores would probably have a much more dramatic impact on the console market.
And while IANAL, it seems a bit of a stretch to apply anti-trust law here.
- Nursie 8y agoI'm not sure I see why the level of hardware profitability is at issue? It's use of platform power to lock in profit and exclusivty that appears to be at issue.
- freehunter 8y agoYeah if anything that's even worse. Dropping the price of your product to unsustainable levels to gain a competitive advantage is called "predatory pricing" and is a valid cause for anti-trust suits.
- Eridrus 8y agoThis isn't really predatory pricing though. This is structuring your costs, such that you are profitable over the lifetime value of the customer, even if you are not necessarily making a profit right away. And this has benefits to consumers, who can get into the ecosystem more cheaply, and developers who can sell to a larger audience, because people can get in more cheaply.
- bduerst 8y agoConsole hardware is sold at a loss, yes, but the recuperated costs are traditionally made on game licensing for the platform. The online markets are a newer phenomenon.