4 ms·
In practice, the difference is that consoles tend to be sold at loss, they wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the 30% cut. And in my experience, another big differ
by esclerofilo 5y ago
In practice, the difference is that consoles tend to be sold at loss, they wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the 30% cut. And in my experience, another big difference was that when I had consoles, I could easily borrow my friend's games, or buy cheaper games used. I don't know how it works with digital goods on modern consoles, but Steam actually has a feature to lend your library to a friend, so there's precedent.
- anoncake 5y agoIf customers don't buy consoles unless sold at a loss, they value them less than making them costs. Which means they shouldn't be made.
- tompazourek 5y agoYou forget that there's a competitive market that affects the pricing of consoles. If a customer values a console for $1000 and therer are two consoles on the market that are almost identical, one costs $600, and the other one $900, the customer is still going to get the $600 one. The cost is related to the value it brings, but it's also heavily affected by competition.
- anoncake 5y agoNo, I didn't. I meant that if opening consoles means they stop existing because customers aren't willing to buy them at full price, that's actually a good thing.