You seem to be operating under some notion that particular work deserves a particular amount of pay. That’s backwards. People pay for what they get, not for what the seller’s cost of goods.
We know that Larian is doing very well financially. Their devs are happy and well paid.
You seem to be operating under some notion that particular work deserves a particular amount of pay. That’s backwards. People pay for what they get, not for what the seller’s cost of goods.
You seem to be operating with no knowledge of how capitalism is supposed to work. In the long run competition amongst consumer options forces companies to drive prices down to ~ costs + a reasonable margin.
Where that doesn’t happen is in cases of monopolies, monopsonies, oligopolies, and generally in areas where there is a lack of competition.
Like in the case of Valve’s effective PC gaming monopoly and gamer’s dumbass insistence on defending it.
We know that Larian is doing very well financially. Their devs are happy and well paid.
So the fuck what? You think every developer is? You think Larian wouldn’t appreciate 30% of all of their sales money not going straight to Valve for doing jack shit?
I haven’t studied “capitalism” but my Masters degree is in Financial Engineering. Since you seem to care about formal economics, how do you propose solving Akelof’s Market for Lemons?
Valve solves the information asymmetry. That’s a net gain for both buyers and sellers. But you’ve studied economics, so you probably know that already.
So let’s skip to the meat of the question. How do you propose determining the intrinsic value of resolved information asymmetry.
Are you actually confused about the information asymmetry in video game purchases? Given your weird movie references I assumed you were just trying to change the topic.
I’ll try to use small words. Before you play a game, you don’t know if it’s goo;, just as used car buyers don’t know if the used car is a lemon. Without a buyer protections that drags the price of good games down just as lemons drag down the price of used cars. Akerlof goes into the proof for the car part of this in his paper.
“Lemon laws” mostly solve that problem for cars. Steam mostly solves that problem for video games. That requires trust. You may not trust Steam but millions of people do. They’ve repeatedly made decisions that benefit gamers so gamers flock to them. Thats why they buy so many games from Steam even when they’re available elsewhere. If they broke that trust they’d probably never get it back but, until then, their net effect is to increase revenue for studios by providing a market where people are comfortable enough to spend more money.
There’s simple and there’s oversimplified. The element your missing is “trust”. The reason gamers go to Steam is because we trust their reviews and return policies.
The other storefronts haven’t built that trust. Most gamers have the experience of trying other storefronts, hating them, and going back to Steam.
People don’t trust Gabe because he’s a billionaire, they trust him because he consistently makes decisions that gamers benefit from. No other game store CEO can claim that with a straight face.
You seem to be operating under some notion that particular work deserves a particular amount of pay. That’s backwards. People pay for what they get, not for what the seller’s cost of goods.
We know that Larian is doing very well financially. Their devs are happy and well paid.
You seem to be operating with no knowledge of how capitalism is supposed to work. In the long run competition amongst consumer options forces companies to drive prices down to ~ costs + a reasonable margin.
Where that doesn’t happen is in cases of monopolies, monopsonies, oligopolies, and generally in areas where there is a lack of competition.
Like in the case of Valve’s effective PC gaming monopoly and gamer’s dumbass insistence on defending it.
So the fuck what? You think every developer is? You think Larian wouldn’t appreciate 30% of all of their sales money not going straight to Valve for doing jack shit?
I haven’t studied “capitalism” but my Masters degree is in Financial Engineering. Since you seem to care about formal economics, how do you propose solving Akelof’s Market for Lemons?
Valve solves the information asymmetry. That’s a net gain for both buyers and sellers. But you’ve studied economics, so you probably know that already.
So let’s skip to the meat of the question. How do you propose determining the intrinsic value of resolved information asymmetry.
Lmfao, you’re literally trying to pull a Goodwill Hunting? Bruh we’ve seen this movie 😂
How about you explain precisely what information is asymmetric and what they’re solving by demanding an exorbitant 30% fee?
You’re the one claiming to be the economics expert. I’m simply correcting the record.
Lmfao, this is the fastest I’ve ever seen an attempted Goodwill Hunting fall on its face.
You have literally no idea what you even asked.
Are you actually confused about the information asymmetry in video game purchases? Given your weird movie references I assumed you were just trying to change the topic.
I’ll try to use small words. Before you play a game, you don’t know if it’s goo;, just as used car buyers don’t know if the used car is a lemon. Without a buyer protections that drags the price of good games down just as lemons drag down the price of used cars. Akerlof goes into the proof for the car part of this in his paper.
“Lemon laws” mostly solve that problem for cars. Steam mostly solves that problem for video games. That requires trust. You may not trust Steam but millions of people do. They’ve repeatedly made decisions that benefit gamers so gamers flock to them. Thats why they buy so many games from Steam even when they’re available elsewhere. If they broke that trust they’d probably never get it back but, until then, their net effect is to increase revenue for studios by providing a market where people are comfortable enough to spend more money.
Lmfao, here’s smaller words big brain:
Steam has reviews and accepts returns.
👏 Congratulations.
Amazing.
How unique.
Now answer how their 30% fee of every single game’s revenue is justified based on their costs to prove that they’re not abusing their monopoly.
Oh, what is that? Every competitive app storefront everywhere, charging far less then that?
Congratulations on defending a billionaire’s monopoly.
There’s simple and there’s oversimplified. The element your missing is “trust”. The reason gamers go to Steam is because we trust their reviews and return policies.
The other storefronts haven’t built that trust. Most gamers have the experience of trying other storefronts, hating them, and going back to Steam.
People don’t trust Gabe because he’s a billionaire, they trust him because he consistently makes decisions that gamers benefit from. No other game store CEO can claim that with a straight face.