The employee builds a Steam Machine with either a €100 or €250 drive. All costs are the same except for that drive. However, the difference in price the end consumer pays is not a €150 difference but a €320 one.
This implies Valve takes their costs and just adds a percentage margin over it for profit. And I’m saying they shouldn’t do that. Pay what must be paid and let us pay the same.
Can’t be the exact cost of a drive, you have to market research to buy the best for the system. Then marketing etc. Cost are never just hardware for a corpo, but yeah in a dream world corpo should not be evil.
If it is the same producer of disk I may be wrong, though one the part you pay for research of the best sdd.
I am, because I think every body have to get paid. And if you are considering corpo should give us money you don’t understand corpo well enough, even the nicest corpo is still a corpo. Can’t trust any company which isn’t a cooperative, I seen corpo change leader and destroy their strong points often enough . And another guy made a good argument that it would be considering building a monopoly. Game seller which build a machine cheaper than any conccurence which can easily run it’s store.
“Sell it without profit” does not imply a loss, selling the product at the same cost of production does not provide any return of investment nor any losses.
Well Sony sold the PS5 at a loss, so maybe we should stop their bullshit first. I just think Steam should play the game but draw the line at the cost instead of a loss.
https://cyberpost.co/which-consoles-were-loss-leaders/
Not only Sony that a common occurrence in the console world.
I am not aware of it happening before on PC Without monopoly lawsuits.
(To be precise I mean that a game/software front selling hardware at loss to trap users)
Employee need to be paid to build it, ship it. You are asking them to sell at loss. But okey.
You misunderstood. No profit does not equal loss.
The employee builds a Steam Machine with either a €100 or €250 drive. All costs are the same except for that drive. However, the difference in price the end consumer pays is not a €150 difference but a €320 one.
This implies Valve takes their costs and just adds a percentage margin over it for profit. And I’m saying they shouldn’t do that. Pay what must be paid and let us pay the same.
Margin helps account for support, returns, and short term cost increases. You think anything beyond zero is unfair?
All of that is called cost, not profit.
But more than 200%, though?
Can’t be the exact cost of a drive, you have to market research to buy the best for the system. Then marketing etc. Cost are never just hardware for a corpo, but yeah in a dream world corpo should not be evil. If it is the same producer of disk I may be wrong, though one the part you pay for research of the best sdd.
Surely you can’t be serious.
I am, because I think every body have to get paid. And if you are considering corpo should give us money you don’t understand corpo well enough, even the nicest corpo is still a corpo. Can’t trust any company which isn’t a cooperative, I seen corpo change leader and destroy their strong points often enough . And another guy made a good argument that it would be considering building a monopoly. Game seller which build a machine cheaper than any conccurence which can easily run it’s store.
“Sell it without profit” does not imply a loss, selling the product at the same cost of production does not provide any return of investment nor any losses.
“Does not provide a return of investment” for capitalism corpo that a loss.
Well Sony sold the PS5 at a loss, so maybe we should stop their bullshit first. I just think Steam should play the game but draw the line at the cost instead of a loss.
https://cyberpost.co/which-consoles-were-loss-leaders/ Not only Sony that a common occurrence in the console world. I am not aware of it happening before on PC Without monopoly lawsuits. (To be precise I mean that a game/software front selling hardware at loss to trap users)