The Witcher 2 - New Trailers

DArtagnan said:

Every single decision they make is based on maximising profit, either short-term or long-term. So, it's ALWAYS greed.

Click to expand...

Woah there! Profit != greed. Maximising profit can just as well be maximising the number of people who's families you are able to feed, or maximising the quality of the work that you produce etc. Greed is one of the least things that maximising profit is about - simply because as soon as you try that you'll actually fail to produce maximum profits in the long term.

However, in this case - greed is overtaking common sense, which is why they'll HAVE to change this. By charging so much for digital versions - they're actually working against their own interest - because they don't want local shops/retailers to hold this power, as it limits their influence.

Click to expand...

In the short term they're stuck with it. Retail sales are still very large and influential.

Unfortunately, I fear the entire "local shop" thing is going to go away - and they'll be able to set the price globally.

Click to expand...

Amazon doesn't seem to be going away any time soon - and the same model applies, even if it is a global retailer.

So, it's most likely going to change - but not by them lowering their price. Instead, they'll stop producing physical versions altogether.

Click to expand...

See above - and as long as there is competition between sources of digital distribution there will still be market forces.

kalniel said:

Woah there! Profit != greed. Maximising profit can just as well be maximising the number of people who's families you are able to feed, or maximising the quality of the work that you produce etc. Greed is one of the least things that maximising profit is about - simply because as soon as you try that you'll actually fail to produce maximum profits in the long term.

Click to expand...

We disagree at the core level

You're talking about "smart greed". There's no reason to maximise profit except to grow ever bigger. This is the trap most big companies fall into, because they think that by being bigger - they're doing "better" in the grand scheme of things.

This is where I differ with them - and you agree with them.

If you tell yourself they're growing bigger so they can feed more people, then let's just say we'll never agree.

In the short term they're stuck with it. Retail sales are still very large and influential.

Click to expand...

They could expedite the fall of retail sales by being cheaper.

Amazon doesn't seem to be going away any time soon - and the same model applies, even if it is a global retailer.

Click to expand...

Amazon is very strong overall - but they'd be a lot less attractive as a game retailer - if prices were comparable internationally.

See above - and as long as there is competition between sources of digital distribution there will still be market forces.

Click to expand...

It seems we disagree on a basic level. To me, this is 100% common sense - and it's a clear-cut example of "stupid greed".

The retail market is at the point, now, where the vast majority would readily accept DD if it was as attractive as it could be.

They might claim they wouldn't do without physical products - but the human mind doesn't quite work that way.

At the core, we're lazy - VERY lazy. DD is the obvious route, and it will eventually dominate fully. I have zero doubt of that.

DArtagnan said:

You're talking about "smart greed". There's no reason to maximise profit except to grow ever bigger. This is the trap most big companies fall into, because they think that by being bigger - they're doing "better" in the grand scheme of things.

This is where I differ with them - and you agree with them.

If you tell yourself they're growing bigger so they can feed more people, then let's just say we'll never agree.

Click to expand...

I don't agree with your assessment of big companies. At best it seems to be a circular argument - you're assuming that because they are big they thought that being big is better and more profitable.

The biggest company in the UK is the NHS (and it's in something like the top 5 in the world). It is not a profitable company, it exists to provide free healthcare to UK citizens.

But then, maybe you mean something else by 'company' If you mean a business that exists to make profit for its shareholders, then I don't think you should be surprised that publicly listed companies aim to make profits. There are plenty of other businesses that aren't publicly listed, some of which make profits, some of which don't.

They could expedite the fall of retail sales by being cheaper.

Click to expand...

Why would a publisher want to reduce sales of their product?

kalniel said:

I don't agree with your assessment of big companies. At best it seems to be a circular argument - you're assuming that because they are big they thought that being big is better and more profitable.

Click to expand...

Big = power = better.

That's the misconception shared by MANY big companies. Not necessarily a careful scheme - often not at all. It's a sickness that can be quite subtle in its evolution.

The biggest company in the UK is the NHS (and it's in something like the top 5 in the world). It is not a profitable company, it exists to provide free healthcare to UK citizens.

Click to expand...

Not a publisher though

But then, maybe you mean something else by 'company' If you mean a business that exists to make profit for its shareholders, then I don't think you should be surprised that publicly listed companies aim to make profits. There are plenty of other businesses that aren't publicly listed, some of which make profits, some of which don't.

Click to expand...

I'm saying, basically, that if you go into the creative business for reasons other than to be creative, your motive is almost certainly money. That's my claim.

Why would a publisher want to reduce sales of their product?

Click to expand...

To eliminate the retailers from having a say, and achieve better control of global pricing - in the long-term.

DArtagnan said:

I'm saying, basically, that if you go into the creative business for reasons other than to be creative, your motive is almost certainly money. That's my claim.

Click to expand...

OK I get what you are saying, but I think it's an unimaginative viewpoint (I don't want to belittle you by saying 'naive' - that word has negative connotations I don't want to imply) - the best way to be creative might be (and I'd argue usually is) enabled by the making of money, and profit. Profit enables the investment of shareholders which provides the capital for your company to start up, feed employee's families and do the creative thing you want to do.

kalniel said:

OK I get what you are saying, but I think it's an unimaginative viewpoint (I don't want to belittle you by saying 'naive' - that word has negative connotations I don't want to imply) - the best way to be creative might be (and I'd argue usually is) enabled by the making of money, and profit. Profit enables the investment of shareholders which provides the capital for your company to start up, feed employee's families and do the creative thing you want to do.

Click to expand...

It's probably about how differently we perceive money as a motivator, and what happens once your business has been established. Money is a universally praised motivator - and I'm "weird" in how I think of money as something that only confuses and disturbs actual value. It's perceived as value, and we give it a number to represent value - but it's not value.

Value is what you do with it, and unfortunately - people tend to get caught up in what they MIGHT do with it - rather than what they'll actually do with it.

So the accumulation of money becomes the goal, not the beneficial usage of it.