• lordnikon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    5 hours ago

    Oof I mean I’m glad they are back in stock again but that stings. I do see valve being the only company that would lower them as soon as they are able though. Public shareholders wouldn’t let them if they were public.

    • ampersandrew@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Nah, that’s not true. All of these companies would absolutely love to charge less for the console up front so that they can get recurring payments out of you elsewhere. It was a regular occurrence for decades that console prices would drop dramatically over time.

      • IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        4 hours ago

        Less of an issue with Valve. They don’t have as much of a need for a hardware loss leader since they earn from Steam regardless of which hardware it’s running on.

          • IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            4 hours ago

            If they structure their supplier contracts anything like the auto industry does, that would only be because they are on the back end of the product’s production lifecycle.

            • ampersandrew@lemmy.worldOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              4 hours ago

              I think they lost the appetite for loss leading around the time the PS4 and Xbox One came out. I have no insider information, but this is what I tend to hear from those that do. Nintendo famously doesn’t loss lead, and that’s a long standing policy, but the latest word on Switch 2 is that their price increase keeps them profitable but with smaller margins than they had when it initially launched.