I just got done re-watching Firefly (Series and movie)...now I'm sad again.
Numbers sold.
- Thread starter unmerged(150564)
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I just got done re-watching Firefly (Series and movie)...now I'm sad again.
I'm pretty sure they have separated Paradox Interactive and GamersGate, so profits gained by GamersGate doesn't equal profits gained by Paradox Interactive.
I was thinking before taxes of course but 70,000 seems few copies if many are not even getting to the $20 that you guys get after distributors etc.
Did Frederik mean 70,000 copies in the first run? Since I often see a few copies of Paradox games like EU3, HoI3 were in Wal-mart stores in the USA say even if only 5 copies per store that is about 15,000 copies at least. Then Target maybe 8,500 then Best Buy gets maybe 10,000. Probably some other distributors as well, Fry's, Amazon etc. So that would be at least 35,000 just in USA. Not sure how distribution is these days in Europe. Been over a decade since I lived there but 70,000 in first run seems close to reasonable. After that it is mostly electronic and Amazon.com purchases I'd guess and depends on the tail.
They are separate companies but Paradox gets a much bigger slice of profit from digital downloads than from selling CDs in boxes. I don't know if their still close relationship with GG givs them a better deal than from Steam for example, but I would guess so.
It wouldn't. That would break the EU competition law and probably the competition law of Sweden.
How so? EU competition laws mostly apply to public enterprises and public contracts. How I handle the terms of business of a company or several companies that I own or am a large shareholder of is up to me. If it were the way you describe it, every special dicount would be against EU competition laws, which it aint.
GamersGate giving Paradox Interactive a special advantage over Paradox Interactive's competitors would equal a cartel practice, and is illegal according to the EU competition law, sorry.
So you are saying it is impossible for companies to negotiate separate contracts with other companies? If Company A wanted to buy widgets from 2 different companies they would have to pay the exact same price to each company even if the widgets were vastly different in value and quality?
Not the exact same price, the exact same percentage of the price, plus service fees.
This is how GamersGate and other digital distribution services operate:
Retailer A has a contract with supplier B to sell their product for $50 and a contract with supplier C to sell their product for $40. Retailer A's standard business is that they will take 50% of what the product sold for plus a $1 fee for each product sold. So when retailer A sells supplier B's product, they should pay supplier B $24, and when they sell supplier C's product, they should pay supplier C $19. But if they take only 20% of what supplier B's product sold for, regardless if supplier B is a shareholder in retailer A or not, and pay supplier B $39, and does not give supplier C the same offer, they have produced a cartel practice. The only advantages for supplier B if they're a shareholder in retailer A is that they get to influence retailer A's company policies, and they get a dividend from retailer A.
Last edited:
That can't be correct. Do you have anything to back up that ridiculous claim?
I can give special advantages to customers all day long and in fact all companies do. What do you think procurement and sales departments in companies do?
I think I read on some thread in the forum that the devs get vastly more money if the game is bought from an internet store then a retail store
That would be a copy of Stronghold Kingdoms...
Plus there is already a massive amount of MMO's...
It's not a market distortion if Gamersgate reduces its own profits to bind a valued customer like Paradox. Do you seriously believe that companies have offer their services to every customer at the same conditions? :wacko: If I don't like your face, I can sell you a beer for ten euros and give it to the hot blonde next to you for free. That's not creating a cartel or a market distortion.
Having a bar, where you sell beer, is also an undertaking.
A company can charge different prices to different customers, nothing to do with cartels.
The rules apply to two different undertakings or more. A transaction between a bar and an individual person is not an interaction between two undertakings.
That's not cartel practice, cartel practice is a price agreement between several companies. It could be disturbing competition, if you would assume there is a separate market for Paradox games, rather than a market for ((grand) strategy) games. Given Paradox low market share in (strategy) games, I don't think it would be seen as a disturbance of the Common Market.
EDIT: it would be illegal for e.g. EA to only sell EA sports games to one retail shop given it's huge market share.
Sorry but you are interpreting Article 81 in a very strange way. What is meant by the Article can be easily deducted from Section 1.
This does not apply to the situation at hand. This is clearly an anti Trust regulation. And Gamersgate and paradox are business partners, not a trust by any definition of the word. This article would apply if Paradox would come to secret agreements with the big publishers of the world, that they would not sell their PC games below 50 Euros. Then this Article would apply. Gamersgate granting better conditions to Paradox Interactive is a normal business practice as about any company does with its important stakeholders.
Instances where this Article was applied include cases of French mobile companies fixing their prices, or Austrian banks having secret agreements on their interest rates.
This does not apply to the situation at hand. This is clearly an anti Trust regulation. And Gamersgate and paradox are business partners, not a trust by any definition of the word. This article would apply if Paradox would come to secret agreements with the big publishers of the world, that they would not sell their PC games below 50 Euros. Then this Article would apply. Gamersgate granting better conditions to Paradox Interactive is a normal business practice as about any company does with its important stakeholders.
Instances where this Article was applied include cases of French mobile companies fixing their prices, or Austrian banks having secret agreements on their interest rates.