View Full Version : All BFG games vanish from real?
Raptisoft
10-18-2006, 04:01 PM
Hey, I noticed today that all BigFish games are gone from Real Arcade. Anyone know what happened? As of yesterday, I think things were unchanged.
Yes, sure enough it looks like round two. BFG games were pulled from Real sometime around the beginning of this year and then reappeared in April. There was plenty of speculation in a thread here but no comment from anyone who knew what the situation was.
I don't like this. While considering distribution options I have to imagine a scenario where my game gets pulled from Real (and Gamehouse, and Zylom) in the middle of a top ten run, or will not be distibuted there do to whatever spat they're having at the moment.
Mike Boeh
10-18-2006, 06:29 PM
I'd say you better get used to seeing this kind of thing... It's going to happen a lot with all the distribution sites.... They're all going to want to push their own games- and at the very least, not push the games of a direct competitor....
I'm just speculating but I would have thought it would be BigFish's decision to pull thier games rather than RA. Bigfish may want to concentrate on selling thier games from thier own site. In the end, RA would just lose money from not selling thier titles. I don't see a benefit from RA's perspective.
Anthony Flack
10-18-2006, 09:38 PM
I don't like this. While considering distribution options I have to imagine a scenario where my game gets pulled from Real (and Gamehouse, and Zylom) in the middle of a top ten run, or will not be distibuted there do to whatever spat they're having at the moment.
I don't see why this would happen, unless your game was actually owned by one of the portals, giving other portals a reason to pull it. If your game is independently developed, there's no benefit to pulling it (except for the competition with in-house titles).
If you have several big distributors all competing fiercely with each other and looking for exclusives, I imagine it would put you in a much better bargaining position if you are an independent developer of desirable titles.
Dan MacDonald
10-18-2006, 10:17 PM
Well, this could be complete conjecture because I don't remember the source of this information. But as I recall (this is starting to sound like a desperate housewives narrative) Real and BFG had complementary contracts. Real had one where they agreed to distribute all of BFG's titles, and BFG had one where they agreed to distribute all of Reals titles.
These were not one contract, but two separate contracts that both companies re-signed diligently each year. Until last year BFG sent their contract over to Real and RA signed agreeing to distribute BFG's games for the upcoming year. Then they sent the sister contract back to BFG to ensure that BFG would continue to distribute Reals games. However, BFG pulled a little stunt. The upstart distribution channel declined to sign the contract.
Now the gloves were off, Real was legally obligated to distribute BFG's games but now BFG no longer had to distribute Real's titles. Real was caught with their pants down and it was mighty embarrassing.
I suspect real entered into some legal proceedings (and this is absolutely pure conjecture at this point) and pulled BFG's games from their site to see if there was anything they could do. But as distribution contracts are the lifeblood of this business they tend to be rock solid and really great at protecting the issuer of these contracts. I suspect real realized that they didn't have a legal leg to stand on and were forced to honor the contract returning BFG's games to their site for distribution.
It could be pure fantasy, but it makes for an interesting story so I posted it. :)
Marshall
10-18-2006, 11:26 PM
Dan, this is fun story, however Big Fish Games never pulled Real's (GameHouse) games. Look at Luxor for instance. I hear Real was fucking all developers by reducing royalty percentages. It's their motto: fuck developers over royalties, fuck customers over in-game ads, and fuck employees if we can.
Probably Big Fish would have owned the top spots on Real Arcade's top 10.. again, so they just pulled all their games.
It's really stupid decision that must come from executive level. Will a fun pass really stop people from bleeding over in huge numbers to Big Fish when the next MCF comes out?
EDIT: the games have been pulled from Gamehouse and Zylom, too. Here is lesson, developers. Do not get too successful to Real Arcade's liking, or they will remove you.
Marshall.
EDIT: the games have been pulled from Gamehouse and Zylom, too. Here is lesson, developers. Do not get too successful to Real Arcade's liking, or they will remove you.
Marshall.
That would be one way to understand it, maybe bfg is becoming very greedy ( the recent layoffs probably show they're needing money badly to please their stock holders ), so they probably asked a higher commission on the sales from realarcade. What's the point of selling games for a so small cut that you make 0 profit ?
Also with the mybigfish, probably lots of realarcade customer just created bfg accounts to get the same games for free... So real was basically advertising bfg for free!
Jmc.
svero
10-19-2006, 05:40 AM
Since we're all just guessing.. maybe Real is worried about Bigfish as a distribution competitor with the various moves bfg has been making and they've decided that distributing their games is helping out the competition. Why pay to have someone compete against you? Bigfish has been doing a lot of interesting and potentially worrisome things to a competitior, like the my.bigfishgames strategy etc... It would be like Bigfish funding me to make an MCF clone... ( Which Ill do Paul if the money is outrageous! :-) And I err.. promise not to throw those funds into my.twilight.. yes... i wont err... do that... )
- St
amaranth
10-19-2006, 09:43 AM
I've got two questions...
Are Gamehouse and Zylom part of Real?
Which company pushes more sales these days? Big Fish Games or Real?
Yes, Zylom and Gamehouse have been acquired by Real in the last 2 years. I would guess Real still has a substantial advantage over BFG in sales but I'm sure that gap is closing.
I've got two questions...
Are Gamehouse and Zylom part of Real?
Which company pushes more sales these days? Big Fish Games or Real?
Yes and Real.
I don't see why this would happen, unless your game was actually owned by one of the portals, giving other portals a reason to pull it. If your game is independently developed, there's no benefit to pulling it (except for the competition with in-house titles).
The example that inspired the thought is Virtual Villagers. It was independently developed by Last Day of Work and published by BFG. It was in the middle of a top ten run on Real and vanished. I assume Last Day of Work is just out the revenue it would have continued to gain from its top ten placement on one of the largest portals.
The implication is, if you elect to do a full blown publishing deal with Popcap or Mumbo Jumbo, you can expect every major portal to carry your game, as in the cases of 7 Wonders or Hammerheads Deluxe. If you go with BFG or Real, you can expect every major portal, except "that other portal" to carry your game.
Dan MacDonald
10-19-2006, 01:36 PM
Interesting, those are some good points. I never did quite undrestand "wholesaling" games from one portal to other portals. In the portal business (and i know they arn't portals, but c'mon every other name takes too long to type) eyeballs are the currency of success. If you want to attract eyeballs from your competitors (and keep them) then you need to have exclusive content that your competitors don't.
I suppose previously there was an additued of "this market is growing so fast that there's enough room for all of us", I suspect BFG started "stealing" eyeballs from Real to accelerate it's growth and Real isn't real happy. (was that a pun?)
I suspect that exclusivity will become a much larger issue in the the weeks to come and that we will start seeing some hardball tatics from both companies as they begin to compete directly. The up-side for devs is that the portals will compete directly for exclusive distribution rights, and chances are this will drive up the commissions devs can expect to earn if they have a top game. However for devs that don't secure an exclusive deal or aren't interested in one, the commission structure may fall off sharply as games that are on both channels do not present a competative advantage to either portal.
Anthony Flack
10-20-2006, 09:10 PM
However for devs that don't secure an exclusive deal or aren't interested in one, the commission structure may fall off sharply as games that are on both channels do not present a competative advantage to either portal.
Except that it's still up to you whether you want to deal with both, or either. And if your game is a hit, it would be giving a competitive advantage to the opposition to not carry your game if they have it. So if they're offering you a bad rate, then it's up to developers to negotiate better deals.
I think in the case of games that are published/financed by one portal or another, that isn't really what I meant by independently developed games. I guess you'd want to be careful about getting locked in to deals like that, but that's what happens when you take cash up-front.
Have you guys read this yet ?
http://www.gamezebo.com/2006/10/crazy_competition_in_casual_ga.html
It looks like the era of non-exclusive deal with those big portals is going to end pretty soon.
soniCron
10-21-2006, 09:45 AM
I don't see how Real not selling BFG titles means exclusivity across the board? Target doesn't sell Walmart-branded products, but they both carry the same games. And movies. And music...
Sounds like hype to me.
Forgive me, but this reminds me of that great Gamezebo rumor (http://forums.indiegamer.com/showthread.php?t=8197). Did anything ever come of it? Or are they still putting razor blades in apples on Halloween?
gamezebo
10-21-2006, 11:04 AM
Hey guys,
1. Just to be clear, I never said that developers will have to sign exclusive deals to distribute their games through portals. Instead, I think portals will offer developers the opportunity to either distribute their games on a non-exclusive basis or to exclusively distribute their games exclusively on their distribution channel for a high up-front fee. My editorial on Gamezebo was more about developers having more choices in how they want to distribute their games, not less. The RealArcade/Big Fish situation is not the catylist, but just a small part of a larger trend that has been happening for awhile portals wanting to offer a wide variety of unique and exclusive features, including community (e.g., My Big Fish Games), subscription services (e.g, GameHouse Funpass), and increasingly, content (look at number of exclusives on RealArcade and Yahoo Games top 10 lists).
2. Sorry I have not followed up on the great Gamezebo rumor, folks. Part of it is that I have been really busy, the other part is that I still have a small glimmer of hope it will still happen and I will be vindicated. Here's the deal: I always hear rumors of acquisition, but this one was the most substantiated I have ever heard (legal papers were drawn, pens were ready), so I posted it. Tragically, it was a rumor, and the deal must have fallen through at the last second. I still can't say who it is for fear of disclosing my source, but I can say, a lot of you were correct in your guesses. :)
Hiro_Antagonist
10-21-2006, 11:27 AM
it was a rumor, and the deal must have fallen through at the last second. I still can't say who it is for fear of disclosing my source, but I can say, a lot of you were correct in your guesses. :)
Rumors, no matter how close they may seem to truth to any one person, are still just rumors. And oftentimes, they're a lot further from truth than you may have thought.
I wouldn't be surprised if this was one of those cases.
Regardless, that's why you don't see too many reputable news sources taunting readers with 'rumors.' It's a questionable practice at best, and doesn't benefit anyone. The only thing you accomplished in this case was fueling even more unfounded speculation and forcing a hit to your credibility.
I'm sure there was no malicious intent, but I do think that you got a bit overeager with that rumor thing. =)
Cut Gamezebo some slack- I took it as a fun guessing game and not an example of serious journalism gone wrong. I think everyone is taking it all a bit too seriously and outside the intended purspose of the blog post.
Dan MacDonald
10-22-2006, 11:55 AM
Well it's only natural for popcap employees to be a little defensive ;)
Well it's only natural for popcap employees to be a little defensive ;)
I didn't get this Dan. Do you mean gamezebo=popcap employee or?... :eek:
Mike Boeh
10-22-2006, 01:04 PM
I don't see how Real not selling BFG titles means exclusivity across the board? Target doesn't sell Walmart-branded products, but they both carry the same games. And movies. And music...
Sounds like hype to me.
Walmart isn't developing their own games/movies/music, nor are they selling stuff that was developed by Target. It's apples and oranges man!
soniCron
10-22-2006, 01:36 PM
Okay, food products. Neither store sells either's branded foods. But they both carry Coke products in addition to their own brand. Coke didn't start selling exclusively through Target just because Walmart came around with Sam's Choice cola. ;)
And where did you get that I said Walmart was selling Target branded products?
I don't see how Real not selling BFG titles means exclusivity across the board? Target doesn't sell Walmart-branded products, but they both carry the same games. And movies. And music...
Sounds like hype to me.It might be too early to say that, but come to think of it if Real not selling BFG titles and (eventually?) BFG not selling Real titles, that means if a developers choose to publish their game through Real or BFG they can't based their contracts on a non-exclusive deal, isnt it? A developer can't really hold an exclusive contract side by side with a non-exclusive contract for other publishers?
Anyway, I agree with Jim Rosenquist on this, I took this just as a fun guessing game... ;)
Hiro_Antagonist
10-23-2006, 11:21 AM
Well it's only natural for popcap employees to be a little defensive ;)
Not sure who you're referring to. If you're referring to me, you're mistaken. I actually work at RealArcade (as a contractor) at the moment.
... so I'm kinda-sorta biased in this thread, but in a whole different way than you're inferring. =)
Dan MacDonald
10-23-2006, 11:32 AM
Ahh my bad Hiro, my memory failed me. I thought for sure you took a job for popcap. I knew it was one of the local casual shops :)
Pyabo
10-23-2006, 12:38 PM
Gamezebo, I like your analysis and I think you're on to something... but I gotta call you out on one thing. The idea that the "average" price of a game will go from $20 to $10 (not talking about subscriptions here). That's just not economically possible, unless the big distributors are gonna pull an airline industry on us, and cut their prices so low they all have to file for bankruptcy afterward.
...and I'm willing to put some money on it. Say... $100? :) My bet is that we will not see a significant shift away from the $19.95 price point in the next 12 months.
I don't think the retail price will drop to $10 either unless everyone (including portals) want to all shoot themselves in the foot for kicks. Functionally, with all the subscription clubs, average price per sale may be around $15 at the lowest in my opinion. $10 just isn't feasible as production costs continue to climb.
Hiro_Antagonist
10-23-2006, 03:41 PM
$10 just isn't feasible as production costs continue to climb.
Xbox Live Arcade titles are $5-10, and selling far better than they'd even expected. Last I heard, every Live Arcade title was significantly profitable. My guess is that the average cost for Live Arcade titles is at least that of the average PC casual game sold on RealArcade (for example.)
I realize Live Arcade has several things going for it that PC's don't, most specifically a sudden new popular platform with a lower-than-demand number of titles at launch. But I haven't heard any reports that they're going to be increasing their prices. That's because they found that selling casual games for $10 *works*.
Of course, I don't think any of the major established players (Big Fish, Real, et al.) are going to drop their prices by half any time soon, but it wouldn't surprise me if a new distribution platform emerges that has the ability to hit big audiences, and feels it makes sense to charge less for the games.
Anyway, there are several fronts on which prices could justifiably drop:
-Bigger audiences: When you sell a chair, you have to make another before you can sell another. When you sell software, you can sell it again for virtually no additional cost. While an audience of twice the size wouldn't necessarily allow you to halve the price without impacting profits, it obviously will trend things in that direction. More customers can allow for lower prices, which in turn can generate more customers.
-More efficient operation: RealArcade, for example, employs an awful lot of people to bring the games to customers every week and vice versa. The whole thing is probably about as optimized as it can be, given their core approach. But if/when a model or platform emerges that requires less overhead, or pays less for incoming eyeballs, then obviously prices could be lowered and that, in theory, could bring in even more customers.
-More competition: Right now there is a sort of passive collusion on the part of the big players, where everyone is keeping the price at $20. All it takes is one significant player in the space to start selling at $15 or $10, and that will put significant competitive pressure on the other vendors in the space. The probably won't be an established player, but might very well be a new company with a new business model.
-Alternative monetazation: As pointed out in this thread, Real makes additional revenue through bundled add-ons and other means. The future will present more opportunities on this front, including in-game (and hopefully contextualized) advertising. These things can allow companies to sell games at lower prices.
Keep in mind that the 360 has already done this, and while it puts some amount of pressure on PC-based gaming portals, business in the PC world has largely kept up as usual. But even the 360 *does* have a trend in a customer's willingness to pay the prices.
Me? I'd rather pay $10 to play a game with extra features (global identity and high scores lists, achievements, etc.) and on a larger TV than to pay $20 for the same thing on a PC. Heavy Weapon is coming to 360. Guess which platform, PC or 360, I'm going to buy it on...
Mind you, I'm not saying we will definitely see prices on PC's drop at any point. But it's certainly in the realm of possibility, and it could very well be a great thing when it happens.
I have heard figures of around %25 sell-through on some of the xbox live arcade titles. That's a pretty big jump from 1%-5% from pc portals. I think one of the main factors may be trust. People know and trust microsoft, especially if it's coming through thier own network and onto thier console. I have only recently (in the last couple of years) started using internet banking and buying things online myself. The $10 price tag probably helps as well, but I really get the feeling alot of people simply don't trust putting out thier credit card to a website they don't know too much about.
It's probably going a bit OT, but I would like to hear some other opinions and maybe some solutions for this.
Chris Evans
10-24-2006, 01:48 AM
With Xbox Live, doesn't Microsoft already have you credit card? So when you're thinking about purchasing a XBLA game you actually don't have to take out your credit, you just click "Buy" and confirm it. Similar to iTunes. I think that's a big part of the reason why XBLA games have such huge conversion rates.
I don't think PC games can come anywhere close (at least in the US) until you can pay for Internet items with your cellphone. There has to be a fairly standardized trusted impulse buy mechanism, I believe for PC conversion rates to substantially increase. Even then, I don't think we'll ever see 25% CRs as a common thing for PC games.
But it would be nice if SMS payments were a viable option in the US. It would definitely open up the teenage audience for Indies.
cliffski
10-24-2006, 01:54 AM
I don't think the retail price will drop to $10 either unless everyone (including portals) want to all shoot themselves in the foot for kicks. Functionally, with all the subscription clubs, average price per sale may be around $15 at the lowest in my opinion. $10 just isn't feasible as production costs continue to climb.
I agree. And everyone is talking about this as though this is purely up to the portals. Developers *can* have a say in it too. If theres a portal out there right now, who wants to sell kudos straight away at $10, I'm telling you know, dont waste an email, because I'm not interested.
If Developers don't like the idea of your price being heavily discounted, make this a feature of your contract.
Sharpfish
10-24-2006, 02:37 AM
With Xbox Live, doesn't Microsoft already have you credit card? So when you're thinking about purchasing a XBLA game you actually don't have to take out your credit, you just click "Buy" and confirm it. Similar to iTunes. I think that's a big part of the reason why XBLA games have such huge conversion rates.
That and the fact they have wisely abstracted the cash value to MS Points. I know because I have bought stuff on Xbox Live (Geometry Wars 2, Galaga, PGR3 Addons) And it's so easy once you have bought a bunch of points to just spend them. Of course the content still has to be compelling (I won't buy just any old thing) but having it abstracted and immediate (don't have to dig out the card etc) makes it a joy to use.
If there were one internet standard payment system where you topped up on points or credits and could spend it on any site (including indie developers) it would obviously be a great thing. Beans and PayPal/World pay etc may be having a stab at it but it's not a standard. Whatever was used would need to be universally accepted, 100% secure and widely advertised. Kickstarted by use on sites like Amazon and Ebay would be a huge help to, but since when does every company pull together in some utopian-state like way? Shame...
cliffski
10-24-2006, 03:27 AM
<controversial>
The single acceptable payment scheme would be a nightmare, because a monopoly on such transactions would mean they could screw everyone heavily for doing the payment processing. I like the idea of competition between payment service providers.
However... there *is* a universal, freely used acceptable method payment, and thats cash. coins, notes etc. And this works everywhere because its arranged by the government. People arent scared that the government will do a runner and not be accepting cash next week. Could it be that for internet commerce to really have its universal payment method, it need to be state-run?
Even if you had amazon vs paypal vs digital river. whats to stop all 3 of them colluding on prices?
Just a thought experiment.
</controversial>
Sillysoft
10-24-2006, 05:14 AM
So you think RN is going to produce a Real Case Files game now?
So you think RN is going to produce a Real Case Files game now?
I'm not sure they need too. There most likely is loads of similar games in developement already, just like with any casual game that get succesful.
The upcomming Paparazzi for example, should appeal to same kind of audience. Also, Real already have (and discovered) ISpy, the game that started it all.
LilGames
10-24-2006, 10:53 AM
I find the discussion of price-drops very interesting considering that the last Casual Games whitepaper discussed how publishers have experimented with INCREASING price tags to $24.99 and they saw no difference in units sold.
Pyabo
10-24-2006, 12:05 PM
Re: X-Box Live... another reason they can get away with the low price point is that 90% of their content is ported from another platform where the cost of development has already been recouped. Most of their games are PC games which are easily ported to the Xbox, or older arcade games for which emulators already exist.
soniCron
10-24-2006, 12:18 PM
Not to mention that their catalog is extremely small - not a lot of competition.
Scharlo
10-24-2006, 12:35 PM
Re: X-Box Live... another reason they can get away with the low price point is that 90% of their content is ported from another platform where the cost of development has already been recouped. Most of their games are PC games which are easily ported to the Xbox, or older arcade games for which emulators already exist.
This not entirely true. Cost of development for Live Arcade is often close if not higher than the development of the original game. You will need $25K+ just to cover the hardware and QA cost.
With all the network requirements, many games need to be totally redone in order to work with Live Arcade.
picman
10-24-2006, 04:20 PM
To state a fact, Big Fish Games did not have any part in Real dropping our games. They just dissappeared last week from their top ten lists with no explanation from Real. Read what you like into it with this fact now on the table. Real Accounted for a very small % our top line revenue. Feel free to start the speculation as to why they would do this.
Real states it game division growth in its quarterly reports(feel free to take a look), we often disclose our growth in interviews (over 250% per year, every year).
As far as published titles, we do very few, and the ones we do, we allow the developer to go direct if we do not have distribution ourselves. BFG's publishing another developers game only makes sense in a few very specific circumstances and they are structured so that the developer is never hurt by distributor to distributor squabbling.
And to the other fun acquisition rumors, BFG is not for sale. Period :-)
So if indeed someone is getting acquired y'all need to think more broadly.
Cheers!
Paul
CEO, BFG
And to the other fun acquisition rumors, BFG is not for sale. Period :-)
Paul
CEO, BFG
:confused: Isn't this always just a question of the price?
Thanks for clearing that up Paul :)
To state a fact, Big Fish Games did not have any part in Real dropping our games. They just dissappeared last week from their top ten lists with no explanation from Real. Read what you like into it with this fact now on the table. Real Accounted for a very small % our top line revenue. Feel free to start the speculation as to why they would do this.
My guess would be that Real consider BigFish as the most aggressive competitor around. A competitor they might feel is going a bit too far in their quest to win customers vs other partners? I'm a bit surprised things like this haven't happened before, and some BigFish partners thinks it's okey that for example BigFish place google ads for say Oberons or Popcaps company name, leading to a page were BigFish offer their games at discount.
Example: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=oberon+games
This kind of practice, is called "hijacking traffic" in the MyBigFishGames thread, and BigFish forbid their own users to practice it. As portals gets more and more aggresive in their practice to win customers, a development like this doesn't seem very surprising to me.
Yield
10-25-2006, 06:45 PM
My guess would be that Real consider BigFish as the most aggressive competitor around. A competitor they might feel is going a bit too far in their quest to win customers vs other partners? I'm a bit surprised things like this haven't happened before, and some BigFish partners thinks it's okey that for example BigFish place google ads for say Oberons or Popcaps company name, leading to a page were BigFish offer their games at discount.
Example: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=oberon+games
This kind of practice, is called "hijacking traffic" in the MyBigFishGames thread, and BigFish forbid their own users to practice it. As portals gets more and more aggresive in their practice to win customers, a development like this doesn't seem very surprising to me.
Big Fish Games is doing nothing illegal here. Dirty yes, illegal no.
Big Fish Games is doing nothing illegal here. Dirty yes, illegal no.
If Real has removed oberon games from its network then BFG just responds to customer needs :)
Anthony Flack
10-25-2006, 09:07 PM
If something is dirty but not illegal, it doesn't make it okay. It just means the law is also imperfect.
svero
10-26-2006, 12:25 AM
Businesses compete. McDonalds will place ads and open restaurants and create new products in such a way as to compete directly and *hurt* their competition. Seems a bit whiney to me to say.. gee that ad approach isn't fair!
Personally I think it might be a good thing if the field of portals evened out a bit. An all powerful single portal with lots of smaller almost insignificant sites isn't a good thing for devs. You go to them and if they don't like your game, or if they have a full release schedule etc.. then you have nowhere to make decent sales. If they're the only game in town they can easily dictate royalty rates and terms. You're forced to accept them because there's nowhere else to sell. Contrast that with many portals of similar size competing heavily for the best games, and exclusives etc... I expect in that scenario royalty rates would increase. Portals would court devs to get their games first and so on..
cliffski
10-26-2006, 01:08 AM
Agreed. This will only happen if devs are more choosy. Everyone takes an immediate scattergun approach, so everyone knows that every portal gets offered every game.
With more exclusive deals, even for limited periods, there will be more competition for titles.
Hey, I did my bit, Kudos is currently a yahoo exclusive :D.
Anthony Flack
10-26-2006, 01:46 AM
Businesses compete. McDonalds will place ads and open restaurants and create new products in such a way as to compete directly and *hurt* their competition. Seems a bit whiney to me to say.. gee that ad approach isn't fair!
It's a little different when you're undercutting your own content providers though. But I guess they could always pull the games if they don't like it.
It was more a general comment; that we should expect people to act like decent human beings even when they are wearing their business hats. I actually do have a problem with the "trying to hurt your competition" approach to doing business.
svero
10-26-2006, 08:05 AM
I actually do have a problem with the "trying to hurt your competition" approach to doing business.
So how does Nintendo release the Wii and have a bit hit without hurting sony or msfts console ambitions? Msft has a lot of money. What if they courted one of nintendo's best 3rd party developers to produce only for xbox360? At what point is it unethical to do something that benefits your company but hurts your direct competitor? I think it kind of depends what you mean by "hurt the competition", but in some markets companies simply share the same pool of customers. What they do to improve their lot will hurt the other companies in that market by default. With regards to the keyword thing.. well I suppose one could argue it's a little on the dirty side... but at the end of the day Bigfish's goal is to take market share from Real. I suppose you could argue that if the market is still expanding then they could aim at new customers who aren't already committed to one site, but even there real will be aiming to court those same customers.
Anthony Flack
10-26-2006, 08:47 AM
Well, I mean that it's one thing to compete by offering a better quality of goods or services or whatever, but it's quite another thing to do something designed simply to harm your competitors (for example, big companies like Wal-Mart operating outlets at a loss in order to drive local stores out of business, then jacking up the prices once they have secured the monopoly). Or some of the nasty, anti-competitive practices that Nintendo got up to back in the day, like threatening to blacklist retailers or developers that also did business with their competitors.
But as I say, this is a bit different again, because in this case we're talking about someone undercutting their own business partners.
vBulletin v3.6.0, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.