Kayoz -> RE: Niche game or undermarketed? (11/1/2013 10:02:09 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: athelas.loraiel Since I didn't lie, (which you acused me of, and still haven't apologized for) and had no malicious intentions, only to get more info to the people about the bussiness model one company accepted, Unfortunately, you don't see that citing a single post - and including other posts - allegedly on the same subject - and including them in single citation - can be considered dishonest. It's not my fault that you didn't bother to provide links to the other quotes you provided. That's your responsibility. Not mine. I'm not sure what you're on about the "business model". Contracts with Steam are locked behind NDAs. The statement of 30% only reveals a tiny fraction of the "business model". What obligations and duties are placed on either side, for example. What restrictions are placed on the entity selling their wares on Steam? None of that is addressed anywhere in your post, so I don't think anyone can seriously call your post a discussion of the "business model". It's little more than cherry-picking quotes (which may or may not be out of context) supportive of steam, while purposefully avoiding the presentation of anything to the contrary. Sorry to burst your bubble, but there's far more to business contracts than "you take X% and the rest is mine". Many a lawyer would be out of work if that were the case. You know who DOES have that information? The bods at Steam and the bods at Matrix. Matrix knows their reasons for not entering into a business contract with Steam. In the absence of any substantiated information to the contrary, I don't see it as unreasonable to accept Erik's decision as the "correct" one. Actually, it's disrespectful to constantly second-guess his decisions without having access to the information which he made his decisions on. As for why you decided to include the installer issue, I'm still waiting for an explanation. Installer size (specifically, patches) as a basis for his decision to go with Steam is patently absurd. (At least on a Windows platform) Yet oddly, my queries have elicited nothing but silence from you. quote:
ORIGINAL: athelas.loraiel I was hopeing you might get that as intention, The default "intention" for someone who provides a cited quotation and the cited material does not have the quote which is being claimed - well, intentions are usually pretty clear in that case. I can't guess what your intentions were, but the usual reason is to quote someone out of context or to attribute a quote to them that they never made. I'm not telepathic. I can't guess what you were intending. What I can state, however, is the fact that the citation that you provided does not have the quotations you referred to.
|
|
|
|