Amazon [US] Lost Right to Sell Nintendo Switch 2 Amid Sales Dispute
-
-
wrote on last edited by [email protected]
“MRP”… “hey Nintendo, don’t you mean MSRP?”… “no, there’s no suggestion about it”
-
“MRP”… “hey Nintendo, don’t you mean MSRP?”… “no, there’s no suggestion about it”
"Mandatory Retail Price"
-
I mean fuck Amazon and all but isn't capitalism the ability to provide a product for cheaper than the competition? How is it Amazon or those resellers fault that Nintendo is liquidating their product for cheap in Asia they just chose to bring it here.
-
Let them fight.
But also, I get the idea of selling to other markets for cheap for a little extra profit. There's a difference between profit based on cost of production and profit based on the development of the product. Same as with medicine costs. Not sure how that's Amazon's fault though, considering it's Marketplace.
-
If it's cheaper for someone to buy your product and ship it overseas, then you are overcharging for your product. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
-
I mean fuck Amazon and all but isn't capitalism the ability to provide a product for cheaper than the competition? How is it Amazon or those resellers fault that Nintendo is liquidating their product for cheap in Asia they just chose to bring it here.
Nintendo is selling them for cheaper in Southeast Asia because people there have less money. They could sell them for less in the US as well, but people are able to afford the prices there so capitalism dictates that the price is higher.
What Amazon and the retailers are doing undercuts this strategy, which in theory means that Nintendo should raise their prices in Southeast Asia to make their business model work, making the games inaccessible to consumers living there.
In classic liberalism this is the logical way things should be, in neoliberalism the state should intervene. -
Nintendo is selling them for cheaper in Southeast Asia because people there have less money. They could sell them for less in the US as well, but people are able to afford the prices there so capitalism dictates that the price is higher.
What Amazon and the retailers are doing undercuts this strategy, which in theory means that Nintendo should raise their prices in Southeast Asia to make their business model work, making the games inaccessible to consumers living there.
In classic liberalism this is the logical way things should be, in neoliberalism the state should intervene.Yes this is an example of capitalism and not free market.
It is why the system needs to be burned the fuck down.
-
Nintendo is selling them for cheaper in Southeast Asia because people there have less money. They could sell them for less in the US as well, but people are able to afford the prices there so capitalism dictates that the price is higher.
What Amazon and the retailers are doing undercuts this strategy, which in theory means that Nintendo should raise their prices in Southeast Asia to make their business model work, making the games inaccessible to consumers living there.
In classic liberalism this is the logical way things should be, in neoliberalism the state should intervene.There was a whole thing in the past where some smart individual would buy college text books for a fraction of the price then resell them to college students at a much more reasonable price but still at a profit for him.
Lots of people would love to buy their prescriptions from outside of the US because the same exact drugs are significantly cheaper elsewhere.
The whole point of capitalism at least the way it's sold to average person is that they're going to get the best price because businesses are competing with each other and will naturally offer you the lowest price. What's happening in effect is businesses and companies are trying to figure out the exact maximum amount of money they can extract regardless and that's not good..
If I can get a product and sell it cheaper than someone else why shouldn't I be able to do that especially if it's the same product and not a illegal knockoff?
-
"Amazon got Lik-Sang'd" would be a fun note for this shite year.
-
There was a whole thing in the past where some smart individual would buy college text books for a fraction of the price then resell them to college students at a much more reasonable price but still at a profit for him.
Lots of people would love to buy their prescriptions from outside of the US because the same exact drugs are significantly cheaper elsewhere.
The whole point of capitalism at least the way it's sold to average person is that they're going to get the best price because businesses are competing with each other and will naturally offer you the lowest price. What's happening in effect is businesses and companies are trying to figure out the exact maximum amount of money they can extract regardless and that's not good..
If I can get a product and sell it cheaper than someone else why shouldn't I be able to do that especially if it's the same product and not a illegal knockoff?
The thing with products like games, textbooks, movies etc is that a large part of the cost is the design. This means that while you can make the products cheap and still cover the cost of manufacturing, you won’t make back the money from the design if your margin is very low. This gives manufacturers the ability to sell the same product in differently wealthy markets while still making a profit.
If you now take the product from a cheaper market and sell it to more wealthy consumers at lower price than they usually pay, you aren’t actually selling at a better price because you are providing a better service. You are selling at a better price because you’re breaking the manufacturer’s business model.
This isn’t something that can permanently work because either A: the manufacturer doesn’t get enough money to cover the design, can lead to bankruptcy or change of business model (C), B: through regulations this is prohibited or
The manufacturer raises the price in the regions your buying from, breaking your business model and screwing over the people who can no longer afford it there.Of course this depends on the scale you’re acting in, but in theory preventing you from doing so would bring more equality between richer and poorer nations
