Incorrect.

I didn't make any arguments at all regarding the business model of the store, simply because I'd be unable to. I know diddly squat about them. The thing that I said about the bailouts was simply a cynical remark.

I'd like you to explain though how what I said about suppliers is incorrect though. Do enlighten me.

If you're not trolling, you're doing a good job of making it look like you are. This is getting silly. Ever heard of profit margins? I could buy Icewind Dale Complete from gamer's gate or GoG. It's more expensive here on GoG, but this is a community I want to support, so I get it here. Yes, the game is made by Black Isle no matter who I buy it from, but I still get to decide who else profits from it, and overall the DRM Free movement would benefit more from everyone buying the game here rather than on gamer's gate. If you really don't understand how that works, the first thing you need to do is stop talking about other people's level of education.....

1) That was not an argument. It was an observation based on limited information. Neither me or him would have been able to back our observations up. Hence it was not a point of contention.

2) Exactly. It doesn't matter which DD you buy your game from because ultimately it profits the same manufacturer. Hence GR's point in post 10 is void.

edit: basically GR said:
"Usually the large national chains and big box stores use foreign(slave sometimes) labor(to make their products) and some of the money they make gets sent overseas to pay for said products. With small stores the money gets circulated within the community or country and promotes financial growth here."

Effectively he is confused with regards to the roles of manufacturers, suppliers and retailers.

See, this is the part that you're not understanding. The manufacturer is not the only person who profits from your purchase, and often their margins are significantly lower than the retailer who sells the products. Again, the fact that I even need to explain this is making me question whether you're for real or just trolling. Anyone with even the most rudimentary grasp of economics would understand this.

So it was just a statement you made without any supporting facts? Sounds groovy.

I don't think you're reading here? I'm not denying what you are saying.

What GR said is that he'd rather support a small company because large companies often use (sometimes slave) labour to make the products and some of this money often goes back overseas. He is confused. Walmart i.e. for the most part does not make their own products. They buy them from suppliers / distributors. The chain goes as follows:

Raw materials
|
|
Manufacturer (this is the level where the alleged foreign slave labour takes place)
|
|
Distributor / supplier (manufacturers do by the vast majority not have their own distribution networks)
|
|
Retailer (i.e. Walmart)


Basically when a company buys it's product, it doesn't buy them from the manufacturer, it buys them from a supplier. Most manufacturers don't have distribution networks. Walmart buys from the supplier. Local SME buys from the supplier. The source of the labour is no different (for the vast majority of cases).

Therefore, if the original product was made through the use of slave labour, it doesn't matter whether you buy it from a large or small retailer. They both get their supplies from the same place.

Using your IWD example. DD is slightly different because the supplier level is not there, you go directly from publishers ("manufacturers" in this case) to retail (Steam ("large"), GOG ("small")).

Therefore if Bioware made IWD through the use of slave labour, it doesn't matter which retailer you buy it from because the source is the same. This means that if you pick a smaller retailer over a large one because you are opposed to slave labour, then you haven't thought your shit through.

Not that hard really.

Yeah. Don't see why you keep banging on about it since it has no relevance whatsoever to the discussion at hand.

edit: PS I read your argument when you first posted it. I'm not denying that, what I was doing was criticising GR's arguments, not yours.