Thread: Cloanto debate
View Single Post
Old 01 October 2006, 17:57   #37
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: UmeƄ / Sweden
Posts: 188
To put it bluntly... I think some of the comments in this thread seems rather odd.

According to my world the whole thing goes likes this: Cloanto do business. You do business to earn money. You earn money by selling products at a price people are willing to pay. People are obviously willing to pay for Amiga Forever. Since people are willing to pay for Amiga Forever they must consider it be a product worth paying for. If the product Cloanto sells is a product people consider worth paying for, then I personally can't consider it being overpriced.

I have considered buying the package at times... simply because I think it is really worth the price... if not only for the bonus disc with the Deathbed Vigil (which I haven't seen yet).

I can't see how they are supposed to 'hurt' the Amiga community, or the Amiga emulating community, or whatever community in any way by selling a product people obviously is willing to pay to get hold of.

Just look at the Virtual Console. It seems to be pretty well recieved... why isn't people screaming: screw Nintendo! They are just making cash out of something that the community have supported for years! They just rerelease old stuff and sell it for way too much money? Why isn't Nintendo the bad guys this time around? Why don't people scream of angst just because they consider that the software that will be available to buy for download for the Virtual Console should be free... I mean, it soooo old software? Why should one have to pay $5 to be able to play the 23 (or something) years old game Super Mario Bros? Nananananah... and so on...

Cloanto sucks? Well, everyone is free to have their own opinion...

Personally... I just don't get it... if anything, I think they have proven that the name Amiga still holds some interest... otherwise they wouldn't be making any cash at all on their product...
Legerdemain is offline  
Page generated in 0.04772 seconds with 10 queries