Why I won't host a Online Market

I'll be direct, I was interested for a time...

I am not anymore this is due to how online markets work and how unfair they turn out to be is highly unfair and complicated. Steam of course is the king of how not to treat the base, not to mention Steam has a powerful backlog of black market for corrupt devs. I am not a fan of such play and banter. The second to that is how other sites Gamejolt, Itch, and GOG. 

Steam itself has terminated any and all idea's to making a similar market but even taking that bit into consideration on a personal note I'm currently developing my own game console. I have been doing a massive bit of work on it for some time but as of the time being, Ive been bouncing from asset to asset and work to work. Not to much of course simply to a minor degree but this isn't of that currently although I'll mention that as it is a powerful reason why I didn't attempt to leak out.

 

Photo of the current compound of where the "Lunar Eclypse" is being developed from what I understand it was a former school yard.

The first bits I need to consider with such an online market and I make this clear with everyone I come to work with. I highly prefer the tactic known as "Quality Control" those whom know I on a personal level are aware that I tend to insert a stance of quality and in depth review before I terminate and or approve a bit.

If there was an online market, my quality control program would more or less make the site absolutely exclusive and it would cause heavy backlash and that backlash would become problematic.  

Next would be my anti-corruption policy. I am aware that multiple sites allow the Devs to delete comments on any of their games comment section. I would personally have the comment section require moderation approval before a comment can be removed. Allowing Devs themselves to remove the comments be absolutely harmful and would hide the Devs true intent. I cannot stand that type of play. Although, this would also cause problems as the moderation would need to confirm if the comment is offensive, against the rules, insulting the dev, and or not responding with feedback. As it has become clear some users can hide their backhanded comments in a feedback post to an extreme degree of course.

Content management and that of sales I prefer be hand and hand. There is no justification why a title should 19.99 if your game hasn't even cracked beyond 1gb. Indeed I do believe that the bigger the game size. The bigger the income of course. Although even then, I also prefer to review the content as people of course would outmaneuver the 1GB price management but allowing such as music overflow, hidden content, etc... Which I openly oppose. Such as ingame DLC I would oppose and not have it be an additional price boost. If the content of the DLC is double/triple the original size of the game. Then they will go threw another review and a series of mass reviews would be undergoing.

Time management on this market is painful and long. It isn't simple, it isn't highly complicated either of course. Its simply based on how Id run the market. I calculate the price of a game on it's size, let alone it's exclusive land. If the title is exclusive to that market then by all means it's price won't be slashed but if it's also on another site. Then it would be slashed, I understand others need to make a profit but I also understand making a profit itself is time consuming and exclusive titles on certain sites bring in far more revenue then it being ported everywhere else.