I buy Fallout 3 and I buy DAO. I enjoy both. They come out with
DLC offerings and DAO thinks theirs is worth $20 while Beth is offering
it for $10 for roughly the same amount of content in gameplay hours
(not actual numbers, just an example). If I find the price of
DAO DLC outrageous I have a choice to spend my entertainment dollar on
the Fallout DLC instead.
Two problems with this. Firstly, for this idea to even come into play you have to guarantee that everyone who owns DA:O also owns FO3 otherwise we're shooting blanks here because for those individuals there is no "choice" and as a result it's still a uncompetitive market. The second problem is the fact that they are still separate markets, every game has it's own specific market when it comes to DLC plain and simple. You want DA:O content, there is one place to go and you either pay that price or not, there is no direct competition anywhere to be found. Of course you can pass on DA:O content and pick up FO3 content, but that still deosn't explain what bearing one has over the other, you'll still never have the option to purchase that DA:O content because the price will remain stagnant due to the fact there is nothing there to devalue it.
Admittedly, soft drinks are a bad analogy. Books were better. You
rather arbitrarily stated that if I thought Harry Potter books were too
expensive I could switch to some other book with a similar story. In
fact, I can switch to any other book even if it is not specifically
about a boy wizard, just as with computer games I might dump DAO's
franchise entirely as not worth my time in terms of DLC and spend my
money elsewhere whether on retail games OR their DLC offerings. You
somehow allow that books created with the Harry Potter IP do not
constitute a monopoly but game content created with Bioware IP do. The
one real difference is technical.
You're missing one crucial factor with this book thing, the wild card, the middle man, the retailer. You don't buy directly from the publisher, rather you buy from the retailer who buys from the publisher. Now, retailers compete against one another just as publishers are so while you have convinced me books themselves are in similar situation, distribution and retail prevents them from falling into the same fold as DLC.
Here is a simplified example. Harry Potter book #142 comes out, the publisher suggest a MSRP of $50 and sells to the publishers accordingly, well above the market medium for a new novel. So Barnes & Nobles looks who controls the largest market share in NA I believe looks at this and says hell no we'll never sell this at $50, we can drop it to $35 and still make profit. Borders sees this and obviously they can't keep it at $50 when a direct competitor is selling for $35, so they drop it $40, smaller market share so they had to pay more per. Amazon sees this and unwilling to fall behind orders a stadium worth of books, gets a great deal because of the quanity ordered, and sells it for $25. And it goes on and on.
As I said that was oversimplified but the point is there. Even though there may not be direct competition for the respective IP, there is still the direct competition between the various retailers who are actually selling you the product and as a result the same function is served, an uncontrolled competitive market which ultimately tilts in favor of the consumer.
How does this differ from DLC? Well, with DLC the publisher sells directly to you. There are no middle men also competing for your business. It is a one on one relationship between you and the entity controlling the IP. This is what I mean by total market control. There is nothing tilting this even an inch in favor of the consumer.
As DLC I cannot buy it stand-alone whereas I could with any of the HP
sequels. But this alone does not force me to accept Bioware's pricing
model. I am just as free to walk away and choose a different game as I
am to choose a different book to read.
You are absolutely correct, there is nothing forcing you to abide by EA's price model. But at the same time there will be no other opportunity to purchase content for your game so at the end of the day it's no skin off anyones teeth. People who don't purchase DLC aren't looked at as lost sales. But ultimately, it is the consumer that loses in such an environment.
I don't think the neoclassical economists would say "social," but it's
essentially the same concept. Personally, I get there from the
postmodernist/CLS critique of normative argument as being worthless
rather than from economics. But we've wound up in the same place;
"intrinsic" values, whether economic or any other kind, are inherently
subjective and indeterminate. Useful as rhetoric, but that's about it.
And I think this thread illustrates the point.
I think you need to read up on the intrinsic economic theory.
Intrinsic value simply states that a product is worth whatever resources and time went into said product, if RTO cost BioWare $10,000 to make than RTO is valued at $10,000 and the product should be priced and sold directly reflecting that, it's not in anyway subjective. Obviously companies are in it to profit and not break even which is why it also states there must be a healthy competitive enviorment as that encourages pricing to be brought down to better reflect the products actual value.
Edit: BTW, thank you both. First time I've had even a remotely semi-intellectual debate on this forum and it's been pretty fun so keep it coming.
Modifié par TheMadCat, 03 avril 2010 - 05:27 .
Retour en haut
