967 réponses à ce sujet

[Sirsmirkalot]

AndarianTD wrote...

Bioware has every right to try to encourage early sales by offering bonus content for pre-orders. Not only do I not mind their doing this, but I encourage, applaud, and appreciate it.

In other words, you approve of promoting blind purchases.

[upsettingshorts]

Sirsmirkalot wrote...
In other words, you approve of promoting blind purchases.

Bioware's signature edition is an offer.  An offer you are welcome to take or not. 

It promises incentives for making an early purchase before reviews.  That is the tradeoff.  As a consumer, your role is to evaluate the pros and cons of the offer and make your decision.

Everything else is window dressing or pushing an agenda.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 16 octobre 2010 - 04:53 .

[Sirsmirkalot]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Sirsmirkalot wrote...
In other words, you approve of promoting blind purchases.

Bioware's signature edition is an offer.  An offer you are welcome to take or not. 

It promises incentives for making an early purchase before reviews.  That is the tradeoff.  As a consumer, your role is to evaluate the pros and cons of the offer and make your decision.

Everything else is window dressing or pushing an agenda.

A simple "yes" would've sufficed.

[upsettingshorts]

Sirsmirkalot wrote...
A simple "yes" would've sufficed.

Like I said, you're pushing an agenda.

[Cigne]

In Exile wrote...

Someone in this thread mentioned that corporations focus on serving their investors before consumers, and that it should be the opposite. Maybe, but as of right now that is outright illegal. A company outright cannot act in a matter that would not maximize shareholder return.

Yeah... the gray area is that sometimes decisions are made that damage the company's longterm ability to remain profitable. And that's okay with many shareholders; they just move on, investing in the next hot company.  Unhappy customers of the damaged company move elsewhere, too.

That may be happening with EA/Bioware; but I've always gotten good value from Bioware games, and until that changes, or the conspiracists show proof (say, that the dlc was originally part of DA2), I see no reason stop trusting that Bioware will deliver a good value, again.

[AndarianTD]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Sirsmirkalot wrote...
In other words, you approve of promoting blind purchases.

Bioware's signature edition is an offer.  An offer you are welcome to take or not. 

It promises incentives for making an early purchase before reviews.  That is the tradeoff.  As a consumer, your role is to evaluate the pros and cons of the offer and make your decision.

Everything else is window dressing or pushing an agenda.

What he said.

Modifié par AndarianTD, 16 octobre 2010 - 05:00 .

[Sirsmirkalot]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Sirsmirkalot wrote...
A simple "yes" would've sufficed.

Like I said, you're pushing an agenda.

I'm saying what it boils down to, you're the one sugarcoating things here.

What he said.

The same applies to you, a simple "yes" would've sufficed.

Modifié par Sirsmirkalot, 16 octobre 2010 - 05:06 .

[AndarianTD]

In Exile wrote...

Someone in this thread mentioned that corporations focus on serving their investors before consumers, and that it should be the opposite.

As an EA shareholder, I certainly don't think so. But in practice, you generally do the one by doing the other.

As far as I'm concerned, Bioware's Signature Edition offer serves my interests as a customer and as a shareholder. And to put the matter bluntly, I do not think that my interests as either are furthered by pandering to people who find it necessary to have a hissy fit over the fact that the company's decided to offer a pre-order special.

Modifié par AndarianTD, 16 octobre 2010 - 05:07 .

[nightcobra]

Sirsmirkalot wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Sirsmirkalot wrote...
A simple "yes" would've sufficed.

Like I said, you're pushing an agenda.

I'm saying what it boils down to, you're the one sugarcoating things here.

not really... if he's sugar coating, your assessment of the post previously mentioned would be poison coating instead of conveying the poster's intentions of the post.

[upsettingshorts]

Sirsmirkalot wrote...
I'm saying what it boils down to, you're the one sugarcoating things here.

What it boils down to is that you have ethical issues with capitalism that you ought to work out or at least come to terms with, and that's the agenda guiding your argument. 

My post contains an objective evaluation of the choice presented by Bioware's offer.  Calling it a "gift for loyal fans" - now that would be sugarcoating.  It is an incentive.  They are a business.  You are a consumer.  Those are the facts.  

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 16 octobre 2010 - 05:05 .

[AndarianTD]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Sirsmirkalot wrote...
I'm saying what it boils down to, you're the one sugarcoating things here.

What it boils down to is that you have ethical issues with capitalism that you ought to work out or at least come to terms with, and that's the agenda guiding your argument.

This.

[bjdbwea]

Too funny. So if EA tomorrow says that they'll charge double the price for the game, you'll defend that too. Without knowing whether it's worth that price, of course. You are certainly great customers.

[Merced256]

Elanareon wrote...

shepard_lives wrote...

One word.

Shale.

That is all.

Shale was free unless you buy 2nd hand games... It was an anti 2nd hand buyer move, to get some cash even from 2nd hand buyers... I don't blame them for that..

I bought mine "new" over steam and didn't get shale, looks like i got robbed.

[The Masked Rog]

bjdbwea wrote...

Too funny. So if EA tomorrow says that they'll charge double the price for the game, you'll defend that too. Without knowing whether it's worth that price, of course. You are certainly great customers.

I probably wouldn't buy it. Still it would be their right to set the prices. And I fail to see how providing a bonus for people who pay for the game before it is released (yes, blindly) equals to doubling the price.

[upsettingshorts]

bjdbwea wrote...

Too funny. So if EA tomorrow says that they'll charge double the price for the game, you'll defend that too. Without knowing whether it's worth that price, of course. You are certainly great customers.

Um, no.  I would describe that as something else the customer would have to evaluate.  Capitalism isn't a charity, it requires that customers and businesses alike make informed decisions.

EA/Bioware do not owe you anything.  We do not owe them anything.  The relationship does not work that way.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 16 octobre 2010 - 05:16 .

[Meltemph]

Too funny. So if EA tomorrow says that they'll charge double the price for the game, you'll defend that too.

They can charge anything they wan't, considering I don't have to buy it.

Without knowing whether it's worth that price, of course. You are certainly great customers.

Worth is relative to what the consumer is willing to pay, not that complicated. If a consumer believes that a company will deliver on their expectations, and they are fine with the price, then why would you give a crap? There are tons of things people spend money on that has me scratching my head, but I'm not going to go all, righteous indignation on their ass, either.

[upsettingshorts]

Meltemph wrote...
There are tons of things people spend money on that has me scratching my head, but I'm not going to go all, righteous indignation on their ass, either.

Because, and this might come as a shock, you're not trying to advance an agenda.

[In Exile]

slimgrin wrote...

Exclusivity seems to be the order of the day with many publishers. Order early and you get coddled, buy a certain brand of soda and you get a special helmet. If you own an XBOX you get this, a PS3 and you get something else. Pc gamers usually get the shaft

If it's anything like DA, we get the version that's actually playable...

[nightcobra]

slimgrin wrote...

I wonder where the line is for everybody here. Or if there even is one.

there is one, they/we just change it according to their/our own whims:whistle:

Modifié par nightcobra8928, 16 octobre 2010 - 05:21 .

[Merced256]

slimgrin wrote...

I wonder where the line is for everybody here. Or if there even is one.

200 dollar game, no extra content, limited to 10 total installs, required internet connectivity to play. Actually that might not even do it.

[upsettingshorts]

slimgrin wrote...

I wonder where the line is for everybody here. Or if there even is one.

nightcobra8928 wrote...
there is one, they just change it according to their own whims[smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/whistling.png[/smilie]

Consumers have an active role to play. 

We move the line all the time.  That's the consumer's role, to determine what products and services are offered at what we'd consider a reasonable price and which ones aren't.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 16 octobre 2010 - 05:21 .

[Meltemph]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Meltemph wrote...
There are tons of things people spend money on that has me scratching my head, but I'm not going to go all, righteous indignation on their ass, either.

Because, and this might come as a shock, you're not trying to advance an agenda.

Hah, I doubt its that deep.  

Sounds more like most of the complaints are about not being sure if they are going to like the 2nd installment yet and they wan't to wait till they can "approve" of the changes, or at least enough to buy the game.  They feel, it seems, Bioware/EA should give them all the time that they want or that they perceive that they deserve to get the perks of the deal.