352 réponses à ce sujet

[Hulk Hsieh]

http://www.digitalsp...me-of-2010.html



Bioware should really stop releasing all PC versions.

ME2 was pirated more than 3 million times on PC but less than 1 million times on Xbox360.

[Vigil11]

omg, it's just $10 more, I don't know why people make such a fuss of it.

[Kronner]

Hulk Hsieh wrote...

http://www.digitalsp...me-of-2010.html

Bioware should really stop releasing all PC versions.
ME2 was pirated more than 3 million times on PC but less than 1 million times on Xbox360.

Because torrents are the only source LOL

Only stupid users download illegal stuff off torrents.

Modifié par Kronner, 29 décembre 2010 - 02:36 .

[sim2er]

hey all, heres my two cents (building on the lisence fee argument):

I am about to spend $230 on a new processor alone, whereas a PS3 costs only $69 more at $299. Therefore, I shouldn't have to pay the lisence fee. i am also planning to upgrade my graphics and ram soon.

but it is only $10 you say! well thats fine with me as long as there is $10 more content, meaning $10/copy development time AND that therefore console owners STILL have to pay the lisence fee and their copy costs $69.99

the money isn't really an issue for me but value is. this may prove to be quite the conundrum because i respect BioWare too much to pirate their game yet refuse to stand for this injustice.

i also wonder about the Ultimate edition that was discussed, as bioware was inspired by the nightvision goggles included in the prestige edition of CoD: MW2...

EDIT: the problem is that there is no real way of making my point effectively other than whining. if i pirate, devs stop making for PC because of it. if i don't buy, devs don't make for PC because it isn't profitable for them (same thing with waiting or buying used). if i buy, then they are supported in their EA B***S***. I fail to see a way to make my argument and yet people are dissmissive of it.

IT MATTERS, PEOPLE!

Modifié par sim2er, 11 janvier 2011 - 11:57 .

[Evil Johnny 666]

Vigil11 wrote...

omg, it's just $10 more, I don't know why people make such a fuss of it.

Because 10$ + 10$ + 10$.... + 10$ = a lot. You know, people like to not dish out more cash on everything (not just games), isn't it a bit irritating? Plus, it's people like you who actually helps producers to make such price possible. If no one cares about playing more, you WILL pay more. If I have the choice between paying more or not, I think the choice should be pretty damn easy for anyone. If this was for a small developper who wouldn't see that much and need money I'd understand, but this is an EA game and a Mass Effect one at that. It's solely pure greed. ME3 is SURE to sell A LOT. Like Black Ops was sure (or almost) to beat a new entertainment launch record, yet Activision still asked for more. Where's this money going? My bet is 95%, if not 100%, in the pockets of EA. Even if console gamers already pay 60 bucks, 10$ goes to Microsoft/Sony, something which not the case with pc gaming.

[Evil Johnny 666]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

...do not expect console gamers to offer much sympathy, hence the backlash you have received primarily from them.

Don't worry, I am principally a console gamer and just defended your case. Common sense and logic isn't a given to everyone unfortunately.

[charmingcharlie]

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...

Don't worry, I am principally a console gamer and just defended your case. Common sense and logic isn't a given to everyone unfortunately.

We need a "thumbs up" emoticon on this board, appreciate it Evil Johnny 666.  There was an interesting piece posting on battlestrats today that is pertinent to the $60 price tag on the PC :-

BattleStrats wrote ................

One of the most frequently asked questions by console gamers is why they have to pay, on average, an extra $10 for games over the PC cost. The answer is that the platform companies, such as Microsoft and Sony,  charge a royalty fee for each game sold on their particular platform. My research has shown that the cost averages out to about $7.00 per copy sold. Add on to that the requirements and delays set forth for updates to take place for these console games, and you get about $10 per title. A fee that looks awful familiar to the total cost difference between
platform games.

Now, before you direct your anger at Microsoft and Sony, remember that these platform creators LOSE money on every console sold. PC gamers who build their own gaming rigs will tell you that $199 doesn't get you very far when trying to build a machine capable of handling new game requirements. Therefore, console creators depend on game sales royalties to keep their console prices as low as they are. A perfect example is the PlayStation 3 when it first released. People were paying upwards of $500 for just a Bluray player, and gamers could buy a PS3 with Bluray functionality for $399.

http://www.battlestr...buy-a-game-r599

In short PC gamers pay a lot for their hardware, whereas console gamers do not pay a lot for their hardware and the hardware is continuously subsidised price wise throughout it's life time with the console royalty fee.

Modifié par charmingcharlie, 12 janvier 2011 - 12:29 .

[Legbiter]

This thread again? I've seen this thread on every game I've ever followed for the last ten years at least.



Poor people/cheapskates shouldn't game if it causes them that much anguish.

[iggy4566]

charmingcharlie wrote...

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...

Don't worry, I am principally a console gamer and just defended your case. Common sense and logic isn't a given to everyone unfortunately.

We need a "thumbs up" emoticon on this board, appreciate it Evil Johnny 666.  There was an interesting piece posting on battlestrats today that is pertinent to the $60 price tag on the PC :-

BattleStrats wrote ................

One of the most frequently asked questions by console gamers is why they have to pay, on average, an extra $10 for games over the PC cost. The answer is that the platform companies, such as Microsoft and Sony,  charge a royalty fee for each game sold on their particular platform. My research has shown that the cost averages out to about $7.00 per copy sold. Add on to that the requirements and delays set forth for updates to take place for these console games, and you get about $10 per title. A fee that looks awful familiar to the total cost difference between
platform games.

Now, before you direct your anger at Microsoft and Sony, remember that these platform creators LOSE money on every console sold. PC gamers who build their own gaming rigs will tell you that $199 doesn't get you very far when trying to build a machine capable of handling new game requirements. Therefore, console creators depend on game sales royalties to keep their console prices as low as they are. A perfect example is the PlayStation 3 when it first released. People were paying upwards of $500 for just a Bluray player, and gamers could buy a PS3 with Bluray functionality for $399.

http://www.battlestr...buy-a-game-r599

In short PC gamers pay a lot for their hardware, whereas console gamers do not pay a lot for their hardware and the hardware is continuously subsidised price wise throughout it's life time with the console royalty fee.

Your still going on about a price that isnt even final?

[Kusy]

>people thinking a price placed on a placeholder one year before the release is actual.

[charmingcharlie]

iggy4566 wrote...
Your still going on about a price that isnt even final?[smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/wondering.png[/smilie]

Mr.Kusy wrote...

>people thinking a price placed on a placeholder one year before the release is actual.

This has already been covered, yes the price is currently "unofficial".  However there is strong evidence to suggest the $60 price tag will be the official one.  The most pertinent proof is that Dragon Age 2 carries a retail price of $60, the latest Medal of Honour game from EA carried a $60 price tag. 

Now are you two seriously saying that they are not going to charge $60 for Mass Effect 3 on the PC when they are already charging $60 on the PC for their other game Dragons Age 2  

Modifié par charmingcharlie, 12 janvier 2011 - 01:08 .

[sinosleep]

Ah, so this thread is back. I guess more ignorant retards that don't mind being price gouged or that don't understand why PC games have always and should always be cheaper than their console counterparts started posting again.

[Marta Rio]

Heh, people are complaining about $10?



I always justify my entertainment purchases thusly: x dollars buys me y hours of entertainment time. For Bioware games on the 360, x = $60, y = at least 30 hours (but probably way more), so $2 per hour. For a movie in theaters (at least where I live), x = $10, and y = 2 hours, so $5 per hour. One of those options is clearly the better bargain...



Yeah, I don't really want to pay any more than I absolutely need to. But does everyone here who's complaining about the $10 increase, to the point of saying that they won't buy the game new, just never go to the movies either? Or do you just complain a lot about that too?

[flyinghippos101]

At one point, the newest games retailed for 69.99! There are still some outliers that are still as expensive but otherwise, 59.99 looks amazing in comparison.

[Onyx Jaguar]

**** standard games would go up to 90 bucks sometimes

[RideUrLightning]

Capitalism. Deal with it.

[sinosleep]

Marta Rio wrote..

Yeah, I don't really want to pay any more than I absolutely need to. But does everyone here who's complaining about the $10 increase, to the point of saying that they won't buy the game new, just never go to the movies either? Or do you just complain a lot about that too?

I pay for one movie and sneak into another two cause movie theater prices have risen to an absurd degree. That and I watch all my movies in 2D due to the combination of the technology being **** and the price being even more outrageous than usual.

I'm not going to pirate my PC gmes, but I'm sure as **** not going to be buying them new for 59.99. EA can take their price gouging and shove it.

[The Smoking Man]

Marta Rio wrote...

Heh, people are complaining about $10?

I always justify my entertainment purchases thusly: x dollars buys me y hours of entertainment time. For Bioware games on the 360, x = $60, y = at least 30 hours (but probably way more), so $2 per hour. For a movie in theaters (at least where I live), x = $10, and y = 2 hours, so $5 per hour. One of those options is clearly the better bargain...

Yeah, I don't really want to pay any more than I absolutely need to. But does everyone here who's complaining about the $10 increase, to the point of saying that they won't buy the game new, just never go to the movies either? Or do you just complain a lot about that too?

Are you suggesting we give them an inch so they can take a mile later? No thanks.

[charmingcharlie]

Marta Rio wrote...

 But does everyone here who's complaining about the $10 increase, to the point of saying that they won't buy the game new, just never go to the movies either? Or do you just complain a lot about that too?

Nope I never go to the movies, the last movie I saw was "Schindler's List" in 1993 after that I came to the conclusion that the movies did not offer me enough to warrant the outrageous pricing they charge.  So now if there is a movie I wish to see I wait till I can buy it for a few bucks on DVD.

I have never paid $60 for a PC game and I am not about to start now, if Mass Effect 2 gets a $60 price tag slapped on it then I will just wait till it approaches a respectable price and the longer I have to wait the cheaper I expect it to be.

[iggy4566]

sinosleep wrote...

Marta Rio wrote..

Yeah, I don't really want to pay any more than I absolutely need to. But does everyone here who's complaining about the $10 increase, to the point of saying that they won't buy the game new, just never go to the movies either? Or do you just complain a lot about that too?

I pay for one movie and sneak into another two cause movie theater prices have risen to an absurd degree. That and I watch all my movies in 2D due to the combination of the technology being **** and the price being even more outrageous than usual.

I'm not going to pirate my PC gmes, but I'm sure as **** not going to be buying them new for 59.99. EA can take their price gouging and shove it.

cache.gawker.com/assets/images/comment/9/2010/11/eebdede8a838e2a4e5478634053cc3c4/340x.jpg

i31.tinypic.com/16m2ccz.gif

[sinosleep]

If all you can do is post "funny" pictures perhaps you should figure out how to post them genius.

[Marta Rio]

charmingcharlie wrote...
Nope I never go to the movies, the last movie I saw was "Schindler's List" in 1993 after that I came to the conclusion that the movies did not offer me enough to warrant the outrageous pricing they charge.  So now if there is a movie I wish to see I wait till I can buy it for a few bucks on DVD.

I have never paid $60 for a PC game and I am not about to start now, if Mass Effect 2 gets a $60 price tag slapped on it then I will just wait till it approaches a respectable price and the longer I have to wait the cheaper I expect it to be.

Eh, fair enough.  You're a much more patient person than I.

[iggy4566]

sinosleep wrote...

If all you can do is post "funny" pictures perhaps you should figure out how to post them genius.

U mad?

[sinosleep]

No, I'm just pointing out the fact that posting "funny" pictures tends to have better effect when you actually post them, instead of linking to them cause you're to stupid to figure out how.

Perhaps that's part of the reason you don't mind being price gouged, too damned stupid to see that it's bad for EVERYONE, not just PC gamers.

Modifié par sinosleep, 12 janvier 2011 - 02:20 .

[iggy4566]

sinosleep wrote...

No, I'm just pointing out the fact that posting "funny" pictures tends to have better effect when you actually post them, instead of linking to them cause you're to stupid to figure out how.

Perhaps that's part of the reason you don't mind being price gouged, too damned stupid to see that it's bad for EVERYONE, not just PC gamers.

You know instead of crying about it you could always get off steam.