352 réponses à ce sujet

[Element Engine]

Got it on Steam for $15 during holiday season.



b00ya!

[james1976]

I'd pay $60 for the PC retail version of ME3. But not for something I don't have a physical copy of...

[TheSeventhJedi]

Gleym wrote...
So in other words, I should fork over my money to them for a potentially flawed or improperly finalized product, just because I might want them to continue making more potentially flawed or improperly finalized products. That's like saying I should be pleased I'm being served sh*t, just because otherwise I might NOT be getting served sh*t. I swear, sometimes this blind allegiance to Bioware is freakin' hilarious to me. I'm a huge fan of their work and I've played their games for over a decade, but I'm not so utterly gormless as to believe they can do no wrong.

If the quality of the work does not match up to the price I'm being offered, then I fail to see why I should be forced to pay it 'just because otherwise you may never get another game like it'. Maybe I don't WANT a game like it? Maybe I want a BETTER game? One that's worthy of such an obnoxious raise in price? Oh, but that would imply that the customer has standards, which is just silly. A customer shouldn't have any other standard other than bending over and taking it, evidently.

If it's so bad, why do you even care about buying it?  Not buying ME3 won't make them do it over to make it better for you.  Remember when they jacked up the price of console games to this price?  They claimed inflation, no one bought it, and there was quite a bit of flaming all over about it.  Many refused to pay the price hike.  I was among them for quite some time.  I eventually realized "I want product x.  It costs y.  I am left with a choice.  Pay y, or don't get product x."  Voting with my wallet didn't do anything.  The grand crusade failed.  It will continue to fail.  Why?  It's not because of "blind allegiance."  It's because they pay analysts big dollars to determine exactly how much they can get people to pay.  They will charge that price, lowering it over time - which is how things have always worked. 

[Layzr]

why not pay $60? support the devs, if you can, if you have the spare expendable income why not? ofcourse if you dont, yeah dont pay $60

[PnXMarcin1PL]

Well I'm buying Collector Edition of ME3 if English dubbing is avaiable. If not, I'll "obtain" English version differently and buy regular game version.

[CaolIla]

Well... the east europeans still have my sympathy because of the dlc story but can't you get a version from england? I order all my games there and pay MUCH less than here in germany.

25 pound for my preorder of DA2 Signature Edition... that's ~30 € in comparison to 50 € a smart deal... although I have to wait for 3 or 4 days.

you should check out if they send to poland.

[Gleym]

TheSeventhJedi wrote...

If it's so bad, why do you even care about buying it?  Not buying ME3 won't make them do it over to make it better for you.  Remember when they jacked up the price of console games to this price?  They claimed inflation, no one bought it, and there was quite a bit of flaming all over about it.  Many refused to pay the price hike.  I was among them for quite some time.  I eventually realized "I want product x.  It costs y.  I am left with a choice.  Pay y, or don't get product x."  Voting with my wallet didn't do anything.  The grand crusade failed.  It will continue to fail.  Why?  It's not because of "blind allegiance."  It's because they pay analysts big dollars to determine exactly how much they can get people to pay.  They will charge that price, lowering it over time - which is how things have always worked. 

I could ask you the exact same question: Why do you care about us not wanting to pay their ridiculous prices? It's evident that you're content with being suckered into it, and that's fine, but why get so uptight about others not liking it?

[DaBigDragon]

Tame1 wrote...

Why is it $59.99 to preorder on Direct 2 Drive? New PC games are $49.99 unless you're activision who senselessly charge $10 more. I didn't think BioWare would buy into this sham. It'll just lead more people to pirate, honestly.

Welcome to 2011! Where game development costs drastically outweigh profits made by game companies! An extra 10 bucks for the PC version whereas the console versions have been paying that since 2005?

CRY. ME. A. RIVER.

The playing fields are even now. Console and PC games now cost the same at release.

[Gleym]

DaBigDragon wrote...

Welcome to 2011! Where game development costs drastically outweigh profits made by game companies!

The playing fields are even now. Console and PC games now cost the same at release.

I'd believe that if they didn't crap out a game within a year just because they're eager to capitalize on popularity rather than content.

[TheSeventhJedi]

Gleym wrote...

TheSeventhJedi wrote...

If it's so bad, why do you even care about buying it?  Not buying ME3 won't make them do it over to make it better for you.  Remember when they jacked up the price of console games to this price?  They claimed inflation, no one bought it, and there was quite a bit of flaming all over about it.  Many refused to pay the price hike.  I was among them for quite some time.  I eventually realized "I want product x.  It costs y.  I am left with a choice.  Pay y, or don't get product x."  Voting with my wallet didn't do anything.  The grand crusade failed.  It will continue to fail.  Why?  It's not because of "blind allegiance."  It's because they pay analysts big dollars to determine exactly how much they can get people to pay.  They will charge that price, lowering it over time - which is how things have always worked. 

I could ask you the exact same question: Why do you care about us not wanting to pay their ridiculous prices? It's evident that you're content with being suckered into it, and that's fine, but why get so uptight about others not liking it?

Quite honestly, I don't.  I'm bored, plain and simple.

Point of order though - I haven't been "suckered" into anything.  I believe that BioWare games are among the few that warrant the 60$ price tag.  I've played ME1&2 so many times that the cost per hour of entertainment is approaching mere cents.  In my book, that's a good deal.

[ianmcdonald]

Gleym wrote...

DaBigDragon wrote...

Welcome to 2011! Where game development costs drastically outweigh profits made by game companies!

The playing fields are even now. Console and PC games now cost the same at release.

I'd believe that if they didn't crap out a game within a year just because they're eager to capitalize on popularity rather than content.

Just because the announcement trailer and the game's release happen within a year of each other, doesn't mean that's how long development takes. Production on ME3 most likely started right after ME2 went gold.

[sinosleep]

DaBigDragon wrote...

Welcome to 2011! Where game development costs drastically outweigh profits made by game companies! An extra 10 bucks for the PC version whereas the console versions have been paying that since 2005?

CRY. ME. A. RIVER.

The playing fields are even now. Console and PC games now cost the same at release.

Yet another ignorant post. 

PC games don't have licensing fees attached. 
More and more PC games don't have printing, manufacturing, or shipping costs attached either due to a FAR larger digital distribution network. 

There are a plethora of reasons why PC and console games don't cost the same. Perhaps you should get your facts straight before posting as if they should. 

Modifié par sinosleep, 14 janvier 2011 - 01:11 .

[Malanek]

sinosleep wrote...

DaBigDragon wrote...

Welcome to 2011! Where game development costs drastically outweigh profits made by game companies! An extra 10 bucks for the PC version whereas the console versions have been paying that since 2005?

CRY. ME. A. RIVER.

The playing fields are even now. Console and PC games now cost the same at release.

Yet another ignorant post. 

PC games don't have licensing fees attached. 
More and more PC games don't have printing, manufacturing, or shipping costs attached either due to a FAR larger digital distribution network. 

There are a plethora of reasons why PC and console games don't cost the same. Perhaps you should get your facts straight before posting as if they should. 

An accountant could probably quite easily come up with a costing system that had them the same. Allocate piracy on for lost sales and there you go.

Anyway, it's not just supply that sets prices. Demand comes into play. PC pricing can possibly take a price increase whereas consoles may not be able to.

[Monochrome Wench]

ianmcdonald wrote...
Just because the announcement trailer and the game's release happen within a year of each other, doesn't mean that's how long development takes. Production on ME3 most likely started right after ME2 went gold.

Probably started before ME2 development ended. Not all development roles can occur simultaneously. Story development and concept development probably started before ME2 development ended. Additionally its not unheard of for cut content from game x to appear in game x+1, so some 'content' may have already been started before ME2 development ended.

[sinosleep]

Malanek999 wrote...

An accountant could probably quite easily come up with a costing system that had them the same. Allocate piracy on for lost sales and there you go.

Anyway, it's not just supply that sets prices. Demand comes into play. PC pricing can possibly take a price increase whereas consoles may not be able to.

Allocate the multi-million dollar used game market from which developers receive ZERO dollars in combination with the fact that console games AREN'T immune to piracy and we're at the same point. PC games have ALWAYS been cheaper. They were cheaper when games were on cartridges, they were cheaper when games were on dvds, and for the most part they are cheaper now. 

Even EA has gone back and forth in the last year in which games they charge 59.99 for. The new Need for Speed launched at 49.99 even though it came out around the same time as Medal of Honor which was 59.99. They're using the 59.99 price point on the games they figure they can get away with it on because people might be to eager to suck it up to care. The FPS market is bigger than the racing market so they took their shot. 

Modifié par sinosleep, 14 janvier 2011 - 01:32 .

[Schneidend]

And EA believes they can "get away with" a 59.99 price tag on the PC version of a huge title like ME3. This is exactly what I've been talking about the entire thread.



If it turns out sales suffer, they'll drop the price. Until then, it is what it is.

[sinosleep]

Everyone posting here knows that Schneidend, doesn't mean the thread has no purpose or that we have to accept it. I will let it be known with my wallet that I think it's BS and I will let it be known vocally by continuing to post in this thread and keeping it on the front page. Especially with such a large group of people here that don't seem to understand why games always have been and always should be cheaper on the PC. 

Modifié par sinosleep, 14 janvier 2011 - 01:35 .

[Malanek]

sinosleep wrote...

Malanek999 wrote...

An accountant could probably quite easily come up with a costing system that had them the same. Allocate piracy on for lost sales and there you go.

Anyway, it's not just supply that sets prices. Demand comes into play. PC pricing can possibly take a price increase whereas consoles may not be able to.

Allocate the multi-million dollar used game market from which developers receive ZERO dollars in combination with the fact that console games AREN'T immune to piracy and we're at the same point. PC games have ALWAYS been cheaper. They were cheaper when games were on cartridges, they were cheaper when games were on dvds, and for the most part they are cheaper now. 

Even EA has gone back and forth in the last year in which games they charge 59.99 for. The new Need for Speed launched at 49.99 even though it came out around the same time as Medal of Honor which was 59.99. They using the price point on the games they figure they can get away with it on. The FPS market is bigger than the racing market so they took their shot. 

Bit in bold is exactly right. That's the demand side of the equation. But I suspect you are grossly simplifying the costs side as well because you lack information. As an example (these figures are for simplicity in illustrating concept, not accuracy) say a company decides to develop a game and it costs them $5,000,000. Each PC unit they sell costs an additional $5 . Each XBOX unit they sell costs $15. Say they price them both at $60, but they sell 100,000 PC units and 1,500,000 Xbox units. They split the development cost of in half for each platform, you now see that the total cost of each PC unit is $30 whereas the total cost of each console unit is $16.67 because the fixed costs are spread out over so many more units. These figures may be extreme but you should be able to get the point. The console market probably generates more profit in reality.

[cachx]

Same discussion going on the DA2 forums (that is also retailing at $60), with some comments by Mr. Woo by the way: http://social.biowar...ex/5704263&lf=8

Blizzard has been selling games at $60 since forever, by the way. Activision got away with it with CoD and now every publisher is following suit. Better get used to it folks!

[PnXMarcin1PL]

CaolIla wrote...

Well... the east europeans still have my sympathy because of the dlc story but can't you get a version from england? I order all my games there and pay MUCH less than here in germany.
25 pound for my preorder of DA2 Signature Edition... that's ~30 € in comparison to 50 € a smart deal... although I have to wait for 3 or 4 days.
you should check out if they send to poland.

As far as I know, my friend knows a internet shop which can buy a game for a client  in UK and make it sent directly to that client. Usually post here deliver any packages within 1-2 even 3 weeks, it doesn't matter if it's priority or not. I haven't thought about it. Thanks for idea

[Nissa_Red]

I absolutely despise Activision's marketing policies, so I won't support EA in forcing Bioware to follow the same route.
I won't buy a Bioware game at release, for the first time since Baldur's Gate : 

• Baldur's Gate 1 + 2
• NWN + expansions
• KOTOR
• Jade Empire
• Dragon Age
• Mass Effect 1 + 2

Unlike Dragon Age 2, which I won't buy, I will however purchase ME3 at a later time, if its core hasn't been gutted by aggressive DLC schemes. Mass Effect is just too good to pass on.

Modifié par Nissa_Red, 14 janvier 2011 - 03:33 .

[wolfsite]

Schneidend wrote...

And EA believes they can "get away with" a 59.99 price tag on the PC version of a huge title like ME3. This is exactly what I've been talking about the entire thread.

If it turns out sales suffer, they'll drop the price. Until then, it is what it is.

Activision got away with (COD: BO)
Blizzard got away with it (Satercraft 2, Diablo 3 upcoming)

can't blame other companies for seeing these titles sell huge amounts at the $59.99 price point and figure that it means that price is reasonable.

[Nissa_Red]

To me, 60€ is a perfectly reasonable price for a game :

- that is regularly supported by patches till it's deemed objectively stable
- that I don't have to complete with numerous DLC's before I can fully enjoy it

In that regard, Bioware had an excellent reputation in my book, proving it again and again with all of their games throughout the years.

To me, it probably was the company that cared the most about their customers, providing forums, advice and ressources, outshining even legendary Blizzard that refuses to release but top quality, and keeps supporting their games back to Diablo with patches.

Yet, I do not like the route that Bioware is taking with the Dragon Age franchise, leaving behind a bug-ridden game if you couple it with official DLCs, abandoning a toolset that made a large part of the NWN fans migrate to their game to start with, and finally forcing people to pre-order the game months ahead to enjoy the full extent of their game.

I don't mind paying whatever is deemed a fair price for a block-buster game, but I don't want to pay :

- 60€ once for the "shell"
- 10€ for one of the core characters
- 10€ for the high-res textures because I play on PC
- 10€ for the videos
- 10€ for the toolset
- 10€ for the multi-player
etc.

because that is precisely where the aformentioned marketing policies are leading us.

There are plenty enough other games for me to enjoy for the next year, and since I can vote with my wallet, I will.

wolfsite wrote...

Schneidend wrote...

And EA believes they can "get away with" a 59.99 price tag on the PC version of a huge title like ME3. This is exactly what I've been talking about the entire thread.

If it turns out sales suffer, they'll drop the price. Until then, it is what it is.

Activision got away with (COD: BO)
Blizzard got away with it (Satercraft 2, Diablo 3 upcoming)

can't blame other companies for seeing these titles sell huge amounts at the $59.99 price point and figure that it means that price is reasonable.

Modifié par Nissa_Red, 14 janvier 2011 - 03:56 .

[mystupidmouth]

sinosleep wrote...

DaBigDragon wrote...

Welcome to 2011! Where game development costs drastically outweigh profits made by game companies! An extra 10 bucks for the PC version whereas the console versions have been paying that since 2005?

CRY. ME. A. RIVER.

The playing fields are even now. Console and PC games now cost the same at release.

Yet another ignorant post. 

PC games don't have licensing fees attached. 
More and more PC games don't have printing, manufacturing, or shipping costs attached either due to a FAR larger digital distribution network. 

There are a plethora of reasons why PC and console games don't cost the same. Perhaps you should get your facts straight before posting as if they should. 

But you also need to consider that PC Games also sell much less than console games, they have to make enough on a game to make it worth their while to release it on PC. It is a business. 

[sinosleep]

mystupidmouth wrote...

But you also need to consider that PC Games also sell much less than console games, they have to make enough on a game to make it worth their while to release it on PC. It is a business. 

I recognize that PC games don't sell at the rate that console games do, but I also recognize that console game sales are artificially inflated due to the fact that the digital distribution market DOESN'T release sales numbers. And considering that that market makes up a larger and larger percentage of PC games sold (many estimate that number to be around 50% of total sales) it makes sales comparisons harder and harder to make.