352 réponses à ce sujet

[Burdokva]

ThePatriot101 wrote...

People will pirate games just because they want to.  The game could be worth a PENNY ($0.01) and people will still pirate it (true story, the game was part of a charity to raise money and they only took donations for people to get the game).  Relative countries' economic conditions are kinda useless as an argument when the thievery gets that bad in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.  And I'm certain if people in those countries could afford to buy a high-def television/computer screen with a video game console/computer and all the upkeep and maintenance associated with owning them, they can afford the price of a video game.

With all due respect, it's easy for you saying that when you don't live in one of those countries. People in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (really, the point of the capital letters was?) make on average, what, 60 000 $ - 80 000 $ annualy? 

People over here are considred to be living decently if they make 6-7000$ annualy. Yes, I do have a decent PC that I also work on. How can I justify buying a game that costs 1/4 (or even a third, now that they've raised the prise) of the PC I work on?

Seriously, don't get uppity-up about piracy and say how affordable games are and how negligible those 10$ are. They're not coming out of your pocket, right. Game are ridiculously overpriced and developers aren't helping themselves by making them even more expensive.

Modifié par Burdokva, 24 décembre 2010 - 06:52 .

[sinosleep]

uzivatel wrote...
../../../images/forum/emoticons/andy.png

ThePatriot101 wrote...

../../../images/forum/emoticons/andy.png ../../../images/forum/emoticons/angry.png

Huh?

Clarification

charmingcharlie wrote...

Erm what ? No this is about a company blatantly trying to rip PC gamers. It is not a "luxury" that PC games are $10 cheaper it is a fact that games on the console are $60 because of the royalty fee and PC games are $50 because there is no royalty fee.

Now fine if the PC version needs to be $60 I am perfectly ok with that but if PC games need to go up to $60 then surely console games need to go up to $70.

There's no legit reason to bump up prices on PC, as such, the answer is clearly greed.

Modifié par sinosleep, 24 décembre 2010 - 06:56 .

[HappyHappyJoyJoy]

Burdokva wrote...

With all due respect, it's easy for you saying that when you don't live in one of those countries. People in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (really, the point of the capital letters was?) make on average, what, 60 000 $ - 80 000 $ annualy? 

Try half that.

[Burdokva]

Still... And I gave an average for the US. Try an average for 3000$ and you'll understand. If you try, of course, I bet a lot of people would just go flaming me for spoiling their fantasy worlds.

Modifié par Burdokva, 24 décembre 2010 - 07:00 .

[HappyHappyJoyJoy]

Burdokva wrote...

Still... And I gave an average for the US. Try an average for 3000$ and you'll understand. If you try, of course, I bet a lot of people would just go flaming me for spoiling their fantasy worlds.

Well, I found the answer in about two minutes using Bing.  It's not exactly hard to find the average salary for a country instead of guessing.

[iggy4566]

That's how much PC games are in Canada. And why are you PC gamers so pissed at the price what makes you feel so important?

Modifié par iggy4566, 24 décembre 2010 - 07:08 .

[ThePatriot101]

sinosleep wrote...

uzivatel wrote...
../../../images/forum/emoticons/andy.png

ThePatriot101 wrote...

../../../images/forum/emoticons/andy.png ../../../images/forum/emoticons/angry.png

Huh?

Clarification

charmingcharlie wrote...

Erm what ? No this is about a company blatantly trying to rip PC gamers. It is not a "luxury" that PC games are $10 cheaper it is a fact that games on the console are $60 because of the royalty fee and PC games are $50 because there is no royalty fee.

Now fine if the PC version needs to be $60 I am perfectly ok with that but if PC games need to go up to $60 then surely console games need to go up to $70.

There's no legit reason to bump up prices on PC, as such, the answer is clearly greed.

If the PC version were bumped say $15+ I might consider the validity of that argument more seriously.

But these games are getting more and more expensive to make these days.  Maybe with the overtime they've been putting in to make ME3 it's to help offset development costs or, godforbid, make a new Mass Effect game once the Shepard Trilogy ends?

Gimme a memo that says it's greed and I'll take it seriously.

[sinosleep]

What part of ROYALTY FEE that isn't paid for PC games do you not understand? I fail to see what is so hard to grasp about the concept. Games cost more on consoles due to royalties. If said royalties aren't paid for on PC then explain the price hike. The cost of development means jack **** unless it's an across the board hike. Which it isn't unless they're selling the console versions for 69.99,

Modifié par sinosleep, 24 décembre 2010 - 07:06 .

[Pyrate_d]

sinosleep wrote...

What part of ROYALTY FEE that isn't paid for PC games do you not understand? I fail to see what is so hard to grasp about the concept. Games cost more on consoles due to royalties. If said royalties aren't paid for on PC then explain the price hike. The cost of development means jack **** unless it's an across the board hike. Which it isn't unless they're selling the console versions for 69.99,

hey

companies try to make money

this isn't greed, it's capitalism

welcome to the world

[GraciousCat]

sinosleep wrote...

What part of ROYALTY FEE that isn't paid for PC games do you not understand? I fail to see what is so hard to grasp about the concept. Games cost more on consoles due to royalties. If said royalties aren't paid for on PC then explain the price hike. The cost of development means jack **** unless it's an across the board hike. Which it isn't unless they're selling the console versions for 69.99,

$69.99 is what I pay for most console games in Canada.

[HappyHappyJoyJoy]

Game companies also have to pay a cut to distributors and retailers. The game company I worked for (boxed games, probably the size of Bioware proper) only took home about half of the retail price of a game.

Those were PC games for the record.

[iggy4566]

Really PC gamers you guys are foaming at the mouth at a price that most likely isn't final.

[cyrus_1969]

Burdokva wrote...

ThePatriot101 wrote...

People will pirate games just because they want to.  The game could be worth a PENNY ($0.01) and people will still pirate it (true story, the game was part of a charity to raise money and they only took donations for people to get the game).  Relative countries' economic conditions are kinda useless as an argument when the thievery gets that bad in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.  And I'm certain if people in those countries could afford to buy a high-def television/computer screen with a video game console/computer and all the upkeep and maintenance associated with owning them, they can afford the price of a video game.

With all due respect, it's easy for you saying that when you don't live in one of those countries. People in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (really, the point of the capital letters was?) make on average, what, 60 000 $ - 80 000 $ annualy? 

People over here are considred to be living decently if they make 6-7000$ annualy. Yes, I do have a decent PC that I also work on. How can I justify buying a game that costs 1/4 (or even a third, now that they've raised the prise) of the PC I work on?

Seriously, don't get uppity-up about piracy and say how affordable games are and how negligible those 10$ are. They're not coming out of your pocket, right. Game are ridiculously overpriced and developers aren't helping themselves by making them even more expensive.

In my country  US dollar are 4 times higher  the currency ,so if the price is 59.99 so in my country it will be like 240.00 ~!~!~!

[charmingcharlie]

ThePatriot101 wrote...

But these games are getting more and more expensive to make these days.  Maybe with the overtime they've been putting in to make ME3 it's to help offset development costs or, godforbid, make a new Mass Effect game once the Shepard Trilogy ends?

Gimme a memo that says it's greed and I'll take it seriously.

Then why hasn't the console version gone up by $10 ?  Let me see if I can explain this another way shall I.  When you buy your console game at $60 Microsoft/Sony comes along and takes $10 of that  That means all the publisher will ever see of your money is $50 because $10 goes to the maker of your console.

Now when a PC gamer buys a game there is no platform holder to take $10 off them, that means the publisher gets $50.  So in reality the publisher sees the same amount of money from both PC and Console users.  The extra $10 console gamers pay goes to Microsoft/Sony.

Oh and before anyone chimes in and says "they don't see all that $50 dollars" I know there are other costs beyond that but I am trying to keep things simple here.

HappyHappyJoyJoy wrote...
Game companies also have to pay a cut to distributors and retailers. The game company I worked for (boxed games, probably the size of Bioware proper) only took home about half of the retail price of a game.
Those were PC games for the record.

They will have those exact same costs on the console version too, or does the console version miraculously box itself and ship itself to retail and retailers sell it free of charge ?

It is a matter of public record that most PC game purchases are now digital (about 80% of all game sales are via Digital) so there aren't even costs such as boxing or distributing anymore for the majority of sales on the PC.  One developer even stated they get TWICE as much money from a copy sold via Digital than the do via a copy sold Retail.

Modifié par charmingcharlie, 24 décembre 2010 - 07:18 .

[sinosleep]

GraciousCat wrote...

$69.99 is what I pay for most console games in Canada.

What's that got to do with the USA, where I live? Until I see 69.99 console games at my local video game shop then these companies can take their 59.99 PC game costs and shove em.

Pyrate_d wrote...

hey

companies try to make money

this isn't greed, it's capitalism

welcome to the world

It's greed when you're only ****ing over one segment of your buyers.

Modifié par sinosleep, 24 décembre 2010 - 07:21 .

[aeetos21]

If ME3 costed three hundred bucks I'd buy it, my Miranda lithograph also came in the mail today (Christmas Eve) so TY BW!



Back on topic, this is pretty much across the board. It really wasn't that long ago when new top games were just forty bucks. If you look at the economic trends I think the prices will only continue to rise. although likely not as much, over the coming decades. A little of it could be attributed to inflation but on the whole its simply because when one gaming developer succeeds at making a significant profit with a game that sells at a higher cost then naturally other gaming developers will follow along.



It's wrong and after a while I'm sure a new ceiling will be hit but until then, stick to a few brands and don't go crazy buying up every new release. Rely on IGN and other video game review sites to choose what you want to play and go from there.

[HappyHappyJoyJoy]

charmingcharlie wrote...

Now when a PC gamer buys a game there is no platform holder to take $10 off them, that means the publisher gets $50.  So in reality the publisher sees the same amount of money from both PC and Console users.  The extra $10 console gamers pay goes to Microsoft/Sony.

Oh and before anyone chimes in and says "they don't see all that $50 dollars" I know there are other costs beyond that but I am trying to keep things simple here.

No, they don't get $50, distributors and retailers take a significant part of that.  It's not a matter of keeping things simple, it's that the game developers lose a lot from the retail chain as well. 

I don't know what kind of cut is taken by delivery systems like Steam, XBox Live, whatever system Sony uses, etc. 

[sinosleep]

HappyHappyJoyJoy wrote...

No, they don't get $50, distributors and retailers take a significant part of that.  It's not a matter of keeping things simple, it's that the game developers lose a lot from the retail chain as well. 

I don't know what kind of cut is taken by delivery systems like Steam, XBox Live, whatever system Sony uses, etc. 

Charmin was just illustrating a point so I don't really see what you're arguing about here. The point, and it's a good one, is that EA makes the same amount of money from a 59.99 console game as they do from a 49.99 PC game. Considering this fact them jacking up the price is garbage.

[HappyHappyJoyJoy]

charmingcharlie wrote...
It is a matter of public record that most PC game purchases are now digital (about 80% of all game sales are via Digital) so there aren't even costs such as boxing or distributing anymore for the majority of sales on the PC.  One developer even stated they get TWICE as much money from a copy sold via Digital than the do via a copy sold Retail.

Do you have a link for those claims?

According to this link, it was 57% for the first six months, not 80%.  Total dollar revenue was still higher for retail products.

[GraciousCat]

sinosleep wrote...

HappyHappyJoyJoy wrote...

No, they don't get $50, distributors and retailers take a significant part of that.  It's not a matter of keeping things simple, it's that the game developers lose a lot from the retail chain as well. 

I don't know what kind of cut is taken by delivery systems like Steam, XBox Live, whatever system Sony uses, etc. 

Charmin was just illustrating a point so I don't really see what you're arguing about here. The point, and it's a good one, is that EA makes the same amount of money from a 59.99 console game as they do from a 49.99 PC game. Considering this fact them jacking up the price is garbage.

Why don't we wait and see what the final price is before calling it garbage? As I already stated this could just be a placeholder price.

[ThePatriot101]

sinosleep wrote...

What part of ROYALTY FEE that isn't paid for PC games do you not understand? I fail to see what is so hard to grasp about the concept. Games cost more on consoles due to royalties. If said royalties aren't paid for on PC then explain the price hike. The cost of development means jack **** unless it's an across the board hike. Which it isn't unless they're selling the console versions for 69.99,

Oh I grasp the concept very well thank you.  Companies making console games are compelled to pay the $10 royalty fee in order to put their games on those consoles just like how Apple is compelled to pay $0.66 out of every $0.99 of music they sell.  Business costs.  I get it.

But I fail to grasp the idea of it being exclusively corporate greed when they aren't raising the price for the standard game on PC beyond what we console gamers pay.

sinosleep wrote...

It's greed when you're only ****ing over one segment of your buyers.

And here I thought greed was the oil companies was steadily increasing the price of a barrel of oil to match "speculated remaining reserves" then dropped the price when the economy was down because people couldn't pay at their prices.  I thought greed was companies closing down a factory so that their stock price would go up a few marks.

Perhaps instead of yelling at the EA/Bioware people maybe you should look at those digital distributors.  Perhaps THEY wanted the extra chunk since a slight majority of people buy digital instead of hard copies.  Considered that option?

[sinosleep]

GraciousCat wrote...

Why don't we wait and see what the final price is before calling it garbage? As I already stated this could just be a placeholder price.

Medal of Honor for PC was 59.99 as well, not surprisingly they also get distribution from EA.

[charmingcharlie]

HappyHappyJoyJoy wrote...

No, they don't get $50, distributors and retailers take a significant part of that.  It's not a matter of keeping things simple, it's that the game developers lose a lot from the retail chain as well. 

I was keeping my explanation simple because some people in here seem to have a little bit of a hard time trying to understand the concept of "Royalty Fee".

Yes I know publishers lose a lot to retail, in fact they are lucky if they see 40% of what you pay at retail.  This goes for BOTH console and PC games.  Now Publishers only see 40% of the sale price then on top of that Microsoft/Sony take an ADDITIONAL $10 off publishers in the form of the console royalty fee.  The PC DOES NOT have this extra cost.

HappyHappyJoyJoy wrote...I don't know what kind of cut is taken by delivery systems like Steam, XBox Live, whatever system Sony uses, etc. 

Well you are in luck because I read a recent article written by a developer that tells us how much DD systems like Steam take :-

As a generalisation, retail would pay these guys a maximum of 40 per cent of what they made. So on a £29.99 game the publisher would receive about £12

Compare that to the digital model. On a £29.99 sale, the digital partner will pay the publisher – or in many cases direct to the developer – between 60 and 70 per cent, by the end of the month following the sale.

http://www.mcvuk.com...Retail-vs-Steam

So retail gives them about 40% of their sale price and digital gives them about 70% of their price and digital distribution accounts for over 80% of game sales on the PC whereas console games are still purchased via retail.  So they are already making MORE money per copy sold on the PC than they are on the console and that is without taking the console royalty fee into consideration.

Modifié par charmingcharlie, 24 décembre 2010 - 07:36 .

[Hathur]

Bogsnot1 wrote...

Pity us poor aussies who get absolutely raped by our distributors. What costs you $60 will end up costing us $110 or more.

To be fair, wages and standards of living are actually slightly higher in your country than the Americans... though not by 50% hehe.. so you're still being gouged somewhat.

Modifié par Hathur, 24 décembre 2010 - 07:45 .

[sinosleep]

ThePatriot101 wrote...

Oh I grasp the concept very well thank you.  Companies making console games are compelled to pay the $10 royalty fee in order to put their games on those consoles just like how Apple is compelled to pay $0.66 out of every $0.99 of music they sell.  Business costs.  I get it.

But I fail to grasp the idea of it being exclusively corporate greed when they aren't raising the price for the standard game on PC beyond what we console gamers pay.

Doesn't matter that they're both priced at 60. What's important is the 10 dollar royalty fee. For one segment of buyers you are actually paying for something with that 10 extra dollars, the ability to play said game on your console. For PC gamers though, you're just getting stiffed out of 10 bucks "because". The total price equalling 60 dollars for both doesn't mean anything.

And here I thought greed was the oil companies was steadily increasing the price of a barrel of oil to match "speculated remaining reserves" then dropped the price when the economy was down because people couldn't pay at their prices.  I thought greed was companies closing down a factory so that their stock price would go up a few marks.

Perhaps instead of yelling at the EA/Bioware people maybe you should look at those digital distributors.  Perhaps THEY wanted the extra chunk since a slight majority of people buy digital instead of hard copies.  Considered that option?

I haven't considered it an option because it doesn't make any sense. At absolute worst any increased demand from digital distributers would draw back profits to retail level, which a.) I highly doubt they would do as they'd be cutting into the primary reason more and more developers are using digital distribution in the first place (to cut out the retail middle man) and b.) it'd have to be a DRASTIC increase to even get to that level in the first palce.

All the COMPLETELY UNRELATED junk about what oil companies do is just that, completely unrelated. Greed is greed is greed regardless of how large or small you may perceive the issue to be.

Modifié par sinosleep, 24 décembre 2010 - 07:55 .