352 réponses à ce sujet

[sinosleep]

@HappyHappyJoyJoy COD is published by Activision, they, like EA, were one of the first to start charging 59.99 regardless of console. They're not exactly a good choice to go with when trying to figure out how often there's a price difference between PCs and consoles.

[HappyHappyJoyJoy]

sinosleep wrote...

@HappyHappyJoyJoy COD is published by Activision, they, like EA, were one of the first to start charging 59.99 regardless of console. They're not exactly a good choice to go with when trying to figure out how often there's a price difference between PCs and consoles.

I think looking at large publishers is best.

And trust me, I don't like large publishers - as I've mentioned before, one of the companies I worked for was bought out and closed by EA.  Another went through something similar with another large publisher. 

[charmingcharlie]

IBPROFEN wrote...

Well, Charming that wasn't complaining about COD:BO support, Look what IW and activision done to COD:MW2 with their IWNet(peer2peer). I got it because of MP server games instead of P2P gaming.

Yes you were :-

IBPROFEN wrote...

As in COD:BO the PC player are still waiting on a patch to fix their game, While the consoles got theirs in a few days. 

You clearly stated there that you are "still waiting" well if that isn't a complaint about lack of support then I don't know what is.  So you paid $10 more and you got even worse support.  That is hardly a compelling argument for "pay more and you get better support" which is what you were trying to say.

IBPROFEN wrote...  I think PC gamers should be thankful tht
companies still want to make games for us. Because we all know consoles
games are quick and easy money.

Why should I be thankful that a company is wanting to sell me something ?  am I thankful a company sold me a fridge ? erm nope.  They should be thankful I am willing to spend my money on their products.

HappyHappyJoyJoy wrote...
First, you've made claims that MS and Sony both charge $10 per game, but COD:BO - a recent game, released in November - has the same price per platform. 

As I said we need a faceplam emoticon, COD BO was published by Activision and they RAISED the price of the PC version to bring it in line with the console version i.e. doing the same thing EA is doing here.

HappyHappyJoyJoy wrote...Second, you've maintained that MS (and presumably Sony) charge $10 per game but now say they don't (for older games.)  Which is it?

The royalty fee is between $7.50 and $10 for NEW releases, once those games have dropped off the radar and become budget titles it is reasonable to assume MS/Sony lowers the royalty cost appropriately but they will still be taking a cut from that game or is that like "too logical" for you ?

HappyHappyJoyJoy wrote... It is conceivable that the publisher is eating the extra cost of console games and charging extra for PC games - retailers do this, they charge the same for cash and credit cards, even though they must pay interchange rates to Visa/MC. 

Yep it is entirely possible they are doing that with the PC verison charging us more because they can't push the console price up any higher.  It doesn't make it any more "right" or "acceptable".

Modifié par charmingcharlie, 24 décembre 2010 - 09:33 .

[IBPROFEN]

HappyHappyJoyJoy wrote...

sinosleep wrote...

@HappyHappyJoyJoy COD is published by Activision, they, like EA, were one of the first to start charging 59.99 regardless of console. They're not exactly a good choice to go with when trying to figure out how often there's a price difference between PCs and consoles.

I think looking at large publishers is best.

And trust me, I don't like large publishers - as I've mentioned before, one of the companies I worked for was bought out and closed by EA.  Another went through something similar with another large publisher. 

 Sorry to here tht Happy, was It Novalogic? cause EA done a number on them too.

[iggy4566]

[quote]sinosleep wrote...

[quote]iggy4566 wrote...

Stop crying you'll get the game anyway.[/quote]

People also said I'd pay for x-box live when I bought a 360. 5 years later they still haven't gotten a ****ing penny from me. I'll buy the game when some store online INEVITABLY has it for sale pre-launch



why are you comparing X-BOX live to this?

[sinosleep]

@iggy4566 Cause much like you said I'll buy the game any way, people said I'd pay for LIVE as well just cause I have the console. I haven't and I won't based on general principal. The same way you can be goddamned sure I'm not paying more than 49.99 for ME 3.

[uzivatel]

charmingcharlie wrote...

Why do you care about the royalty fee that much? Thats between Microsoft/Sony and BioWare/EA. What do you know? Maybe EA does not have to pay any royalty fees? Maybe the PC version is the most expensive to create and support? But why should you care? None of this is your problem, is it?
Your problem is the content and the price.
If you think ME3PC is not going to be worth $60 and $50 would be more fitting, thats fine.

[charmingcharlie]

uzivatel wrote...

Why do you care about the royalty fee that much? Thats between Microsoft/Sony and BioWare/EA. What do you know? Maybe EA does not have to pay any royalty fees? Maybe the PC version is the most expensive to create and support? But why should you care? None of this is your problem, is it?
Your problem is the content and the price.
If you think ME3PC is not going to be worth $60 and $50 would be more fitting, thats fine.

I care about the royalty fee because it is the PRIMARY reason why PC games are cheaper than console games.  As I have said I have no problem paying $60 for a game, I do have a problem with paying the same price as console gamers because console gamers have to pay this royalty fee, I do not.

So if EA want to increase the price of the PC version to $60 then that is fine as long as they increase the price of the console version to $70 to ensure there is a price difference between the console and PC version due to the royalty fee.

It is unacceptable for PC gamers to pay the same price as console gamers when there is a clear extra cost involved with the console version.

Oh and thanks for the good laugh about EA not paying the royalty fee, I mean seriously do you think MS/Sony are charities ?  All publishers pay the royalty fee regardless of how big or small they are.

Modifié par charmingcharlie, 24 décembre 2010 - 09:55 .

[archurban]

well, unfortunately most big games in 2011 will be $59.95 excepting few games like the king of assassin. the witcher 2 (premium edition is only $49.99). I guess that console game price will be increased $10 more.

[belwin]

sinosleep wrote...

@HappyHappyJoyJoy COD is published by Activision, they, like EA, were one of the first to start charging 59.99 regardless of console. They're not exactly a good choice to go with when trying to figure out how often there's a price difference between PCs and consoles.

i blame Black Op's.

but you beat me to the explanation.

[iggy4566]

sinosleep wrote...

@iggy4566 Cause much like you said I'll buy the game any way, people said I'd pay for LIVE as well just cause I have the console. I haven't and I won't based on general principal. The same way you can be goddamned sure I'm not paying more than 49.99 for ME 3.

Ok then:whistle:

[iggy4566]

charmingcharlie wrote...

uzivatel wrote...

Why do you care about the royalty fee that much? Thats between Microsoft/Sony and BioWare/EA. What do you know? Maybe EA does not have to pay any royalty fees? Maybe the PC version is the most expensive to create and support? But why should you care? None of this is your problem, is it?
Your problem is the content and the price.
If you think ME3PC is not going to be worth $60 and $50 would be more fitting, thats fine.

I care about the royalty fee because it is the PRIMARY reason why PC games are cheaper than console games.  As I have said I have no problem paying $60 for a game, I do have a problem with paying the same price as console gamers because console gamers have to pay this royalty fee, I do not.

So if EA want to increase the price of the PC version to $60 then that is fine as long as they increase the price of the console version to $70 to ensure there is a price difference between the console and PC version due to the royalty fee.

It is unacceptable for PC gamers to pay the same price as console gamers when there is a clear extra cost involved with the console version.

Oh and thanks for the good laugh about EA not paying the royalty fee, I mean seriously do you think MS/Sony are charities ?  All publishers pay the royalty fee regardless of how big or small they are.

Then just wait till price goes down and your getting a little worked about a price that most likely isn't final.

[uzivatel]

charmingcharlie wrote...

Soo ... you dont care about the actual game or the price, but you are butthurt about the prospect BioWare/EA may be making more money on PC per copy?

Oh and thanks for the good laugh about EA not paying the royalty fee, I mean seriously do you think MS/Sony are charities ?  All publishers pay the royalty fee regardless of how big or small they are.

Both sides want to make as much money as possible and the largest publishers have better negotiating position.

Modifié par uzivatel, 24 décembre 2010 - 10:21 .

[charmingcharlie]

uzivatel wrote...    Soo ... you dont care about the actual game or the price, but you are butthurt about the prospect BioWare/EA may be making more money on PC per copy?

You mean I am butthurt about being priced gouged !!!!!!!!! well who would've have thought that eh.  I mean everyone loves being price gouged don't they   Oh and there is no "may" about it, publishers already make more money per copy out of the PC version even after you take the royalty fee out of the equation.  With this price increase they are making EVEN MORE money out of the PC version.

uzivatel wrote...      Both sides want to make as much money as possible and the largest publishers have better negotiating position.

Yes and if EA wants to access the 40 million xbox customers then they will pay the royalty fee.  There are plenty of developers to publish games on the 360 but EA has to go through MS to access xbox gamers so they will pay the royalty fee like every other publisher pays the royalty fee.

[HappyHappyJoyJoy]

IBPROFEN wrote...

HappyHappyJoyJoy wrote...

sinosleep wrote...

@HappyHappyJoyJoy COD is published by Activision, they, like EA, were one of the first to start charging 59.99 regardless of console. They're not exactly a good choice to go with when trying to figure out how often there's a price difference between PCs and consoles.

I think looking at large publishers is best.

And trust me, I don't like large publishers - as I've mentioned before, one of the companies I worked for was bought out and closed by EA.  Another went through something similar with another large publisher. 

 Sorry to here tht Happy, was It Novalogic? cause EA done a number on them too.

Nope.  I feel sorry for anyone who works at an EA-bought company, including the Bioware folks.

Anyway, I'm getting close to having a conflict of interest so I'm going to sign off this thread. 

[Dionkey]

They do this with everything. It is just a placeholder. They don't even have the box art done so don't fret, the only company to do this is Activision.

[CMD-Shep]

Game is a year away from release and yet folks are already complaining about the price. You have an entire year to save $60 for the game. It really ain't that bad! Jeez.

[Dionkey]

IBPROFEN wrote...

HappyHappyJoyJoy wrote...

sinosleep wrote...

@HappyHappyJoyJoy COD is published by Activision, they, like EA, were one of the first to start charging 59.99 regardless of console. They're not exactly a good choice to go with when trying to figure out how often there's a price difference between PCs and consoles.

I think looking at large publishers is best.

And trust me, I don't like large publishers - as I've mentioned before, one of the companies I worked for was bought out and closed by EA.  Another went through something similar with another large publisher. 

 Sorry to here tht Happy, was It Novalogic? cause EA done a number on them too.

I am guessing it was Pandemic

[The Smoking Man]

I remember when games were closer to $20 new and generally had around 16-20 hours of gameplay, at least. Now we have games that cost $60 and have 4-6 hours of gameplay (for example, BioShock 2). Fortunately, Mass Effect isn't one of those 4-6 hour long games. Still not happy about the price climb, though.

[Dionkey]

The Smoking Man wrote...

I remember when games were closer to $20 new and generally had around 16-20 hours of gameplay, at least. Now we have games that cost $60 and have 4-6 hours of gameplay (for example, BioShock 2). Fortunately, Mass Effect isn't one of those 4-6 hour long games. Still not happy about the price climb, though.

I don't ever remember games that were $20 new..

[sinosleep]

CMD-Shep wrote...

Game is a year away from release and yet folks are already complaining about the price. You have an entire year to save $60 for the game. It really ain't that bad! Jeez.

You're completely missing the point. No one is claiming that 60 dollars is an exuberant amount of money, or that the 10 dollar hike is an exuberant amount of money, it's the PRINCIPLE of the matter. There's no justification of this price increase.

[Zlarm]

Firstly I very much doubt it's just placeholder because they're pulling the same with DA2.

And to be frank for a game like DA:O where they clearly put tons of extra work into the pc version, I would probably bite the bullet and spend the extra $10 (even thought it's going straight into EAs coffers since as many others have pointed out there's no royalty fees on the pc). However ME2 was pretty much a port of the 360 version, sure it wasn't terrible but they clearly didn't spend much time adapting it to the strengths of the pc (no shortcuts for journal,squad etc..., having to use the keyboard for most things-mini games). Somehow I doubt they'll be putting in the extra time for ME3; hell For DA2 they've been pulling stuff out of the pc version and expect us to pay an extra $10.

I wouldn't say this kind of practice is widespread yet either, Acti-Bliz is pretty much the only one doing it (and now Ea-BioWare I suppose), so I fully expect there will be plenty of great pc releases at the $50 price point for me to purchase in 2011. The Witcher 2 is only $45 on steam right now if you preorder.

And no an extra $10/year isn't really that much for me. However by buying and supporting this sort of thing you can fully expect you'll soon be paying that extra $10 for every pc release (and then someone will be raising it to $70......)

Like I said if BioWare were going the extra mile with the pc version I might consider it but given their recent track record on pc, my bets that this is just a money grab.

Modifié par Zlarm, 25 décembre 2010 - 12:09 .

[Ahglock]

Since I'll be getting the super duper digital deluxe extreme awesomeness steam edition I'm not worried about the base game being $59.99.

[Homey C-Dawg]

With console royalties and reduced production cost (especially with digital distribution) it certainly costs the publisher less to produce PC games. It basically means that Bioware/EA are making more $ per PC sale than they do per console sale.

Will I buy a PC game I want if it's $60? Yes of course. Do I think it is deliberate price gouging (ie-greed)? Yes.

edit- If they are going to make larger profit ratios from PC gamers though, I would like them to take more time and care with their PC ports (ex. ME1 was a better PC port than ME2).

Modifié par Homey C-Dawg, 25 décembre 2010 - 12:27 .

[GODzilla]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

It's 10 friggin dollars. Why would any sane person deprive themselves ME3 just to make an idiotic point?

*ten years later*

"It's 100 friggin dollars. Why would any sane person deprive themselves ME3 just to make an idiotic point?"

Funny. Or sad? I guess both, depends if you're the receiver or spender.