456 réponses à ce sujet

[the_one_54321]

One instance recorded through experimentation does not equal a concrete relationship. Only a fool would completely reassess risk in light of one example of massive sales increases. But perhaps in seeing this some sales departments will start looking into ways to integrate the phenomenon into their own sales practices and consumers in general will see some benefit from it.

[Monica83]

60 bucks for dragon age 2 on pc?

Calm down.... lol

if i find it for 30 euro i puchased it.. i don't think dragon age 2 will be enought good to have such a high price lol

[Revan312]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Revan312 wrote...

raising the prices for games during a recession

Where are you that there's a recession right now?  The recession in the US ended several months ago.

Hahaha, your funny.

Yes because 382,000 forclosures in the 3rd quarter of 2010, a 31% jump from the previous quarter means were doing hunky dory. A real unemployment rate of near 22%, the lie that TARP is only 700 billion dollars, which in reality is only the tip of the 23.7 trillion dollars being subsidized to banks throughout the country. 

So yes, massive unemployment, giant amounts of forclosures and a neverending injection of money into commercial banks indicates it's all fine.. call me a wee bit skeptical.. I meant a recession for people, you know, the ones with flesh and blood and not diamonds and platinum in their veins. Corporations are doing well, at the expense of everyone else..

the_one_54321 wrote...

One instance recorded through
experimentation does not equal a concrete relationship. Only a fool
would completely reassess risk in light of one example of massive sales
increases. But perhaps in seeing this some sales departments will start
looking into ways to integrate the phenomenon into their own sales
practices and consumers in general will see some benefit from
it.

That strategy isn't a "phenomenon".. It's basic business tactics..  Like I said earlier, 1000 widgets sold at $10 makes more than 10 widget's sold at $100 dollars.  The only limiting factor to that was the production costs which isn't an issue with digital distribution.  It's just copied code which costs nothing to replicate as many times as you want.. No packeging, no disks, no booklets means no overhead.. Develpment costs money, but that's the point of selling as great a number as possible rather than jacking the price up and only selling so many.. The mass sell approach works better, bar nun, especially with the near zero overhead costs of digital content.

Modifié par Revan312, 13 janvier 2011 - 06:31 .

[KCFender]

nikki191 wrote...

Kilshrek wrote...

Dragon Age 2 on PC = AUD $ 89 - $99 ~ 1 AUD = 0.9 USD

On the consoles the average game is $109 - $119.

Problem, $60 game?

i was going to say does any other australian think its amusing that some americans complain about paying $60 for a game when we walk into a store and have to pay double for the same item when the australian dolar is pretty much 1 to 1?

deal with it. eventually you too will be paying 90-100 for a regular edition game as well

Or I could buy games from developers whose games aren't published by the likes of EA. $59.99 isn't the "standard price" of PC games. Neither is $49.99, really. It fluctuates a great deal depending on the general size of the game and how much money was spent on its development.
I said it before, I'll say it now, this game took less development time than Origins by a pretty drastic amount. And BioWare has never had a better two years than what they've just had. - And yet they increase the price? If anything this game should be cheaper than what Origins cost on its release, or at the very least, the same price: $49.99 for the standard version, which to me, for being a sequel made immediately after Origins and using the same engine, should still net EA some profit.

If you want to justify the price increase, that's fine. If you want to joke that anyone who complains about price increases must not even be able to afford it and is a broke hillbilly living in a shack, that's mature of you. But honestly, I know better, and I don't want to encourage EA's scum-suckery any bit more than I have to. Which is easy in this case, because Dragon Age: Origins was hardly my game of the year.

[the_one_54321]

Revan312 wrote...
...

Well first off, that's not how you identify a recession. Certainly the ecconomy is not back to it's former pre-recession health levels. But the recession is, officially/technically, over and has been for months. Recession does not mean "times are tough." Recession means "things are getting worse, or headed toward getting worse." Fact of the matter is that while things are still not great, things are actually getting better, not worse.

Second, the example provided in Valve's experiment is great. But it does not equal a concrete relationship. Market reactions don't always work that way. Left 4 Dead is an older game, which is why they were willing to use it for the test. The reslts were great, but there's still potential that a brand new game wouldn't see the same kinds of sales responses. None of the development companies are going to comepletely revamp their new game sales strategy just because one older game saw incredibly massive sales numbers on an online super-sale. Hopefully they'll see this and decide to try and feel out if they can use the results to their advantage in new games sales. Then hopefully the relationship you're talking about will become well established and we can all start to benefit from it. But that's a long and involved process that unfortunately is not as simple as saying 1+1=2 and then putting it into practice.

[Sharuko]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Revan312 wrote...
I finally found the article I was looking for when someone on the steam forums posted it..

Valve Exec Explains How To Compete With Piracy

He started out by pointing out something that we've discussed in the past: digital content is best viewed as a service, not a product. As a service, you focus on providing continual value -- and people are paying for that future value (which is a scarce good prior to delivery), rather than an infinite good already created. There's value in paying for that future (scarce) service, and it trumps paying for an abundantly available good.

From there, he noted that the reason "piracy" is doing so well is that the "pirates are ahead not just on price, but on service." In fact, he noted that since DRM decreases the service value for customers, it also
tends to increase piracy, rather than decrease it.

Then, he showed how that combination of service and smarter pricing allowed the company to run experiments and make a lot more money -- competing quite successfully against piracy. The most stunning example:
last weekend, the company ran an experiment with the game Left 4 Dead. It heavily discounted the price, and sales shot up 3,000%. And this wasn't just a case of building off a small base. The sales over the
weekend were more than when the game launched.

In fact, it looks like a big part of the problem facing the industry is that they charge way too much for their products. Here are the numbers Newell shared from Valve's experiments with "sale" pricing:

* 10% off = 35% increase in sales (real dollars, not units shipped)

* 25% off = 245% increase in sales

* 50% off = 320% increase in sales

* 75% off = 1470% increase in sales

Newell then says when they decrease the price by 75%, they are making 15% more than when they were charging at full price

http://www.techdirt.....24433835.shtml

That was a really neat read. Thank you.

Which is why I love Gabe and Valve, however, they don't have a publisher breathing down their necks.

This is what it has become now in terms of pricing:

• Charge loyal customers who pre-order and buy on release the most.
• Drop prices eventually so others (not hardcore fans) can get the deal at a cheaper price but will have to wait.
• Drop prices even further and make a "Ultimate" or "GotY" edition for a cheap rate and include all DLC and all content.  A bigger wait.

So if you are a loyal fan that wants it right away you pay significantly more.  If you can wait a couple of months you get it for a cheaper rate.  There is no middle line anywhere anymore.

[Sharuko]

scyphozoa wrote...

So PC gamers what do you want, to be abandoned by a majority of developers and a lack of games and at best, a future of console ports with a 50.00$ price tag or would you rather more developers return to making games for the PC platform with the 60.00$ price tag?

If you want developers to value the PC platform then you should be happy to see the market strong enough to support PC gaming. PC gaming has been hurting for years, 2010 was the best year for PC gaming in a long time.

If the "big guys" don't make games for the PC, someone will.  There is always room for more great developers.  The PC market is not going anywhere, it is here to stay.

[KyleOrdrum]

Lets see, $60 for lets say 300 hours of gameplay (between initial play and replays). Lets see, that breaks to about 20 cents per hour. Where is the complaint here?

[Mikka-chan]

I protested bitterly when video games moved from 30 to 40, then 40 to 50. I'm a bit annoyed by the 50 to 60 now.



But I accept it. Video games actually haven't gone up as much as various other things I adore did. Remember the days of actually going to the theater to see a movie? I haven't done that for a decade and a half, now. The prices are outrageous, and that's even if you're not going to buy a snack. (And just to be intrusive (okay, okay, and make them more money), the theaters near me have started 'security checks' to make sure you're not, gosh forbid, bringing some bottle water or a candy bar in. Feh.)



I bought the sig edition of Dragon Age 2, and I probably will willingly sell out 60 for Mass Effect 2, SW the Old Republic, and the next expansion for EQ2. Almost any other game, I'll wait till it slips down to at least 50 if not 40, or buy it used. It's a disappointing trend, but as I'm willing to buy it, i suppose it works.

[Revan312]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Well first off, that's not how you identify a recession. Certainly the ecconomy is not back to it's former pre-recession health levels. But the recession is, officially/technically, over and has been for months. Recession does not mean "times are tough." Recession means "things are getting worse, or headed toward getting worse." Fact of the matter is that while things are still not great, things are actually getting better, not worse.

Where are things getting better?  That's my point.. The stock market is, corporations are, but for normal Americans job loss is still increasing, forclosures are increasing, debt ceilings are increasing, the government might default, inflation is sky rocketing and the currency is being debased at a rate unheard of in our country atm.  If your information about the ending of the recession is from the wall street journal or the governemnt saying it is, your just buying into hyperbolic rhetoric that is simply an attempt to make the situation at hand look better than it is.

The recession is still here, things aren't getting better for the majority of the population. Savings are being turned inside out in an attempt to stave off forclosures, more than a quarter of the unemployed have run out of benefits, factories are closing, jobs are moving overseas, the deficit is at a near all time high of 1.3 trillion dollars for 2010 which is insane, national debt grew by 1 trillion dollars in just seven months to become the grand total of 14 trillion, which is nearly a 15% yearly growth rate, again insane.

I'm not sure what your definition of recession is but flabbergasting amounts of subsidized commercial bank loans and money devaluation mixed with consistent job loss, housing loss and crushing credit debt doesn't equal it's getting better to me.. Though Banks/corporations are doing good.. so I guess that's all that matters....

Second, the example provided in Valve's experiment is great. But it does not equal a concrete relationship. Market reactions don't always work that way. Left 4 Dead is an older game, which is why they were willing to use it for the test. The reslts were great, but there's still potential that a brand new game wouldn't see the same kinds of sales responses. None of the development companies are going to comepletely revamp their new game sales strategy just because one older game saw incredibly massive sales numbers on an online super-sale. Hopefully they'll see this and decide to try and feel out if they can use the results to their advantage in new games sales. Then hopefully the relationship you're talking about will become well established and we can all start to benefit from it. But that's a long and involved process that unfortunately is not as simple as saying 1+1=2 and then putting it into practice.

I never said it was a concrete relationship, but it is one with such a massive foundation as to be almost undeniable. Price drops on goods and services means more sales, more sales in a service industry (digital distribution) means more money overall. The independent music scene is proving it, valve is proving it every christmas sale on hundreds of games and most stores prove it after every major holiday sale event.  Price drop generally = a massive increase in sales which overshadows the cost of production or proposed income at the normal set price level.

I guarantee that Adobe would make 10 times the money they do now with photoshop if they simply cut the price by 80%. 600+ dollars for a program is outragious and everyone that I've ever known that owns it, owns an illegal copy because nobody is willing to pay that except for high income individuals.  If PS was say, 75 - 100 bucks it would sell like mad. People have been saying that for years to Adobe but they're stubborn and greedy and can't conceive that that many people would buy it so they simply assume the market they cater to is the maximized end of the photoshop profit spectrum.. which is simply wrong..

Thing is, the game will go on a massive sale on Steam anyway as they always do. Really I shouldn't say this is a bad strategy, as at the beginning you milk the people willing to pay 60 to begin with and down the road you get the rest during sales.  Activision are the retards as they're STILL charging 60 bucks for MW2 and others which is ludicrous when BFBC2 is only 20 bucks, 10 during this last holiday sale..

So no, this tactic makes sense, what's underhanded though is offering the sig edition for 50 bucks almost everywhere and then when the deadline runs out, ramp the price up 10 dollars on the normal edition pre-order which has less content.

[thehistorysage]

scyphozoa wrote...

So PC gamers what do you want, to be abandoned by a majority of developers and a lack of games and at best, a future of console ports with a 50.00$ price tag or would you rather more developers return to making games for the PC platform with the 60.00$ price tag?

If you want developers to value the PC platform then you should be happy to see the market strong enough to support PC gaming. PC gaming has been hurting for years, 2010 was the best year for PC gaming in a long time.

 
^ This. Every other argument aside, this is the heart of the matter.

Also, all of these arguments against the price tag shouted at Bioware and EA are patently ridiculous given that any number of people, myself included, have pre-ordered the game from various companies at the $50 pricetag. All it takes is a bit of shopping around.

END DISTRIBUTERS SET PRICE, NOT BIOWARE. Not even EA for that matter. Now, maybe they did raise their cost per copy, who knows? That aside, by any of these "logical" arguments the end distributer could have made more money by keeping the price tag at $50 (and again, SOME DID). "They put out a game using the same engine in much less time." Yeah, and all the distributer does is take it from them and give it to you. How much less did they do?

[WidowMaker9394]

You know you'll buy it.



You know.

[Hathur]

You can blame Activision.. they were the first to raise their PC game prices from 49.99 to 59.99 about a year ago.... EA saw that it didn't hurt their sales, so they followed suit.



Considering that new PC games were priced at 49.99 for at least 12 years that I can specifically recall, I'm not going to pout over a 10 dollar increase (20% increase) over the course of 10+ years.... a loaf of rye bread costs me 2x as much today than it did in 1999 / 2000.

[the_one_54321]

Revan312 wrote...
I'm not sure what your definition of recession is but flabbergasting amounts of subsidized commercial bank loans and money devaluation mixed with consistent job loss, housing loss and crushing credit debt doesn't equal it's getting better to me.. Though Banks/corporations are doing good.. so I guess that's all that matters....

It's not my definition. "Recession" (or contraction or depression or whatever) has a fairly standardized definition. It's just that people are missunderstanding it and missusing the term to encompase all forms of financial difficulties.

But what you're talking about is actually part of the reason why growth has been slower than it might have been. People have this perception of still needing to struggle and to pinch every penny. That perception stalls growth because it's a kind of self fulfilling prophecy. Person A has no job, so Person A is reluctant to spend money. Person B runs a business which sees less money because Person A is not spending. Person C applies for a job working for Person B but Person B will not hire based on a decreased revenue stream. Person C has no job, so Person C is reluctant to spend money. And so on and so forth.

I'm the last person you're going to see advocating for tax cuts for high earners or subsidies for big business, but a pragmatic view of growth dictates that increased room to spend means increased room to hire means more increase in room to spend. Growth in the larger market will be followed by growth in the smaller sectors as well. An upward trend is simply an upward trend as all these markets are connected to each other in various ways.

Now I'm not saying that anything you've said is untrue. Nor am I specificially disagreeing with anything you've said. But there is a difference between the wide spreak ecconomic difficulties being experienced in the middle class and an overall ecconomic downturn. Things are certainly still hard for the majority of Americans, but America is no longer in the midst of a recession. (I'm not equating subsidies and tax cuts for the upper echelon with general ecconomic growth, btw. I'm saying that if you see actual ecconomic growth in the upper sectors then you will see ecconomic growth in its related sectors. This doesn't mean that I'm suggesting any particular way to stimulate that growth)

As a side note: Inflation has not been skyrocketing.

Revan312 wrote...
I never said it was a concrete relationship, but it is one with such a massive foundation as to be almost undeniable. Price drops on goods and services means more sales, more sales in a service industry (digital distribution) means more money overall. The independent music scene is proving it, valve is proving it every christmas sale on hundreds of games and most stores prove it after every major holiday sale event.  Price drop generally = a massive increase in sales which overshadows the cost of production or proposed income at the normal set price level.

I guarantee that Adobe would make 10 times the money they do now with photoshop if they simply cut the price by 80%. 600+ dollars for a program is outragious and everyone that I've ever known that owns it, owns an illegal copy because nobody is willing to pay that except for high income individuals.  If PS was say, 75 - 100 bucks it would sell like mad. People have been saying that for years to Adobe but they're stubborn and greedy and can't conceive that that many people would buy it so they simply assume the market they cater to is the maximized end of the photoshop profit spectrum.. which is simply wrong..

Thing is, the game will go on a massive sale on Steam anyway as they always do. Really I shouldn't say this is a bad strategy, as at the beginning you milk the people willing to pay 60 to begin with and down the road you get the rest during sales.  Activision are the retards as they're STILL charging 60 bucks for MW2 and others which is ludicrous when BFBC2 is only 20 bucks, 10 during this last holiday sale..

So no, this tactic makes sense, what's underhanded though is offering the sig edition for 50 bucks almost everywhere and then when the deadline runs out, ramp the price up 10 dollars on the normal edition pre-order which has less content.

Yeah, I'm deffinitely hoping that this will take hold and start drawing sales departments in most/all development companies away from the "forced AAA and increased costs" model that's common in a lot of places. (like BioWare)

Modifié par the_one_54321, 13 janvier 2011 - 08:55 .

[Addai]

thehistorysage wrote...
END DISTRIBUTERS SET PRICE, NOT BIOWARE. Not even EA for that matter. Now, maybe they did raise their cost per copy, who knows? That aside, by any of these "logical" arguments the end distributer could have made more money by keeping the price tag at $50 (and again, SOME DID). "They put out a game using the same engine in much less time." Yeah, and all the distributer does is take it from them and give it to you. How much less did they do?

And a manufacturer sets the suggested retail price.  You mean to say that nearly every outlet moving the price to $60 is the distributors' doing?  Including EA Store?

Sure, a distributor like Impulse can decide to eat the lower profit margin and not increase their prices.  That's not the point.

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

As a side note: Inflation has not been skyrocketing.

Those are all CPI-based.  One of them even had the gall to claim there was a liquidity crisis in 2009.

[Revan312]

the_one_54321 wrote...
It's not my definition. "Recession" (or contraction or depression or whatever) has a fairly standardized definition. It's just that people are missunderstanding it and missusing the term to encompase all forms of financial difficulties.

But what you're talking about is actually part of the reason why growth has been slower than it might have been. People have this perception of still needing to struggle and to pinch every penny. That perception stalls growth because it's a kind of self fulfilling prophecy. Person A has no job, so Person A is reluctant to spend money. Person B runs a business which sees less money because Person A is not spending. Person C applies for a job working for Person B but Person B will not hire based on a decreased revenue stream. Person C has no job, so Person C is reluctant to spend money. And so on and so forth.

I'm the last person you're going to see advocating for tax cuts for high earners or subsidies for big business, but a pragmatic view of growth dictates that increased room to spend means increased room to hire means more increase in room to spend. Growth in the larger market will be followed by growth in the smaller sectors as well. An upward trend is simply an upward trend as all these markets are connected to each other in various ways.

Now I'm not saying that anything you've said is untrue. Nor am I specificially disagreeing with anything you've said. But there is a difference between the wide spreak ecconomic difficulties being experienced in the middle class and an overall ecconomic downturn. Things are certainly still hard for the majority of Americans, but America is no longer in the midst of a recession.

As a side note: Inflation has not been skyrocketing.

Oh I agree, in a healthy economy, perception of itself creates the highs and lulls of boons and busts.. But our economic system isn't healthy and most of the problems at the moment are a mix of causes stemming from massive overspending, hedging, futures, explosive derivative investments, fraudulent banking practices, deceptive loan contracts, short term profit oriented layoffs and above all, the fractional reserve money policy. All of those points are the bulk of the problem and almost all of them are perpetrated by the large conglomerate banks like J.P Morgan and Goldman Sachs.  The government as well has only helped to purpetuate the monopolization of the banking industry and continues to subsidize those same banks with tax payer money and debts that are considered our burden to bear.

Bond maturity is lower than almost any other major nation atm which means the principle owed on the national debt of 14 trillion is due in 4 and a 1/2 years. We're at 95.5% of the national debt cap which means, if it isn't raised, the government will have to default on it's loans, something they're desperatly trying to stop by simply raising the cap and borrowing more to pay back the old, making even more debt.. It's a cycle that has to end sometime and with the rate of money injection along with the state of of the dollar and it's inevitable decline into obscurity, we'll have to default at some point. Better sooner than later though, as the further you wait and the more assets you pass off to foreign institutions in an attempt to keep the economy afloat the less we'll own when the dust settles.

Basically what I'm saying is that the government is lying through their teeth when they say America is on the road to recovery because, in all reality, it's about to hit a massive brick wall in the finacial and political spending sectors.  They'll try to put off the black hole of debt for as long as possible so they can buy up as much property as possible, but it will happen, mark my words, the debt bubble will burst..

Also, the CPI is a terrible marker for inflation as it's been readjusted by having more and more sectors removed in an attempt to show stablity where there is none. Rampant rise in housing prices can occur without ever catching the attention of the central bank, since it is not included in the CPI, and is not regarded an important part of the inflation equation discussed at each meeting of the Fed. Second, asset balloons, such as the mortgage bubble of this decade, and the stock market euphoria of the 90s cannot be anticipated or prevented by the institution because of it's absence within the CPI.

Here's a quote from Shadowstats.com about the newly restructered CPI, said restructuring happening under Clinton.

"Up until the Boskin/Greenspan agendum surfaced, the CPI was measured using
the costs of a fixed basket of goods, a fairly simple and straightforward
concept. The identical basket of goods would be priced at prevailing market
costs for each period, and the period-to-period change in the cost of that
market basket represented the rate of inflation in terms of maintaining a
constant standard of living.


The Boskin/Greenspan argument was that when steak got too expensive, the
consumer would substitute hamburger for the steak, and that the inflation
measure should reflect the costs tied to buying hamburger versus steak,
instead of steak versus steak. Of course, replacing hamburger for steak in
the calculations would reduce the inflation rate, but it represented the
rate of inflation in terms of maintaining a declining standard of living.
Cost of living was being replaced by the cost of survival. The old system
told you how much you had to increase your income in order to keep buying
steak. The new system promised you hamburger, and then dog food, perhaps,
after that."

Here is their inflation calculations based upon the old model that compares same item to item increases and decreases over periods of time rather than hybridized models of exclusion and unfair comparative adjustments. http://allfinancialm...inflation-rate/

Modifié par Revan312, 13 janvier 2011 - 09:31 .

[the_one_54321]

I know at least one of them discussed the effects of food prices through oil and gas prices and one had a number with food prices included and with food prices not included. I'm not endorsing everything that was said on all of those sites. The point was just to show some graphical and numerical tabulations of inflation rate trends.

[the_one_54321]

Revan312 wrote...
...

Interesting stuff. However, do you feel the new system was intended to mask actual inflation or just to reflect the changing standards of living? Trading steak for hamburger is an interesting analogy. But what if it's trading gas cars for electric cars, and coal burning for solar and wind power? I'm just digging up random examples, of course, but those are the kinds of things to consider.

[Revan312]

the_one_54321 wrote...
Interesting stuff. However, do you feel the new system was intended to mask actual inflation or just to reflect the changing standards of living? Trading steak for hamburger is an interesting analogy. But what if it's trading gas cars for electric cars, and coal burning for solar and wind power? I'm just digging up random examples, of course, but those are the kinds of things to consider.

Mostly in my mind it's to mask inflation.  They marginalize the current inflationary increases in the economy so the market appears to be more stable, which means more investments and a higher growth within the high end private sectors.  I believe it's also simply to falsely reassure as that simply makes the economy look better on paper and inspires more foreign money holders to invest into our economy, even though that same investment will return far less with the real inflationary figures..

Also it lowers benefit costs for the government because the standard of living based upon the CPI is what's considered in areas such as medicare and social security. So although costs are rising disproportionate to the supposed rate on inflation, the benefit adjustments are made with the lower, exclusionary rates in mind, meaning less pay out and less government cost. It's a sliding scale as well that means over years your premiums rise far more than the coverage adjustment by the government..

Modifié par Revan312, 13 janvier 2011 - 09:58 .

[The Night Haunter]

Just because game prices have been static for the past decade doesn't mean they will continue to be so. I think it likely that the price of all (big budget) games will increase to 60$.

Sad as this is to me the consumer, it is both necessary and unstoppable. Just look at what things used to cost 40 years ago compared to what they cost today. I know that to you here today it might seem unfair that the price was raised apparently arbitrarily, but it must have seemed so to those who lived 40 years ago as well, when the price of a candy bar went from 5 cents to a dollar. While the logical way to reflect inflation might be to raise prices by small amounts continuously (1/2 a dollar a year perhaps, maybe less) Businesses don't have the luxury of doing that, they have to compete. So they keep their prices the same for a decade, until suddenly their profit margin has decreased by 50% and they realize they need to bump up prices. Now its been 10 years and they cant just raise prices slowly to fix it, or they will be in the same place 10 years from then, so they raise prices by a lot (~20%) and their competitors have to do the same because everyone is in the same situation.

This may seem unfair, but looking at it logically - for the past 10 years instead of raising the price of video games every year, they left it at $50, so for the past 10 years we have been underpaying the price of a video game. Today we are probably overpaying by a little bit, but for the next 10 years when the price stays $60 we will be underpaying again, until it is once again raised.

In conclusion while this practice may seem arbitrary and unfair, it ultimately benefits the consumers, and the only real downside of this is the very visual change in price every once in a while.

My 2 cents. be optimistic.

Modifié par ghostmessiah202, 13 janvier 2011 - 10:04 .

[AlanC9]

Revan312 wrote...
Bond maturity is lower than almost any other major nation atm which means the principle owed on the national debt of 14 trillion is due in 4 and a 1/2 years. We're at 95.5% of the national debt cap which means, if it isn't raised, the government will have to default on it's loans, something they're desperatly trying to stop by simply raising the cap and borrowing more to pay back the old, making even more debt..

You talk like the cap is more than a bit of political theater. You know better -- unless, that is, you think the Tea Party reps are actually crazy enough to not raise the cap. Which I guess is conceivable.

Note that according to that "real inflation" chart games should have hit $60 years ago.

[Addai]

WidowMaker9394 wrote...

You know you'll buy it.

You know.

You're probably right.

It's not Bryy_Miller's pocketbook we should be worried about.  It's how many BioWare interns are going to be sacrificed for the mind control ritual.

[the_one_54321]

Something still to consider, however, is how the market reacts to people's perceptions of the market. While it's certainly not the only factor the affects market growth, as pointed out earlier, it still has a very tangible weight in terms of changing prices and even more so in terms of stock market values and trades. If people in general have had a view of the market that is more favorable than the truth, what may have been (and what may still be) if people start to look at "true" numbers and despair of the market overall?

And it should be noted that even with "fake inflation" video games have not reached the price that they "should" be at.

By the way, here is some "real inflation rate" information from one of the sites I posted earlier.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 13 janvier 2011 - 10:14 .