456 réponses à ce sujet

[Morroian]

Revan312 wrote...

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

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

Good article which supports what other companies in other industries have found as well like Baen Books.

[Ocyris]

Look at all the arm chair economist completely over analyzing this entire topic. Personally I'm not will to throw down the extra $10 on this game especially considering how much I'm expecting to be nickel and dimed over DLC, so I'll just wait for the price to drop.

[TheConfidenceMan]

Ironically the PC games that are most worth $60 often don't cost that much, whereas the premium pricetag is usually found on DLC-ridden console ports.

Modifié par TheConfidenceMan, 13 janvier 2011 - 10:28 .

[Revan312]

AlanC9 wrote...

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.

Oh they'll raise it, but what's been proposed as a condition to raise it, i.e spending cuts, is a ridiculously low number, somewhere around 100 billion, even though the deficit is near 1.3 trillion or 1/13th. So it's a pointless political theater, as you said, basically just there to distract from the real economic and financial problems..

And yes, games are under-priced and have been for years, the problem comes with chunk raising which is something the gaming industry does every-time. Don't raise it incrementally to get people used to the price, raise it in giant chunks causing consumer shock and lost sales..

the_one_54321 wrote...
*snip*

Yes, as stated earlier, market perception carries great weight and it can be used as an inspirational tool to bolster market growth. Anymore though, that weight of perception is used as an abusive mechanic to cause purposeful and focused crashes/inflated stock numbers so as to redistribute capitol into the hands of the largest of large financial institutions. Controlled scares, fake boons and imaginary stability/volatility are mainstays of the current stock environment.

Personally I just think that falsely reassuring the consumer sector that we're doing well while in fact we aren't will actually cause more harm than good as savings are spent and credit debts rise when we're at this extremely precarious point in our economic system.

Modifié par Revan312, 13 janvier 2011 - 11:13 .

[the_one_54321]

Woah, but it's not necessarily a matter of trying to convince people that "we're doing well." Stating that "growth is occurring" is not an inaccurate statement. There has been growth. While I, likewise would like to see stimulation in the lower sectors instead of propping up in the larger sectors let's not cloud the fact that the economy is growing in terms of absolute value. Everything is not entirely "the precursor to the financial end of times."

[Revan312]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Woah, but it's not necessarily a matter of trying to convince people that "we're doing well." Stating that "growth is occurring" is not an inaccurate statement. There has been growth. While I, likewise would like to see stimulation in the lower sectors instead of propping up in the larger sectors let's not cloud the fact that the economy is growing in terms of absolute value. Everything is not entirely "the precursor to the financial end of times."

Granted, we are growing from an absolute standpoint, but that growth as you said, is simply in the higher sectors and much of it is at the expense of the middle and lower classes.  Financial end times is a bit hyperbolic, and if I came off that way, I didn't mean to. But, I still feel that the state of finances within the united states is in a very slippery position.  Our money scheme is no longer working like it did for the last 100 years. Fractional banking is, imo, at the end of it's usefulness and I DO believe it will have to default for the insane merry go round of money devaluation to stop..

[Myounage]

I am no longer buying this game. $60 is what chumps pay for games.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Myounage wrote...

I am no longer buying this game. $60 is what chumps pay for games.

Did you buy games for $50 5 years ago?

Then you already have paid $60 for a game.

[Naitaka]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Myounage wrote...

I am no longer buying this game. $60 is what chumps pay for games.

Did you buy games for $50 5 years ago?

Then you already have paid $60 for a game.

Why are we not paying 70$ for a console game then? This argument is going in circle, just drop it unless you have something new to add to the discussion.

[Lyrun]

To everyone who says, "Well, why don't you just save your money?"

Why should I have to pay more than the industry standard for PC games just because EA/Bioware feel like walking in Activision's footsteps. This is ridiculous, and as Guy Threepwood said, "Never pay more than 20 bucks for a computer game."

[Truesteel Prime]

I was going to buy this game until I saw this $60 nonsense. It is $10 more than expect, will no doubt have incredibly invasive DRM, and we will be nickle and dimed for DLC as per usual. Bioware what is happening to you?

[Malevolente]

I will not buy this game unless the price is kept as it always has been.



Alright /v/ I did my job

[Morroian]

Truesteel Prime wrote...

I was going to buy this game until I saw this $60 nonsense. It is $10 more than expect, will no doubt have incredibly invasive DRM, and we will be nickle and dimed for DLC as per usual. Bioware what is happening to you?

Its EA not Bioware. And if you don't want to buy it at $60 don't buy it wait for the price to come down. I generally refuse to pay even $50 for games, DA2 is the only exception. I dunno why this is so hard.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Naitaka wrote...

Why are we not paying 70$ for a console game then?

Because their prices have fallen in real dollars.\\

Why does it matter what the console versions cost?  It has no impact on the quality of the PC game, or the price of the PC game, or your capacity to pay that price.

The price of the console version makes no material difference.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Malevolente wrote...

I will not buy this game unless the price is kept as it always has been.

This statement requires a very strange definition of both "price" and "always" to make any sense.

[SeeThroughGlass]

In Australia, we can pay in excess of $100 for a new game. Since the US dollar is almost on par with ours, I have no idea what you all are complaining about. We would be happy to pay $60 for a new game.

[Naitaka]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Naitaka wrote...

Why are we not paying 70$ for a console game then?

Because their prices have fallen in real dollars.\\\\

Why does it matter what the console versions cost?  It has no impact on the quality of the PC game, or the price of the PC game, or your capacity to pay that price.

The price of the console version makes no material difference.

Because the arugment that developement cost has risen is illogical unless console version exeprience a similiar price hike since they already have to pay extra royalty to hardware maker to begin with?

[OSUfan12121]

My local best buy was selling the signature for $50 (and the receipt says $50 so they cant increase the price) so i pre-ordered there instead of Gamestop where it was $60.

[Truesteel Prime]

Morroian wrote...

Truesteel Prime wrote...

I was going to buy this game until I saw this $60 nonsense. It is $10 more than expect, will no doubt have incredibly invasive DRM, and we will be nickle and dimed for DLC as per usual. Bioware what is happening to you?

Its EA not Bioware. And if you don't want to buy it at $60 don't buy it wait for the price to come down. I generally refuse to pay even $50 for games, DA2 is the only exception. I dunno why this is so hard.

Bioware gets to choose which contracts to sign and who publishes their games. It's their choice. And DURP, what do you think I am saying, the whole point was that lots of people who would have bought it on launch, now won't be doing so because we are tired of getting ass rammed in prices of games and then more so in DLC.

[Truesteel Prime]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Naitaka wrote...

Why are we not paying 70$ for a console game then?

Because their prices have fallen in real dollars.\\\\

Why does it matter what the console versions cost?  It has no impact on the quality of the PC game, or the price of the PC game, or your capacity to pay that price.

The price of the console version makes no material difference.

Actual it DOES make a difference. If the argument to justify the price hike of PC games is that development costs are now higher, why are console games not seeing a rise to $70? The whole point was that the costs haven't gone up at all, its just a bunch of double talk and bull**** so they can make more profit.

They are making this game into a day 1 pirate.

[HomemComH]

Hey you can buy The Witcher 2 for $45.



Just saying.

[Malevolente]

SeeThroughGlass wrote...

In Australia, we can pay in excess of $100 for a new game. Since the US dollar is almost on par with ours, I have no idea what you all are complaining about. We would be happy to pay $60 for a new game.

Thats because no one likes Australia.

[HomemComH]

$60 for a digital version of a pc game is some bull****.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Truesteel Prime wrote...

Actual it DOES make a difference. If the argument to justify the price hike of PC games is that development costs are now higher, why are console games not seeing a rise to $70?

But that's not the justification.  The justification I'm offering is that the dollars you're using the measure the price are now worth less, so something priced the same will now have a higher dollar-value.

If console prices haven't changed, then there's soe other confounding factor.  Perhaps the console manufacturers have locked all the publishers into a fixed price per generation.  I don't know.  I'm not privy to their contracts.

Since PC game retailing is a much more open market, it's easier to see what's happening.

The whole point was that the costs haven't gone up at all

Who cares if the costs have gone up?  The costs have nothing to do with the price.  Ever.  That's not how prices are set.

[Sylvius the Mad]

HomemComH wrote...

$60 for a digital version of a pc game is some bull****.

Why does it matter that it's digital?  Digital games aren't usually cheaper than physical games.