456 réponses à ce sujet

[curly haired boy]

welp, i paid 60 USD for ME2's CE, which turned out to be rather not worth the extra 10 bucks.



i'll be paying 60 bucks new for dead space 2, as well.



i view it as just another premium for buying the game at release. if i'm not willing to buy at that price point (for example, DAO is still farrrr too expensive for a fantasy game (for me)) then i'll wait until a steam sale. it's not like i don't have other things to play while i wait.

[Milkinator]

Thats why you get a console...

[Deadmac]

When it comes to games in general, I never-ever take the industry seriously.

Stanley Woo wrote...
if you look at our forum's history, Fibrous, i think you'll find that people get rather attached to our games, and whenever they see a change to our supposed formula, they have no trouble letting us know that the old ways are the best ways and change is always the result of us selling out for profit and betraying our loyal fans who pay our salaries and whatnot.

Since video games were originally license free (80s & 90s), the whole game industry did sell out to make a profit. Once the online subscription fee based games arrived, game developers became corporate elite sell outs. Instead of games being about 'the player', they have become a means to collect tremendous amounts of wealth. 'The Player' became 'The Social Player's Network' for the rich.

Lets do the math...

$60 = Price for "Dragon Age II"
$7 x X = Price for each additional dlc element.

If we replace X with 5 as an estimated number of dlc elements (reflective of what was done with the first game), the overall price for the game would jack up to $95.

Its not $60 for this game. It will be an estimated $95 for this game.
Keep in mind that I didn't include a possible expansion pack, which would raise the price of this game another $60.

Cost of the game overall if an expansion pack was added = $155.
Price without adding tax.

No thanks. Once I see both the game and dlc being sold for a combined total of $29.99, I will consider possibly purchasing "Dragon Age II".

Modifié par Deadmac, 14 janvier 2011 - 02:58 .

[Duo Maxxwel]

Damn you 60 dollar price tag! Damn yooooooooooou! /protesting

[Merci357]

Deadmac wrote...

but where is the reward for playing out the story? A few pieces of tokens?

The reward is playing the story. But, YMMV.

[Kilshrek]

Revan312 wrote...

If one more Aussie enters the thread and says suck it up I'm gonna pull my hair out.. We get it, you pay a lot for games.. I pay a lot more for healthcare... Everything is relative.. Holland pays $8 a gallon for gas, Venezuela pays 12 cents. Blame your own market/economic structure, not others..

I mean really, it's like saying "damn those people and their socialized *insert program here*, they should pay as much as us and be the worse for it.." When really, you should be petitioning to improve your own system.

I've already said it many pages back, can I still say it again?

Pics or it didn't happen.

But getting back to the point, as many people have said in this thread before, they got a deal from x website or x retailer for less than $60. $60 is kind of like the recommended retail price isn't it? recommended?

I just poke my head around a few websites here and I find different prices on DA 2. 5 minutes of my time shows me a price difference of $10 for local retailers. EB Games going the usual rate, GAME doing it for $10 less. Surely with a greater market over there, there would be greater choice as well?

[TheIronKilt]

 I wouldn't pay 60 dollars for a PC game. There are a range of reasons for console prices getting jacked up, special coding, special discs, what have you, but 60 dollars for a digitially distributed PC game is ridiculous. 

Also the only publisher so far that's been charging 60 for PC games is Activision, and we shouldn't use them as a measuring stick for how much things SHOULD be priced.

[Revan312]

Merci357 wrote...

Deadmac wrote...

but where is the reward for playing out the story? A few pieces of tokens?

The reward is playing the story. But, YMMV.

This.. The rest I mostly agree with, but really, there's no tangible reward for any game ever, simply the experience..

[xblade0]

slimgrin wrote...

TW2 isn't the holy grail, GoG is. And how they can afford to sell TW2 at $45 with all sorts of extras is beyond me, because its unheard of in the industry. In fact, I believe it's that much on Steam as well. Both DEus Ex and TW2 are $48 on Amazon.

CDP has more breathing room to experiment with pricing. A post-scarce, worldwide market heavily favors production from countries with devalued currencies and capital.

[me_loco]

Hi all, i'm new to this game. I need to know if i buy this game would my money go to EA? i decided to boycott EA.
Also who to buy from where my money goes directly to developer?
Thanks,

Modifié par me_loco, 14 janvier 2011 - 02:32 .

[MosyM80]

Stanley Woo wrote...

So, suggestions awesome. Demands, not so much. And please, we're attracted to honey, not vinegar. Even if you vehemently disagree with us, please at least show us some common courtesy and respect, and leave the name-calling, threats, and armchair economist doomsaying out of the conversation. We love you guys, but man, sometimes it is very difficult to talk to y'all.

Thank you all for your support, constructive criticism, and suggestions, and let's keep it civil so this discussion can continue.

I do agree with you, however have you told some of your fourm moderators this? Respect, Honey, Courtesy? All that good jaz?

[Andunor]

I remember a time when 60$ was what you spat out when you bought collector's edition game. The biggest issue I have with the price tag is that its for a game with no multiplayer, and all the "extra" "bonus" content will be sold as well.

[Stanley Woo]

MosyM80 wrote...

I do agree with you, however have you told some of your fourm moderators this? Respect, Honey, Courtesy? All that good jaz?

indeed, and if there is a Moderator who is treating community members discourteously, we would like to know about it. Please send a PM to any other Moderator or BioWarian if you have a dispute or complaint with one of our Moderators. If the complaint is with me or any other BioWarian, please contact Chris Priestly.

me loco
Hi all, i'm new to this game. I need to know if i buy this game would my money go to EA? i decided to boycott EA.
Also who to buy from where my money goes directly to developer?
Thanks,

Yes. Since BioWare is wholly owned by EA, part of your money for this game will go to EA, just as part will go to the retailer, the distribution company, the manufacturer, and whoever else had a hand in getting this game from our computers to your retailer's website, warehouse or store shelf.. Unfortunately, there is no way to give a company like BioWare your gaming dollars directly when purchasing one of our games. Sorry.

[me_loco]

Hi Stanley, Thanks for your quick response, please do let me know if in the future i can buy directly from the developer, fady904@yahoo.com.

[coolide]

Video game producers are not charities. You need to look at this from the shareholders' view.

[Lyssistr]

Solution is simple, wait a little. The game will be dirt cheap a few months after release.



Time passes, fewer bidders, lower bids, prices get dirt cheap, why pay 5x the value of something just to get it on release day?



If you don't agree with a price, don't buy until it gets lower, it's the only signal you can send to the sellers.



Oddly, the UK release price is reasonable, 27.56£ @ amazon and 29.99£ @ steam.



Still, If I buy at all (no burning desire to play this one), I'll get the edition with all DLC when it's under 15£ a year or so after release.

[Morroian]

Do people really not expect inflation to impact game prices? Costs are undoubtedly rising every year. Prices of most other goods rises.

[coolide]

me_loco wrote...

Hi Stanley, Thanks for your quick response, please do let me know if in the future i can buy directly from the developer, fady904@yahoo.com.

You cannot legally.  No developer could legally sell intellectual property he does not legally own.  And its the company that owns the intellectual property, not the people who worked on it.

[Deadmac]

coolide wrote...
Video game producers are not charities. You need to look at this from the shareholders' view.

I am a captialist at heart myself. However, video games were all about the underground. Once they all became main stream, shareholders and the corporate elite took over the industry. Instead of games being made for fun, the bottom line has taken over the focal point. PC games use to cost $29.99 for a full version, and then $19.99 for an expansion pack. Now its $60/$60. Within the case of the "Dragon Age" franchise, the real price hovers around $155. (Main game, download content, and possible expansion included in price.)

How I got my math...
http://social.biowar...4263/14#5717153

Keep in mind that "Dragon Age" is reflective of how BioWare/EA/Lucas Arts will approach "Star Wars: The Old Republic". Since "Dragon Age" has shown me how far BioWare will go to make a buck, I will NOT buy a subscription to "Star Wars: The Old Republic". It will cost too much. (Price of game + monthly/yearly subscription fees + price of additional content = No way in hell!)

Modifié par Deadmac, 14 janvier 2011 - 03:27 .

[Lyssistr]

coolide wrote...

Video game producers are not charities. You need to look at this from the shareholders' view.

 bs, shareholders these days are almost the last consideration, companies in many sectors (especially in tech, software etc) invest in so-called "growth" and pay **** dividends, if at all.

 Not sure how accurate google finance, yahoo finance and other amateur data providers are on this (can check bloomberg tomorrow from work) but they seem to imply that for the last 5 yrs EA shareholders have gotten exactly 0$.

btw, even if all earnings were payed as dividends (totally hypothetical scenario), increasing the price does not necessarily imply more earnings. If starbucks increased their prices by 20%, would that mean more or less earnings? you tell me.

 In any case, shareholders probably won't get much of the extra 10$, if they get anything at all.

Modifié par Lyssistr, 14 janvier 2011 - 03:25 .

[coolide]

But the companies are there to make a profit. I'm sure their accountants and marketing team have looked at the elasticity of demand and concluded that at $60, this game would produce the most profit. And that's what business is all about isn't it?

[Lyssistr]

coolide wrote...

But the companies are there to make a profit. I'm sure their accountants and marketing team have looked at the elasticity of demand and concluded that at $60, this game would produce the most profit. And that's what business is all about isn't it?

My point is that the price increase has nothing to do with shareholders, the extra 10$ won't go there.

Now that you've mentioned accountants and whoever does pricing for EA. Just because some people came up with a number doesn't mean the number is "correct". There is no "correct" number, it's as much as the equilibrium between bidders (buyers) and sellers. The seller can start high and when he sees a gap he'll lower.

 He's willing to start at 60$, fair enough, this doesn't mean people should buy at 60$, simple as that.

 and btw since you've mentioned what business is about, it is about delivering to shareholders, not making profit in general, e.g. for a better bonus. It makes sense to skip a dividend sometimes for growth (btw that's what apple -AAPL- did lately) but hey 5 yrs without a $ is 5 yrs (I'll double check yahoo! finance & google finance with bloomberg tomorrow).

[Deadmac]

coolide wrote...
But the companies are there to make a profit. I'm sure their accountants and marketing team have looked at the elasticity of demand and concluded that at $60, this game would produce the most profit. And that's what business is all about isn't it?

Yes, profit is the main goal. However, there is a consequence for selling luxury items at a high price. "Dragon Age" is a luxury item, which people can live without. If many people decide the price is too steep, they will walk away for a more cheaper product with the same quality. BioWare is not the only company in which makes rpgs.

BioWare can put anytype of price on their products. Its a free world.

We the consumers are also free to walk away from BioWare.

Modifié par Deadmac, 14 janvier 2011 - 03:50 .

[Rykoth]

Stanley Woo wrote...

MosyM80 wrote...

I do agree with you, however have you told some of your fourm moderators this? Respect, Honey, Courtesy? All that good jaz?

indeed, and if there is a Moderator who is treating community members discourteously, we would like to know about it. Please send a PM to any other Moderator or BioWarian if you have a dispute or complaint with one of our Moderators. If the complaint is with me or any other BioWarian, please contact Chris Priestly.

me loco
Hi all, i'm new to this game. I need to know if i buy this game would my money go to EA? i decided to boycott EA.
Also who to buy from where my money goes directly to developer?
Thanks,

Yes. Since BioWare is wholly owned by EA, part of your money for this game will go to EA, just as part will go to the retailer, the distribution company, the manufacturer, and whoever else had a hand in getting this game from our computers to your retailer's website, warehouse or store shelf.. Unfortunately, there is no way to give a company like BioWare your gaming dollars directly when purchasing one of our games. Sorry.

What so its not possible to say, get one of you guys's address and directly send you a money envelope to split among those who crafted the game?  Psh. Have a Dragon Age festival come launch and sell them at tables!

[Morroian]

Lyssistr wrote...

coolide wrote...

Video game producers are not charities. You need to look at this from the shareholders' view.

 bs, shareholders these days are almost the last consideration, companies in many sectors (especially in tech, software etc) invest in so-called "growth" and pay **** dividends, if at all.

Investors don't necessarily want dividends they may want capital growth which profitability obviously helps as well. The price rise has to be about increasing profit thereby increasing capital growth and/or dividends it doesn't make sense otherwise.