611 réponses à ce sujet

[Fast Jimmy]

Bioware and EA did not *have* to rush development of DA2.  They choseto in order to cash in on the success of DA:O and in the process gave us a game that was unfinished.  That was why there were limited resources.  It is precisely that mindset which makes your proposal that hands them the power of the creation, sale, and distribution of mods dubious.  

It's not one or the other.  Bioware and EA could opt to devilver a polished product to its customers and they could opt to deliver a toolkit, but they believed it would be more profitable not to do so.  There's no slippery slope here.

So, you don't trust EA/Bioware to use the system I have outlined. That is something I can (easily) accept. After all, many have expressed doubts for them to make a solid base game at all after what some fans see as big disappointments.

So what if Valve did this? Say, for Half-Life 3? Free dev kit for PC players, all mods need to go through Steam and certain mods are marked to be charged for, where both Valve and the modder collect money. After all, they have Steam, which is easy to distribute software through and could be enhanced to use the DRM to block any mods developed by the toolkit from working unless it was distributed via Steam. Pricing, payment, all of it are functions Steam already does (and does pretty well). And then a "best of" collection of mods can be bundled and sold to console players. Maybe even a few bundles if enough quality mods are released and players prove they are willing to buy them.

Would that sound better? I know Half-Life isn't exactly an RPG the same as the DA games, but the principle is still the same.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 25 janvier 2013 - 08:51 .

[MerinTB]

EntropicAngel wrote...

MerinTB wrote...
I think the companies out there with the highest positive consumer ratings (*ahem* like Apple or Amazon) are NOT jealous at all of the companies that get a larger share of complaints or higher negative ratings.

I understand your point, but I wouldn't use Apple as an example of anything but clever marketing. Me, personally.

By Lee and Kirby, understand that I loathe Apple.  I'm not one of their happy customers.  But facts are facts, and Apple is so loved by it's customers its practically a cult, with Steve Jobs the L. Ron Hubbard.

[jillabender]

I'm sorry, Jimmy, but I think you're off base here. With respect, I think you're trying to solve the wrong problem.

David Gaider has stated that ideally, they would prefer to release a toolset, because, it would keep people playing the game longer, thereby making it easier for them to sell DLC. The difficulty, as they've stated, is that they use third-party resources to create the game, and it would be complicated to get the proper licensing to include those resources in a toolkit.

I guess I understand the idea that charging something for the toolset might offset the cost of paying licensing fees to third parties, but I don't understand why you think anyone who especially hates being asked to buy DLC would be more willing to pay for fan-made content.

As for the issue of mods on consoles:

As I understand, mods for consoles can't happen unless the makers of the consoles, like Sony, agree to make certain changes to their product. As this article states, Bethesda is currently working with Microsoft and Sony to make mods available on consoles: http://www.escapistm...ods-on-Consoles.

I sympathize with console players who would like to be able to use mods, and I'm glad to hear that some game developers are working to make that happen, but I'm really puzzled by your statement here about console gamers:

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Saying that they willingly opt to not use mods is like saying people who live in third world countries willingly opt to not eat food or have access to healthcare. Having a PC gaming rig that can cost near $1000 compared to going out today and buying a console for >$200 to play a game is an economic choice, as well as a preference one. To look down on such people and saying they don't deserve mods is pretty elitist, even for a PC player.

First of all, I'm puzzled that you think it's necessary to spend "near $1000" on a PC. It's very possible to get a basic PC that will run new games like Skyrim for about half of that - in fact, my Dad recently did exactly that!

Second, I can't speak for anyone else, but I can't imagine anyone saying that console gamers "don't deserve" mods. As I've said, I would love for console gamers to be able to use toolsets and mods!

I recognize that a toolset isn't a right, so it would be a bit silly for me to object that it would be unethical for a developer to charge for a toolset. After all, a toolset isn't something they're obligated to provide - for free or otherwise.

But I'm honestly baffled by the idea that I should somehow feel guilty for using mods simply because console gamers can't use them. (I know you didn't say that, but I've heard that suggestion from a few people on these forums.)

It's unfortunate that mods aren't available on consoles, but that's not the fault of PC gamers - it's the result of the console industry not being willing to allow mods on their platform. As I've stated, I hope that will change one day, and that console gamers will be able to enjoy mods on their platform of choice.

You've suggested that BioWare could package certain player-made mods as paid DLC and make them available to consoles while sharing some of the proceeds with the creators of the mods. While I wouldn't have a problem with that, I would prefer for console gamers to be able to use toolsets and PC mods the same way that PC gamers can - which is something that Bethesda is already trying to achieve.

Modifié par jillabender, 26 janvier 2013 - 01:38 .

[Addai]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

Well yes, being sold something extra that feels like it should be in the original selling price does make you feel like you're being cheated. As with new cars, so with video games.

I agree. However, many devs have come in and stated that D1DLC is good, because otherwise that content that felt vital would not be present at all. So, no D1DLC, no Jahvik.

Here, I feel, they are being a bit mealy-mouthed.  If Bioware wanted to give it away for free, they would.  Some beancounter has said "you can't do that," in order to increase the margin.  So it is entirely legitimate for consumers to consider that cheap.

Certainly it is not unethical.  Capitalism is grand, and if people know exactly ahead of time what they are getting for their money, then it's not like it's fraud or anything.  It's more a question of consumer relations and incentives to buy.  Microtransactions and day one DLC are disincentives to buy for me, not just for the bits themselves but for the base game.

[HiroVoid]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

Well yes, being sold something extra that feels like it should be in the original selling price does make you feel like you're being cheated. As with new cars, so with video games.

I agree. However, many devs have come in and stated that D1DLC is good, because otherwise that content that felt vital would not be present at all. So, no D1DLC, no Jahvik. 

Although my initial reaction to that statement is to argue, I still realize that they do know better than me the realities of how their company works and take that statement at face value. 

So, if Bioware has content we won't see in the original game and which they put effort into outside of the main vame's scope and budget, should they charge for it? And should they release it the first day the game is out, separate and priced more than the vanilla game?

That is the hard question. Some would say yes, others (including myself) would say no. Is it unethical? Hard to say. But does it lead to negative feelings? Absolutely. Feelings Bioware could avoid if they used a different, if even slightly similar, approach? Without a doubt in my mind. But again, Bioware has not been controlling the story told with this at all. 

It probably didn't help that the script that was leaked before Javik was fully unveiled had him as a vital part of that script.  Obviously, he didn't serve the same role, but it came off as if he had essentially already been in the base game only to be pulled out for DLC.  I also can't fully remember, but how much of Javik's character was already on disc?  I thought I remembered only the mission in 'From Ashes' being actually downloaded.

[Fast Jimmy]

jillabender wrote...

I'm sorry, Jimmy, but I think you're way off base here. With respect, I think you're trying to solve the wrong problem.

David Gaider has stated that ideally, they would prefer to release a toolset, because it would keep people playing the game longer, thereby making it easier for them to sell DLC. The difficulty, as they've stated, is that they use third-party resources to create the game, and it would be complicated to get the proper licensing to include those resources in a toolkit.

I guess I understand the idea that charging something for the toolset might offset the cost of paying licensing fees to third parties, but I don't understand why you think anyone who especially hates being asked to buy DLC would be more willing to pay for fan-made content.

The number of people who would pay what is needed to finance a toolkit (especially, as you mentioned, the third party licensing fees they would need to fork over for every kit distributed) would be very small. If anyone has any experience with licensing agreements for third party software, each copy would cost Bioware up to hundreds of dollars. No more than a few players would pay that, which would more than likely not cover the costs, time and work to make the toolkit easy for a non-developer to use outside of Bioware'a infrastructure. So just having a price tag for the mod kit wouldn't work out, as it may be more than the game itself.

I gather that you're suggesting the money charged for fan-made mods could be used by BioWare to port those mods for consoles? I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to that in principle, but from what I understand, cost isn't the real barrier to making mods available to consoles - it's just that no avenue exists for making mods available on consoles at the moment.

As I understand, mods for consoles can't happen unless the makers of the consoles, like Sony, agree to make certain changes to their product. As this article states, Bethesda is currently working with Microsoft and Sony to make mods available on consoles: http://www.escapistm...ds-on-Consoles.

XBL and the PSN are obstacles to overcome, that is very true. However, that wouldn't stop my same model to work well for the PC gamers alone until the console makers play ball.

I sympathize with console players who would like to be able to use mods, and I'm glad to hear that some game developers are working to make that happen, but I'm really puzzled by your statement about console gamers:

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Saying that they willingly opt to not use mods is like saying people who live in third world countries willingly opt to not eat food or have access to healthcare. Having a PC gaming rig that can cost near $1000 compared to going out today and buying a console for >$200 to play a game is an economic choice, as well as a preference one. To look down on such people and saying they don't deserve mods is pretty elitist, even for a PC player.

First of all, I'm puzzled that you think it's necessary to spend "near $1000" on a PC. It's very possible to get a basic PC that will run new games like Skyrim for about half of that - in fact, my Dad recently did exactly that!

Second, I can't speak for anyone else, but I can't imagine anyone saying that console gamers "don't deserve" mods. As I've said, I would love for console gamers to be able to use toolsets and mods!

This statement was in reference to Joy Division's comment that console players specifically chose not to play on the PC, which means they chose to not get a toolkit or use mods. And even if one could get a brand new gaming PC that can handle Skyrim for $500, that is still over twice the cost of a console right now. I'm not saying it is a financial decision for EVERY console player, but price is certainly a factor to MANY. And to say (like Joy did) that console players made the (apparently wrong) choice to be console players and not PC players, then they made the choice to not have mods in their games.

I recognize that a toolset isn't a right, so it would be a bit silly for me to object that it would be unethical for a developer to charge for a toolset. After all, a toolset isn't something they're obligated to provide - for free or otherwise.

But I'm honestly baffled by the idea that I should somehow feel guilty for using mods simply because console gamers can't use them. (I know you didn't say that, but I've heard that suggestion from a few people on these forums.)

It's unfortunate that mods aren't available on consoles, but that's not the fault of PC gamers - it's the result of the console industry not being willing to allow mods on their platform. As I've stated, I hope that will change one day, and that console gamers will be able to enjoy mods on their platform of choice.

I am in no way blaming PC players for consoles not having mods. Joy Division's post posed the question why should PC players give up free toolkits just so console players can use mods.

I don't understand why many of the same players who would say they would pay for a toolkit and who sing praises that a player would buy both the console and PC version of the game would be so vehemently against a system that gives a toolkit away for free, but has a way to monetize a small fraction of mods.

[jillabender]

To summarize my thoughts on monetizing toolsets more succinctly:

The developers have stated that charging for a player toolset wouldn't really offset the cost of creating it. But they've also stated that the fact that a toolset wouldn't make them money wouldn't, in itself, stop them from offering one.

They see a player toolset as something that has value, but as a goodwill project. It's something that, ideally, they would like to do, but they can't guarantee that they'll have the time or resources to do it.

It's all very well to suggest ways that BioWare might make money from a player toolset, but with respect, I'm not sure how relevant that discussion is. When it comes down to it, the fact that a toolset wouldn't directly make BioWare money isn't what's likely to stop them from offering one - the technical and licensing issues involved are the more significant barrier.

Modifié par jillabender, 25 janvier 2013 - 09:37 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Addai67 wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

Well yes, being sold something extra that feels like it should be in the original selling price does make you feel like you're being cheated. As with new cars, so with video games.

I agree. However, many devs have come in and stated that D1DLC is good, because otherwise that content that felt vital would not be present at all. So, no D1DLC, no Jahvik.

Here, I feel, they are being a bit mealy-mouthed. If Bioware wanted to give it away for free, they would. Some beancounter has said "you can't do that," in order to increase the margin. So it is entirely legitimate for consumers to consider that cheap.

But SHOULD they give it away for free? Or should they feel OBLIGATED to give it asay for free? That is the question. Companies think that if they do work after the game has shipped, work that they could not do and just real the benefits of the game as is, that they have the right to ask for money. Is doing so, when some (most?) of the work was done during the creation of the original game okay? Again, I don't personally think so, but it doesn't matter what I think. It only matters in what it results in for Bioware. To date, that has been more profits and negative responses from fans. But there could be a way to have more revenue and unangry fans.

Certainly it is not unethical. Capitalism is grand, and if people know exactly ahead of time what they are getting for their money, then it's not like it's fraud or anything. It's more a question of consumer relations and incentives to buy. Microtransactions and day one DLC are disincentives to buy for me, not just for the bits themselves but for the base game.

I think you may be confusing "unethical" and "illegal." If you feel someone has ripped you off, then they are behaving in a less-than-ethical way. Therefore, business practices that result in you feeljng you did not getting your money's worth is a breach of ethics. It's not illegal to be unethical (although many unethical things ARE illegal). I'm not saying Bioware is engaging in offenses that they could be prosecuted for, but I am saying it is debatable if what they are doing is "morally wrong."

Again though, I'm not qualified to make that argument. But I AM capable of saying that the fact that such an arument exists is not good for Bioware and possibly something they could avoid if, to beat a dead horse, they just did a better job at controlling the story being told. The story about their company. The story about their development process. The story about THEM.

That's what forums are a great barometer for - determining how people view your company's story AND changing how that story is told. That's why it is disheartening to see Bioware forgo less and less conversations with the forums.

[Sylvius the Mad]

MerinTB wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Suck it up.  If you don't get any complaints, you're not being aggressive enough.

That sounds suspiciously to me like the nonsensical "common political wisdom" that "if everyone is unhappy with the deal you made, then you know you've made a good deal."

It's more like the adage for sports teams: "If you sell out every game, your ticket prices are too low."

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 25 janvier 2013 - 09:47 .

[In Exile]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Bethesda, yes.

And, now, i suppose TW, though it pains me to say it.

TW2 did not sell that many copies. It was 0.80 million on PC and 0.60 million on the 360, for a total of 1.40 million, i.e. less than DA2.  

DA2 by contrast sold 0.97 million on the 360 and 0.46 million on PC. TW2's the more popular PC game, but that's a total that outsold DA:O (which only sold 0.41 on PC). 

[jillabender]

Thanks for your response, Jimmy!

Just to be clear, I'm not opposed, in principle, to the idea of paying for a toolset or for certain mods. I'm just disputing the idea that cost is the main factor keeping BioWare from releasing a player toolset.

I'm thinking back to David Gaider's comments about a player toolset, in which he said that the fact it wouldn't directly make them money wouldn't, in itself, keep them from releasing a toolset, because they recognize the value it has in generating goodwill and increasing the longevity of a game.

In the posts I've linked to below, he says that ideally, they would like to release a player toolset, but that they can't guarantee having the time and resources to do it, because simply getting the developer toolset to work is a monumental task, and has to be their first priority:

http://social.biowar...9529/4#15000411

social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/371/index/14959529/6#15029337

Fast Jimmy wrote...

And even if one could get a brand new gaming PC that can handle Skyrim for $500, that is still over twice the cost of a console right now. I'm not saying it is a financial decision for EVERY console player, but price is certainly a factor to MANY. And to say (like Joy did) that console players made the (apparently wrong) choice to be console players and not PC players, then they made the choice to not have mods in their games.

That's fair - it's true that some gamers might not be able to afford a PC rather than a console, and I didn't mean to dispute that - I was only disputing your assertion about what it's necessary to pay for a PC.

I absolutely agree that console gamers have the right to be annoyed about not being able to use mods - I only object when people turn that anger against PC gamers instead of the makers of the consoles themselves.

That said, I completely agree with you that suggesting to a console gamer that he or she should simply buy a PC in order to use mods would be a jerk move!

Modifié par jillabender, 25 janvier 2013 - 11:28 .

[In Exile]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
I think you may be confusing "unethical" and "illegal." If you feel someone has ripped you off, then they are behaving in a less-than-ethical way. Therefore, business practices that result in you feeljng you did not getting your money's worth is a breach of ethics.

Not to nitpick, but depending on why you feel ripped off, you could have a justified legal recourse. Think, breach of contract. For example, if you're promised a feature in a car which is absent. It might be too costly to ever do, and it's a complicated fact-specific analysis, but in principle sales are governed by contract law, and under that, you can (potentially) sue for a breach of your (reasonable) expectations. 

[In Exile]

jillabender wrote...
That's fair - it's true that some gamers might not be able to afford a PC rather than a console, and I didn't mean to dispute that - I was only disputing your assertion about what it's necessary to pay for a PC.

One thing to consider is expertiese. This never gets brought up enough. But to get that great deal on your PC, you have to have some basic idea about the way  a PC works, and how to build it, etc. 

[jillabender]

In Exile wrote...

jillabender wrote...
That's fair - it's true that some gamers might not be able to afford a PC rather than a console, and I didn't mean to dispute that - I was only disputing your assertion about what it's necessary to pay for a PC.

One thing to consider is expertiese. This never gets brought up enough. But to get that great deal on your PC, you have to have some basic idea about the way  a PC works, and how to build it, etc.

That's also a good point - I agree that one shouldn't assume that getting a great deal on a PC is possible for everyone.

[Fast Jimmy]

jillabender wrote...

To summarize my thoughts on monetizing toolsets more succinctly:

The developers have stated that charging for a player toolset wouldn't really offset the cost of creating it. But they've also stated that the fact that a toolset wouldn't make them money wouldn't, in itself, stop them from offering one.

They see a player toolset as something that has value, but as a goodwill project. It's something that, ideally, they would like to do, but they can't guarantee that they'll have the time or resources to do it.

It's all very well to suggest ways that BioWare might make money from a player toolset, but with respect, I'm not sure how relevant that discussion is. When it comes down to it, the fact that a toolset wouldn't directly make BioWare money isn't what's likely to stop them from offering one - the technical and licensing issues involved are the more significant barrier.

Problems with licensing, resources and time all become less problems when you start talking about making money. If Bioware could make money off of mods so that all toolkits pay for themselves AND they can make more money in the long run, then such issues would not be issues, but just part of business. Monetizing the toolkit process is to NORMALIZE the toolkit process. Not just hope we get it, like playing game developer roulette.

This thread was originally about how microtransactions, DLC, item packs and other "prices" for a game outside the sticker price are good or bad. I brought up my idea about mod kits because many people said they would/would not pay for a toolkit. As Gaider has said, toolkits wouldn't be offset by charging for each one separately.

After all, if I spitball some numbers and say that it would cost Bioware $25 in licensing fees for every toolkit (a price they could get in bulk, as opposed to buying a single license for every toolkit sold separately) and DA3 sold 900,000 PC units, this would cost Bioware ~$23 million, plus the costs of making the toolkit non-dev friendly, which could cost in man hours and tools used another $7 million, for an even $30 mil (again, making up numbers). Spending $30 million is a LOT of money to give away for free.

Now, if Bioware wants to sell the toolkit piecemeal, separate from the game, this may cost them $100 in licensing fees and, again, $7 mil to make non-dev ready. If ten percent of PC players bought the game, this would result in $9 million in licensing fees, a total of $16 million in costs. Which means, to break even, Bioware would have to charge over $175 per toolkit. I highly doubt 10 percent of PC players would be willing to do that... which drives the per-unit cost up even higher.

If, instead, there was a way to monetize not the kits, but the content CREATED by them, we have a different story.

If every PC game ships with a toolkit, Bioware pays the $30 million. But, if mods are charged, they can make some of this back, especially if they can overcome the hurdles of the console market. Wi it make them rich? Probably not. In reality, they might even still wind up in the hole... but they wouldn't be paying the full amount out of pocket, either.

Again, my numbers are completely made up and imaginary, so pay them no mind. It just goes to show that if Bioware has financial incentive to help balance out the licensing costs, then it stands to reason that they become less of an issue.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 25 janvier 2013 - 10:24 .

[jillabender]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Problems with licensing, resources and time all become less problems when you start talking about making money. If Bioware could make money off of mods so that all toolkits pay for themselves AND they can make more money in the long run, then such issues would not be issues, but just part of business. Monetizing the toolkit process is to NORMALIZE the toolkit process. Not just hope we get it, like playing game developer roulette.

I can see that making a player toolset less costly might make the idea of releasing one more attractive to BioWare. I just have a hard time imagining that many players would be willing to pay BioWare to use fan-created content, or that BioWare would be willing to spend time packaging fan-made content to be sold as paid DLC.

But who knows, I might be completely wrong - and if it turned out that charging players for certain mods would make a player toolset more feasible for BioWare, then I would have no problem with it. It's an interesting idea for discussion, in any case.

After thinking about it more, I take back my statement about the feasibility of getting a PC for around $500-600 - I forgot to factor in the cost of things like a monitor, speakers and modem. So, I admit that your estimate of around $1000 is more accurate in many cases, and I apologize.

Modifié par jillabender, 25 janvier 2013 - 10:50 .

[Addai]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
But there could be a way to have more revenue and unangry fans.

There isn't.  It would be like me saying to Bioware "hey, I wrote this fanfiction story, why don't you set up a download service so I can charge for it.  You can take a cut."  That is only a good idea on some planet with a much different reality than ours, so there's no use in discussing it.

I think you may be confusing "unethical" and "illegal."

There's no business practices transgression here.  Controversial, maybe, but not unethical.

[Das Tentakel]

In Exile wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

Bethesda, yes.

And, now, i suppose TW, though it pains me to say it.

TW2 did not sell that many copies. It was 0.80 million on PC and 0.60 million on the 360, for a total of 1.40 million, i.e. less than DA2.  

DA2 by contrast sold 0.97 million on the 360 and 0.46 million on PC. TW2's the more popular PC game, but that's a total that outsold DA:O (which only sold 0.41 on PC). 

2.2 million according to a recent article on the German gaming site Spieleradar.de. 
It got a boost during the holiday season sales, of course. I suspect that the PC sales are by now close to 1.5 million.
Like Witcher I, the game's probably a long burner (and the number of PC's capable of running the game keeps increasing, of course), so it'll be interesting to see the final sales figures prior to the release of The Witcher III.

And talking about mods, it'll be really interesting to see what the fans will do with the toolkit .

[In Exile]

Das Tentakel wrote...
2.2 million according to a recent article on the German gaming site Spieleradar.de.

WIthout knowing their source, that makes it hard to compare with what we have on other game sales (like DA2, which typically we rely on vgchartz). 

I suspect that the PC sales are by now close to 1.5 million.

If that's true, it would mean it would be many times more popular than DA:O, even if we assume that the vgchartz isn't accurate. 

[Addai]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

In RPG terms, certainly.  DAO and ME2 were some of the most successful RPGs prior to Skyrim.  I mean, you're comparing to Bethesda, right?  Not CoD or WoW.

Bethesda, yes.

And, now, i suppose TW, though it pains me to say it.

Out of curiosity, why do you say that?  Though I wouldn't put Witcher in the same sales category.  Sadly.

[Fast Jimmy]

Addai67 wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...
But there could be a way to have more revenue and unangry fans.

There isn't. It would be like me saying to Bioware "hey, I wrote this fanfiction story, why don't you set up a download service so I can charge for it. You can take a cut." That is only a good idea on some planet with a much different reality than ours, so there's no use in discussing it.

You may think so. Many people would have a similar idea about a DRM service created by one game developer to sell their's and other game developer's games is pretty far-fetched. BTW, Steam says hi.

I think you may be confusing "unethical" and "illegal."

There's no business practices transgression here. Controversial, maybe, but not unethical.

A business contract (and a breach of if) is not required to be unethical.

A doctor is required to take the Hipocratic Oath, to do no harm and to help those who need medical attention. It's not a legally binding contract. But if a doctor is in public, not at work, and sees someone in need of medical attention and they are the only doctor present, it would be unethical for them to not help.

Illegal? No. Breach of contract? No. Unfair business practice? No. But it would still be unethical.

By the same token, people can see certain video game developer's actions as unfair price gouging (again, whether it is or not is irrelevant). That would make it (potentially) unethical.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

jillabender wrote...
That's fair - it's true that some gamers might not be able to afford a PC rather than a console, and I didn't mean to dispute that - I was only disputing your assertion about what it's necessary to pay for a PC.

One thing to consider is expertiese. This never gets brought up enough. But to get that great deal on your PC, you have to have some basic idea about the way  a PC works, and how to build it, etc. 

Similarly, when making cost comparisons, too often the cost of the display for the console (the television) is ignored.

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Similarly, when making cost comparisons, too often the cost of the display for the console (the television) is ignored.

I'd imagine because most people have a TV independently. 

Edit:

It's like factoring in the cost of the monitor; most people speak of the cost of a PC without mentioning the monitor.

Modifié par In Exile, 25 janvier 2013 - 11:05 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

In Exile wrote...

jillabender wrote...
That's fair - it's true that some gamers might not be able to afford a PC rather than a console, and I didn't mean to dispute that - I was only disputing your assertion about what it's necessary to pay for a PC.

One thing to consider is expertiese. This never gets brought up enough. But to get that great deal on your PC, you have to have some basic idea about the way  a PC works, and how to build it, etc. 

Similarly, when making cost comparisons, too often the cost of the display for the console (the television) is ignored.

I was going to make the same observation. My TV I play my console on is worth more than my console and PC combined.