611 réponses à ce sujet

[Fiddles dee dee]

EntropicAngel wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Australians pay significantly more on steam as well. It sucks.

Really? I thought they, or perhaps you, got the same price for digital distribution.

We can test it, ACIII is $70 on Steam for me.


Also regarding the topic, I don't have an issue with micro transactions so long as the element of random chance is reduced this time round. It's killing me in ME3 to not have the TGI after some 64 packs.

[hoorayforicecream]

Fiddles dee dee wrote...

We can test it, ACIII is $70 on Steam for me.


Also regarding the topic, I don't have an issue with micro transactions so long as the element of random chance is reduced this time round. It's killing me in ME3 to not have the TGI after some 64 packs.

$49.99 for AC3 via Steam in the States. I believe the USD price on steam is analogous in Euros (which are worth $1.33 USD each), so they are also more expensive in Europe too.

[Masha Potato]

AC3 is around 30 bucks on Russian steam mwwahahahaha

[Conduit0]

I've often suspected that part of Australia's higher price is the ACB extorting game publishers. Since its illegal to sell a game in Ausieland without an ACB rating, they can "tax" publishers anything they want to issue a rating.

[Conduit0]

Masha Potato wrote...

AC3 is around 30 bucks on Russian steam mwwahahahaha

Yeah but don't Russians have to pay subscription fees to use multiplayer features that are free in other countries?

[Allan Schumacher]

Conduit0 wrote...

I've often suspected that part of Australia's higher price is the ACB extorting game publishers. Since its illegal to sell a game in Ausieland without an ACB rating, they can "tax" publishers anything they want to issue a rating.

I didn't realize this.  I could see it.  It's always been baffling as to why Australia gets the shaft.

[Masha Potato]

Conduit0 wrote...

Yeah but don't Russians have to pay subscription fees to use multiplayer features that are free in other countries?

If you mean AC3 MP - i have no idea

Modifié par Masha Potato, 24 janvier 2013 - 07:09 .

[Fiddles dee dee]

Masha Potato wrote...

AC3 is around 30 bucks on Russian steam mwwahahahaha

I guess a $20 difference isn't as egregious as I thought it might have been; Adobe Photoshop on the other hand is just depressing.

[Fiddles dee dee]

Conduit0 wrote...

I've often suspected that part of Australia's higher price is the ACB extorting game publishers. Since its illegal to sell a game in Ausieland without an ACB rating, they can "tax" publishers anything they want to issue a rating.

They can't, there is a set arbitray tax level, the ACCC (I know they do nothing but still) oversees all ratings issues and would refer them to the High Court if there was an irregularity in rates/amounts.

I think it far more likely to be a case of old import duties that have been removed but the amount on the sale product hasn't. 

Modifié par Fiddles dee dee, 24 janvier 2013 - 07:25 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

I just think that it wouldn't work with the crowd here on the BSN. I get the feeling that putting beloved features behind a pay wall would not go over well and cause a horrendous amount of belly-aching.

If the alternative is not getting those features at all, I'll take the pay-wall.

Think of it.  Enable voice-overs for a fee.  Enable modding for a fee.

[Fiddles dee dee]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Fiddles dee dee wrote...
Adobe Photoshop on the other hand is just depressing.

How much? Do I even want to ask?

$3175 for CS6 production premium.

Edit* GST (10% extra) NOT included 

Modifié par Fiddles dee dee, 24 janvier 2013 - 07:20 .

[Fiddles dee dee]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Fiddles dee dee wrote...

$3175 for CS6 production premium.

Edit* GST (10% extra) NOT included 

Holy cow Batman, Robin, and Batgirl.


I was expecting something like $1000 at most.

Yeah that one takes the cake, I hope BioWare understands why I look at DLC suspiciously now 

[Conduit0]

Fiddles dee dee wrote...

Conduit0 wrote...

I've often suspected that part of Australia's higher price is the ACB extorting game publishers. Since its illegal to sell a game in Ausieland without an ACB rating, they can "tax" publishers anything they want to issue a rating.

They can't set arbitray tax level though as the ACCC (I know they do nothing but still) oversees all ratings issues and would refer them to the High Court if there was an irregularity in rates/amounts.

I think it far more likely to be a case of old import duties that have been removed but the amount on the sale product hasn't. 

The ACB falls under the direct control of the Attorney-General's Department, so I doubt the ACCC would have any say in the practices of the ACB. But of course I admit the possibility that my thoughts on the matter might just be my anti-government conspiracy theorist side flaring up.

[Sister Goldring]

 Australian prices are crazy expensive compared to well pretty much everywhere.  I was reading in the paper the other day that 'choice' (a group that does price/value product reviews) determined that on one Microsoft product the price difference between countries was so massive ($8500) that it would be a better financial decision to fly from Australia to the US, buy the product and then fly home.  Sometimes it's not a lot of fun being an Aussie. 

As for micro transactions, well I never mind paying for DLC.  So long as the SP game is complete without it, I'm happy to purchase additional content.  I do miss the big expansions though.  

[Xewaka]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Fiddles dee dee wrote...
We can test it, ACIII is $70 on Steam for me.
Also regarding the topic, I don't have an issue with micro transactions so long as the element of random chance is reduced this time round. It's killing me in ME3 to not have the TGI after some 64 packs.

$49.99 for AC3 via Steam in the States. I believe the USD price on steam is analogous in Euros (which are worth $1.33 USD each), so they are also more expensive in Europe too.

I can confirm this. Game prices (via Steam and Retail) are usually equated 1:1 dollars to euros, despite the aforementioned difference in value, at least for games of 50€+ cost.

[Fast Jimmy]

Xewaka wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Fiddles dee dee wrote...
We can test it, ACIII is $70 on Steam for me.
Also regarding the topic, I don't have an issue with micro transactions so long as the element of random chance is reduced this time round. It's killing me in ME3 to not have the TGI after some 64 packs.

$49.99 for AC3 via Steam in the States. I believe the USD price on steam is analogous in Euros (which are worth $1.33 USD each), so they are also more expensive in Europe too.

I can confirm this. Game prices (via Steam and Retail) are usually equated 1:1 dollars to euros, despite the aforementioned difference in value, at least for games of 50€+ cost.

Which then begs the question... is all software in Europe more expensive than in the U.S.? Or is it just video games?

If it is all software, then there may be tarifs/shipping costs built into these things. Maybe also locatlization/translation costs (unless you all are buying the English versions?). In addition, are Europeans now paying more than they did 10, 15 or 20 years ago? Or is it the same price, which just happens to be more than what Americans pay?

I'm not debating, I'm genuinely trying to collect facts/observations. If Europeans (and, arguably also, Australians from what I understand) have seen an increase in video game costs over the years and only Americans have not, then I'd amend any statements I've made in the past to focus on increasing the American prices only (as well as the Asian market - from what little I've seen, their prices have remained stable as well). 

Regardless, microtransactions go to offset higher production costs. Whether you feel that those production costs (or other elements of gameplay like MP) are worth the presence of these microtransactions, one need only vote with your dollar (or euro).

EDIT: Sorry, after looking at the thread more, I do see that other regions (like Europe and Australia) do pay more for other software, even if it doesn't need to be translated (again, Australia). 

While all highly unfair, I wouldn't be surprised if the margin that EA/Bioware got to add for the sale is roughly the same across countries, regardless of its varying costs. Which means that even though you are paying more, the developers are still making the same, regardless of if the game was sold in France, Russia or Sydney, Australia. Which means that, with the increasing costs of development and their same return on sales, things like microtransations would still be needed to offset their costs.

If anyone has seen me post anything incorrect to their experience and understanding of the overseas purchasing experience, please feel free to correct. I'm just postulating that the increased costs aren't resulting in more money in the developer's pocket.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 24 janvier 2013 - 02:07 .

[ElitePinecone]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Conduit0 wrote...

I've often suspected that part of Australia's higher price is the ACB extorting game publishers. Since its illegal to sell a game in Ausieland without an ACB rating, they can "tax" publishers anything they want to issue a rating.

I didn't realize this.  I could see it.  It's always been baffling as to why Australia gets the shaft.

There have been a few studies on it, one I read recently pointed to the inelasticity of demand here - basically, Australians are willing to pay higher prices for games (and other software, and music, and practically everyhing else) and both publishers and retailers are quite happy to exploit that. The other reasons given for the ridiculously high prices (the small market size, logistics, high transport costs, etc) don't really stack up to me, since it's increasingly easy to get a game shipped from the UK, halfway across the world, for half the price of a new retail release in AU. I'd even say the only reason prices have started to fall for new releases in brick and mortar retail stores here is because of competition from importing and digital downloads that are just so much cheaper. 

On the classification board thing, I don't think the fees are that exhorbitant (except for indie devs, which sucks, since they can't get classified) and surely to publishers like EA and Activision a few thousand dollars for a local release is peanuts, even compared to their marketing budgets. 

On MXT (I think that's the industry term?), it's been interesting reading the debate here. I find mysef torn between the bliindingly obvious point that developers need to make money, especially as AAA production becomes so apparently fraught with risk, and a sense that surely there are better ways to extract money from consumers. Charging $1 or $2 for weapons packs seems fine in isolation, but if you're giving people an endpoint-free method of buying (randomised!) content, how much of your revenue is going to come from the absolutely obsessed paying thousands to get the item combinations they want, rather than the merely curious who buys a few packs? Gaming does attract people who get *very, very* attached to certain games - Bioware's perhaps even more than others - and I feel uneasy about the ethics of MXT in general. 

An article about how microtransactions design in F2P might actually target the mentally ill was really quite disturbing. 

I'd tend to think that if MXT are going to be included at all, a better way to do it would be a direct payment for certain class/costume/weapon unlocks, rather than the lottery of randomised item packs.

[Fast Jimmy]

ElitePinecone wrote...

An article about how microtransactions design in F2P might actually target the mentally ill was really quite disturbing. 

I'd tend to think that if MXT are going to be included at all, a better way to do it would be a direct payment for certain class/costume/weapon unlocks, rather than the lottery of randomised item packs.

There have been a number of studies that have looked at gaming as an addiction. In addiiton, the design and presentation of many F2P games is one that mimicks styles seen in the Commercial Casino industry. Since both industries are in the entertainment business, this shouldn't be all that surprising, but is still a little... worrying.

Basically, the stated goal is to get people to do something totally illogical (pay real money for fake goods/points/skills) in a way that benefits the game makers. Is that illegal? No. Is it unethical? Possibly; that's a question I don't feel like I'm equipped to answer.

[Addai]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Just to be clear, the scope of ME3's Day One DLC and what it is (just "more of the same" in terms of content) allows it to be palatable. If we're stripping out minimaps and core game mechanics, but not dropping the price, the analogy that we are basically selling cars without doors and wheels starts to become much more appropriate.

Speaking as a gamer, it'd make me very uncomfortable if I heard of a game that did that, and I'd be hard pressed to support it, because as was mentioned earlier, there'd be other games that exist that don't do it.

It may not be as egregious, but I still think it's objectionable.  A Prothean, or Sebastian for DA2, are significant to the main story of the game, even if not plot-critical.  I would even argue (not too hard because I don't care that much) that Sebastian's DLC was plot-critical because without it some plot points were more obscure.  It's fine if these character DLCs are offered free with purchase of a new game, but when they're sold as day-one add-on, that becomes sour.

[hoorayforicecream]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

ElitePinecone wrote...

An article about how microtransactions design in F2P might actually target the mentally ill was really quite disturbing. 

I'd tend to think that if MXT are going to be included at all, a better way to do it would be a direct payment for certain class/costume/weapon unlocks, rather than the lottery of randomised item packs.

There have been a number of studies that have looked at gaming as an addiction. In addiiton, the design and presentation of many F2P games is one that mimicks styles seen in the Commercial Casino industry. Since both industries are in the entertainment business, this shouldn't be all that surprising, but is still a little... worrying.

Basically, the stated goal is to get people to do something totally illogical (pay real money for fake goods/points/skills) in a way that benefits the game makers. Is that illegal? No. Is it unethical? Possibly; that's a question I don't feel like I'm equipped to answer.

I disagree. I don't see it as fake goods/points/skills. I see it as paying real money for real entertainment. There's nothing illogical about it. Do you fault the movie theaters for charging more for their "fake" 3D movies? Is that illogical and unethical? The choice is up to the consumer. Some people like the 3D and are willing to pay for it. If they get sufficient entertainment from it that they find the cost worthwhile, who are you to tell them they shouldn't?

[Fast Jimmy]

Addai67 wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Just to be clear, the scope of ME3's Day One DLC and what it is (just "more of the same" in terms of content) allows it to be palatable. If we're stripping out minimaps and core game mechanics, but not dropping the price, the analogy that we are basically selling cars without doors and wheels starts to become much more appropriate.

Speaking as a gamer, it'd make me very uncomfortable if I heard of a game that did that, and I'd be hard pressed to support it, because as was mentioned earlier, there'd be other games that exist that don't do it.

It may not be as egregious, but I still think it's objectionable.  A Prothean, or Sebastian for DA2, are significant to the main story of the game, even if not plot-critical.  I would even argue (not too hard because I don't care that much) that Sebastian's DLC was plot-critical because without it some plot points were more obscure.  It's fine if these character DLCs are offered free with purchase of a new game, but when they're sold as day-one add-on, that becomes sour.

I can concur with this thought as well.

In addition, adding more story and plot, which are the hallmarks of Bioware games and what their fans are most invested in, as opposed to various game mechanics that would not be embraced by every fan, but which would be very valuiable to a subset of players, seems like it could be less... morally objectable, shall we say?

Problem is that it might not sell enough. And that you might need half a dozen or more of these feature DLCs to meet all the (larger) requests out there. So its likely a smarter move for Bioware to stick with story DLC and forgoe certain pet project features.

[Fast Jimmy]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

ElitePinecone wrote...

An article about how microtransactions design in F2P might actually target the mentally ill was really quite disturbing. 

I'd tend to think that if MXT are going to be included at all, a better way to do it would be a direct payment for certain class/costume/weapon unlocks, rather than the lottery of randomised item packs.

There have been a number of studies that have looked at gaming as an addiction. In addiiton, the design and presentation of many F2P games is one that mimicks styles seen in the Commercial Casino industry. Since both industries are in the entertainment business, this shouldn't be all that surprising, but is still a little... worrying.

Basically, the stated goal is to get people to do something totally illogical (pay real money for fake goods/points/skills) in a way that benefits the game makers. Is that illegal? No. Is it unethical? Possibly; that's a question I don't feel like I'm equipped to answer.

I disagree. I don't see it as fake goods/points/skills. I see it as paying real money for real entertainment. There's nothing illogical about it. Do you fault the movie theaters for charging more for their "fake" 3D movies? Is that illogical and unethical? The choice is up to the consumer. Some people like the 3D and are willing to pay for it. If they get sufficient entertainment from it that they find the cost worthwhile, who are you to tell them they shouldn't?

But one could argue that 3-D results in a truly different, unique experience.

P2P and MXT are pay to win strategies in many cases. Is that ethical? Again, I'm not qualified to answer that.

I'm not saying there should be legislation against such practices. But realize that just like casinos have a very seedy, desperate and shameless perception by many, many people in the world, video games can slip into that same world view as well. And, let's not forget, that many are striving for video games to be viewed as a form of art. Seedy and art are usually mutually exclusive.

Again, I'm not passing judgment in this thread (or trying not to, at least). But the PERCEPTION will be there, regardless of the actual reality. Many large casinos have very honest and upfront policies in regards to how they treat their patrons and those who are seen gambling with money they should not be, cutting certain gamblers off and suggesting free gambling addiciton counseling. But has the perception of casinos changed much because of this? No, not really. Because a seedy reputation is hard, if not impossible, to get rid of.

The video game companies are free to do this, just like the casinos are. After all, if they aren't doing it, someone else will fill that void instead, right? But realize that it is a very difficult stance to say art on one hand and questionable business practices on the other. And these ARE questionable, otherwise... why would we have so many questions about them?