945 réponses à ce sujet

[OH-UP-THIS!]

wowpwnslol wrote...

I think it's a huge joke for Bioware to charge outrageous amounts of money for so little content. All of them can be finished in less than an hour and their main purpose is not to advance the story in a meaningful way, but to give player extra items. I can admit that Shale was moderately interesting - but then again they're planning on charging $15 for it, which is ridiculous. Don't get me started on RtO - they are basically recycling old stuff and charging for it. Oh wow, it has some new items. How amazing.

I think if the DLC's were free, it would really show commitment and dedication of Bioware to the community and encourage more people to buy this game. I think they could take a page out of Blizzard's book (free battle.net) on how to treat the fans of their game.

And you my "good" person should be forced to stand on a street corner to beg for food!!!!

Not sit comfortably at yer 'puter duh har, and spew outrageous detritous about software.

[TheMadCat]

addiction21 wrote...
He does make some good points. Your right tho I would not expect it to go world wide or be a total flip to DD.

As for 1c they make some fun games. Kings Bounty (think Heroes of Might and Magic minus the turns) or Majesty 1 and 2. Very much loved the first one and was impressed with the second one. Even tho they do lack a certain grasp of the english language " Leaded by young sorceress Telle the hero has to grasp in intrigues, experience himself and accept his fate. Will he become Dragon the Created or Dragon Slayer? " 
Then again I am not much better with grammer and spelling

Oh I love the games 1C usually puts out, but they are a small fry in the gaming industry. I just found it funny that his support for the idea that all PC games would be sold through DD exclusively in a year are from some comments from a small PC exclusive developer/publisher. There are some very good points in that article no doubt about it and I do expect to see all PC games sold through DD in the future, as I expect console games will too. But I don't see it happening for another 5-10 years.

The point of interest is the comparative value. If you play RtO 5
or 6 times that means you probably play DA:O 5 or 6 times and the
comparitive value is invariant.

Compairtive value? Are we shopping for cars here or something? I mean do you even know what comparitive value is? Whatever, that's not my point of interest, my point of interest is if I get my $5 worth or not. I don't need some overcomplicated formula that must result in this specific dollar per hour ratio in order to be deemed a worthy investment.

Modifié par TheMadCat, 16 janvier 2010 - 02:22 .

[grieferbastard]

traversc wrote...

If RtO isn't worth $5 for you personally, don't buy it.

Please stop trying to pass this argument as valid.  We all know why it fails, and it does, very badly.  It's in no one's interest to keep going back to this very flawed statement, so please stop. 

Do not, however, presume to spend my money for me or even more inappropriately make more sweeping and incorrect statements about how 'well' I spend my money. $5 for 45 minutes of entertainment - that I will repeatedly enjoy on several playthroughs and see further enjoyment out of as it adds to the pool of resources modders use to make more free content - is an insignificant expense and if that extra $5s goes to supporting the future production of content as high-quality as DA:O is I'm all for it.

I can make objective observations about value, and how people  spend their money.  I don't need your permission to do it, sir. 

It's safe to say that the quality per time of the DLC (all 30 minutes of it) was about on par with DA:O.  That is an assumption, but I think it's a reasonable one. 

If that is the case, then it is simple mathematics to determine, objectively, the comparitive value of DLCs with respect to DA:O.  It comes out that DLCs are at least an order of magnitude more expensive than DA:O.  In other words, imagine that DA:O is a hotdog.  Most places will sell the hotdog for a reasonable price at $1.50.  Now imagine being charged $15 dollars for the hotdog.  Do you think that's reasonable?  I can't think of anywhere else that so readily gets away with this!  It is highway robbery. 

A point was made earlier that DA:O was in fact worth more than $50 dollars, and that we were simply getting a really good deal with the intial game.  I agree.  But the argument to that effect is marginal, even if DA:O were worth several hundred dollars.  It still doesn't change the fact that the price of DLCs are several times more expensive than they should be. 

Yet if your logic is correct, why isn't EA rolling in fat huge piles of money? Which, by the way, they are not. Hookers and blow? 

If RtO isn't worth $5 for you personally, don't buy it.

This is the most valuable argument that can be made. It's the most basic, reasonable and fundamental aspect of economics. Somethings value is set not by production cost but by the price it can be sold for. You can't even begin to measure production costs for RtO - hourly wages, support staff, employee benefits. How much the office they work at pays for the water deliveries for the water coolers. The interest they are paying on loans taken out over the several years of development the game took. Nor can you adequately establish value on original timeframe of content. I'll replay it many times and the additional content it adds will be recycled into community mods that I will indeed get for free.

Also your observations about how other people spend their money are not objective. They are completely subjective, based off your personal opinions. Yes, yes I will call you to the carpet about them.

The mathmatics you're attempting to use to establish relative 'value' are inherently flawed. You're attempting to use something as arbitrary the length of playtime to establish the cost of production. It's not lumber. It's not created and sold in board feet. They planned 2 years of DLC when the original product was being priced out. The pricing structure is based on staying profitable as a business.

Games are not a big money business. Profit margins on games shrink year over year as production costs rise. Does DLC cost more for relative playtime? Absolutely. The value of the DLC month after month revenue is part of how that initial development cost is justified.

That, and again. Most importantly. Above and beyond everything else:

If RtO isn't worth $5 for you personally, don't buy it.

There are objective and subjective theories on the value of goods and services. Read Wealth of Nations. Good stuff. Value in use vs value in exchange. Value of entertainment is a little more complex, but Adam Smith is a good start.

[MerinTB]

traversc wrote...

If RtO isn't worth $5 for you personally, don't buy it.

Please stop trying to pass this argument as valid.  We all know why it fails, and it does, very badly.  It's in no one's interest to keep going back to this very flawed statement, so please stop. 

Why is this argument invalid?  What invalidates it?  Why does it fail?  If many people keep bringing it back up why is it not in their interest?  Where is the flaw?

The value of something is only what others are willing to pay.  If one person is willing to pay a million dollars for some celebrity's old sweatband, then the sweatband is technically worth a million dollars.  More realistically, if a sizable enough portion of a customer base is willing to pay a certain amount for a product then that product is worth that amount.  Some may not agree on the value, but what price the market will bear is the price is it worth.

Honestly, GTA or MW2 are not worth me being PAID $50 to play them, so to me any price on them is ridiculous.  But that's just me.

To whomever RTO's $5 price tag is ridiculous, if that whomever (the size of those unwilling to buy it) doesn't exceed the number of people willing to pay the $5 - or, more accurately, if there are enough of the latter for the RTO to be profitable, then that is the product's value.

Repeat after me - the flawed logic is price per hour as this is not a standard practice of anyone.  While there are is a vocal group using hours per dollar as some kind of measurement, it is not an industry nor a consumer standard by far.

Then repeat after me - charging what the market will bear, what enough customers are willing to pay, IS how marketplace works and as such is not invalid.

[Sloth Of Doom]

Merin, stop trying to make the mouth-breathers understand the basics of economics, it will make you go blind!

[addiction21]

Sloth Of Doom wrote...

Merin, stop trying to make the mouth-breathers understand the basics of economics, it will make you go blind!

Thats an old wives tale...

[MerinTB]

Sloth Of Doom wrote...

Merin, stop trying to make the mouth-breathers understand the basics of economics, it will make you go blind!

I can't help it - working to force me to do this are:

- my almost complete inability to let logical fallacies stand
- how enervating people passing off opinions and/or fake facts pulled out of where their heads are stuck  is to what should be rational, reasonable debates
- the joy one gets at debating against someone who is clearly, demonstably false and yet won't stop digging the hole they've put themselves in
- a love of researching facts and information to back up arguments

I really should have gone into politics or law.  Except, you know, come to think of it, all those traits I listed above kind of run opposite of the reality of politicians and lawyers, huh?

:innocent:

[addiction21]

MerinTB wrote...

Sloth Of Doom wrote...

Merin, stop trying to make the mouth-breathers understand the basics of economics, it will make you go blind!

I can't help it - working to force me to do this are:

- my almost complete inability to let logical fallacies stand
- how enervating people passing off opinions and/or fake facts pulled out of where their heads are stuck  is to what should be rational, reasonable debates
- the joy one gets at debating against someone who is clearly, demonstably false and yet won't stop digging the hole they've put themselves in
- a love of researching facts and information to back up arguments

I really should have gone into politics or law.  Except, you know, come to think of it, all those traits I listed above kind of run opposite of the reality of politicians and lawyers, huh?

:innocent:

And that is exactly why you would of been great at it.

The major problem — one of the major problems, for there are several — one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.
To summarize: it is a well known fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job. To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem.
-The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Modifié par addiction21, 16 janvier 2010 - 02:52 .

[ladydesire]

traversc wrote...

That so many of you people a buying into these DLCs is not only a disservice to other gamers, but to yourselves as well, as Bioware, a rational actor, will focus on churning and milking the DLC cow rather than putting their focus on developing content.

I suppose you are blindly ignoring the currently 89 page thread about an honest to goodness Dragon Age expansion when you make this absurd claim that Bioware is ignoring "real content" in favor of "fake content" ("real content" being an expansion and "fake content" being DLC). To me, there is little difference between DLC and an Expansion, since both can be purchased if a player so desires, without either one being an "must have".

[Bibdy]

traversc wrote...

The thing is RtO is not a consumable product, once you play it once it doesn't disappear or luck back up until you buy it again, once you buy it it's yours for good. If I play RtO say 5 or 6 times in my life that resulted in 2 to 3 hours worth of time. Is 2 or 3 hours still to short for a $5 DLC?

The point of interest is the comparative value. If you play RtO 5 or 6 times that means you probably play DA:O 5 or 6 times and the comparitive value is invariant.

People still comparing disposable food consumption vs a recyclable entertainment product...

Its a shame you don't understand the concept of comparison, considering how cute the bear is. I am not comparing DA:O and RtO to hotdogs. I am comparing the relationship between DA:O and RtO to the relationship between hotdogs of different prices. It's called an analogy. The fact that one is physical while the other is magical is irrelevant because comparitive value is dimensionless. In lay terms, the units "cancel out" so to speak.

Using the idea of comparitive value, you'd need to believe that the actual value of DA:O is really around $600-700 for DLCs to be worth $5. Isomorphically, if you somehow managed to beat the game in 6 hours and still require 30 minutes to beat RtO, then yes, RtO is reasonably priced. If neither of those conditions are met, then DLCs are determinably overpriced. That so many of you people a buying into these DLCs is not only a disservice to other gamers, but to yourselves as well, as Bioware, a rational actor, will focus on churning and milking the DLC cow rather than putting their focus on developing content.

Oh yes, a real shame I don't understand YOUR concept of comparison. Mine is that you don't go around comparing apples to oranges and expect to be taken seriously.

Real shame, that.

You can compare DA:O to another re-usable entertainment product like a DVD, or a football quite easily. When you start comparing a reusable entertainment product to a disposable product that is required for BASIC SURVIVAL, then you're entering the realm of mental deficiency.

BW and EA charging for DLC isn't the same as the only local supermarket within 100 miles suddenly charging exorbitant prices for a pint of milk, because they're greedy jackasses, yet you seem to think it is with your hiked-up hotdog analogy, which is laughable.

What's really happening here, is they're offering you an extension to an existing re-usable entertainment product, and letting YOU decide if its worth $5. If the equivalent of offering a Bonus 'Making of' DVD for Star Wars with some extra deleted scenes and commentary and then chucking it on your local video store shelf for you to take a look at and decide if its worth it to you. That kind of thing doesn't come out of thin air. Someone has to do all the interviews, compile the stuff onto the DVD, make the menu, maybe they clean up the raw footage of the deleted scenes for your enjoyment, they have to bring someone in to do the narration and so on and so forth.

Usually that kind of 'bonus' content comes in the Collector's Edition of a movie that, you guessed it, costs MORE than the base product, so you're not exactly getting it for free, are you?

The only thing that's different is they're going to be constantly churning out these extra bonus contents for around $5 a pop for the next year, rather than just release it with the Collector's Edition on release day and forget about it.

If you don't like it, don't buy it. Alternatively you can purchase it then cry like a 3 year-old on the forums that the big bad man came and took your money at gunpoint.

[Jacody]

I honestly wish I was a forum moderator so that I could close this thread.



If you don't want the dlc then don't whine about how it should be free or that it's not worth it, just D-O-N-T get it! It's not rocket science!

[--Master of All--]

traversc wrote...
Using the idea of comparitive value, you'd need to believe that the actual value of DA:O is really around $600-700 for DLCs to be worth $5. Isomorphically, if you somehow managed to beat the game in 6 hours and still require 30 minutes to beat RtO, then yes, RtO is reasonably priced. If neither of those conditions are met, then DLCs are determinably overpriced. That so many of you people a buying into these DLCs is not only a disservice to other gamers, but to yourselves as well, as Bioware, a rational actor, will focus on churning and milking the DLC cow rather than putting their focus on developing content.

Have you ever gotten a discount for buying in bulk? I believe the same concept applies here. There are certain "overhead" costs that will apply to any product that Bioware produces (such as hiring voice actors, paying salaries, etc.) regardless of the amount of content involved. These costs have to be covered. Couple that with a smaller anticipated sales volume for a DLC vs. a full game, and the price point per unit of 'entertainment' has to rise, or Bio won't get a good enough return on their investment. That said, I as a customer expect a certain amount of "bang" for my gaming buck, and DLC doesn't deliver that. So, as a matter of principle, I generally steer clear of them. But from a business perspective, that higher price is unavoidable. If they thought they could pull a higher profit by putting a lower price on DLC, they would. So the pricing may not be 'fair' in everyone's eyes, but you can bet it is economically justifiable.

Modifié par --Master of All--, 16 janvier 2010 - 03:13 .

[ladydesire]

Jacody wrote...

If you don't want the dlc then don't whine about how it should be free or that it's not worth it, just D-O-N-T get it! It's not rocket science!

I'm tempted to say that at least one person feels that it's content that should have been include with the game, thus they feel like they have been cheated out of something that they paid for, even though that quite truthfully isn't the case.

[Torias]

Jacody wrote...

I honestly wish I was a forum moderator so that I could close this thread.

Ahhh, but that would be slipping to the dark side...

The more you tighten your grip, [Jacody], the more [threads] will slip through your fingers.

[traversc]

Also your observations about how other people spend their money are not objective. They are completely subjective, based off your personal opinions. Yes, yes I will call you to the carpet about them.

No, my "observation" is based off an assumption, which I stated. If you'd like, you can argue with that assumption. But the math follows directly from that assumption.

You can compare DA:O to another re-usable entertainment product like a DVD, or a football quite easily.

That is not what I am doing. I am not comparing DA:O. An analogy is a perfectly valid concept that anyone who has taken the SATs should understand.

If RtO isn't worth $5 for you personally, don't buy it.

Why is this argument invalid? What invalidates it? Why does it fail? If many people keep bringing it back up why is it not in their interest? Where is the flaw?

The value of something is only what others are willing to pay.

Not quite. The price of a commodity is determined by what people are willing to pay. A pure capitalist may argue that price and value are equivalent, but the assumption is perfectly rational actors, and when you refine the theory with behavoiral economics, the arugment doesn't hold. Even with complete information, people are not rational actors and will not make the best choice (and will oft not even realize it!). Going back to the hotdog analogy, just because people are willing to pay $15 for a hotdog, does not make its value $15. People who are acting irrationally and are willing to buy a $15 hotdog, hurt other people by inflating the price of a hotdog and destroying opportunity of buying a hotdog. In other words, the argument is invalid because your choice to overpay hurts others. And as stated earlier, you are hurting yourself, whether you realize it or not.

the flawed logic is price per hour as this is not a standard practice of anyone. While there are is a vocal group using hours per dollar as some kind of measurement, it is not an industry nor a consumer standard by far.

Number of gameplay hours is simply a rough estimate of amount of content. Price per hour was never mentioned, and so I'm not sure what reason you have to bring that up other than to be disingenuous. If you doubt gameplay hours to be a good measure, we could go by megabytes of voice acting, lines of dialogue, total areas, heck, even number of autosaves. There are any number of sampling techniques we could choose from, but in the end, it doesn't matter what "industry standard" we use because the variation is nowhere near enough to make up for the order of magnitude difference in price.

charging what the market will bear, what enough customers are willing to pay, IS how marketplace works

Yes. You seem to think that invalidates any argument posited.

you don't consider the awakening expansion as content?

Maybe, maybe not. I'll wait until I see it. But that is quite besides the point.

Point is, they are spending much of their resources on production rather than content development. Ostensibly, if they didn't spend so much of their time on DLCs, then ostensibly, they could give us better content in less amount of time.

Modifié par traversc, 16 janvier 2010 - 03:15 .

[mrmike_1949]

Jacody wrote...

I honestly wish I was a forum moderator so that I could close this thread.

If you don't want the dlc then don't whine about how it should be free or that it's not worth it, just D-O-N-T get it! It's not rocket science!

1) Close the thread? Well, that's just plain anti-social!

2) It's not worth it, I won't be buying it unless/until the price goes down or they package several DLCs for what I consider a good price. On the other hand, I think anybody who does think RtO is a good value, is plain and simply an idiot! And that they are screwing things up for the rest of us who aren't idiots.

So, why don't you idiots all pool your $5 and buy that $1 million celebrity sweat band instead of RtO???? It'll last longer than RtO!

MikeK

[Jacody]

Torias wrote...

Jacody wrote...

I honestly wish I was a forum moderator so that I could close this thread.

Ahhh, but that would be slipping to the dark side...

The more you tighten your grip, [Jacody], the more [threads] will slip through your fingers.

Yeah, it's just how people are acting on this thread that gets me.

[Elphaba]

I don't believe DLC should be free. What employee are they supposed to pay to work on a product that has no profitability?But I do believe that disconnecting our dollars from the purchase of the actually product (and I am speaking directly about EA/bioware points here) is a rip-off waiting to happen.

I'm sure that it is a console-friendly currency neutral payment system that really drives points functionality. However, it creates a situation where I now have hundreds of useless EA/bioware points because of a EA/bioware forum post that turned out to be misrepresentation of reality.

So I certainly believe that EA/bioware should charge for their downloadable content. But I think that the points system is just an opportunity for unethical behavior to appear ... either on purpose or not.

edited for spelling.

Modifié par Elphaba, 16 janvier 2010 - 03:18 .

[Sloth Of Doom]

[quote]traversc wrote...

[quote]Also your observations about how other people spend their money are not objective. They are completely subjective, based off your personal opinions. Yes, yes I will call you to the carpet about them.[/quote]

No, my "observation" is based off an assumption, which I stated. If you'd like, you can argue with that assumption. But the math follows directly from that assumption. [/quote]
basing math on an assumptin is about as futile as building a glass tower in haiti.  Sure it might look good, but we all know how it turns out.

[quote]

[quote]You can compare DA:O to another re-usable entertainment product like a DVD, or a football quite easily. [/quote]
That is not what I am doing. I am not comparing DA:O. An analogy is a perfectly valid concept that anyone who has taken the SATs should understand.
[/quote]
The problem is your analogies are illogical.
[quote]
[quote][quote]If RtO isn't worth $5 for you personally, don't buy it.[/quote]Why is this argument invalid? What invalidates it? Why does it fail? If many people keep bringing it back up why is it not in their interest? Where is the flaw?

The value of something is only what others are willing to pay. [/quote]
Not quite. The price of a commodity is determined by what people are willing to pay. A pure capitalist may argue that price and value are equivalent, but the assumption is perfectly rational actors, and when you refine the theory with behavoiral economics, the arugment doesn't hold. Even with complete information, people are not rational actors and will not make the best choice (and will oft not even realize it!). Going back to the hotdog analogy, just because people are willing to pay $15 for a hotdog, does not make its value $15. People who are acting irrationally and are willing to buy a $15 hotdog, hurt other people by inflating the price of a hotdog and destroying opportunity of buying a hotdog. In other words, the argument is invalid because your choice to overpay hurts others. And as stated earlier, you are hurting yourself, whether you realize it or not.
[/quote]
Definition of value: The amount (of money or goods or services) that is considered to be a fair equivalent for something else

Your definition of value: I get what I want when i want for what I want to pay.

See the difference?

[quote]
[quote]the flawed logic is price per hour as this is not a standard practice of anyone. While there are is a vocal group using hours per dollar as some kind of measurement, it is not an industry nor a consumer standard by far.[/quote]
Number of gameplay hours is simply a rough estimate of amount of content. Price per hour was never mentioned, and so I'm not sure what reason you have to bring that up other than to be disingenuous. If you doubt gameplay hours to be a good measure, we could go by megabytes of voice acting, lines of dialogue, total areas, heck, even number of autosaves. There are any number of sampling techniques we could choose from, but in the end, it doesn't matter what "industry standard" we use because the variation is nowhere near enough to make up for the order of magnitude difference in price.
[/quote]

Amount of content does not neccesarily mean amount of value.  You are stuck in this horrible false logic loop that "more is better"   What is worth more, a pound of gold or a ten pounds of feces?

[quote]
[quote]charging what the market will bear, what enough customers are willing to pay, IS how marketplace works[/quote]
Yes. You seem to think that invalidates any argument posited.
[/quote]
You seem to think that if you scream loud enough the world wil suddenly suck you off.  His point DOES invalidate your arguement.

[quote]
[quote]you don't consider the awakening expansion as content?[/quote]
Maybe, maybe not. I'll wait until I see it. But that is quite besides the point.

Point is, they are spending much of their resources on production rather than content development. Ostensibly, if they didn't spend so much of their time on DLCs, then ostensibly, they could give us better content in less amount of time.[/quote]

It's not beside the point.   You stated that they fail to prvide content, then when content is offered you choose to ignore it so that you can stick by yur increasingly ridiculous ideas.

Also, who are yu to say what Bioware is spending thier resouces on?  Are you a bioware employee?  Perhaps you have spies in the office?   No? 

Modifié par Sloth Of Doom, 16 janvier 2010 - 03:28 .

[ladydesire]

traversc wrote...

you don't consider the awakening expansion as content?

Maybe, maybe not. I'll wait until I see it. But that is quite besides the point.

Point is, they are spending much of their resources on production rather than content development. Ostensibly, if they didn't spend so much of their time on DLCs, then ostensibly, they could give us better content in less amount of time.

You don't work there, so how do you know this to be true? They had one DLC that was mostly finish clear back in January of 2009 (Stone Prisoner) which was content that had been cut from the game. They created Warden's Keep from scratch between the time the PC version was supposed to be released and when it actually was (about 6 months, if I'm not mistaken) and they have completed another one since then, on top of releasing a modified version of the same toolset they use to create all this content for PC version game owners to use, working on a full expansion to the game, and patching all three platforms the game supports. What part of this would you cut? Would you tell game owners "I'm sorry, but we need to create content, so there won't be any bug fixes or toolset"? How long do you think Bioware would last if all they focused on was content and ignored everything else they have to do to keep their loyal customers?

[Jacody]

mrmike_1949 wrote...

Jacody wrote...

I honestly wish I was a forum moderator so that I could close this thread.

If you don't want the dlc then don't whine about how it should be free or that it's not worth it, just D-O-N-T get it! It's not rocket science!

1) Close the thread? Well, that's just plain anti-social!

2) It's not worth it, I won't be buying it unless/until the price goes down or they package several DLCs for what I consider a good price. On the other hand, I think anybody who does think RtO is a good value, is plain and simply an idiot! And that they are screwing things up for the rest of us who aren't idiots.

So, why don't you idiots all pool your $5 and buy that $1 million celebrity sweat band instead of RtO???? It'll last longer than RtO!

MikeK

1) I just hate it when people start acting like arrogant bastards over a videogame,that's all.

2) I didn't say wether it was or wasn't, just that there's no need to whine over something you aren't getting because of how you feel it's worth, I also didn't call it a good value, but I can see how it looks like I was defending RtO.

[mrmike_1949]

Ladydesire wrote :

....What part of this would you cut?.......... How long do you think Bioware would last if all they focused
on was content and ignored everything else they have to do to keep
their loyal customers?

I think we may find out the answer to that question

MikeK

[addiction21]

Sloth Of Doom wrote...

basing math on an assumptin is about as futile as building a glass tower in haiti.  Sure it might look good, but we all know how it turns out.

Too soon sloth too soon.

[--Master of All--]

traversc wrote...

Not quite. The price of a commodity is determined by what people are willing to pay. A pure capitalist may argue that price and value are equivalent, but the assumption is perfectly rational actors, and when you refine the theory with behavoiral economics, the arugment doesn't hold. Even with complete information, people are not rational actors and will not make the best choice (and will oft not even realize it!). Going back to the hotdog analogy, just because people are willing to pay $15 for a hotdog, does not make its value $15. People who are acting irrationally and are willing to buy a $15 hotdog, hurt other people by inflating the price of a hotdog and destroying opportunity of buying a hotdog. In other words, the argument is invalid because your choice to overpay hurts others. And as stated earlier, you are hurting yourself, whether you realize it or not.

IMO, the "value" of something is extremely hard to define. An item that is worth a small fortune to one buyer (like a signed David Gaider coffee mug), won't be worth a cent to someone outside this community. Even basic raw materials (like steel, lumber, gold) don't have any instrinsic "value". The "value" is entirely dependent on whatever the buyer and seller agree to as a fair price. Whether the buyer is acting rationally or irrationally is entirely irrelevant, imo. So maybe I'm a pure capitalist, but on a large scale, it seems to me that price and value become one.

As far as hurting other people goes, even if the DLC was priced at $1, there would still be those who view the price as unfair. The people who decide to support the $1 price by purchasing the DLC would be effectively destroying the opportunity of those who would only purchase the DLC if it was 50 cents, or free. And they're also hurting themselves because if they had refused to buy the DLC for $1, the price would be forced to come down further, saving them money. In other words, no matter what the price point ends up being, somebody's going to get burned .

Modifié par --Master of All--, 16 janvier 2010 - 03:41 .