[quote]traversc wrote...
[quote]MerinTB wrote...
[quote]traversc wrote...
[quote]If RtO isn't worth $5 for you personally, don't buy it.[/quote]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.
[/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[/quote]
I stand corrected. Value=perceived benefits/perceived price. I was imprecise with my language.
So let me adjust and ammend my statement while keeping the same point -
The value of something is based on what people perceive the benefits of the good/service they are purchasing as compared to the cost (price, whether monetary or time or effort or whatnot) of said good/service. That VALUE is solely up to the consumers to decide, and therefore cannot be standardized across all people but only, at best, divided into different segments depending on how people perceive that benefit/cost ratio, from "it's a steal" to "it's highway robbery" and all phases inbetween.
The PRICE of a commodity is largely decided by the manufacturers and retailers based on how much they believe the consumers will VALUE the good/service. The PRICE is then adjusted as the VALUE of the product becomes apparent over time.
Are we happy with that definition or do we need to get some marketing and sales reps in here?
We can start here -
http://www.knowthis....price-vs-value/[quote]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!).[/quote]
Desperately, desperately fighting back an ad hominem here.
[quote]Going back to the hotdog analogy, just because people are willing to pay $15 for a hotdog, does not make its value $15.[/quote]
Actually, for those people, it does make the $15 per hot dog a good value if they are willing to buy it. By your own correction of my earlier error of definition, the hot dog can never have any dollar amount value as a dollar amount is the price, not the value.
Arguing semantics in extremely pedantic ways sure is fun, isn't it?
[quote]People who are acting irrationally[/quote]
Subjective. Judgment call on your part.
[quote]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.[/quote]
Hurting WHO? If only a very few people buy the $15 hot dog while most don't find that a good value, the price will not stay at $15. If enough people find the value good, and the hot dog then becomes $15 because the market will bear that price, then those "hurt" are only the ones who don't value hot dogs at $15, and the "hurt" is that they don't buy hot dogs. Hurt is such a bad word here - if hot dogs were being sold at $15 there would be reasons, such as research that showed that way too many hot dogs were being sold versus what was being produced, some kind of supply and demand ratio out of whack - you just wouldn't have one store putting that price out there, as other stores in an attempt to steal their business would sell their $3 hot dogs and drive the $15 hot dog place out of business - UNLESS the $15 hot dogs were the Starbucks of hot dogs, but that would still just create a different level of market... and wow, is there even more to it than this!
Honestly, you argument here is so simplistic and ignoring so much of how goods are priced you should probably just drop it.
[quote]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]
No, unfortunately (as this sounds like me just tu ququo'ing you) your argument is fatally flawed as you simply state by fiat that a hot dog is now $15 and people will pay that so all suffer without taking into consideration competition, reasons for that price going up, how many people accept that price, and so on. Just saying "if cars could fly suddenly there'd be no need for roads and there'd be no flat tires so it'd be much cheaper to have flying cars" also ignores so many other variables it might as well be a "if hot dogs were $15 and people paid that much it would hurt everyone who wants hot dogs" argument.
And the condescending"you are hurting yourself and others" attitude is really unnecessary, don't you think? Honestly?
[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.[/quote]
Sorry if this feels like a straw man to you, but what with all the "$5 for a half hour" and "$40 for 15 hours" arguments are flying around and causing the majority of the "not worth the cost" threads when you bring up, and I quote you,
[quote]traversc wrote...
30 minutes of gameplay is not worth $5 period.
[/quote]
you'll have to forgive me for making the conclusion that you are continuing most anti-DLC, and your own earlier, arguments of gameplay time per dollar.
[quote]
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]
Game value is measured by many things for many different people, and many people playing games don't break it down into mathematical formulas. What your perceived benefits from a game are might not be benefits to another player. You dismiss items here -
[quote]traversc wrote...
There's just no justification and they are preying on players addiction
and completionism in getting all the pretty new shiny weapons and armor.[/quote]
as well as completionism, but for some players there is more value in those two things than in hours of gameplay. You don't have to look far in these forums to find people who love the romances and others who wish they weren't in the game, people who love all the dialog and codexes and others who skip all that content and hate it. What you value is not necessarily what others value, so your subjective choices are only relevant to you.
For some people paying $5 just to watch a half-hour cut scene that shows what happened at Ostagar after the battle would be a good value - with no gameplay at all. Now while the market probably would't bear that, it doesn't dismiss the fact that there are people who would pay it.
And exactly where are you getting your evidence for an "order of magnitude difference in price"? As compared to other DLC? Horse armor for Oblivion, if you mean value? $50-60 for DAO, if you mean actual price?
You earlier also dismissed someone listing the single-player hours for MW2 since "you don't buy that for single-player", immediately dismissing everyone who DOES and regardless, without replays, even a single playthrough (single-player or multi-player) isn't in the tens of hours, so the next time you play multi-player, you are basically doing the same thing on a replay, and those hours don't count unless you count replays of even DLC and ...
you know what, I'm not going there because price per hour is ridiculous.
[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]
In particular, yes, it invalidates your argument. If "charging what the market will bear, what enough customers are willing to pay, IS how (the) marketplace works" to which you said "yes", well then, the argument that you seemed to have cut out of your response to my response to you, the whole argument that I was rebutting, this argument right here of yours -
[quote]traversc wrote...
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.[/quote]
is, by your own admission that my statement of "charging what the market will bear...is how the marketplace works", invalid.
Until you answer the following questions: "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?" in reference to this argument: "If RtO isn't worth $5 for you personally, don't buy it." - your argument is invalid.
[quote]traversc wrote...
[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]
Moving goal posts. You switch your argument when it's proven false.
Retour en haut
