106 réponses à ce sujet

[Fast Jimmy]

Filament wrote...

The $22 figure was promoted by Elizabeth Warren, but it wasn't tied to inflation (adjusted for which, minimum wage has been more-or-less flat), but overall economic growth since 1960. She wasn't necessarily advocating a $22 minimum wage, but highlighting the increasing wealth inequality.

Which is, again, a different conversation. Besides, if minimum wage was $22, software programmers would be making on the scale of nearly $100/hour if you apply a geometric rate of wage increase differential from the minimum, which means the price of games would be closer to $200 a pop. 

With a lower, fairly static minimum wage, prices can remain somewhat stable (obvious fiscal populace inequities aside) - but there are limits. 

As I stated, with a 40% increase in minimum wage, we should see a corresponding 40% increase in variable prices... which we don't see in the gaming industry. They are doing much more for far less.

This is accomplished, of course, by stricter budgets, project management and higher volume of sales, but those have limits. If the price had gradually increase to $70 a game in the 2000's and moved in the $80 range at the onset of 2010, we wouldn't have such nickel-and-dime practices like DLC, online passes, XBox Live subscriptions or microtransactions. So gamers are reaping what they sow now, if you ask me. 

Hate seeing 10 hour games for $60? Then you shouldn't have fought to keep that price tag for so long. Now it is an industry norm and raising the price to $80 (with the proverbial cat now out of the bag in terms of lowered gamer expectations) will still not likely return to those higher value products.

[Beerfish]

Many of the games I have bought over the years have been worth 3 or 4 times the amount I paid when looking at hours of entertainment per dollar. Of course there have been some that have been horrible value as well.

[FedericoV]

Fandango9641 wrote...

Not planning to buy Inquisition on release. I'll buy used on principle if EA bump their prices up.

[Fast Jimmy]

Beerfish wrote...

Many of the games I have bought over the years have been worth 3 or 4 times the amount I paid when looking at hours of entertainment per dollar. Of course there have been some that have been horrible value as well.

This is why I rent. I can rent any game I want and not have to worry about it being a dud. Then, if it is a value title I enjoy and could see me playing time and time again over the years, I'll be able to rent it on Day One for my same monthly fee and then buy a user/reduced price copy in a month or so when it becomes apparent it has serious replay value.

For me, it's a win-win. I hopped on not long after DA2 (my first and last experience pre-ordering a CE) and haven't looked back. It really has changed my entire outlook on gaming.

[Beerfish]

I can't be bothered to rent and then go buy a game afterwards. I also don't like any time restictions in regards to a rental.

[Fast Jimmy]

Beerfish wrote...

I can't be bothered to rent and then go buy a game afterwards. I also don't like any time restictions in regards to a rental.

You can't be bothered...? How much is your time worth? At $15 a month, it will cost you $180 a year. That's the cost  of what you'd pay retail for three games. If you buy (or even want to play) three or more games a year, you come out even, at the worst. Besides, you can buy used copies (for fairly cheap) directly through a service like Gamefly that also does the renting, so you don't even have to "go out" and buy the used copy.

The time restriction is a rather small one. It is like the old Netflix model, where you put it in the mail one day and two-three days later you have another one. If you really don't want to be without a game at any time, you can pay an extra $4 a month and have two games out at the same time. That way, you can play and alternate between both and, if you are done with one, you can send it back in for the 48-72 hours that you are deprived and still have another game in your possession.

Unless you are an avid collector of physical games, I can't see why anyone wouldn't at least give a long, hard look at the renting scene. It has let me play a LOT more games that I would never have bought but decided to just "give a shot" when there has been a lull in hot releases. And it let's you rent across any system - you can rent a PC game today then a 360 game next week and a PS3 game after that.

I'll plug game rental to the day I die if it keeps working the same way it is now.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 25 juillet 2013 - 07:10 .

[Mathias]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

With the massive devaluation of the US dollar over the past 10 years or so, it's about time game prices went up.

The issue is that while the prices of things are going up, people's paychecks aren't. Factoring in inflation, minimum wage should be around $22, yet it's still $8.00 (at least for my state). If people were making at least twice that amount, then raising game's such as DA:I to an $80 price point wouldn't be so bad for people. It's too bad that's not the case. The only thing EA will accomplish here is burn even more bridges causing less people to buy their games. Nowadays games last 8-10 hours at a $60 price point. No way in hell am I gonna roll with that for a $80 game. You gonna charge me $80 for a game, you better give me dozens of hours of content. None of this 8 hour length with future DLC crap. 


What they should be doing instead is learning how to budget their titles better, so they don't have to raise the cap to $80 to turn in a profit.

LOL Your math is so fuzzy, I want to cuddle it like a teddy bear.

About as much as i'd want to see the teeth spill outta your mouth 

How bout refuting my point without being a condescending creep in the future.

Filament wrote...

The $22 figure was promoted by Elizabeth Warren, but it wasn't tied to inflation (adjusted for which, minimum wafe has been more-or-less flat), but overall economic growth since 1960. She wasn't necessarily advocating a $22 minimum wage, but highlighting the increasing wealth inequality.

Thank you, that's what I meant, not inflation. My main point is that prices are continuing to increase, but not so much on the paycheck front. Companies today need to learn to budget their titles better. We're living in a time where companies are expecting their triple A titles to sell at least 5 million copies.