234 réponses à ce sujet

[TheProtheans]

dreamgazer wrote...

TheProtheans wrote...

It is naive to think they will settle to not milk more from the customers.

It's also naive to think that you can expect the same quality and quantity for the same price you've been paying for the better part of ten years.

I'm not entirely sure which angle you're coming from.
But I don't believe it is naive to expect the same quality and quantity for the same price, I'm just that type of person.

[N7recruit]

Jinx1720 wrote...

I don't know how much production costs really developed, but if we assume that for the games to come they are roughly equal to what they are now, EA is about to print money.

Usually your profitability is measured against your revenue. Where I live, supermarkets are not very profitable, around 3 % of their revenue is actually gain. Let's assume EA is fairly profitable and the rate is at 10%. Now they increase the prize by 20 $. Games usually cost around 60 $, that means it is an increase by around 33%. We assumed that costs stayed the same, that means they essentially quadruple their gain.

you should watch pach attack on youtube. People don't really like him but he does have some good insite into where the money gose. Basicially a game costs $40million lets say, then the team of 100 gets paid $100 thousand esch for their two years of work, then advertising @ 20 to 30 million, then publication & finially bonuses if the game sells well & gets a meta-critic average of over 85%.

Publishers get about $30 out of a $60 game sale. Roughly 10 to retail, 10 to micro,sony or nintendo for the lisencing & 10 or more to cover advertising & distribution.

So a game would have to make over 200'000'000 to make its money back by selling over 4million copies which is nuts 

[Jadebaby]

N7recruit wrote...
So A rise in base price to combat **** add on content that I already avoid does not benifit me at all. I don't need a price increace to do what my common sence as a consumer can for free.

If a price jump is necessary to avoid a crash? Ok I'll play ball, but others won't. Most of my friends don't give two ****s about the publisher's/developers.

I'm curious as to What would be your ideal way of tackling this problem of rubbish add on content without hurting the Devs or screwing the consumer. Jade?

Well my ideal way would be to give it all out for free because we all live in a utopia due to the fact I chose the Synthesis ending.

But the most realistic scenario is probably the simplest one, increase the price of the base game, not too much to prevent hurting the consumer but enough so that the publishers can earn back their funds and then some. Then decrease the cost of microtransactions so that they are actually microtransactions (I'm sorry but 2-3 dollars is not a microtransaction for me). Then as for dlc. I would cut back on dlc that isn't 'dlc material' by giving the games a longer dev time, then the dlc that we do create, make it completely seperate from the main game. For example what Obsidian did with Fallout: New Vegas, or the Citadel dlc etc...

Omega, From Ashes and Leviathan are all examples of dlc that isn't dlc material.

[dreamgazer]

TheProtheans wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

TheProtheans wrote...

It is naive to think they will settle to not milk more from the customers.

It's also naive to think that you can expect the same quality and quantity for the same price you've been paying for the better part of ten years.

I'm not entirely sure which angle you're coming from.
But I don't believe it is naive to expect the same quality and quantity for the same price, I'm just that type of person.

That's all well and good if things stay the same price to produce. They don't.   

[Iakus]

The Mad Hanar wrote...
Just imagine if McDonalds was a mom and pop burger shop. They sell the best burgers and coldest sodas in town for cheap. They have a small, loyal and sustainable consumer base and the production costs are as low as the prices. Suddenly, they blow up. More and more people come into the store, which drives production costs up since they have to make more. On top of that, Burger King uses a better, but more expensive, cheese. In order to compete with them, they have to buy that cheese which drives production costs up more. Since this is happening, the profits for the chain gets thinner and thinner. So they decide to tack on fries for an extra fee. This works for a while, but then people start calling them greedy, as they feel fries should be included with the original meal. So at this point Mikey D's has three options, keep a good reputation and eventually lose their profit, keep their fries model and gain a bad reputation and stay sustainable or increase the base price of the meal while including the fries and gain a bad reputation and go back to the profits of their mom and pop days.

If McDonalds put out a consistently good product, and had a less dramatic price increase, people may be more willing to accept the necessity to maintain that level of quality.

However, if "McDonald's'" were to, say, over the last several years, seriously drop in quality, greatly increase the cost of their drinks wile adding extra salt to their fries, and most recently try to serve rancid burgers, then claim that raising their prices by a third was necessary to maintain this level of quality, yeah I'd be skeptical of their motives

[Jadebaby]

dreamgazer wrote...

TheProtheans wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

TheProtheans wrote...

It is naive to think they will settle to not milk more from the customers.

It's also naive to think that you can expect the same quality and quantity for the same price you've been paying for the better part of ten years.

I'm not entirely sure which angle you're coming from.
But I don't believe it is naive to expect the same quality and quantity for the same price, I'm just that type of person.

That's all well and good if things stay the same price to produce. They don't.   

Not to mention inflation.

[David7204]

That's pretty much what inflation is. Stuff costing more.

[SlottsMachine]

^IMO, games are already overpriced, companies really need to reign in there budget if they're not getting a good enough return. Tbh, raising game prices wont help them. People will just buy less.

Modifié par General Slotts, 20 juillet 2013 - 05:42 .

[TheProtheans]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

[
Just imagine if McDonalds was a mom and pop burger shop. They sell the best burgers and coldest sodas in town for cheap. They have a small, loyal and sustainable consumer base and the production costs are as low as the prices. Suddenly, they blow up. More and more people come into the store, which drives production costs up since they have to make more. On top of that, Burger King uses a better, but more expensive, cheese.

In order to compete with them, they have to buy that cheese which drives production costs up more. Since this is happening, the profits for the chain gets thinner and thinner. So they decide to tack on fries for an extra fee. This works for a while, but then people start calling them greedy, as they feel fries should be included with the original meal. So at this point Mikey D's has three options, keep a good reputation and eventually lose their profit, keep their fries model and gain a bad reputation and stay sustainable or increase the base price of the meal while including the fries and gain a bad reputation and go back to the profits of their mom and pop days.

That really doesn't address what I thought Dreamgazer said as the better cheese would be improving the quality which is not something Dreamgazer mentioned.

[N7recruit]

Jadebaby wrote...

N7recruit wrote...
So A rise in base price to combat **** add on content that I already avoid does not benifit me at all. I don't need a price increace to do what my common sence as a consumer can for free.

If a price jump is necessary to avoid a crash? Ok I'll play ball, but others won't. Most of my friends don't give two ****s about the publisher's/developers.

I'm curious as to What would be your ideal way of tackling this problem of rubbish add on content without hurting the Devs or screwing the consumer. Jade?

Well my ideal way would be to give it all out for free because we all live in a utopia due to the fact I chose the Synthesis ending.

But the most realistic scenario is probably the simplest one, increase the price of the base game, not too much to prevent hurting the consumer but enough so that the publishers can earn back their funds and then some. Then decrease the cost of microtransactions so that they are actually microtransactions (I'm sorry but 2-3 dollars is not a microtransaction for me). Then as for dlc. I would cut back on dlc that isn't 'dlc material' by giving the games a longer dev time, then the dlc that we do create, make it completely seperate from the main game. For example what Obsidian did with Fallout: New Vegas, or the Citadel dlc etc...

Omega, From Ashes and Leviathan are all examples of dlc that isn't dlc material.

But can't you just make your own games with your mind in synrhesis:huh: Although You have to be always on line, connected to the reapers so they know you are not pirating games & to make sure you pay HoloBrat his licensing fee so... SCREW THAT:lol:

But what you purpose is grand it's just that for a game with 2 years of dev time EA would have to pay 100million in wages to Bioware + bonus' on top of the (what I'm guessing) 40million to make the game. With added costs for marketing and distribution it comes to around 200 million. Which ME3 made back with a tidy profiit.

I keep shouting for more dev time myself but it would cost about 50million extra in wages alone.
You should check out Pack attack on gametrailers or youtube. People hate him but he has cool insite & information about the industyB)

As for DLC, I like it to have a place in the story that I don't tink Citadle has so I won't be buying it (+the CHEESE:lol:) but as you said I don't want it to feel like it was just ripped out.
It really depends on wheather  I like the game or not honestly:P 

[Jadebaby]

David7204 wrote...

That's pretty much what inflation is. Stuff costing more.

Yes but that's not the only reason games cost more to produce these days. It's the increasing amount of mocap, reputable actors being paid to voice characters, and other stuff like that which is causing game budgets to get tighter and tighter.

[Remix-General Aetius]

RZIBARA wrote...

I have a feeling this is to make up for online passes and the DRM thing being removed

LMAO what makes you think they'll do anything of the sort? this is EA we're talkin about.

if only, it gets even worse from here on out. you think needing internet to play Diablo 3 or being forced to authenticate ME3 DLC every single time you play (and if no internet is present you can't play the game because your saves are DLC-dependent) is the worst they can do?
 
they're just getting started, mark my words.

Modifié par TheGarden2010, 20 juillet 2013 - 05:36 .

[David7204]

General Slotts wrote...

^Games are already overpriced, companies really need to reign in there budget if they're not getting a good enough return. Tbh, raising game prices wont help them. People will just buy less.

And by what justification do you proclaim 'games are already overpriced'? Do you have any clue at all of the actual work that goes into them?

Modifié par David7204, 20 juillet 2013 - 05:36 .

[Nole]

Blame the people that buys used games.

[David7204]

I would gladly welcome a complete ban on used games. I'm betting it's going to happen sooner or later, anyway. We won't be buying disks for too much longer.

[Jadebaby]

people see what they choose to see.

@David, so you support retailers shutting down as well?

Modifié par Jadebaby, 20 juillet 2013 - 05:40 .

[Remix-General Aetius]

WittingEight65 wrote...

Blame the people that buys used games.

blame the companies that make crappy games which force the gamers to give their copies away. if the game is good, they won't give their copy away, now will they?

[N7recruit]

WittingEight65 wrote...

Blame the people that buys used games.

Not that big a deal watch "Pach-Attact Why all the gamestop hate?" on youtube
I swear gametrailers should be paying me for all the shout outs:lol:

[David7204]

That is a stupidly pathetic response. Companies 'force' you to give your copy away? Are you that utterly helpless?

Modifié par David7204, 20 juillet 2013 - 05:41 .

[Jadebaby]

TheGarden2010 wrote...

WittingEight65 wrote...

Blame the people that buys used games.

blame the companies that make crappy games which force the gamers to give their copies away. if the game is good, they won't give their copy away, now will they?

Not necessarily true, some people only play a game once and return it. Good, bad or somewhere in between.

[SlottsMachine]

No, of course not. Making a game is easy yo. Super Meat Boy was created by two dudes, enough said.

[David7204]

Poe's Law is in full effect. I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or are just moronic. Making is a game is not 'easy.'

[TheProtheans]

dreamgazer wrote...

TheProtheans wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

TheProtheans wrote...

It is naive to think they will settle to not milk more from the customers.

It's also naive to think that you can expect the same quality and quantity for the same price you've been paying for the better part of ten years.

I'm not entirely sure which angle you're coming from.
But I don't believe it is naive to expect the same quality and quantity for the same price, I'm just that type of person.

That's all well and good if things stay the same price to produce. They don't.   

It is different in video games as it is more complicated, the same for other things that require lots of design first such as cars and features they have.
Which is why I don't expect to be suddenly paying $140 for games when they first started at $100 on the console.
And hence the $60 tag for the Xbox 360 games.
EA was always a scumbag company, no need to blame inflation for that.

Modifié par TheProtheans, 20 juillet 2013 - 05:45 .