160 réponses à ce sujet

[Elhanan]

...I always go alone to the movies,so does practically everyone i know.In fact,whenever i go to the cinema i rarely see two or more people together.
What i want to say is that for a lot of people it really is just about the movies...maybe i just live in a town full of antisocial loners though,so who knows.^^

I used to go to the theater quite often; in '76, I went 46 straight weeks and only missed three major films that year. While many were free or discounted film prices due to campus functions, top prices were only $2.50, and one could get a Coke, popcorn, and a hot dog all for $1. Now none are sold for a dollar, and ticket prices escalated to the point where it was the matinee or nothing.

Now being homebound I do not have the option, but can still enjoy a DVD repeatedly, and pause when I wish.

I believe games are overpriced a lot, but for the hundreds of hours of entertainment I have been able to receive from most titles, it has been an investment I am willing to make. I have to pick and choose carefully, but thus far it has been acceptable.

[pdusen]

Supply and demand only makes sense in economics land. It's been proven time and again that people will pay $100s of dollars for concert tickets (scalping), yet promoters are not selling tickets for $100s. If they were doing their due diligence to their client they should be charging $100s and getting as much money as the think they can for their product. After all, it's reasonable to charge what people will pay, no?

 

That example doesn't hold water. Scalpers can charge drastically more for tickets than promoters because they target people who want to see the show but are no longer able to get ahold of tickets by normal means for some reason (such as being sold out). Essentially, the supply in that situation has been reduced to zero.

[metatheurgist]

That example doesn't hold water. Scalpers can charge drastically more for tickets than promoters because they target people who want to see the show but are no longer able to get ahold of tickets by normal means for some reason (such as being sold out). Essentially, the supply in that situation has been reduced to zero.

A problem that would be fixed by increasing the price.

[Schreckstoff]

A problem that would be fixed by increasing the price.

Not nearly their prices would simply rise just as much

[In Exile]

Eh, I'm always a believer of a developer should be free to sell their game at what they feel is comfortable and if people are willing to buy it, then it's a reasonable price and transaction.

 

I wouldn't be too hard on Larian for selling the game at that cost if it's getting them results that they need to exist.

 

Oh, I don't disagree with Larian selling their product at the most lucrative price-point, and I see that in hindsight I shouldn't have been as hyberbolic in language as I ended up being. 

 

All that I wanted to say was that we can't infer from a 45$ price-point that Larian is necessarily moving units comparable to an AAA game, because it might be that the higher price-point combined with digital distribution is a way to increase their % return so as to move fewer units to a dedicated audience. Or, alternatively, that their development costs were quite high and that people overstate the potential return to the firm. 

[Allan Schumacher]

But with Steam there is only demand, supply is umlimited

 

You've inadvertently stated that I have an infinite amount of video game content to provide you at any given time.  Supply accounts for more than just "does the product exist on a store shelf."

[In Exile]

You've inadvertently stated that I have an infinite amount of video game content to provide you at any given time.  Supply accounts for more than just "does the product exist on a store shelf."

You've been holding out on us.  Semi-confirmed rumour: DA:I will have infinite content. 

[Schreckstoff]

You've inadvertently stated that I have an infinite amount of video game content to provide you at any given time. Supply accounts for more than just "does the product exist on a store shelf."

Supply is very straightforward in being the quantity of a product someone is willing to sell at a given price. In case of steam at full retail I doubt a developer would set a limit to how many units he wants to sell.

[Kantr]

You've inadvertently stated that I have an infinite amount of video game content to provide you at any given time.  Supply accounts for more than just "does the product exist on a store shelf."

Could you explain for us novices? (I realise it must include things like amount of gameplay?)

[stormhit]

Supply and demand only makes sense in economics land. It's been proven time and again that people will pay $100s of dollars for concert tickets (scalping), yet promoters are not selling tickets for $100s. If they were doing their due diligence to their client they should be charging $100s and getting as much money as the think they can for their product. After all, it's reasonable to charge what people will pay, no?

 

Many sports teams and venues are moving to variable pricing schemes in order to do exactly that.

[Il Divo]

 

You own the games you buy in the same sense that you own the music that you buy--however, with a service, you don't even own that much. Still not the same.

 

 

Which is something that fans of both South Park and Avatar: the Last Airbender (such as myself) have learned the hard way. Netflix can terminate your access to any and all of their services at any time. 

 

Personally, I think people have a bad habit of looking exclusively at the price tag and not the whole cost/benefit analysis. 

[Il Divo]

I'm thinking of the first 4-5 chapters. Those are open. The overarching plot isn't even visible, I would argue, until chapter 4.

 

Personally, I thought the overall plot was transparent right from the start. Gorion tells you to head to the Friendly Arm. Khalid/Jaheira constantly emphasize going to the mines near Nashkel. Meanwhile, you keep getting journal entries and dreams as you're heading in the right direction completing each chapter. 

 

Sure, the game doesn't force you down that path, but neither does your typical TES game. And the main plot is still transparent in those. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

Personally, I thought the overall plot was transparent right from the start. Gorion tells you to head to the Friendly Arm. Khalid/Jaheira constantly emphasize going to the mines near Nashkel. Meanwhile, you keep getting journal entries and dreams as you're heading in the right direction completing each chapter.

Sure, the game doesn't force you down that path, but neither does your typical TES game. And the main plot is still transparent in those.

There's nothing to tie the iron shortage to the attack outside Candlekeep. There's good reason not to go to the Friendly Arm in at all.

The first timw I played, I decided that sincw Gorion's leadership had gotten us attacked and him killed, I should get off the road. So I did. And the first companions I met were Kivan and Branwen, neither of whom has anything to say about the main plot. Then I met Minsc and Edwin, both of whome wanted me to seek out the Gnoll Stronghold. So I figured that was part of the main quest. Then I found the Nashkel mines on my own, completed those, but didn't read Mulahey's notes, so I thought that plot was done. I only realised something else might be going on when I went back to Beregost to stash some potions in a hotel room I'd been using for storage and got attacked by Tranzig (I happened to be using his room). And by then I'd already been venturing into the woods for bandit scalps (which I also had no reason to believe were related to anything else) where I'd met Viconia.

Before I'd ever made it to the Friendly Arm Inn, I was on my way to defeat the bandit camp with a party containing Garrett, Branwen, Viconia, Edwin, and Xan. I'd not met Khalid, Jaheira, Xzar, or Montaron (the four companions who are interested in the iron shortage).

[Il Divo]

There's nothing to tie the iron shortage to the attack outside Candlekeep. There's good reason not to go to the Friendly Arm in at all.

The first timw I played, I decided that sincw Gorion's leadership had gotten us attacked and him killed, I should get off the road. So I did. And the first companions I met were Kivan and Branwen, neither of whom has anything to say about the main plot. Then I met Minsc and Edwin, both of whome wanted me to seek out the Gnoll Stronghold. So I figured that was part of the main quest. Then I found the Nashkel mines on my own, completed those, but didn't read Mulahey's notes, so I thought that plot was done. I only realised something else might be going on when I went back to Beregost to stash some potions in a hotel room I'd been using for storage and got attacked by Tranzig (I happened to be using his room). And by then I'd already been venturing into the woods for bandit scalps (which I also had no reason to believe were related to anything else) where I'd met Viconia.

Before I'd ever made it to the Friendly Arm Inn, I was on my way to defeat the bandit camp with a party containing Garrett, Branwen, Viconia, Edwin, and Xan. I'd not met Khalid, Jaheira, Xzar, or Montaron (the four companions who are interested in the iron shortage).

 

Okay, but all that is irrelevant. You said that the player couldn't figure out the overarching plot until Chapter 4. Clearly, that is not the case. 

 

Yeah, in character you can try to play up the whole, "I have no idea what's important or not", but the overarching plot is quite easy to see for any player. The game makes it quite straight forward how to progress the main narrative. 

 

Gorion-->Jaheira/Khalid>Nashkel mines, etc. And a plethora of journal entries/dreams for anyone who wasn't sure how get things going. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

Okay, but all that is irrelevant. You said that the player couldn't figure out the overarching plot until Chapter 4. Clearly, that is not the case.

Yeah, in character you can try to play up the whole, "I have no idea what's important or not", but the overarching plot is quite easy to see for any player. The game makes it quite straight forward how to progress the main narrative.

Gorion-->Jaheira/Khalid>Nashkel mines, etc. And a plethora of journal entries/dreams for anyone who wasn't sure how get things going.

I wasn't talking about in-character. When I, a player, first played the game, I interpreted the clues differently from you. You only interpreted them as you did because of the order in which you encountered them.

The evidence wasn't as strong as you think it was.

[In Exile]

I wasn't talking about in-character. When I, a player, first played the game, I interpreted the clues differently from you. You only interpreted them as you did because of the order in which you encountered them.

The evidence wasn't as strong as you think it was.

 

I think what Il Divo is saying is this "it is possible for a reasonable player to infer what the main plot is during the first few acts; not inferring the main plot requires either an uncommon path through it". 

[Sylvius the Mad]

I think what Il Divo is saying is this "it is possible for a reasonable player to infer what the main plot is during the first few acts; not inferring the main plot requires either an uncommon path through it".

That it is possible to infer something does not make that thing visible.

It is possible to infer a great many things.

[Il Divo]

I think what Il Divo is saying is this "it is possible for a reasonable player to infer what the main plot is during the first few acts; not inferring the main plot requires either an uncommon path through it". 

 

Pretty much. Granted, when Baldur's Gate first came out, maybe alot of the more common "main quest" tropes weren't around. 

 

But speaking at least as a player of modern RPGs, the game gives you more than enough to infer what the player would need to do in order to progress on that main path. Gorion directs the player to the Friendly Arm Inn. Khalid/Jahiera, being the next link in the plot, direct us towards the Nashkel mines. Combine that with your quest journal, strange dreams, and that the main story hits Chapter 2 immediately upon reaching Nashkel, a reasonable player can infer that they are following the correct path. From that point on, we have a clear story link to Mulahey, the Bandit Camp, etc. 

[Il Divo]

I wasn't talking about in-character. When I, a player, first played the game, I interpreted the clues differently from you. You only interpreted them as you did because of the order in which you encountered them.

The evidence wasn't as strong as you think it was.

 

And yet it's worked as a guide across a wide variety of RPGs pretty well. Maybe the evidence is stronger than you suggest. 

[In Exile]

That it is possible to infer something does not make that thing visible.

It is possible to infer a great many things.

 

True, but Il Divo was saying it was reasonable to infer it, rather than just possible. If you prefer to discuss it in terms of probability, then likely or very likely to infer. 

[Zatche]

Supply is very straightforward in being the quantity of a product someone is willing to sell at a given price. In case of steam at full retail I doubt a developer would set a limit to how many units he wants to sell.

 

I believe that, according to Allen's definition, supply is also the amount of content a developer is able to create and put into a particular product. There will most likely be demand for more DAI content after launch (DLC or expansions). Since creating such content is dependent on available resources (man-hours, overhead, etc), supply is not infinite.

 

I'm curious to know if and how much this definition is used by video game industry analysts, economists. I'd imagine that it's more difficult to create a demand vs supply graph with Allen's definition (man, it's been a long time since I took MacroEconomics), but I'd also reckon it provides for more meaningful analysis.

[metatheurgist]

Many sports teams and venues are moving to variable pricing schemes in order to do exactly that.

Nothing that happens in sport surprises me anymore. They've come a long way in the school of business since the Fanfare for the Common Man.

[Sylvius the Mad]

True, but Il Divo was saying it was reasonable to infer it, rather than just possible. If you prefer to discuss it in terms of probability, then likely or very likely to infer. 

I wouldn't deem the likelihood relevant.  Only the reasonableness, of which you and I have very different definitions.

 

And you didn't say it was reasonable to infer it.  You said a reasonable person could infer it - that's a very different standard.

[In Exile]

I wouldn't deem the likelihood relevant.  Only the reasonableness, of which you and I have very different definitions.

 

Fair enough. But to Il Divo, likelihood is relevant. 

 

And you didn't say it was reasonable to infer it.  You said a reasonable person could infer it - that's a very different standard.

Gramatically, yes. Legally, no (or rather, not really; this is a minefield phrase, and I fall on the side of the debate that says that these are equivalent). Which is why I swapped the phrases without thinking. My apologies for being unclear.