93 réponses à ce sujet

[Siegdrifa]

Because they expect to sell more than previous games; if so, having greater margins still = more profit.

Do you see many people complaining about the price ? and from people complaining about the price, how many said they won't buy the game ?

 

I think it's pretty safe to boost their margins on DAI.

 

Though, i'm all against this kind of practices, especialy the PC price being the same as console, exept that console are not free; Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo take a substantial portion of the sale on each game sold on their consoles. On PC, no body take that kind of cut, that's why PC version were usualy 10 to 15 € cheaper, but now you see more and more the same price from consoles to PC.

[Eralrik]

My Physical copy of DA:I Deluxe from Gamestop is $69.99, $3.50 Shipping & Handling, $4.20 Tax total price $77.69 personally I don't find this a bad price, now Collectors Editions those have increased in price dramatically especially from Bioware, If you missed out on the CE for DA:I there's also a CE for the Strategy Guide for DA:I.

 

I remember when Wing Commander 2 came out I paid $80 for main game and another $50 for the Speech pack wasn't all in one lot's of 3 1/2 inch floppy's to juggle around, so If I would pay for that I have no problem with the pricing of games of today and besides Christmas Season is upon us and every game site has those Count Down to Christmas sales knocking anywhere from 25% to 90% off games great time to fill the game's library. 

[Pressedcat]

CDKeys have the game listed as £28 for the digital key if you're looking for a better deal (plus a further 5% off if you like them on Facebook).

DAI will be the first game I'll be buying for the PS4 and the prices on these new consoles are nearly approaching those on the SNES when I was young.

[grombie]

There are various sites that sell keys for much cheaper. I bought The Sims 4 limited edition from cdkeys for £25. Origin was selling it for £60 so I saved 35 quid.

[coldflame]

Am I the only one put off by the higher price for DAI?

 

Other newly released games cost £29.99 GBP including VAT, e.g. the new Civ game on Steam.

 

On one hand I'm amazed that new release prices have remained at £29.99 for so long despite inflation but £49.99 for the regular edition of DAI on Origin is a huge increase. If it were £35 or £40, I'd be more accepting. I consider myself a BW fan and I am reluctant about this. Are non-DA fans going to accept this?

 

I was also always used to paying ~£10 less than the console versions but Amazon have listed all platforms at the same price of ~£40. Have MS/Sony waived the licence fee or something?

 

You think that's expensive? Try 90 freaken Australian dollars.

[Grieving Natashina]

My father wanted Final Fantasy II for the SNES when it first came out.  For the newer generation, it's now known as Final Fantasy IV.  He paid $70 to get it on the first day in 1991, and I'm paying the same for the Deluxe Edition for DA:I now almost 25 years later.  I guess it doesn't bother me.  <shrug>

[Kantr]

Probably you could say you are getting it a bit cheaper as $70 in 1991 went a bit further than it does now

[Kantr]

Yeah.. and lets talk about the price of computers too. Ridiculous..

Not so much if you build your own one

[Fast Jimmy]

I'm talking 1980s/early 90s prices. You didn't always build the type of computers back then. Like Amigas and Apples. They were expensive. The PC 386 just came out. Build your own wasn't a big option then.

386 Mhz FO LYFE!

[Kantr]

I'm talking 1980s/early 90s prices. You didn't always build the type of computers back then. Like Amigas and Apples. They were expensive. The PC 386 just came out. Build your own wasn't a big option then.

oh right. Well I didnt have to worry about gaming back then

[Sylvius the Mad]

I'm talking 1980s/early 90s prices. You didn't always build the type of computers back then. Like Amigas and Apples. They were expensive. The PC 386 just came out. Build your own wasn't a big option then.

The common misconception about how expensive gaming computers was born then, as well. It truly did cost $2000 to buy a good computer then (roughly $3500 in 2014 dollars).

[Sylvius the Mad]

I don't disagree, but I simply don't understand why any company would want to steer consumers towards the form of their product with lower profit margins. A higher price will invariably drive some sales away... if one can make more by digital distribution, I would drive as many sales towards that method as possible.

You're assuming there's price elasticity in the demand.

[Fast Jimmy]

You're assuming there's price elasticity in the demand.

For any luxury good, there is price elasticity. Unless someone can make the argument that they need DA:I (or even the digital version of DA:I) to live, then there is going to be change in the number of consumers who buy it in some relation to the price it is set at.

[AlanC9]

For any luxury good, there is price elasticity. Unless someone can make the argument that they need DA:I (or even the digital version of DA:I) to live, then there is going to be change in the number of consumers who buy it in some relation to the price it is set at.

Sure, but enough price elasticity to matter? If enough players are willing to pay a premium for a digital copy -- to get the game ealier, I guess-- you'll make more money off of increased payments from them than you'll lose from people switching from digital to physical.

[Fast Jimmy]

Sure, but enough price elasticity to matter? If enough players are willing to pay a premium for a digital copy -- to get the game ealier, I guess-- you'll make more money off of increased payments from them than you'll lose from people switching from digital to physical.

It would be no stretch to assume DA:I PC sales will be close to the 1 million unit mark. When you're talking about numbers that large, there will be price sensitivity and adjustment - even a 1% change results in a swing of half of a million dollars gross revenue.

But that's all besides the point - why would Bioware charge more to the consumer for an end product that costs them less? Charging $80 (doing rough pound conversions here) for a digital copy when they don't have to pay retail overhead or manufacturing costs, but then charging $60 for a retail copy when they do means more people will likely buy the retail version who may have otherwise bought the digital one.

Sure, charging $80 for a digital copy gets them probably around $40 margin, but it may result in sale transference where the $60 retail only gets them a $10 margin. As opposed to making both $60, pushing more people to digital and maximizing the distribution model with the highest gains.

I get the argument "they can, so they will" from a free-market mindset, but not from a logical one. Unless politics between retailers comes into play, where there is the decision to promote retail sales because companies like GameStop want people to come in and also buy accessories or the extra DLC package or something.

[Melca36]

if this game only had 30 hours of content then it would NOT be worth it.

 

This game has nearly 200 hours worth of content. Its worth it.

[Sylvius the Mad]

But that's all besides the point - why would Bioware charge more to the consumer for an end product that costs them less?

Because people will pay it. That's all that ever matters. Prices are set at the level the market will bear.

Also, it's possible that there are relevant demographic differences between the two pools of consumers. People who like boxed copies might be less wealthy (this makes sense, actually, as poorer less educated people are less likely to have access to high speed Internet). And as long as the price difference isn't great enough to create a reselling market (in the way that tobacco taxes sometimes do), there's little risk that EA is leaving money on the table.

Also, maybe there are costs we don't see. Maybe digital purchasers tend to place a greater burden on support services. Much business software these days seems designed not to be better, but to reduce the number of times people will call support. There could be a similar motive here.

I get the argument "they can, so they will" from a free-market mindset, but not from a logical one. Unless politics between retailers comes into play, where there is the decision to promote retail sales because companies like GameStop want people to come in and also buy accessories or the extra DLC package or something.

Given EA's objective here, the free-market mindset is the logical one.

Another thing occurs to me. Brick & Mortar game stores are struggling. Given that some consumers do seem to insist on buying physical copies, EA needs stores to survive. Theg could well be trying to prop up the sector to avoid losing that segment of their playerbase.

[Pen-N-Paper]

why would Bioware charge more to the consumer for an end product that costs them less? Charging $80 (doing rough pound conversions here) for a digital copy when they don't have to pay retail overhead or manufacturing costs,

 

It's not broken down by channel when doing the break even.

[Pen-N-Paper]

Given EA's objective here, the free-market mindset is the logical one.
 

 

The fact that many in the shout box here (i.e. forums) are screaming "shut up and take my money" is a relevant anecdotal factor. I would imagine actual brand insistence to be empirically low as a result of poor brand equity but that has never stopped a company from making a marketing mistake before... 

[Fast Jimmy]

Because people will pay it. That's all that ever matters. Prices are set at the level the market will bear.

Also, it's possible that there are relevant demographic differences between the two pools of consumers. People who like boxed copies might be less wealthy (this makes sense, actually, as poorer less educated people are less likely to have access to high speed Internet). And as long as the price difference isn't great enough to create a reselling market (in the way that tobacco taxes sometimes do), there's little risk that EA is leaving money on the table.

Also, maybe there are costs we don't see. Maybe digital purchasers tend to place a greater burden on support services. Much business software these days seems designed not to be better, but to reduce the number of times people will call support. There could be a similar motive here.
Given EA's objective here, the free-market mindset is the logical one.

Another thing occurs to me. Brick & Mortar game stores are struggling. Given that some consumers do seem to insist on buying physical copies, EA needs stores to survive. Theg could well be trying to prop up the sector to avoid losing that segment of their playerbase.

This last part would be plausible if larger retailers like Best Buy, WalMart and Target weren't big players in the industry, but they are now. There is no need to prop up these retailers, as they freely admit they sell games at a small profit or even a loss to draw consumers into their stores to buy other items, especially in their high-margin electronics department.

And I highly doubt there are high costs associated with digital distribution, espeically when said distribution is done by EA's own Origin system. If there were higher costs for developers, you'd see more small, indie studios going the retail route instead of digital, but that's the exact opposite of what we see.

Honestly? I'd legitimately chalk this up to possibly being a math error. A marketing exec who set the MSRP for the games didn't realize they were dealing with pounds and put the same price on it that the North American copy sold for.

[Sylvius the Mad]

This last part would be plausible if larger retailers like Best Buy, WalMart and Target weren't big players in the industry, but they are now.

I hadn't thought of Walmart and Target.

My understanding is that Best Buy isn't doing well.

And when I bought physical games, I tended to buy them from Amazon, which also defeats my supposition.

Honestly? I'd legitimately chalk this up to possibly being a math error. A marketing exec who set the MSRP for the games didn't realize they were dealing with pounds and put the same price on it that the North American copy sold for.

If we're talking specifically about Britain (which makes me wonder about your reference to Walmart), that's entirely plausible. Dumb mistakes happen. NASA once crashed a spacecraft into Mars because someone had forgotten to convert thrust numbers from pounds to newtons.

[Aurok]

It's not a mistake. Origin is pretty consistently the most expensive place to buy new EA games in the UK. I suppose they're just relying on the fact that some will see it as the 'official' outlet and either not bother shopping around or wrongly (but reasonably) assume that buying direct from the publisher won't be more expensive than buying from a third party.

I'd much rather buy direct, but if they'd really rather have *some* of my ~£35 via a middle man than all of my ~£35 direct then I suppose that's their business. You can kinda see how EA spent so many years hemorrhaging money though.