97 réponses à ce sujet

[UKStory135]

My point here is that the actual price of games has been stagnant since the SNES had come out. We are paying the same absolute price or less, not the adjusted real market price for a long time. The $60 a game model has been unsustainable for a long time. I'd rather pay $100 for a game and have everything, but the market disagrees. So on disc dlc, and micro transactions make up the difference. The used game market makes it worse, by letting players buy games without benefit to the women and men that made them. Everything we hate about gaming is due to games being too cheap. I remember a couple of years ago when my mom gave me crap about choosing a Xbox 360 as my secret Santa and having to show her how inexpensive gaming actually is.

[Geth Supremacy]

My point here is that the actual price of games has been stagnant since the SNES had come out. We are paying the same absolute price or less, not the adjusted real market price for a long time. The $60 a game model has been unsustainable for a long time. I'd rather pay $100 for a game and have everything, but the market disagrees. So on disc dlc, and micro transactions make up the difference. The used game market makes it worse, by letting players buy games without benefit to the women and men that made them. Everything we hate about gaming is due to games being too cheap. I remember a couple of years ago when my mom gave me crap about choosing a Xbox 360 as my secret Santa and having to show her how inexpensive gaming actually is.

 

Oh yeah....the gaming industry is CRIPPLED!  It's so fail that no one can even stay in business let alone make good money.  Gaming is like the worst industry to be in these days.  Gaming will be dead in a few years because of no profits.  EA surely should charge more.  They are losing money each quarter.

 

You seriously hurt my brain.

 

I mean yeah I get your point, but look at the whole picture for a minute and look at your post.

[UKStory135]

Oh yeah....the gaming industry is CRIPPLED! It's so fail that no one can even stay in business let alone make good money. Gaming is like the worst industry to be in these days. Gaming will be dead in a few years because of no profits. EA surely should charge more. They are losing money each quarter.

You seriously hurt my brain.

I mean yeah I get your point, but look at the whole picture for a minute and look at your post.

It is a legitimate problem. The selling of games on their own is barely profitable, so companies find other revenue streams. I'd rather pay full price for a full game, but FTP and low price games are unsustainable.

[UKStory135]

If you understand UKStory135's point, surely you see why the first two lines of your post seem totally out of place? Nothing of that sort was said.

They are trying to express the thought that, to continue your example, EA is not losing money due to the $60 price tag on AAA releases because of what follows those games - DLC and microtransactions. Should the industry choose to move past the current "$60 era", the presence of in-game purchases and the like would not be as necessary.

Whether (s)he is correct is a different matter.

I'm a he, and you read my point exactly.

[Cyonan]

My point here is that the actual price of games has been stagnant since the SNES had come out. We are paying the same absolute price or less, not the adjusted real market price for a long time. The $60 a game model has been unsustainable for a long time. I'd rather pay $100 for a game and have everything, but the market disagrees. So on disc dlc, and micro transactions make up the difference. The used game market makes it worse, by letting players buy games without benefit to the women and men that made them. Everything we hate about gaming is due to games being too cheap. I remember a couple of years ago when my mom gave me crap about choosing a Xbox 360 as my secret Santa and having to show her how inexpensive gaming actually is.

 

I would agree that I would rather take the price increase finally but go back to getting full complete games with no paid extra crap in them, although I'm more inclined to believe they'll increase the price and just leave that stuff in now that gamers have shown they're willing to put up with it.

 

I imagine the market is against it because dropping $100 all at once on a game is a pretty big investment for a lot of people. Even with plenty of disposable income, I don't buy too many games at the full $60 price tag at the moment. That and studies show that people spend more money over time in a micro-transaction system because they don't view spending $7 on 10 different occasions as being as bad as dropping $60 all at once even though the $60 got you a full game and the $7 purchases got you a bunch of skins and cost more in total.

 

Plus thanks to Steam sales, buying games on PC is cheaper than ever right now. A part of that is of course because used games have effectively been eliminated on PC.

[UKStory135]

I would agree that I would rather take the price increase finally but go back to getting full complete games with no paid extra crap in them, although I'm more inclined to believe they'll increase the price and just leave that stuff in now that gamers have shown they're willing to put up with it.

I imagine the market is against it because dropping $100 all at once on a game is a pretty big investment for a lot of people. Even with plenty of disposable income, I don't buy too many games at the full $60 price tag at the moment. That and studies show that people spend more money over time in a micro-transaction system because they don't view spending $7 on 10 different occasions as being as bad as dropping $60 all at once even though the $60 got you a full game and the $7 purchases got you a bunch of skins and cost more in total.

Plus thanks to Steam sales, buying games on PC is cheaper than ever right now. A part of that is of course because used games have effectively been eliminated on PC.

As usual Cyonan proves to be the smartest member of BSN. You blow my mind my (please be

[UKStory135]

I would agree that I would rather take the price increase finally but go back to getting full complete games with no paid extra crap in them, although I'm more inclined to believe they'll increase the price and just leave that stuff in now that gamers have shown they're willing to put up with it.

I imagine the market is against it because dropping $100 all at once on a game is a pretty big investment for a lot of people. Even with plenty of disposable income, I don't buy too many games at the full $60 price tag at the moment. That and studies show that people spend more money over time in a micro-transaction system because they don't view spending $7 on 10 different occasions as being as bad as dropping $60 all at once even though the $60 got you a full game and the $7 purchases got you a bunch of skins and cost more in total.

Plus thanks to Steam sales, buying games on PC is cheaper than ever right now. A part of that is of course because used games have effectively been eliminated on PC.

I like the Micro transactions in ME3, I just wish I could get more Shotgun Rail Amp IIIs

[Sylvius the Mad]

My point here is that the actual price of games has been stagnant since the SNES had come out. We are paying the same absolute price or less, not the adjusted real market price for a long time.

30 years ago, I was excited to pay nearly $200 (in 2015 dollars) for a new game.

 

Prices have been falling steadily for decades.

[UKStory135]

30 years ago, I was excited to pay nearly $200 (in 2015 dollars) for a new game.

Prices have been falling steadily for decades.

Exactly. We are paying the same price for full game now that we did for NES games. Not adjusting for inflation.

[coldflame]

"Used games" and "greed" are two totally different things.

 

No it isn't, used games -> greed of game retailers like gamestop.

[dreamgazer]

[Kingthlayer]

The game shouldn't come out on the 360 or the PS3 then if the DLC is simply too big for the old systems to handle. 

 

The old systems could handle the game itself, but the game had to be cut down from content that was in the trailers and was working because the content was too much for the old systems, things like the siege of Crestwood.

 

It's unfortunate, but it's the truth. 

 

Oh I agree completely, Inquisition should have never been released on the latest gen, it was a stupid and poorly thought out move by BioWare.

 

But the fact is, it did, and now those people that bought the game, and knowing BioWare, were expecting 2 or more DLC story content are now getting screwed out of it.  Sure they can import old saves if they meet whatever criteria they have set for it, same family of systems, whatever the hell that means.  But what they should be getting is a free copy of the game on their system of choice, either PS4, Xbox One or PC.  But they're getting none of that, now if they want to continue their game, they need to go buy a new system(if not already owned) and a new copy of the game.  And probably Jaws of Hakkon again as well, but I'm not sure on that.

[AlanC9]

I imagine the market is against it because dropping $100 all at once on a game is a pretty big investment for a lot of people. Even with plenty of disposable income, I don't buy too many games at the full $60 price tag at the moment. That and studies show that people spend more money over time in a micro-transaction system because they don't view spending $7 on 10 different occasions as being as bad as dropping $60 all at once even though the $60 got you a full game and the $7 purchases got you a bunch of skins and cost more in total.

Well, $100 is a bit on the high side. That would have been over $72 in 2000 dollars, and I don't recall games going for that price back then -- on PC, that is. If our target is $60 in 2015 dollars, that would have been about $43.50 in 2000. Still a bit high, but most of the tine you could buy discounted.

[Sanunes]

Well, $100 is a bit on the high side. That would have been over $72 in 2000 dollars, and I don't recall games going for that price back then -- on PC, that is. If our target is $60 in 2015 dollars, that would have been about $43.50 in 2000. Still a bit high, but most of the tine you could buy discounted.

 

I remember before the original Xbox game prices could vary, I remember when Final Fantasy 3 (US) was released it was $80 and that was back in 1994 and if the inflation calculator I was using is correct it would be about $130 today.

[N7Jamaican]

Can't buy a game used if nobody buys it new...

[UKStory135]

A simple Mario Bros. game from 1992 would cost $102 now.

[Kukuru]

My point here is that the actual price of games has been stagnant since the SNES had come out. We are paying the same absolute price or less, not the adjusted real market price for a long time. The $60 a game model has been unsustainable for a long time. I'd rather pay $100 for a game and have everything, but the market disagrees. So on disc dlc, and micro transactions make up the difference. The used game market makes it worse, by letting players buy games without benefit to the women and men that made them. Everything we hate about gaming is due to games being too cheap. I remember a couple of years ago when my mom gave me crap about choosing a Xbox 360 as my secret Santa and having to show her how inexpensive gaming actually is.

 

The market has changed as well. On Snes times people bought a game once or twice by year, nowadays is usually 1-3 games by month. The price is the same, the quantity isn't. They make more profit today than back then.

 

Just wanted to point that out, i agree with everything you said.

[N7Jamaican]

This is why I keep all my games now, new and used, and why I am keeping old consoles.  I wish I've kept my Sega Genesis, N64, PS1, Xbox and Xbox 360.. Not trading in my XB1 and all the games I have for it...

 

Not for the value they will be in the future, but because some games become classics (like Pokemon Stadium for N64, and I've been dying to play that game) but my local game store wants $120 for an N64 and $75 for Pokemon stadium.. UH NO!

[AlanC9]

I remember before the original Xbox game prices could vary, I remember when Final Fantasy 3 (US) was released it was $80 and that was back in 1994 and if the inflation calculator I was using is correct it would be about $130 today.

I never played the FF games myself; in that era I used a Mac, and they were never ported. Prices for new releases were more variable back then; I get the impression that console players may have been overcharged relative to PC gamers too. (I mean, worse than they are today.)

[Geth Supremacy]

Can't buy a game used if nobody buys it new...

 

2 is more than 1...

 

1,000,000 is more than 500,000...

[Sanunes]

I never played the FF games myself; in that era I used a Mac, and they were never ported. Prices for new releases were more variable back then; I get the impression that console players may have been overcharged relative to PC gamers too. (I mean, worse than they are today.)

 

Yeah, there was a bigger gap between console and PC game prices at the time, but there was also a much higher cost difference between the cost of the machines as well.  In my house the only PC we had was the one my dad had for work and under no circumstances were games allowed on it so I had a SNES for gaming.  Of course my cellphone now is more powerful then those PCs and was less then 20% of the price.

[Han Shot First]

Used games sell for five bucks less than a full game.  Doesn't seem logical to buy a used game.

 

This.

 

You don't really save anything if you buy used at any point near a game's release date. Even several months out from that release date it isn't uncommon to see used copies of games still going for $50.00 if that game is popular.

 

Buying used is only worthwhile if the game has been out for so long you that save a lot of money.

[Valkyrja]

Oh I agree completely, Inquisition should have never been released on the latest gen, it was a stupid and poorly thought out move by BioWare.

 

That's arguable. Being cross-gen makes sense given the original announced Fall 2013 release date and even with the year delay publishers may not have been expecting the active consumer base to move to next-gen so quickly and cutting out two platforms with large install bases is a risk.

[Sanunes]

That's arguable. Being cross-gen makes sense given the original announced Fall 2013 release date and even with the year delay publishers may not have been expecting the active consumer base to move to next-gen so quickly and cutting out two platforms with large install bases is a risk.

 

That is how I always looked at it, if they were going for a Holiday 2014 release I think the chances of a cross generation release would have been very low, but they had designed the game from the ground up to be multi-generational so it didn't make sense when the game was finally announced to scrap the work they did to get it to run on the older consoles.