196 réponses à ce sujet

[actionhero112]

-snip-

 

You're right, the analogy isn't perfect, because a game isn't a similar product to a pc. They are not like goods.

 

Even then your analogy actually favors my side more than it does yours. I think it's because you don't understand what people are upset about to begin with. People bought the base game at normal price. They haven't bought the dlc. Now the GOTY edition has come out to offer discounts on the DLC, but only if they're bought together with the base game. People don't want to have to buy the base game over to get some kind of discount.

 

A perfect comparison is that on Steam, when they offer a bundle, I don't have to rebuy things I already own in the bundle to receive a discount. It's adaptable. 

 

I have my own problems with Valve, but they are miles ahead of EA when it comes to this kind of thing. 

[AlanC9]

I don't have the DLC. The new customer doesn't have the DLC. But BioWare thinks I should pay $55 for the DLC while a new customer is paying something less for the same product - though bundled with the original game I do not need to buy.

Of course, if Bio did make a DLC bundle for people who already own DAI, anyone who owns some but not all of the DLCs would be in the same place you're in now -- forced to buy some stuff they already own in order to take advantage of the bundle.

By pricing the entire bundle at $60, BioWare is clearly saying that the DLC is not worth $55 today. I would be a fool to pay this, and therefore buy nothing.

True, but you didn't think they were worth $55 in the first place. If you had, you'd have bought them already.

And of course, you're going to get a better deal than what's on offer now. It's not like the GOTY won't go on sale too.

[London]

You are correct that I never felt the DLC was worth $55 - I think it has always been overpriced for what it is. But that's another issue.

I think the solution to the other problem would be adaptable bundles, or just flat out discounts on all individual DLCs to align the prices more equally for all customers.

[Zatche]

I do like the idea of a DLC bundle. It would be a good deal for those who have not yet bought the DLC. I just can't buy into the idea that we are entitled to it on the grounds of equality.

[AlanC9]

@ London: Assuming that there actually is a problem to be solved. Why wouldn't EA be OK with a two-tier pricing system? Early adopters pay full price, and if you don't want to pay that then you shouldn't buy anything and should just wait for the sale. Anyone who's going to wait for the GOTY bundle is going to be like you and me, and isn't likely to be buying the DLCs at list anyway. The point of the system is to keep people who do buy the DLCs at list from deciding to wait a few months for some of them, and to rake in some bucks from people who weren't going to buy any DLC anyway. Training people to hold off on getting the less-important DLCs isn't useful for EA.

[OdanUrr]

I'm curious, how much would you be willing to pay for a DLC bundle if one was offered? To clarify, this bundle would only include Hakkon, Descent, Trespasser, and the Spoils packs.

[London]

Right now I wouldn't pay more than $30 for this. Soon $20 when the entire GOTY is likely to fall to $40 and eventually $20 for everything.

[GithCheater]

I wonder if ardent supporters of EA/Bioware "Airlines" feel negatively about "throw away ticketing" even though this practice is 100% legal?

 

http://www.businessi...icketing-2015-4

 

http://www.portlandt...away-ticketing/

[GithCheater]

The point of the system is to keep people who do buy the DLCs at list from deciding to wait a few months for some of them, and to rake in some bucks from people who weren't going to buy any DLC anyway. Training people to hold off on getting the less-important DLCs isn't useful for EA.

I was going to buy both "Spoils" DLC but I decided against it based on EA/Bioware's DLC price gouging policy.  How is this useful for EA?

[Zatche]

I wonder if ardent supporters of EA/Bioware "Airlines" feel negatively about "throw away ticketing" even though this practice is 100% legal?

http://www.businessi...icketing-2015-4

http://www.portlandt...away-ticketing/

As a side note, it's a bit presumptuous to call anyone defending Bioware on this specific issue an ardent supporter.

But do you want to elaborate on the relevance? I might see a parallel to Green Man Gaming and other such sites, which I have no problem with. But not with this issue.

[AlanC9]

I wonder if ardent supporters of EA/Bioware "Airlines" feel negatively about "throw away ticketing" even though this practice is 100% legal?

http://www.businessi...icketing-2015-4

http://www.portlandt...away-ticketing/

The only issue I can see would be if the flights to the throwaway destinations get overbooked with phantom tickets, and people who really want to go there can't. But the whole point of the scheme is that those are unpopular destinations.

[AlanC9]

I was going to buy both "Spoils" DLC but I decided against it based on EA/Bioware's DLC price gouging policy.  How is this useful for EA?

Cost of doing business. They'll make it up from people buying the bundle or buying at full price.

[GithCheater]

The only issue I can see would be if the flights to the throwaway destinations get overbooked with phantom tickets, and people who really want to go there can't. But the whole point of the scheme is that those are unpopular destinations.

The airlines sell the seats again to "standby" customers who really want to go there.

[GithCheater]

Cost of doing business. They'll make it up from people buying the bundle or buying at full price.

That is the problem. To many corporations aim for short term quarterly revenue (so the head honchos get their bonuses) at the expense of customer loyalty and long term profitability.

[GithCheater]

As a side note, it's a bit presumptuous to call anyone defending Bioware on this specific issue an ardent supporter.

But do you want to elaborate on the relevance? I might see a parallel to Green Man Gaming and other such sites, which I have no problem with. But not with this issue.

  Oh that is delicious.  It is great to see Green Man Gaming legally fighting back at corporate price fixing.

 

http://www.pcgamer.c...cher-3-key-row/

 

I wonder if Green Man Gaming can "help" with EA/Bioware's DLC price scamming like it did to CD Projekt, or like Skiplagged "helped" the airline industry with their price scamming.

[Zatche]

That is the problem. To many corporations aim for short term quarterly revenue (so the head honchos get their bonuses) at the expense of customer loyalty and long term profitability.

 

I agree with the sentiment as it pertains to both EA/Bioware and corporations overall. People in general tend to think in the short term, and EA/Bioware are run by people. But I add the caveat that whether or not keeping DLC prices higher is better for EA overall, we can only speculate. Projecting sales numbers isn't an exact science. And goodwill is damn near impossible to quantify.

 

Oh that is delicious.  It is great to see Green Man Gaming legally fighting back at corporate price fixing.

 

http://www.pcgamer.c...cher-3-key-row/

 

I wonder if Green Man Gaming can "help" with EA/Bioware's DLC price scamming like it did to CD Projekt, or like Skiplagged "helped" the airline industry with their price scamming.

 

Hey, if you can find a better deal on the DLC than Origin is offering, then more power to you. I think it would undercut my argument if I were to claim that EA can charge how it wants and then claim that it's unethical for consumers to look for other buying options.

[Thandal N'Lyman]

You're right, the analogy isn't perfect, because a game isn't a similar product to a pc. They are not like goods.

 

Even then your analogy actually favors my side more than it does yours. I think it's because you don't understand what people are upset about to begin with. People bought the base game at normal price. They haven't bought the dlc. Now the GOTY edition has come out to offer discounts on the DLC, but only if they're bought together with the base game. People don't want to have to buy the base game over to get some kind of discount.

 

A perfect comparison is that on Steam, when they offer a bundle, I don't have to rebuy things I already own in the bundle to receive a discount. It's adaptable. 

 

I have my own problems with Valve, but they are miles ahead of EA when it comes to this kind of thing. 

 

No, the fact that the product is not "physical" doesn't matter.  Both took resources to produce, and both provided "value for money" over the year+ that I had them before they went on sale. 

 

In fact, my analogy works perfectly for the situation as you describe it.  I paid [x] for my machine with 8GB of RAM.  Now someone can pay less-than-x and that includes 16GB of RAM.  You seem to be saying that the vendor should offer me a discount if I want to purchase the additional 8GB because I paid more originally than the person buying today.  I just don't but it.  (Pun intended.)  And that's what I tell anyone who feels "It's not fair".  Then don't buy it.

 

And the Steam comparison is totally irrelevant.  No one is arguing that EA can't  offer such a bundle/discount/deal. 

I'm simply refuting the argument that they must/should.

[London]

Edit: nevermind.

[Pallando]

No, the fact that the product is not "physical" doesn't matter.  Both took resources to produce, and both provided "value for money" over the year+ that I had them before they went on sale. 

 

In fact, my analogy works perfectly for the situation as you describe it.  I paid [x] for my machine with 8GB of RAM.  Now someone can pay less-than-x and that includes 16GB of RAM.  You seem to be saying that the vendor should offer me a discount if I want to purchase the additional 8GB because I paid more originally than the person buying today.  I just don't but it.  (Pun intended.)  And that's what I tell anyone who feels "It's not fair".  Then don't buy it.

 

And the Steam comparison is totally irrelevant.  No one is arguing that EA can't  offer such a bundle/discount/deal. 

I'm simply refuting the argument that they must/should.

 

 

Well, if you wanted to buy only RAM to increase the performance of your computer, I'd expect it to have a similar price to what some random guy would pay now for it in a new computer...

I usually build my own rigs, and buying the parts is always cheaper than buying the build even with a discount.

 

 

Also, you say that those who paid for the game in the past year have to wait for the DLCs to go on sale if they don't like the price, while new gamers have a discount on those DLCs. Except that they may have already waited for the DLC to go on sale, and they now have to wait longer than newcomers. 

With your analogy, if I bought a computer last year, but chose not to take a SSD, waiting for the prices to drop, if I see people buying computers with cheap SSDs now, I'd expect to be able to find a cheap SSD myself rather than wait several months (again). 

 

So if you consider the DLCs by themselves, gamers who own the game have to wait longer than newcomers for a drop in price. 

[London]

These analogies simply don't work for this situation because no product in their right mind would be priced like the DLC is presently priced and expect to sell.

Also absurd to me are those who think that the present pricing system is fine and a good business practice, and shouldn't change. Really someone has to just be wrapped up in arguing for the sake of arguing to conclude this.

[caradoc2000]

"People these days don't want Count Dracula, they want DisCount Dracula."

- anonymous 21st century salesperson to Bram Stoker

[actionhero112]

No, the fact that the product is not "physical" doesn't matter.  Both took resources to produce, and both provided "value for money" over the year+ that I had them before they went on sale. 

 

In fact, my analogy works perfectly for the situation as you describe it.  I paid [x] for my machine with 8GB of RAM.  Now someone can pay less-than-x and that includes 16GB of RAM.  You seem to be saying that the vendor should offer me a discount if I want to purchase the additional 8GB because I paid more originally than the person buying today.  I just don't but it.  (Pun intended.)  And that's what I tell anyone who feels "It's not fair".  Then don't buy it.

 

And the Steam comparison is totally irrelevant.  No one is arguing that EA can't  offer such a bundle/discount/deal. 

I'm simply refuting the argument that they must/should.

- There is no replacement good for Inquisition DLC. There is obviously replacement goods for computer parts.

- Virtual goods do not decay. There will not be a Dragon Age Inquisition coming out in a few months that's better and more polished.

 

I mean this is business 101. 

 

And no your analogy is full of holes. People aren't asking for a discount on things they've already bought. They're asking for a discount on things that other people are getting a discount for, that they haven't bought. A good analogy would be if you buy parts of a album online, but then decide you want the entire album later through the same service that you don't get the album discount on the later purchases. Oh wait, actually pretty much all services allow you to 'complete your album' with the album discount on a later purchase. 

 

It's a competing service, of course the steam comparison is relevant. In fact, Valve set in the industry standard in the first place. EA is breaking away from that standard for more money. 

[AlanC9]

The airlines sell the seats again to "standby" customers who really want to go there.

So where's the problem? Are you saying they should just crack down on the passengers who are booking the phantom tickets instead?

[AlanC9]

That is the problem. To many corporations aim for short term quarterly revenue (so the head honchos get their bonuses) at the expense of customer loyalty and long term profitability.

Well, that's the thing. I don't think this is actually going to hurt them.

[AlanC9]

These analogies simply don't work for this situation because no product in their right mind would be priced like the DLC is presently priced and expect to sell.

True, but adopting this pricing practice shows that they don't expect to sell many more individual DLCs in the first place.
 

Also absurd to me are those who think that the present pricing system is fine and a good business practice, and shouldn't change. Really someone has to just be wrapped up in arguing for the sake of arguing to conclude this.

By "good business practice" do you mean "enhances long-term revenues," or something else? Can't mean short-term, because a DLC sale would pump up short-term revenue quite nicely.