196 réponses à ce sujet

[DAOnut]

...

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.

...

 

 

Your analogy almost works, just needs a few changes:

You bought your PC with 8gb of ram, lets say that it cost $50 per 8gb, so you went with 8gb to save money but still be able to play,

Now its a year later, and you notice that now they are selling that ram for $25 for 8gb, so you can get your same machine but cheaper or with 16gb for $50.

So, you don't need 16gb (as you already bought 8gb last year), so you go to the vendor and expect to be able to buy just the extra 8gb for $25.  

Then the vendor says NO!   Because you bought ram from us last year we will not sell it to you for $25 (like anyone else), for you we will charge $50 for the extra 8gb.

[AlanC9]

That's silly. Mostly it points out that interchangeable goods and non-interchangeable goods can't be substituted for each other in metaphors.

[Zatche]

Your analogy almost works, just needs a few changes:

You bought your PC with 8gb of ram, lets say that it cost $50 per 8gb, so you went with 8gb to save money but still be able to play,

Now its a year later, and you notice that now they are selling that ram for $25 for 8gb, so you can get your same machine but cheaper or with 16gb for $50.

So, you don't need 16gb (as you already bought 8gb last year), so you go to the vendor and expect to be able to buy just the extra 8gb for $25.  

Then the vendor says NO!   Because you bought ram from us last year we will not sell it to you for $25 (like anyone else), for you we will charge $50 for the extra 8gb.

 

Except that just about anything is cheaper per unit if you buy more of it all at once. A more likely scenario is that you will see that a certain manufacturer sells 8GB for $75 and 16GB for $100. Do you then demand that the 8GB should be priced at $50 just because you already bought another 8GB a year ago?

[Thandal N'Lyman]

<snip>

So, you don't need 16gb (as you already bought 8gb last year), so you go to the vendor and expect to be able to buy just the extra 8gb for $25.  

Then the vendor says NO!   Because you bought ram from us last year we will not sell it to you for $25 (like anyone else), for you we will charge $50 for the extra 8gb.

 

No, the vendor says, "You are free to buy another, almost identical, machine only it has 8 more GB of RAM, for less than you paid for the one you already bought.  We don't the sell the RAM to others (but not you) cheaper today.  We now sell a bundled product that includes more RAM for less than what we sold you a year ago." 

 

Which is fine by me.  It's OTHER people who say I should be able to get a discount on buying just the additional 8GB of RAM.

[London]

the analogy still doesn't work with any of these changes.

[Thandal N'Lyman]

the analogy still doesn't work with any of these changes.

 

What doesn't work?  I bought a product a year ago.  There was more/better stuff for it that I bought afterwards.

Now someone can buy the same product, already including the more/better stuff, for less than my total spend.

The couple of the more/better items that I hadn't already purchased don't seem to be available, at a discount, by themselves.

I am free to buy the whole thing again, which would include all the extras, (but why would I?)

[London]

Because you can't compare the utility of a computer you can still use - fairly equivalently - to a video game missing DLC. It's not the same.

The closest I could come trying to fit the square peg in a round hole is this:

Only one company makes computers, and has a monopoly on their price.
I have an 8GB computer that I paid $70 for.
The new 16 GB computer is $60.

New programs have come out that only run on 16GB computers. I would like to use them but they aren't entirely necessary.
Company offers to sell me 8GB for $55 or I can buy the 16GB computer for $60. (Yes this pricing is asinine but this is what we are dealing with here).
Company does not trade in / refund my 8Gb computer - nor can it be sold.

Even this still doesn't entirely work since the products (a computer v a video game license) aren't comparable.

[Thandal N'Lyman]

For the purposes we're discussing I certainly can compare a computer (or some other extensible item with components that can be added at later date) to a game and its DLC.

 

We've already stipulated that there's only one vendor, and that no one is talking about selling the already purchased item.  (Why do you even raise those points?   They obviously don't apply to the DLC.)  And no, a physical item is not the same as a software license.  But it's an a-n-a-l-o-g-y.  The two are congruent enough on the relevant points to allow for a meaningful discussion of the issue under consideration.

 

Which is:  Does EA "owe" a discount on the DLC to people who purchased the game before the current GOTY (or any other bundled game+DLC discounted) edition became available? 

 

Some (you) think yes.

Some (me) think no.

 

But I'm asking why this is somehow different (ethically, not physically) from expecting some other vendor to give a discount on some add-on because they now offer the same product with  the add-on at a lower price than before.  The only reasons offered seem to be: "Because I don't want to pay the current price." and, "Because it would be nice."  While both may be true, neither supports the notion that EA is obligated to do so.

[DAOnut]

 

 

Which is:  Does EA "owe" a discount on the DLC to people who purchased the game before the current GOTY (or any other bundled game+DLC discounted) edition became available? 

 

Some (you) think yes.

Some (me) think no.

 

..

 

 

But you do feel that EA owes us a discount!!  You have purchased and supported EA and their policies by buying their games, for example you did buy DAI from EA.  Well, EA does offer discounts on DLCs for many of their other games.  Discounted bundled DLC is a EA policy.  I know, as I have some of them and have waited for these dlc bundles after preordering the base game. So why does EA treat the DAI people worse than say the BattleField people?  or the BFME people? or the WC people? All of them EA games, all of them offered some sort of gold version with a discounted bundled dlc as well.  So why no love for Dragon Age???

[Zatche]

But you do feel that EA owes us a discount!!

I don't. I think it would be good idea to provide it. And I'm sure they will eventually. But no, I don't think they "owe" it.

[London]

I never said I am owed anything. I just think it would be a better practice.

Don't put words in my mouth.

Also there have been more arguments than those you listed - but whatever.

[AlanC9]

"Better" meaning what, exactly?

[GithCheater]

No, the vendor says, "You are free to buy another, almost identical, machine only it has 8 more GB of RAM, for less than you paid for the one you already bought.  We don't the sell the RAM to others (but not you) cheaper today.  We now sell a bundled product that includes more RAM for less than what we sold you a year ago." 

 

Which is fine by me.  It's OTHER people who say I should be able to get a discount on buying just the additional 8GB of RAM.

 

"We don't the sell the RAM to others (but not you) cheaper today."  Huh??  

 

The difference is that the computer vendor does not have a monopoly on the sale of RAM.  The lower price on RAM will be available at another vendor, whereas EA/Bioware can charge radically different prices to different customers for the DLC, because EA/Bioware has complete control of the availability of the DLC.

[GithCheater]

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

 

Of course not.  I just find it ironic that someone would be pro-consumer for the airline industry, but anti-consumer for the videogame industry.

[London]

Better as in not asking some customers to pay $55 for DLC that is clearly no longer valued at $55. It doesn't take much insight to see that the present model can be viewed as exploitative, or just simply overpriced.

The fact that some of the DLC had already gone on sale before the GOTY is telling but not surprising given mixed reviews.

[Imryll]

Had they announced a bundle, I probably would have bought it. Instead, I bought Trespasser individually for less than I would have paid for the bundle. Since I don't feel a compelling interest in the other DLCs, I see it as EA's loss, my gain.

[AlanC9]

Of course not. I just find it ironic that someone would be pro-consumer for the airline industry, but anti-consumer for the videogame industry.

Ironic? I think that both consumers and producers should engage in whatever transactions work for them. Is that pro-consumer? Is it anti-consumer? I wasn't aiming at either.

[GithCheater]

Had they announced a bundle, I probably would have bought it. Instead, I bought Trespasser individually for less than I would have paid for the bundle. Since I don't feel a compelling interest in the other DLCs, I see it as EA's loss, my gain.

I bought Trespasser on Amazon and found out later that I saved  money by not buying it directly from Origin.  

 

My wife later told me that Discover credit card is giving 5% cash back for any purchases from Amazon through the end of the year (but only if you sign up for this deal on the Discover website).

 

I also will purchasing less from EA as I will not be buying the "Spoils" item packs

[GithCheater]

Ironic? I think that both consumers and producers should engage in whatever transactions work for them. Is that pro-consumer? Is it anti-consumer? I wasn't aiming at either.

However, the airline industry is suing to end hidden city ticketing because this currently legal practice is "unfair competiton".  I wish EA had legal "unfair competition".

 

https://www.techdirt...r-flights.shtml

[AlanC9]

Better as in not asking some customers to pay $55 for DLC that is clearly no longer valued at $55. It doesn't take much insight to see that the present model can be viewed as exploitative, or just simply overpriced.

Sure, it's overpriced, just as ME2 and ME3 DLCs are overpriced. EA's decided to trade sales they could make at the current market price for future full-price sales of other DLCs.

[o Ventus]

How is not wanting to get ripped off a "first world problem"? Seems like a fair concern to me.

 

You're not getting "ripped off". I can't think of a single game that lets you purchase DLC in a bundle outside of special sales or deals.

 

There's no reason to sell the DLC at a lower price for people who already own the game, because they-

 

A. already own the game, and thus have likely played it.

 

and

 

B. have had access to the DLC longer than people who waited for a GOTY edition of the game to release.

[o Ventus]

The fact that some of the DLC had already gone on sale before the GOTY is telling but not surprising given mixed reviews.

 

This isn't exactly an alien practice. Of every game I can think of with a corresponding GOTY edition release, only Borderlands: The Handsome Collection launched without all of the DLC being released prior, and even that had only 1 DLC package release afterwards (which was included in a free update for people who own the Handsome Collection).

[Pallando]

For the purposes we're discussing I certainly can compare a computer (or some other extensible item with components that can be added at later date) to a game and its DLC.

 

We've already stipulated that there's only one vendor, and that no one is talking about selling the already purchased item.  (Why do you even raise those points?   They obviously don't apply to the DLC.)  And no, a physical item is not the same as a software license.  But it's an a-n-a-l-o-g-y.  The two are congruent enough on the relevant points to allow for a meaningful discussion of the issue under consideration.

 

Which is:  Does EA "owe" a discount on the DLC to people who purchased the game before the current GOTY (or any other bundled game+DLC discounted) edition became available? 

 

Some (you) think yes.

Some (me) think no.

 

But I'm asking why this is somehow different (ethically, not physically) from expecting some other vendor to give a discount on some add-on because they now offer the same product with  the add-on at a lower price than before.  The only reasons offered seem to be: "Because I don't want to pay the current price." and, "Because it would be nice."  While both may be true, neither supports the notion that EA is obligated to do so.

 

Again, when it comes to the RAM analogy, if you buy a computer cheaper, you expect to find the parts cheaper. So the analogy doesn't hold much, unless you had a lot of conditions, like monopoly. I'm pretty sure that selling a computer for a given price, but selling an upgrade-able part for an inflated price when you can't find that elsewhere is kind of an abuse. 

 

Anyway, no one can force a company to do anything. That's the thing with "liberalism": everyone hates on the State, but Big Corporations are free to do as they want, and are far too large for any individual to compete with. They're even considered as a "moral person"... Off-topic, sorry.

 

The point is that when it comes to virtual goods, especially a game and its DLCs, there's no real reason to do a discount on a bundle and not the parts. It's not like you have a stock you need to get rid off. Or it's not like people would buy the DLCs without the game. The only reason to do that is if it is overpriced and would not sell otherwise. 

 

Also, why does the fact that people bought the game several months ago matter for the price of the DLC?

When you only consider the DLC, those who bought only the game waited as long as those who just buy the GOTY now. Except, they now have to wait longer if they want "decently priced" DLCs. 

 

Here, that's why those who bought the game and waited feel let down. "You already bought the game? NO SOUP FOR YOU!"

Well, thanks EA. 

 

 

 

B. have had access to the DLC longer than people who waited for a GOTY edition of the game to release.

 

What?

 

That's the point. Those who waited for the GOTY get a discount on the DLCs (and the game), but those who bought the game don't get any discount on the DLCs, they have to wait more if they feel the DLCs are too expensive for them. And if nothing, waiting for the DLCs price to drop is more telling when you already bought the game...

 

[Thandal N'Lyman]

@Pallando;  You seem to insist on stretching the analogy in ways that have no relevance.  The question is:  Does a vendor "owe" a discount on the price of additional elements that improve/extend an item's value to the people who purchased the item before there was any sort of bundled "base item + addons" discount?

 

Some (you) say yes.

Some (me) say no.

 

Very occasionally someone makes the (correct) observation; "They don't have to, but it would be nice."

But insisting that previous purchasers somehow deserve such a discount just sounds childish.

[Pallando]

@Pallando;  You seem to insist on stretching the analogy in ways that have no relevance.  The question is:  Does a vendor "owe" a discount on the price of additional elements that improve/extend an item's value to the people who purchased the item before there was any sort of bundled "base item + addons" discount?

 

Some (you) say yes.

Some (me) say no.

 

Very occasionally someone makes the (correct) observation; "They don't have to, but it would be nice."

But insisting that previous purchasers somehow deserve such a discount just sounds childish.

 

You must have read very quickly through what I wrote. I'm not insisting that people deserve something.

As I said, no one can force a company. They don't "owe" us anything. 

 

Also, you ignored my previous answer to your analogy, which pointed out that it doesn't fit the current scenario. In this case, EA has a monopoly. That's why companies like EA love DLCs.

 

Finally, it's not because they don't have to that it's not the good thing to do. That's their product, they can do as they want with it. They can stop selling this game and no one can say that they owe us anything. Or they can sell it for 500 000 €, we don't have a say in this decision. 

That does not mean that we can't criticize how it's priced.

 

So now that we're clear on that, please let us ask for a decently priced bundle. EA will most probably ignore our request, as they're free to do.

 

 

I don't see why people oppose those who are just asking for something. It's not like anyone will do anything if this request is ignored. 

 

 

Edit: 

 

Also, once again, the discount on the bundle "game+dlc" is completely arbitrary. They don't have any stock to get rid of. And they don't sell DLCs without selling the game first.

 

So my question is:

why do you do a discount on a "base item+addon" bundle and not on the parts?