130 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

I would have been happy to pay $60 for DA:O on release. I was shocked to find it at $40. But charging too little at release is not a justification for charging too much for subsequent, significantly smaller releases.

but nor is it evidence that $40 is too much for the expansion.

Prices are set at a level the market will bear.  As long as the product sells, there is no reason at all to say that the price isn't appropriate.

For an expansion, yes they are smaller, but their audience is also captive.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 04 février 2010 - 09:49 .

[MightySword]

flem1 wrote...
Otherwise, give me a break.  Btw, please name some non-Sims/MMO expansions >$20.

Forge Alliance (Supreme Commander expack). Kingdom (Meadiaval 2 expack). Dark Crusade (40K DOW expack), Soul Storm (40K DOW expack), Tale of Valor (Company of Heroes expack) ...etc... And I'm trying to pick tittles that's not published by EA.

I'm not arguing there is no $20 expack, I'm just saying that it's no longer the expected average entry price for the expack. I didn't buy Storm of Zehyr but from what I heard it's subtiancial shorter and less elaborated then the previous NWN2's expack. World Adventure is a peice of crap for the $40 price tag and only the most die hard fan would argue otherwise. But like I said it's not a problem with the price. You can buy a 10$ expack and if it's not worth the amount it's still a rip off. Plus I differentiate what I think a true expack, or an addon.

Plus, this is just me, but I don't buy into the argument of expack is subtancial less than a core game and the difference between a core game and a an expack plus those "50 hours" experience logic has more holes than a wall that's just gazed by a machine gun. I guage my games base on their entertainment value.

[Darkemorrow]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Darkemorrow wrote...
If Awakenings is even half as long as DA:O, it will be very much worth the extra $10, imho.

A fair point. The concern is that it might not be, and also that it makes no sense to charge the same higher price to both console users and PC users when it's significanly cheaper for them to distribute to the PC.

I wonder if the console surcharge even applies to expansions? It sounds like they may just be treating this as a really big DLC, which are also priced the same for consoles as they are for the PC.

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Prices are set at a level the market will bear.  As long as the product sells, there is no reason at all to say that the price isn't appropriate.

Indeed, price is set by the market. But again, "most gamers are pretty intelligent people but absolutely retarded consumers." The market may dictate what price works, but there is no reason I have to participate in the idiocy. The old addage comes to mind: if all your friends were jumping off a bridge, would you jump too? 

[Metallicka]

melkathi wrote...

Metallicka wrote...

flem1 wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Infinity Ward has very successfully charged $60 for a new PC game.

Huh, I'd thought that was $70 on console.  Apparently not.

Great, the idiots buying the crapified MW2 port have screwed the rest of us.

I normally wouldn't comment on this, but I'm sick and tired of all the PC Elitist crap, I own a PC capable of playing this game. I CHOOSE to play on a console, and I enjoy my experience. What I find most hilarious though, is all the PC Elitists that think they are somehow better than me talk about a $10 price hike as if it's gonna break the bank. What's wrong? Did you spend all your money on the PC?

Saying that a port from console to PC was badly done is now PC Elitist? There are a lot of games that play very well on console but that are not worked on enough when released on PC. A xbox controller needs a totaly different UI than mouse n keyboard. That has nothing to do with elitist attitude.
And being annoyed at those customers who will still pay the same price for a sub quality product do damage the rest of us. If a consol game is awesome and sells for $60 and the PC version is garbage and sells for $60, then the PC gamers should not buy it and demand the same quality as consols. That is what the_one_54321 said.
If youa re offended by that...

What I'm offended by is that most of the PC users I've seen on this forum seem to feel that because they play on PC they are somehow owed MORE than everyone else even though they paid LESS for the game, we know very little about this expansion other than price and I see PC users go on and on about a $10 price difference that as a console user I'm used to. I understand PC prices are usually lower, but the industry as a whole seems to be headed towards new price points. As someone else already pointed out MW2 was $60 across the board no matter which version you wanted. I'm also quite tired of being called stupid because I'm willing to pay the price that I'm quite used to paying to get my content. I want to play the content in question, because I want to play it, I have to pay what they are asking. If they were asking say $50 for it, I'd wait until the price goes down.
On a somewhat unrelated note, I have MW2 for my console and don't see anything wrong with it, why is it considered a "crappified" port?

[flem1]

Darkemorrow wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Darkemorrow wrote...
If Awakenings is even half as long as DA:O, it will be very much worth the extra $10, imho.

A fair point. The concern is that it might not be, and also that it makes no sense to charge the same higher price to both console users and PC users when it's significanly cheaper for them to distribute to the PC.

I wonder if the console surcharge even applies to expansions? It sounds like they may just be treating this as a really big DLC, which are also priced the same for consoles as they are for the PC.

Actually, the consoles are inflating DLC prices too.  Not sure about the specific charges, but I know there is a cost to having Microsoft/Sony approve a DLC for distribution on their nets.  Last I heard that's why we don't have any DLCs below $5.

[flem1]

Please ignore the ignorant troll's attempt to derail the thread.

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Prices are set at a level the market will bear.  As long as the product sells, there is no reason at all to say that the price isn't appropriate.

Indeed, price is set by the market. But again, "most gamers are pretty intelligent people but absolutely retarded consumers." The market may dictate what price works, but there is no reason I have to participate in the idiocy. The old addage comes to mind: if all your friends were jumping off a bridge, would you jump too? 

But the objective of the price point is to maximise revenue.  There is no justification for complaining about the price if it's acheiving that objective.

You could say "that's not a price I'll pay", but that's purely a personal preference that lacks any prescriptive force.  Any suggestion that the price (or, indeed, any price) is "a blatant ripoff", in the OP's words, is errant nonsense.

[the_one_54321]

Metallicka wrote...

I understand PC prices are usually lower

Well there you go.

Metallicka wrote...

but the industry as a whole seems to be headed towards new price points.

This is not an acceptable justification.



True, this is just entertainment, but if your electric company decided to switch to a flat rate based on what the highest users well willing to pay, would you be ok with that? This is not nearly as important as electricity, but the basic consumer principles apply.

Metallicka wrote...

As someone else already pointed out MW2 was $60 across the board no matter which version you wanted.

And that was BS, especially considering the way IW treated its PC customers.

Metallicka wrote...

I'm also quite tired of being called stupid because I'm willing to pay the price that I'm quite used to paying to get my content.

I don't mean to offend, but I calls em like I sees em. Familiarity is not a valid argument. It's foolish to do it because it feels familiar, instead of examining exactly how and what your money is being spent on.

Metallicka wrote...

If they were asking say $50 for it, I'd wait until the price goes down.

Precisely the same concept we are applying, with a different monetary value.

Metallicka wrote...

On a somewhat unrelated note, I have MW2 for my console and don't see anything wrong with it, why is it considered a "crappified" port?

The crapified port was to the PC. The PC users got screwed, not the console users.

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
You could say "that's not a price I'll pay", but that's purely a personal preference that lacks any prescriptive force.  Any suggestion that the price (or, indeed, any price) is "a blatant ripoff", in the OP's words, is errant nonsense.

Are you the buyer or the seller? You're approaching all that from the wrong side of the equation.

[melkathi]

Metallicka wrote...

On a somewhat unrelated note, I have MW2 for my console and don't see anything wrong with it, why is it considered a "crappified" port?

You got it the wrong way round I think. The way I understand it, MW2 is great on the console, but the way it was ported from console to PC was crap. So on console it is well worth it's $60 while on PC where there are things wrong with it, it isn't.
Just as some other games were well worth their money on the PC while not worth paying the same or more for on console.
As I understand, some console players are rightfully displeased at the fact that they paid the same and more for DAO as the PC players and us PC players also get the toolset and player created content. Shouldn't we PC players be paying more if we get more? Fair is fair, right?

[Darkemorrow]

flem1 wrote...

Darkemorrow wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Darkemorrow wrote...
If Awakenings is even half as long as DA:O, it will be very much worth the extra $10, imho.

A fair point. The concern is that it might not be, and also that it makes no sense to charge the same higher price to both console users and PC users when it's significanly cheaper for them to distribute to the PC.

I wonder if the console surcharge even applies to expansions? It sounds like they may just be treating this as a really big DLC, which are also priced the same for consoles as they are for the PC.

Actually, the consoles are inflating DLC prices too.  Not sure about the specific charges, but I know there is a cost to having Microsoft/Sony approve a DLC for distribution on their nets.  Last I heard that's why we don't have any DLCs below $5.

Wait are you saying that DLC costs more for the consoles than the PC ? If so, I wasn't aware of that.

Or are you saying that the PC price for DLC is being raised along with the console price due to distribution costs?

[flem1]

melkathi wrote...

As I understand, some console players are rightfully displeased at the fact that they paid the same and more for DAO as the PC players and us PC players also get the toolset and player created content. Shouldn't we PC players be paying more if we get more? Fair is fair, right?

Again, console hardware is subsidized by the game tax, so no.  We're paying the same overall.

Besides, in this case the expansion won't be of particular benefit to things toolset and mod related.  (In fact, the high cost may mean that mods won't be able to assume all game owners have it and its resources installed.)

Modifié par flem1, 04 février 2010 - 10:10 .

[the_one_54321]

melkathi wrote...

Metallicka wrote...
On a somewhat unrelated note, I have MW2 for my console and don't see anything wrong with it, why is it considered a "crappified" port?

You got it the wrong way round I think. The way I understand it, MW2 is great on the console, but the way it was ported from console to PC was crap. So on console it is well worth it's $60 while on PC where there are things wrong with it, it isn't.
Just as some other games were well worth their money on the PC while not worth paying the same or more for on console.
As I understand, some console players are rightfully displeased at the fact that they paid the same and more for DAO as the PC players and us PC players also get the toolset and player created content. Shouldn't we PC players be paying more if we get more? Fair is fair, right?

Technically, user created content is not quantifiable as "product rendered" by the devloper. The toolset, however, is.

[flem1]

Darkemorrow wrote...

Wait are you saying that DLC costs more for the consoles than the PC ? If so, I wasn't aware of that.

Or are you saying that the PC price for DLC is being raised along with the console price due to distribution costs?

Sorry, the latter.

[melkathi]

On a side note, my pre-order cost me $26.78

(well 16.99 pounds)

[miltos33]

It is overpriced for an expansion but what I don't understand is that in Europe the expansion on the pc can be bought for EUR 19 or GBP 17 which is about USD 27. As a European myself I can't complain about it but I wonder why there is such a discrepancy between the two sides of the Atlantic.

[melkathi]

miltos33 wrote...

It is overpriced for an expansion but what I don't understand is that in Europe the expansion on the pc can be bought for EUR 19 or GBP 17 which is about USD 27. As a European myself I can't complain about it but I wonder why there is such a discrepancy between the two sides of the Atlantic.

Want me to answer that in greek? 

[Metallicka]

I've seen the PC version for preorder at just about everyplace but Gamestop which is really geared more toward console games anyway for around $30, isn't that the price everyone in the PC camp seems to agree on as fair?

[Demx]

Pre-orders have a tendency of being cheaper than the regular retail price. It's one way of getting more people to buy the product. Microsoft did it with Windows 7.

[the_one_54321]

Metallicka wrote...
I've seen the PC version for preorder at just about everyplace but Gamestop which is really geared more toward console games anyway for around $30, isn't that the price everyone in the PC camp seems to agree on as fair?

Technically, I have no complaint as of yet. It depends on the content. I had heard it was going to be $40. But $30 is in an area that will likely be alright, one way or the other. Unless it really sucks for some reason.

[DraconisCombine]

Prices are usually set according to the market.If there are people willing to pay 40 bucks for an expansion then thats the going rate.It could be cheaper in Europe because sales arent quite as high over there as they are here in North America.The the old law of supply and demand kicks in.I mean cmon, people are paying hundreds if not thousands of dollars for sports ,and concert tickets.As far as entertainment value goes the gaming industry is cheap compared to other forms of entertainment.And its not restricted as many different types of people play dozens of different types of games online or offline.

As PC users go,we get a toolset and player generated content.Thats the kicker over console.Console games are good but how do you think they were created?They were created using powerful computer hardware and software.To someone who just plays games or surfs the net then a console is the way to go.But if you want to create and develop well then PC wins every time.

I wasnt going to get Dragon Age.That was until i actually saw the gameplay on my friends PC.I then saw him create his own armor set.Neverwinter nights on steroids!LOL!So i went out and bought it.Well worth every penny too.

[Demx]

GameStop is charging $39.99, while amazon is charging $36.99. I'm sure there are other places, that might even be cheaper than that.

[BeljoraDien]

I'm not one of those who obsesses over cost per hours of entertainment, 'cause that's fraught with inconsistent logic, but on the idea that the PC version should be cheaper, I agree completely.

It's strange they would make them the same price, since raising the price by $10 on console games seems like a good negotiating tool against Sony/Microsoft. They force the developer to pay $10, so the developer passes it on to the customer; this way Sony/Microsoft would be foolish to raise the registration price and lose business to the cheaper PC versions.

It's not really a 'tax' as the OP says, but it's a good term to use 'cause it's very similar to one.

The government taxes gas companies, and the companies know they can never convince the government to lighten the tax because no one is sympathetic to them, so they pass the tax onto customers, this way the populace will, hopefully, argue for less taxes. It's a good negotiating tool for the company, and a good way to keep prices down for the customer.

When it was first announced it was listed as $10 cheaper like you would expect, but has changed since then. I'm really hoping they change it back. I plan to preorder it if it does.

[the_one_54321]

BeljoraDien wrote...
cost per hours of entertainment, 'cause that's fraught with inconsistent logic

It's not just about hours. It's cost vs benefit analysis. Comparative pricing, and the like. The issue is making accurae comparisions, which the vast majority of gamers do not.