130 réponses à ce sujet

[Wishpig]

LISTEN THIS PROBLEM IS SO SIMPLE.

A. X-Packs typically range (I would guess 95% of the time) from $20 - $30 dollars. Those few that don't are often stand-alone X-packs.

B. PC games cost less then consoles because making games for consoles costs signifigantly low. Console games have strengths as do PC games, this is one of the PC's. There is nothing elitest about it, it's fact.

C. The "expansion" costs only $10 less then the 60-80 hour game. It's a big challenge to make that fair.

Them the facts. Whether your offended by this or not is up to you, but another fact is we don't know if the game can justify this above the above average price for x-packs.

My beef is where does it stop? Yeah it's not allot in the big picture, but it adds up fast. If awakaning sells well you can sure as hell bet EA's future expansions will cost the same. And it's also principle, it's buisness so you can't always expect fair play, but there is a limit to what you should be able to get away with.

Siradix wrote...

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.

Amazon charges that to make it seem like their giving you a deal, but in reality it's the same price cause your paying for shipping.

[bzombo]

the_one_54321 wrote...

$30 is what I have understood. Up to now. It will depend on length and depth of the content. Game prices were bound to go up eventually. Increased prices don't really bother or surprise me. It's the digital business model that really has me in shock and awe (in a negative way) over the developers/publishers and the random masses that eat up whatever is produced at any cost.

i paid $40 for throne of bhaal.

[Spitz6860]

my assumption is EA has something to do with this. many of their big investments sucked in the past 2 years, Spore, Mercenaries 2 and BF:Heroes would be the prime examples, now they are finally turning things around with DA:O, ME2 and maybe BF: Bad Company 2, of course they are gonna try to make as much money as possible when they can. so exclusive content and promotions for each retailers, tons of crappy DLCs and rapidly cranking out expansion packs would be their way to do it.

Modifié par Spitz6860, 04 février 2010 - 11:43 .

[MightySword]

Dragon Age is longer than most other games by today's standard, and I don't remember anyone around here expressing the desire to send EA/Bioware an extra check for their effort. Neither the cost analysis makes any sense in this environment. There are games that will cost ton of money to make that debut at $60, there will also games that take much less to make that will debut at the same price. Those games don't debut at $30 for the same reason the other games won't debut at $100. That's why the whole things behind the game length. quantity ratio between core game and expack never make sense to me,

If you're going to buy an expack at $40, the only question that's matter is will the contents it gives you worth the price. And that's entirely subjected to the "entertainment value" you get out from it. If you paid $40 and really enjoy it, than it's a $40 well spent. Or will you hold onto the fact that $40 is a rip off for an expack regardless of what value it has? By that logic spending $40 on a "core" game is a better idea even if that core game is inferior to an expack? I don't care if it's something the developer was able to put together overnight, if it's something fantastic than I will pay them the money they ask. Neither I care that if it's something they spend every walking moment of their life in their past two years to put together. If it's something crappy, I would still feel rip off even if I had to pay a penny for it. Like I said it seems some people is gauging their entertainment value base on the afford the other party put in, I'm more interested and put my money on what actually coming out at the end.

Modifié par MightySword, 05 février 2010 - 12:37 .

[jbmoberg]

Out of curiosity is there a giant book somewhere that has a giant list of this product MUST cost this much? or that product NEEDS to be this long to cost that much? Just wondering...

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Technically, I have no complaint as of yet.

Why would you ever have a complaint?

If I'm selling sandwiches, and you're kind of hungry, you might buy a sandwich from me.  But if I'm charging $40 for a sandwich, you're probably not going to buy it.  Are you going complain about my price point just because you're not willing to pay it?  If so, on what grounds?  What have I done wrong, here?

[BroBear Berbil]

I've been wondering why PC users are going to have to pay the same price as the console version myself. I hope it's not indicative of some new precedent for PC games in general.

[Sylvius the Mad]

OnionXI wrote...

I've been wondering why PC users are going to have to pay the same price as the console version myself. I hope it's not indicative of some new precedent for PC games in general.

PC game prices have been falling steadily for 25 years.  That will need to stop at some point if the industry it going to remain viable.

Keep in mind we're measuring these prices in US dollars, and the US dollar itself doesn't have a fixed value.  As its value falls, the price of everything demarcated in it goes up.

[BroBear Berbil]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Keep in mind we're measuring these prices in US dollars, and the US dollar itself doesn't have a fixed value.  As its value falls, the price of everything demarcated in it goes up.

But it doesn't address why the PC version is going to cost the same as the console version where normally there is a $10 gap between the two. I also haven't noticed this steady decline in price that you're talking about. New release PC games are generally $50.

Modifié par OnionXI, 05 février 2010 - 01:01 .

[mark holford]

I look at this issue in a whole different light.

DA:O is the best CRPG I've ever played. Period.

At $55 it was also very reasonably priced. (I've been playing CRPG's since Ultima II.... paid a lot more for some duds)

At this point, if the expansion has the same *quality* as the original, even if it was only 20-30 hrs to finish, I will happily fork over whatever price it is going for.

I don't have time to waste playing subpar games. If they make sure Awakenings has the same production values as Origins, It will be a bargain at $40 - compared to any other CRPG available.

My $0.02 YMMV

[2late2die]

If you're going to buy an expack at $40, the only question that's matter is will the contents it gives you worth the price. And that's entirely subjected to the "entertainment value" you get out from it.

I think the general assumption, and I think it's a fair one, is that the quality of the xpack will be roughly equivalent to the quality of the game, therefore the "entertainment value" comes down to "hours of gameplay" as it were. Since the core game is at least 60 or so hours of gameplay, I would expect at least 40 hours of gameplay from the expansion. However, not only is it not typical of expansions, it is also somewhat unreasonable to expect, even from BioWare. Therefore just based on that my thinking (and I realize I'm making a lot of assumptions) is that it's overpriced.

Then add to that the price of DLC so far - both warden's keep and return to ostagar are about an hour long, maybe maybe if you really stretch it, 2 hours. Yet we paid $12 for both together, that's at best $3 per hour, and really it's more like $6. I have no reason to believe that EA, seeing that people were willing to pay that, will not want to take advantage of that. Which means they will not price the expansion closer to its worth based on the price of the original.

Optimistically I hope the expansion will be 15-20 hours long. Realistically I expect it to be less than 10 hours long. So, you're looking at a <10 hour expansion that costs $40 to a game with 60+ hours of gameplay that was sold for $60 - there's no way it's good value.

[MackxxDaddy]

The fiends!

[Wishpig]

MightySword wrote...

Dragon Age is longer than most other games by today's standard, and I don't remember anyone around here expressing the desire to send EA/Bioware an extra check for their effort. Neither the cost analysis makes any sense in this environment. There are games that will cost ton of money to make that debut at $60, there will also games that take much less to make that will debut at the same price. Those games don't debut at $30 for the same reason the other games won't debut at $100. That's why the whole things behind the game length. quantity ratio between core game and expack never make sense to me,

If you're going to buy an expack at $40, the only question that's matter is will the contents it gives you worth the price. And that's entirely subjected to the "entertainment value" you get out from it. If you paid $40 and really enjoy it, than it's a $40 well spent. Or will you hold onto the fact that $40 is a rip off for an expack regardless of what value it has? By that logic spending $40 on a "core" game is a better idea even if that core game is inferior to an expack? I don't care if it's something the developer was able to put together overnight, if it's something fantastic than I will pay them the money they ask. Neither I care that if it's something they spend every walking moment of their life in their past two years to put together. If it's something crappy, I would still feel rip off even if I had to pay a penny for it. Like I said it seems some people is gauging their entertainment value base on the afford the other party put in, I'm more interested and put my money on what actually coming out at the end.

No... this is NOT how you want things to work. You do not want the company to start pricing things based on the companies view of how much it should cost.

Think about it like this.

Avatar cost more money to make then any of fox's previous movies to date. It's special effects are revolutionary. So fox says, "hey... this movies better then the princess and the frog... so lets charge an extra five bucks."

Mr. Billy loves the movie

Mrs. Jones hates it, she would have like princess and the frog more.

Thats why movies, games, dvds, ect have a set price with the compition, because you do not want price to be based on something as fragile, unpredictible, and subjective as opinion.

My friend loved Modern Warfare 2, but didn't like Dragon Age because he likes multiplayer games. He's spent more hours playing Modern Warfare 2 then I have playing Dragon Age... and I'm on my third playthrough. And he's prob having just as much fun as I am. Going off your theory, Modern Warfare 2 should cost more. See how this DOES NOT WORK?

Modifié par Wishpig, 05 février 2010 - 01:34 .

[Ryngard]

Oh boo hoo Original Poster!

Don't order that extra bigmac and fries for one day and boom you can afford it.

Prices increase. Pay it and enjoy or pass it up. No need to whine about everything.

This country/world is going to the dogs man...

[Wishpig]

Ryngard wrote...

This country/world is going to the dogs man...

Did you really say that... so damn corny. Go back to the 60's.

lol I kid

not

Modifié par Wishpig, 05 février 2010 - 01:35 .

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
 Are you going complain about my price point just because you're not willing to pay it?

Of course I am. I want a sandwich, and I want it at a fair price. Because of your pricing scheme I am going sandwich-less, when I would prefer to have a sandwich.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
If so, on what grounds?  What have I done wrong, here?

Grounds are explained above as well. Point is, I am the consumer, not the producer. I am going to think like a consumer. I refuse to think like the producer wants me to think. Only a foolish consumer is willing to think like the producer wants him to.

[the_one_54321]

Ryngard wrote...
Oh boo hoo Original Poster!
Don't order that extra bigmac and fries for one day and boom you can afford it.
Prices increase. Pay it and enjoy or pass it up. No need to whine about everything.
This country/world is going to the dogs man...

and yet again:

the_one_54321 wrote...
"A lot of gamers are really smart people, but absolutely retarded consumers."

The above is a perfect example of poorly applied cost analysis and comparison.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 05 février 2010 - 04:02 .

[MightySword]

2late2die wrote...
I think the general assumption, and I think it's a fair one, is that the quality of the xpack will be roughly equivalent to the quality of the game, therefore the "entertainment value" comes down to "hours of gameplay" as it were. Since the core game is at least 60 or so hours of gameplay, I would expect at least 40 hours of gameplay from the expansion. However, not only is it not typical of expansions, it is also somewhat unreasonable to expect, even from BioWare. Therefore just based on that my thinking (and I realize I'm making a lot of assumptions) is that it's overpriced.

So ... the original being so good become a liability? I don't like that logic because it has many flaw. So if the original DA was only about 30 hours (the average length of most non-sandbox RPG nowadays) that would make the $40 expansion pack more ... acceptable?

Then add to that the price of DLC so far - both warden's keep and return to ostagar are about an hour long, maybe maybe if you really stretch it, 2 hours.

Exactly, I bought Warden Keep and what I see helped me decide I will never touch another paid DLC from Bioware unless something really subtancial change. The decision is not because of DA's length, but because for the price asking the content was crap and not worth the price, it's a fact that won't change regardless DA's original length is 2, 20, or 200 hours.

Optimistically I hope the expansion will be 15-20 hours long. Realistically I expect it to be less than 10 hours long. So, you're looking at a <10 hour expansion that costs $40 to a game with 60+ hours of gameplay that was sold for $60 - there's no way it's good value.

Then judge the Expack on its own value. If it's around 20-25 hours long, I say the $40 is worth it if the content is of high quality. If it's <10 hours then it will not worth the price tag, and it's something of its own value. I agree that $40 is not something you pay for 10 hours of gaming, but that on the merit of the expack, not because its original game was 60 hours long.

Wishpig wrote...
My friend loved Modern Warfare 2, but didn't
like Dragon Age because he likes multiplayer games. He's spent more
hours playing Modern Warfare 2 then I have playing Dragon Age... and
I'm on my third playthrough. And he's prob having just as much fun as I
am. Going off your theory, Modern Warfare 2 should cost more. See how
this DOES NOT WORK?

Of course I do, because you're basically saying the samething I said, only your inpretetion of what I said revert the meaning by 180 degree. I paid $50 for DA, and probably registered about 70 hours of worthy gaming. I just bought ME2 for $60 and run through it in about 35 hours. I believe both games were worthy purchase and I don't regret a penny spent on any of them. By the logic running in this thread, I should be very unhappy with ME2 because I got half the game time while paying an extra $10 at the same time. But entertainment value is not subjected to numerical value in an absolute manner like that - like you said.

Again, judge each game you buy on its own merit, you seem to miss the part where I said you're the one decide that, not the developers. I paid $50 on a Final Fantasy game from Square soft, I also paid $50 for a niche tittle from NIS and I can enjoy them both so yeah ... I don't really understand how your last sentence came out as it did ...

Modifié par MightySword, 05 février 2010 - 04:18 .

[Vaeliorin]

OnionXI wrote...
I also haven't noticed this steady decline in price that you're talking about. New release PC games are generally $50.

And they have been for at least 20 years or so.  Over that time, there's been inflation, and the dollar has become much weaker.  As such, the games (though selling for the same price) cost relatively less than they did even a year ago.

[the_one_54321]

Vaeliorin wrote...

OnionXI wrote...
I also haven't noticed this steady decline in price that you're talking about. New release PC games are generally $50.

And they have been for at least 20 years or so.  Over that time, there's been inflation, and the dollar has become much weaker.  As such, the games (though selling for the same price) cost relatively less than they did even a year ago.

That is accurate, up to the last couple years. The dollar has been deflating just slightly in very recent time.

Anyway, as I and a couple others mentioned eariler, we would have been willing to pay more for the innitial release of the game. It's the secondary, and much smaller releases that are bothering us.

[Mordaedil]

Well, the most important question here is "is it worth $40?" to which everyone would probably say "yeah, but..." and that's not the problem.

I don't think the price-tag on the game itself was really a problem. The problem would more be in that in being offered same price, despite usually having slightly lower costs usually for games versus more costly platform is that the balance skew between console and PC choice gets a solid kick in the teeth.

The balance is that buying a setup for your console is generally cheaper than buying a brand new PC, but the games that are released for either favors PC as being more affordable, so people who buy a lot of games would usually favor PC so they don't loose so much investment. Messing with this little difference is of course nothing new, but still a bit upsetting. DLC was more expensive simply because of the fee that Bioware had to feed Microsoft and Sony after all, though in all fairness, that was pretty much obvious from the first post stating it wasn't "worth the content". I bet you don't start a parade every time you go through a toll-booth either, but it's not like you don't have to pay like everyone else just because you have a scooter.

I'm sorry guys, but this is one place where I have to be a bad consumer and just buy the thing and grit my teeth while knowing I'm kicking a little extra to EA. I just hope some of that extra money I pay actually lands in the wallet of somone at Bioware, so I won't feel like I've been robbed. That's all I ask, really.

When it comes to Infinity Ward, they produced a pretty good shooter for the consoles, well worth the investment, and decided to port that to the PC while grabbing a machette and chop off its arms and legs and laugh at it while people bought it like idiots.

Gamers need to have better standards, we used to be good at this in the past, with John Romero and Daikatana.

[the_one_54321]

Mordaedil wrote...
 I bet you don't start a parade every time you go through a toll-booth either, but it's not like you don't have to pay like everyone else just because you have a scooter.

With no intent to negate the rest of your post, this is a 100% improper analogy. I can explain why, if you want. But it'll take a long time, because it's a very complicated subject. It has to do with construction and bidding and, well, it would be several paragraphs at the very least.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 05 février 2010 - 07:10 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

OnionXI wrote...

I also haven't noticed this steady decline in price that you're talking about. New release PC games are generally $50.

Inflation.

If you adjust for inflation and measure the prices in real dollars (I tend to use 2008 dollars because that's when I first did the calculation) game prices have fallen almost 70% since 1986.

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
 Are you going complain about my price point just because you're not willing to pay it?

Of course I am. I want a sandwich, and I want it at a fair price. Because of your pricing scheme I am going sandwich-less, when I would prefer to have a sandwich.

But I haven't done anything to you.  If I weren't here, you wouldn't have a sandwich.  And if I am here and charging more than you're willing to pay, you still don't have a sandwich.  If me selling a sandwich has no material effect, why do you care?

You're comparing the situation to one where I'm selling a sandwich for a lower price, a situation that doesn't exist.  Are you complaining right now about me not giving you a back massage?  Because I'm not doing that.  If you want one you should be complaining to every single person in the world who isn't giving you a back massage.

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
You're comparing the situation to one where I'm selling a sandwich for a lower price, a situation that doesn't exist

It doesn't exist only because you choose for it not to. By selling the sandwich you are creating the buyer/seller relationship. In that relationship the prospect of a sandwich at a fair price does exist. It is in your hands to provide it or not. I believe I may have caught you in a fallacy here. You are postulating that the situation wherein there is no sale of a sandwich effects the situation wherein there is a sale of a sandwich. It does not. The two situations have separate implications. The lack of the buyer/seller relationship in one situation does not imply a lack of prospects in the situation wherein there is a buyer/seller relationship.