130 réponses à ce sujet

[Murgat]

the_one_54321 wrote...

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.

I enjoy sandwiches immensely. In my personal experience, nothing beats a good ole roast beef when you're hungry. And I don't give a crap whether it's $5 or $10. I just want that sandwich.

A terrible analogy to the worth of an expansion pack, but I pirated the game, so who am I kidding.
Just kidding, of course I didn't.

[Althernai]

Just buy it on sale. The prices of PC games are nominally $50 (garbage like MW2 excepted), but I haven't bought a regular one that was so expensive for years (I did buy the DA:O collector's edition for $60, but that's different). Amazon or Newegg or Best Buy or somebody inevitably has it for $10 off sometime near the release date. I'm pretty sure the same will be true of this expansion (particularly since they're charging essentially the price of a full game for it).

[Mordaedil]

the_one_54321 wrote...

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.

Of course an analogy chosen for comedic effect is inappropriate.

First and foremost, EA doesn't deal with road construction, so the idea that you pay them a "toll" to release games is kinda absurd to begin with, though everyone knows money goes to more things than just road construction as well.

Also, no, getting into why it's an improper analogy is a waste of everyones time, yours, mine and the other people reading this thread and posting in it, trying to formulate a good point and tying in how to get a fair assessment of the value for the upcoming expansion pack.

Furthermore, I never professed to being good with analogies, much like a parrot in the donkey's butt.

[Tekkaman Saber]

At least pc users get a disk.
European PS3 users have to pay the same cost for a download over a net connection which'll proably take 12 hours to download >_>
Dang market trends.

Modifié par Tekkaman Saber, 05 février 2010 - 10:29 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

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.

You're the one positing the existence of a "fair price".  There are prices you're willing to pay and prices you are not.  Why would you call some of them fair and some of them unfair?  How does fairness even enter into the discussion?

There's only a sale of a sandwich if you buy the sandwich.  That you aren't buying it makes the situation relevantly similar to the one where I'm not offering a sandwich for sale.  From your point of view, I haven't done anything by offering the sandwich for sale at a price you won't pay.  In both scenarios, you're not buyign a sandwich from me.  But somehow in one of them I'm doing something wrong.

What am I doing wrong?  What impact am I actually having on you?

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 05 février 2010 - 06:19 .

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
You're the one positing the existence of a "fair price".  There are prices you're willing to pay and prices you are not.  Why would you call some of them fair and some of them unfair?  How does fairness even enter into the discussion?

There's only a sale of a sandwich if you buy the sandwich.  That you aren't buying it makes the situation relevantly similar to the one where I'm not offering a sandwich for sale.  From your point of view, I haven't done anything by offering the sandwich for sale at a price you won't pay.  In both scenarios, you're not buyign a sandwich from me.  But somehow in one of them I'm doing something wrong.

What am I doing wrong?  What impact am I actually having on you?

"Fair price" is determined by comparative pricing coupled with cost vs benefit analysis and production cost analysis. "Fair price" does exist and is not completely subjective. There are a number of objective factos to consider when assigning the subjective value of "fair price." Acceptable price is determined by the market, and effected by any number of purely subjective factors. That is how the market and price assignment works. But an appropriate price or "fair price" is based on a subjective judgement of completely objective factors.

The situation wherein "fair price" exists is brought about by you selling the sandwich. You create the situation and the prospects. You create the buyer/seller relationship. And so the responsiblity lies on you to decide if the prospect of "fair price" is met or not. If you are not selling a sandwich then the concept of "fair price" indeed does not exist, and you go down a completely separate line of reasoning.

What you are doing wrong is you are specifically creating the situation wherein an "unfair price" is being levied. What effect it is having on me is that, because of your actions, I am now in a situation where I must accept an unfair price or go without the sandwich that was offered. Had you done nothing, I would not be impacted at all. Had you offered the sandwich at "fair price" your impact would have been favorable.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 05 février 2010 - 06:36 .

[Fuzzyrabbit]

..Honestly, I don't mind. I'll pay the extra ten dollars to support Bioware making more expansions on my favorite game. It's no more than anyone else is paying.

[Dragon Age1103]

I really wouldn't care at all if they would charge consoles owners $50. I don't see why they don't I mean console owners buy avatar clothes, movies, wallpapers, mini games why not pay an extra $10 to balance it with PC? This is terrible to say but I hope EA & Bioware lose a lot of money to pirates even if this causes us to lose a possible 2nd expansion I could care less if we have to pay $10 more but consoles don't.

I agree with JointVW also about the time span that Awakening should be. I just started my 4th play through & skipped bits of dialogue & only read about 1/5th the codex entries since i know the others point being I am level 10 with 12 hours logged. Considering we can level from lv20-25 depending on what you finished & we can go to mid-high lv 30's we should get a minimum of 20-25 hours out of the expansion in theory since every level requires more XP which takes more time each level. Just my theory though. 20-25 hours would make me a happy camper but I still hope Bioware looses some profits to piracy due to this stupid price tag of $40 for PC.

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

The situation wherein "fair price" exists is brought about by you selling the sandwich. You create the situation and the prospects. You create the buyer/seller relationship.

There's no such thing as a buyer/seller relationship (certainly not if you don't buy something).  There are buyers, and there are sellers, and each acts independently.

If I don't offer a sandwich for sale, then you're a hungry guy with no sandwich and $10 in your pocket.

If I do offer a sandwich for sale for $40, then you're a hungry guy with no sandwich and $10 in your pocket.

You're the same.  Nothing has happened to you.  Your life has no changed at all between me not selling a sandwich and me selling a sandwich at a price you're not willing to pay.  I have explicitly not interfered in your life.  Your position makes no sense to me at all.

What you are doing wrong is you are specifically creating the situation wherein an "unfair price" is being levied. What effect it is having on me is that, because of your actions, I am now in a situation where I must accept an unfair price or go without the sandwich that was offered.

Right.  You can choose the status quo, or you can overpay for a sandwich.  As long as the status quo is available, all I'm doing is presenting you with an opportunity.  I haven't taken anything away from you.  I haven't harmed you at all.

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
There's no such thing as a buyer/seller relationship (certainly not if you don't buy something).  There are buyers, and there are sellers, and each acts independently.

This is incorrect. There is indeed a relationship between buyers and sellers. It is this very relationship that dictates acceptable and unacceptable prices in the market.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
If I don't offer a sandwich for sale, then you're a hungry guy with no sandwich and $10 in your pocket.
If I do offer a sandwich for sale for $40, then you're a hungry guy with no sandwich and $10 in your pocket.
You're the same.  Nothing has happened to you.  Your life has no changed at all between me not selling a sandwich and me selling a sandwich at a price you're not willing to pay.  I have explicitly not interfered in your life.  Your position makes no sense to me at all.

You're focusing too much on the end. The steps by which you reach the conclusion are important as well. The conclusion comes about as a result of the interactions in the buyer/seller relationship. Which, again, does exist and is what dictates acceptable market price.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Right.  You can choose the status quo, or you can overpay for a sandwich.  As long as the status quo is available, all I'm doing is presenting you with an opportunity.  I haven't taken anything away from you.  I haven't harmed you at all.

You have taken something away from me, if the particular sandwich you are selling cannot be gotten anywhere else. You have deprived me of the ability to buy that sandwich at a reasoned fair price.

[the_one_54321]

As an addendum with regard to the notion that either way "I am the same" at the end of it all.
I have a friend, who had this terrible habit of messing up plans. It would make things terribly inconvenient for people who were trying to organize anything with him. Once in a while wouldn't be so irritating, but he would manage to mess up plans on a consistent basis.
The thing is that every time it happened he would go out of his way to fix things so that they worked out in the end. He's a very resourceful and energetic guy. He would always find some way to pull some kind of string so that the end result was that everything worked out ok.
However, just because he was able to make the end result of it all a positive thing on a regular basis did not mean that he did not also inconvenience us all on a regular basis. He still caused inconveniences, and he recognized that as well. In the end he put forward a lot of effort to organize himself better so as not to do that kind of thing so often anymore.
The point is, that a positive or neutral end result does not remove the negative aspects of what lead you there.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 05 février 2010 - 09:32 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

You have taken something away from me, if the particular sandwich you are selling cannot be gotten anywhere else. You have deprived me of the ability to buy that sandwich at a reasoned fair price.

You never had that ability.  I can't have taken it away from you.

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
You have taken something away from me, if the particular sandwich you are selling cannot be gotten anywhere else. You have deprived me of the ability to buy that sandwich at a reasoned fair price.

You never had that ability.  I can't have taken it away from you.

You're refusing to accept that the buyer and seller are symbiotic. The very nature in which market prices fluctuate dictates that buyers and sellers are anything but independant of each other in their behavior. There is no one thing that one side does or decides that does not have an effect on the other side. If there is no sandwich at a fair price, it is because the sellers are not offering it at a fair price.

[MightySword]

heh, I don't think the current analogy has anything to do with this release though ... you know, just a thought.

[the_one_54321]

MightySword wrote...
heh, I don't think the current analogy has anything to do with this release though ... you know, just a thought.

His disagreement isn't even related to DA at this point.

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

You're refusing to accept that the buyer and seller are symbiotic.

I refuse to accept the existence of some relationship that exhibits characteristics even though the buyer and seller (already misnamed because the buyer hasn't bought anything) haven't interacted at all.

Relationships are just a name we give to the combination of actions from more than one person.  Relationships themselves don't exist, and as such they cannot exhibit characteristics.

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
You're refusing to accept that the buyer and seller are symbiotic.

I refuse to accept the existence of some relationship that exhibits characteristics even though the buyer and seller (already misnamed because the buyer hasn't bought anything) haven't interacted at all.
Relationships are just a name we give to the combination of actions from more than one person.  Relationships themselves don't exist, and as such they cannot exhibit characteristics.

I believe your reasoning is flawed on a fundamental level. If you refuse to accept the notion of a relationship (which, I have to say, astounds me given the miriad effects that human relationships have on the world) there is no point in continuing this debate. Frankly, I think the statement "relationships themselves don't exist" is ludacris in every imaginable interpretation save the one that supposes existence is based purely on composition of matter or energy.
(and if you're going to take things down to existence being based on matter and/or energy, that is one whole huge can of worms to open up)

[Sylvius the Mad]

I'm a person. You're a person. But if we interact this third entity springs into being and it's called a relationship and it actually exists?

There's no way I'm accepting that without some kind of justification.

[Offkorn]

The stock market's very existence pretty much proves that a buyer/seller relationship exists.



It's really not something that's debatable.

[the_one_54321]

A relationship can exist without being an entity. It's a conceptualization, not a being. Concepts exist.

[Sylvius the Mad]

But can they have a material effect on the world? You're saying this one does.

You seemed to be suggesting that the two of us together was somehow more than just each of us acting independently, and I don't accept that at all.

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
But can they have a material effect on the world? You're saying this one does.
You seemed to be suggesting that the two of us together was somehow more than just each of us acting independently, and I don't accept that at all.

Well then you're ignoring a whole lot of human existence. As pointed out above, the stock market is literally nothing but the effect of buyer/seller relationships on the nature of the ecconomy and global prices.

[Kekse2k]

*raises hand* I'll take a sandwich, if it's not too much trouble. Ahem.



In any case, I'm a bit confused now (and hungry, but that won't stop me! I'm a survivor...and...mmm...fries). From the ongoing argument regarding sandwiches, the point of the thread has been lost to me. The original discussion was that of the upcoming expansion pack's indiscriminate pricing on the grounds that PC prices are relatively less in comparison to that of the console's price. If that assessment is wrong, then wow I suck and you owe me a sandwich. Yes, you.



Regarding that, as a console user, I don't understand why this is an issue. The PC version certainly has more to offer than the console version, in my opinion, what with the toolset and, from what I vaguely remember as I hastily read through something I now wish I had taken the time to read, better technical support. I don't complain, though, because the game is excellent in its own right. Perhaps someone could attempt to enlighten me, because I honestly don't understand what all the fuss is about (remember that this is coming from a console user, and I won't rule out the possibility that I may be ignorant of some aspect of PC-gaming culture that...well, okay that's all I'll say in case I say something even remotely rude).



Or...is the issue regarding the price itself being "unfair" by current gaming standards? Because...seriously...stop talking about sandwiches. Have mercy on us hungry folk. Yep...I've given in to my stomach. End....

[MightySword]

Kekse2k wrote...
Or...is the issue regarding the price itself being "unfair" by current gaming standards? Because...seriously...stop talking about sandwiches. Have mercy on us hungry folk. Yep...I've given in to my stomach. End....

heh I'm kinda the opposite, had a bit too much for lunch so kinda feel heavy right now. Lemon juice may help?

[Kekse2k]

MightySword wrote...

Kekse2k wrote...
Or...is the issue regarding the price itself being "unfair" by current gaming standards? Because...seriously...stop talking about sandwiches. Have mercy on us hungry folk. Yep...I've given in to my stomach. End....

heh I'm kinda the opposite, had a bit too much for lunch so kinda feel heavy right now. Lemon juice may help?

As much as I would like to help you in your rather unfortunate but all too well-known situation, I am not qualified to advise you...because...I don't want to. Ehm. Sorry. xD