130 réponses à ce sujet

[Wishpig]

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....

Screw you hungry folk. Have mercy on us who ate to damn much! Ugh, I don't want to think about food.

Modifié par Wishpig, 05 février 2010 - 10:52 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

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.

The stock market is merely the sum of many individuals' actions.  It's more easily described as a single entity, but it is not one.

[the_one_54321]

UnPlayer88 wrote...

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?

Anyone who is willing to pay the full retail price of a product is an idiot?  I think you're proving your own point about how unintelligent of a consumer some gamers can be.  You obviously understand very little about economics.  Myself and many others are confident that we will get $40 worth (if not more) of enjoyment out of this expansion; thus, the benefits outweigh the cost.  I understand that people have varying degrees of financial freedom, so paying full price for games isn't a viable option for everyone.  You shouldn't apply your economic situation to everyone else.  

Thank you for providing yet another excellent example. Suffice to say, you didn't grasp the concept at all.

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

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.

The stock market is merely the sum of many individuals' actions.  It's more easily described as a single entity, but it is not one.

The stock market is the sum of the buyer/seller relationships in the economy, as recorded by stock ownership, purchases, and sales.

[MightySword]

now this is turning into a drama show ... heh, too bad my stomach is too full for popcorn.

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

The stock market is the sum of the buyer/seller relationships in the economy, as recorded by stock ownership, purchases, and sales.

See?  You just presupposed the existence of those relationships.

How did you get there?  Why do you think they exist?

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
The stock market is the sum of the buyer/seller relationships in the economy, as recorded by stock ownership, purchases, and sales.

See?  You just presupposed the existence of those relationships.
How did you get there?  Why do you think they exist?

Because the stock market is there to prove it?  Sometimes your inability/refusal to percieve normal human behavior really baffles me.

I forget the name of that kind of proof, but you start with the result and work backwards. The stock market is the sum of those relationships. You start with the stock market and work backwards until you find where it all comes from. It comes from the interactions between buyers and sellers. Interaction between people is a relationship.

[Joshd21]

If they are jacking up prices for PC users, just because the PS3 and xbox360 users overpay, doesn't mean we have to. I will be a sad panada

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Interaction between people is a relationship.

That's the leap I don't get.  The interaction isn't a thing, so why are we labelling it "a relationship"?

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

The interaction isn't a thing, so why are we labelling it "a relationship"?

Because it has a measurable effect on human society. Therefore a label and association was appropriate.

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
The interaction isn't a thing, so why are we labelling it "a relationship"?

Because it has a measurable effect on human society. Therefore a label and association was appropriate.

But you're assuming that it's an entity.  Why?  Interaction is simply a description of your behaviour in concert with my behaviour.  But that's all it is.

Our behaviour doesn't exist.  We don't act.  Ever.  You act, and I act, and sometimes we impact each other, and sometimes we don't.  But calling our actions by one name is a categorical error.  You've misidentified the noun of the sentence.

Edit: You also, there, just assumed the existence of something called society, which I also don't accept.  We're individuals.  We are not a group.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 06 février 2010 - 12:39 .

[Digital Freak]

Anyone who didn't see this price gouging coming when EA bought Bioware is a fool.



Perfect time for an "I told you so".

[GithCheater]

Yep, the console tax is a scam. However, the EA store lists the physical disk PC version of Awakening for $39.95, but if you preorder it from eastore.com and go to checkout the price is $29.95 and postage for 3-4 day delivery is free.

Hopefully EA will maintain their online price as $29.95 after the expansion is released.

Modifié par GithCheater, 06 février 2010 - 02:42 .

[izmirtheastarach]

From what I have seen, it looks like the price in my neck of the woods is going to be 44.95. So even more then the people complaining about it here.

I could not care less. We live in countries with free markets. The publisher is free to charge whatever they want. If you feel it is too much, do not buy it. That is the only way to make your point to the company. Otherwise, all this amounts to is a whole bunch of childish whining.

And regardless of how things have been in the past, can someone provide me with a reasonable explanation for why PC games should be priced lower then console games?

Modifié par izmirtheastarach, 06 février 2010 - 02:44 .

[Joshd21]

Just a little upset that this started over Xbox360 and PS3 console's overpricing their games. Remember what it cost to get an xbox360, 500 bucks? and you could find one for maybe a thousand bucks and it wasn't that great of a system. Most of the system had the red eye which promised from Mircrosoft to fix

The only thing you have to do is take your time, and load it into a shipping package. Pay the shipping and Oh yeah, weeks, maybe 3-4 months later. Your console Might be fixed and returned to you. There was a whole bunch of things that voided the repair

So PS3 has blue ray, which I admit is a nice feature to have considering a blue ray cost about 160 bucks and it's built into the game. Though it's the same system, when it came out 500 bucks and now it's down to 300. I know you can compare

Video Graphics card prices from before and now and it would be alot higher back then, however with a PC we can at least upgrade the console. Video? Ram? Processer?  all can be upgraded to up to date equipment where xbox360 and PS3 owners only get their upgrade

When a new system comes out and that's going cost 500 bucks. Not upset over the actual price,...it's how the price came to be. It's like EA said You know what, we are putting these games on three platforms and all but PC have a high price, let's jack up the price to make it equal to ps3 and xbox360 and save ourself some money

[Sylvius the Mad]

Joshd21 wrote...

You know what, we are putting these games on three platforms and all but PC have a high price, let's jack up the price to make it equal to ps3 and xbox360 and save ourself some money

And if we pay it then they were smart to do it.

I'll pay it, because I want the industry to be profitable and I think the falling prices we've seen for the past 25 years have been a mistake.

[Joshd21]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Joshd21 wrote...

You know what, we are putting these games on three platforms and all but PC have a high price, let's jack up the price to make it equal to ps3 and xbox360 and save ourself some money

And if we pay it then they were smart to do it.

I'll pay it, because I want the industry to be profitable and I think the falling prices we've seen for the past 25 years have been a mistake.

How you define, what makes something worthy of that cost. Game Company's have been living just fine under the 49.99, price tag..what's to stop them from going to 60 bucks?...on xbox360 it virtually is 60 bucks adding the tax to pay a new game...70 bucks for a CE, where is the limit

Yes, while I very much agree to support games. If our money was directly going into funding project's. However for all we know it's going into a CEO account at EA, and he's bathing in money. EA, allow's Bioware a set budget for a game. Do you think if we paid more any of that money would increase their budgets?

Video Games are a business, yes I understand this and they are in it to make money. Though isn't it a little wrong to see a PC game at 49 dollers for years, then to have it jacked up without a reason. Knowing people will buy it. While yes, I support video games

I doubt the extra money we give them will be to fund project's. if it were. I'd honestly have no problem paying it though Bioware has delivered Mass Effect 2, Dragon Age Orgins. Not because of how much money they cost, but because how good the product is

When you deliver good product, you don't need to overcharge to make up sales difference. Yes xbox360 and PS3 are getting ripped off. It's like sony met with Mircrosoft and agreed to a 60 doller bill. Yea that's fine, but do you really have to apply that tax to PC users for no simple reason then Other guys doing it

What does that say about how much you care about your fans, your PR..your image. If you just recklessy jack up the price without even a mention to why or who. Just that your doing it

[TheLiterator]

I think some of you are missing the point of consumerism: the consumers control the market. Not the companies. By saying you are willing to pay X amount of dollars for X content because it's worth it, you are being a consumer. But the same thing applies to everyone who says they won't pay X for the content.

I'm not saying either stance is correct, I'm just saying that this misinterpretation of who is supposed to control the market is why no one could buy me anything off my Amazon wishlist for the past week or so.

I control the market, and so do you-- so only buy the content for the price you will pay. By April, it will be ten dollars cheaper. By next year it'll be half-price. So it's not about who's more justified, it's about cost-for-value. If I'm willing to pay the extra 10$ to get my expansion a month sooner, then it's worth it to me, and worth it to the publisher to charge that on release. If I'm not, well, then they won't make the mistake again. But I think enough people are willing to pay that it won't matter to anyone but the individual that it was 10$ more than they wanted to spend.

Edit: to fix format fail.

Modifié par TheLiterator, 06 février 2010 - 04:32 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Joshd21 wrote...

How you define, what makes something worthy of that cost. Game Company's have been living just fine under the 49.99, price tag.

No they haven't.  They've been producing content of dwindling quality aimed at an ever broader and softer market trying to break even.  And many of them fail.

When I was paying the equivalent of $160 (2008 dollars) for games made by a team of 12 guys, I was getting games designed for a niche market that consisted of me and people very much like me.  I was that target market, and I got great games.

Now I pay $50 for games made by teams of 300 designers - they have to sell vastly more to make that profitable, and to do so they have to target a broader audience.  As such, I no longer get games aimed at me.

[Joshd21]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Joshd21 wrote...

How you define, what makes something worthy of that cost. Game Company's have been living just fine under the 49.99, price tag.

No they haven't.  They've been producing content of dwindling quality aimed at an ever broader and softer market trying to break even.  And many of them fail.

When I was paying the equivalent of $160 (2008 dollars) for games made by a team of 12 guys, I was getting games designed for a niche market that consisted of me and people very much like me.  I was that target market, and I got great games.

Now I pay $50 for games made by teams of 300 designers - they have to sell vastly more to make that profitable, and to do so they have to target a broader audience.  As such, I no longer get games aimed at me.

You base your thought on theroy however. Market consisted of you and peope like you, and numbering the designers. While in truth we do not truely know, the only ones who know the answer are the ones who get the report and sign out checks out at EA and Bioware

Unless you have a man on the inside that goes to the corporate meeting's about the game getting this intel. It's all just theory without proof where the money is going, number of designer's..unless you google and even then no number can be exact

We are left without, how much money was one paid, did one guy work the other. Though that's getting off topic. It is fact, games sell on PC for 49 bucks usually that's the price. You of course of want to be exact add in tax, and that's 52 something

The normal game for an xbox360 or PS3 is 59 bucks, that is fact and the tax is the rest which bioware doesn't get cut from. It's not exactly proven but widely accepted that the console's are overcharging on their platform. However while I'm sure you will respond

With an in theory answer about  x numbers of mass equal to this many people and result is z. Unless you have a data sheet with stamp of steal from Bioware, fact is we truely don't know if they are breaking even or if they want the extra money to build an in door people, it's all just theory

[TheLiterator]

It doesn't matter what they spend the revenue on-- that has nothing to do with VALUE. What matters is how much WE as consumers are willing to spend. THAT is how much the game is worth. Period.

[emynii]

TheLiterator wrote...

It doesn't matter what they spend the revenue on-- that has nothing to do with VALUE. What matters is how much WE as consumers are willing to spend. THAT is how much the game is worth. Period.

Truth.

[Feraele]

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.

Pre-ordered through Direct-to-Drive ..I believe it was $39.95..but I'll go check my e-mail.  (Pc user btw)

Yup just checked..its $39.95.   Originally I "thought" that the price was lower...but maybe I was just reading someone's speculations...who knows.

Modifié par Feraele, 06 février 2010 - 07:44 .