The_Jobu
Well-Known Member
Thanks for making my point. No one wants to pay higher prices, so why would you begrudge people that dont?
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
A Spirited 15 Rounds ...
- Thread starter WDW1974
- Start date
Thanks for making my point. No one wants to pay higher prices, so why would you begrudge people that dont?
The_Jobu
Well-Known Member
I don't and they haven't.
In Canada at least, I've seen games prices rise from $49.99 to $79.99 in the last 20 years.
That doesn't even include the new gimmick of "Buy the gold edition for 99.99 and get polka dot pants, an extra level and a golden sombrero".
AEfx
Well-Known Member
Facts?
The base price at release of a AAA video game has been $60 since 2005 when the last generation began.
Before that, a AAA game has been $40-50 since the 1980's. By the PS era in the mid-90's, new releases were standard at $50.
(Though, in the case of Nintendo - more, as they started charging $60 for some games way back in 1990 on NES, and did so throughout the SNES era on the bigger titles.)
Welcome to why they offer extras now, because the cost of making those games has gone up many magnitudes since then.
The_Jobu
Well-Known Member
See above.
Pixieish
Well-Known Member
I know what you mean - sorry, bad choice of wording. I'm of the type that I'd rather buy the game up front and never have to pay again type.
AEfx
Well-Known Member
I don't "begrudge" them. It would be fabulous if everything in life were what we want to pay.
They simply are not realistic in demanding the games they do and expecting the prices to stay the same.
Yet, that is what EA has done here, and people still crate a crap storm. $60. Full game. That's freaking remarkable.
Well, Canada and their taxes/import stuff aside (the prices I gave are in the US), you think that in 20 years that is a big price difference? How many new release products who depend on their entire profit from one source (i.e. DVDs are an exception, they are the ancillary product, the theatrical distribution is the main cheese) cost the same as they did 20 years ago?
Unrealistic expectations.
In any case, I have just provided the accurate information about the matter to the folks here who don't follow the game industry to understand these realities. I'm not going to get in to some "game community" back and forth when the answers to your claims have already been provided, you just don't like or refuse to accept what is being said.
Last edited:
The_Jobu
Well-Known Member
Or what we used to pay. That would be nice. Because to most people $30 is a big price difference. More people are buying games than ever before in history, lots of companies are making out like bandits. Lots are folding, which is entirely on them for making duds nobody wants. They dont need you to defend them, mate.
I fail to see how expecting to pay the same price for a game, is an unrealistic expectation. I'm not going to be happy about paying $27 to see Avatar when a regular movie costs $12. I don't care how much it costs to make the movie.
And you're being incredibly subjective. What do you mean "demand the games they do"? Some of the most profitable games are indie games that look like hot garbage, but they're fun to play. Most gamers just want a game that WORKS, and not the new method of releasing beta versions of games to the public and then patching over the many problems months later. Also not including the fact that parts of games, that are already complete, are stripped out to be sold later as DLC for more profit.
The_Jobu
Well-Known Member
You'd need a time machine for that, or be content with not getting everything that's available for the game.
AEfx
Well-Known Member
No one says you have to be happy about it. But this statement sums everything up, which is why it's pointless to argue with you and I'm not going to. I'm sure people are already sick of this discussion, and if that's your view on the products you purchase, not a single thing is going to change your mind - correcting your distorted world-view is beyond the scope of what can be done here.
The_Jobu
Well-Known Member
That's what I've been trying to do for you. You've been typing massive blocks of hot nonsense and after my points, all of a sudden it's not the place to talk about it? How interesting.
And for those that don't read blocks of text, here's an infographic that sums things up:
Cheers.
AEfx
Well-Known Member
Your point is you don't expect the costs of products to increase over time as the costs of producing them grow ever higher.
That's not a "point" one can argue, because it goes contrary to how the world works and is beyond the scope here.
I haven't written any "blocks" of text - I use paragraphs really well. But me repeating the details and I've already posted - creating more text that you think I've already used too much of, is silly, especially when you don't seem to understand how the world works (it's the game industries fault, they should have been increasing prices all along, so these crazy attitudes wouldn't exist when they dare do so).
The only reason I am replying this time is because your "infographic" (which is becoming a pejorative, because they are pithy and can misrepresent as easily as be accurate) is absolutely a lie in regards to this discussion about BF2.
- There are NO retailer exclusives
- The ENTIRE GAME is one price, $60
- There is NO DLC
There are bonuses for pre-ordering *anywhere*, and it's just a "head start" or a few cosmetic things, absolutely no game content is gated by it and ANYONE can get it no matter where they buy it.
So if your infographic were applied here, the entire Mona Lisa would be for $60 - even better than the first picture which supposedly was "ideal".
The ONLY thing people are paying for is to get the statistics of their little digital character higher more quickly.
Stop posting #fakenews, and misleading people, please. I'm sure people are already fuming that this discussion has gone on about a video game this long, but if you are going to outright lie...I'm going to correct it.
The_Jobu
Well-Known Member
(proceeds to post a block of text)
Let me go back and read what you've cooked up now, it might take me a minute. But welcome back after your less than graceful attempt to exit.
Pixieish
Well-Known Member
Yeah, I know it's not reality, but it really does suck that they want to treat everyone like a cash-cow.
The_Jobu
Well-Known Member
Artistic media isn't a consumable like the price of gas. They're charging more because they're making more money. These companies aren't sitting around being forced to spend $500 million to make a game, they're choosing to do that.
What is it with you and BF2? Why is that the only game you can talk about? It's not a discussion on BF2, we're clearly talking about the games industry. The game isn't even out yet, so who knows if/when there'll be single player DLC and there's already different tiers of the game. The regular and the "bonus" edition thats $100. So again, they're taking out things that are ALREADY IN THE GAME and charging for them. That's not the way it's always been done, it's just the way it's done now because they are getting away with it and making tons of money from it.
You say prices aren't going up. That's wrong, they did.
You say less people are buying games. That's wrong, it's more than ever.
You say the cost of making games has gone up. That's a studios decision, more than ever dirt cheap indie games are making amazing profits. The ones that cost a king's ransom to make can get away with it because they make all that and more back, otherwise they wouldn't keep making expensive games.
None of this even touches on the new industry standard of releasing a broken game, and then patching it over months later.
So you are right about the infographic. In reality, the final picture would be a pencil sketch first and then 2 months later you'd get the painted picture (minus DLC of course).
The_Jobu
Well-Known Member
AEfx
Well-Known Member
This is a Disney forum. The discussion is about a game based on a Disney property. You joined late, apparently, and started spouting off without realizing this.
They have already stated that there will be no DLC. All future content is included in the $60.
There is a "bonus" edition available for $80 in the US (and again, is just cosmetic or "head start" items that can be gotten in-game). If you have problems with how much more you pay in Canada for an imported product, I cannot address that.
They haven't gone up in a dozen years. And in the last 25 years, they have gone up a max of $20 in the US.
If you just wanted to play "dirt cheap indie games", you wouldn't be crying about this. Go play them.
Irrelevant to this discussion. I agree, but it has nothing to do with game pricing.
I know.
LIE. The entire game we are discussing is included including all future content.
The_Jobu
Well-Known Member
Dude... what is you even doing at this point?
So to clarify
games have gone up in price, though you said they haven't (again skipping the modern issue of DLC, microtransactions, beta releases, etc..)
People are buying games more than ever, when you said they're buying less.
And your argument against the fact that a games budget is dependent on the studio is to "go play indie games".
Huh?
One of the most profitable games in the world is Minecraft which was made in someguy's garage and looks like a dumpster fire. The price to buy a game has gone up, the price to make a game remains, as always, variable.
I actually took the time to look up BF2 just now.
It does have retailer exclusives, but they don't impact gameplay.
What they do have is $%*&(* lootboxes which means either you pay more to get ahead of everyone else trying to grind away to your level, or you suffer at the whims of a random generated upgrade system (or just give in and buy your upgrades the way EA wants you to).
I didn't even know it had lootboxes or I would have ripped it a lot earlier. The entire lootbox concept is driven by the extra income it generates for the studio.
AEfx
Well-Known Member
Wasting my time, because you just admitted you didn't even know what the discussion was about.
/wave
The_Jobu
Well-Known Member
Can we believe you this time, or are you going to return again when you can't disprove what I'm saying?
For those that are interested, lootboxes are scummy dealings, even more than the DLC shenanigans we've been discussing. Here are lengthy videos explaining how they hurt the game experience that say much more than I could on this forum:
Cheers.
Daveeeeed
Well-Known Member
Yes, literally two of my friends and my brother were planning on pre-ordering Star Wars Battlefront 2, but when they heard of the Pay to Win playstyle they decided they weren't going to buy it at all.
It completely ruins games. DLCs are fine if they expand the game, but they should never give you an advantage in an FPS game. They should add new maps, add new textures 'skins', and add other things as well. A video game is not a mobile game and should not be treated as such.