$50 vs $60

[Fogel]

LOL I didn't compare games to silverware ...I said EVERYTHING (using that term loosely btw - I know how some people get hung up semantics and hate the word everything) has a price range - even silverware. You'll find out when you move out of your parents pad. There are $30 sets, $50 sets, $70 sets, etc. on up. There's more than just metal and plastic.

 

No games are not like silverware, but the point is... just about everything has a range.

 

Cheap cars, luxury cars, ultra expensive cars

Cheap PCs, mid-range PCs, high-end PCs

Cheap Parts, mid-range parts, high-end parts

 

etc, ad nauseum

People don't apply that philosophy to games though. Most seemed locked into $50 or less! Hence the topic

I think Hierovsion said it best... "Crappy games need to LOWER their price"

 

And some do at launch ...like Katamari Damacy did. And some do simply because no one ends up buying them, but I'd rather see the first approach for games that didn't have huge development costs. But I also think we as gamers shouldn't always expect that and should also respect the hard work some of these developers put into a game. For example, when I play SC2 Beta I see an extremely polished game where its very evident the developers took their time with the game and put a LOT of hard work into it - I don't mind one bit supporting those kind of developers. Compared to what most $60 games give you, I think $60 is a cheap price for SC2. Of course that is my opinion and everyone's mileage may vary.

[Deathmineral]

LOL I didn't compare games to silverware ...I said EVERYTHING (using that term loosely btw - I know how some people get hung up semantics and hate the word everything) has a price range - even silverware. You'll find out when you move out of your parents pad. There are $30 sets, $50 sets, $70 sets, etc. on up. There's more than just metal and plastic.

 

No games are not like silverware, but the point is... just about everything has a range.

 

Cheap cars, luxury cars, ultra expensive cars

Cheap PCs, mid-range PCs, high-end PCs

Cheap Parts, mid-range parts, high-end parts

 

etc, ad nauseum

People don't apply that philosophy to games though. Most seemed locked into $50 or less! Hence the topic

I think Hierovsion said it best... "Crappy games need to LOWER their price"

 

And some do at launch ...like Katamari Damacy did. And some do simply because no one ends up buying them, but I'd rather see the first approach for games that didn't have huge development costs. But I also think we as gamers shouldn't always expect that and should also respect the hard work some of these developers put into a game. For example, when I play SC2 Beta I see an extremely polished game where its very evident the developers took their time with the game and put a LOT of hard work into it - I don't mind one bit supporting those kind of developers. Compared to what most $60 games give you, I think $60 is a cheap price for SC2. Of course that is my opinion and everyone's mileage may vary.

You still can't compare it to everything, that's far more ridiculous than silverware. You don't go into a funeral home and buy the cheapest casket knowing you are going to be buying another next month.

 

The reason it's important to not raise the prices is because crappy games have high self esteem and instead of lowering their price they raise, however to say that crappy games need to do this or that doesn't make any sense because not everyone feels same way about all games. I feel like MW2 is a crappy game but not everyone feels the same as me. So unless we come up with an awesome system where all gamers are required to vote to determine whether a game is crap or not we can't use those arguments.

[Jump4h]

Why is everyone so upset about this? In earlier years, the gaming market was small. A higher intrest in games leads to a higher demand, which in turn leads to higher price. Besides, people who can't pay 10$ should get a job instead of crying about the price on OCC. I've said it before: Not buying a game because it costs a bit more is simply stupid. On the other hand, if you dont want to enjoy new games, then you should go play CS 1.6. That game is like 30€ now, right?

[Fogel]

I did say i used the term "everything" loosely (check the fine print)

There is still a range, whether you choose to accept it or not

 

And I was very clear on what delineation was - Development Costs

 

 

There is no need for interpertation when it comes to that, and ultimately customers decide the price. Anything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it. Since you keep bringing up MW2... CoD fans pretty much screwed themselves on MW2. CoD4 was released in Nov 2007 and it still sells for $40 ...which means people are still actively buying it at that price. Did fans honestly think MW2 would only cost $10 more? How naive. What's the point in going through all that effort of building a new game only to get $10 more per copy? That would be stupid. And as many people that boycotted or hate MW2, their point was lost in the noise. People still pay $40 for CoD4, despite being 2 and half years old so of course people will pay $60 for the next version. And the record sales figures prove that. Activision capitalized on a cash cow ...and seeing as how they are in the market to make money, I really can't blame them.

 

If CoD4 had lowered in price to about $20/$30 by 2009, MW2 probably would have been a $50 game. So in this specific case, I blame the fans and not the development costs.

[Jump4h]

Just a BTW, boycotts nearly always fail.

 

 

[Deathmineral]

Why is everyone so upset about this? In earlier years, the gaming market was small. A higher intrest in games leads to a higher demand, which in turn leads to higher price. Besides, people who can't pay 10$ should get a job instead of crying about the price on OCC. I've said it before: Not buying a game because it costs a bit more is simply stupid. On the other hand, if you dont want to enjoy new games, then you should go play CS 1.6. That game is like 30€ now, right?

It's not just $10. The price is $60, which is $10 more than BC2. How about this though, if anyone here can convince me that there is truly something special about MW2 that automatically makes it better than BC2 then I will shut my mouth about this $60 issue.

 

I did say i used the term "everything" loosely (check the fine print)

There is still a range, whether you choose to accept it or not

 

And I was very clear on what delineation was - Development Costs

 

 

There is no need for interpertation when it comes to that, and ultimately customers decide the price. Anything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it. Since you keep bringing up MW2... CoD fans pretty much screwed themselves on MW2. CoD4 was released in Nov 2007 and it still sells for $40 ...which means people are still actively buying it at that price. Did fans honestly think MW2 would only cost $10 more? How naive. What's the point in going through all that effort of building a new game only to get $10 more per copy? That would be stupid. And as many people that boycotted or hate MW2, their point was lost in the noise. People still pay $40 for CoD4, despite being 2 and half years old so of course people will pay $60 for the next version. And the record sales figures prove that. Activision capitalized on a cash cow ...and seeing as how they are in the market to make money, I really can't blame them.

 

If CoD4 had lowered in price to about $20/$30 by 2009, MW2 probably would have been a $50 game. So in this specific case, I blame the fans and not the development costs.

I don't care how loosely you use a word, everything pretty much means everything, not everything except that one thing.

 

So what you're saying is that it's okay for activision to capitalize on stupid fans? It's because they take advantage of their fans that I don't buy their games anymore, and it's not like they are going to stop this just because of me, but I guarantee that if they keep raising prices on their games and DLC, eventually everyone will figure it out. I don't some stupid steam group to express that I don't like what these guys are doing, all I need to do is not buy the game, and if my boycotting bothers people all I can say is too bad.

 

Just a BTW, boycotts nearly always fail.

 

 

Congratulations, you've shown us that 19 people out of 833 didn't stay true to their word. :thumbsup2:

[Fogel]

It's not just $10. The price is $60, which is $10 more than BC2. How about this though, if anyone here can convince me that there is truly something special about MW2 that automatically makes it better than BC2 then I will shut my mouth about this $60 issue.

 

Why is this all of a sudden a MW2 vs BC2 debate?

Why does proving MW2 is worth $60 proves any game is worth $60? Really?

 

This topic is about PC Games in general asking for $60 vs $50. Are people willing to spend $60 for a PC game (any game) that they think is worth it? That's the question. There are thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of games that have been mass produced and sold - to single each game out is not very efficient and quite counter productive.

 

 

I don't care how loosely you use a word, everything pretty much means everything, not everything except that one thing.

And I don't care how much you argue semantics, it really doesn't prove your point. In fact, what was the point? You spent more time worrying about 1 word instead understanding what was said and replying to the intent of the post.

 

 

So what you're saying is that it's okay for activision to capitalize on stupid fans? It's because they take advantage of their fans that I don't buy their games anymore, and it's not like they are going to stop this just because of me, but I guarantee that if they keep raising prices on their games and DLC, eventually everyone will figure it out. I don't some stupid steam group to express that I don't like what these guys are doing, all I need to do is not buy the game, and if my boycotting bothers people all I can say is too bad.

Instead of trying to clarify things or making comparisons, let me simplify it.

 

CoD4: 2 ½ year old game - still $40

MW2: 2 years of development costs - it is NOT going to sell for only $10 more

 

Popularity and development costs alone will prevent that. How is that so hard to understand?

 

Economics 101

 

The DLC part of your argument I completely with, but seriously... it really isn't hard to figure out which PC Games are going to release at a higher price.

[sack_patrol]

doesn't matter which are going to be released for how much. What we wanna know, is which ones are worth the extra money.

[Fogel]

doesn't matter which are going to be released for how much. What we wanna know, is which ones are worth the extra money.

Don't we all

[sack_patrol]

Don't we all

obviously not.

 

[Deathmineral]

Why is this all of a sudden a MW2 vs BC2 debate?

Why does proving MW2 is worth $60 proves any game is worth $60? Really?

 

This topic is about PC Games in general asking for $60 vs $50. Are people willing to spend $60 for a PC game (any game) that they think is worth it? That's the question. There are thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of games that have been mass produced and sold - to single each game out is not very efficient and quite counter productive.

 

 

 

And I don't care how much you argue semantics, it really doesn't prove your point. In fact, what was the point? You spent more time worrying about 1 word instead understanding what was said and replying to the intent of the post.

 

 

 

Instead of trying to clarify things or making comparisons, let me simplify it.

 

CoD4: 2 ½ year old game - still $40

MW2: 2 years of development costs - it is NOT going to sell for only $10 more

 

Popularity and development costs alone will prevent that. How is that so hard to understand?

 

Economics 101

 

The DLC part of your argument I completely with, but seriously... it really isn't hard to figure out which PC Games are going to release at a higher price.

I'm not trying to make it about that, but there are people here that seem to think it's just $10 and that may be the case for them but for someone else it could be $60 more depending on how many games they buy.

 

I will give a straight up answer here though, yes, if I felt the game was worth it, I would indeed spend $60 on it, however there are a lot of things that play into this but seeing as how we don't want to change the subject I'm going to have to make the answer a clear no, I would not spend $60 on a game.

 

I spent more time worry about one word? You mean that word you are basing your argument on? I understand just fine what your point is, it's that everything has a range, and you're right. The problem is you can't just simplify it like that because higher prices don't always mean better.

 

Now let's see if I can get this last part straight. What you're saying is that MW2 cost a lot to make and therefore the price must be raised because activision wouldn't be able to profit otherwise? So I guess cod4 didn't cost anything to develop, they just magically had it appear on a desk one day and started making copies and that is why it didn't cost $60?

 

Also, if you don't mind my asking, what exactly was the point of the poll in this thread? I'm not trying to say it's a deciding factor here but it seems pretty clear that most people are not happy about games costing more.

[Jump4h]

Congratulations, you've shown us that 19 people out of 833 didn't stay true to their word. :thumbsup2:

 

I could have done a whole list on excel with full information but I didn't. The pic just proves my point. Also, note that that is the first page, therefore showing random users.