Originally posted by Elikal The pricing is even becoming a hindrance for me for other reasons. EA for instance began to raise the cost of their normal titles to 55-60 bucks, and... I just don't pay that. No game is worth 60 bucks. Period. I don't shit money or gather it on trees you know! So I skipped a lot of games I would have bought for, say, 40 bucks. Then, later when they are cheaper I usually forgot about them anyway or I have newer games, so it's basically the company's loss.
Elikal, you do know this goes for almost anything that use to be cheaper is more expensive today.
I feel the EU has been hit even harder from going to several currency's to having the € now. When I look at my grocery cart worth of 50€ of goods and compare it with 50 gulden of goods I use to have a almost full cart now not even half for twice the money.
I can understand that it might be a hinderance for some and I don't aprove prices raise but it's simple fact of life and it happens.
I do agree with the article that revenue can be raised while lowering prices but I have this feeling this can go for almost anything.
Example I bet if movie tickets where half the price they are today that theaters will make allot more profit in the end.
Both Ps4 and XBO will be able to make use of used games, but both with certain details to comply too.
I think that article is nonsense,games 20 years ago were easily what they are now if not more expensive for a MUCH inferior and less costly product.
IMO games are easily worth their price as you have to figure in not only the development,the risk and to maintain the employment of their staff.IF every developer charged what is essentially a break even price,then the company would immediately shut down after launch,how non productive is that?
Also just lumping games into "GAMES" does not factor in every single game has a MUCH different development cycle,could be from a $1,000 to 200 million dollar game.It might be 5/10 or could be 500 employees.You might have games with 2 months of FUN or content and another game with years of replay value.
There is simply no way on earth to lump every game into the same article and all carrying the same relevant value.
Always some article out there trying to hit the most controversial topics to make their site relevant.Free to play seems to be the focus of most over the last year or two.
Usually what you see are games that try to do it different start making articles and videos and get game sites to make interview shows to hype up THEIR type of game and pay scale.It does not and never will make THEIR idea right,only a different option.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
The most I'm willing to spend on a game is $50 and I never go above that. Yeah, I'll actually hold out for a year or more just to save that extra $10. It's not the money, it's the principle. They will lose customers like myself that aren't willing to pay full price for games. Oh well, I'm primarily a PC gamer anyway. I think these companies are just digging their own graves with ridiculous DRM. It might sound great and all before release, but they will be regretting it when their sales suck and they're forced to price drop.
I think that article is nonsense,games 20 years ago were easily what they are now if not more expensive for a MUCH inferior and less costly product..
On averages Americans had more disposable income 20 years ago too. I think the same can b said for EU.
“It's unwise to pay too much, but it's worse to pay too little. When you pay too much, you lose a little money - that's all. When you pay too little, you sometimes lose everything, because the thing you bought was incapable of doing the thing it was bought to do. The common law of business balance prohibits paying a little and getting a lot - it can't be done. If you deal with the lowest bidder, it is well to add something for the risk you run, and if you do that you will have enough to pay for something better.”
Idk..Steam seems to be doing pretty well without used game sales....
Steam sells games cheaper, the point of the article.
“It's unwise to pay too much, but it's worse to pay too little. When you pay too much, you lose a little money - that's all. When you pay too little, you sometimes lose everything, because the thing you bought was incapable of doing the thing it was bought to do. The common law of business balance prohibits paying a little and getting a lot - it can't be done. If you deal with the lowest bidder, it is well to add something for the risk you run, and if you do that you will have enough to pay for something better.”
Comments
Elikal, you do know this goes for almost anything that use to be cheaper is more expensive today.
I feel the EU has been hit even harder from going to several currency's to having the € now. When I look at my grocery cart worth of 50€ of goods and compare it with 50 gulden of goods I use to have a almost full cart now not even half for twice the money.
I can understand that it might be a hinderance for some and I don't aprove prices raise but it's simple fact of life and it happens.
I do agree with the article that revenue can be raised while lowering prices but I have this feeling this can go for almost anything.
Example I bet if movie tickets where half the price they are today that theaters will make allot more profit in the end.
Both Ps4 and XBO will be able to make use of used games, but both with certain details to comply too.
I think that article is nonsense,games 20 years ago were easily what they are now if not more expensive for a MUCH inferior and less costly product.
IMO games are easily worth their price as you have to figure in not only the development,the risk and to maintain the employment of their staff.IF every developer charged what is essentially a break even price,then the company would immediately shut down after launch,how non productive is that?
Also just lumping games into "GAMES" does not factor in every single game has a MUCH different development cycle,could be from a $1,000 to 200 million dollar game.It might be 5/10 or could be 500 employees.You might have games with 2 months of FUN or content and another game with years of replay value.
There is simply no way on earth to lump every game into the same article and all carrying the same relevant value.
Always some article out there trying to hit the most controversial topics to make their site relevant.Free to play seems to be the focus of most over the last year or two.
Usually what you see are games that try to do it different start making articles and videos and get game sites to make interview shows to hype up THEIR type of game and pay scale.It does not and never will make THEIR idea right,only a different option.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
The most I'm willing to spend on a game is $50 and I never go above that. Yeah, I'll actually hold out for a year or more just to save that extra $10. It's not the money, it's the principle. They will lose customers like myself that aren't willing to pay full price for games. Oh well, I'm primarily a PC gamer anyway. I think these companies are just digging their own graves with ridiculous DRM. It might sound great and all before release, but they will be regretting it when their sales suck and they're forced to price drop.
On averages Americans had more disposable income 20 years ago too. I think the same can b said for EU.--John Ruskin
Steam sells games cheaper, the point of the article.--John Ruskin