Added Value for the Cost?

[Teranasaurus]

Hey there, I was wondering if there was anything added to this game in order to justify paying $10 more than we would for most other new pc games?

Console games typically cost more to buy because Sony and Microsoft demand royalties for games published on their system however there is no licensing cost for creating a game for a personal computer. I have both an xbox 360 and ps3 however I prefer to play games on the PC whenever possible but if they have not added any exclusives to the pc version, or anything at all to justify an extra $10 I'd rather buy it on the console and know there's a reason beyond exploitation of pc gamers for the price increase...

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against a company pricing their products however they wish (just as I'm sure they have nothing against me for not buying their product at that price), I am asking for clarification, not trying to criticize or call for a boycott or anything.

[Freyar]

There's really not much excuse. The biggest statement will be that development costs have gone, up but there's debate on that subject.

[Teranasaurus]

There's really not much excuse. The biggest statement will be that development costs have gone, up but there's debate on that subject.

Sounds like we might have the same viewpoint so take this as a general statement and perhaps me voicing a bit of my frustration rather than as a direct counter point to your statement... :)

The development costs have gone up, but that's what happens when a market grows. The cost of roasting Starbucks coffee today is higher than it was 30 years ago, but they make zillions more dollars. It is no excuse. Video Game developers aren't given an idea and told to make it happen no matter how much money it costs or time it takes... they are given a budget and schedule. These two things aren't just pulled out of thin air but are created based on expected success and other factors. If development costs have gone up and they are no longer making a profit then whoever is producing for that company needs to be fired.

I don't see how there could be a debate on this subject, common sense supports only one side.

[Freyar]

Development costs going up in comparison to revenues would have been a better way to describe it.

[StingingVelvet]

This $60 thing annoys me to no end, and I mean the whining about it, not the price.

1) PC Games have been $60 (or more) many times before, from Blizzard games to FMV adventure games to Doom 3 and a ton in between.

2) PC Games have been an average of $50 for 20+ years, ignoring inflation and cost of living increases, which makes even $60 today much cheaper than $50 20 years ago.

3) PC versions are almost always the best versions, yet people argue they should cost the least.

None of it makes any sense. The whining on this issue is just epic and it all boils down to people not wanting to pay more.

And all that said, if you preordered on amazon.com you would have got the game for $40.

[Elsan]

StingingVelvet, the comparison is made with console games' prices, which account for the manufacturer's royalties. Yes, PC games have been 50$ for decades from what I heard and what you said. The thing is that PC games have been cheaper in the last few years and now that divide is being crossed for no apparent reason other than what seems to be greed, at least to us buyers. It's perfectly human to resist changes that do not benefit us at all.

Also, on a similar note... Games in Canada have gotten their prices increased in certain shops like Gamestop and on some titles, Amazon.ca. 10$ more so it's 70$ for a new console game(60$ for new PC game), even when the canadian $ was parital with the US $. I think that is an example that prices are increasing everywhere.

[StingingVelvet]

StingingVelvet, the comparison is made with console games' prices, which account for the manufacturer's royalties. Yes, PC games have been 50$ for decades from what I heard and what you said. The thing is that PC games have been cheaper in the last few years and now that divide is being crossed for no apparent reason other than what seems to be greed, at least to us buyers. It's perfectly human to resist changes that do not benefit us at all.

The PC market providing publishers with more money benefits you a great deal.

[Freyar]

The PC market providing publishers with more money benefits you a great deal.

Like Ubisoft's DRM right? :P

[StrikeQ]

Like Ubisoft's DRM right? :P

That's most likely what the added cost is to pay for

[germanjoe]

$41,99 - preordered with code "SPLINTER" on Amazon.com and free release-day delivery thanks to Amazon Prime trial membership. I love to join games via Steam but I sure like to save my money!

[Teranasaurus]

This $60 thing annoys me to no end, and I mean the whining about it, not the price.

1) PC Games have been $60 (or more) many times before, from Blizzard games to FMV adventure games to Doom 3 and a ton in between.

Blizzard has never charged $60 for a new pc game unless it was a special edition. If it was a special edition, then there was also a normal edition available to purchase. Please do not post ignorant lies and try to pass them off as the informed truth.

2) PC Games have been an average of $50 for 20+ years, ignoring inflation and cost of living increases, which makes even $60 today much cheaper than $50 20 years ago.

Video Game Developers are making more money than they ever have in the past, what possible justification is there for a price raise?

"We're making so much money, but we could make even more money if we just raised the price of the game even though our costs have not risen"?

Sorry, a higher price requires either added value or higher expenses. Since neither is present there is no justification.

3) PC versions are almost always the best versions, yet people argue they should cost the least.

Really? The PC version of MW2 was so badly ported we couldn't even adjust sound volume levels independently. Graphical settings were only marginally better on certain systems. PC users were plagues with memory leaks and crashes. Borderlands was only marginally better. The only games in recent history where the pc version was better than the console version were Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age Origins... both of which sold for $50.

None of it makes any sense. The whining on this issue is just epic and it all boils down to people not wanting to pay more.

And all that said, if you preordered on amazon.com you would have got the game for $40.

Assuming you have purchased a car or live in a home or apartment that is not your parents, if the bank/dealership/landlord came to you and informed you that your car payments/rent was going up by nearly 20% what would you do? Would you not ask why? Would you not ask for justification for the price increase?

Anyone who would just pay it without knowing why is just a fool. If no justification can be given, if no argument can be made in favor of the changes, then there is no necessary reason for the increase, it is simply a way of fleecing loyal customers.

I say again, the expenses associated with publishing a game on a console are significantly higher than they are on PC. If console games cost ~$10 more to make and sell than pc games, why would they be the same price?

[dosbox]

This $60 thing annoys me to no end, and I mean the whining about it, not the price.


Whining about whining? How ironic.


1) PC Games have been $60 (or more) many times before, from Blizzard games to FMV adventure games to Doom 3 and a ton in between.


And how many of them featured a SP campaign of less than ten hours?


2) PC Games have been an average of $50 for 20+ years, ignoring inflation and cost of living increases, which makes even $60 today much cheaper than $50 20 years ago.


This ignores the vastly higher penetration of PC's in the last 20+ years. Larger markets make for better return on investment.


3) PC versions are almost always the best versions, yet people argue they should cost the least.


You're conveniently ignoring the fact that:
a) console games are subject to a licensing fee
b) there is often NO difference between the console and PC version of a game other than keyboard/mouse support.
c) PC versions have major problems - e.g. Red Faction Guerrilla Windows 7 non-support, Bad Company 2 server browser
d) the incremental cost of re-using existing assets for a port is small relative to the overall budget.


None of it makes any sense. The whining on this issue is just epic and it all boils down to people not wanting to pay more.


Correct - people don't like being ripped off.


And all that said, if you preordered on amazon.com you would have got the game for $40.

So, you're suggesting the solution to this is to ignore Ubisoft's history of buggy ports?

[joelegecko]

No added value. As long as people are ready to pay that price, Ubisoft will sell its game at $60 on PC. In a couple years, they will just sell them at $70.

[Ayanami Fan]

Don't like the price ... don't buy it.

Don't see why this is an issue.

That being said, I have not, nor will I purchase the game.

[aliengmr]

Agreed, this really shouldn't be an issue

especially considering the double agent port.

[GrimCW]

Blizzard has never charged $60 for a new pc game unless it was a special edition. If it was a special edition, then there was also a normal edition available to purchase. Please do not post ignorant lies and try to pass them off as the informed truth.


in the past no, but now...

http://www.ebgames.com/Catalog/ProductDetails.aspx?product_id=65548

and thats only one PART of a THREE part game.. so for the total game you will be forking out $180 USD for ONE game, non-special edition.

[StingingVelvet]

Blizzard has never charged $60 for a new pc game unless it was a special edition. If it was a special edition, then there was also a normal edition available to purchase. Please do not post ignorant lies and try to pass them off as the informed truth.

Yes they sure as hell did, do some research.

Video Game Developers are making more money than they ever have in the past, what possible justification is there for a price raise?

Some games make a lot of money, many do not. Studious are closing consistently, budgets for games are insanely high now. Do not assume because Modern Warfare makes a billion dollars that everyone is.

Sorry, a higher price requires either added value or higher expenses. Since neither is present there is no justification.

No, sometimes things just go up in price, because time passes and cost of living is different. A box of Cheerios today is the same as it was 50 years ago, but costs more.

Really? The PC version of MW2 was so badly ported we couldn't even adjust sound volume levels independently. Graphical settings were only marginally better on certain systems. PC users were plagues with memory leaks and crashes. Borderlands was only marginally better. The only games in recent history where the pc version was better than the console version were Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age Origins... both of which sold for $50.

Modern Warfare 2 looks better than the console version, controls better with keyboard and mouse, and functions at a higher framerate if you have the hardware. What is not superior about that? Even the most basic console ports are better on PC, they just get complaints because they are not enhanced MUCH, but they are enhanced. If you want the pure console experience lower your res to 540p, remove AA and play with an analog stick.

Assuming you have purchased a car or live in a home or apartment that is not your parents, if the bank/dealership/landlord came to you and informed you that your car payments/rent was going up by nearly 20% what would you do? Would you not ask why? Would you not ask for justification for the price increase?

Rent usually does go up every year... not 20%, but then games haven't had an increase across the board (on PC) for 20 years. Has rent gone up on average 20% compared to 1990? You bet.

Your arguments typify the "I don't want to pay more so I complain" mindset, which is fine, no one wants to pay more, but don't ignore the common sense factors at work here.

[dosbox]

in the past no, but now...

http://www.ebgames.com/Catalog/ProductDetails.aspx?product_id=65548

and thats only one PART of a THREE part game.. so for the total game you will be forking out $180 USD for ONE game, non-special edition.

Two wrongs don't make a right. However, at least you're guaranteed to get more than 10 hours out of a Blizzard game.

[StingingVelvet]

in the past no, but now...

http://www.ebgames.com/Catalog/ProductDetails.aspx?product_id=65548

and thats only one PART of a THREE part game.. so for the total game you will be forking out $180 USD for ONE game, non-special edition.

The second two are expansions, not full games, as confirmed by Blizzard.

This is the kind of FUD people spread to try and make them look like victims, but its silly. Warcraft 3 was $60 and that was years and years ago, I don't recall it traumatizing anyone.

[GrimCW]

The second two are expansions, not full games, as confirmed by Blizzard.

This is the kind of FUD people spread to try and make them look like victims, but its silly. Warcraft 3 was $60 and that was years and years ago, I don't recall it traumatizing anyone.

never saw War3 being $60 only $50 or less. nor have i seen any news of the second two SC campaigns being labeled as anything but separate games.
do tell.
though it still doesn't change the fact its a 3 part game being broken down for more cash, much like an episodic game, except higher pricing instead of lower.

[dosbox]

The second two are expansions, not full games, as confirmed by Blizzard.

This is the kind of FUD people spread to try and make them look like victims, but its silly. Warcraft 3 was $60 and that was years and years ago, I don't recall it traumatizing anyone.

You conveniently ignored the amount of gameplay (value) obtained for that $60. If Conviction had a longer SP campaign, there would be less of an issue.

Your Cheerio analogy is also flawed. The cost of producing and distributing additional boxes of cheerios rises in a broadly linear fashion - i.e. the profit margin remains the same whether you sell 100,000 boxes or 200,000 boxes

The cost of producing and distributing additional units of software rises at a much lower rate - especially when it comes to digital distribution. So the profit from the 200,000th copy is much greater than the 100,000th.

[N3oN667]

From what I believe the PC gets free DLC while consoles have to pay?

[dosbox]

From what I believe the PC gets free DLC while consoles have to pay?

Nope, it's also free on consoles (http://xboxlive.ign.com/articles/108/1083722p1.html).

[StingingVelvet]

You conveniently ignored the amount of gameplay (value) obtained for that $60. If Conviction had a longer SP campaign, there would be less of an issue.

Well the value the game has to you personally is your own decision, we are talking of the broader concept of all games being $60 at release, just like they are on console.

Your Cheerio analogy is also flawed. The cost of producing and distributing additional boxes of cheerios rises in a broadly linear fashion - i.e. the profit margin remains the same whether you sell 100,000 boxes or 200,000 boxes

If anything the larger market for Cheerios now-a-days with the ease of automated factories should make them cheaper, not more expensive. They are more expensive because of inflation.

Perhaps you should read a wiki entry for inflation or cost of living increases... might enlighten you.

The cost of producing and distributing additional units of software rises at a much lower rate - especially when it comes to digital distribution. So the profit from the 200,000th copy is much greater than the 100,000th.

What? The cost of making gaming software of this nature has increased exponentially since the 80s... games now have 100 million dollar budgets. You make no sense what-so-ever.

Here is the long and short of it: games today cost much, much more to make and cost less to buy than ever before at $50. That's the long and short of it.

[dosbox]

Well the value the game has to you personally is your own decision, we are talking of the broader concept of all games being $60 at release, just like they are on console.


And again, the only reason they are on console is because of the license fee. The fact is this game doesn't offer the same bang for buck as cheaper games with short SP campaigns - e.g. Bad Company 2.

Here's what gets me - you seem to be arguing that PC games should all be $60. But yet, you're willing to accept LESS content.


If anything the larger market for Cheerios now-a-days with the ease of automated factories should make them cheaper, not more expensive. They are more expensive because of inflation.

Perhaps you should read a wiki entry for inflation or cost of living increases... might enlighten you.

What? The cost of making gaming software of this nature has increased exponentially since the 80s... games now have 100 million dollar budgets. You make no sense what-so-ever.


*sigh* each additional unit of manufactured good require raw materials. Additional units of software sold over steam (or impulse etc) do not.

Once the fixed costs have been taken care of, additional units of software are effectively pure profit.


Here is the long and short of it: games today cost much, much more to make and cost less to buy than ever before at $50. That's the long and short of it.

You're only looking at the costs, and ignoring the much larger size of the PC market. If a game costs five times as much to make, it's easier to recoup your costs when the market is ten times as big.

[StingingVelvet]

And again, the only reason they are on console is because of the license fee.

Not really... console and PC games were both $50 for 20 years or more. Console license fees did not pop up overnight when the Xbox 360 came out.

The prices were raised because of higher development costs and inflation.

The fact is this game doesn't offer the same bang for buck as cheaper games with short SP campaigns - e.g. Bad Company 2.

Subjective.

*sigh* each additional unit of manufactured good require raw materials. Additional units of software sold over steam (or impulse etc) do not.

Once the fixed costs have been taken care of, additional units of software are effectively pure profit.

All that Cheerios require is production cost, so as long as they make a profit on each box they are rolling in the money. I don't really see what that has to do with inflation though... my point was that things which cost X dollars in 1950 now cost X+Y dollars in 2010 because of inflation and cost of living increases, not necessarily because of higher production costs... most production costs now would actually be lower in comparison, relatively.

And as for Steam, the thing you are paying for is development, which on this game could have cost more than 100 million dollars. Packaging and shipping was never the thing you were really paying for with games, or any media really.

You're only looking at the costs, and ignoring the much larger size of the PC market. If a game costs five times as much to make, it's easier to recoup your costs when the market is ten times as big.

And the $60 price point had proven over the last few years to not decrease sales in a significant way compared to the gained revenue.

[Glahardt]

The extra $10 is compensation for their "online services platform" servers.

[dosbox]

And the $60 price point had proven over the last few years to not decrease sales in a significant way compared to the gained revenue.

And this is why discussing this with you is pointless. You're arguing from the producers viewpoint, while I'm arguing from the consumers.

I wonder why that is?

[Definitivex]

The added value tons of bugs

[StingingVelvet]

And this is why discussing this with you is pointless. You're arguing from the producers viewpoint, while I'm arguing from the consumers.

I wonder why that is?

I'm someone who knows without people funding games we don't get any?

[andym666]

well what i think is that the DRM actually was a very negative implementation for Ubisoft in terms of production cost.
It boils down to this :

- develop the DRM (easy and cheap probably)
- buy ultra mega super cool datacenter for useless DRM
- hope for increased revenues because people can't play the game without buying it.

and it turns out Silent Hunter 5 was cracked 24 hours after release, AC2 was cracked like 2 weeks after release, Settlers 7 was cracked 3-4 days ago and only thing left is Conviction... so people who don't want to pay will wait up for the crack anyway since crackers have proven that they can do the job, so Ubisoft can't really expect increased revenues and they've spent millions or probably tens of millions of dollars on a useless feature that...in an ironic way... only punishes the LEGIT player. So they've actually lost money =)) and this is not to add all the people (not many but i guess 10% of those who wanted to buy it) that hold on for a crack or just won't play it.

So there you go...that's why it's 60$ and not 50$. I mean it's an unfinished product (not even voice support or TEXT CHAT in CO-OP ??!?!!? how can those two guys understand each other ? it's outrageous) with lots of glitches and bugs, an unoptimized port but they have to recoup all the money they've lost on the PC version ONLY.

And ultimately this is what kills pc gaming...not pirates, not bad sales... but corporate greed.


p.s. i just saw a friend playing it and he was complaining about the lack of optimization and lack of even text chat in co-op and he said smth funny lol : "it's like these guys didn't even install the pc version before shipping it"

[StingingVelvet]

well what i think is that the DRM actually was a very negative implementation for Ubisoft in terms of production cost.

Very true, it costs them money and bad PR, and I doubt it increased sales much, if at all. Only Ubisoft know that though.

and it turns out Silent Hunter 5 was cracked 24 hours after release, AC2 was cracked like 2 weeks after release, Settlers 7 was cracked 3-4 days ago and only thing left is Conviction...

It took AC2 more like 2 months. The early "cracks" let the game load, but 100% cracks that let you play through the entire game take a long time because they need to hack every server connection point. Conviction has a "crack" out right now, but it is not complete.