$60 for games in THIS economy?

[Valorien]

This is to all the recent game developers who are still charging huge prices for games, ...have you CHECKED THE FINANCIAL WORLD NEWS LATELY?

Here's a strategical tip, lower your prices so the rest of us poor people can actually BUY your games.

It's better to make a $20 game that everyone can afford, than to limit your sales to only those few who are rich, ...THERE'S FAR MORE POOR PEOPLE THAN RICH NOWADAYS!

...Bloody hell...

[Lone_Sword]

But if you're so poor, are you able to have a computer that can run this game? Maybe on really low settings.

Also with our current economic issues, products that allow people to escape from reality for hours are in high demand, so why lower prices if it's selling? Kinda like the porn industry being recession-proof, or marijuana dispensaries, only less-so.

[CommanderZx2]

This is to all the recent game developers who are still charging huge prices for games, ...have you CHECKED THE FINANCIAL WORLD NEWS LATELY?

Here's a strategical tip, lower your prices so the rest of us poor people can actually BUY your games.

It's better to make a $20 game that everyone can afford, than to limit your sales to only those few who are rich, ...THERE'S FAR MORE POOR PEOPLE THAN RICH NOWADAYS!

...Bloody hell...

Calm down, games are only that expensive when pre-ordering or at release. If you shop around you could probably find it right now at a much lower price.

Also if you wait a few months after release you could probably get it for half the price.

[Thaifun]

This is to all the recent game developers who are still charging huge prices for games, ...have you CHECKED THE FINANCIAL WORLD NEWS LATELY?

Here's a strategical tip, lower your prices so the rest of us poor people can actually BUY your games.

It's better to make a $20 game that everyone can afford, than to limit your sales to only those few who are rich, ...THERE'S FAR MORE POOR PEOPLE THAN RICH NOWADAYS!

...Bloody hell...

If you can't afford it, wait half a year or so, then Skyrims probably going on sale for 50% off or so.
Just a tip: You can actually make a lot more revenue releasing a full price game for 60 dollars, and then lowering the price massivlely for a few days than just putting it up for that low price on release.

Also, if you think Skyrim is not worth 60 bucks, not counting wether or not you can afford it, then I really can't help you.

[CaptainDingo]

Welcome to big developer entitlement.

Every non-indie game developer in the world automatically assumes they are entitled to $60 a pop, no matter what the game is about, no matter how long it lasts, and no matter what the quality level of the game is.

I'm not saying Skyrim isn't worth it (honestly none of us can know that yet), I'm just explaining how things in general work (and have always worked).

Granted, most PC games top out at $50 rather than $60, but still.

[trapdoor]

Welcome to big developer entitlement.
Every non-indie game developer in the world automatically assumes they are entitled to $60 a pop, no matter what the game is about, no matter how long it lasts, and no matter what the quality level of the game is.


Yeah, because it's the developer who controls pricing and distribution. Pretty sure you're just an angry "indie game developer". My 2 cents.

[Quint]

lets make everything cheap right?We can't let the rich and successful to be above the poor and losers..

[varagix]

First of all, the retail price is sett by the retailer. The developer has no say in it, and the publisher has nearly as little say. The publisher sets a whole sale price (in this case, probably around $20-30) and maybe gives a recommendation on possible retail pricing, and the retailer, such as Steam, Best Buy, and GameStop, or small local shops, set the price they're going to charge you.

Secondly, the reason AAA games are so expensive (especially during preorder and the first few months of release) is due to how messed up the game market is. If a AAA-grade game is going to make back the money that goes into it, it needs to maximize the amount of money they get for it up to at least a month or so after release. Which means charging those people who've already decided to buy, regardless of price, as much as they can get away with. After that point, retailers like GameStop (key words being "like GameStop") start strangling publisher sales by pushing and encouraging the secondary market.

Don't get me wrong, I like buying used when the money is tight too, but places like GameStop encourage people to buy, then return so they can sell the game used... then have that same copy returned again... and again... and again. Making those retailers more money and losing the publishers and developers alot of sales.

If game companies and new-only retailers didn't have to race for sales before infinitely resold copies of their own product start showing up, maybe they could afford a lower starting price and make money slowly over time, kinda like the movie industry. Sadly, thats not how it is right now. If you want lower prices, wait until they drop prices to compete. Thats all you can really do.

[Lone_Sword]

^ That's why EA's project ten dollar was implemented. Basically a chunk of the game is missing(such as multiplayer access) unless you register it online on your system. This means that even when used copies are sold, they get their 10 dollars at least.

[FrontlinerDelta]

This is to all the recent game developers who are still charging huge prices for games, ...have you CHECKED THE FINANCIAL WORLD NEWS LATELY?

Here's a strategical tip, lower your prices so the rest of us poor people can actually BUY your games.

It's better to make a $20 game that everyone can afford, than to limit your sales to only those few who are rich, ...THERE'S FAR MORE POOR PEOPLE THAN RICH NOWADAYS!

...Bloody hell...

Well the capital needed to make the game in the firt place (at least one like Skyrim or Battlefield 3) is huge and developers want to make a living too.

I don't know...don't buy it? That's the beauty of capitalism, something is worth whatever people are willing to pay for it.

[dannythefool]

Every non-indie game developer in the world automatically assumes they are entitled to $60 a pop, no matter what the game is about, no matter how long it lasts, and no matter what the quality level of the game is.


Where does entitlement come into play? They (not the developers, the people who ultimately sell to you) want $60. They offer you a game in return. You don't have to take them up on the offer. Or do you think you're entitled to cheaper games?

[peteed1985]

I wanted collectors for dragon statue (I'm a big dragon nut) but then I saw the $198 price tag and thought OMG no way......

So i'm just getting the standard version for the $88 -_-

[skiddlywibble]

Look on the bright side: if you wait for a sale, there'll be a good few mods ready when you buy it.

[mangasus90]

Skyrim? 60$? Too cheap!

[spyrochaete]

$60 today is way less than $50 15 years ago. Games are cheaper today than at any time in history, considering inflation.

Plus, when a game is guaranteed to sell you can expect it to be sold at the highest price possible. I'm getting this game on launch day for sure, but with no bonus or discount I have no incentive whatsoever to preorder.

[Elenoe]

...have you CHECKED THE FINANCIAL WORLD NEWS LATELY?

Americans want play games instead of PAYING DEPTS they made?

...Bloody hell...

[varagix]

Americans want play games instead of PAYING DEPTS they made?

...Bloody hell...

I'm an American, and I have to admit that even I lol'd at this.

[Dazzled]

Skyrim? 60$? Too cheap!

60$ to start with. After that the DLC milking will start... :mad:

[Lone_Sword]

60$ to start with. After that the DLC milking will start... :mad:

So long as there's no horse armor repeat, they deserve to milk us for good, well developed DLC that adds major quests/worthwhile items/new aspects to the game. A ton of DLC isn't a bad thing, if it's awesome DLC.

[Thaifun]

So long as there's no horse armor repeat, they deserve to milk us for good, well developed DLC that adds major quests/worthwhile items/new aspects to the game. A ton of DLC isn't a bad thing, if it's awesome DLC.


Indeed, especially because they said that they wanted to make the DLC's bigger this time around, they wanted to make it feel more like expansion packs, AKA less DLC packs, but each one is longer and of higher quality.

[Zamav]

If there's an inflation, why only raise PC prices while consoles practically print money?

I demand console games to be raised $10 in price as well. They have to face with economic facts as well.

[Dazzled]

They promised good DLC ? Then they'll surely make good DLC that's worth the money.

[Lone_Sword]

They promised good DLC ? Then they'll surely make good DLC that's worth the money.

"They said that they wanted to make the DLC's bigger this time around, they wanted to make it feel more like expansion packs, AKA less DLC packs, but each one is longer and of higher quality."

Your paraphrasing skills of what was actually said to make your own argument/opinion seem intelligent is astounding.

[mangasus90]

Actually i never bother to touch the horse armor pack since it stupid for me =). Original game and mods are enough for me. Add-on missions is ok like silver isle, but extra houses like your own castle or cave? No need.

[Toros]

They promised good DLC ? Then they'll surely make good DLC that's worth the money.

Given they've already proven they made Shivering Isles, I don't think whether they're capable is something to get snarky about.

Most likely, there will be some really well done dlc, and some tiny random crap thrown in that affects nothing.

Not really sure why some people are inherently opposed to dlc. Done well, it allows a developer to release a finished product, and then get the game closer to what they would've done had they had more time and money to begin with.

It's not like you're forced to buy it either, and can cherry pick from the best dlc available.

Like most things, if done well works out just fine.

[flarp]

Wait for it to go on sale as i am.

Chances are its going to be a console port like oblivion (which was still a great game), and it will likely take the modders a few months set bethesda's s*** straight anyway...

[imyour2p]

It's on sale on Newegg for $48 using EMCKBJH96

[Nerv322]

Well the capital needed to make the game in the firt place (at least one like Skyrim or Battlefield 3) is huge and developers want to make a living too.

I don't know...don't buy it? That's the beauty of capitalism, something is worth whatever people are willing to pay for it.

Look they are just greedy case closed end of discussion.

Your being fooled, Skyrim costs no more to make than oblivion did. You think because the graphics are better it's worth more. Tricks and illusions, only the gullible and brainwashed will buy it at that price.

There is nothing beautiful about capitalism, it's just one big conspiracy. Seriously, it's just a person or persons who have grouped togther to figure out the best and most effcient way to take peoples money. You think Disney world give a ♥♥♥♥ about their rides???? they're just Attractions to attract you to disney world in order for you to spend money. It's done to make a profit they don't care about providing fun for the love of it, they do the bare minimum to ensure safty on their rides and take your money.

The same is true for every other industry and it's usually people who don't deserve it that get more money than they should. Who makes more money Eminem or his record label????? Also they keep dumbing down music and all entertainment so they can churn out more crap. In the future people will just listen to one note being played over and over again and think its the best thing ever (exaggeration but not too far from the truth)

If you can't see how capitalism will lead to our eventual destruction then your either rich and selfish or complety brainwashed by capitalist media propaganda or both.

You have been brainwashed whther you wan't to believe it or not. I was at my sisters house the other day and my niece was playing some CBBC (Childrens British Broadcasting corporation) Game on their website.
The premise of the game is your a worker ant or some strange creature that is part of a colony of workers. The objective is to farm plants and sell them for money and decorate your house. To begin you can only earn enough money to buy cheaper goods for your home like ripped wall paper.

So basically it's telling kids you have to go out and work like a ant in a colony and make money to buy things for your home. If your not smart enough or don't work hard enough then you'll be poor and will not be able to buy nice things for your home.If that's not brainwashing then you tell me what is???

Brainwashing children to keep the captilist cycle of life going, You work for us and with the money you earn you buy the crap we sell you so you end up with no money, as money is power and we want it all. that's why if you want to earn real money in this world you have to become a freemason as they exist in every industry and every walk of life where there is serious money to be made.

[Zamav]

Look they are just greedy case closed end of discussion.

Yes.

PC always had better margins compared to console games. Things got even better with the rise of the digital distribution. Raising PC prices and keeping the consoles prices level can only mean milking the PC community. Inflation? Give me a break.

BUT!
Your being fooled, Skyrim costs no more to make than oblivion did. You think because the graphics are better it's worth more. Tricks and illusions, only the gullible and brainwashed will buy it at that price.

Wrong, you obviously have no idea how software companies develop software and how they measure the cost of it.

Morrowind: Gamebyro Engine, 2002.
Oblivion: Gamebyro Engine, 2006 (4 years).
Skyrim: Brand new engine (built in-house), 2011 (5 years).

It is well documented that employee numbers rose for Bethesda for the last 5 years. This is by far the biggest project for Bethesda. They even pulled some of the id software guys because they had problems with the engine.

So yes, Skyrim does cost hell of a lot more than Oblivion. Yes, because graphics are better, it requires more developers and developer time, which is quite literally, money. Even if you adjust for inflation, Skyrim will end up being a lot more expensive than Oblivion.

This is of course, for production costs, marketing is an entirely different beast.

[scorpio0666]

a strategical tip?

[varagix]

stuff

Oh. Wow. Ok, look, I'm not going to argue with that. Not because its true or not, and not because I'm not able to. I'm not touching that because its obvious that all that is your belief, and simple things like "fact" and "reasoned discussion" wouldn't change that.

There's one thing I can agree with, though:
Seriously, it's just a person or persons who have grouped togther to figure out the best and most effcient way to take peoples money.

That. Just that. Not even the sentence before it, and not 99% of what's after it. And the reason is because it can be as simple as just that. They're trying to make as much money as efficiently as possible. Which is what everyone does. Yes, even you, I'm sure.

[Nerv322]

Oh. Wow. Ok, look, I'm not going to argue with that. Not because its true or not, and not because I'm not able to. I'm not touching that because its obvious that all that is your belief, and simple things like "fact" and "reasoned discussion" wouldn't change that.

What is a fact?????? Because in reality the only thing you can prove is that you exist anything beyond that is up for debate.
It's more than just a belief when I can back it up with evidence, example after example. Where as your just regurgitating everything you have always been told is true and never thought of anything beyond that. These people always claim to be reasonable but reason and rational behaviour is entirley based on your reference point and if your reference point is wrong that means your missing vital information which forms your perception of reality which means the way you see the world is potentially wrong.

When it comes down to it people like you who claim to reasonable laugh and mock anything that dosn't fit with "their idea" of reasonable even when the idea presented makes logical sense and has evidence. They turn into some of the most unreasonable people on the planet, just because they cannot except the possibility of said idea.

Rational thinking is just a tool used by the powerful to narrow your thinking to acceptable levels.

That. Just that. Not even the sentence before it, and not 99% of what's after it. And the reason is because it can be as simple as just that. They're trying to make as much money as efficiently as possible. Which is what everyone does. Yes, even you, I'm sure.

How much money do you actually need until just becomes greed????? with no laws to limit greed what so ever. It is allowed because the name of the game is greed, until the world as been consumed and corporations are selling the last remains of oxygen on the planet maybe then people will realise why capitalism is bad, lol.

You think this can last forever???

[varagix]

What is a fact?????? Because in reality the only thing you can prove is that you exist anything beyond that is up for debate.
It's more than just a belief when I can back it up with evidence, example after example. Where as your just regurgitating everything you have always been told is true and never thought of anything beyond that. These people always claim to be reasonable but reason and rational behaviour is entirley based on your reference point and if your reference point is wrong that means your missing vital information which forms your perception of reality which means the way you see the world is potentially wrong.

When it comes down to it people like you who claim to reasonable laugh and mock anything that dosn't fit with "their idea" of reasonable even when the idea presented makes logical sense and has evidence. They turn into some of the most unreasonable people on the planet, just because they cannot except the possibility of said idea.

Rational thinking is just a tool used by the powerful to narrow your thinking to acceptable levels.



How much money do you actually need until just becomes greed????? with no laws to limit greed what so ever. It is allowed because the name of the game is greed, until the world as been consumed and corporations are selling the last remains of oxygen on the planet maybe then people will realise why capitalism is bad, lol.

You think this can last forever???

I wasn't mocking you, but I was trying to point out that ranting and raving doesn't 'reveal the truth' to anyone. It makes you look like a lunatic or an extremist. Especially when you cry out about the evils of capitalism on a game forum due over the price of a video game. Even if what you're saying is true, the way you're going about spreading your message undermines your credibility.

As does insulting people who disagree with you, or using the argument that disagreeing with you proves that they're effectively wrong and you're right. If I wanted to hear those kinda of arguments, I'd go listen to the evangelicals preaching the evils of pagans and heathens, rap, violent video games, and anything else they don't agree with at the time.

[Nerv322]

I wasn't mocking you, but I was trying to point out that ranting and raving doesn't 'reveal the truth' to anyone. It makes you look like a lunatic or an extremist. Especially when you cry out about the evils of capitalism on a game forum due over the price of a video game. Even if what you're saying is true, the way you're going about spreading your message undermines your credibility.

Well it didn't come across like that because lets face it you didn't say that and I'm not psychic. I'm extreme no don't about it, chating about capitalism in a game forum about overcharging for a game which is a direct result of capitalism doesn't undermine any credibility what are you talking about???? A good meessage or point is good anywhere regardless where it is preacehed. Sure I may be wrong on some points but the overall message is correct.

As does insulting people who disagree with you, or using the argument that disagreeing with you proves that they're effectively wrong and you're right. If I wanted to hear those kinda of arguments, I'd go listen to the evangelicals preaching the evils of pagans and heathens, rap, violent video games, and anything else they don't agree with at the time.

I didn't insult you at all I was just making a point about people who talk reasonable but are not really. Are you one of those people??? I don't know I can only judge based on what you wrote I don't know you in person so it's nothing personal. I just hear that all the time from people, so I'm striking preemptively I guess,I meant no offense.

You are wrong in a sense because you don't know my reasoning to my argument. I'm hardly gonna go on a all out vendetta on a steam forum showing evidence after evidence. I act like I'm right because no one has ever proved me wrong or presented a viable alternative which supports my evidence. They either walk away angry calling me crazy denying everything for sake of their own sanity or forced to concede that there is some truth to what I say. All which means nothing to you, but you can't really say anything when you don't really know anything. I'm right til I'm proven wrong or shown a different way that makes sense of my evidence. I'm just not gonna get proved wrong on a steam forum because I just can't present my case here at all, Skynet is watching, lol.

If people were reasonable then talks against capitalism, even conspiracy theory would be taken more seriously and not mocked and laughed at as people that wear tin foil hats. I have never seen a programme or movie where conspiracy theorists were not represented as crazy tin foil hat people, ever. People get their entire world view from the media so there is no surprise they see and treat these people like tin foil hat people.

You don't agree with me that's fine just don't make judgements to how factual and reasonable I am, you don't know me. That's the only reason I responded in the first place because you made a preconceived notions about me so I did the same to you and you complained, lol.

[Elenoe]

capitalism isnt conspiracy. MONEY ARE NOT something bad guys invented ffs :) MONEY are WORK. Nothing else. If you think some evil guy or guys are stealing money from you, then DONT GIVE money to THEM :)

You understand you actually survive without money, dont you? Money are DEPT other people make to you for YOUR work for them. If you have moneyfobia, just DONT DO ANY WORK FOR OTHERS and more important DO NOT WANT OTHER PEOPLE DO SOMETHING FOR YOU. Then and only then you will not need money. Its simple as that. Your choice.

And if you CHOOSED to make other people work for you, gather food for you, make you confortable, grant you ability complaining how money are bad, just dont try convince all others that some other bad guys are stealing money from everyone :) Money means nothing, if you dont understand that, you should begin there.

[alehm]

Hey Nerv I was wondering if you could tie in the struggle for universal health care to the hardware system requirements for Skyrim while you are it? Thanks!

[alehm]

capitalism isnt conspiracy.

I wouldn't bother trying to have any two way discussion, that is unless you are just looking for more fascist comedy.

[Lone_Sword]

You are wrong in a sense because you don't know my reasoning to my argument. I'm hardly gonna go on a all out vendetta on a steam forum showing evidence after evidence. I act like I'm right because no one has ever proved me wrong or presented a viable alternative which supports my evidence.

Well, you see Nerv, I know you're wrong and I know I'm right. You're wrong because you don't know my reasoning, but I'm not going to go all out and explain it here. I'm acting like I'm right because NO ONE has EVER proved me wrong or presented a viable alternative which supports my opinion.

Don't bother arguing your point, cause it's okay, I know you're wrong, cause I can pull anecdotal evidence after anecdotal evidence, even though using anecdotal evidence to support your argument in a fallacy.

[varagix]

I wouldn't bother trying to have any two way discussion, that is unless you are just looking for more fascist comedy.

You may be right, but I sometimes find myself drawn to these kinds of debates. Also I don't think this topic is going to go much further than debates about economics anyways. Unless you want to go back to "$60? that sucks /end of post" now?

Well it didn't come across like that because lets face it you didn't say that and I'm not psychic. I'm extreme no don't about it, chating about capitalism in a game forum about overcharging for a game which is a direct result of capitalism doesn't undermine any credibility what are you talking about???? A good meessage or point is good anywhere regardless where it is preacehed. Sure I may be wrong on some points but the overall message is correct.



I didn't insult you at all I was just making a point about people who talk reasonable but are not really. Are you one of those people??? I don't know I can only judge based on what you wrote I don't know you in person so it's nothing personal. I just hear that all the time from people, so I'm striking preemptively I guess,I meant no offense.

You are wrong in a sense because you don't know my reasoning to my argument. I'm hardly gonna go on a all out vendetta on a steam forum showing evidence after evidence. I act like I'm right because no one has ever proved me wrong or presented a viable alternative which supports my evidence. They either walk away angry calling me crazy denying everything for sake of their own sanity or forced to concede that there is some truth to what I say. All which means nothing to you, but you can't really say anything when you don't really know anything. I'm right til I'm proven wrong or shown a different way that makes sense of my evidence. I'm just not gonna get proved wrong on a steam forum because I just can't present my case here at all, Skynet is watching, lol.

If people were reasonable then talks against capitalism, even conspiracy theory would be taken more seriously and not mocked and laughed at as people that wear tin foil hats. I have never seen a programme or movie where conspiracy theorists were not represented as crazy tin foil hat people, ever. People get their entire world view from the media so there is no surprise they see and treat these people like tin foil hat people.

You don't agree with me that's fine just don't make judgements to how factual and reasonable I am, you don't know me. That's the only reason I responded in the first place because you made a preconceived notions about me so I did the same to you and you complained, lol.

I'm sorry for jumping to the conclusion you were attacking me. And I'm all for the occasional heated debate from time to time. And you -do- make a good point: not all conspiracy theories are insane ramblings of hobos wearing aluminum headgear. What gets most people laughed at though is the logical fallacies many theorists make.

The idea that capitalism is the reason prices are increasing, for example, because big business wants more money fails to take into account that capitalism is also the reason why companies -lower- prices: to make more money by increasing sales and hedging out the competition. An overpriced game won't sell, so the corporate executives will either spend money to make it better or more attractive and/or lower the price until the product sells. Similarly, competition allows people in a field to choose who they work for based on the pay and benefits, with companies willing to pay and give more getting more and possibly employees. Those things also mean that if a company is willing to, it can exploit a large build up of capital to crush the smaller businesses with prices, pay, and benefits they can't compete with until the smaller business folds. But its also at the mercy of public opinion, and if people aren't willing to put of with their bull♥♥♥♥, they'll take their money elsewhere.

The alternatives? Socialism would have the government dictate who does what, for how much, and how much it will cost. A person doesn't feel motivated to excel because no matter how hard he/she works or how good he/she does the job, they always receive the same pay as the person who performs an average job, or even the person who performs poorly. You're also putting the responsibility of managing the economy completely in the hands of the government. I don't know about you, but here in America... well you've seen how our government handled -their- money in the news, and they've been flailing around trying to fix our economy for a while now (not going to comment on who's responsible for messing it up in the first place, in my opinion). I don't want to know how they'd have handled things if they were directly in charge of -our- money in addition to their own...

And a regulated economy? Well, that's actually what most countries have right now. When it works, it works well, preventing big businesses from simply using their bulk to crush smaller businesses, and preventing employees from being exploited. When it doesn't work, it either doesn't have any effect, or it makes things worse in a different way: small businesses can't get off the ground because the startup cost of a new business is inflated by minimum wage and government licensing, and big companies increase the prices of their products to compensate for the added cost of maintaining a certain minimum pay or benefits package. Take a look at Australia's economy and that's exactly whats happening there.

Now that all being said, is capitalism really the problem here? I don't think so, especially since most of the world economy actually -isn't- purely capitalistic. Is big business a problem, though? ... Honestly, yeah, it can be. =\

[Nerv322]

Well, you see Nerv, I know you're wrong and I know I'm right. You're wrong because you don't know my reasoning, but I'm not going to go all out and explain it here. I'm acting like I'm right because NO ONE has EVER proved me wrong or presented a viable alternative which supports my opinion.

Don't bother arguing your point, cause it's okay, I know you're wrong, cause I can pull anecdotal evidence after anecdotal evidence, even though using anecdotal evidence to support your argument in a fallacy.


Not really the evidence is right in front of you every day you just too ignorant to recognize it's even there.

You think your being smart by throwing my own words in my face, but at the end of the day you don't know anything about what I know. I'm just stating the fact that no one has proved me wrong and that is just the truth believe it or not, I don't care. Just don't mock me because you think your being smart by exploiting my own point that you know as much about me as I do you. I wasn't trying to prove you wrong, I don't even know why your talking to me????? The person who I was respoding to was implying that I am not factual and unreasonable without even knowing me which is completely unreasonable. So mock me in context please it has nothing to do with you.

Definition of conspiracy is people who join togther to plot against people for their own advantage and that's what capitalism is in essence. There is nothing unreasonable about that sentiment


Hey Nerv I was wondering if you could tie in the struggle for universal health care to the hardware system requirements for Skyrim while you are it? Thanks!

What are you even talking about???? another person who thinks they're smart. There is no relationship between the two
where as bethesada is capitalist and governs its self by capitalist priciples this is true for every other money grubbing company.

I'm done on this subject there is nothing more to talk about it's just people trying to mock me, it's just going to turn into a argument because people just can't accept the possibility of it, whether true ot not is irrelevant as it's all possible and no one has any real facts to promote either side. It ultimately boils down to who you wanna believe more.

Just think about this, everyone is so adamant there is never any conspiracy and will defend that til the death with no real evidence to support that there isn't because issues of this nature are out right laughed at that it would be incredibly easy to conspire aginst people because they don't even expect it.

"We shall squeeze you empty, and then we shall fill you with ourselves" - George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four

[varagix]

I think Lone_Sword and alehm were being facetious with you.

And while by that definition, companies can and do conspire, you could say the same about consumer group who organize to seek better quality of service, often through advocating boycotts on a large scale, or consumers who decide, either as a group or as an individual, to wait until circumstances force businesses to reduce prices and give better deals. That's a very broad definition for a word with a strong negative connotation. That also assumes that the idea that companies not only want to make money, but that they either want to harm us in the process or want to keep it secret that they want your money. That is -not- the case. They actually come out and publicly announce whether they're making money, losing money, how much money is lost or gained, etc. They're actually open and proud of their ability to make a profit, and they leave it up to you whether or not you want to deal with them. Charging high prices for a product isn't conspiracy, especially when its a luxury good.

That isn't to say some companies aren't actually evil or corrupt. Look at the way GameStop and similar retailers try to make money at the expense of people who make them. Or the Enron scandal, which only happened a few years ago. It happens, and people should be wary.

But the idea that capitalism, a economic concept which states that everyone competes, from the lowest warehouse worker to the biggest corporate executive, for the best they can get for a little as possible, is actually some sort of evil conspiracy to turn everyone into a mindless drone in service of big business?

Well, I suppose everyone needs some sort of evil villain or nemesis to demonize for whatever misfortune they witness in their lives, and a label to refer to them by. =\

[enemyofportal]

well, in this economy, Apple mac sale has been grown huge percentage. but I understand what you mean. at least, games are cheaper than PC, right?

[JK_DC]

$48 at Newegg. I personally negotiated with Newegg to lower the price so the OP can play it.

/thread

[ChocoBalls]

Seeing as how Skyrim is guaranteed to be as buggy as Oblivion and Fallout2, I'd say $60 is too much. I'm going to hold off for a year and buy it at discount, because that's how long it inevitably takes Bethesda to iron out the ♥♥♥♥ty game-breaking glitches that plague all of their Day One releases.

[Lone_Sword]

Seeing as how Skyrim is guaranteed to be as buggy as Oblivion and Fallout2, I'd say $60 is too much. I'm going to hold off for a year and buy it at discount, because that's how long it inevitably takes Bethesda to iron out the ♥♥♥♥ty game-breaking glitches that plague all of their Day One releases.

Guaranteed by who? And they've had game-breaking glitches in all their Day One releases? I assume you've played Day One Elder Scrolls: Arena, and Elder Scrolls II: Daggerfall on Day One as well? Also Gridiron! and The Terminator too, right? And I'd hardly call the majority of their glitches "game breaking." Yeah, a few definitely are, but even the majority of those are only run into by a small % of users.

[Lone_Sword]

You think your being smart by throwing my own words in my face, but at the end of the day you don't know anything about what I know. I'm just stating the fact that no one has proved me wrong and that is just the truth believe it or not, I don't care. Just don't mock me because you think your being smart by exploiting my own point that you know as much about me as I do you. I wasn't trying to prove you wrong, I don't even know why your talking to me????? The person who I was respoding to was implying that I am not factual and unreasonable without even knowing me which is completely unreasonable.

First and foremost, my opinion is that anyone of any intellectual prowess doesn't for the most part can articulate their arguments without coming off as a raving nutcase, such as yourself.

The idea that no one has proved you wrong stems from your mentality that you can't be wrong. You try and justify it all you like, the fact of the matter is that you've brainwashed yourself.

In response to why I responded to you, is that this is a message board. This is for group discussions. If you didn't want others to respond except for that one individual, you would have taken it to a PM.

And on the last sentence, I'd have to agree with the other person. I may not know you, but the identity you choose to show on here is one of an unreasonable and non-factual person. You don't have to thoroughly know someone in-and-out to understand something about them and develop an opinion. My opinion(and apparently many others) is that you're a raving madman, who sounds pseudo-anarchist. I would invite you to explain your alternative to capitalism, but my assumption would be that you'd reply with something that sounds logical in your head, but is in-fact impossible short of a utopian society.

I wasn't mocking you, I was showing your own way of arguing back at you. In-turn, you responded with the same form of arguing. Also, I took a quote from you directly about a subject without any paraphrasing, and responded directly to that quote. That's called being in context, dumbass.

Finally, you claim everyone else cannot recognize that what you say might be true, the "possibility" of your mad ravings actually being reality. On the other-hand, I'd say you can't accept the possibility that what you're currently raving about is untrue. You may argue people are adamant that there is no conspiracy; well there's also people, such as yourself, who are adamant that there is a conspiracy when there isn't.

[Baresark]

Some interesting things have been said about the industry in this thread, some true, others not. The publisher sets the MSRP for an item, not the retailer. I think this is one of the rare games that is worth that much honestly ($60 for me in the US).

Prices rise because of inflationary rates, unfortunately not supply and demand. Artificially pricing down causes an artificial shortage, which has been present 100% of the time price controls are implemented. The cost of living goes up, the currency gets inflated, and you have rising prices.

Eventually, a company could price itself out of business though. Sometimes, mega corporations and governments institute measures that adversely effect certain populations of people, then believe that those people will not change their spending habits, which historically is completely wrong as well. In a lot of ways, Indie developers are the only people who are capable of actually predicting consumer needs. So you are greeted with gems such as PvZ and now, Bastion, just to name a few examples.

This is a broad topic of discussion, and I could go on and on.

[Baresark]

My opinion(and apparently many others) is that you're a raving madman, who sounds pseudo-anarchist. I would invite you to explain your alternative to capitalism...




Capitalism in Anarchy at it's absolute best.

[prolificke]

60 Dollars for games is not a new phenomenon, if i recall Diablo was 60 when it was released back in 1996. Factor inflation games are cheaper today than they were back then.

[Nerv322]

First and foremost, my opinion is that anyone of any intellectual prowess doesn't for the most part can articulate their arguments without coming off as a raving nutcase, such as yourself.

At what point did I come off as a raving nutcase??????
This all perception what's crazy to you isn't to someone else, stop being narrow minded.

The idea that no one has proved you wrong stems from your mentality that you can't be wrong. You try and justify it all you like, the fact of the matter is that you've brainwashed yourself.

That's an assumption based on no fact. I told the truth every discussion I have had no one as adequately been able to point out I'm wrong in some major way at all. I want to be wrong believe me do you think my opinion is a happy mentality to have??? your sadly mistaken. For example I'm going to change the topic to something you will not have a good enough reason to explain beyond coincidence. Why does satanic and occult symbology permeate every aspect of the entertainment industry, Even the games industry???? I'm not trying to say the devil is real just that these symbols represent evil, what does it say about us when we accept these symbols and even use them our selves???? New generations behave worse than the last and it is just a coincdence. It has nothing to do with our consumption of satanic products.

"He is crazy, I tell you"

Even though what I say is true because I can point to it and show example after example. I'm sure someone will create some sort of it's a coincedence type train of thought or means nothing, even though it is there no doubt about it.

I remember playing Metal Gear Solid peace walker and in order to play the game you have to accept/press x on the peace symbol to play the game. Wouldn't be so bad if the symbol meant peace but it doesn't. It's a Anti Christian symbol that means to renounce your faith in chirst in the 3 degrees of past present and future. The symbol is an upside down cross with it's arms broken. Roman emperor nero called it the broken jew. The game makes people unconsciously renounce your faith in christ in order to play the game. All worship the solid serpent, lol.

Look at RAGE it uses the anarchy symbol as the A. ID uses that symbol alot in their games, as do alot of other game devs.

I can pull example of example of this in movie, music and game. At what point does it stop being crazy and a coincidence. It's every single song, movie and game practically that it goes beyond a coincidence it becomes a definite reason behind it, granted I don't know what that reason is but it's still there regardless.

"witch, Burn him at the stake"

I just perceive things in ways other people don't perceive things, it doesn't mean I'm crazy. That's just what you so called "reasonable rational" people say when someone says something you can't conceive or accept because you base your entire reference point on what you have always been told and never questions anything, loyal and obedient.

In response to why I responded to you, is that this is a message board. This is for group discussions. If you didn't want others to respond except for that one individual, you would have taken it to a PM.

Yeah I guess your right, I should of PM him but I didn't, sorry.

And on the last sentence, I'd have to agree with the other person. I may not know you, but the identity you choose to show on here is one of an unreasonable and non-factual person. You don't have to thoroughly know someone in-and-out to understand something about them and develop an opinion. My opinion(and apparently many others) is that you're a raving madman, who sounds pseudo-anarchist. I would invite you to explain your alternative to capitalism, but my assumption would be that you'd reply with something that sounds logical in your head, but is in-fact impossible short of a utopian society.

How is what I said non factual and what you say factual when you have as much proof of what you say as I do. Your facts are just other peoples opinions you deem to be truthful but have no real evidence to prove that they are. It's true because the TV told me or a book told me, either way it's 2nd hand, 3rd hand even 4th hand information you are using as "Fact".

Capitalism could be improved if there were laws limiting how much money a company can earn based on what it needs, no more no less and the rest of the money to be pored into services like health care or maybe pay off the deficit every country has at least to my knowledge(nothing suspicious there either). That would be a massive improvement than people amassing wealth they could never spend in several life times.


I wasn't mocking you, I was showing your own way of arguing back at you. In-turn, you responded with the same form of arguing. Also, I took a quote from you directly about a subject without any paraphrasing, and responded directly to that quote. That's called being in context, dumbass.

Yes you were out of context because your quoting the reply to someone else's post criticising me rather than my original post. I'm responding in a way that is slighty irrational because I'm dealing with people throwing up road blocks and there is some frustration present. Just as there is with this post, so quoting that isn't representing me accurately because your not quoting the orginal post.


Finally, you claim everyone else cannot recognize that what you say might be true, the "possibility" of your mad ravings actually being reality. On the other-hand, I'd say you can't accept the possibility that what you're currently raving about is untrue. You may argue people are adamant that there is no conspiracy; well there's also people, such as yourself, who are adamant that there is a conspiracy when there isn't.

We live in a reality of infinite possiblity, which means there is as much doubt surrounding my opinion as there is to your entire belief system.

At the end of the day I stated my opinion and people like you just outright attacked me. Then complained about my responses being crazy. Stop attacking me and talk reasonably and I can do the same.

Like your entire thought process is just "I don't like what he says..... ATTACK!!!!!"

I do apologize, if I came across as raving nutcase but I'm not really. Text is somewhat limiting in that you have to use your imagination to some degree to understand it's meaning. Which means people can get a different reation based of the same text.

I'm really not crazy at all. My opinion whether right or wrong just doesn't fit with standard traditions that is all.

If your gonna burn me for being different how reasonable and rational does that make you really.

"I'm only reasonable and rational when people talk about issues that match my preprogramed perception of reality, if not burn them."

[Zamav]

Link (http://thrivingtoo.typepad.com/thriving_too/images/2008/09/13/wrong.jpg). That is all.

Edit: And before someone says anything, this isn't directed at a specific person.

[Lone_Sword]

Nerv, you had me at the religious meaning of the button "x"...

X was originally used in the modern Latin Alphabet by the ancient Greeks. The fact that you're using a made-up individual(Jesus Christ) in your argument, as well as claiming that "It's every single song, movie and game practically" that has "Satanic(Satan, another make-believe character that humans invented) Symbols", showed me what type of person you are. I'm trying to not attack you here, but I'm going to try and explain why you're receiving so man "road blocks". Try to follow me here:

You are a raving lunatic. You are no worse than someone along the lines of Benny Hinn(if you don't know who that is, he's a very famous religious "healer", who also happens to be making millions off of his "healing"). The fact that you went on a page-long rant, saying that "modern days have satanic symbols everywhere!!?!?!", makes it very very easy to categorize what type of person you are(based off of your ideals/how you represent your ideals here). You're a raving ♥♥♥♥ing mad person.

If you'd like to discuss the video game Skyrim, feel free, but I(and I hope no one else) will be responding to your religious soaked, ♥♥♥-backwards arguments. The game is coming out at $60, it will sell a few million copies most likely, and nothing your posts say can actually change that.

I'll leave you with this final comment, which I am 100% convinced applies to you:
A mad man does not know that he is mad.

[Nerv322]

Nerv, you had me at the religious meaning of the button "x"...

X was originally used in the modern Latin Alphabet by the ancient Greeks. The fact that you're using a made-up individual(Jesus Christ) in your argument, as well as claiming that "It's every single song, movie and game practically" that has "Satanic(Satan, another make-believe character that humans invented) Symbols", showed me what type of person you are. I'm trying to not attack you here, but I'm going to try and explain why you're receiving so man "road blocks". Try to follow me here:

You are a raving lunatic. You are no worse than someone along the lines of Benny Hinn(if you don't know who that is, he's a very famous religious "healer", who also happens to be making millions off of his "healing"). The fact that you went on a page-long rant, saying that "modern days have satanic symbols everywhere!!?!?!", makes it very very easy to categorize what type of person you are(based off of your ideals/how you represent your ideals here). You're a raving ♥♥♥♥ing mad person.

If you'd like to discuss the video game Skyrim, feel free, but I(and I hope no one else) will be responding to your religious soaked, ♥♥♥-backwards arguments. The game is coming out at $60, it will sell a few million copies most likely, and nothing your posts say can actually change that.

Whether jesus was real or not is irelavent he is a symbol he means something, it means something when you destory that image.

Colors have meaning they affect you subconsciously, I wish I could talk more on this but I'm in the process of moving house, lol. So I can not go into more depth.



A mad man does not know that he is mad.

couldn't agree more, I often wonder if I am mad. Everyone takes for granted that they must be sane because everyone is like them.

A quote from alien 3 goes something like "in a insane world a sane man would appear insane."

[varagix]

At what point did I come off as a raving nutcase??????
This all perception what's crazy to you isn't to someone else, stop being narrow minded.



That's an assumption based on no fact. I told the truth every discussion I have had no one as adequately been able to point out I'm wrong in some major way at all. I want to be wrong believe me do you think my opinion is a happy mentality to have??? your sadly mistaken. For example I'm going to change the topic to something you will not have a good enough reason to explain beyond coincidence. Why does satanic and occult symbology permeate every aspect of the entertainment industry, Even the games industry???? I'm not trying to say the devil is real just that these symbols represent evil, what does it say about us when we accept these symbols and even use them our selves???? New generations behave worse than the last and it is just a coincdence. It has nothing to do with our consumption of satanic products.

"He is crazy, I tell you"

Even though what I say is true because I can point to it and show example after example. I'm sure someone will create some sort of it's a coincedence type train of thought or means nothing, even though it is there no doubt about it.

I remember playing Metal Gear Solid peace walker and in order to play the game you have to accept/press x on the peace symbol to play the game. Wouldn't be so bad if the symbol meant peace but it doesn't. It's a Anti Christian symbol that means to renounce your faith in chirst in the 3 degrees of past present and future. The symbol is an upside down cross with it's arms broken. Roman emperor nero called it the broken jew. The game makes people unconsciously renounce your faith in christ in order to play the game. All worship the solid serpent, lol.

Look at RAGE it uses the anarchy symbol as the A. ID uses that symbol alot in their games, as do alot of other game devs.

I can pull example of example of this in movie, music and game. At what point does it stop being crazy and a coincidence. It's every single song, movie and game practically that it goes beyond a coincidence it becomes a definite reason behind it, granted I don't know what that reason is but it's still there regardless.

"witch, Burn him at the stake"

I just perceive things in ways other people don't perceive things, it doesn't mean I'm crazy. That's just what you so called "reasonable rational" people say when someone says something you can't conceive or accept because you base your entire reference point on what you have always been told and never questions anything, loyal and obedient.



Yeah I guess your right, I should of PM him but I didn't, sorry.



How is what I said non factual and what you say factual when you have as much proof of what you say as I do. Your facts are just other peoples opinions you deem to be truthful but have no real evidence to prove that they are. It's true because the TV told me or a book told me, either way it's 2nd hand, 3rd hand even 4th hand information you are using as "Fact".

Capitalism could be improved if there were laws limiting how much money a company can earn based on what it needs, no more no less and the rest of the money to be pored into services like health care or maybe pay off the deficit every country has at least to my knowledge(nothing suspicious there either). That would be a massive improvement than people amassing wealth they could never spend in several life times.



Yes you were out of context because your quoting the reply to someone else's post criticising me rather than my original post. I'm responding in a way that is slighty irrational because I'm dealing with people throwing up road blocks and there is some frustration present. Just as there is with this post, so quoting that isn't representing me accurately because your not quoting the orginal post.



We live in a reality of infinite possiblity, which means there is as much doubt surrounding my opinion as there is to your entire belief system.

At the end of the day I stated my opinion and people like you just outright attacked me. Then complained about my responses being crazy. Stop attacking me and talk reasonably and I can do the same.

Like your entire thought process is just "I don't like what he says..... ATTACK!!!!!"

I do apologize, if I came across as raving nutcase but I'm not really. Text is somewhat limiting in that you have to use your imagination to some degree to understand it's meaning. Which means people can get a different reation based of the same text.

I'm really not crazy at all. My opinion whether right or wrong just doesn't fit with standard traditions that is all.

If your gonna burn me for being different how reasonable and rational does that make you really.

"I'm only reasonable and rational when people talk about issues that match my preprogramed perception of reality, if not burn them."

Hmm... Well, in no particular order: Symbology is just that - the use of symbols to represent something. Many symbols meanings change over time, some losing or gaining connotations. The peace symbol may have ment something different in the past, but few use it that way now. Similarly, many people see and use the upside-down cross as a satanic symbol, even though it originally represented Saint Peter and the popes of the catholic church (based on the story that Peter refused to be killed like Christ because he wasn't worthy of dying like Jesus had). I'm not going to linger too much on this because I'm not personally a christian, and I try not to judge contemporary christians based on actions taken by zealous members of the faith in the past, nor think that any ill treatment is deserved based on how those who came before treated those of differing faiths.

Next point, laws based on limiting a companies earnings (and assume it something different than the various kinds of taxes there are). Now ignoring the difficulties of enforcing that kind of law, where would you draw the line on "how much is too much"? Would certain industries, like medicine, get preferential treatment? And how would you determine how much a company "needed"? That last one is the hardest, since many companies, especially the entertainment industries, go through -huge- amounts of money producing their product, paying all their employees competitive wages, buying necessary tools and supplies, etc. A game like Skyrim, for example, probably cost somewhere in the millions to the tens of millions to make, all things considered.

And how would scale factor into that kind of law, too? My father runs a yard and garden shop part time out of a small building in the front field of our property. He regularly charges nearly 100% (or more, in some cases) markup on many of the products he buys wholesale. He also makes hand made crafts as well and sells them for similar prices. Would said law affect him as well?

And how would you get such a law passed? I doubt the people who support big business would get behind it, and the people who support blue collar workers and such could easily see such a law as something that could cause lost jobs and resources: how can a company deal with emergencies or unexpected problems or set backs when the government imposes a law that limits it profits and leaves it unprepared for such things?

I suppose we could just do away with big business all together, but then we lose out on the main strength of big business - a large amount of resources and capital to throw behind a project or cause. How can a small company with a worth measured in thousands justify spending money on a large building project or a long term goal with no immediate pay off when those things will drain what little money they have before they see any sort of return? That sort of thing hasn't just cost money; its cost hard working people jobs.

By the way, arguments based on differences in perception never prove anything. I could claim I perceived the sun as a fish and no one could prove me either wrong or right. Not criticizing anyone; just throwing that out there.


Oh, and lastly, Zamav? Great job posting xkcd xD Personally, I don't think that comic applies to me, though, because I don't really care if someone is right or wrong on the internet. I just like running through the mental gymnastics on my spare time sometimes. Doesn't make posting that comic any less awesome though. ^^

EDIT: Wow. I need to take less time writing responses. Two posts went up before I could finish this. xp

[Vasir]

I can pull example of example of this in movie, music and game. At what point does it stop being crazy and a coincidence. It's every single song, movie and game practically that it goes beyond a coincidence it becomes a definite reason behind it, granted I don't know what that reason is but it's still there regardless.

For someone who sees coincidences, the number is irrelivent. One coincidence or 100, if someone believes in coincidence they will always see in it.



Next point, laws based on limiting a companies earnings (and assume it something different than the various kinds of taxes there are). Now ignoring the difficulties of enforcing that kind of law, where would you draw the line on "how much is too much"? Would certain industries, like medicine, get preferential treatment? And how would you determine how much a company "needed"? That last one is the hardest, since many companies, especially the entertainment industries, go through -huge- amounts of money producing their product, paying all their employees competitive wages, buying necessary tools and supplies, etc. A game like Skyrim, for example, probably cost somewhere in the millions to the tens of millions to make, all things considered.

And how would scale factor into that kind of law, too? My father runs a yard and garden shop part time out of a small building in the front field of our property. He regularly charges nearly 100% (or more, in some cases) markup on many of the products he buys wholesale. He also makes hand made crafts as well and sells them for similar prices. Would said law affect him as well?


Might I add, as history shows us, corporations and governments would MUCH rather spend their money fighting these laws than to give up some money for a cause or law.

Sidenote, I'm really liking this debate.

[ChocoBalls]

Guaranteed by who? And they've had game-breaking glitches in all their Day One releases? I assume you've played Day One Elder Scrolls: Arena, and Elder Scrolls II: Daggerfall on Day One as well? Also Gridiron! and The Terminator too, right? And I'd hardly call the majority of their glitches "game breaking." Yeah, a few definitely are, but even the majority of those are only run into by a small % of users.

Yeah, I was exaggerating. The first Bethesda game I ever played was Morrowind. It was buggy, and remained buggy until a third-party fix package was released (how many years after that game came out?). Oblivion crashed every thirty seconds, deleted my save games, froze my system, and deleted my stored equipment. How long did it take Bethesda to fix all those issues? And I shouldn't have to explain Fallout 3 or Brink to you.

Just because only "a small % of users" encounter an issue doesn't mean it's insignificant. Bethesda have a horrible track record for releasing stable games, and they have a less-than-stellar track record for fixing glitches and bugs. You're fooling yourself if you think Skyrim is going to be any different.

[RaranTroff]

The $60 price tag has pretty much insured that I will wait for a 50% sale to pick it up. This trend of pricing pc games the same as console is bs and if we continue to support it, it will only encourage them. Skyrim could be the greatest game ever made and I would still not spend 60 bucks.

Besides hasn't everyone learned to wait for the all dlc included price reduced goty edition yet?

[skinlo]

The $60 price tag has pretty much insured that I will wait for a 50% sale to pick it up. This trend of pricing pc games the same as console is bs and if we continue to support it, it will only encourage them. Skyrim could be the greatest game ever made and I would still not spend 60 bucks.

Besides hasn't everyone learned to wait for the all dlc included price reduced goty edition yet?

I don't think you get it. People who buy it at $60 feel it is worth $60 to them to have it at or near release. People like you who don't feel it is worth it wait. Its not complicated and nobody is right or wrong. Same for the GoTY, not everyone will want to wait a long time to get the game.

[ChocoBalls]

I don't think you get it. People who buy it at $60 feel it is worth $60 to them to have it at or near release. People like you who don't feel it is worth it wait. Its not complicated and nobody is right or wrong. Same for the GoTY, not everyone will want to wait a long time to get the game.

No, he gets it, unlike the majority of people here at the forums. The $60 price tag is a sham. It's got almost zero to do with inflation and almost everything to do with consumer culpability and overzealous production/marketing budgets. Hollywood Syndrome.

If gamers completely refused to buy brand new off-the-shelf games for $60, the game makers would quickly learn to change their spending habits. Consumer indiscretion only encourages bad behavior on the part of retailers and studios.

[varagix]

No, he gets it, unlike the majority of people here at the forums. The $60 price tag is a sham. It's got almost zero to do with inflation and almost everything to do with consumer culpability and overzealous production/marketing budgets. Hollywood Syndrome.

If gamers completely refused to buy brand new off-the-shelf games for $60, the game makers would quickly learn to change their spending habits. Consumer indiscretion only encourages bad behavior on the part of retailers and studios.

That is, indeed, partially true. Part of that could be solved by publishers learning a little bit from the movie industry and maintaining a low budget, indie development branch. Low indie costs, low competitive indie prices, but backed by the name and marketing of big name publishers. That kind of competition with bigger budget games that take longer to make would go a ways towards lowering prices across the board, and could provide more reliable income by having more games come out costing less and being released more often.

And the involvement of a publisher would ensure a certain level of quality too, preventing the situation you see on XBLA where 90% of everything on their is crap, the 10% thats good gets buried, and no one buys anything because they don't see anything worth getting.

That still leaves the issue of certain retailers abusing the used game market as a kind of rental service minus the licensing fees, cutting the game makers out of a decent portion of their returns if the games aren't immediate financial successes. Of course part of that can be combated by developers making good games with longer lasting appeal; its hard to abuse the used game market when no one is willing to sell you their used games because they're just that good.

[ChocoBalls]

Great post varagix, although I'd argue that the AAA studios are going to abuse the system no matter what the quality of the games are. They can't be trusted to maintain a gamer- and developer-friendly environment, especially when consumers are willing to buy the latest and greatest copycat game with no regard to price, originality, or origin.

[varagix]

True. I'm hoping that the rising trend in indie games and the stagnation in the AAA market will cause consumers to eventually become bored with the publishers who churn out the same crap year after year. That happened in the movie industry back in the final days of Hammer Studios, and it happened back in the 90s in the comic industry when -everything- was dark, edgy, and violent. I'm pretty sure that when Battlefield 4 and Call of Duty: Whatever Number We're On Now comes out, people will start asking themselves "Didn't I buy this game 3 or 4 years ago?" I can't say that with certainty, of course, but thats the way things are starting to look now, to me at least.

[A Camel]

I wish I could pay $60 for Skyrim. My stupid country has to pay $90 on Steam. I hope this game has SteamWorks so I can buy it somwhere else without GFWL.

[Nerv322]

True. I'm hoping that the rising trend in indie games and the stagnation in the AAA market will cause consumers to eventually become bored with the publishers who churn out the same crap year after year. That happened in the movie industry back in the final days of Hammer Studios, and it happened back in the 90s in the comic industry when -everything- was dark, edgy, and violent. I'm pretty sure that when Battlefield 4 and Call of Duty: Whatever Number We're On Now comes out, people will start asking themselves "Didn't I buy this game 3 or 4 years ago?" I can't say that with certainty, of course, but thats the way things are starting to look now, to me at least.

I agree, I can only hope that this will happen. I don't know though sometimes it seems people are quite content with CoD being exactly the same. CoD just turns into the FIFA games, same game new roster slighty changed mechanics maybe better graphics.
I really don't think game publishers can keep jacking up the price without some bad consequences though. Unless they turn the games industry into the rich people play first and the poor people can play later when it goes 50% off.

[varagix]

I agree, I can only hope that this will happen. I don't know though sometimes it seems people are quite content with CoD being exactly the same. CoD just turns into the FIFA games, same game new roster slighty changed mechanics maybe better graphics.
I really don't think game publishers can keep jacking up the price without some bad consequences though. Unless they turn the games industry into the rich people play first and the poor people can play later when it goes 50% off.

I really don't think thats going to happen, between the (ab)used game market and how likely it is that higher prices will reduce sales to the point of being counter productive. Especially with indie games out there being cheap and making money through large numbers of sales and low production costs. Who'd pay more than 50 or 60 of the next big game when you can get something cheap and cheerful for a fraction of the cost, or a mod for a game you currently own that's free and is practically a brand new game in its own right?

That's one of the reasons I 100s of steam games and most of them are either indie games, niche PC titles (Sword of the Stars, X3 Terran Conflict), highly replayable or modable value games like TES, X3:TC (again) or Neverwinter Nights, or some combination of the three. I'm pretty sure I'd only have a handful of AAA games if it weren't for the steam sales.

[Nerv322]

Hmm... Well, in no particular order: Symbology is just that - the use of symbols to represent something. Many symbols meanings change over time, some losing or gaining connotations. The peace symbol may have ment something different in the past, but few use it that way now. Similarly, many people see and use the upside-down cross as a satanic symbol, even though it originally represented Saint Peter and the popes of the catholic church (based on the story that Peter refused to be killed like Christ because he wasn't worthy of dying like Jesus had). I'm not going to linger too much on this because I'm not personally a christian, and I try not to judge contemporary christians based on actions taken by zealous members of the faith in the past, nor think that any ill treatment is deserved based on how those who came before treated those of differing faiths.

It's a good point though I'm sure I herd somewhere that Saint Peter being hung upside down was based on the the Hanged Man card of the Tarot.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=quote&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=954l954l0l1217l1l1l0l0l0l0l236l236l2-1l1l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&biw=1218&bih=913&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi#um=1&hl=en&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=Hanged+man+tarot&oq=Hanged+man+tarot&aq=f&aqi=g2g-m2&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=34262l53814l0l56376l2l2l0l0l0l0l251l464l2-2l2l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=7b10bc3fa9a0687&biw=1218&bih=913



Next point, laws based on limiting a companies earnings (and assume it something different than the various kinds of taxes there are). Now ignoring the difficulties of enforcing that kind of law, where would you draw the line on "how much is too much"? Would certain industries, like medicine, get preferential treatment? And how would you determine how much a company "needed"? That last one is the hardest, since many companies, especially the entertainment industries, go through -huge- amounts of money producing their product, paying all their employees competitive wages, buying necessary tools and supplies, etc. A game like Skyrim, for example, probably cost somewhere in the millions to the tens of millions to make, all things considered.

It shouldn't just be limited to companies but individuals who make more money than they need. One thing that kinda shines in your own response is that there is no transparency with these companies same with the government. We really know nothing about what they need what they do beyond the BS they tell us. So we can't make a accurate decision that such and such only needs this amount of money because people are greedy they will blur the line to make it harder for you to stop them from being greedy, I might be wrong though.


By the way, arguments based on differences in perception never prove anything. I could claim I perceived the sun as a fish and no one could prove me either wrong or right. Not criticizing anyone; just throwing that out there.


I agree to an extent, yet my perception is based on something. If I had more time and space etc I could explain myself better. You could say you saw the sun as a fish but it is based on nothing you couldn't point to a shred of evidence to back your perception up.

[varagix]

It's a good point though I'm sure I herd somewhere that Saint Peter being hung upside down was based on the the Hanged Man card of the Tarot.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=quote&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=954l954l0l1217l1l1l0l0l0l0l236l236l2-1l1l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&biw=1218&bih=913&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi#um=1&hl=en&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=Hanged+man+tarot&oq=Hanged+man+tarot&aq=f&aqi=g2g-m2&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=34262l53814l0l56376l2l2l0l0l0l0l251l464l2-2l2l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=7b10bc3fa9a0687&biw=1218&bih=913




It shouldn't just be limited to companies but individuals who make more money than they need. One thing that kinda shines in your own response is that there is no transparency with these companies same with the government. We really know nothing about what they need what they do beyond the BS they tell us. So we can't make a accurate decision that such and such only needs this amount of money because people are greedy they will blur the line to make it harder for you to stop them from being greedy, I might be wrong though.



I agree to extent, yet my perception is based on something. If I had more time and space etc I could explain myself better. You could say you saw the sun as a fish but it is based on nothing you couldn't point to a shred of evidence to back your perception up.

Again, how would you determine how much money it is that someone would need, be it individual or company? If you set some sort of hard limit on how much a person can have before it all goes to the government, then things start to become more like Socialism, and people lose the motivation (that being money and perks that come with it) to excel. And those who are motivated to do well are likely also to be (even more) motivated to go to lengths to keep what they feel they earned.

To go back to your talk about symbolism, wealth in all its forms is itself a symbol. It can be a symbol of greed and corruption yes, but its also a symbol of success and the rewards that success brings. If people don't feel rewarded for success, they often don't see the point in striving to succeed.

[Nerv322]

Again, how would you determine how much money it is that someone would need, be it individual or company? If you set some sort of hard limit on how much a person can have before it all goes to the government, then things start to become more like Socialism, and people lose the motivation (that being money and perks that come with it) to excel. And those who are motivated to do well are likely also to be (even more) motivated to go to lengths to keep what they feel they earned.

To go back to your talk about symbolism, wealth in all its forms is itself a symbol. It can be a symbol of greed and corruption yes, but its also a symbol of success and the rewards that success brings. If people don't feel rewarded for success, they often don't see the point in striving to succeed.

There is nothing wrong with socialism we have been brainwashed for generations that socialism is bad because of communism which is bad. We should strive to take the best elements from socialism and put them with the best of capitalism. The bottom line is we need a new social system in place.

I am an artist my self I make music and rap I'd be quite content to have a following that gives me enough money so I can buy some nice things and live my life making music because that is what I love doing. I do it for the love not for the money, I just need moeny to survive.
These people just want more and more money and are never happy. The richest people in the world are not happy with the moeny they have, they want more. They don't need money anymore, so how can it motivate if you know longer need it. Or do these people thrive on the knowledge that they are leeching money from people? The feeling of total dominatination.

[varagix]

There is nothing wrong with socialism we have been brainwashed for generations that socialism is bad because of communism which is bad. We should strive to take the best elements from socialism and put them with the best of capitalism. The bottom line is we need a new social system in place.

I am an artist my self I make music and rap I'd be quite content to have a following that gives me enough money so I can buy some nice things and live my life making music because that is what I love doing. I do it for the love not for the money, I just need moeny to survive.
These people just want more and more money and are never happy. The richest people in the world are not happy with the moeny they have, they want more. They don't need money anymore, so how can it motivate if you know longer need it. Or do these people thrive on the knowledge that they are leeching money from people? The feeling of total dominatination.

We're already doing that: its called a regulated economy. I mentioned it a few pages back. Its a balancing act, and its not perfect, but its the best compromise we have right now.

That being said, its an assumption that the only reason a person or company could want to make money is because of pure greed. Many companies set aside money to donate to good causes. One example I can personally attest to is of the GAP inc warehouse where I work putting aside money for and encouraging us employees to volunteer to work with Habitat For Humanity. (There are other charities they give money to, but the Habitat For Humanity project was one I actually got to personally see results from, as opposed to hearing about it later). Others use that money to fund large projects that provide job and advancement opportunities. Yes money can be and is a motivator for some of these things, but the results are that everyone benefits in some way.

[Nerv322]

We're already doing that: its called a regulated economy. I mentioned it a few pages back. Its a balancing act, and its not perfect, but its the best compromise we have right now.

That being said, its an assumption that the only reason a person or company could want to make money is because of pure greed. Many companies set aside money to donate to good causes. One example I can personally attest to is of the GAP inc warehouse where I work putting aside money for and encouraging us employees to volunteer to work with Habitat For Humanity. (There are other charities they give money to, but the Habitat For Humanity project was one I actually got to personally see results from, as opposed to hearing about it later). Others use that money to fund large projects that provide job and advancement opportunities. Yes money can be and is a motivator for some of these things, but the results are that everyone benefits in some way.

Sorry but this is going to be my closing post. I'm not saying that your wrong but all that could just be an illusion. You have no real facts to prove anything you say, but you present them as being absolute, they are not. Our very existance as humans is questionable, there are no certainties in life. People seem to cling to official information and tv as if it is infallible, it isn't.
How do you know these charities do what they are surposed to? do they just exist for big corporations to give money to them? Just so it looks like they're not greedy bastards. They just give money to their friends who kick the crumbs left over to where ever it was surposed to go in the first place.
How can charties use such disgusting practices like airing adverts in the time slots your most likely to be eating dinner with your family??? Just so they can make you feel guilty. To me that just shows how sinister they really are.

I'm not saying there are no noble charities out there but the big ones are just corporations making money out of the people who care. With all the money people have given to charities over the decades it's enough money to start your own country, but we can't even save one. It's ok though because we'll just go over there and build a ♥♥♥♥ing well and act like we're doing something.

"Look we built a well, now they have clean water" big whoop. Millions spent on a ♥♥♥♥ing well that cost nothing to make.
I don't think so.
They probably made them build it too.

[varagix]

That's a rather existential way of looking at things. I mean, when you get right down to it, anything and everything could be an illusion. From your point of view, even this conversation could be an illusion cooked up by your mind or perpetrated by some person with some hidden agenda. The only proof I offered was some personal experience and the idea that the pursuit of wealth can and does drive people with money to do things that help everyone in some way.

But yeah, I don't think this conversation is going to go much further. I've started to repeat myself a little more than I probably should. lol

[XMMX]

90$ Are you kidding me? are you under a trade blockade or something? xD

[Morfolk]

90$ Are you kidding me? are you under a trade blockade or something? xD

digital trade blockade even :mad:

[dannythefool]

That's a rather existential way of looking at things. I mean, when you get right down to it, anything and everything could be an illusion.


I never thought I'd see evidence for a solipstistic world view on interweb forums. After all, why post if nobody is there to read it :)

That said, yeah money is an illusion, but it seems to work (or seemed to until recently, anyway... keep in mind that the entire "illusion" thing is fairly new too, we went from hard silver as currency to gold backed to "virtual gold backed" and only went purely virtual in the 70ies).

[Rumtruffle]

seems cheap at $60, thats why i got my £129.99 collectors edition preorder in at Game.

[hlhbk]

This is to all the recent game developers who are still charging huge prices for games, ...have you CHECKED THE FINANCIAL WORLD NEWS LATELY?

Here's a strategical tip, lower your prices so the rest of us poor people can actually BUY your games.

It's better to make a $20 game that everyone can afford, than to limit your sales to only those few who are rich, ...THERE'S FAR MORE POOR PEOPLE THAN RICH NOWADAYS!

...Bloody hell...

Here is an idea, if you can afford a PC capable of playing high end games then you got the cash for a great game like Skyrim. Quit complaining or quit playing. Easy fix.

[tpanisiak]

I baked some cookies.

I'm charging $10.00 for one. I promise they are good.

Do you want some? One? No. That's too bad.

Your choice.

[Nerv322]

I baked some cookies.

I'm charging $10.00 for one. I promise they are good.

Do you want some? One? No. That's too bad.

Your choice.

This mentality only works when there is muppets who will pay for $10 for a cookie, otherwise they wouldn't be charging $10 for them. Only because they know your stupid and will pay for it that prices go up in the way that they do.


People make the assumption that they spent extra money on producing the engine that the game runs in so therefore the price of the game goes up.

Ok but are you going to pay $60 for Fallout 4 when it's using the same engine and they added hardly anything to it????????

[Elenoe]

Only because they know your stupid and will pay for it that prices go up in the way that they do.
well, why YOU think it's about stupid people. It's about choice. And that you think it's too expensive that only stupid people could buy does not make it expensive you know? :)

People make the assumption that they spent extra money on producing the engine that the game runs in so therefore the price of the game goes up.
no, I'm not. I look if the game is more worth that something else I could get for that money. Nothing more. I dont really care HOW MUCH it costs. It's irrelevant. Costs of substitutes make my decision, so...

Ok but are you going to pay $60 for Fallout 4 when it's using the same engine and they added hardly anything to it????????
yes :) no need new engine if the rest is just worth. And btw. we pay a lot more then $60 for a long time, so I would definitely be glad to pay $60 :) Just understand. New fallout with new world, new stories on old engine is SAME ENJOY as it would be 5 years ago..

So I would say you have flaw somewhere if you are willing to pay for 2011 game bought in 2011 more then you are willing to pay for the same game buying it in 2013.

[enemyofportal]

even economy is bad, business don't really care about people like you who think $60 is very expensive. there are lots of people who will buy it anyway. the same thing goes to COD MW3. it is the same $60. but I am pretty sure that it will be sold millions copies. plus, I preordered battlefield 3 couple of months ago. it is also $60. but I don't think that it is too much expensive for major AAA game. I am fine.

[Micknator]

even economy is bad, business don't really care about people like you who think $60 is very expensive. there are lots of people who will buy it anyway. the same thing goes to COD MW3. it is the same $60. but I am pretty sure that it will be sold millions copies. plus, I preordered battlefield 3 couple of months ago. it is also $60. but I don't think that it is too much expensive for major AAA game. I am fine.

Most games are 50€ here in The Netherlands, but CoD is 60€.

[Naota]

Why are they charging $60 ???

Just look at all the robots defending it. They're even attacking their fellow gamers who dare to speak up about the price gouging.

Developers can charge whatever they want, as long as these idiots are helping them .

[Cobalt2202]

The economy is the reason why it is 60 dollars I believe. Blame the government and banks for lowering interest rates and printing extra papers so the inflation would go up.

[varagix]

Why are they charging $60 ???

Just look at all the robots defending it. They're even attacking their fellow gamers who dare to speak up about the price gouging.

Developers can charge whatever they want, as long as these idiots are helping them .

Developers don't have any say in it. They just make the game. The publisher sets the whole sale price and give a recommended retail price, and the retailer sets the price that we have to pay.

And you could say I was defending their right to charge whatever price they want for it, and you'd be correct. But do I think you -should- pay that price? No, of course not. Its your money, so you decide how to spend it. Just as its their right to want to charge what they want, its your right to want to pay what you want.

I was one of the people who jumped on the NewEgg offer mentioned in another thread here, and it doesn't bother me in the slightest. Zenimax/Bethesda still get their money, NewEgg got a sale, and I save $12 off the recommended asking price. It's called being an intelligent, responsible consumer. Try it sometime. You'll find you complain a lot less when you're willing to look for a good deal.

[Elenoe]

Why are they charging $60 ???

Just look at all the robots defending it. They're even attacking their fellow gamers who dare to speak up about the price gouging.

Developers can charge whatever they want, as long as these idiots are helping them .if you value the game much lower, THEN BUY IT FOR MUCH LESS FFS :) Its not car, you know. Game price is not set for 5 years ahead.

Its perfectly normal price is set by inverse proportionality to time its being released. Entire game industry give us option to value each peace by self and then just buy it for any price we consider adequate.

Only youngs and broken people have some issues they need it IMMEDIATELY and FOR FREE, since I really dont believe there is actually price you would consider adequate. Even $40 and we would hear about stupid people buying it for that price.

And seemly contrary to you guy, I'm much more then $10000 for taxes p.a., so if I would want spare some more money for me, I would simply start there. Better effect then saving like $40 for 2 games bought on release date?

[Quint]

Only youngs and broken people have some issues they need it IMMEDIATELY and FOR FREE, since I really dont believe there is actually price you would consider adequate. Even $40 and we would hear about stupid people buying it for that price.



This.

I never bother myself arguing anything about such stupid things like prices.I suggest others to not bother with it and move on(kids will cry no matter what).

[Micknator]

I hope you realize that Europeans pay even more? For a 60$ game they usually charge 50€ and sometimes even 60€ (Call of Duty). 50€ is almost 72$. 60€ is even over 86$, and we're not complaining.

I'm not trying to be rude here, I'm just stating the facts.

[gashadokuro]

Another one of these threads?

Ok, if $60 is too expensive simply wait until it gets cheaper and then buy it. Obviously if the game doesn't seem that good at $60 then waiting for it to get cheaper shouldn't be a problem. You also have to remember it's a game, and if it's a good one should provide ample hours of entertainment, so the $60 would be worth it, not exactly like you're paying $60 to play it only one time.

[epicphail]

this game looks amazing and $60 is great price for the hours I will put into it but they will have paid dlc so I will just wait for a GOTY sale.

[i'm Batman]

Hum... if you want a cheap game.. theres thousands of them that were made a couple of years back that are 5 bucks... alot of them are better then what they make now... AND it doesnt demand a crazy rig to play them... so ...yeah... I'dd look them up if i were you.

[bionicRod]

Honestly, it depends on the game. I agree with the OP in that some games just aren't worth $60 and should be cheaper. But that's a double edged sword: if a full release price wasn't industry standard and was based on something like length or size (total gigs of content), then short games like Enslaved would sell for $20 but huge open ended awesome RPGs could be twice the cost. Honestly I'd probably pay it based on past Elder Scrolls titles. So I'd rather rent enslaved and let those who must own it buy it for $60 and get Skyrim for the same price.

BTW I remember paying at least $70 +tax at Wal-Mart for Final Fantasy VI (FFIII in Japan) for the SNES. Game prices haven't really increased, especially accounting for inflation.

[scotland372]

If people wouldn't pay $60 then they would lower the price.

But the games still fly off the shelf, look at Black Chops.

[enemyofportal]

US dollar isn't valuable anymore. just think about it what can you actually do with $20 for the whole day? not much at all. at least if you have $500, then you might do something satisfied way. I am not talking about some teens or students living expense. it's all grown up people who make money, work for company. when teens, or students talk like 'oh, too expensive that game blah, blah....', don't just buy. you don't make any money. I just ignore that they don't know how reality & social life are different.

[Gimme5]

if you can't afford it, you can always wait a few months. They aren't demanding you to buy it then and there. Also, the company needs to make money, as you said "in THIS economy" everyone is going broke-ish..sort of..not really if your rich..but they need the money...do they? maybe im going to stop rambling jambling.

[recon 1]

http://xkcd.com/606/

Read and learn. Seriously, it's a single player game that will be on a mega sale at some point in the future. Hopefully you stocked up on other Steam games during the summer sale and like TF2. Even DLC goes on sale, or eventually gets included in the game (Fallout 3 GOTY).

[dannythefool]

If people wouldn't pay $60 then they would lower the price.


And then they would spend less on making the next game in the series or never make one at all. They couldn't afford it otherwise, in THIS economy.

[mesaone]

Video games are a luxury. They are not a necessity, if you can't afford it but still want it then you will have to wait. I know I can't spare 60 dollars on entertainment, so I'll wait a bit. By the time the price drops enough for me to feel okay with, it will have been patched and improved.

Publishers can charge whatever they think people are willing to pay - $60 for the game, another $45 for a handful of DLC. They're making their money, recession or not.

[Elenoe]

"I want a cookie! I want to stay up! I want, I want, I want, me, me, me, me, mine, mine, mine, mine, now, now, now, now!"

[dannythefool]

Heh, come to think of it, I paid way more than $60 for books that teach me how to make cookies. But now I can make them whenever I want ;-)

Sadly, video games are more complicated.

[Micknator]

Heh, come to think of it, I paid way more than $60 for books that teach me how to make cookies. But now I can make them whenever I want ;-)

Sadly, video games are more complicated.

Buy a book about programming and game design, you might end up making Skyrim 2 ^_^

[dannythefool]

I'm already a programmer. I even used to work on games 15-20 years ago. But games like Skyrim are so far beyond the capabilities of a single person that it's not even funny anymore. Probably the reason why they charge $60 for them ;-)

[eiren]

The games cost millions to make, take years to complete of many people's lives. Why is that not worth $60 of your money?

[Micknator]

The games cost millions to make, take years to complete of many people's lives. Why is that not worth $60 of your money?

Good point.

[Verior]

The games cost millions to make, take years to complete of many people's lives. Why is that not worth $60 of your money?

This.

[enemyofportal]

I'm already a programmer. I even used to work on games 15-20 years ago. But games like Skyrim are so far beyond the capabilities of a single person that it's not even funny anymore. Probably the reason why they charge $60 for them ;-)

actually, you're right. I guess that the game is even worth than $60. if the game goes $100, I will still buy. it's valuable. I respect what game developers do for us. without them, we can't even enjoy such an entertainment. so I pay for that.

[Micknator]

I'm already a programmer. I even used to work on games 15-20 years ago. But games like Skyrim are so far beyond the capabilities of a single person that it's not even funny anymore. Probably the reason why they charge $60 for them ;-)

Retrogames and indiegames are becoming more popular.

Notch programmed Minecraft on his own (at first).

[Batuhan87]

Link (http://thrivingtoo.typepad.com/thriving_too/images/2008/09/13/wrong.jpg). That is all.

Edit: And before someone says anything, this isn't directed at a specific person.

I seriously lol'd at this :D

[scou7]

Bet you all the guys arguing with the price have already pre-ordered it... lmao

[scou7]

Another question is have you beat Skyrim ? No so stfu

[geronimo789]

Retrogames and indiegames are becoming more popular.

Notch programmed Minecraft on his own (at first).

Don't get me wrong, I love minecraft, but you are seriously comparing a game like mcraft to a game like skyrim ?

Do you have *any* idea how long it even takes to create a character model for ONE NPC in a game like skyrim ? Then we haven't discussed all the dialogue, lip syncing, writing or editing an engine, texturing, balancing, lore, world creation, terrain generation, quests, ... ?

Minecraft is a relatively simple game compared to these titles, and it's probably what made it so successful in the first place.

[Micknator]

Don't get me wrong, I love minecraft, but you are seriously comparing a game like mcraft to a game like skyrim ?

Do you have *any* idea how long it even takes to create a character model for ONE NPC in a game like skyrim ? Then we haven't discussed all the dialogue, lip syncing, writing or editing an engine, texturing, balancing, lore, world creation, terrain generation, quests, ... ?

Minecraft is a relatively simple game compared to these titles, and it's probably what made it so successful in the first place.

I wasn't trying to compare them, I was only pointing out to Dannythefool that there is still money in being an lonely programmer (indie games). I used Notch and Minecraft only as an example.

[Naota]

Bet you all the guys arguing with the price have already pre-ordered it... lmao

You bet that huh?

You must be a real genius.

[Micknator]

Bet you all the guys arguing with the price have already pre-ordered it... lmao

I did within an hour of availability, for €50 (which is more than $60).

[geronimo789]

I wasn't trying to compare them, I was only pointing out to Dannythefool that there is still money in being an lonely programmer (indie games). I used Notch and Minecraft only as an example.

Allrighties :) Apologies for the misinterpretation.

[Micknator]

Allrighties :) Apologies for the misinterpretation.

No problem. After reading it again, I can understand your interpretation.

[zimboy69]

If you can't afford it, wait half a year or so, then Skyrims probably going on sale for 50% off or so.
Just a tip: You can actually make a lot more revenue releasing a full price game for 60 dollars, and then lowering the price massivlely for a few days than just putting it up for that low price on release.

Also, if you think Skyrim is not worth 60 bucks, not counting wether or not you can afford it, then I really can't help you.

half a year more like 4 weeks

i have noticed within 4 weeks you can pick a full price game up for 50% of the price every time

btw ive not buy it and wont till i see it around £15 which will be 4 weeks or less

the only games i havent seen so far has been starcraft 2 and a few mmo's

[epicphail]

for $60 you should easily get 200-300 hours of entertainment out of it I consider that to be worth it you may not, the only downside I see is the DLC that will follow release and end up costing another $30-60 so I might just wait for GOTY sale.

[Cognative]

for $60 you should easily get 200-300 hours of entertainment out of it I consider that to be worth it you may not, the only downside I see is the DLC that will follow release and end up costing another $30-60 so I might just wait for GOTY sale.

I don't really agree with the time span of 200-300 hours of entertainment. I like to think of things in terms of going to the movies. A night out at the movies, with a soda and popcorn, will likely run you around $15, and that's if your not paying for your date/poor "I forgot my wallet" friends. You can expect around 3-4 hours for the whole experience. Now I'm not saying I want to pay $60 for a 10-20 hour game, but if I get 50 hours out of it, I see it as a successful buy.

[Vasir]

I don't really agree with the time span of 200-300 hours of entertainment. I like to think of things in terms of going to the movies. A night out at the movies, with a soda and popcorn, will likely run you around $15, and that's if your not paying for your date/poor "I forgot my wallet" friends. You can expect around 3-4 hours for the whole experience. Now I'm not saying I want to pay $60 for a 10-20 hour game, but if I get 50 hours out of it, I see it as a successful buy.

Since when does a movie last 4 hours?

[Cognative]

Since when does a movie last 4 hours?

By the whole experience, I meant driving to the movies, meeting up with your friends, hanging out afterwards to talk about it, driving home. If the movies about two and a half hours long, yeah I'd say 4 hours is pretty close.

[Lone_Sword]

By the whole experience, I meant driving to the movies, meeting up with your friends, hanging out afterwards to talk about it, driving home. If the movies about two and a half hours long, yeah I'd say 4 hours is pretty close.

To continue the analogy, so DLC would be like having to pay for your friends gas money home? ♥♥♥♥ that, at least Valve's a good friend, they never try to charge me for gas.

[Mr_Eon]

Welcome to big developer entitlement.

Every non-indie game developer in the world automatically assumes they are entitled to $60 a pop, no matter what the game is about, no matter how long it lasts, and no matter what the quality level of the game is.

I'm not saying Skyrim isn't worth it (honestly none of us can know that yet), I'm just explaining how things in general work (and have always worked).

Granted, most PC games top out at $50 rather than $60, but still.


This just in, making games at a huge studio with a team of hundreds needed because everybody now wets their pants if the game isn't High Def and full physics costs more than setting up three PCs in Mark's Mum's basement.

The people who fund game development also now expect to recoup their investment AND make profit.

Film at Eleven - which will cost you about half as much as a game and provide only two hours of entertainment.

[dannythefool]

By the whole experience, I meant driving to the movies, meeting up with your friends, hanging out afterwards to talk about it, driving home. If the movies about two and a half hours long, yeah I'd say 4 hours is pretty close.

On the other hand, you disqualify yourself for this argument by watching the version of movies that is cut to fit within the 2h-2.5h time frame the cinema is willing to run, instead of a director's cut you can buy on DVD.

[MiscNoob]

The people who fund game development also now expect to recoup their investment AND make profit.

Regarding Skyrim, I absolutely agree because their production costs probably justify rising price tags.

If this thread found itself aimed at something like CoD I would actually argue that those particular studios and publishers are making obscene profits because their cost of production practically has not budged in 10 years while the price tag is accelerating at an alarming rate.


Also, These analogies... :eek:

[JinseiZetsumei]

Games have always been expensive. Go back to your nintendo and genesis days, and what ever. You include inflation into the old prices of games you find that either they are cheaper today, or just as expensive.

[Micknator]

Games have always been expensive. Go back to your nintendo and genesis days, and what ever. You include inflation into the old prices of games you find that either they are cheaper today, or just as expensive.

You are correct. Games used to be for the richer people among us, but have been more and more affordable the past years (especially with indie games). Same applies to computer hardware (more stuff for less money).

[Cheesewipe]

You know they have alot of empoylees that need money for actually making the game. THEY WANT PROFIT, just like any other company. They cant just develop a game for years and then sell it for ♥♥♥♥ing cheap damn man.

PS. I can afford a game even tho im not rich, go get a job.

[Xenite]

First of all, the retail price is sett by the retailer. The developer has no say in it, and the publisher has nearly as little say. The publisher sets a whole sale price (in this case, probably around $20-30) and maybe gives a recommendation on possible retail pricing, and the retailer, such as Steam, Best Buy, and GameStop, or small local shops, set the price they're going to charge you.

You apparently do not have a clue how software retail works. Prices are tightly controlled through merchant contracts. Publishers almost always require retailers to price games within a certain range for a certain period of time.

They do this so retailers do not start a price war on new titles and drive down the profit margins for everyone. Wal-mart and other big box retailers would drastically slash the price if they could to generate sales and drive people to the store.

Publishers have strict contracts with retailers, that's why gamestop is in deep ♥♥♥♥ right now for opening everyone's copy of Deus Ex.

[d1g1t4L]

Here's a strategical tip, lower your prices so the rest of us poor people can actually BUY your games.

OR, make 'em free like TF2!

[Lone_Sword]

OR, make 'em free like TF2!

No no no, if you do that, the entire population of players will erupt in anger about how unfair it is.

I swear, that ♥♥♥♥-storm that happened once it became f2p was ridiculous.

[Rainmaker666]

Yeah... 60$ for a game with this kind of scope is actually a bargain.

[Rotant]

I don't think the current state of the economy will have too much of an effect on the preorder market for skyrim, given that the demographic who tend to preorder are subject to the hype surrounding the game and therefore willing to pay a premium price. Not to mention there's a degree of brand loyalty from customers who have bought the older games in the series. Those who are unwilling to pay, but wanting to play, are likely to pick the game up after it goes down in price a bit. This is a tried and tested pricing method that will maximise their revenue despite the economy's condition.

[Necr0max]

I think people are entitled to voicing their opinions about the $10 difference for pricing on PC games. But unless a big part of the community are willing to side with them, I don't think any changes are going to be made. For many people, the quality and size of Skyrim justifies the $60 price tag. I will agree that there are many PC games that aren't worth $60 at release, but are priced that way. The simple solution is to not buy it. Publishers don't care what most people have to say, but they do care where the people put their money.

[shadowmax]

$60 = £34 = cheap.

Guys you can quite happily pay allot more for console games if you want so stop moaning.

[Mawgy]

Let's see. Even a casual game player could put in around 40 hours on a game like skyrim, doing main quest and a few sides. that's around $1.50 per hour of entertainment. if you have gone to a movie in the past 3 years or so, your paying upwards of 6$ an hour for it. Games are pretty cheap entertainment, all things considered.

Not even counting the average Elder scrolls fan, who will put upwards of 150 hours into it, bringing the Cost per hour down to $.40 an hour.

[Micknator]

Not to mention modding? Should add another few dozen hours or so to the game.

[DragonFlyM13]

seen sites offering Skyrim Serial keys for no less then 30 Euro = approx 42 USD

and i heard rumours that you can register those Retail keys on steam.

[Thecodexnecro]

I just pre-ordered this game for £22.90

Haters gonna hate. :cool:

[FreakieDK]

Far as I'm aware, the gaming industry isn't really experiencing any financial setbacks in the growth, as more and more consumers are getting interested. More and more AAA franchises are selling ever the better, so there's no reason for the big retailers, publishers or even developers to lower the release price of games, from what I can see.

[Micknator]

I just pre-ordered this game for £22.90

Haters gonna hate. :cool:

Like me ... :mad:

Just kidding :D

Retail keys have to be entered in Steam since it's going to be a Steamworks game.

[Inspector Jones]

I was a little angry at the price point at first, but then I noticed that I had logged hundreds of hours into Fallout and Oblivion and decided that in this particular case, I'd get my money's worth.

[Lone_Sword]

Not to mention modding? Should add another few dozen hours or so to the game.

Dozen :confused: Add a 0 to the end of that.

[UOGSammich]

Battlefield 3 was $66

sup?

[Valorien]

Even Gabe Newell agrees with me:

http://www.next-gen.biz/features/valve-are-games-too-expensive

[KubanitoS]

This is to all the recent game developers who are still charging huge prices for games, ...have you CHECKED THE FINANCIAL WORLD NEWS LATELY?

Here's a strategical tip, lower your prices so the rest of us poor people can actually BUY your games.

It's better to make a $20 game that everyone can afford, than to limit your sales to only those few who are rich, ...THERE'S FAR MORE POOR PEOPLE THAN RICH NOWADAYS!

...Bloody hell...

Play TF2. Sell your items to keys. Get games for free. lol

[geronimo789]

Play TF2. Sell your items to keys. Get games for free. lol

Get a job. Get paid. Buy games. lol

I don't see the difference ? I'd rather go and work than farm items in TF2.

[KubanitoS]

Get a job. Get paid. Buy games. lol

I don't see the difference ? I'd rather go and work than farm items in TF2.

Can't argue with that. :)

But it still feels great to get free games with virtual pixels I "farmed" in the past years. xD

[Elenoe]

But it still feels great to get free games with virtual pixels I "farmed" in the past years. xD
it's funny what you consider "free" and what you consider "real money" :) Do you realize money are nothing more then your time you spared for somebodys else convenience? :) Nothing more, nothing less, ever in the history of currencies.

And by playing TF2 you get soooo little value compared to other things you can do for others. But it is not free. Not even close.

[KubanitoS]

it's funny what you consider "free" and what you consider "real money" :) Do you realize money are nothing more then your time you spared for somebodys else convenience? :) Nothing more, nothing less, ever in the history of currencies.

And by playing TF2 you get soooo little value compared to other things you can do for others. But it is not free. Not even close.

You are forgetting the simple fact that I have been playing TF2 since the start, when there weren't any hats. To put it simply: I play it because I enjoy it. Also, the items I found or trade doesn't costs me money, so it is free, like it or not.

But this is a bit off topic now.

[Lone_Sword]

You are forgetting the simple fact that I have been playing TF2 since the start, when there weren't any hats. To put it simply: I play it because I enjoy it. Also, the items I found or trade doesn't costs me money, so it is free, like it or not.

But this is a bit off topic now.

Working doesn't cost me money, besides necessary equipment(which can also be said for gaming). Does that mean it's free money?

[donut32]

60 bucks for TES5? no doubt. after about 200 hours in morrowind pre mods, 400 after, 250~ hours obliv, 100 hours FO3 and 90 hours FONV, i think im sold on another single player bethesda game. i dont think its even possible for consoles to ruin it.

[chipset35]

Its not $60 if you wait...and if you wait, you wont have a unplayable or ugly game due to issues such as Bethesda/IDs Rage game.
Never pre-order anything.

[donut32]

Even Gabe Newell agrees with me:

http://www.next-gen.biz/features/valve-are-games-too-expensive

being a marketing genius does not limit him to NOT selling a game for 60 bucks. he just knows that a 50 dollar game might sell to 10 people but that same game at 20 will sell to 100.

also that ♥♥♥♥s from 2009.

[Samitoo]

Adding "GFWL" adds 10$ to the price. It's just like publishing on PS3 or Xbox

[Keyalha]

Well in the US it might be 60 bucks just sucks to have a currency that is worth a ♥♥♥♥ and motherloadedly dilluted by its own goverment move to europe pay 45 bucks and FIXED ^^

[SpiffyLancelot]

All new releases here are about 120 NZD, or 95-ish USD... Thank gawd for steam! I just bought fable 3 and portal 2 for 24 NZD each. :)

[XOmniverse]

This is to all the recent game developers who are still charging huge prices for games, ...have you CHECKED THE FINANCIAL WORLD NEWS LATELY?

Here's a strategical tip, lower your prices so the rest of us poor people can actually BUY your games.

It's better to make a $20 game that everyone can afford, than to limit your sales to only those few who are rich, ...THERE'S FAR MORE POOR PEOPLE THAN RICH NOWADAYS!

...Bloody hell...

Free market's a ♥♥♥♥♥ eh? Where do they get off, deciding what to charge for something they worked on? They should put you in charge of that!

[Rocketman1337]

shop around ffs, i am getting my copy off amazon for 32euro apposed to steams 49euro price tag:/

[pimpmafuqa]

Quit crying about the economy. Perhaps if you cant afford a 60 dollar game you should spend more time finding a better job than playing your garbage $20 games. Good day to you sir.

[Inarborat]

I'd pay $100 for Skyrim. That game is going to ruin my life just like Oblivion did.

Not reading the entire thread but first world problems comes immediately to mind. The console tax is here to stay and if you don't want to pay it, wait for a sale. It's that simple. Bringing up the economy when discussing a hobby that is entirely non-essential to life is ♥♥♥♥ing stupid. Might as well equte Bethesda to that political party from 1940s Germany while you're at it.

[Minderrx]

Well its not COD mw3 where you have to pay $60 for a reskin of mw2

[Metabog]

*insert thing here* in THIS economy?

[ltbennett]

The sad thing is, It's the Market that decides the price, not the publisher. Weird I know but hear me out, for as long as we, the (majority of) consumers, are willing to pay 60$ for a game. They will continue to sell at that price. That said, the games industry has grown right threw the recession, Like it didn't even happen for developers. It's a good thing, but it also makes me wonder what people are buying food with after spending all their money on games o.O

My solution:
I just took to eating noodles xD

[Lone_Sword]

The sad thing is, It's the Market that decides the price, not the publisher. Weird I know but hear me out, for as long as we, the (majority of) consumers, are willing to pay 60$ for a game. They will continue to sell at that price. That said, the games industry has grown right threw the recession, Like it didn't even happen for developers. It's a good thing, but it also makes me wonder what people are buying food with after spending all their money on games o.O

My solution:
I just took to eating noodles xD

Part of that has to do with what video games are. A good game could offer hundreds of hours of ignoring reality, if it's immersive enough. Just like alcohol, anything that lets the user "escape" from a recession/depression is pretty much immune to the effects.

[Zikco]

Still at €49.99 here... :p

Although I'm getting the Collector's edition, so it's a moot point for me. <.< >.>

[alehm]

Direct2Drive has Skyrim on sale right now for $59.95. You save an incredible 4 cents! Bricks will be shat.

[fallacy]

This is to all the recent game developers who are still charging huge prices for games, ...have you CHECKED THE FINANCIAL WORLD NEWS LATELY?

Here's a strategical tip, lower your prices so the rest of us poor people can actually BUY your games.

It's better to make a $20 game that everyone can afford, than to limit your sales to only those few who are rich, ...THERE'S FAR MORE POOR PEOPLE THAN RICH NOWADAYS!

...Bloody hell...

First of all.all AAA games now and days are 60 dollars.maybe there cheaper when bought digitally?.but if your planing to get a new AAA title from a store then they'll be $60.but what bothers me the most is that you think the the elder scrolls are not worth the $60 if you have ever played any elder scrolls game to it's fullest extent then you would have least spent around like 300 hours worth of game time with one playthrough.with the elder scrolls your always going to get your money's worth of gameing.

[MrShooter]

Direct2Drive has Skyrim on sale right now for $59.95. You save an incredible 4 cents! Bricks will be shat. I sure am glad the FREE MARKET is still alive and healthy enough for great deals like this to pop up. If only all games were supplied at this bargain price, we could get 1,501 games for the price of 1,500!

Wait, isn't Direct2Drive supposed to complain about steamworks and remove skyrim from their store?

Did their accountants decide they lost too much money from not stocking modern warfare 2 and reverse their decision to boycott steamworks games? Or is this a ridiculously improbable instance of Bethesda not using steamworks drm for skyrim, going against the trend of their recent games?

[mithikx]

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/554105/skyrimsteam.png

Yes, its $60 USD.
Is it worth it? I think so, but you can decide for yourself.

I'm no economist but I'm sure there's some sort of cause and effect; publishers charging X amount of dollars and getting away with it (for all we know), for a while it was limited to consoles while PC games stayed at $49.99 (a few years ago and yes a handful are still at that price) and it was assumed it was to pay some console licensing fee or something like that. For one reason or another we get charged that extra $10 for the base product now, I would assume its to pay off development costs of the new engine, employees on all levels, inflation, and etc.

The developers/publishers spend time, money and effort on making a game and getting it out, they do that by licensing (an) engine(s) or in this case making one, they got people working things like concept, art, graphics, lore and etc. And its not like they wait 8 years twiddling their thumbs and finally decide to make a sequel. And if they say break even and no more then they'll go bust and there has to be a profit somewhere or else no more Bethesda. Do I like this; no.
But thats the way it works, you can't pay for the design of a car chassis from another company, slap on your own body and interior then put your company sticker on it and call it done, and when the year is up change the trim a little and resell it that is of course unless you're a car company.

Either way, its up to you if you want to buy it for the full retail price or wait a while for it to drop, or say rent it from a video game rental company (consoles). If you can play the game with your computer hardware, if you can afford it and if you can justify the cost then you buy it. But if you are frugal with your resources (most of us are in this economy) then practice some self restraint.

[Almck123]

I wish it was $60 USD... Here (in Australia) theyre charging us $90 USD (on steam). So much for 1 Aud = 0.9985 US.

[Overseer]

If you can't afford to buy a $60 game, don't buy it. Games are a luxury like footballs or playing cards, not a necessity like food or shelter.

And for the idiot (Nerv whatever) raging about his cracked out conspiracy theories up top: You don't need games, your life is an escapist fantasy.

[swaaye]

$60 is nothing new for game pricing. PC games in the early '90s were sometimes $70, believe it or not. Console games have typically been around $60 all the way back to SNES.

I think the was a period of experimentation with lower prices in the past 10 years but apparently $60 is popular again.

Part of the reason for Skyrim being $60 is of course because they know it will sell and they know that $60 is not a risky new price tier.

[Inarborat]

I wish it was $60 USD... Here (in Australia) theyre charging us $90 USD (on steam). So much for 1 Aud = 0.9985 US.

I think it's supposed to be Steamworks and if it is, go retail!

[Grooove]

This is to all the recent game developers who are still charging huge prices for games, ...have you CHECKED THE FINANCIAL WORLD NEWS LATELY?

Here's a strategical tip, lower your prices so the rest of us poor people can actually BUY your games.

It's better to make a $20 game that everyone can afford, than to limit your sales to only those few who are rich, ...THERE'S FAR MORE POOR PEOPLE THAN RICH NOWADAYS!

...Bloody hell...

Ok i totally feel you, and we can't ask the developers to reduce there prices since there's so many people pre ordering and buying this games on the release date as New.

But what i can do is just wait after the game release about month or two the game price drop down, by about 30% and if you wait 3 more months you can get it 50% off, so i don't have to pay the full price for every game i want,, just when it released, i can wait for most games til the price drop down, and i still can pay the full price for the important games which i can't wait to play them, for example i'm a FPS fan but not much in RPG, so i'm for sure going to pay the full price for games like MW3 or BF3 , and other games like Skyrim for me i'm dieing to play it, so not for sure to buy it as soon as it when released, i pay wait for that game until the price drop down a bit . if you try this way i think you can save some money and play more games.
Other way to save on New game, BestBuy they have a point system that can save you $10 only on the pre order games.

[shibby191]

Easy enough to save $60. I cut back on pizza and beer and saved $20 a month over the summer. Also as mentioned just wait 6 months to a year and get it at least half off and probably with a DLC or two tossed in. I do that for most games. I didn't get Fallout 3 until they had the Game of the Year edition with all the DLCs and it was at 50% off. So by just waiting a year I got the GOTY for $25.

Elders Scrolls games are about the only game series I break that policy for. :)

[alehm]

Elders Scrolls games are about the only game series I break that policy for. :)

I toast to you. :cool:

[Kidbanhammer]

It's why waiting a month or two when it's half price is the better option.

Some people here might want to spend all their money on games but frankly I think things like food are a little more important.

Also, I have a free copy of Deus Ex 3 I have to get through at some point.

[Original182]

As long as Skyrim is good value for your money, it should be ok. Some games cost $50, but you finish it in a week.

[24-Bit Voxel]

I don't know...don't buy it? That's the beauty of capitalism, something is worth whatever people are willing to pay for it.

Here is how that plays out in the real world: (Not the invisible hand.)

1) Don't buy it.
2) Developers/Publishers assume everyone is pirating it
3) Developers/Publishers spend millions in some crappy DRM scheme that is easily broken hours after the next release.
4) Developers have to raise the prices to pay for the investment. OR they have to cut the QA budget to pay for it, releasing buggy useless games. (Rage. Note Bethesda is behind Rage.)
5) More people don't buy the new games...
6) Rinse repeat until the IP is totally crap (Final fantasy) or no one wants it anymore and company either folds or gets bought out by a bigger company that keeps them on life support. (Or not, in the case of Origin and EA.)

--------------------------------

OR ALTERNATE 3 and 4

1) Don't buy it.
2) Developers assume everyone is pirating it
3b) Developers get laid off because the game didn't make the money the MBA's assured the CEO that it would.
4b) The next game gets assets outsourced even more, lowering quality and increasing the need for peer review. In addition, the costs for QA go up, but the company can't or won't afford it, and the bugs ship with the game. Inconsistency and reusing assets becomes normal. (Dragon Age Origins)
5) More people don't buy the new games...
6) Rinse repeat.

[alehm]

24 bit vortex that is not how it plays out in the real world. At least in your exclusive doomsday scenarios. Your scenarios play out if no one actually buys the game and yet it is being downloaded by the tens of thousands on pirate sites. However,in most real world scenarios there is pirating but lots of people are purchasing the game. The fact is there are those willing to pay retail price for a game. And developers wish that were 100% of the population. However there are those that only buy on sale so after they cast their nets for the retail customers then comes the sales to get a wider audience of customers.

Steam sales have had a piracy reversing effect, at least for me.
Whereas with piracy people play games they didn't pay for when it comes to steam sales I have paid for games I haven't even played yet.

Not everything is a doomsday scenario of poor judgment. And seriously if people don't spend $60 for new games the prices will go down. But I don't think that is gong to happen anytime soon as there are plenty of people willing to fork out that money. Skyrim happens to be one of only two games I would pay retail for. The other 99%? They don't get my money until they are $30 or less.

[enemyofportal]

oh, man. is this kind of thread again? come on. then people shouldn't buy ipad, macbook pro, gaming laptop, and luxury car, bro? it's only $60. cheap. if you can't buy it, don't buy. nobody pushes you to do that. I buy anything what I want. to me, mass effect 3 N7 edition is cheap as well (I already preordered long time ago). I am sorry to hear you.

[dpeters911]

This is to all the recent game developers who are still charging huge prices for games, ...have you CHECKED THE FINANCIAL WORLD NEWS LATELY?

Here's a strategical tip, lower your prices so the rest of us poor people can actually BUY your games.

It's better to make a $20 game that everyone can afford, than to limit your sales to only those few who are rich, ...THERE'S FAR MORE POOR PEOPLE THAN RICH NOWADAYS!

...Bloody hell...

If you have to make the choice between a $60 game and rent, perhaps you shouldn't be playing games?

Games are inherently luxury items: they're more expensive to make nowadays then they have ever been, so box prices went up (inflation is another reason).

[Cobalt2202]

This is to all the recent game developers who are still charging huge prices for games, ...have you CHECKED THE FINANCIAL WORLD NEWS LATELY?

Here's a strategical tip, lower your prices so the rest of us poor people can actually BUY your games.

It's better to make a $20 game that everyone can afford, than to limit your sales to only those few who are rich, ...THERE'S FAR MORE POOR PEOPLE THAN RICH NOWADAYS!

...Bloody hell...

Well have you checked how the game industry runs lately? They are surpassing movie industry already in terms of sales. But see here's the reason... As technology, demands from consumers, and competition rises as time goes, the expectation has to be met by higher standards. And thus, if the company should survive, 60 dollars a copy should be an idealistic price FOR THE BUDGET THEY PUT INTO THE GAME.

We the consumers demand more.. We won't even look at bad looking game. Say Skyrim was developed in a garage somewhere with outdated hardware in their disposal. Say Battlefield 3 is the main competitor in the market (although I know they are irrelevant). Then EA has eventually won the competition, because the majority consumers would rather go for Battlefield 3 than the 20 dollar garbage made in garage.

Blame yourselves, the consumers (And technological market like the graphics card distributors). High expectations as always, and competitions rising with latest technology in hardware met. Thus more budget has to be poured upon, and the pricing has to rise.

Always remember this rule. Basic rule of economy. Consumers change the market, not the corporations.

This rule will also reveal the greedy ones. Say Skryim is... once again... developed in a garage with outdated hardware... And they are selling it for 60 dollars, because they want some extra cash flowing in their pockets. Consumers would know, you wouldn't buy that crap for 60 bucks. That's what critics are for...

[Brendon_K]

I've never read so much nonsense in a thread. It's a GAME, not an essential purchase! If you can't afford it, wait until the price drops or don't buy it. Considering that the budget for the game is $100 million and TES games have over 500 hours of content easily I think $60 dollars is an extremely fair price.

Consider this:
Movie ticket = $10 for maybe 2-3 hours of fun.
Skyrim - $60, but over 500+ hours of fun.

I know what I rather spend MY money on.

[JKflipflop]

So basically it's telling kids you have to go out and work like a ant in a colony and make money to buy things for your home. If your not smart enough or don't work hard enough then you'll be poor and will not be able to buy nice things for your home.If that's not brainwashing then you tell me what is???

Brainwashing children to keep the captilist cycle of life going, You work for us and with the money you earn you buy the crap we sell you so you end up with no money, as money is power and we want it all. that's why if you want to earn real money in this world you have to become a freemason as they exist in every industry and every walk of life where there is serious money to be made.

Dude, I'm a Master Mason and I'm very, very far from controlling a vast empire of wealth and hookers.

[ShadowKazama]

This will probably get lost in the mass sea of replys, and no, I didn't read them all, so I don't know if this has been said.

Skyrim is probably one of the few games I am willing to pay $60 for. My general rule is to wait for a game to be below $20.

Unlike MW3, COD3, or many of the others out there, I get hundreds of hours of game play from a game like this. What is far better then 6-8 hours from most other games.

And no, I don't include multiplayer. I rarely play anything other then single player. Tack on another 10 hours for a game's multiplayer before I get board of it.

That is just how I feel about it though.

[Warfunn.]

This will probably get lost in the mass sea of replys, and no, I didn't read them all, so I don't know if this has been said.

Skyrim is probably one of the few games I am willing to pay $60 for. My general rule is to wait for a game to be below $20.

Unlike MW3, COD3, or many of the others out there, I get hundreds of hours of game play from a game like this. What is far better then 6-8 hours from most other games.

And no, I don't include multiplayer. I rarely play anything other then single player. Tack on another 10 hours for a game's multiplayer before I get board of it.

That is just how I feel about it though.

I am with you there my friend. RPGs are the only things I can really get my moneys worth out of these days.

[Shadrik]

I am an artist my self I make music and rap I'd be quite content to have a following that gives me enough money so I can buy some nice things and live my life making music because that is what I love doing. I do it for the love not for the money, I just need moeny to survive.




So, just enough money to survive or also to buy some nice things? Well, I say you don't need nice things, 4 walls and a roof are enough for you.

Who is to decide what is enough? I have a lot of hobbies and interests for example. I like building models, building guitars, playing guitars, painting, fotografing, hiking, climbing, flying...

So if I decide that one of the "nice" things for me is an airplane because flying is what I love, who the ♥♥♥♥ are you to tell me I am not allowed to make enough money to by an airplane?

You entire idea of regulation in this area is beyond fascist, you are the kind of guy who knows exactely what everyone needs and deserves because you assume that everyone tics like you.

[scotland372]

If people stopped paying $60, the price would go down.

simples

[Inarborat]

I'd say we're a little past "stop paying $60 and publishers will stop charging that." People should have done that when the first Call of Duty game started charging $60, that was the time to do it but everyone folded or didn't care about the price.

I don't know why people whine about $60 these days when there's usually an opportunity to get the game cheaper at launch or within a few months. No one has any patience anymore.

[scotland372]

I'd say we're a little past "stop paying $60 and publishers will stop charging that."

Why are we past it? It's the solution. People can't control themselves and must play the latest big release the day it comes out. Companies (who exist to make money) take advantage of this.

No one has any patience anymore.

This is the problem, waiting until it's cheaper is the solution.

[TheSagetEffect]

If they lower their prices to $20, they won't attract the three times as many people they need to keep the same profit. Most of the people who are going to buy the game have/will buy it for 60 bucks, or will wait until it gets cheaper.

[JKflipflop]

Why are we past it? It's the solution. People can't control themselves and must play the latest big release the day it comes out. Companies (who exist to make money) take advantage of this.



This is the problem, waiting until it's cheaper is the solution.


The problem is too many broke scrubs crying about not having enough money. That's the problem.

[Aedn]

Actually the OP is right in the respect that Costs have been reduced significantly due to the economy. labor costs are still the highest part of overhead, but labor costs have seen significant drops in the last several years. i doubt that bethsoft did not cut wages when the market tanked like most other companies have. They might have not gone through layoffs but its most likely that employees took pay cuts, but i really do not know that for a fact, just opinion on my part.

However, while it would be nice to see the company pass on savings to consumers, the simple fact is, that games and movies, along with many other things are not required to live. Its a luxury item, and if people can not afford it then they should have the sense to avoid paying the price. Its not like the product will not be available in a year anyway for 30$ or less.

[onewingedman]

Don't buy used. Just wait until one of steam's insane deals. You will probably get it for like 75% off and you wont have to worry about your copy being scratched or anything. This way you will help support the developer, get a copy of the game with all the steam support like cloud, and you will probably even save money.

[Delicieuxz]

Also, if you think Skyrim is not worth 60 bucks, not counting wether or not you can afford it, then I really can't help you.

I don't think it is. Bethesda's last 2 games were complete garbage, and they nickle and dimed people with horse armour dlc. Also, $60 is what the console version costs, but it doesn't cost nearly as much to produce and sell a PC copy of the game, particularly a digital copy, so the prices shouldn't be the same. Todd Howard himself hypocritically said he thinks that games are too expensive and that they should be lowered in price... except for his games, apparently.

Thankfully, there are places that sell Skyrim for $50 or less.

[ShadowKazama]

I don't think it is. Bethesda's last 2 games were complete garbage, and they nickle and dimed people with horse armour dlc. Also, $60 is what the console version costs, but it doesn't cost nearly as much to produce and sell a PC copy of the game, particularly a digital copy, so the prices shouldn't be the same. Todd Howard himself hypocritically said he thinks that games are too expensive and that they should be lowered in price... except for his games, apparently.

Thankfully, there are places that sell Skyrim for $50 or less.

I had a few problems with bugs in Fallout 3: NV (Made by Obsidian not Bethesda), but I loved it. Even with having to buy the DLC I put hundreds of hours into it.

Oblivion is what I love the most though. A fantasy based RPG/FPS. I Still play that game today. Only problem I have ever had with it was the way stats and leveling worked.

Thankfully it seems that Skyrim will be changing that.

Even with the DLC, $60 for game, and atleast 5 DLC @ $10 ea. $110 full retail (no tax) is still worth it for what you get.

If I got MW3 and BF3. That is $120 for 16-20 hours of single player and possibly 20-40 hours multiplayer (for me). 60 hours max of game time for 2 games vs 300+ (not including DLC). No matter how you look at it, Skyrim is the better value.

After that comes opinion though. Just depends on what an individual likes more.

For me it is obviously the 300+ hour fantasy game. :cool:

O'h, and how do you know how much it cost to send a digital copy of a game?

The bandwidth still cost money, hosting servers, server maintenance, ect). For all you know they cost the same.

[Dazzled]

Don't buy used. Just wait until one of steam's insane deals. You will probably get it for like 75% off and you wont have to worry about your copy being scratched or anything. This way you will help support the developer, get a copy of the game with all the steam support like cloud, and you will probably even save money.

Considering the fact that this is a Steamworks game it is impossible to play it used.

[ShadowKazama]

Considering the fact that this is a Steamworks game it is impossible to play it used.

It is also a multi-platform game. There will still be used copies for the PS3 and XBox.

I believe that is what it was in reference to. (At least I hope it was.)

[Delicieuxz]

Even with the DLC, $60 for game, and atleast 5 DLC @ $10 ea. $110 full retail (no tax) is still worth it for what you get.
That's you're opinion, and I say that's definitely not fair value for the money.

If I got MW3 and BF3. That is $120 for 16-20 hours of single player and possibly 20-40 hours multiplayer (for me). 60 hours max of game time for 2 games vs 300+ (not including DLC). No matter how you look at it, Skyrim is the better value.
For others, though, Battlefield 3 will give 1000+ hours of online play, while Skyrim's MQ will last 20 hours, if they even finish it. Obviously, then, Battlefield 3 is the better value. A hardcore player's time spent on their preferred game means nothing for whether the price that is charged to everyone is too much or not, though. I've probably put several dozens of hours into minesweeper and solitaire over the years, but that doesn't mean I consider them worth paying $50 for, or that they should cost that amount.

O'h, and how do you know how much it cost to send a digital copy of a game?

The bandwidth still cost money, hosting servers, server maintenance, ect). For all you know they cost the same.
Wait a minute, how would you know how much I or anyone else know on the subject? What I actually do know is that they have incomparable costs (as in, digital distribution costs absolutely nothing apart from the store's cut), and there are no bandwidth or hosting fees for selling on Steam or other digital services, you are doing them a favour and making them money when you sell through them. And Valve takes a relatively miniscule 20 - 30% from sales through its service, depending. An in-store physical copy had production and distribution costs, which a digital copy has none of, and at the end of it all, a publisher/developer can expect to keep 20 - 40% max off a retail sale, whereas they'll get 70 - 80% from a Steam sale. The profit/loss ratios are more than reversed for the publisher/developer when it comes to physical vs digital sales.

They'll also get the money from a digital sale a lot sooner than they would from an in-store sale, with Steam paying out within the month, whereas there is a several month wait to get a payout from physical retail sales.

[JohnnyFronthole]

I'm a million miles from rich, and I consider $60 for this game a bargain. It's a damn shame people are as jaded as they are today.

[Delicieuxz]

I'm a million miles from rich, and I consider $60 for this game a bargain. It's a damn shame people are as jaded as they are today.

What you mean is that you're upset that people have different tastes in games as you. There are many, many dozens of games which you would balk at paying premium prices for, to which the biggest fans of such games would shake their heads and say that the premium price is a bargain for what you get.

Also, time spent in a game doesn't equal value. I get thousands of hours of use out of a pair of shoes. That doesn't mean they should cost $500. And if time equalled value, cocaine would be dirt cheap.

[JohnnyFronthole]

What you mean is that you're upset that people have different tastes in games as you. There are many, many dozens of games which you would balk at paying premium prices for, to which the biggest fans of such games would shake their heads and say that the premium price is a bargain for what you get.

Also, time spent in a game doesn't equal value. I get thousands of hours of use out of a pair of shoes. That doesn't mean they should cost $500. And if time equalled value, cocaine would be dirt cheap.

No, that's not what I meant at all. And if you're equating this game to a fifty dollar pair of chucks, I'm not surprised. But if the amount of random crap you read into my post is equal to value, your post was priceless.

[Delicieuxz]

Clearly, the point that what game is worth what amount of $$ is relative went right over your head, as did any notion of using proper English phrasing.

As for reading into your post, you're mis-attributing what is touching upon a previous poster's point as a response to yourself. Paragraphs are wonderful things, as is the ability to read more than simply the last two posts on a page. But you'll just have to take my word for it.

[ShadowKazama]

That's you're opinion, and I say that's definitely not fair value for the money.

That is hour per a dollar ratio. If the main quest is 20 hours at $60 for the game, that still beats 8 hours for the main part of MW3 or BF3 at the same $60.


For others, though, Battlefield 3 will give 1000+ hours of online play, while Skyrim's MQ will last 20 hours, if they even finish it. Obviously, then, Battlefield 3 is the better value. A hardcore player's time spent on their preferred game means nothing for whether the price that is charged to everyone is too much or not, though. I've probably put several dozens of hours into minesweeper and solitaire over the years, but that doesn't mean I consider them worth paying $50 for, or that they should cost that amount.

You compare an optional part of BF3 (MP) with the main quest of Skyrim?!? How is that fair? BF3 = Same MP content over and over. Optional quests for Skyrim 300+ of unique quests.



Wait a minute, how would you know how much I or anyone else know on the subject? What I actually do know is that they have incomparable costs (as in, digital distribution costs absolutely nothing apart from the store's cut), and there are no bandwidth or hosting fees for selling on Steam or other digital services, you are doing them a favour and making them money when you sell through them. And Valve takes a relatively miniscule 20 - 30% from sales through its service, depending. An in-store physical copy had production and distribution costs, which a digital copy has none of, and at the end of it all, a publisher/developer can expect to keep 20 - 40% max off a retail sale, whereas they'll get 70 - 80% from a Steam sale. The profit/loss ratios are more than reversed for the publisher/developer when it comes to physical vs digital sales.


You claim to know how much. "Also, $60 is what the console version costs, but it doesn't cost nearly as much to produce and sell a PC copy of the game, particularly a digital copy, so the prices shouldn't be the same." From your earlier post.

Also, how do you know how much cut a retail store gets vs Steam? Proof please?

Bandwidth does cost money. Here's an article that talks a bit about another company and the bandwidth it takes.

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2009/04/do_you_think_bandwidth_grows_on_trees.html

They'll also get the money from a digital sale a lot sooner than they would from an in-store sale, with Steam paying out within the month, whereas there is a several month wait to get a payout from physical retail sales.

How does this even factor in? They get their money. Period.

Also "After that comes opinion though. Just depends on what an individual likes more." from my earlier post.

Skyrim still offers the best hours per dollar ratio. Some will enjoy BF3 or MW3 more then they would Skyrim. That is on them and a matter of opinion. I am just trying to boil it down to hard numbers over opinion. In the end, opinion is what realy counts.

[Delicieuxz]

That is hour per a dollar ratio. If the main quest is 20 hours at $60 for the game, that still beats 8 hours for the main part of MW3 or BF3 at the same $60.
The SP of Battlefield 3 is largely irrelevant, it's a tacked-on bonus to a MP game from what has previously been an MP exclusive title. Most of the vocal community didn't even want DICE wasting time making a SP when they could have been crafting more MP content, but DICE felt they needed to prove something to the CoD crowd.

You compare an optional part of BF3 (MP) with the main quest of Skyrim?!? How is that fair? BF3 = Same MP content over and over. Optional quests for Skyrim 300+ of unique quests.
As you said, it is hour per dollar ratio. And it isn't really the same content over and over, as it's MP with people so every game is dynamic and its own challenge. Believe me, the great majority of people who are anticipating Battlefield 3 care little for the SP. And it's very common to see players with 1500+ hours in the other Battlefield games.


You claim to know how much. "Also, $60 is what the console version costs, but it doesn't cost nearly as much to produce and sell a PC copy of the game, particularly a digital copy, so the prices shouldn't be the same." From your earlier post.
I'm not sure what the question there is, but I'll point out that Xbox 360 and PS3 titles have a system licensing fee for each game that is sold on them, which is ~$12. That's why console games generally cost $10 more than PC games do, and why it is non-reflective of each platform for Beth to be charging PC players $60 when that's the same price console players pay for their system.

Also, how do you know how much cut a retail store gets vs Steam? Proof please?
Have an article:
http://www.mcvuk.com/news/read/opinion-retail-vs-steam

Bandwidth does cost money. Here's an article that talks a bit about another company and the bandwidth it takes.

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2009/04/do_you_think_bandwidth_grows_on_trees.html
But what I said is that there are no bandwidth or hosting fees to sell a game on Steam. There is also no fee to make your game a Steamworks game. These things benefit Valve and the payoff for them is that they make money from every copy of your game that is sold on their platform.

You can read further about it in the links at the bottom of Steam's store page.
http://www.steampowered.com/steamworks/


How does this even factor in? They get their money. Period.
Believe me, it makes a difference to publishers and developers. If they could have everyone purchase their product through digital retailers, they would: more money for them and they get it faster.


Also "After that comes opinion though. Just depends on what an individual likes more." from my earlier post.

Skyrim still offers the best hours per dollar ratio. Some will enjoy BF3 or MW3 more then they would Skyrim. That is on them and a matter of opinion. I am just trying to boil it down to hard numbers over opinion. In the end, opinion is what realy counts.
Skyrim offers the best hours per dollar ratio only if you are going to spend lots of time on it and little on other games. But the majority of purchasers will actually spend more hours playing Battlefield 3, so overall the greater hours per dollar ratio lies with that game. The point that the value towards the individual was very much my point (believe it or not, most purchasers will not end up putting even 50 hours into Skyrim, and the ones that actually play near 300 hours are the hardcore audience and the minority), but the other point is that Beth and every other developer/publisher makes more on PC games than they do on console games, which is why they've been traditionally cheaper, and they make even much, much more on digital sales than they do on retail PC sales. Therefore, a ubiquitous $60 is not reflective of platform balanced pricing.

Fervent fans tend to think that the game they're most anticipating is the game everyone is anticipating. But try going on the official Battlefield 3 forums and telling people that Skyrim is more value by a dollar per hour figure, and you won't be able to grab a bucket of water fast enough to douse the flames.

[ShadowKazama]

1500+ hours... Now that seems like the hardcore lifeless MW3/BF3 Player to me. Running the same maps over and over isn't a good value for content. That is 187.5 days of play at 8 hours a day or 375 days at 4 hours a day. Playing no other games.

And yes, it is the same content over and over. I have MW2. I have put 36 hours into it's MP and found that just because they are different people does not change that it is the same maps and weapons over and over. People tend to use the same strategy as each other too.

Oh, what was it you said before?

"Skyrim offers the best hours per dollar ratio only if you are going to spend lots of time on it and little on other games."

You do know you countered yourself there, right?

"As you said, it is hour per dollar ratio."
"And it's very common to see players with 1500+ hours in the other Battlefield games."

300+ hours of new content vs 1500+ of the same content repeated.

Bandwidth is included in what they pay Steam. Valve won't just give it away. Like with the Baby Bullet on TV. Buy it, get the Magic Bullet free. You are still paying for it, just not in an obvious way.

"Fervent fans tend to think that the game they're most anticipating is the game everyone is anticipating."

No, I know that there are many who want BF3/MW3. Many want Skyrim too. When boiled down to hard numbers though, Skyrim wins as the best deal for the $60. There is no way around that.

As I have said though, opinion is the real factor. That can not be put into a number. I will be buying Skyrim because I like that style of game better. Feel free to buy what you enjoy the most.

PS:

Thanks for the links, that was very educational.

[CaptainDingo]

They're going to charge us out the ♥♥♥ for first-day DLC anyways, it wouldn't kill them to drop the price by $10 to be in line with PC game pricing.

[fenrirtokara]

They're going to charge us out the ♥♥♥ for first-day DLC anyways, it wouldn't kill them to drop the price by $10 to be in line with PC game pricing.

It has been confirmed that we'll have to wait like 1 month before the first DLC, at least for the Pc version :)

[CaptainDingo]

Shocking. :p

[fenrirtokara]

Shocking. :p

Xbox players have it for free ( I believe ) or to buy on Day 1.
Microsoft and Bethesda agreement.

[ShadowKazama]

http://gruntsrus.com/game/skyrim/todd-howard-discusses-skyrim-dlc.133

http://www.destructoid.com/skyrim-dlc-to-feel-like-expansion-packs-no-horse-armor--204857.phtml

Seems like it may be worth it though. They plan on having DLC that feels more like an expansion pack.

No pricing has been announced though. At least you are shure to get more then 4 new MP maps for $14.99 though.

They even said they want to stay away from something like the horse armor DLC.

If it is like the Shivering Isles for Oblivion, it will be well worth $20 (price is a guess on my part).

[fenrirtokara]

http://gruntsrus.com/game/skyrim/todd-howard-discusses-skyrim-dlc.133

http://www.destructoid.com/skyrim-dlc-to-feel-like-expansion-packs-no-horse-armor--204857.phtml

Seems like it may be worth it though. They plan on having DLC that feels more like an expansion pack.

No pricing has been announced though. At least you are shure to get more then 4 new MP maps for $14.99 though.

They even said they want to stay away from something like the horse armor DLC.

If it is like the Shivering Isles for Oblivion, it will be well worth $20 (price is a guess on my part).

I hope so.
I REALLY miss expansion packs for any game.

[nooby_player]

haha I was used to pay 120$ for a game here in Iceland, and then steam came into my life and everything is >=50% cheaper.
60$ is cheap, for me anyway

[Nagaviper]

I got mine for tf2 items =)Free is good yay

[ElfShotTheFood]

Bethesda is stupid for wanting to recoup their investment costs and maybe seeing a profit.

[Juared]

Just because we're spending $60 on a game doesn't make us rich. Learn to manage your money.

[fallenups]

I wanted collectors for dragon statue (I'm a big dragon nut) but then I saw the $198 price tag and thought OMG no way......

So i'm just getting the standard version for the $88 -_-

wow i got it for 50$...were the hell you guys buying yours at, or maybe its 60$ i dont remeber but i know its not no 80$ any how go to game stop online its only umm 60$ i think im gunna get it for xbox first then wait untill beathsoft or steam has a sell on the pc ver and buy that one 0,0

[Elenoe]

wow i got it for 50$...were the hell you guys buying yours at, or maybe its 60$ i dont remeber but i know its not no 80$ any how go to game stop online its only umm 60$ i think im gunna get it for xbox first then wait untill beathsoft or steam has a sell on the pc ver and buy that one 0,0

well, I'm sorry I'm the one who tells you the truth about real world, but... you are old enough to know, so... Erm... there are a LOT of countries and even continents beyond USA borders. A LOT of people living even there. I know you were told USA way is the only way and there are no others, but... it is just told to small USA kids to not be afraid. :p

[Foulplay]

Also, time spent in a game doesn't equal value. I get thousands of hours of use out of a pair of shoes. That doesn't mean they should cost $500. And if time equalled value, cocaine would be dirt cheap.

I love the way you compare value vs time on drugs, clothes and digital entertainment, great way to compare apples, oranges and kangaroos!

Of course time equals value when you are looking at entertainment! I could spend £30 on MW2 for the single player campaign and get 8 hours of gameplay, or I could spend the same on RAGE and get 20 hours gameplay. Based on pure cost-per-hour RAGE is obviously better value for money, then for £35 I can get Skyrim and have hundreds of hours of entertainment. Tell me the part where this is proven wrong?

This is why so many people are willing to spend £9 a month on MMO's, because its a relatively cheap cost per month for the amount of content you are provided with, regular content updates, and how long it can keep you entertained for.

And yes, you can spend more on quality shoes so you get more wear from them. I always spend more on quality footwear because cheap shoes always wear out faster. £100 on a pair of shoes will get me a pair that will last me maybe 7 years, £20 shoes last me 6 months.

[Quint]

well, I'm sorry I'm the one who tells you the truth about real world, but... you are old enough to know, so... Erm... there are a LOT of countries and even continents beyond USA borders. A LOT of people living even there. I know you were told USA way is the only way and there are no others, but... it is just told to small USA kids to not be afraid. :p

Don't say too much..their brains might explode and Obama has to rack up an online national security to monitor steam forums.

[Delicieuxz]

Of course time equals value when you are looking at entertainment! I could spend £30 on MW2 for the single player campaign and get 8 hours of gameplay, or I could spend the same on RAGE and get 20 hours gameplay. Based on pure cost-per-hour RAGE is obviously better value for money, then for £35 I can get Skyrim and have hundreds of hours of entertainment. Tell me the part where this is proven wrong?
The part where you're suggesting that time spent equals value when looking at entertainment.

And how would drugs be different, since they are also entertainment? Quality of entertainment received equals value, not time.
Spending 20 hours playing minesweeper to pass time doesn't make minesweeper worthy of being a $50 game. Movies also don't reflect this idea that time spent equals value, since it's $10 - $15 for a 1.5 - 2 hour movie.

And, as already stated, the time you spend in a game isn't going to be the time everyone else spends in that game, and the person arguing that Skyrim is amazing value per dollar is only speaking in regards to what they expect their own personal use will be, and not anyone else's. Other people will experience more or less value per dollar in other games.

[dannythefool]

Spending 20 hours playing minesweeper to pass time doesn't make minesweeper worthy of being a $50 game.


If you play it to pass time, no. If you play it for 20 hours because you enjoy it at least as much as or more than some other activity that you could do in these 20 yours, yes it does.


Movies also don't reflect this idea that time spent equals value, since it's $10 - $15 for a 1.5 - 2 hour movie.


The actual cost has nothing to do with this, as it is determined by how much the market is willing to pay, and not related to how much you as an individual enjoy it. However, you can apply the principle by asking yourself whether it's really worth to pay $10-$15 for 2 hours of entertainment. Maybe it is, because you get more entertainment our of 2 hours of a movie than 2 hours of minesweeper, but that depends on your personal taste.


And, as already stated, the time you spend in a game isn't going to be the time everyone else spends in that game, and the person arguing that Skyrim is amazing value per dollar is only speaking in regards to what they expect their own personal use will be, and not anyone else's. Other people will experience more or less value per dollar in other games.

Obviously the solution to that isn't ♥♥♥♥♥ing about prices on forums but simply looking for activities that have a better value per dollar for your personal tastes. If you are ♥♥♥♥♥ing on the forums, that means you would like to play the game more than you'd care to admit. If it was just some random $20 indie title you could get hundreds of games better than it, right?

[ShadowKazama]

The part where you're suggesting that time spent equals value when looking at entertainment.

And how would drugs be different, since they are also entertainment? Quality of entertainment received equals value, not time.
Spending 20 hours playing minesweeper to pass time doesn't make minesweeper worthy of being a $50 game. Movies also don't reflect this idea that time spent equals value, since it's $10 - $15 for a 1.5 - 2 hour movie.

And, as already stated, the time you spend in a game isn't going to be the time everyone else spends in that game, and the person arguing that Skyrim is amazing value per dollar is only speaking in regards to what they expect their own personal use will be, and not anyone else's. Other people will experience more or less value per dollar in other games.

No, I have been speaking on facts of game length and content. Skyrim IS the better value from those facts.

As I have been stressing and you seem to be ignoring is that a person's opinion has the final say. I have been stating that in all of my posts related to this. If you enjoy MW3/BF3 more, then it will be a better value to you. If you enjoy Skyrim more, then that is the better value.

You can't break opinion down to hard numbers though, like you can with price to time/content. When you do so, Skyrim comes out of top. A guaranteed 300+ with content new content vs 8 + ?? of repeated content.

I am speaking on facts, not on how much someone will play, just on the potential of what they could play.

[Cpt.Calavera]

I rarely buy games that are not on sale but I'll make an exception for this one. I'm not pre-ordering it but I'll definetly buy it on day 1 or 2.

Other games I want are Deux Ex: HR, Rage, Batman: AC and BF3, but I can wait till they go on sale at 25%-50%. Till then I'll be pretty busy with Skyrim (a x-mas gift to myself)

[Delicieuxz]

The actual cost has nothing to do with this, as it is determined by how much the market is willing to pay, and not related to how much you as an individual enjoy it. However, you can apply the principle by asking yourself whether it's really worth to pay $10-$15 for 2 hours of entertainment. Maybe it is, because you get more entertainment our of 2 hours of a movie than 2 hours of minesweeper, but that depends on your personal taste.

Well, you just argued in favour of two of my points. That monetary value, cost, is not determined by time spent, and that value is relative to the user. I didn't say the price is determined by how much you enjoy something, though, I said the value (as in to the user) is determined by that, rather than time spent. When the previous person says Skyrim has the best value for the dollar, and so justifies its price, they're speaking only for themselves.

No, I have been speaking on facts of game length and content. Skyrim IS the better value from those facts.

As I have been stressing and you seem to be ignoring is that a person's opinion has the final say. I have been stating that in all of my posts related to this. If you enjoy MW3/BF3 more, then it will be a better value to you. If you enjoy Skyrim more, then that is the better value.
You haven't argued fact, and you just switched your argument to mine. Previously, you were arguing that Skyrim is the better value, period, and I was countering that to those who will get lots of play out of Bf3 and little out of Skyrim, Battlefield 3 will be the better value.

Here's what you said: "When boiled down to hard numbers though, Skyrim wins as the best deal for the $60. There is no way around that."


That's false. Here's what I said:

"Clearly, the point that what game is worth what amount of $$ is relative went right over your head" <-- this was said to Jonnyfronthole

and:

"For others, though, Battlefield 3 will give 1000+ hours of online play, while Skyrim's MQ will last 20 hours, if they even finish it. Obviously, then, Battlefield 3 is the better value."


So you're now agreeing with what I said.

[Nanobotter]

I would pay 120$ for a game like this.

[Delicieuxz]

I don't know what "a game like this" specifically means, but I would pay about $40 for Skyrim without reviews, which is $10 more than I'll probably end up paying. You'd have to pay me decently to play through Oblivion or Fallout 3 though and I wouldn't add those games to my steam list if they were free. The last good thing Bethesda made was Bloodmoon, while Oblivion and Fallout 3 were embarrassingly painful in almost every way.

[DakuShinobi]

Skyrim? 60$? Too cheap!

Thats why I'm getting collectors edition lol. (Then again this will be one of the few games I get this year so no biggie)

[ShadowKazama]

Well, you just argued in favour of two of my points. That monetary value, cost, is not determined by time spent. And value is relative. When the previous person says Skyrim has the best value for the dollar, and so justifies its price, they're speaking only for themselves.


You haven't argued fact, and you just switched your argument to mine. Previously, you were arguing that Skyrim is the better value, period, and I was countering that to those who will get lots of play out of Bf3 and little out of Skyrim, Battlefield 3 will be the better value.

Here's what you said: "When boiled down to hard numbers though, Skyrim wins as the best deal for the $60. There is no way around that."


That's false. Here's what I said:

"Clearly, the point that what game is worth what amount of $$ is relative went right over your head" <-- this was said to Jonnyfronthole

and:

"For others, though, Battlefield 3 will give 1000+ hours of online play, while Skyrim's MQ will last 20 hours, if they even finish it. Obviously, then, Battlefield 3 is the better value."


So you're now agreeing with what I said.

No, I have been saying from the beginning that opinion is the deciding factor. From my other posts:

"That is just how I feel about it though."

"After that comes opinion though. Just depends on what an individual likes more."

"Also "After that comes opinion though. Just depends on what an individual likes more." from my earlier post."

"As I have said though, opinion is the real factor. That can not be put into a number. I will be buying Skyrim because I like that style of game better. Feel free to buy what you enjoy the most."

"As I have been stressing and you seem to be ignoring is that a person's opinion has the final say. I have been stating that in all of my posts related to this. If you enjoy MW3/BF3 more, then it will be a better value to you. If you enjoy Skyrim more, then that is the better value."

If you are on the fence though, the facts will help tip the scales.

Skyrim = 300+ hours, constant new content.
BF3/MW3 = 8 hours SP, ?? MP, repeating content.

And yes, Skyrim does win by the numbers and content (opinion aside).

I get the feeling you only read what you wanted to read.

""For others, though, Battlefield 3 will give 1000+ hours of online play, while Skyrim's MQ will last 20 hours, if they even finish it. Obviously, then, Battlefield 3 is the better value.""

1000+ hours is a number you made up. Where is your proof to back it up?

Again, you compare only a small part of Skyrim (the MQ) to the repetitive MP of a game. Would you like to be fare? Skyrim MQ 20 hours vs MW3/BF3 SP 8 hours. Skyrim OQ 280+ changing content vs MW3/BF3 MP ?? repetitive content.

Skyrim wins.

You still have not used any facts in your arguments.

O'h, and you actually agreed with me that it is a matter of a person's own opinion from, the start.

[Delicieuxz]

No, I have been saying from the beginning that opinion is the deciding factor. From my other posts:

I get the feeling you only read what you wanted to read.

""For others, though, Battlefield 3 will give 1000+ hours of online play, while Skyrim's MQ will last 20 hours, if they even finish it. Obviously, then, Battlefield 3 is the better value.""

1000+ hours is a number you made up. Where is your proof to back it up?

Again, you compare only a small part of Skyrim (the MQ) to the repetitive MP of a game. Would you like to be fare? Skyrim MQ 20 hours vs MW3/BF3 SP 8 hours. Skyrim OQ 280+ changing content vs MW3/BF3 MP ?? repetitive content.

Skyrim wins.

You still have not used any facts in your arguments.

O'h, and you actually agreed with me that it is a matter of a person's own opinion from, the start.

No, you didn't say value was based on a person's opinion from the start, you said something quite different. You argued that Skyrim's value was intrinsically higher, but that which game a person prefers is somehow a separate issue:

"No matter how you look at it, Skyrim is the better value. After that comes opinion though."

And that is a contradictory stance, and an infactual one. Regarding your assessment of good value, I said:

"That's you're opinion"

You said:

"Skyrim still offers the best hours per dollar ratio."

And that's very infactual. For someone who enjoys Bf3 more and puts more hours into it, Bf3 will obviously give a better hours per dollar ratio. And people in general will get vastly more playtime out of Battlefield 3. That value is determined by hours of entertainment received is not my argument, but using your own argument results in your Battlefield 3 having a greater value, as Battlefield will have, as history shows, a vastly greater hour per dollar return.

I get the feeling that maybe I'm talking to a someone who just doesn't want to appear wrong. But what I think I'm obviously arguing with here with is a fan-boy, plain and simple. And as someone recently said to me:

"Dude, you are trying to argue with reason and logic, based on facts and empirical evidence. It just doesnt work on fan-boys. You shouldn't waste your time on poeple like that. No matter how clearly you explain or reason they won't comprehend it. Their brain ignores every information that doesnt match their opinion. Just a friendly advice."

I want to take you to task in one more manner, though. This:

1000+ hours is a number you made up. Where is your proof to back it up?

Just as with your ignorance concerning retail vs digital sales profitability, I'm arguing from experience and knowledge, and not making blind claims out of ignorance, as you've repeatedly done. You're simply arguing out of fan-boyism and a rejection of everything that doesn't conform to the bias that you hold. 1000+ hours is a figure I made up? No. Obviously, you are entirely unaware of the superior popularity and preference people have to FPSs over RPGs in general. If you had even L4D or L4D2, you would be familiar with the masses who have 1500+ hours playtime on their profiles. I can easily pop up countless Bad Company 2 profiles with 1 - 2000 hours on them, and there are Battlefield 2 profiles with 6000+ hours on them (even one with almost 10,000 hours on it). But arguing over facts with you is meaningless because your goal isn't to have facts, it's to protect a fan-boy's biased little bubble.

[ShadowKazama]

No, you didn't say value was based on a person's opinion from the start, you said something quite different. You argued that Skyrim's value was intrinsically higher, but that which game a person prefers is somehow a separate issue:

"No matter how you look at it, Skyrim is the better value. After that comes opinion though."

And that is a contradictory stance, and an infactual one. Regarding your assessment of good value, I said:

"That's you're opinion"

You said:

"Skyrim still offers the best hours per dollar ratio."

And that's very infactual. For someone who enjoys Bf3 more and puts more hours into it, Bf3 will obviously give a better hours per dollar ratio. And people in general will get vastly more playtime out of Battlefield 3. That value is determined by hours of entertainment received is not my argument, but using your own argument results in your case being flawed, as Battlefield will have, as history shows, a vastly greater hour per dollar return.

I get the feeling I'm talking to a someone who just doesn't want to appear wrong. But what I'm obviously arguing with here with is a Hammer Legion Member, plain and simple. And as someone recently said to me:

"Dude, you are trying to argue with reason and logic, based on facts and empirical evidence. It just doesnt work on Hammer Legion Members. You shouldn't waste your time on poeple like that. No matter how clearly you explain or reason they won't comprehend it. Their brain ignores every information that doesnt match their opinion. Just a friendly advice."

I want to take you to task in one more manner, though. This:



Just like with your ignorance on retail vs digital sales profitability, I'm arguing from experience and knowledge, not making claims out of ignorance, as you've repeatedly done. You're simply arguing out of Hammer Legion Memberism and a rejection of everything that doesn't conform to the bias that you hold. 1000+ hours is a figure I made up? No. Obviously, you are entirely ignorant of the superior popularity and preference people have to FPSs over RPGs in general. If you had even L4D or L4D2, you would be familiar with the masses who have 1500+ hours playtime on their profiles. I can easily pop up countless Bad Company profiles with 1 - 2000 hours on them, and there are Battlefield 2 profiles with 6000+ hours on them (even one with almost 10,000 hours on it). But arguing over facts with you is meaningless because your goal isn't to have facts, it's to protect a Hammer Legion Member's biased little bubble.

Wow. You still don't get it.

"No matter how you look at it, Skyrim is the better value. After that comes opinion though."

That means opinion over rules.

My comparisons have been true. You seem to mistake your experience as fact.

I have been stating that ones opinion is the deciding factor from the beginning.

Facts:

Skyrim is 300+ hours, changing content.

BF3/ME3 is 8 SP, ?? MP, same content over and over. (Play minesweeper all you want)

How is that not true?

6000+ for MW2? That is 750 days at 8 hours a day. That would not be the norm. Also, how many do you think could have just left there system on when not at home? Time online does not equal time played. No facts here.

I'm talk hard numbers with Skyrim, not soft one that can be easely questioned.

Everyone enjoy what ever game they enjoy. If MW3 is your type of game, then go for it. If Skyrim is, then go for it.

To say I am not using facts based on publicly stated comments by developers, then you claim you are using facts based upon your experience? I am not using facts?

I never said that FPS games were not popular. From a dollar vs numbers/content stand point though, they fall behind Skyrim.

While you can't seem to admit when you are defeated, I, at least thanked you for correcting me about retail vs digital.

"But arguing over facts with you is meaningless because your goal isn't to have facts, it's to protect a Hammer Legion Member's biased little bubble."

And the same to you sir.

PS:

Infactual is not even a word.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/infactual

[Delicieuxz]

Wow. You still don't get it.

"No matter how you look at it, Skyrim is the better value. After that comes opinion though."

That means opinion over rules.
Thanks, but I already supplied that quote to point out your error. After Skyrim having better value come opinions? If you think that the above quote doesn't contradict your later claim that you emphasized opinion above all, then you need to practice your understanding of the words you use and your phrasing. Quoting where you were wrong and saying "ta da!" doesn't really help you out.

Facts:

Skyrim is 300+ hours, changing content.

BF3/ME3 is 8 SP, ?? MP, same content over and over. (Play minesweeper all you want)

How is that not true?
That wasn't even a point of argument. No one cares how long a multiplayer game's SP is. According to your hour per dollar argument, Bf3 is the greater value for the massive majority of players. No one cares which game you personally prefer to spend hours in.

6000+ for MW2? That is 750 days at 8 hours a day. That would not be the norm. Also, how many do you think could have just left there system on when not at home? Time online does not equal time played. No facts here.
Why are you talking about MW2? I'd bet the numbers for that game are probably more ridiculous, though. Of course it would not be the norm, but there are lots of players with those hours, and countless with 1000+. I have 650 hours on L4D2, a game I haven't played in ages, and my time in that is miniscule compared to many people I used to play with. Battlefield stats are actually recorded in depth (not talking about Stem profile figures here), and none of those are idling hours (you'll actually just be kicked for idling), and time spent in the menu isn't calculated. Each one of those hours is attributed to a team and class that the player was on while they were logged.

I'm talk hard numbers with Skyrim, not soft one that can be easely questioned.
+
I never said that FPS games were not popular. From a dollar vs numbers/content stand point though, they fall behind Skyrim.
Actually, you are talking easily questioned numbers for Beth RPGs, though I'm only talking hard documented hours for Bf3. See above.
And to the later: No, the numbers thoroughly disagree with you.

"But arguing over facts with you is meaningless because your goal isn't to have facts, it's to protect a Hammer Legion Member's biased little bubble."

And the same to you sir.
Mhm, and I'd be a fan-boy of what? I'm more interested in Skyrim than I am in Battlefield 3. I'm pointing out the facts only because they're the facts.


PS:

Infactual is not even a word.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/infactual

P.S. "Factual" actually happens to be a word, and "in" actually happens to be something called a "Prefix."

in-
3 
a prefix of Latin origin, corresponding to English un-, having a negative or privative force, freely used as an English formative, especially of adjectives and their derivatives and of nouns (inattention; indefensible; inexpensive; inorganic; invariable). It assumes the same phonetic phases as in-2 (impartial; immeasurable; illiterate; irregular, etc.).

Thanks for playing.

[ShadowKazama]

Thanks for quoting yourself to prove me right, again, but I already supplied that quote. After Skyrim having better value come opinions? If you think that the above quote doesn't contradict your later claim that you emphasized opinion above all, then you need to practice your understanding of the words you use and your phrasing.

Meaning opinion is everything in the end. Like I said. You still don't get it.


That wasn't even a point of argument. No one cares how long a multiplayer game's SP is. According to your hour per dollar argument, Bf3 is the greater value for the massive majority of players. No one cares which game you personally prefer to spend hours in.

I am including all the numbers since they are relevent. 8 SP + ?? MP.

Why are you talking about MW2? I'd bet the numbers for that game are probably more ridiculous, though. Of course it would not be the norm, but there are lots of players with those hours, and countless with 1000+. I have 650 hours on L4D2, a game I haven't played in ages, and my time in that is miniscule compared to many people I used to play with. Battlefield stats are actually recorded in depth (not talking about Stem profile figures here), and none of those are idling hours (you'll actually just be kicked for idling), and time spent in the menu isn't calculated. Each one of those hours is attributed to a team and class that the player was on while they were logged.

Still, a soft number with no hard proof.



Actually, you are talking easily questioned numbers for Beth RPGs, though I'm only talking hard documented hours. See above.
And to the later: No, the numbers thoroughly disagree with you.

Can you disprove the numbers? Numbers stated by the developers of a game they made and have played to test it vs your opinion.


Mhm, and I'd be a fan-boy of what? I'm more interested in Skyrim than I am in Battlefield 3. I'm pointing out the facts only because they're the facts.

But you have not pointed to any facts.


With no facts you can't even argue the point with me kid.

O'h, and infactual still is not a word. Not every word can use a prefix. It would have shown in that link if it was usable.

Until you start providing facts to back up what you say, have fun in your own little world.

[Delicieuxz]

Meaning opinion is everything in the end. Like I said. You still don't get it.
What you said does not mean what you're now pretending that it does. So you still don't get English. Or, more to the point, you're very clumsily trying to save face.

I am including all the numbers since they are relevent. 8 SP + ?? MP.
Then Bf3 obviously hold the higher value based on hour per dollar.

Still, a soft number with no hard proof.
You mean I haven't bothered to humour your denial over yet another issue. There comes a time when enough is enough, and I don't feel like you deserve to have me constantly dragging you around by the nose every time you've assumed a falsehood, after you first argued that falsehood. If you don't know about a subject you're talking on, ask questions, but don't open your mouth and pretend to have a clue. I take it this a personal bad habit of yours.

Can you disprove the numbers? Numbers stated by the developers of a game they made and have played to test it vs your opinion.
Why would you even think of presenting potential gameplay hours put forth by a developer as the number of hours players are factually going to end up playing a game for? Your common sense is greatly lacking.

But you have not pointed to any facts.


With no facts you can't even argue the point with me kid.
You know you're in a tight spot when you can only resort to calling someone kid. What you mean that I haven't pointed to data, but I've only been using facts. I don't need to spoon-feed you, you seem to be old enough to know how to use the internet. And I shamefully enjoy watching you continue to ignorantly and stubbornly argue something that you've been wrong on all along and that I could quickly prove in an instant. Again. Essentially, why should I make an effort when from the outset you've been adamant on arguing falsehoods? If you are proud to be ignorant, let that be your fate.

O'h, and infactual still is not a word. Not every word can use a prefix. It would have shown in that link if it was usable.

So we'll just add prefixes to the growing list of things you don't understand, like we'll add the definition of "in" to the growing list of things you've failed to understand as you read. The prefix holds its own meaning, and when you use it with a word it has a specific effect on the word. If you read the definition for the prefix used here and then look at the word, you'll know what it means. That's if. Your "I would've found a word for it in dictionary.com if it could be used that way" is worth a big laugh. I understand why you'd want to run off on a tangent from the main subject you're embarrassing yourself with, though.

[ShadowKazama]

What you said does not mean what you're now pretending that it does. So you still don't get English. Or, more to the point, you're very clumsily trying to save face.

And you say I don't know the English language.

My stance from the beginning:

"That is just how I feel about it though."

First post I made.


Then Bf3 obviously hold the higher value based on hour per dollar.


Rinse and repeat, right? Let's see.... how many map and game modes, then add time per a game. Still not 300+ hours of content/gameplay and most won't even get 100 hours of gameplay. Like I said, Minesweeper.



You mean I haven't bothered to humour your denial over yet another issue.


You haven't bother to provide any real proof. Since there is none to support you.


Why would you even think of presenting potential gameplay hours put forth by a developer as the number of hours players are factually going to end up playing a game for? Your common sense is greatly lacking.


300+ hours of game play. Still can't counter that? Keep trying.


You know you're in a tight spot when you can only resort to calling someone kid. What you mean that I haven't pointed to data, but I've only been using facts. I don't need to spoon-feed you, you seem to be old enough to know how to use the internet. And I shamefully enjoy watching you continue to ignorantly and stubbornly argue something that you've been wrong on all along and that I could quickly prove in an instant. Again.

Facts with out a reference is not a fact.


I gave you a last chance to prove yourself. Sorry, didn't mean to embarrass you again kid. Had nothing better to do.

[Delicieuxz]

And you say I don't know the English language.

My stance from the beginning:

"That is just how I feel about it though."

First post I made.
I'm wondering what you think was improper English in your quote. I guess you think that you can't start a sentence with a conjunction. So yeah, not only because of past offences, but now this one included, I definitely still say you aren't good with the English language, because... well, obviously, you aren't exactly good with it.

"First post I made"... How about: The quote supplied above. Keep that denial going.


Rinse and repeat, right? Let's see.... how many map and game modes, then add time per a game. Still not 300+ hours of content/gameplay and most won't even get 100 hours of gameplay. Like I said, Minesweeper.
Rinse and repeat happens to be the recipe you're running with your denial. Your calculation is but one more in a long string of items you've pulled out your rear.


You haven't bother to provide any real proof. Since there is none to support you.
As I said, I've been enjoying watching you did yourself into a hole. You probably even already have searched for yourself and discovered how ridiculous you're looking, but need to keep the appearance of not being red-faced up. I enjoy that too.


300+ hours of game play. Still can't counter that? Keep trying.
Didn't even try to, that's a paltry number. But it's also the extreme, maximum number a person can squeeze out of the game, and developer claimed game lengths are always exaggerated - always. The average user play time is going to sit beneath 60 hours.


Facts with out a reference is not a fact.


I gave you a last chance to prove yourself. Sorry, didn't mean to embarrass you again kid. Had nothing better to do.

Haha, a fact without reference is not a fact? How do you even come up with this stuff? Keep it going, I'm giving you the stage and you're supplying the act. You're swimming in mud while chanting that you've never been cleaner, and it's entertaining.

[PIN_360]

First of all, the retail price is sett by the retailer. The developer has no say in it, and the publisher has nearly as little say. The publisher sets a whole sale price (in this case, probably around $20-30) and maybe gives a recommendation on possible retail pricing, and the retailer, such as Steam, Best Buy, and GameStop, or small local shops, set the price they're going to charge you.

Secondly, the reason AAA games are so expensive (especially during preorder and the first few months of release) is due to how messed up the game market is. If a AAA-grade game is going to make back the money that goes into it, it needs to maximize the amount of money they get for it up to at least a month or so after release. Which means charging those people who've already decided to buy, regardless of price, as much as they can get away with. After that point, retailers like GameStop (key words being "like GameStop") start strangling publisher sales by pushing and encouraging the secondary market.

Don't get me wrong, I like buying used when the money is tight too, but places like GameStop encourage people to buy, then return so they can sell the game used... then have that same copy returned again... and again... and again. Making those retailers more money and losing the publishers and developers alot of sales.

If game companies and new-only retailers didn't have to race for sales before infinitely resold copies of their own product start showing up, maybe they could afford a lower starting price and make money slowly over time, kinda like the movie industry. Sadly, thats not how it is right now. If you want lower prices, wait until they drop prices to compete. Thats all you can really do.



First of all... why are we talking about used game sales effecting the price of games FOR PC??

Second of all... all games released come out at their MSRP which stands for Manufacturers suggested retail price. There is no store out there that has the gall to try and sell the game for MORE than that. So this insane theory that publishers charge the stores 20-30 dollars and then the stores sell them for 60 is absurd. Granted! The stores make their money back so they obviously arent paying 60 dollars per game, but you understand what im saying.

The PUBLISHER releases the games and sets the MSRP and the DEVELOPERS make the games. So yeah, Developers have no say in the price but the publisher definately does! And from the MSRP that the publisher sets a percentage of that goes to the stores stocking their games on the shelves or hosting it on their online distribution servers such as Steam.

On the issue of games being expensive. I never agreed and will never understand the reasoning for PC games being priced at 60 dollars. There are no royalty fee's owed to by any "console manufacturers" here. There are no royalty fee's to be paid out to Sony or MS or Nintendo. The PC is an open platform that anyone can develop for. So that's 10 extra dollars thats pocketed by the publisher in contrast to the same game sold on consoles.

Either way though, I hardly ever buy games on release day anymore. Usually i'll wait a few months, roam around at Best Buy or Target and check out their PC section and notice games being marked down or on sale to try and sell what stock they have left. And of course, there are the Steam holiday sales, which im more than likely going to wait on before purchasing Skyrim. Possibly MW3, and Batman AC as well.

[me_loco]

i skipped right after i saw single player only. I completed this game then it will rot on my hard drive, i will wait for the price to drop, my wife would kill me should i buy it @$60

[yanksrcool05]

Don't like it? Then don't buy it. No one's forcing you to do otherwise.

If no one buys it then the retailer has to lower the price. Basic economics.

[zBluRrYz]

That's why i sold ahat on Team Fortress 2 but Skyrim and Modern Warfare 3. But if i didn't have that hat then i would have paid 60 dollars because that is nothing.

[Offender_Mullet]

This is to all the recent game developers who are still charging huge prices for games, ...have you CHECKED THE FINANCIAL WORLD NEWS LATELY?

Here's a strategical tip, lower your prices so the rest of us poor people can actually BUY your games.

It's better to make a $20 game that everyone can afford, than to limit your sales to only those few who are rich, ...THERE'S FAR MORE POOR PEOPLE THAN RICH NOWADAYS!

...Bloody hell...
Almost every new major game when first released (whether it be pc or console) has cost around $60 for the past few years now. Did you just notice this?

[sneakbyte]

Few points.

The advantages

PC:

*MODS
*KB/MOUSE precision
*60fps possibility

Consoles:

*$60 on consoles with resell value possible unlike PC games which cannot be resold. (Why would you sell skyrim anyway :P)

*The console x360 (The lead platform for this game, gets early exclusivity timed DLC).

*Console versions will likely never get crashes (The New x360 and PS3 Slim are very reliable hardware wise)

*Cost

250Gb X360: $299
320Gb PS3: $299
PC: to get a good PC parts built for Skyrim from scratch probably $600-$1000 from new egg.

I will be getting it on PC for mods but if I get crashing or annoying sound, video glitches then I ll grab the X360 version (I already have an x360,1080p screen, Xbox live gold).

ALSO SHOP AROUND NEWEGG HAS IT FOR $48 like others have stated.

[danjako43]

no games should be 60 bucks. That's 40 bucks shy of 100 bucks, or 1/10 a grand.

The economy IS bad, worldwide.

Nobody should pay such a price.

I'm sure Bethesda won't release a construction set since they're more centralized on console versions anyway. Just boycott the thing, christ.

Visit your friends who have consoles and play with them.

[dannythefool]

Well, you just argued in favour of two of my points. That monetary value, cost, is not determined by time spent, and that value is relative to the user.


Not by the developer - why would they even care, they need to break even or hopefully make a profit. It is however the question you need to ask yourself. Do you want to play this enough to pay $60 for the experience? If you don't, go ahead and skip it or buy it later. That doesn't make the game too expensive, though, it just means it's not what you want to do with your time. That's why I think this kind of thread is utterly pointless. The argument in the title and first post can by definition only come from someone who can't admit how much he'd like to play this game. If it's really not worth $60 to you why would you even post on the forums? Shouldn't be interested in it that much if you're honest.

[Elenoe]

no games should be 60 bucks.

The economy IS bad, worldwide.

Nobody should pay such a price.

I'm sure Bethesda won't release a construction set since they're more centralized on console versions anyway. Just boycott the thing, christ.
four stupid things you said today. You know that?

- many games are worth $60 for many people, so they SHOULD be $60
- DXHR, RAGE, BF3 sells actually shows the economy is NOT that bad, worldwide
- they will release construction tools ofc. Right now they're thinking how to distribute PC mods even to consoles version. You still may be right, as the tool has different name
- and no, I won't boycott. Skyrim won't be not nearly as amazing as other TES games were. But still on top of RPG. It is well worth $60 for me...

You just wait, you actually will not die from not playing, you know that? I'm living prove. I've never played DNF, because 10€ is a LOT money for that. And they WILL sell it to me for 5 :)

Boycott with your wallet.

[Alien1099]

$60 today is way less than $50 15 years ago. Games are cheaper today than at any time in history, considering inflation.

Plus, when a game is guaranteed to sell you can expect it to be sold at the highest price possible. I'm getting this game on launch day for sure, but with no bonus or discount I have no incentive whatsoever to preorder.

I remember when I was a kid and Super Street Fighter 2 Turbo was like $70 brand new. When you look at the production values of games these days and how much content you get from some, $60 for Skyrim is a STEAL. I just went ahead and put in my preorder. I'd been putting it off, but there's no reason not to have it in. I don't have any worries about it like I had with Rage and ignored. Oh I need to ask for the 11th off now too...

[LarryP]

By Christmas (holidays) it should be less, and maybe with a patch or two.

[ogreballerina]

60 dollars for a long and supposedly epic campaign, good graphics, decent RPG elements... and Dragons, not mention the game developers attention to detail makes it a no brainer.

The increase in PC game prices is natural.

There are a few gems that have been released in the last year I would have gladly payed the extra 10 bucks, Witcher 2 for example.

But I would not pay 60 bucks for Rage either...don't get me wrong I'm still getting it, however it will have to wait until it drops to half price, as it looks like fun but not 60 dollars worth.


The upside ( maybe ) is that people will shop around more, or wait for price drop before buying games and the companies will notice.
Then they will concentrate more on making better ( cough * DNF * cough )games, and more stable ones ( cough * Rage * cough ) on release and PC gamers will rejoice !
And their will much feasting and zombie killing...mmm ♥♥♥♥ Zombies...barbecued ...and headshooting, and Wizard fire...Trolls...and those tiny weird animals that the Japanese have....oh and more rainbows... and

Sorry just my medicine kicking in..

Anyway if it is anywhere as good as any of their other games.. 60 bucks it is...and happy to pay it.

Skyrim looks like it will be worth every penny !

People will just have to learn how to deal with it.

It's not going away.

One last thing I know my rig will max it easily, ( Maxes anything out now..except maybe Witcher 2 on Uber...but it's close battle ) ) and then the graphic mods and tweaks will star pouring in...can't wait.:)

[Citizen Goat]

If I find that a game is worth it's price, I buy it.
If not, I wait for the price to drop.

Simple isn't it?

Of course there's still the problem of being disappointed, it's worse to be disappointed by a 60€ games than a 15€ one. But it's a risk to take and it's up to you to take the risk or not.