EA 'theoretically' interested in raising game prices for next gen - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Ericson666;39729321] Well they have like 6-8 weeks after finishing the game before the actual launch, so it's for the best that they make more content[/QUOTE] What about on disklocked dlc?

I already can't afford 50+ euro for Sim City V, cant wait to see the raises.

[QUOTE=icemaz;39729299]Most games have always cost $60+, there have been cases from the SNES/N64 era where a game has cost $100 brand new, and that's not taking into account inflation. Games are cheaper now than they ever have been before.[/QUOTE] I don't know about you, but games over here never costed more than €60 for brand new games, until a few years ago, when they decided to make them even more expensive. The only exception to this were the Guitar Hero games, which were more expensive because of the controller.

Well, they were one of the big names to help pioneer the $50 generation of shit, cant wait to pay $69 for half a game then pay $30 for each dlc to fill in the other half over the course of two years.

Why can't people do what VALVE/Steam does and not be a complete dickhead? What are they not going to make game prices fall after a long time too? Blop2 for $60... 10 years later. [editline]27th February 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Jocke;39731535]Can't wait for BF4 to get released. Oh man, it's gonna be the best game ever![/QUOTE] Spoiler alert, 100$ game. It's BF3 with new guns and cars and maps.

[QUOTE=J!NX;39732787] Spoiler alert, 100$ game. It's BF3 with new guns and cars and maps.[/QUOTE] Even if it is (will likely be) what does it matter? Frostbite is an impressive piece of tech with quite a long future ahead of it, and by all accounts EA has invested immensely in it's development. Most video game sequels are iterative anyway.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;39732862]Even if it is (will likely be) what does it matter? Frostbite is an impressive piece of tech with quite a long future ahead of it, and by all accounts EA has invested immensely in it's development. Most video game sequels are iterative anyway.[/QUOTE] What does it matter? Because that would make it an expansion pack, basically, for 100$ If it's 100$ it has to be something TRULY new, and not spent 1 damn year on, but actual time, like 3-8.

[QUOTE=WaLLy3K;39729208]At least it's not like Australia where the cheapest you'll be able to get a brand new game is for $79 and on average, the most is $120. It's a fucking joke.[/QUOTE] Oh how about countries like mine where a new game is a third of the minimum monthly salary? And being under Steam's $1 = 1Euro.

[QUOTE=J!NX;39732884]What does it matter? Because that would make it an expansion pack, basically, for 100$ If it's 100$ it has to be something TRULY new, and not spent 1 damn year on, but actual time, like 3-8.[/QUOTE] So unless it's on a new engine and in development for 3 years or longer it's an expansion rather than a legitimate sequel? Do you have any idea how many totally legitimate sequels you have just thrown away with your arbitrary standards? Also why are you spending $100 in video games?

[QUOTE=Raidyr;39733333]So unless it's on a new engine and in development for 3 years or longer it's an expansion rather than a legitimate sequel? Do you have any idea how many totally legitimate sequels you have just thrown away with your arbitrary standards? Also why are you spending $100 in video games?[/QUOTE] Obviously there are still a lot of legitimate sequals, but the fact of the matter is if its hardly worked on and all they did is repaint it then no, its not worth 60-100$. If I'm playing a game I want it to actually feel new, not like they just repainted everything and "Called it new". If it's massively different then fair enough. But if they do the same shit they did with Call of Duty then I'm not going to give a damn. I think anyone who pays full price for a game every year that is slightly different than the last in multiplayer gameplay is being silly. Of course, liking a game series REGARDLESS of the repaint is ok, I'm not bashing that, I'm bashing not SEEING that it is a repaint. and I was saying 100$ as a joke originally because of the title being "EA 'theoretically' interested in raising game prices for next gen" [editline]27th February 2013[/editline] would you repay for your ENTIRE house if all they replaced was the furniture and paint? Fuck no, and this is why I haven't followed the CoD series financially.

[QUOTE=J!NX;39733365] I think anyone who pays full price for a game every year that is slightly different than the last in multiplayer gameplay is being silly.[/QUOTE] What a coincidence, I think people questioning my video game buying habits and the legitimacy of sequels based on completely arbitrary and subjective scales of "things that were changed to satisfy my viewpoint, original audience be damned" silly.

[QUOTE=laserguided;39731557]You guys need to understand development costs are constantly rising. I don't know what kind of profit they're making on the current prices though.[/QUOTE] Really? Then why has BI been kind enough to offer that 44% discount deal for ArmA III? If I purchase the regular version on Tuesday, it's going to cost me around £20 (if I remember correctly). Sim City 5, by comparison, costs £44.99. I know which I will be buying. And that's the problem. Whilst EA is losing potential buyers through unreasonably high prices, other companies like BI are taking the different approach of reeling in customers with enticing deals. Sure, ArmA III will not make as much money per unit sold, but I willing to bet it will make more in the long run due to more people buying.

[QUOTE=David29;39733719] Whilst EA is losing potential buyers through unreasonably high prices[/QUOTE] $60 isn't unreasonable though.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;39733511]What a coincidence, I think people questioning my video game buying habits and the legitimacy of sequels based on completely arbitrary and subjective scales of "things that were changed to satisfy my viewpoint, original audience be damned" silly.[/QUOTE] Just because a sequal was worked on for 1 year doesn't make it illegitimate, it makes it not worth the "Full video game price". [editline]27th February 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Raidyr;39733949]$60 isn't unreasonable though.[/QUOTE] Yes but, like I said, would you repay for your ENTIRE house if all they replaced was the furniture and paint? It's not a different home, it's simply an "Upgrade". It's still a fine house and it doesn't even matter, but they didn't even change the interior, the windows, the floor, the exterior, and you already owned the house to begin with but you have to pay for the ENTIRE house because they make look fresh. And yes, fresh can make it much nicer, but that's very much not the point. People shouldn't pay the full price because they changed the look and feel. 60$ is a fair price unless they don't even change the windows, floor, and exterior, etc.

I'm not answering your metaphor because it's ridiculous, you are comparing paints and houses to video games. What does "changing the look" mean? If Battlefield 4 were on the same engine and had the same basic gameplay as Battlefield 3 but replaced all the vehicles, weapons, and factions with new stuff, had new maps, and a new campaign, would that not be a legitimate sequel? [editline]27th February 2013[/editline] And no $60 is a fair price ever since it became the de facto cost for AAA titles. EA isn't the only one that sells $60 games.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;39734035]I'm not answering your metaphor because it's ridiculous, you are comparing paints and houses to video games. What does "changing the look" mean? If Battlefield 4 were on the same engine and had the same basic gameplay as Battlefield 3 but replaced all the vehicles, weapons, and factions with new stuff, had new maps, and a new campaign, would that not be a legitimate sequel?[/QUOTE] lol did you read any of my post or are you just going to do this again with that ear wax that seems to be clogging your ears I literally just told you a slight change doesn't make it illegitimate as a sequal, I said it makes it not worth the starting full 60$ price. And no, its not a ridiculous metaphor, it's comparing Content VS content. Changing the look would literally mean they change everything but they don't actually make any huge improvements on anything, like gun balance, vehicle physics, bigger maps, better textures etc. It's the same game just remixed with maybe some new features. That's a new look. Why should anyone pay full price for something they barely worked on? [QUOTE]And no $60 is a fair price ever since it became the de facto cost for AAA titles. EA isn't the only one that sells $60 games.[/QUOTE] its a luxery item and EA is saying they're going to increase the price for them. 60$ is a fair price, how many times to I have to say this? But it's not fair if ALL they do is repaint the game and make it seem fresh and new. [editline]27th February 2013[/editline] just imagine if they did that shit with UT3 - UT4, didn't change the engine like they always did, but just remade everything slightly. It's exactly the same game it just looks and feels like they improved it, giving the illusion of a truly new game. For Epic games that would be under doing it, because their level of "New UT" is a new engine update and completely remade everything.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;39733949]$60 isn't unreasonable though.[/QUOTE] $60 roughly equates to £40 - which I consider excessive. On Steam, I am struggling to find games that go above £34.99. I can't find any for £39.99 (that isn't a special edition or bundle of some sort). In comparison, Origin is selling Sim City 5 for £44.99, Assassin's Creed III for £49.99 and Dead Space 3 for £49.99 - to name a few.

Ok so you just have absurdly arbitrary and ridiculous restrictions for what counts as a $60 game in your subjective opinion. Sorry, I thought you had a legitimate criticism or point to make.

when I said "Repaint" I [B]literally [/B]mean its exactly the same game as before they just made it appear to be a new game its still a legit sequal but it makes it way more of an expansion pack than a full on game. No I didn't mean "lol but it has the same engine", I mean they literally don't. fucking. improve. on. it. at. all, aside from a few key functions. [editline]27th February 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Raidyr;39734213]Ok so you just have absurdly arbitrary and ridiculous restrictions for what counts as a $60 game in your subjective opinion. Sorry, I thought you had a legitimate criticism or point to make.[/QUOTE] I wish I had the money to buy you a title, you illegitimately cannot read into peoples posts and cannot follow simple instructions.

[QUOTE=David29;39734177]$60 roughly equates to £40 - which I consider excessive. On Steam, I am struggling to find games that go above £34.99. I can't find any for £39.99 (that isn't a special edition or bundle of some sort). In comparison, Origin is selling Sim City 5 for £44.99, Assassin's Creed III for £49.99 and Dead Space 3 for £49.99 - to name a few.[/QUOTE] Most games published by Bethesda, THQ, Activision, and 2k games retail for $60. PC games can be found for $50 by some publishers, but $60 is the standard cost of games nowadays. Sorry I guess but to blame one company and not others is a bit silly.

I'm sorry that actually working on a game is "Ridiculous" but you're the guy that would purchase a house you already own just because someone blasted febreze in it and changed the furniture a little. [QUOTE=Raidyr;39734247]Most games published by Bethesda, THQ, Activision, and 2k games retail for $60. PC games can be found for $50 by some publishers, but $60 is the standard cost of games nowadays. Sorry I guess but to blame one company and not others is a bit silly.[/QUOTE] yeah and thats fair but if bethesda retextured skyrim's story and map without changing anything in reality then no it wouldn't be worth 60$ how can you not read this like how can you literally not get the point

[QUOTE=J!NX;39734227] I wish I had the money to buy you a title, you illegitimately cannot read into peoples posts and cannot follow simple instructions.[/QUOTE] How is making maps bigger not arbitrary. How is "I don't think a game is worth $60" not subjective. Try defending your points rather than being a crybaby and threatening to waste money on an internet forum title, lol.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;39734213]Ok so you just have absurdly arbitrary and ridiculous restrictions for what counts as a $60 game in your subjective opinion. Sorry, I thought you had a legitimate criticism or point to make.[/QUOTE] Er... What, no? Have you even read my posts?

[QUOTE=Raidyr;39734270]How is making maps bigger not arbitrary. How is "I don't think a game is worth $60" not subjective. Try defending your points rather than being a crybaby and threatening to waste money on an internet forum title, lol.[/QUOTE] how can I defend anything when I've already said all that I could. And I didn't say "Make the map bigger", when I say repaint I literally mean it like they repainted a used car, changed the oil and called it ""A brand new car" but you're acting like I'm saying a new car isn't a legit new car. You aren't reading any of my posts, are you? Oh wait because I'm making a metaphor my post and entire argument must be flawed! again, Content VS Content. It could even have been an old fridge that was cleaned, repainted and called "New", or a keyboard, etc. Its all about the illusion of "New".

[QUOTE=David29;39734296]Er... What, no? Have you even read my posts?[/QUOTE] I was replying to J!NX [QUOTE=J!NX;39734300]how can I defend anything when I've already said all that I could. And I didn't say "Make the map bigger", when I say repaint I literally mean it like they repainted a used car, changed the oil and called it ""A brand new car"[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=J!NX;39734066] Changing the look would literally mean they change everything but they don't actually make any huge improvements on anything, like gun balance, vehicle physics, [B]bigger maps[/B], better textures etc. It's the same game just remixed with maybe some new features. That's a new look. [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Raidyr;39734247]Most games published by Bethesda, THQ, Activision, and 2k games retail for $60. PC games can be found for $50 by some publishers, but $60 is the standard cost of games nowadays. Sorry I guess but to blame one company and not others is a bit silly.[/QUOTE] Thankfully I keep receipts of all my game purchases. Skyrim - which I pre-ordered - cost £34.99. Less than $60. [QUOTE=Raidyr;39734331]I was replying to J!NX[/QUOTE] Alright, fair enough. I apologise.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;39734331]I was replying to J!NX[/QUOTE] Changing the look would literally mean they [I]change everything but they[B] don't actually make any huge improvements[/B] on anything, like [/I]gun balance, vehicle physics, bigger maps, better textures etc. It's the same game just remixed with maybe some new features. That's a new look. you misunderstood me, again I know you're trying to be witty by saying "J!NX is saying that bigger maps and better engine isn't an improvement" but I don't see how anyone can even possibly get that, I was saying that those ARE an improvement, but if they don't make that improvement, it shouldn't be worth the full price.

[QUOTE=David29;39734352]Thankfully I keep receipts of all my game purchases. Skyrim - which I bought on launch - cost £34.99. Less than $60.[/QUOTE] [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/j2OYCLy.jpg[/IMG]

[QUOTE=Raidyr;39734386][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/j2OYCLy.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE] steam sale

[QUOTE=J!NX;39734385]Changing the look would literally mean they [I]change everything but they[B] don't actually make any huge improvements[/B] on anything, like [/I]gun balance, vehicle physics, bigger maps, better textures etc. It's the same game just remixed with maybe some new features. That's a new look. you misunderstood me, again I know you're trying to be witty by saying "J!NX is saying that bigger maps and better engine isn't an improvement" but I don't see how anyone can even possibly get that, I was saying that those ARE an improvement, but if they don't make that improvement, it shouldn't be worth the full price.[/QUOTE] No, I understand you clearly, because bigger maps isn't an improvement at all. A shitty designed map that is bigger doesn't add to the experience at all. Neither, particularly, do better textures. Weapon balance is done on a patch by patch basis. I understand you completely, your argument is just really bad and poorly conveyed. [editline]27th February 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=J!NX;39734391]steam sale[/QUOTE] Stop accusing other people of not being able to read.