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

[QUOTE=Raidyr;39734437]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] Stop accusing other people of not being able to read.[/QUOTE] " because bigger maps isn't an improvement at all. " I was telling you is WAS an improvement " I was saying that those ARE an improvement" and that if they don't have that improvement then its just a repaint. and gee maybe if you read my post you'd understand that... I wonder why I'm accusing you of not being able to read? I've only had to explain what I was saying over and over again to you. You still don't get it. How do you want me to argue with someone that's being sarcastic and doesn't even understand what I'm trying to convey?

[QUOTE=Raidyr;39734386][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/j2OYCLy.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE] I don't know what to make of this? I don't want to make unfounded accusations that you faked it, but I find it amazing the Skyrim would still cost $60 this long after launch. Currently, Skyrim costs £19.99 for me. All I can say is that you are getting ripped off.

And if EA did increase the price nothing would change. People would cry a bit but still buy the next battlefield or whatever else they're selling. I'm a bit surprised they didn't increase the price to like 65$ or something. Gamers are not the best protesters or boycotters like history shows.

[QUOTE=J!NX;39734468]" because bigger maps isn't an improvement at all. " I was telling you is WAS an improvement " I was saying that those ARE an improvement" and that if they don't have that improvement then its just a repaint. and gee maybe if you read my post you'd understand that... I wonder why I'm accusing you of not being able to read? I've only had to explain what I was saying over and over again to you. You still don't get it.[/QUOTE] no, dude. lol. okay. I get what you were saying. That bigger maps are an improvement. I'm saying you are wrong, that it's not an improvement, it's an arbitrary scale for comparison. There is nothing inherently better about the game by just adding bigger maps, or making textures "better". A lot more goes into making a game better than your relatively insignifcant quota. [QUOTE=David29;39734492]I don't know what to make of this? I don't want to make unfounded accusations that you faked it, but I find it amazing the Skyrim would still cost £60 this long after launch. Currently, Skyrim costs £19.99 for me. All I can say is that you are getting ripped off.[/QUOTE] Dollar sign bro.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;39734548]Dollar sign bro.[/QUOTE] Oh, ok. Fixed it. Point remains.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;39734548]Dollar sign bro.[/QUOTE] £19.99 would be about 30 dollars ~[i]bro[/i]~

[QUOTE=David29;39734599]Oh, ok. Fixed it. Point remains.[/QUOTE] What is your point? That EA games are overpriced? Because I'm pretty sure I've already demolished that one. [editline]27th February 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=slapdown3;39734608]£19.99 would be about 30 dollars ~[i]bro[/i]~[/QUOTE] So did Skyrim launch at £19.99?

[QUOTE=Raidyr;39734612]What is your point? That EA games are overpriced? Because I'm pretty sure I've already demolished that one.[/QUOTE] How? I've already shown that, at the very least here in the UK, EA games are overpriced. You claim Bethesda games (amongst other companies) are just as expensive, but Skyrim was cheaper than most EA games before it was even launched.

[QUOTE=David29;39734713][B]here in the UK[/B][/QUOTE] Yes. And not everyone lives in the UK. It's helpful to understand that.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;39734803]Yes. And not everyone lives in the UK. It's helpful to understand that.[/QUOTE] Oh good. So you admit that your initial knee-jerk comment of... [QUOTE=Raidyr;39733949]$60 isn't unreasonable though.[/QUOTE] ...was completely irrelevant then.

no, it's completely relevant because other games are $60. It wasn't a kneejerk statement it was factual reality. if EA games were $70 when every other publisher was selling them for $60 it would be unreasonable.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;39735028]no, it's completely relevant because other games are $60. It wasn't a kneejerk statement it was factual reality. if EA games were $70 when every other publisher was selling them for $60 it would be unreasonable.[/QUOTE] First - no, it isn't relevant since when I said "Whilst EA is losing potential buyers through unreasonably high prices" in my original post, I was talking as a Brit. To use your own comment against you: not everyone lives in the US. It's helpful to understand that. Second - even if I do look at it from the perspective of an American, I have already explained and shown - with the help of conversion rates and comparison of other game prices - that it is unreasonable.

Over $60 is horrid, that's to much for me to go and spend for just one game.

[QUOTE=David29;39735308]First - no, it isn't relevant since when I said "Whilst EA is losing potential buyers through unreasonably high prices" in my original post, I was talking as a Brit. To use your own comment against you: not everyone lives in the US. It's helpful to understand that.[/QUOTE] See though you aren't actually allowed to do that because unfortunately (fortunately?) EA is based in the states. How you get fucked over by conversion rates doesn't really contribute to the cost of the game. I'm just saying, in the future, be a little more nuanced instead of assuming everyone lives in the UK, or atleast point that out in your opening post. It's okay, nothing personal, Australians here do it all the time by calling games expensive as if it's an objective fact when in reality most people pay a lot less than they do. [QUOTE]Second - even if I do look at it from the perspective of an American, I have already explained and shown - with the help of conversion rates and comparison of other game prices - that it is unreasonable.[/QUOTE] no you didn't. you compared it to games that are cheaper. With that logic, $50 games are unreasonable because I can get an indie title for $15.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;39735384]See though you aren't actually allowed to do that because unfortunately (fortunately?) EA is based in the states. How you get fucked over by conversion rates doesn't really contribute to the cost of the game.[/QUOTE] You just contradicted yourself. If conversion rates have no impact on relative price, then it shouldn't matter diddley squat where EA is located. [QUOTE=Raidyr;39735384]I'm just saying, in the future, be a little more nuanced instead of assuming everyone lives in the UK, or atleast point that out in your opening post.[/QUOTE] It is your responsibility to not make assumptions. [QUOTE=Raidyr;39735384]no you didn't. you compared it to games that are cheaper. With that logic, $50 games are unreasonable because I can get an indie title for $15.[/QUOTE] You said Bethesda was just as expensive. So I took a major Bethesda game - Skyrim - found out it's price at launch and noticed it was cheaper in comparison to a major EA game. You are forgetting what you said already and trying to use it against me.

[QUOTE=David29;39735621]You just contradicted yourself. If conversion rates have no impact on relative price, then it shouldn't matter diddley squat where EA is located.[/QUOTE] It has no impact on you being able to objectively state if a games price is reasonable or not. If SimCity is really £44.99 for you then I am afraid you are being ripped off in, again, your specific region. Here it's $60, which, again, is not unreasonable because it's the exact same price as most AAA titles. Some launch on PC at $50 but at that point it's splitting hairs. [QUOTE] It is your responsibility to not make assumptions.[/QUOTE] You made the assumption though that everyone in the world pays the same amount for games that you do. [QUOTE]You said Bethesda was just as expensive. So I took a major Bethesda game - Skyrim - found out it's price at launch and noticed it was cheaper in comparison to a major EA game. You are forgetting what you said already and trying to use it against me.[/QUOTE] No. Dead Space 3 is $59.99. Skyrim is $59.99. Borderlands 2 is $59.99. Bioshock Infinite is $59.99 Ergo, EA's games specifically are not priced unreasonably. It was cheaper in your specific region.

You know, thanks to inflation, $60 in 2007 is worth about $66 now. So they're talking about increasing the price very slightly above inflation, what's the big deal?

[QUOTE=Raidyr;39735876]It has no impact on you being able to objectively state if a games price is reasonable or not. If SimCity is really £44.99 for you then I am afraid you are being ripped off in, again, your specific region. Here it's $60, which, again, is not unreasonable because it's the exact same price as most AAA titles. Some launch on PC at $50 but at that point it's splitting hairs.[/QUOTE] So, to reiterate, your comment of... [QUOTE=Raidyr;39733949]$60 isn't unreasonable though.[/QUOTE] ... was irrelevant to my original post. I was talking from a British perspective that EA games are more expensive, which I have show that they are. I [b]did not[/b] mention any other country or nationality. You made the assumption.

Developers sell astronomically more games than they used to. People keep posting these pricing graphs, but they are absolutely worthless because they don't factor in the huge volumes of money that most games gross these days.

[QUOTE=hypno-toad;39736152]Developers sell astronomically more games than they used to. People keep posting these pricing graphs, but they are absolutely worthless because they don't factor in the huge volumes of money that most games gross these days.[/QUOTE] Doom was created in its entirety by about ten people and cost about $700k to produce. Killzone 2 cost $40 million. Which do you think needs to sell more copies to break even, let alone profit? How many more ways is that profit being split? Furthermore, Doom cost $44.99 when it was released in 1993. Plugging that into my handy inflation calculator, that comes to [B]$71.71[/B] today. So yeah. If EA decided to price all their games at $70, it would be [I]equivalent[/I] to the typical price on games back in the 90s that everyone seems nostalgic for.

[QUOTE=J!NX;39734227]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] I wish I had the money to buy you a title, you illegitimately cannot read into peoples posts and cannot follow simple instructions.[/QUOTE] What the fuck. If what you're saying is true, then what constitutes as a sequel? Episode 2 isn't the next entry after Half Life 2, 'cause it's "a refurnished house." I guess the only true sequels are if the game's engine, gameplay, features, characters, and developers are completely different. From what I've read from you in this thread, I doubt you've played more than 10 games in your life. [editline]27th February 2013[/editline] Also, stop using this shitty house analogy. A luxury item that costs anywhere from 5 to 100 dollars is no where near as expensive as a house that people spend more than half of their lives paying off.

[QUOTE=milkandcooki;39736854]What the fuck. If what you're saying is true, then what constitutes as a sequel? Episode 2 isn't the next entry after Half Life 2, 'cause it's "a refurnished house." I guess the only true sequels are if the game's engine, gameplay, features, characters, and developers are completely different. From what I've read from you in this thread, I doubt you've played more than 10 games in your life.[/QUOTE] "its still a legit sequal but it makes it way more of an expansion pack than a full on game." And Episode 1 and 2 was treated exactly like that, an expansion pack, they didn't sell it for 60$ which is what I was going against. L4D2 wasn't full price either, like it should have. theres no such thing as an "Illegitimate sequel", a sequal is literally only "Something that happens after X thing". Also [url]http://steamcommunity.com/id/NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNon0/games?tab=all[/url] and [url]http://steamcommunity.com/id/TheMostGenericName/games?tab=all[/url] [QUOTE]Also, stop using this shitty house analogy. A luxury item that costs anywhere from 5 to 100 dollars is no where near as expensive as a house that people spend more than half of their lives paying off.[/QUOTE] you really don't get the point at all do you I was arguing the CONTENT of the house and what % of it you're paying for. You wouldn't pay for 100% of the price for something and only get 50% of the content? the analogy Could work for anything else, a car, a boat, a cat, etc. A repainted game (like Episode 2) doesn't make it any less a game than others, all i'm saying is that you shouldn't pay full price if its repainted, because you shouldn't pay more for less. Would you pay 60$ for Episode 2 if they called it "Half life 3", but the game was how episode 2 is now?

Remember when in the ps2/Xbox/cube era when Sega released brand new 2k sports games for $20? That was cool. I liked more when there was a cap at $50, but I've been playing 3ds games recently and getting full console quality gaming experiences for max $40 is awesome.

You can 'theoretically' shove it up your arse EA

[QUOTE=Trogdon;39736930]Remember when in the ps2/Xbox/cube era when Sega released brand new 2k sports games for $20? That was cool. I liked more when there was a cap at $50, but I've been playing 3ds games recently and getting full console quality gaming experiences for max $40 is awesome.[/QUOTE] Games cost a shitload more to produce, more people play them and are willing to spend 60 bucks for games, and inflation plays a role too.

[QUOTE=milkandcooki;39737029]Games cost a shitload more to produce, more people play them and are willing to spend 60 bucks for games, and inflation plays a role too.[/QUOTE] which is fair, but people would bitch if Episode 2 was 60$, which was my point :v: Hardwares advancements make competing in the market harder and harder. However, it also makes "Good looking games" easier to make too.

This is probably gonna boost sales on the PS4 unless everyone on the new xbox really wants to pay like £60 a game when you can just buy it used for half the price.

[QUOTE=Ishwoo;39737502]This is probably gonna boost sales on the PS4 unless everyone on the new xbox really wants to pay like £60 a game when you can just buy it used for half the price.[/QUOTE] Increased cost = less sales Proof = steam sales, the more discounts the higher the sales. Plus gamestop only cuts 5$ off used games, rather than half off.

I am scared of next gen gaming

[QUOTE=J!NX;39737580]Increased cost = less sales Proof = steam sales, the more discounts the higher the sales. Plus gamestop only cuts 5$ off used games, rather than half off.[/QUOTE] Indeed but i can see people buying a PS4 instead so they can spend 30$ on a used game instead of $70 whereas with an xbox they'll be forced to buy it at the full 70 because of the always online, no used game thing