DayZ Price Increases by 15%, Immediately has "15% Off Sale" - Update

[Baresark]

A 15% increase followed by a 15% decrease does not bring you to the same price. There is still a slight discount.

Lol, you beat me too it. I was like... math doesn't work like that.

OT: I mean... so we are supposed to condone both the ridiculous practice of charging way more for early access and the practice of charging way less for early access. It honestly just makes sense to charge the release price for the game. That said, it does make more sense to charge less for early access to me, not that I am outright condoning anything. I mean... DayZ is one big griefing simulator, so they might as well grief with the price as well.

A 15% increase followed by a 15% decrease does not bring you to the same price. There is still a slight discount.

For all of those stating that my math is bad, i'm sorry, I was never really a math guy in school. For what it is worth, the game is actually "on sale" from its original price: it is $29.74 on steam, meaning you save a whopping 25 cents from the pre-sale price. The original point still stands.

Haha, no worries man. It was an observation that was more for fun than anything else. I would have to agree that it's not worth even talking about the a 25c discount. The main story is the price hike and subsequent "sale", which you knocked out the park. I'm pretty sure we were just all having a little fun.

 

[martyrdrebel27]

Guys, the problem isn't the price increase. Its the timing of it. They should've waited until after the steam sale, or done it before hand.

this. If they REALLY wanted to increase the price incrementally, the way minecraft did, DO THAT AFTER THE SALE. I was going to purchase this game in a few hours, now I have to rethink if this is a company that I want to give money to. It may be within their rights or the community standards, but it's still a shitty, shady thing to do.

 

[EdwardBerner]

Didn't Steam just give some new rules (or at least guidelines) regarding Early Access, stating that customers should be buying the game based on its current state?

It then logically follows that all Early Access games *must* gradually become more expensive or they'd be breaking those rules.

 

[Rozalia1]

And yet it is done all the time in the UK and US...If you knew half the BS that goes on when you're not looking. For example a common dodge is that they can simply claim it was always marked down and the new elevated price was the actual price. See you don't have to tell a consumer something is on sale....or that a price is marked down. That's more or less voluntary.

I mean your supermarket doesn't tell you when they mark down the price on fruits and vegetables most times.

Pretty much, it sometimes makes the rounds on the news but its very much a thing that happens and no one really stops.

 

[chocolate pickles]

Yep. I can believe it, especially considering the shoddy state of the game (despite how long it's been out) and the lack of progress they've been making.

 

[Li Mu]

And this is news how? AMAzon, and just about every Brick and Mortar store pull this crap all the time. It's not even shady. It's perfectly legal and above the board.... They raised their price which they are legfally able to do and at the same time discounted their price which is also perfectly legal

As has been mentioned before, such a practice is illegal in the UK and Australia and a few other countries. I'm not sure where you're from, so perhaps it's legal in your country.
It may be done, but if they are caught they face fines. I'd like you to give a few examples of when it has happened because I suspect you are making the claim "They do it all the time" without any genuine proof.

I can quite as easily say, "Americans kill goats all the time" or "Chinese people kill fish with dynamite all the time" and not provide any examples of times when it's happened. Sure, perhaps these things have happened, but they're not as widespread and acceptable as you make it out to be.

 

[Bindal]

Yep. I can believe it, especially considering the shoddy state of the game (despite how long it's been out) and the lack of progress they've been making.

Lack of progress? They added respawning loot, the first parts of server-side saving of the map, improved zombie pathfinding, added several new weapons, let crashed helicopters return (in two flavors this time, no less), added several new locations including one huge city (still in the work and not released - only the roadwork has been added so far).
Please explain how that is "lack of progress", unless you're saying "fire currently shows a lack of flames", too.

 

[Duder Dudeson]

A 15% increase followed by a 15% decrease does not bring you to the same price. There is still a slight discount.

I was just thinking that. 15% of the original price isn't the same amount as 15% of the new price.

It ends up being like a 3% discount.

 

[Duder Dudeson]

A 15% increase followed by a 15% decrease does not bring you to the same price. There is still a slight discount.

Lol, you beat me too it. I was like... math doesn't work like that.

OT: I mean... so we are supposed to condone both the ridiculous practice of charging way more for early access and the practice of charging way less for early access. It honestly just makes sense to charge the release price for the game. That said, it does make more sense to charge less for early access to me, not that I am outright condoning anything. I mean... DayZ is one big griefing simulator, so they might as well grief with the price as well.

A 15% increase followed by a 15% decrease does not bring you to the same price. There is still a slight discount.

For all of those stating that my math is bad, i'm sorry, I was never really a math guy in school. For what it is worth, the game is actually "on sale" from its original price: it is $29.74 on steam, meaning you save a whopping 25 cents from the pre-sale price. The original point still stands.

But you buried the lead! A quarter off that people think is great is way more insulting then no discount at all.

 

[chocolate pickles]

Yep. I can believe it, especially considering the shoddy state of the game (despite how long it's been out) and the lack of progress they've been making.

Lack of progress? They added respawning loot, the first parts of server-side saving of the map, improved zombie pathfinding, added several new weapons, let crashed helicopters return (in two flavors this time, no less), added several new locations including one huge city (still in the work and not released - only the roadwork has been added so far).
Please explain how that is "lack of progress", unless you're saying "fire currently shows a lack of flames", too.

"fire currently shows a lack of flames"? TBH, i didn't know people were complaining about that.

The thing is, most of the improvements you've cited are quite small, or just rather shoddy: The loot system is awful (re spawning? Then why is it impossible to find a can of beans in a small town, even if I'm playing on a relatively small server with no-one around?), and so is the path finding - seems all that's needed to lose a zombie is to dart into the nearest house for a couple of seconds and exit through the backdoor.

In regards to the locations: You've said yourself they haven't even finished one of them, and most of the cities in Day Z are relatively small anyway. Besides, these new locations are mostly uninspired filler;they're not interesting to explore in the slightest. Furthermore, the addition of new weapons isn't really that significant of an update, especially when some (like the revolver) were glitchy.

The return of crashed helicopters brings me to my final point: That in comparison to the mod, this is a mess of a game. It shouldn't have taken this long to get crashed helicopters back, and the small addition of an extra 'flavor' of skin isn't a sufficient excuse for their late implementation. Combine this with awful hit detection (melee is laughable at best) that was actually adequate in the mod and a lack of vehicles, and I'm afraid to say this is a poor game with a slow, monotonous update schedule.

 

[ElMinotoro]

I don't understand how $30ish wasn't full price already? What are they aiming for? $50?

 

[beddo]

If you don't want a product at the stated price then don't buy it - simple.

 

[Muspelheim]

Uh... Bohemia..? Is everything alright?

Yes, thing have gone rather well lately. But for all that is holy, do not let it get to your heads. Please.

Someone's have to make the games you do, no one else seems willing to take your place if you gamble all that hard work away on the old Ubigambit. Keep a damn close eye to whoever suggested this was a good idea.

He's probably working for Guba.

 

[Shamanic Rhythm]

So, who is going to be getting the ACCC sent after them? Valve or the developer? It sounds to me like it's the developer who's at fault, so it should probably be them.

I doubt either of them are really worried about being hit with the ACCC's feather duster.

OT: I can understand the reasoning behind discounting a game in early access and then raising it to full price, but it's never going to sit well in contrast to the regular practice of games starting at a high price and coming down gradually. If you're serious about early access, you're better off picking a decent price point that you can maintain through to the end of development. Or alternatively, just stuff early access altogether and finish the game before you let people pay it.

 

[Lono Shrugged]

Arma 3 and several other early access games had the same pricing plan and no one complained. It's arguably not a good idea, but it's not in any way shocking. And as for "deceptive advertising" or whatever. The price is the price. If you see the game is on sale and decide to buy it you are going to look at the price and make your decision based on the information at hand. If the game enters another pricing stage (as has been stated and is common practice) then it is still a sale. I don't understand why everyone is so hopped up.

Slow news day I guess.

 

[The Bucket]

And as for "deceptive advertising" or whatever. The price is the price. If you see the game is on sale and decide to buy it you are going to look at the price and make your decision based on the information at hand. If the game enters another pricing stage (as has been stated and is common practice) then it is still a sale. I don't understand why everyone is so hopped up.

Slow news day I guess.

Because, as has been said a lot of times in the thread, it is literally illegal in many areas that Steam operates in to state a false sale price in this manner.

 

[Raioken18]

Illegal as f*** here.

If they were going to up the price to avoid early access people being pissed off about lower prices... then DON'T PRETEND IT'S A SALE!
Just increase the price and avoid the sale. You can't do this in other industries so why would it be "ok" in gaming...

For people mentioning Minecraft, yes they did increase their prices, however they held the sales BEFORE increasing the price. Hence why I was able to get it for $5.00 AUD weeks before the second price increase (it may have been the first increase, it was around 2010).

 

[Lono Shrugged]

Because, as has been said a lot of times in the thread, it is literally illegal in many areas that Steam operates in to state a false sale price in this manner.

How is it false? They raised the price based on the planned updates and then had a sale on the new price. It's stated in the product documentation and these price raises are par for the course. It's a sale on the new price. When the sale ends, the price will remain raised. Also considering I have seen dayz on sale a few times without pulling this "trick" (I don't see how this is meant to work) It backs up the supposition that this was a timing issue.

 

[The Bucket]

Because, as has been said a lot of times in the thread, it is literally illegal in many areas that Steam operates in to state a false sale price in this manner.

How is it false? They raised the price based on the planned updates and then had a sale on the new price. It's stated in the product documentation and these price raises are par for the course. It's a sale on the new price. When the sale ends, the price will remain raised. Also considering I have seen dayz on sale a few times without pulling this "trick" (I don't see how this is meant to work) It backs up the supposition that this was a timing issue.

In my country, similar to many others, if a reduction is displayed on an item, the previous price must have been valid for 28 days over the previous three months by law. They just jacked the price up, then pushed it back down on 'sale'. Its dishonest and attempting to capitalize on sales hype

 

[Olas]

People should just ignore the whole "X% off" thing, you should judge something by it's price, not by how much it costs relative to some imaginary price it's not being sold for.