This^. Also games are a lot cheaper then they used to be so stop griping.Blade_125 said:Economics 101
Every item is worth what the buyer is willing to pay for it.
If you don't think a game is worth the price, don't buy it.
This^. Also games are a lot cheaper then they used to be so stop griping.Blade_125 said:Economics 101
Every item is worth what the buyer is willing to pay for it.
If you don't think a game is worth the price, don't buy it.
You can buy Thief: Deadly Shadows or Thief: The Dark Project now for much cheaper and get much more game out of it.everythingbeeps said:Your terrible system is terrible.
You're asking publishers to voluntarily mark down shitty games, basically placing a giant sticker on the box saying "this game blows!"
What do you care if Section 8 costs $60? If you want it, you buy it, if you don't, you don't. If you kind of want it, wait for a price drop. If it sells as poorly as you expect, the price drop will happen quickly. Why are publishers obligated to essentially make the price drop instantaneous?
Knock it off with your entitlement issues. I'm so sick of this attitude of "if I can't afford it, it's too expensive."
Be more selective about what games you buy.
The pricing is fine. It's essentially what it's always been.
which is where the real problem comes in. With digital products, there really isn't "supply" anymore, just demand. The problem is you can't really price a game based on demand... or maybe you could. It could encourage people to buy games day-1, and anyone who chooses to "wait and see" might have to pay more because the demand went up and so did the price. As some one said, a $35 price point is a good impulse-buy level (Hell, I ended up with $70+ DS games before I realized it) and after that captures enough people's attention, raise it to $50, then $60 and only bring it down once people stop caring.DarkRyter said:There is no such thing as "content". There is no such thing as "quality". At least, not to the retail market. There is only supply. And there is only demand.
hah ahh love that picture...and they were right, i bought the 2nd one and am thoroughly enjoying it for the fractioned price it was sold for.Kahunaburger said:Turns out the market for games allocates prices like that already. The devs of Section 8 realized that $60 was too high of an initial price and decided to sell the sequel for a third of that amount.
There is still supply. Even though distribution costs have been minimized, the development costs of the game ensures that there exists a price point where the game must be sold to be profitable.Signa said:which is where the real problem comes in. With digital products, there really isn't "supply" anymore, just demand. The problem is you can't really price a game based on demand... or maybe you could. It could encourage people to buy games day-1, and anyone who chooses to "wait and see" might have to pay more because the demand went up and so did the price. As some one said, a $35 price point is a good impulse-buy level (Hell, I ended up with $70+ DS games before I realized it) and after that captures enough people's attention, raise it to $50, then $60 and only bring it down once people stop caring.DarkRyter said:There is no such thing as "content". There is no such thing as "quality". At least, not to the retail market. There is only supply. And there is only demand.
Also this. Games prices decline over time, they are not stuck at $60 or whatever the release price is forever. If you can't afford it or don't want to pay that much all you have to do is wait. If you want to be one of the first to play it and keep up with the newest games, cough up the money. Videogames are not a necessity.Sober Thal said:We pay for what a game is worth. If you don't see it as 'worth' so, you don't buy it. Simple really. Wait for it to drop in price. We are spoiled in thinking time of development matters, frames per second matter, ect, when seeing the day one price of a game.