What the hell is wrong with you, exactly?

[PurpleSky]

Just because you live in America/other wealthy country, doesn't mean you can let them give you a game in 3 parts ( SC2 )

Oh boy. Another one of these people.

You haven't played Starcraft 2, that's for sure.

Let me tell you something about Starcraft 2's trilogy thing: IT DOESN'T MATTER.

You know what I got from Starcraft 2? A shitload of content and a sense of fucking completion. I'm not sure what qualifies as a "complete" game to you, but that's more than enough for me. It's not a "part" of a game. It's not even "half" a game. It's a game.

I'm not sure if you may have to really stretch your mental capabilities past their normal limits of accepting convention, but when someone says something is part of a trilogy, it's not suddenly incapable of standing on its own. Compared with many other RTS's of this time and the previous ones, it has much more content. That it's part of a trilogy is completely irrelevant.
[hr]640[/hr]
Now, on to your other complaints:
If collectors' editions are any indication of how much gamers are willing to pay for games, they're only going to get more expensive. Movie ticket prices are the same, especially with the coming of 3D. It's just unavoidable. If a game came out and it was 100 dollars, but it was really good (not ground-breaking; just really good), people may piss and moan, but the bottom line is that a large chunk of them would still buy it. And all the complaining would earn the game more publicity. Win-win.

What I usually do is just play many of the older games until the prices for the newer games die down. It also helps that more than one person in my family is a gamer, so we can share the single-player games.

The used game industry is profiting much from what earns the gaming industry about as much money as piracy, so if you want a boycott, you may as well go there.

Other than that, you can only sit back and watch people spend 40 dollars more for a pair of night-vision goggles that they never knew they wanted.

False.I have played, and enjoyed it.The subscription is a goldmine for them, they could have kept it just like Warcraft, but they realized they could ask for money every month,seeing as people will play it for years.

 

[TiefBlau]

False.I have played, and enjoyed it.

That's great. Unfortunately, arguments aren't the Death Star. One falsity doesn't make it spontaneously combust. If you still insist Starcraft 2 is one-third of a full game, I'm listening.

 

[PurpleSky]

"Is this worth it" "Is it worth 60 $?"

2 weeks later

"It RROD"

People today make me feel so old- Forgot to add I'm 18 right now-.You're letting these companies ripp you off so hard it's not even amusing.

I had this, I still have no ideea how my poor parents managed to buy it for me and my brother older brother.

I kept this baby going with toothpicks and stuff I can't even remember right now.(After a good while of smooth sailing, and I'm pretty sure I was not it's first owner)
I had like a hundred cartriges full of games,I don't know for sure if they were 8bit or 16bit, I played those until I got a PC and played Warcraft 3 as my first PC game.


My point is, no it's not worth it, they always charge as much as possible, they want to make money.Just because you live in America/other wealthy country, doesn't mean you can let them give you a game in 3 parts ( SC2 ) , or ask for money for new content.
You can't defend the developers and explain their actions and half assed releases, when their motivations are strictly financial.

These are all gimmicks, and they make you loose the value of a dollar.

I mean, jesus christ, stop throwing money at every game developer.

[sub]This was a rant,you can ignore it or flame me,I don't care[/sub]

Spoiler

I've got a question for you right here, you see me as a communist right now, don't you?

*EDIT* People can talk all they want about capitalism and business,but if you look here in this thread everyone agrees that old hardware is way more reliable.

Communists aren't the same as morons, so no.

Assuming you're not a moron however, you've either lived your entire life in some sort of lightless prison and can't grasp that people spend money for enjoyment or perhaps you're simply venting.

I honestly don't see any intelligent argument being made here, not trying to be offensive but what exactly are you expecting of the world, hmm?

Noun 1. rant - a loud bombastic declamation expressed with strong emotion
harangue, ranting
declamation - vehement oratory
screed - a long monotonous harangue
2. rant - pompous or pretentious talk or writing
blah, bombast, claptrap, fustian
grandiloquence, grandiosity, magniloquence, ornateness, rhetoric - high-flown style; excessive use of verbal ornamentation; "the grandiosity of his prose"; "an excessive ornateness of language"
Verb 1. rant - talk in a noisy, excited, or declamatory manner
jabber, mouth off, rabbit on, rave, spout
mouth, speak, talk, verbalise, verbalize, utter - express in speech; "She talks a lot of nonsense"; "This depressed patient does not verbalize"

 

[PurpleSky]

False.I have played, and enjoyed it.

That's great. Unfortunately, arguments aren't the Death Star. One falsity doesn't make it spontaneously combust. If you still insist Starcraft 2 is one-third of a full game, I'm listening.

*ignores this reaction and pretends he knows what he was talking about/sticking to his beliefs*

 

[Project_Xii]

The main problem? Consoles are getting more advanced and complicated, requiring more parts to run. And more parts means more cost. And more cost means mass production is expensives unless manufactors buy the cheapest parts they can. Which results in RROD, and us PS3 people laughing. HAH.

But seriously, a business gotta run, and Microsoft doesn't make any profit on the consoles (only Nintendo does on the Wii apparently). The funny part is that their desperate bid to cut costs probably cost them more in the long run.

My Sega Mega Drive still works too, but have you ever picked the thing up? Feels hollow. Probably runs on 2 oversized cards and some flashing LED lights. Well made ones at least.

 

[TiefBlau]

*ignores this reaction and pretends he knows what he's sticking to his beliefs*

lolwut?

The subscription is a goldmine for them, they could have kept it just like Warcraft, but they realized they could ask for money every month,seeing as people will play it for years.

Call me crazy, but I'm pretty sure we're not talking about Starcraft 2 anymore.

To reiterate, Starcraft 2 has more content and probably a better sense of completion than any other RTS I've seen. You think it's only PART of a game because...?

 

[PurpleSky]

*ignores this reaction and pretends he knows what he's sticking to his beliefs*

lolwut?

The subscription is a goldmine for them, they could have kept it just like Warcraft, but they realized they could ask for money every month,seeing as people will play it for years.

Call me crazy, but I'm pretty sure we're not talking about Starcraft 2 anymore.

To reiterate, Starcraft 2 has more content and probably a better sense of completion than any other RTS I've seen. You think it's only PART of a game because...?

Ok drop the SC2 thing, I was just looking for examples of devs ripping people off,should have talked about the subscription thing.And before you defend it by saying servers and maintenance blar blar blar, they did't ask for it a few years ago on the original Battle.net, but it didn't bring them as much money.That's the only reason for it.

 

[PurpleSky]

If you don't think it's worth the money, don't buy it. Simple.

The only reason they ask such extortionate prices is that they know people are prepared to pay that much. If we refuse to put up with their shit, prices will come down and/or quality will go up.

I agree entirely.

 

[TiefBlau]

*ignores this reaction and pretends he knows what he's sticking to his beliefs*

lolwut?

The subscription is a goldmine for them, they could have kept it just like Warcraft, but they realized they could ask for money every month,seeing as people will play it for years.

Call me crazy, but I'm pretty sure we're not talking about Starcraft 2 anymore.

To reiterate, Starcraft 2 has more content and probably a better sense of completion than any other RTS I've seen. You think it's only PART of a game because...?

Ok drop the SC2 thing, I was just looking for examples of devs ripping people off,should have talked about the subscription thing.And before you defend it by saying servers and maintenance blar blar blar, they did't ask for it a few years ago on the original Battle.net, but it didn't bring them as much money.That's the only reason for it.

I'm not denying that Blizzard is a group of greedy, conniving businessmen, but Starcraft 2 is well worth the price for which you pay.

And there was another part to my post. That you only replied to this part leads me do the same. Savvy?

 

[Fusionxl]

Look, I may not have been around to see it, but it sounds to me like you're just being nostalgic, or expecting the price for stuff to go down despite the technology becoming better and therefore more expensive.

Quite the contrary my friend, CPU compting power practically doubles every 2 years, yet it gets more and more cheaper to build. My old computer cost over 1400 bucks about 10 years ago or so, the newest one was built for around 500 and it's an absolute beast of a rig.

 

[PurpleSky]

*ignores this reaction and pretends he knows what he's sticking to his beliefs*

lolwut?

The subscription is a goldmine for them, they could have kept it just like Warcraft, but they realized they could ask for money every month,seeing as people will play it for years.

Call me crazy, but I'm pretty sure we're not talking about Starcraft 2 anymore.

To reiterate, Starcraft 2 has more content and probably a better sense of completion than any other RTS I've seen. You think it's only PART of a game because...?

Ok drop the SC2 thing, I was just looking for examples of devs ripping people off,should have talked about the subscription thing.And before you defend it by saying servers and maintenance blar blar blar, they did't ask for it a few years ago on the original Battle.net, but it didn't bring them as much money.That's the only reason for it.

I'm not denying that Blizzard is a group of greedy, conniving businessmen, but Starcraft 2 is well worth the price for which you pay.

And there was another part to my post. That you only replied to this part leads me do the same. Savvy?

Is today Talk like a pirate day and I haven't noticed?

 

[TiefBlau]

*ignores this reaction and pretends he knows what he's sticking to his beliefs*

lolwut?

The subscription is a goldmine for them, they could have kept it just like Warcraft, but they realized they could ask for money every month,seeing as people will play it for years.

Call me crazy, but I'm pretty sure we're not talking about Starcraft 2 anymore.

To reiterate, Starcraft 2 has more content and probably a better sense of completion than any other RTS I've seen. You think it's only PART of a game because...?

Ok drop the SC2 thing, I was just looking for examples of devs ripping people off,should have talked about the subscription thing.And before you defend it by saying servers and maintenance blar blar blar, they did't ask for it a few years ago on the original Battle.net, but it didn't bring them as much money.That's the only reason for it.

I'm not denying that Blizzard is a group of greedy, conniving businessmen, but Starcraft 2 is well worth the price for which you pay.

And there was another part to my post. That you only replied to this part leads me do the same. Savvy?

Is today Talk like a pirate day and I haven't noticed?

Aye. Every day is Talk Like a Pirate Day.

 

[manythings]

Investors can take their money and give it to a competitor. You lose out and your enemies gain. Enough investors leave and your company collapses.

That makes more sense than this talk about a legal or moral obligation to satisfy shareholders but companies should worry about losing customers before shareholders. Cart before the horse.

You need capital to start a company and customers aren't just going to give you money in the hopes that you will provide a product. Even if you are starting on a bank loan the bank is (in essence but not legally) your primary shareholder. There are AGMs, boards of directors and shareholder advocates to make sure you deliver on your promise to make a return on investment. You can be deemed criminally negligent if you make mistakes that lose enough.

 

[MissAshley]

When you become much older than 18, $60 will not seem like so much. (By the way, declaring your age really doesn't help your rant.)

Up until this generation, video game software managed to maintain a steady price point for over two decades. With things as they are now, something finally had to give.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

You need capital to start a company and customers aren't just going to give you money in the hopes that you will provide a product. Even if you are starting on a bank loan the bank is (in essence but not legally) your primary shareholder. There are AGMs, boards of directors and shareholder advocates to make sure you deliver on your promise to make a return on investment. You can be deemed criminally negligent if you make mistakes that lose enough.

Privately owned companies are different, naturally, so they answer directly to the owners. Those owners will likely have various different ideas on how to run the companies. Newspapers, for example, are often personal projects for rich individuals or families that don't always make money. It's interesting that a privately owned game company like Valve seems to focus more on satisfying their customers than most others.

I don't really think that running a business with a customer focus is a ground for criminal negligence on the scale of Enron or Bhopal but at this point I don't think I can convince you otherwise.

 

[manythings]

You need capital to start a company and customers aren't just going to give you money in the hopes that you will provide a product. Even if you are starting on a bank loan the bank is (in essence but not legally) your primary shareholder. There are AGMs, boards of directors and shareholder advocates to make sure you deliver on your promise to make a return on investment. You can be deemed criminally negligent if you make mistakes that lose enough.

Privately owned companies are different, naturally, so they answer directly to the owners. Those owners will likely have various different ideas on how to run the companies. Newspapers, for example, are often personal projects for rich individuals or families that don't always make money. It's interesting that a privately owned game company like Valve seems to focus more on satisfying their customers than most others.

I don't really think that running a business with a customer focus is a ground for criminal negligence on the scale of Enron or Bhopal but at this point I don't think I can convince you otherwise.

Well since I was talking about companies that aren't privately owned, like multi-national corporate entities, it's not exactly the same as talking about Valve. Before you start playing the Gabe Newell tune keep in mind that Valve has been setting up some pretty vicious anti-competive business practices the least of which are the steam exclusive content. Steam requires you to buy a steam product to use steam add-ons. I bought a disc copy of Dragon Age which meant I couldn't actually buy Awakenings from steam to make playing the game a little simpler.

Valve is a company with a customer focus TODAY because that is the kind of person in charge TODAY. Ten years from now I'm willing to bet things will be different.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

Well since I was talking about companies that aren't privately owned, like multi-national corporate entities, it's not exactly the same as talking about Valve. Before you start playing the Gabe Newell tune keep in mind that Valve has been setting up some pretty vicious anti-competive business practices the least of which are the steam exclusive content. Steam requires you to buy a steam product to use steam add-ons. I bought a disc copy of Dragon Age which meant I couldn't actually buy Awakenings from steam to make playing the game a little simpler.

Valve is a company with a customer focus TODAY because that is the kind of person in charge TODAY. Ten years from now I'm willing to bet things will be different.

There are privately owned multinational corporations but you were specifically talking about raising capital to start a company which is not really done on a stock market as far as I know.

All I can say about Valve is that their fans are normally pretty happy with their product and they support their games for a long time without additional charges. I can't say that they are angels or that the Valve empire will last for ever. Are you saying that because Valve might suck in the future that companies sucking is the natural order of things and we shouldn't complain?

 

[manythings]

Well since I was talking about companies that aren't privately owned, like multi-national corporate entities, it's not exactly the same as talking about Valve. Before you start playing the Gabe Newell tune keep in mind that Valve has been setting up some pretty vicious anti-competive business practices the least of which are the steam exclusive content. Steam requires you to buy a steam product to use steam add-ons. I bought a disc copy of Dragon Age which meant I couldn't actually buy Awakenings from steam to make playing the game a little simpler.

Valve is a company with a customer focus TODAY because that is the kind of person in charge TODAY. Ten years from now I'm willing to bet things will be different.

There are privately owned multinational corporations but you were specifically talking about raising capital to start a company which is not really done on a stock market as far as I know.

All I can say about Valve is that their fans are normally pretty happy with their product and they support their games for a long time without additional charges. I can't say that they are angels or that the Valve empire will last for ever. Are you saying that because Valve might suck in the future that companies sucking is the natural order of things and we shouldn't complain?

No, I'm saying we can expect them to suck. It is the way of any good, well intentioned organisation to eventually abandon its values to further itself. It's not pessimism or fatalism, it happens and continually happens. Politics, religion, major charties, businesses they do this consistently. It's bullshit and you should complain but you shouldn't think for a second it won't happen.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

No, I'm saying we can expect them to suck. It is the way of any good, well intentioned organisation to eventually abandon its values to further itself. It's not pessimism or fatalism, it happens and continually happens. Politics, religion, major charties, businesses they do this consistently. It's bullshit and you should complain but you shouldn't think for a second it won't happen.

Well, don't worry. I have no illusions about Valve never selling out or turning bad. I don't even think that Steam is the "good DRM" since if Steam goes bad then it can stop me from playing a lot of games at once rather than just one disc based game with dodgy DRM that I might have to look for a fix for. But, meh, Steam sales are pretty convenient and I'm not going to miss games like Civ because it's on a service that works well for me right now.

 

[squid5580]

Okay, I gotta ask: How were the old companies not trying to make money?
They were, which is exactly my point.

Look, I may not have been around to see it, but it sounds to me like you're just being nostalgic, or expecting the price for stuff to go down despite the technology becoming better and therefore more expensive.

The FactualSquirrel is factual .. that feels so much better to say than "This".

Stuff cost's more now as the stuff is better and/or does more. Essentially it's get what you pay for, and really; consoles never have been cheap. Maybe cheap by todays standards, but were in a different economy now. Also, businesses have to make money. Every little part of putting together a product costs, then the company needs to sell their product for more to make a proffit and so on.

Except when it doesn't cost more. I am old. I remember the NES days. I remember dropping 60 bucks for Dragon Warrior. So they may cost more to make but they sure ain't charging more for the game.