Click here to view the article
Jump to content
Posted 18 April 2012 - 09:35 PM
Posted 19 April 2012 - 06:45 AM
Posted 19 April 2012 - 03:04 PM
Posted 19 April 2012 - 03:43 PM
Posted 20 April 2012 - 01:57 PM
Posted 22 April 2012 - 11:19 AM
Posted 22 April 2012 - 05:03 PM
Yeah that makes sense slayer.
I think my whole thing is that I can get more satisfaction/dollar from my 30$ RTS than like BF3.
Posted 24 April 2012 - 04:58 AM
Great article... and seriously if this actually helps making the prices go down a bit, I'm not against it.
Actually ... 60$ for a game that's bugged & glitchy out of the box seems a total rip off to me and I just don't understand why it's like that.
People... I mean, the guys behind CoD/Battlefield, have they lost their sense of priorities ?!
Money first then... maybe I'll fix your issues ?
Back in the days, for most games I've played... it always was "I'll work my ass off fixing this little bug then I'll think about the money"
(This example is directly taken from Counter Strike Beta which was 100% free if you owned a copy of Half Life)
I might be going to far by saying "Capitalism is killing the game industry" but ... at some point, it truly feels like that to me.
Posted 24 April 2012 - 12:58 PM
Dude that is insane to event hink that. Capitalism killing the video game industry lol that is obsurd. The video game industry only got so big because of capitalism. And if anything capitalism and free markets will find a way to correct this imbalance to find a way to survive and continue to offer a good product, Because if they dont they will go bankrupt and not sell anyhting. So obviously sixty dollars isnt that high of a price because people are still willing to pay it the get the video games they want. Beleive me if the price was too high it would have been corrected already cause they wouldnt make any money and they would lower the price until they get the money they ened for the project. Point being if you dont like the 60 dollar proce dont buy the sixty dollar game. If there is enough people that find the price is too high and dont buy the game they will lowert the price. If they make enough money at 60 dollars they willl keep it 60 dollars. That is the beuty of free markets which is the only way to liuve prosperous. Any other way of thinking is insane and denies the fact that humans aren't perfect and people act in their own self interest always.
Posted 24 April 2012 - 01:27 PM
Posted 24 April 2012 - 04:32 PM
Do we remember the days of buying a game that was already completed? Or the games that the indie developers actually took the time to fix things that might have been wrong. . . in a timely manner no less.
A smaller group of developers pushing out frequent updates that are better than one huge update, vs a large group of developers who seem to be stuck in their own little world. . something is wrong here. .
Posted 02 May 2012 - 08:54 PM
Posted 17 May 2012 - 06:01 PM
Posted 17 May 2012 - 09:53 PM
Posted 22 May 2012 - 02:33 AM
Posted 22 May 2012 - 04:34 PM
Posted 27 June 2012 - 07:07 PM
Publishers have long blamed console games' high price on a plethora of issues. Skyrocketing development costs is a biggie, as is piracy. Most recently, publishers are taking aim at the used game market, charging that the buying and selling of used merchandise is taking cash out of their pockets.But whatever impact on profitability these concerns have, it doesn't change two monumental problems:
Posted 06 July 2012 - 01:36 PM
Posted 06 July 2012 - 03:15 PM
Posted 08 July 2012 - 05:34 AM
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users