安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文（繁体中文）
日本語（日语）
한국어（韩语）
ไทย（泰语）
български（保加利亚语）
Čeština（捷克语）
Dansk（丹麦语）
Deutsch（德语）
English（英语）
Español-España（西班牙语 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希腊语）
Français（法语）
Italiano（意大利语）
Bahasa Indonesia（印度尼西亚语）
Magyar（匈牙利语）
Nederlands（荷兰语）
Norsk（挪威语）
Polski（波兰语）
Português（葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙）
Português-Brasil（葡萄牙语 - 巴西）
Română（罗马尼亚语）
Русский（俄语）
Suomi（芬兰语）
Svenska（瑞典语）
Türkçe（土耳其语）
Tiếng Việt（越南语）
Українська（乌克兰语）
报告翻译问题
讨论规则及指引
举报此帖
I would gladley pay $70 for this game
Uh, what? Rockstar Games isn't a British company. Their headquarters is in New York City. The main development house, Rockstar North, is in Scotland but they're both owned by Take-Two Interactive. Which is an American company. Take-Two has owned Rockstar since 1998, just a year after the very first Grand Theft Auto game was released.
This makes the rest of your argument invalid.
Yeah, and who develops GTA? Rockstar North.
Don't do this to yourself, Manwith.
You're trying so hard to rationalize your misinformation that you're only making yourself look foolish at this point. Where many of the developers choose to live has absolutely no relevancy to the currency that a publisher uses, and you know it.
If the publisher is an American company then they can easily make the $60 base price universal among all of the territories that they distribute to, while adjusting for different currency conversions. There's really no need to arbitrarily inflate the cost of the game for Australia on a digital product.
If a game is being sold for $60 in the United States, then why should it cost any more than $74 in Australia? Why should Australians have to regularly pay $90 or even $100+ for a single digital game?
No no no. I asked a simple question of your rationale. What location do you use as the base point for pricing before using exchange rates to determine other countries pricing?
I have no issue with it being based on USD, I'll get the game cheaper.
You however are denying the simple fact that the company responsible for developing this series is British. Considering that simple fact, it is reasonable to assume costs of product based on the wages of those British citizens. It's not about where they choose to live, it's about where the business is located.
Of course, like many large companies, they have offices around the globe and there is likely work on this game being done in a number of countries. I'm not trying hard to rationalise any misinformation. I have not stated anything that cannot be considered factual.
That simply isn't true.
You stated that Rockstar is a British company, which isn't correct. Rockstar North is not a separate company. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of Take-Two Interactive, which is an American multinational company. When a discussion is within the context of the games distribution then nothing else matters other than the publisher. Period.
Take-Two has owned Rockstar since before the Grand Theft Auto series was relevant, they have complete control over the IP, and they're the ones who publish the game around the world.
In the United Kingdom you can buy the PC version of GTA 5 for just under 35 quid. That's roughly equivalent to just a few dollars short of $60 USD. A fair price. In the rest of Europe it's being sold for €49.99, which again comes out to roughly $60 USD. Also a fair price.
So why is it then that in Australia it's being sold for $89.95 AUD? This comes out to around $74 USD. How is this at all a fair conversion? Many games retail for even more than this brand new as well.
So, let me ask you some questions...
Is Land Rover Indian?
Is Lambourghini German?
You do realise Rockstar Games, the publisher, was founded by British people?
Also, I never said any pricing was fair or otherwise. I simply asked what location you use for the base price before exchange rates, which was your idea, then showed how if it was based on the developers location it's going to largely annoy people. You've now turned this into a completely different arguement. Which I might add, wasn't an arguement until you decided to accuse me of "rationalising misinformation", which I'm not.
You can take over our companies but you shall never take our FREEEEDDDDOOOOOM!
Seriously, lighten up, you only had to answer my question but instead you go on some tirade, which by the way, does not change my mind that GTA is largely made by a British company, regardless of who owns them.
Nope. After the acquisition Tata Motors set up Jaguar Land Rover, which is a public limited company based in the United Kingdom. Jaguar Land Rover is a separate company which produces and sells the Land Rover vehicles.
Also no.
Automobili Lamborghini is a Società per Azioni, which is the equivalent of a public limited company in Italy. Again, just like with Tata Motors even though the Volkswagon Group is the parent company and owns the majority of shares, the subsidiaries are still separate and publicly traded companies.
What you need to understand is that there's a big difference between having a parent company, and being a wholly owned subsidiary. Rockstar North is a video game developer, not a separate public company.
See, this is why I advised you to just stop with the mental gymnastics right from the beginning. It only makes you look even worse when you inevitably slip up like this.
As someone else already pointed out you're really grasping at straws here. Rockstar Games is based out of the Take-Two Interactive offices in New York City. I fail to see what the nationality of the Houser brothers has to do with this.
You may not have directly claimed that the pricing was fair, but by asking that question you're heavily implying that you're content with the status quo. The intent is even more apparent when you subsequently submit a hypothetical situation which, as you say, would inconvenience everyone.
From my perspective it's not really an argument. You're saying incorrect things, and I'm correcting said misinformation. That's really all it is to me.
You can believe whatever makes you happy, but it doesn't change the fact that Rockstar North is a British developer, not a separate British company.
Nope. The first game was simply called "Grand Theft Auto". It took place in Liberty City (based on New York), Vice City (based on Miami), and San Andreas (based on Los Angelas, San Francisco, and Las Vegas).
London 1969 and 1961 were just mission packs for the original game, basically old school DLC.
You can tell this guy doesn't work for his money.