Overpriced and unfinished.

[WIGSPLITER]

If you pre purchase you tell companies it is ok to release a product not ready. Why would they care if you have already given them your money? Stop the madness take a stand.
BF4 runined pre purchase for me forever. And where do you get off saying you game is worth 70 bucks now? It isnt, 60 dollars is alot already.

[GM Pax]

引用自 WIGSPLITER：

If you pre purchase you tell companies it is ok to release a product not ready.

No, not really.

If I pre-order something, and it's truly a load of crap - not just a few bugs and kinks to work out, but truly crap - then that company loses my business. Not just for the next game, but perhaps forever. (For example: Sword of the Stars II has prompted me to never again give either Kerberos nor Parados a single thin dime of my money, ever again.)

Companies know this sort of thing will happen, if they fail to deliver.

And where do you get off saying you game is worth 70 bucks now? It isnt, 60 dollars is alot already.

True fact: in 1994, games cost an average of $45US. Adjusted for inflation, that comes to ~$90US in 2014. So, seventy bucks, already cheaper in absolute trms, than the same game would have been in 1994.

[Infected Mushroom]

引用自 GM Pax：

引用自 WIGSPLITER：

If you pre purchase you tell companies it is ok to release a product not ready.

And where do you get off saying you game is worth 70 bucks now? It isnt, 60 dollars is alot already.

True fact: in 1994, games cost an average of $45US. Adjusted for inflation, that comes to ~$90US in 2014. So, seventy bucks, already cheaper in absolute trms, than the same game would have been in 1994.

The funny thing is some retailer's back than still sold at $60 for example Toy's R Us... I don't know how people could buy games at a store like that back than. Plus when the price drops happened,. It would take months before TRU would drop theirs.

Gaming has been a LOT cheaper on the PC for over a decade now. People really need to get with the time.

[TwoOne]

引用自 WIGSPLITER：

True fact: in 1994, games cost an average of $45US. Adjusted for inflation, that comes to ~$90US in 2014. So, seventy bucks, already cheaper in absolute trms, than the same game would have been in 1994.

Then again, it doesn't cost them anything near as much money to sell digital copies of a game. back then you always got a physical copy. Another thing is that they have much better developement tools now which means their job is "easier" than it was back then. The last thing I'm going to leave you with is that they actually realeased COMPLETE games that WORKED on day one. Now they release half-a**ed games with day one DLC.

[Infected Mushroom]

引用自 Alex：

引用自 WIGSPLITER：

True fact: in 1994, games cost an average of $45US. Adjusted for inflation, that comes to ~$90US in 2014. So, seventy bucks, already cheaper in absolute trms, than the same game would have been in 1994.

Then again, it doesn't cost them anything near as much money to sell digital copies of a game. back then you always got a physical copy. Another thing is that they have much better developement tools now which means their job is "easier" than it was back then. The last thing I'm going to leave you with is that they actually realeased COMPLETE games that WORKED on day one. Now they release half-a**ed games with day one DLC.

Doesn't cost them anything near as much? lol?
You ever use a content delivery service before? They aren't cheap. Steam itself uses about 3 different content delivery networks so people can download games on their network. I can't imagine the cost of that.

[ULTRA]

引用自 GM Pax：

And where do you get off saying you game is worth 70 bucks now? It isnt, 60 dollars is alot already.

True fact: in 1994, games cost an average of $45US. Adjusted for inflation, that comes to ~$90US in 2014. So, seventy bucks, already cheaper in absolute trms, than the same game would have been in 1994.

Good thing the producers lowered the prices from a real $90 to $60, so that they may sell more than a few tens of thousands of copies like they did in 1994 then.

Otherwise they would not recoup their $20 million+ development costs - as $90 times 100,000 is still just 9 million.

[GM Pax]

引用自 Alex：

Then again, it doesn't cost them anything near as much money to sell digital copies of a game. back then you always got a physical copy.

... that would be partly WHY game prices haven't kept pace with inflation, yes.

Another thing is that they have much better developement tools now which means their job is "easier" than it was back then.

No, their job isn't easier. Only an idiot would think it was.

Yes, they have better tools, but they're building bigger andmore complex games.

Kind of like how we have better tools for building ships now, than three thousand years ago ... but then, we're not still building forty-foot-long, oar-powered wooden ships that daren't go more than a mile or two from shore.

The last thing I'm going to leave you with is that they actually realeased COMPLETE games that WORKED on day one.

Not anymore often than now, no they didn't.

[GM Pax]

引用自 Savant：

引用自 GM Pax：

True fact: in 1994, games cost an average of $45US. Adjusted for inflation, that comes to ~$90US in 2014. So, seventy bucks, already cheaper in absolute trms, than the same game would have been in 1994.

Good thing the producers lowered the prices from a real $90 to $60, so that they may sell more than a few tens of thousands of copies like they did in 1994 then.

Otherwise they would not recoup their $20 million+ development costs - as $90 times 100,000 is still just 9 million.

Sales levels in 1990 weren't that low because of the cost of the games. They were that low because home computers themselves were still not very common.

[ULTRA]

引用自 GM Pax：

引用自 Savant：

Good thing the producers lowered the prices from a real $90 to $60, so that they may sell more than a few tens of thousands of copies like they did in 1994 then.

Otherwise they would not recoup their $20 million+ development costs - as $90 times 100,000 is still just 9 million.

Sales levels in 1990 weren't that low because of the cost of the games. They were that low because home computers themselves were still not very common.

Yes, gosh, it's almost as though when the cost of something, like a computer, is high, not as many people buy it because consumption is limited to a disproportionately small amount of people. But this is only a fact when it's convenient to a point we're trying to make.

[Infected Mushroom]

Well they weren't spending 20 million dollars in the 90's to make video games last I heard.

[GM Pax]

引用自 Savant：

Yes, gosh, it's almost as though when the cost of something, like a computer, is high, not as many people buy it because consumption is limited to a disproportionately small amount of people. But this is only a fact when it's convenient to a point we're trying to make.

And what wold YOU point be, then?

Because MY point is simple: if the companies had only sought to keep pace with inflation, then games would be about half again as expensive as they currently are.

Higher demand does NOT normally produce lower prices; that's now how it works. That's not how it's EVER worked in the history of mankind. In fact, the real world works exactly opposite of that.