more anti-consumerism from bethesda

[Deklend]

I got an alert that fallout 4 was on sale, only to find there's no longer a game of the year edition, which with the discount would have been around $20-25. Instead it's now listed as a "Game of the Year bundle", keeping the "discount" well within the range of the non-sale price of the actual Game of the year Edition.

This is getting ridiculous Bethesda.

[Nao 尚]

Messaggio originale di Mercy:

The game of the year edition included the season pass.

Not putting that one up for a sale at 20$ is just common sense.

It was never on sale for $20. It was on sale for $24 *for people who already owned the game*. I paid 40€ for the game on release day, I don't see why I'd have to pay more for the season pass today than if I'd bought it day one for 25€ full price... it's not 'anti consumer', it's just 'anti sale', because no one in their right mind will buy that stuff at that price point.

I mean, the game came out in 2015... It's sold millions...

[Mr Stillwell]

This is considered fraud in my country, Bethesda are criminals.

[showler]

It's not considered fraud in any country.

[Mr Stillwell]

Yes it is.

[Yhwach]

Messaggio originale di Mr Stillwell:

Yes it is.

Then your country sucks, and I hope to never step foot In it.

[showler]

No, it ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ isn't.

Sale prices are always off the FULL UNDISCOUNTED RETAIL PRICE. It makes it look more impressive. The game is still cheaper on sale then it ever was at regular price.

Go ahead and report it, they'll ignore you for being an idiot.

[Mr Stillwell]

Hahaha, yes, it sucks to protect consumers! I hope you never step foot here either :D

[desrtfox071]

Messaggio originale di corrosivechains:

Messaggio originale di Hobo Misanthropus:

lol "Fraud"

Anti-Trust?

You're just saying legal-sounding words without any idea what they mean aren't you?

Fraud: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fraud

Anti-trust: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/antitrust

I know exactly what they mean and they were used in proper context. It's ok, I understand you're a brand loyalist, but you're ignorant.

Look, this might be a little underhanded by Bethesda, but you have no idea what a trust is, and therefore what anti-trust is, nor do you seem to understand fraud at all.

Changing pricing is neither anti-trust nor fraud. Choosing to sell components of your products or bundle them together is neither fraud nor anti-trust.

Your first clue regarding anti-trust should be the word monopoly. Bethesda has a monopoly on nothing. Regarding fraus, it's also pretty simple - are you getting what Bethesda says you'll get for the price they say you'll get it at? yes. Does it matter that the price changed recently? Absolutely not.

Do I agree with Bethesda's practices? NO, but the other poster is right - you're just throwing around legal sounding words with no idea what they actually mean.

[IndianaJones]

Messaggio originale di showler:

The GOTY Edition would not have been 58% off. It would have been 33% off.

Why does everyone think that it would have been 58% off?

Because GOTY Boundle is 58% off. The thing with boundles is that they apply a discount twice, one discount is for buying items as a pack, and second discount of each individual item in pack.

The upsite of boundle is that you can buy missing DLCs and get most of the discount.

The down site is that base price of the GOTY edition was rised by 40€ and noone knows if it will go down after the sale.

Some companies change back price after the sale, but knowing Bethesda I would be surpriced if the price sticks after sale.

Also, if you really expect a faily new and popular game to be less than 30€ just because it is some time on the market, then dream on.

I got Fallout 4 + Seson Pass for 50€ in May this year, no regets. I've already played 120 hours, and will most likely hit 200 hours.

If it is still a bit prices for you (41€), then wait a little longer.

I wouldn't expect GOTY to be more discounted than -33%.

[showler]

The bundle wasn't "rised". The discount for this sale was just applied to the full retail price of the bundle, rather than the existing discount for the GOTY Edition of the bundle. Check the cache someone posted of the Steam GOTY Edition page. It shows both the regular price and the bundle discount price.

[Deklend]

Messaggio originale di desrtfox071:

Messaggio originale di corrosivechains:

Fraud: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fraud

Anti-trust: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/antitrust

I know exactly what they mean and they were used in proper context. It's ok, I understand you're a brand loyalist, but you're ignorant.

Look, this might be a little underhanded by Bethesda, but you have no idea what a trust is, and therefore what anti-trust is, nor do you seem to understand fraud at all.

Changing pricing is neither anti-trust nor fraud. Choosing to sell components of your products or bundle them together is neither fraud nor anti-trust.

Your first clue regarding anti-trust should be the word monopoly. Bethesda has a monopoly on nothing. Regarding fraus, it's also pretty simple - are you getting what Bethesda says you'll get for the price they say you'll get it at? yes. Does it matter that the price changed recently? Absolutely not.

Do I agree with Bethesda's practices? NO, but the other poster is right - you're just throwing around legal sounding words with no idea what they actually mean.

Uh, no where in the definition of anti-trust does it mention monopoly. Yes, monopolies do fall under anti-trust laws, but they dont, pardon the pun, hold a monopoly on anti-trust. I commend you though for so eloquently displaying your inability to actually read something presented to you, it takes courage to say "I'm ignorant, but I don't care!"

[desrtfox071]

Messaggio originale di corrosivechains:

Messaggio originale di desrtfox071:

Look, this might be a little underhanded by Bethesda, but you have no idea what a trust is, and therefore what anti-trust is, nor do you seem to understand fraud at all.

Changing pricing is neither anti-trust nor fraud. Choosing to sell components of your products or bundle them together is neither fraud nor anti-trust.

Your first clue regarding anti-trust should be the word monopoly. Bethesda has a monopoly on nothing. Regarding fraus, it's also pretty simple - are you getting what Bethesda says you'll get for the price they say you'll get it at? yes. Does it matter that the price changed recently? Absolutely not.

Do I agree with Bethesda's practices? NO, but the other poster is right - you're just throwing around legal sounding words with no idea what they actually mean.

Uh, no where in the definition of anti-trust does it mention monopoly. Yes, monopolies do fall under anti-trust laws, but they dont, pardon the pun, hold a monopoly on anti-trust. I commend you though for so eloquently displaying your inability to actually read something presented to you, it takes courage to say "I'm ignorant, but I don't care!"

Lol. It must, but I wouldn't know. There is nothing about Bethesda's practices, anti-consumer though they are, that qualifies as anything close to anti-trust. Like I said, your first clue should be monolpolies, but hey, you're at least a tiny bit right, that's not it entirely, but anti-trust laws do focus exclusively on issues that lessen competition. I like how you also completely skipped the fraud side of your mistaken allegations.

[paugus]

Messaggio originale di corrosivechains:

Uh, no where in the definition of anti-trust does it mention monopoly.

Anti-trust: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/antitrust

consisting of laws to protect trade and commerce from unlawful restraints and monopolies or unfair business practices

As for the unfair business practices bit,

"The antitrust laws proscribe unlawful mergers and business practices in general terms, leaving courts to decide which ones are illegal based on the facts of each case."

https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/antitrust-laws

You're wrong. Bethesda is not a trust. If you believe otherwise, go find precedent of this exact thing happening and being ruled against, or settle it in court, since that's how these things are decided.

[showler]

Messaggio originale di corrosivechains:

Uh, no where in the definition of anti-trust does it mention monopoly.

of, relating to, or being legislation against or opposition to trusts or combinations; specifically :consisting of laws to protect trade and commerce from unlawful restraints and monopolies or unfair business practices

Granted, it says "or unfair business practices" right after it, but this isn't an unfair business practice. It's just a kind of ♥♥♥♥♥♥ advertising thing that every retail store does.

[desrtfox071]

Messaggio originale di paugus:

Messaggio originale di corrosivechains:

Uh, no where in the definition of anti-trust does it mention monopoly.

Anti-trust: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/antitrust

consisting of laws to protect trade and commerce from unlawful restraints and monopolies or unfair business practices

As for the unfair business practices bit,

"The antitrust laws proscribe unlawful mergers and business practices in general terms, leaving courts to decide which ones are illegal based on the facts of each case."

https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/antitrust-laws

You're wrong. Bethesda is not a trust. If you believe otherwise, go find precedent of this exact thing happening and being ruled against, or settle it in court, since that's how these things are decided.

The unfair business practices only apply when they reduce competition - hence anti-trust.

Also, none of Bethesda's actions, though regrettable, even constitute unfair business practices in the general sense - even though, once again, that has nothing to do with anti-trust.

Anti-trust is not just some fancy word for unfair business practices (especially as defined by you), lol.


Here's a quote that should help you out:

The Sherman Act defines neither the practices that constitute restraints of trade nor monopolization. The second important antitrust statute, the Clayton Act, passed in 1914, is somewhat more specific. It outlaws, for example, certain types of price discrimination (charging different prices to different buyers), “tying” (making someone who wants to buy good A buy good B as well), and mergers—but only when the effects of these practices “may be substantially to lessen competition or to tend to create a monopoly.” The Clayton Act also authorizes private antitrust suits and triple damages, and exempts labor organizations from the antitrust laws.