So in other words, you don't have evidence.
You wrote a lot of words, but little of it has any relevance, most of it isn't even true.
What do you think is a reasonable price for a game that costs millions to make? Sure it only costs a few dollars to stamp the disc and make the packaging, but that's not what you're paying for.
I don't even understand what you hoped to accomplish by comparing it to the music industry.
Can you care to enlighten me if I'm saying anything false? I don't know, I don't feel like taking your word when I bothered actually writing something about it. As for my industry comparison, well, that's an industry comparison, as far as I know, video games is a huge industry. We were talking about costs, and I was talking about costs, about how industries work and tend to act. The music industry is quite similar to the video games one in many way, and you'll have to explain me how it's not relevant. I was using the music industry to tell how ultimately, the VG industry only cares about money. If they can sell games for higher, despite a smaller price increase would be okay to follow increase in costs, they will. If people are still willing to buy, they won't settle for less. If people ARE unwilling to buy, and if something can be done about it to counter-act, they will do the latter, like trying to combat piracy. Making music is very different than making video games, but like I said, VGs are not the basemant thing anymore, it's controlled by people in fancy clothes who wish to continue to get more money they can't even spend.
As for a price, I have not one. A lot of artists PAY themselves the cost of recording albums, so you do so by paying the artist the couple of cents you give them per cd, not the inflated price that goes in the pockets of the labels. I wasn't making a direct comparison to making and selling video games, you missed my point, I was merely talking about the greedy nature of such industries. As far as I know, the developers aren't paying themselves the expenses of making a game, and as far as I know, they get a lot bigger percentage of a copy than a music artist does. And then, there's no "template production costs". Some games are cheaper and faster to make than others, and it can vary a lot, but they are all sold (or mostly, at least if you talk about consoles) at the same price. Personally, I'd bet they wouldn't even need the PC version to cover their expenses. You can't really judge this to make a price, so making video games can be risky. But say Bungie are asking 20 bucks more for their next Halo game because it would cost a lot in development, that would be ridiculous because it would basically be riskless. As for another Modern Warfare game. But why did Activision charged 10 bucks more on pc if there was obviously no risk involved? Because they knew people would still buy the thing. This 10 bucks doesn't get in the production costs, it's merely put into Activision's bosses pockets. And we all know they don't like to give their employees their bonuses for the good sales. Some companies makes twice as much money as it cost them to make it, some can't even cover the expenses, how do you know this? How do you know how to price games? That's not me to answer, but I'm intelligent enough to realize that increases like these are for the wrong reasons. Game costs more to develop, yes, but despite this, companies make more money than ever as evidenced by how the industry flourishes. Hell, Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo are reluctant to make new consoles, why? Because it costs a lot of money to make, and developing with the same hardware everyone already owns and asking more money for their services is far more profitable than doing something a bit risky.
I thought you wanted me to tell you why the industry wouldn't want to try to always ask you for more, more and more. You are not even telling me why exactly you disagree with me, nor you simply don't tell me how the industry doesn't work that way.
» Tue Mar 30, 2010 12:48 pm 
