|
Please be advised:
We will be closing this General thread in 24 hours. It will remain searchable.
After that we will require new threads to discuss topics.
Questions should go in the stickied Q&A thread, screenshots and PotG will go in the PotG sticky, QQ/Rage/Complaints should go in the QQ/Rage thread. If you want to talk about maps or strategies open a new thread.
Any comments or concerns will be logged please forward them to ZeromuS. This new forum is still fluid so we will try this out. General TL rules will still apply to new threads. |
On November 09 2015 00:54 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2015 00:49 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On November 09 2015 00:36 Gorsameth wrote:On November 09 2015 00:33 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
ok so you get a based PC edition for $40 USD.
or if you are a console player you have no choice but to spend $60 USD with the amazing bonus of a bunch of crap that plays on a WIndows-Based-PC you might not even own? huh?
i thought for sure they'd have a campaign component for console players to justify the extra $20. The reason they don't sell the cheap version for consoles is probably because they wont let them. I dont see why Blizzard would not do it if they could. well i think the console manufacturer gets $10 or $20 or some guaranteed royalty fee on each unit sold. essentially forcing their hand to sell it for $60 USD. which is fine.. but then .. for a console player don't u have to offer something more for that $20? this is not 2001 ...not every console owner has a Windows-Based-PC. so i just figured they'd stick some kind of small campaign mission in the thing for the $20. "Blizzard should make a campaign because Console manufacturers are greedy fucks" Sorry but I dont see the logic in that. If you think the price is unfair complain to Sony and Microsoft. Not Blizzard.
1.
i'm not a console guy so it does not impact me
and part b)
if MS and Sony did not manufacture the console there would be nothing for Blizzard to make.
and
iii) if Battleborn, Destiny and Halo offer both multiplayer and campaign for $60 it'll make it harder for Blizzard to get $60 without a campaign.
4) its probably 6+ months until the game hits so let's see if they add some kind of campaign or other content to the $60 version.
|
On November 08 2015 07:20 Andre wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2015 19:50 Rocket-Bear wrote:
I remember when every game pretty much costed this much and ppl didn't complain If you account for inflation games got way cheaper. In a way I'm surprised games haven't gotten more expensive, the majority are still priced at 60$. Lots of games were 60$(and most of the time even more) 20 years ago.
The price of games has gone up very little over the years. There are a lot of industry people that think games are under priced and are way to pre-order and hit driven. But I remember paying $80 for Strider back in 1989. And that game was not long.
|
On November 09 2015 01:40 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2015 07:20 Andre wrote:On November 07 2015 19:50 Rocket-Bear wrote:
I remember when every game pretty much costed this much and ppl didn't complain If you account for inflation games got way cheaper. In a way I'm surprised games haven't gotten more expensive, the majority are still priced at 60$. Lots of games were 60$(and most of the time even more) 20 years ago. The price of games has gone up very little over the years. There are a lot of industry people that think games are under priced and are way to pre-order and hit driven. But I remember paying $80 for Strider back in 1989. And that game was not long.
in 1981 Pacman , Space Invaders and Asteroids were all $70+ USD.
all these games were made by 1 guy in months and in the case of Pacman.. 6 weeks.
the hardware inside the cartridge was worth about $10.
|
If you go as far back as the 80s the market is so small that anyone making games had to charge that much.
|
most entertainment media prices don't track inflation. it's not unique to games.
|
Yes, but that only makes it sillier when people bitch about the price of entertainment in general. Games are no unique to this issue.
|
Canada8160 Posts
94% of the match on fire.. i didn't even know that was possible
|
On November 09 2015 02:41 Plansix wrote:
Yes, but that only makes it sillier when people bitch about the price of entertainment in general. Games are no unique to this issue.
people are tired of being nickel and dime'd and want transparency. I think there's also a contingent of people who want overwatch to grow more explosively cause they like the game or cause they're still salty that riot/valve have eclipsed blizzard in mind share (esp. as an ESPORT).
|
That is completely valid to the current state of games. But people also response very poorly to finding out the game cost a fuck ton of money to make and maybe games should be priced higher. And the people wanting Blizzard to "take back the Esports glory" want that for their own personal edification, rather than for Blizzard success. To be honest, I think Blizzard is very happy with the space they where exist in the market and with their fan base.
|
Canada8160 Posts
|
On November 09 2015 02:11 Plansix wrote:
If you go as far back as the 80s the market is so small that anyone making games had to charge that much.
actually Pacman for the Atari 2600 sold 7 million copies alone.
never mind the 40 other versions on every console and "micro-computer" ever made from 1977 to 1985
there was no reason to charge $70 for Pacman except for pure greed.
by the time Pacman had hit home consoles it already was over $2 Billion in sales.
the guy who originally made Pacman for Namco saw $0 in bonus and no raise in pay. shortly after this Ray Kassar the CEO of Atari told David Crane.... well its in my tagline.
|
On November 09 2015 02:11 Plansix wrote:
If you go as far back as the 80s the market is so small that anyone making games had to charge that much.
The market was smaller but it was a lot cheaper to make. You needs hundreds of people now and millions of more dollars.
|
On November 09 2015 03:48 lestye wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2015 02:11 Plansix wrote:
If you go as far back as the 80s the market is so small that anyone making games had to charge that much. The market was smaller but it was a lot cheaper to make. You needs hundreds of people now and millions of more dollars.
I think a large portion of that $$ goes into marketing and (especially true for Blizzard) those hype cinematics.
There's a reason why the warcraft movie isn't 100% CGI because it'll probably cost a good 1 - 2 billion for an hour long product.
|
On November 09 2015 03:48 lestye wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2015 02:11 Plansix wrote:
If you go as far back as the 80s the market is so small that anyone making games had to charge that much. The market was smaller but it was a lot cheaper to make. You needs hundreds of people now and millions of more dollars.
the Atari 2600 install base was a lot stronger because the console itself cost about $700 USD in today's money... with a garbage "pack in game".
the Atari 2600 had an install base of over 10 million by 1981.
eventually the Atari 2600 sold 40 million units.
its a lot easier to convince a guy to spend more on a game if he already spent $700 USD ( in relative terms ) on the console itself.
the Atari 2600 made some serious cash back in the day.
|
On November 09 2015 05:00 ref4 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2015 03:48 lestye wrote:On November 09 2015 02:11 Plansix wrote:
If you go as far back as the 80s the market is so small that anyone making games had to charge that much. The market was smaller but it was a lot cheaper to make. You needs hundreds of people now and millions of more dollars. I think a large portion of that $$ goes into marketing and (especially true for Blizzard) those hype cinematics. There's a reason why the warcraft movie isn't 100% CGI because it'll probably cost a good 1 - 2 billion for an hour long product.
It's both. A game like Grand theft auto can spend 100 million dollars on the game itself, and another 100 million dollars on marketing.
Not only that, but there's opportunity cost of locking down all these employees onto a single project that can take 4-6 years to push out a game.
|
Canada13426 Posts
On November 09 2015 03:03 Jer99 wrote:
95% ON FIREEEEE
Stop making me jealous you bastard >:|
|
On November 09 2015 05:00 ref4 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2015 03:48 lestye wrote:On November 09 2015 02:11 Plansix wrote:
If you go as far back as the 80s the market is so small that anyone making games had to charge that much. The market was smaller but it was a lot cheaper to make. You needs hundreds of people now and millions of more dollars. I think a large portion of that $$ goes into marketing and (especially true for Blizzard) those hype cinematics. There's a reason why the warcraft movie isn't 100% CGI because it'll probably cost a good 1 - 2 billion for an hour long product.
UHHHHH Warcraft 3 had almost 30 minutes of cinematics you think that cost Blizzard at least half a BILLION to make?
You are overestimating CGI costs by a couple orders of magnitude.
|
On November 10 2015 01:26 hariooo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2015 05:00 ref4 wrote:On November 09 2015 03:48 lestye wrote:On November 09 2015 02:11 Plansix wrote:
If you go as far back as the 80s the market is so small that anyone making games had to charge that much. The market was smaller but it was a lot cheaper to make. You needs hundreds of people now and millions of more dollars. I think a large portion of that $$ goes into marketing and (especially true for Blizzard) those hype cinematics. There's a reason why the warcraft movie isn't 100% CGI because it'll probably cost a good 1 - 2 billion for an hour long product. UHHHHH Warcraft 3 had almost 30 minutes of cinematics you think that cost Blizzard at least half a BILLION to make? You are overestimating CGI costs by a couple orders of magnitude.
I don't think the cost of CGI cinematic from over 10 years ago are really applicable in this discussion.
|
On November 10 2015 01:28 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2015 01:26 hariooo wrote:On November 09 2015 05:00 ref4 wrote:On November 09 2015 03:48 lestye wrote:On November 09 2015 02:11 Plansix wrote:
If you go as far back as the 80s the market is so small that anyone making games had to charge that much. The market was smaller but it was a lot cheaper to make. You needs hundreds of people now and millions of more dollars. I think a large portion of that $$ goes into marketing and (especially true for Blizzard) those hype cinematics. There's a reason why the warcraft movie isn't 100% CGI because it'll probably cost a good 1 - 2 billion for an hour long product. UHHHHH Warcraft 3 had almost 30 minutes of cinematics you think that cost Blizzard at least half a BILLION to make? You are overestimating CGI costs by a couple orders of magnitude. I don't think the cost of CGI cinematic from over 10 years ago are really applicable in this discussion.
I don't think a billion dollar quote for CGI merits discussion at all.
|
1 hour of CGI still doesn't cost 1 to 2 billion lol.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
