shponglefan wrote on Nov 25, 2011, 11:59:
But the cost of making the game/volume is irrelevant because we're not looking at costs or profit margins. We're only looking at end-user pricing. Which is why comparisons to prior pricing on an inflation-adjusted basis is entirely relevant.
I see what you're saying but I don't agree with that statement, it's like trying to have your cake and eat it too. If we're only looking at end user pricing then we're not looking at inflation. The cost of anything is what the market is willing to bear, it has no inherent value beyond that especially when we're talking about intellectual property and not a tangible good. If you want the consumer to consider inflation and that they're getting a better deal now than years ago then likewise you have to consider that the industry makes a lot more money than it used to by having considerably more sources of revenue and a larger overall audience.
At the end of the day, as PC gamers, we get to look at what they are doing and determine if it looks like something we want to be part of or not. If their online games are shit, well, off to other games. If they are good, then we can play them. Focusing on whether their piracy numbers are accurate or not, especially with no evidence to be had, is a waste of time.
Agreed. Ubisoft is convinced and that's all that matters, all people can do is show them that they're wrong by spending their money with competitors. It sucks maybe missing out a few good franchises but there it is.
Anyways really good discussion and lots of good points all around with surprisingly little hostility.
Watching: The Last Dance