deanb Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 Premium price for premium content on the premium platform for premium people.....right? It would be nice to think it was like that, but more often than not the games that come with the $60 price tag are shit quality console ports. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mal Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 So were people who got their accounts deactivated because of the MW2 thing able to do anything about it? Cause if not that sounds like class action lawsuit to me. I'm not sure, really. Whenever stuff like that is brought up on the Steam forums, the Valve Legion gets all up in arms about how it's all in the EULA and how buying games on Steam means agreeing to it. Though I think in this particular case they might have just removed the game from the accounts instead of disabling them. I could be wrong, but it just seems like a special situation where Valve might have made an exception (since they were apparently forced by Activision to act). Does the folks ever quote the EULA when saying that? If its not, then there seems to be some grounds for some action but if there is, well. End of debate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toxicitizen Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 (edited) Yeah, I'm pretty sure I've seen it at some point. I think it's somewhere around the mentions that you don't really own any of your games and whatnot. Every now and then someone from europe will claim that his country has some sort of customer protection law against such EULAs or something of the sort, but I never heard of anything coming from it. Edited February 18, 2011 by FLD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 Even in the US, just cause it's in the EULA doesn't mean that it's actually enforceable. I will be sure to carefully read the EULA first though if I ever decide to buy a game from those Russian sites, since I don't want to have to go to court over it even if I could win. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 So I just read the EULA, and here's where I imagine they get you: Section 4(E) of the Subscriber Agreement says You may purchase a Subscription through an authorized reseller of Valve. The "Product Key" accompanying such purchase will be used to activate your Subscription. If you purchase a Subscription from an authorized reseller of Valve, you agree to direct all questions regarding the Product Key to that reseller. "Subscriptions" are game purchases. I bet the Russian sites aren't authorized resellers. They also reserve the right to cancel you Subscriptions (remove games from your account) whenever they want, without a refund, but I'd like to see them try to enforce that in court without a good reason for doing so (like you bought an unauthorized copy, or something). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBeeferton Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 Hey. I don't mind a rise in price if the quality of the games go up. Which probably isn't the case considering it's Activision and EA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maritan Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 Is it a violation of the Steam ToS to use activation keys from other regions, or something? I think so. The thing is, when MW2 was released in Russia, the keys were Region Free. Basically, it was the same game as EU/NA version, only costed 15 bucks. Then, after few days Activision realised their mistake and quickly made all non-activated keys Russia-only. The problem is that these keys(and blops too) still can be activated if one has friends in Russia. Then one just has to replace language files and it's all fine and dandy. No I think it was Activision strong arming them since a fair few folks used the fact Russia is sold dirt cheap copies of games Nowadays every steam game that is sold in Russia has a region lock. Well, it still can be bypassed, as I mentoned earlier. The main problem is that you still can't change language in some games, and I play my games only in English, because the localization is usually horrendous. (since Russia make like $60 a year.. Martin can fill you in on how much they make). As I understand you mean "Russians", not "Russia". Excuse me if I'm wrong. Yeah, an average salary is around 1000$ a month, but still lower. The problem comes from the 90-s and the habit of getting games for cheap. There just weren't any legal copies of the games, lol. The situation started to normalize only around 2005, so we still have a long way to go. Hell, I even got a decent internet connection only in 2006, it was dial up before that. God, I bet I made hundreds of mistakes in this post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Akuam4n Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 (edited) I have two opinions on this, and I'll go ahead and say I'm not a big PC gamer. I play WoW, TF2, Minecraft, Torchlight, and any Diablo. A few others occasionally but that's it. I know that PC games used to cost 50, instead of 60 (I wonder if they were 40 at one point...) but after being a console gamer for ages, coming to the PC and seeing all the mods, I think the extra 10 dollar price point is justified. Pc games can last ages compared to a console game. You can still find matches for PC games that are years old. The one thing I don't agree with is Activision bumping up the price on a game just because they know people will buy it (I'm looking at you CoD). I also don't think you should have to deal with horrid DRM either. You are paying just as much as console gamers now. Being able to share your game / saves / etc is just part of the PC world IMO, and devs need to grasp that. No DRM is for the best (IMO). I'm also going at this from the US's price points, and assuming that Activision were one of the first to jack the price. Oh, and just fyi, I have contemplated getting a amazing rig to game properly; but I really blow at FPS's on my PC, and there aren't too many games I'd want to play on here, rather than my console (Nigh the glorious Witcher 2). Edited February 19, 2011 by Iamaquaman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 But mods are free and developed by the community. Why should the publisher get an extra £10/$10 for the work of the community. And many of the games with the jacked up prices tend to not support mods. On the subject of sharing ( you meant ti in a different context, but I'm gonna run with it) another issue with the jacked up prices, and this also ties with a few other topics in PC gaming, is PC has practically zero used market. Once you've spent $60 on a game, that's it, the cash is gone. Whereas with console games there's a second hand market, you can trade in your game n get £20+ back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Akuam4n Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 Hm, I get your point. I guess I'm thinking about it from a publishers viewpoint. If the game has much more longevity, even if that's because of the community and free, I could see why they would want to charge more. With the cost of production going up too, I can see how the publishers upped the price on pc games as well. Other than more dlc, there was not way to make more money off of your title, unless they upped the price of the console versions. Publishers really treat the pc community like shit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slatz_grobnik Posted February 20, 2011 Report Share Posted February 20, 2011 In this thread, we complain about capitalism. Look at it this way: the $60 AAA title makes that $30 indie title seem like a terrific bargain in comparison, and sows the seeds of the Dev's own demise by creating a commercially viable market where there previously was none. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted February 20, 2011 Report Share Posted February 20, 2011 Not really, most $30 indie titles need to be packing a fair bit of punch to look good. Especially when most are about £10($15), so while the higher priced AAA titles may make it look cheap, the lower priced indies make the £20/$30 ones look expensive. Anyway the £30/$50 ones should have the same effect. Making them £30/$60, especially when a fair chunk of AAA PC games are still £30/$50, just makes the £40 ones seems needlessly overpriced than make the indies look cheap. I don't think that even enters into the equation tbh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maritan Posted February 21, 2011 Report Share Posted February 21, 2011 Kinda relevant. My friend was replaying the first Monkey island, and after he finished it he sent me this pic. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chewblaha Posted February 21, 2011 Report Share Posted February 21, 2011 Silly people. PC has no games. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
excel_excel Posted February 21, 2011 Report Share Posted February 21, 2011 hehehe somebody gave that post -1 rep Chewy! They thought you were serious! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toxicitizen Posted February 21, 2011 Report Share Posted February 21, 2011 (edited) But.. but.. the PC has games Edited February 21, 2011 by FLD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted February 21, 2011 Report Share Posted February 21, 2011 lol, FLD, all that shows is that excel gave Chew a positive rep on that post, which actually means that 2 people must have given him negative rep. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toxicitizen Posted February 21, 2011 Report Share Posted February 21, 2011 (edited) Shhh, I realized my mistake and edited my post. Now shut up! Edited February 21, 2011 by FLD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockyRan Posted February 21, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 21, 2011 In this thread, we complain about capitalism. Look at it this way: the $60 AAA title makes that $30 indie title seem like a terrific bargain in comparison, and sows the seeds of the Dev's own demise by creating a commercially viable market where there previously was none. I sincerely hope you're kidding, because the fact that publishers are ripping off consumers is not magically justified by blurting out "capitalism". The fact of the matter is, the two most money-grubbing publishers (EA and Activision) are beginning to think they can get away with charging $60 for PC games. And incidentally, both EA and Activision happen to be the companies that spearhead some of the most half-assed console ports to the PC with none of the advantages of the platform mixed with all the disadvantages of the consoles. Will they get away with it? I dunno, they probably will considering how stupid the average consumer is (DERP I WANT THAT GAEM I DON'T CAER IF I PAE MOR FOR NO REESON). But for those of us who actually question when prices get jacked up for no reason, this trend doesn't make any sense. Exactly how is $60 per PC game more justified even though it really wasn't a couple of years ago? And keep in mind they're charging this much even for the DIGITAL versions, the ones that have near-zero distribution costs aside from paying Valve some undisclosed amount (which is most likely a fraction of the costs of actually manufacturing physical copies and distributing them to retailers). I'm sorry, but that's not "capitalism". That's just two money whore developers ripping people off and the stupid market not knowing any better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Jack Posted February 21, 2011 Report Share Posted February 21, 2011 Do I like it? Hell no. Can they get away with it? Oh, I'm sure of that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mercurial Posted February 22, 2011 Report Share Posted February 22, 2011 It is justified by capitalism. The pubs price it at 60 the consumers buy it and until people stop buying games it will be like. End of story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slatz_grobnik Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 I'm sorry, but that's not "capitalism". That's just two money whore developers ripping people off and the stupid market not knowing any better. Which is different from capitalism how exactly? Or a free market or whatever. But I stick with capitalism, not only because it allows for Recettear references, but there's always a very Marxist - in the social science sense, not in the political movement or cultural manifesto sense - look at things. That, somewhere out there, there's an actual absolute value for a video game that represents an accurate and specific return on investment based upon the specific material apportionments that went into the creation of the game, and that's the real price. And, lo and behold, that appropriate price is almost invariably what price people were paying, rather than what people are asking now. The equally wonderful counterpoint to this is how swiftly it all gets tossed out the window as soon as questions of piracy arise. Because we all know from piracy justifications that there's no harm to anyone's rights because a game is such an insubstantial concept that its mere copy is practically a benefit to the makers of the game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 I'm sorry, but that's not "capitalism". That's just two money whore developers ripping people off and the stupid market not knowing any better. Which is different from capitalism how exactly? Or a free market or whatever. But I stick with capitalism, not only because it allows for Recettear references, but there's always a very Marxist - in the social science sense, not in the political movement or cultural manifesto sense - look at things. That, somewhere out there, there's an actual absolute value for a video game that represents an accurate and specific return on investment based upon the specific material apportionments that went into the creation of the game, and that's the real price. And, lo and behold, that appropriate price is almost invariably what price people were paying, rather than what people are asking now. All true. The equally wonderful counterpoint to this is how swiftly it all gets tossed out the window as soon as questions of piracy arise. Because we all know from piracy justifications that there's no harm to anyone's rights because a game is such an insubstantial concept that its mere copy is practically a benefit to the makers of the game. This, however, is one of the most asinine characterizations of the argument I've ever read. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.