First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Definitive Edition
37482 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / University of Tex...
Offline
Posted 4/9/14

Lemontitties wrote:


PatrickAupperleUtexas wrote:


First, you must explain how a remastered game hurts anyone. The logic I applied earlier applies to each person individually. If they find it worthwhile, they will buy it. If not, they wont. If enough people buy it to make it a profitable venture, then there must be a decent number of people who benefit. Honestly, I don't see how this hurts any community at all. Please explain how you or anyone else is harmed by remasters.


First things first, I never said it "harms us", but it has a "negative impact" on us as a community. Everything is all well and done if let's say you or I don't want to buy it., but what about the other half/or majority? Buying remasters at full price is only going to end up in us seeing more of that. Do we really want more remastered titles that get launched not even a year before its original game? At full price to boot? Once a company sees this being accepted, they are going to continue to do it more and more. Thus, other companies are going to follow suit and we are going to have rehashed titles everywhere w/ not a single ounce of thought put behind it..at full price. Then, it's going to resort in shitty IP's getting released because the companies have seen that we like to bend over for them, no matter what they do while we vote w/ our wallets and say "yes, man". That is NOT a good impact on the gaming community. It's a negative one at that. Can you see how this is negative now?


If the majority of people believe the remaster is worthwhile, than the majority of people probably wouldn't consider this to be particularly negative.

Also, the companies know that the game has to be good for people to want to buy remasters. If the company knows that a really good game can make them as much profit as two or three mediocre games (through remasters and rereleases), then they will only be encouraged to make better games. In my opinion, this would be a very positive thing to happen to the community. I'd rather have fewer really good games than a large number of mediocre titles.

Buying remasters isn't "bend[ing] over for them," it is merely buying a good product for a fair price. If that is bending over, you could say buying anything is bending over for them.

You still have not managed to prove your point. Companies providing the products people want to the people who want them at a price they are willing to pay is not a bad thing.
28685 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / United States
Offline
Posted 4/9/14 , edited 4/9/14

PatrickAupperleUtexas wrote:


If the majority of people believe the remaster is worthwhile, than the majority of people probably wouldn't consider this to be particularly negative.

Also, the companies know that the game has to be good for people to want to buy remasters. If the company knows that a really good game can make them as much profit as two or three mediocre games (through remasters and rereleases), then they will only be encouraged to make better games. In my opinion, this would be a very positive thing to happen to the community. I'd rather have fewer really good games than a large number of mediocre titles.

Buying remasters isn't "bend[ing] over for them," it is merely buying a good product for a fair price. If that is bending over, you could say buying anything is bending over for them.

You still have not managed to prove your point. Companies providing the products people want to the people who want them at a price they are willing to pay is not a bad thing.


"Buying remasters isn't "bend[ing] over for them," it is merely buying a good product for a fair price." Full price for a mere "remaster" is not a fair price. Also, I said or majority. Though you could go w/ the majority because there seems to be more unwise people out there than there are wise. Of course the "majority" isn't going to think it's negative. THEY are the ones who are buying it and telling the companies "Look, we don't care if you re release a game and charge full price." I'm saying the price is what's wrong here. If you can't see that, then we can drop this conversation right now for there's no persuading you. I have proved my point. You are merely side stepping the conversation at the moment since my main point and my point at all has always been the asking price.
552 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M
Offline
Posted 4/9/14
I never play this game or watch the gameplay of it. Is it really that good? I'm sorry that I don't catch up with the video games anymore.
28685 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / United States
Offline
Posted 4/9/14 , edited 4/9/14

buldieb wrote:

This thread is so win.

It seems like some of you feel they are obligated to give you a better price, but that's not how the free market works. Don't buy it at full price and it will be cheaper in 3 months. If not enough people buy it, they will either discontinue the idea or lower the price at release. If enough people do buy it, that means a company you like is earning more money to put into new projects.



And for the record, comparing trivial things to the plight of starving children is always going to end badly. No matter how honorable your intentions are it's always going to come across a bit debasing.


That's the thing though, it doesn't have to be debasing at all. What "would" be rather debasing is if I said something like "Complaining about starving children in Africa is like complaining about starving homeless." Wouldn't you agree that fits the term a little bit more? I chose my words carefully.
20813 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / California
Online
Posted 4/9/14

-Elo- wrote:

With The Last of Us: Remastered being announced for PS4 it frankly begs the question, is it too soon and too expensive?
The game has not even released for a year, yet it is being resold at the whopping $60 price tag.
Now, for those who are ready to point spears at me, I'm not saying it's a bad thing to port games and such, but...
What... Ever happened to decent pricing?
To be fair, the cheapest I found The Last of Us was $30. This is coming with the season pass and that "lovely 1080p, 60 FPS" people continuously cry over. So, the price for this game should AT LEAST, be $40-$50.

I see it now, the knights are coming...
Some of you might say, "Oh, you don't have to buy it thus why complain?"
The point is, this is starting to become a trend. Tomb Raider: Definitive Edition was a game that could easily be purchased at $15 around the same time, yet it was charged at the price of a brand new game.

Or the typical, "It's to make more profit for them!"
Look, I get it. Money is relevant in our society. However, things can be reasonably priced to entice more individuals to purchase it. Just look at Steam sales and certain prices of brand new games on PC.

Hm... And a point I could see is... I'm sure there's more, but I woke up not too long ago from a nap.

In essence, what I'm saying is that this is gradually becoming a trend and it's not a good one.

Think it's too soon and/or too expensive?
Don't concur with my perspective?

Feel free to discuss it.

This does not have to be exclusively to games. This can go as far as the "definitive edition" of certain products.
I could see the possible discussion of upgraded versions of the same phone like the iPhone 5S or things alike. Maybe even... Well, anything that comes to mind regarding this topic feel free to discuss.




You sir, I like you. You deserve a cookie.

37482 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / University of Tex...
Offline
Posted 4/9/14

Lemontitties wrote:


PatrickAupperleUtexas wrote:


If the majority of people believe the remaster is worthwhile, than the majority of people probably wouldn't consider this to be particularly negative.

Also, the companies know that the game has to be good for people to want to buy remasters. If the company knows that a really good game can make them as much profit as two or three mediocre games (through remasters and rereleases), then they will only be encouraged to make better games. In my opinion, this would be a very positive thing to happen to the community. I'd rather have fewer really good games than a large number of mediocre titles.

Buying remasters isn't "bend[ing] over for them," it is merely buying a good product for a fair price. If that is bending over, you could say buying anything is bending over for them.

You still have not managed to prove your point. Companies providing the products people want to the people who want them at a price they are willing to pay is not a bad thing.


"Buying remasters isn't "bend[ing] over for them," it is merely buying a good product for a fair price." Full price for a mere "remaster" is not a fair price. Also, I said or majority. Though you could go w/ the majority because there seems to be more unwise people out there than there are wise. Of course the "majority" isn't going to think it's negative. THEY are the ones who are buying it and telling the companies "Look, we don't care if you re release a game and charge full price." I'm saying the price is what's wrong here. If you can't see that, then we can drop this conversation right now for there's no persuading you. I have proved my point. You are merely side stepping the conversation at the moment since my main point and my point at all has always been the asking price.


In such a transaction, what you consider to be a fair price is inconsequential. The buyer has determined the price to be fair and chosen to buy it. Therefore, the buyer has chosen to buy a good product for a fair price. I could be mad that many things are sold for prices that I consider outrageous (a figure for $200? Ridiculous!), but instead, I choose not to purchase those things (at least while I am attending college and don't have a job). I don't see anything wrong with other people judging the price to be fair and purchasing it, and I don't see anything wrong with the company producing an item and allowing customers the opportunity to purchase it.

You've proved nothing. You have simply stated that companies not doing exactly as you would like them to do and giving you what you want at any price you deem "fair" is wrong. Can you give one objective reason why the price is wrong?
9205 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / GA
Offline
Posted 4/10/14

Lemontitties wrote:


buldieb wrote:

This thread is so win.

It seems like some of you feel they are obligated to give you a better price, but that's not how the free market works. Don't buy it at full price and it will be cheaper in 3 months. If not enough people buy it, they will either discontinue the idea or lower the price at release. If enough people do buy it, that means a company you like is earning more money to put into new projects.



And for the record, comparing trivial things to the plight of starving children is always going to end badly. No matter how honorable your intentions are it's always going to come across a bit debasing.


That's the thing though, it doesn't have to be debasing at all. What "would" be rather debasing is if I said something like "Complaining about starving children in Africa is like complaining about starving homeless." Wouldn't you agree that fits the term a little bit more? I chose my words carefully.


Let's say degrading (or demeaning, cheapening, etc.) then, they're pretty synonymous. In your use of an analogy, you effectively lowered the importance of starving children to the same level as overpriced video games. Since you say you chose your words carefully, I'll use them to prove my point:

I used that analogy because it makes sense. Starving children don't affect us. Remastered games don't affect us. When I say us, I mean us "personally". But for everyone else, it's a big deal and I believe we should voice our "complaints" whether or not you see eye to eye.

I'm sure you don't believe that video game prices and world hunger are on the same level, but that's what your words say.

I originally made that comment for your benefit anyway. If you go around comparing an apple with 10,000 acres of orange trees, someone is going to take offense.
28685 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / United States
Offline
Posted 4/10/14 , edited 4/10/14

PatrickAupperleUtexas wrote:


In such a transaction, what you consider to be a fair price is inconsequential. The buyer has determined the price to be fair and chosen to buy it. Therefore, the buyer has chosen to buy a good product for a fair price. I could be mad that many things are sold for prices that I consider outrageous (a figure for $200? Ridiculous!), but instead, I choose not to purchase those things (at least while I am attending college and don't have a job). I don't see anything wrong with other people judging the price to be fair and purchasing it, and I don't see anything wrong with the company producing an item and allowing customers the opportunity to purchase it.

You've proved nothing. You have simply stated that companies not doing exactly as you would like them to do and giving you what you want at any price you deem "fair" is wrong. Can you give one objective reason why the price is wrong?


It's a re released title...? I honestly don't get how you don't get that.

Yes, exactly! We, the consumers, have the right to deem what is fair and what isn't. It's what defines our judgmental values. Whether you have good or poor judgmental values is to be seen. That figure for 200 dollars example could very well be an ancient collectible from ages past, or it could be a simple craftsmanship's work who wants to rip someone off. Not everything is "worth" the asking price and you would do well to realize that. Why exactly do YOU feel like a re released game charged at full price is fair? Because I've seen a lot of controversy surrounding this game that says otherwise. Though of course, you got the fanboys who are rejoicing saying "I'll gladly pay 60 dollars again!" since a lot of them can't deem anything for themselves to begin w/.

By the way, there's nothing wrong for them re releasing it. I have clarified that that is not my point.

"and I don't see anything wrong with the company producing an item and allowing customers the opportunity to purchase it."
28685 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / United States
Offline
Posted 4/10/14

buldieb wrote:

Let's say degrading (or demeaning, cheapening, etc.) then, they're pretty synonymous. In your use of an analogy, you effectively lowered the importance of starving children to the same level as overpriced video games. Since you say you chose your words carefully, I'll use them to prove my point:

I used that analogy because it makes sense. Starving children don't affect us. Remastered games don't affect us. When I say us, I mean us "personally". But for everyone else, it's a big deal and I believe we should voice our "complaints" whether or not you see eye to eye.

I'm sure you don't believe that video game prices and world hunger are on the same level, but that's what your words say.

I originally made that comment for your benefit anyway. If you go around comparing an apple with 10,000 acres of orange trees, someone is going to take offense.


Eh, sorry about all that. I didn't mean for it to get out of hand.
Posted 4/10/14
It's called price skimming people, price skimming. Now stop this.
10135 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/10/14

Lemontitties wrote:

PatrickAupperleUtexas wrote:
Why complain about a new version of a game coming out. If the new version isn't worth the money to you, you don't buy it, and you've lost nothing. If it is worth it to you, then you trade your money for it and you've gained something.

It's called "voicing an opinion". I do believe you know how opinions work, yes? Why complain? That's like saying "Why complain that there are starving children in Africa? We don't live there! Why does it bother you so much?" You see how that argument doesn't work?

There is no stronger way to 'voice an opinion' than with your wallet. Money is the only language corporations understand.
28685 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / United States
Offline
Posted 4/10/14

BambooSun wrote:

There is no stronger way to 'voice an opinion' than with your wallet. Money is the only language corporations understand.


Though there are a lot of unwise people out there who literally take advantage of the phrase "I DON'T CARE, TAKE MY MONEY", that it just gets out of hand. I'd rather try and persuade the unwise into thinking more wisely than just being on the sidelines and saying "fuck it".
37482 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / University of Tex...
Offline
Posted 4/10/14

Lemontitties wrote:


PatrickAupperleUtexas wrote:


In such a transaction, what you consider to be a fair price is inconsequential. The buyer has determined the price to be fair and chosen to buy it. Therefore, the buyer has chosen to buy a good product for a fair price. I could be mad that many things are sold for prices that I consider outrageous (a figure for $200? Ridiculous!), but instead, I choose not to purchase those things (at least while I am attending college and don't have a job). I don't see anything wrong with other people judging the price to be fair and purchasing it, and I don't see anything wrong with the company producing an item and allowing customers the opportunity to purchase it.

You've proved nothing. You have simply stated that companies not doing exactly as you would like them to do and giving you what you want at any price you deem "fair" is wrong. Can you give one objective reason why the price is wrong?


It's a re released title...? I honestly don't get how you don't get that.

Yes, exactly! We, the consumers, have the right to deem what is fair and what isn't. It's what defines our judgmental values. Whether you have good or poor judgmental values is to be seen. That figure for 200 dollars example could very well be an ancient collectible from ages past, or it could be a simple craftsmanship's work who wants to rip someone off. Not everything is "worth" the asking price and you would do well to realize that. Why exactly do YOU feel like a re released game charged at full price is fair? Because I've seen a lot of controversy surrounding this game that says otherwise. Though of course, you got the fanboys who are rejoicing saying "I'll gladly pay 60 dollars again!" since a lot of them can't deem anything for themselves to begin w/.

By the way, there's nothing wrong for them re releasing it. I have clarified that that is not my point.

"and I don't see anything wrong with the company producing an item and allowing customers the opportunity to purchase it."


I meant normal figures that you see released from time to time in the $100-200 price range (Ex. http://www.amazon.com/Megahouse-Queens-Blade-Rebellion-Figure/dp/B00IDAWILS/ref=sr_1_38?ie=UTF8&qid=1397115700&sr=8-38), but it was only meant to be one example. The figure really could be worth that, but my point was that it is a price I am not willing to pay.

No, not everything is worth the asking price, but even if an item is worth less than the asking price, there is nothing wrong with asking for that price. Do I think it is fair for a company to choose a price for a game? Yes, I do. I think it is entirely fair to ask whatever price you want for anything. If I wrote my signature on a piece of notebook paper and placed it on Ebay for $10k, I wouldn't be doing anything wrong. As long as I made the contents of the offer clear, asking any price is fair. A consumer can then choose not to buy the item, which is also completely fair. I don't think anyone but a seller has a right to dictate a price, and I think that seller is perfectly within their rights to ask whatever they want.

Why do you feel you have a right to dictate prices to a producer/seller of a game?
28685 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / United States
Offline
Posted 4/10/14 , edited 4/10/14

PatrickAupperleUtexas wrote:


I meant normal figures that you see released from time to time in the $100-200 price range (Ex. http://www.amazon.com/Megahouse-Queens-Blade-Rebellion-Figure/dp/B00IDAWILS/ref=sr_1_38?ie=UTF8&qid=1397115700&sr=8-38), but it was only meant to be one example. The figure really could be worth that, but my point was that it is a price I am not willing to pay.

No, not everything is worth the asking price, but even if an item is worth less than the asking price, there is nothing wrong with asking for that price. Do I think it is fair for a company to choose a price for a game? Yes, I do. I think it is entirely fair to ask whatever price you want for anything. If I wrote my signature on a piece of notebook paper and placed it on Ebay for $10k, I wouldn't be doing anything wrong. As long as I made the contents of the offer clear, asking any price is fair. A consumer can then choose not to buy the item, which is also completely fair. I don't think anyone but a seller has a right to dictate a price, and I think that seller is perfectly within their rights to ask whatever they want.

Why do you feel you have a right to dictate prices to a producer/seller of a game?


"I don't think anyone but a seller has a right to dictate a price, and I think that seller is perfectly within their rights to ask whatever they want."

Try telling that to Kojima who lowered the price down of their next metal gear game because of the back lash lol

I don't feel like I have a right. More so, I wish companies would choose a more appropriate price for a game they're releasing. It's not like I can change anything, but if enough people voice their concerns, it'll be heard. After all, Metal Gear Solid Ground Zeroes *cough*. This happens to be a simple remaster, so why do they think it's fair to resell it at full price to the fans? Anyway, I'm tired. Thanks for having this non heated discussion w/ me. I actually enjoyed it. Have a good night!
33385 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Socal
Online
Posted 4/10/14
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.