Mw2

[MStele]

Someone call Activision and tell them to lower the price of MW2 to $50 so i can end my boycott and buy it. If not I guess i'll just have to burn through Dragon Age one more time.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

I personally just don't look at it as boycoting games. I just buy them or not; I won't anguish over if company A just did this I would buy it. Just move on to the next game, or play dragon age like you're doing : p

 

[AdamK47]

You can get MechWarrior 2 pretty cheaply from Amazon. I bought the Titanium edition about a year ago for ~ $10.

 

[MStele]

You can get MechWarrior 2 pretty cheaply from Amazon. I bought the Titanium edition about a year ago for ~ $10.

I actually bought Mechwarrior 2 back when it first came out in the mid 90's. Good call though.

 

[gorcorps]

$10 makes that much difference? LOL @ your income

 

[Martimus]

I still have a copy of MW2 sitting in a shoe box. It was a fun game, but I don't think Activision is still selling it. Microsoft bought the IP years ago, and hasn't released a new Mechwarrior game in years.

EDIT: I think you are talking about a different game. I always think of Mech Warrior 2 whenever I see MW2 posted. I apologize.

 

[Skott]

The OP must be talking about Modern Warfare 2. Yes?

 

[MStele]

$10 makes that much difference? LOL @ your income

It's about principle. Consoles pay an extra $10 because of licensing fees. Because there are no platform licensing fees for PC games, PC gamers are paying a $10 premium for a game that offers no more value than its counterparts. It would be equivilent to charging $70 for a console game and charging $50 for the same game on PC. Console gamers would go ape s*it over that. My problem with the whole situation is that if this catches on we will see all PC games released at $60.

Even if you could justify the $60 price, you would still have to look at the price/hour ratio. MW2 offers an extremely short single player game (which is the only part I want), so at $60 the ~5-6 hour game (as reported by reviewers) costs about $11 dollars an hour, compared to about $2 dollars per hour for a game like Dragon Age (~30 hours), or $4 to 5 dollars per hour for a game like Mass Effect which is relatively short 10-12 hours of gameplay. Its easy to see that MW2 is extrodinarily expensive compared to other games.

So its not about "LOL @ your income". Its about not throwing away money.

Yes, we are talking about Modern Warfare 2.

 

[pontifex]

just buy it. the game is awesome.

 

[Cheesetogo]

If you're only going to play SP, you should probably just wait until it hits the bargain bin. $50 is still a lot for not very much storyline.

 

[Chriscross3234]

Easiest solution for me was just to rent it on Xbox... I got to enjoy the relatively short SP campaign while giving the least amount of money to IW. After playing through SP and some MP, I personally think dishing out $60 to buy it on PC would of been a waste.

 

[JoshGuru7]

It's about principle. Consoles pay an extra $10 because of licensing fees. Because there are no platform licensing fees for PC games, PC gamers are paying a $10 premium for a game that offers no more value than its counterparts.

While I'm sure you already realize a boycott of one person isn't going to affect the demand curve at all, there are interesting implications to your position.

PC games like MW2 are clearly not perfectly competitive, however in general the cost to supply a good affects the decision to sell that item while the demand for the good dictates the price of the item. You wouldn't suggest that I should sell you a diamond for the $3 it cost me to extract it from a mine, and similarly differences in cost of production only translate to differences in price over the long run as competition drives out profit.

An organized boycott on the PC platform would lower demand and thus succeed in dramatically lowering prices for PC software. The consequence of this, however, would be more developers making the decision not to supply at the lower prices. The flip side is that if developers can release PC games at the same price and earn $10 more profit you will see much more attention paid to the platform and higher quality games released.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

While I'm sure you already realize a boycott of one person isn't going to affect the demand curve at all, there are interesting implications to your position.

PC games like MW2 are clearly not perfectly competitive, however in general the cost to supply a good affects the decision to sell that item while the demand for the good dictates the price of the item. You wouldn't suggest that I should sell you a diamond for the $3 it cost me to extract it from a mine, and similarly differences in cost of production only translate to differences in price over the long run as competition drives out profit.

An organized boycott on the PC platform would lower demand and thus succeed in dramatically lowering prices for PC software. The consequence of this, however, would be more developers making the decision not to supply at the lower prices. The flip side is that if developers can release PC games at the same price and earn $10 more profit you will see much more attention paid to the platform and higher quality games released.

In theory, they might. In practice, they'll just keep releasing the same or worse quality games because as companies like EA have shown investing more in games isn't as profitable as releasing more lower quality games. Companies that'll do stuff like this aren't usually interested in long term success; they're interested in short-term profits. Making higher quality games is a long-term strategy (see Blizzard).

 

[MStele]

While I'm sure you already realize a boycott of one person isn't going to affect the demand curve at all, there are interesting implications to your position.

PC games like MW2 are clearly not perfectly competitive, however in general the cost to supply a good affects the decision to sell that item while the demand for the good dictates the price of the item. You wouldn't suggest that I should sell you a diamond for the $3 it cost me to extract it from a mine, and similarly differences in cost of production only translate to differences in price over the long run as competition drives out profit.

An organized boycott on the PC platform would lower demand and thus succeed in dramatically lowering prices for PC software. The consequence of this, however, would be more developers making the decision not to supply at the lower prices. The flip side is that if developers can release PC games at the same price and earn $10 more profit you will see much more attention paid to the platform and higher quality games released.

I agree with most of everything your saying, and I'm not boycotting Activision so much as $60 PC game releases. Also, i'm a capitalist so I agree with your premise. It is supply and demand, and obviously even at $60 demand was high. However, just because that is the case doesn't mean I should roll over and just go with the masses. I don't feel left out because I skipped this game.

Your diamond example makes your point, but this is more about price elasticity. Games are expensive to make, no one can argue that, but I believe those many of the costs that are associated with them are self induced and not always necessary. This is the reason why someone can make a movie for $20 million and it be a better movie than one with a $150 million budget. I don't believe in the premise that charging more will get you a better product. The console market as skewed development practices to the point where they don't focus on product sustainment...they just want to sell tons of units in bursts, then go on to the next product. Multiplatform is the way to go in order to maximize burst profit potential, and the price increase only fortifies the premise because it inflates profits on the front end, knowing that they are just going to lower the price down the road.

I don't believe we will ever see a shortage of PC games at the standard $50 price point, since there are plenty of smaller budget companies churning them out. The idea that somehow a company can't make a good game with a reasonable budget is ridiculous, since developers do it all the time. If we support the $60 increase we are only inviting ourselves to be taken advantage of. I shouldn't have to pay a $10 welfare payment on every game in order to bribe companies to develop for PC.

Thats my .02 but all are welcome.

 

[lord_emperor]

In theory, they might. In practice, they'll just keep releasing the same or worse quality games because as companies like EA have shown investing more in games isn't as profitable as releasing more lower quality games. Companies that'll do stuff like this aren't usually interested in long term success; they're interested in short-term profits. Making higher quality games is a long-term strategy (see Blizzard).

You mean Activision-Blizzard?

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

You mean Activision-Blizzard?

I'm not so confident activision-blizzard will work out the same way : (

 

[Liet]

Damn, every time I see MW2 I automatically assume it's about Mechwarrior 2. BOOO ON NEW GAMES.

 

[zerogear]

MMmmmm MechWarrior 2> Modern Warfare 2 any day any time.

 

[Knavish]

Yeah I knew you couldn't be talking about Mechwarrior2, but I had to come into this thread & check, anway.

When is the free re-release of MW4 coming out, anyway???

 

[zerogear]

"soon".

 

[Liet]

Seems like we've been waiting forever. Sigh.

I wish MW3 would be released on Steam and work on XP... I thought that was the most realistic MW to date. None of the Xbox-type arcadishness of later MWs.

 

[mindcycle]

If we support the $60 increase we are only inviting ourselves to be taken advantage of. I shouldn't have to pay a $10 welfare payment on every game in order to bribe companies to develop for PC.

Thats my .02 but all are welcome.

I agree completely. This blatant console port is not worth $60. Hell, i'd maybe pay $10 for it down the road since that's about all the SP portion would be worth to me. The MP aspect of this game is so stripped down and user unfriendly on the PC that you'd have to pay me to play it.

 

[minmaster]

so far, the only people bashing it are the ones who haven't even played it yet.

 

[MStele]

so far, the only people bashing it are the ones who haven't even played it yet.

We aren't bashing the game. In fact, it has nothing to do with the game itself at all. Our opinions about the cost of MW2 has nothing to do with our opinion of whether the game is good or bad. It is a seperate thing altogether. We are bashing the premise that this developer thinks its ok to raise the price arbitrarily assuming we will pay anything. If the game had been released at $70 for consoles and $60 for PC then their would be no reason to complain since everyone would have been affected equally and many people would have spoken out..but since they singled out PC gamers it's problematic.

If you paid $60 for your PC version and think it was worth the money, then i'm happy for you.

 

[mindcycle]

so far, the only people bashing it are the ones who haven't even played it yet.

I played it at a friends house for awhile last weekend. Lets just say enough to know the PC version is a POS. He was already over it given how shitty the matchmaking system is and the fact you can't even view your ping.