Killer Instinct Pricing Revealed

[danasider]

Max King of the Wild said:

danasider said:

 

From the sounds of it, you likely wouldn't get this game if it were $20, $40 or $60, because you have a specific taste so why all the hate on a pricing scheme that likely won't affect those types of games?  Breaking up the model into smaller packages for people who don't want to shell out $60 for a full game makes sense for a fighter, because a lot of people only play with one or two characters.  Whether the amount of content you get at $5, $20 or $40 is propotionate, a lot more people will be willing to give a game a try for the two lower price points versus the higher one isf they're on the fence about it.

Not trying to be in your face, but that's all people are saying.  You seem to be angry at the idea of a new pricing model when your posts indicate you likely wouldn't buy this game anyway.  And if this plan did affect games on your system of choice, it'd likely be for small scale games like fighters (or eventually racers and other competitive multiplayer modes) so I just can't see where's the bad in that.  Even Killzone has it's multiplayer free up tilll a cutoff level and charges after the fact.  Why?  Because not a huge amount of people bought the game and multiplayer games thrive on large online communities.  So if a game offers a tier model that you may not buy into, you still might benefit from others having the opportunity to pay a stripped down version, because it means you'll have more people to play against/with online.  How's that bad?

I didnt read any of your post after specific taste because i know its completely irrelevant. How do i know that? Well one game i bought in between was marvel vs capcom at 12 dollars new. Another game was mortal kombat trilogy on psn. So what about specific tastes?

Okay, I was wrong to assume, but the games and prices you listed so far still makes me think you probably wouldn't pay full price for a game like this (I may be wrong, but read on, lol).  The only fighting games you listed are old ones that don't cost full price, because they're old.  You think an online game that is f2p (for a demo character) built from the ground up for a nextgen system is going to sell for $12?  Probably not.  But asking $20 dollars from anyone to get all the current players doesn't sound too steep to me.  With that out of the way, you should read the entire post, because it's about how these pricing schemes help us all in the end.

If your issue is solely dependant on the unfairness of pricing toward the fickle consumer, the issue is no different for full priced games.  Should I buy this game or wait till it's in the bargain bin?  What if it sucks?  Should I shell out $60 knowing full well that in a year or less a newer version will release with more modes, characters and balance for a full $20 dollars cheaper?  Regardless, we as consumers have to make the choice and making one won't ever guarantee a payoff.  Spending money on entertainment is a risk, albeit a luxorious one.  Sometimes we waste money on shitty products, so by your logic if we never know what we want we're getting cheated.  That doesn't make sense.

The pricing is not a cheat, it is like any sale or bulk buying model.  You know BOGO (buy one get one free)?  Or the more products you get from a certain company, that company may implement a rewards policy.  They may even sell each individual product at a cheaper price, because they are getting more overall from the consumer.  It's no different.  You spend $20 you get 8 players at a subsidized cost.  You spend $40 you get 10 (8 existing plus 2 forthcoming) characters, their costumes and a full retro game (one that probably could go for the same prices as your MK Trilogy or Marvel Vs. Capcom easy) all subsidized at a lower rate per item.  How do you not get that this is an incentive plan to get more people to pay for a full game or at the very least try it if they aren't willing to risk a higher pricepoint?  How is that bad?