By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
DrDoomz on 06 August 2014
Edit Thread
starcraft said:
1) As evidenced by my use of the words "My take." For future reference, when reading any posts from anyone on these forums you should consider their content to be opinion. Even when they do not perform the courtesy, as I did, of clarifying that thats all their post is.

2) Joethebro and I had some discussion of this above. Sony's stated target market, if we're to believe their studies (for which we have no methodology), cannot be more than 3 million consoles.

3) I agree that in an definitional sense, a price gouge (just realised I mispelt it earlier!) is an economic term, and I applied hyperbole in using it here. It is one of the more superfluous uses of hyperbole in this thread thus far, however.

4) The clear target market is 3 million consoles. Again, this makes me doubt that Sony is hoping to sell just to those people. Though I am confident that anyone that can spend $50 on this game, and $400 on a PS4, has money to burn. Even more so if they have already played the same game on PS3.

5) Because we're here to talk about games? Honestly, I have an opinion, its a reasonable one. I am perhaps the only person in this thread that went out of his way to flag his views as an opinion. In my opinion the redirecting of first party developers away from new content towards upscaling a game barely a year old is a cynical cash grab, not in the best interests of gamers.

6) I have already apologised for my use of this language if it offended anyone. I have not, nor would I call anyone an idiot or a sucker, so please do not put words into my mouth. What I did say is that I feel Sony's attitude was that they could monetise the same content again, to the same people. Anecdotally, it appears they have been successful in doing this (as you point out, UK sales were strong) - my point was that they viewed the market as a sucker for repackaged content (at full price originally). Sorry again if that was not properly articulated.

 


1) Seeing as that you are a mod (and your "takes") carry a bit more weight. One would hope that you would at least provide definitive evidence on your opinion or use statmenents more based on facts or at the very least use less inflammatory language. Especially seeing how KLXVER seems to have felt his position validated by your post. Also, why should (missed this on my last post) TLOU be the ones to take a "chill pill"? Defending (a reactive position) something implies something being attacked (a proactive action). Shouldn't the ones taking the proactive position be the ones who need to take a "chill pill"?

2)  3 million consoles is a "tiny, tiny market"? Geez, I guess we have different opinions on what a tiny, tiny market is. Might as well say the entire Xbox One install base is a tiny market as well.

3) As long as we can agree that what you said was a stark exaggeration, I guess we're good. But I feel that saying "everyone does it" doesn't make it okay, though.

4) There is a primary target market and secondary target markets. They stated clearly who their primary target market is in their interview. And (being one of those that fall within their primary), I happen to agree that with them as to who would find the most value in their offering. Why would you condemn them (as price gouging cash grabbers) when the consumers that would be probably be affected (by being the price gouged cash grabbed suckers) aren't even really the market they were aiming for (and the fact that they DO have a choice to purchasing) to begin with?

5) I feel like a "reasonable opinion" would be based on some form of evidence, not pure speculation. But that's just me. And I disagree. I feel that a company that releases great games should optimize their profits (for as long as they are not taking advantage of their consumers via pay-to-win microtransactions or providing poor value in their offerings). But for as long as the price is right and the vast majority of the market found great value in it and are happy with their purchase, who are we to tell them how much money they're supposed to make? More profits being given to a proven developer mean higher investment coming from publishers for future titles which would lead to better games (not to mention more jobs). Not even considering the future benefits of being given the chance to get over the learning curve of optimizing for a new console and doing it at low risk.

6) While I accept your apology, your exact words (and I quote): "...are the only ones that will get suckered into buying it at the full (and ridiculous) asking price." What do you call people who get suckered? Yes, they're called suckers. At no point did you say "Sony viewed..." in your later replies to clarify this point up til this point (tho I might have missed it so pls point me to where this happened).  The apology was great but let's not whitewash what you said. T'would be far better to simply take it back. And no, they did not "adopt the attitude of monetizing something to the same people". Again, they were very clear on who their primary market was.