Well. Frankly, if they charge $100 and it sells just as well technically they should. Because that's good business. Granted If making it go up from $50 --> $60 makes there sales tank. Then they will obviously not do that again.

I don't want them to do this obviously but it's $10 less for the better version of ME2. And even if it went up $10 dollars I'm not going to boycott it or buy it on xbox360 based on principle...

but then again... In the last 2 years I've only bought like 4 games: Crysis, Final Fantasy XIII, Mass Effect 2, Dragon Age. and birthday presents

Also, obviously If you are a PC gamer only then then this is more upsetting :-/

Ail said: greenmedic88 said: Ail said: greenmedic88 said: Ail said: Lastgengamer said:                        "$100 buck? Damn, I guess I'm just getting the standard edition which is $5...WTF $60 bucks?? It all started when Activision had the audacity to start charging $60 for the PC version of Modern Warfare 2. Activision realized that after the success of Modern Warfare, they can pretty much charge any amount they please for the sequel and PC gamers would still flock to buy it. Of Course, if you’re into the multiplayer aspect of Modern Warfare 2, then the game comes packed with hundreds of hours of game play, so it’s safe to assume that Activision, somehow, got away with it, but when Assassin’s Creed 2, a single player game with absolutely no multiplayer and a horrible DRM that serves to punish legit buyers, is selling for $60 and the upcoming standard editions of Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3 are also selling for $60 too, things have gotten too far ,and we can see that a new trend is emerging. Of course, you may come and point out the fact that console games cost $60 too. Why should PC gamers have to pay $50 when console gamers have to pay $60? Well, On top of the $50 that publishers set for their games to be sold on the console, they will also need to pay about, or more than, $10 per copy licensing fee to Microsoft and Sony respectively in order for them to sell the games on their console in the first place, which you guessed it, you pay for, but, unlike console gaming, there are no licensing fees for PC games. In fact, Microsoft, themselves, offers publishers to put the “Games for Windows Live” in their games free of charge. After this, we can only deduce that publishers who price their games $60 on the PC earn more money per game sold on the PC than do they earn per game sold on the console. When someone asks on a forum, what is the reason behind all this pirating? A number of answers can be heard, such as “because I can” or “because games are too expensive”. The fact that games are becoming more expensive should in some ways exacerbate the whole pirating issue publishers are ranting about, and when publishers like Ubisoft deter customers by raising the price tag and by forcing a completely unnecessary DRM to play a single player game and then complaining about low sales is just really pathetic. As for Blizzard, I have no doubt that, no matter, the price tag that are put on their games, their games will sell like hot cake. Of course, is the raising in price tag necessary? Is Activision getting a little too greedy? I will have no doubt that some of you do think that Blizzard games are worth every penny of that $60, and that you can recoup the money lost by restricting yourself from $10 worth of beer, but remember, by thinking like this, you are advocating the new trend. http://www.grandtheftpc.com/2010/04/why-are-pc-gamers-paying-60-now.html   Because there is this little thing called inflation which it seems is totally unknown to most of the people on this forum...... Are theaters ticket the same price than 10 years ago ? Is gas the same price as 10 years ago ? Heck is a can of soda the same price ? Nope...... Naturally. But by the same logic, should console games be priced at $70 now to cover the licensing fee? It still costs more to publish on console. For all that people complain about the cost of new games, with the exception of the jump from the 6th to 7th gen (PS3 and 360), most games (non-budget titles) have pretty much retailed for $50 for as long as I can remember. I can only interpret market tests to increase the price of PC games as attempts to regain lowered revenue in response to dropping sales rates, whether that's due to piracy or more gamers buying console, I won't venture to guess.   Console game prices got bumped from last gen to this gen. PC games price didn't, that is my point... The point remains that it will always be more expensive for publishers to release their games on a console platform due to proprietary licensing fees. You're basically saying this difference in cost to the publishers shouldn't be reflected in the MSRP of the games if you believe PC and console games should be priced the same. console licencing fee didn't get invented this gen, it was there last gen... All I'm saying is all price increase over time ( at an average of 2-3% per year), PC game aren't different....

Except some Nintendo 64 games were costing 70$ at the time due to cartridges being expensive.

Also, someone correct me if I'm wrong but didn't console liscening fees go down this gen as well?

NO NOT THIS SHIT AGAIN WTFFF I WAS APALLED THAT ACTIVISION HAD THE BALLS TO CHARGE 60 FOR MW2 NOW BLIZZARD THINKS THEY CAN GET AWAY WITH IT?!

oh wait... they are the same company now... WELP looks like these guys are gonna be assholes.

WATCH they are going to justify it with
"TO compisate for PC piracy of our games" or some like shit

FUCK YOU

/rant

How many years have PC games been selling at $50?

I myself would have to say the amount of time that goes into making this gen of games. The textures alone would take 2 or 3 times longer to make now then 5 or 6 years ago. The amount of coding and all the other stuff im not going to do into it but i will say this.......Play a shooter,rpg whatever from years back and then play one from the same series. Im sure you will see a huge diff, not just in graphics but also in phyz,AI, and shear size of the game data alone. I look at it like this, 10 years ago i could buy a soda for 50 cents........now same crap same size and more than twice the price. At least the games you pay 10 dollars more for give you more most of the time.

Except that there is also a much larger base of players who are willing to buy the games too.

expansion packs are usually way bigger though. Includes almost an entire new game. Revision to all multiplayer aspects, things added and a new campaign. DLC is usually some random crap. Sometimes it's a little usefull.. but it's way to broken down.

Ya there is and there should be i think. Gamers are becoming mainstream and not "geeks or nerds" anymore. I really dont mind paying 10 dollars more for a game after paying only 50 for so many years. Im really shocked it didnt happen sooner.

To all the people that wanna cry about dlc starting to cost players.................So?!?!?! its not user gen content, goto a six flags and see how long 10 dollars lasts you. Not long if you even made it into the park. In the end its only money and if you cant pay for it find friends that can and jack em up.

Look at Starcraft II's graphics. They're nowhere near the cutting edge of graphics today (and I like Blizzard for that, keeps the game playing even on low end computers). There's no reason a game like Crysis can sell for 50$ and Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 and Starcraft II (two VERY VERY anticiapated titles that will guarantee millions in sales) HAVE to sell at 60$ to make up their development costs.

Activision is raising the price of the games they know will sell well, and unfortunately they are right. while SCII will be $60, Blur is coming out for $39.99.