By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - Killer Instinct Pricing Revealed

sales2099 said:

Ok, we get it, you are a humanitarian who cares for the downtrotten. Gamers are the new human rights activists these days......sigh.


No, i would just like to have the choice to be abke to change my mind and not get fucked for it.



Around the Network
Max King of the Wild said:
sales2099 said:

You really don't like the idea of choice.......


Not when it is "better make the right choice this instant or pay for it later instead of making the choice you think is right for you now"

There are many ways this helps people over pay and thats what ms wants. Its great for people who know they will only ever want one character but i really question how anyone can possibly know that

So, based on your line of thought, you better not buy anything that has options, including fast food or cars.  What if you change your mind and want all wheel drive?  Damn, Ford/Chevy/whoever just screwed you because you had to choose before you bought the car?   Next time you are at Mcdonalds, just buy the value meal, but don't complain that you wish you had it larger afterwords, because you had to choose before you paid. 

Bottom Line is that your argument is just nonsensical. 



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?



landguy1 said:

So, based on your line of thought, you better not buy anything that has options, including fast food or cars.  What if you change your mind and want all wheel drive?  Damn, Ford/Chevy/whoever just screwed you because you had to choose before you bought the car?   Next time you are at Mcdonalds, just buy the value meal, but don't complain that you wish you had it larger afterwords, because you had to choose before you paid. 

Bottom Line is that your argument is just nonsensical. 


I was waiting for a ridiculous argument like this. No one gets a free car. No one gets to purchase a car with 1 tire with the option of buying the other three. The price of an upgraded car is not. 20 dollar difference. And if you change your mind guess what? Its called trade in.



Max King of the Wild said:
landguy1 said:

So, based on your line of thought, you better not buy anything that has options, including fast food or cars.  What if you change your mind and want all wheel drive?  Damn, Ford/Chevy/whoever just screwed you because you had to choose before you bought the car?   Next time you are at Mcdonalds, just buy the value meal, but don't complain that you wish you had it larger afterwords, because you had to choose before you paid. 

Bottom Line is that your argument is just nonsensical. 


I was waiting for a ridiculous argument like this. No one gets a free car. No one gets to purchase a car with 1 tire with the option of buying the other three. The price of an upgraded car is not. 20 dollar difference. And if you change your mind guess what? Its called trade in.

I dind't say you buy the car with only one tire.  My example was you buy a fully functional car(or for $5 you get a fully functional game).  If you choose later to upgrade the rims on your car, it costs more han if you bought a car with that feature already as part of a package.  It is clear, that you should not be invovled in money decisions in your household if you do not understand the basic concept of "you get what you pay for".  IF you only spend $5 on a game, then don't complain later that it doesn't do what the $40 version can. 



Around the Network
landguy1 said:

I dind't say you buy the car with only one tire.  My example was you buy a fully functional car(or for $5 you get a fully functional game).  If you choose later to upgrade the rims on your car, it costs more han if you bought a car with that feature already as part of a package.  It is clear, that you should not be invovled in money decisions in your household if you do not understand the basic concept of "you get what you pay for".  IF you only spend $5 on a game, then don't complain later that it doesn't do what the $40 version can. 

Those rims are extra if you buy them from the dealer or from a 3rd party. Your analogy falls flat on its face.



Danasider, i might respond back to you. However, landguys awful anologies are getting my full attention in this thread right now



Max King of the Wild said:
landguy1 said:

I dind't say you buy the car with only one tire.  My example was you buy a fully functional car(or for $5 you get a fully functional game).  If you choose later to upgrade the rims on your car, it costs more han if you bought a car with that feature already as part of a package.  It is clear, that you should not be invovled in money decisions in your household if you do not understand the basic concept of "you get what you pay for".  IF you only spend $5 on a game, then don't complain later that it doesn't do what the $40 version can. 

Those rims are extra if you buy them from the dealer or from a 3rd party. Your analogy falls flat on its face.

The "dealer" is Ford/Chevy/Honda, they are who you buy the car from.  So how does that change anything?



You got to admit 8 characters is a pretty low number for a fighter game. I'll probably pass on this game.



landguy1 said:
Max King of the Wild said:
landguy1 said:

I dind't say you buy the car with only one tire.  My example was you buy a fully functional car(or for $5 you get a fully functional game).  If you choose later to upgrade the rims on your car, it costs more han if you bought a car with that feature already as part of a package.  It is clear, that you should not be invovled in money decisions in your household if you do not understand the basic concept of "you get what you pay for".  IF you only spend $5 on a game, then don't complain later that it doesn't do what the $40 version can. 

Those rims are extra if you buy them from the dealer or from a 3rd party. Your analogy falls flat on its face.

The "dealer" is Ford/Chevy/Honda, they are who you buy the car from.  So how does that change anything?


You know what, you are right. I'm going to go to ford right now and ask for my stripped down 1hp mustang for free.