Let me understand this? The industry would be better off if games didn't compete with each other, forcing price drops? So you're saying that we should just have one shooter, one RPG, one platformer..... because if another shooter gets published, the other one would be forced to be sold cheaper? Or you are saying that the publishers should not make sequels to their games because of that reason?

Please elaborate, because I have no idea what your reasoning is.

I think what he was trying to get at is that the industry would be better if the quality of games was such that they didn't need to have such massive price cuts to continue to sell. Mario Kart Wii has remained at a high price for its age and does pretty well still. I doubt a game like Watch Dogs will have such lasting appeal, arguably because of the lack of quality in its content.

I honestly don't get all the B!tching either.  If you don't want it, don't buy it!  

Competing with ones own games is what I mean.

People can make as many shooters as they want as long as the shooters differentiate themselves from each other. Also annualisation is stupid and one reason why you cannot sell AssassinsCreed3 for 60 bucks noone would buy it if AssassinsCreed4 is out for 60. (both games are way to similar). Its also pretty bad if you talk about the next game in the series when the last game just came out this month.

None would have a problem if Assassins Creed would come out in 2014 and WatchDogs in 2015 and PrinceOfPersia in 2016 and then in 2017 another Assassins Creed. Or if the games would come out on different platforms.
Those games might share some similarities but still are different.

COD ModernWarfare vs BlackOps is still the same game which forces Activision to reduce MW3s price.

There is a reason why 3 year old fifa is sold for less than 5 bucks.


If you make sequals with a 3 year pause or whatever and/or your games are 1 game of a specific series per generation noone would expect the games to sell for 15 bucks. But if you have 5 games if the same series on 1 system then its just normal to wait for a price drop.

I am sorry, but you have absolutely no idea how this, or any other business works. What you are suggesting is so ludicrous that I don't know where to start and where to finish. 

Surely you cannot believe that Ubisoft would have sold 73 million copies of Assasin's Creed by just publishing 2 games in 3-4 year intervals. Surely Activision would not be better of by selling CoD, or EA by selling FIFA or Madden every year....That is insane. 

Do you really think someone would pay $60 for a 3 year old game just because it has no sequel? Do you really think that some other company would not have stepped in to compete?

Do you really believe that Apple would have become the biggest company in the world had they just released iPhones every 4 years, in order not to compete with themselves, and not to drop the price of iPhone 4 should they release iPhone 4S?

Do you believe that car manufacturers should not make newer model cars every year, so that the older models can maintain high prices?

Sorry, I cannot believe I've read what you wrote, I'm still in shock. I better pull out of this thread, nothing good can come out of this...

What does a car manufacturer have to do with gaming? You compare apples to well stones.  Since when does a car manufacturer make the same type of car every year? They have SUVs and other types of cars but e.g Mecedes does not have a E-Class 2013 E-Class 2014 E-Class 2015. It is basically the same thing as selling you MarioKartWii 5 years in a row for 60 bucks.

Also another company making a slightly different game is no problem at all. Battlefield and COD are completely different games. So this argument also makes no sense. COD does not need a price cut just because Battlefield comes out.

Let me give you another example okay? Mario kart. Its a game it is only once per console and it even sells without price drop. It would NOT sell that much if the game would be 20 bucks after a year and the next Mario kart would be out because the next mario kart would be 20 bucks a year later and then the next mario kart would be out. Assassins Creed sold 70m with several games and being a multiplat title.

Also are you a gamer or are you a shareholder? Who cares about the publishers when they dont care about the gamers? They would earn more than enough money by making great games.
The games get worse the less time they have for being developed and people feel that there are to many AssCreed games etc. The 2 games between AC2 and AC3 were to much. Also Ac4 being out 1 year after AC3 was to early.

GTA also comes out once every 5+ years? and guess how much that sold? Why? Because the dev takes time to make a great game.  The Last of Us is also a good game and it deserves to be bought for more than 20 bucks.

I agree with the pulling out part.

TBH I really wish you get what you want bad games you are just willing to pay 20 bucks for. Id rather play the Last of Us than Fifa (which is a 60 dollar DLC btw)

You should probably go see a doctor if you get a shock just because you encounter someone that has a different opinion.


Well anyways TLoU for 50 bucks in HD is a very good offer! Would also get it if I would have a PS4.

I wouldn't really have a problem with these sort of things if they allowed you to get a discount for upgrading if you already bought the last gen. version of the game.

If you didn't buy the ps3 version, then $50 is an acceptable price.  But for thoes who did, this stinks of double dipping.  Of coarse I would agree that you can not single this game out, Tomb Raider or GTA V are just as guilty.

Let the consumer decide what is worth it.

for me its totally worth it, i never bought it on my ps3, as i was waiting for a price drop on it, but when i count the DLC cost this is a no brainer, so i preordered for my ps4.

It could be left exactly the same as on PS3 (with DLC) but I would still buy it again. Just a masterpiece but want to play on PS4 for the sake of it