A couple of things need to be clarified here. When I in some way moderate a thread, post or user, my voice carries weight. On issue-debates, an opinion is an opinion. It would be the height of arrogance for me to feel that my opinons are somehow above others. Equally, its unreasonable of you to accept a higher standard of proof (especially for the unprovable) from mods, where they are simply functioning as users.
What KLXVER does and does not feel validated by is a matter for him, not me, and I suggest you address any comments on this to him.
I think the response to my post is a good example. Some people have taken issue with my choice of language - even where it is soft compared to much of the language elsewhere in the thread. Even after I have apologised for any offense, they persist. In this particular thread, this tendency to overreaction has been most prevelant in those who feel a need to defend TLOU. As to the content of the game, I cannot understand why it would need defending, it is excellent - but there you go. Hence, "chill pill." When used generally, and not targeted at an individual, its hard to see how this is offensive.
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.
And you say I am being inflamattory Lets agree to disagree.
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.
As I said, a use of hyperbole - though hardly its most dramatic use in this thread...
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?
Let us reframe this debate a bit, as we dont seem to be meeting in the middle on this. In another thread on Sleeping Dogs, there is a broad support for bringing an end to this process or redoing relatively recent games to new consoles at full price with a higher resolution. It is not universal, certainly there are people on both sides of the argument. But had my original post been put in that thread, it would not have received nearly the same response. I have made general comments about my thoughts on a cynical practice, and used the example of TLOU:R (as to do otherwise in this thread would be off-topic). Can I ask - would you honestly have had such a reaction to my post had I posted it in a non-TLOU:R specific thread, and had not used the word 'suckered' (for which I have already apologised)?
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.
Given the news of the last two days this point is a little self-defeating. TLOU:R will feature additional DLC of limited utility. My Uni major was neoclassical economics. I've provided as much or more evidence as almost anyone in this thread. For the most part people have posted different links all referring to the same two interviews, of which we have different different interpretations. Again, it feels like you're taking issue with my post because I disagree with your point of view, not because of any inherent flaws with my posts. I do agree (as I have said) that value is subjective - if its worth it to you, wonderful. I do not agree that working on another (old) title on a console is in anyway more effective than working on a new title on a console when it comes to learning that console's ins and outs.
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.
If you wish to call people suckers, that is a matter for you. At no point did I do so, and I have apologised for, and clarified, any confusion around the meaning of my post. Others have said worse (including one directed at me), and have not even begun to approach anything resembling an apology. That you're concerned with me, and apparently not them, again promotes the notion you're concerned less about people's right to an opinion, and more about whether my opinion is allowed to deviate from your own.
starcraft - Playing Games = FUN, Talking about Games = SERIOUS