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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Dear PlayStation Fans: Trickle-Down Economics Isn't Real!

Azzanation said:
Chrkeller said:

No idea, I don't own GT7 and thus have zero idea how the game is structured.  I also haven't bought anything for Smash.  But if your question is what is the difference between between DLC and MTX, pay structure and intent.  

DLC: Intent is to expand the game post completion and is a one time price.  In the case of Dark Souls 3, DLC includes new areas, new bosses, new spells, new weapons, new armour, new items and new NPCs.  All in one package.

MTX: stands for "micro" transaction, meaning small.  The intent is to constantly sell little units of the game for small dollar mounts.  The reason for this is based on many consumers not viewing a $1 as much money, thus not thinking about how he/she has paid $1 to upgrade their game 100 times over 2 years.  The intent of MTX is to get consumers to spend large sums of money over time in small increments. 

Staying with the Dark Souls 3 example.  It was a full package at $15, thus DLC.  If it were MTX they would have taken the 40 different new features and sold them at $2 a piece, hoping the consumer over a year would drop $80 on their $60 game.      

Perhaps the poster child is Dead or Alive 5 (I think).  DoA used to be my favorite fighting game but now I won't touch it.  I think all the extra content makes the game over $1,000.  That is just insane.  Minecraft is equally as bad, especially since it is aimed at kids.  

MTs also offer content, such as seasonal rewards like in WoW, gaining mounts and Pets or in Sea of Thieves which sometimes offer Charity MTs for those that want a unique skin and donates all causes to charity etc. 

Not all games do it evil. Overwatch (1) Lootbox system was done really well and wasn't predatory until EA took the idea and Activision etc. 

There is nothing wrong with offering MTs in a game aslong as it's done right. DLC can also be sold as small portions like selling a character in DOA. Destiny sold DLC which chopped up the campaign in 3 different parts. There is Good and Bad DLC and MTs.

DonFerrari said:

As far as I know you don't buy cars in GT with MTX or DLC. All the cars are available in the game with free DLC. What you can do is buy credits with MTX and use it to buy cars if you want. Foreign concept I'm sure it is hard to understand.

And what do you think those credits are? MTX. GT7 sold as a full price game and also offered MTX and Sony want to continue to push the $70 narrative while offering some of the worse MTX this gen and destroying GT7 at the same time. But Sony want that extra $10 per game purchase moving forward. Foreign concept I know.

 You mud the water to try to make your point. Is the MTX of GT7 bad? Yes. Is it even necessary at all? No. You can get 100% of the content of the game without having to buy a single MTX, while a lot of games there is things that can only be bought with MTX. I'm pretty satisfied with getting free DLC and playing the content instead of paying to get something that should be part of playing to get. You can finish all the SP content without grinding or paying for MTX, and you can even do the MP content while loaned cars.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Around the Network
Azzanation said:
Chrkeller said:

No idea, I don't own GT7 and thus have zero idea how the game is structured.  I also haven't bought anything for Smash.  But if your question is what is the difference between between DLC and MTX, pay structure and intent.  

DLC: Intent is to expand the game post completion and is a one time price.  In the case of Dark Souls 3, DLC includes new areas, new bosses, new spells, new weapons, new armour, new items and new NPCs.  All in one package.

MTX: stands for "micro" transaction, meaning small.  The intent is to constantly sell little units of the game for small dollar mounts.  The reason for this is based on many consumers not viewing a $1 as much money, thus not thinking about how he/she has paid $1 to upgrade their game 100 times over 2 years.  The intent of MTX is to get consumers to spend large sums of money over time in small increments. 

Staying with the Dark Souls 3 example.  It was a full package at $15, thus DLC.  If it were MTX they would have taken the 40 different new features and sold them at $2 a piece, hoping the consumer over a year would drop $80 on their $60 game.      

Perhaps the poster child is Dead or Alive 5 (I think).  DoA used to be my favorite fighting game but now I won't touch it.  I think all the extra content makes the game over $1,000.  That is just insane.  Minecraft is equally as bad, especially since it is aimed at kids.  

MTs also offer content, such as seasonal rewards like in WoW, gaining mounts and Pets or in Sea of Thieves which sometimes offer Charity MTs for those that want a unique skin and donates all causes to charity etc. 

Not all games do it evil. Overwatch (1) Lootbox system was done really well and wasn't predatory until EA took the idea and Activision etc. 

There is nothing wrong with offering MTs in a game aslong as it's done right. DLC can also be sold as small portions like selling a character in DOA. Destiny sold DLC which chopped up the campaign in 3 different parts. There is Good and Bad DLC and MTs.

DonFerrari said:

As far as I know you don't buy cars in GT with MTX or DLC. All the cars are available in the game with free DLC. What you can do is buy credits with MTX and use it to buy cars if you want. Foreign concept I'm sure it is hard to understand.

And what do you think those credits are? MTX. GT7 sold as a full price game and also offered MTX and Sony want to continue to push the $70 narrative while offering some of the worse MTX this gen and destroying GT7 at the same time. But Sony want that extra $10 per game purchase moving forward. Foreign concept I know.

I believe we will have to agree to disagree.  I hate MTX.  I would rather pay $70 for a complete/full game.  I don't like nickel/dime crap, especially when it impacts gameplay, like RE8 selling better weapons.  



i7-13700k

Vengeance 32 gb

RTX 4090 Ventus 3x E OC

Azzanation said:

What's the difference between buying a Character in Smash Bros and buying a car in GT7?

What's the difference between buying a Character in Smash Bros and buying a car in GT7?

SvennoJ said:

Oh that's easy. Horizon FW, worth more than $70 imo. Absolutely amazing production values, quality from start to finish. It did have issues with the 60 fps mode but they did rewrite their upscaling methods and fixed it in the end. Story, characters, world building, all perfection for the 100+ hours I played it.

Ratchet and Clank was also more than worth the admission price, not a single glitch encountered. Polished to perfection.

Both games a big step up from their previous gen outings.

GT7 however, a lazy cash grab that continues to be a disappointment. It looks great though. It's still better than Halo Infinite, but not by much. PD and 343 really need to be held to account at this point. FS2020 can be thrown on that pile as well at this point. Sure they add a lot of content all the time, but refuse to fix the basics and actually make it a worthy flight sim.

The rich continue to get richer by allowing giant mergers stifling competition. Not by adjusting prices to reflect the reality of exchange rates and inflation. Comparing Sony's 3.6 billion acquisition of Bungie to 69 Billion acquisition of an entire segment of the industry, lol.

You believe the games you mention deserved to be sold at an extra $10 over their own predecessor? Not one of those games mentioned are considered better than their previous games.. Unless Visuals is all you are looking for. 

With your very own logic, the next gen after this one, games should be raised again by another $10 based on visual improvements.

This game below is NOT worth $61.64 US let alone $70 US. You continue to support price hikes, we will continue to see ridicules prices on all games.

Crazy that you bring up MS's purchase of Acti/Blizzard. Ironic that MS spent $69B and have zero reason to raise their hardware prices yet Sony's small purchase of $3.6B of Bungie, we are seeing $50 Price hikes of PS5s around the world and Sony being one of the front runners of $70 games. Interesting right.

I agree to disagree.

The graphics actually gave me a migraine, twice. Then I switched to playing on my 2007 1080p LCD projector in quality mode for stable, non migraine inducing detail! The HDR visuals were a bit much for my old eyes.

However I spend much more time with the game compared to the first one. I didn't need a break this time like I needed with the lackluster opening of the first one. I enjoyed the expanded story, fleshed out tribes, expanded lore and machines to fight. Yes it was worth an extra $10 over the first version.

Same for Ratchet and Clank, I enjoyed it a lot more than the ps4 version which was just a remake after all.

The price hikes have nothing to do with acquisitions, as you so perfectly demonstrate with MS not needing to adjust prices for their 69 billion office money investment. The difference however is, what I already explained pages ago, US$ went up verses the Yuan, Yen went down versus the Yuan. It's cheaper now for MS to produce their boxes, while it's more expensive for Sony to produce their boxes. Also the Euro, Sony's strong hold, lost value against the USD.

Anyway as you are so concerned about the rich getting richer, you should really be more wary of MS.
Microsoft net income for the twelve months ending June 30, 2022 was $72.738B, a 18.72% increase year-over-year
Sony net income for the twelve months ending June 30, 2022 was $7.604B, a 29.42% decline year-over-year
Nintendo net income for the twelve months ending June 30, 2022 was $2.750B, a 594.93% increase year-over-year.

I guess Nintendo didn't do so well last year. Anyway who is the rich getting richer here?

I don't know Smash Bros, but I haven't spend a dime on MTX in GT7 and have all the legendary cars...



SvennoJ said:
ZyroXZ2 said:

Damn it, the pages are piling up too fast y'all D:

Yes, actually, a consumer WOULD find it harder because anecdotal evidence exists. I've literally had friends complain (and I agree) that there are too many different streaming services to keep track of for all their different shows, and I agreed with them. You want a case-in-point? I have Hulu/Disney+, but I want to watch the Cyberpunk Edgerunners anime. So now I'm asking my friends whose Netflix login I can use just to watch the anime... Believe me, reasonable people are out there saying exactly that: it's annoying having to have all these streaming services and which ones to watch what shows on. And then of course, you have people who are more frivolous and just sign up for all of them... which, of course, I discourage because while they're busy watching XYZ show, they're probably not even using A and/or B streaming services.  Ya know, cuz the Asian in me gotta be all frugal and shit lmao

-----

I think I can address the rest in just a few paragraphs, or atleast attempt to...  I apologize to anyone who feels "ignored", well other than the people who obviously SHOULD be ignored...

Again, inflation affects the common worker THE HARDEST. The belief that PlayStation is raising prices because of inflation isn't because it wants to ensure its devs (ya know, the people who actually make the games) can live in these "tough times", it's so that the company itself can maintain PROFITS. Believe me: companies LOVE the philanthropic publicity if they can get it, and if PlayStation literally announced the correlation that they are raising game prices so that they can ensure their game devs are paid better wages to weather these hard economic times against inflation, I'd be applauding them for using their market share to enact an act of good. But you know, that means the higher ups who are already rich would have to take a hit... ... LOL AMIRITE?!

We know that's not the case, so saying, "it's just business, companies are only in it for profits DUH" is literally the most obvious and yet also oblivious thing to say. Unless higher prices are literally boosting your stock portfolio directly, saying that as a consumer is literally licking boots.

Now I've already taken my jabs at Xbox, but if you must know my current one, it's unable to sustain an entire video without turning specifically into a rant: Halo Infinite. How they fucked up one of my favorite franchises and one of THE most iconic franchises in gaming is awe-inspiring, and I've even tweeted it enough times, and the fact that my review of it still stands almost a year later is the reason I uninstalled it. Fortunately, one has to remember: Xbox is in THIRD place in market share, the reason their Xbox division has to remain favorable towards their market as much as possible. And of course, from other threads that some of you have definitely not read, I clearly stated my beef with Microsoft's near-monopoly on everyday office software like Word and Excel. Heck, in order to even really "get along" with other vendors/distributors/businesses, we have to use Office in some form or another. However, it's been very clear my video focuses on gaming, or I'd have started to bring up Sony's insurance division. YEA, INSURANCE, another interesting stack of bullshit... don't get me started on insurance...

But let's be clear once again for anyone who missed me saying it previously: good is good, bad is bad. I don't care who, I don't care what company or pile of plastic. If you're reading it beyond that like there's gotta be some narrative, that's just you spinning a web of meaning where there is none. The only narrative I've ever had is consumer awareness, it was the underlying concept of me doing reviews without any system preference. I literally have said MULTIPLE times over the years that I've always hoped my reviews were informational and could help someone make better buying decisions where they DON'T have to worry about an underlying skew, and that the humor was in the hopes that they also got a chuckle or two of entertainment while they were at it.

Anyway, I really can't tell if I need to make MORE time for VGChartz, or take a step back. I can't keep up with this pace, I could have sworn the forum was far more dead than this hahaha... If I can't keep up, I promise it's not because I want to pump-and-dump my videos, here!

This thread got very active due to, console wars are back lol.

I agree about the streaming services, I have the same problem. Currently borrowing a prime video login so we can watch LotR (I would rather buy it on blu-ray but Amazon wants you to use Prime Video, their loss)

Yet we got in this mess because people weren't happy with paying a lump sum for cable. Cut the cord, start streaming. And this is where it leads to. To be able to watch all the things I previously could watch on cable, I would now be spending a lot more money monthly... Hence my huge reservation about game rental/streaming services becoming the norm.

So, yes, in that regards I agree that it has become harder to enjoy TV and will become harder to enjoy gaming due to all the subscriptions to juggle. It was already harder with all the different digital stores on PC, I can't keep track of where I have what where anymore. Hence I still prefer physical, I know where it is, easy to browse, all in one place. Yet to simply enjoy a game, it's easier than ever.


The reason the prices were raised is mainly because of the yen depreciating a lot in the past year, as well as other currencies against the dollar. If you calculate it through the prices have basically been put back in line with the US price. Nothing new, same happened with the PS4 in Canada, $50 price hike a year after release. (While games went from $60 to $80 here during last gen) They are raising the prices to ensure their revenues stay the same. It's not that they want more, they want the same return for the same items, so they can keep going forward at the same pace.


My friend still hasn't given me her parents Netflix login so I can watch Cyberpunk Edgerunners :( lol

But, you have to consider that streaming services STILL outweigh the value of cable for almost every average TV show watcher.  The reason they've grown so well is BECAUSE of how much more cost effective they are versus cable.  Case-in-point: I pay $10/mo for Hulu and Disney+, my sister pays $140/mo for cable.  While she has OVERALL more access to shows, she STILL has to pay to rent movies that I watch on Disney+.  She STILL misses out on TV shows I get on Hulu and Disney+.  We literally argued where she lost and my other sister was laughing: she makes less money than me, but somehow is trying to tell me how she prefers cable because she can DVR, and of course I ended up winning because she simply cannot justify 14 times the cost lmfao

As for bringing this convo back into gaming, I already said it in the video: a large part of any argument in favor of increased prices is washed out by just how much bigger the game market is, now.  Sure, the actual MONEY might not flow where every company wants it to (their own pockets), but there is MORE money to be made in gaming now than ever before.  Whether this is through microtransactions on cosmetics in "fun" multiplayer games, or low cost mobile games, or any other combination you can imagine, things sell in units and in monetary volumes better now than before.  I said it earlier in the thread: companies didn't diversify and expand into gaming merch, MTX, etc. because they were starving for money, they instead saw where it worked and wanted to cash in on the greed.  I reiterate that my belief is that the average person is NOT good with money, and companies count on this.

-----

And to generalize the response:

This is all because of profit targets.  Keep in mind I repeat myself, I said PROFITS: at no point is Sony LOSING money, they're just trying to keep their PROFITS up since it dipped as things return to "normal" after covid.  In FACT, for the sake of argument, I probably wouldn't have even made this video if Sony announced that they are BARELY making a profit and breaking even or something.  Example: both MS and Sony lost BILLIONS launching into the PS3/X360 era, and the funny thing is, we STILL didn't see a price hike.  I'm telling this at a nearly-factual level: raising the prices is NOT actually to combat inflation and differences in dollar value, that's the optics they present to the consumer; it's ONLY because these companies want to keep profits increasing and will do whatever they can if they are in a position to get away with it.  That is it, there is no real defense of this.  Being happy to accept it is not a good thing, which is why I encourage waiting for sales as much as possible.  The direct increase in profits simply does not equate to any increase in overall quality of games as it's a common complaint that newer AAA games simply do not have the polish/creativity older games do (and I mentioned this is likely due to the ballooning of marketing budgets), nor does it help the people that actually NEED the help against inflation: the developers.

We already mock and laugh at politicians, but the truth I've always believed is that ANYONE with enough riches and power has a high likelihood of being just as deceptive.  The bigger the company, the more likely the things they tell you are planned out by MANY smart brains being paid to do it.

To close, I saw someone say how many things are the same price as they were from early in the 2000s.  Ironically, that's a counterpoint on its own: the inflation has caused some of those things to be CHEAPER, now.  Things aren't always due to "get more expensive" over time, and commodities like videogames NEEDED to get more cost effective (cheaper) to properly grasp and grow the market.  Obviously, that worked.  Swinging the other way could have worse effects, not better: you may DECREASE the number of people buying games, and instead cause more people to pull out of the market or redirect their funds elsewhere which would actually cause an even further drop in revenue or stagnation.  Remember: economy is an ebb and flow and is often caused by the bubble bursting, a bubble inflated by *dun dun dun* greedy people running massive corporations that shift the market so far into "profits" that products/services/whatever become severely misaligned with the economic situation.



Check out my entertainment gaming channel!
^^/
DonFerrari said:

 You mud the water to try to make your point. Is the MTX of GT7 bad? Yes. Is it even necessary at all? No. You can get 100% of the content of the game without having to buy a single MTX, while a lot of games there is things that can only be bought with MTX. I'm pretty satisfied with getting free DLC and playing the content instead of paying to get something that should be part of playing to get. You can finish all the SP content without grinding or paying for MTX, and you can even do the MP content while loaned cars.

You understand that Polyhoney deliberately stretched out the grinding in GT7 to force people to spend money, right? Thats MTX done wrong. 

Chrkeller said:

I believe we will have to agree to disagree.  I hate MTX.  I would rather pay $70 for a complete/full game.  I don't like nickel/dime crap, especially when it impacts gameplay, like RE8 selling better weapons.  

I would rather pay the same price for games. I don't care for MTX as long as the actual game is good. As long as optional paid content that doesn't affect the main game, it does not concern me. There is literally zero reason to have games go up by $10 unless you believe in Corporate PR. In this case, you are.

SvennoJ said:

The graphics actually gave me a migraine, twice. Then I switched to playing on my 2007 1080p LCD projector in quality mode for stable, non migraine inducing detail! The HDR visuals were a bit much for my old eyes.

However I spend much more time with the game compared to the first one. I didn't need a break this time like I needed with the lackluster opening of the first one. I enjoyed the expanded story, fleshed out tribes, expanded lore and machines to fight. Yes it was worth an extra $10 over the first version.

Same for Ratchet and Clank, I enjoyed it a lot more than the ps4 version which was just a remake after all.

The price hikes have nothing to do with acquisitions, as you so perfectly demonstrate with MS not needing to adjust prices for their 69 billion office money investment. The difference however is, what I already explained pages ago, US$ went up verses the Yuan, Yen went down versus the Yuan. It's cheaper now for MS to produce their boxes, while it's more expensive for Sony to produce their boxes. Also the Euro, Sony's strong hold, lost value against the USD.

Anyway as you are so concerned about the rich getting richer, you should really be more wary of MS.
Microsoft net income for the twelve months ending June 30, 2022 was $72.738B, a 18.72% increase year-over-year
Sony net income for the twelve months ending June 30, 2022 was $7.604B, a 29.42% decline year-over-year
Nintendo net income for the twelve months ending June 30, 2022 was $2.750B, a 594.93% increase year-over-year.

I guess Nintendo didn't do so well last year. Anyway who is the rich getting richer here?

I don't know Smash Bros, but I haven't spend a dime on MTX in GT7 and have all the legendary cars...

You are entitled to your opinion on those games, I am only basing it off the reviews.

Price hikes is only filling corporate pockets because they want to make more money off you without even trying. 

You have misread my concerns. I don't care how rich a company gets, as long as they do it right and earn it. Raising base game prices and hardware prices is Zero effort and they expect the customers just to pay more for literally nothing. Yet people complain about paying for optional MTs which actually get something in return, you gain zero for paying an extra $10 on your games and Zero for paying an extra $50 on hardware which has already been trimmed down.

If you want to continue to pay more for nothing extra, don't expect others to just fall over and accept it. I disagree with the unjustifiable price hikes, that's all I am saying.



Around the Network
Azzanation said:
DonFerrari said:

 You mud the water to try to make your point. Is the MTX of GT7 bad? Yes. Is it even necessary at all? No. You can get 100% of the content of the game without having to buy a single MTX, while a lot of games there is things that can only be bought with MTX. I'm pretty satisfied with getting free DLC and playing the content instead of paying to get something that should be part of playing to get. You can finish all the SP content without grinding or paying for MTX, and you can even do the MP content while loaned cars.

You understand that Polyhoney deliberately stretched out the grinding in GT7 to force people to spend money, right? Thats MTX done wrong. 

Chrkeller said:

I believe we will have to agree to disagree.  I hate MTX.  I would rather pay $70 for a complete/full game.  I don't like nickel/dime crap, especially when it impacts gameplay, like RE8 selling better weapons.  

I would rather pay the same price for games. I don't care for MTX as long as the actual game is good. As long as optional paid content that doesn't affect the main game, it does not concern me. There is literally zero reason to have games go up by $10 unless you believe in Corporate PR. In this case, you are.

SvennoJ said:

The graphics actually gave me a migraine, twice. Then I switched to playing on my 2007 1080p LCD projector in quality mode for stable, non migraine inducing detail! The HDR visuals were a bit much for my old eyes.

However I spend much more time with the game compared to the first one. I didn't need a break this time like I needed with the lackluster opening of the first one. I enjoyed the expanded story, fleshed out tribes, expanded lore and machines to fight. Yes it was worth an extra $10 over the first version.

Same for Ratchet and Clank, I enjoyed it a lot more than the ps4 version which was just a remake after all.

The price hikes have nothing to do with acquisitions, as you so perfectly demonstrate with MS not needing to adjust prices for their 69 billion office money investment. The difference however is, what I already explained pages ago, US$ went up verses the Yuan, Yen went down versus the Yuan. It's cheaper now for MS to produce their boxes, while it's more expensive for Sony to produce their boxes. Also the Euro, Sony's strong hold, lost value against the USD.

Anyway as you are so concerned about the rich getting richer, you should really be more wary of MS.
Microsoft net income for the twelve months ending June 30, 2022 was $72.738B, a 18.72% increase year-over-year
Sony net income for the twelve months ending June 30, 2022 was $7.604B, a 29.42% decline year-over-year
Nintendo net income for the twelve months ending June 30, 2022 was $2.750B, a 594.93% increase year-over-year.

I guess Nintendo didn't do so well last year. Anyway who is the rich getting richer here?

I don't know Smash Bros, but I haven't spend a dime on MTX in GT7 and have all the legendary cars...

You are entitled to your opinion on those games, I am only basing it off the reviews.

Price hikes is only filling corporate pockets because they want to make more money off you without even trying. 

You have misread my concerns. I don't care how rich a company gets, as long as they do it right and earn it. Raising base game prices and hardware prices is Zero effort and they expect the customers just to pay more for literally nothing. Yet people complain about paying for optional MTs which actually get something in return, you gain zero for paying an extra $10 on your games and Zero for paying an extra $50 on hardware which has already been trimmed down.

If you want to continue to pay more for nothing extra, don't expect others to just fall over and accept it. I disagree with the unjustifiable price hikes, that's all I am saying.

My patience is waning, especially since you completely lack the ability to accurately characterize a person's position.  

1) Companies, Sony included, will charge as much as possible to maximum profits.  It is called business.  The fact you don't understand elementary economics is absolutely astounding.  

2) I'm not buying into anything.  As stated many times over in this thread (and others) I rarely ever pay full price for ps5 games.  50% sales happen a handful of months later.  So I'm not buying into anything.  

So stop spinning in a circle throwing darts in random directions hoping to hit a target.  

Sony raised prices because they could...  look at sales, they have MS beat already this generation despite having much larger retail chain inventory issues.  And the reality is, if you don't approve of Sony and the ps5, then don't buy their products and STFU.  I don't like MS, do you see my crying for months on end about it?  Just stop.



i7-13700k

Vengeance 32 gb

RTX 4090 Ventus 3x E OC

Chrkeller said:

My patience is waning, especially since you completely lack the ability to accurately characterize a person's position.  

1) Companies, Sony included, will charge as much as possible to maximum profits.  It is called business.  The fact you don't understand elementary economics is absolutely astounding.  

2) I'm not buying into anything.  As stated many times over in this thread (and others) I rarely ever pay full price for ps5 games.  50% sales happen a handful of months later.  So I'm not buying into anything.  

So stop spinning in a circle throwing darts in random directions hoping to hit a target.  

Sony raised prices because they could...  look at sales, they have MS beat already this generation despite having much larger retail chain inventory issues.  And the reality is, if you don't approve of Sony and the ps5, then don't buy their products and STFU.  I don't like MS, do you see my crying for months on end about it?  Just stop.

What an entirely desperate and messed up response. 

You just clearly admitted to what they are doing and simply claim that you don't buy games at full price, so it doesn't affect you. Guess what, nobody asked.

Quote

"1) Companies, Sony included, will charge as much as possible to maximum profits.  It is called business."

Here is some knowledge for you. Not everyone is like you, plenty of gamers don't want to wait months for their favorite IPs to go on discount, they want to play them day one. This affects all companies, when one does it, the others follows and we are now seeing this across the board.

No one is spinning darts in this room except you trying to defend and ignore these issues. 

If you don't like people complaining about companies taking advantage of their customers, then maybe you should take your own advice and quote "STFU" you don't have to be in this thread, yet you choose to for what reason exactly? To defend. 

If you want to get personal with me mate than message me. Don't come into a thread that's not about you and try to silence people because this issue does not affect you. Otherwise, move on.



Azzanation said:
Chrkeller said:

My patience is waning, especially since you completely lack the ability to accurately characterize a person's position.  

1) Companies, Sony included, will charge as much as possible to maximum profits.  It is called business.  The fact you don't understand elementary economics is absolutely astounding.  

2) I'm not buying into anything.  As stated many times over in this thread (and others) I rarely ever pay full price for ps5 games.  50% sales happen a handful of months later.  So I'm not buying into anything.  

So stop spinning in a circle throwing darts in random directions hoping to hit a target.  

Sony raised prices because they could...  look at sales, they have MS beat already this generation despite having much larger retail chain inventory issues.  And the reality is, if you don't approve of Sony and the ps5, then don't buy their products and STFU.  I don't like MS, do you see my crying for months on end about it?  Just stop.

What an entirely desperate and messed up response. 

You just clearly admitted to what they are doing and simply claim that you don't buy games at full price, so it doesn't affect you. Guess what, nobody asked.

Quote

"1) Companies, Sony included, will charge as much as possible to maximum profits.  It is called business."

Here is some knowledge for you. Not everyone is like you, plenty of gamers don't want to wait months for their favorite IPs to go on discount, they want to play them day one. This affects all companies, when one does it, the others follows and we are now seeing this across the board.

No one is spinning darts in this room except you trying to defend and ignore these issues. 

If you don't like people complaining about companies taking advantage of their customers, then maybe you should take your own advice and quote "STFU" you don't have to be in this thread, yet you choose to for what reason exactly? To defend. 

If you want to get personal with me mate than message me. Don't come into a thread that's not about you and try to silence people because this issue does not affect you. Otherwise, move on.

Sounds like a self control problem.  And thanks for proving my point from weeks/pages ago.  Consumers dictate market value.  You are right, many entitled games lack self control and will be more than willing to pay $70...  hence Sony raised prices because they can.  

But please continue to enlightened us with your magical insight that companies like making money.  It is very impressive.  

But I'll drop after this post.  My dear God you are redundant, ill informed on economics and are nauseating.



i7-13700k

Vengeance 32 gb

RTX 4090 Ventus 3x E OC

Chrkeller said:
Azzanation said:

What an entirely desperate and messed up response. 

You just clearly admitted to what they are doing and simply claim that you don't buy games at full price, so it doesn't affect you. Guess what, nobody asked.

Quote

"1) Companies, Sony included, will charge as much as possible to maximum profits.  It is called business."

Here is some knowledge for you. Not everyone is like you, plenty of gamers don't want to wait months for their favorite IPs to go on discount, they want to play them day one. This affects all companies, when one does it, the others follows and we are now seeing this across the board.

No one is spinning darts in this room except you trying to defend and ignore these issues. 

If you don't like people complaining about companies taking advantage of their customers, then maybe you should take your own advice and quote "STFU" you don't have to be in this thread, yet you choose to for what reason exactly? To defend. 

If you want to get personal with me mate than message me. Don't come into a thread that's not about you and try to silence people because this issue does not affect you. Otherwise, move on.

Sounds like a self control problem.  And thanks for proving my point from weeks/pages ago.  Consumers dictate market value.  You are right, many entitled games lack self control and will be more than willing to pay $70...  hence Sony raised prices because they can.  

But please continue to enlightened us with your magical insight that companies like making money.  It is very impressive.  

But I'll drop after this post.  My dear God you are redundant, ill informed on economics and are nauseating.

And your final point proves nothing once again.

Do as you please, this debate got tiresome. Just remember this. When games go up in base price, you are still paying more during discounts meaning everyone loses. 30% off $60 is less than 30% off $70.