Jump to content

XBOX 360 GAME PRICE IS A RIP OFF


Anti-Microsoft
 Share

Recommended Posts

I just thought that I would start a post regarding something that no one else really has been posting on the net. I am one of the many Ghost Recon fans who starting playing the original game in 2001 and I love this game whole heart and soul, as well as other good clancy games. But I after my bad expierence with Microsoft Windows I am forced to choose either Xbox. PS2 or Mac to play my games of choice. I choose Mac because Apple is by far and foremost a more superior OS then the crap that Microsoft lets out of its factory. And Macintosh has way better programs and internet security as opposed to Bill gates toilet paper of an OS. Any way my argument is that not just Ghost Recon but it seems all the game for nex-gen consoles will be priced @ $60. What is wrong with this picture? Why should any consumer pat $60 for a game? You all understand where that money is going. It's not to the developement team, it goes to Bills wallet. Thats absurd and insulting. Beacause if I look back at a game like DOOM 3 where the budget was huge and it still only cost $50 dollars reagardless of platform I find that Microsoft is once again being a greedy pig, and this greedy pig needs to be cut up for morning bacon. I mean where does Microsoft ge tthe nerve to charge the consumer $60 for a game when the graphics are just now coming up to par with games like Doom 3? Why should we be forced by gun point to play games at a cost of $60 dollars?? Are you tring to say that XBOX 360 games are of such caliber that they wip the slate clean of a $3000 gaming PC. Seriously Bill you need to cut your greedy scrooge ways as soon as possible, Theres people who just lost their entire homes in New Orleans an this pig is worried about charging $60 to consumers for a bloody game. THats wrong and anyone who is retarded enough to not agree is blind. The message must be made clear to both MicroCrap and Sony.. Dont try to upcharge the consumer $ 60 for one game. I know I have serious considered my change in future game purchasing. And I wont buy the next ghost recon or any other game if suit and tie pigs want to rip me off. ###### OFF MICROCRAP -- WINDOWS IS DEAD :o=:o=:o=

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember paying 70$ for Phantasy Star when it came out, which was a Sega Master System game.

I also paid 60-70$ for some top-rated Genesis games too. I'm sure there were equally prices SNES games.

Personally, I don't mind paying 60$ for a game if it's good. Even if it's not that great, 6 months down the line it will be in the used or bargain section of EB for 20$ or 30$.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

psekula,

although i wouldnt overestimate the price elasticity of video games. id dare say im probably spot on in terms of the target demographic ... many many times i have opted to buy a game solely because the price was right ... espn's 2k5 over madden 2005 ... ninja gaiden black. few of many examples.

i wholly understand that the extra $10 bucks goes a long way to recouping costs ... but please - if im gonna fork over that kind of cash for an overly hyped next iteration of ghost recon, it better at least somewhat resemble the original that i fell in love with. and the extraordinary volumes of marketing spin enough of which to stop a stampede of oxen in its tracks - notwithstanding, gr:aw is simply not that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your anger is misdirected somewhat in this case. MS published games will actually be $50. It is third party publishers that are charging $60. From what I understand, due to the increased costs of developing for the new platform (and of course, because they can get away with it on the new platform).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you really want to feel ripped off take a trip to the UK side of the pond where your $60 game will be converted to english pounds at the rate of 1:1, which when converted back into dollars at todays rates is 106.727 USD, how they work that 1:1 converstion rate is beyond me! :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want it you pay for it, Im a big strategy gamer and am a fan of the Romance of the 3 kingdoms series, back with the first nes i paid $100+ for games in the series. Retailers are the monsters, thats why ghostrecon gold is $20 bucks at waly world and its 30+ at circuit city

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ugh... first off, even if this goes off-topic, I'll say it. Windows is full of bugs, yes, but people think that that is the main reason they have loads of problems. Wrong. Windows is the most common OS, so that is the most targeted system by hackers/virus makers, etc. If Mac was more popular, you could bet that it would have its problems too.

Back to the matter at hand. As someone else stated, Microsoft is selling its games at 50$ (which would be 70$ CAD), while third-party publishers are talking (although it's almost a fact) of selling games at 60$ (80$ CAD). Personally, I don't mind very much. Look at the price of movies. I remember 8, hell, 5 years ago I could go and see a movie on Tuesday for 4 bucks, now it's almost impossible to find something cheaper than 9, 10 bucks. How about games? Well, they've been (mostly) selling for 50$ ever since NES. So a 10$ hike once in 20 years isn't that much, when compared to other entertainment industries.

And as a well-informed person stated (yeah, not good with nicknames) Microsoft lost about 100$ per Xbox, so we have to thank them for not overpricing the console. The 300$ version is only targeted at ill-informed parents, yes, but look at the "Xbox 360" package. The extras are worth over 200$. While I'm familiar with the bundle concept, you rarely get that much value. :santa:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ugh... first off, even if this goes off-topic, I'll say it. Windows is full of bugs, yes, but people think that that is the main reason they have loads of problems. Wrong. Windows is the most common OS, so that is the most targeted system by hackers/virus makers, etc. If Mac was more popular, you could bet that it would have its problems too.

Exactly. :thumbsup:

Now I respect the quality of a Mac, but there is a lot of truth in that statement.

I think the price is within reason, so I'm more concerned about gameplay.

@Clum-Z-Boy

What are the differences in the Xbox packages?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember paying 70$ for Phantasy Star when it came out, which was a Sega Master System game.

Oh, snap! Not to hijack the thread or anything, but that game was awesome! First game I ever bought. It was on sale, I paid twenty bucks for it in... 1987? Something like that. Still love that game, currently playing it on the GBA.

Anyhow, my experience was similar -- typically, a game would cost fifty or sixty bucks, when I was growing up, and a new system was $300 or $400. Until the price started to drop a little. Looks like the next round of systems and games will be about the same, which is pretty cool.

-- Rafael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the Mac comments. I would say that Macintosh in next few years will have about 40 to 50 % of the personal computer market. Why? Because their apps are better intergrated and much easier to use. MicroCrap has billions of software titles but none are any match for a truly intergrated system. Final Cut Pro vs Avid or Adobe Premiere. The choice is cleary Final Cut pro and DVD studio pro for their awesome intergration of video editing, dito for the music industry aswell. Take a look at the garbage pile of software at a COMPUSA and see how much Windows based software their is that is half heartedly put on the shelf just to make a quick buck. Compare these titles like Pinacle studio vs Ilife05 and you will see point blank that its just no match in features and ease of use. As for security and virus problems. I think that even if Mac where more popular the problems would not be as devastating as the windows platform. I bought a windows machine in August 2004. It died in August 2005. I used Mozillia because I thought it would be far better then Explorer, wrong again. You are correct in the sense that any OS can be destroyed but my point is Mac is not easy to destroy and another benifit is that the hardware and the software are all from the same company. Windows software and hardware is so different from one box to the next. If in fact Mac one day became bigger then Windows I seriously doubt that todays Windows problems would become Macs problems. Mac is by far light years beyond anything Windows hopes to be. :P:P:P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can see you like your Mac and you hate Microsoft with a vengeance, I dont believe Microsoft do have billions of software titles out, they've got a few to be sure but developers and publishers are responsible for the software they put out and they do that to the demands of the customers, most customers use windows so they develop software for that OS. Microsoft dont make PC's, if your computer died after a year was it a software or hardware problem? If it was a hardware problem you cant blame Bill Gates for it. I dont have a mac and I dont particularly want one, its horses for courses mate and for what I want its windows all the way and what did that little rant have to do with xbox 360 game prices?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the Mac comments. I would say that Macintosh in next few years will have about 40 to 50 % of the personal computer market. Why? Because their apps are better intergrated and much easier to use. MicroCrap has billions of software titles but none are any match for a truly intergrated system. Final Cut Pro vs Avid or Adobe Premiere. The choice is cleary Final Cut pro and DVD studio pro for their awesome intergration of video editing, dito for the music industry aswell. Take a look at the garbage pile of software at a COMPUSA and see how much Windows based software their is that is half heartedly put on the shelf just to make a quick buck. Compare these titles like Pinacle studio vs Ilife05 and you will see point blank that its just no match in features and ease of use. As for security and virus problems. I think that even if Mac where more popular the problems would not be as devastating as the windows platform. I bought a windows machine in August 2004. It died in August 2005. I used Mozillia because I thought it would be far better then Explorer, wrong again. You are correct in the sense that any OS can be destroyed but my point is Mac is not easy to destroy and another benifit is that the hardware and the software are all from the same company. Windows software and hardware is so different from one box to the next. If in fact Mac one day became bigger then Windows I seriously doubt that todays Windows problems would become Macs problems. Mac is by far light years beyond anything Windows hopes to be.  :P  :P  :P

40 to 50% huh? :rofl::rofl::rofl:

Mac's have LESS THAN 5% market share. http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/03/20/ma...share/index.php :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did say in the future Mac's will have a more dominant stance in the market, right now of course they dont. There are probably about 15 to 20 million mac users worldwide, small compare to microsoft, yes. But with the Ipod growing in sales numbers everyday you will start to see alot of those Windows customers buying a mac. Because it intergrates well with their favorite device. Ipod is Steve Jobs trojan horse if you will. Its real purpose is not only to put 10 billion songs in your pocket but to one by one pull windows customer out of thier fustration with the software. My windows machine died because Microsofts own spyware software couldnt even stop the AURORA malware virus and rip it out of the registry. That just goes to show you how unprofessional Microsoft is. And they are so many Windows user who are tired of the freeze ups, incompatiablities of devices, Horrible internet software. Now as gamers I am sure all you windows boys know how to fix alot of problems with your machines. But just like MAC, gamers dont make up the entire windows market. The average Mom & Pop do. And they dont know how to fix or cant be bothered to fix Bill Gates is problems. Itunes on Windows is a god send compare to any MP3 program for Windows. its the best. If it wasnt Windows users wouldnt have bought the Ipod. So with time as more promotion gets out and people take a spin on the mac those windows customers today who are tired of Microsoft blatant lies will turn to a system that ... just works. Mark my words.

As for XBOX 360 GAMES PRICES AT $60 a pop. This is just another $20 fee microsoft collects just because its their system, and the balance $40 goes to the designer. Its a rip off thats my argument. When most of these games in reality are developed at the same cost as Doom or GrandTheft Auto. Game prices should be no more then $50. For something that you may play once, twice if its really good it just doesnt make alot of sense. I think Microsoft will change the price after the holiday season because nobody in their right mind will accept this cost. When XBOX 3 comes out are you guys willing to pay $100 a game? Dont be among the herd. :ph34r::o=:ph34r::devil:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't own an IPod and never will. I dislike how a tune I may buy can only be transfered to a portable device a set number of times then I would have to pay for it again. It's even worse after a reformat or installing a new HD.

If you can't remember to update your AV and antispyware programs, how is that Bill Gates fault? While I agree that software could be released less buggy and more secure, any popular software will be the objuect of attacks. Take a look at Firefox, flaws in it are started to be exploited in small numbers and as it's popularity climbs so to will attacks on it.

As far as game prices, if you do not like paying $60 for a title, wait a year and buy it for around half price if not lower. Sure, you will be out of the loop, but you will have kept some of that cash out of those pockets you do not want it in.

As this post no longer pertains to GRAW, this is now moved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

heres a little tidbit of info regarding windows vs mac virus protection -

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-5885334.html

As for updating your antivirus. Lets just say companies like Symantec are scam artist who cause you to spend another $100 every year because they cant even stop the virus. Hackers, Microsoft and Security firms like Symantec / Norton all work very hard together to steal your money.

I wouldnt buy or trust Norton as far as I could throw that nerd.

:devil:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for XBOX 360 GAMES PRICES AT $60 a pop. This is just another $20 fee microsoft collects just because its their system, and the balance $40 goes to the designer. Its a rip off thats my argument. When most of these games in reality are developed at the same cost as Doom or GrandTheft Auto. Game prices should be no more then $50. For something that you may play once, twice if its really good it just doesnt make alot of sense. I think Microsoft will change the price after the holiday season because nobody in their right mind will accept this cost. When XBOX 3 comes out are you guys willing to pay $100 a game? Dont be among the herd. :ph34r:  :o=  :ph34r:  :devil:

Microsoft isn't in charge of the games on their console's prices. :thumbsup:

It's the retailer who sets that '50'. And the publisher that sets the price the retailer gets it at.

Microsoft isn't even involved. :rofl:

Finally, what I bolded is completely untrue. Are you aware of the new demands on artists for the next technology line?

This may come as a suprise, but talent and software costs money. :thumbsup:

Also: The x360 is reported to be capable of interfacing with the Ipod, just like it can the PSP. :whistle:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Anti-Microsoft

I have some experience using a MAC and I have to say that I did walk away impressed. However, I have to agree that a lot (not all) of the security issues that arise are (as many have already said), on account of the fact that Windows is the most popular OS by far.

You seem to be a person that wants to see business conducted in a fair manner, and if that is true, then you will want to boycott Sony.

Sony made 50+ million off of Full Spectrum Warrior, but refuses to reimburse the US Army the measly 4 million it invested to develop it. Talk about low. Not the first time Sony has done something like this. :nono:

When it comes down to it many if not most businesses are just that. Businesses. They care about their own bottom line. Some companies care more about what their customers think, and some do not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sony made 50+ million off of Full Spectrum Warrior, but refuses to reimburse the US Army the measly 4 million it invested to develop it. Talk about low. Not the first time Sony has done something like this. :nono:

Very interesting stuff, everybody jchung tonight. Although I wouldn't put it past Sony to pull something like that off. As much as I try to swear them off, they have successfully sucked me into their devices ... all because of that ###### memory stick.

When it comes down to it many if not most businesses are just that. Businesses. They care about their own bottom line. Some companies care more about what their customers think, and some do not.

I beg to differ on your inference here ... I would argue (adamantly) that regardless of the business, sound ethics invariably leads to better dollars and cents. Albeit there is a fine line - I'll grant you that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Game development costs allot these days. Allot. Ever been to a game studio? Most game developers aren't John Carmack driving a Ferrari. These guys work hard for their money. Very hard. Allot of long hours and all they get is the occasional lauded remark. Mostly it is a bunch of snotty malcontents bitching because they didn't get the game made the way their talentless ass wanted it or it costs too much. I for one will pay it. And if you don't like the price I suppose you could enjoy the huge library of titles available for the Macintosh or those on the console that Linux made.

As much as you live in a world where Bill Gates is evil, the rest of us live in a world where games cost money and competition with Sony demands technology, which in turn costs money. You may not want to believe it but 'money tree' is a figure of speech, not the shrubs on Bill Gate's lawn.

And if you don't agree about the costs and pay, just ask Serellan when he drives/pushes by in his Bronco.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sony made 50+ million off of Full Spectrum Warrior, but refuses to reimburse the US Army the measly 4 million it invested to develop it. Talk about low. Not the first time Sony has done something like this. :nono:

So, the US Army paid Pandemic to create a simulator for troop training. Pandemic did so, and decided to use the code base (with US Army permission) to also develop a retail game.

Pandemic should refund the cost of the simulator because they found commercial success from an extension of the project the US Army funded?

I'm sorry. If I get a contract from the government, and use the technology after the fact to create a retail entry, one which does not step on the government's toes, I should refund my fee from the afore contract?

The US Army got what they paid for. To refund them would be counter-productive.

FSW, in the state that the common consumer will see it, is a game. The variant the US Army funded is a training simulator. Two distinct applications. Apples and oranges.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...