Next gen EA games to cost £55

[Amir Kondori]

and no one I know, including working adults can either.

Why couldn't a working adult afford it? I mean they shouldn't buy it, but all adults I know have at least 100 quid to spare by the end of the month. The adults you know must be fairly poor or living above their means if they spend their entire wage on rent and such o.x

Or have a family and kids.

 

[Amir Kondori]

Games cost $100aud as is. The Australian dollar is worth 95c US at the moment. Riddle me that.

You guys also have around twice the acerage income of someone in the US. You complaining that Australia's games are more expensive than the US's is like me complaining that India's games are cheaper than in the US. Atleast thats what I have heard.

so, because we earn more. we should pay more?

Yes. But that is not the only reason, the costs with selling in Australia is part of it. There is nothing fair about a free market and prices have very little to do with costs in anything but the most competitive markets.

 

[Amir Kondori]

You know, I'd feel bad for you Brits, but I got kicked off my insurance a few years ago and if I didn't live in the state I live in, I'd probably be dead because my nation has no obligation to care for its sick. And insurance companies had no legal obligation to actually provide insurance to the people paying them.

I think I'd pay a bit more, even quite a bit more on luxury items in order to afford the kind of society where I didn't have to worry about dying from an easily treatable disease or going bankrupt from the treatment.

The horror.

God sake, if you want Universal health care (which you have a right to) FIGHT for it, bloody hell, stop letting companies push you around, vote ONLY for pollies who suport a state run universal system

Oh and the assumption your makaing there is that it TAXES (ie what funds Medicare here and the NHS in the UK) that are causing the price increases and you would be WRONG. its greedy multinational companies which are making the money. Why do you think the UK or Australia's government health care should entitle EA (a US company) to more money?

It doesn't work that way here. US elections have been completely gamed by the politicians so that they pretty much don't have to fight for their seats.

What they do is a couple of things. First, gerrymandering, where they draw crazy districts that have little in common except the way they vote. That way they know 100% which party that district will vote for. That means the election that matters is NOT the general election, it is actually the primary. The only people who show up for that are the very political, either extreme right or extreme left. Which means that any centrist politicians who would actually compromise and get stuff done never gets elected.
Then there is the influence of the super PACs and those basically funnel in unlimited money and there is no transparency. So the voting public doesn't get to know which groups are funding which politicians. Basically our politicians have setup a system not where the voters pick the politicians, but where the politicians pick the voters.

What does this have to do with EA's game prices in the UK? Hell if I know.

 

[rob_simple]

Sorry, I hate to be that guy, but...

If two people in two separate countries work the same job for the same amount of time but one receives twice the pay --which is a loose interpretation of the double average income thing for the sake of this point-- then it stands to reason that person should pay twice as much for the same product.

How is that difficult to understand?

Products have a set value. It does not matter how much more money you earn, the product's value does not go higher or lower depending on the person buying it and the amount of money they have at their disposal. For example, just because person A is richer than person B, that there banana they're buying is not effected by the person buying it, and stays the same price for both. Rich people are not obligated to pay more just because they have more. A product does not have more than one value.

Of course it changes depending on the value of the country's economy, I do know that. It just wasn't mentioned at all in your post that I quoted, and I was concerned you were under the impression that richer people must pay more for things, which is undeniably stupid. I'm glad you're not, though.

I really shouldn't take part in economy discussions, I know bugger all about money.

...It was the first thing I said. I realise how it must have sounded to you having not noticed that part, but I'm really not in the habit of defending rich people.

In fact, I've always been of the idea that after you make a million pounds in profit, doing anything, any money which isn't used for re-investment into your business should all go to charitable organisations. Nobody on this planet needs more than a million pounds in personal money.

 

[Something Amyss]

God sake, if you want Universal health care (which you have a right to) FIGHT for it, bloody hell, stop letting companies push you around, vote ONLY for pollies who suport a state run universal system

It's amusing, someone telling me to fight for health care.

Not only did you manage to miss the point, but you managed to tell an activist they should...Be an activist.

 

[Anthony Corrigan]

You know, I'd feel bad for you Brits, but I got kicked off my insurance a few years ago and if I didn't live in the state I live in, I'd probably be dead because my nation has no obligation to care for its sick. And insurance companies had no legal obligation to actually provide insurance to the people paying them.

I think I'd pay a bit more, even quite a bit more on luxury items in order to afford the kind of society where I didn't have to worry about dying from an easily treatable disease or going bankrupt from the treatment.

The horror.

God sake, if you want Universal health care (which you have a right to) FIGHT for it, bloody hell, stop letting companies push you around, vote ONLY for pollies who suport a state run universal system

Oh and the assumption your makaing there is that it TAXES (ie what funds Medicare here and the NHS in the UK) that are causing the price increases and you would be WRONG. its greedy multinational companies which are making the money. Why do you think the UK or Australia's government health care should entitle EA (a US company) to more money?

It doesn't work that way here. US elections have been completely gamed by the politicians so that they pretty much don't have to fight for their seats.

What they do is a couple of things. First, gerrymandering, where they draw crazy districts that have little in common except the way they vote. That way they know 100% which party that district will vote for. That means the election that matters is NOT the general election, it is actually the primary. The only people who show up for that are the very political, either extreme right or extreme left. Which means that any centrist politicians who would actually compromise and get stuff done never gets elected.
Then there is the influence of the super PACs and those basically funnel in unlimited money and there is no transparency. So the voting public doesn't get to know which groups are funding which politicians. Basically our politicians have setup a system not where the voters pick the politicians, but where the politicians pick the voters.

What does this have to do with EA's game prices in the UK? Hell if I know.

To add to my previous post if the extra was due to taxes I actually wouldn't care, if it was going to government to fund the services I as an Australian citizen expect and have a right to then I would be happy. The problem for EA is that we KNOW how much of any product is taxes because we went to a GST system years ago. 10% of a products price is going to state goverments to pay for things like schools, hospitals, police etc. Great, that's 10%

So if a US game doesnt include sales tax and after all Game stop and EB are the same company so a good comparison (actually would prefer to use origin as its ALL digital and ALL sold out of the US but this will do for a rough go)

COD Ghost $59.99 AUD
http://www.gamestop.com/ps4/games/call-of-duty-ghosts/109956

$98 AUD
https://www.ebgames.com.au/ps4-162384-Call-of-Duty-Ghosts-PlayStation-4

Current exchange rate 1USG = 1.09AUD

59.99USD = 65.46 AUD
+10% = $72 AUD so we are being ripped off by $26, if my maths is correct thats 36% more we are being ripped off by and then companies want to complain about used games, FUCK YOU

 

[chozo_hybrid]

Snip.

Couldn't have said it better, thanks for the nice back and forth.

 

[Voulan]

Sorry, I hate to be that guy, but...

...It was the first thing I said. I realise how it must have sounded to you having not noticed that part, but I'm really not in the habit of defending rich people.

Yep, I am an idiot. Sorry about that, I should seriously avoid topics I don't understand well. And learn to read.

Still, despite the exchange rates, I shouldn't have to pay 70% more than the US. I'm most definitely turning to Steam now.

 

[Elvis Starburst]

Greeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaat... Greeeaat... Nice going EA. We'll see how long it takes before you turn this car around before it speeds off the fucking CLIFF infront of it

 

[Soopy]

[/quote]

Games cost $100aud as is. The Australian dollar is worth 95c US at the moment. Riddle me that.

You guys also have around twice the acerage income of someone in the US. You complaining that Australia's games are more expensive than the US's is like me complaining that India's games are cheaper than in the US. Atleast thats what I have heard.

so, because we earn more. we should pay more?

Well, yeah, of course you should. I'm pretty sure Australia isn't entirely populated by super-rich doctors, so that would suggest to me, overall, everyone working in the country makes more on average than in the US. It doesn't necessarily mean you have more money on a global scale, but because you have more of your own particular currency the prices of goods sold in your country have to take that into account.

Prices in any given country have to reflect national income otherwise it completely devalues the entire point of a monetary system; it has absolutely nothing to do with exchange rates.

Its kinda backwards, considering I can buy the same games from the USA and get them for the same price they do, plus about $10 postage...

 

[likalaruku]

India & now Europe? It's like they WANT to go out of business. Well, if we could pressure them into backing down on all the crap they wanted to do to the Xbone, then we can prevent them from trying to make a deal with Nintendo & Sony to raise prices so they don;t have to lower theirs to be competitive. Or we could just not buy an Xbox & buy all their PC games half a year after release, when the price drops to $20.

 

[RicoADF]

Games cost $100aud as is. The Australian dollar is worth 95c US at the moment. Riddle me that.

If your paying $100 AUD then you haven't been shopping very well. Even in retail $69 for a new game is common, and if you go online you can drop it quite abit....

Edit: Nevermind noticed your above comment. Still, even retail it's not $100 and you don't have to buy from the US to get even less that that for a physical copy, ozgameshop is a great source of games.

 

[theultimateend]

and no one I know, including working adults can either.

Why couldn't a working adult afford it? I mean they shouldn't buy it, but all adults I know have at least 100 quid to spare by the end of the month. The adults you know must be fairly poor or living above their means if they spend their entire wage on rent and such o.x

Anytime someone says Quid I think of Squids.

I feel like if I visited everyone would be trading cephalopods for stuff.

 

[MrHide-Patten]

Oh and just because we have better work place protections than the US because we fought for them and earned them while you guys sat back and let the rich CEOs take all the benefits while crushing workers rights is a piss poor reason to penalise us by selling things at 70% more for digital copies, even things which were created HERE not in the US

You could always just screw the whole system by buying games through Ozgameshop.com, delivery just takes about a week and shipping is free.

 

[Bullfrog1983]

Now in case you're wondering £55 is roughly $80USD!

EA, ladies and gentlemen. The company who's CEO said games were too expensive [http://www.digitmemo.com/articles/686/ea-boss-says-games-too-expensive/] and the $59 needed to die are now going to be charging British gamers $80 a pop, and have recently increased prices [http://www.polygon.com/2013/7/5/4497062/indian-pc-gamers-protest-ea-price-hikes-via-twitter] on Origin in India from around $25 to around $60, despite the fact that Indian gamers have less income on average than western gamers.

I honestly don't understand EA. They make out that they're trying to turn over a new leaf and then they go and pull shit like this. It's almost as if they like bad PR.

What are your thoughts on this? Personally I think EA can shove it, there's no way in hell I'm paying that much for a game.

Already boycotting EA, maybe they'll do us all a favor and explode into a million smaller companies so people won't have to put up with their condescending attitude. I'd rather do something with that $80 like see a live band, buy groceries or 8 games on steam/PC that are better than the crap they have been producing.

 

[ThreeName]

I live in Australia. They're already that price here. And always have been.

 

[Something Amyss]

Its kinda backwards, considering I can buy the same games from the USA and get them for the same price they do, plus about $10 postage...

You found a loophole, so it's backwards? That sounds a little backwards in itself.

Does that include the customs duty taxes and whatnot? Serious question, because I don't know.

 

[Pinkamena]

That's a little high. I guess I won't be buying many EA games in the future then.

 

[Soopy]

Its kinda backwards, considering I can buy the same games from the USA and get them for the same price they do, plus about $10 postage...

You found a loophole, so it's backwards? That sounds a little backwards in itself.

Does that include the customs duty taxes and whatnot? Serious question, because I don't know.

Its backwards from the standpoint that retailers are seemingly doing themselves out of money.

And no, no customs taxes on imports under $1000, hell, we don't even pay GST on the items that we would otherwise pay buying locally.