A cent back then meant more than a cent right now.
Also, WoW can be an addiction for some people, but that's just the minority that's plastered all over the internet, stereotyping the rest of the playerbase.
Er... I hope you're agreeing with me because the whole "cent back then meant more than a cent right now" is what I was getting at. The dollar's worth less now, so it makes sense for game prices to increase. But every time they do, there is massive nerd rage about the evil corporations. Which is also understandable because people don't like spending more.
When dealing with something as subjective as "game-goodness"(a relative term, if ever I've heard one), the value for money, or the ethical implications of a purchase. It's important to notice that the more vigor or gusto with which one asserts his claim, the more of a fool he looks when it's inevitably refuted.
Absolute claims on such things are both ignorant and arrogant, and in my opinion aren't really worth taking seriously...especially when they're heavily based on assumptions about those who hold another view. It would of course be convenient to be able to assign beliefs to those you are debating(would save having to put any real thought into things)...but that's not realistic.
Ok whether it was intended or not there is so much wrong with that statement. You are saying it is ok for a company to pump a sequel of a series every year? I am sorry but is just not enough dev time or space between games to even get new ideas going. The last one will still probably be as buggy and imbalanced as fuck if they do that.....
OT: Paying $60 would only be a problem if every single other game new cost something like $50 or less than that. I for am glad game prices have gone. In Ireland when the 360 came out at first all new games were around 70euro from Gamestop. Now they are down to about 45euro to 50 with CoD being the exception and I personally think that is where the problem stems from. I personally don't even have the money to spend 45euro on new games so I must wait til they come out cheaper on pre owned. So that is my excuse although I do make exceptions.
Although if people do feel that way about prices being too high they should talk with their wallets as that is all companies understand anyway.
One thing, I don't play WoW and I don't think subscriptions are worth the money either, just getting that one straight. The problem I have with the CoD series is the same as others have mentioned. The things they add each year, could easily have been added as DLC or an expansion, and yet Activision think it's fine to charge full price for it. Best thing? They get away with it, because people do buy it. Now I don't care if someone plays Black Ops, if they find it entertaining, who am I to tell them any different. The only reason it annoys me that people will pay that much for it, is because it will ultimately lead to other games being priced that much(£55 RRP, £45 in most shops) because companys know they can sell it for more. They could also follow the same one a year plan with other series' too and we'll end up just getting updates on the games each year. I don't want that. I don't just want updates which we pay £45 for each year.
If this was a different game which Activision were releasing an updated version every year at £45, then it would be that game which we'd be getting annoyed over.
I dont know, call me ignorant, but I have ZERO problem paying 60$(canadian) for a BRAND NEW GAME, where a new PS3 game can easily cost as much as 80$. So yeah, I get what I pay for, I love it, and I seem to be incapable of even understanding the argument here. I love CoD, I play it every day (except Rememberance Day, I boycotted playing it, felt it would be disrespectful to my grandfather and all those other vets who gave so much so I could play it.) and after 6 months, it's practically paid for itself in hours of gameplay.
I see where both parties are coming from on this issue. I, for instance, fucking hate Battlefield. It feels like a child's rendition of what he think's a firefight would be like (to me). When the PC walks around, he flings his weapon all over the screen like he's afraid to actually handle it (IMHO), and when he reloads, he practically makes love to the poor weapon on-screen (again, IMHO). I hate Battlefield games and all they stand for.
I like CoD games because they do everything right that Battlefield does wrong (IMHO). The weapons feel like actual weapons, with the exception of MW2 and it's airsoft-replica sounds. The PC doesn't give the impression that he's afraid his weapon will explode at any moment.
I hate Battlefield and all it's fanboys, but I don't think they're lesser people for liking that game. I recognize that they have different tastes than I do and like different things. So to all you Battlefield players out there, game on.
The WoW comparison doesn't really work, and the issue with price-points is that people don't want it setting a precedent for other publishers to price their games by.
In b4 someone states themselves as superior to the "mindless sheep" that buys COD every year. Seriously, the elitism is just astounding, I'm starting to think this site is comparable to 4chan's /v/.
I completely agree OP, some people can't just accept the fact other people enjoy playing those games and have to think themselves as superior to those people.
WOW players are much worse, but I don't think anyone is saying otherwise... Pretty much any gamer who doesn't play WOW knows it's not that great a game and is just a horrible addiction.
i play wow and i actually find it fun. i dont feel the need to play every day or even try to lvl up much but i find it fun just to explore the world and be a merchant. so yes i agree some people are addicted however it does not follow that the game isnt fun.
A lot of important things have been said, and I'm going to try to respond to them. Apologies in advance for the long post; you can look to what I respond to specific quotes.
Sturmdolch said:
Although I agree with you, your argument is flawed.
First of all, World of Warcraft is to Call of Duty as apples are to oranges. They're completely different styles of games. Call of Duty is developed once, then shipped out. Some people continue to work on patches and map packs, but otherwise, most of the team moves on to other projects.
On the other hand, World of Warcraft is in persistent development. This requires more resources and therefore more money.
Second, you are assuming that all CoD haters play World of Warcraft. This is obviously not even close to being true.
Now, I said I agree with you, even though I'm not a CoD fan. But definitely not for your ludicrously narrow reasons.
My reason is that games have to increase in price eventually. They've stayed largely the same for the past years while most other products increase in price. I believe read a PC Gamer article that stated that games should be costing around $58.
Do I want to pay more? Of course not. But it really just makes sense. You can't buy a bottle of coke for a cent anymore.
I could respond at length to this, but I think you're misunderstanding me. At present, I'm not talking about whether paying $60 is okay or not for a game. That's another conversation. But there are people who specifically complain that others pay $60 for Black Ops, a game lacking serious innovation, while similar price points (i.e. MMO subscriptions) are better accepted.
CitySquirrel said:
ranger19 said:
CitySquirrel said:
To each his own, as you say, so why do you even let it bother you?
I knew someone would ask this, and it's a valid question. Kudos for picking it up so quickly.
I'll say it doesn't bother me too much. What bothers me is the inherent inconsistency with being okay with an MMO subscription while not being okay with buying Call of Duty every year. That bothers me because it simply does not make sense; I am fine with other people's opinions and thoughts, as long as they can be justified.
So I have no problem with people who buy Call of Duty every year because they like it; they justify their purchase on their enjoyment. It is troublesome to have people who have no logical reasoning behind their words. If someone were to say "I think people who buy Call of Duty and MMOs are dumb because they're pouring money into the same thing over and over" I would have less of a problem, because that point of view makes more sense.
No, not at all, because people who buy CoD and people who play MMOs are looking for different things. For someone who likes the casual and / or social feel of MMORPGs, it makes perfect sense to pay $120 for access to that world and all the things therein. So to them there is no inconsistency with thinking that is fine and thinking that CoD: Black Ops is a waste of money. Again, it is because it is all a matter of taste...what people are looking for in their entertainment. Taste isn't logical, so how can you demand logical consistency?
Of course, one thing that really struck me about this thread is that it is basically saying "well if we are dumb what about those MMO people, huh?" What does that even achieve? Now you are going to have anti-CoD people coming to tell you why you are wrong and MMO people coming to defend their genre... and we have an entire clusterfuck of hurt feelings. Do you really think anyone who holds such an opinion is going to read this and go "By Jove, that person is right! I'm an ass!"? Of course not, they have already made up their mind and they will see this as proof of their position.
And all this boils back down to what I said before... who cares if someone doesn't get or like what you do? Does that diminish it somehow? I like social games on facebook, and my enjoyment doesn't decrease every time someone talks about how dumb they are.
I don't know, maybe it was foolish of me to even respond to this thread, but I'm honestly not sure what you are hoping it will achieve.
I hope you don't regret responding, because I think I have some legitimate points. First, I do think that CoD and WoW are similar, even through social notions. You say people would play only WoW for the social benefits, but my main enjoyment of CoD has come through playing online with friends. I wasn't going to pick up Black Ops, but when my friend suggested we play through multiplayer and level up together, I started to consider it.
I tried to bring up the MMO stuff because it has been discussed (in several articles here on the Escapist, no less) that an MMO subscription is an insanely good bang for your buck if you play it a lot. I'm not saying MMOs are bad at all; I'm simply trying to draw the connection between the value of an MMO subscription and the value of paying $60 a year for CoD. Of course, an MMO subscription isn't as valuable for those who don't play as much, and similarly a new $60 CoD title isn't for everyone.
Maybe you're right about changing people's minds though. People on the Internet are usually entrenched in their own ideas, so maybe this is a hopeless conversation to have. But I'm optimistic; if even one person can see the difference and think twice about this, then maybe it's worth it.
Scrumpmonkey said:
Really? I can't be annoyed at the yearly updates of a 4 hour £55 series with cut and paste multiplayer? I don't have a right to be angry and dispondant about the prescident this sets for the rest of the industry? People have the right to buy overpriced generic shit, i don't get angry at people enjoying themselves. But when massive ammounts of people ***** and moan about other series and the indistry as a whole whilst still shelling out £45-£55 MINIMUM for this kind bullshit then i reserve the right to kick them in the shins for being a dumbass.
The sheer ammount and height of blind hype is staggering. Yes, i will STILL get angry when people claim this shit is "Game of the Year". There is so much wrong with both Black Ops and the CoD series as a whole i have a right to be angry at this being the default choice for both critical accliam and buyer purchase, not on merit, but simply becuase it is CoD. It's not just priase it's UNDESERVED priase and anyone who can't see the cracks in the CoD series by now, both in singlepayer and multiplayer, obviously plays little else. Black ops and MW2 are not just mediocore, they are flat out BAD in many areas.
I suppose sure, you can be angry at those who proclaim this to be GOTY material, and nobody should say you cannot be annoyed at the series. Here's the thing: the people buying the $60 game and enjoying themselves, and the people complaining about the industry are usually different people. However, if there is someone buying the game for $60 and complaining about the lack of innovation while, say, ignoring the truly creative and fresh games? Give them everything you've got. That's also hypocritical, and I will not defend those people.
Phew. I'll respond to a few more comments on the second page in a while.
you don't like how people rag on CoD gamers, so you rag on WoW players? Hypocrite much?
The obvious answer to all this is "haters gonna hate". If you feel it's your personal mission to change the way people are, you are going to waste your life and be sad and lonely. Most of these people only want attention. Like the WBC, it's best just to ignore them
Just to be clear: I've said several times now that I'm not ragging on WoW players. They get huge amounts of value for their money, especially those that play a lot.
Glademaster said:
ranger19 said:
What bothers me is the inherent inconsistency with being okay with an MMO subscription while not being okay with buying Call of Duty every year.
Ok whether it was intended or not there is so much wrong with that statement. You are saying it is ok for a company to pump a sequel of a series every year?
I wasn't trying to say this, but yes. Yes, it is okay for a company to pump a sequel out of a series every year. Why wouldn't it be? It's called capitalism. It may be cheap and reek of cheap cash-in, but there's no reason they should not be allowed to do it. If people don't like it, then they will not buy it, the company will start losing money and stop with the cash-ins. (I do honestly think that even the masses will get fed up with CoD sooner or later: look at Guitar Hero. So I'm not too worried about this killing innovation in gaming forever or anything.)
Of course, we're in a state where the sequels are successful, and it's unfortunate. I don't like it, but I can't be mad at anyone for it. It's just like Twilight: I hate the series (and the message it apparently sends to readers) and I hate that it's so popular, but I'm not mad at the author for writing it or readers for making them so successful. I suppose I wish readers were more aware of the better things out there and the truly innovative/quality titles would flourish, but I'm not mad at them. The same goes for games.
Woodsey said:
The WoW comparison doesn't really work, and the issue with price-points is that people don't want it setting a precedent for other publishers to price their games by.
Care to explain why the WoW comparison doesn't work? I agree I wouldn't like a precedent set, but even if the precedent is set, people aren't going to pay high prices for games they don't see worth it.
Whitenail said:
Here in Australia it costs around a hundred for Black-Ops, and I don't play MMORPG's anymore thanks to the fact that they ate through money like nobody's business.
So how in the hell can Americans rage because they're paying $60 US for a game when over here we have to pay upwards of $100 AUS, and we don't even get the earlier release dates or slick ads on telley or even the billboards (My father had to go to a developer's conference a year or so ago near, well, Silicone Valley and on the way there the GIGANTIC billboard for Fallout 3 looming over the streets of LA was mesmerising).
/Aussie-fuelled rant. Ultimately what I'm trying to say is, don't go on about a game being too pricey (ESPECIALLY if you're from the states). These developers have mouths to feed and if you're really that bothered about it don't get the game.
There were a lot of people who agreed with me or helped prove my point or whose posts I just generally liked. Just wanted to say kudos, since it's easy to respond to disagreeing posts and for me to forget about the awesome ones.
Ok whether it was intended or not there is so much wrong with that statement. You are saying it is ok for a company to pump a sequel of a series every year?
I wasn't trying to say this, but yes. Yes, it is okay for a company to pump a sequel out of a series every year. Why wouldn't it be? It's called capitalism. It may be cheap and reek of cheap cash-in, but there's no reason they should not be allowed to do it. If people don't like it, then they will not buy it, the company will start losing money and stop with the cash-ins. (I do honestly think that even the masses will get fed up with CoD sooner or later: look at Guitar Hero. So I'm not too worried about this killing innovation in gaming forever or anything.)
Of course, we're in a state where the sequels are successful, and it's unfortunate. I don't like it, but I can't be mad at anyone for it. It's just like Twilight: I hate the series (and the message it apparently sends to readers) and I hate that it's so popular, but I'm not mad at the author for writing it or readers for making them so successful. I suppose I wish readers were more aware of the better things out there and the truly innovative/quality titles would flourish, but I'm not mad at them. The same goes for games.
Well that is the point I am making Capitalism does not transfer over to creative media and they will run out of ideas. They can do it til they go bankrupt for all I care but it is a waste of an IP even though it has become a shell of itself. So looking at it that way it is not good business to overmarket/overrelease a game as you will ultimately end up with lower sales revenue in long run which is a Capital fail.
I just think it's silly that we judge people on what they buy or how much they spend in general. I bought BlackOps and have had to sit through people lecturing me on being a sheep and supporting Bobby Kotick and how I pay so much money each year on the same thing. It's bullshit frankly.
I have owned 3 Call of Duty titles in my life. Out of ALL OF THEM. BlackOps seemed interesting to me beacuse no one had really done the cold war in games and I liked the multiplayer last time so new maps and guns might be fun. Everyone has their reasons, ad we should'nt be too quick to judge
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
