Quake3World

Ok, games are taking many more staff to make, and so the cost of the game has gone up 15 or so quid. A game for the 360 these days costs about £50 average, some are £45. Thats fine and dandy, I'm willing to pay £50 for a good game.

However...

Why is it that CoD2 is only £20 on the PC ATM, yet still £50 on the 360? It cant be because it took more effort, its a straight port with no difference at all...?

Anybody care to fill me in?

It's called royalty paid to you know who.

zewulf wrote:It's called royalty paid to you know who.

Serious? Fuck.

i wouldn't know...i don't pay for games...



I HAVE A GAY SIG

Freakaloin wrote:i wouldn't know...i don't pay for games...

All that washing up liquid must not leave you with much change.

its not about the money...its the principle...

o'dium wrote:

zewulf wrote:It's called royalty paid to you know who.

Serious? Fuck.

The console makers sell their hardware at a loss, so how do you think they make money in this business?

That whole games being more expensive to produce is a big box of bullshit as well.

q4 cost me 80$

i was dissapointed


its my own fault tho

Eraser wrote:That whole games being more expensive to produce is a big box of bullshit as well.

It's not bullshit, they really do cost more to make, when you're talking about extra staff, larger building, more computers, more software to license, etc. But that is a choice the company makes.

See, the video game customer base is also massively larger than it was before, so I have to wonder how much the increased sales offsets the increased cost. You may be spending 500,000 more to make the game, but you're also selling that game to millions of people if it's a decent game.

o'dium wrote:

zewulf wrote:It's called royalty paid to you know who.

Serious? Fuck.

yup
serious sam has always been a budget title for pc, yet the console versions cost full price. gg

Yeah how about that americas army? It's been free forever on the pc now with regular updates. But to play on console you need to pay for some wank half-assed version.

zewulf wrote:It's called royalty paid to you know who.

Pretty much.

Freakaloin wrote:its not about the money...its the principle...

You play games for free yet say you have principles? Selfish alert??

he can do that and still be principled.

its just that his principles arent the same as your principles.

It's one thing to torrent games just because it's easy to do. A lot of people do that, me included. But I don't do it because I refuse to pay over some principle.
There isn't a principle that would justify someone playing games for free that should be paid for. If I say a ferrari is too expensive, does that justify me stealing one? Steal it by all means, but don't try justifying it because that's bullshit. Then again, everything geoff comes out with is bullshit.

It's not stealing if you download the game off the net and never had any previous intentions of buying it in the first place.

dzjepp wrote:It's not stealing if you never had the intentions of buying the game in the first place.

?

Er, stealing is taking goods that you have no intention of paying for.

dzjepp wrote:It's not stealing if you never had the intentions of buying the game in the first place.

?

Sorry I had to rephrase that

LOL COMMIE

dzjepp wrote:It's not stealing if you download the game off the net and never had any previous intentions of buying it in the first place.

dzjepp wrote:Sorry I had to rephrase that

If you download something off the net, it's still stealing unless it's freeware. Cmon dzjepp, what are you on about

he's not thinking clearly with with Duhard's nuts against his chin.

dzjepp wrote:It's not stealing if you download the game off the net and never had any previous intentions of buying it in the first place.

?