I'm Confused About Pricing...

Well, not so much the issue of pricing itself, that's relatively straight forward; more a case of confusion over the majority of gamer's fickle, wishy-washiness when it comes to pricing about Digital Download Content, be it original or an extension of a retail game.
 
It was the in the first few comments of this Kotaku article that made me think about this. It [the article]'s  about Game Room pricing. The majority of people seem to be fine with the notion that 240MS/$3/£2 (roughly) is a legitimate and acceptable price for these games that came out in the 80s. These are games that are between 20 and 30 years old, at the most extreme ends of the spectrum. If not now, then feasibly so in the future as more games are added.
 
Whilst of course, there are people who believe it is a cynical and exploitative price point that's completely unacceptable, the vibe seems to be on the whole, positive.
 
One of the major factors is noted by MadGenius who states:
 

While the games are emulated, there is a set team that is dedicated to the Arcade Room. How do you expect them to get paid? 
Which is a sentiment I can completely agree with, and am sure everyone else can as well, people are working on getting this running smoothly, maintaining leaderboards etc... they deserve their money, they've rightfully earned it. 
 
However, when the Stimulus Pack for Modern Warfare 2 was announced at it's price of 1200MS/$15/£10, this is considered completely unacceptable, and heads should roll for whoever set that price. Why?
 
The Stimulus Pack consists of five maps, which individually would cost, 240MS/$3/£2. It's the same price, there is an equally talented team of people behind making these maps, maintaining sevrers etc, and ensuring that they're compatible with the online protocols and will patch glitches within them as well. Yet, suddenly these people don't matter. They don't deserve our money for the work they've done. Why? Why or how the fuck is this the case!? It doesn't make sense to me.
 
Okay, I will concede, you're paying 480MS for two maps that you most likely got two years ago within the game. 
 
But why should this change anything, you're paying the same amount of money for games you potentially played 25 years ago as a child. I can appreciate a certain nostalgia factor for the slightly older gamers among us, and a curiosity factor for people more inline with my age who were unfortunate enough to not have an arcade in their home towns, or parents who couldn't afford to give you pocket money/allowance.
 
Sorry, but I can't see the logic in complaining about paying the same amount of currency for five games from the mid 80s as paying for five new maps to one of the biggest online multiplayer games around, regardless of whether two maps are old, albeit need some behind the scenes updating to work on the new protocols etc.
 
So, can someone explain to me why one team deserves your money, when another doesn't, when you would feasibly spend the same amount of time with each in the long run, and potentially need the same people who made it all exist work for as long as it has to.

And for the record, whilst I do own both Game Room and Modern Warfare 2, I have bought no games for my arcade, and I will not be purchasing the stimulus pack yet. For the fact that buying anything at the moment will completely bankrupt me.
8 Comments
9 Comments
Posted by CandleJakk

Well, not so much the issue of pricing itself, that's relatively straight forward; more a case of confusion over the majority of gamer's fickle, wishy-washiness when it comes to pricing about Digital Download Content, be it original or an extension of a retail game.
 
It was the in the first few comments of this Kotaku article that made me think about this. It [the article]'s  about Game Room pricing. The majority of people seem to be fine with the notion that 240MS/$3/£2 (roughly) is a legitimate and acceptable price for these games that came out in the 80s. These are games that are between 20 and 30 years old, at the most extreme ends of the spectrum. If not now, then feasibly so in the future as more games are added.
 
Whilst of course, there are people who believe it is a cynical and exploitative price point that's completely unacceptable, the vibe seems to be on the whole, positive.
 
One of the major factors is noted by MadGenius who states:
 

While the games are emulated, there is a set team that is dedicated to the Arcade Room. How do you expect them to get paid? 
Which is a sentiment I can completely agree with, and am sure everyone else can as well, people are working on getting this running smoothly, maintaining leaderboards etc... they deserve their money, they've rightfully earned it. 
 
However, when the Stimulus Pack for Modern Warfare 2 was announced at it's price of 1200MS/$15/£10, this is considered completely unacceptable, and heads should roll for whoever set that price. Why?
 
The Stimulus Pack consists of five maps, which individually would cost, 240MS/$3/£2. It's the same price, there is an equally talented team of people behind making these maps, maintaining sevrers etc, and ensuring that they're compatible with the online protocols and will patch glitches within them as well. Yet, suddenly these people don't matter. They don't deserve our money for the work they've done. Why? Why or how the fuck is this the case!? It doesn't make sense to me.
 
Okay, I will concede, you're paying 480MS for two maps that you most likely got two years ago within the game. 
 
But why should this change anything, you're paying the same amount of money for games you potentially played 25 years ago as a child. I can appreciate a certain nostalgia factor for the slightly older gamers among us, and a curiosity factor for people more inline with my age who were unfortunate enough to not have an arcade in their home towns, or parents who couldn't afford to give you pocket money/allowance.
 
Sorry, but I can't see the logic in complaining about paying the same amount of currency for five games from the mid 80s as paying for five new maps to one of the biggest online multiplayer games around, regardless of whether two maps are old, albeit need some behind the scenes updating to work on the new protocols etc.
 
So, can someone explain to me why one team deserves your money, when another doesn't, when you would feasibly spend the same amount of time with each in the long run, and potentially need the same people who made it all exist work for as long as it has to.

And for the record, whilst I do own both Game Room and Modern Warfare 2, I have bought no games for my arcade, and I will not be purchasing the stimulus pack yet. For the fact that buying anything at the moment will completely bankrupt me.
Posted by ProfessorEss

Charge $15, people will complain that it shoulda been $10.
Charge $10, people will bitch that it should've been $5.
Charge $5 and people will whine that it should've been included on the disk. 

 There's no reasoning to it. People just complain - especially when it comes to paying for stuff.

Posted by Binman88
@CandleJakk said:

"Yet, suddenly these people don't matter. They don't deserve our money for the work they've done. Why? "

I'm gonna go ahead and sound like a troll and suggest it's because Infinity Ward have come across as the biggest dicks in the gaming industry.
 
Realistically though, who cares what people moan about? If they don't think the pricing is fair, they should just not buy it. The community doesn't decide what's acceptable by moaning about it on the internet. If it sells, it's acceptable.
Posted by CandleJakk
@Binman88 said:
" @CandleJakk said:

"Yet, suddenly these people don't matter. They don't deserve our money for the work they've done. Why? "

I'm gonna go ahead and sound like a troll and suggest it's because Infinity Ward have come across as the biggest dicks in the gaming industry.
 
Realistically though, who cares what people moan about? If they don't think the pricing is fair, they should just not buy it. The community doesn't decide what's acceptable by moaning about it on the internet. If it sells, it's acceptable. "
I don't care what people moan about, per se, but the hypocrisy around this when it's broken down just struck me as ridiculous. I agree wholeheartedly that if you don't like something, you don't pay for it etc...
Posted by Binman88
@CandleJakk said:

" @Binman88 said:

" @CandleJakk said:

"Yet, suddenly these people don't matter. They don't deserve our money for the work they've done. Why? "

I'm gonna go ahead and sound like a troll and suggest it's because Infinity Ward have come across as the biggest dicks in the gaming industry.
 
Realistically though, who cares what people moan about? If they don't think the pricing is fair, they should just not buy it. The community doesn't decide what's acceptable by moaning about it on the internet. If it sells, it's acceptable. "
I don't care what people moan about, per se, but the hypocrisy around this when it's broken down just struck me as ridiculous. I agree wholeheartedly that if you don't like something, you don't pay for it etc... "
The moaners aren't reasonable people, they're gonna be as ridiculously hypocritical as the internet will allow them, and they're never gonna change. I find it best to just ignore them :P
Posted by Getz

There is some method to the madness. If you look at the pricing for the previous Call of Duty map packs for World at War and MW 1 they were 10 dollars for 4 maps. Factor in that over half of the Stimulus maps are just recycled and there's some justification for people getting upset. Of course, they're just whining because they think they can make a difference by bitching, and then end up spending the money anyway because they're hopelessly addicted to videogames. Activision knows this, and they will never concede because they do not have to. When gamers wake the fuck up and start acting like responsible consumers, maybe we can see some rational pricing schemes. 
  
15 dollars though, in the grand scheme isn't too much, and all the MW2 fans will certainly get their money's worth in hours of entertainment. Personally, I'm not gonna spend the money because I grew tired of the multiplayer a long time ago, so  I wouldn't spend 10 or 5 on it either.

Posted by foggel

Pricing the stimulus pack for less money would be pointless from a marketing point of view. The demand is very high, and the potential sales are extreme. That said I think it's worth it.

Posted by Babble

Because people have already paid $60 for MW2? Most people feel that getting 5 multiplayer maps for 1/4 of the cost of the game is too much.  

Posted by agentboolen

I love classic gaming as much as the next guy, but none of the games they have on it are worth $3.  I would say $1 at most....  At this point if you want to play a game of Centipede that much I would just say download a copy of mame.