This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="ZebethOrZebes"][QUOTE="Truth_Hurts_U"][QUOTE="Verge_6"]...Disc formats have absolutely NOTHING to do with the pricing of the games.
Verge_6
Exactly... Dev's were the ones saying it costs more to make games. They wanted the price increase. They got it.
Then why are games still the same price on the Wii?Because they don't cost as much to make.
Exactly.
[QUOTE="SecretPolice"] They have the " right " to charge 60.00 as the consumer has the " right " to refuse.TheCrazed420
Except they are sitting in a much more powerful position than us. Our "right" means nothing because if I refuse to pay that price, I'm basically not gonna be playing games.
Huh - you cant refute my statement and yet ack as though it is wrong. You, no matter how you put it are not forced to purchase what you find as something overpriced, hence why i have yet to purchase a Wii ! ;)Also, this "they cost more to make" argument is specious at best. CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE SAME GAME COSTS TWO DIFFERENT PRICES ON TWO DIFFERENT SYSTEMS. THINK ABOUT IT. SHADOWRUN FOR 360COST THE SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY TO DEVELOP AS SHADOWRUN FOR PCBECAUSE THEY'RE THE SAME GAME.
Get that "higher cost of development"BS out of here.ZebethOrZebes
So you mean to tell me that the average game on the Wii costs the same to develop as the same game on the Xbox 360 or PS3? Because that's what we're saying.
[QUOTE="ZebethOrZebes"]Also, this "they cost more to make" argument is specious at best. CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE SAME GAME COSTS TWO DIFFERENT PRICES ON TWO DIFFERENT SYSTEMS. THINK ABOUT IT. SHADOWRUN FOR 360COST THE SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY TO DEVELOP AS SHADOWRUN FOR PCBECAUSE THEY'RE THE SAME GAME.
Get that "higher cost of development"BS out of here.The_Game21x
So you mean to tell me that the average game on the Wii costs the same to develop as the same game on the Xbox 360 or PS3? Because that's what we're saying.
Here is my theory.
They are subsidizing the cost of the console. You pay 10 extra bucks because they are losing money on the consoles. They sell you the console at a loss, knowing you are going to buy software for it. They charge publishers a licensing fee to put the game out on the console, which gets passed on to the consumer..Typically 1st party games are cheaper because they don't have to pay the fee..I guess this time around the console losses and development costs are high enough for them to not do this.
Pc game developer don't have to worry about console fees, therefore the price is cheaper.
Again this is me guessing, but I think it makes sense, it's a bunch of things that I have heard from various sources over the years..
[QUOTE="The_Game21x"][QUOTE="ZebethOrZebes"]Also, this "they cost more to make" argument is specious at best. CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE SAME GAME COSTS TWO DIFFERENT PRICES ON TWO DIFFERENT SYSTEMS. THINK ABOUT IT. SHADOWRUN FOR 360COST THE SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY TO DEVELOP AS SHADOWRUN FOR PCBECAUSE THEY'RE THE SAME GAME.
Get that "higher cost of development"BS out of here.ZebethOrZebes
So you mean to tell me that the average game on the Wii costs the same to develop as the same game on the Xbox 360 or PS3? Because that's what we're saying.
Me and my homies? :lol:
Anyways, you mean to tell me that the increased development costs have nothing at all to do with a game's price? You mean to tell me that licensing fees are the sole reason why games are as expensive as they are? If that's true then you're more naive than I thought...
Development costs are a huge part of the price of games. If they weren't, then games would be a lot cheaper. In upping the standard price of games to $60, they may have added a buffer for the increased costs of development, licensing fees, marketing, etc. And yes, getting an extra $10 from the consumer is a huge increase.If they sell a million copies of a $50 game then theygross $50,000,000. At $60, they gross $60,000,000. That's an increase of $10,000,000 or 20 percent which will probably be enough to cover the increased development costs, licensing fees and the aggressive marketing campaign. So don't come at me with that "It's teh licensing fees! :cry:" BS.
Also, take noteof thefact that I said nothing aboutShadowrun, as I already mentioned before in this thread that it's an exception to the rule. Why it's less on the PC is a choice by MS and I never said it wasn't so it's definitely not a "horridlack of logic". :|
now i know some of you are like wtf are you talking about. well let me get to the point. I am very confused , i am a pc gamer who buy games that come in DVD format, and then im a 360 gamer who buy games in dvd format. now what im very confused about is MS. For instance, games that are PC /360 , why does MS have the right to charge 60.00 when i can buy the game for 50.00. Both using the same format, both are made by the same dev team.
now i know fanboys are going so say well the dev teams needs to get paid for more poly count , HD resolution, sound etc(which makes no sense since pc games been having that for years). So does MS really have a excuse for this? the answer is no. but oh well the fanboys wil find some excuse for them, even thougt the games like bioshock, alan wake, oblivion are the exact same thing for the pc and 360. just pc you get to have mods that are free.
so what are your thoughts?
alfy13
Inflation mostly is the cause I believe. Wii was able to get away without the price hike because it wasnt that much of a shift in dev costs since they were already use to this type of hardware from last gen.Hence some of the ease of them shoting some horrible ports from last gen. (Im looking at you ubisoft)
And with the case of the PC you dont have to worry about those pesky license rights that you have on a console. MS has to make their share on their business design. They release a console where the take a lose on each console sold a for a period of time. Its also a plus for PC devs to but their games on something people use for mostly only gaming. So MS gets their cut so these companies can double or more their user base.
But I do understand the greatness of those free Mods you get for the PC that you get from Fans of the community. Only problem I ever have with them is that for every awesome mod you get 4 that will cause issues with your games and PC. I have learned my lesson on that and I make sure to do lots of research on said mod before I use it.
I have no problem paying for added content as long as it isn't a crap thing like Horse armor..
[QUOTE="ZebethOrZebes"][QUOTE="The_Game21x"][QUOTE="ZebethOrZebes"]Also, this "they cost more to make" argument is specious at best. CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE SAME GAME COSTS TWO DIFFERENT PRICES ON TWO DIFFERENT SYSTEMS. THINK ABOUT IT. SHADOWRUN FOR 360COST THE SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY TO DEVELOP AS SHADOWRUN FOR PCBECAUSE THEY'RE THE SAME GAME.
Get that "higher cost of development"BS out of here.The_Game21x
So you mean to tell me that the average game on the Wii costs the same to develop as the same game on the Xbox 360 or PS3? Because that's what we're saying.
Me and my homies? :lol:
Anyways, you mean to tell me that the increased development costs have nothing at all to do with a game's price? You mean to tell me that licensing fees are the sole reason why games are as expensive as they are? If that's true then you're more naive than I thought...
Development costs are a huge part of the price of games. If they weren't, then games would be a lot cheaper. In upping the standard price of games to $60, they may have added a buffer for the increased costs of development, licensing fees, marketing, etc. And yes, getting an extra $10 from the consumer is a huge increase.If they sell a million copies of a $50 game then theygross $50,000,000. At $60, they gross $60,000,000. That's an increase of $10,000,000 or 20 percent which will probably be enough to cover the increased development costs, licensing fees and the aggressive marketing campaign. So don't come at me with that "It's teh licensing fees! :cry:" BS.
Also, take noteof thefact that I said nothing aboutShadowrun, as I already mentioned before in this thread that it's an exception to the rule. Why it's less on the PC is a choice by MS and I never said it wasn't so it's definitely not a "horridlack of logic". :|
[QUOTE="Forza_2"]nah accuall your right, MS is the only one doing that. because MS is the only one using DVD's this gen. /shrugDamn you M$ ! You're the only one doing that.. wait wait. You aren't !!!
:lol:
alfy13
Its because Microsoft is still trying to make money on their console which they still aren't at the moment, so to make up for that they have to charge somewhere. It seems to me that you do not know how businesses, and corporations work, because if you did you would understand that this is business. I mean you do pay outrageous prices for gasoline dont ya. Well think of that concept, and then you will understand why Microsoft charges $60 a game.
But Shadowrun is made by FASA and PDZ and Kameo by Rare, both Microsoft first-parties. No licensing fees, IOW.Here is my theory.
They are subsidizing the cost of the console. You pay 10 extra bucks because they are losing money on the consoles. They sell you the console at a loss, knowing you are going to buy software for it. They charge publishers a licensing fee to put the game out on the console, which gets passed on to the consumer..Typically 1st party games are cheaper because they don't have to pay the fee..I guess this time around the console losses and development costs are high enough for them to not do this.
Pc game developer don't have to worry about console fees, therefore the price is cheaper.
Again this is me guessing, but I think it makes sense, it's a bunch of things that I have heard from various sources over the years..
heretrix
And as for the "recoup the losses" argument, the 360 now sells at profit.
That's just the way it is. MS loses a ton of money releasing hardware and make it back (and then some) over the next 5 years with royalties.
I'm not sure you can really blame them for this......I mean if you are going to question something it should be MS forcing developers to charge for ANY update they do for a game even though they want to give it for free. Now that I do think MS is cheating people but they wouldn't do it if there weren't peopple there buying it up. Stop buying it and MS will change their way of thinking.
If that's the case, Mario Bros. 3 would have been 20 bucks when it came out instead of 90 bucks.
Yeah, Shadowrun is the exception to the rule, when Oblivion cost 40 bucks on the PC and 60 bucks on the 360 and PS3.
And C&C 3 is 50 bucks for PCwhile the 360 version is 60 bucks
And Call of Juarez is 60 bucks on 360 and 50 bucks on PC.
And Just Cause is 40 bucks on PC while being 60 bucks on 360.
It's strange just how many "exceptions" there are to this supposed hard and fast rule of yours.ZebethOrZebes
Super mario Bros 3 was released in a time when there was no such thing as a rigid pricing structure for all games released on consoles. That's why it cost so much.
All of the games you mentioned are third party games. They have to pay licensing fees which they don't have to pay on the PC.
I see what you're trying to do here though, and it's not going to work because I can say the same thing about the Wii.
Splinter Cell Double Agenton the Wii: $50 On PC it's only $30
Need For Speed Carbon: $40 on Wii and only a paltry $20 on the PC.
I could find additional examples if you'd like, but I've made my point.
So, with this in mind, there's no way the extra $10 for PS3 and Xbox 360 games can be attributed to increased development costs? Don't forget, developers have to pay licensing fees to develop on the Wii as well.
[QUOTE="ZebethOrZebes"]If that's the case, Mario Bros. 3 would have been 20 bucks when it came out instead of 90 bucks.
Yeah, Shadowrun is the exception to the rule, when Oblivion cost 40 bucks on the PC and 60 bucks on the 360 and PS3.
And C&C 3 is 50 bucks for PCwhile the 360 version is 60 bucks
And Call of Juarez is 60 bucks on 360 and 50 bucks on PC.
And Just Cause is 40 bucks on PC while being 60 bucks on 360.
It's strange just how many "exceptions" there are to this supposed hard and fast rule of yours.The_Game21x
Super mario Bros 3 was released in a time when there was no such thing as a rigid pricing structure for all games released on consoles. That's why it cost so much.
All of the games you mentioned are third party games. They have to pay licensing fees which they don't have to pay on the PC.
I see what you're trying to do here though, and it's not going to work because I can say the same thing about the Wii.
Splinter Cell Double Agenton the Wii: $50 On PC it's only $30
Need For Speed Carbon: $40 on Wii and only a paltry $20 on the PC.
I could find additional examples if you'd like, but I've made my point.
So, with this in mind, there's no way the extra $10 for PS3 and Xbox 360 games can be attributed to increased development costs? Don't forget, developers have to pay licensing fees to develop on the Wii as well.
[QUOTE="heretrix"]But Shadowrun is made by FASA and PDZ and Kameo by Rare, both Microsoft first-parties. No licensing fees, IOW.Here is my theory.
They are subsidizing the cost of the console. You pay 10 extra bucks because they are losing money on the consoles. They sell you the console at a loss, knowing you are going to buy software for it. They charge publishers a licensing fee to put the game out on the console, which gets passed on to the consumer..Typically 1st party games are cheaper because they don't have to pay the fee..I guess this time around the console losses and development costs are high enough for them to not do this.
Pc game developer don't have to worry about console fees, therefore the price is cheaper.
Again this is me guessing, but I think it makes sense, it's a bunch of things that I have heard from various sources over the years..
HuusAsking
And as for the "recoup the losses" argument, the 360 now sells at profit.
It sure as hell wasn't selling at a profit in the beginning when those prices were set, andit's not like they are going to turn around and say "Oh, we made enough money, let's drop prices!" that's not how it works. Theyset upa pricing structureand are sticking with it.. As for the first party part, I believe I asnwered that in my earlier post. Development costs are higher and they decided to pass that off to you, the customer.[QUOTE="HuusAsking"][QUOTE="heretrix"]But Shadowrun is made by FASA and PDZ and Kameo by Rare, both Microsoft first-parties. No licensing fees, IOW.Here is my theory.
They are subsidizing the cost of the console. You pay 10 extra bucks because they are losing money on the consoles. They sell you the console at a loss, knowing you are going to buy software for it. They charge publishers a licensing fee to put the game out on the console, which gets passed on to the consumer..Typically 1st party games are cheaper because they don't have to pay the fee..I guess this time around the console losses and development costs are high enough for them to not do this.
Pc game developer don't have to worry about console fees, therefore the price is cheaper.
Again this is me guessing, but I think it makes sense, it's a bunch of things that I have heard from various sources over the years..
heretrix
And as for the "recoup the losses" argument, the 360 now sells at profit.
It sure as hell wasn't selling at a profit in the beginning when those prices were set, andit's not like they are going to turn around and say "Oh, we made enough money, let's drop prices!" that's not how it works. Theyset upa pricing structureand are sticking with it.. As for the first party part, I believe I asnwered that in my earlier post. Development costs are higher and they decided to pass that off to you, the customer.1. You think Microsoft doesn't realize consumers are price-conscious? They must, considering they release Platinum discounts.2. So Microsoft's development costs are higher than those of a third party, ehough to offset the increase felt by the third party when paying the licensing fee?
Cheating is a pretty strong accusation. The prices may not be what you agree to, but MS isn't cheating anybody. If you paid for DL content that didn't exist, that's cheating people. They can charge what they want, it's up to you not to buy it.That's just the way it is. MS loses a ton of money releasing hardware and make it back (and then some) over the next 5 years with royalties.
I'm not sure you can really blame them for this......I mean if you are going to question something it should be MS forcing developers to charge for ANY update they do for a game even though they want to give it for free. Now that I do think MS is cheating people but they wouldn't do it if there weren't peopple there buying it up. Stop buying it and MS will change their way of thinking.
darthogre
[QUOTE="The_Game21x"][QUOTE="ZebethOrZebes"]If that's the case, Mario Bros. 3 would have been 20 bucks when it came out instead of 90 bucks.
Yeah, Shadowrun is the exception to the rule, when Oblivion cost 40 bucks on the PC and 60 bucks on the 360 and PS3.
And C&C 3 is 50 bucks for PCwhile the 360 version is 60 bucks
And Call of Juarez is 60 bucks on 360 and 50 bucks on PC.
And Just Cause is 40 bucks on PC while being 60 bucks on 360.
It's strange just how many "exceptions" there are to this supposed hard and fast rule of yours.ZebethOrZebes
Super mario Bros 3 was released in a time when there was no such thing as a rigid pricing structure for all games released on consoles. That's why it cost so much.
All of the games you mentioned are third party games. They have to pay licensing fees which they don't have to pay on the PC.
I see what you're trying to do here though, and it's not going to work because I can say the same thing about the Wii.
Splinter Cell Double Agenton the Wii: $50 On PC it's only $30
Need For Speed Carbon: $40 on Wii and only a paltry $20 on the PC.
I could find additional examples if you'd like, but I've made my point.
So, with this in mind, there's no way the extra $10 for PS3 and Xbox 360 games can be attributed to increased development costs? Don't forget, developers have to pay licensing fees to develop on the Wii as well.
Again, you fail to attribute any of the price to the rising development costs. So you mean to tell me the extra $10 has absolutely nothing to do with development costs? Well whatever. I can see now that I'm wasting my time arguing with you about this so I'm done with it.
I'm not saying it has nothing to do with it at all, I'm saying it has nothing to do with it when it comes to the same game being sold at two different prices on two different systems.And the simple factyou can make a profit off a game sold at 10 bucks if you get it into enough people's hands.
If games cost more to make and the only way developers could see themselves profitting from their games, then they would charge as much on the PC as they do on the 360. The simple fact is, they don't, and Shadowrun is not an exception to any rule.
[QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="organic_machine"]Getting into the game industry with the xbox has costed them more than they have made... thats whyThe_Game21x
Sony and Nintendo do it too though.
But of course, MS is the only one taking the blame for it...
Sony and Nintendo dont make computers so yeah thats why MS is taking the blame for it since they control both PC and the Xbox360.well it actually depends on what 2 systems. The PC doesn't have the licensing issues assoicated with a console so therefore it would cost more.I'm not saying it has nothing to do with it at all, I'm saying it has nothing to do with it when it comes to the same game being sold at two different prices on two different systems.And the simple factyou can make a profit off a game sold at 10 bucks if you get it into enough people's hands.
ZebethOrZebes
If games cost more to make and the only way developers could see themselves profitting from their games, then they would charge as much on the PC as they do on the 360. The simple fact is, they don't, and Shadowrun is not an exception to any rule.
[QUOTE="ZebethOrZebes"]well it actually depends on what 2 systems. The PC doesn't have the licensing issues assoicated with a console so therefore it would cost more.I'm not saying it has nothing to do with it at all, I'm saying it has nothing to do with it when it comes to the same game being sold at two different prices on two different systems.And the simple factyou can make a profit off a game sold at 10 bucks if you get it into enough people's hands.
heretrix
If games cost more to make and the only way developers could see themselves profitting from their games, then they would charge as much on the PC as they do on the 360. The simple fact is, they don't, and Shadowrun is not an exception to any rule.
[QUOTE="The_Game21x"][QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="organic_machine"]Getting into the game industry with the xbox has costed them more than they have made... thats whyRichieRich555
Sony and Nintendo do it too though.
But of course, MS is the only one taking the blame for it...
Sony and Nintendo dont make computers so yeah thats why MS is taking the blame for it since they control both PC and the Xbox360.[QUOTE="heretrix"][QUOTE="ZebethOrZebes"]well it actually depends on what 2 systems. The PC doesn't have the licensing issues assoicated with a console so therefore it would cost more.I'm not saying it has nothing to do with it at all, I'm saying it has nothing to do with it when it comes to the same game being sold at two different prices on two different systems.And the simple factyou can make a profit off a game sold at 10 bucks if you get it into enough people's hands.
ZebethOrZebes
If games cost more to make and the only way developers could see themselves profitting from their games, then they would charge as much on the PC as they do on the 360. The simple fact is, they don't, and Shadowrun is not an exception to any rule.
[QUOTE="heretrix"][QUOTE="ZebethOrZebes"]well it actually depends on what 2 systems. The PC doesn't have the licensing issues assoicated with a console so therefore it would cost more.I'm not saying it has nothing to do with it at all, I'm saying it has nothing to do with it when it comes to the same game being sold at two different prices on two different systems.And the simple factyou can make a profit off a game sold at 10 bucks if you get it into enough people's hands.
If games cost more to make and the only way developers could see themselves profitting from their games, then they would charge as much on the PC as they do on the 360. The simple fact is, they don't, and Shadowrun is not an exception to any rule.ZebethOrZebes
no they dont, their actually not allowed to anymore, after a court ruling stopped them from doing so.
[QUOTE="ZebethOrZebes"][QUOTE="heretrix"][QUOTE="ZebethOrZebes"]well it actually depends on what 2 systems. The PC doesn't have the licensing issues assoicated with a console so therefore it would cost more.I'm not saying it has nothing to do with it at all, I'm saying it has nothing to do with it when it comes to the same game being sold at two different prices on two different systems.And the simple factyou can make a profit off a game sold at 10 bucks if you get it into enough people's hands.
If games cost more to make and the only way developers could see themselves profitting from their games, then they would charge as much on the PC as they do on the 360. The simple fact is, they don't, and Shadowrun is not an exception to any rule.cobrax75
no they dont, their actually not allowed to anymore, after a court ruling stopped them from doing so.
[QUOTE="cobrax75"][QUOTE="ZebethOrZebes"][QUOTE="heretrix"][QUOTE="ZebethOrZebes"]well it actually depends on what 2 systems. The PC doesn't have the licensing issues assoicated with a console so therefore it would cost more.I'm not saying it has nothing to do with it at all, I'm saying it has nothing to do with it when it comes to the same game being sold at two different prices on two different systems.And the simple factyou can make a profit off a game sold at 10 bucks if you get it into enough people's hands.
If games cost more to make and the only way developers could see themselves profitting from their games, then they would charge as much on the PC as they do on the 360. The simple fact is, they don't, and Shadowrun is not an exception to any rule.ZebethOrZebes
no they dont, their actually not allowed to anymore, after a court ruling stopped them from doing so.
read the settlement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft
from then on, they were required to share the source code to windows free of charge.
[QUOTE="The_Game21x"][QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="organic_machine"]Getting into the game industry with the xbox has costed them more than they have made... thats whyRichieRich555
Sony and Nintendo do it too though.
But of course, MS is the only one taking the blame for it...
Sony and Nintendo dont make computers so yeah thats why MS is taking the blame for it since they control both PC and the Xbox360.So I guess the Sony Vaio Line of computers and laptopsdoesn't exist right? :roll:
MS does not control PC gaming. They earn no money from games developed on the Windows OS that they didn't develop themselves or publish since PC devs don't have to pay licensing fees to develop for the Windows OS.
[QUOTE="RichieRich555"][QUOTE="The_Game21x"][QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="organic_machine"]Getting into the game industry with the xbox has costed them more than they have made... thats whyheretrix
Sony and Nintendo do it too though.
But of course, MS is the only one taking the blame for it...
Sony and Nintendo dont make computers so yeah thats why MS is taking the blame for it since they control both PC and the Xbox360.It's too bad The_Game or whatever that guy's name is left this thread, so he would be able to see that licencing fees ARE indeed what makes PC games and 360 games disparate in their pricing.
Thank you for the link, cobrax.ZebethOrZebes
When did I say that licensing fees had nothing to with the discrapancies in price between PC and Xbox 360 games? I never said that. Not once. What I did say was that the increase in pricing between generations has something to do with the rising development costs, something you disputed at every turn until after I left the thread.
[QUOTE="Verge_6"][QUOTE="ZebethOrZebes"][QUOTE="Truth_Hurts_U"][QUOTE="Verge_6"]...Disc formats have absolutely NOTHING to do with the pricing of the games.
The_Game21x
Exactly... Dev's were the ones saying it costs more to make games. They wanted the price increase. They got it.
Then why are games still the same price on the Wii?Because they don't cost as much to make.
Exactly.
[QUOTE="heretrix"][QUOTE="RichieRich555"][QUOTE="The_Game21x"][QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="organic_machine"]Getting into the game industry with the xbox has costed them more than they have made... thats whyHuusAsking
Sony and Nintendo do it too though.
But of course, MS is the only one taking the blame for it...
Sony and Nintendo dont make computers so yeah thats why MS is taking the blame for it since they control both PC and the Xbox360.[QUOTE="The_Game21x"][QUOTE="Verge_6"][QUOTE="ZebethOrZebes"][QUOTE="Truth_Hurts_U"][QUOTE="Verge_6"]...Disc formats have absolutely NOTHING to do with the pricing of the games.
ZebethOrZebes
Exactly... Dev's were the ones saying it costs more to make games. They wanted the price increase. They got it.
Then why are games still the same price on the Wii?Because they don't cost as much to make.
Exactly.
It's been well over 4 games that been $50. MS does not set the game price. Dev's do.
MS has been charging $50 for their first party games. Halo 3 will be $60 base.
It's the greedy Dev's to blame... Not MS. Who ever thinks Microsoft sets game prices don't know what there talking about.
Truth_Hurts_U
Microsoft charged $50 for a couple of games, Halo 3 will be $60, it's not Microsofts fault, they're not setting the prices?
I mean, you do realize how stupid that sounds?
They obviously do set the prices of their own games. And they charge a licensing fee for third party developers, which is presumably the same amount as the price differential between PC and console games. Who ever said they set the prices of third party titles? Everyone's just saying they're influencing it, adding to it with their fee. Microsoft is to blame for 360 games being more expensive than PC games.
And I'm sorry, 4 games, not 3. Whoopdeoo. That leaves how many? They stopped charging $50 like a year ago since they realized they could get away with charging $60. I guess that's not Microsoft's fault either. Or Shadowrun. It's "the dev's" fault.
Those damn greedy devs. They should cut the price in half so they have to sell 1 million copies to break even. The increased development costs is just a myth. It's all a conspiracy.
When did XBL get brought up in this?
Truth_Hurts_U
That excuse sucked.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment