Support NeoGAF

Mass_Pincup · Oct 19, 2016

Suburban Thug said:
Isn't that why they make DLC?

And who are they going to sell the DLC to if they announce the real release date?

Or do you think that everyone are just going to cave in and buy early?

Because that's not gonna happen.

SoulUnison said:
This is just downright idiotic. You're yourself pointing out that these people are getting the exact same product they always have and were always going to, but now it's arbitrarily an extra $20 on "release day" and the community is fractured, but there's "no downside?" I can't honestly believe you think that way or that you're blind to what the complaint is. You're basically arguing that games can be increased in price by $20 across the board and there's "no downside!"

It's like your worldview is entirely self-contained, or you're saying "I have extra disposable income, so everybody should!"

The price is going to be cheaper, if you can't wait a couple of days to have this same product then I don't know what to say.

As it stands the community isn't fractured, you're just not a part if it as of now as is the vast majority of what the user base will be when the game actually release.

And for what its worth I don't pay to play a couple of days later and I never will, having thousands or millions of people playing a game before me as no downside to me and that's true. The only reason you don't like the practice is because you want to be one of the first to play those games. If not you would be like me and it wouldn't face you.

Suburban Thug · Oct 19, 2016

JayhawkerStL said:
How so? If you pay $80, you get the game early. Only people paying $80 have access.

If you pay $60, then you get the game earlier than people willing to pay $40. The $60 is still giving the people willing to pay more access to the game earlier.

Because the game is finished and consumers are forced to spend extra to play something they may have been anticipating for months or even years. To some it seems like a cheap cash grab at best, and a slippery slope to increased prices at worst. Some may feel they are being price-gouged. Do I find what EA and others are doing unethical or wrong? No, but I'm able to see why some would be angry.

Mass_Pincup said:
And who are they going to sell the DLC to if they announce the real release date?

Or do you think that everyone are just going to cave in and buy early?

Because that's not gonna happen.

Did you mean to quote me? You asked how developers are supposed to get paid post release and I asked if that's why they do DLC. You're going off on some other tanget. Or maybe I am confused.

chillybright · Oct 19, 2016

JayhawkerStL said:
Somebody explain to me how some gamers paying $80 to play sooner is different than people paying $60 to play the game sooner than people waiting for the price drop.

There is none. Only now the initial "release" costs $20 more.

And that somehow doesn't hurt consumers.

Hexa · Oct 19, 2016

SoulUnison said:
One is a natural effect of supply and demand. Games that are no longer the hot new release go down in price over time.
The other is a purely artificial scarcity/delay intended to milk consumers for as much as they're worth while providing absolutely nothing of any new value.

This isn't about one community paying more to play "earlier," it's about the usual consumer community being held back for a few extra days and then still being charged the same $60.

Trying to argue for this from the stance of the publishers is just purely sycophantic.

Supply is essentially a non-factor when it comes to game prices.
They're $60 standard, because that's what people are willing to pay at launch usually. Some games are less than that because publishers don't think people will pay that much at launch. Just as there are some games that will generate more revenue being sold for less, it seems publishers are also realizing that there are some games that can be sold for more. However, just straight up raising the price would be really bad PR. Hence this soft increase that pretty much follows the exact same model as before, just starting at a higher price that falls more quickly.

Kayhan · Oct 19, 2016

They are not playing the game early.

You are playing the game late.

Chabbles · Oct 19, 2016

Parents will be effected when their kid is begging them to pony up another $50 to get the new Bonestorm, 2 weeks early so that they can play co-op with timmy down the street.

hawk2025 · Oct 19, 2016

I mean, people have won Nobel Prizes explaining this, decades ago.

Look up price discrimination and the airlines problem. It applies directly to videogames by discriminating price in time, rather than quality. The good sold to the lower value customers is distorted downwards to maximize profits.

Suburban Thug · Oct 19, 2016

hawk2025 said:
I mean, people have won Nobel Prizes explaining this, decades ago.

Look up price discrimination and the airlines problem. It applies directly to videogames by discriminating price in time, rather than quality. The good sold to the lower value customers is distorted downwards to maximize profits.

Excuse me if I'm speaking out of turn but isn't this how capitalism works?

Mass_Pincup · Oct 19, 2016

Suburban Thug said:
Did you mean to quote me? You asked how developers are supposed to get paid post release and I asked if that's why they do DLC. You're going off on some other tanget. Or maybe I am confused.

The post you quoted was questioning the notion that at some point in the future, the early access were going to be months instead of days.

I argued that it would not be possible because if they restrict their games access for months, there would be way less people buying then hence way less revenue which would not be sustainable for a AAA studio.

chillybright said:
There is none. Only now the initial "release" costs $20 more.

And that somehow doesn't hurt consumers.

How does that hurt consumers?

hawk2025 · Oct 19, 2016

Suburban Thug said:
Excuse me if I'm speaking out of turn but isn't this how capitalism works?

Yes?

Mass_Pincup said:
How does that hurt consumers?

You are being incredibly obtuse. If people pay more for the exact same product, they are hurt in an economic sense. This is not controversial.

RPGam3r · Oct 19, 2016

BattleMonkey said:
This is like people who defended early days of DLC, and Horse Armor.

And look at us today, DLC everywhere, season passes galore, games feeling incomplete, etc

And this is bad? I'll defend DLC then and now, hell I bought the horse armor and do not regret it.

Hell next someone will tell me preorders are bad...

SoulUnison · Oct 19, 2016

RPGam3r said:
And this is bad? I'll defend DLC then and now, hell I bought the horse armor and do not regret it.

Hell next someone will tell me preorders are bad...

Pre-Orders ARE bad. Where have you been?

Mass_Pincup · Oct 19, 2016

hawk2025 said:
You are being incredibly obtuse. If people pay more for the exact same product, they are hurt in an economic sense. This is not controversial.

How can they be hurt when they made a conscious choice.

No one forces you to pay to play 7 days early.

Edit: The fact that they pay means that they're ok with it plain and simple.

stephen08 · Oct 19, 2016

It's basically a way of betting people against their better judgement.

If the game is ready to be released then it should just be released. It's already annoying enough when games launch without review copies but this is basically that along with a nice hearty price gouge for the privilege of it.

wapplew · Oct 19, 2016

I see this as early retail leak copy, officially.

SirPinkyNose · Oct 19, 2016

Betty said:
Well for now it's just days.

Then maybe it'll be weeks.

Then months.

Then games will just naturally cost way more.

Then you can pay even MORE to play a few days earlier.

Then a few weeks earlier.

Then months.

They are at years stage with some of beta/early access title.

hawk2025 · Oct 19, 2016

Mass_Pincup said:
How can they be hurt when they made a conscious choice.

No one forces you to pay to play 7 days early.

Dear lord.

smurfx · Oct 19, 2016

Betty said:
Well for now it's just days.

Then maybe it'll be weeks.

Then months.

Then games will just naturally cost way more.

Then you can pay even MORE to play a few days earlier.

Then a few weeks earlier.

Then months.

i doubt anybody goes down this route. if they make you wait too long while people are already playing the game then they risk losing new potential buys to other games. if they made you wait months then why bother getting the game new? part of the reason people buy new games is because they are new.

SoulUnison · Oct 19, 2016

Mass_Pincup said:
How can they be hurt when they made a conscious choice.

No one forces you to pay to play 7 days early.

You're being ridiculously obtuse about this.
This is such a weird issue to throw your weight so fully behind if you're just an average consumer.

"I don't mind paying more, and you're just a wimp if you hate prices being arbitrarily/manipulatively raised."

Seriously. What publisher do you work for? How much are you being paid to make it seem like this isn't something people should/do care about?

We're moving towards a future where we have less and less rapport with development houses while titles are being made, there's massive review embargoes, if a title is lucky enough to get a review release at all, and yet they're raising prices because they know so many people don't have the patience or self-control to wait to see if something is worth their $60, much less $80. There is an intentional environment where devs and publishers are making sure you know as little about a game as possible EXCEPT for their custom tailored marketing materials, so that when the title is available at whatever price they try to gouge you at, you're as excited as possible with the least information available.

We're being treated like idiots and you're applauding.

Suburban Thug · Oct 19, 2016

Mass_Pincup said:
The post you quoted was questioning the notion that at some point in the future, the early access were going to be months instead of days.

I argued that it would not be possible because if they restrict their games access for months, there would be way less people buying then hence way less revenue which would not be sustainable for a AAA studio.

How does that hurt consumers?

Ah sorry, new to the forum. I'm not sure restricted access months early would negatively impact sales. I literally have no clue. But if this catches on I could easily see it going to something less extreme, like a few weeks early.

Maximo · Oct 19, 2016

Weren't people bitching about the Deus Ex augment your preorder, if a certain number of people preordered it the game would "release early".
Not only are people preordering to get it early it's only a minority that gets it earlier if they pay more, Idk preordering in general seems insane to me let alone paying for more.

RPGam3r · Oct 19, 2016

SoulUnison said:
Pre-Orders ARE bad. Where have you been?

That was rhetorical, I don't think preorders are bad either.

Mass_Pincup · Oct 19, 2016

SoulUnison said:
You're being ridiculously obtuse about this.
This is such a weird issue to throw your weight so fully behind if you're just an average consumer.

"I don't mind paying more, and you're just a wimp if you hate prices being arbitrarily/manipulatively raised."

Seriously. What publisher do you work for? How much are you being paid to make it seem like this isn't something people should/do care about?

I don't pay for it though, that's what I keep telling you.

The only reason you may be "affected" by this is because you have a big urge to be among the first to play a game, which is not my case.

Suburban Thug said:
Ah sorry, new to the forum. I'm not sure restricted access months early would negatively impact sales. I literally have no clue. But if this catches on I could easily see it going to something less extreme, like a few weeks early.

No worries but yeah, a few weeks is way more likely to happen.

chillybright · Oct 19, 2016

hawk2025 said:
I mean, people have won Nobel Prizes explaining this, decades ago.

Look up price discrimination and the airlines problem. It applies directly to videogames by discriminating price in time, rather than quality. The good sold to the lower value customers is distorted downwards to maximize profits.

The spirit is similar but it's not really a true price discrimination. Price discrimination is about producers exploiting consumer surplus on the SAME product. And in econimics date is an important property of product as consumers are generally assumed as impatient. A day-1 Battlefield 1 is a different and better product than a day-10 copy. So in this csse EA is actually releasing 2 different products for two groups of consumers. An analogy would be that non-fresh eggs being sold at a discount.

SoulUnison · Oct 19, 2016

Mass_Pincup said:
I don't pay for it though, that's what I keep telling you.

The only reason you may be "affected" by this is because you have a big urge to be among the first to play a game, which is not my case.

You didn't fully comprehend what I posted, because you're not really responding to what I said.

chillybright · Oct 19, 2016

Mass_Pincup said:
How can they be hurt when they made a conscious choice.

No one forces you to pay to play 7 days early.

Edit: The fact that they pay means that they're ok with it plain and simple.

So consumers are not hurt by making a conscious choice.

And EA is not better off by making a conscious choice.

But the transction is $20 more somehow? And neither party is affected??

Seriously if you still dont think consumers are hurt by paying more, just google consumer surplus.

Bumblebeetuna · Oct 19, 2016

It doesn't hurt you, we gamers on the Internets just like to complain and whine about every fucking thing. People can wait a few days or suck it up and buy the super duper early deluxe ultra version. There is no "slippery slope" to worry about here.

outunderthestars · Oct 19, 2016

ITT: people who don't have the same game buying habits as me are ruining gaming.

SoulUnison · Oct 19, 2016

Bumblebeetuna said:
It doesn't hurt you, we gamers on the Internets just like to complain and whine about every fucking thing. People can wait a few days or suck it up and buy the super duper early deluxe ultra version. There is no "slippery slope" to worry about here.

I think it's pretty justified to "wine and complain" about being given the same products for a higher price while simultaneously being split into new, arbitrary consumer "tiers/brackets."

There's very much of a "slippery slope" to worry about here, like there was with DLC, preorders and microtransactions.
If you can't see the slope I have to assume you either don't have the insight or experience with the industry's history to notice it, or you're actively trying to downplay its significance, possibly because you're being employed or otherwise paid to.

Robobandit · Oct 19, 2016

Betty said:
Well for now it's just days.

Then maybe it'll be weeks.

Then months.

Then games will just naturally cost way more.

Then you can pay even MORE to play a few days earlier.

Then a few weeks earlier.

Then months.

they already do that.. it's called paying full price vs waiting for a discount because you're patient and don't need to play right away.

If you don't like it, then don't support companies that do it, imo. (not singling you out specifically, I just wanted to comment that it's already between paying more or waiting months for the game to be discounted..)

RPGam3r · Oct 19, 2016

chillybright said:
So consumers are not hurt by making a conscious choice.

And EA is not better off by making a conscious choice.

But the transction is $20 more somehow? And neither party is affected??

Seriously if you still dont think consumers are hurt by paying more, just google consumer surplus.

If this hurts consumers than all day one purchases must be painful as hell cause all* games depreciate with time... oh that's weird time seems to be a theme here.

"Don't spend your money how you want, I am here to protect you."

Mass_Pincup · Oct 19, 2016

SoulUnison said:
You didn't fully comprehend what I posted, because you're not really responding to what I said.

The only think you asked is if I work for a publisher which was a lame way of trying to discredit my opinion by showing a potential bias.

Sorry if I don't respond to that kind of pointless accusation.

SoulUnison · Oct 19, 2016

Mass_Pincup said:
The only think you asked is if I work for a publisher which was a lame way of trying to discredit my opinion by showing a potential bias.

Sorry if I don't respond to that kind of pointless accusation.

I'd mostly like to hear some sort of justification for this from you that doesn't sound like "people that have less money than me should suffer" and/or "my gaming habits and preferences are universal and anyone who thinks or acts differently is wrong."

People generally get upset when a product's price is significantly raised with no increase in content or quality.

Raonak · Oct 19, 2016

Exploratory said:
Online passes? Well...so?
Micro Transactions? Well...so?
Expensive season passes that don't tell you what you're getting? Well...so?
Early Access (as in real early access not play a few days early)? Well...so?

Fixed?

Renekton · Oct 19, 2016

hawk2025 said:
I mean, people have won Nobel Prizes explaining this, decades ago.

Look up price discrimination and the airlines problem. It applies directly to videogames by discriminating price in time, rather than quality. The good sold to the lower value customers is distorted downwards to maximize profits.

Do videogames have limited seats?

chillybright · Oct 19, 2016

RPGam3r said:
If this hurts consumers than all day one purchases must be painful as hell cause all* games depreciate with time... oh that's weird time seems to be a theme here.

"Don't spend your money how you want, I am here to protect you."

Hurt is not necessarily painful otherwise how could anyone cope with the pain when buying anything ? We are currently talking about hurt economically as EA just charged you $20 more by providing day-1 players the exact same experience as before. They are "hurt" in a sense that they could use this $20 for say Mountain Dew but it is now in EA's bank accout, while the players have gained nothing or lost the Mountain Dew they coild have bought.

Sure you could just do not buy it. But again you lose the fun of day1 Battlefield 1 experience with Mountain Dew because EA's new pricing scheme.

Bumblebeetuna · Oct 19, 2016

SoulUnison said:
I think it's pretty justified to "wine and complain" about being given the same products for a higher price while simultaneously being split into new, arbitrary consumer "tiers/brackets."

There's very much of a "slippery slope" to worry about here, like there was with DLC, preorders and microtransactions.
If you can't see the slope I have to assume you either don't have the insight or experience with the industry's history to notice it, or you're actively trying to downplay its significance, possibly because you're being employed or otherwise paid to.

@bolded - EA has always had customer brackets. They have done deluxe editions of their games for years. Companies always do collectors editions and other trivial shit. If there is a market for it, they'll cater to it. I haven't bought any of them, and it hasn't affected me. Customer brackets exist in pretty much every other entertainment market, why would games be any different?

I don't believe this compares with DLC or microtransactions simply because it doesn't make any sense for it to extend much if any further than this point. This is a MP focused game, it doesn't make sense for them to release it a week or a month early for people with more money. In this market you try to sell as much as you can in the launch window. This is just an easy way for them to make more money.

lol @ the last part.. jeebus.

kyser73 · Oct 19, 2016

SoulUnison said:
You're being ridiculously obtuse about this.
This is such a weird issue to throw your weight so fully behind if you're just an average consumer.

"I don't mind paying more, and you're just a wimp if you hate prices being arbitrarily/manipulatively raised."

Seriously. What publisher do you work for? How much are you being paid to make it seem like this isn't something people should/do care about?

We're moving towards a future where we have less and less rapport with development houses while titles are being made, there's massive review embargoes, if a title is lucky enough to get a review release at all, and yet they're raising prices because they know so many people don't have the patience or self-control to wait to see if something is worth their $60, much less $80. There is an intentional environment where devs and publishers are making sure you know as little about a game as possible EXCEPT for their custom tailored marketing materials, so that when the title is available at whatever price they try to gouge you at, you're as excited as possible with the least information available.

We're being treated like idiots and you're applauding.

You mean like the gaming industry before the internet? When all we had were magazines reliant on publisher advertising to survive? When you might have to wait up to 4 weeks after a game was released to see reviews for it? Where you were completely reliant on reading words to convey how good animation & gameplay was because everything was in print?

Yeah, somehow we managed back then. Probably weren't obsessed with OMFGDAYZERO!!!! need.

If a consumer has zero self-control that they utterly have to have something early that they pay a premium to do so, more fool them.

gamingPotato7 · Oct 19, 2016

The early enlister version offers more stuff along with early access. If its worth it is up to those who buy it. Maybe they wont repeat it and this doesnt become a trend.

And sincerely, I find this as valid as special editions, dlc whatever. It is not more content but it is access to it, which has value to many. I dont understand why gamers, imo, are so resistant to premium stuff. There are people willing to spend more than you in a higher tier of some product. The same kind of reactions we seen with the PS4 Pro. If you dont have money to get premium it doesnt mean the cheaper version is less fun or it doesnt work. The market would never allow such a thing

sheamus · Oct 19, 2016

Kayhan said:
They are not playing the game early.

You are playing the game late.

But that's your choice not theirs.you could choose to play the game early but you just choose not to. it's no different than waiting for a sale

dd492941 · Oct 19, 2016

I personally like this. I know that opinion sounds terrible but it makes sense. Developers need to sell their games and sell them at their highest value to make a decent living. Yes, some big publishers may get richer from this and very well could be considered greedy, but this model could also help the little guys and everyone in between.
It can cost a lot to make a game, and take years to come out and if I'm a fan of the game and developers, I can help support them even more and get rewarded with a couple extra hours or days with the game early. I don't see the problem. It's a perk for supporting them.
If I don't want to support them, or penny pinching atm, or just don't have time or budget to pay full price for a game then I won't. I won't get to play early either.
This is a business as well as hobby for many people as well as a lively hood. This is not charity.
They can charge whatever they choose to. They can sell their game any way they want to. It's a free market. Don't like it? Don't buy it. Find another hobby, no one cares. Do what you want to do.
I will,myself, gladly continue to buy full price games from my favorite developers when I can and I'd gladly pay more to play early if i can afford itbut since I don't have a huge budget for games most games I will just have to wait to play them when they go on sale. That's life.
Sorry for the long post.

Bolivar687 · Oct 19, 2016

It doesn't hurt you but it's fair game to criticize EA taking advantage of people who can't wait, the same as we criticize microtransactions capitalizing on the addiction centers of their players brains. Charging $20 extra for the early release and throwing in a couple battle packs as compensation is a bad deal. Everyone has free will but it's harder for some to refuse.

To be fair, CoD has never charged extra for early access, it's always the same price tier, just a preorder bonus.

SoulUnison · Oct 19, 2016

kyser73 said:
You mean like the gaming industry before the internet? When all we had were magazines reliant on publisher advertising to survive? When you might have to wait up to 4 weeks after a game was released to see reviews for it? Where you were completely reliant on reading words to convey how good animation & gameplay was because everything was in print?

Yeah, somehow we managed back then. Probably weren't obsessed with OMFGDAYZERO!!!! need.

If a consumer has zero self-control that they utterly have to have something early that they pay a premium to do so, more fool them.

The internet is decades old now. I'm going to accept the premise that things were "ok" (which is highly debatable) back in the "good ol' days" and thus we should be fine with them returning. We have tons of trouble nowadays with preorders and cryptic season passes and manipulative DLC and microtransactions, and that's WITH the full force of the internet and word of mouth behind most things.

We have tons of trouble in a world that the most transparent we've been able to manage, and you're still looking to the 90s with rose tinted glasses?

And you keep acting like people who want to buy a product on day 1 are some kind of rabid obsessive consumer which is incredibly disingenuous. People make plans for when things release and generally like to stick to those plans. People get excited for things and experience anticipation. I don't buy EVERY game I buy or even MOST of the games I buy Day 1 or at $60, but that doesn't mean the choice should be taken away from people or that they should be charged more for the same.

This is, to me, something sort of akin to the online gaming-gambling communities.
Companies aren't creating additional content, they're just finding ways to monetize harder and harder, and it's already the largest single entertainment industry.
The companies that are large enough to risk the poor optics of trying something like this are the same companies that have no need of additional lining in their pockets.

It's pure greed betting on consumer's impulsiveness and financial illiteracy.

RPGam3r · Oct 19, 2016

chillybright said:
Hurt is not necessarily painful otherwise how could anyone cope with the pain when buying anything ? We are currently talking about hurt economically as EA just charged you $20 more by providing day-1 players the exact same experience as before. They are "hurt" in a sense that they could use this $20 for say Mountain Dew but it is now in EA's bank accout, while the players have gained nothing or lost the Mountain Dew they coild have bought.

Sure you could just do not buy it. But again you lose the fun of day1 Battlefield 1 experience with Mountain Dew because EA's new pricing scheme.

Its not day one though it is day - N. We can't pretend that time is of no importance. As I said the day one purchasers are already paying $20 more "for the exact same experience," compared to someone who waits a bit.

It is up to consumers to gauge the importance of their money, to choose Dew over earlier access. If the market at large doesn't like something it will die on its own, it doesn't need financial policing to protect others from doing what they want.

Alienfan · Oct 19, 2016

Games are unbelievably expensive to make now, coupled with having the lowest price tags in decades; and taking into consideration that the number of purchases isn't exactly growing, something needs to give, Early access is the most consumer friendly "milk extra money from the consumer" policy I think I've seen - and I'll gladly welcome it over online passes and more day one DLC. People thinking the AAA landscape can continue to grow in size without extra ways of making money from the consumer are delusional. Games are one of the few products that haven't increased in price with inflation, and we're starting to see those effects now.

Mass_Pincup · Oct 19, 2016

SoulUnison said:
I'd mostly like to hear some sort of justification for this from you that doesn't sound like "people that have less money than me should suffer" and/or "my gaming habits and preferences are universal and anyone who thinks or acts differently is wrong."

People generally get upset when a product's price is significantly raised with no increase in content or quality.

I don't know what you want me to say, I don't support those practices but in the grand scheme of things they don't hurt me.

I explained my viewpoint and I disagreed with yours.

But you keep putting things into my mouth, like how come you say this:

people that have less money than me should suffer

When I don't even partake into this early access/early pay thing?

I also don't pay for micro transaction or buy DLCs, season passes (The Witcher and DA:I being the only exception) and I don't pay for online. I perfectly know that my gaming preferences aren't universal and I never claimed as much.

The thing is that as of now in my opinion (as I already said before) the only reason this would bother you is because you want to be able to play the game among the first, not to be "left out" so to speak. This isn't a case where they release the game at 80$ and later on announced that it would be sold at a lower price (in that case MW Remastered would be a more legitimate case and one where I would agree) but you know when and where the game will be sold at the regular price.

I just don't understand the need to play Day 1, that's all. If you're upset as you said, don't support it if most people were doing it wouldn't be viable.

chillybright · Oct 19, 2016

RPGam3r said:
Its not day one though it is day - N. We can't pretend that time is of no importance. As I said the day one purchasers are already paying $20 more "for the exact same experience."

It is up to consumers to gauge the importance of their money, to choose Dew over earlier access. If the market at large doesn't like something it will die on its own, it doesn't need financial policing to protect others from doing what they want.

Of course it doesn't. And I never argued it needs to be regulated. But compare the current situation to "the old days", you cannot say the consumers are not economically hurt while saying they paid $20 more for the same experience.

RPGam3r · Oct 19, 2016

chillybright said:
Of course it doesn't. And I never argued it needs to be regulated. But compare the current situation to "the old days", you cannot say the consumers are not economically hurt while saying they paid $20 more for the same experience.

In the old days I paid more than $60 for games with way less avenues to inform myself as a consumer.

No one is hurt if they opted in to pay more to gain access at an earlier time, same goes for day one purchasers are also not hurt for opting in at day one price.

RichiRamjag · Oct 19, 2016

I think premium should have gotten you that early pass without that $129 bullshit. I'd rather they not do early access at all though. Thankfully, I have EA access, so I play it on that and then PS4 on launch. That'll show em!

Alienfan · Oct 19, 2016

chillybright said:
Of course it doesn't. And I never argued it needs to be regulated. But compare the current situation to "the old days", you cannot say the consumers are not economically hurt while saying they paid $20 more for the same experience.

Couldn't you argue it's a slightly different experience though? As bad as it sounds, the thrill and excitement generated by playing the game before launch is going to be unique to that early access version,and therefore to some, worth the additional $20.00 (you could maybe liken it to buying fast pass tickets or something, ultimately the same "product/service" you can just pay extra and skip the wait).

Support NeoGAF

Explain to me how games like Battlefield and Gears being played early hurts me

Banned

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Banned

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Member

get some go again

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Member

Banned

Banned

Member

Member

Banned

Banned

Banned

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Banned

Member

Member

Banned

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Similar threads