Am I Too Old?!?!

[YamydeAragon]

The time when software was delivered in a way I actively enjoyed is now long past. ...

Thats up to you if you don't enjoy it anymore. I still enjoy lotro a lot, just like the very 1st day i try this game.

Way to throw random political viewpoints into a discussion about games ...

Not political, economical, if you destroy your resources, how you expect to make money? How you expect to make stuffs that require money? & what you make after will be worth more because you destroyed the resources. We are destroying the natural equilibrium of planet & that is a snowball that is destroying everything, even our economy. Thats why you have to pay more for everything now.

[Kril]

For the original poster, the way I look at stuff like this is in the following way. How many hours of enjoyment do you think you'll get out of the digital download? 10? 20? 100? Simply average the cost per enjoyable hour and then decide if that's worth it or not. If I go to the movie, I'll spend 8$ for a couple hours of enjoyment. If I spend $60 on something that gives me 60 hours of entertainment, it's at least a better deal than a movie.

Sure, I'll get enjoyment out of LOTRO, but I would get enjoyment out of LOTRO with the content I already have, I have lots to go through still with my characters still, so what does this $60 give me? Access to a few more quests really, and a horse...

Whereas, view some of the following pre-orders and special editions:

GTA V

Bioshock

Watchdogs

Assassin's Creed IV

(admittedly, some of these are hitting a higher price mark ($130 or so))

IDK, if LOTRO was to release a box set HD Premium with a miniature of HD to match my Gondor, I'd gladly pay $130. But $60 for a digital upgrade (well, upgrade is free, we get that anyway, the $60 is the unlock more or less (yes, $40 if we talk standard)), just feels a little expensive.

Not so foreign. I just want the compelling new content to include every adventuring playstyle. That's what a great many of us started asking Turbine for back in 2007.

Unfortunately (and this is going to come back and get me flamed especially in my own whine thread...), you can't please everyone with every playstyle... My wife for instance, HATES Dragon Age because of how open the world is, she liked FFXIII (? Lightning) because of how linear it was, and I'm the exact opposite, I want to explore... Well, you just can't create a game to please people who like open world games that will also please those who like linear content, and keep it challenging for both playstyles...

[Khafar]

you can't please everyone with every playstyle...

Well, you'd best try very hard to please everyone in all the playstyles you wish to keep, or there will be "winners" and "losers" in a limited resource situation, with a great many of the "losers" leaving over time. That's what quite a lot of the heat in the forums has been about recently, and I understand why those who are hot under the collar feel the way they do.

I was a beta tester for DDO, and at some point just before it launched, they responded to complaints about the game not supporting solo very well past the early levels with a statement which basically said "this is a group adventuring game, and we have no plans to change that". Not for new content, itemization, nada. I took them at their word, stopped playing the beta that day, and didn't buy it when it launched. Never looked at it again until it went F2P and I noticed that their "no plans" had changed quite a bit in the intervening time.

I simply have no interest in a "group-centric game", just as I'm sure many other people have little to no interest in a game primarily focused on casuals or solo players. Turbine's working on a MOBA, another game I have zero interest in. It's probably a smart move for them, though, since its cannibalization of this game should be quite low.

Anyway, sorry for the /derail. I won't respond on this topic again here.

Khafar

[Sapience]

Ok... not pure profit, but the money that goes to pay for the office and the servers and the game devs paychecks... that money would come out of both the $60 physical and the $60 digital products. However, once all that is taken out of the $60, the money it cost to manufacturer all the stuff that came with the $60 physical product, and then physically ship that product somewhere... the space it took on a shelf (costs money)... all the money that went into THAT, is now just profit when compared to paying $60 for a download.

If 20% of that $60 was wrapped up in the printing and materials and packaging and discs and extra little statues and dodads.... shouldn't that 20% be passed on as savings to the customer? Shouldn't an expansion that provides the equivalent in-game bonuses and play, now only cost $48 instead of $60, since it costs so much less to actually get it out and into the "hands" of the player?

You're actually looking at it backwards. The cost of development is what goes into the pricing of a digitial good. Making a physical copy actually increases (sometimes dramatically) the cost. Throw in posters, manuals, and other items each with their own printing costs and that number goes up. Don't take the physical and cost down from the digital price for not including physical extras, take the digital and cost UP to cover those, often major, additional costs of a physical. Now add in distribution costs and retailer markups and you can add several more dollars on top of that.

[jparker]

Yes the correct way to look at it is. Any possible way to maximize profit for Turbine will be done with no thought to the consumer. We will change game format and slowly release content as it serves us not the consumer.

Some things done with the best intentions have the worst results. Thanks for making LOTRO like every other game. It's like Obamacare now. It will be done our way. Get your popcorn cause this train wreck is coming.

[Hurin]

Economics 101

The price of a good in a free economy is based on the consumer's willingness to pay that price. It has very little to do with the cost of actually producing the good to be sold.

If it's too expensive, many potential customers won't pay. So the merchant loses money he would otherwise have earned by selling more at a lower price.

If it's too cheap, customers will gladly pay and more people will buy it, but the merchant selling the good won't make as much as if they sold it for more (even to fewer people).

The ideal price is the one where customers pay it while not feeling too abused, and the amount of money earned by the merchant is maximized because the price was neither too high (driving away customers) nor too low (more customers, but price is so low that profits suffered).

The cost of producing, marketing, and distributing an item only comes into play when those costs become prohibitive. If they're too high, the merchant won't sell the item. As such, they set a price "floor". . . but other than that have very little bearing on the price charged to the consumer in a free economy.

To be blunt: A merchant is under no moral or legal obligation to always sell you what you want at some arbitrary percentage over their production costs. They have paid their money to make this item available to you. What they paid is their business. What you're willing to pay for it is yours.

Which is why I always shake my head at the moral indignation people express when they find out how much their $500 phone actually costs to produce (etc.). It really should have no bearing unless you want to live in a command economy where somehow people would create computer games and iPhones just because they're good people who want you to have neato things.

[Silverfoot]

Well put......

Economics 101

The price of a good in a free economy is based on the consumer's willingness to pay that price. It has very little to do with the cost of actually producing the good to be sold.

If it's too expensive, many potential customers won't pay. So the merchant loses money he would otherwise have earned by selling more at a lower price.

If it's too cheap, customers will gladly pay and more people will buy it, but the merchant selling the good won't make as much as if they sold it for more (even to fewer people).

The ideal price is the one where customers pay it while not feeling too abused, and the amount of money earned by the merchant is maximized because the price was neither too high (driving away customers) nor too low (more customers, but price is so low that profits suffered).

The cost of producing, marketing, and distributing an item only comes into play when those costs become prohibitive. If they're too high, the merchant won't sell the item. As such, they set a price "floor". . . but other than that have very little bearing on the price charged to the consumer in a free economy.

To be blunt: A merchant is under no moral or legal obligation to always sell you what you want at some arbitrary percentage over their production costs. They have paid their money to make this item available to you. What they paid is their business. What you're willing to pay for it is yours.

Which is why I always shake my head at the moral indignation people express when they find out how much their $500 phone actually costs to produce (etc.). It really should have no bearing unless you want to live in a command economy where somehow people would create computer games and iPhones just because they're good people who want you to have neato things.

[bongart]

You're actually looking at it backwards. The cost of development is what goes into the pricing of a digitial good. Making a physical copy actually increases (sometimes dramatically) the cost. Throw in posters, manuals, and other items each with their own printing costs and that number goes up. Don't take the physical and cost down from the digital price for not including physical extras, take the digital and cost UP to cover those, often major, additional costs of a physical. Now add in distribution costs and retailer markups and you can add several more dollars on top of that.

Actually, I'm not looking at it backwards.

The LOTRO Mines of Moria Complete Edition was released for $20
http://www.ign.com/articles/2008/12/...omplete-review

The LOTRO Mines of Moria Collector's Edition was released for $60 and included a BUTTLOAD of extras. So... let's review.

For JUST the digital content that was the Mines of Moria... and for that $20 you got Eregion, Moria, and Lothlorien... you got an equivalent amount of "stuff" as you are supposed to be getting with the $60 Helm's Deep release.

However, for that same $60... with the Mines of Moria Collector's Edition, you got all that digital content PLUS
-antique book style packaging
-three maps, one made of coth
-gold plated replica of the One Ring
-LotR Art Book
-soundtrack CD
-3 in-game rewards unique to the collector's edition
-LOTRO forum badge (does this still exist, or has it been removed with the site revamps?)

Now... I suspect you are going to suddenly point out that this was what you meant... but the issue here is that it was what I meant when you quoted me as well.. and decided to tell me I had it wrong. That for that same $60, you got a ton of PHYSICAL stuff that actually cost money to manufacture, as well as a ton of DIGITAL content. Now, with Helm's Deep, that $60 only provides the same amount of DIGITAL content that $20 provided when Mines of Moria came out. That means that there's $40 unaccounted for there.

If $20 covered the dev costs before, since Mines of Moria Complete could be sold for $20, why can't Helm's deep be sold for $20? Are you actually trying to make us believe that Helm's Deep provides three times the content as Mines of Moria Complete, since it costs three times as much?

[bongart]

Economics 101

The price of a good in a free economy is based on the consumer's willingness to pay that price. It has very little to do with the cost of actually producing the good to be sold.

...

Which is why I always shake my head at the moral indignation people express when they find out how much their $500 phone actually costs to produce (etc.). It really should have no bearing unless you want to live in a command economy where somehow people would create computer games and iPhones just because they're good people who want you to have neato things.

Really?

http://news.yahoo.com/lcd-makers-pay...192034294.html

There's an article a couple of years old now, dealing with the price fixing suit brought against LCD manufacturers. Seems that the moral indignation people expressed when they found out how much their $500 Televisions actually cost to produce had quite a large bearing on things.

When retailers decide to TRIPLE the price of something, and they are the ONLY source of it... then what they are doing is wrong. That is not supply and demand. That is highway robbery.

If LOTRO players stood up and said "Hey, $60 is too much for this, I'm not paying.", they would lose the game they had invested in altogether... since Turbine would just turn around and shut it down due to it becoming unprofitable. The players know this, and so they realize they are backed against a wall. AKA "If I wish to continue playing LOTRO at all, I'm going to have to consider paying this $60... on top of all the other money I've paid."

[Reximus]

If $20 covered the dev costs before, since Mines of Moria Complete could be sold for $20, why can't Helm's deep be sold for $20? Are you actually trying to make us believe that Helm's Deep provides three times the content as Mines of Moria Complete, since it costs three times as much?

Costs change over time, and Moria was released while the game was still Sub only, as was Siege of Mirkwood, so some of the costs were offset by subs. Every digital expansion since F2P has been fairly consistently priced, and digital extras still cost money and man hours to make.

[Glumposneak]

ETA: Just had a look and your talking about the Premium addition, the basic addition is $39 (so £29 for me). That's still a little steep but I would consider it depending on the content and game play.

Is it really that steep though?

If you get 6 months of enjoyment out of the expansion that's cost you £4.84 a month or approx £1.11 a week
If you get 3 months enjoyment that's cost you £9.67 a month or £2.22 a week

Yesterday I spent £1.20 on two cadburys halloween choccy eggs that I grabbed at the checkout while paying £12 for 8 500ml cans of Speckled Hen beer and I bet I buy more cans before the end of next week

Most people I know myself included, think nothing of spending a few £ on a pint/burger/choccy bar/magazine/sandwich etc and when you think how long the enjoyment of those last and how much we waste on things like that over the period on one month, £29 seems like a really good deal in comparison.

[goldensilence]

If $20 covered the dev costs before, since Mines of Moria Complete could be sold for $20, why can't Helm's deep be sold for $20? Are you actually trying to make us believe that Helm's Deep provides three times the content as Mines of Moria Complete, since it costs three times as much?

so in 6 years time, no one gets a raise? cost of living didn't go up at all? none of their equipment had to be replaced/upgraded in that time? simple day-to-day expenses have stayed the same for you in that time? how about benefits? we all know how those are getting cheaper every year right? the list goes on an on. i can't really think of any single tangible item that is cheaper today (or even the same price) than 6 years ago. can you?

[bongart]

digital extras still cost money and man hours to make

True. However, I am not advocating that Helm's Deep be released for free, am I? I am not saying that it should be given away, thus the man hours would be compensated for with a more affordable pricing schematic.

Costs change over time

This is true. However, costs should not have tripled since 2008.

Moria was released while the game was still Sub only, as was Siege of Mirkwood, so some of the costs were offset by subs.

The game model did NOT switch over to being completely F2P. The subscription price is $15 per month, with a $5/month savings if you pay for a year ahead. So, some of the costs are STILL being offset by subs. Yes, some people dropped the subscription model in favor of playing free. However, THAT is being offset by all the F2P players purchasing Turbine Points, and quest-only expansion packs, etc. So, there is still money coming in from multiple places.

Every digital expansion since F2P has been fairly consistently priced

If you mean OVERpriced, then you'd be more accurate. I've not been saying that HD is priced too high compared to RoR... I'm saying the current model of pricing these as high as they are in general is wrong. Sure... RoR basic is now $20. It was $40.... what... people are still playing, and still leveling characters, new players are still coming in... if it's only worth $20 now, doesn't that mean that it was never worth $40 to begin with? Yes... I get it that prices drop over time, and in the gaming and digital entertainment world, companies try to get as much as they can during the initial release to capitalize on the excitement of consumers wanting to have an expansion pack right away... but that is part of the problem. That is no different than scalping tickets at a stadium event for a 400% markup.

When you sell what amounts to a DLC, and you charge what amounts to the price of a NEW GAME, you are kind of raking your customer base over the coals. You do that enough, and you will push your customers away. At this rate, the more players that Turbine alienates, the higher the price of the next release will be.

[Timmer01]

... I also remember when you could buy a whole & satisfying lunch with 25 cents & so much other stuffs.

Really? Twenty-five cents for a whole & satisfying lunch??? I'm in my 60's and I don't ever remember that kind of price for a complete meal. I remember when a pack of cigarettes cost about that much, and when the admission to a movie was 50 cents (but the popcorn and soda would cost you a buck fifty more) and a lot of other things that are so much more expensive now. Anyone remember when your parents would tell you not to talk too long on long distance phone calls because the bill could go up five or ten dollars?

But 25 cents for a meal? That sounds more like what my father (born in 1905) used to say, and if you're here posting on this forum I doubt you're quite that old.

As to the effect that subscriptions had on keeping the earlier prices down, multiple gaming websites have written that Turbine tripled its income when it went F2P so I'm doubting that had as much of an influence on the previously lower prices as one might think. And to the comment in a different post about prices for other items haven't tripled in six years, how about gasoline? Groceries? My family health insurance is about to double in one year.

As for myself, I figure that when there's new content and characters to level I spend 15 - 20 hours a week playing LOTRO. For something to entertain me that much (for 6 years, in fact) I'm willing to throw a few dollars at it from time to time. The fact that pre-ordering Helm's Deep gets you 2,000 TP was a serious consideration for me. Nevertheless, if money is extremely tight then it's only prudent to wait until the expansion comes out and see how popular it is. At that point you can make a better informed decision.

But either way, buying HD now or buying it after the launch, if you continue to play that's the price you will pay. If you feel that's unfair there's always Farmville.

[Tobias_R]

Hi,

To me the cost/hours of fun is incredible good in lotro. VIP and expansion-packs is not the problem. A couple of pints and a movie for stuff i enjoy 100'ds of hours is nothing i complain about for sure. I do agree in the 'physical fluff'-department though. But hey, I'm one of those who still hang around in record-shops and buy LP's so what do i know...

One of my favourite artists has through the years had an interesting take on digital content purchase, often something like this:
A) download, bad quality (mp3)
B) download, high quality
C) usb-stick with print, high quality
D) CD with booklet
E) signed CD
F) signed CD + printed material + posters + the whole enchilada...
Price ranging from almost free (a) to 250 bucks (f)

A perfect solution, everyone can choose. (His newest record has a very nice surprice, Vinyl LP + digital download 24 bit lossless, that is something i call options!)

Ok, i realize LotRO can't be distributed on C-30'ies*, but only B is availible, i wish D,E,F would be as well!

Regards
/T

*Fellow dinosaurs will get the joke...

[YamydeAragon]

Really? Twenty-five cents for a whole & satisfying lunch??? I'm in my 60's and I don't ever remember that kind of price for a complete meal. I remember when a pack of cigarettes cost about that much, and when the admission to a movie was 50 cents (but the popcorn and soda would cost you a buck fifty more) and a lot of other things that are so much more expensive now. Anyone remember when your parents would tell you not to talk too long on long distance phone calls because the bill could go up five or ten dollars?

But 25 cents for a meal? That sounds more like what my father (born in 1905) used to say, and if you're here posting on this forum I doubt you're quite that old...

Well, in my place the people don't eat cigarates & coke & popcorn is considered nasty. Also maybe i am that old or you are not 60. But im certain that im not lieing.

[bongart]

so in 6 years time, no one gets a raise? cost of living didn't go up at all? none of their equipment had to be replaced/upgraded in that time? simple day-to-day expenses have stayed the same for you in that time? how about benefits? we all know how those are getting cheaper every year right? the list goes on an on. i can't really think of any single tangible item that is cheaper today (or even the same price) than 6 years ago. can you?

I don't know. What I do know, is that in 2008, the federal minimum wage was $6.25 an hour. It was raised in 2009 to $7.25. Guess what it is now? The Federal minimum wage is *still* $7.25 an hour.

Here's a tangible item I can think of that is the same price... a new, low end laptop. Wait.. a mid-range laptop. No, wait... a High end laptop. Actually... what I'm pointing at is the price you can expect to pay when you walk into a store like Best Buy or Walmart and want to purchase a laptop. The models will change, and the hardware specifications will change, but the target prices are about the same. Case in point... if you want to go purchase a good, solid, new gaming laptop and you want it to be compatible with not only games that are out today, but also to be able to handle games that will come out in the future (for a few years), you can expect to pay $1000-$1200. Are there deals if you want to cut a few corners like buy a model that came out months ago, or take some details off the specs? Sure. But you've always been able to do that. And... 5 years ago, if you wanted to go and purchase the same kind of thing (a gaming laptop capable of playing the newest games with future compatibility) you'd expect to pay... $1000-$1200. Specific numbers? Asus G71G-RX05 was $1200 in 2009. Asus G750JW-BBI7N05 is $1250 now. Are the specs comparable? Not really. I'm not talking about comparing specs to specs. I'm talking about what you would expect to pay, for what you want to buy. That target price hasn't risen significantly in years. You can trace it back to 2004 if you like. A Toshiba A75 with a P4-3.33ghz HT processor (which was a great laptop at the time) was priced at... ready... $1200. People were making less money then... but the target price didn't really rise.

You can do this with televisions too.... actually, you'll see the target price drop a little over time with TVs.

No one gets a raise in 6 years time? I hate to break it to you, but across the USA, there is a MAJORITY of people making the same money now that they were making 6 years ago. Maybe not you. Even with the very minor rise in the federal minimum wage, the problem is that across the boards the LIVING wage has risen. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_wage In the USA, the Living wage has risen to the point where we are now living in a Dual Income society... you need the equivalent of two incomes to meet your needs, where one income used to suffice. Unfortunately there isn't a logic to it either.

For example. I overheard a Washington State water board employee tell a customer that water is not a renewable resource, and this was why they were increasing the rates on city water. This was just outside the temperate rain forest on the Olympic peninsula... well, near that. An area with an Annual Rainfall of about 87 inches. Where it is illegal to cistern falling rain water within city limits. Water falling from the sky is not a renewable resource? Or... and this was another great one... when power demands drop in the area, do you know what they do? They reduce power production. Rather than continue to produce power and sell it to neighboring states, they reduce power production. Do they reduce the power bill to the consumers? No. Do you know how they reduce the power production? They shut down the WIND FARMS! Rather than reducing the natural gas consumption for the natural gas power plants, and actually costing the consumers less, they turn off the FREE wind powered sources.

So the rise in the living wage is not because of a normal inflation. Greed powers it. Greed is what caused the large corporations that were failing to require a bailout... where those executives immediately turned around and gave themselves bonuses and vacations and spa treatments. All of that kind of economic abuse caused the living wage to rise, while the mean income did NOT rise with it.

If the game devs are making 3 times what they were making 6 years ago... then they should be turning out a product that is 3 times better. That means addressing the concerns of players (memory leaks, bad performance), and not cutting staff as Turbine has ACTUALLY done. So in truth, there are fewer devs working on these expansions than there were.... so if there are fewer people doing the work, and they have only seen a 50% rise in pay over 6 years (not 300% rise), then the game shouldn't cost more than 50% more.

[Hurin]

Really?

Yes, really. I specified a "free economy". . . price-fixing violates that principle. Criminal activities do not indict a system. They merely mean criminals should be treated as criminals.

There's an article a couple of years old now, dealing with the price fixing suit brought against LCD manufacturers. Seems that the moral indignation people expressed when they found out how much their $500 Televisions actually cost to produce had quite a large bearing on things.

No, what had a bearing on things was the fact that the merchants were no longer competing and therefore artificially increasing the amount of money a consumer was required to pay. That's not analogous to what Turbine is doing. Turbine has no competition for this game and its world. What you have a problem with is their monopoly. Monopolies, too, do violence to the concept of a free market. But in different ways.

If LOTRO players stood up and said "Hey, $60 is too much for this, I'm not paying.", they would lose the game they had invested in altogether... since Turbine would just turn around and shut it down due to it becoming unprofitable. The players know this, and so they realize they are backed against a wall. AKA "If I wish to continue playing LOTRO at all, I'm going to have to consider paying this $60... on top of all the other money I've paid."

I've been saying something similar for years. I just don't see Turbine as the "villain" in this for doing what any monopoly-holding company would do. The customers need to speak out about how prices are too high. And they need to not purchase things that are too expensive. But if they can't help themselves and pay the high price anyways, it's not exactly fair to attribute evil motivations to Turbine for merely charging what their customers are (obviously) willing to pay.

I don't think we disagree as much as we agree. But unfortunately, from the cost of retail boxes to LCD manufacturers colluding to fix prices, you have a habit of dancing around non-applicable examples and arguments in making your case.

Your case is merely thus: Turbine's prices are too high! And they have us by the <blanks>! I don't want to pay that much!

That doesn't meant they're evil (or engaging in "robbery"). That just means they've set a price for their expansions where they think their customers will still be willing to purchase it.

Now, if you want to see real abuses of free market concepts, look more deeply into the LotRO Store business model. Where they are the only providers of all goods and have total control over how much you will need and want those goods within that game. Essentially, they can sell you a coat, then make the world colder the next day so that you need a better one. That is where things get shady.

--H

Edit: P.S. citing consumer, commoditized, tangible goods is not a terribly compelling argument either.

[Eartholloth]

This is true. However, costs should not have tripled since 2008.

Take a look around everything is now sky high in prices. The cost for food now is just insane. For example a jar of peanut butter now costs me around 4.00-5.00 a jar! Years ago like back in 2008 I could get the same jar for 2.00-2.50. If you have not noticed they have also cut back in there portions for food but the prices are much higher. Sadly the cost for everything just keeps going higher & higher.

As for HD, I won't be buying until it is 50% off which I am guessing will be around Christmas time.

[cdq1958]

I am old enough to remember a 25 cent lunch and a nickel coke in a glass bottle (and real silver or gold coins, with the silver ones still circulating), but I would not call it satisfying in the least. Jack's Hamburger's for 15 cents so good, good, good. You'll go back, back, back, to Jack's, Jack's, Jack's for more, more, more. A small Jack's now is over a dollar; but what's changed is not that today's burger is more expensive. Actually, it's not. What's changed is the currency (not silver, not copper, not gold).

When I started driving gas was a quarter a gallon and went to 33 cents (full service). Compared to the time it took me to earn a tank of gas, today's gas is not that much more expensive (much more of the price today is taxes, by the way).

Value is in the eyes of the buyer, price asked in the eyes of the seller. The sale happens when both get more of what they want than what they gave up was worth it (subjectively) to them.

[bongart]

No, what had a bearing on things was the fact that the merchants were no longer competing and therefore artificially increasing the amount of money a consumer was required to pay. That's not analogous to what Turbine is doing. Turbine has no competition for this game and its world. What you have a problem with is their monopoly. Monopolies, too, do violence to the concept of a free market. But in different ways.

What you said was... "Which is why I always shake my head at the moral indignation people express when they find out how much their $500 phone actually costs to produce (etc.). It really should have no bearing unless you want to live in a command economy where somehow people would create computer games and iPhones just because they're good people who want you to have neato things."
... to which I replied with the link about the price fixing involved with LCD televisions. You said you shake your head at people getting upset at inflated prices, and I pointed out where there WERE inflated prices worth getting upset at. It was not in relation to Turbine and what they are doing. I was in no way pointing out that Turbine is guilty of Price fixing. I was merely pointing out that people getting upset when they find out that their $500 item costs far less than that to manufacture actually sometimes have a valid gripe... as was the case with LCD televisions and the price fixing that was being done by the major manufacturers.

I've been saying something similar for years. I just don't see Turbine as the "villain" in this for doing what any monopoly-holding company would do... Monopolies, too, do violence to the concept of a free market. But in different ways.

So.. monopolies and monopoly-holding companies are bad... but Turbine isn't bad for doing what any monopoly-holding company would do? Again, you were talking about a free market, but monopolies don't work well in a free market, so what Turbine is doing doesn't work well in a free market... so the whole Free market thing wouldn't really apply when talking about what Turbine is doing? Just trying to wrap my head around the whole thing.

The customers need to speak out about how prices are too high.

They are, and have been. In this thread, just as one example of where.

And they need to not purchase things that are too expensive. But if they can't help themselves and pay the high price anyways, it's not exactly fair to attribute evil motivations to Turbine for merely charging what their customers are (obviously) willing to pay.

When you are opposed to the high rates your electric company is charging you... what recourse do you have? I don't mean that you could spend tens of thousands of dollars (if not hundreds of thousands) to attempt to set up some kind of alternative energy rig (solar, wind, etc) in your back yard. I mean, what CHEAPER alternative do you have? You don't have one. Oh... you could go without. People did live that way for a long time, so it's really just a matter of convenience actually. And honestly, it's more about the initial release price versus waiting 6 months to a year to purchase it at a reduced price. However, if people stopped buying the pre-releases or the initial releases and decided to hold out until the price dropped, Turbine would just maintain the higher prices for longer periods of time. It *is* fair to attribute evil motivations to Turbine for what they are doing, because it is not that they are MERELY charging what the customers are willing to pay... they have reduced the staff that are producing the product, they have reduced (Removed) the PHYSICAL portion of the product, they have reduced the quality of the product (performance issues - memory leaks, rubber banding, etc), and they have altered the model of the product (epic storylines used to be free for everyone but not anymore, and no offer of partial packages for purchase with turbine points) and still charge the same money while doing what monopoly-holding companies do. None of that is very "not-evil".

I don't think we disagree as much as we agree. But unfortunately, from the cost of retail boxes to LCD manufacturers colluding to fix prices, you have a habit of dancing around non-applicable examples and arguments in making your case.

I'm not dancing around anything. The point of DIGITAL PRODUCT+EXTENSIVE PHYSICAL PRODUCT=$60, versus DIGITAL PRODUCT ONLY=$60 is very clear. Sorry you can't just reduce that to saying it is an argument over retail boxes and expect that to make it go away. The point about LCD manufacturers and price fixing was brought in because *YOU* brought $500 iPhones into the discussion insisting people shouldn't get upset at manufacturing costs versus retail costs.

Your case is merely thus: Turbine's prices are too high! And they have us by the <blanks>! I don't want to pay that much!

I realize you want to make it look like this is what I'm saying, but it's not. My case is this. Turbine had a history of charging less for a better quality product, while providing more actual substance as well as gameplay. I have shown examples of this already. You attempted to reduce that to saying I'm making comments about retail boxes. Turbine has been systematically trimming down the quality and quantity of the product, while simultaneously trimming down the EXPENSES involved with making this product (aka, reduced staff), all the while inflating the price for the product.

That doesn't meant they're evil (or engaging in "robbery"). That just means they've set a price for their expansions where they think their customers will still be willing to purchase it.

No. They set their prices based on how they believed they could make more money per unit sold. Their first concern was most definitely not based on what their customers were still willing to pay. Their customers complained about the prices of RoR, and people didn't purchase it because it was too expensive. Turbine ALSO learned that if they wanted to make more money, they could no longer offer package deals for relatively small amounts of Turbine Points... which is why there won't BE a Quest Only pack for Helm's Deep for a fraction of the total cost of the expansion.

Now, if you want to see real abuses of free market concepts, look more deeply into the LotRO Store business model. Where they are the only providers of all goods and have total control over how much you will need and want those goods within that game. Essentially, they can sell you a coat, then make the world colder the next day so that you need a better one. That is where things get shady.

So... if Turbine is guilty of doing shady things like this, then we shouldn't look more closely at the shady things they are doing with their expansions. Ok. Message Received.

Edit: P.S. citing consumer, commoditized, tangible goods is not a terribly compelling argument either.

It sure is. It shows how a target price stayed the same in a related market, rather than increasing 300% over roughly the same period of time. Based on my example, LOTRO expansions could have (and should have) stayed at $20 for a disc only (or digital only) product, and $60 for Collector's Edition packages that offered physical, tangible accouterments to the product.

[Shukar]

Economics 101

The price of a good in a free economy is based on the consumer's willingness to pay that price. It has very little to do with the cost of actually producing the good to be sold.

If it's too expensive, many potential customers won't pay. So the merchant loses money he would otherwise have earned by selling more at a lower price.

If it's too cheap, customers will gladly pay and more people will buy it, but the merchant selling the good won't make as much as if they sold it for more (even to fewer people).

The ideal price is the one where customers pay it while not feeling too abused, and the amount of money earned by the merchant is maximized because the price was neither too high (driving away customers) nor too low (more customers, but price is so low that profits suffered).

The cost of producing, marketing, and distributing an item only comes into play when those costs become prohibitive. If they're too high, the merchant won't sell the item. As such, they set a price "floor". . . but other than that have very little bearing on the price charged to the consumer in a free economy.

To be blunt: A merchant is under no moral or legal obligation to always sell you what you want at some arbitrary percentage over their production costs. They have paid their money to make this item available to you. What they paid is their business. What you're willing to pay for it is yours.

Which is why I always shake my head at the moral indignation people express when they find out how much their $500 phone actually costs to produce (etc.). It really should have no bearing unless you want to live in a command economy where somehow people would create computer games and iPhones just because they're good people who want you to have neato things.

This is the lecture I give people when they ask me to give them a lower price on my Black Dyes. Frankly, I charge that much because people will reliably pay it. I like money and I especially like money that I can get for only a little work now that I have a Guild Scholar at Tier 6. Nobody *needs* Black Dye, no matter how much they may feel like it. Certainly not like they need access to affordable health insurance that pays for their healthcare, instead of going without until they collapse and require a trip to the emergency room, and racking up a lot more in costs than they would have if they had the wherewithal to see a doctor on a regular basis.

[Hurin]

What you said was... "Which is why I always shake my head at the moral indignation people express when they find out how much their $500 phone actually costs to produce (etc.). It really should have no bearing unless you want to live in a command economy where somehow people would create computer games and iPhones just because they're good people who want you to have neato things."
... to which I replied with the link about the price fixing involved with LCD televisions. You said you shake your head at people getting upset at inflated prices,

This is incorrect. I said I shake my head at people who get upset at a price based on how expensive the item is to produce. As such your (now repeated) citation of an article about price-fixing among competitors was (and remains) irrelevant.

and I pointed out where there WERE inflated prices worth getting upset at. It was not in relation to Turbine and what they are doing. I was in no way pointing out that Turbine is guilty of Price fixing. I was merely pointing out that people getting upset when they find out that their $500 item costs far less than that to manufacture actually sometimes have a valid gripe... as was the case with LCD televisions and the price fixing that was being done by the major manufacturers.

You keep equating "people being upset about inflated prices" with "price fixing" and "costs far less to manufacture". . . price fixing has nothing to do with the cost to manufacture. And people who are upset about price fixing are upset about manufacturers colluding to charge more than the market would otherwise bear. Again, nothing to do with the cost of manufacturing. So, again you keep bringing this up, and it's not relevant.

So.. monopolies and monopoly-holding companies are bad... but Turbine isn't bad for doing what any monopoly-holding company would do? Again, you were talking about a free market, but monopolies don't work well in a free market, so what Turbine is doing doesn't work well in a free market... so the whole Free market thing wouldn't really apply when talking about what Turbine is doing? Just trying to wrap my head around the whole thing.

Yes, but what you and I may see as a "monopoly" because we are oh-so-outraged about a price we don't want to pay may not in fact be a monopoly in the eyes of the law or even an uninvolved, dispassionate observer. Though it may pain you to admit it, there's more than one way to look at this and the perspective of an aggrieved consumer isn't always the most unbiased. I find myself constantly noticing how Turbine holds all the cards where their customers are concerned since their customers essentially become addicted and highly invested in their games. But, a more charitable way of putting that may be that Turbine has provided a very entertaining and compelling game experience. . . and while honoring what they have already sold you, they are now offering their customers an entirely optional expansion to that gaming experience at a price that the vast majority of their customers will voluntarily pay.

When you are opposed to the high rates your electric company is charging you... what recourse do you have?

But again, your analogy is inapt. While I respect the feelings of those who are addicted to this game and feel like they have no choice but to pay whatever Turbine dictates to continue servicing their addiction, the fact of the matter is that Turbine is not air, water, food, shelter, or even electricity. It is a form of entertainment that is entirely optional and voluntary. It sometimes doesn't feel that way to us because we're so heavily invested in our characters and we want to continue our journey with them. . . but that's the nature of MMOs. And I have a hard time wrapping my head around the concept of asking an MMO studio to willfully make less money by charging less than they could simply because we're all addicts and can't help ourselves. While the market situation may not be ideal, I just don't see the point in tilting at windmills and decrying them for charging what the market will bear (flawed as the market may be).

I'm not dancing around anything. The point of DIGITAL PRODUCT+EXTENSIVE PHYSICAL PRODUCT=$60, versus DIGITAL PRODUCT ONLY=$60 is very clear.

In each case, they charge what the market will bear. The "extensive physical product" didn't cost $60 because it was physical or cost more to produce It was $60 because you would pay it. And the same is true for the all-digital product. It's essential that you understand this or you're going to just continue to run us around in circles citing irrelevant data.

The point about LCD manufacturers and price fixing was brought in because *YOU* brought $500 iPhones into the discussion insisting people shouldn't get upset at manufacturing costs versus retail costs.

And they still shouldn't. Because manufacturing costs have nothing to do with price fixing. Price fixing is about collusion among manufacturers to set retail pricing. If some people get upset about the manufacturing cost, that's their right (wrong as they are), but it has nothing to do with price fixing.

My case is this. Turbine had a history of charging less for a better quality product, while providing more actual substance as well as gameplay.

Fair enough. You could have a case there. But you do your argument a disservice by getting wrapped up in the following. . .

Turbine has been systematically trimming down the quality and quantity of the product, while simultaneously trimming down the EXPENSES involved with making this product (aka, reduced staff), all the while inflating the price for the product.

. . . again, you're wasting your time worrying about Turbine's "costs" or "expenses". . . they are entirely irrelevant. Unless you can point out some PR from them blaming the increased costs on their rising expenses, you're hurting your own cause by getting wrapped up in an argument that only demonstrates that you don't understand how prices are set.

No. They set their prices based on how they believed they could make more money per unit sold. Their first concern was most definitely not based on what their customers were still willing to pay.

You say this as though "what their customers were still willing to pay" isn't directly related to "making more money per unit sold." In order to maximize their profits, the very first thing they need to figure out is "what their customers were still willing to pay."

Their customers complained about the prices of RoR, and people didn't purchase it because it was too expensive.

Just vague enough to be unimpeachable. Nicely done.

So... if Turbine is guilty of doing shady things like this, then we shouldn't look more closely at the shady things they are doing with their expansions. Ok. Message Received.


It sure is. It shows how a target price stayed the same in a related market, rather than increasing 300% over roughly the same period of time. Based on my example, LOTRO expansions could have (and should have) stayed at $20 for a disc only (or digital only) product, and $60 for Collector's Edition packages that offered physical, tangible accouterments to the product.

So again, I have to ask you. . .

What is your alternative. Are you seriously expecting a business to eschew charging a price that will allow them to make the most amount of money? Is Turbine supposed to tell its investors (or WB) "We could have made x amount but instead we made far less because we just didn't want to charge the full amount that our research showed people would pay." Seriously, you need to answer that question. Otherwise, this just amounts to a very vocal case of someone not being willing to pay retail prices for a good that they nevertheless really, really, want.

You have a reasonable point of view that the game is over-priced on the merits. But that point of view is based solely on the fact that you as a consumer don't feel that you'll be getting your money's worth. The costs of production, prior expansion prices, the cost of tea in China, or the nefarious business habits of LCD manufacturers don't enter into it. Nor should they.

--H

[YamydeAragon]

I am old enough to remember a 25 cent lunch and a nickel coke in a glass bottle (and real silver or gold coins, with the silver ones still circulating), but I would not call it satisfying in the least...

The lunch im talking about was a 1/2 pizza or a italian sandwish (with ham, cheese, butter & egg) & a glass of fresh juice. & everything was made in the local pizzeria. If you don't find that satisfying you maybe over eating. Up today this cost only $6 . So i just can't beleive that 60 years ago that costed $10 as someone said previously. Also i just talked to my mom & she laughted saying that she would buy the groceries for whole familiy to last 1 month with $10 back then.

[Nardian]

I'm still on the fence as to whether I'll even buy it. I'm barely at this game now as it is.
I wonder if others feel the same way.