momuuu wrote:Exactly, so the people that bought that game then made a stupid purchase. The only thing that treated them unfairly was their brain, tricking them into thinking a bad deal was actually a good deal!
it's not even a stupid purchase, they get access earlier (a couple years even) than the ones that get it now for free
So what about all the players who paid for this game? Isn't this a cheat?
It's hardly unfair. Valve is a private company and can sell their games for whatever prices they see fit. As long as you get the product you paid for, you have nothing to complain about. If someone else got a better deal because they chose to wait instead of buying the game at launch, too bad.
I sympathize a bit more with those who bought the game right before it went F2P, but someone was going to get burned no matter what. They just had bad luck.
I don't mean "unfair" = "illegal", there is a difference— the older players paid the price to get the game is because that was the best deal back then, so do the new ones, it's just that the new deal is better in every way.
By this logic, every time anything goes on sale it's being unfair to those who missed the sale. Are you expecting to get part of your money refunded once a game you bought goes on sale?
A valid point, but I think the point of sale is to decrease the price for a limited period of time to get more and more people to play the game, however, the "real" cost of the game is still the original one. Making it free to play means to decrease the price of it, this means that earlier the game costed too much as compared to its actual worth.
Once the product has earned back its investment and made a profit, prices should be reduced to 0+production costs. Rather than being ressentimental about it, i think you ought to be proud youve helped others enjoy themselves who might otherwise not have been able to afford it.
it sounds good on paper, but making a game free means no money for developers to keep supporting the game, you can not compare games with books because games need constant money to be available to be used. Server costs and development costs are needed.
They might be making money thru their some in-game purchases maybe, but I really think making a game(which used to costs something in past) free to play is a cheap trick to increase the playerbase.
So what about all the players who paid for this game? Isn't this a cheat?
It's hardly unfair. Valve is a private company and can sell their games for whatever prices they see fit. As long as you get the product you paid for, you have nothing to complain about. If someone else got a better deal because they chose to wait instead of buying the game at launch, too bad.
I sympathize a bit more with those who bought the game right before it went F2P, but someone was going to get burned no matter what. They just had bad luck.
I don't mean "unfair" = "illegal", there is a difference— the older players paid the price to get the game is because that was the best deal back then, so do the new ones, it's just that the new deal is better in every way.
By this logic, every time anything goes on sale it's being unfair to those who missed the sale. Are you expecting to get part of your money refunded once a game you bought goes on sale?
A valid point, but I think the point of sale is to decrease the price for a limited period of time to get more and more people to play the game, however, the "real" cost of the game is still the original one. Making it free to play means to decrease the price of it, this means that earlier the game costed too much as compared to its actual worth.
Once the product has earned back its investment and made a profit, prices should be reduced to 0+production costs. Rather than being ressentimental about it, i think you ought to be proud youve helped others enjoy themselves who might otherwise not have been able to afford it.
it sounds good on paper, but making a game free means no money for developers to keep supporting the game, you can not compare games with books because games need constant money to be available to be used. Server costs and development costs are needed.
They might be making money thru their some in-game purchases maybe, but I really think making a game(which used to costs something in past) free to play is a cheap trick to increase the playerbase.
Umeu says 0+production costs, meaning he doesn't want the games to be 100% free, but low enough to just support the game. Also, server and development costs are always necessary, only for games that keep getting updates or have dedicated multiplayer servers. Any single player game is just done after a while and doesn't cost anything to support. AoE3 probably also doesn't cost a significant amount since the servers are only used for ESO and not for actually playing the game.
I am not sure what's wrong with increasing the playerbase by making a game free? Doesn't a larger playerbase make the game more enjoyable from everyone, buyers included? If anything, it's not a cheap trick at all, but a rather expensive one.
Jup, plus were talking abouta huge brand here. Its basically advertizing. So even if there are costs, the developer can undoubtedly cover these with past and future profits. Having a free "demo" will convince ppl to buy more of their stuff in the future. Plus, as ive understood, in csgo, you can still buy things to upgrade your game, so they still make money from that. Even though its a development in the game industry that i like less
edeholland 
deleted_user0 
