You kidding? If a game on the scale of Resident Evil 5 was released as a budget title, people would lap that shit up like anti-freeze at a petting zoo, and it's not like it costs any more to manufacture a copy of RE5 than it does to manufacture a copy of, for instance, Resident Evil 4: Wii Edition.
Capcom invested millions of dollars in making Resident Evil 5, I'd wager even more than they did in making Resident Evil 4 due to the HD graphics. The cost of churning the game out at the factory is not the true cost of the game. Before a single copy is even produced, millions of dollars are on the line.
If Capcom could make more money selling the game at a higher volume with a lower price, they would. They aren't going to invest big bucks in a game unless people are willing to pay big bucks for it at the store. I'd be surprised if Capcom didn't lose money releasing the game for $30.
The author mentions XNA games and a $10 price limit. You know, I've played some of these XNA games, and I'm going to go out on a limb and say I wouldn't play a lot of them for free. That's not an insult against the XNA game developers. I wish I had the skills to create an XNA game. The games just don't compare to what a high-budget team at Electronic Arts or Capcom can do.
At gamestats.com, the "top sales" chart suggests that there is a big market for high-budget games at full price. Street Fighter 4 is around $70 Canadian, and it's apparently selling very well at a similar price in the US. One of the replies to the blog post says "Create the quality. People will seek it...Things that simply occupy our time and do not enlighten us will fall into obscurity". Exactly. But do you have the money to do it? Do you have the skills to create something special?
The problem I see with indie games is, with the exception of something very special like Braid, they just cannot compete at any price with the latest high-budget games or yesterday's high-budget games (at a "Greatest Hits" price, including the crazy deals on Steam that have already been mentioned here).
The market isn't conspiring against anybody to charge the wrong price. I suspect that the indie games that sell well are priced at market value.
If it's more than $30... you're over charging. Period. You can try to argue this with me... but everything past that mark is greed pure and simple.
So, $30 is a fixed maximum price point regardless of the costs of producing the game? In the case of a game like, say, Resident Evil 5, I doubt that the game would even break even if it launched at $30. If I'm right, that's hardly "greed".
Why, I was talking to a local farmer just the other day, and he plans to replace all of his tractors with electric ones within the next year...
Can the new tractors run Aero?
... but they might be guilty anyway, so meh.
Dude, this is Slashdot. Of course Microsoft is guilty.
I actually did something amazing right now and read the full article.
While the business market typically tends toward caution when it comes to new products, the figure is nonetheless surprising given that almost no large companies migrated to Vista and as a result most have been using XP much longer than planned.
So the article suggests my initial comment, but I don't see why skipping Vista implies an immediate move to Windows 7. Obviously XP works for people.
Most enterprises stated they won't bother with Windows 7 for at least a year
Well, seriously, how often do business environments run a brand new version of Windows? I don't work in IT, but I'm going to go with almost never. This doesn't sound very special.
The cost of feathers has risen, even down is up!