by rickert
Cartomancer wrote:
rickert wrote:
Cartomancer wrote:
nerman8r wrote:
Yeah. I've considered buying Citadels at various times, and couldn't justify the $25 price tag. The thing is, yes I value the effort that goes into designing and developing a game, but that doesn't mean that there needs to be a premium paid on *every game sold*. I'm sure King of Tokyo has already sold tens of thousands of copies, and it's not like Richard Garfield is still putting time and energy into that game. He's putting his energy into expansions and stuff that will make him more money.
In fact, Iello has done little to maintain King of Tokyo. There are tons of ambiguities in the game and it really needs a FAQ. For a game that popular, they should potentially be keeping an eye on BGG and other sites, answering questions, the way that Donald X does for Dominion.
In fact, Iello has done little to maintain King of Tokyo. There are tons of ambiguities in the game and it really needs a FAQ. For a game that popular, they should potentially be keeping an eye on BGG and other sites, answering questions, the way that Donald X does for Dominion.
In response to horlaci, this!
The associated costs of development should be spread across all of the copies, not just the one you might buy. Also remember what some folks are paying in dollars, I'm paying like for like in pounds. So the price to me, compared to them is roughly at one third mark up.
So it's not that I don't consider all of the things that you mention as content, I just think that the cost of all of these things should be included into the price as well as the physical components. I mean, I wouldn't buy a car if it had no engine. I expect the engine to be there, and I'm not going to have a dealership turn round to me and say, "Ohhhhh! You wanted an engine.. Yeah, that's going to be extra".
Or, to put it another way, how could they realistically sell a game without mechanics, art, development etc? (Although I agree with nerman8r, that they seriously need to look into writing up an FAQ for this game as I've had more questions about card interactions in KOT, than I've had games of KOT today.. And KOT is all we played at my FLGS today).
I don't think you're comparison is valid at all. It would be more like if you asked the car company, "How much is the car without the added cost of the research it took to make the car? How about without the marketing cost?" Plus we are saying that how long the car runs is a factor in. It seems to me like you are making those things matter not at all in favor of just judging the price of the car on whether there are heated seats and satellite radio and a sun roof.
Emphasis by me, as if that's what you think I'm saying, you are mistaken. My point is that when I pay for a game, I'm paying for a game. Without the engine (the mechanics) or the bodywork (art), it'd be virtually unsaleable, so I'm certainly not paying for those (what you'd probably call) "extras".
"Extras" that I can't exactly exclude can I? (Yeah, I'd like the art free edition please) The company behind the game chose the art. They chose who to contract it to, they chose to pick up the design in the first place, and what was my input in that? Zilch.
So why should those costs be passed on to me, when they're already making a significant from the price of production, to the sale price at wholesale?
You pay those costs because there generally not different versions offered of the same game. Virtually no game company offers that. So you need to pay for the same elements, the same marketing, the same development, etc., that everyone else does. Unfair, huh?