How the fuck does Oblivion cost $60 on the 360 but $50 on PC?!?!?

Can anyone explain this shit? This isn’t a case of spending more money developing next gen graphics so you have to charge more. The graphics on PC/360 are the fucking same! It’s not like they made if for Xbox then upgraded it for 360. They are the goddamn same. Fuck, if anything it’s got to be harder to develop for the PC than it is for the 360 jsut because you have so many configurations to consider.

This is fucking bullshit. This $60 for games is bullshit.

How the fuck can they justify this??? Don’t say that it’s because people are willing to pay $60 so they’ll sell for $60. If they charged $60 for the PC version the same people would still be buying it, but they choose not to gouge them. Why us 360 guys?

Fuck them fuckers.

Licensing fees, perhaps? I’d imagine one would have to go through Microsoft to have it run on the XBox, while anybody can write a game for the PC.

Gaming consoles are subsidized by the licensing fees the manufacturers charge game publishers - licensing fees which don’t have to be paid by publishers of PC games. When you pay more for your Xbox 360 game, you’re making up for the some of the money that Microsoft lost by selling you the Xbox at below cost. Quit yer whinin’!

Well, without actually knowing, let me postulate a hypothesis. It’s well-known that game consoles are sold at a loss and the real money is in game sales. So anyone who wants to market a game on the XBox probably has to pay a license fee to Microsoft. I’m guessing that license fee is in the neighborhood of your $10.00.

In other words, your XBox didn’t really cost you whatever you paid for it. You pay an extra ten clams for it every time you buy a game.

Umm, are you new to gaming? Games that are released for both PC and console are nearly always cheaper for PC.

Actually, they probably had to put significantly more work into the Xbox version than the PC. Microsoft has some pretty stringent functionality standards a publisher has to meet in order to release something for their console. And, as a computer gamer, you no doubt laugh long and hard at the idea of “functionality standards” for a PC game. Plus, the 360 is new hardware, which carries its own challenges, and so forth. And this is a Bethesda game, so you know that means bugs aplenty. They must have been crunching on that game for months before release for the 360. For the PC? “We can patch it later.”

But bottom line? There aren’t as many games for the 360 as there are for the PC. Someone who wants a new PC game might balk at the $60 price tag and go with something cheaper. Someone wants a new XBox 360 game? Not a lot of other options, particularly if they want an RPG.

Still sucks, though.

If they are identical why not buy it for your PC then.

Miller nails it. The 360 is substantially different to PCs in a way that the original XBox was not, and a PC->360 port is not the trivial exercise you might think. Nonetheless, I think this is absolutely secondary to the other factor Miller mentions, which is that there aren’t many decent games out for the 360, therefore good ones come at a premium. Pretty much every single game for the 360 is $60 at the moment, and it’s not likely to come down until the catalog grows.

As for royalties on games, I can only find reference to such a thing for peripherals. AIUI, developers pay for the SDK and support for said SDK, but at the moment I can’t find any mention of an outright licensing structure for the right to even produce games.

Last, but not least; quitcherbitchin. Honestly, you’ve got an XBox 360, and you expect sympathy? Pah. Get you, with yer HD resolutions and your networked media server features. I mean, really. :slight_smile:

In a quick overview of games out there for all platforms…king kong on PC 19.99, most other systems 29.99, 49.99 xbox 360 59.99. Harry Potter GOF, PC 19.99, console 29.99. oddly, the new Prince of Persia is the only one I see where it’s the same price across platforms. But yes, the general rule is that PC games are less than console games. New consoles it’s even more. That’s just how it works.

I know the difference is primarily due to exchange rates, but quitcherbitchin’ that you’re not laying down **$110 ** for your 360 games and $98 for the same PC games… Putting a c-note and change on the counter, just to get one game, is pretty nasty…

(For those playing along at home, those prices are roughly equal to $80 and $70 respectively in USD. So even at the same money rate, we’re still getting gypped in terms of what we’re paying for exactly the same friggin’ games. But that’s another rant entirely…)

I’ve never been a fan of PC games when they’re available on a console. And there are many more like me. It’s gameplay for me. Coordinating the mouse with the right hand and the multi-key imput on the keyboard with the left? That should be an option only in viewing porn.

Before GTA III and Vice City were realeased on the X-Box, I bought GTA III for PC. Never got past the third mission. I hated the setup of the PC version. I actually went out and bought a PS2 just to play it. (My wife was really happy about that.)

I bought the X-Box version, sold the PS2 the next day, and the PC copy is still collecting dust. Anyone want to buy it from me? :wink:

The extra $10 is completely justified. First, because as stated earlier, the console is always sold at a loss with the “back end” being game sales. Second, because using a joystick will always be more comfortable/easier for the majority. Third, it’s a helluva lot easier to lug a console to a LAN party than a tower.

I understand why you see it as wrong. But when you look at the marketing and use of any given game title, charging a bit more for the console version is just simply good sense.

And if you want a cold trout to the chops, think of this. When looking at the difference of $50 or $60 for a game to be played on a machine that costs hundreds of dollars to buy, that USD$10 difference in formats is more than a lot of people make in a year.

Just some perspective proposed.

But I know where you’re coming from.

If you don’t want to pay $60 for games, don’t fucking buy them. Even a cursory investigation into the Xbox 360 before it launched would have told you that games were probably gonna cost $60. The reason I still don’t have a 360 is partly because of the pricetags, and partly because I strongly suspected there would be a lot of technical problems in the first batches. New electronics generally, and consoles specifically, are pretty notorious for glitches.

If only they had gameplay standards as well.

Everyone repeat after me;

“Price and cost are two entirely different things.”

Again;

"Price and cost are two entirely different things."

The price of any game is as much based on people’s willingness to pay. If people were willing to pay $100 in the same numbers then guess how much they’d charge? How much it costs to make is largely irrelevant, as long as it’s less that the price by a profitable margin.

Obviously the market for PC games is different.

How do they “justify” this? Easy; it’s how capitalism works. Copies of Oblivion are not a neccessity of life, there is no moral case to answer. You don’t like the price? Don’t buy it.

Oblivion needs a pretty powerful PC to run smoothly and look nice. If you don’t have a beefy PC, but do have an Xbox 360, the choice is obvious.

The scary thing is, they do. A friend of mine was a producer on a game that was based on (IIRC) Charlie’s Angels II. Sony refused to approve it because the game was so bad. Considering the stuff they approve, you can imagine what that game must have been like.

Not necessarily. Thanks to the magic of DirectX and other abstraction layers, most if not all of that complexity has been moved into the operating system. All they really have to do is switch features on or off depending on whether the user’s hardware supports them.

Well, think about it. It’s a closed platform, where every game you play has to be approved. Why would you expect competitive pricing?

PC games have to compete with cheaper games from small developers (who might not have the cash or manpower to get started with Xbox development).

They also have to compete with pirates. When you’re trying to convince someone to buy your game in a box instead of downloading it for free, you have to make your prices reasonable. iTunes Music Store has to keep their prices low because, as Steve Jobs pointed out, they’re in competition with illegal downloads. (If the RIAA ever succeeds in stopping file sharing, or passes a law requiring all music players to play only digitally signed tracks or something like that, just watch as songs jump up to $5 apiece.)

:eek:

You can get pretty much all the 360 games on E*Bay for $40 using “Buy it now”. I’ve bought a few that way.

But apparently not quality standards. The XBox fora are replete with people complaining about the bugs in COD2: I too got kicked backed to training, halfway through the American campaign, with all missions re-locked. Apparently the PC version doesn’t suffer from these issues.

That actually would be a functionality standard. Unfortunetly, standards are often compromised by market forces. Call of Duty 2 was a launch title for a new console, and arguably the most important of the lot. Certainly the best, in my view. The other titles were pretty unimpressive. I can guarantee you that corners were cut on all the launch titles for the 360 to make sure they were ready to sell at the same time as the console. That’s not going to be as much of an issue for a game that’s coming out nearly half a year after launch, and by a much, much smaller company. Bigger companies can get away with a lot more than smaller ones. EA could shit in a box and Microsoft would give it their stamp of approval. Activision (COD2’s publisher) doesn’t have quite as much clout, but it’s still miles ahead of the tiny (and relative newcomer to the console market) Bethesda, who published Oblivion.