Glad I purchased Skyrim long time ago. Imo it deserves its price. We seen some far worse cases of blatant inflations. Firaxis is far worse than Bethesda in that regards.
Comment has been collapsed.
Wouldn't this be better for some people? If someone had just Skyrim (plus maybe a scattered DLC or two) they could just buy the missing DLC to get the free upgrade, as opposed to having to buy the Legendary edition outright.
Comment has been collapsed.
In that capacity, yes, but it also appears to give the illusion of being a good deal while actually increasing the cost of the bundle during sales.
Comment has been collapsed.
No it's not. The fact that they didn't give a higher discount this time around has nothing to do with the bundle type. If they had put the base game at 75% off, and the DLC at 50% off each, then the compounded discount would have been of 75% like in some other sales. The base price is the same. (actually a few cents cheaper)
They made the choice to discount it less just before giving away the Special Edition, but also allowed current owners to actually complete their collection for the cheapest price ever.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm not comparing the discounts now to previous discounts, since they're obviously not comparable. I'm comparing what the costs would be if the sum total discount is the same for both, and when doing so the new bundle costs more. I understand that I am assuming that Bethesda wouldn't discount the new bundle arrangement more to offset this price increase. The reason why I assume that Bethesda won't do that is because it is almost certain, in my opinion, that Bethesda would do just that (because it better serves their interests) and extremely unlikely that it would do otherwise (because it wouldn't better serve their interests).
I don't disagree with you about the likely rationale for discounting the bundle less this sale, if only until the "Special Edition" promotion is over. The fact that the bundle is discounted less than the Legendary Edition used to have been is not the reason why I think Bethesda inflated the prices or the new bundle now costs more when on sale than the Legendary Edition.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think Bethesda inflated the prices
You might think so, but the facts are that they didn't inflate the price (they actually lowered it by $0.36)
or the new bundle now costs more when on sale than the Legendary Edition.
It's completely dependant on the price of the base game and DLC. If they have a 75% off discount on all parts, then the cost is actually lower than the Legendary Edition. (My math was a bit off in the previous post.) Of course, if Dawnguard was still at 66% off then it would cost an extra $1.01 for the bundle versus the Legendary Edition.
Comment has been collapsed.
Bethesda did inflate it's price; it simply used the bundle discount to offset the inflation, thereby giving it the illusion of a discount while in reality only being marginally less expensive (approximately $0.36, as you noted). You might not consider it price inflation because the inflated price is deflated back down to around its previous rate using the bundle discount, but I would consider it as such. At the very least, it's price manipulation with the goal of misleading the customer into believing the product is discounted when the price of the product hasn't actually changed proportional to that discount.
It's completely dependant on the price of the base game and DLC. If they have a 75% off discount on all parts, then the cost is actually lower than the Legendary Edition. (My math was a bit off in the previous post.) Of course, if Dawnguard was still at 66% off then it would cost an extra $1.01 for the bundle versus the Legendary Edition.
My point is that when controlling for all other variables, the bundle is more expensive than the Legendary Edition when the same sum total discount (the green discount) is applied to both products. For example, the bundle would cost exactly $6.25 than the Legendary Edition if the sum total discount for both is -75%. Of course, if the discount were to apply individually to each item in the bundle, it would cost less because the individual discounts would amply through the bundle mechanics such that the sum total discount is higher. Bethesda almost certainly won't do that, however, because it isn't in their best interests to do so and, at least in my opinion, this change was principally for the purpose of exploiting the aforenoted discrepancy in order to increase profits.
Comment has been collapsed.
Bethesda did inflate it's price; it simply used the bundle discount to offset the inflation
The individual items were $64.96 altogether, they are now $64.96. No difference.
The Lengendary Edition was $39.99, the bundle is $39.63. So it's actually cheaper.
The price was not inflated in any way, shape or form.
The "misleading" total discount is a side effect of moving from the old sub system to the new bundle one. Publishers are slowly switching their old packages to the new system and Bethesda did the same when they announced the Special Edition. It's not price manipulation, it's Steam being Steam.
My point is that when controlling for all other variables, the bundle is more expensive than the Legendary Edition when the same sum total discount (the green discount) is applied to both products.
Of course, if a smaller discount is applied to the individual products, the compounded discount of 75% will not be the same as a 75% discount on the bundle. But if every component is discounted by 75% (as they've been before) then the bundle is also discounted by 75% (even though the green discount tag will show 85%) That's the way the bundle system work and it's the same with every single one of them.
Comment has been collapsed.
The individual items were $64.96 altogether, they are now $64.96. No difference.
In that literal sense, the price has not changed; however, when comparing the bundle to what it replaced—namely, the Legendary Edition, which had the same content—it would be an inflation of the price from $39.99 to $64.96. That is what I, and I suspect the article, meant by the price being inflated.
The Lengendary Edition was $39.99, the bundle is $39.63. So it's actually cheaper.
Yes, once accounting for the bundle discount, which offsets the inflated price. Our disagreement seems to be based on whether to include the bundle discount in determining if the price (specifically, the MSRP) was inflated and whether the price comparison should be between the literal items in the bundle and themselves individually or the bundle and the item that the bundle replaced. I would consider that to be a rather inconsequential quibble, ultimately, since it doesn't change the fact that the switch from Legendary Edition to this new bundle has increased the price when on sale at the same sum total discount.
But if every component is discounted by 75% (as they've been before) then the bundle is also discounted by 75% (even though the green discount tag will show 85%) That's the way the bundle system work and it's the same with every single one of them.
That is precisely what I consider to be extremely unlikely to occur now because it isn't in Bethesda's best interests and I suspect this switch was made either principally or at least in part to take advantage of the price discrepancy between the Legendary Edition and new bundle when the sum total discount is the same, and to give what is basically the same product the illusion of being a better deal by utilizing the bundle discount to keep around the same base retail price. I might be incorrect in the likelihood of Bethesda discounting the bundle higher than a sum total of -75%., and I hope so, but if I am, it's only because discounting it that high is more profitable and better serves Bethesda's interests than would pricing it at a sum total of -75%.
Comment has been collapsed.
when comparing the bundle to what it replaced—namely, the Legendary Edition, which had the same content—it would be an inflation of the price from $39.99 to $64.96
No it hasn't. The bundle's rebate applies at all time so the base price for the bundle is always $39.63.
That is what I, and I suspect the article, meant by the price being inflated.
The author of the article just failed at understanding Steam's bundle system. He even published an update to the article saying so, but failed at math by getting the price wrong.
Our disagreement seems to be based on whether to include the bundle discount in determining if the price (specifically, the MSRP) was inflated and whether the price comparison should be between the literal items in the bundle and themselves individually or the bundle and the item that the bundle replaced.
As a customer, you're not paying the MSRP, you're paying the purchase price. If you're buying the bundle, instead of the old Legendary Edition, that purchase price has not increased. And if you already had the base game, then the purchase price has decreased, a lot.
this new bundle has increased the price when on sale at the same sum total discount.
If all the items are discounted by 75%, then the bundle is also discounted by 75%. In that sense, the sale price did not increase. Now, if you're comparing the little green sticker having 75% on it then, of course, it's not an actual 75% for the bundle itself but 75% off the retail price. An actual 75% off sale would show 85% off on the bundle'S green discount, but that doesn't change the effective price.
That is precisely what I consider to be extremely unlikely to occur now because it isn't in Bethesda's best interests
It IS actually in Bethesda's best interest. If they do a 75% discount like they've did before, the bundle is also priced the same as on previous sale. They're not losing any more money than they previously did. And as an added bonus, the green tag will show the compounded discount of 85% which gives the illusion of a bigger discount, prompting more people to buy the game
So, there may be the illusion of a price increase but in reality it's a price drop.
Comment has been collapsed.
As a customer, you're not paying the MSRP, you're paying the purchase price. If you're buying the bundle, instead of the old Legendary Edition, that purchase price has not increased. And if you already had the base game, then the purchase price has decreased, a lot.
Although the customer may not be paying the MSRP, inflating that MSRP is nevertheless useful when engaging in misleading marketing tactics because the manufacturer can then add a permanent discount to the MSRP to lower it. This makes a difference because customers respond positively toward apparent discounting and are far more likely to purchase a product if it appears to be discounted. Bethesda used this well-known marketing trick by inflating the MSRP and using the permanent bundle discount to bring it down to around the same purchase price. This increases the appeal and sales of the product while not actually changing the price.
That's why it's important to note that the MSRP has been inflated: it's integral to understanding the misleading marketing tactics that Bethesda is using.
It IS actually in Bethesda's best interest. If they do a 75% discount like they've did before, the bundle is also priced the same as on previous sale. They're not losing any more money than they previously did. And as an added bonus, the green tag will show the compounded discount of 85% which gives the illusion of a bigger discount, prompting more people to buy the game
I don't know if Bethesda would do that. It depends on which option they project will increase sales more and be more profitable. Both are possible, both benefit Bethesda, and both are due to exploiting Steam's bundle mechanics to give the illusion of a much better deal than before. I personally think Bethesda won't increase the sum total discount beyond -75%, at least until this promotion is over or until its sales begin dropping significantly, whereas you appear to believe Bethesda is more likely to increase the sum total discount to -85%. Without knowing Bethesda's sale projections and business models, I suppose it's anyone's guess.
Comment has been collapsed.
That's why it's important to note that the MSRP has been inflated: it's integral to understanding the misleading marketing tactics that Bethesda is using.
They switched their package to the new bundle system that Valve put into place. That's it. The old LE pack, like every pack, also had the "Price of individual products" and "You save" fields showing you the discount between the current pack versus the MSRP of the individual items. The only difference now is that Steam gives you a discount percentage based on the total price instead of the pack itself.
If you consider this a "misleading marketing tactic" then you should start complaining about every other publisher who have switched to the new system, allowing their customers to complete their collections at a lower price than before.
The FACT is, the collection is now cheaper and you pay even less for it if you already have some of it's parts. The only thing misleading here is the click-bait title of your post.
Comment has been collapsed.
I hate capitalism too thats why i have:
- A computer
- Steam account
- Internet connection
- Clothes
- TV
- Cellphone
- Toothpaste
- Soap
- Deodorant
- Netflix
- A chair
- Table
- Mirror
- Toilet paper
- Shoes
- Car
- Desk
- Door
- Bed
But yeah i hate it
┴┬┴┤( ͡° ͜ʖ├┬┴┬
Comment has been collapsed.
What a profound observation: you live in society, so you have things that are common in that society. Truly the apotheosis of human cogitation. Any other penetrating critiques you would like to bestow upon us today?
Comment has been collapsed.
When it was communism in my country, students could travel on vacations flying home on supersonic jet airliners (google Tupolev Tu-144) and tickets were affordable to buy from their monthly scholarship grant! Needless to say that education was free.
So yeah. Capitalism is overrated.
Comment has been collapsed.
If by students you meant "the children of prominent communists" I would believe you.
And even if not, although the education was free, not everyone was allowed to study in the first place. :) (in here anyway, dunno about the glorious Soviet Union)
Comment has been collapsed.
While that does sound nice, I would object to you characterizing your country as communist. In what way was it communist?
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, USSR was a country with socialist totalitarian planned economy. But everyone just call them communists.
Comment has been collapsed.
And they would be wrong. In what way was the USSR socialist?
Comment has been collapsed.
I know it can be disputed by some extent but I'd rather not. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics - it's in their name, lets stop at that.
Comment has been collapsed.
And "Democratic" and "Republic" are in the name of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. So be it. Thanks for your contribution to this thread.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm honestly saddened by the path Game Developers are taking more and more.
I understand perfectly well that it's their livelihood and they have to make money but recently I'm seeing more and more easy go get em money.
We gamers are from all around the world, some can afford AAA titles others have to save up for them or wait for a discount.
That's life and no one can argue against it.
But value for money in the gaming industry has been on rapid decline for more than a year now.
I can't but blame Steam (as a platform) for the role they had in this.
We have gradually seen Steam become overrun with template Greenlight games which look like someone made them in paint.
While I ain't a graphic whore, the story in most of them leaves much to be desired.
Steam allows for Early Access games which are in that state for 3+ years.
It's no wonder to see that the developers are being lazy and greedy when they can get a free pass.
The new TES: Skyrim is a sad fall of a giant, especially when you look at the achievements of the modding community in the past 5 years.
Bethesda's new release pales when you compare it to the works and achievements of SKYRIM modding community.
If one person with "limited" resources and tools can move the boundaries of the game world then what are we to think of the studio which can barely leave a mark on it, yet they are it's creators.
Even worse is their gimmick of adding it for free and increasing the price of Skyrim.
Like they say, you either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain.
Comment has been collapsed.
Especially for corporations like Bethesda, these sorts of decisions are usually made by the board of directors at the behest of its shareholders, not by the developers. Unless the enterprise is an independent self-publishing development company or some other such arrangement, the developers are, like most programmers, usually just wage workers who take no part in the decisions on how to run the enterprise and what to do with the profits, so it's not really fair to blame them.
Moreover, the salaries of the developers are determined by that same board of directors, so there isn't really any correlation between your purchase of their product and their wage increases in a capitalist enterprise outside of some special circumstances. Just so long as the revenue is flowing and the enterprise is profitable, the workers will still be paid the same general wage rates whereas all the profits from the sales go to growing the company, investing in future projects, and filling the pockets of the shareholders and chief officers. The livelihoods of those developers, of all those workers, are wholly dependent upon the capitalists who employ them and those capitalists can do, and have done, whatever they want with those workers due to that dependent and unequal relationship.
Steam is allowing in so many trashy games because Steam Greenlight was never intended to be a means of finding new and upstart quality games; it was meant to be a means of outsourcing ideas and development to volunteer developers who submit their work and hope it's accepted. Of course Steam is going to accept even trashy nonsense because they get a cut of each sale.
Steam, like every other capitalist enterprise, is driven by profit and their sole function as a capitalist enterprise is to maximize that profit, even if at the cost of a deteriorating industry. It doesn't matter whether that very deterioration threatens their long-term profits or even solvency as an enterprise because by the time those problems occur, the capitalists (chief officers and shareholders) would already have extracted an untold amount of money and the workers—those developers, programmers, and support agents—can go fuck themselves because they're just workers. Their unemployment is not the capitalist's problem; in fact, the capitalist benefits from unemployment.
As is the nature of market capitalism, business plans must be short-term and profitable without concern for long-term externalities, even if those externalities may—as in the case of anthropogenic global warming—threaten to kill all life on the planet. Any enterprise whose business plans are more prudent and considerate of factors beyond profit will be outcompeted by enterprises which aren't.
I completely understand your frustratation, and I feel much the same way, but the root causes of these problems are unfortunately far deeper and far more systemic than mere corporate misconduct.
Comment has been collapsed.
I understand that our system is broken.
Sadly I oversimplified it, sorry for that :D
If we were neighbors we could have this kind of a chat over coffee / tea/ beer
XD
Comment has been collapsed.
They didn't actually raise the base price of the Legendary edition. The price of Skyrim + its DLCs is $64.93. When you take off the standard 39% bundle discount it has, the price is $39.63, which is actually about 30 cents cheaper than before. The person who wrote the PC Invasion article just doesn't know how to do math.
Comment has been collapsed.
Refer to my edit in the OP and my previous comment.
Comment has been collapsed.
All I know is that I could get Skyrim Legendary edition for 14€ and now I have to pay much more :P
Comment has been collapsed.
Guys, buy The Witcher 3 instead of Skyrim, it's a much better game. :)
Comment has been collapsed.
+1 And while you're at it, also pick up Dragon Age Origins.
Comment has been collapsed.
+1 but -1 for not suggesting Dragon Age Origins - Legendary edition for which I would +10!
Comment has been collapsed.
I can't suggest the Legendary Edition because it doesn't exist. It's called the Ultimate Edition.
Sorry, I just had to... :d
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes there is a big reason that i wont overprice only for dlcs that is a way to old from Witcher 3 and way worse. Witcher have better graphic, better soundtrack and better story and you can still downloads some mods to that game :)
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't see this as a problem, there are plenty of places to get the LE edition for cheaper than steam, especially bundlestars. Not to mention it's been on sale like every other month for months.
Comment has been collapsed.
That's what I have been thinking about. But will a Skyrim LE key work now that the LE no loger exists on steam?
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm so confused. You're "poor", so raising the price of a game for adding content would affect you, but you pirate everything so it actually doesn't.
I don't understand why you're yelling about the evils of capitalism. work for money is a pretty general concept. They worked, added more content and now want more money. Except for people who already bough their work, they get the new stuff for free. How is this evil? How does this prove capitalism is?
Comment has been collapsed.
You forgot that without capitalism there wouldn't be reason to create things like "Skyrim" in the first place :D
Comment has been collapsed.
Exactly. If they didn't get payed for it, nobody would spend that much time making games. Sure, some smaller games made as a hobby might exist, but bigger games would pretty much be non existing.
Comment has been collapsed.
Nah, modders make shit for free, Bethesda would have to if if wasn't for capitalism. /s
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm not "poor", I'm poor, without scarequotes. I'd prefer to not divulge the personal details of my income and living conditions, nor do I think any detractors would be persuaded by my doing so.
This thread wasn't about me complaining about the price changes. I simply posted it because other SteamGifts users might be interested in the news, and it gave me an opportunity to use it as a platform to discuss how this is a manifestation of the inherent flaws in capitalism. I don't use the SteamGifts forum to whine and complain. If I have nothing worthwhile to say, I usually just don't post anything.
They worked, added more content and now want more money. Except for people who already bough their work, they get the new stuff for free. How is this evil? How does this prove capitalism is?
At no point did I say that capitalism is "evil", nor do I consider such descriptions to be particularly meaningful or stimulating (and for that reason I wouldn't describe capitalism as "evil"). This story highlights how capitalist enterprises use marketing gimmicks like giving the "Special Edition" for free as a cover for engaging in deceptive tactics to manipulate prices and give the illusion of a good deal in order to increase their profit margins. Instead of being transparent with consumers and making clear price changes that consumers would notice and understand, corporations like Bethesda would rather attempt to trick those consumers into believing they are being generous while secretly using money they earn from the new customers who fell for the illusory deal to pay for the free "upgrade" that customers who got in before the change receive.
More subtly, this story demonstrates that the sole function of capitalist enterprises like Bethesda is to maximize profits, not to actually behave in ways which are intended benefit consumers or society in general (which some people actually believe), and they have no problem using deceptive tactics to accomplish that. After all, that is the entire premise of advertising and public relations, which are essentially the propaganda arms of capitalist enterprises. Recognizing this is crucial to understanding how capitalism operates because identifying the fact that economic enterprises act in their own self-interest according to the rules of a system (capitalism) establishes a basis upon which one can begin to critique and criticize those rules and the system which determines them.
Comment has been collapsed.
I am assuming, so I'm sorry if I am wrong about that, but if you can afford a computer you're not that poor to me. Sorry if you're in a library wasting your time on sg and I'm wrong about you.
it gave me an opportunity to use it as a platform to discuss how this is a manifestation of the inherent flaws in capitalism.
I don't use the SteamGifts forum to whine and complain.
Those are the same thing, just from different biases. You obviously believe what in you're saying, so to you it's discussion. I think it's out of place and stupid, so it's whining to me.
If I have nothing worthwhile to say, I usually just don't post anything.
Well you're posting about it right now, so that's kinda besides the point.
Who are Bethesda tricking though? The game is old, most people have bought it. Most of those who haven't either don't want it, or are waiting for a better sale, which this obviously isn't.
More subtly, this story demonstrates that the sole function of capitalist enterprises like Bethesda is to maximize profits, not to actually behave in ways which are intended benefit consumers
They gave free content to their previous customers, how it that not pro consumer? Bethesda has made some pretty shitty moves before, I don't see how this is one of them.
or society in general (which some people actually believe)
Who? And so what? They're an entertainment company. They publish entertainment for money, and don't even get all that because of pirates like you. They didn't set out to change the world, and I don't think they said they did either.
After all, that is the entire premise of advertising and public relations, which are essentially the propaganda arms of capitalist enterprises.
Advertising is the advertising arm of capitalism? You missused propaganda btw.
Comment has been collapsed.
I am assuming, so I'm sorry if I am wrong about that, but if you can afford a computer you're not that poor to me. Sorry if you're in a library wasting your time on sg and I'm wrong about you.
Basic computers, like Chromebook, are cheap and could be afforded within months or a year of saving money. In any case, I was given the computer I currently use, like I already said. Before that I had my fathers old laptop, which he gave to me when he purchased another computer.
Those are the same thing, just from different biases. You obviously believe what in you're saying, so to you it's discussion. I think it's out of place and stupid, so it's whining to me.
That's not what "whining" means. What am I complaining about in a feeble and petulant way? Economic analysis you don't like doesn't constitute "whining".
Who are Bethesda tricking though? The game is old, most people have bought it. Most of those who haven't either don't want it, or are waiting for a better sale, which this obviously isn't.
Bethesda would be tricking the thousands, if not tens of thousands or orders of magnitude more, of customers who would be purchasing the game in the upcoming weeks and months and indefinitely into the future. Your statements about how many people have bought Skyrim and why those that haven't still haven't are absurd and I seriously doubt you have any empirical evidence substantiate them.
They gave free content to their previous customers, how it that not pro consumer? Bethesda has made some pretty shitty moves before, I don't see how this is one of them.
Because they didn't do it to benefit the consumers. They did as a form of public relations because it serves their interests to improve their public approval. Anyway, I seriously doubt that free content actually required long and intensive work. It was probably just leftover material from scrapped ideas and side projects that were put out for the reasons I just described.
Who? And so what? They're an entertainment company. They publish entertainment for money, and don't even get all that because of pirates like you. They didn't set out to change the world, and I don't think they said they did either.
Innumerable people, particularly those who are utterly intoxicated by bourgeois ideology and think capitalists risk capital out of the kindness of the own hearts and make investments on which they don't expect a return. Piracy can actually boost sales under some circumstances, especially digital content. Regardless, I'm not particularly worried about the multimillionaire chief officers and shareholders going to bed hungry, so I honestly don't give a shit if they get my money. It's not going to the workers, anyway.
Advertising is the advertising arm of capitalism? You missused propaganda btw.
For some strange reason, people don't usually understand that commercial advertising is literally corporate propaganda, which is why I specify that it is. Propaganda is more than just advertising, though. No, I did not misuse the term.
Comment has been collapsed.
Capitalism doesn't care about propaganda/someones beliefs. All that really matters is money.
You wan't to change something? Vote with your wallet.
Just don't buy their game. You will be fine without it. I won't buy their game under their new price politics. On the other hand I try to support developers like CDPred. I'm not the only one. They are earning more and more money - and that gives clear information to other developers: "you don't have to be asshole to prosper".
Also pls - don't tell me that you are poor. If you were poor we wouldn't be talking about "first world problems" right now. You are just whining that capitalism is evil because you can't afford things. Learn to live without those things or stop complaining and get you ass to work.
Comment has been collapsed.
Voting with one's wallet is one of the more ridiculous notions out there. There is no such thing as voting with your wallet because money doesn't work like ballots and buying a product isn't a vote for the producer. Refusing to purchase products from certain companies out of protest is a laughable exercise in futility because you, the consumer, are nothing more than a tiny and insignificant blip on the radar. The only time boycotting has any meaningful impact is in extremely massive numbers in the order of magnitude of hundreds of thousands or even tens of millions when it comes to large corporations.
Without that sort of large-scale movement, it's extremely unlikely that any change will occur and if it does, it's not because you refused to buy a particular product. Contrary to what the corporate propaganda tells you, no you aren't an important or valued customer and no your opinion doesn't matter—that is, not unless you can significantly threaten their profit margins such that they have to reconsider their business models.
Also pls - don't tell me that you are poor. If you were poor we wouldn't be talking about "first world problems" right now.
Your appeals to relative privation do not change the fact that I am poor. Poverty can be either (and both) a relative and an absolute condition. By relative poverty standards, I am poor. Just because there is a Congolese child starving right now, that doesn't mean I'm not poor anymore than does a paper cut not hurt just because getting shot hurts a lot worse.
You are just whining that capitalism is evil because you can't afford things.
No, I am not, nor would I describe capitalism as something so silly as "evil". If you are going to simply strawman my position, impugn my character, and ignore my claims, then go find another thread.
Learn to live without those things or stop complaining and get you ass to work.
Learn to cope with criticism you don't like rather than shadow-blacklisting the critic and go fuck yourself. You may have no problem being a bootlicking wage slave, but I do.
Comment has been collapsed.
One consumer is nothing more than a tiny and insignificant blip on the radar. True. But high ammount of consumers is something that allows company to "live". If they fuck up something important - they will lost consumers. There is no need to any large scale movemant or anything like that. The fact that there is no consequences so far doesn't mean that corporations propaganda is effective. It means that therer is just handfull of poeple (including you) who are against their behaviour.
Reason for "Shadow blacklist" was because you are fucking thief / or you support stealing. Pls - learn to cope with critic yourself. I understand that you see everybody who dissagree with you as "bootlicking slaves" but maybe you should consider thinking about their arguments instead of building a wall around you and your opinions.
Also you are poor or not. Stop with those poor excuses for your laziness. When I was too young to get real work (had no skills/knowledge) I was collecting scrap metal and cans for selling. If I wanted to buy new clothes or game I had to spend one month on browsing garbages. So as you can see I found it funny when somebody says that he is poor and can't afford game. Or when somebody says that he can't afford game because capitalism (sic!). Learn to live in current system or move to North Korea for better view how things work in different systems :)
Comment has been collapsed.
But high ammount of consumers is something that allows company to "live".
And unless high amounts of consumers "vote with their wallet" in a coordinated manner, i.e. engage in an organized boycott and protest, the consumers remain nothing more than tiny and insignificant blips on the corporate radar. "Voting with one's wallet" only has any real efficacy when it is done as an organized and coordinated mass movement, but at that point it is no longer analogous to voting; rather, it is more similar to a mass protest. Thus, "voting with one's wallet" is an absurd rationalization for changing one's behaviors as a consumer in protest, but a mass protest is a successful strategy at effecting real change.
There is no need to any large scale movemant or anything like that.
It is necessary if you want to ensure that real change is achieved. While it is theoretically possible for a disorganized trend of individual consumers randomly "voting with their wallets" to effect change, that change will be subject to the interpretation of the capitalists and shareholders who own the enterprise. If you want to effect real change and direct the narrative of that change, you must organize and coordinate a mass movement that makes specific demands and poses a serious threat to the interests and power of those in power you from whom you are demanding change. This is as true in economics as it is in politics.
Reason for "Shadow blacklist" was because you are fucking thief / or you support stealing.
How am I a thief and in what way do I support stealing? If you are going to cite my stances on digital piracy, you need to first explain how that is theft before making such assertions.
I understand that you see everybody who dissagree with you as "bootlicking slaves" but maybe you should consider thinking about their arguments instead of building a wall around you and your opinions.
No, I don't. I only view, and describe, class traitors and those who defend their being enslaved as such. I have thought about your "arguments" (if they could even be called that) and I have rebutted them accordingly. If you are going to criticize me, at least be accurate it your criticism.
Also you are poor or not. Stop with those poor excuses for your laziness.
I am not using my poverty as an excuse for laziness, nor has anything I said thus far indicated that I am lazy.
If I wanted to buy new clothes or game I had to spend one month on browsing garbages.
Good for you. I'm not you.
Or when somebody says that he can't afford game because capitalism (sic!).
I have said no such thing. If you are just going to resort to misrepresenting my position because you lack a serious rebuttal, I'm not interested in continuing this exchange.
Learn to live in current system or move to North Korea for better view how things work in different systems :)
Why the fuck would I want to move to North Korea? Surely, you aren't ignorant enough to believe North Korea isn't capitalist?
Comment has been collapsed.
Piracy = theft. I'm not going to discuss this matter :)
"a mass protest is a successful strategy at effecting real change", "organized boycott and protest" - you really like the Idea, don't you? I have bad news - If people will keep buying their products - your protest won't do anything. Also people usually march against some real issues, not against something so insignificant as game price.
"Surely, you aren't ignorant enough to believe North Korea isn't capitalist?" either you mistaken directions (north=/= south) or.. well in fact we shouldn't continue this exchange :)
Comment has been collapsed.
Simply reasserting a claim doesn't change its veracity. If you refuse to defend your assertion, then I can discard it as unproven along with the petty insults you used related to it. Perhaps you shouldn't make assertions you are unwilling to defend.
I have bad news - If people will keep buying their products - your protest won't do anything.
Yes, it can. Even a mass protest among a sufficiently large minority of consumers can be effective. A majority is not necessary for a mass protest to work, and a simple perusal of the history of mass protests demonstrably proves that.
Also people usually march against some real issues, not against something so insignificant as game price.
So? That doesn't mean a mass protest directed at a capitalist enterprise that demands changes in its decisions, production, or practices is therefore not possible.
either you mistaken directions (north=/= south) or.. well in fact we shouldn't continue this exchange :)
No, I not mistaken at all. Both the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) and the Republic of Korea (South Korea) are capitalist countries. A low-quality image of ostensibly North Korean people waving red flags emblazoned with hammer and sickle symbolism doesn't change that fact.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, it can. Even a mass protest among a sufficiently large minority of consumers can be effective. A majority is not necessary for a mass protest to work, and a simple perusal of the history of mass protests demonstrably proves that.
I totally dislike Betheshit move like this, but I'm uncertain what 'large minority of customers' can achieve. They're frikkin' AAA publisher with millions of money at their disposal, ignoring small numbers like that isn't going to be a problem at all for them.
Moreso, I don't think Valve/Steam will even side with customers. Or give the slightest damn.
(for the record, I will get the new Remastered Skyrim, but it doesn't change the fact I still dislike their so called business move)
Comment has been collapsed.
A large minority, which can be defined for the purposes of this discussion as between 20.0–49.999...% of the total consumer base, can pose a serious threat to the interests of any capitalist enterprise such that the directors and owners of that enterprise are likely to not only listen to the demands, but offer concessions and negotiate a resolution because a mass protest and boycott of that size would be a massive impact on their profit margins and cause a significant drop in the value of their shares. When you seriously threaten the profits and shares of a corporation, you essentially have it by the balls and it will be forced to negotiate if it wishes to protect its profit gains and avoid further bad publicity—that is, so long as the protest and boycott is sustained until then.
This is partly why worker strikes can be so effective even when a it is just a large minority. A recent example of this is the April 2016 Verizon worker's strike in the United States, where approximately 36,000 of the estimated 177,700 (2015) Verizon employees (only approximately 20.26% of Verizon's total estimated workforce) went on strike and made multiple demands relating to wages, pensions, and job security. Within only a few weeks, the strike was over and the workers won significant concessions from Verizon after collectively renegotiating their terms. Although consumers aren't able to shut down production and services by refusing to work like workers can, which effectively paralyzes the effected areas of the enterprise and cripples much of the rest, consumers can directly impact the enterprise's profits and shares with similar tactics.
This can work with any capitalist enterprise, not just Bethesda. The fact that it's a corporate giant is irrelevant when enough people stand up and fight back, since it is extremely terrifying for corporate directors and their owners to see the masses become conscious enough to realize that the corporations in reality depend on them, not the other way around (as they are usually made to feel), and use that power to threaten crashing its profit gains or, even worse, bringing the enterprise to the brink of bankruptcy. If anything, its status as a large corporate leader makes it easier for protesters and boycotters to use populist rhetoric. As for its enormous wealth and assets, that isn't only relevant, it can actually benefit the mass protest and boycott by facilitating that same populist rhetoric while serving as a very real reminder to the corporation of what they have to lose if they don't handle the protest and resolve the boycott as soon as possible.
As for Valve Corporation's relationship in any hypothetical mass boycott against Bethesda (or some similar situation, it completely depends on which option is the most profitable and best serves their interests as a capitalist enterprise. It's entirely possible that Valve chooses the side of the consumers and uses the conflict as an excellent opportunity to demonstrate its loyal commitment to the Steam community by defending them from the evil Bethesda menace (which would be nothing more than corporate propaganda) so long as it will boost sales (which it might) and increase public approval (which it would by ridiculously high margins) enough to both offset the significant costs and risks of damaging relations with a corporate giant like Bethesda—or some analogue thereof—and generate an appreciable profit beyond that. If not, then Valve would probably either side with Bethesda (unlikely) or remain neutral (very likely).
Comment has been collapsed.
Whatever. I will buy it for 5$ during steam sale in about 5-6 years.
I'm patient
Comment has been collapsed.
If I ever buy Skyrim, this is basically what I'll probably do, too, assuming Steam—and the economy—lasts that long.
Comment has been collapsed.
they would have profited more if it was paid upgrade separated from legendary edition.
that way there well be mods that only work on the special edition and more people well pay for it since they cant get it with the legendary edition ( which i have but never bothered spending time in )
Comment has been collapsed.
That would have likely come at the cost of public approval, which is already at abysmal lows for Bethesda. In my opinion, it would have probably better served Bethesda's interests if it did something similar to what 2K is currently doing with the Bioshock remastering promotion.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't understand why you say they don't have good intentions for gamers. Most of their games have outstanding reviews, and plenty of their games have won Game of the Year awards. Fallout 4 might not be the Fallout game you were looking for, but it's still a great game. I do agree that a lot of the Fallout 4 DLC doesn't look very good, but they still have more to come, and they most likely have big expansions coming.
Comment has been collapsed.
Why would corporations like Bethesda have "good intentions for gamers"? They have no interest in serving the consumer, community, or society. The sole function of capitalists enterprises is to maximize profits and the consumers are merely the means by which that profit is accrued. Just because their games are well-received, that isn't due to any well intent; that is simply because they made wise business decisions which so happened to have led to very profitable success.
Comment has been collapsed.
Bethesda would want to have good intentions for gamers so their customers keep buying their product. I would say well-received games is due to well intent. Their intent is to make great games for people to play and that's exactly what they have been doing for years.
Comment has been collapsed.
Bethesda already does that through corporate propaganda in the form of advertising and public relations. While Bethesda may do ostensibly kind gestures whenever they fuck up and get caught or when their public approval is low (which it currently is), they are always without exception with ulterior motives. They aren't genuinely good intentions; they are deliberate and calculated acts of manufactured kindness to protect and aggrandize their profit margins.
Their intent is to make great games for people to play and that's exactly what they have been doing for years.
Their "intent", if they have any, is to maximize profits. That may include producing great games for people to buy, but that is just a means to the end of maximizing profits. To treat their means as their intended goal is to assume their means are their ends.
Comment has been collapsed.
Raising their public approval isn't malicious like you are saying. If people aren't approving of you very much, then you would want to do anything you can do get people to approve of you again. That's just how people work. You're skewing everything Bethesda does to make it seem like they just want money.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm not saying it's necessarily with malicious intent, only that doing so is not out of sheer benevolence. It is a deliberate and calculated action that serves their interests.
You're skewing everything Bethesda does to make it seem like they just want money.
Of course they fucking do. Bethesda is a corporation, a capitalist enterprise whose prime motive is profit and sole function is maximizing those profits. The entire purpose of Bethesda as an economic entity is to generate profits for the express purpose of aggrandizing the wealth of the shareholders that own it and the board of directors they elect to direct it. Are you saying that everything Bethesda does isn't to make money, and that making money isn't the very purpose of their existence?
Comment has been collapsed.
Of course they want to make money, but you're saying every little thing they do is because they are greedy snobs who just want to bathe in money. Keyword in the quote you used is "just". They want money, everyone does, but that's not the only thing they want. They want to make great games for people to enjoy.
Comment has been collapsed.
Of course they want to make money, but you're saying every little thing they do is because they are greedy snobs who just want to bathe in money.
No, I am saying that every little thing Bethesda does is with the express goal of maximizing profits. Whether they are "greedy snobs who just want to bathe in money" or not is irrelevant.
Keyword in the quote you used is "just".
Yes, just, as in just making money and maximizing the making of that money is the sole function of a capitalist enterprise like Bethesda.
They want to make great games for people to enjoy.
Bethesda is a corporate machine, not a human being with passions and desires. Perhaps the people who work at Bethesda, particularly the game developers, "want to make great games for people to enjoy", but Bethesda as a corporation certainly does not and I suspect its chief officers and shareholders only want do so because it's lucrative.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't think it's the developers' faults. It's almost certainly because of the time time and content restraints that the board of directors place on them in order to maximize profits. The developers are just lowly wage workers who probably got into game development because it was their passion. It's extremely unlikely, in my opinion, that this is an issue with the developers. After all, they aren't the ones making the decisions or directing the enterprise, and they don't get any of the profits from the products they produce; that would be the board of directors and the shareholders who elect them.
Comment has been collapsed.
Skyrim used to cost about 7 bucks around here on sales. Now it costs 20. Good job with your paid pc mod, bethesda. Since I've already bought Skyrim on 360 and PS3, I'm not even caring no more.
I know that "free update" sounds awesome, but not everyone cares about a "definitive edition" on pc.
Comment has been collapsed.
20$ is the base price. It's currently on sale for 10. It's not a historic low, but no one expects every sale to beat or even match the last one.
Comment has been collapsed.
Bethesda are absolute Scum.
They will do anything to bleed a few more dollars out of anyone.
Comment has been collapsed.
Except they didn't actually raise the price. The person who wrote the article just can't do math.
The combined price of Skyrim + its DLCs is $64.96. Then you take off the standard 39% bundle discount and you get $39.63 as your base price, which is the same as it was before.
Comment has been collapsed.
My comment wasn't even Skyrim related.
It has more to do with shameful regional prices for no reason whatsover. $80 USD for Fallout 4. $80 USD for Doom. Why? Because Bethesda. They bump the price up for Australians without any reason. There's only about 3 publishers that do that and Bethesda/Zenimax are one of them.
Scumbags.
Comment has been collapsed.
My bad, I just assumed you were talking about Skyrim since that's what this thread is about.
Comment has been collapsed.
All they did here was not put Skyrim on a high discount, the base price for the LE is still more or less unchanged.
Comment has been collapsed.
Why is there no spot in the original post that blatantly says that they didn't increase the base price at all, they actually lowered it (by about 30 cents, but that still counts)? This is just making people get upset because some idiot on PC Invasion can't do math. I would suggest changing the title to say that they didn't actually inflate the price, or at least make it the first line of the original post.
Comment has been collapsed.
Did you just not see my edit on the OP? It's been there for hours. I would consider Bethesda's actions to have been inflating the price. Just because the inflated price is deflated with a bundle discount, that doesn't mean it wasn't still inflated for the express purpose of giving it the illusion of being on sale.
Comment has been collapsed.
I did see you edit in the OP but it still pretty much says that they inflated the price when they didn't. Bundles have a standard discount, and this one has a 39% discount. The price before the standard discount is the combined price of all the items in the bundle. A permanent discount is then added to make a reason for buying the games all together. Bethesda did a good thing making the Legendary edition a bundle because now people with only some of the content can buy the rest at a cheaper price. The "illusion of being on sale" that you talk about is all on Steam, Bethesda has nothing to do with it.
Comment has been collapsed.
I specifically stated the very issue you mentioned in your first OP:
Apparently, the article mistook the $43.71 price of all the games individually as the discounted price, which is incorrect. According to SteamPrices.com, the Legendary Edition costed $39.99 in the United States before it was removed. Now, it costs $64.96, but has a bundle discount of -39%, rendering the bundle cost when not during a sale at approximately $39.63. Therefore, this new bundle arrangement technically costs less, saving the customer approximately $0.36 (assuming the game is being purchased at its non-discounted price). Nonetheless, it is true that Bethesda inflating the price to give the new arrangement the illusion of being a better deal since it's discounted.
As for:
The "illusion of being on sale" that you talk about is all on Steam, Bethesda has nothing to do with it.
Do you seriously think Bethesda isn't probably already acutely aware of the intricacies of the Steam bundling system and used it to their advantage so that the same sum total discount can be shown while selling the product at a higher cost?
Comment has been collapsed.
They made it into a bundle so people who only have the base game and maybe a DLC or two can buy the remaining items for a cheaper price compared to buying them individually. It's obvious you have something against Bethesda so you're willing to just assume the worst in all scenarios. You're blaming Bethesda for having a higher discount percentage shown when there is nothing they can do about it.
Comment has been collapsed.
That might be a consequence of their doing so, but that wouldn't be the cause. Making those changes just so consumers aren't scammed as hard doesn't really serve their interests, whereas doing so to take advantage of bundling mechanics for increased profit does.
It's obvious you have something against Bethesda so you're willing to just assume the worst in all scenarios.
Not at all. I just understand basic political economy. It's not "assum[ing] the worst" to recognize that a corporate machine like Bethesda would only do something if they believed it served their interests, which above all is to increase profits. That's the function of corporations and all capitalist enterprises. That's how capitalism works.
You're blaming Bethesda for having a higher discount percentage shown when there is nothing they can do about it.
And you are, I suspect, being willfully naïve by pretending that Bethesda doesn't already know of how Steam's bundling mechanics works and is using those mechanics to their benefit. Do you honestly believe that Bethesda would simply make this change for no other reason than out of the kindness of its own heart, even though it doesn't benefit them in any way and might even decrease their profits?
Comment has been collapsed.
Making the Legendary edition into a bundle could actually lower their profits. You can't purchase gifts of bundles, so now they don't have people buying Legendary edition gifts for their friends. Bethesda hasn't been wining over the hearts of a lot of people lately, mainly because of Fallout 4 and its DLCs, so making Skyrim Legendary Edition into a bundle so people can get all of the DLCs cheaper certainly helps their relations with the consumers. You're just assuming that Bethesda is capitalist scum, when in reality, they have been doing many things that are pro consumer. Before the summer sale they lowered the base price of a lot of their games, they made Skyrim Legendary Edition into a bundle so Skyrim owners can get the DLCs cheaper, and when they had to raise the price of the Fallout 4 DLC so they had the funding to make the DLC they want to make, they gave consumers plenty of notice instead of instantly raising the price like companies such as Activision would do.
Comment has been collapsed.
The removal of gifting capabilities is something I hadn't considered, but perhaps sales from gifting the Legendary Edition were low to negligible, or this new arrangement is going to net them a higher overall profit. This new bundle arrangement also incentivizes the gifting of the base game and DLC, though, since there is no longer a Legendary Edition available, and that may alone bring in higher profits.
You're just assuming that Bethesda is capitalist scum, when in reality, they have been doing many things that are pro consumer.
Of course they are. Every corporation is, and virtually all capitalist enterprises are because that is their nature. It's economically irrational, not to mention poor business planning, to act in a way that is inconsistent with—or even conflicts with—the rules of capitalism and market economics. Doing so risks massive capital with no foreseeable return and would be the economic equivalent of playing Russian roulette with five of the six chambers loaded. It's basically a near-guaranteed method of running your enterprise into the ground, and Bethesda certainly can accomplish such a feat despite their hegemony in the gaming industry.
In what way has Bethesda been pro-consumer? What are the intents and motives of their pro-consumer activities and decisions? Without even knowing what they are, I can almost guarantee you that there are ulterior motives which render that ostensibly pro-consumer conduct completely profitable (or at least good public relations) and consistent with their interests. Although it is theoretically possible that Bethesda could, for some inexplicable reason, be acting in a way that is completely inconsistent with its function and ignoring or harming their interests in the process, I would consider that laughably unlikely. It would make more sense for some "compassionate capitalist" small business to do that and subsequently go bankrupt than for a giant like Bethesda doing so and risking literally billions of dollars in the process.
Before the summer sale they lowered the base price of a lot of their games, they made Skyrim Legendary Edition into a bundle so Skyrim owners can get the DLCs cheaper, and when they had to raise the price of the Fallout 4 DLC so they had the funding to make the DLC they want to make, they gave consumers plenty of notice instead of instantly raising the price like companies such as Activision would do.
You are aware that everything you described is completely consistent with their function as a capitalist enterprise, is profitable, and entirely serves their interests? If that's what you mean by "pro-consumer" behavior, then I'm not seeing how that is any more "pro-consumer" than any other of Bethesda's activities.
Comment has been collapsed.
Things that are pro consumer can also be profitable for the company, it doesn't have to be one or the other. You've just been assuming that Bethesda is just in it for the money, when in reality, they have been great for consumers.
Comment has been collapsed.
I didn't say otherwise. Nevertheless, describing an action as "pro-consumer" when it is performed with the express purpose of serving the interests of the producer regardless of whether it benefits the consumer is misleading at best.
You've just been assuming that Bethesda is just in it for the money, when in reality, they have been great for consumers.
Those aren't mutually exclusive traits, either. Regardless of whether Bethesda has been "great for consumers" (which I personally consider false), it nevertheless is "just in it for the money". It being "great for consumers" is just a byproduct of that trait, assuming it even is.
Comment has been collapsed.
when in reality, they have been great for consumers.
Paid. Mods.
Comment has been collapsed.
LOL bathesta pro-consumer :)) ... this made my day :V
Comment has been collapsed.
Happy cake day, buddy! (✿◠‿◠)
Comment has been collapsed.
Thank you! I was wondering when it would come around.
Comment has been collapsed.
This is so baaaaaaaaaaaaad. I was planning on buying the Legendary Edition...
Comment has been collapsed.
were you waiting for the price of free? The lowest price was 10 dollars, more than cheap enough for a game that will last over 100 hours
Comment has been collapsed.
yeah but like me i got base game withouts dlcs but i waited for a sale to buy dlcs in legendary edition after valve got idea with a packages on steam
Comment has been collapsed.
yeah it's unfortunate but waiting for sales is like playing a rigged lottery, even though you'll probably win at some point, you have zero guarantee that you'll win, and the game came out 5 years ago, so waiting around this long for a few dlc's means you probably weren't as interested in the game as you thought you were..
Comment has been collapsed.
Yup.. You are right about me i wast that interested in those dlcs but who would have expected that they will change sales policy :D
I talk to my friend and he will make a family share on my pc so that i could finally get to finish this game on 100% ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
Not for free but I didnt have the money at the previous sale... =/
Comment has been collapsed.
To be fair, they are moving towards the bundling initiative of Steam. Meaning players who already own part of the bundle can still enjoy the discounted price when adding the bundle into their library (in which previously they are just being punished by not receiving extra copies). Now, they just have to pay the difference. It is not necessarily a bad thing.
Comment has been collapsed.
The change does have its silver lining, but I would personally consider it a net negative impact from a consumer perspective.
Comment has been collapsed.
you think thats bad ? check out the Fallout games
5$ each !
use to be 2.50 for fallout 3 or new vegas, they hiked the price up for the sale i was going to gift a copy to a friend but won't anymore
Comment has been collapsed.
No! Complete editions always used to be 5$ during sales except NV, that I remember seeing at 6 dollars with something extra (Although NV dlcs has a lot of content and I like them a lot more that the ones in fallout 3). I remember I bought Oblivion at 5$ several years ago and now its prize is 9$
Same game, same version, more years and... 3 more $ ._.
I don't understand why bethesda did this
Comment has been collapsed.
This is the same company that Cut Imperials out of TESOnline becuase they claimed people wouldn't want to play as them, but had no issue putting them in an edition of the game priced 20 dollar higher..
Beth has been a low down greedy company ever since they released Horse armor for five bucks with Oblivion..
Comment has been collapsed.
I picked up Legendary for a couple bucks on Humble a while back, guess I got lucky.
Now I just need to get the courage to open the game again after I got trapped in a cave covered in egg sacs and GIANT BUGS!!
Comment has been collapsed.
anyone who doesn't own Skyrim 5 and it's DLC by this point weren't going to buy it anyway. If you waited around for a discount you waited too long as the Legendary Edition has been in the 7.50 range IIRC.
If you can't pay 7.50 for a game that will last well over 100 hours and have amazing mods then really you aren't going to buy it anyway.
What Beth did was take away the legendary edition of the game which was essentially just the game + the DLC in one lower priced package..
Did they take it away in prep of the sale,,, it's possible I suppose, or more likely they removed it once Steam started to offer the updated bundle offers.. Did it inflate the price slightly... sure, but ultimately as I said, if you didn't already own it, you likely aren't going to buy it anyway..
Comment has been collapsed.
The game has been out for 5 years, the Legendary Edition has been 10 dollars, cheaper on other sites for quite a while now. In all honesty you can still wait to buy it, (not the legendary, but the basegame and all the DLC) as it'll likely get cheaper again (unless it's removed and replaced by the upgraded version of the game)
You can get the legendary edition for about 17 dollars right now on G to the A, if you are keen to do so.. The fact is a 5 year old game that has been dirt cheap, offers over a hundred hours of gameplay, getting angry the cheaper version is gone seems kind of entitled in all honesty.
With that said I think Beth is greedy, what with their Horse armor DLC, and then Cutting out Imperials from Elder Scrolls online, to their various other crap tactics... this isn't one of those times when they were being greedy. IIRC the Legendary Edition was supposed to be a limited time thing..
Comment has been collapsed.
The fact is a 5 year old game that has been dirt cheap, offers over a hundred hours of gameplay, getting angry the cheaper version is gone seems kind of entitled in all honesty.
Who's angry? If you mean me, then I have no idea where you are getting the idea that I am seriously angry about this change. Mildly and momentarily annoyed, but that's about it, but I have deliberately tried to keep my personal feelings about this out of this thread (and, I think, successfully so).
Comment has been collapsed.
the little bit of responses I've seen from you gave me the impression you were slightly entitled. Maybe I misread it, I don't know, either way the legendary edition was removed likely because it'll be replaced by the upgraded version which will come out in the future.
This is probably why it requires all the DLCs, because the new edition will be similar to the legendary edition. If you wait till that new upgraded one comes out, a few years later it will be down to Legendary Edition levels. Them giving the upgraded version to all original purchasers is just a positive they are doing for their fans. Those who don't own the game or all the DLC"s, aren't big enough supporters I guess.
Also you didn't really do all that good of a job, I got the impression you're angry about them doing this, which is why I felt you are being slightly entitled..
Comment has been collapsed.
In case anyone wasn't aware, Bethesda as reportedly inflated the cost of Skyrim and all its DLC by removing The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim - Legendary Edition from the Steam Store and replacing it with the "The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim + Add-Ons" bundle. The Legendary Edition is no longer available on Steam, and may remain that way permanently. It is therefore no longer possible to purchase the Legendary Edition, which costed less than the base game and all the DLC. If you want to have the DLC, you must either purchase them individually or through the aforementioned bundle, and you must own both the base game and all the DLC in order to "upgrade" to the Special Edition for free.
Source: http://www.pcinvasion.com/bethesda-inflated-price-skyrim-legendary-edition-prior-steam-sale
Isn't capitalism great?
EDIT: Apparently, the article mistook the $43.71 price of all the games individually as the discounted price, which is incorrect. According to SteamPrices.com, the Legendary Edition costed $39.99 in the United States before it was removed. Now, it costs $64.96, but has a bundle discount of -39%, rendering the bundle cost when not during a sale at approximately $39.63. Therefore, this new bundle arrangement technically costs less, saving the customer approximately $0.36 (assuming the game is being purchased at its non-discounted price). Nonetheless, it is true that Bethesda inflating the price to give the new arrangement the illusion of being a better deal since it's discounted.
I suspect that as a result, it's now very unlikely for Bethesda to sell this "The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim + Add-Ons" bundle at a -75% discount, like the Legendary Edition used to have been, due to that bundle discount. Even if it does, however, the -75% discount would
(unless I'm mistaken) replacelikely already count the -39% bundle discount, thereby rendering the -75% discounted bundle's cost being $16.24 rather than the $9.99 that the Legendary Edition would have costed at -75%. In that sense, Bethesda definitely did inflate its price. By turning the Legendary Edition into a bundle arrangement, Bethesda is probably less likely to put the Skyrim base game and all the DLC on sale at -75% or higher, and doing so makes the game cost more if it ever is discounted due to the mechanics of discounting bundles. Regardless what discounts it may put in the future, it has already ensured that the price of the bundle this sale will cost more than the Legendary Edition in previous sales because its base price as been inflated.Comment has been collapsed.