- last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT
Posted by: longhorn10
Posted by: The_omen
The overhead in this case actually is lower than Halo 3's because it took more man power to make Halo 3 than ODST (hence the smaller dev team). It also took less materials to make it (same engine, rehashed character models etc)
Variable cost is volume-related (and are paid per quantity). How exactly does this relate to the fact that we're paying for something twice?
Wouldn't this mean that the cost heightens depending on the quantatiy of the package? Well the quantatiy here heighten because of the addition of Halo 3 multiplayer. It is stated in the links I've provided in my past posts. You're interpreting it wrong. I, Kotaku, Joystiq, and 59 others have interpreted it correctly.
it's not like MS is going to flat out say "WE'RE ROBBING YOU". They're saying it in a way that will confuse people.
First off, please don't back up your arguments with a reference to your poll results, it undermines your credibility. There's a reason nobody gives credibility to them. Any 12 year old with access to the internet and a parent paying for their games can say, "omg yes!" If this was a forum accessible only to MS management and PhDs, then I'd totally give credence to that statement.
Second, good, you have some idea about costing. Let me ask you this? What is the variable cost of including the maps in ODST? Negligible, right? So we are paying to recover MS/Bungie's fixed costs and overhead. Paying for the DLC over the market place was to recover the cost of developing said DLC. That cost has been recovered. Paying for ODST covers the cost of developing ODST. Did Bungie have any costs associated with including the old maps in ODST? I didn't think so. No they did not. That's what makes this outrageous. Look, everything you've told me is based off how companies set the cost of something. It doesn't prove that they aren't making you pay for it twice. You're telling me that if it took no work to add it, they shouldn't be charging for it, that is not to say they aren't charging for it though, right? You know many people aren't aware about how a price is set (taking everything into consideration), so maybe MS knows this too and is taking advantage of it.
All I'm saying is that whether or not marketing cost (rules) say that you shouldn't put a price on something if there is no work going into, it doesn't negate the fact that MS could put a price on it.
Why exactly would the price go up? Because ODST grew to more than what it was excepted? Maybe. Who's to say? No one. So far, the only good reason is that they are charing for the maps.
[Edited on 07.06.2009 8:32 PM PDT]