EA confirms Mass Effect PC release in May

Well they're gonna need a patch I'm sure to make it reconize the DLC so I think its a given, and even if it doesn't then what the hell its just the inventory screen, not the end of the world. For some reason I can see many mods coming out for this game one way or another on the PC version. One of the first ones will most likely be removing bounderies on the Uncharted worlds to see how far out they really go or use break into free camera to explore out of reach areas.

They don't need to justify their price at all. This is how capitalism works: company picks a price point, and consumers either buy it or they don't and the companies respond in kind.

So if you want companies to lower prices, don't buy titles at full price.

The reason they charge more is because Microsoft gets a cut for every console game released, a cut that you as the consumer end up paying. Of course I am pretty sure its no where close to the absurd 10$ difference but then thats capitalism.

Not buying things sounds great in theory, but how the hell do you put that in practice? So to tell MS how annoying it is, I should but literally nothing for it? The amount of non-$60 is small and clearly most people will spend the money.

That would go nowhere fast.

Also, I would imagine that MS gets something from titles like this on PC as it is... afterall, they are branded as "Games for Windows".

That $10s extra can be justified via licensing/publishing fees which are always going to be greater on a console than on a PC. Not only that, there is a quality control system for consoles (at least Nintendo and Microsoft. Though Nintendo pretty much opened its gates to shitty 3rd party games because 3rd parties were pissy their games weren't up to Nintendo's standards on all previous consoles and couldn't release them.) Plus there is the whole Microsoft can charge publishers a bigger fee than their previous system because it is simply better/more powerful.

Then there was the huge looming fear of a gaming market crash because everyone "thought" this was as far as games would get visually and of course they "thought" less people would purchase a gaming system that was so much more expensive and of course they considered the short run of the Xbox before the 360 was release.

All those things left publishers and developers alike very weary, they thought they wouldn’t sell as many titles this generation and they knew developing those games would eat up a lot of time and money (i.e. new equipment for development, the time spent learning how to effectively code for it, the longer development cycle, the greater cost for development, greater risk in low sales, etc).

Thus they all connived with one another and agreed on a price they would all adhere to (with few exceptions) and pushed Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo to allow this permanent price standard. Of course being the ultra profitable/successful arrogant software/hardware that Nintendo was they weren't going to be pushed around by 3rd parties (and considering their hardcore treatment of 3rd parties in the past I wouldn't expect anything different from them. They have finally started helping developers, but they won't be pushed around by them.)

So my fellow ignorant friends, there is your perfectly logical answer*** to this mind-boggling puzzle of a question.

Also I apologize for my terrible use of parentheses, it is a habit I’m trying to break but I didn’t feel like proofreading this silly post.

*** = The illegal conniving I suggested is simply a rational, though most likely untrue, explanation I made up. Though the Nintendo bit is fabricated as well it is 99% likely if my above conspiracy theory is true.

I also wanted to say I appreciate Eugene’s response.

People seem to forget exactly how capitalism works. In this case their risk paid off because consumers were clearly willing to pay more for video games than they already did. Sure there may be less consumer surplus but it is helping the industry.

If you are angry about the price then don't buy the item and use that as your method of solving the problem. The only other solution is regulation of the industry, which is completely out of the question. There are only a few industries that should ever be considered for regulation, and those of course are ones that control how our resources are distributed and in very rare cases when a particular industry grows to large and raises prices to high without showing any improvement for the consumer (SEE: Cable providers. The government gave certain cable providers a date for pushing more fiber to places that needed it and if they did not reach a 6 mob/s rated connection by that time then the government would step in and begin strict regulation because of the widespread abuse from cable providers. I believe the deadline was the end of 2006 fiscal year, and obviously the cable providers satisfied the government's demands as far as we know.)

To put things simply, “Don’t like it. Don’t buy it.” There is no one forcing you or them to do anything. You wouldn’t want someone forcing you to make financial decisions so why should you expect anything different from the person on the other end of the transaction? People are so selfish; they only want change when it benefits them personally. I’m sure you’d change your mind if you owned your own business. They have the greater risk involved in the industry so they should get the greater benefit. If that doesn’t make any sense to you then you’re merely a selfish single minded individual who will probably never find happiness. With freedom comes responsibility and with the pursuit of great benefit comes great risk. This is the basic idea of our country/economy and though it may not always seem so I’d have to agree with our forefathers that it is the correct idea from what I’ve experienced.

Plus you could always just go out and support Nintendo/PC titles, which would be far more effective than just stopping your purchase of games all-together. You have a better chance changing their mind about the 60 dollar price point by doing so, but it won’t because the price is fine when you factor in the above with the value of the US dollar on decline (Which is where most games are developed) and of course our economy being on the decline (which caused inflation and the cheaper US dollar.)

The real lesson to be learned here children is (Rocky & Bullwinkle style)
Think before you speak.
Or
The world doesn’t revolve around you.

i give it a week

Except that Fable wasn't a BioWare game. At any rate, what does surprise me is that Mass Effect came to PC so quickly. It took almost two years to get Jade Empire ported. I feared it would be the same for Mass Effect.

Bah, highschool grade economics are more than enough for any moron to determine a rational outlook on the new price point in the video game market. It is one of the few industries that isn't a need in any way shape or form and will never become one (at least not soon enough to sway the current status of our economy because it isn't socially as accepted as entertainment and could never help bring the economy out of a recession because of the vast recourses needed to make a game whereas any idiot can write and shoot a film with little necessary expense to stir it back up so to speak.)

Fox News Report: "PSex" Sick fetish or the rape of innocent minds? Find out more at 11:00.

Here is how it is going to work. Mass Effect will remain a 360 exclusive per licensing agreement until EA's fat check clears so they can happily alter it and then act frustrated while making up a clever excuse to save face.

Also even if they have already agreed to allow EA to port it to the PC they want to publicly appear as though it won't until the game is ready in an attempt to sway a handful of people who were waiting to buy the 360 if Mass Effect didn't port to the PC or to snag a few extra sales of the game from the people who just wanted to buy the cheaper version if it became available.

Why? Everyone should be able to play a cool ass game like this.

I forgot,you're a fan of systems,not games. Sorry.