Anarchosyn
Still Mildly Glowing
Brother None said:
My apologies for the misquote, I was pretty dead tired when replying earlier (in that "coming off like an acid head" sorta way if out in public).
That aside, I think the crux of my objection to your objection this invalidity you feel comes from directly comparing different experience through pricing. Granted, comparing an apple to an orange can miss some salient differences. However, if one begins with a firm criteria (say, "sweetness" or "most spherical") such comparisons can bear fruit (pun sadly intended
). I'm being a bit playful in my speech, of course, but ultimately I come from the camp that any and everything can be compared so long as a framework is established for your analysis. In my work, looking at econometrics regressions and doing data analysis of macroeconomic development trends, we do this kind of apple and orange comparison all the time. Further, like I said before, it's taught in every introductory (neo-classically based) microeconomics class , encapsulated in the jargon phrase "opportunity cost." On the off chance you're not an economist (or perhaps for others who may be unfamiliar), this kind of analysis involves looking at the real cost of any decision you make through a very similar lens to what we were suggesting regarding movie tickets. (What's the cost of skipping work to hit the cinemplex? The cost of the ticket. What's the opportunity cost of skipping work to hit the cinemaplex? However much you would have made at work + the cost of the ticket + those intangible elements, like positive accord with your boss, likewise lost through the decision). Is it reductionistic? Perhaps.. but what model isn't? It's through models and metaphors that we erect social networks, cultures, cities and [insert favorite items HERE].
All that aside, like you said, a concert ticket may cost more but is it inferior? No, but you're neglecting to factor in durational differences (most concerts are 2-4 hours in length, opening bands included). Beyond that, the original supposition was that the cost for the DLC was equal to or lower than a movie ticket yet would offer more enjoyment and duration. Unless you want to quibble with the "more enjoyment" element of this (I'd say any interactive medium offered more enjoyment, minute for minute, than non-interactive mediums), it's still a pretty solid ground to frame valuation relationships between potential expenditures.
But here's the rub, with DLC there is a common conception that the entire valuation scheme is out of wack, industry wide (i.e. all concerts are overpriced). When the entire playing field becomes suspect you naturally have to move to a related, but perhaps somewhat dissimilar, step to gain a frame of reference. I might very well look to the price-per-util value of CDs to determine the worth of a concert (or related social outing, if "concerts" aren't so much about the music to me).
What DLC offers a better cost-per-util value in your experience?
Anarchosyn said:
That's why I added the note on manhours. Also your statement is ridiculous. I'm comparing DLCs to their source game, not to a completely unrelated game of a different genre.
If you're just going to ignore half of what I'm saying then, uh, well that's annoying.[/quote]
Yes, it was ridiculous -- that was kind of the point (to show you how silly your supposition was). I'm glad to see we're on the same page. The point still remains, you can't use the rational you're putting forth to determine value. Comparing it even to the source game runs into the foundational fallacy that length and depth have anything to do with pricing in the modern industry (i.e. if that were the case then Fallout New Vegas would naturally cost a lot more than related Xbox titles, which it doesn't).
See what I'm getting at here?
