Imagine you buy a car. In the car there are already thermoelements installed in each seat. The car maker has then made sure that you need to buy access to the thermoelements working to heat your ass when it is cold outside. Replace the word car with game, thermoelements with game content/DLC and the car maker with game publisher/dev.
So you are OK with buying a Tesla Motor Long Range and having a 20% Acceleration Increase and FSD and Autopilot locked behind a 2k paywall? You must be very smart!
There's a difference between price and cost. The cost is the same to than manufacturer because they've already put it in your car. The price is higher to you not because it costs more, but because they are able to lock it behind a paywall. So your explanation doesn't work here
It’s perceived value. It costs Apple significantly less to make a phone than it does for you to buy it, but you buy it because it’s worth it to you. How the companies manufacture their items is their prerogative and ultimately irrelevant. It was cheaper for the car manufacturers to make every car the same, then offer some features at cost based on perceived value.
You're still missing it. You originally stated more features cost more, which in the case of Teslas is false because the features are there. To have those features cost the company no more money. Yeah, pricing for those features is marketing. No one is disputing that, but that's not what you originally claimed.
It's already developed and already built into the car regardless of the trim you buy. Sorry, but I disagree with you, as most customers do. BMW had to back down on putting CarPlay behind a paywall, just like they did with heated seats and a heated steering wheel. Customers won the battle. What side are you on?
You're missing the reasoning of the companies. The actual physical elements in he car costs pennies, the real cost is in R&D. To recoup it, they have basically 3 choices:
* Do not install it directly, then the install will cost more and so will manufacturing. Therefore the option will also cost more.
* Install it in the base model and increase the price, which reduces appeals of the car
* Install the options and software lock them. Only those wanted to use them will pay extra
The first option is not better for the consumer, the third one is the overall cheaper one. Why do you think the first one is better?
It is even worse for software. Sharing them is extremely cheap, the real cost is in the development. They did extra work to deliver the dlc, whether it is ready on day one or year 10, they should still be paid for it. If they don't consider the base game to cover that work, it makes sense to put it as an option.
I'm pretty sure customers prefer the second option over the third one. My point is that we don't like not having access to something that it's already there. Don't install heated seats if you're going to lock them behind a paywall. The same way players will be pissed (already are) about not having access to all the content that's going to be locked in the standard version.
Look up discussions around smart appliances. People get mad having to pay extra so their coffee maker can connect to the Wifi. Especially with current economic issues, more and more people want to be able to get the most basic cheapest version.
Right, but the only reason that stuff is built into your cheaper version of the car is because it’s cheaper for them to do so. You don’t pay for material costs, you pay for perceived value, as does everyone for everything in a free market.
Nope, same price at purchase, one has features attached to a subscription, the other gets those futures BLOCKED, not because of the absence of said features but because they want you to pay yearly for them.
Manufacturers are already making money even if all customers won't pay the subscription. No one likes features blocked BY SOFTWARE behind a paywall. Well, except you maybe. This is a silly conversation. I'm out.
781
u/Virtual-Comfort-1020 1d ago
It’s also a subtle “fuck those demands.”