The W
Views: 100946219
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
28.11.14 1102
The W - Video Games - What is worth $60?
This thread has 4 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 5.76
Pages: 1
(1243 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (18 total)
GameCrazy
Chipolata








Since: 13.1.10
From: Wyomissing, PA

Since last post: 1516 days
Last activity: 289 days
#1 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.43
What is worth $60?God of War 3 was a great game, and I think it was everything anyone could ask for. So then why do I feel like it was $60 ill-spent?

Thinking about this made me wonder what factors into the value of a game for the buyers. I personally held off on buying Dante's Inferno just because I knew it was short and that God of War 3 was going to be 10 times the game that Dante's tried to be. So I finally plopped down my $60, knowing that the game wasn't going to be Final Fantasy length. Even so, I couldn't help but feel cheated when I finished it. There is planned DLC on the way, which helps ease the burden, but is $60 for 8 hours of gameplay justified by the promise of dropping another 10-15 bucks later to extend the experience?

That's part of the problem with games these days. $60 is nothing to sneeze at, so a lot of people won't buy a standard single player game that clocks in at under 10 hours because of a lack of replayability. This mentality has caused developers to feel the need to include some kind of multiplayer element in almost every game. Most of the time it just feels tacked on, but it still helps to justify the purchase for most. In one way, I feel like that's sad that people don't want to reward an amazing single player experience with their money because of a lack of length. In another, it's my $60 too, and I find myself guilty of the same thinking occasionally.

A simple solution would be to make price cuts accordingly. If a game is single-player only, then price it at $40 and everybody goes home happy. But this is a double-edged sword. The budget for a blockbuster 8-hour single-player game like God of War 3 is just as high as a multiplayer game like Battlefield, and the production cycle is usually even longer. So if you drop the sales price, you have to take a drop in quality along with it.

I think this is why we'll start to see a lot more games like Siren & the new Tomb Raider that's coming out, and like Fable 2 experimented with, where the games are released episodically by download or on disc. This allows the developers to chop up the development cycles into smaller bits, and makes the financial toll lighter on the consumer. This also gives the consumers a choice. If they buy Episode 1 for $15-20 and they hate it, then that's the end of transaction. If they love it, then they'll buy every episode from that point forward, whether there are 2 more or 8 more. This also gives the developers the option of cutting their losses and starting a new concept if their first part isn't well-received by gamers. Then they don't have to feel like too much money or time was wasted, and taking risks on new ideas like Dark Void or Bayonetta or Last Guardian or even Heavy Rain won't be as uncommon. Personally, I think this could work really well. Any thoughts?

Also, what do you guys consider to be worth $60? Does it have to have a certain amount of gameplay or DLC? Or does it have to have multiplayer components for you to feel like your money was worth spending? What was the last short-length singleplayer game you bought, and did you feel like it was worth buying?

(edited by GameCrazy on 20.3.10 0854)
Promote this thread!
Alex
Bratwurst








Since: 24.2.02

Since last post: 23 hours
Last activity: 11 hours
#2 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.57
The way I see it, my time I have available to spend playing video games declines annually, so I'd rather pay $60 for a good, tightly paced 10-hour game, than the same game but with 10 hours of padding and filler.

Also, you can play it again, and still have fun that way. Have you earned the platinum trophy, yet? Just because you've finished the game doesn't mean necessarily that you have to be "done" with it.

Also, the danger of episodic releasing is that you'll get bullshit like the last Prince of Persia game that charged you ten dollars for the ending.

These days, I have more games to play than time to play them, so I can wait either for a sale, or for the game to become available for trade on Goozex or a similar service.
KJames199
Scrapple
Moderator








Since: 10.12.01
From: #yqr

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 2 min.
#3 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.07
I am very very bad at (and easily frustrated with) any kind of first-person 3D game (i.e., 95% of all new games) so I will wait for those to get cheap before I buy them.

I buy each year's new WWE game at full price, and I'll get UFC 2010 and Rock Band 3 at full price (assuming I can keep and use all my existing Rock Band DLC).

I also tend to trade off a lot of games once I am done with them, so that factors into my purchasing too, in that I can use it as justification to spend more on a game than I really should because I know I'll get some tiny amount back.

I want a game to be fun. I don't care if it's long or short, as long as I enjoy it. Besides, I probably suck enough that I will never make it to the ending anyway.



JK: LJ, FB, T
StingArmy
Andouille








Since: 3.5.03
From: Georgia bred, you can tell by my Hawk jersey

Since last post: 54 days
Last activity: 28 days
#4 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.54
I need the game to have replayability on the level of Madden games or length/extras/multiplayer modes on the level of the Grand Theft Auto games. If those aren't there, I'm more than happy sticking with Virtual Console and WiiWare and PS Store games (and emulator games back when I had a PSP, still can't beat RBI Baseball and Tecmo Super Bowl!).

For me it's really an issue of having so many other free (or already paid for) entertainment options. I used to buy games like crazy, but with how much games cost, why not save the $50-$70 and spend some time trying to clear the weeks worth of episodes of Heroes I have on the DVR? Or one of the half dozen movies I recorded from Starz last summer? Or maybe I'll play some Texas Hold'em online, that's just as entertaining as video games. You get the idea.

- StingArmy
The Guinness.
Morcilla








Since: 24.4.05
From: San Diego, CA

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 6 hours
AIM:  
#5 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.95
I quickly became a fan of Gamefly because of this. I was easily spending more than what the annual subscription to Gamefly costs. I think that was step one for me. I got tired of spending the money for a game that I didn't feel was worth it. I only have plans to actually but three games over the next year. Final Fantasy XIII, Fallout New Vegas & Fable III.

I guess by that description I'm realizing that for me to purchase a $60.00 game, it has to be a game that requires a substantial amount of time to beat it. All the rest are from Gamefly.

Another way that I avoid the $60.00 price tag is Ebay. Either by buying from ebay or selling the game back on ebay. Heck, there are a few games that I bought from Ebay, beat within a week and then resold it for more than what I paid. This helps greatly. You can easily reduce your costs on the back-end resulting sometimes in breaking even or even earning some extra money. Episodic games concern me because of this. I have no way to recuperate the costs.

odessasteps
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: MD, USA

Since last post: 163 days
Last activity: 130 days
#6 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.48

I'm really ejoying Mass Effect I. But I got it last month as a platinum title for $20.

Would I have enjoyed it at $50-60 when it came out?

Would I enjoy ME II now at $60?

doubtful on both counts.



Mark Coale
Odessa Steps Magazine
ISSUE FOUR - OCTOBER 2009
samoflange
Lap cheong








Since: 22.2.04
From: Cambridge, MA

Since last post: 407 days
Last activity: 400 days
#7 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.48
    Originally posted by StingArmy
    For me it's really an issue of having so many other free (or already paid for) entertainment options. I used to buy games like crazy, but with how much games cost, why not save the $50-$70 and spend some time trying to clear the weeks worth of episodes of Heroes I have on the DVR? Or one of the half dozen movies I recorded from Starz last summer? Or maybe I'll play some Texas Hold'em online, that's just as entertaining as video games. You get the idea.


Exactly why I stopped with console video games a few years ago. I have little free time at home, and I get as much enjoyment out of a half hour spent playing some free flash game than I did with 'real' games. My computer monitor is only a half inch smaller than my TV anyway!

EDIT: that means I have a tiny TV, not a giant monitor.

(edited by samoflange on 21.3.10 1012)


Lloyd: When I met Mary, I got that old fashioned romantic feeling, where I'd do anything to bone her.
Harry: That's a special feeling.
StingArmy
Andouille








Since: 3.5.03
From: Georgia bred, you can tell by my Hawk jersey

Since last post: 54 days
Last activity: 28 days
#8 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.54
Another semi-related question: are games getting worse or are we (or maybe just me) getting more demanding and more picky?

I remember back to my childhood when I'd have a stack of a dozen or so Genesis games sitting underneath my TV. Even when I'd had them all for a long time I would still spend almost an equal amount of time playing each of them. Mortal Kombat II, NBA Jam, Eternal Champions, Street Fighter II: CE, Sonic & Knuckles, etc. etc. etc. Didn't matter if I had beat the game before, they were just that much fun to play.

Flash forward to today and I barely pick up a game after having it for a few weeks or months. I go through a period where I play a game all the damn time, but after that I'm pretty much done with it. Final Fantasy VII for the original PlayStation is probably the only game from the past several years that I'd bother to play again after a long layoff.

Today's games obviously have far superior graphics, but is the gameplay lacking? Are game developers substituting flashiness for substance? Or maybe I've just "matured" (haha, yeah right) beyond typical gamer mentality?

- StingArmy
GameCrazy
Chipolata








Since: 13.1.10
From: Wyomissing, PA

Since last post: 1516 days
Last activity: 289 days
#9 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.43
    Originally posted by StingArmy
    Another semi-related question: are games getting worse or are we (or maybe just me) getting more demanding and more picky?

    I remember back to my childhood when I'd have a stack of a dozen or so Genesis games sitting underneath my TV. Even when I'd had them all for a long time I would still spend almost an equal amount of time playing each of them. Mortal Kombat II, NBA Jam, Eternal Champions, Street Fighter II: CE, Sonic & Knuckles, etc. etc. etc. Didn't matter if I had beat the game before, they were just that much fun to play.

    Flash forward to today and I barely pick up a game after having it for a few weeks or months. I go through a period where I play a game all the damn time, but after that I'm pretty much done with it. Final Fantasy VII for the original PlayStation is probably the only game from the past several years that I'd bother to play again after a long layoff.

    Today's games obviously have far superior graphics, but is the gameplay lacking? Are game developers substituting flashiness for substance? Or maybe I've just "matured" (haha, yeah right) beyond typical gamer mentality?

    - StingArmy


I think it's not so much about flashiness vs. substance as it is about quantity vs. quality. With hardware being as impressive and advanced as it is nowadays, there comes with it an expectation that every game should be epic by design so that it takes full advantage of the capabilities.

This brings to mind Bungie's "30 Seconds of Fun" philosophy. In the days pre-PS1, and even a little bit into the PS1 era, all developers tried to achieve was a fun gameplay experience. Back then, all that gamers wanted out of their games was to have something they could have enjoy. If it happened to have an ambitious IP attached to it at all, the game still came down to that basic 30 seconds of fun that could be repeated over and over. NBA Jam, Mortal Kombat, Mario, and even Zelda are examples of that philosophy in action. That's why they're so replayable. Regardless of what level you're on, who you're playing against, or how much time you've put into it, you just NEED to run-jump-bounce, or run-jump-shoot, or punch-punch-fireball. Because it's just satisfying.

Games nowadays try to be too many things at once. Not only should the character be able to run & shoot, but ALSO fly a plane, build a bomb, golf, cook dinner, and use a jetpack. It's not enough anymore to simply be able to jump out of the way of an enemy. Now you have to be able to dodge in both directions, block and counter moves, stealth kill, and be profficient with handguns, shotguns, swords, knives, axes, fireballs, shields... you get the idea. Even horribly flawed games like Dark Void and X Blades do some things really well. They just didn't focus on the things that worked and scrap the rest. It ties into the whole pricing thing. Would people buy Grand Theft Auto for $60 if you removed every aspect of it except the actual stealing of cars? Maybe, but it'd be a risky proposition. So developers cram all the shit into one ball, throw it at a wall, and hope enough sticks.

So yeah, basically I think that in an industry-wide effort to BE the movie industry, too much is expected from a game and things are complicated to the extent where we're just happy we PASSED the fourth level, not wanting to play it again. I think that's why online multiplayer's so popular now. It evokes the same feeling we had in the NES/SNES days, where it's just fun regardless of how well you do. It's simplistic compared to the single player, but it's basically dissecting the story mode, pulling out the core gameplay, and letting you play that without all the added fluff. Wow... so Modern Warfare 2 online is this generation's Mario. How times change.

(edited by GameCrazy on 21.3.10 1217)
Alex
Bratwurst








Since: 24.2.02

Since last post: 23 hours
Last activity: 11 hours
#10 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.57
    Originally posted by StingArmy
    Another semi-related question: are games getting worse


No, I'd say that quality-wise video games are as great as they've ever been. And really, there's something for everybody these days too. If you like older games, for instance, there's a strong retro movement with classic compilations and remakes, along with games like Retro Game Challenge and Mega Man 9/10 which imitate the older aesthetics and gameplay.

Your issue is probably like mine, with the internet there's constantly more things available to do than you'll ever have time for, combined with the fact that you can buy a new game whenever you want to, as opposed to waiting for birthdays or Christmas for the one of three games you would be getting all year.
Kevintripod
Boudin blanc








Since: 11.5.03
From: Mount Pleasant, Pa.

Since last post: 8 hours
Last activity: 8 hours
AIM:  
#11 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.79
I always get my games for a cheaper price online. No way I'm ever going to pay $60 for a video game.

But now Gamefly is the greatest thing since sliced bread.
If I beat the game, I send it back and get a different one. If the game is too hard and even Gamefaqs.com can't help me finish it, it goes back and I get a different one. But if I beat it AND like the online gameplay, only then I'll buy it. So I jump online and see who gives me the cheapest price:

Ebay
Half.com
Amazon.com
Gamefly (They also sell their games at a discounted price)



thecubsfan
Scrapple
Moderator








Since: 10.12.01
From: Aurora, IL

Since last post: 15 hours
Last activity: 1 hour
#12 Posted on | Instant Rating: 10.00
I used to GameFly, but put stopped when I realized there were a bunch of games I actually wanted to own for a while. I may get back on it this summer; I'd rather borrow FF for six weeks rather than buy it.

I try to not pay full price either; I try to trade in 1 (or more) games I own at GameStop every time I buy a new game, so I don't have discs laying around I won't ever play and I'm not paying full price. (Plus, this forces quick turnover = more $$$ on the trade in.) DLC uncertainty makes this iffy.



thecubsfan.com - luchablog
Zeruel
Thirty Millionth Hit
Moderator








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Silver Spring in the Land of Mary.

Since last post: 8 days
Last activity: 3 days
#13 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.53
    Originally posted by thecubsfan


    I try to not pay full price either; I try to trade in 1 (or more) games I own at GameStop every time I buy a new game, so I don't have discs laying around I won't ever play and I'm not paying full price. (Plus, this forces quick turnover = more $$$ on the trade in.) DLC uncertainty makes this iffy.


Everyone needs to keep trading in games while they can. Now that companies are charging fees for making some used games playable, I see it happening more and more in the future. These used game "fees" will really drive down the value of a used game.

http://www.tomsguide.com/us/sony-socom-psp-used-psn,news-5888.html



-- 2006 Time magazine Person of the Year --

-- July 2009 Ordained Reverend --
Mr. Boffo
Scrapple








Since: 24.3.02
From: Oshkosh, WI

Since last post: 487 days
Last activity: 448 days
#14 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.56
    Originally posted by Zeruel
      Originally posted by thecubsfan


      I try to not pay full price either; I try to trade in 1 (or more) games I own at GameStop every time I buy a new game, so I don't have discs laying around I won't ever play and I'm not paying full price. (Plus, this forces quick turnover = more $$$ on the trade in.) DLC uncertainty makes this iffy.


    Everyone needs to keep trading in games while they can. Now that companies are charging fees for making some used games playable, I see it happening more and more in the future. These used game "fees" will really drive down the value of a used game.

    http://www.tomsguide.com/​us/​sony-​socom-​psp-​used-​psn,news-​5888.html


I'm laughing out loud at that article as it pretends that the fee has something to do with piracy.

We'll see what happens with this. I remember at one time they wanted to have game discs that would destroy part of themselves once the game had been installed. In the PC market, people always claim they'll refuse to buy a game if it has copy protection. I think that's stupid but if ever there was a time to speak with your pocketbook, SOCOM Fireteam Bravo 3 would seem to be the time.
GameCrazy
Chipolata








Since: 13.1.10
From: Wyomissing, PA

Since last post: 1516 days
Last activity: 289 days
#15 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.43
    Originally posted by Mr. Boffo
      Originally posted by Zeruel
        Originally posted by thecubsfan


        I try to not pay full price either; I try to trade in 1 (or more) games I own at GameStop every time I buy a new game, so I don't have discs laying around I won't ever play and I'm not paying full price. (Plus, this forces quick turnover = more $$$ on the trade in.) DLC uncertainty makes this iffy.


      Everyone needs to keep trading in games while they can. Now that companies are charging fees for making some used games playable, I see it happening more and more in the future. These used game "fees" will really drive down the value of a used game.

      http://www.tomsguide.com/​​us/​​sony-​​socom-​​psp-​​used-​​psn,news-​​5888.html


    I'm laughing out loud at that article as it pretends that the fee has something to do with piracy.

    We'll see what happens with this. I remember at one time they wanted to have game discs that would destroy part of themselves once the game had been installed. In the PC market, people always claim they'll refuse to buy a game if it has copy protection. I think that's stupid but if ever there was a time to speak with your pocketbook, SOCOM Fireteam Bravo 3 would seem to be the time.


Yeah, this presents quite a dilemma to retailers, too... If you're Game Stop or GameCrazy (which is the company I work for) and most of your revenue comes from the used games business, then what? If the practice becomes more common, do you risk losing business to the major retail outlets and refuse to carry those games? Or do you carry them regardless and allow the consumers to decide? I know that in Socom's case, both stores carry it. But I also know that at first, no one was made aware of the fact that Sony would be trying this new "strategy." The used pricing for the game was the typical $29.99, until it seemed like they caught wind of it a couple days later and marked it down to $14.99. The game now has practically no trade-in value. So in a way, it seems like the strategy worked for now. I'm really surprised that Sony, #3/3 in the console wars and #2/2 in the handheld wars, would want to do something that could potentially have even LESS people buying their games and systems. It's the exact opposite of fan service. They shouldn't kid themselves, Socom is no Mario. It's not a must-have game for every PSP owner, and now they've narrowed the potential market even more.

I guess we'll see where things go from here, perhaps not until Socom 4, but maybe even earlier. I can't see Game Stop refusing to sell anything, because one game won't kill their overhead. But if it's a successful assault against the used sales of that game, then more publishers will surely adopt it, across multiple platforms. The consumers and the retailers both have to speak up, just as they did with the PSP Go. There's not much I can do at a store level, but I've done my best: not a single copy of Socom: Fireteam Bravo 3 has made its way onto the sales shelves of my store.
Alex
Bratwurst








Since: 24.2.02

Since last post: 23 hours
Last activity: 11 hours
#16 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.57
I rather like EA's "Project Ten Dollar" as a means towards encouraging new game sales. That, combined with the fact that Gamestop considers $5 off MSRP a respectable price to pay for used PS3 games means that I will probably never shop there again.
GameCrazy
Chipolata








Since: 13.1.10
From: Wyomissing, PA

Since last post: 1516 days
Last activity: 289 days
#17 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.43
    Originally posted by Alex
    I rather like EA's "Project Ten Dollar" as a means towards encouraging new game sales. That, combined with the fact that Gamestop considers $5 off MSRP a respectable price to pay for used PS3 games means that I will probably never shop there again.


I agree, EA's approach is exactly how far I feel a publisher should be able to influence how their games are being purchased. Reward the people who buy it new for $60, and then hey, if you want it cheaper then great; you'll just have to invest a little more later if you want the DLC that everyone else is playing for free.

Rumors started popping up yesterday of EA starting to charge for advance demos of their games in order to get early feedback before they finish developing. Essentially, they build a few levels, we pay to try it out and tell them what we think, and they go from there. Kinda like a paid beta, but even earlier in development. If this goes through, I think this could be a big step forward into the land of episodic gaming. But if a game's early demo doesn't download much, then what? Does the rest of the project get cancelled? Hmm...
Lise
Mrs. Guru








Since: 11.12.01

Since last post: 455 days
Last activity: 10 days
#18 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.90
    Originally posted by GameCrazy


    Rumors started popping up yesterday of EA starting to charge for advance demos of their games in order to get early feedback before they finish developing. Essentially, they build a few levels, we pay to try it out and tell them what we think, and they go from there. Kinda like a paid beta, but even earlier in development. If this goes through, I think this could be a big step forward into the land of episodic gaming. But if a game's early demo doesn't download much, then what? Does the rest of the project get cancelled? Hmm...


Hmm. That sounds like a way for EA to fulfill a weird developer contract and giving them an out to cancel an over budget and late title from a powerful developer that is clearly going nowhere. It doesn't sound like a real distribution model.
Thread rated: 5.76
Pages: 1
Thread ahead: The Swan Hatch in Just Cause 2!
Next thread: Nintendo Announces 3DS
Previous thread: DSi XL and DS/DSi releases: week of March 22, 2010
(1243 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
Demo (Tuesday) • Kinect Rush: A Disney/Pixar Adventure • Blades of Time Rocksmith DLC (Tuesday; 240 pts each)
The W - Video Games - What is worth $60?Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.158 seconds.