$50 vs $60

[Fogel]

This should have been started sooner, but let's air this one out! People are very adament on this topic, usually saying how they won't purchase a game because it is $60 instead of $50.

 

I challenge - Why?

 

Let's take Batman: Arkham Asylum - $50. Great game and I remember when this game came out everyone praised it. Yet it's about 6-8hrs worth of play. I personally don't see much replay value in it, nor did I see anyone talk about replaying it. So even though I'm sure there are people who did replay it, I'll just venture to say the majority of us paid $50 for 8hrs of gameplay. And I didn't see one person whine about the price.

 

So if you buy a game for $60 bucks but get 16hrs (so double) worth of game play is it worth the extra $10 bucks? Say you get days worth of play - 48hrs, 96hrs.. Why complain about $10 if you get far more play than you do for $50? But I don't see people considering how much playtime they'll get for their money, I just see people focusing on the initial price.

 

Now if the game is $60 and offers the typical 6-8hrs worth of play than I can see why people would complain about the price.

 

But for games you KNOW you are going to get some good playtime, why is the extra $10 that big of a deal? I'd rather support the games where the developers go out of their way to give tons of content (e.g. StarCraft 2) even if it costs me $60 ...than support the games that are only $50 but only give you 6-8hrs of pretty gameplay/cutscenes. I dunno, I just don't get this mindset ...which is why I created this topic, so people can explain their side.

 

 

 

Which makes me wonder. Why aren't more people supporters of consoles here? Spend $8, rent the game for a week. Surely you can beat a 6-8hr game in a week, if not a day.

[El_Capitan]

This should have been started sooner, but let's air this one out! People are very adament on this topic, usually saying how they won't purchase a game because it is $60 instead of $50.

 

I challenge - Why?

 

Let's take Batman: Arkham Asylum - $50. Great game and I remember when this game came out everyone praised it. Yet it's about 6-8hrs worth of play. I personally don't see much replay value in it, nor did I see anyone talk about replaying it. So even though I'm sure there are people who did replay it, I'll just venture to say the majority of us paid $50 for 8hrs of gameplay. And I didn't see one person whine about the price.

 

So if you buy a game for $60 bucks but get 16hrs (so double) worth of game play is it worth the extra $10 bucks? Say you get days worth of play - 48hrs, 96hrs.. Why complain about $10 if you get far more play than you do for $50? But I don't see people considering how much playtime they'll get for their money, I just see people focusing on the initial price.

 

Now if the game is $60 and offers the typical 6-8hrs worth of play than I can see why people would complain about the price.

 

But for games you KNOW you are going to get some good playtime, why is the extra $10 that big of a deal? I'd rather support the games where the developers go out of their way to give tons of content (e.g. StarCraft 2) even if it costs me $60 ...than support the games that are only $50 but only give you 6-8hrs of pretty gameplay/cutscenes. I dunno, I just don't get this mindset ...which is why I created this topic, so people can explain their side.

 

 

 

Which makes me wonder. Why aren't more people supporters of consoles here? Spend $8, rent the game for a week. Surely you can beat a 6-8hr game in a week, if not a day.

I play most new games on consoles, though I prefer FPS and RTS games on computers. Why? No DRM's, and I can re-sell the game much easier than a PC game. For instance, GameStop won't buy PC games, but will buy console games. You also get more for store credit than cash, so basically I buy a game, if I like it, I keep it. If I don't play it anymore, I sell it back to GameStop and get half of what I bough it for to get another game. So I basically rented a game for $25 - $30.

 

What I don't like is the extra down-loadable content for purchase the day the game is released. If I'm paying $50 for a game and they want $15 more for features they didn't include on the original disk, it's more like $65... or I bought a 90% completed game for $50. It pisses me off. I don't buy from game companies that do that. If they're going to release an expansion, that's fine. But on the day of the release? That's just marketing. I don't want a retail-lite game.

 

Most PC games these days also no longer support modding, or dedicated server support. What was great for PC gamers and modders was that ability for amateurs to create maps or mods for fun and for free. Unless there's a boycott of games, nothing's going to change. People will start paying $120 for complete games and have no control over adding to what's already existent.

 

Yes, the game company should get money for making a great game, but sometimes I feel they get too greedy.

[molotovdaskwerl]

I play most new games on consoles, though I prefer FPS and RTS games on computers. Why? No DRM's, and I can re-sell the game much easier than a PC game. For instance, GameStop won't buy PC games, but will buy console games. You also get more for store credit than cash, so basically I buy a game, if I like it, I keep it. If I don't play it anymore, I sell it back to GameStop and get half of what I bough it for to get another game. So I basically rented a game for $25 - $30.

 

game stop gives you back like what, 2 and a half dollars, and a cookie for your games, i could care less about resale, especially to gamestop

[WhenKittensATK]

Yes for $60. It seems like more developers are going for the raise in price. As long as it's a quality game. Hopefully they throw some free DLC our way like BC2. Not charging $15 for a couple of maps, meh

[sack_patrol]

I personally put the multiplayer on first place in any game I buy since THAT is what will keep me interested in the long term. Depending on the quality of the game and it's price I will decide if it's worth getting or not. Bad Company 2 for example: Before I got the game I was doing research on it a bit to see if it was well made in the Multiplayer side. I didn't ever really care about the quality or replayability of the campaign since that's not what will make or brake the game at all. I didn't even play the campaign until 2 weeks after I got the game. I think it's a very good game but I don't think I would give 60$ for it either. 60$ I think would be a game this really...something extraordinary. (I dunno what made Infinity Ward think MW2 was that kind of game but let's move on).

As for the single player games. I don't think I've ever bough a single player game except The Orange Box with the Half-Life 2 games which I think are the best FPS single player games ever made. Though in general, a single player game only, should not only have a longer campaign and reply value in order to cost 10 dollars extra, but also the quality must be very, very high in all aspects of the game. In fact, I don't think the replay value and length are as important as the quality of the game. Look at it this way: If somebody made a 60 hour long game, but that is so boring and stupid, that you wouldn't even wanna touch it, would you play it? Now, if you got a 5 hour game that also has very little replay value (basically if you like it...you can play it again but nothing will be different), but the game's story voice acting etc. are the best you've ever seen in your life, would you play it? I know I would. Ex. Half-Life 2 Episode 2. Favorite game of all time, yet only a few hours long, and I can safely say that I've played each and every single half-life game, at least 8 times since they've been released because for me THAT'S how good they all are. I would say that if half-life 2, Ep1 and Ep2 were sold together (basically an orange box without portal and TF2), I'd pay 60$ easily for it.

"Quality over quantity" is what I always say.

 

So basically it really depends on what's been put in the game, and you really gotta think about it. A 60$ game has to be very well made and very polished, and that delivers something very special and unique that will make it stand out from all the other games in it's own way.

 

As for the console games, it's hard to be supportive towards them because a PC game and a PC deliver much more than a console. Not to mention that a console game will be more expensive there than that same game, but on the PC. Then there's the extra money you pay for xbox live. I think a PC delivers everything a console does, and much much more. I've thought about it and I haven't really found anything that a console has, and that PC doesn't or couldn't do. (except for console exclusive games, but then again, PC also has exclusives)

[InCrYsIs]

I don't care what the game costs. If it is a good game I will buy it. I have spent over 100 dollars on Dragon Age Origins and have been completely satisfied. If the game is good and I enjoy it 60 bucks is a small price.

[Deathmineral]

Well my take on the pricing is that it has been $50 and I don't really see why they feel there is a need to increase the price. I personally don't like to look it in terms of content because it's subjective. For example I paid $30 for left 4 dead and have gotten 334 hours of gameplay out of it, so if we were to go by the idea that people should base what they play on the amount of content or play time then a game like left 4 dead, team fortress 2, modern warfare 2, or even bad company should be first on the list.

 

I personally can't relate to batman aa though because I didn't get the game.

 

I would like to mention that I have a PS3 and as such I can't say I haven't bought a game for $60. The games I have for the PS3 that I bought for $60 would be LBP and Yakuza 3. Now here is the question, did I feel they were worth it? Well that's kind of hard to answer, in terms of hours I played, LBP would be a no but yakuza 3 would be a yes, in terms of content, both would be a yes. Also a game I would like to mention is demon's souls, I didn't buy it myself, it was a gift, but after playing it I felt it was worth the $60 price tag. Now here is why I feel like these games were worth the money, in my opinion these games all did unique things in advancing some part of the game to the next level, or a level I hadn't seen in any other game I had played before. For example, Demon's Souls online play is something quite new, the idea behind it is that you can play the game cooperatively with others but certain conditions must be met, it also introduces a completely new PvP system that allows players to force their way into another player's game, meaning that if a person wants to play with as much advantage as they can they have to take the risk of being invaded.

 

For me it's those kind of steps forward that make the game worth it, it makes me feel like they put an over the top amount of effort into that game.

 

I just feel that if a game doesn't have something that I feel warrants a raised price then it shouldn't have a raised price.

 

As for supporting consoles, I support the PS3 and Wii, but I don't support them for the reason of renting. I'm not sure how renting a game works for most others here but the only option I have is blockbuster and they charge a $10 fee for 2 night game rentals, also I think you have to factor in other things as well, the time it takes to drive there and back, gas, and late fees, no one likes late fees.

[Fogel]

Some good replies so far

 

So I updated Option #2 to include "quality of the game is high". You can recast your vote if you want.

[ir_cow]

you know back when N64 and SNES games where out it was normal to pay $70 for a game lol. also if you are going to rent stuff get gamefly, $15 a month and you can go through about a game a week.

[Krieg1337]

I don't really mind the price. If we went by time played, well then MW2 has already been worth the $75(With map pack). I have over 460 hours played in that game, so yeah $75 isn't much for that amount of time.

[Fogel]

Speaking of old games:

 

- WarCraft III - 8yrs old - released at $55

- Orion 2 - 14yrs old - released $60

 

Rate of inflation really hasn't affected video games too much.

 

Then you have the MMO games. Pay $50 up front. Pay $40 each expansion. Pay $15 each month.

No wonder they play so much!

[xchrissypoox]

I would only pay 50 or 60 for the next half life and TES 5, nothing else. Even then I might wait a while before buying them, I bought oblivion goty for $20 and the orange box for like $50. Guess I just don't like throwing money away, same reason I don't have dragon age or fallout 3 (waiting for fallout 3 goty to drop in price more).