Is any game really worth $60? (TC says no)

  • 74 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by Shmiity (5010 posts) -

I honestly don't think any game is worth that price. I don't know about you guys, but $60 per game is a lot for me. I think if every game was 19.99, or 29.99, I would buy everything that came out.

Even games like Skyrim or other 100+ hour content, $60 is a lot. I think I've only bought 3 full priced games in the entirety of 2013-now.

Shorter experiences should be lesser priced. I feel kind of bad saying it, but is an 8 hour experience worth the full price? No way.

I'd like to see other people's opinions.

#2 Posted by Lhomity (770 posts) -

Games cost a lot of money to make. They cost a lot of money to buy.

Consider the price of games 30 years ago, 20 years ago. $60 today is a fair price. If the cost of games had gone up with inflation, you'd be paying more than $60. Meanwhile production costs have only ever gone up and up and up.

No offense, but I think your problem is, you're cheap.

If you don't want to pay $60, there are plenty of indie games you can play, and there are plenty of old games you can go and play too. If you want AAA new releases, be prepared to pay the price.

#3 Posted by -Renegade (8340 posts) -

if they have online multiplayer and it isnt dead within a week, i think $60 is pretty fair price to pay for hours and hours of fun.

#4 Posted by Jacanuk (3896 posts) -

@Shmiity said:

I honestly don't think any game is worth that price. I don't know about you guys, but $60 per game is a lot for me. I think if every game was 19.99, or 29.99, I would buy everything that came out.

Even games like Skyrim or other 100+ hour content, $60 is a lot. I think I've only bought 3 full priced games in the entirety of 2013-now.

Shorter experiences should be lesser priced. I feel kind of bad saying it, but is an 8 hour experience worth the full price? No way.

I'd like to see other people's opinions.

Hmm, is anything you consume or entertain yourself with really worth the cost?

But of course games are worth 60$ they would also be worth it if they costed more, it would just be a more scarce thing, like a good wine or Kobe steaks, something you only have once in awhile.

Also honestly i would rather spend 60$ on games than 60$ on a night out getting drunk.

#5 Edited by Archangel3371 (15261 posts) -

I buy quite a few games at full price and I'm very satisfied buying them at $60. Nothing wrong if others prefer to wait for price drops though, thats kind of why they drop in price after awhile.

#6 Edited by Shmiity (5010 posts) -

@Jacanuk: I'm with you, I'd rather have a $60 entertainment product than a $60 bar tab.

You guys don't think game development costs have gotten too high? It's definitely becoming a problem. There are less releases, but more expensive projects. These big, AAA games aren't really helping anyone. But yeah, surprisingly enough, game retail cost has gone down since the 80's. What I'd like to see is the $60 price stay the same, so as the economy moves on, games get "cheaper".

#7 Posted by udUbdaWgz1 (598 posts) -

no the end product that gaming companies produce are not worth 60 bucks.

I don't care about companies making huge profits (making money good, greed is not) and I know they don't know how to spend their budgets wisely.

as well, in my lifetime I have never bought a game because of its advertising, "stars" or voice-acting.

gaming companies waste their money and produce subpar results.

#8 Posted by speedfreak48t5p (6598 posts) -

GTA V, Forza 4, and Fallout New Vegas were worth $60 and then some.

#9 Edited by TTUalumni13 (458 posts) -

Some games are, most aren't. Thank bloated development costs to try and squeeze pixels out for higher prices with less content.

#10 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (9920 posts) -

I haven't bought a game brand new in a while.

#11 Posted by dethtrain (384 posts) -

I don't pay $60 for a game. Most I'll drop for 1 title is $40.

#12 Posted by tempura13 (425 posts) -

Won't be good, considering the development cost these days (more especially to those studios pushing the technical limits of a platform). Still, we have our own ways in justifying our purchases, so there's that.

And I don't like the notion of "If the development cost/budget is low, then it's a mediocre game by default" either. But that's another story.

#13 Posted by RimacBugatti (1189 posts) -

@Shmiity: Whether or not I can afford the price or not and I don't have money I think the games should be around $80 realistically. The smaller games like the new MGS I think should be less expensive as it is. We have to be realistic and $60-80 is very realistic. It's the people that don't want to spend the money that are part of the reason that the gaming industry is dying.

#14 Posted by SaintJimmmy (2815 posts) -

Games that have the adequate amount of content I believe are hold my attention for 20+ hours and that money was well earned

I believe games that have less than 20 hours should be priced in the ~$40 range

Either way though $60 is not that much money if you have a full-time job

#15 Edited by CrimsonBrute (23144 posts) -

It depends on the kind game, the amount of content, replayability, and overall quality for it to justify the $60 price tag.

#16 Edited by billy503 (22 posts) -

@Lhomity said:

Games cost a lot of money to make. They cost a lot of money to buy.

Consider the price of games 30 years ago, 20 years ago. $60 today is a fair price. If the cost of games had gone up with inflation, you'd be paying more than $60. Meanwhile production costs have only ever gone up and up and up.

No offense, but I think your problem is, you're cheap.

If you don't want to pay $60, there are plenty of indie games you can play, and there are plenty of old games you can go and play too. If you want AAA new releases, be prepared to pay the price.

i agree with @Lhomity tottally , since games now adays cost ALOT of money to make i think that 60 $ is a fair price to pay for a game you really love or think you'll love .

so please @Shmiity dont hate the fact that you really cant appreciate the cost if you dont see the procedure and the things that they have to pay to make you the game you like and love

#17 Posted by Shmiity (5010 posts) -

@billy503: I understand the huge costs of AAA games. What I'm getting at here is a 6 hour long gaming experience should be $14.99, and not $59.99. I feel shitty saying it, but sometimes I equate money I spent to hours I spent playing it, and rarely do the hours exceed the dollars.

#18 Posted by turtlethetaffer (16609 posts) -

Yeah there are some games I'd consider worth the full price of admission. Not many though, which is why I rarely ever buy games new at launch very often.

#19 Edited by ZZoMBiE13 (22911 posts) -

@Jacanuk said:

Also honestly i would rather spend 60$ on games than 60$ on a night out getting drunk.

You must not be drinking the right stuff buddy. :)

Kidding aside, I don't really have a problem with the cost of games in general. If a specific title is crap, then yeah I get pissy having wasted my money. But that applies to anything. If I pay matinee price for a movie ticket I'm still pissed if it's a crappy movie, if I buy a book that is disappointing it doesn't really matter if I bought it hardcover for $40 or paperback for $10, and if I pay for single malt Scotch but it's watered down then I will be upset.

I consider games about the best way to spend my leisure time, but they are a luxury item. And they've actually decreased in price relative to other forms of entertainment. I remember Atari cartridges that were not much less 35 years ago. In the SNES days and N64 days carts could go as high as $70 or $80. So relatively speaking, they're no more costly a hobby today than they were 20 years ago. You won't find a lot of entertainment options that are as unaffected by inflation. Movies cost more today than even 10 years ago, books cost more today than 10 years ago, etc etc. Games though, have been $60 since 2005, almost a decade ago.

#20 Posted by turtlethetaffer (16609 posts) -

@Jacanuk said:

Also honestly i would rather spend 60$ on games than 60$ on a night out getting drunk.

You must not be drinking the right stuff buddy. :)

Kidding aside, I don't really have a problem with the cost of games in general. If a specific title is crap, then yeah I get pissy having wasted my money. But that applies to anything. If I pay matinee price for a movie ticket I'm still pissed if it's a crappy movie, if I buy a book that is disappointing it doesn't really matter if I bought it hardcover for $40 or paperback for $10, and if I pay for single malt Scotch but it's watered down then I will be upset.

I consider games about the best way to spend my leisure time, but they are a luxury item. And they've actually decreased in price relative to other forms of entertainment. I remember Atari cartridges that were not much less 35 years ago. In the SNES days and N64 days carts could go as high as $70 or $80. So relatively speaking, they're no more costly a hobby today than they were 20 years ago. You won't find a lot of entertainment options that are as unaffected by inflation. Movies cost more today than even 10 years ago, books cost more today than 10 years ago, etc etc. Games though, have been $60 since 2005, almost a decade ago.

Oh my lord, saying that 2005 is almost a decade ago makes me feel so goddamn old :P

#21 Posted by RimacBugatti (1189 posts) -

If games were to be affected based on how much value the dollar has. If games were to inflate based on gas and the price of gold and groceries and basically everything I would be nice by saying the games should fetch atleast $120. Closer to $150 would be more accurate. A movie purchased on Blu-ray when released could fetch $30 which is typically a 2 hour movie. So 2 hours of entertainment for $30 would equate to a 6 hour game for $90. It's being realistic whether we like it or not. Even the consoles realistically could be priced at $800+ and that would be fair. These games require many more devs than use to be. The fact is that it costs more to create games but they make a much less profit than before.

#22 Posted by SoNin360 (5277 posts) -

I rarely spend full price on games. I think few are actually worth full price. That's why I don't tend to rush out and buy games right away unless I absolutely feel the need to play the game as soon as possible. I have plenty of games to play as is from PS+ and other games that I most likely bought at a discount.

#23 Edited by The_Last_Ride (69731 posts) -

@Shmiity: Pff, the games here cost 120 bucks, call me when you guys hit that... Games cost money to develop. Developers, marketing, software, hardware, etc. Everything costs a lot of money. And games do have different price points. You can always wait and buy it cheaper. Geez

#25 Posted by Pffrbt (6468 posts) -

Very few games are worth $60. A game has to be downright excellent to be worth that much, and it's extremely rare that that's ever the case.

@Lhomity said:

Games cost a lot of money to make. They cost a lot of money to buy.

Movies cost more to make, yet tickets and even blu-rays cost only a fraction of what video games do.

#26 Posted by ZZoMBiE13 (22911 posts) -

@Pffrbt said:

Very few games are worth $60. A game has to be downright excellent to be worth that much, and it's extremely rare that that's ever the case.

@Lhomity said:

Games cost a lot of money to make. They cost a lot of money to buy.

Movies cost more to make, yet tickets and even blu-rays cost only a fraction of what video games do.

Budgets aren't really an issue though. Movies need locations, sets, costumes, extras, etc. Everything in a game exists in a computer except the mo-cap performance and VO work (if any).

Just because a game and a movie can both be sold using the Blu-Ray disc format doesn't mean that they are really comparable in any way. And even though average running time has gotten longer, you're still most likely only going to get 90-120 minutes out of a Blu-Ray and it will always be exactly the same if you revisit it. It's simple reproduction of a work. While games have to account for every angle you might view of every location your character visits. Budgets may be smaller for games, but what you get is far more possible entertainment out of most any game. Well almost. Someone told me that new MGS Ground Zeroes was about movie length. But even that you can replay and have a completely different experience. And it's, what $30? That's the same as I paid for Thor: The Dark World on Blu-Ray.

#27 Edited by Pffrbt (6468 posts) -

@ZZoMBiE13: "Movies need locations, sets, costumes, extras, etc. Everything in a game exists in a computer except the mo-cap performance and VO work (if any)."

Games need more than just a computer as well. Also, there's such a thing as animated movies.

"Budgets may be smaller for games, but what you get is far more possible entertainment out of most any game."

That doesn't justify being so drastically more expensive than movies, which have far higher budgets.

#28 Edited by ZZoMBiE13 (22911 posts) -

@Pffrbt said:

@ZZoMBiE13: "Movies need locations, sets, costumes, extras, etc. Everything in a game exists in a computer except the mo-cap performance and VO work (if any)."

Games need more than just a computer as well. Also, there's such a thing as animated movies.

"Budgets may be smaller for games, but what you get is far more possible entertainment out of most any game."

That doesn't justify being so drastically more expensive than movies, which have far higher budgets.

I wasn't attempting to create a point by point comprehensive list of everything that might go into a games manufacturing, simply listing a few common ones.

Spend your money how ever you like. It's none of my business. Everyone perceives value on their own terms. But I disagree with your assessment. How much they spent to create it is irrelevant to the end product. The interactive nature of games may not hold any value to you, but I'd personally rather spend my time playing a game, having an interactive experience, than just passively sitting and watching a film.

#29 Edited by HipHopBeats (2863 posts) -

@Shmiity said:

I honestly don't think any game is worth that price. I don't know about you guys, but $60 per game is a lot for me. I think if every game was 19.99, or 29.99, I would buy everything that came out.

Even games like Skyrim or other 100+ hour content, $60 is a lot. I think I've only bought 3 full priced games in the entirety of 2013-now.

I feel games like Skyrim would definitely have been worth $60 if it wasn't released as a public beta. We enable laziness from devs to release broken games. We feed into the hype and false advertisement, blindly pre ordering based on trailers and nostalgia.

Then we accept season passes as a norm like it's okay to spend $60 for a half finished game that isn't even released yet PLUS another $25 on cut content that will be dished out to us later as if we're all hungry wolves circling the pit waiting for the porkchops to fly, instead of making devs earn our trust and hard earned money.

Nowadays, I'm content with youtubing most games I'm interested in and wait a year later for GOTY / Complete editions with all DLC and pay less for a complete product.

#30 Edited by Pffrbt (6468 posts) -

@ZZoMBiE13: "How much they spent to create it is irrelevant to the end product."
How if money is required to make the end product. You haven't given one reason why games should cost consumers significantly more money to buy than movies when they cost significantly less to make.

"The interactive nature of games may not hold any value to you, but I'd personally rather spend my time playing a game, having an interactive experience, than just passively sitting and watching a film."
No one was contesting whether or not an interactive experience has any value, just contesting why it should cost a ridiculous amount more than movies when far less money goes into making them.

#31 Edited by HipHopBeats (2863 posts) -

@Shmiity said:

Shorter experiences should be lesser priced. I feel kind of bad saying it, but is an 8 hour experience worth the full price? No way.

I'd like to see other people's opinions.

I agree. What's funny is Ground Zeroes is priced at $20 - $30 with no secret of it's content or short length, and yet people still complain.

#32 Posted by Shmiity (5010 posts) -

@HipHopBeats: People should speak with their wallets. Don't buy it.

#33 Edited by Jag85 (4351 posts) -

Games were way more expensive back in the 90's:

The '90s Game Price Comparison Charticle

The SNES cartridge of Street Fighter II cost $75 in 1992 dollars, i.e. $121 in 2012 dollars!

And that's in the US... Here in the UK, games were even more expensive.

#34 Posted by Bigboi500 (29124 posts) -

I think most people understand that games, even the good ones, aren't worth $60. That's probably why we see 95% of big named titles regularly receiving 80% or higher scores from popular gaming websites. They get schwag, hits, revenue and other perks for hyping and stamping games to make them appear as more appealing, and droves of people fall for that.

#35 Edited by ZZoMBiE13 (22911 posts) -

@Pffrbt said:

@ZZoMBiE13: "How much they spent to create it is irrelevant to the end product."

How if money is required to make the end product. You haven't given one reason why games should cost consumers significantly more money to buy than movies when they cost significantly less to make.

"The interactive nature of games may not hold any value to you, but I'd personally rather spend my time playing a game, having an interactive experience, than just passively sitting and watching a film."

No one was contesting whether or not an interactive experience has any value, just contesting why it should cost a ridiculous amount more than movies when far less money goes into making them.

How about we just shake hands and agree that we're not going to share a point of view on this one?

Because different people determine value in very different ways. What one person finds perfectly reasonable can seem like a total rip off to someone else. I kinda think that's what is happening here. And there's nothing wrong with that. I don't believe either of us is right or wrong, I think we just hold different elements more important than others.

Budgets are also not really comparable because the processes to make the game or movie or whatever are severely different at their very core. And like I said, the budget they spend is really not relevant to me anyway, only what they cost me relative to the amount of enjoyment they provide. While I truly don't wish to sound insulting or condescending, the answer to the budget thing is basically; I just don't care. If they spend 10 million to make it or 250 million to make it, all I really care about is what it costs me when it's sitting on the shelf of the local shop. Is it a value to me? Does it provide what I'm looking for?

I don't work in films or games so there's no way to itemize a cost analysis of their budgets, especially when I don't consider it a deciding factor. I'd say how about instead of asking why games cost more when their budget it less, why not ask why a film can only entertain me for 2 hours when their budget is bloated compared to what a high end game budget can be? But even when I flip it around like that, it's still a flawed argument. Actors and coders are not comparable in salary. Computers versus HD cameras, film crews costs versus office space rental, they're just so different it's all but impossible to compare them on even terms.

For me, I look at it this way: I can buy the newest Forza and play it for 60 hours. That's a buck per hour of entertainment while a Blu-Ray of The World's End costs $20 or $30; a $10 or $15/hour or greater ratio. If they raise the costs of the games I want, I'd be inclined to reassess the situation. Likewise if the average cost of Blu-Rays were to decline. But that's what they cost relative to what they provide, which is really the only thing I personally take into consideration.

#37 Posted by dethtrain (384 posts) -

@Pffrbt said:

@ZZoMBiE13: "How much they spent to create it is irrelevant to the end product."

How if money is required to make the end product. You haven't given one reason why games should cost consumers significantly more money to buy than movies when they cost significantly less to make.

"The interactive nature of games may not hold any value to you, but I'd personally rather spend my time playing a game, having an interactive experience, than just passively sitting and watching a film."

No one was contesting whether or not an interactive experience has any value, just contesting why it should cost a ridiculous amount more than movies when far less money goes into making them.

How about we just shake hands and agree that we're not going to share a point of view on this one?

Because different people determine value in very different ways. What one person finds perfectly reasonable can seem like a total rip off to someone else. I kinda think that's what is happening here. And there's nothing wrong with that. I don't believe either of us is right or wrong, I think we just hold different elements more important than others.

Budgets are also not really comparable because the processes to make the game or movie or whatever are severely different at their very core. And like I said, the budget they spend is really not relevant to me anyway, only what they cost me relative to the amount of enjoyment they provide. While I truly don't wish to sound insulting or condescending, the answer to the budget thing is basically; I just don't care. If they spend 10 million to make it or 250 million to make it, all I really care about is what it costs me when it's sitting on the shelf of the local shop. Is it a value to me? Does it provide what I'm looking for?

I don't work in films or games so there's no way to itemize a cost analysis of their budgets, especially when I don't consider it a deciding factor. I'd say how about instead of asking why games cost more when their budget it less, why not ask why a film can only entertain me for 2 hours when their budget is bloated compared to what a high end game budget can be? But even when I flip it around like that, it's still a flawed argument. Actors and coders are not comparable in salary. Computers versus HD cameras, film crews costs versus office space rental, they're just so different it's all but impossible to compare them on even terms.

For me, I look at it this way: I can buy the newest Forza and play it for 60 hours. That's a buck per hour of entertainment while a Blu-Ray of The World's End costs $20 or $30; a $10 or $15/hour or greater ratio. If they raise the costs of the games I want, I'd be inclined to reassess the situation. Likewise if the average cost of Blu-Rays were to decline. But that's what they cost relative to what they provide, which is really the only thing I personally take into consideration.

Exactly. I don't understand why people bring up development costs into the equation. As a consumer, it's completely irrelevant. What matters as a consumer is if people feel satisfied departing with a certain amount of currency for a product. And I know a lot of people don't buy games at launch, unless it's something that they're craving (An elder scrolls game, GTA game) but those are generally fans of a product. Which is why I stopped buying games at release (or paying over $40 for 1 title). Diablo 3, Mass Effect 3 were the last titles I paid full price for (never again). Although I do have to point out, pain is alleviated if certain companies continue to support their products to iterate upon it for the consumer without any extra costs for the consumer. Such as Diablo 3. It was regrettable to buy that at launch but the game isn't so bad now. ME3 on the other hand, not a bad experience, but in hindsight I should have waited.

#38 Posted by platinumking320 (663 posts) -

@ZZoMBiE13 said:

@Pffrbt said:

@ZZoMBiE13: "How much they spent to create it is irrelevant to the end product."

How if money is required to make the end product. You haven't given one reason why games should cost consumers significantly more money to buy than movies when they cost significantly less to make.

"The interactive nature of games may not hold any value to you, but I'd personally rather spend my time playing a game, having an interactive experience, than just passively sitting and watching a film."

No one was contesting whether or not an interactive experience has any value, just contesting why it should cost a ridiculous amount more than movies when far less money goes into making them.

How about we just shake hands and agree that we're not going to share a point of view on this one?

Because different people determine value in very different ways. What one person finds perfectly reasonable can seem like a total rip off to someone else. I kinda think that's what is happening here. And there's nothing wrong with that. I don't believe either of us is right or wrong, I think we just hold different elements more important than others.

Budgets are also not really comparable because the processes to make the game or movie or whatever are severely different at their very core. And like I said, the budget they spend is really not relevant to me anyway, only what they cost me relative to the amount of enjoyment they provide. While I truly don't wish to sound insulting or condescending, the answer to the budget thing is basically; I just don't care. If they spend 10 million to make it or 250 million to make it, all I really care about is what it costs me when it's sitting on the shelf of the local shop. Is it a value to me? Does it provide what I'm looking for?

I don't work in films or games so there's no way to itemize a cost analysis of their budgets, especially when I don't consider it a deciding factor. I'd say how about instead of asking why games cost more when their budget it less, why not ask why a film can only entertain me for 2 hours when their budget is bloated compared to what a high end game budget can be? But even when I flip it around like that, it's still a flawed argument. Actors and coders are not comparable in salary. Computers versus HD cameras, film crews costs versus office space rental, they're just so different it's all but impossible to compare them on even terms.

For me, I look at it this way: I can buy the newest Forza and play it for 60 hours. That's a buck per hour of entertainment while a Blu-Ray of The World's End costs $20 or $30; a $10 or $15/hour or greater ratio. If they raise the costs of the games I want, I'd be inclined to reassess the situation. Likewise if the average cost of Blu-Rays were to decline. But that's what they cost relative to what they provide, which is really the only thing I personally take into consideration.

Exactly. I don't understand why people bring up development costs into the equation. As a consumer, it's completely irrelevant. What matters as a consumer is if people feel satisfied departing with a certain amount of currency for a product. And I know a lot of people don't buy games at launch, unless it's something that they're craving (An elder scrolls game, GTA game) but those are generally fans of a product. Which is why I stopped buying games at release (or paying over $40 for 1 title). Diablo 3, Mass Effect 3 were the last titles I paid full price for (never again). Although I do have to point out, pain is alleviated if certain companies continue to support their products to iterate upon it for the consumer without any extra costs for the consumer. Such as Diablo 3. It was regrettable to buy that at launch but the game isn't so bad now. ME3 on the other hand, not a bad experience, but in hindsight I should have waited.

Maybe its not the cost of development but the cost of promotion, and Ad campaigns.

I think it just goes back to the suits and ties who are the top investors in modern entertainment, and when they don't see CoD or Avengers levels of success then its deemed a failure. They believe in selling BRANDS not pushing great entertainment.

This is why folks like Valve are not publicly traded and fought to get out of Vivendi Universal's control to promote Steam, and Id Software falling under Zenimax/Bethesda was more of a concession to get a larger dev team than their real interests

#39 Posted by sukraj (21902 posts) -

some games are worth full price like for example

gta v

tomb raider -reboot

rage

dead rising 3

skyrim

#40 Posted by The_Last_Ride (69731 posts) -

@sukraj said:

some games are worth full price like for example

gta v

tomb raider -reboot

i agree on those two

#42 Posted by udUbdaWgz1 (598 posts) -

when I say no game is worth 60bucks I say it tongue-in-cheek to prove the point that most devs don't know how to produce good games or spend their money wisely and they are beyond simply trying to make a good profit and are squarely in the greed territory.

games cost more to make because devs/pubs spend it on foolish components they mistakenly think will sell more games: advertising, stars and voice-acting. add in the specific game bugets that go way beyond what's needed, such as, graphics and added multi or single, depending, and, you have high costs.

and, to go right along with it are the people who support bad and unfinished games and consider standard, mediocre games to be "great" games because they're wrapped up in a pretty and expensive bow.

#43 Posted by Gargus (2147 posts) -

@Shmiity said:

I honestly don't think any game is worth that price. I don't know about you guys, but $60 per game is a lot for me. I think if every game was 19.99, or 29.99, I would buy everything that came out.

Even games like Skyrim or other 100+ hour content, $60 is a lot. I think I've only bought 3 full priced games in the entirety of 2013-now.

Shorter experiences should be lesser priced. I feel kind of bad saying it, but is an 8 hour experience worth the full price? No way.

I'd like to see other people's opinions.

News flash: Man has opinion.

I personally don't think paying 65,000 dollars for a car is worth it but I also don't run around and tell everyone about it because value is opinion and no one really cares what dollar amount I place on every single thing.

when I say no game is worth 60bucks I say it tongue-in-cheek to prove the point that most devs don't know how to produce good games or spend their money wisely and they are beyond simply trying to make a good profit and are squarely in the greed territory.

games cost more to make because devs/pubs spend it on foolish components they mistakenly think will sell more games: advertising, stars and voice-acting. add in the specific game bugets that go way beyond what's needed, such as, graphics and added multi or single, depending, and, you have high costs.

and, to go right along with it are the people who support bad and unfinished games and consider standard, mediocre games to be "great" games because they're wrapped up in a pretty and expensive bow.

I don't think you know what tounge in cheek really means. You don't make games, don't produce them, or anything like that so you don't know anything about it really and don't have room to say if what they are doing is right or wrong. You assume they are greedy without even knowing them personally or spent any amount of time with them or been involved in the development process.

For every game you talk about there are 2 or 3 good games without the problems you speak of such as.....(laughingly) advertising.....because yeah why would anyone want as many as people as possible to know about your product?

#44 Posted by udUbdaWgz1 (598 posts) -

@Gargus:

lol, obviously, you don't understand what it means or you just didn't read my earlier comment and, therefore, missed the context. lol, one doesn't have to BE a dev or pub to form an opinion based on facts. there are more than enough facts and results for me to have a solid and provable rationale for my opinion.

you got it backwards, for every 2-3 good games there are 20 that stink.

and, do you really want to talk about advertising? there are many different forms and costs. many companies spend unwisely, period.

next time you want to attempt to belittle someone or their point of view i recommend you come prepared.

#45 Posted by widdowson91 (1235 posts) -

In Great Britain in the 80's a Mars Bar cost about 20p, now they are over 50p. In Great Britain in the late 80's NES games cost about £50, now an Xbox 360 or PS3 game brand new is about £45. Over the years the cost in buying has consistently increased in Britain. but video games aren't more expensive now than they used to be. Sure, they cost a lot, but they could be a lot more expensive too, when you consider how inflation has raised prices of everything else. I'm sure the same could be said about the price of video games in North America also.

#46 Posted by nicecall (428 posts) -

$60 dollars for a long game like Skyrim is nothing... TC you are living in a dream world friend. Just recently I was looking through old SNES games I had still in boxes and they ranged from $70-80 dollars on average and a couple were even 90 dollars.... and this was back in 1991-1994...

If your just a young kid that is under age of 20 then i can understand why you are so confused about everything. But for the rest of us that lived through all the console gens, 60 dollars for a game is nothing friend. Games back in the Atari-NES-SNES era could be finished in a matter of hours or sometimes less then an hour... I think I finished Donkey Kong Country in less then 1 hr. WAHHHH, 60 dollars for a game that only lasts 20-80 hrs, WAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

#47 Edited by Bigboi500 (29124 posts) -

Past prices have no bearing on the value of current games. Regardless of historic prices, current prices don't generally match up to the true value of video games.

Play time doesn't either. Simply extending games with filler content doesn't magically add to the value of a product.

The price is simply too high for the content and overall worth of any of these games.

#48 Edited by RenegadeSteve (129 posts) -

I think most people understand that games, even the good ones, aren't worth $60. That's probably why we see 95% of big named titles regularly receiving 80% or higher scores from popular gaming websites. They get schwag, hits, revenue and other perks for hyping and stamping games to make them appear as more appealing, and droves of people fall for that.

That's the marketing aspect of the gaming industry, which I feel needs a big overhaul change

#49 Posted by tempura13 (425 posts) -

when I say no game is worth 60bucks I say it tongue-in-cheek to prove the point that most devs don't know how to produce good games or spend their money wisely and they are beyond simply trying to make a good profit and are squarely in the greed territory.

games cost more to make because devs/pubs spend it on foolish components they mistakenly think will sell more games: advertising, stars and voice-acting. add in the specific game bugets that go way beyond what's needed, such as, graphics and added multi or single, depending, and, you have high costs.

and, to go right along with it are the people who support bad and unfinished games and consider standard, mediocre games to be "great" games because they're wrapped up in a pretty and expensive bow.

Saying that advertising/marketing isn't relevant at all is kinda...stretching it. Video games aren't just gonna fly off the shelves in droves, and of course, the studio/company would want to maximize their profits by expanding their scope and audience. It's a business, after all. All these game adverts may seem unneeded for those who frequent gaming forums and stuff, but that doesn't mean it won't work for the rest of the populace.

Others can be a bit gung ho when it comes to advertising, but they know what they're doing. Unless something goes horribly wrong (or off their predictions), what makes you think otherwise? Unless you're some kind of insider then...

Also, what constitute a good game to you? I'm having a hard time understanding what you just put up as you're basically admitting that developers shouldn't strive on moving things forward. (And of course, half-baked, unfinished products won't be tolerated, and should be frowned on)

Lastly, if someone is happy and contented with their purchase, do we really need to persecute them for it?

#50 Posted by coasterguy65 (5837 posts) -

Sure some are, depending on the content. Most good games have at least 15-20 hours of enjoyment, for multiple family members. So $2-$3 for an hours enjoyment seems to be quite reasonable to me. Hell I have to spend $60 to take my family to a movie now, and that's only 2-3 hours of enjoyment.

South Park - Stick of Truth is a prime example. Rented it, played the crap out of it, and then bought it. I've played through it twice (probably about 45 hours total time in it), My daughter has played through it once, and is on her second play through. My wife is playing through it. So that game is easily worth the $60 I payed for it.