Diablo 3 price compared to other games

[Deleted]

I'll probably buy it when the price is about right for the content, like 20$ or so.

Seeing as though Diablo 2 still costs around $15-20 after twelve years, I think you'll be waiting for a while. Then again, you're severely devaluing the game if you think it's only worth $20.

Then again, Bill O'Reilly would rather let the entire planet be destroyed than pay four bucks for a shrimp. People and their principles...

[Deleted]

Seeing as though Diablo 2 still costs around $15-20 after twelve years, I think you'll be waiting for a while. Then again, you're severely devaluing the game if you think it's only worth $20.

Then again, Bill O'Reilly would rather let the entire planet be destroyed than pay four bucks for a shrimp. People and their principles...

Its the damn buy to win module they're going for, ever since i started playing online games i've been strongly against it.

That and the no offline play. Those two things really ruin the game for me. Also the oversimplifying due to console port.

[ContentsMayVary]

Diablo 3 and Guild Wars 2 are both $59.99 from Amazon.com

[Deleted]

i buyd both - sure why not - but i think compared with GW2 diablo 3 is way to expensive
"you can play forever and farm for years" dont count to be good enough to be expensive

[Gansta]

If 60 $ is too expensive 4U - try WoW annual pass :^))

[Cairhiin]

You must be looking at the wrong places then. Diablo Collectors edition is 79.90 euro where I order. Mass Effect III collectors edition is 69.90 but in all fairness the Diablo III CE has more content.

Diablo III normal version is 41.40 euro.
Guild Wars II is 37.40 euro, but on the other hand the CE is 119.90 euro (granted it has a statue).

Imho only the normal version is slightly more expensive than your average game but the CE just seems to have a fair price.

[Deleted]

You must be young. If you inflated prices of the 90s to the current value of a dollar, games would cost notably more than $60.

Not that you would even have to inflate them in order to reach that conclusion. I don't know from where people are getting this myth that video games cost more today, but N64 games usually cost around €89 (by today's currency rates; SEK to EUR were aproximately the same back then, so give or take a few euros). Older games were even more expensive. The dollar was way stronger in the 80's than it is now, and if you look around you can find ads for big NES releases like Super Mario Bros 3 setting the price at up towards $100.

So to anyone who happens to be wondering: No, games were not cheaper in the 80s or 90s than they are today. The price point of $60 became the standard for new AAA-releases somewhere in the early-2000s, and it's the cheapest it has been.

[hagar4172]

don't know where u getting ur prices at but far as i can find bliizard themselfes have not listed the price yet. so no realease to get angy yet but proly is gonna be 60 dollars. but really if u buy just about any new game now rather for console or pc they all about 60 dollars new

[Dundebuns]

I think the price tag is acceptable just on the grounds that i can go and game with my brother, something we haven't been able to do since I moved out for Uni. Still miss playing Future Cop: LAPD with him

[LolretKJ]

It's collectors addition. I payed $150 for my Skyrim CE and got a badass Alduin Statue, a making of the game DVD, and a 200+ page art book. The D3 CE looks amazing.

[loki504]

This isn't 1999, $60 for a video game you can get hundreds of hours of game play out of is NOT unreasonable whatsoever.

Even IF this was 1999, I remember video games that were brand new cost between $40-50, that's like totally over a decade ago, man!

Get with the times.

hundreds? damn i'm happy if i reach 50 hours. most games are so freaking short its not even fun.

[Deleted]

hundreds? damn i'm happy if i reach 50 hours

I doubt 50 hours will even get you level 60 in D3. It will surely get you through the normal mode campaign once, but if that's all you're looking forward to playing, then save your money and don't buy D3 at all.

Me, I played D2 for several years quite intensively. Perhaps not quite as much as I've played WoW, but in WoW I'm somewhere beyond 13000 hours /played, so if I get even a fraction of that out of D3 (and it's a fact that I will), then I for one will get my money's worth.

Then again, since it's a free game for us annual passers, even one hour would be money's worth.

[Deleted]

hundreds? damn i'm happy if i reach 50 hours. most games are so freaking short its not even fun.

There are people who have put hundreds of hours into the beta already just from replaying what is essentially around 90 minutes of content!

This game is entirely designed around replayability and longevity... most people who are fans of the genre will get many hundreds of hours out of it no problem

[Veyne]

Actually I do and no I will not pay $60+ for a game period. I am not a kid with 12 hours of time to sit and vegetate, the value is far less to me.

It costs a lot more to develop and market videogames today than it did back in the 90's. By a huge margin. And yet, video games are considerably cheaper to purchase these days than they were back then. I'm sorry if you feel that you cannot get $60 worth of entertainment for a new video game, but that's not a problem of the developers or even the retailers. If you cannot personally find justification for spending $60 on a video game, a quite standard price, than you'll have to do what everyone else in your shoes does: buy them in a few months to a year when they undergo considerable price drops. No point in getting angry about it.