Page 1 of 2
1
2
LastLast
  1. #1

    Price to satisfaction ratio

    Is anyone else getting tired of having to shell out $60 or more for games? Specifically for PC.

    I hear the argument all the time, "yeah, well we used to pay that for nintendo/SNES/Genesis games!" Yeah, I know, I was there. But the difference in quality and replayability is just staggering. How many hundreds of times have I played through the original Mario? Contra? Mega Man games?

    Now, obviously times have changed, and games themselves have evolved. You can't really compare Rainbow Six, Call of Duty, or Battlefield to Mega Man. The Witcher 3 is just so much more in depth than Zelda ever was. Never mind the graphical differences.

    But lately, I just feel like games are being spat out as cash grabs. Just look at the new Batman: Arkham Knight game. It was so ridiculously put together that they actually pulled it from the market until they can fix it. And they want $60 for that. Are you kidding me?

    Rabid fanboi/girl aside, think about Bethesda games. Yeah, I'm going there. If you've ever tried modding anything they've done, you understand how muddled and buggy their engines are. The graphics are extremely outdated. But people make excuse after excuse for these games, claiming them to be just the best thing since sliced bread. And you pay a premium for them, too. In Bethesda's case, it takes the MODDING COMMUNITY to make their games enjoyable. In other company's situations, say, Warner Brothers with Batman, they basically said, "hey look, a batman game!", waited for the money to come flooding in, and then tossed out a pre-alpha game.

    And again, we PAY for this. Bugged games, glitches that prevent continuation, and don't even get me started on the WALL of DLC we're getting fed. And on top of it all, most of these premium games don't give us the satisfaction we're looking for. Once the nostalgia or new game feels wear off, there just really isn't much there. All flash and no substance. A prime example of this was the last Terminator game (based on T4). They charged $60 for it, and it was BARELY 8 hours long. Not even remotely replayable. I think not.

    Point being, we are continually getting less and less entertainment and satisfaction per dollar we spend, but we continue to spend it. Why? Why don't we tell these greedy companies where to shove it? Why don't we DEMAND the quality we KNOW these companies for? Bethesda didn't get where they are today by releasing nothing but crap. They have a history of quality behind them. Same thing with Blizzard. I won't go into that one at the moment, I could write a BOOK on it. But the latest expansion cost MORE than the previous ones, and we got LESS content than the previous ones. Fewer dungeons, raids, etc. Pay more, get less.
    Quote Originally Posted by Warwithin View Post
    Politicians put their hand on the BIBLE and swore to uphold the CONSTITUTION. They did not put their hand on the CONSTITUTION and swear to uphold the BIBLE.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Jensen View Post
    Except maybe Morgan Freeman. That man could convince God to be an atheist with that voice of his . . .

  2. #2
    The blog is real, but I'll bite.

    You played through all those games "hundreds" of times because you rarely bought new games back then and there where less releasing. Not because they had magical "replayability" they had the same amount as any good game has. It just so happens when you're older you can buy more games, more games are being made now, and you have less time to play games overall so it's better to spend your time playing new games then playing 1 game "hundreds" of times.
    Last edited by Tech614; 2015-06-27 at 08:30 AM.

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Tech614 View Post
    The blog is real, but I'll bite.

    You played through all those games "hundreds" of times because you rarely bought new games back then and there where less releasing. Not because they had magical "replayability" they had the same amount as any good game has. It just so happens when you're older you can buy more games, more games are being made now, and you have less time to play games overall so it's better to spend your time playing new games then playing 1 game "hundreds" of times.
    I should've expected such shallow, half-assed responses from MMO-C. What was I thinking? Thanks for waking me up.
    Quote Originally Posted by Warwithin View Post
    Politicians put their hand on the BIBLE and swore to uphold the CONSTITUTION. They did not put their hand on the CONSTITUTION and swear to uphold the BIBLE.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Jensen View Post
    Except maybe Morgan Freeman. That man could convince God to be an atheist with that voice of his . . .

  4. #4
    Eh, he's got a point. I remember i had a gameboy with whooping 6 total cartridges, so I had to borrow or trade additional games between friends/acquaintances/school pals. Guys with NES/SNES/Genesis were pretty much in the same boat. if you were unable to get your hands on new game you just replayed what you had. For guys with Amiga/Commodore/PC piracy was huge (and so was game choice) so they replayed a lot less as I recall (unless it was Golden Axe, co-op was awesome in that game).

    As for Bethesda, would you believe that Dagerfall was even more buggy than all their modern games? It's something you just have to get used to with them.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by endersblade View Post
    I should've expected such shallow, half-assed responses from MMO-C. What was I thinking? Thanks for waking me up.
    lol... just lol..


    Anyway, I would never pay 60 for a game... Wow might be the outsider, if I can't find it cheap on g2a, I will have to buy it from blizzard.

    But for any singleplayer game? no way in hell will I buy it when it's new.. I wait 1-2 years, til the price is below 20, then take it doing a sale.
    And DLC's? In most cases, I don't find that they include more content, rather it's stupid extra abilities, or outfits or some other cool visual, that you don't really need anyway..
    It is common sense to take a method and try it. If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something.

  6. #6
    most old games was super fucking short and only felt "long" because you died a trillion times.

    Games today are longer, better graphics, more diversity etc. so 60$ is a very fair price for a game today.

    Old games were small and short so less prune to have bugs and major issues and still they had bugs.

    games today are super fucking large with a shitton of coding and programming so ofc high chance of bugs and problems. Not to mention it's much harder to optimize a game for PC than console or handheld as there's thousands of different combinations of hardware on pcs but consoles have the same hardware.
    Last edited by agnow; 2015-06-27 at 01:10 PM.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by endersblade View Post
    I should've expected such shallow, half-assed responses from MMO-C. What was I thinking? Thanks for waking me up.
    What's so shallow about his response? Is it because you didn't want to hear specifically what he had said? Go look at games released in 1998 then look at games released in 2015 the difference is staggering.

  8. #8
    Want to talk about replayability? You don't want to know the number of hours I spent playing this game in the arcades.



    Fortunately I was rather good at it, one coin lasted me all day long while crowds gathered to watch my awesomness.

    Nowadays though there are too many other distractions and I can't bear to play it. But yeah back then there weren't so many distractions, high-scores were a thing to brag about and improve upon and that's what gave them replayability.

  9. #9
    pppfffft imo if youre paying $60 a game youre doin it wrong

    I have a small library of good games I want to play sitting and waiting in steam from the last two summer sales, and I probably spent an average of $7 each on them

    sure, they didnt just release. Thats awesome, by the time I get to them the bugs have been fixed

    I got skyrim last year ult edition for like 8 dollars or something stupid like that
    not only was the unofficial fix-bethesdas-shitty-programming skyrim patch already minted and perfected but oh god the mod variety available from day one was amazing

    I found Skyrim's combat to be extremely bland boring and stupidly easy

    So I downloaded every compatible difficulty mod I could find, added 4 adorable badass loli followers to the game, nerfed them all down to 25% damage and armor so they wouldnt just carry me and played as a healer

    ....GAME OF THE YEAR!!!!1!11!

    If I had bought skyrim new, I would have been stuck with a boring buggy game that required a "high end"(at the time) computer to run well and paid $60 for it.. still money better spent than WoD, but fuck that noise

    oh god not to mention the graphical and lighting update mods

    and thats just one game.. praise pc master race

    so, imo, if ypu feel you're paying too much for games, then stop paying too much for games. I think Ive actually been playing too little.. but ultimately I do agree with OP, $60 feels like too much for most games
    most.. if FFXV comes out on PC Id happily pay more than that xD
    But I grew up on that series, and havent seen a good one in a while(not counting ffxiv, different genre altogether) so Im pumped :3

  10. #10
    Scarab Lord May90's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Geth space
    Posts
    4,862
    I enjoy modern games just as much as I enjoyed games 20 years ago. If anything, I think games have become much cheaper nowadays, since for the same amount of money you get 100 times as much content of higher overall quality. My favorite game ever is Mass Effect Trilogy, and I spent, I think, over $150 on the games with DLCs. Given how much I got off this money (something like 1,500 hours of single player and 100 hours of multiplayer), I would be willing to pay 10 times that if I had to.

    There have been only 2 games I've spent more hours on than on Mass Effect Trilogy: these games are Doom 1/2 and Starcraft 2. Starcraft 2 was released in 2010, and I paid a total of $80 for it. Doom 1/2 were released in 1993/1994, and I myself didn't pay a cent for them, my parents bought them. Pretty darn good price to satisfaction ratio, don't you think?
    i7 4790k | GTX 980 | Crucial MX100 256GB | Ripjaws Z 16GB 2133MHz | Asus Z97 Pro | Seagate Barracuda 1TB | Noctua NH-U14S | Corsair Air 540 | SeaSonic 750W | Windows 8.1 64-bit
    ---
    Samsung HU8550 50" 4K TV | Corsair K70 | Logitech G400s
    ---
    Sennheiser HD600 | Schiit Magni | Schiit Modi

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by endersblade View Post
    I should've expected such shallow, half-assed responses from MMO-C. What was I thinking? Thanks for waking me up.
    Cos no true poster would ever reply to your oh so insightful and unique composition on the subject in such a fashion, right?

    Biting sarcastic knee-chopping aside, there are many factors in play now. The width and depth of today's game market, the on-demand model of content delivery, the monetization(like it or not, it's here to stay)that is part and parcel of just about any AAA game studio's releases, that drive the price to 'satisfaction' ratio you speak of.

    Trying to reduce it to 'nobody really makes games WORTH the money anymore' is the same sort of logical fallacy that drives the maxims 'this is old and therefore good' and 'this is new and therefore better'.

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by endersblade View Post
    I should've expected such shallow, half-assed responses from MMO-C. What was I thinking? Thanks for waking me up.

    How can you say that is a shallow response? They're spot on.

    When I had a NES/SNES/MegaDrive/whatever you like, my parents controlled how many games I could buy. This meant I generally had 4-6 games & had to trade/borrow/etc with anyone I knew with the same systems.

    Now I'm in control of what I buy (Well, the wife, but same difference) I can buy whatever I want that comes out. This means, I currently have 20+ games on my Steam account I haven't started & 6 PS4 games that are still shrink-wrapped.



    This is exactly why I played the same games 100's of times & now only once.

  13. #13
    Mechagnome
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Durotar
    Posts
    742
    Main reason i don't buy Battlefield or CoD is because the money you need to shell out for the games isn't even close the satisfaction you get from it. You will get milked for probably the double or more just to get the maps that people move over to when dlc get released.

    I've had enjoyed most bethesda games though, its easily 100 hours or more and you can mod it alot. Sure there are bugs and they seem to gamble on that the community will fix them through mods but hey still great games.

    I recon multiplayer games is where you get most bang for your buck. Dow 2 i have almost 1k hours played and Dota 2 close to 2500 and i don't even want to know the amount for diablo 2 til d3.

  14. #14
    Scarab Lord May90's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Geth space
    Posts
    4,862
    Quote Originally Posted by Alexton View Post
    Main reason i don't buy Battlefield or CoD is because the money you need to shell out for the games isn't even close the satisfaction you get from it. You will get milked for probably the double or more just to get the maps that people move over to when dlc get released.
    I think the problem is many people today feel obligated to buy all new big hits, no matter the genre. Like if this game is going to be popular, it needs to be bought (hence almost everyone buys every single Battlefield and CoD). As a result, people buy a lot of games they are not really interested in, and then they feel like they've wasted their money. Like all those people that bought Dragon Age: Inquisition, just because it was the hit of the month, and then flooded forums with complaints about how that game wasn't like Skyrim, or how it wasn't like WoW (yeah, there were such complaints as well).

    I buy only games I am really interested in, mostly regardless of how "big" they are. As such, the only game I have been disappointed in among what I've bought in the latest 2 years was Assassin's Creed: I liked the Youtube videos of the game, so I decided I would like playing it as well, but when I actually sat and started playing, I saw that this game wasn't for me. No problem, I just stopped playing it and switched to other games. It happens. It just happens very rarely to me, since I always do a lot of research before buying anything.
    i7 4790k | GTX 980 | Crucial MX100 256GB | Ripjaws Z 16GB 2133MHz | Asus Z97 Pro | Seagate Barracuda 1TB | Noctua NH-U14S | Corsair Air 540 | SeaSonic 750W | Windows 8.1 64-bit
    ---
    Samsung HU8550 50" 4K TV | Corsair K70 | Logitech G400s
    ---
    Sennheiser HD600 | Schiit Magni | Schiit Modi

  15. #15
    The Lightbringer Hellravager's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    In a tree, watching you
    Posts
    3,727
    WoW was the one game i spent way more then 50-60 on but it was worth it then not so anymore but my jrpgs i enjoy immensely great story and all so to me they're worth the 60
    "For in the shadows lurks not one dagger, but the power of a nation of daggers, waiting for justice's blow."
    "If dislike were liquor I'd be drunk."

  16. #16
    I am not the type to buy many games but expensive games are fine for me as long as they provide decent replayability and high production value. StarCraft is that kind of game. I did really enjoy Dragon Age:Origins a lot too. I was really dissatisfied with the Witcher 2 overall. While the game was decent but it was pretty damn short even when you played through both sides of story.
    Last edited by Wildmoon; 2015-06-28 at 04:08 PM.

  17. #17
    Bugs and other errors have been in video games since their inception. Literally. It is a reality of software development.

    Games are also cheaper now than at any other point in history. I used to pay $100 for some Super Nintendo games- my dad bought Kung-Fu for the NES for $80 on release in 1985.

    The cost of gaming is irrelevant to me for the most part.

  18. #18
    Pandaren Monk Miuku's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    European Union
    Posts
    1,943
    Quote Originally Posted by Fencers View Post
    Games are also cheaper now than at any other point in history.
    Not if you include the price of DLCs and other Buy-to-Use items.
    :: We are cows - proud and true. Come on Tauren - Moo Moo Moo!

  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Miuku View Post
    Not if you include the price of DLCs and other Buy-to-Use items.
    not if you include inflation

  20. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Miuku View Post
    Not if you include the price of DLCs and other Buy-to-Use items.
    Unless you're spending $200 on a game you are paying less, adjusted for inflation, for a game than you did in 1985. Assuming that game cost $85 at least. Taking that into account OP looks kind of stupid.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •