Justifiying the 60$ price tag.

[LGalucard]

Ever since this generation began (360, ps3) Ive seen a continued reduction of the average game length and i find myself in quite a bit of a dilemma. I am mainly a single player guy, i enjoyed the ps2 era with its wide variety of games and lots of lengthy jrps with wonderful stories as well as gems like the first 2 god of wars and devil may cry 1 and 3. Game without the length of rpgs still had a decent amount of replay value added to them. Today's game are being not only shortened by stripped from their replay value in favor of gimmicky pre order tie in or overpriced dlc.

Lets take for example god of war 2, here was game that was about 8-12 hour long depending on your skill and pace, but unlike god of war 3 which all replay value was taken out and given away as pre order bonuses god of war 2 had all the costumes and extras within the game and were featured as reward for beating the harder modes. In god of war 3 all that beating harder modes got you was a worthless trophy. Games like Mass Effect add dlc content post game that with exceptions adds nothing to the post end game, while generally well made they are short and expensive. I was happy to see a revival of the expansion pack with dragon age awakening which in my opinion should be the only form of adding actual paid content (non gimmicky irrelevant stuff).

Now with the reduction of jrpg in the market and because i find most wrpgs extremely dull and lifeless (is not a critique to the wrpgs and more a matter of my taste) i am left with mostly action/adventure games to fill the void, most of which dont run past the 8 hours and hold little to no replay value. Now my dilemma is the following: Why would i buy a 60 dollar 8 hour game when i can simply rent it and finish it in a weekend? I am growing extremely careful with my game purchases and i refuse to buy anything under then 12 hour mark (and this is assuming the game is a jewel).

Last game i bought for which i felt i got my money worth was Dark Souls for which my first and only play-through clocked at the 30 hour +. Now i want to play the Batman AC and Uncharted 3 but these are games i will not purchase because i can simply finish them within a 2 days rent. Developers keep trying to extend a game length by tacking on multiplayer modes in games that are not meant to be MP and then complain single player games dont sell well. Well i guess if instead of wasting resources on bad multiplayer modes they used extra resources to pull bigger longer and better games we wouldn't have this problem.

So my questions are: Do you guys think most single players game earn their 60 dollar price tag? Do you rather rent?

[seam]

Do they earn it? Prolly not.

The 60$ tag is mainly because of inflation. It's actually cheaper than a 50$ game 10 years ago.

[Halicia]

I hear that even after a game's price is reduced to $10-20, its still the same game.

[saberon]

$60? You poor thing. If only that wasn't a comparatively cheap price compared to most places.

If you have something to say, say it. There's no need to be a condescending jerk. - Edge

[Last Starfighter]

Do they earn it? Prolly not.

The 60$ tag is mainly because of inflation. It's actually cheaper than a 50$ game 10 years ago.

I never thought of that. Our subs would probably be like 8 dollars a month ten years ago.

[zealous]

Do they earn it? Prolly not.

The 60$ tag is mainly because of inflation. It's actually cheaper than a 50$ game 10 years ago.

It's not exclusively inflation. It's also the fact that most countries don't really enforce competition laws on the gaming industry like they do on the larger industries, so the game producers are free to establish a single, higher price.

It's a bit disgusting and is actually considered a crime in most countries, but that requires a government investigation that nobody bothers to do when there are oil companies, car companies, agriculture companies, media companies etc, that churn out billions upon billions of dollars each year. The gaming industry is pretty small in comparison.

[Rhaide]

$60? You poor thing. If only that wasn't a comparatively cheap price compared to most places.

I have a website for you.

http://www.amazon.com/

Last time I checked they shipped worldwide... so, games cost nearly identical prices in 'most places'. The only limiting factor in the game acquiring journey is national censorship laws (China, Australia etc etc) and that has nothing to do with price.

Don't come on the forums just to give someone a hard time. OP did a good job stating a point without whining, it's not unreasonable to expect the same from responding posts. So save the patronizing tone and check yourself.

[BatteredRose]

Most? Probably not. But it's incredibly less expensive to buy such titles than to make it yourself or hire people to make a title for you.

Then again, if you could afford that, you could make the perfect game (for you).

[Rhaide]

It's not exclusively inflation. It's also the fact that most countries don't really enforce competition laws on the gaming industry like they do on the larger industries, so the game producers are free to establish a single, higher price.

It's a bit disgusting and is actually considered a crime in most countries, but that requires a government investigation that nobody bothers to do when there are oil companies, car companies, agriculture companies, media companies etc, that churn out billions upon billions of dollars each year. The gaming industry is pretty small in comparison.

QFT, this is the problem. Steam has helped with this a lot, the sales they put on have saved me a lot of money. My steam account is worth over a thousand dollars and I've probably spent less than 400 dollars on the games I have, all of which are big name games. I generally don't buy indie games unless they get great reviews, I've been burned too many times in the past.

This week I got caught up on my horror games. I bought Dead Space I and II for around 11 dollars total and Amnesia (great game btw, reviews were right) for 4 dollars instead of the normal 20.

[zealous]

$60? You poor thing. If only that wasn't a comparatively cheap price compared to most places.

60$ is quite a bit of money to me. Not something I'll spend easily. My monthly budget is around 1200 atm (including rent), so 60 bucks is quite a lot from my PoV.

I envy the people that consider that "cheap".

---------- Post added 2011-11-01 at 05:52 AM ----------

QFT, this is the problem. Steam has helped with this a lot, the sales they put on have saved me a lot of money. My steam account is worth over a thousand dollars and I've probably spent less than 400 dollars on the games I have, all of which are big name games. I generally don't buy indie games unless they get great reviews, I've been burned too many times in the past.

This week I got caught up on my horror games. I bought Dead Space I and II for around 11 dollars total and Amnesia (great game btw, reviews were right) for 4 dollars instead of the normal 20.

Steam isn't worldwide though is it? Or has that changed? I never used it personally.

[Doriath]

Some games in my opinion are actually deserving of a higher price tag than 60 dollars.Either way,i think its a fair price.Many games are not worth it,but thats why its beter to have things to try games before you buy it.

[Imadraenei]

The picture in post 3 in this thread seems relevant here. I don't know where the original came from, though.

http://www.overclock.net/pc-games/1110103-dlc-pic.html

[Eec003]

just add the fact I just paid 65.xx for arkham city. granted it came with arkham asylum, I was like...."that's it?"

and

"GOOD TROLL!"

but no...that was really the end of the game

i feel cheated.












but now.....on kotaku.com the games director has mentioned "extended story DLC" ...DLC to keep playing ....why do we even buy the games now.

[zealous]

The picture in post 3 in this thread seems relevant here. I don't know where the original came from, though.

http://www.overclock.net/pc-games/1110103-dlc-pic.html

Haha, very clever =)

[Deleted]

playstation 1 games used to be £40 wwhich is like what 65 - 70 $?

[Angella]

FYI $60 today = $47.04 10 years ago.

You might want to stick to single-player oriented MMOs. If you can handle the occasional a$$hat messing up your experience they are quite cheap in terms of $$$/hour. If not get a gamefly subscription and just rent games at will. Its like Netflix for games and it costs $16/month. Might save you some heartache.

[pickley]

I think most games justify it. However, if a game releases at $60 with day one DLC thats the exception. Looking at you Dragons Age 2.

Hell, even EA's new stance on cracking down on used games drives me nuts. Charging an extra $10 for multiplayer, or for a story related character (Catwoman in AA) because the buyer bought used seems greedy.

[brown]

I'm pretty careful with my money so I do a good bit of research before I buy a new game. I will buy like 1-3 brand new games a year and the rest are just $20. It is just many games don't provide a lot of content and I am willing to wait until they drop in price.

[Eec003]

I think most games justify it. However, if a game releases at $60 with day one DLC thats the exception. Looking at you Dragons Age 2.

Hell, even EA's new stance on cracking down on used games drives me nuts. Charging an extra $10 for multiplayer, or for a story related character (Catwoman in AA) because the buyer bought used seems greedy.

yeah, we know the NES games for 40$ back in the day = 60$ today, inflation waves.

But here's my drift. Game companies are getting the extra 20$ out of some people with DLC, yet the people who buy it always feel just straight up cheated. We bought THE GAME now why do i have to wait a month and pay another 10$ to continue the game...

[Imadraenei]

I honestly think gaming has become too mainstream, hipster cat be damned. People with lower standards have entered the market en masse and made it tougher to get a truly good deal for the veteran crowd.