None of it can be simplified the way you're doing it. You can't compare money to hour ratios across different mediums. A 20 hour blu-ray movie for 30 dollars wouldn't be a better "value" than a 20 hour video game for 60 dollars, because there is no value in a 20 hour movie, just a horrible and unedited waste of film.DaMullet said:
$60 games - A look at value.
- Thread starter DaMullet
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I do see the difference.VanityGirl said:
So its not the $60 for a good game, its risking $60 for a crappy game. Hmmm... *thinks*
I can see how it is a problem, but I still don't see it being a HUGE problem. I mean how many game reviewers are there now? Heck you can come on here and ask "should I buy this game?"
*needs to ponder this some more*
Well, The Hitchhiker series is a pretty easy read, that barely took me any time to read either. This book however is quite heavy on content. There are things there that need time to sink in. The whole series revolves around politics and intrigues to gain power or wealth while that being far from the main plot. The audio book lasts 36 hours, and an avid reader should be able to clear that in 9 hours by reading the words. However the depth requires more thought behind, it requires the reader to reflect upon the material. Most will need at least 30 hours on clearing this book, and in any case, that's good value since all the layers does make it worth to reread at least once. The same goes for The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy. One of the best series ever, and also the world's longest trilogy according to the cover.DaMullet said:About the book though, like you said, on release it was $30 and someone bought it..Yopaz said:
Maybe I'm a freak then, cause I chewed through the entire Hitchhikers Guide collection, all the books, in about... 9 hours of reading. I think I get it from my Mom, she's actually read the Wheel of time over and over again and she can get through one of those books in an afternoon.
That's all I was going for
Yes you can actually.nobodylikesraisins said:
Because if you want to do something new and you have a day (10 hours) to yourself a movie is only going to last 2 hours. So you would have to buy 5 movies to fill the time unless you want to watch it again after just watching it. A book or 2 would work, but personally speaking, I have to be in the right mood to sit for 10 hours reading.
If you get a game, you might beat it, you might not, you might not even get half way though it. If you don't beat it that day, want to play it again, or both, that's added value to your purchase because you can have fun with it for longer.
See what I mean?
Moot point.DaMullet said:
What is good for one gamer may not be good for the next. So you're saying that if I follow all the reviews I've seen on the game and buy it, that I'll love it?
Me thinks that's not true. I HATED GTAIV but it was praised by many. I felt like I'd wasted $60.
Don't get me wrong OP, I can see where you're coming from, but my opinion is different.
Both your and my ideas are based on assumption, i.e. that the person will play a shitty game for 5 hours.
And my ideas are based heavily on the fact that I buy my own games. Juggling that with feeding myself, keeping a roof over my head and paying for my utilities, video games can be an expensive hobby.
Not many books can be read in 5 hours. Also not many books just say "The quick brown fox shoots someone in the face with a laser gun" over and over and over again. Many games are like that.
The problem about the expense of games is that you can spend $60 on a game that sucks. It's a greater gamble than a cd or dvd or any other entertainment media.
But it can have a greater reward too: I got many hours of entertainment out of Fallout 3 and Borderlands. Those two games are well worth $60.
The problem is that I get tired of most games after 3 or 4 hours because (let's face it) most of them suck.
But that's why I rent.
The problem about the expense of games is that you can spend $60 on a game that sucks. It's a greater gamble than a cd or dvd or any other entertainment media.
But it can have a greater reward too: I got many hours of entertainment out of Fallout 3 and Borderlands. Those two games are well worth $60.
The problem is that I get tired of most games after 3 or 4 hours because (let's face it) most of them suck.
But that's why I rent.
I miss the days when 60$ for a game like Banjo-Kazooie or Perfect Dark or Dark Cloud or Final Fantasy Tactics would give you what 15 years of enjoyment, games today a great until the updated also 60$ one comes out 8 months later.
I hate sports games for this.
I hate sports games for this.
Basicly because they want 60 bucks for less budget and production values than an AAA movie. Yeah you might like to play it for longer, but nothing changes theat the videogame overhead is insanely high.DaMullet said:
Now you missed prostitutes. 60 bucks = 1 hour of heaven if you have a good one.
Hey, I buy my own games too. I'm also a single-father and a small business owner so I understand how tight money can be.VanityGirl said:
But you should know what you like and what you don't like. If you're not sure there are always demos or just rent it. I borrowed GTA:San Andras because i wasn't sure I'd like it and I found that I absolutedly hated it. I know I don't like sports games, or overly violent ones either.
So regardless as too how much those games cost, I'm never going to buy them.
But I can definatly see the risk. If your budget for games is like $30 a month, you don't want to save up for 2 months just to find out you hate the game and after an hour want to throw it out a window.
When I buy a game, I reseach it, watch videos, read reviews, wait for patches to be released (I'm looking at you new vegas), even sometimes read the walkthrough for the first chapter on gamefaqs.com to see if the story is totally stupid or not. So when I drop $60 on a game, I know its going to be the best chance for me and last me longer then any movie or night out can posibly hope to compare too.
If I don't like it, I still try to make the most of it. Learn what they did wrong for example so that I know what I don't like and keep an eye open for it in other games.
I don't own a PS3 or and XBOX because I can find enough games that I would like to justify the purchase of the system. I'm mainly a PC gamer and I love my wii cause I can play it with my 9 year old son.
I think I'm rambling so I'll stop now...
No I don't, because if I want to see a movie I'm doing so with the understanding of what the medium is and I know it's only going to be 2 hours. If that's not enough time consumption to satisfy me, then I'm not in the mood for a movie. If I'm in the mood for a big movie watching session that does last 10 hours and I do decide to buy 5 movies, then those 5 movies are infinitely more valuable to me than what a video game is because I didn't want to play video games, I was clearly in a huge movie watching mood. Never have I bought an apple on the basis that the selection of oranges weren't red enough.DaMullet said:
Umm... so? I said it's a 10 million dollar game. If you can't make and advertise a game for 10 million you're doing something wrong... or making a super epic game. Let's just say it IS a super epic game and it costs 20 million to make over 2 years. It would probably have more than 1 million sales but we'll stick with that, and the same 40% profit margin.DaMullet said:
20,000,000x1.4/1,000,000=$28
So then retail markup (which, BTW, can be eliminated in this day and age of Digital Downloads) is 100% (an obscene amount for most industries) that's $56... So either publishers or retail is really screwing it's customers over. If the game was going to sell 1.5 million copies, it's back down to $18.66 per copy, or under $40 at retail with 100% markup.
I think one problem is that retailers are basically guaranteed $60 per copy, so publishers are guaranteed whatever portion of that (50%?), and they have a rough idea what sort of sales they'll get with a given game - probably a large reason for the lack of new titles, by the way. They know how they're games already sell so they can project how a new version will sell. Easier than guessing how a new IP will sell...
Anyway, point is, there's no competition in the space. They don't try to optimize game making because their budgets are fairly bloated. I mean they cut down costs hugely going to CD from cartridge, and now they don't even need that. They just need some server bandwidth to sell it online! Ad campaigns? Well sure, but plenty of games don't have much of one and still become super popular just by uploading a few gameplay videos and letting some popular gaming reps play a demo, who then go write about it for the masses to drool over.
My point is, $60 isn't always unreasonable, but the lack of competitive pricing for the most part is unreasonable. I doubt CoD expansions - sorry, I mean new Cod Games are costing millions upon millions of dollars to make with their yearly outings and using the same old tech yet they still sell them for $60 (because they can). Gamers get screwed, but quite often we let ourselves get screwed.
Are we really dragging numbers into this again? Game companies don't charge what it costs to make a game, they charge what they think will get them the maximum profit. Otherwise, I could make the case that I got ripped off paying $10 for Terraria when it clearly did not cost one-sixth what Starcraft 2 did.
It's like tickets to sporting events: as long as fans are willing to pay more, companies will charge more. Ultimately, customers are reaping the results of their indiscriminate spending. When people plunk down $60 for a game, they're voting with their wallets to say that they consider it to be worth at least that much.
It's like tickets to sporting events: as long as fans are willing to pay more, companies will charge more. Ultimately, customers are reaping the results of their indiscriminate spending. When people plunk down $60 for a game, they're voting with their wallets to say that they consider it to be worth at least that much.
Games like Kayne and Lynch 2 are proof why 60$ for a game is to much. There's no gurantee you'll enjoy the game you pay for and you could end up with a Kayne and Lynch 2.
4 hours of ass. I think the fact that uncompleate games, way-to-short games and just plain bad games that can get away for saling at 60$ with no way of knowing you'll like or hate the game until you actually try it is the reason why this is bad.
Games can be 60$ the moment there's a quality and length required before they can sale it and demos that showcase a good idea of what the game's like in an easy way to obtain for everyone. Either that, or when we're in the future and 60$ is a kids spending change. lol
4 hours of ass. I think the fact that uncompleate games, way-to-short games and just plain bad games that can get away for saling at 60$ with no way of knowing you'll like or hate the game until you actually try it is the reason why this is bad.
Games can be 60$ the moment there's a quality and length required before they can sale it and demos that showcase a good idea of what the game's like in an easy way to obtain for everyone. Either that, or when we're in the future and 60$ is a kids spending change. lol
I agree, I live in Scandinavia and a new game cost $100 here. $60 for a game on it's release date would seem like a perfectly fair price to me, but I think that's mainly because I'm used to prices being much higher.farq1414 said:
That being said I usually never pay full price for a game, mainly because there are so many games I'd like to play and games tend to drop to a much lower price rather quickly compared to other media.
I've just bought New Vegas for $30 and when it comes to entertainment I honestly can't think of a way to get more value for my money.
Can you break that down for me to prove your point?Veylon said:
Because I would think that the army of testers, voice actors, cinematics team, advertisers, and the extra people and larger team needed to make a game like Starcraft 2 would like to get paid too.