Do people not realize games aren't $60?

[Ratty]

If you want it, do what I do: Wait an entire year. If the price is still above 20, wait another couple months. Been saving a lot of money that way. 60? is the equivalent to 2 weeks worth of food to me. Would rather put it into a Steam wallet code and get more bang for my buck.

Yep. I play games for the games sake not to have watercooler discussions about the latest titles, so I don't really care if I have to wait a year or two to grab the game on a sale. Especially because in that time it'll be patched up and probably have a GOTY edition with all DLC. So instead of buying an incomplete product for $60 I get the whole game for $5-$15. It helps that I have a huge backlog thanks to GoG and steam sales, I could not buy any more games for a very long time and still have new stuff to play.

PS- Personally I'd never pay more than $20 for a 5 hour game, and then only if I reeeeally wanted it.

 

[DrOswald]

Ok, there is a lot wrong with your post. But I am going to skip past all the incidental wrongness and get strait to the core of your failure of thought:

"Is The Order 1886 worth buying?" does not mean "Is The Order 1886 worth playing?" It means "Is The Order 1886 worth owning?"

What you are describing is, essentially, a 3 day rental that allows you to play and complete the game once (being generous about the length.) Now, there are very, very few games I would rent for $15-$20. In fact, any game I can think of that I would be willing to rent for that much is a game I would be willing to buy for full price.

Now, can a 6 hour game be worth $60? Stated differently, can entertainment be worth $10 an hour? Certainly. I have paid more for an hours entertainment before and walked away completely satisfied. But it takes a high level of quality for entertainment to be worth that much. And The Order just does not look that good.

So, to answer your question, is The Order 1886 worth $15-$20? No. Not within the parameters you have set. Frankly, I doubt it would be worth it even to own the game at that price. It just doesn't look that good. I would not pay $3-$4 an hour for the level of entertainment The Order can bring me.

The whole beating the game in a weekend and selling it is worst case scenario. You can have a game for 2-3 months and it holds its value pretty well. I had TLOU Remastered for 3 months and sold it for $35 (it retailed for $50). My point isn't just about The Order but any game. The Order just so happens to be the game getting everyone talking now. I prefer games shorter than longer. Once a game's story is talked about taking over 30 hours, I get pretty hesitant as very few games have good enough gameplay to merit 30 hours to beat.

But everyone is not talking about all the other games. Bayonetta 2 didn't spark a big discussion about if it was worth $60. Neither did Bioshock, or Uncharted 2, or any one of dozens of shorter form games that I could mention. No one is questioning the value of short form games as a whole. They are questioning the value of a short form game that is also not that good. The argument is not about any game. It is about The Order.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

Ok, there is a lot wrong with your post. But I am going to skip past all the incidental wrongness and get strait to the core of your failure of thought:

"Is The Order 1886 worth buying?" does not mean "Is The Order 1886 worth playing?" It means "Is The Order 1886 worth owning?"

What you are describing is, essentially, a 3 day rental that allows you to play and complete the game once (being generous about the length.) Now, there are very, very few games I would rent for $15-$20. In fact, any game I can think of that I would be willing to rent for that much is a game I would be willing to buy for full price.

Now, can a 6 hour game be worth $60? Stated differently, can entertainment be worth $10 an hour? Certainly. I have paid more for an hours entertainment before and walked away completely satisfied. But it takes a high level of quality for entertainment to be worth that much. And The Order just does not look that good.

So, to answer your question, is The Order 1886 worth $15-$20? No. Not within the parameters you have set. Frankly, I doubt it would be worth it even to own the game at that price. It just doesn't look that good. I would not pay $3-$4 an hour for the level of entertainment The Order can bring me.

The whole beating the game in a weekend and selling it is worst case scenario. You can have a game for 2-3 months and it holds its value pretty well. I had TLOU Remastered for 3 months and sold it for $35 (it retailed for $50). My point isn't just about The Order but any game. The Order just so happens to be the game getting everyone talking now. I prefer games shorter than longer. Once a game's story is talked about taking over 30 hours, I get pretty hesitant as very few games have good enough gameplay to merit 30 hours to beat.

But everyone is not talking about all the other games. Bayonetta 2 didn't spark a big discussion about if it was worth $60. Neither did Bioshock, or Uncharted 2, or any one of dozens of shorter form games that I could mention. No one is questioning the value of short form games as a whole. They are questioning the value of a short form game that is also not that good. The argument is not about any game. It is about The Order.

Don't argue with him. He thinks that he's found a loophole and that he's cleverer than everyone else for it, and takes any criticism of his rather silly logic as an attack on his own intelligence and character. There's no way that you can prove him wrong despite the fact that literally every reply in this (so far) 3 page thread has been to point out that he is wrong. He's a very obstinate person (and has been in every thread he's ever made) and arguing with him is pointless.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

But everyone is not talking about all the other games. Bayonetta 2 didn't spark a big discussion about if it was worth $60. Neither did Bioshock, or Uncharted 2, or any one of dozens of shorter form games that I could mention. No one is questioning the value of short form games as a whole. They are questioning the value of a short form game that is also not that good. The argument is not about any game. It is about The Order.

The same exact argument gets brought up for most games under 20 hours that you can beat in a rental's time. There was a whole big thing about Vanquish being 5 hours. Vanquish was so awesome I never sold it until it became free on PS+, I didn't need my physical copy anymore. And people ***** about a game not having multiplayer like The Order or Vanquish, both games would have horrible multiplayer if they had them. Having a horrible multiplayer mode means you're just not going to play it, it doesn't extend the game's length.

Don't argue with him. He thinks that he's found a loophole and that he's cleverer than everyone else for it, and takes any criticism of his rather silly logic as an attack on his own intelligence and character. There's no way that you can prove him wrong despite the fact that literally every reply in this (so far) 3 page thread has been to point out that he is wrong. He's a very obstinate person (and has been in every thread he's ever made) and arguing with him is pointless.

And you think buying a physical copy is more of a hassle than digital because going to say Amazon and buying the game is so much more arduous than buying a game off PSN, Steam, etc when they are both exactly the same thing (an online store front). Digital is inferior to physical due to you not having the ability to resell it if you want, plus the digital copy is the same price (usually higher), which makes no sense. I can get The Order for $50 tomorrow, people who are in Best Buy's game club can get it for $38 yet the digital copy, the copy the publisher wants you to buy, is $60.

I don't think I'm clever by selling games I'm done with, it's nothing more than common sense. Why would you keep anything that you don't want that is only depreciating the longer you keep it?

 

[Bat Vader]

Ok, there is a lot wrong with your post. But I am going to skip past all the incidental wrongness and get strait to the core of your failure of thought:

"Is The Order 1886 worth buying?" does not mean "Is The Order 1886 worth playing?" It means "Is The Order 1886 worth owning?"

What you are describing is, essentially, a 3 day rental that allows you to play and complete the game once (being generous about the length.) Now, there are very, very few games I would rent for $15-$20. In fact, any game I can think of that I would be willing to rent for that much is a game I would be willing to buy for full price.

Now, can a 6 hour game be worth $60? Stated differently, can entertainment be worth $10 an hour? Certainly. I have paid more for an hours entertainment before and walked away completely satisfied. But it takes a high level of quality for entertainment to be worth that much. And The Order just does not look that good.

So, to answer your question, is The Order 1886 worth $15-$20? No. Not within the parameters you have set. Frankly, I doubt it would be worth it even to own the game at that price. It just doesn't look that good. I would not pay $3-$4 an hour for the level of entertainment The Order can bring me.

The whole beating the game in a weekend and selling it is worst case scenario. You can have a game for 2-3 months and it holds its value pretty well. I had TLOU Remastered for 3 months and sold it for $35 (it retailed for $50). My point isn't just about The Order but any game. The Order just so happens to be the game getting everyone talking now. I prefer games shorter than longer. Once a game's story is talked about taking over 30 hours, I get pretty hesitant as very few games have good enough gameplay to merit 30 hours to beat.

But everyone is not talking about all the other games. Bayonetta 2 didn't spark a big discussion about if it was worth $60. Neither did Bioshock, or Uncharted 2, or any one of dozens of shorter form games that I could mention. No one is questioning the value of short form games as a whole. They are questioning the value of a short form game that is also not that good. The argument is not about any game. It is about The Order.

Don't argue with him. He thinks that he's found a loophole and that he's cleverer than everyone else for it, and takes any criticism of his rather silly logic as an attack on his own intelligence and character. There's no way that you can prove him wrong despite the fact that literally every reply in this (so far) 3 page thread has been to point out that he is wrong. He's a very obstinate person (and has been in every thread he's ever made) and arguing with him is pointless.

Just because you disagree with his opinion doesn't make it ok to insult him. I disagree with his opinion too but I am not going to insult him for it.

 

[Alma Mare]

But everyone is not talking about all the other games. Bayonetta 2 didn't spark a big discussion about if it was worth $60. Neither did Bioshock, or Uncharted 2, or any one of dozens of shorter form games that I could mention. No one is questioning the value of short form games as a whole. They are questioning the value of a short form game that is also not that good. The argument is not about any game. It is about The Order.

Don't argue with him. He thinks that he's found a loophole and that he's cleverer than everyone else for it, and takes any criticism of his rather silly logic as an attack on his own intelligence and character. There's no way that you can prove him wrong despite the fact that literally every reply in this (so far) 3 page thread has been to point out that he is wrong. He's a very obstinate person (and has been in every thread he's ever made) and arguing with him is pointless.

Just because you disagree with his opinion doesn't make it ok to insult him. I disagree with his opinion too but I am not going to insult him for it.

Where the hell did he insult him? He just stated a fact. A very obvious fact for anyone who's been around long enough to see Phoenix's posts. He says something silly or far-fetched, gets a couple of reactions and spends days on end replying to those reactions with the original moon-logic. He's not looking for a serious debate or challenging is own opinion.

As for the topic, it's silly. A game costs as much as it asks you upfront. If the price tag says $60 then I'm required to part with them, without any assurance I get some of it back. If the original intent is to sell the game, renting is cheaper and safer.

 

[Loonyyy]

$13/hour is far more than I make. Well, far more than I've ever made. I'm a college student, so money to spare isn't something I have in great amounts. If I'm spending money on even a $10 game, then chances are I saved up for it with money I managed to scrape up from wherever. If I'm going into the $20-30 range, which occasionally happens, then I really saved up for it or got it as a gift.

After that, I'm certainly not willing to forgo the occasional dinner with friends just so I can spend $60 on a game with the intention of getting most of it back. "Whoops! Sorry guys! I decided to blow you off for a video game that I intend to sell back soon anyways!"

Most people do or at least should have money on hand for the occasional luxury (a game, a night out drinking, a nice dinner, etc.) or for a rainy day (car breaks or whatever). I do realize there are exceptions (there always are) like being a college student living on ramen noodles and such. I definitely feel most people have the ability to buy a game for $60 without going over budget to sell it weeks or months later.

Come on, you do realise how ridiculous this is right? You should have money on hand for the occassional luxury. Specifically this luxury: The Order 1886! I'm sure MysticSlayer has their own idea of what to spend their own money on. That the people not buying The Order 188(shit), simply don't think it's worth their money, and that a good part of that is their perception of the content, which relies on their personal values and taste? And that this game doesn't seem like a particularly good one. People are willing to shell out for something they think will be good, and that they think has the right amount of content for them. And this isn't. Even with trade in shenanigans (And that's far less clever than you think it is. It's essentially the back patting viewer in this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ss-59fi4nM)

This will be hilarious when Phoenix gets a credit card, though I don't envy their accountant or lawyer.

 

[Bat Vader]

But everyone is not talking about all the other games. Bayonetta 2 didn't spark a big discussion about if it was worth $60. Neither did Bioshock, or Uncharted 2, or any one of dozens of shorter form games that I could mention. No one is questioning the value of short form games as a whole. They are questioning the value of a short form game that is also not that good. The argument is not about any game. It is about The Order.

Don't argue with him. He thinks that he's found a loophole and that he's cleverer than everyone else for it, and takes any criticism of his rather silly logic as an attack on his own intelligence and character. There's no way that you can prove him wrong despite the fact that literally every reply in this (so far) 3 page thread has been to point out that he is wrong. He's a very obstinate person (and has been in every thread he's ever made) and arguing with him is pointless.

Just because you disagree with his opinion doesn't make it ok to insult him. I disagree with his opinion too but I am not going to insult him for it.

Where the hell did he insult him? He just stated a fact. A very obvious fact for anyone who's been around long enough to see Phoenix's posts. He says something silly or far-fetched, gets a couple of reactions and spends days on end replying to those reactions with the original moon-logic. He's not looking for a serious debate or challenging is own opinion.

As for the topic, it's silly. A game costs as much as it asks you upfront. If the price tag says $60 then I'm required to part with them, without any assurance I get some of it back. If the original intent is to sell the game, renting is cheaper and safer.

Saying someone has silly logic sounds a bit insulting in my opinion. To me it sounds like a personal attack rather than a disagreement with their opinion. That's how I interpreted it anyway.

 

[Alma Mare]

But everyone is not talking about all the other games. Bayonetta 2 didn't spark a big discussion about if it was worth $60. Neither did Bioshock, or Uncharted 2, or any one of dozens of shorter form games that I could mention. No one is questioning the value of short form games as a whole. They are questioning the value of a short form game that is also not that good. The argument is not about any game. It is about The Order.

Don't argue with him. He thinks that he's found a loophole and that he's cleverer than everyone else for it, and takes any criticism of his rather silly logic as an attack on his own intelligence and character. There's no way that you can prove him wrong despite the fact that literally every reply in this (so far) 3 page thread has been to point out that he is wrong. He's a very obstinate person (and has been in every thread he's ever made) and arguing with him is pointless.

Just because you disagree with his opinion doesn't make it ok to insult him. I disagree with his opinion too but I am not going to insult him for it.

Where the hell did he insult him? He just stated a fact. A very obvious fact for anyone who's been around long enough to see Phoenix's posts. He says something silly or far-fetched, gets a couple of reactions and spends days on end replying to those reactions with the original moon-logic. He's not looking for a serious debate or challenging is own opinion.

As for the topic, it's silly. A game costs as much as it asks you upfront. If the price tag says $60 then I'm required to part with them, without any assurance I get some of it back. If the original intent is to sell the game, renting is cheaper and safer.

Saying someone has silly logic sounds a bit insulting in my opinion. To me it sounds like a personal attack rather than a disagreement with their opinion.

Saying silly things reflects poorly on the one who says them. This is not my fault, nor reason not to call them out as silly when I see them. And the statement "nothing actually costs its asking price because resell" is silly. I don't apologize for pointing it out.

 

[Nikolaz72]

Actually no, they aren't 60. I pay about 90 for most new AAA releases due to the high taxation on the already ABSURD pricetag most publishers put on their game.

Hence why I stopped bothering with new AAA releases.

 

[Loonyyy]

Do people not realise that dragon marital aids aren't $70+? If you resell them, they might cost nothing! I don't understand why people complain that they don't want to pay this much money for a dragon *****, don't you see, you can sell it right back once you're done with it. I don't understand why anyone would keep something they don't want. Just resell it! You should have money for luxuries anyway, and it's not like the $20 and whatever shipping you lose on the resale is that much anyway. Just buy the uncomfortable, moulded rubber appendage. It's not even like the 5.5 hours you spend extracting it could have been used for something else, or the time involved in reselling it. Just mindlessly consume. Omigosh guys.

 

[Twerksaver]

All of this stupid is The Order 1886 worth $60 discussion is pointless because the game isn't going to cost you $60. Say you beat the game in 5.5 hours after paying $60 and say you hated it or loved the shit out it but you'd never replay it. Well...

ProTip: you can fucking sell the game!!!

If you buy the game on release and beat it over the weekend. You're going to be able to get at least $40 for it if you sell it. Thus, the game only costs you $20. I'm going to buy it (since I'm in the mood for a game like The Order) from Target as you get a $20 PSN card for $5 more. The game + $5 more + tax = ~$70. Then take off $15 immediately due to the PSN card, which brings the cost to $55. Then, if you sell for $40 after playing it, it only cost $15 total. What's the point of waiting for a game to drop to $30, $20, or whatever when you can play it now for that price?

The real question:
Is The Order 1886 worth $15-$20?

Can't re-sell the game if you bought it digitally. But that's a stupid argument anyway, considering you should want to keep a game you just paid money for.

Defending games being sold for sixty dollars with a campaign of only five hours or under is absolutely ridiculous. You're not even getting back what you paid for in game time. It just screams, "I'm trying to justify my obviously stupid purchase!"

C'mon now.

 

[RedDeadFred]

Honestly OP, it's fine that you like to do this and all, it just seems like your method of consuming games is quite a bit different from many others (not to mention you think all 100+ hour games are padded and boring -buy hey, different strokes and all that). That's why you're getting a lot of the same reactions. The discussion seems to be going in circles at this point though and I doubt you'll get anything new from it. It just seems like your method of consumption is better in some very specific scenarios that obviously come up a lot more often for you than others.

 

[FirstNameLastName]

The way you brush off PC gamers is rather hilarious, as well. I don't like the death of physical copies either, but it's a basic fact that you're far more likely to be able to get PC games digitally than physically (and even the physical copies are dependent on digital DRM), and a large number of people--myself included--prefer to play games on the PC rather than on consoles.

I just return the favor of PC gamers brushing off console gamers, just tired of PC gamers acting like console gaming has no pros. Playing a game on bigger screen in a comfy chair/couch with a surround sound system is a far better experience than sitting at my desk playing with a keyboard and mouse (mouse is great but I hate using a keyboard, it was meant for typing).

So in other words, some PC gamers were obnoxious towards you, and so you've decided the best reaction is to be pre-emptively just as obnoxious in the future? You have no reason to complain about obnoxious elitists if you yourself have made a conscious decision to be an obnoxious elitist.

 

[FirstNameLastName]

Dont feed the troll.

It's against forum rules to accuse of trolling, even when the accusation fits. You'd do well to edit this post, lest you incur the wrath of the mods.

 

[rgrekejin]

SNIP

My favorite part is the part where he accuses someone else of using a strawman argument while also explaining that consoles are better than PCs because you can play them on the couch with a controller.

It's almost like he has no idea how PC gaming actually works.

Step 1 - Connect your PC to your TV with an HDMI cable.

Step 2 - Connect your favorite controller / wireless receiver to one of your PC's USB ports. I myself prefer a wireless Xbox 360 controller, but there are tons of options if you like something else.

Step 3 - Play games on your big-screen TV from the couch using a controller. Or from the kitchen. Or the bathroom, if that's your thing.

I've been principally a PC gamer for almost ten years. The only games I've had to use keyboard and mouse for in those ten years are Starcraft II and Papers, Please. Good luck playing the console versions of either of those.

 

[WeepingAngels]

All of this stupid is The Order 1886 worth $60 discussion is pointless because the game isn't going to cost you $60. Say you beat the game in 5.5 hours after paying $60 and say you hated it or loved the shit out it but you'd never replay it. Well...

ProTip: you can fucking sell the game!!!

If you buy the game on release and beat it over the weekend. You're going to be able to get at least $40 for it if you sell it. Thus, the game only costs you $20. I'm going to buy it (since I'm in the mood for a game like The Order) from Target as you get a $20 PSN card for $5 more. The game + $5 more + tax = ~$70. Then take off $15 immediately due to the PSN card, which brings the cost to $55. Then, if you sell for $40 after playing it, it only cost $15 total. What's the point of waiting for a game to drop to $30, $20, or whatever when you can play it now for that price?

The real question:
Is The Order 1886 worth $15-$20?

Well if that's your plan just spend $5 and rent it for the weekend. You won't need to put down a $60 security deposit if you rent it.

 

[Kyogissun]

Way to complete ignore everyone who bought the game digitally OP. But then again, your post comes off extremely close minded and hostile towards those who bought the game and are not happy with their purchase. What seems like a simple solution to you may not be the case for everyone else.

 

[drummond13]

Then you're not buying it. You're renting it at a ridiculously steep price.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

This will be hilarious when Phoenix gets a credit card, though I don't envy their accountant or lawyer.

I have 3 credit cards and not $0.01 of debt.

Can't re-sell the game if you bought it digitally. But that's a stupid argument anyway, considering you should want to keep a game you just paid money for.

Defending games being sold for sixty dollars with a campaign of only five hours or under is absolutely ridiculous. You're not even getting back what you paid for in game time. It just screams, "I'm trying to justify my obviously stupid purchase!"

C'mon now.

Why the fuck would you buy digitally when the physical copy is cheaper and you have the ability to resell (if you want)? What's the standard for game time per hour then? It's not like other forms of entertainment are priced per hour of length/content; a 90 minute and 3 hour movie costs the same.

So in other words, some PC gamers were obnoxious towards you, and so you've decided the best reaction is to be pre-emptively just as obnoxious in the future? You have no reason to complain about obnoxious elitists if you yourself have made a conscious decision to be an obnoxious elitist.

I never said console gaming is better, all I said was that being able to resell games is PRO of console gaming that PC gamers never factor into arguments detailing why PC gaming is better in their opinion. How am I being elitist when I didn't say either was objectively better?

My favorite part is the part where he accuses someone else of using a strawman argument while also explaining that consoles are better than PCs because you can play them on the couch with a controller.

It's almost like he has no idea how PC gaming actually works.

Step 1 - Connect your PC to your TV with an HDMI cable.

Step 2 - Connect your favorite controller / wireless receiver to one of your PC's USB ports. I myself prefer a wireless Xbox 360 controller, but there are tons of options if you like something else.

Step 3 - Play games on your big-screen TV from the couch using a controller. Or from the kitchen. Or the bathroom, if that's your thing.

I've been principally a PC gamer for almost ten years. The only games I've had to use keyboard and mouse for in those ten years are Starcraft II and Papers, Please. Good luck playing the console versions of either of those.

Yes, I know how to do all of that, I'm a PC tech BTW, my PC is currently connected via HDMI too. One of the arguments PC gamers use to state PC gaming is better is that the KB/M is better and how horrible it is to aim with a controller and how a controller doesn't have enough buttons and how they hate how games are made with the controller in mind like Diablo 3's controls or Skyrim's console interface. I know you can play with a controller on PC but that cancels out a huge PRO of PC gaming in many people's minds.

Well if that's your plan just spend $5 and rent it for the weekend. You won't need to put down a $60 security deposit if you rent it.

I said that's worst case scenario. I'm not going to have any game just for a weekend. You can have a game for 2-3 months and get a plenty back when selling it. And, if you want to replay it, it'll probably be dirt cheap by then, worst case scenario is that it costs $20 to play it at release and you pay another $20 to buy it back (probably more like $10), that's still only $40 for the game, still less than $60. The Order will most likely be free on PS+ when the sequel is close to releasing so I'll be able to play it again before the sequel if I want.

Way to complete ignore everyone who bought the game digitally OP. But then again, your post comes off extremely close minded and hostile towards those who bought the game and are not happy with their purchase. What seems like a simple solution to you may not be the case for everyone else.

Again, why the fuck would you buy it digitally when the physical copy is cheaper? I'll pay $50 for it at Target, you can get it for $38 at Best Buy. Why buy it digitally? It's not like you have to drive out to the store to buy a physical copy; Amazon is just as convenient as PSN or Live, you don't have to leave your house. And, the physical copy is better because you have the option of selling it. Digital copies should be cheaper than the physical copy and until they are, I'm not buy any game digitally unless it's under $20. I have bought several games digitally off PSN sales or price drops, I got Bulletstorm for $5 a couple weeks back.