Do people not realize games aren't $60?

[CaitSeith]

Is The Order 1886 that bad that people play it once and they immediately want to get rid of it?

 

[DocMcCray]

Anytime someone bitches about a game, I always think of this comic:

http://www.vgcats.com/comics/?strip_id=312

Bottom line, if you don't like something about a game, a movie, whatever, especially before it comes out...then don't spend your money on it.

 

[NeutralStasis]

It feels like this is a thread to defend a company in making a painfully short game that could legit be beating in a single game session and charging full price. I personally might rent the game possibly, but no way am I gonna give full price. It just strikes me as a little weird that people want do defend this practice and suggest going to Gamestop to at least recover some of your money back afterwards.....two bad practices does not make a good experience.

 

[rgrekejin]

Ever heard of inflation? The $60 price point has been standard for 20 years but the clumative infaltion over that time is 55%. So for a game to be the same percentage of income as it was twenty years ago it would be $93. In truth games get cheaper each year because the price does not increase with inflation.

Not in the US it hasn't. Games didn't hit $60 until the Xbox360/PS3/Wii era, which started in 2005. The generation before that, games were $50. The jump in price was pretty jarring at the time. N64 games were about $50 too. SNES and NES games were somewhat unusual in that there was no fixed "new game" pricepoint. Some games cost more new than others. New SNES games varied from $40-$60, even going as low as $35 towards the end of the system lifespan, and NES were $30-$50 new.

 

[Sable Gear]

It's a $60 if you're not planning on reselling it.

Resale value doesn't factor into purchase price. Also, good luck reselling it if you bought it digitally.

And no one's going to buy it used if it sucks, so you're forced to take the loss.

 

[Elfgore]

Where in the nine hells are you trading in your games at? I'm lucky to get twenty, twenty-five dollars for a new game. I remember my friend talked me into pre-ordering Dishonored, the bastard, I ended up turning it in a week after release for twenty bucks. I was still out forty bucks.

Moving on, this is not logical... at all. Digital purchases have already been brought up. Not to mention that how will I know when I want to replay something? Buy it again just means more money out of my pocket. I think I've bought, turned in, and re-bought TES: Oblivion well over sixty dollars. Getting no more than twenty dollars for the games I turned in, which is three I think.

 

[Albino Boo]

Ever heard of inflation? The $60 price point has been standard for 20 years but the clumative infaltion over that time is 55%. So for a game to be the same percentage of income as it was twenty years ago it would be $93. In truth games get cheaper each year because the price does not increase with inflation.

Not in the US it hasn't. Games didn't hit $60 until the Xbox360/PS3/Wii era, which started in 2005. The generation before that, games were $50. The jump in price was pretty jarring at the time. N64 games were about $50 too. SNES and NES games were somewhat unusual in that there was no fixed "new game" pricepoint. Some games cost more new than others. New SNES games varied from $40-$60, even going as low as $35 towards the end of the system lifespan, and NES were $30-$50 new.

I suggest you read this. http://uk.ign.com/articles/2013/10/15/the-real-cost-of-gaming-inflation-time-and-purchasing-power

 

[rgrekejin]

Ever heard of inflation? The $60 price point has been standard for 20 years but the clumative infaltion over that time is 55%. So for a game to be the same percentage of income as it was twenty years ago it would be $93. In truth games get cheaper each year because the price does not increase with inflation.

Not in the US it hasn't. Games didn't hit $60 until the Xbox360/PS3/Wii era, which started in 2005. The generation before that, games were $50. The jump in price was pretty jarring at the time. N64 games were about $50 too. SNES and NES games were somewhat unusual in that there was no fixed "new game" pricepoint. Some games cost more new than others. New SNES games varied from $40-$60, even going as low as $35 towards the end of the system lifespan, and NES were $30-$50 new.

I suggest you read this. http://uk.ign.com/articles/2013/10/15/the-real-cost-of-gaming-inflation-time-and-purchasing-power

I understand what inflation is, thanks. Your point was that videogames have been $60 before inflation for 20 years, so technically they're cheaper than they've ever been. While it's true that a $60 videogame today is cheaper than a $60 videogame in 2005, it simply isn't true that videogames have had a standard pre-inflation pricepoint of $60 for 20 years. It's been 10 years, tops. It doesn't undercut your basic point, as a $50 game in 2004 would be still be $62.22 today, but as a matter of historical accuracy, games have only had an unadjusted pricepoint of $60 since 2005.

 

[Kl4pp5tuhl]

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.

 

[chikusho]

A house is not hundreds of thousands of dollars. You can just resell it. So houses are basically free.

 

[Insideout Ink Demon]

A house is not hundreds of thousands of dollars. You can just resell it. So houses are basically free.

was about to do something similar with cars.

OP, nice point, but not everyone can be bothered. and if everyone who purchased games on release did this, the industry would crash hard

 

[DrOswald]

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?

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.

 

[gLoveofLove]

You know what's interesting? The makers of the game don't intend for you to sell it. Yet the publishers have no problem selling their 6 hour long game for $60.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

That's assuming you turn around and sell it right away. If that's your thing, then sure, it'll probably be cheaper (for the first few months anyway). You also won't have any games... Also, from my experience, you rarely get more than half your money back when reselling a game. And that's usually only when the game is in high demand and quite new. Usually, things like Steam sales, Humble Bundles, and Kinguin make PC games much cheaper.

Anyway, I personally like to replay my games. Would I sell a game if I didn't like it? Yes. However, due to researching games before buying them, I have yet to actually buy a game I didn't like and wouldn't consider replaying.

As for your question on whether The Order is worth 15-20 dollars (very generous with the amount of money you're getting back, but okay), that would depend on the quality of gameplay. If it's a lot of fun and it's something I'd replay, then yes, it would probably be worth that. However, if I play it once and don't really care for it, then no, I don't think it would be worth the money.

Finally, if we're lowering the price of the 5 hour game, we also have to do that with the 100+ hour games. It's still the same comparison, just cheaper overall. Again, in that case, no it's not worth it IMO.

I can get at least $40 for a game that is still $60. I can have the game for a couple months too. If I do feel like replaying it at some point, by that time it'll be like $10 (or possibly free with PS+ especially if there's a sequel around the corner). $30 for a game that I can play right away and later replay it isn't that bad a price.

The Order isn't 5 hours long either. 100+ hour games have so much recycle content or padding, they cease being fun and more like a job than anything.

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).

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?

Because you get to own it for $20 instead of renting it for $20. Some people like their game collections.

I can buy it later for super cheap if I feel the need to replay it. With work and family, you're lucky to play all the games you're interested in, you don't really have the luxury of replaying games very often.

OK, then, now please explain to me how I'm going to have access to that $50 (between the buying and selling). In my current financial situation, it is important to have access to every dollar I can have access to and spend my money incredibly wisely. That includes not putting a lot of money down with the hopes of getting most of it back later, because I may need it between those two times.

Not everyone can afford this plan of yours, so it is absolutely pointless to use as a reference point when discussing the price. There's other issues also, but others have already pointed them out.

I'm far far from being rich, not even middle class, but how do you not have $50 available at basically all times? I make $13/hour currently, which is lower than the minimum wage in some places.

You're right! For me, new games are actually 60 ?, which translates to roughly $68.

Yeah, because you can always trust that the game can be resold at 2/3 of its shelf price. Because it's always guaranteed that there are people who will buy your used game. Because everyone who resells games always does it immediately and not, say, 2-3 weeks later. Because everyone always buys new games at launch and not, say, 2-3 weeks later. Because the time and effort to put up a sale on, say EBay, transactions, posting and shipping don't factor into a person's willingness to put up a resale at all. Because there's no such thing as supply and demand, amirite?

The parameters by which you set your argument are so strict and limited that they just plain make your statement wrong. BTW, I hardly buy any games for more than 30? and even more rarely resell my games, but this argument is just so tunnel-visioned I had to put in my 5 cents.

You can have the game for 2-3 months. It's takes like a minute to list a game on eBay, you can get envelopes while you're at a store like Walmart, and all is left is making a trip to the post office. That comes out to like 10-15 minutes at best.

Is it me or does it feel like tc is trying too hard to troll?

As a PC gamer though, I generally tend to get games on sale, and I've enough of a backlog that I don't really need to worry about not having a game to play... Or I can pick up something I know I'll play (Damn you battlefield!) at release for $30-40.

Sometimes you just wanna play that new game now. And, I don't pay a premium for doing that. I usually don't buy games right away because I'm playing something else usually and backlogs obviously.

The thread title is correct: Evolve apparently costs $160, and if you wait for sales on Steam, they cost $5. It's a strawman argument to say they don't actually cost $60 when that is the standard retail price almost fully across the board for new games.

People also don't know what a strawman argument is...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Where in the nine hells are you trading in your games at? I'm lucky to get twenty, twenty-five dollars for a new game. I remember my friend talked me into pre-ordering Dishonored, the bastard, I ended up turning it in a week after release for twenty bucks. I was still out forty bucks.

Moving on, this is not logical... at all. Digital purchases have already been brought up. Not to mention that how will I know when I want to replay something? Buy it again just means more money out of my pocket. I think I've bought, turned in, and re-bought TES: Oblivion well over sixty dollars. Getting no more than twenty dollars for the games I turned in, which is three I think.

eBay

Why buy digitally when it's inferior to having a physical copy? By the time you'd probably want to replay it, it will be super cheap so say $20 + $10-$20 is still only $40 max, which isn't a bad price for a game, especially one you enjoyed enough to want to play again.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

A house is not hundreds of thousands of dollars. You can just resell it. So houses are basically free.

Exactly, houses only make you money when flipping!!!

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.

You know what's interesting? The makers of the game don't intend for you to sell it. Yet the publishers have no problem selling their 6 hour long game for $60.

Every other industry has to deal with second hand sales, not my fault the video game industry goes about it the wrong way.

 

[MysticSlayer]

I'm far far from being rich, not even middle class, but how do you not have $50 available at basically all times? I make $13/hour currently, which is lower than the minimum wage in some places.

$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!"

 

[Bat Vader]

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).

Not all PC gamers are like that though. I am a PC gamer but I also own a PS4, X-Box One, PS3, and a PS2. That's cool that you like doing that but it isn't the same for everyone though. I like sitting at my desk and playing my games that way. Everyone has a different way they like playing games.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

$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.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

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).

Not all PC gamers are like that though. I am a PC gamer but I also own a PS4, X-Box One, PS3, and a PS2. That's cool that you like doing that but it isn't the same for everyone though. I like sitting at my desk and playing my games that way. Everyone has a different way they like playing games.

The overall sentiment I get from PC gamers (even here) is that they look down upon console gaming whether it's super obvious or extremely subtle. Even the console that gets the best version of the game acts the same way, more frames or slightly better resolution doesn't make the game any better (I know a higher fps can but the game needs to be fast-paced).

 

[TailstheHedgehog]

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?

Australians crying in the corner.