I used to buy most of my games new at $60 a pop. But I've been burned so many times I can honestly say I wont do it anymore. Its just not worth the price. I received a ps4 for my birthday last year and ended up picking up 4 games at $60. Infamous Second Son, Destiny, Middle Earth - Shadow of Mordor, and Watch Dogs. The only game I found worth it was Shadow of Mordor. All the games looked good but overall they where just not worth the $60 and the time I spent playing them.
"I'll pick it up when it's cheap"
- Thread starter DrunkOnEstus
- Start date
A lot of us are college students or just kids outright that work part time minimum wage, and a video game is often 5% or more of our total money.
The old me would have made some 'your mamma' joke, with that title. However, this is new me... Newme! Numi? Noomie?
Ok back on track. Brand new games are too much of a gamble with their pricing. You can get some underrated beauties if you wait for prices to drop.
I only recently got Metro 2033 for £3 on sale and it was a wonderous surprise! On ranger mode it really feels like engaging survival and oozing atmosphere. It seems it is like the Dark souls of fps's, with the oppressive world and focus on every little trick just to scrape by alive enough to hit the next checkpoint.
In fact i got the sequel today, it impressed me that much! Many more tense hours in that £3 than the £40 i spent on COD advanced warefare. (Where drunk people are known to have regrettable sexual decisions, I however, just end up buying games i dont want!)
Ok back on track. Brand new games are too much of a gamble with their pricing. You can get some underrated beauties if you wait for prices to drop.
I only recently got Metro 2033 for £3 on sale and it was a wonderous surprise! On ranger mode it really feels like engaging survival and oozing atmosphere. It seems it is like the Dark souls of fps's, with the oppressive world and focus on every little trick just to scrape by alive enough to hit the next checkpoint.
In fact i got the sequel today, it impressed me that much! Many more tense hours in that £3 than the £40 i spent on COD advanced warefare. (Where drunk people are known to have regrettable sexual decisions, I however, just end up buying games i dont want!)
Dittoooo.the_dramatica said:
The days of just buying on impulse are over,
You know what I do now that I didn't as a young lad? Research, research, and research. With only the very rare occasional gamble of confidence (ex. Platinum games... happy me, Dark Souls 2.... regret, and Bloodborne... hope). It always comes down to "what do PEOPLE, not reviewers, PEEEEOPLE have to say about this game?". I make sure to take everyone's opinions to mind. Then I watch tiny bit gameplay, get the cons of what I see and are noted out of the way, eventually coming down to the decision making: Wether or not the game offers enough fun for the weight of it's current price.
Otherwise, the wait begins, simple.
It's a simple principle of assigning value to a product. I bought Borderlands 2 at full price because I assigned a $50 value to the experience I expected. The Order sounds like shit, and I wouldn't pay more than $5 for it. That way, if I DO play it, I only need to play it for about an hour before I inevitably get bored and still get my money's worth. Sometimes just experiencing a game is enough, you don't have to finish it if you're not enjoying it fully.
People put monetary values on things based around how much they enjoy it or expect to enjoy it. In fact, I think there might be an entire branch of economics dedicated to studying this.DrunkOnEstus said:
Take, for instance, a fast food restaurant. People are willing to pay $5-7 for whatever they are selling, despite it not being the greatest food around. But if one of these restaurants started charging $15 for the same food, do you really think people would consider eating there? No. They'd either go to a nicer restaurant or go to a more reasonably priced one.
Likewise, people will attach a monetary value to games based around what they expect to get from it. If a game is reportedly short and is mediocre reviews, do you really think I'll spend $60 on it when I can get a longer, likely better, game for the same amount? No. I'm going to go to a better game or buy a more reasonably priced one.
So, no, the game hasn't changed at all, but the cost-to-enjoyment ratio that drives most of our buying decisions has certainly evened out more.
I pick most games up when they become cheap nowadays, but they're still ones I was originally interested in. I've just learned to be patient and stay several releases behind at all times. Except for multiplayer games, but I don't play too many of those.
I don't want to be rude, but I can't think of a way to say this that isn't rude or extremely condescending. So I am just going to say it.
Basically, your reasoning is highly irrational (in the economic sense) and based on several faulty assumptions.
On the other hand, the "I'll wait" mentality is based on rational economic behavior and sound assumptions.
Mathematically:
V = Perceived value of the game, chance of it actually being worse or better than expected factored in.
M = Cost of game in money
K = Perceived value of money to the individual.
T = Cost of game in time
L = Perceived value of time to the individual.
Assuming the individual is a rational actor, a game is perceived as worth buying if the following is true:
V >= (M*K + T*L)
Notice the value of the game, money and time are all based on the perception of the individual at hand. In other words, those are all variable depending on the individual. Everyone is going to have a different point based on different factors that tips it over.
Now, how much does the value, not the cost, of a game actually deteriorate over time? Very little. I can play a game made 20 years ago and it is the exact same game. Perhaps the only deteriorating factor is that I don't get to be part of the social interaction surrounding the game, and the fact that I don't get to play it immediately, and the risk that it will not be available in the future.
For a mediocre game, like The Order appears to be, the expected value of the social interaction will be minor. Because it is not great I have no great desire to play it immediately. It is also highly unlikely that the game will not be available in the future and even if it is not no great loss. Thus, for a game like The Order the value loss is marginal.
So, lets say we wait until the game costs only $20. 1/3 the normal price. The new equation is this:
N = marginal value loss.
V - N >= ((M*K)/3 + T*L)
Therefore, if (2MK)/3 > N, it is worth waiting. Because N is marginal, it is a safe assumption that (2MK)/3 is greater.
The relative value of time and money have nothing to do with this decision, and the value of time in this decision is less important than the value of money. A rational economic decision in this particular instance, that is to say the choice about the purchase delay, is primarily about the value of money.
Basically, your reasoning is highly irrational (in the economic sense) and based on several faulty assumptions.
On the other hand, the "I'll wait" mentality is based on rational economic behavior and sound assumptions.
Mathematically:
V = Perceived value of the game, chance of it actually being worse or better than expected factored in.
M = Cost of game in money
K = Perceived value of money to the individual.
T = Cost of game in time
L = Perceived value of time to the individual.
Assuming the individual is a rational actor, a game is perceived as worth buying if the following is true:
V >= (M*K + T*L)
Notice the value of the game, money and time are all based on the perception of the individual at hand. In other words, those are all variable depending on the individual. Everyone is going to have a different point based on different factors that tips it over.
Now, how much does the value, not the cost, of a game actually deteriorate over time? Very little. I can play a game made 20 years ago and it is the exact same game. Perhaps the only deteriorating factor is that I don't get to be part of the social interaction surrounding the game, and the fact that I don't get to play it immediately, and the risk that it will not be available in the future.
For a mediocre game, like The Order appears to be, the expected value of the social interaction will be minor. Because it is not great I have no great desire to play it immediately. It is also highly unlikely that the game will not be available in the future and even if it is not no great loss. Thus, for a game like The Order the value loss is marginal.
So, lets say we wait until the game costs only $20. 1/3 the normal price. The new equation is this:
N = marginal value loss.
V - N >= ((M*K)/3 + T*L)
Therefore, if (2MK)/3 > N, it is worth waiting. Because N is marginal, it is a safe assumption that (2MK)/3 is greater.
The relative value of time and money have nothing to do with this decision, and the value of time in this decision is less important than the value of money. A rational economic decision in this particular instance, that is to say the choice about the purchase delay, is primarily about the value of money.
I have no problem dropping $60 on a game I am confident in and am excited to play. I get to be in the first conversations with others out there like myself. I don't have to avoid that game I so badly want to play in fear that people might spoil it or lie about it in an attempt to slander/praise. I get to be in those discussions discussing gameplay design choices, story, atmosphere, etc. Paying the $60 for me is about getting to finally see that product I am excited for AND getting to talk to others about it. (Usually more than they give a shit - that's what I have you guys for.)
Shadows of Mordor is my most recent example I can think of. The Nemesis system fascinates me, I want to see it in action. No one I know has it. It's worth $20 bucks to get my hands on it and see what I want to see for myself. Right now, I have people saying this and that about the game and I have to gauge who is probably closest to my perspective. I have chosen based on different criteria and it seems that I will probably grow bored in the game. However, I still want to toy with that Nemesis mechanic. I may be sure that the gameplay will bore me, but I want to experiment.
I have spent hours just looking over and evaluating a game's mechanics only to realize I now have no idea what is going on in the story. I am fascinated by design choices made in games more than anything else. For example, its amazing to me how many third person over the shoulder games won't let you switch shoulders. I like looking at different inventory systems, upgrade systems, how the character explores/level design, etc. I have quite a few games that I like owning and going back revisiting just to look at a mechanic again.
I will never be a game designer most likely. I want to make at least 1 game in my lifetime though. However, for me playing games is similar to a trip to the museum. I don't do a lot of painting myself, despite owning all the tools and desire. However, I don't have the time in my life with everything else. But I get a small amount of fulfillment seeing what others have done.
Plus, some people have a lot of time and little money, while other have little time and lots of money. So value of time is relevant. Just saying.
Shadows of Mordor is my most recent example I can think of. The Nemesis system fascinates me, I want to see it in action. No one I know has it. It's worth $20 bucks to get my hands on it and see what I want to see for myself. Right now, I have people saying this and that about the game and I have to gauge who is probably closest to my perspective. I have chosen based on different criteria and it seems that I will probably grow bored in the game. However, I still want to toy with that Nemesis mechanic. I may be sure that the gameplay will bore me, but I want to experiment.
I have spent hours just looking over and evaluating a game's mechanics only to realize I now have no idea what is going on in the story. I am fascinated by design choices made in games more than anything else. For example, its amazing to me how many third person over the shoulder games won't let you switch shoulders. I like looking at different inventory systems, upgrade systems, how the character explores/level design, etc. I have quite a few games that I like owning and going back revisiting just to look at a mechanic again.
I will never be a game designer most likely. I want to make at least 1 game in my lifetime though. However, for me playing games is similar to a trip to the museum. I don't do a lot of painting myself, despite owning all the tools and desire. However, I don't have the time in my life with everything else. But I get a small amount of fulfillment seeing what others have done.
Plus, some people have a lot of time and little money, while other have little time and lots of money. So value of time is relevant. Just saying.
It is often due to backlogs that I wait til something is cheaper, it's not always a matter of "this is how much I think this game is worth". It's more an issue that "I already have tons of games to play". If I pick it up at all it's because it's something I do want to play at some point and want it in my library for that to be an option, however typically speaking I would only spend a full $50-$60 on a game I plan to play immediately.
I also would like to avoid being rude, and would love to have an insightful conversation about this, but I have to say that you've taken a concept that's common sense and made it more complex than it needs to be. The whole formula is something that I understand, and I hope Poe's Law doesn't make me seem like a dick, but I'll try.DrOswald said:
The point I was trying to make was that if we isolate income and remove it from the equation (literally or figuratively), a mediocre game that isn't worth finishing is still mediocre and not worth finishing at virtually any price point, because that time could be allocated elsewhere. If someone finds The Order interesting but not $60 for 5-7 hours, I get that. I wasn't asking why people pay less than $60 for AAA games, I was asking why people decide to purchase a decidedly mediocre title in the future at $15-20 dollars when there are already going to be older AAA games and indie titles that are universally agreed to be amazing at that price point during this unknown time window when something like The Order hits $15-20.
I know there's common sense embedded into my questions, and I also half answered my own question in reference to Dragon Age 2. I knew it was mediocre when it came out, never wanted to buy it at all, but picked it up because I saw it for $5. The difference is, when DA2 released I didn't think "looks mediocre, probably not going to be a good use of my gaming time. I'll add it to my gaming collection if it hits $5". It's that context and the choice of thread topic that I'm trying to talk about here, being that time is the most precious, valuable, and ultimately finite resource.
I hope that I didn't come across as rude either, and please say what you feel you need to say without worry of insulting me. I've been dying for some real discussion and debate with the fine people here and would enjoy even a very incompatible ideology.
I think it has to do with being interested in the game, but it generally being reviewed poorly and thus waiting for a lower price at which point if it's bad it's not a huge loss. If you like it, it's great.DrunkOnEstus said:
For example, I'm really looking forward to Witcher 3 and will more than likely pay $60 for it. But if it is generally reviewed poorly, I'll wait for it to be cheaper so if I dislike W3 it isn't as huge a loss as if I preordered it. Or paid $60 at launch.
Honestly, I can't think of one game I have ever played that was worth full price. Even games I love, games I'll play over and over like Mass Effect 3 or Bioshock Infinite were not worth $60+!
I mean damn, that's a lot of money!
I mean damn, that's a lot of money!
Really?Silentpony said:
I mean most of the games I've played I absolutely consider a fantastic use of money.
Skyrim? 200+ hours (I didn't buy at full price but assume I did) = 3.33 hours a dollar.
Fallout NV? 100+ hours (Also didn't buy at full) = 1.7 hours per dollar.
Let's compare this to a nice dinner out with the lady. I'm looking at dropping around 100 dollars for a 2-4 hour experience. Video games by their nature tend to be one of the best bangs for your buck.... Ok screw these new AAA games that cost 60 and you finish in 10 hours.
Because It's a game I could beat in a single sit-down, and that is not something I'm willing to drop $70 Canadian on.DrunkOnEstus said:
There are a lot of mediocre and bad games that I would describe as 'worth a playthrough', simply for the reason that they provide a somewhat original and unique experience AND (and this part is super important) are relatively small time sinks. Games like 30 Flights of Loving, Jazzpunk, Dear Esther, Thomas Was Alone, The Yawhg, and Gone Home come to mind. That said, I didn't buy any of those games at full price, and most ended up in my Steam collection by way of Humble Bundle.
The Order 1886 kind of falls into that same category. It's short, it's mediocre, and it's a novel setting. I want to play it, but between the price point, my busy life, and current backlog, it's hardly a priority.
After all, a central tenant of capitalism is that it's only a fair price if it's what the person buying is willing to pay for it AND the person selling is willing to take for it.
What would have made those games (or any game) worth $60 in your opinion? Since you mentioned me3 I'm assuming that length would not be it. For you, would a game just have to be utterly perfect?Silentpony said:
If I drop $60 on a piece of entertainment I want to get my money's worth. If I don't think it's worth $60 then I won't buy it. That being said, if I drop $10 on a piece of entertainment I want to get my money's worth too. If I think it's worth $10 then I might buy it. It's really that simple for me.DrunkOnEstus said:
If I'm not in a rush or have a pressing need for the thing I only pay what I think it's worth or preferably less, not more.
Not really. "Meh" means I'm uninterested in your product and you probably won't get me to buy it. I often look at a review/video and go "that looks fun and/or moderately interesting, I might get it for a reasonable price" and make a note of it in my mind and then when a sale is going on (or if the price is reasonable at the time) I might go through with it.DrunkOnEstus said:
Sometimes, on occasion, I go "holy crapballs, I must have this! I wish to subscribe to your newsletter!" and buy it immediately.
I don't think I'd ever consider a mediocre game a better buy than a great game. Especially at the same price point.DrunkOnEstus said:
Qizx said:
Hope you don't mind, I'm gonna try to answer you both with one post as your comments are similar.Morgoth780 said:
Short answer, something along the lines of the Holo Deck from Star Trek, if I'm honest. Despite what we say about immersion and the like, I'm never not aware I'm playing a video game, so I'm never really all that invested. I loved Skyrim, I loved Fallout New Vegas but there were times the power would go out during a storm and I'd lose 4+ hours of gameplay and it wouldn't bother me. I just shrug and put the controller down, content the contents are still there and I really haven't lost much.
The overall problem I have with these games, Mass Effect 3 included, is that the roll-playing is so limiting. Sure, we have 5+ dialogue options every conversation, none of which is something I'd say! For all the hullabaloo about playing the character, there's never a chance to get to know the character on a human level. I mean my Skyrim Imperial? Does he like lemonade? What does he do during his days off? What's his favorite cheese?
Or Shepard! What's his favorite movie? Beer? Night club?
Or whatever my character's name was in New Vegas? Did he actually like Cass and want to romance her? Why did he just take a single no without trying to woo? Did he like whiskey or vodka more?
The games were immersive within severe limitations. You could never go out for a night on the town in New Vegas and get black-out drunk and punch a robot in the face. You know, things you would do in a 50s/early 60s version of a post-apocalypse Las Vegas.
Yes, these games were long, but they were very repetitive without many chances to characterize my characters. And yes you could have a head canon over all those things, but it never meant anything in the game. The only way you get to know your characters is writing a God damn fan fiction about them. Yes, you could eat cheese in Skyrim, but it never meant anything. You never got into a debate with Lydia over the best kind of cheese, or mead. It was always "I am sworn to carry your burdens, yadda yadda..." After 3-5 dialogue lines per character, there was never anything new.
I basically beat New Vegas. Some 400+ hours, did all the quests, met all the people, killed all the deathclaws. But I wanted to play more! I wanted to talk with people about their day, to do something anything new. But nothing ever happened. NPC #000912Cass would never say anything new, ever again.
Something like a holo deck from star trek were you are interacting with the world, were you can respond to and get responses from the NPCs/AI in realistic ways, to make it feel real and thus immersive and thus worth while...that would be worth paying full price for.
P.S. Sorry if I'm rambling...
Unless it's a GTA or a particular Nintendo published title (which rarely get marked down), I almost never pay full price for a video game. It really doesn't have to do with limited income, so much as limited lifespan. I can't even blame the lack of free time because a person can only play video games so much. At any given time, I'm about 15 games deep of games I've purchased but haven't touched yet. I just bought Geometry Wars 3 and Lara Croft and the Temple of Osiris only because they were on sale and I thought I'd like them. It will be months before I actually play them. I still have to play Super Paper Mario on the Wii because I saw it on clearance for $10. It's just hard not feel like a hoarder at a certain point. I've seen Splinter Cell Blacklist dirt cheap all over for various platforms, but I haven't gotten it because it looks "good." I'm not getting The Order 1886 ever, not because it's short, but because it's "alright." The market is just saturated with quality titles I simply don't have the time for. A man's gotta eat and work and sleep. Even if I sacrificed every other leisure activity like movies, TV, dinners, exercise, and sex, it'd take me a solid year to work through what I have and what I still want and will get for cheap.