"I'll pick it up when it's cheap"

[wulfy42]

Here is my take on it as a life long gamer.

In the past, new good games where rare (long distant past now), and we often had long dry spells over the summer when no good games where released. Buying a good game when it came out was a no brainer and pretty much any serious gamer would do so. Even many horrible games would be bought by tons of people (as there was no internet and no easy way to tell if a game was total garbage ahead of time).

Then the internet came around, and a slew of bad games (and especially bad sequels to games) where released over about a decade. This caused many long term gamers to start being a bit more careful about pre-ordering or even buying a game right away on release. I remember for me, FFX-2 was a big step in me holding off on games for instance. It was not even close to the first game I bought and really didn't like, but the FF games had been something I always looked forward to so much that is was one of the last straws for me.

But even then I would usually still buy games fairly soon after they where released, new..and I still pre-ordered quite a few (most good RPGS basically).

But then came steam, humble bundles etc. They have been around for awhile and more importantly the number of games that are worth playing each year have increased drastically. There are games on tons of platforms, free games on places like Kongregate etc, indie games etc. I get about 6-7 emails of bundles per week for games (flying bundle, humble bundle etc etc). If I bought them all I'd probably end up with a good 40+ new games a week (I don't even by 1/10th of them).

That being said, I have a HUGE backlog. I have probably 100+ games I really want to play but havn't had the time, and 300+ additional games that are "backup" meh, I'll play them sometime if I run out of good stuff. I still buy those Meh games (might be great games, just form a genre I'm not a big fan of...FPS, Tactical RPGS etc).

What is worse, I still have probably 50+ games I started, enjoyed, but got sidetracked from before finishing (often before getting halfway through. Those games include Xenosaga, both Super Mario Galaxys and a bunch of other Wii games (havn't even plugged my Wii in for about 2 years), it includes Bioshock 1 (never even tried 2 or 3 and own both), it includes new games as well (Divinity original sin for instance).

So yeah, when a new game comes out, at this point its totally SILLY for me to buy it new unless it's something I just NEEd. That is very very rare now though, and most of the time I wait for 2 reasons.

1. Because by the time I actually get around to playing the game it'll be 50% off at least on steam (or more likely part of a bundle I can get for a few dollars including other games (so probably less then $1 for it on average).

2. Many games are released with bugs and need patches and by waiting I can actually get a fully playable game...or a heads up that the game just isn't worth buying.

I can never...ever...play all the games I own now. I could be locked in a room with food and water for the rest of my life and never play through all the games I have...and that isn't even including MMO's (in fact that is for offline only games alone!). Buying new games is now almost as much about supporting the industry and people who are making them....and collecting games of the type I like, as playing them.

There are VERY few exceptions at this point for me. I would buy a new Fallout game at launch for instance. I still have not bought the last dragonage and will wait quite awhile before doing so (if it goes on sale for 75% I'll snatch it up). RPGs are my favorite genre (especially action RPGS), but I waiting for at least 50% sales on all the latest RPGS (excluding Hands of Fate which I picked up for 20% off and am happy I did).

If I see a game that is different, that interests me, and has over all good reviews....especially if it's from a smaller company...I'll still grab it. For the most part though unless a game is on sale, there is no reason for me to purchase it anymore. I have already invested WAY to much money over the years on games I will never play. I'm happy to support the industry, but at this point the likelyhood of me actually playing a game I buy (unless I play it right away because it interests me that much like hand of fate) is very small.

So yeah, I wait for sales. That I still buy these games on sale......that is the crazy thing. I spend more time actually buying games sometimes then playing them!!

 

[DrunkOnEstus]

Waiting just makes more sense to me. You often get some form of enhanced edition available, with bugs ironed out & additional features included, for less money.

The only game I'm gonna purchase on launch is The Witcher 3, and that's because I feel the devs deserve my money for creating such a top game in The Witcher 2. I'm prepared to show a bit of faith in them and throw a bit more money their way for that alone. If they keep producing such great quality, I'll keep doing the same.

See, I'd really love to pick up Witcher 3 at day one for the same reasons you've given (plus testing out my new GPU, plus the discount for owning 1 and 2)...it's just that my experience with CDP RED has taught me that my first playthrough of Witcher 3 will more than likely be the unoptimized and "rough" version of the game compared to the inevitable "Enhanced Edition" that's waiting down the line.

The difference with CDP RED compared to everyone other publisher/developer is that the Enhanced Edition will be a free upgrade, and include a bunch of free DLC. It's amazing how treating your customers like human beings and not sheep with wallets can make someone wish to buy a rougher version of a game as early as possible just to support the dev and the fact that the game exists.

I also realized that "I'll pick it up when it's cheap" is probably a good idea for every single game bar the ones that must be played right the fuck now (Bloodborne). If you stay about a year behind, a game purchase will be at least half what it originally was, include all or most DLC because every game gets rated GOTY by somebody, and have all of its bugs and patches ironed out. A lot more publishers really need to work on rewarding their loyal day one customers, or at least monitor their sales over a longer time period instead of banking it all on the pre-orders and first 24 hours.

 

[maninahat]

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!

Really?
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.

I don't think the length of a game should be the primary metric as to measuring its quality. Otherwise I'd recommend getting into airfix, or reading books (which are far more cheaper by the hour entertainment). Whenever a game sells itself on huge environments and 50 hours of gameplay, it is implicitly assuring me I will be spending 45 hours of that game time running through copy-pasted interiors doing the same shit over and over. I don't think it is a selling point. Personally I look for shorter games that aren't deliberately trying to beef up the running time with filler content. (There are exceptions to this of course).

That said, I also don't think any game is worth $60 period. I will vary rarely put the money down for a brand new game whilst it is selling at full price, even if I am confident it is a very good one. I'll happily wait a year or more for the price to drop to a more affordable, reasonable level. I usually don't buy what are assuredly shit/mediocre games, even if they reach bottom dollar prices, but when I do, I know as a consumer that I am taking a tiny risk compared to buying full price.

 

[Danbo Jambo]

Waiting just makes more sense to me. You often get some form of enhanced edition available, with bugs ironed out & additional features included, for less money.

The only game I'm gonna purchase on launch is The Witcher 3, and that's because I feel the devs deserve my money for creating such a top game in The Witcher 2. I'm prepared to show a bit of faith in them and throw a bit more money their way for that alone. If they keep producing such great quality, I'll keep doing the same.

See, I'd really love to pick up Witcher 3 at day one for the same reasons you've given (plus testing out my new GPU, plus the discount for owning 1 and 2)...it's just that my experience with CDP RED has taught me that my first playthrough of Witcher 3 will more than likely be the unoptimized and "rough" version of the game compared to the inevitable "Enhanced Edition" that's waiting down the line.

The difference with CDP RED compared to everyone other publisher/developer is that the Enhanced Edition will be a free upgrade, and include a bunch of free DLC. It's amazing how treating your customers like human beings and not sheep with wallets can make someone wish to buy a rougher version of a game as early as possible just to support the dev and the fact that the game exists.

I also realized that "I'll pick it up when it's cheap" is probably a good idea for every single game bar the ones that must be played right the fuck now (Bloodborne). If you stay about a year behind, a game purchase will be at least half what it originally was, include all or most DLC because every game gets rated GOTY by somebody, and have all of its bugs and patches ironed out. A lot more publishers really need to work on rewarding their loyal day one customers, or at least monitor their sales over a longer time period instead of banking it all on the pre-orders and first 24 hours.

Very true, I can totally see why and top post, especially regards the treatment of customers. Half the reason I'm buying it on launch is as a thankyou for TW2, as I want to encourage them to keep up this approach.

 

[lacktheknack]

Always. I literally can't afford to buy anything for more than $10-$15 right now. Thankfully, I have a big backlog.

 

[someonehairy-ish]

Well, I imagine it's not the people with no free time who're looking to pick it up. It'll be the people with lots of free time who want something different to kill a few hours, even if it is mediocre, but don't want to pay through the nose for it.

 

[Stu35]

If (for example) The Order doesn't seem enjoyable enough to drop $60 on (or whatever ungodly Australian amount it is), why would it be worth your time at $20? Or even $5?

I've seen sillier questions, but not many.

You may as well ask why I won't pay (for example) £10,000 for a new car, but I will buy the same car used a few years later for £2,000.

It's simple capitalism, everything is worth what people are willing to pay for it - I want to play the game (or drive the car), but not enough to pay full price for it at the first time of asking.

There are cars out there I would buy new for full price, there are games I'd pay full price to get my hands on, but the vast majority I am happy to wait a bit for the price to drop, or a Steam sale.


To a certain extent it's also my personal protest at the price of brand new games these days. Same goes for Consoles - when the PS4 price drops (and they release more than a couple of next gen games I actually WANT to play) I'll buy one.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

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.

This. Some games i buy on launch full price because i either know i will enjoy them or it looks interesting. The rest i can wait for them to get cheaper. Games like The Order i would have rented from Blockbusters over the weekend though that store no longer exists.

 

[Ridash]

Always. I literally can't afford to buy anything for more than $10-$15 right now. Thankfully, I have a big backlog.

Well, you can always wait for Steam sales and than buy indie games.

 

[DocJ]

I never buy any big AAA titles anymore. Because games keep advancing technologically and I'm sitting here with my laptop which I would describe in one word. Functional. Recently I got all hyped for Shadow of Mordor and when I bought it I couldn't even load the first level. Not to mention the internet I have that means any big AAA title has to be downloaded overnight and even then sometimes it still isn't finished by morning.

 

[Ridash]

I never buy any big AAA titles anymore. Because games keep advancing technologically and I'm sitting here with my laptop which I would describe in one word. Functional. Recently I got all hyped for Shadow of Mordor and when I bought it I couldn't even load the first level. Not to mention the internet I have that means any big AAA title has to be downloaded overnight and even then sometimes it still isn't finished by morning.

It's not like you're missing something. We get 5-6 good AAA tittles every year.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Time is arguably an even more precious commodity than money, and a lot of people have very little free time to play even the best games. If I had a chance to buy the order for $10 right now, I wouldn't take it because it's still a mediocre game and there's a giant backlog I haven't finished.

I agree, time is far more valuable than money, and I'm not rich or well-off by any degree. I only play games based on the fact that I think they will be good enough to spend my time on them. There's not that many games that come out in a year that I think I'd enjoy to begin with so if one comes out that I think I'd enjoy (and I'm currently not into another game), I'm going to fucking buy it. The main reason I end up buying most games for cheap is because I didn't have the time to play it when it came out and then pick it up when I see it for a really good price and it ends up in my backlog.

 

[DrunkOnEstus]

If (for example) The Order doesn't seem enjoyable enough to drop $60 on (or whatever ungodly Australian amount it is), why would it be worth your time at $20? Or even $5?

I've seen sillier questions, but not many.

You may as well ask why I won't pay (for example) £10,000 for a new car, but I will buy the same car used a few years later for £2,000.

It's simple capitalism, everything is worth what people are willing to pay for it - I want to play the game (or drive the car), but not enough to pay full price for it at the first time of asking.

There are cars out there I would buy new for full price, there are games I'd pay full price to get my hands on, but the vast majority I am happy to wait a bit for the price to drop, or a Steam sale.


To a certain extent it's also my personal protest at the price of brand new games these days. Same goes for Consoles - when the PS4 price drops (and they release more than a couple of next gen games I actually WANT to play) I'll buy one.

That's not the spirit of my question. If we're using your analogy, the $10,000 car that you're looking at doesn't have any feature as standard, has somewhat poor handling compared to others in that price range, and despite a "shiny" look it turns out to be made of substandard parts and probably won't last past 100,000 miles. I'm asking why someone would purchase such a car at $2,500 knowing these things when you could get a used BMW or VW at that price. It's a poor investment even at the lower price, especially considering the competition. But I don't see how its comparable, one generally buys one car and puts a ton of research and work into the purchase because it's practically a necessity. Games are a luxury that one generally buys many of, and has a lot of options at the $20 price point compared to the mediocre one that was once $60.

I wish I conveyed my thoughts better in the OP, because I must appear certifiably thick if I appear to be seriously asking "why do people say they'll buy the thing at $20 if it's $60 now?" without any other context.

 

[Batou667]

"I'll buy it when it's cheap" is my mantra. Hence I have the majority of the Assassin's Creed, Far Cry, and Modern Warfare franchises to catch up on.

 

[weirdee]

I do this all the time, because huge aaa gaming projects place pricing before realism. They also don't actually appear to care what the game actually has inside of it, just as long as it looks good enough to sell. As a third point, most of them don't ever include all of the content, even when you preorder, due to stupid arrangements, and basically, the buyer's remorse I have from deus ex: hr has marred every mainstream game release for me that isn't from a source that I already trust (and even those have shot themselves in the foot lately).

Money is more important than the future to these people. It disappoints me.

 

[ryessknight]

Well for me, i'll pick it up when its cheaper usually because i have a big backlog or the game looks interesting but i'm either burned out on its type atm, like dying light, or there's other stuff i want way more at the time so end up putting off getting a game because of those. Most of the time i end up buying something cheaper because i forgot it exists then see it in a store and go "oh yea i wanted to play that once" lol.

 

[CFriis87]

The recent release of The Order has brought about this phrase again, and it's one that I see often whenever a mediocre game is being reviewed. I figured this is a perfect way to figure out why people feel this way and ask about what they end up doing.

Basically, I don't understand this line of thinking too much, and it tells me that there might be a lot of people who want to eventually own/play every game they can as long as it isn't broken or complete shit. If (for example) The Order doesn't seem enjoyable enough to drop $60 on (or whatever ungodly Australian amount it is), why would it be worth your time at $20? Or even $5?

Time is arguably an even more precious commodity than money, and a lot of people have very little free time to play even the best games. If I had a chance to buy the order for $10 right now, I wouldn't take it because it's still a mediocre game and there's a giant backlog I haven't finished.

I learned a lot about this from PS+. Plus is something I would buy anyway, so the games offered each month are essentially free to me, but I rarely make it more than 10 minutes into most of them. The time I could be spending on a better game is worth more than a gaming experience that's even $0.

The counterargument I see here is that of limited income, and I get that. I'm pretty fuckin' poor. But I see this attitude brought up without that context, and although I don't have direct quotes, something like "shame, thought it would be a lot better than this, still might be worth a tenner down the line" doesn't say much about really wanting to play it but not being able to actually afford it.

So after all that rambling, my general questions are:

Do you often read a review/see a video for a game, find it to be "meh" but follow its price and watch for sales so that you can pick it up for a heavy discount down the line despite that assessment?

Would you consider a mediocre AAA/AA game at a discounted rate to be a better buy than a great indie title at the same price point?

All that said, The Order has made me glad that the master plan to destroy renting and borrowing got foiled. Sometimes 5 hours of tuning out and actually seeing the credits for once is a nice change of pace.

It's pretty simple actually, the more mediocre games you buy at full price ($60), the less good or great games you have the ability to buy at full price.

 

[Rozalia1]

I buy all the stuff I'm into full price pretty much always... titles such as Yakuza 5, Persona 5, Atelier Shallie, Bloodborne, Danganronpa Another Episode: Ultra Despair Girls, and so on are all known upcoming titles that I'm getting day 1 to mention just those that come to mind and are being released this year.

Stuff like the order is something I can pretty safely count being on Plus and isn't something I'm itching to buy day 1. Being a player of games that often get crapped on unfairly has rendered reviews and talks of value mostly pointless to me so that isn't it either.

 

[sXeth]

Well, I said I wouldn't buy Evolve at 70 dollars (CAD), DLC or not. Though I have it now via someone selling theirs for 35 already in my town.

I think the near-demise of the rental market has hurt things significantly. There's a reasonable number of games that I've played that I have been (or would've been, if my boss didn't give me copies for free to write magazine reviews) miffed to put down 70 dollars on after they petered out inside of a week.

Spoiler: Including but not limited to

The Order 1886, Wolfenstein, Advanced Warfare, Tomb Raider, Bioshock : Infinite, Last of Us. I'd probably drop Watch_Dogs in there too, though I extended it a bit by playing about online with friends). And damn near every AC game.

. It'd also give you a low-cost chance to winnow out absolute garbage (like Transformers Dark Spark or Colonial Marines).

That said, value is at least somewhat subjective. I can't see the appeal in the tired narrative cliches of Walking Dead, or its barely there gameplay (Clementine is at least a likable unique character though) or the often anemic Fighting Game genre where 99% of the game is playing 1v1 repeat matches online. Other people spend hours on them on end. Length is also a poor denominator to go on. Star Fox 64 was something like 40 minutes long to finish, but I probably put over 200 hours in it back at the time. I certainly would've considered it worth my cash (I forget whether I bought it or someone else gave it to me). Final Fantasy 4 I never get far on a replay of, but I certainly found the singular (and almost entirely linear) trip through worth the money I spent. And so on. Skyrim is oft-beloved, but for me, its a glitchy mess that was unplayable for nearly a year on my PS3, and even then, effectively incompletable as questlines anti-climactically glitched up in their final portions.