I don't really mind the price, even if it is stupidly high. After playing the excellent Metal Gear Rising:Revengeance, and getting interested in the universe, I would like to play a new MGS. If and when its out on PC that is.
You should check out the Legacy Collection on the PS3, or at least the HD collection (Legacy has the first Metal Gear, as well as the fourth, which makes it a better deal). Aside from the first one, they all hold up pretty well to modern games, and still look great. I only played them last year and I was hooked.
Well, if you don't buy it used that is. I found that out the hard way. For some reason MGS1 is only available through an online voucher, and used copies don't have it.
You may be asking, "why didn't you buy it new?". You see, I tried, but my Gamestop was out of new copies, so the guy offered me a used copy at a few dollars less. Saying aloud, "Well, as long as everything is still on there", the guy hands me the used copy, I walk out the door happy, and get home to find out there is no MGS1 to be found. I would have loved to go back out there to make a deal about it, but my ride decided it wasn't that big of a deal, so my collection was ruined.
Did you keep the receipt? You can return games at different gamestops, so long as you can prove you bought it from them.
That does suck though. Stuff like this always makes me wary because alot of the complete collections are just repacking of the original games and unlock codes for the other stuff, like the God of War and Infamous collections. It's a really underhanded way of making sure customers buy new.
I do still have it, but I bought the collection about two weeks ago. Like I said, my ride to get there (I don't have my own car at the moment) decided it wasn't a big deal, so I had to compromise not playing the first game. (Which is of course the only game in the entire MGS franchise I don't have anymore.)
The only game collection that I bought that didn't use some sort of online voucher garbage to bribe me into a new copy was the Resistance collection.
I think your better off buying this closer to when the main game is released and it will be ultra cheap. Kinda like watching part one of a movie just before you watch part 2....if that makes sense. Thing is, some reviews compare this to the ME2 tanker demo, except that demo was released with Zoe, a full price full game - an that tanker demo was the best part of MG2, the rest was dissapointing. I know major fans will buy this, and thats fine as its their money and they think its worth the cost then thats great and i hope they get a lot of fun out of it. Though i do hope this charging for a demo doesnt become a habit, we had that GT5 and now this, though i never played the GT5 "demo" so it could have been worth it. Just seems that console gaming is taking all the bad parts of mobile gaming at the moment.
It was Koajim Mogren's fault! He's the one! He's the one you're after, officer!
SonOfVoorhees said:
the ME2 tanker demo, except that demo was released with Zoe, a full price full game - an that tanker demo was the best part of MG2, the rest was dissapointing
It was Koajim Mogren's fault! He's the one! He's the one you're after, officer!
SonOfVoorhees said:
the ME2 tanker demo, except that demo was released with Zoe, a full price full game - an that tanker demo was the best part of MG2, the rest was dissapointing
So, you point out that he missed the 's' in MGS 2, but not that he previously referred to MGS 2 as ME 2, which, of course, isn't even part of the same series. Way to pick your battles.
OT: When I first heard about Ground Zeroes, I assumed it was going to be like the tanker mission. When I heard it was going to be separate, I assumed it was going to be of a decent length. When I heard it was going to be rather short, I assumed it would be cheap, if not free. When I heard it was $30, I stopped listening. I mean, I'm glad that it's decent enough that, should the price drop or go away entirely, it's worth playing, but that it came out at $30 to begin with is just disgusting. This is why I don't really want to videogames anymore.
Expect more of this. Selling the demo of your game, that's a gold mine, if there's ever been one.
Connect the content with some story references to the actual game, so people would feel obliged to buy it. Throw in some gimmicks to make it longer than 30 min., and there you have it - 30 bucks.
That's the next DLC, mark my word.
Look, I'll be the first to say Konami are exploiting the MGS fanbase with this title...but by god if this isn't the most brilliantly constructed thing ever.
Story doesn't tie in to the Phantom Pain? Boy, you have no idea.
I have the same reaction to this as when they announced how the split for Phantom Pain and Ground Zeroes was gonna work, in that I cannot understand what the point of Ground Zeroes is other than to just make a quick buck.
It's too far away from the release of Phantom Pain to build a good momentum of hype that persists until Phantom Pain launches. It's too expensive (currently) to act as a low-budget, standalone experience that doubles as a demo (see Dead Rising: Case Zero, the only time this has worked in recent memory. From Capcom of all companies!)
It's too short AND it lacks enough content to act as its own, fully-fledged game. Yes, Revengence was short, however it had quite a lot of extra content past the initial playthrough to justify its length (unlocking new weapons and costumes, the VR mode, if you bought the PC version like I did then the two DLC chapters are included, etc).
It doesn't come bundled with another game to act as a cross-promotional purchase a la Zone of the Enders as Jim mentioned. If they hadn't announced MGS5 already, they could have used this as a sneaky announcement, for instance if they hadn't announced Phantom Pain but Lords of Shadow 2 had come with a copy of Ground Zeroes which ended with a promotion for Phantom Pain, that could have worked as a way to generate some good buzz (and generated more interest in Lords of Shadow 2).
I really just don't see the point in Ground Zeroes at all.
This really is a new low, I cannot believe that people are trying to spin this either. This is why the industry is able to make mugs of us all, sure $30 isn't all that much and sure some people really, really like Metal Gear Solid but rewarding any publisher for behaving like this will come back and bite us all in the arse. It has done in the past and once Activision, EA and Ubisoft see that not only will people buy this they will run around the gaming community doing their PR for them by trying to spin it and defend it!
It isnt a fallacy when it really is a slippery slope, get ready for some DLC with your $30 demos so don't forget to pre-order your season pass.
Activision, EA and Ubisoft see that not only will people buy this they will run around the gaming community doing their PR for them by trying to spin it and defend it!
The other two, maybe, but Ubisoft already has figured out how to do this properly - Look at Blood Dragon, Gunslinger, and Freedom Cry - They've figured out how to create shorter but still complete games and price them appropriately and from what I can tell said adventures have made them a decent bit of cash.
If anything, Konami could stand to learn from Ubisoft here.
I agree with Jim. I don't think selling prologue content is a bad idea, Dead Rising 2 did it and it worked perfectly and was around the same length. But that game was 15 dollars. The price point here is the ONLY issue: if this game was 15 or even 20 dollars, I don't think the price point would even come up. But Konami decided to price it as high as they felt they could get away with, which is very sketchy. Despite that, I think you'll see the price on this drop pretty soon if Metal Gear Rising is any indication.
I got the game basically for free while trading in some stuff I didn't like, and I genuinely had a lot of fun with it. Even though it's a relatively short experience, it's very satisfying and the gameplay is really solid. I haven't played any of the end game content yet though, so I can't judge.
Remember when things were a "must-rent"? Does anyone actually rent video games anymore? This one would be a prime example of it. Rent, don't buy.
If you all remember Capcom had a similar standalone game release like this a couple years back that was exclusive for the Xbox 360 where we got a paid demo that gave us a unique setting and side mission/prologue much like in Ground Zeroes. It was called Dead Rising: Case Zero. It wasn't the best game. It was short, and could be beaten in an hour. It had a very small map and a handful of side missions/weapons in comparison to it's full featured main game. But it was in itself a cohesive game. It even had a boss battle. It too allowed for a save file to be brought over to the main game, Dead Rising 2. And ultimately it worked and sold well and was well reviewed.
Why you might ask? Well beyond it actually being a decent game that was fun to play it was $5!!! Yes FIVE DOLLARS. If Ground Zeroes had released for $5 or even $10 (again they could have had that price difference between the old gen and current gen) we wouldn't be talking about it like we are now. This should have been a downloadable only title and cheaply priced as Jim is correct in saying that it is essentially about selling MGS5. I'd rather they would have added an extra $10 on MGS5 than on this as I'm sure it's going to be an amazing game worth an extra few dollars. It's amazing that I'm crediting Capcom with anything here . . . I mean Capcom!? But they set a standard in excellence with Dead Rising: Case Zero in creating a great demo that was worth forking out $5 for. And I'm sure they ultimately made their money back on that demo as from what I recall it sold well over 600,000 copies. I think many of us would have bough Ground Zeroes on Day 1 if it was at that price. And it would have even lured in non-MGS fans such as myself who aren't all that familiar with the series. But there's no way I'm ever going to pay this amount for the game. I might buy a used disc copy for $5 or I might wait until perhaps there is a 75% off sale on the game on the XBLM. But I'm not paying $20 for a demo. Shame on Konami. I cannot believe I'm going to tell a company to look at Capcom and learn from their behaviour but here I go. Capcom, when it comes to pay-to-play demos yay on you. Konami, truly, shame on you. I hope sales for this product dictate it's a flop so we never see this sort of behaviour again.
You made a mistake. Dead Rising's downloadable prologue Case Zero was originally priced at 400MPS or approximately $5 and not $15 as you said in your comment. It has during some sales been 200MPS or $2.50 though. It's a bargain at both prices IMHO. It is probably worth $15 though, but thankfully when Capcom (again why am I praising Capcom?) was pricing the game the guy who usually stuffs things up for players by ensuring poor practices was likely on holidays . . . they really need to fire that guy
I find it interesting that TB just did a vlog that included the topic of whether the price should affect the score when prices go down over time while content stays the same. It means the score isn't future proofed so when the price drops, the score is no longer applicable. That said, deciding on a purchase entirely based on the final score without reading the review wouldn't be a very intelligent thing to do.
Imo, review scores are never future proof. A game might be patched (for better or worse) or the reviewer might not have experienced problems that normal people will encounter either because they spend far less time with it or because some problems (e.g. broken servers) only crop up once the public has access.
I also disagree on TB's assessment: If anything, the price point should always be taken into account for reviews. If that be in the text, some disclaimer box or the game's rating doesn't really matter that much (at least to me), arbitrary as the scores anyways tend to be. I'd totally be ok if more sites gave additional disclaimers, recommendations (e.g. "pick up reduced" or "rent" as some sites and magazines did) or even dual scores (like a game magazine I used to read in my teens).
There are many good games with too little content for too high a price that I'll happily pick up once they had a few price drops. But at their starting price point I feel their price often isn't warranted.
It probably also depends a lot on your view what review scores are supposed to be. If they are seen as a recommendation near launch, factoring in the price can make a lot more sense than when seeing them as a pure quality rating. TB says himself that he doesn't like review scores and thus also doesn't use them himself but he is still telling you buying recommendations, be it in some of his WTF videos and even has a video format showcasing the best Steam deals.
I like his videos and the style he does them in and they are often a lot more helpful to me than a plain review score but then again reviews also consist of a lot more than just the rating.
If there is a problem, it is caused by people only looking at the scores to begin with. Which incidentally is probably also one of the reasons why games have gotten much shorter and seem to continue that trend.
I find it interesting that TB just did a vlog that included the topic of whether the price should affect the score when prices go down over time while content stays the same. It means the score isn't future proofed so when the price drops, the score is no longer applicable. That said, deciding on a purchase entirely based on the final score without reading the review wouldn't be a very intelligent thing to do.
Imo, review scores are never future proof. A game might be patched (for better or worse) or the reviewer might not have experienced problems that normal people will encounter either because they spend far less time with it or because some problems (e.g. broken servers) only crop up once the public has access.
I also disagree on TB's assessment: If anything, the price point should always be taken into account for reviews. If that be in the text, some disclaimer box or the game's rating doesn't really matter that much (at least to me), arbitrary as the scores anyways tend to be. I'd totally be ok if more sites gave additional disclaimers, recommendations (e.g. "pick up reduced" or "rent" as some sites and magazines did) or even dual scores (like a game magazine I used to read in my teens).
There are many good games with too little content for too high a price that I'll happily pick up once they had a few price drops. But at their starting price point I feel their price often isn't warranted.
It probably also depends a lot on your view what review scores are supposed to be. If they are seen as a recommendation near launch, factoring in the price can make a lot more sense than when seeing them as a pure quality rating. TB says himself that he doesn't like review scores and thus also doesn't use them himself but he is still telling you buying recommendations, be it in some of his WTF videos and even has a video format showcasing the best Steam deals.
I like his videos and the style he does them in and they are often a lot more helpful to me than a plain review score but then again reviews also consist of a lot more than just the rating.
If there is a problem, it is caused by people only looking at the scores to begin with. Which incidentally is probably also one of the reasons why games have gotten much shorter and seem to continue that trend.
I agree with you, I posted the video just because the value of this game was brought up so much by Jim that it seemed like quite a coincidence and an interesting topic.
It would definitely be useful info for a review to say the price point at the point it is reviewed(wonder how many regions would be listed on average, steam prices can vary wildly from region to region I hear). Good point about patches though, I forgot about how much of a difference that can make, especially when certain companies rely on patches to get their to the fully featured point it's supposed to be.
Still, if the price affects the score to the reviewer then that should be explicitly said. That seems fair all around.
Not to defend this game's existence with how utterly and unpleasantly brief this game is, but it's not the first time a company has released a 'demo' game before the finished product. Gran Turismo 5 Prologue was practically a demo I believe it was originally priced at 39.99 when it originally released. So this isn't a new concept, but it's not exactly one I approve of.
The game is good, but after having already finished it, I traded it right back in and got a lot of what I paid for back, so it sort of mitigated my losses. Still, I don't really feel like it's an experience I should have had to pay for.
So, you point out that he missed the 's' in MGS 2, but not that he previously referred to MGS 2 as ME 2, which, of course, isn't even part of the same series. Way to pick your battles.
Gaming need some labels, like movies have short films and litterature has short stories. Obviously a "short game" (or whatever) needs to be reviewed properly while it also needs to be priced properly. I think this is too expensive , but i also find i tiresome that reviewers are soo focused on lenght, wouldn't it be more appropriate for a blog or something? I've never seen anyone reading a short story, while complaining that it only took then 1 hour, because usually they spend 11 hours reading a book and some books even clocks in over 40... It's absurd.
I find it interesting that TB just did a vlog that included the topic of whether the price should affect the score when prices go down over time while content stays the same. It means the score isn't future proofed so when the price drops, the score is no longer applicable. That said, deciding on a purchase entirely based on the final score without reading the review wouldn't be a very intelligent thing to do.
Just to clarify, in the podcast last night TB said (IIRC, and I'm paraphrasing at best) that in this case, price should be a factor because it doesn't seem to be a complete game, but a demo, or as Jim said, a piece of advertising.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
