banksy122 said:
LookingGlass said:
Personally I believe the bigger problem is that pricing has next to nothing to do with the actual amount of content you receive. Pretty much all games (keeping system e.g. pc, PS3, 360 consistent) cost the same when new. If I'm going to get 100 hours out of Oblivion and 12 out of Uncharted, shouldn't Morrowind cost $120 and Uncharted cost $30, rather than both hovering around $70-80 new?
I can barely believe that companies like Bethesda actually bother including that much content with things the way they are.
Different types of games have different types of fun. An RPG might last you 100 hours, but is all of that heaps of enjoyment or just running from place to place? Where as an FPS might last you 10 hours, but all of that is going to be fighting and constant gameplay. Some games shouldn't cost as much as they do, but don't compare prices RPG/RTS' to FPS'/TPS. They hold different enjoyment levels.
I get that, and I'm happy to pay more for
something, not necessarily additional game length. E.g. L.A. Noire has next to no replay value and is about 12 hours long, but you pay extra because you're paying for the new facial technolgy they built. Makes sense. If they actually spent a few years creating the game, then yeah $80 is reasonable.
But if one team produces an FPS in a year with the same size team that it takes 3-5 years to produce an epic RPG, shouldn't the RPG team be compensated proportionately?
Perhaps my original example was weak. My point was simply that not all games should cost the same. A cost system involving employees involved in the project, licensing costs (e.g. game engine, franchise licensing such as Star Wars) and time spent would be the ideal... though a bit complicated. But with things the way they are, I feel like the developers incentives are discouraging massive, content-rich games.