83 réponses à ce sujet

[Troika0]

Zanallen wrote...

That's fine. Games haven't gone up in price in decades despite a continual increase in development costs. Go for it.

Then again, neither have wages (at least in the U.S.).

[PaulSX]

I think it's fine. there are only 2 or 3 games I would pay full price each year. I got most of my games below $30 price tag. BTW in Japan, most games are released at 6500 yen to 7000 yen price tag which is about $70 USD, so I always consider that US game price is a bit low.

[That one guy with the face]

BetrayerOfNihil wrote...

As long as they take their damn microtransactions and shove 'em up their asses, $100 would be fine for a quality game and especially one that lasts. After a whole year I'm still playing ME3 Multiplayer.

*cough*EARTHBOUND*cough*

Screw microtransactions and online downloads. If I'm forced to use my internet just to play a game, I may as well play on my PC.

[bmwcrazy]

suntzuxi wrote...

I think it's fine. there are only 2 or 3 games I would pay full price each year. I got most of my games below $30 price tag. BTW in Japan, most games are released at 6500 yen to 7000 yen price tag which is about $70 USD, so I always consider that US game price is a bit low.

Haha. It's perfectly normal to pay that much for a Japanese game.

You have to shell out twice or three times more if you want all the DLCs. 

Troika0 wrote...

Then again, neither have wages (at least in the U.S.).

Off topic, but that is completely not true.

Modifié par bmwcrazy, 21 mars 2013 - 11:44 .

[MarchWaltz]

For 70 bucks, I want 70 hours. Single play-through. No MP included (mp gametime). With great quality.

Modifié par MarchWaltz, 22 mars 2013 - 01:31 .

[Ninja Stan]

MarchWaltz wrote...

For 70 bucks, I want 70 hours. Single play-through. No MP included (mp gametime). With great quality.

That's good, but that's your subjective perception of the value of videogames. No one in the industry prices their games by the hour. A game with a 10-hour single-player campaign (something like Modern Warfare 3, perhaps) costs the same as a game which can be played for 1000 hours (ME3 multiplayer, for example).

But when we talk about the number of hours played, are we talking about an average? Or are talking about critical path? Or are we talking about completionist? Are we skipping cinematics and VO, or watching them until the end? Do we include reloads for taking all the various possible branches or paths? Do you count time fiddling with inventory, stats, level-up, or puzzles? Because that will affect the time by quite a bit, and each gamer will have a different view of what that 70 hours (or however many hours) should encompass.

And what do you mean when you say "great quality"? Are you referring to the game having objectively few bugs, or is it okay if you just don't encounter any? How few is "few," and how are they weighted? How many minor bugs equal a game-breaker? How do they affect your "quality" threshold?

If it's not the number of bugs that affect quality, then what does? How much you like the game? How well it's rated by critics? Or by fans? Or how many awards it wins? Do sales indicate quality?

When it comes to entertainment products, I'm all for people making their own choices using whatever criteria they like, but sometimes, it just seems like people are trying to guarantee that they will never be disappointed or buy something they'll end up not liking. And using unique, subjective criteria. Which is next to impossible when it comes to mass-market entertainment.

[Troika0]

Filament wrote...

I think the statistic is that wages for the majority have been stagnant, adjusted for inflation. Whereas games have literally hovered around $60 for at least 15 years, I think.

It's even worse when adjusted for productivity gain, which labor hasn't captured at all. Spending is further curtailed by the high degree of private debt many carry.

Modifié par Troika0, 22 mars 2013 - 04:09 .

[Ninja Stan]

Let's try and keep the politics out of the discussion, please.