Do you think games are worth $65?

[DefKnotEmo]

Do you believe games are often worth that price tag as far as enjoyment and overall product quality?

[CrowdAds]

[LungZzZ]

Some games I guess. Price is the main reason I stopped playing as much games
(Rogers etc. all went out of business AWHILE ago, don't remember the last time I rented)
but at one point in Canada games were reaching the 80$ point and it was CRAZY.

[Sir Bustalot]

hell no

id download free if i could

[GBREAL90]

Whether they are worth it or not I can't say but I am not paying $65.

[LBFHBMRBA]

I think they are worth it, but I'd much rather wait a few months and pick the game up for $30-$40. I have enough of my old games to play for a while to wait it out.

[Sin-Razone]

Originally Posted by LBFHBMRBA

I think they are worth it, but I'd much rather wait a few months and pick the game up for $30-$40. I have enough of my old games to play for a while to wait it out.

THIS.....yeah. I just copped a backwards compatible PS3 so ill buy shit ive wanted to try out for the longest time. gamestop has them for almost pennies now. Found this a couple of weeks ago for almost 50 cents.

[Geedorah]

No,its too much.

[HANNAHMONTANA]

maybe before, but for the majority, certainly not anymore. DmC is a 4-5 hour story playthrough and it's a full priced game. ni no kuni is 40 hours minimum and is the same price. mario 64 and final fantasy vii were both 40 hours and for the same price. what's the issue? the problem lies on three commandments of game retailing:

1) there is an industry standard for pricing
2) creating an AAA title only gets more expensive as time goes on
3) DLC and other non-physical content is more profitable for publishers and developers than boxed games


1: most publishers don't give a shit about the quality, length or well-being of a game or its IP. their interest is to move units and turn a profit (captain obvious) and the general consensus is that if people are excited for a new game release, they're just as likely to pay $60 for it as they would be to pay $50. if you pay close attention to games, pricing and their releases, the big honchos (activision, EA, capcom, other cocksucking money grabbers) ALWAYS release $60 games unless they're add-on content or expansions (a la street fighter & marvel vs cpacom expansions). only smaller-name companies that aren't interested in strong arming investors or their consumers break the mold. SEGA's latest racing game was on all platforms and was the most expensive at 39.99 (which, by the way, is the best and most fun karting game along with mario kart 7 released in the last 10 years). square enix released ffxiii-2 for 29.99. i hate the game and the brand, but you've got to respect the fact that they put out a full fledged sequel packed with gameplay for such a meager price.

2: not much to say here. people want better graphics all the time for some reason and the more polygons and sharper textures there are, the longer it takes and the more money is sunk into development. by the time metal gear solid 6 drops on ps4 we'll be creeping into near-billion dollar investments on big titles. take into account things like forced multiplayer (everything EA), subscription prices for garbage like COD elite and the back-ends to make these things work, public online servers and so forth and game development is only going to get higher as a cost. this is also why games are constantly being made to be easier and less stressful/trying, as games that are easy to get through and enjoy are played more, move more units and are recommended to other people by those who enjoy the easy ride.

3: another obvious, but when ebgames sells a game, they take a majority percentage of the sale. online stores take much less (steam takes 40%, for example), which is why DLC, add-on content and steam are such a huge cash cow.

[LBFHBMRBA]

I've gone into Game Stop a few times and bought older sports games for like $5 a piece. I'm still playing PS2 games to this day. I'd play my N64 games if I had a decent controller (and could figure out how to hook it up to my TV. (All of the wires are a mess)

I only have like 6-7 PS3 games vs. like 50 PS2 games. It's gonna be a long time before I even think about getting a PS4.

[OurSin]

Nope and the fact that used games won't be playable on the next gen consoles, they will either need to lower prices are be prepared to take a loss on sales as a whole

[Caiden Clack]

no, and it sucks they basically force you to buy add-ons now to get the full experience.

[gFu STATUS]

they should bring them back down to 39.99!!

[DaAlmightyDolla]

nope.... and i refuse to buy dlc's.

i dont give a fuck if im missing maps. ill manage

[M-theory]

Considering I've spent fewer hours playing video games than the amount of dollars I put into the console, I can't give a fair answer. But even though it hasn't been worth it for me buying games around that price (which I have a few times) it wouldn't stop me from doing so again. Mostly I just dig through the bargain bin at Wal-Mart though.

[Esoteriq]

Game industry pricing models are archaic and stupid. As Miley Cyrus pointed out, short games with no replay value and games with a ton of replay value get priced the same (for the most part). Games that companies feel they can *get away with* releasing full price, they do. But a vast majority of games aren't WORTH 60 you pay now.

65 is horseshit. You're getting into "decent watch" territory at 65. I mean if we got robust experiences from all next gen titles that stretched 50+ hours of gameplay then sure.

That's not what we're gonna get, though...so no. Hell no, even. If anything they should probably go back to 50, considering all the optimized engines that are releasing with the PS4 out the gate. It should actually be slightly easier/cheaper to dev for.