How much would you pay for a "complete" game?

[Ksandra]

So, we've kinda talked about this in various threads, and I'm often curious about it.

Backstory:

I've always understood why companies have started doing the whole DLC madness. If you look at history, even NES games were in the $50-$60 price range. This hasn't changed in, what? 25+ years? Even if we were to pretend it takes the same amount of devs for the same amount of hours as an NES game for a PS3 game, that still wouldn't count for inflation (and obviously isn't true as companies need a lot more people, but w/e). So I totally understand companies found another way around this.

My husband told me today that at one point some Xbox games were $70 and people were pissed. Not sure if that had DLC on top of it though.

My beef with the DLC, however, is often companies make a short game, and then the DLC is side-silly stuff. To me, I would gladly pay extra for a fuller story/gameplay (depending on what type of game it is). Obviously we have no way of knowing how much time is spent, but hypothetically speaking, if I knew I got a better game because they were able to spend more time on the core instead of the extra DLC stuff, I would be happy.


So what would you pay to have a stronger core game with no need for DLC? Or are you completely satisfied with the DLC model and don't ever want to have to pay more than $60?


If I knew I was going to get a better core game out of it, I'd think I'd go about as high as $90ish. I'm curious for any econ buffs what technically the inflated price should be at.

[Grey Jorildyn]

I'm of the opinion that there shouldn't be a standard video game price. Games should be priced what they're worth. I am pretty tired of the 49.99 or 59.99 set price points when some games have 30h of gameplay and others have 7-10h.

But what would I pay? I dunno. Maybe $1.50-2.50 per guaranteed hour of gameplay. If I'm gonna shell out $60 for something I'd like to expect 25-30h of content. I'm even okay with DLC at $10-15 if it followed a similarly logical pattern of pricing.

A product should be priced what it's worth, that's all I'm saying really.

[Kalmado]

At this point in my life I'll probably never buy a game at full price again because as Grey Jorildyn pointed out, it's silly that a game with only 10 ish hours of game play is $60. For parents it's obviously harder and I'm not a parent so I don't have a solid stance on that. I think if a game is expected to have 30+ hours of game play $50-$60 is ok.

[Lucavi]

Its funny; I can play a $60 game for 10 hours and get everything out of it just like that, but I'll invest 250+ hours in a free game, like Dota, where I simply choose not to purchase things. Then I can sink 100 hours into a $60 game like skyrim, and spend only 10 hours in another free game.

I suppose this leads me to the conclusion that paying for an hourly rate of a truly satisfying game would be the best way to look at it. Ironically, though, I don't very much like the idea of paying-per-hour or something related; in the back of my mind, I'd feel as if I was getting nickel-and-dimed, even if I actually was not.

[Ksandra]

Its funny; I can play a $60 game for 10 hours and get everything out of it just like that, but I'll invest 250+ hours in a free game, like Dota, where I simply choose not to purchase things. Then I can sink 100 hours into a $60 game like skyrim, and spend only 10 hours in another free game.

This is actually why I'd say a per hour model doesn't really work, because I think we've grown up with a set idea dependent on the type the game is. You'd be hard press to feel a 10 hour RPG is worth $60. Whereas the new Tomb Raider can be beat in that time easily, and I think even then it was worth every penny. Most survival horror games can be beaten in about 9 hours and have always been the case. (heck my friend used to do a speed run of RE2 in under 4 hours). But does that mean RE2 is only worth $4? Not to me. At the same token, I don't know if I could handle a 60 hour Resident Evil. hahaha

[seppuku-gb]

I assume the costs of producing snes cartridges were much more then producing cd's, so I'm sure that helps things break even for inflation.

I agree that the vast majority of games are not worth $60. But I don't care enough to buy a game when it's released and pay a ridiculous price for it - mostly because I'm frugal and I can't justify it. Personally, if I had to vouch for a fix I would say heavy multiplayer based games are worth $60 and single player games should never exceed $30 (that's reserved for the absolute best single player games, most are worth $10-15 imo). The only games I've bought in the last 10 years at full price were MW2, BO2 and FFXI expansions. All had top notch replay value to justify it.

I like the idea of a full game for single player, but DLC for single player games tend to be shitty. The DLC system for multiplayer games works for me though. It gives that extra variety to keep an old game fresh. Honestly, if they came out with $60 DLC pack every year for MW1 I would still be playing the shit out of that game right now.

[Katlan]

I have zero problems paying 60$ for a game that I like and enjoyed playing, regardless of it being a 7-10 hr or 60+ hour game. Like I beat MGS revengeance in 8 hours my first playthrough. If I never played it again after that then I still would Feel like I got my money's worth because the game was badass. Then there are games like persona 4 golden where I have out in 117 hours... Though I am close to platinuming it. While MGS revengeance trophies are too retarded to care to platinum for me.

Overall, if the game is well made and fun, then I have no problem paying full retail (unless its EA because they are the shit hole of all game companies). But quantifying a game by how many hours you play it is stupid imo. Not everyone needs to be an RPG length and most games you don't want to be an RPG length. That's why there are different clasififocations for games. If your buying a survival horror or action game then you should be expecting anywhere from 10-15 hours for your first playthrough... Whereas an RPG you should be expecting 30+ hours

[Aristio]

The last few games I bought at launch/Full price were:

Persona 4: Golden
Guild Wars 2
Saints Row 3
Rift: CE
FFXIV: CE
Heavy Rain
Lost Odyssey

Every other game has been either used or wait until price drops below $20. I've regretted every game I've bought at launch, minus Persona 4, Heavy Rain, and Lost Odyssey. In all honesty, most games are not worth their cost. To answer Ksandra's question, I would enjoy a fuller game more, than rather having to pay for DLC; just because I cannot remember the last time I've played DLC. Storm Legion for Rift if you want to count that. Once I've beaten a game, there is very little reason for me to go back to the game. So I'll usually sell it or keep it in my Steam library never to be heard from again.

[Corrderio]

Normally I wait unless it's something I have faith in.The only games I've bought on day 1 or preordered recently were Borderlands 2/Guild Wars 2.

[D44kpunk]

haven't found an offline game that can keep me entertained for a very long period of time so lately i've opted just not to buy them but if i had to i'd rather pay more for a complete game then have to pay more later for DLC.

I suppose the same could be said about mmos though, couldn't really get into gw2/tera/whatever else has come out recently.

moba/rts the way to go, and they are free

[GoggleHead]

I don't really have any issue with forking over $60 for a game. My issue is that my money never guarantees me a good game, and nowadays it hardly ever gets me a complete game. Call me old fashioned, but when I purchase a game I expect it to be a complete and finished product, so when there's some DLC rushing out the door a week after the game's release, I don't see it as some cool bonus. No, I see it as "oh, well why the hell didn't you finish making the game before releasing it?"

If I could be assured that I'd be getting something as large and engaging as say Skyrim every time, then I wouldn't have an issue with paying $60 or even more for a game. But that's not how it is. Instead I've paid $20 for absolute garbage such as Of Orcs and Men, and been absolutely disgusted. As a consumer it makes me extremely hesitant to purchase at all, much less at such high price points.

TL;DR: If games were better I'd spend more money on them, but most games are shit so I'm tight-fisted with my money instead.

[Ksandra]

I assume the costs of producing snes cartridges were much more then producing cd's, so I'm sure that helps things break even for inflation.

While you are right cartridges are more expensive, I highlight doubt it helps break even. They have to hire a much larger staff than they used to, and wages have gone up (not just in the US mind you, but Japan).

It would be interesting to see a chart of production costs of games over the years, but I don't think one exists. Or at least I never found one.

I did find this snippet on wikipedia though:

However, approaching the 21st century, ever-increasing computer processing power and heightened consumer expectations made it impossible for a single developer to produce a mainstream game. The average price of game production slowly rose from US$1M–4M in 2000 to over 5M in 2006 to over 20M in 2010.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_development

[Charismatic]

It depends on the game.

[Cichy]

At this point I simply refuse to buy DLCs anymore for most games. With very few expectations (like Dark Souls) I found them not worth the money and many times they are short and seem out of place.
As far as regular titles I dont really care about the hours as much as the experience. You mentioned Tomb Raider which I thought was worth the money and I played it for I think 8 hours. While I paid 30 for Skyrim and I cant stomach the game. I think CD Projekt Red did a fantastic job with Witcher 2 where they supported the game for months after with patches and content at no additional cost. I think lots of companies (EA) just do it to make an easy buck.

[Jakson]

This reminds me of some of the arguments or discussions I have with my girlfriend about buying stuff because it was on sale rather than because we needed it or could even use it. I'm of the opinion that it doesn't matter how much it costs, if we don't need it (or really want it), then I don't care if it is on sale. If something is good and worthwhile, then I'm usually open to paying 50-80 bucks for a video game. It's just that with video games and other forms of content that is heavily based on intellectual property, you don't have an option to try before you buy, and that's why we get pissed about $70 games - we'd rather pay lower amounts overall because we know some of the games aren't going to be worth what we paid (a majority of the games, and therefore not worth the price) and some are (and a good deal for what we paid, at a more ideal price point, but faaaaaaar less common and, we hope, makes up for what we overpay on other games). The problem is that the good games aren't common enough to balance out what we pay for shitty games. This is why we buy used or just pirate or don't play any games that we aren't fairly well sold on going into, like the new FFXI expansion or the next FF game for a lot of people here.

[Rokku]

It's actually kind of funny, Qal and I were having a similar discussion a couple days ago, so this shit is kind of fresh in my mind.

Basically, I'm right alongside where Grey's train of thought is, there really shouldn't be a "fixed price point" for games. Problem is, therein arises a whole new issue, and that's how do you determine the worth of subjective media? There's probably a hundred different factors at play, so there's really no sliding scale that'd work as a one size fits all gauge for how to price any given game.

On the whole though, gaming prices have come down. I remember paying well over (both in actual cash and in relative value) $60 for NES, SNES, PS1, N64, etc, etc games, so I don't really see the current pricing model as being a huge issue. Sony talked a lot about wanting to diversify the price points of games during this next generation, but ultimately it comes down to the publishers. All the flowery talk in the world can't change anything if the publishers are raking in money hand over fist and don't see any potential gains from moving away from their current pricing models.

[Serra]

Even if they moved away from the current pricing model, I imagine most publishers would still want to release their games at a higher price point. That said, I think the fact that many people are saying they don't buy games for $60 at release is pretty telling that many think $60 is too much. As someone who almost never (I think I've only done it once?) buys DLC, I think $40 is normally what I'm willing to pay for a game. Even a game like AC3, which I was really excited about, I waited till it was on sale over Black Friday a few weeks later. There are very few games that can get me to pay full price (Zeldas, numbered Final Fantasies, etc), but for the most part, I'm ok waiting a few weeks to get a game to watch it drop in price -- especially since so many games drop in price within two to three weeks.

The last games I paid full price for were Heart of the Swarm, Halo 4, and Last Story. Last Story I had heard phenomenal reviews about, I love the Halo franchise and 343 continues to support that game with essentially free DLC (Spartan Ops), and Heart of the Swarm I got for the online.

[BaneTheBrawler]

I've gotten away from new games entirely. I buy the ones I'm absolutely certain I'll enjoy/play a lot, and nothing else. Eventually, if they go on sale (particularly on Steam) and I've been wanting to check them out, I'll pick them up for up to ~30 bucks. Any more than that and I'll just borrow it from a friend or just go without.

I've got too many hobbies fighting for my time to waste my money on games I might like. Even some that I'm sure I'll like, but would require a lot of time, I've avoided.

As for pricing, I agree with the "no fixed point" mentality. Skyrim would be one I'd expect to start at 60. It's a HUGE game, ton of content/replayability. Fable: The Journey.... no.

[djzombie]

$60 DLC pack every year for MW1 I would still be playing the shit out of that game right now.

lol they did, and you are, two of the games you said you paid full price for =P

[kuronosan]

I'd pay $60 for a game if the DLC wasn't already planned out for it, present in the game files (and unlocked with purchasing a code), or if a sequel wasn't already in the works.

I want longevity out of a game. DLC shouldn't be something that's expected for a game. It should be something that developers have lined up once their game has reached its peak and is losing player-base. If this point is reached within 5-6 months, you've made a shitty game and need to rethink how you approach games.

I remember when unlocks, artifacts, easter eggs, and whatever else in games was something fun to find and not just something you had to purchase. The fact that publishing companies push buying these as "DLC" and "microtransactions" further gravitates game development from "great engine and fun time" to "how can we squeeze more money out".

I think it's fair to say that games that have seen no significant development and are just rush-sequels should probably go for $20-30. Walking Dead: SI is a good example of a game that could have been fun had it been cheaper. Spending $100 on a game just so you get a Daryl-stamped screwdriver and 4 hours of gameplay is a colossal waste of money.