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

[Serra]

Also, I don't think you can say they're the same game with a different story.. Each game has it's own engine and distinctive gameplay. Yes there are similar elements that carry over, but the execution is different in every game. I think saying all Final Fantasy games are the same is like saying all FPS games are the same just because they all have pistols, sniper rifles, rocket launchers, etc. The reason CoD gets criticized for being a rehash over and over is cause you can essentially go from one to the next fairly seamlessly. If I'm awesome at MW2, I can immediately pick up MW3 and be equally awesome at that, apart from fairly minor differences. With FF games, if I'm awesome at FF7, I can't just pick up FFX and assume I'll be just as good. Those skills and knowing the mechanics will help, but they're not the same. Using the FPS comparison again, being awesome at CoD might help me be good at Halo, but the skills do not translate over perfectly.

[Xno Kappa]

Tree fiddy.

[notorious bum]

Some people just love paying for the status quo. Whatever makes you happy, I guess.

It's so obvious that games nowadays are made to cater towards the casual gamers first and that's why most of us breeze through these 7hr fast food games and feel that sickness of buyer's remorse. Hell, even the generic or mediocre games in the 16bit era would give you your money's worth in-terms of gameplay hours.

[seppuku-gb]

I meant to say Warhawk, guess my brain had other plans.

I really don't feel like I'm over simplifying FF style RPGS. Level up > quest > plot twist > final boss > optional side quest/mini games. I also think that it's a very fair statement to say all FPS are generally the same. All of the top FPS have the same qualities with slightly different mechanics/rules. I'd say that makes them very close to the same.

And it's not so much paying for the status quo. I've put hours into other FPS and the competition is just not as good. BF3 is pretty damn close but aiming on consoles feels very sluggish and the gameplay tends to be too slow, Halo is solid but all my friends play on PS3, Homefront/MoH/Resistance are all garbage, Warhawk has waaaaaay too much auto aim and too small of a community.

Maybe I'm not bothered by COD because many movies/games seem to be sequels or renditions now. I would prefer a market where everything was original and new, but that just isn't the case so I have no problem spending money on something I know will be good. But It looks like I'm alone on that sentiment.

[Dngnhack]

Personally i've bought every COD since 4 except for world at war and even bought the elite/season pass the last few and never once felt cheated. I get my hours of gameplay over the year that its out and so i'm content just like having every FF and suikoden. I've felt cheated on games i've beaten in a short amount of time but i've also played games like dishonored that while short i enjoyed enough it was worth it to me. Could i have waited a year or more and gotten the same enjoyment for cheaper.. sure but why delay my entertainment. As long as i can afford to spend money on things i enjoy without having to put off neccessities who cares if it cost 20$ or 60$ as long as it was worth it to me. But to be fair if i'm unsure of a game i usually screen the reviews here and other place which usually has people saying i beat it in X time and it was boring as hell which aids in my decision to put off buying it or even just using gamefly to play it.

[Kuishen]

I meant to say Warhawk, guess my brain had other plans.

I really don't feel like I'm over simplifying FF style RPGS. Level up > quest > plot twist > final boss > optional side quest/mini games. I also think that it's a very fair statement to say all FPS are generally the same. All of the top FPS have the same qualities with slightly different mechanics/rules. I'd say that makes them very close to the same.

And it's not so much paying for the status quo. I've put hours into other FPS and the competition is just not as good. BF3 is pretty damn close but aiming on consoles feels very sluggish and the gameplay tends to be too slow, Halo is solid but all my friends play on PS3, Homefront/MoH/Resistance are all garbage, Warhawk has waaaaaay too much auto aim and too small of a community.

Maybe I'm not bothered by COD because many movies/games seem to be sequels or renditions now. I would prefer a market where everything was original and new, but that just isn't the case so I have no problem spending money on something I know will be good. But It looks like I'm alone on that sentiment.

I'm saying that the competition generally isn't good in any of those games, as the skill ceiling is pretty low on all of them (Though CoD is definitely the worst offender). If you took people who think they're pretty damn good at any of this generation's FPS games and dropped them into Unreal Tournament, Quake or even Counterstrike Source most of them would get demolished. As somebody above said, games are catering to casuals more so the hardcore people are left with less and less to work with, which leads to less and less real competition.

Dota 2 kind of proves my point, even though it's a different genre of game, that is an example of a game that really doesn't cater to casuals at all and the community is extremely competitive, which is proven by how much flak they get for being one of the worst gaming communities out there. The problem I have with people saying that is this is essentially the way all competitive gaming communities originated as and we've become so accustomed to everything being so casual friendly (I hate using the word this much but it's late and I can't think of a better one atm) that when we get a glimpse of real competition everybody loses their shit. Yeah, those communities are fairly hostile to new people, that's a by-product of being so competitive and that's how it's always been with competitive gaming, and probably always will be.

[kuronosan]

I meant to say Warhawk, guess my brain had other plans.

I really don't feel like I'm over simplifying FF style RPGS. Level up > quest > plot twist > final boss > optional side quest/mini games. I also think that it's a very fair statement to say all FPS are generally the same. All of the top FPS have the same qualities with slightly different mechanics/rules. I'd say that makes them very close to the same.

And it's not so much paying for the status quo. I've put hours into other FPS and the competition is just not as good. BF3 is pretty damn close but aiming on consoles feels very sluggish and the gameplay tends to be too slow,

First of all, while BF3 may not be the pinnacle of FPS games the fact that you think the controls are sluggish shows you have no idea what makes an FPS good.

There is no such thing as competition in a game fueled completely by equal ground and camping.

Second, you just named every game to ever exist based on mechanics alone. Progressing through the game and its story is not an original idea. When you go through an RPG the end result may be the same but the path each game takes as well as the mechanics is very different with each iteration. The engine is different, the battle system is different, the characters are different, and even if the themes are recurring their presence is different.

Calling them the same shows general lack of knowledge of video games.

[seppuku-gb]

First of all, while BF3 may not be the pinnacle of FPS games the fact that you think the controls are sluggish shows you have no idea what makes an FPS good.

There is no such thing as competition in a game fueled completely by equal ground and camping.

Second, you just named every game to ever exist based on mechanics alone. Progressing through the game and its story is not an original idea. When you go through an RPG the end result may be the same but the path each game takes as well as the mechanics is very different with each iteration. The engine is different, the battle system is different, the characters are different, and even if the themes are recurring their presence is different.

Calling them the same shows general lack of knowledge of video games.

I lol'd hard at the BF3 comment. I didn't know that was such a revealing statement of my video game prowess.

Why should a game be hard to learn and 'difficult' to control to be good? If COD is so easy to be good at why don't you join it's pro circuit and destroy everybody for some quick cash and video game bragging rights? Just because you don't like a game or series doesn't make it garbage, or the people who play that game an inferior breed of gamer.

As far as CS, Quake and Unreal goes I've never been a PC gamer. I've tried a few games briefly on PC, but all my friends are on console so I prefer console games. BF3 on PC was amazing. The game was obviously made specifically for PC and it shows. That's what I was alluding to when I said controls on BF3 were sluggish.

I shouldn't be surprised that saying FF games are cookie cutter in a FF-based forum would get negative views. I still love the series, and I guess it's best to just leave it at that.

[Lucavi]

Yeah, the only two CoDs that I officially "bought" (played the shit out of MW1 and some other german one, lol) were BO 1 and 2, and I'd never feel like i got ripped off, because I put hundreds of hours in.

I'd feel more like I got cheated over a game like Bioshock than a Cod, because, unlike the classics of the past, I have absolutely no assurance that I'd ever play the game again after I beat it. Contrast this to a "single player narrative adventure" just like it, but in a different era, like Castlevania: Symphony of the night, Super Metroid, or even something like a standard FF title, and I have and will continue to replay them and invest countless hours into them. Hell, for the $40 I paid for Castlevania... I almost feel like I cheated Konami for not paying more, given how much I've replayed it again and again.

Basically, the "value" I place on a game comes down to two factors:

1) How long I'll play (and re-play) it
2) How "clean" (bug-free) the game is, both at launch and (nowadays) as a whole.

If the bugs aren't a big deal (like the various glitches in SNES FF titles, for example), then its no problem, but today's games come out with some fucking massive bugs and crippling issues; issues that would have sunk companies in the past. Conversely, even if a game is bugged in some areas, if I still play the shit out of it,I won't feel ripped off no matter how expensive it becomes - I use my time with XI as an example of the latter. The stupid design choices are something I liken to "bugs" - the 2-handed damage disparity, Dragoon design, ect. -, but, given how much I played the game and enjoyed my time in it, I'd never consider it a wasted purchase or a rip off.

[kuronosan]

Oh. Console FPS player. Okay.

[Kalmado]

About bugs, I really wanted to get Fallout: New Vegas but when I read the game was essentially unplayable so I passed.

[Arelian]

It's interesting to see how differing opinions can be in regards to what the "value" of a video game is. Personally, I don't care how long it is. I would rather play a 3-4 hour game that gave me an incredible experience (Journey) rather than a 50-60 hour game that had a number of ups-and-downs (Let's go with FF13 with this example). My time is far too valuable to "waste" on super-long JRPGs nowadays and I almost always end up losing interesting about 25 hours into a super-long game. That isn't to say that I won't pump hundreds of hours into certain games (Monster Hunter) but I'm not purchasing those games with a playtime in mind, like so many of you seem to do with other AAA titles.

I would have gladly paid $60 for Journey simply because it was an incredible experience that was, in many ways, a work of art. You pay more for better experiences, even if those experiences aren't necessarily longer. Replayability is nice, sure, but I'm never going into a gaming experience expecting to play the same thing dozens of times over, nor do I expect my money to go towards that kind of thing. I grew up with Super Metroid, Castlevania: SoTN and all that jazz, and even back then I didn't really replay those games. Maybe once every few years, sure, but it's always for the experience of playing it again.

My absolute favorite game in recent years has been Bastion. It's not a very long game, and while you can argue it has decent replayability, I didn't really take part in that. The thing that grabbed me about the game, and continues to do so, is the experience wrapped up in the game. It doesn't waste your time like every. single. 40+ hour game in existence. I played it twice for a grand total of maybe 10 hours, and boy do I love that game.

Basically, my idea of "value" for a game comes down to this:
How enjoyable is the entire experience? I don't care how long the game is, I only care about how much I enjoyed it. Something like Bioshock has gotten hundreds of hours out of me through discussion amongst friends about the game we all played. Is that not part of the experience? There's more to games than simply playing them nowadays. There's an entire culture surrounding them, as evidenced by this very forum. Are the mechanics neat? Was I actively engaged the whole time? Was I interested? If so, I would have gladly paid full price for the game.

tl;dr Quality >>>>> Quantity, folks.

[Rokku]

tl;dr Quality >>>>> Quantity, folks.

That's a terrible metric. What you said has a decent amount of weight, but have you even so much as skimmed past the last 15 or so posts of people relentlessly bitching in defense of and against the quality of two huge titles?

If we're talking realistically (this shit is all completely impossible because there's just no sliding scale in the world that could ever be used to determine the worth of subjective media), this nebulous term of "quality and the experience" is an even worse scale than saying that 5 hours = $xx. It's a completely subjective term, and it'd do more harm than good for the majority of titles. Plus, I don't know where you'd possibly put together a governing body to determine the overall quality of a game, or how anyone could ever agree with it.

[notorious bum]

Proposing the idea of a $60 pricetag on what is basically an interactive movie is pure consumerist insanity. Of course playtime isn't the only determining factor of value, but it's usually a good indicator that you're not just playing some shallow product of advertising and pop culture.

Remember when those shitty, overpriced skii/snowboarding simulators started popping up with those $1/play fees as the arcade industry was dying? I feel like that's a good example of milking casuals who prefer to be entertained for a few minutes, rather than developing unique IP's with a focus on challenge and playtime with a price point of 50-25cents/play that allows you to play longer.

The higher priced games may upset the minority of hardcore gamers, but they provide a quick return on casuals who buy for instant gratification/popularity.

Now, I'm not a complete no-frills asshole who hates all popular games and would never touch CoD with the same hands that have played superior fps like Q3 and UT. I, however, am smarter and less impulse-driven than when I was younger and less forgiving for mediocre copy-pasta games or the half-baked 7hrs of fun games lol

Also, I hate how pussified game critics have gotten now, which makes me ignore all the opinionated(non-technical) pieces of reviews. It's kind of sad how basically every year it seems that Adam "4 out of 5" Sessler is the most vocal/critical person at E3 lol

[Rokku]

Also, I hate how pussified game critics have gotten now, which makes me ignore all the opinionated(non-technical) pieces of reviews. It's kind of sad how basically every year it seems that Adam "4 out of 5" Sessler is the most vocal/critical person at E3 lol

Totally off topic, but I could write a goddamn book about how much I agree with this.

[Kuishen]

I lol'd hard at the BF3 comment. I didn't know that was such a revealing statement of my video game prowess.

Why should a game be hard to learn and 'difficult' to control to be good? If COD is so easy to be good at why don't you join it's pro circuit and destroy everybody for some quick cash and video game bragging rights? Just because you don't like a game or series doesn't make it garbage, or the people who play that game an inferior breed of gamer.

As far as CS, Quake and Unreal goes I've never been a PC gamer. I've tried a few games briefly on PC, but all my friends are on console so I prefer console games. BF3 on PC was amazing. The game was obviously made specifically for PC and it shows. That's what I was alluding to when I said controls on BF3 were sluggish.

I shouldn't be surprised that saying FF games are cookie cutter in a FF-based forum would get negative views. I still love the series, and I guess it's best to just leave it at that.

Seconding Kuronosan's comment about console FPS player. Also none of the games I listed are hard to learn or control, they're easy to learn and hard to master. CoD is easy to learn and easy to master. Nobody here has said that CoD was garbage. I am however saying that the people who play CoD exclusively are not learning good FPS mechanics and will never be as good as somebody who has mastered Unreal, Quake, or CS if CoD is all they're ever going to play. Also the competition won't ever be as high as it was for those 3 games.

[Dominico]

Wouldn't pay more than the standard $60. IMO, if more developers followed the model that ME3 had for DLC, people wouldn't bitch so much. The game itself felt complete (yea, ending sucked, blah blah) and all the DLC released added on the the experience. The MP DLC was free, which was a smart move while the story DLC was paid. Ontop of that, they released it over a period of a year, so they showed the game alot of support. The only slip-up they had was with the From Ashes DLC, and the only problem with that was the timing since launch DLC tends to piss people off. If they would have waited a month or 2 to release it, everyone would have been happy. Other than that, the way the DLC was handled was pretty much perfect to me.

[kuronosan]

Wouldn't pay more than the standard $60. IMO, if more developers followed the model that ME3 had for DLC, people wouldn't bitch so much. The game itself felt complete (yea, ending sucked, blah blah) and all the DLC released added on the the experience. The MP DLC was free, which was a smart move while the story DLC was paid. Ontop of that, they released it over a period of a year, so they showed the game alot of support. The only slip-up they had was with the From Ashes DLC, and the only problem with that was the timing since launch DLC tends to piss people off. If they would have waited a month or 2 to release it, everyone would have been happy. Other than that, the way the DLC was handled was pretty much perfect to me.

Wasn't the content found to already exist in the game files, and all the download really did was unlock access to it?

[BaneTheBrawler]

Yes.

[arus2001]

Put me in the "Over $40 is pushing it!" camp for games I know I won't get at least 40 hours out of. I never got into console pirating past the SNES/Genesis/NES iterations, so it's not surprising a lot of my buys on the PS1 and after are often RPGs that I usually buy day 1 or soon enough-ish. It's only recently I've taken to waiting for sales or even buying second-hand after shopping around sites since the $60 for non-MMOs is usually asking for trouble.

The industry could use a lot of refinement, but there are still issues like "gifting" or IP recognition that results in bad games still being bought because of the box or relation to another product. I'll agree it'd be nice to see critics be critical if it didn't mean getting blacklisted and never getting early releases again. I also hate how finished chunks seem cut off or locked out just to pad a secondary buy. There's also no excuse shit like costumes should cost $5+. I know games are harder to make these days, but I'd also argue more people buy/play games now than back when.