Ben Kuchera attacks critics again.

I agree with Kuchera in principle. BUT he needs to work on his vocabulary, there are other words we can use to describe others beyond 'asshole'. He does this all the time, using inflammatory language to rile people up, then doesn't actually provide a solid argument, its the Gawker school of 'journalism' at its worst.

The buying power is with the consumers, they can spend it however they like.

I'm not really on either side of this arguement, but this is probably one of the shittiest analogies ever constructed.

He's totally right. Probably could have handled his message a little better, but he's right on. Paying $20 for 2 hours of gameplay is just absurd for me personally.

I will never take kuchera seriously because he once compared a controller to boobs.

I guess...? The point is anyone trying to convince another that their tastes are wrong is a giant "meh". The chances even the mightiest and most popular critics can convince someone who hates football to buy Madden is about as remote as trying to convince someone who hates short games to buy Gone Home. Beating them with the "I'm a critic, listen to me" bat isn't helpful either because it isn't actually a problem.

Spilled milk under the bridge in front of swine and all of that.

Where have critics said that not buying Gone Home means you don't "get" it? I've seen complaints that reviews didn't address the price in their criticism or score (which is futile anyway, how can any reviewer judge the value proposition for their entire readership), but not this "sneering" at people who've said they'll wait for a steam sale.

I used to like Kuchera, but after his article on how we need "asshole" indie developers, and now need critics to stop being "assholes" I'm glad I don't frequent the site as much.

I continue to feel like some of the critics and press people out there are out of touch with how much money normal people want to spend on games or can manage to. It's an expensive ass hobby. I think a lot of them can do well placing individual value on games, but for the average person, it becomes a thing about "what gets my limited total budget money". There are too many games to buy.

Even if I was paying for some of this stuff (a lot of it can be given to them) I could justify it if it related in my job in any way. Since it doesn't, yeah.

This is a game I feel like I need to play but that'll probably happen on sale.

@laserbolts: eh, plain and simple - I disagree.

Now what? :S

Kuchera is pretty insufferable but I agree with his core point here. I think it's a shame if people don't play Gone Home because of its length since it's a great game. But at the same time, I get that people are unwilling to spend that much money on such a short experience. I don't think that Gone Home is worse because it's short and a value to quality proposition is misguided but sometimes you just don't have $20 to spare.

He's right, even if he didn't go about it the right way. The game sounds like a great time, just not enough of a great time for me personally to spend that much on it.

I have to say to people who constantly justify the price of short games with movie ticket prices: movie ticket prices are terrible and most times when I've payed them in the last couple years (which has become a rarity), I haven't been thrilled. So lets stop going to that well. That's not a good value.

A lot of these games are good experiences, their prices are fine, just let them stand on their own without that stupid comparison.

I paid £30/$60 for BioShock Infinite and finished it in around 9 hours. Now it's just sat in my steam library and I'll never play it again unless the DLC is heavily discounted.

I wish I never bothered to be honest. It wasn't even 9 hours of joy, it dragged in parts and the combat was tedious. If it was £15 instead I'd have been fine with it.

So yes, price is very, very important.

" Keep in mind that games, in a broad sense, are supposed to be fun."

Guess what game isn't.

Kuchera spends his time writing ridiculous headlines hoping to generate clicks. His existence on the staff makes the mission statement of Penny Arcade Report a joke.

Any critic telling me what my money is worth to myself is an idiot. If 20$ is too much for me for a 2h game then it's too much and it's the end of it. And if that same 20$ for someone else is pocket change because they earn 50$ and hour then more power to them. Kuchera is right on this one.

I think you kind of miss the point when you refer to "someone who hates short games." It's not that the game is short. Some people would be content buying it, knowing it was short, if it wasn't $20.

Does it matter? Someone doesn't want to buy a game because it is too short or too much money or too much football or too much sex or too much violence or whatever. It is not the job of anyone to berate another suggesting they look past whatever it is that annoys them.

I've read plenty of comments that note, at the current asking price, some people just aren’t willing to spend the money for what amounts to a few hours of entertainment. And then critics and developers shake their heads sadly at the unwashed masses who just don't understand QUALITY and ARTISTRY.

I don't really understand this bit. From what I've seen people haven't been railing against people who are saying the game is merely too short to justify the price tag, it's more just the people who complaining and going on tirades about how the game doesn't deserve such praise - which is sort of childish. Oops, guess I just threw out some pretentious judgement. Excuse me while I smoke my American Spirits and drink PBR.

I don't see how it's valid for a critic to complain about how a consumer values their time and money when it comes to what they want to play or what they're willing to pay for it. It's valid for me to think it's overpriced for myself, but not valid to say it's overpriced for you, if you are willing to pay that amount for that experience.

"attacks" critics is going a little far I think. Kuchera be right here, anyways.

And yet I got an infraction on the site from him for claiming I couldn't trust his judgement on the OUYA or rift because he takes every opportunity to uncritically vomit rainbows on both. I'd be fine with that if he didn't then say stuff like this- he uses language like this to criticize others, but you better not be mean to him!

I think Kuchera touches on an interesting subject but I'm disinclined to listen to anything he has to say because of how he presents his stance. He's doing a disservice for the legitimacy of games journalism as a whole by calling out his peers as "assholes."

Exhibit A: The sickest of burns.

It's funny to me that people would complain about not buying a few hour game for 20 bucks when they will go to a movie for that amount or go to a restaurant for that amount. At least with the game, you still own it after you've finished playing it and can go back to it again. The older I get, the more I like games being shorter. Because if it's too long, there's a chance I'll get bored of it. But I guess I'm just an asshole.

It is not just that, and it applies for many different goods. Value for money is super variable. A game that can be sub-2 hours and cost twenty dollars, making it premium priced entertainment. It is not far away from me purchasing loose leaf tea that costs a few hundred dollars a pound (relatively expensive), but being personally comfortable with it.

For niche items, if you expect demand to be somewhat inelastic with price, going for the upper end on pricing can make a lot of sense. Gone Home will never sell to a mass audience, even if it is priced at a more typical rate. And reviewers have at least noted game length typically.

I guess how I look at the price is a little different. I personally thought it was a little overpriced but I was happy I played it. But more important is how the price effects potential buyers. Even though it's slight, there is a pretty big difference between $15 and $20. That difference could turn away buyers. I just look at it as a bad business decision. I think more people would have bought the game if it were $15 and Fullbright would see a larger profit.

That said, it sounds like a lot of people bought it so more power to them.

I find it hilarious to watch people like Ben Kuchera and Patrick Klepek discuss the concepts of cost and value.

Ben nails it again. People hate on him, because he spits real yo.

But seriously I hate this fucking indie, dick slobbering that goes on by games media. "hurr durrr if you don't play gone home then you why are you even playing gameszzz?" Fuck you. Paying $20 for a 2-3 hour game just isn't a great investment for a lot of people. Cold fact. I know length isn't the ultimate deciding factor, but for a lot of people it is and rightfully so. You wanna get the most bang for your buck.

It's probably a game, but i do think the value proposition seem very bad for me personally and i would never touch it.

Which is measured in pure length? Not how the game actually uses that length? By that logic, Final Fantasy XII is better than Liberation Maiden because the first is 60+ hours (of pretentious, gameplay-lacking boredom) while the second is one hour (of extremely tight action paired with beautiful aesthetics).

It bothers me that Greg misspelled "exploited"...... Anyways who cares if it's $19.99. It'll probably be on sale anywhere between $10-15 anyways during the fall or winter Steam sale and probably will be much lower in the Steam sales next year.

But who are these critics he's calling out? He hasn't named any, and I can't say I've actually seen any saying that you should buy this game no matter how much $20 is out of your budget. He's right, value is subjective, and we have like 2 pages of people saying that, but who are these "sneering" critics he's calling out? Was this article necessary?

@video_game_king: FFXII is a fun game that does a lot of things well. Liberation Maiden is unplayable if you're left-handed.

@jimmyfenix: It's funny because if Gone Home's entry price point was $10 I would've snapped it up in a hearbeat. It being a "mere" $10 more than what I expected such a "short" game to cost has given me pause, and I probably won't pick the game up til the next Steam sale. There's just this lizard in my brain that says "no" when I look at that cost/game-length equation. Especially as there's no replay value. I wouldn't spend $20 to see a 3-hr movie, either.

@hailinel:

FF12 is an incredibly self-involved game that does everything it can to minimize your presence; Liberation Maiden is a kickass shooter with something going on all the fucking time.

I don't know if that's necessarily the case, cause as a teen I had way more money to waste than I do today, since I had no expenses of my own. All the money I made went straight into games. Now that I have bills and things I actually have to think about whether a game is going to be worth buying instead of taking critics recommendations and buying everything on a whim.

Anyway where I fall on this... well no critic should be sneering at their audience, that's their customer. it's just kinda arrogant some critics might think it's their place to decide on what is and is not worth money. They should just evaluate whether something is worth playing or not. actual value should be up to the consumer to figure out based off the review or something since everyone's budget and expectations for what they're getting for what cost is totally different, and professional critics don't even pay for the material they review.

Still, it's complex cause price can also determine expectations and some critics will be more forgiving of certain things in a 15 dollar game than a 60 dollar game. That's a conversation I'd like to have: do we make concessions for price? I don't really know where I fall on that.

@video_game_king: I can't play Liberation Maiden. It is a waste of money.

@xceagle said:

As far as I know he didn't name any everyone is just overreacting because he said asshole.

Sigh.

@hailinel:

By that logic, Metal Gear Solid 2 is a bad game because the rain effects keep me from emulating it.

No it doesn't. It doesn't need to do anything except for what the developer wants to do. There isn't any rule saying that every game should be atleast 10 hours long. If video games shall evolve, as a way of telling stories, we have to understand that some stories take an hour to be told while others take 10, 20 or even 30+ hours to tell.

More freedom to the developers is what I believe in and that means they can make a game that's 10 minutes long if that's what they want. If you don't want to pay a certain price for that amount of content that's fine. But don't start talking about what a game needs to do or be. Game developers don't owe you anything, they are free to do as they want.

This is where I differ from a lot of gamers I guess, but I would rather pay 20 bucks and play a totally unique and interesting experience, even if said experience "only" lasts an hour, than pay 20 bucks and play a 5 hour long good beat-em up. Yes it might be a good beat-em up, but I have already played other good beat-em ups, so I would rather take the chance and play something new.

A good game can't be judged by something as trivial as play length.

Should a movie critic provide the price of theatre admissions? It's up to the reviewer if they want to and if they feel like it would be relevant to their review. Price is almost non-essential to reviews that are seeking to only review the material. Patrick's review is a subjective review like a lot of the GB's, they are not trying to be objective. If they were, then by all means they should include price and whatnot. As @ll_exile_ll said it's up to the consumer to decide if the price is worth it.

@video_game_king: You want to explain that? Because that's easily the dumbest argument I've read in a while. LM is not designed for left-handed play. I cannot play it in any comfortable fashion because of that.

Anything is worth what people are willing to pay for it. I don't know what the sales of gone home are looking like, but i know i won't buy it for that much money. It's not even the length, it's the type of game it is. Just not something i would spend that much money on.

But anyway, if the price makes selling the product a problem then it should be adjusted accordingly if you want to make a profit, or at least get the product to as many people as possible. You have to find the "sweet spot" where people who love artsy games will buy and people who just think "hey that looks kinda interesting" both want to check it out. I think pricing is a hard thing to do, and a lot of games (and other things) suffer trying to find a universal value.

I don't buy this for a second. I look at reviews to inform me as a consumer, and consequently reviewers should be consumer advocates. If Brad wrote a review of Plants vs. Zombies II, are you honestly suggesting he shouldn't mention the micro-transactions being shoved down your throat when you play it?

sneer circle

@hailinel:

I'll admit, that was a shitty example. Allow me a better one: Princess Crown is a poorly designed game because it doesn't take my language needs into consideration. I have a difficult time reading it, which is quite the problem for an action RPG.

I love me some short, story based games.

I personally don't think movie reviews are analogous to video game reviews at all. Just based on the fact that movie tickets are generally one uniform price at whatever movie theatre you go to. That's maybe the reason why prices aren't mentioned in movie reviews because you should know what the price should already be for all movies. Video game prices range from x amount to y amount, so there's more of a personal interpretation involved in determining if a game is worth a certain amount of money. For some, game length is part of that valuation. But yes, in the end, it's up to the consumer to decide if the price is worth it. I just think there shouldn't be details left out. I don't really see how leaving out game length makes a review suddenly not subjective.