Scribblenauts will be a victim of its own hype

  • 103 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Avatar image for jimbo
Jimbo

10472

Forum Posts

2

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

#101  Edited By Jimbo
@Hailinel said:
Value has nothing to do with a game's quality or price.  In the end, it's how much enjoyment one gets out of a game that really matters. "
It's not really a matter of opinion.  Value is derived from Quality / Price (aka. Bang per Buck).  That's literally what the word 'value' means in this context.

You are correct that 'quality' is subjective and therefore 'value' is also subjective.  I'll give you an extreme example:  GTAIV releases for $100,000, the quality remains identical, the value is much worse.

My point is that those believing $20 indie games genuinely have superior quality to $60 AAA titles (I'll stop using that term when somebody gives me something better), are clearly in the minority, or those indie games would not need to be released at 1/3 of the price.  Some of you may think they are higher quality - the market does not agree with you. 

I'm not saying anybody is wrong individually, because as we have established, 'quality' is a matter of opinion.  When people say shit like "Oh, WoG was obviously the best game that year!" and "I worry about people that prefer <insert AAA title> to Braid! Tee Hee!", well no, I'm afraid it isn't 'obvious' and that being their opinion does not make it fact.

Avatar image for agentj
AgentJ

8996

Forum Posts

6144

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 31

#102  Edited By AgentJ
@Jimbo said:
"
@Hailinel said:
Value has nothing to do with a game's quality or price.  In the end, it's how much enjoyment one gets out of a game that really matters. "
It's not really a matter of opinion.  Value is derived from Quality / Price (aka. Bang per Buck).  That's literally what the word 'value' means in this context.

You are correct that 'quality' is subjective and therefore 'value' is also subjective.  I'll give you an extreme example:  GTAIV releases for $100,000, the quality remains identical, the value is much worse.

My point is that those believing $20 indie games genuinely have superior quality to $60 AAA titles (I'll stop using that term when somebody gives me something better), are clearly in the minority, or those indie games would not need to be released at 1/3 of the price.  Some of you may think they are higher quality - the market does not agree with you. 

I'm not saying anybody is wrong individually, because as we have established, 'quality' is a matter of opinion.  When people say shit like "Oh, WoG was obviously the best game that year!" and "I worry about people that prefer <insert AAA title> to Braid! Tee Hee!", well no, I'm afraid it isn't 'obvious' and that being their opinion does not make it fact. "
The price could also be related to the cost to produce. There is no way that Bungie could sell Halo at 10-20 dollars because they put so much money into making the game, whereas World of Goo was a two-man project, so they dont have as much money to recoup and they can sell it at a lower price. 
Avatar image for jimbo
Jimbo

10472

Forum Posts

2

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

#103  Edited By Jimbo

You're right that price is related to production cost, but really only in so far as deciding whether a product is viable in the first place.  Once it's made you have no choice but to sell it for whatever the market is prepared to pay.

If they thought the market was only willing to pay $10/$20 for Halo, then Halo wouldn't have been made.

I can't actually remember what WoG released for (?), but if they thought the market would be willing to pay $60 then it would have been $60, regardless of how low the production cost was.