Watch someone play for low cost or play yourself at a higher cost

@theht: but what if that was the new pricing model?

If those were my two options I think I'd be done with games.

@rcath: Then I wouldn't buy games new.

Would you pay a bunch to go see a movie, or pay less to have someone tell you about it?

What?!

A) The prices are insane

B) How can anyone answer this without knowing what game it is? I generally mostly watch games I don't intend to play (don't like spoilers) so this question doesn't really make sense because it assumes that all games are the same.

@joshwent: That is not quite a valid comparison.

Neither?

@rcath: I'd wait for games to be cheaper, if that's an option in your scenario. Watching people play and playing myself are two entirely different forms of entertainment, for me. If it were impossible to acquire games for less than $200, I'd still buy games some times, but I'd have to be damn sure about them. In a way, it would probably feel more like games did when I was younger and had no money, which was kind of magical. And, like when I was a kid, I'd probably have more hobbies - I'd likely read a lot more.

Those aren't an either/or for me, because like I said, they're different. I probably wouldn't watch people play games if I had to pay for it.

@bigsocrates: It is a game you want to play since all games are now in this pricing model.

Neither.

If people were willing to pay me $15 to watch me play the game then I'd be happy to spend the $200...

I'd go and play one of the many games that already exists that doesn't cost me $200 to play. I'm not going to pay shit to watch someone else play something.

If that's 15 dollars a year, then sure. I already pay 60 dollars a year to watch a bunch of knuckle heads play games.

I vote that this thread be scrubbed because this is an unrealistic and dumb, "what if," scenario. Hey dudes, what if you had to choose to be kicked in the clit or not? Don't have a clit? It doesn't matter because for this scenario you do.

Why would I engage in either of these options?

Seriously. Why would I? People already stream games for free, and in a worst-case scenario where I want to play this $200 dream-game myself, there is always piracy. There is no reason to engage in either option.

This thread sounded smarter in the OP's head.

I would get a new hobby.

It's not a plausible scenario, but there are some games I am willing to buy a console for, so I would probably still buy some games at $200. I only enjoy watching people play games when the commentary is funny, and while I might pay for that service (and do, as I'm premium, though that's definitely a bit different than this scenario) it would not be as a substitute for actually playing.

I would stop buying games

I dunno.. I'd probably still buy games if they cost $200, I'd just buy way less. I'd never pay $15 to watch someone play a game though.

Man people are up tight these days. Just answer it or don't. All this bumping to say nothing. Is this site really that serious now?

Anyways I would buy 2-4 games a year, if that was the dark world we lived in, and just watch people play the rest. I have no idea what my budget is for games a year but 400-800 isn't crazy. That's less than 1 "full priced game" (canadian buckaroos 69.99) a month (839). If I think about it, of the 12 AAA games I buy at full price every year on average, it's unlikely that more than 5 really stick with me. Unfortunately, at 200 a pop, I can't try as many games as I can at the same risk. Buying 4 games a year ... the chances of me loving 100% of them are pretty low.

Funny enough this pricing model would probably work out well for our friends at Giant Bomb. You don't go into any detail about how often you pay $15 dollars to watch someone play a game, but either way, websites that review games would probably be far more valuable in this scenario. So would marketers and ad money I guess. All in all you'd just be reading up more on the games you were interested in.

I like to play video games. I don't even really watch people play games that much these days. I watch about twenty minutes of any given Quick Look and get all I need from it. Why do I have Premium? I don't know! It's only five dollars and it's great background noise!

If AAA game releases were $200, I'd find it surprisingly easy to never play another AAA game again. There is a plethora of older games out there that I haven't even touched yet, more than I could probably play in a lifetime, plus I seriously doubt that indie and smaller games would be able to bump their prices up to anything near that much.

If all video games ever made were suddenly priced at $200, I'd go pirate older ones and never touch newer ones or just drop video games altogether. I don't pirate anything these days, for the record.

EDIT: Oh. Yeah. My answer isn't one of the options - it's "neither". I'm not paying $15 to watch someone play one game, no matter how witty and clever their commentary might be, nor am I going to pay $200 for any one game.

$60 is already a crazy price to pay for games. There's no shortage of not-new games to play.

$15 per game? Regardless, there are myriad videos online of people playing though video games - even on this very site.

More than anything though, playing a game yourself and watching someone play are very different experiences (yes, this includes even the most linear of military shooters).

I'd wait for games to go on sale. I already do that for most games, it's not like I don't have a bunch of other games to play in my backlog.

I only watch people play games to be informed about whether or not I want to buy one, so if that happened I'd probably be done with games for the most part. I'm shitty enough with money that I'd probably still buy 1 or 2 safe bets every year.

The real reason I ask is because I am trying to figure out if I should play mgs4 and buy a ps3 or wait and watch drew and Dan play it.

Depends on the game

@ajamafalous: My world view has been shattered!?!

As far the topic on hand, I would probably buy like 1 or 2 games a year... Just wait for Metal Gear Scanlon 4.

I'd finally write that novel.

I could finally catch up on my backlog if that's the new pricing.

But yo, not every game gives anything if you just watch it, and not every game requires to be played to enjoy it. As I do now, that would be a case by case basis. But honestly I would never buy a game for $200 unless I get a serious influx of monthly income.

You could mitigate the price of the PS3 by using it to play some other games as well.

As a rule of thumb, if you make a poll and every answer is "I'd pick neither because both of those answers are dumb" then it's probably not a very good poll.