I would be hesitant to even spend the $8 to RENT something like that. What is wrong with you people?
Well, I don't pay $60 for games as is, I wait until they're $30 or lower usually. But let's theoretically say that prices are fixed & will stay at $60 regardless if it's old or not. Would I pay?
Maybe. Depends on the game. If the 4 hours is immensely enjoyable (less filler, more killer so to speak), then I'll pay the price. If not, I won't.
I keep coming back to this, but Max Payne 2, my favorite game, is maybe 5 or 6 hours long max even if you don't know what you're doing. But that's a near-perfect game that doesn't let up and just gave me more enjoyment for those 5 hours than most games do in 20 or 30. I would've gladly paid $60 for that experience.
No. Seeing as I pay that much for a new game, it better have some good quality and quantity. Many games achieve this balance, and I see no reason why a developer should even attempt at a short game experience. Some do it because they want it to be cinematic yet interactive, but that generally does not translate into a game with much choice as far as my experience with short games goes. I always want more content per dollar so long as the said content has a certain level of acceptable quality.
The price didn't stop me from purchasing Modern Warfare 2 and that only lasted me about 4 hours. I've bought a lot of games at full price that were never completed or were immediately put in to closet.
So if I'm being perfectly honest I have and I will many many times in the future if, and only if, I want the game in the first place.
Thank you for that. I checked his history and didn't find anything at the month mark (I might have missed something), but I am sure that this was it.
" @altbotdos said:" @KillerBears said:I'm pretty sure he's talking about the same type of debate we had with Limbo. Check out the thread here. "" Oh boy, this again. "What do you mean? Please explain. "
I guess all I can say, is that it might be on the minds of more than one person. I am just glad that I wasn't beating a dead horse.
More importantly, if a mediocre four hour game like Kane & Lynch is $60 (before tax), why isn't a game like Halo, Battle Field, Star Craft, Civilization, and Modern Warfare around $1,000?
Game length isn't everything, but I'm tired of the "eight hour game" becoming the standard. Especially for $60. I make a solid salary and $60 seems like a lot. I can't imagine how it would feel if I were raising a family of four. Or if I were a student. Or if I were a child. How do you justify a game that takes four hours to play it, but ten or fifteen hours (after taxes) to pay for?
People like to throw around the idea that you can't take price into consideration. It's the "experience". Yeah - look - there are also places you can get a $250 cheeseburger. I'm still going to stick to the $10 range, when I'm stuffing my face.
Please Log In to post.