No Game is worth 60 dollars

[CrusaderU.2.K.]

None, and its a scam by the gaming industry. They know people will rush out and buy a new game ( whatever its bad or crap ) , so they put the price up to 60 and my guess 70 dollars in the future, and make profit from it. Then a few weeks or months later, that same game which someone bought for 60 dollars will be traded in, a waste of money right there.

LIke PS3, it came out, with a 600 dollar price tag knowing damn well it didnt really have any good decent games, no online play, no nothing , just a lame ass box with lame ass games, and guess what?

People still went out and bought it, some people might of spent thier rent money on that sh**, who knows.

Either way, new games should cost 39.99. Good good games should cost 45.99. There is only a few games out there that is really worth 45 or 50 dollars, so you must be insane if you think i will spend 60 dollars on a game.

Like allpro2k8. Its the best football game on the market in my eyes ( i'm a hardcore sega/vc fan ) but is it worth 60 dollars? Hell no. Maybe 30, but not 60. The bottom line, 60 dollars for a video game is wrong.

And btw, who the hell needs blue-ray when you can download BSplayer and put the video in movie mode and you set for life. And yes i'm serious about this.

[An4h0ny]

as a wee lad, i saved up my own money to buy Pac Man for Atari 2600 at Sears

it was like... $63 and change

i hated it then and i hate it now... especially now that i really know the value of a dollar. there's not a rental service out there that's really top notch, but people still use them a lot b/c prices are insane.

a $50 price point for one game is crazy enough

$60 is insane

but at least some 'next gen' games have already started dropping to even 14.99

i realize people will say 'dl content' justifies that price and i agree, to an extent, when it really happens which is rare

[CrusaderU.2.K.]

Yea i seen a couple of those 360 games for 14.99, good deal right there. I just think new games should cost 39.99 , and the great ones should cost 45 dollars even. so 44.99.

peace :)

[flair]

I played guitar hero I/II for at least 500 hours total. Knowing what I know now they could have charged $200 each and released it on its own system and I still would have bought it. I've also logged enough hours into unreal 2k3/2k4s invasion mode to buy a new computer setup on top of the $20 I spent on the game.

[mr.snowmizer]

There are very few products which react quicker than videogames to supply and demand. Whatever a game "should" be, according to the masses, is what it will soon actually be... and APF 2k8 is about to become the latest example of this.

Also, if there actually was a continuing crush of people spending their rent money on PS3, they wouldn't have needed a price drop already. So I'm not sure how that's a good choice to support your argument, either.

[fujishig]

I'm sure if games were 39.99, there would be people that would say that's a ripoff and that games should be 19.99. Games should be whatever price someone is willing to pay. If people aren't willing to pay 60 bucks, then they won't sell and prices will be lowered, budgets will be cut, etc.

If you're willing to wait it out, you can probably stay a generation behind and pick up great games for 10 to 20 bucks. Sure, you'd miss out on the occasional rare game, but you'd be happy because new games obviously aren't worth it to you.

This is why pretty much all the consoles have some kind of greatest hits line that's around the pricepoint you suggest. So stop worrying about what people are paying and just wait it out.

Not even going to comment on the BluRay part.

[Puzznic]

I agree for the most part if you are talking about a single player game. But then there are games like Halo 3, where i'll play onine for years, and I'll drop $60 on it in a heart beat. It's actually a great value for the amount of entertainment you get out of it.

The only single player games that I will pay full price for is stuff like Metroid, Zelda, and Resident Evil 4/5.

[fmian]

And btw, who the hell needs blue-ray when you can download BSplayer and put the video in movie mode and you set for life. And yes i'm serious about this.

Can you elaborate on this please??

[Giantrobo]

Buy used. :D

[K&AJones]

I can understand a "new" game but 8 months or longer no way. Look at games like Rainbow Six:Vegas and Gears of War which came out last November still at $60. Even worse is The Elder Scrolls IV:Oblivion that came out March of 06 still at $60. I understand these are great games but not exactly new. However there are several popular titles in that 6-12 month range that has fallen.

I think one thing to keep in mind is the sheer amount of time, resources and people that it takes now days to make a game. I looked in the back of my "Unreal Tournament" book, the pc version fom 99', and it has about (64) people involved in the game. It's about double that today. While back then it was mainly all pc gaming today you have to deal with three or four cross-platforms which each it's on set of challenges.

One area I do wish either MS , the reatilers or game DEVs would try is coming out with some sort of "game packs" for some price breaks. There was a golden opportunity for such a pack with Forza 2 and Dirt. Two solid fun racing games but at $60 a pop most can only get one. If someone in marketing would wake up you could have have a racing pack with both games and steering wheel say for $170 or so. You've got say Medal of Honor:Airborne and Brothers In Arms coming up, both good looking games but again you're going to have to choose one. Why not a WWII Game Pack for say $100 or whatever. The sports games would be even better to do a game pack. It would be a win-win for everyone.


Kenny J - Buzz Starhopper

[aktick]

Obviously it's all supply and demand...and while a lot of people probably think $60 is a ripoff, a lot of them still go buy it at that price so as not to feel "left out."

I don't play games online at all (though I'm planning on starting soon, with Halo and Madden and Rock Band), so what I and some of my friends with 360s do is get a game, split the cost 2 or 3 ways, and take turns (yes, just like little kids taking turns with a toy :p ). If we feel like getting a new game, it's ~$20 out of pocket, and generally one only has to wait 2-3 weeks for your "turn". Obviously doesn't work well with online gaming, but it's been a cheap/enjoyable way of doing it for us.

[sracer]

I guess I stand out as the oddball on this. Of course I want games to be cheaper (heck I want everything to cost less). But I really don't think that $60 is all that outrageous for games today.

Then again, I'm not very good at video games. It takes me months to complete a game (and even then, I don't get all of the achievements) Each game purchase is a deliberate decision (except for when BestBuy had their inventory clearance sale last year).

I don't have a lot of time to devote to gaming, that just compounds the lameness factor. ;) But I do feel like I got my money's worth out of PGR3 ($60), Amped3($50), and especially Dead Rising ($60).

I'm still working on Viva Pinata($50), and Test Drive:Unlimited ($40). (There's about another 6 titles purchased used/clearance that I've basically only booted up to see what they look like)

If I could play a game fully in the 8-20 hours that some folks here do, I probably would feel differently. :D

[edstein]

Consider the price we pay for movies, 7 to 10 dollars for 2 hours of entertainment. Concerts are 30 to 100 dollars for 2 to 3 hours of entertainment. Considering how many hours of gaming entertainment you get from a $60 game, I'd say it's a good deal. No one is forcing you to buy, ever heard of Gamefly. Try renting or buying the games used.

[Anubis2005X]

I forget how much I paid for Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time back in the day. On the N64, I'm sure it was at least $60. Was it worth it? Yes...hell yes...

[CrusaderU.2.K.]

Actually i do buy used games, about 90% of the time. The highest i will ever go to spend on a game is 40 dollars. I never spent 50 or 60 dollars on a game, and never will. I will spend 45 dollars a game, but it have to be a good one. Like GTA games, or NFL2K games.

Can you elaborate on this please??

DVD/HDTV, Blue Ray its all the same to me. I dont see any difference. But i have a dvd player which is fine, but i dont care about HDTV or blue ray because i use the media player BSPLAYE and if you set it in Movie mode, it looks just like the movie theater, which is a million times better then HDTV or a Blueray picture.

On a last note: I have a 13INCH tv which i use for gaming and you know what, it looks just as good like anything else. No joke either :)

I'm not the type of person to rush out and buy the lastest stuff, thats all. I remember when people was fighting over the PS3, acting all crazy trying to get the system, and i'm saying to myself " Why the rush, why act crazy , the system is not going nowhere, all you have to do is wait lol ".

[stingermck]

DVD/HDTV, Blue Ray its all the same to me. I dont see any difference. But i have a dvd player which is fine, but i dont care about HDTV or blue ray because i use the media player BSPLAYE and if you set it in Movie mode, it looks just like the movie theater, which is a million times better then HDTV or a Blueray picture.

On a last note: I have a 13INCH tv which i use for gaming and you know what, it looks just as good like anything else. No joke either :)



-screwy- Please post that in the HD threads :)

And heres some info from wiki:

BS.Player made by the Slovenian company Webteh is a media player for Windows 2000 and XP that plays back many kinds of multimedia files (including AVI, MPEG, Ogg, Matroska, ASF, QuickTime, MP4, WAV...) and specializes in video and audio playback.

So its a PC player with codecs, like divx player. And its as good as the theater? Mmmmhmmmm.

Anyway. Games were $50 for 25 years, id say were OK inflation wise unlike other products.

[Suprmallet]

DVD/HDTV, Blue Ray its all the same to me. I dont see any difference. But i have a dvd player which is fine, but i dont care about HDTV or blue ray because i use the media player BSPLAYE and if you set it in Movie mode, it looks just like the movie theater, which is a million times better then HDTV or a Blueray picture.

On a last note: I have a 13INCH tv which i use for gaming and you know what, it looks just as good like anything else. No joke either :)

Well, that's fine for you, but I hope you can understand that for many of us, it's not "all the same" and we actually CAN tell a difference.

[Thor Simpson]

DVD/HDTV, Blue Ray its all the same to me. I dont see any difference.

... i use the media player BSPLAYE and if you set it in Movie mode, it looks just like the movie theater, which is a million times better then HDTV or a Blueray picture.

... I have a 13INCH tv which i use for gaming and you know what, it looks just as good like anything else.

:lol: I don't know where to start. I'm glad you enjoy your setup. You should trying going to movie theaters that have screens bigger than 13 inches. It's fun.

[Apollo]

A 13" TV?? Guy, I'm 35 and I can't even take using a 15" LCD. I like reading your opinion about the increase price of games, but you're got to know that inflation is always with us.

P.S.

13" TV where did you find that thing???

[Tracer Bullet]

I have a 13" TV in my bathroom.

(I really don't)

[Jeremy517]

Simple solution: Don't pay $60. If you shift your schedule so that you are buying games six to twelve months after release, then you can get things for 1/3 to 1/2 of that price, and often less. Also try buying games used and trading for them here, on TGN, GTZ. And of course, start going to CAG.

[edstein]

Actually i do buy used games, about 90% of the time. The highest i will ever go to spend on a game is 40 dollars. I never spent 50 or 60 dollars on a game, and never will. I will spend 45 dollars a game, but it have to be a good one. Like GTA games, or NFL2K games.



DVD/HDTV, Blue Ray its all the same to me. I dont see any difference. But i have a dvd player which is fine, but i dont care about HDTV or blue ray because i use the media player BSPLAYE and if you set it in Movie mode, it looks just like the movie theater, which is a million times better then HDTV or a Blueray picture.

On a last note: I have a 13INCH tv which i use for gaming and you know what, it looks just as good like anything else. No joke either :)

I'm not the type of person to rush out and buy the lastest stuff, thats all. I remember when people was fighting over the PS3, acting all crazy trying to get the system, and i'm saying to myself " Why the rush, why act crazy , the system is not going nowhere, all you have to do is wait lol ".

Sorry man, you just lost all credibility with statements like those. To each is own I guess.

[The Bus]

Consider the price we pay for movies, 7 to 10 dollars for 2 hours of entertainment. Concerts are 30 to 100 dollars for 2 to 3 hours of entertainment. Considering how many hours of gaming entertainment you get from a $60 game, I'd say it's a good deal. No one is forcing you to buy, ever heard of Gamefly. Try renting or buying the games used.

If only games could give me the same joy concerts do.

[The Bus]

I used to have a 13" TV in college. We actually played 4-player Goldeneye on it. :lol:

[msdmoney]

I rarely spend $60 on a game, in fact, the Bioshock LE may be the first game in years I have paid $60 for. If you are patient enough you can easily pay much less. Last generation it was around $15 per game for me, and often much cheaper. This generation I have pushed that up to about $25 per game, sometimes $30, just waiting for price drops/sales.

I think there are plenty games worth $60, but there are so many games, I want to get more for my money. The hours spent with some games make them a great value, I got 100's of hours out of Warcraft III years ago, and spent $40 on it. I would have easily paid $60 for all those multiplayer hours.

[Thor Simpson]

It's really a matter of perspective, your place in life, and the value you put on both entertainment and your dollar.

In determining the "worth" of a game, are you saying that no game is worth 550 servings of Cup o' Noodles or that no game is worth one mildly cheap dinner date?

Because while I can understand not wanting to fast for a year and a half, the girl can stay home for one night in exchange for hours and hours of video game goodness (Yes, it's a miracle I ever got married).

[JasonF]

as a wee lad, i saved up my own money to buy Pac Man for Atari 2600 at Sears

it was like... $63 and change

$63 from back in 1982 when Pac-Man first came out for the 2600 is the equivalent of $130 in today's money. So video games are really half as expensive as they were 25 years ago.

[Legolas]

So you're complaining about arbitrary game prices by demanding your own arbitrary prices? They sell for what people are willing to play. No one is forcing you at gunpoint to buy a game on release day when you can always wait for the inevitable price drop. Hell, think how cheap you can get Madden 03 for now!

This reminds me of the rant someone did once where he bitched about how premium Quicktime was better than free Quicktime, and that all Quicktime should always be free.

[mbs]

And btw, who the hell needs blue-ray when you can download BSplayer and put the video in movie mode and you set for life. And yes i'm serious about this.

:lol:

You must have a really sweet setup if BSplayer in "movie mode" looks as good as Blu-Ray.

And on-topic... if you don't want to pay $60, don't. Regardless of your opinion(s), there is a market for the games at $60 (they wouldn't be $60 if no one bought them).

[Tarantino]

Come over to my house and play a 360 game on my 57" TV with components...I bet you can see a pretty big fucking difference.

As for game prices, it doesn't bother me. I do my research first, and buy only games I really want. Madden will be next.

= J

[consoleman]

Back in the old days of cartridge-based videogame systems, when being able to play games from the arcades in your own home was a big deal, spending $60 to $70 was commonplace. The most expensive games I remember buying were the 3 iterations of Street Fighter II for the Super Nintendo. Imagine having spent $70 each time they came out with a Street Fighter game?

It's incomprehensible now, but back in those days, people spent $ on games without much thought. Nowadays, it's a whole different story. You always know that prices on games are going to drop to $20 or $30 if you wait long enough, most times even less.

[slop101]

On a last note: I have a 13INCH tv which i use for gaming and you know what, it looks just as good like anything else. No joke either :) If I had to play my 360 games on a 13" TV, I wouldn't think they'd be worth $60 either. How the hell can you even see who you're sniping in something like Gears or R6:V?

[kajs]

I have not yet played a Wii game that is worth more than $30 to me. I'm staying as a renter utill they start coming down in price. The only 2 games I own, 9 months later, are Wii Sports and Wii Play.

[PopcornTreeCt]

Well, let's see DVDs cost around $15-$20 for 2 hours plus we'll be generous and say 2 hours of extra features. Videogames can take you anywhere from 6 hours to 15 hours to complete not to mention multi-player and going back and trying to get a 100% completed. If you look at it like that than $60 is a bargain.

[darkside]

I have yet to pay $60 for a game this generation. I wouldn't even pay full price for FFXII and I love that series.

It is used games or wait for price drops for me. I have yet to see a PS3 game so much fun it was worth the cost of 2 DS games.

I doubt I would even pay $60 for GTA IV.

Wii games are an even bigger joke at $50.

Thankfully there are plenty of people buying these at full price and trading them back in so I can clean up at the B2G1F used sales at EB.

[Infrared Sight]

I have never paid $60 for any game ever. I own a ps2 and n64 and used to own ps1. I have always waited for the game to go on sale and never bought any game at full price. The most I have ever paid for any game is around $35. Just do research. Not that hard.

[lordwow]

SNES games used to launch at $60 depending on the game. It only went down for the N64/PS1 generation.

[achau9598]

Simple solution: Don't pay $60. If you shift your schedule so that you are buying games six to twelve months after release, then you can get things for 1/3 to 1/2 of that price, and often less. Also try buying games used and trading for them here, on TGN, GTZ. And of course, start going to CAG.

That is all fine and good, but if you don't buy the game (at $60) then when does the used copy become available to purchase at the discounted rate? If only a few people purchased the game at the initial release price, then in 12 months the used copies are now "rare" titles and will likely command a premium.

The solution is for the gaming companies to see that if the sell 500k units at $60, they would probably sell many more at a lower price.

[Houstondon]

If it weren't for the extraneous commentary tossed into the thread, I think this would be a great article for the Videogame Talk column (the only thing at my place that is 13" and worth talking about can't be discussed in this forum...cough...lol).

The first videogame I drooled over was PONG. Sears sold it for about $200 and that was back in the early 1970's. The $200 Atari 2600 came years later with cart's running as much as the $60 so offensive above. Thankfully, economies of scale and the way technology gets cheaper over time outweighed the rate of inflation so much or most of us wouldn't be buying any games from the looks of it.

One of the strengths of the videogame reviews is that they give consumers a deeper look at a game than the box cover (not to mention a more credible look than many of the fansites that suck up to game companies). With $60 being too much for some of you to afford (or more than you are willing to spend), such reviews can serve as a starting point to narrowing your searches down. I've had many hundreds of hours of fun with C&C 3: Tiberium Wars that was picked up for $40 when it came out. It has some weaknesses but is still a lot of fun. Compared to any other form of entertainment I've had in a long time, the cost per hour of the game has been pennies (maybe I should review it...) and I can even sell it and recoup much of my investment should I get bored waiting for the inevitable expansion package destined to make it even better.

Game producers don't live in a vacuum. If you buy many more games at a particular pricing tier and send them snail mail telling them why, they are likely to lower the price. If I worked a minimum wage job, $60 for hundreds of hours of gaming on a 13" TV would probably seem tough to justify too (after income taxes and other deductions, the $60 game, which would have sales taxes and/or shipping, would translate into a lot of flipped burgers).

[Bluelitespecial]

sony really needs to bring back the greatest hits line once the PS3 is a little more established, it would help sell more consoles.

[mhg83]

with the xbox 360 and playstation 3s downloadable content, theres no reason why there should be more madden games or any other sports title. Just have a yearly update that you can download onto your original game. Most sports titles sequels have very few new features that would justify putting down 60 bucks every year!

[CrusaderU.2.K.]

I had my 13inch tv since i was 4 years old, now i'm 26. It still works like a charm. I have a 57 inch tv in our living room, me and my wife watch our dvd movies, cable on it. And in the bed room, we have a 31 inch. But as i said in my entertainment gaming room, i use the 13inch and i pretty much see everything and its fun.

Btw, about bsplayer. I watch some of my smallville dvds in the media player and no lie, if you set it to movie mode, also make sure you have a good video card, it looks just like the movie theater. It doesnt sound like hahaah, or feel like it, but the Q is there for sure.

No lie, try it. Btw, BSplayer is not only for xp or 2000, i am running windows98se and it works just fine. :)

[boston george]

I had my 13inch tv since i was 4 years old, now i'm 26. It still works like a charm. I have a 57 inch tv in our living room, me and my wife watch our dvd movies, cable on it. And in the bed room, we have a 31 inch. But as i said in my entertainment gaming room, i use the 13inch and i pretty much see everything and its fun.

Btw, about bsplayer. I watch some of my smallville dvds in the media player and no lie, if you set it to movie mode, also make sure you have a good video card, it looks just like the movie theater. It doesnt sound like hahaah, or feel like it, but the Q is there for sure.

No lie, try it. Btw, BSplayer is not only for xp or 2000, i am running windows98se and it works just fine. :)

I'm sure it looks "fine" as you say, but to say it looks better/the same as BluRay/HDTV is just silly.

[emanon]

No lie, try it. Btw, BSplayer is not only for xp or 2000, i am running windows98se and it works just fine. :)

This part surprised me - I expected you to be on Windows for Workgroups 3.11. ;)

[Suprmallet]

I had my 13inch tv since i was 4 years old, now i'm 26. It still works like a charm. I have a 57 inch tv in our living room, me and my wife watch our dvd movies, cable on it. And in the bed room, we have a 31 inch. But as i said in my entertainment gaming room, i use the 13inch and i pretty much see everything and its fun.

Btw, about bsplayer. I watch some of my smallville dvds in the media player and no lie, if you set it to movie mode, also make sure you have a good video card, it looks just like the movie theater. It doesnt sound like hahaah, or feel like it, but the Q is there for sure.

No lie, try it. Btw, BSplayer is not only for xp or 2000, i am running windows98se and it works just fine. :)

What kind of piece of shit movie theaters are around you that you think a regular DVD with a filter on it looks as good?

[boredsilly]

I agree that $60 for a game is a little rich for my blood, even though I can understand why they cost that much. But you have options. Since so many games these days are good for one play through, maybe two, why not try Gamefly or something.

I'm the type that gets bored with a game pretty quickly, so it's ideal for me to rent 2-4 games a month and play them to my hearts content, and when I'm done send those suckers back for new stuff.

[Green Smurf]

I thought Super Paper Mario was worth the 50 bucks I spent on it.
If you rent from Gamefly you can get most games for around 40-45 dollars used. After 3 months you get 5 dollars in GF money, and usually have a discount on most games.

I got shadowrun from there for 30 bucks, with all the GF cash I had

[edstein]

What kind of piece of shit movie theaters are around you that you think a regular DVD with a filter on it looks as good?

Here is his idea of a big screen.

http://www.books4you.addr.com/TV_Projector_Fresnel_Lens.html

:lol:

[An4h0ny]

$63 from back in 1982 when Pac-Man first came out for the 2600 is the equivalent of $130 in today's money. So video games are really half as expensive as they were 25 years ago.

that's a good way to make yourself feel better about paying 60 for a game. :)

nice

[shadowhawk2020]

I have seen a ripped blu-ray movie shown thru zoomplayer that was perfect at a friends house. He ripped a disc he bought to test on his HTPC to his projector. It did look sweet :)

[shadowhawk2020]

I can see why the OP would hate spending $60 on a game when his TV was like $15...

[abrg923]

I'm sure it looks "fine" as you say, but to say it looks better/the same as BluRay/HDTV is just silly.

So is saying a 13" TV looks as good as a 57".

[PopcornTreeCt]

So is saying a 13" TV looks as good as a 57".

Not just any 13" TV mind you, one that is at least 22 years old.

[vinhj]

If I had to play my 360 games on a 13" TV, I wouldn't think they'd be worth $60 either. How the hell can you even see who you're sniping in something like Gears or R6:V?

Forget Gears and R6...I wonder if he can read the text in Dead Rising.

[mr.snowmizer]

Two comments:

* Where in the world were people paying $50-60 for Atari 2600 games? Colecovision Zaxxon was a complete shock when it hit shelves at $49.99 when everything prior was $29.99 (with an occasional $34.99 getting thrown into the mix, too).

* The question about when discounted, used versions of games would become available if only a few people buy at the initial price... was this serious?

Outside of Japanese-flavored RPGs that oftentimes get conservative production runs, the answer is within a couple of months, you'll get a discounted, new version instead.

[Houstondon]

Snow, when the 2600 came out in the 1970's, there weren't a lot of places to buy cartridges and used carts were not common. Sears and a few major stores were the place to buy them; sales were infrequent at first. The first "real" sales and price drops didn't start until Intellivision heated up a gaming race and Activision selling carts for ~$30; then Colecovision resulting in the Atari 5200 coming out around ~1982/3 really started the price drops. I may have overstated the price a bit previously (the console cost me ~$200 and I had to pay taxes on that) but I remember mail ordering Custer's Revenge with the price shipped to me going from over $50 and the initial carts back in the 70's costing $30-40@ plus tax. The internet and a developed mail order system helped prices a lot, just as competing game systems have done over the years, but supply and demand worked the same way then as it does now.

[Flay]

I'll never understand why people who buy an HD console will play on a tiny SD TV rather than buying a $20 VGA cable off Ebay to hook into their computer monitor for high definition.

[Liver&Onions]

but I remember mail ordering Custer's Revenge with the price shipped to me going from over $50 and the initial carts back in the 70's costing $30-40@ plus tax.

Damn, you've been down with the porn for a long time now! :hump:

[Houstondon]

Damn, you've been down with the porn for a long time now!
True, my first porno was Star Virgin (it came out in the late 1970's on a crappy $150 VHS tape) and my reputation as the "Professor of Porn" among a few of our fellow reviewers isn't exactly marketing hyperbole, but I've been into videogames even longer. lol

[boredsilly]

sony really needs to bring back the greatest hits line once the PS3 is a little more established, it would help sell more consoles.

That's almost a given. The games will probably be $30 this go round though.

[DodgingCars]

I rarely buy games at full price unless I have a gift card or something. I did buy Super Paper Mario at full price... that's probably the first time I've bought a game at full price (without a gift card) in 5-6 years -- if not longer.

I usually wait for deals, buy them used, buy them after price drops, or get them as gifts.

[uncle-frank]

back in snes/genesis days (when i was really into gaming) shit was crazy expensive. i remember getting a catologe from some store for christmas and the prices of games was unreal. some were 79.99 and up.

in the n64/psx days it was still bad, to ps was a tad cheaper, but i was always a nintendo fan so i never really cared about price.

i kno that it was really a lot of money but it was a hobby of mine so i dont really look down at it as too much of a rediculous amount of money to spend.

rite now im not as big into gaming as i was b4 (80s'/90's toys) is more my hobby now and i still dont care too much if a toy cost 100 bucks because i just have that mentality from before. i want it, im willing to pay to a certain extent, so i will buy.

i know my own personal cut off but if somethin is considered expensive like a video game nowadays i dont really think it is.

[Zwerchfell]

I buy games for $60 but not that many. Considering how much work goes into a game I don't think they are over priced. Of course I would buy more if they would cost $40 at release but it usually doesn't take too long until you get them cheaper then $60.

[metalhead212]

First off, games have been in the $45 - $60 range for a very long time. It is just now that they are finally starting to creep up in price. Do I like it? Well, yes and no. No, because thats more money out of my pocket. Yes, because in a way the high price tag forces the consumer to become more active in their purchases and actually be more informed. Someone isn't as willing to drop $60 on a blind buy as they would $20 or $30.

This is kind of a blessing in disguise because no longer can companies push out cheap-crap games and have people buy them. Thus shrinking the amount of junk pushed through to us consumers that floods the market because developers will know that for us to spend $60 on something it is going to have to be worth the money.

Worth the money is situational here because, for example, one may deem Gears of War worth $60 but another person may not. It all depends on the consumer, but then again that is the power of being a consumer. You have a choice on what you are going to be purchasing. No one said you HAVE to go out and buy a $60 AAA title when you could go pick up a good title that is a bit aged for $35-$40 on the greatest hits line or platinum line.

[DVD Josh]

Btw, about bsplayer. I watch some of my smallville dvds in the media player and no lie, if you set it to movie mode, also make sure you have a good video card, it looks just like the movie theater. It doesnt sound like hahaah, or feel like it, but the Q is there for sure.

I remember when I was a wee lad and my daddy took me to see Smallville in the theater.

[PixyJunket]

I think paying full price for games probably wouldn't be so bad on a buy then sell or trade basis. But I generally like to keep my games so I just play the waiting game on most of them. Buying a 360 just now was great as I was able to get half a dozen good games for about $20 a pop. I will be paying the $60 for Eternal Sonata, but that's going to be more of an exception.

[Mopower]

I'll never understand why people who buy an HD console will play on a tiny SD TV rather than buying a $20 VGA cable off Ebay to hook into their computer monitor for high definition.


How about buying a decent TV before buying a $400 console? Fuck you can get a 25 inch TV now for under $200.

[SmackDaddy]

Well, GOW is a perfect example of what is wrong with a $60 price tag. Sure, it looks great and had an innovative control scheme...but it was SHORT! $10 a pop for map packs?? Is this game worth $80?? And yes, I am aware that you can wait several months and get the packs for free...but $10 is still $10, and people payed it. To those of you saying that $60 is reasonable, would you have payed $80 for GOW if it came with all the multi-player maps right off the bat? What about those who do not have Live (and dial up users still outnumber broadband users as a whole)??

The only thing $60 games will lead to is $70 games....then $80 and so on. For many, it may be a matter of not being able to afford it. For me, it's a matter of wanting value for my money. That means a quality game experience. That means a game that takes some effort to get through. That means more than a few hours of playing and then reaching a WTF??? point when the game just ends (Halo 2...I'm looking at you!!) because the developers got bored.

Mass Effect is probably the next game I will be willing to shell out full price for since RPG's tend to give you a great deal more gameplay(time) than most genres. I have been, and will remain, very pick as to what I buy this generation.

[KurrptSenate]

I tend to buy a few games at full retail, but those are games I've been waiting months for anyway. Most games drop after 3 months and can be had for about 1/2 the price of the game new. If I'm not caught up in the "hype" it's pretty easy to put it off until it gets within a reasonable range.

I don't rate games on a scale of 1-10, but on a value system.

[Mopower]

The only thing worse than $60 new games are $54 used games. Burn in hell Gamestop.

[KurrptSenate]

i don't really mind them


i get them for 50 using my card. If i have any problem with the game I just trade it in for a new one

[tbird2340]

Well, GOW is a perfect example of what is wrong with a $60 price tag. Sure, it looks great and had an innovative control scheme...but it was SHORT! $10 a pop for map packs?? Is this game worth $80?? And yes, I am aware that you can wait several months and get the packs for free...but $10 is still $10, and people payed it. To those of you saying that $60 is reasonable, would you have payed $80 for GOW if it came with all the multi-player maps right off the bat? What about those who do not have Live (and dial up users still outnumber broadband users as a whole)??

The only thing $60 games will lead to is $70 games....then $80 and so on. For many, it may be a matter of not being able to afford it. For me, it's a matter of wanting value for my money. That means a quality game experience. That means a game that takes some effort to get through. That means more than a few hours of playing and then reaching a WTF??? point when the game just ends (Halo 2...I'm looking at you!!) because the developers got bored.

Mass Effect is probably the next game I will be willing to shell out full price for since RPG's tend to give you a great deal more gameplay(time) than most genres. I have been, and will remain, very pick as to what I buy this generation.

I rarely buy games at full retail but GOW I would buy again in a heart beat at full price. Would I buy it at $80 w/ the map packs, hell no.. But that's why they release the map packs months later.. They get you hooked on the game and then release them.

I think they were well worth the $10 as well. And trust me.. I'm a tight ass when it comes to spending money on map packs, etc.. If you don't play GOW on live, then yes.. $60 would have sucked because the SP is rather short.. But the longevity of the MP makes it worth it's weight..

Oh, and OP.. If you have a 57" TV why in the heck are you playing your 360 on a 13"!? Is the 57" HD? Have you even hooked your 360 to it? If you ever seen your 360 in HD you would never go back..

[metalhead212]

Well, GOW is a perfect example of what is wrong with a $60 price tag. Sure, it looks great and had an innovative control scheme...but it was SHORT! $10 a pop for map packs?? Is this game worth $80?? And yes, I am aware that you can wait several months and get the packs for free...but $10 is still $10, and people payed it. To those of you saying that $60 is reasonable, would you have payed $80 for GOW if it came with all the multi-player maps right off the bat? What about those who do not have Live (and dial up users still outnumber broadband users as a whole)??

The only thing $60 games will lead to is $70 games....then $80 and so on. For many, it may be a matter of not being able to afford it. For me, it's a matter of wanting value for my money. That means a quality game experience. That means a game that takes some effort to get through. That means more than a few hours of playing and then reaching a WTF??? point when the game just ends (Halo 2...I'm looking at you!!) because the developers got bored.

Mass Effect is probably the next game I will be willing to shell out full price for since RPG's tend to give you a great deal more gameplay(time) than most genres. I have been, and will remain, very pick as to what I buy this generation.

If you bought and Xbox and have dial up and don't play multi-player online then whey did you bother to by a 360? What is the whole motto of the system . . . "jump in" or something like that? You know, JUMP IN-to this whole grand social network.

Main campaigns selling games are really no longer viable, unless of course we are talking about RPG's. Even at that we have MMORPG's which have no main game what-so-ever. When was the last time you played a game that engrossed you for hours and hours on end that wasn't an RPG or an adventure game (Zelda, ect) and you were only playing the main campaign? The last one I can remember was Mario 64. Only a handful of games actually have MC's that last more than a few hours.

Multiplayer games like Gears are what are selling systems. That is undeniable. Look at just about every game that is coming out for the ps3 and the 360 and you will see some sort of online action incorporated into the game. Virtua Fighter for example. Did not have online play for the PS3, but now, for the 360 it does.

Aside from that, the whole paying extra money for new content thing. I can agree with you on that. It is ridiculous to see that Gears has sold muti-millions of copies, yet we have to shell out more money to get the newest maps unless we want to wait half the year for them to become free. One can not tell me that the 60$ price tag for games these days doesn't have some kind of fee incorporated into it to accommodate future downloadable content development and distribution. Isn't that the justification they gave for the price increase so long ago anyways? They were charging more money because development costs were going up due to all the extra stuff they would be throwing into games?

[JasonF]

Aside from that, the whole paying extra money for new content thing. I can agree with you on that. It is ridiculous to see that Gears has sold muti-millions of copies, yet we have to shell out more money to get the newest maps unless we want to wait half the year for them to become free.

Why not? I had to buy the new Harry Potter book, even though I shelled out however much cash for the first six. I recently bought Stargate SG-1 Season 10, and they charged me money for it, even though I had paid for the first nine seasons. I've had a subscription to Newsweek for I don't know how long, but every time it expires, they charge me money to renew it.

Gears of War cost $60 new. For your $60, you got the single player campaign and however many maps it came with. Period. That's the bargain, and if you don't think it's worth it then that's your call. At some point, the Gears developers realized that there was a demand for additional maps. So they put another product on the market -- more maps. Again, if you want to pay the $10 for more maps, you know what it costs. If you don't, you don't.

Quite frankly, I think a good video game is among the best value in terms of hours-of-entertainment-per-dollar. Yeah, I paid $60 for Gears of War or Oblivion -- but I've played the hell out of those games.

[The Bus]

We've long crossed the $99 price barrier for games. Most recently, the Halo 3 "Legendary" Edition and Steel Battalion both retailed for $129 and ~$199 respectively.

And a long time ago, games did use to be more expensive. If you weren't careful, you could easily pay $69 or $79 for some cartridge-based games. I didn't mind the price back then for two reasons: One, I wasn't paying it. Two, even if I was, I was at most getting two games a year. So for the 360 I might have had Oblivion and Dead Rising. The problem is that Hour of Victory also retailed for a high price. As did Vampire Rain. If I was a kid and this was the one game to hold me over for the next few months, I would've been pissed.

[Lastblade]

We've long crossed the $99 price barrier for games. Most recently, the Halo 3 "Legendary" Edition and Steel Battalion both retailed for $129 and ~$199 respectively.

And a long time ago, games did use to be more expensive. If you weren't careful, you could easily pay $69 or $79 for some cartridge-based games. I didn't mind the price back then for two reasons: One, I wasn't paying it. Two, even if I was, I was at most getting two games a year. So for the 360 I might have had Oblivion and Dead Rising. The problem is that Hour of Victory also retailed for a high price. As did Vampire Rain. If I was a kid and this was the one game to hold me over for the next few months, I would've been pissed.

I don't think it is fair to count special editions or games that come with specialty controller in the comparison. There are additional cost for those extra items.

And if you are going to count crossing thresholds.... Neo Geo games retailed at $250 (and went as high as $350) back in the early 90s.

[Draven]

I look at it strictly as a numbers game: is $60 worth it for 10 hours of entertainment?

Most games I buy have at least that if not far more. I'm happy to pay $200 for the full Rock Band set because I know I'll get at least that much entertainment out of it.

Now, I usually only buy games I know I'll like. Occassionally I'm sucked into the hype on something and end up not liking it (Oblivion, Shadow of the Colossus, Sly Cooper 3) but for the most part I'm pretty good at either getting great games at launch or waiting until average games I'm interested in are on sale.

So it all comes down to what you're willing to pay for entertainment.

[sracer]

I look at it strictly as a numbers game: is $60 worth it for 10 hours of entertainment?

Most games I buy have at least that if not far more. I'm happy to pay $200 for the full Rock Band set because I know I'll get at least that much entertainment out of it.

Now, I usually only buy games I know I'll like. Occassionally I'm sucked into the hype on something and end up not liking it (Oblivion, Shadow of the Colossus, Sly Cooper 3) but for the most part I'm pretty good at either getting great games at launch or waiting until average games I'm interested in are on sale.

So it all comes down to what you're willing to pay for entertainment.
That's why it's good to suck at videogames. You get more for your gaming dollar! :D No one gets their money's worth more than I do. ;)

[KurrptSenate]

I'm a cheap bastard, but I'll tell ya, if Soul Caliber 4 was only coming out on the PS3, I would have paid about 550 to get it

[uteotw]

I will pay the $60 for a few I love (Splinter Cell, Hitman, GRAW, and GTA) every time. I'll also pay it for Halo3. Beyond that, I always wait for the inevitable price drop. I do hate seeing the price drop on the games I got at launch, but for me having my favorites ASAP is worth it.

[crazyrabbits]

I'm seven years behind the current generation. I'm only, just now, getting to playing Metal Gear Solid. The first one. I feel so out of touch. Still, I never have to pay high prices, though.

[Goldblum]

Okay, while the OP has pretty much lost all credibility because of his other opinions, I do agree that $60 for a disc-based game is a ripoff and one of the reasons I'm holding off on this gen.

Yes, I paid $60 for some games on the Genesis, but they weren't all that expensive (although some were even worse). But they were also cartridges and were more expensive to manufacture. That is not to say I wouldn't pay $60 for a game anymore, but it would have to be a damn good game. If I do get into this gen, I will not be buying many games for this reason. The extra $10 this gen is the straw that broke the camel's back for me.

[taffer]

I am gone all weekend, and I miss this awesome thread. Playing an HD console on a 20+ year old 13" TV and saying it looks as good as HD-DVD/Blu-ray... rotfl rotfl rotfl

Are you using an RF adapter too?

I hope you realize that the reason the picture "quality" appears to be so good is purely artificial because of the puny size of the TV. If you were to expand the size to normal dimensions, it would not look nearly as good.

I have to wonder why if you have a 57" TV (and another 32" in the bedroom) you would even bother with the old ass TV? :hscratch:

I'll never understand why people who buy an HD console will play on a tiny SD TV rather than buying a $20 VGA cable off Ebay to hook into their computer monitor for high definition.

Yep. It is what I do. I don't care about HD movies; DVDs are good enough for me. So I use my 27" SDTV for movies, and my 19" widescreen monitor for 360 gaming.

[KurrptSenate]

well, i only have a 15" monitor. I'd rather have played on my 35" SD than a 15" monitor


but i have a 47" LCD so its not an issue anymore

[SmackDaddy]

If you bought and Xbox and have dial up and don't play multi-player online then whey did you bother to by a 360? What is the whole motto of the system . . . "jump in" or something like that? You know, JUMP IN-to this whole grand social network.


Sorry bub, your making a lot of assumptions. I DO have broadband, I DO play games online. I merely referenced the dial-up to make the point that there are a lot of people out there that enjoy playing games that either cannot, or do not want to play deathmatch or MMORPG's etc..

I have let my Gold account lapse since my personal experience with Live has been disappointing. I refuse to pay for the map packs so I can't get into a lot of GOW games and Burnout is just plain laggy. I do, however like downloading demos. I still play online with my PC and use the online features of the Wii almost daily though.

Regardless, I don't base the value of a game on multi-player only content of primarily single player games (any shooter or driving game). I wouldn't judge Shadowrun by the same criteria as I have for GoW since the entire concept of Shadowrun is online multi-player.

The big danger here (as another poster alluded to) is that publishers of crap games are also putting there stuff out there for $50-60. And that's bad news for everyone, because people who don't have common sense will buy them....next thing you know...there will be a thread about $75 price points...and so on....

[KurrptSenate]

in my experiences, I'd judge GoW and Shadowrun under the same criteria. Gears is utterly worthless offline to me

[metalhead212]

Why not? I had to buy the new Harry Potter book, even though I shelled out however much cash for the first six. I recently bought Stargate SG-1 Season 10, and they charged me money for it, even though I had paid for the first nine seasons. I've had a subscription to Newsweek for I don't know how long, but every time it expires, they charge me money to renew it.

Gears of War cost $60 new. For your $60, you got the single player campaign and however many maps it came with. Period. That's the bargain, and if you don't think it's worth it then that's your call. At some point, the Gears developers realized that there was a demand for additional maps. So they put another product on the market -- more maps. Again, if you want to pay the $10 for more maps, you know what it costs. If you don't, you don't.

Quite frankly, I think a good video game is among the best value in terms of hours-of-entertainment-per-dollar. Yeah, I paid $60 for Gears of War or Oblivion -- but I've played the hell out of those games.

Yes, you spent money on sequels, continuations of the story. What you didn't buy was Deathly Hallows and then "bonus" chapters made available to you for a small fee that were not incorporated into the original book. When you purchased the book, you purchased it knowing that you were getting the FULL work and not just a partial piece, and that if, in the small chance, something were to be added to the book later, surely it would be free of charge as you purchased your product with the assurance that you were getting a full and finished item.

The same goes for Star Gate. You purchased complete seasons that will slowly allow you to compile a complete series. How would you feel if two years after you get the COMPLETE (Complete meaning every single last episode made in the entire show.) series they release never before seen episodes on new dvds. That alone makes what you purchased incomplete and therefore they are going against what they printed saying you were purchasing the complete seasons/series. Wouldn't you be a little tiffed at them for misleading you by saying you were getting a complete season when in fact you were only getting partial content and now being charged for the fully finished product after the fact?

I can't help but feel that the price tag of $60 dollars was put on the product to cover production cost AND future DLC. There was mention made that there might be future content for the game before it was even released. Nothing was said that it would be made available for a small fee. Of course nothing was said that they wouldn't charge, but still. It was just said that future downloads would be available. They never mentioned a monetary sum. So taking that into account. The everyday gamer, like you and I, can only assume that by making it known before hand that there would be future content available and that there was no mention of a price, that the content would be free to us when released.

Charing for new maps and game types is like charging for patches and security updates and expecting users to buy them because there was a demand for it. When a company releases these updates they don't charge for them, why? Because they are saying "hey you purchased a full and complete game. These faults prevent it from being such so here, we are fixing it free of charge". I feel the same goes for when they release extra maps and content. The act of releasing the new maps voids out the fact that you bought a complete game because without this new content you now have an incomplete product.

I feel though that we are going on a tangent that has left the original subject matter. Really, the price of a game and its worth is subjective only to the one purchasing the game. They deem, in the end, whether or not the product is worth their money or not. For the most part I feel that what I have gotten out of my games is worth the $60 dollar tag attached to them. 90% of the games I own have made DLC free of charge and I greatly appreciate that. It breaths new life into the game and really makes me feel like I am getting my money out of my purchase. I will gladly fork over $60 for a game I KNOW is going to be good. Of course that involves me doing research on the game, maybe renting it first or playing it at a friends house to help become a more informed buyer.

[SmackDaddy]

in my experiences, I'd judge GoW and Shadowrun under the same criteria. Gears is utterly worthless offline to me

Well, if you look at it that way, would you buy Gow if it was just the online component as it shipped (no extra maps) for $60.

[KurrptSenate]

now, no

when it was released, that's basically what I did. I even went out and grabbed some points so I could grab the maps early.

for shadowrun, I waited till i could get the game around 30 bucks. I knew it was no where near as popular as gears and it would drop

[Suprmallet]

The same goes for Star Gate. You purchased complete seasons that will slowly allow you to compile a complete series. How would you feel if two years after you get the COMPLETE (Complete meaning every single last episode made in the entire show.) series they release never before seen episodes on new dvds. That alone makes what you purchased incomplete and therefore they are going against what they printed saying you were purchasing the complete seasons/series. Wouldn't you be a little tiffed at them for misleading you by saying you were getting a complete season when in fact you were only getting partial content and now being charged for the fully finished product after the fact?

Didn't they just do this with Babylon 5?

[zero]

I'm a cheap bastard, but I'll tell ya, if Soul Caliber 4 was only coming out on the PS3, I would have paid about 550 to get it

I was thinking the same thing myself! :lol:

[Draven]

For those that think these will lead to $70 games, you're right.

Just like we now have $300-600 consoles. And $50 controllers. And 6 different SKUs for one system.

If it gets too expensive, it'll tank (see PS3) and if people can still afford it, it'll stick right there.

Games were right around the $50 price point for most of my 30 years of life, and yes I had a friend that paid $85 for Strider on the Genesis. The fact that they finally officially jumped up $10 isn't going to break the bank. I think it will be awhile before they go any higher.

[rennervision]

I know one of the advantages to a console is lower cost compared to a PC. However, I can honestly say as a PC gamer I never spend over $20 for a title. Sure I might have to wait for a coupon, or a Google checkout promotion, or a day after Thanksgiving sale on Amazon, or an announcement on cheapassgamer. But I absolutely, positively never spend over $20 on a title before adding tax and shipping. And these are for new current generation games - FEAR, STALKER, Supreme Commander, etc, etc. Just compare prices for Rainbow Six Vegas on Amazon right now - $59.99 for PS3 or $19.99 for PC.

I'm not sure if there are similar deals to be found in console gaming. But I think the money I save on software makes up for a higher-priced rig. I heartily agree with the OP - I would never spend $60 on a game.

[taffer]

I know one of the advantages to a console is lower cost compared to a PC. However, I can honestly say as a PC gamer I never spend over $20 for a title. Sure I might have to wait for a coupon, or a Google checkout promotion, or a day after Thanksgiving sale on Amazon, or an announcement on cheapassgamer. But I absolutely, positively never spend over $20 on a title before adding tax and shipping. And these are for new current generation games - FEAR, STALKER, Supreme Commander, etc, etc. Just compare prices for Rainbow Six Vegas on Amazon right now - $59.99 for PS3 or $19.99 for PC.

The reason PC game prices drop so much more rapidly is because there are fewer PC gamers relative to console gamers. Halo, GTA, etc will sell well for a year straight with no price dropped needed to fuel the demand. A good PC game will sell for a month or two, then drop off the radar completely unless the price drops to get the demand back up.

[sracer]

I know one of the advantages to a console is lower cost compared to a PC. However, I can honestly say as a PC gamer I never spend over $20 for a title. Sure I might have to wait for a coupon, or a Google checkout promotion, or a day after Thanksgiving sale on Amazon, or an announcement on cheapassgamer. But I absolutely, positively never spend over $20 on a title before adding tax and shipping. And these are for new current generation games - FEAR, STALKER, Supreme Commander, etc, etc. Just compare prices for Rainbow Six Vegas on Amazon right now - $59.99 for PS3 or $19.99 for PC.

I'm not sure if there are similar deals to be found in console gaming. But I think the money I save on software makes up for a higher-priced rig. I heartily agree with the OP - I would never spend $60 on a game.
You DO spend $60 on a game... it just isn't attached to the game itself. It is built in to the expense of a gaming rig. Spend $300-$500 on a PC capable of next-gen gaming and then let's talk about game prices. Over the course of 12-18 months, my pc-gaming friends spend as much on upgrading their graphics cards as I spent on my 360 console.

Then they whine and complain about driver glitches and game bugs.

I'd rather pay $60 for a game and know that it will work, or at least if there is a bug it will universally affect all, than to spend $20 on a PC game and then spend an evening trying to get the game to work because a new driver or graphics card is required.... or that there is perhaps some other system-specific issue that prevents the game from running.

[Lastblade]

PC gaming is certainly expensive. A 2 year old videocard (even top of the line at purchase) just isn't going to cut it. That's why I decided to forget PC gaming and go console exclusive. PC gamers have almost as much fun getting 165fps in the latest game as playing it. :D

[GreenMonkey]

You DO spend $60 on a game... it just isn't attached to the game itself. It is built in to the expense of a gaming rig. Spend $300-$500 on a PC capable of next-gen gaming and then let's talk about game prices. Over the course of 12-18 months, my pc-gaming friends spend as much on upgrading their graphics cards as I spent on my 360 console.

Then they whine and complain about driver glitches and game bugs.

I'd rather pay $60 for a game and know that it will work, or at least if there is a bug it will universally affect all, than to spend $20 on a PC game and then spend an evening trying to get the game to work because a new driver or graphics card is required.... or that there is perhaps some other system-specific issue that prevents the game from running.

PC gaming is not that expensive. I've been running a $120 x850xt for about a year and a half now, and before that I used a $40 x800 card I ran for a year. Before that I used a 9800pro for $160 that lasted me almost 3 years.

The folks that are spending uber bucks are trying to run games at native rez on huge LCDs. I guarantee you I'll be running Quake Wars on my x850xt and socket 754 rig (first Athlon 64 socket) this October. And including some mini-upgrades I did (and selling old parts) I've probably spent under $600 on it total in the past 4 years.

I might be running Quake Wars not at 1920x1200 like I like to run Civ 4 and Unreal Tourney 2004, but perhaps 1440x900 or 1600x1024.

Video card expenditures only cost you if you're trying to play ultra high rez and high AA. A smart ~$200ish video card purchase is normally good for 2-3 years, and lately I've been doing more like $150.

And by the way: no crashes, no glitches, no problems. In fact, I'd say it's more stable for games than my Xbox360 is. The only problem I hit in years was a copy protection (Safedisk) problem with Civ4: Beyond the Sword. Stupid copy protection.

[rennervision]

You DO spend $60 on a game... it just isn't attached to the game itself. It is built in to the expense of a gaming rig. Spend $300-$500 on a PC capable of next-gen gaming and then let's talk about game prices.

Well, I'll admit I spent around $1,000 on my last machine. (And that was after building it myself to save money.) But the way I see it is this - I spent about $500 more than a console. If I pay a difference in $40 per game title, I basically break even after about 12 games. So if I'm going to buy at least that many games for this generation (which I'm sure I have already), it becomes a matter of personal preference whether I would want to do my gaming on a console or a PC.

Now - if you add to the fact that these days everyone needs a PC, it becomes a no-brainer for me. Do I want to buy a cheap $500 PC and a $500 console, or spend $1,000 on a PC that does both?

[fujishig]

There are people here complaining that a game like Madden comes out every year and you have to buy a full new game when all that was needed was an update. Then you have people complaining that games come out that get small, paid updates instead of releasing them as full fledged special editions or sequels.

The DLC stuff is a slippery slope... how much was left out of the original game to milk the gaming public? But they also run the risk of ticking off the customer base who won't buy the game at all because of the lack of initial content. I think the GOW thing works well, if you want the map packs for free, you'll get them eventually. I'm much less forgiving about something like Guitar Hero, or the whole EA interview about this stuff.

As far as the DVD analogy... this is usually much, much worse. You'll buy the original version of a DVD, then they'll release a special director's cut edition with exclusive material.

As for the whole 13 inch tv... I agree, if you're playing on a 13 inch tv, $60 games are not worth it.

[Mr. Cinema]

To those who are mentioning the sometimes higher cost back in the day for cartridge games, how much did it cost to manufacture a cartridge compared to a disc? Higher?

[mbs]

To those who are mentioning the sometimes higher cost back in the day for cartridge games, how much did it cost to manufacture a cartridge compared to a disc? Higher?

According to Wikipedia: N64 cart = $3.50 cost to make, PS disc = $0.10.

Source. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_video_game_consoles_(fifth_generation))

[fujishig]

What about a BluRay disc, though?

I thought it was mainly the premium that first party companies like Nintendo charged the 3rd party companies to make the cartridges that was the main cost.

[Suprmallet]

Blu-rays cost more, but Sony is subsidizing their manufacture.

[mr.snowmizer]

In the last few posts, I hope nobody's trying to justify certain types of costs with prices.

First of all, prices don't need to be justified in this manner. If a publisher has a game we're more than happy to spend $60 on, what difference does it make whether they ran a stunningly efficient, talented operation or a bloated, poorly-run one behind the scenes?

And second, there's zero point breaking out the costs of the direct, physical goods of a cartridge vs disc when we all know every other development cost has shot through the roof to absolutely ridiculous levels (example: $30 million for Stranglehold?!?).

[mr.snowmizer]

After re-reading the last few posts, it looks like I may have read more into an innocent, inquisitive question than was actually there.

The previously-linked source understates cartridge costs, though. I distinctly remember a $35 figure as the cost of each N64 cartridge produced, but this may have included everything, including Nintendo's licensing fees. Backing this up, in another wikipedia location, there was this...

"The cost of producing an N64 cartridge was far higher than producing a CD: one gaming magazine at the time cited average costs of twenty-five dollars per cartridge, versus 10 cents per CD."

So I think this says more about the quality of wikipedia info than anything.

I'm sure one could google up a link to a more direct, authoritive page on the subject, if so desired.

[DodgingCars]

After re-reading the last few posts, it looks like I may have read more into an innocent, inquisitive question than was actually there.

The previously-linked source understates cartridge costs, though. I distinctly remember a $35 figure as the cost of each N64 cartridge produced, but this may have included everything, including Nintendo's licensing fees. Backing this up, in another wikipedia location, there was this...

"The cost of producing an N64 cartridge was far higher than producing a CD: one gaming magazine at the time cited average costs of twenty-five dollars per cartridge, versus 10 cents per CD."

So I think this says more about the quality of wikipedia info than anything.

I'm sure one could google up a link to a more direct, authoritive page on the subject, if so desired.

Might not be Wiki's fault -- as they could both be cited with sources that have 2 different figures.

[Artman]

Still kicking myself for spending $70 on Super Return of the Jedi...

Rising costs of development (longer dev time, salaries, etc) - it happens. For the hrs you can get out of a game, it can be worth it. You just have to pick and choose, or wait for a price drop.