View Full Version : What price do you put on gaming entertainment?
This is a spin-off of a couple posts in a Citadel thread (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=94304). I made the following comments, and Odin indicated in response that he had a similar point of view on game value:
I'm always desperate for new games to play and $50-$60 doesn't mean a whole lot to me, so buying it is a no-brainer. I pay $10 (not including popcorn) just to watch a movie that lasts 2 hours. Even the buggiest TW release has far more than 10 hours of entertainment in it, so it pays off IMO.
The more I think about this, the more confused I get by the collective perception of the gaming community that we are being cheated out of money when we buy buggy games. I can think of many forms of entertainment that far exceed even a mediocre game in cost per hour of entertainment value analysis. Few games provide anything less than 10 hours of total entertainment value, even when they have crippling bugs, and most are around 20 hours if you never play them a second time. Games that allow for immense replayability, like Diablo 2, Starcraft, Total War, Civilization, etc., can easily rack up hundreds of hours of playtime.
Compare this to other areas of entertainment. Movies in the US tend to cost $7 to $10 just for admission per person and double that if you buy food. Tickets to professional sports games are usually a minimum of $50 per person, and usually more, ramping up into the hundreds of dollars for good seats. Both of these forms of entertainment are far shorter than even the briefest and buggiest single-player-only computer game, and thus have a far lower return on entertainment value. Compare the cost also to gambling. Those people who enjoy gambling would usually consider $50 an almost negligible amount to spend at the tables and even playing low-yield slots would not produce more than 10 hours of entertainment. A single night out at a bar with my friends can easily cost me $50 in food and drinks that would otherwise not have been purchased, and it is rare indeed for that to last 10 hours (and if it does, extra money must be added on for painkillers in the morning). Many of us buy our favorite movies on DVD for $15 to $20, but how many of our DVDs have we watched 5 times? How many have we watched 10 times? Perhaps a few, but likely not the majority. We are thus again spending more per hour of entertainment on these purchases than on even the least entertaining of our PC games.
Why is it then that we demand so much perfection and, sometimes, limitless entertainment, from a product which is already far cheaper than most of our other forms of entertainment? It is worth noting that when I bought the original Nintendo Entertainment System (NES) almost 20 years ago, games cost $50 each. Today games cost $50 to $60 each, a stable pricing scheme that totally defies normal inflation. What is it about gaming that makes us constantly demand more, without expecting a corresponding price increase?
Great post TinCow. :2thumbsup:
I am fully in agreement with your sentiments. What further adds to the benefit is the number of mods that further enhance the game in the direction of particular gamers. I for one am looking forward to the classical era being modded onto M2TW. These mods come at no additional cost to the gamer.
I have spent many of my earlier years playing playstation games and had to move on to the next game at frequent intervals. I can honestly say that now I have a PC and Total War that I never play any other computer games. So in computer gaming terms alone Total War is stopping me buying and playing many other products.
In addition to this Total War can be experienced in many different ways as opposed to other activities. You can get involved in a PBM; write up your own AAR; set your own game goals; or even limit yourself with rules.
It is funny you mentioned gambling. I am a recovering compulsive gambler who has absteined for 6 years on the 26th November this year. I have periods of addiction to Total War but the financial and emotional cost to myself and others thankfully does not compare to that of gambling.
:charge:
Ramses II CP
10-31-2007, 18:04
No hard feelings, but I would prefer that my post was entirely deleted rather than edited without notification. :yes:
If it was taken as an attack on 'a gamecompany' then I apologize. It was not intended as such.
:egypt:
doc_bean
10-31-2007, 18:49
Meh, people pay what they want to pay. I wouldn't buy many games if it weren't for budget titles. I also don't go to the movies much since i consider it a waste of money, same with concerts and in the last few years, going to bars. I don't mind wasting thousands of € on travelling.
What is a *fair* price for a game is a purely subjective issue.
As for buggy games, I agree with Ramses, if you spend money on a product you expect a certain level of quality, if it's not their than you didn't get what you paid for.
Lorenzo_H
10-31-2007, 18:56
The cost of games doesn't take into account that you need a $1000+ computer to run it.
Zenicetus
10-31-2007, 19:10
Why is it then that we demand so much perfection and, sometimes, limitless entertainment, from a product which is already far cheaper than most of our other forms of entertainment? It is worth noting that when I bought the original Nintendo Entertainment System (NES) almost 20 years ago, games cost $50 each. Today games cost $50 to $60 each, a stable pricing scheme that totally defies normal inflation. What is it about gaming that makes us constantly demand more, without expecting a corresponding price increase?
Two points in response:
First, there is an additional cost for computer-based gaming: the hardware requirements. If I wanted to play the new Crysis game and see all the visual goodies, then it becomes a $2,000-$4,000 USD game in hardware upgrades (depending on whether it's a commercial product or a DIY box). Yes, this is spread across other games, but I'm not a rabid gamer. I buy maybe 3 or 4 titles a year, max. And my upgrades these days are driven almost entirely by gaming. I don't need it for email, surfing, or word processing. Even for something like Photoshop, I don't need the kind of rig required for the current and upcoming generation of PC games. So any trickle-down benefits for those other programs is irrelevant.
If I buy 4 games a year, and if I have to replace my gaming PC every two years, that's something like a $375 surcharge per game, to keep up with the hardware requirements. It's actually not that bad because I try to stretch upgrades out to three years, but I know plenty of people on a more rapid cycle. And all it takes is one hot game to "force" an upgrade. Especially when the developers use a game engine that can't ramp down the features enough to allow smooth frame rates, on lower-end hardware.
It's unfortunate, I suppose, that the game developers don't get to share in that income, like the console makers do. But that's irrelevant from the consumer side. We're spending a lot of money on this hobby. We expect quality games to run on that hardware... games that don't waste our time running to forums to research bugs and workarounds, or that make us wait six months for a fully patched-up version.
Our money and our time is valuable. So don't go comparing this to the cost of a movie ticket. We don't have to own the theater and projection equipment to enjoy a night out at the movies.
The second point -- some companies have no direct competition for exactly what they do, but there are other games that compete for our attention. At least a few companies have shown that they can deliver very solid products on release, that don't have to be "fixed" by the user community with modding (Blizzard). Some companies have shown more respect for their customers in not treating them like potential thieves (Stardock). That sets a standard in the industry.
From the customer's perspective, it's natural to expect all companies to rise to those standards, when other companies show it can be done. We'll gladly pay for performance, not excuses.
And the companies that won't live up to that standard (Ubi is on my no buy list right now for what they did with SH4) we'll just avoid.
Regarding the extra expense of owning a computer, I find that to be something of a flawed argument. For pretty much every other entertainment activity I mentioned, there are other expenses required. Most people require a vehicle of some kind for transportation to and from movies, sporting events, etc. Those cost far more than a computer. You can say that the vehicle has multiple uses beyond transportation for that specific entertainment activity, but so does a PC. For watching DVDs, you need to own a television and a DVD player and I don't know about you, but most of the people I know spend lots of money on high-end home theatre systems.
You can certainly identify a PC upgrade cost above and beyond the basic requirements for other PC functions, such as web browsing, word processing, etc, but modern OSs require relatively powerful machines anyway. I doubt that few people spend more than $1000 'above and beyond' their normal spec requirements exclusively to keep their machines 'gaming-capable.' If you truly do spend "$2,000-$4,000 USD" every two years to upgrade your machine, I think you are at the high end of the bell curve. I keep my machine near top of the line and I spend well under $1000 per year.
Regardless, I do not see how this really applies well to the analogy. We do not generally hold the producers of a bad movie accountable for the added cost of the gasoline it takes to get there and back. We do not hold the producers of an unenjoyable HDDVD accountable for the cost of buying an HDDVD player and an HD-capable TV. Why is the added cost of a gaming PC being added onto the faults of software developers?
Zenicetus
10-31-2007, 21:26
We do not generally hold the producers of a bad movie accountable for the added cost of the gasoline it takes to get there and back. We do not hold the producers of an unenjoyable HDDVD accountable for the cost of buying an HDDVD player and an HD-capable TV. Why is the added cost of a gaming PC being added onto the faults of software developers?
Because they keep moving the goalposts, requiring ever-increasing horsepower on a faster upgrade cycle than home entertainment products.
Five years ago I bought a fairly expensive 480p, DLP front projection system for watching DVD's. That was state of the art back then. Now I can get a projector for less money than I paid 5 years ago, with even better performance. But there's no incentive to upgrade, just yet. DVD's are still 480p resolution just like they were 5 years ago, and they still look great on this system. And it's still way too early (IMO) to be investing in what may or may not be the next-gen home theater gear like Blu-Ray or HDVD, when I still get most of my home video through rented Netflix DVD's. The upgrade cycle for computers moves much faster, and it's largely driven by gaming. Nothing else I run requires anywhere near this much horsepower.
BTW, I think the hardware cost isn't always the main reason why people expect better game quality. But it is one reason. It kicks in especially hard when someone does bite the bullet for a major upgrade and buys a hyped new game, only to be disappointed.
Surely then you could say the same thing about PCs? I can manage with my computer which I've had for years just like you can manage with your old DVD player.
Because they keep moving the goalposts, requiring ever-increasing horsepower on a faster upgrade cycle than home entertainment products.
True, but not as much as you make it seem. They keep moving the goalposts for top-of-the-line graphics and performance, but all games can be turned down to lower graphics levels to perform on far lower spec machines. If you tune M2TW back to the lowest graphics levels and reduce the unit size to small, you can run it on a machine 4-5 years old. You may not like the fact that you have to do this, but it still works perfectly fine. Running Half Life 2 at minimum specs still has it looking better than Half Life 1 at maximum specs. If you are satisfied with gaming with low-level graphics, then you can probably get by spending no more than $100 a year on PC upgrades. If you are not satisfied with low-level graphics, then it's not really fair to blame the game developers for the price of your personal preferences. A few months ago I bought a 22" widescreen LCD for my computer. Is it really reasonable for me to add that to the 'cost' of gaming, when my old 19" CRT worked just fine?
TevashSzat
10-31-2007, 22:50
This is a spin-off of a couple posts in a Citadel thread (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=94304). I made the following comments, and Odin indicated in response that he had a similar point of view on game value:
The more I think about this, the more confused I get by the collective perception of the gaming community that we are being cheated out of money when we buy buggy games. I can think of many forms of entertainment that far exceed even a mediocre game in cost per hour of entertainment value analysis. Few games provide anything less than 10 hours of total entertainment value, even when they have crippling bugs, and most are around 20 hours if you never play them a second time. Games that allow for immense replayability, like Diablo 2, Starcraft, Total War, Civilization, etc., can easily rack up hundreds of hours of playtime.
Compare this to other areas of entertainment. Movies in the US tend to cost $7 to $10 just for admission per person and double that if you buy food. Tickets to professional sports games are usually a minimum of $50 per person, and usually more, ramping up into the hundreds of dollars for good seats. Both of these forms of entertainment are far shorter than even the briefest and buggiest single-player-only computer game, and thus have a far lower return on entertainment value. Compare the cost also to gambling. Those people who enjoy gambling would usually consider $50 an almost negligible amount to spend at the tables and even playing low-yield slots would not produce more than 10 hours of entertainment. A single night out at a bar with my friends can easily cost me $50 in food and drinks that would otherwise not have been purchased, and it is rare indeed for that to last 10 hours (and if it does, extra money must be added on for painkillers in the morning). Many of us buy our favorite movies on DVD for $15 to $20, but how many of our DVDs have we watched 5 times? How many have we watched 10 times? Perhaps a few, but likely not the majority. We are thus again spending more per hour of entertainment on these purchases than on even the least entertaining of our PC games.
Why is it then that we demand so much perfection and, sometimes, limitless entertainment, from a product which is already far cheaper than most of our other forms of entertainment? It is worth noting that when I bought the original Nintendo Entertainment System (NES) almost 20 years ago, games cost $50 each. Today games cost $50 to $60 each, a stable pricing scheme that totally defies normal inflation. What is it about gaming that makes us constantly demand more, without expecting a corresponding price increase?
I really must say that you bring up an excellent point here.
The reason then, I suppose, is partially said by Zenicetus in that we complain about games relative to the gaming market. We all know that some companies, with Blizzard comming to mind first, can give you a solid, well balanced, thoroughly tested, bug free game for $50 and few gamers will complain. If you know that some companies can maintain such a high level of standard while still keeping the costs the same, then it makes you wonder why other relatively big companies can't do the same. True, Blizzard has a ton of money and alot of talent, but most gamers would probably be pretty satisfied if their games are even three quaters as polished as Blizzard games.
The reason then, I suppose, is partially said by Zenicetus in that we complain about games relative to the gaming market. We all know that some companies, with Blizzard comming to mind first, can give you a solid, well balanced, thoroughly tested, bug free game for $50 and few gamers will complain. If you know that some companies can maintain such a high level of standard while still keeping the costs the same, then it makes you wonder why other relatively big companies can't do the same. True, Blizzard has a ton of money and alot of talent, but most gamers would probably be pretty satisfied if their games are even three quaters as polished as Blizzard games.
That's a very good point. It might also be a false perception that quality has decreased. Before the Internet was around, the very idea of patching was pretty much non-existent. If there were bugs to be fixed, your only hope was that an expansion pack would be made and that it would address the problem. At the same time, most people were probably not aware of the bugs in the first place. There were no online forums that listed all the bugs. Thus, unless you personally encountered one, you went about your life blissfully ignorant of the game's flaws.
Thus, even though games are probably not any buggier now than they ever were, we are more aware of the bugs and thus perceive a false decrease in quality. Combine that with comparisons to 'high quality' game developers like Blizzard, and a general sense of disgruntlement emerges.
[Edited as requested by Tosa]
Zenicetus
11-01-2007, 00:14
True, but not as much as you make it seem. They keep moving the goalposts for top-of-the-line graphics and performance, but all games can be turned down to lower graphics levels to perform on far lower spec machines.
Not all games can be turned down to run acceptably. It depends on where you are in the upgrade curve, and what type of game we're talking about. I can play some strategy games and turn-based RPG's on a snail-crawl frame rate. OTOH, I tried the Far Cry demo when that game was first released, and it was unplayable at any setting on the computer I had before this current one. Not being picky... it was unplayable. High frame rates are more important with a FPS or flight sim, and some of us are interested in those types of games. From what I understand, it would be a waste of time to for me to buy MS Flight Simulator X with my current hardware. You can't land a plane smoothly in a crosswind at 10 frames per second.
One other point.... a PC game is the only entertainment product where different people get a different quality of experience depending on their hardware level. That doesn't happen when you rent a movie DVD, or listen to an audio CD. or loads a game on a console like an Xbox. With those products, everyone gets the same experience for their money. This builds in a strong expectation of a quality gaming experience when someone actually does spend the money to see and use all the features in a PC game.
At the same time, it ramps up the expectations of people with lower-end hardware -- "well, shoot... I can't see all the fancy graphics, at least the gameplay had better be good!"
I'm just pointing out that the buyer psychology is a little different here, and the game developers have been encouraging this by pushing eye candy ahead of quality game content.
Papewaio
11-01-2007, 01:00
Entertainment is a luxury good therefore it's pricing model is far more fluid then say your needs basket (bread, milk, water etc).
I used to compare my entertainment money to that of a good book.
A movie just out at the cinemas and a new book are on parity. I get a lot more time out of the books and sometimes more discussion value. But I do normally get the bonus of sharing my movie experience as movies are more widely seen.
With movies I generally compare Directors and/or writers. The cast aren't as good an indication of the quality of the film.
With books I buy based on authour. I might avoid certain publishers if an alternative version of the book is published somewhere else, as certain publishers books are relatively poor quality. Or it means I will not buy the hardback and wait for the softcover, and sometimes I'll wait until it is in the smaller softcover version.
Computer games tend to be less social for me (because my line of work makes it hard to commit to MP online) with the exception of console games in which I can just pick up and leave (which means those games that do not allow one to save on the go are left behind).
Games in Aus cost about $100 for new release (although right now our dollar is 0.93 of the US it has for years be treated as if it was $0.5) and drops to about $80 then $50 when it hits the bin... a really longtime and a popular title will be 2 for $50.
Games are not up to the same production standards as books or movies. So although they might give me a longer play time the start up is considerably more (I can flip open a book and read a paragraph for easier then fight a battle online). And the quality per game is far more of a variable then a book authour. With buying games I take a higher risk. If I do find a great game it can last a long long time.
Geoffrey S
11-01-2007, 01:13
Like almost anything in this high-speed internet era, people expect perfection and they expect it now; any mistake most would be happy to ignore or not even notice is ballooned out of all proportion via the internet. By and large, companies try to meet such expectations through patches, and considering the scale of computer games both in terms of development as in the long length of use compared to such media forms as movies and music I think the prices are reasonable.
That said, I can no longer afford them. But then it's a matter of cutting back on a luxury, not a necessity; certainly not a reason to download illegally.
Tincow, I suspect for people in your stage of life, the true price of gaming entertainment is your time. Work out how much time you spend playing a title and multiply it by your hourly rate. :scared: For a great game, the price on the box will seem like peanuts in comparison.
doc_bean
11-01-2007, 09:38
Tincow, I suspect for people in your stage of life, the true price of gaming entertainment is your time. Work out how much time you spend playing a title and multiply it by your hourly rate. :scared: For a great game, the price on the box will seem like peanuts in comparison.
Not really valid reasoning here. If you wouldn't be playing games at a time you might be, you probably wouldn't be working but doing some other leisure activity. The main cost is leisure time, not how you spend it. It should only be counted with the cost of gaming if you actually take time off/work less specifically for gaming purposes.
Besides, that only applies if you get overtime pay (or are generally paid by the hour), I don't know what TinCow does for a living, but I know a lot of people who aren't paid by the hour (like myself for instance). If you don't have the option of making money in the time you play games, you don't 'lose' the money you could earn by working by playing them.
I buy a lot but I only buy a few games at release, new metroid new zelda, big releases. I usually wait for the price to drop, which usually happens after a few months.
Doc Bean - I was being slightly tongue in cheek.
But economists do typically value time - even leisure time - at the wage rate, for those people who work. It's not strictly appropriate for some people who can't easily vary the time, as you say - for them, you'd have to work out a hypothetical wage (the lowest wage they would trade for an hour of leisure).
There is something of a big truth in my jest though. Personally, I don't worry too much about the monetary cost of games - it is the time they take that is a more significant cost to me.
It's one reason I can't be bothered with demos anymore - the time taken to download and learn how to play the thing without a manual isn't worth it. If I am going to invest the time needed to learn a game (and I usually go for complex ones), then I may as well buy the full thing.
doc_bean
11-01-2007, 13:08
Doc Bean - I was being slightly tongue in cheek.
But economists do typically value time - even leisure time - at the wage rate, for those people who work. It's not strictly appropriate for some people who can't easily vary the time, as you say - for them, you'd have to work out a hypothetical wage (the lowest wage they would trade for an hour of leisure).
I know, I just felt like being pedantic :jester:
There is something of a big truth in my jest though. Personally, I don't worry too much about the monetary cost of games - it is the time they take that is a more significant cost to me.
It's one reason I can't be bothered with demos anymore - the time taken to download and learn how to play the thing without a manual isn't worth it. If I am going to invest the time needed to learn a game (and I usually go for complex ones), then I may as well buy the full thing.
It's the reason I usually can't be bothered with PC games anymore, too much hassle with patches, updates, reinstalling and the risk of not being able to play at all.
Bob the Insane
11-01-2007, 16:10
The cost of gaming software is the main reason I have so much trouble with the "boycott until it's fixed" line... Boycotting is logical but relative to my earnings, $40-60 just really is not very much. Heck, avoid going out to dinner or to the bar and buy a game instead and I am saving money!
It is an interesting arguement, at $40-50 a pop are we actually getting our money's worth when the software is not 100% (or even 80%)?
I mean compare this to the average business software license of like $200 per user and/or $10,000 per server, or way more for serious stuff...
The upgrading of hardware is something i do to stay with the leading edge of the technical curve because I like doing it, not because a particular game demanded it.
I have a Sony HD 46" LCD and it is 720p/1080i and it is killing me that it is not 1080p... If it was not for the wife I would have traded in asap...
I have my limits though... My PC is Core2 Extreme Dual core with the 8800GTX (etc, etc) but I can't justify to my self having dual Gfx cards (SLI) and getting a Quad core CPU because of the large cash outlay compared to the small improvement...
I value my entertainment in the $1000's but not in the $10,000's...
This means the gaming falls nicely into my price range...
Papewaio
11-01-2007, 23:57
I mean compare this to the average business software license of like $200 per user and/or $10,000 per server, or way more for serious stuff...
Try mission critical business equipment. Even with volume discounts its more like $1000 per license, $400 per annum in license fees plus high end specialist hardware.
But that is like comparing a football stadium for professionals with a couple of mates playing in the backyard.
This is a spin-off of a couple posts in a Citadel thread (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=94304). I made the following comments, and Odin indicated in response that he had a similar point of view on game value:
The more I think about this, the more confused I get by the collective perception of the gaming community that we are being cheated out of money when we buy buggy games. I can think of many forms of entertainment that far exceed even a mediocre game in cost per hour of entertainment value analysis. Few games provide anything less than 10 hours of total entertainment value, even when they have crippling bugs, and most are around 20 hours if you never play them a second time. Games that allow for immense replayability, like Diablo 2, Starcraft, Total War, Civilization, etc., can easily rack up hundreds of hours of playtime.
Compare this to other areas of entertainment. Movies in the US tend to cost $7 to $10 just for admission per person and double that if you buy food. Tickets to professional sports games are usually a minimum of $50 per person, and usually more, ramping up into the hundreds of dollars for good seats. Both of these forms of entertainment are far shorter than even the briefest and buggiest single-player-only computer game, and thus have a far lower return on entertainment value. Compare the cost also to gambling. Those people who enjoy gambling would usually consider $50 an almost negligible amount to spend at the tables and even playing low-yield slots would not produce more than 10 hours of entertainment. A single night out at a bar with my friends can easily cost me $50 in food and drinks that would otherwise not have been purchased, and it is rare indeed for that to last 10 hours (and if it does, extra money must be added on for painkillers in the morning). Many of us buy our favorite movies on DVD for $15 to $20, but how many of our DVDs have we watched 5 times? How many have we watched 10 times? Perhaps a few, but likely not the majority. We are thus again spending more per hour of entertainment on these purchases than on even the least entertaining of our PC games.
Why is it then that we demand so much perfection and, sometimes, limitless entertainment, from a product which is already far cheaper than most of our other forms of entertainment? It is worth noting that when I bought the original Nintendo Entertainment System (NES) almost 20 years ago, games cost $50 each. Today games cost $50 to $60 each, a stable pricing scheme that totally defies normal inflation. What is it about gaming that makes us constantly demand more, without expecting a corresponding price increase?
I think what has to be a major consideration in the discussion is resource allocation of the consumer, I am fortunate to be able to purcahse any game I want at any time at the 60 doallr range.
Some arent, and thus the demand and emotional response from some due to bugs and lack of support. Also as I have said in the thread you referenced there is a collective industry effort (IMHO) to promote fan boards, fan mods, and fan fixes. That has the effect of increasing awareness of game mechanics, and discussions on what can and cant be modded.
So you get a bit of that spill over as well, customers expect the game to be polished because there are so many polishing agents avialable outside the development process. The total war games are truly gems, They are spectacular IMHO. However most gems do have flaws. The important thing is that consumption of goods and services is an undervalued indvidual power that we all have the ability to enact.
Understanding the power of your consumption and how it affects the industry and retail outfit you chose to frequent should be an obligation of the consumer, not a blind faith given. Hence why a lot of complaints of bugs in products lack credability, given the very public reality of the gaming industry.
Lorenzo_H
11-02-2007, 14:47
I buy a lot but I only buy a few games at release, new metroid new zelda, big releases. I usually wait for the price to drop, which usually happens after a few months.
Thats exactly what I do as well. The only problem is that some publishers (Microsoft) actually never lower the price!
TevashSzat
11-03-2007, 02:23
Also as I have said in the thread you referenced there is a collective industry effort (IMHO) to promote fan boards, fan mods, and fan fixes. That has the effect of increasing awareness of game mechanics, and discussions on what can and cant be modded.
I think he brings up an excellent point.
Most of us who watch movies rarely read all of the critic reviews and even if we do, we rarely will always agree with them. There are tons of movies out their that may be the favorite movie for a large portion of people, but received lackluster reviews. Just look at the Oscars here in the US, many of best director awards goes to directors of movies that few have seen and few have really liked yet received great critical review.
The gaming community is simply more perceptible of critic opinions and as a result, of the bugs that we might never notice just playing by ourselves.
Azi Tohak
11-04-2007, 13:58
What is it about gaming that makes us constantly demand more, without expecting a corresponding price increase?
Shhhh... you're not supposed to point out how silly we are.
But you're right. However, despite getting adult paychecks, I still think like a college kid, where $50 could be food for two weeks. (Yeah right, I always ate well.) So for me, it is the initial impact of forking over $50 for a game (only rarely do I pay more than that [Suikoden II and Disgaea]). For me that is the whole cost thing. To be sure, when I was a kid a $15 game had better be worth it, and now that I'm (sort-of) an adult, a $50 better be worth it. But defining 'worth' is a whole other issue.
I do consider console costs. I don't think there will be enough games for the PS3 to make the $600 worth while, but the Wii and it's $250 seems like a steal (inspite of the graphics). But again, that is me.
Azi
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.