1 dollar = 1 hour should be the standard pricepoint for vidya
>>288974078
Then we'll just get padding.
>>288974078
>this is what casuals actually think
>>288974078
Yay for more cisquisition style bullshit filler?
>>288974078
I can't tell if this is a joke or if you really are that retarded.
>>288974078
Bullshit, they'll just take on MP and claim it provides "thousands of hours of gameplay"
>achievement unlocked: collect 999999 coins
>playtime: 350 hrs
>>288974078
You really wanna pay $200 for FF13?
>paying more than $35 for a game
>2015
>>288974281
> he enjoys paying $60 to watch a movie
I'm not gonna pay 400$ for Monster Hunter.
>>288974078
>action games cost next to nothing
>RPG games cost your life savings
Shit system.
>All hours of gameplay are equal
>>288974078
Fuck, that's like 1200$ per monster hunter for me
>>288974078
An hour of what though?
>game play
>cutscenes
>qte
>dialogue
>music
Are all parts of vidya worth the same dollar amount?
>>288974494
why'd you replace the original text with memetext
>>288974078
Spoole is that you?!
>>288974078
How would that be enforced?
A speedrun?
A completionist run?
Always-online that charges you a dollar for every hour you play?
So Bloodbourne would be 40c?
>>288974078
>average LoL/DOTA playtime
>1000-2000 hours
lol
>>288974732
What is inflation.
>>288974078
>The witcher 3 would cost 200 dollars
Hahaha yeah
>>288974494
computer games used to be $60 and they still are, immune to inflation how what why okay cool
>>288974078
>paying 1000 dollars for strategy games
top kek
>>288974469
>200h for FF13
You're bad at videogames and your choices of videogames
I'm rather have 10 hours of non-stop great game than 60 hours of mediocrity with occasional moments of good. I've never seen a game that had a straight 40+ hours of gameplay not slow to a crawl and become extremely boring most of the time.
>>288974078
This is retarded
I do believe tho that games that provides less than 5 hours of gameplay should be under 25 dollars otherwise be open to legal action
>>288974623
but you'll get 2 hours for every buck you spend on it
Journey
$2
I can live with that.
This only makes sense at the highest possible end of the spectrum. $60 for 60 hours of gameplay. But a 100 hour game should cost $100? Should something like MGR cost $5.50 because it's 5 and a half hours long? You are deluded if you think this.
Most games that are that long have huge amounts of padding and using that system would only make it worse.
>>288974986
>people keep on paying $60
>still paying $60
Back then there's only thousands of gamers and hardware was also more expensive. Today, they don't have that excuse.
I dare even to say pixel graphics game before was harder to make than AAA games today.
>>288974078
>played Demon Souls for 50 hours
>paid 15 bucks for it
>play Mountain Blade and Killing Floor for 200+ hours
>paid like 10 bucks for them
>play League of Legends and Team Fortress 2 for 1000+ hours each
>paid nothing for LoL and 5 bucks for TF2
I think you should pay for a game if you enjoy it and want to give money to the developers, and you shouldn't care about how much the price is as long as you think you got a good deal.
I played Evolve for dozens of hours for free and it was very fun, but I would understand why would someone get upset about paying 100 dollars for that game. But some people will think it's worth it.
>This becomes price system
>devs start to pad games with millions of pointless sections
>purposely increased loading times
>unskippable cutscenes
>very slow crawling text
>every game is £150
sounds good to me
>>288975265
>less than 5 hours of gameplay should be under 25 dollars
Are you high
>>288974986
>retards keep paying 60 dollars
The average Steam consumer actually waits for games to be on sale and end up paying much less. Not to mention that many new games like Cities Skylines cost like 30 dollars on launch.
>$0.44 for Bloodborne
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TO0KxiHxK5A
>>288974986
the price stays the same because the overall cost tends to remain static thanks to the rate of technological advancements, so modern games require the same amount of time/money as older games but with a different, more advanced process
i.e. the price only appears to be "immune" to inflation because the quality of the game has remained at a near-constant parallel
older games cost the same price as they do now because the development effort was approximately the same
No because I could have more fun with a short game than a long game. What's the point in having a 100 hour game if it's not fun 80% of the time? Also implying that a game needs to be long to be worthwhile is ignorant. Fun factor is what matters.
Should a game be 4-5 hours? No. Should every game be 60 fucking hours? Absolutely not.
>>288974078
>AAA games
>only 4-6 dollars
What a wonderful world would that be.
>>288975513
Rising is 7 dollars on Amazon.
>>288975931
Not him
The Phantom Pain will be the first game I pay full price for
>>288975958
What is math
>>288975631
>I dare even to say pixel graphics game before was harder to make than AAA games today.
It required some skilled people working on them but teams were a LOT smaller back then.
Compare the credits of FF6 to FF7 even and you will see that there's a huge difference.
Game development costs went up. Nobody can deny that.
I once had a better article but I cant find it. This here is still good though.
http://vgsales.wikia.com/wiki/Video_game_costs
>Nintendo's own Reggie Fils-Aime states developing games for the Nintendo DS is cheap, costing only a few hundreds of thousands of dollars to develop and only needing to sell 100k units to make a profit. Wii games require about $5-10 million in the average case, including marketing costs. He asserts PS3 and X360 games need much more resources, from $20 million up to a staggering $50 million with sales of 1.3 to 1.5 million units to make money on them
Its one of the reasons why there's less 3DS games than we had on the DS.
Its also why we generally see less games and generally less experimental games. Studios cant afford to make duds anymore.
>>288975961
That post is completely wrong and retarded.
>>288974880
The funny thing is I know people that have spent over $1000 on LoL
>playtime = value
>>288976031
>Call of Duty
>hundreds of millions of dollars
>sold for like $5
top lel, no one would make high budget video games anymore unless they were extremely long lasting, so it would take years upon years for sequels (and especially new IPs) to be ready for launch in order to make the development time worth it
>>288976201
>Game development costs went up. Nobody can deny that.
Yeah, marketing got more aggressive.
>>288976145
You Kojimadrones are free to do whatever they want.
Given how GZ gameplay was such a downgrade compared with MGS4 I don't see how people are willing to pay so much for it.
Tfw Funhaus isn't as fun as IG.
>>288974078
>Spoole
>Knowing anything
>>288976395
No its not just marketing you faggot nigger.
SHUT UP SPOOLE
>>288976303
>spent over $1000 on LoL
How is that even possible?
>>288976471
It's not that bad, it's better than nothing
>>288976295
i didn't say it right
basically the product changes but the market doesn't because that's what the developers and consumers feel is the proper price point
N64 games used to be expensive as fuck but now they're cheap as shit because they're old
so while "computer games" have always been $60, the type of product has changed over time
the original guy i was replying to was basically assuming that older games never become more or less expensive over time, as if their value is stuck at a fixed rate through some miracle of economics and not because the market simply made it that way at the time...he forgot to take the era into account
>>288976358
The average CoD player plays the multiplayer for like 50 hours.
>>288976662
>N64 games used to be expensive as fuck but now they're cheap as shit
http://www.amazon.com/Conkers-Bad-Fur-Day-Nintendo-64/dp/B00004U1R2/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1427820505&sr=8-2&keywords=conker
>>288976649
I liked their daily news videos.
And them just doing random races with their actual fanbase who'd show up every week.
>>288976675
which would justify the high budget, yes, that was my point
replayability and extremely long stories would be the standard techniques in game design if we priced everything at $1 per estimated hour of gameplay
>>288976786
http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B00000F1GM/ref=dp_olp_0?ie=UTF8&condition=all
your point?
>>288976594
I spent $20 on LoL once to get a hero pack that was just released, ended up never playing her because everyone even friends on skype would insta-lock her because she was new, waste of money.
I do not understand how people spend money on that game.
If you're speaking strictly through a standard run of the game, that's dumb.
A game like Dark Souls can be beaten in a few hours if you're somewhat savvy but that game has hundreds of hours of replay value and fun to be had. I had 400 hours alone in DaS1 even though I beat the game the first time in like, 6 hours. That's an unfair standard.
A game like Skyrim to be which is a 30+ hour game isn't worth as much as DaS even though it has more content and more gameplay hours through a first run because it's not nearly as fun or engaging. In fact the main game of Skyrim is pretty mediocre and quickly became modding fodder for me.
What about multiplayer focused games, how do even gauge that? I beat the Bad Company 2 campaign in a few hours but i have like 1000 hours in the multiplayer, how do you price that out? Or a "game" like Garry's Mod where it's just endless fucking around?
>>288976818
Yeah but some games would be shit if they were made longer. Portal doesn't need to last 60 hours.
Games like Mount & Blade can be played for hundreds of hours and yet they sold it for less than 20 bucks.
Your system is shit.
>>288976810
Yeah, I really want roostershit to let them do their daily news again, twice a week is not enough.
>>288976954
i never said the system was good, retard, i just said it would be amusing to watch the devs scramble to figure this shit out
i'm not the OP
>>288976562
Try working as a dev and say that again. I'm sure if there's any dev here they would agree with me.
I'm 100% sure management and adverts get more cash than us.
>>288976662
Games cost the same because publishers expect more sales nowadays.
Its why games like Tomb Raider that sold 3mil and more ended up being financial failures.
In PS2 times that many sales wouldve been considered huge.
>>288976914
>new from $139.99
>140 dollars for a game that is 19 years old
I guess consoleplebs have always been a cancer on the industry.
>>288977028
>to watch the devs scramble to figure this shit out
Look at Battlefield Hardline and Evolve charging 100 dollars on launch.
>288976996
>>288977124
it's in mint condition and no longer in production, of course it's gonna be expensive because collector's value them at those prices
that's why that other faggot linked conker at $500 like it meant something in the context of this discussion
>>288977032
You're pretty stupid for being a dev in the industry, if you even are that.
You havent even read my post properly and you DEFINITELY didnt check my link.
Less than 40 people worked on a game like FF6.
Now compare this to a modern game
http://www.gamefaqs.com/ps3/928790-final-fantasy-xiii/credit
Look at this. Thats like 300 people. Not only that but development takes longer too. All these people need to be paid.
Inflation is a thing too.
If you cant see why this leads to higher development costs then you're beyond saving.
>>288976040
It wasn't at launch though was it buddy
>>288974078
>thousands of dollars on street fighter and smash bros
How about a cap on that?
So KIngdoms of Amalur should have cost 300 dollars?
>i'd have to buy more than 2000$ worth of hats
>>288974078
Contrary to everyone else, I agree with this statement and it's one (of many) criteria I go by to determine game quality. But keep in mind the 1:1 is 1:1 of quality playtime, not grinding or filler shit. It's also one of the reasons I don't enjoy going to the movies much. I put a high value on time and I'm frugal with money. That and I've never played a short game that was was overly enjoyable enough to warrant the price tag. But some games are short but with high replayability and that's fine with me (i.e. Viewtiful Joe is one of my all time favorite games).
>>288978165
I'm assuming "at least 1:1". If you pay 50 usd for a game, you should get at least 50 hours of enjoyable gametime if not more.
>>288974078
So are you saying I should pay a thousand dollars for Monster Hunter?
You should have to pay your games in minimum wage per hour
>>288978661
So basically you're just a poorfag.
>>288978416
if you willingly played that piece of shit knowing EA was behind it, then yes you deserve to be gouged 300 fucking dollars you ignorant scumbag
>Play Bioshock Infinite for 6 hours (finished it)
>The10$ I paid felt like too high of a price
I feel you nigga.
