Top
190°

Halo 4: The End of an Overpriced Era?

Halo 4's a great game. 343 Industries proved it understood what made the franchise great and added a few wrinkles of its own to create an excellent experience. That said, the game still isn't worth $60.

Read Full Story >>
dpaddbags.com
The story is too old to be commented.
Robochobo1387d ago

This is true in some sense of the word, but the only thing that would make this happen is an all digital future. However you see the likes of EA's origin charging full retail prices for digital games, and you wonder if they are really interested in anything other than making a profit. The author also states that video games are a luxury which is true, but when you don't have enough money to afford the things you need, what do you do? You drop the luxuries and pay for the essentials, waiting for a price drop isn't going to kill you, and neither is waiting for the game to hit bargain bin prices.

beerkeg1387d ago

An article where the author cries about the price of games.

That's my summary.

Knight_Crawler1387d ago (Edited 1387d ago )

Not sure why the author of this article decided to use Halo 4 as his rant that games this late into the gen are not worth $60. He could have just worded his headline as " Why do console games still cost $60" but I understand the need for hits and the lesson that HipHopGamer has though these young reviewers.

We would all like for games to cost at least $40 maximum this late into the current gen but that not going to happen because games cost millions of dollars to make.

Console gaming is an expensive hobbie and has always been, my advice to the author is to stick to Android and iOS gaming if he thinks that console gaming is expensive.

ziggurcat1387d ago (Edited 1387d ago )

you know, console games were upwards to $100 30 years ago, and the price was different depending on the game, so paying $60 today isn't that big of a deal...

RivetCityGhoul1387d ago

it was better when games were 50$.

NeverEnding19891387d ago (Edited 1387d ago )

He uses Halo 4 for hits. And it's working.

I agree with what he's saying, but Halo 4 is the worst example he could possibly use. I'd instead use a game like Dishonored. As good of a game it seems to be, IMO as a singleplayer only game with a short campaign it is not worth $60. Even if I were to play it twice, I'd value it brand new at $30.

When you get some games like Halo that give you hundreds of hours of gaming, $60 is too much for singleplayer only games. Compared to Dishonored, it feels like I should be paying $100 for Halo 4.

In saying that, I still plan on one day buying Dishonored and I'll probably enjoy the heck out of it, but there's no way I'm paying full price for it.

beerkeg1387d ago

Sorry dude, but you use Dishonored as an example, and you haven't even played it? How can we take anything you've just said seriously when you haven't experienced the game for yourself?

What gives you the right to base a worth on a game when you haven't even experienced it?

I've played through Dishonored twice now, both experiences were very different. I got my monies worth already, and I will be playing through it a third time.

There are better examples of wasting money on a game than Dishonered.

NeverEnding19891387d ago

I'm going by the great reviews it has gotten and the reported number of hours it take to complete.

beerkeg1387d ago

'I'm going by the great reviews it has gotten and the reported number of hours it take to complete. '

But you haven't actually played it yourself.

NeverEnding19891387d ago

How has it taken you three posts to determine that? I told you this in my first post.

I thought we were having an intelligent discussion. Apparently I was very wrong.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1387d ago
otherZinc1387d ago

Yeah! And, he selected the most feature packed game this gen, maybe all time.

Even without playing online, he still has Forge, Saved Films, & Spartan Ops. So, hes wrong as hell!

He can play co-op as well.

vortis1387d ago

Games should be priced according to their value.

Technically, Minecraft could sell for $60 and it would be worth it. However, a game with infinite replay value and incalculable amounts of content is cheaper than games that give you 5 hours of gameplay (i.e., Warhammer 40K: Space Marine).

Why is a short game with pretty graphics and little to no replay value, (I didn't buy that game for multiplayer) valued at $60 when it doesn't give you $60 worth of content?

The PS2 era was still the most economical both for developers and gamers. Games had adequate production costs, great gameplay and decent graphics. While it's easy to use the excuse that "gamers want better graphics" the best selling and most exposed games over the course of the summer have been Minecraft, DayZ and Slender...games where graphics didn't sell the game.

I'd argue good gameplay and positive word of mouth will eventually translate into huge profits, but pubs would rather throw $10 million at a silly Hollywood game than $1 million at an inventive game that could have a long tail-end (i.e,. Half-Life 2, Battlefield 2, Unreal 2k4, Halo: CE).

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1387d ago
smashcrashbash1387d ago

How is it people keep thinking games are overpriced. Does anyone who says this have any clue how much games used to cost at all? I agree some games are not worth $60.00 especially the ones that skimp on single player and ride the multiplayer wave but that doesn't mean you should put every game in that category. Some games are worth it.

JellyJelly1387d ago

Even though I'm not a fan of Halo, if anygame is worth $60 it's Halo 4. The amount of content in this game exceeds most other games out there.

TekoIie1387d ago

Yeh and we're only on episode 2 of Spartan Ops XD

Still more to come but I do agree that games are overpriced in some areas. But the problem then is how do we "measure" value?

Show all comments (22)
The story is too old to be commented.