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.
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.
An article where the author cries about the price of games. That's my summary.
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.
you know, console games were upwards to $100 30 years ago, and the price was different depending on the game, so paying $60 today isn't that big of a deal...
it was better when games were 50$.
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.
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.
I'm going by the great reviews it has gotten and the reported number of hours it take to complete.
'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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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?
He's cutting himself short for buying a $60 game and not trying out ALL of it's modes/features. Spartan-Ops can be played solo, and episodes come out weekly. Invite friends over and play 4P campaign on Legendary with some Skulls; Halo SP will go from 7-9hrs to 15-20hrs. For the past 2yrs I've been paying 10-20$ for new games, I'm a patient gamer, I can wait for price drops and sales. So the $60 price tags don't get to me.
What the hell are you talking about!? The multiplayer alone is worth the price of admission, not to mention one of the best campaigns in the franchise yet. Now CoD on the other hand... never mind; love and peace.
We all SHOULD know that certain games are for the single player or the multiplayer. Halo 4...has a solid story behind it that all connects so I see alot of ppl playing the SP as well as the MP. COD games....I myself and im sure millions of others...skip SP all together and go right to the MP. You have to know what your buying ahead of time. I would NEVER buy a Halo or COD if all I wanted to play was the SP....that would be a waste of $60 Now HUGE games like Skyrim or Fallout etc....yes I will drop my $60 cause im about to get LOTS of bang for my buck. Ohh and renting is always a HUGE option nowadays :)
I count Halo 4s SP as MP also, because its alot you can do with it online.
Good for him, as for me cause i can't speak for everyone else have i no issues with paying $64.19 to be exact for my games or even the 104.00 for certain LE game bundles . love my games & love to game & seeing as how my expense & budget are well managed i will continue to do so
Games cost more to make. $60 has been the main pricepoint for games for a loonnnnnnnng time now. It boggles my mind how you bitch about spending $60 on a game and only chose to play half of it. It's not MS's fault that you chose to only play the single player.
Personally, I'm more than happy to pay $60 for any video game I like and Halo's one of them. Others: Uncharted, Gears of War, God of War, david cage games, GT and Forza, and GTA. There tons more, but I'd happily pay $60 or more for these games. Great considerable value and it really shows that devs worked their butts off and sweated bullets to make these games.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.