Game Costs, Do We Pay Too Much For What We Get? - With a few exceptions, the days of games costing under $40 on a console are long gone. Even worse, the days of a single player games lasting longer than 10hours seems to be on the out too. Yes my friends, we seem to pay more for what amounts to less these days. Sure, sure there are the shinny new graphics, and multiplayer aspects which do add to the value, but are we really getting our monies worth from these developers?

Hit the jump for the full story...

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
rCrysis3418d ago

developing games for this generation costs much more than developing games in the gens before.

Dlacy13g3418d ago

But you do have to wonder just how much it cost developers like Ubi to make Rainbow 6: V2 vs the first R6 when really it just felt a tad more polished. Did they really poor the same amount of resources into it the 2nd go round? And if not, then why do we have to pay full boat for something that is less than equal to the first endeavor?

It's interesting to think about if you ask me.

chaosatom3418d ago

I am guessing it's about Mircosoft and GTA DLC.

Dlacy13g3418d ago

Actually about development costs reducing but not being passed on to consumer and Limited Edition sku's that seem to be the fad these days.

nbsmatambo3417d ago

this still doesn't justify crappy games that cost $60.

i blieve that the $60 price point should b reserved for games within the caliber of R2/GeOW2 etc..(i think you get the point)

all im saying is i wanna pay for quality

Le-mo3417d ago

The cost of the game should be proportional to the cost of development. I don't want to pay $60 for a game that cost $1 million dollars to develop.

AAACE53417d ago (Edited 3417d ago )

It's about all games! We are paying more and getting less!

To put it in terms that you would understand... Heavenly sword was about 5 hours long(I am told), But you are paying for all the great graphical work they put into it!

One of the original reasons Ps3 fans were excited about blu-ray, was because they thought it would equal longer games. But the trade off was that it would hold more videos, better sound and make animations better.

If owners really wanted what they thought would come out of blu-ray... They would have to pay closer to $100 a game(which sony was considering before the Ps3 launched). That way the developers would have a better return on their investment from putting in all the work needed to make an action game 20-30 hours long!

GTA was able to take the gamble on having great graphics, story, gameplay and length of completion because they knew it would sell well.

Now we have games trying to become more like movies, which means they will become short burst of fun (a.k.a. Gears of war, Heavenly sword, MGS 4, etc.)

This is the downside of having all this power and not wanting to spend extra on new games! I guarantee you... if we were willing to pay $80-$100 for a game... They would get dramatically better, and we would have less crappy games coming out! But since that probably won't happen... we will just accept what the developers give us on what they can afford to make!

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 3417d ago
Silogon3418d ago (Edited 3418d ago )

Games, most games, are fundamentally unchaged from last gen other than graphics and even then not so much. The true next gen era won't begin until the Ps4 and Xbox 3. That is the true era of HD gaming, unforutnatley we will all be about 5 to 6 years older and won't care as much. Some of us will even be pushing 30 hahahahaa~

Oh, wait... that's sad. I'm sure by then we will mostly have better things to worry about than ps4's and xbox 3's and which game is exclusive and what game isn't.

Cajun Chicken3418d ago

I'd admit, this gen is nothing like the jump from the PSone to the PS2.

The only games that 'felt' being next gen have been the R&C PS3 series (In cartoon'y Pixar-like visuals and the great textures), Crackdown (Because of the rooftop jumping, mainly) and Uncharted (Because it was just great in every single way and was a natural progression from Crash to Jak and onwards).

Here's hoping games get a kick up the arse with upcoming titles, I also hate the insistence on using middleware engines so much this generation, its making a lot of developers lazy and less creative in my opinion.

PoSTedUP3417d ago (Edited 3417d ago )

i stopped buying non-nexgen games, ive learned my lesson not to buy them they are just a waste of money, i only own ps3 exclusives and i feel like i get my monies worth out of them when i pay 60$ for ps3 exclusives. their are just too many sh*tty non-nex gen games out there that just burn 60$ out of your pocket and you get nothing great out of it. i was gunna get mercenarys2, was it worth 60$? was it a real nexgen game? <-----see what i mean, good thing i played it b4 i bought it cause to me it wasn't worth 40$ and wasn't worthy to be in my collection at all.

@ cajun chicken- i feel like MGS4 was really a nex gen title and i got my monies worth out of it, but you might not of played it so.....


all the games i have now, i feel like they were all worth the money and were nex gen games and i got a really good experience out of it ya know.

a toast- to REAL nexgen games! : P

HighDefinition3418d ago (Edited 3418d ago )

Man I payed $110 for Super Mario Bros 3, the day it came out.

$59.99 is great considering how much more content i`m getting when comparing Mario 3 to say LittleBigPlanet.

Flipgeneral3417d ago

I remember paying $99.99 before taxes for FF3!!

I feel like a kid again waiting for October to come!

Soren the Cat3417d ago

Thank you.

I'm so tired of these kids who think the Playstation1 was the first home console. The 8bit and 16bit generation were every bit as expensive as games today and that doesn't even include 20 years of inflation!

Add that to the fact that you could complete most of those games in under 5 hours. Even for the PS1 I could complete most of the games I loved in under 5 hours (MGS, Twisted Metal, Jumping Flash.

XXXCouture3417d ago

it's a little amusing hearing all these complaints from some Americans. Because were i live we pay at least 120$ for a game, and a ps3 costs 630 $.

IAm1Bearcat3418d ago (Edited 3418d ago )

and i'm certainly glad it ONLY went up from $49 (for standard editions of course) but sometimes I'm enraged when I pay $60.

Best example for me was before I had Live / internet access I bought Gears of War. I didn't buy it for online multiplayer or anything like that. I bought it for graphics, story, length, FUN and replayability. So I spent $60 on it when it came out, and five hours later I was pretty pissed. Why? Because that's over 10 bucks for one hour of gameplay. Add in cutscenes and the walking parts and there's not a whole lot of gameplay there.

I think in this day and age, obviously online is a major player from previous generations, but can't there be some type of reasoning involved? Let's say the single player story has to at least be 15-20 hours. AT LEAST. If that's the main story, extra unlockable levels, whatever, just make it worth it for the people who don't play much online (like myself).

This is why I tend to look forward to RPG's because content wise they're worth the 60 bucks because they've got a hell of a lot of hours you can put into them (Oblivion, Mass Effect, soon to be Fallout 3). All other genres I tend to look alot more into before shelling out cash for what turns into a 5 hour game.

I love games, but as much as multiplayer (online) is a big phenomenon either make games JUST for online, or add decent single player length / story to it, for the sake of the gamers who can't afford to throw 60 bucks at a 5 hour game and then trade it into Gamestop for 12 dollars.

Cajun Chicken3418d ago

Brave person, don't worry I think Gears of War is overrated too and you aren't the only one.
Epic have totally gone downhill in that playability factor like they used to have.

Indeed, online games have to be cut down upon. I find that more is focused on the engine and online gameplay then the actual campaign or singleplayer game with a lot of these factory churned out games.
Now its a trend and setting back the developers from making a real full game and just making an application to just kill people you don't know for no apparent reason.

Also I must stress my hate on middleware engines this generation. It used to be rare when games just just used to run off of those last gen, especially with the case of the UE3 which its plain obvious 70% of the time that its UE3 based right from the first level and I think its making developers lazy as they don't put enough artistic flair into distinguishing games from the basics of the engine, only Bioshock has managed to pull this feat off so far, imo.


Go see a movie for £6 --- enjoyment = £3 per hour

Buy a dvd for £10 and watch it 10 times ever ---enjoyment = £0.50 per hour

Buy a game for £40 --- complete offline in 10 hours and play online for 100 hours --- enjoyment = £0.28 per hour

Aslong as the game you play has alot or replayability/lastability (CoD4,Halo3) then they are excellent value for an entertainment medium

Show all comments (33)
The story is too old to be commented.