Verno wrote on Nov 25, 2011, 13:26:
Value proposition is inherently subjective, I'm not sure why we're generalizing on behalf of every other consumer in the market but I'll play for one more post. I'd also argue that there is definitely an argument to be made that consumers are paying just as much if not when you factor in other revenue streams that the industry employs now like DLC.
Looking at average new title costs today versus 20 years ago, there's about a $15-20 difference. Plus, back in the day companies would release expansion packs and charge for those. So I don't know if DLC would make up the total difference; but it's a valid point.
A lot of gamers are new, did you even consider that? Many of them weren't around long ago, there are whole new generations of people who weren't paying $90 for an SNES game or whatever you're referring to.
Specifically I wa thinking of paying $40 for King's Quest II and getting maybe 6 hours of gameplay out of it, tops. That would be like paying $75 for the same experience today.
While quantity has grown in terms of game offerings it doesn't necessarily mean quality has too, the Ghost Recon franchise is a great example of that.
On average, I think the overall quality of gaming has gone up or at least stayed the same, mainly as a result of technology. Part of the reason I think people think prior generations worth of games were better is simply because those were "newer" then whereas once you've played everything under the sun, there are less surprises.
There are some great games I feel like I've had for bargains at $60 and there are some real turds that I feel weren't worth $20, let alone the $60 I paid. Whether we have it better in the context of the past is one of those things that will be different for everyone I guess. I certainly wouldn't call people spoiled because they're unhappy about game length as it really depends on the title in question.
Agreed, it really depends on an individual games basis. But the original argument, that an 8 hour game @ $60 is a ripoff is no different than gaming 20 years ago except that it would cost you more than $60 of inflation adjusted dollars.
Generally not a great idea to say "you can't change my mind" in what was otherwise a reasonable discussion but fair enough :)
I could go on forever about how I think gamers are spoiled these days, but mainly it comes down to: a) gaming in aggregate is cheaper (MMO's aside), b) technology, on the whole, is superior, and c) digital distro has made gaming way more convienent.