The Value of a Game

[Ashley]

PushSquare has gotten in a bit of a hubbub as their article on the No Man's Sky pricing leak could be read as basically equating the size of a team with the amount that should be charged for a game (and the pun in the headline isn't helping matters).

 

It seems it wasn't their intention, but it's certainly something that has been bouncing around recently. As certain indie titles move away from small games to 'AAA-size' games some people still seem to believe that games from indie developers should be in the £5-15 range.

 

The Witness recently took some slack because its RRP was £30 and some people consider that too much.

 

Now none of us can really say what a game should cost because...

 

[tweet]704967842710601728[/tweet]

 

But, what's your opinion on this?

 

And more than indie. Quite often a re-release will face scrutiny for its price, regardless what the price is.

 

So how would you quantify price? I know people quite often go on length but that itself is problematic; it can take two different people radically different amount of times and it also depends what you classify as 'complete' - is it 100% everything or is it complete storyline? What about games where there is no completion like Minecraft or The Sims?

 

Let's not turn this into a "my re-release is better value for money than your re-release" but rather how much you are typically prepared to spend in those kind of circumstances and what factors (personal interest in game, other games on market at time) etc play a part in your decision making process.

 

What about some games where you've waited until they've hit a financial 'sweet spot', be that because you feel they're worth that or you had other reasons to wait?

[peterl0]

In this case I can see why they are charging full price for the game - the hype has been quite significant for the game and has been building over the year. If your game is good enough to charge full price and you have made enough people want it by hype or otherwise then I don't see the problem.

 

Launch games are often like this - Final Fight on the SNES, Pilotwings Resort on the 3DS. Both games were pretty short for full price 3DS games. Personally I felt a bit let down for Pilotwings but the hype I had for a new game in that series overwhelmed that and I did not feel too ripped off after the fact.

 

EDIT: For Remakes it can be different I guess - I have skipped Twilight Princess because the pre-launch has not hyped me. Same for Majora's Mask last year - but 8 pounds was a personal sweet spot earlier this year for that game.

[Jonnas]

Generally speaking, I buy cheap. If the game is 30€, I'll wait until it's more accessible online. Usually.

 

That said, nothing wrong with pricing a game as 40€ if that's how ambitious it is. I mean, at some point "Indie Developers" should move on into bigger projects, so of course the cost is going to rise. In fact, I'm not sure what the deal even is: if a game is priced at 40€, it's just another one with that tag, why should it matter whether it's Indie or not?

 

Now, regarding updated rereleases, yeah, there should be a good justification for a price increase (a games collection, a new soundtrack, or something), otherwise finding and playing the old game is a better prospect.

[Fierce_LiNk]

Excellent thread and an idea that I've been thinking about for quite some time.

 

The real answer is that...I don't think that there is an answer. I do genuinely think that games are already excellent value for money. I paid £35 for The Witcher 3 and have put hundreds of hours into it. I've bought multiplayer games that have lasted me for ages. Journey cost me a tenner, but both @Eenuh and I played it (she played it twice) and we both felt that it was a fantastic adventure for both of us to go on.

 

So, if there is to be an answer, then it'd have to be something about how much "time" you'd spend playing the game. But, not every game can be 100+ hours long. Something like Everybody's Gone To The Rapture was less than 10 hours long...but it felt worth it to me. We all perceive value and value for money in different ways, though. Somebody may only spend 30 hours on Destiny and Call of Duty and perceive that as a disappointing experience or waste of time, but they may spend the same amount of time on Uncharted and consider that a great experience.

 

Subconsciously, I think we all "attach" values to games and have a "jumping in point", if we don't intend to get it for full price. It could be that they know a game is going to plummet in price further down the line and they don't mind the wait, or maybe they know that a game is only getting a limited run and it's better to jump in now rather than pay three times the price on ebay later. How we attach the price is, I agree, an interesting idea.

[dan-likes-trees]

Probably the best value for money I've had in my entire life

 

[Mr-Paul]

Really interesting discussion.

 

It all comes down to how much I want it.

 

Generally, my 'buy a game' price point is around £30. I rarely go above that, but will if it's something I really want.

If I don't want it as much, I'll wait for it to drop in price. Simple.

 

With digital/retro downloads though, I do tend to think they are overpriced, but is that because I don't tend to want them as much?

 

With the trend of remasters we've had this generation, I think should be released in a collection of two/three games if you're going to charge full price. Otherwise, I think a £30 RRP is probably fair, as with that price point you'd be able to pick it up for £20-25 straight off the bat.

 

I do think Nintendo's Zelda remasters have been too expensive. I got Ocarina of Time bundled with my 3DS. Wind Waker HD I was less bothered about, so waited until I could pick it up for £20. However, the next two examples will show my hypocrisy.

 

I bought the Special Edition of Majora's Mask 3DS, albeit imported from France with a decent exchange rate, for full price, which came to around £40. I only did this because it's one of my favourite games of all time. So I guess nostalgia can effect how much we'll pay?

 

I've also ordered the Twilight Princess HD special edition. £39.99 from Amazon. I do think this particular re-release is overpriced. The only reason I've jumped in at that price is I had a £25 gift voucher to use, making it an acceptable price. Otherwise I would've waited for a price drop.

 

I don't think length really comes into it too much when we're talking full retail releases, but if it has a clear lack of content it'd be a reason to wait for a cheaper price if it's not something I really want. It's not about comparing 'Zelda is longer, so should cost more' for me. I feel like when you're buying a full retail game, it should provide you with a decent amount of entertainment. Cinema tickets don't change price depending whether it's 90 mins long or 150 mins long.

 

Despite that, it would be quite nice to see more flexible price points in retail games. We did see it a little with Splatoon being released for cheaper than the full standard RRP, but then again, you had to pay another £30 if you wanted to unlock everything through amiibo, so maybe that shouldn't really count.

[killthenet]

I always judge a game on how much fun I can get out of it, never on the number of people involved in the team. From the sound of 'No Man's Sky' it seems like it will be a game that a lot of people get more than 100 hours of play out of, so paying $60 seems perfectly reasonable. But then you look at a game like 'The Beginners Guide' which is a fantastic experience, but only takes 2 hours maximum to complete, I'm totally happy to pay up to £10 for a game like that, but would never dream of paying full retail price for it.

 

I remember making the justification to my parents when aI bought a 3DS in 2011. "Yes it's £200, but I'll get hundreds of hours of gaming out of it" so in terms of value I'm paying less than 40p for every hour of enjoyment that i've got out of it. When I apply that logic to Minecraft (which I paid €8 for on PC and 10p for on Android) the price per hour is completely immeasurably small.

 

Even with something like 'Twilight Princess HD' it cost me £42 for the Amiibo edition and the Wii version took me about 45 hours to complete, so I'm getting a value of at least £1 for every hour, which is pretty fine by me. Moreso when you add in the time I'll spend listening to the soundtrack over the next several years, plus I get to relive a classic.

 

Some people might feel like it's not worth it, but for me it seems completely worth the money.

[Esequiel]

Really interesting discussion. I have to go with the price per hour motto as well. I played an MMO which was £40 for the game and £10 per month to play. But I was spending over 30 hours a week on it (not healthy I know, God MMOs are life suckers!). Then there are games like Mario Kart which I maybe play once every other week but is worth the fun for multiplayer.

 

Then retro games.... I have a price point of what they are worth to me and the can work out how much for better condition, boxed, tatty etc....

[Zell]

I've been playing through The Witness and I'm still not sure what to make of the price point. I feel like a lot of what makes it £30 as opposed to £10-15 is the graphics, which are beautiful, but I can't help thinking that they could have released the game at a cheaper price if they had made the graphics "simpler". I realise that would have taken a lot away from the overall experience, but since it's such a niche game they may have hurt themselves from a sales perspective.

[Ashley]

I've been playing through The Witness and I'm still not sure what to make of the price point. I feel like a lot of what makes it £30 as opposed to £10-15 is the graphics, which are beautiful, but I can't help thinking that they could have released the game at a cheaper price if they had made the graphics "simpler". I realise that would have taken a lot away from the overall experience, but since it's such a niche game they may have hurt themselves from a sales perspective.

 

There's over 600 puzzles that can (in total) apparently take upwards of 100 hours. I don't think it was the graphics that fed into the price (or at least wasn't a large contributor).

[Will]

Personally I'll spend money for something innovative. There are a few different ways that comes around but in general its through art style or gameplay. If something looks totally different, or plays totally different, while maintaining a solid level of quality thats worth spending money on. I'd gladly pay $60 for something doing things differently but $60 for the latest FIFA or COD doesn't really do it for me - though that's not to say they don't necessarily innovate, it's just not in the area I put value on.

 

The No Man's Sky article is interesting, sure it's a small core dev team but I guarantee the costs outside of that will more than double the cost, in fact the amount of stuff outside of core development is probably closer to a 10x increase on cost - so it's really not a very good way to value a product at all. I will absolutely pay $60 for that where I might not for a game with a much bigger dev team.

 

Overall I actually think games need to come down in price to the point where people don't wait for something they're interested in. It becomes very difficult to gauge true interest in something when purchases come at different prices from different demographics over a prolonged period of time, and I don't think helps the industry be a regular thing for regular people. The cost of entry is just too high right now (and has been for a long time). The one thing free to play has shown us is that there is a massive market for games, the content just needs to be priced in a way that people feel comfortable investing in it.

[Goafer]

For me a full price game has to feel fully fleshed out. Minecraft for example doesn't. It may have loads to do, but it doesn't feel finished. It's got a world to play with, but no story, no ultimate goal, no reason to do anything etc. It's a world with no game to me. That's why I wouldn't pay full price for it.*

 

To me Indie games feel like they're not quite full games. Either they're randomly generated open worlds (as per the Minecraft example), they're not quite finished (early access etc) or they're just simple games (2d platformers etc). None of which to me justify full price.

 

No man's sky is an interesting one. Although it's looking very impressive, it still falls under the "world without a game" category for me (unless there is a story?), so I don't think it's worth full price IMO. Maybe more than most indie games, but not full price.

 

*I know it has a story now, but it seems.like an afterthought rather than an actual story.

[Ashley]

No man's sky is an interesting one. Although it's looking very impressive, it still falls under the "world without a game" category for me (unless there is a story?)

 

AFAIK the story is "make it to the centre of the universe by hook or by crook...or don't".

 

I think there is a potential narrative "end point", but Hello Games has admitted they expect most people will just explore rather than try and get to the centre.

 

It's got a world to play with, but no story, no ultimate goal, no reason to do anything etc.

 

[Rummy]

Interesting topic indeed. As a man who loves his money, and his amateur armchair economics, I find it very interesting!

My personal feeling - I rarely buy a game over £30 since say the N64/GC/Wii Era. That's like the starting mark for me. Lowered prices were helped on a lot by the early mail order companies, and then later by online companies - interestingly enough there's the ShopTo topic in General and they were imo once go-to kings of the online retailers but that's really changed now - nonetheless they did some huge work in both the lowering of cost but also the swiftness of delivery. Why would I pay £40+ for a game that I could order from the luxury of my home, with 1-2 delivery, for £5-10+ less? I wouldn't. The only 'cost' there is the timeframe.

 

But that is a cost, that can factor into value. Do you get more off a game that's hype and everyone's talking about if you have it at the same time? To engage in that shared 'first' experience? For some that matters - for me it does, but only with a specific thing in mind(compared to the saving of getting it later, that is) - and that's online functionality. I bought Halo 4 pretty quick on release and a whim after a discussion with a mate at work. Cost from ShopTo something like £37, had it within a day, and didn't regret it. I got a lot of hours out of it - at least around 40 if not even more(can't check stats, and forget if it was 40 per Halo 4/Reach, or 80 each) - but I wouldn't have had I not bought it at the time and played a notable part of it online with my mates. These days many people bask in the glory of the 'firsts' due to the easier sharing of media for new games such as video clips, lets plays, more in depth reviews etc.

 

Now that 40+ for Halo 4 certainly wasn't a bad number of hours - which is the other argument made. Time/price per hour is a very sensible economic way to evaluate something for me. However as Flink mentions some people might get certain amounts more than others out of certain games - definitely more prominent in the more modern age of online games where it isn't a fixed quest/story for all. However I then find it difficult, if I've had a game that gave me so many hours for so much cost, to then stretch myself to a game that's going to give me a lesser amount of gameplay/time per hour. Having said that, I paid like £4 for Terraria on PC, and got at least 200 hours out of it. If I consider the cheapness of the title(£4 is much more 'throwaway' than £40) I wouldn't compare everything to that exceptional level of 'value' however. I think anything over £15 will start to draw time value comparisons, a problem no doubt affecting No Man's Sky.

 

Coming back to absolute cost I'll be honest - I know how much less I play videogames these days, and thus feel reluctant to spend £40 on a game I won't play much or entirely for many months/a year, when I could just allow that time it sits gathering dust on the shelf and instead buy it later on for a much cheaper price. I still even have many games for a few consoles now I've never played. I don't like to pay more than £20-25 at most if I can help it for a game I want around about there and then, regardless whether brand new or second hand(brand new giving a small edge to value over second hand, but still small depending on the saving). The only few times I'll buy games I don't have immediate intention of playing is if it's a bulk/good value deal, or a game I'm worried will stop print. Pandora's Tower and The Last Story were examples of this - yet stupidly I've still never played the bloody things; bringing me back to my opening point here - I game much less than I would have otherwise.

 

 

 

However moving on to maybe more the supply side of things - one thing I've found interesting for a long time is that of digital distribution and things like Steam. Given that, as this thread probably shows, value of certain games varies between people and that the Steam sales seem to do so well of sorts(and let's be honest, who hasn't got at least 10-20 Steam games they've bought but haven't played for more than hour yet) - I'm surprised the console side haven't embraced this sale model more to adjust to the supply/demand of the games and the value/cost people are willing to pay. Without it, it's no sale, with it - it's still maybe a bit more revenue which has in effect cost very little to manufacture(the extra copy of the game bought, that is). Value's flexible, and to adjust your marketplace to that is incredibly sensible, imo. 500 more sales at 50% that you wouldn't have gotten otherwise is as good as 250 sales you never would have gotten, and money's money.

 

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------

 

I've broken my post to separate this point from those above - that of remakes. I think by their nature being content that was previously developed/released - their value can vary highly depending on amount of effort put into the title and the perceived effort of them being 'less' work. There's also the idea of modernisation/update of a classicly held game that invokes nostalgia. I bought both OoT+3DS and later MM at maybe around ~£30 a piece per game because I loved them so much as a youth. I only bought Mario Kart 8 @ £30 because I could get WWHD with it however - I wasn't prepared to pay as much for a remake of a much more recent game. Even more so - TP(which interestingly has shot into No2 in the UK charts) just did not do enough with itself to justify my spending the higher asking price of it, especially being a more recent game with what I personally see as not enough work/improvement in it. Personal opinion, but I don't think I'll often find a remake even with updating to be equivalent to a modern day price similar to that of its original release.