Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

Wombat's size vs value debate


  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

#1 MSUnman

MSUnman

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 31 August 2007 - 04:21 PM

I found it interesting in the latest CAGcast how Wombat was upset with Warhawk in terms of its price vs the size of the game. Claiming there are 1 gig demo on xbox live for free.

In my honest opinion you can not judge a games value on the size of its content. I used to have a modded xbox with a 80 GB hard drive where I could copy my retail bought games to hard drive to increase the speed at which they loaded and it also kept the disc drive in good condition because I could run the games without having to use the drive repeatedly. But anyways, when sending games to the hard drive I would see the size of the game. And you would be suprised on the sizes of some of the best and worst games. A great game like Marvel vs Capcom 2 was only around 300MB, where a crappy FPS would be over 3GB, and both were 50 dollars.

I guess the point is, the game can be 20 gigs on blu ray, but if it doesnt produce a good fun experience then it isnt worth the money.

#2 InuFaye

InuFaye

Posted 31 August 2007 - 04:40 PM

I also found this to be some of the most asinine shit to come out of wombats mouth. How much space a game takes up on a disc has nothing to do with how great the game is. Wombat loves his DS and no games on that system where games cannot become larger then the 256 mb limit on the cartriges.

If he wanted to go on the logic of game size vs. game quality, then wouldnt Vanguard:Saga or Heroes on the pc be the best game ever made? That game easily takes up more then 20 gigs of space on your hard drive. Wombat i think you just need to be quiet with shit like that . Warhawks size is no valid knock against the game in any way shape or form.

And just to let you know that i am having more fun in Warhawk then in the Call of Duty 4 beta. Because i can get into warhawk and play most of the time which is more then i can say for the call of duty 4 beta. I always get that stupid downloading game settings like 75% of the time when i try to play the game.

#3 dave17

dave17

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 31 August 2007 - 05:37 PM

seems to me like you're reading into one comment that wombat said too much. I doubt he meant it in that sense, to me it just sounded like he was referring to warhawk being a downloadable game without as many features.

(disclaimer: I dont know actually know anything about the game itself, except that there is no multiplayer and you can both hover and fly which is pretty cool).

#4 sugarhigh4242

sugarhigh4242

Posted 31 August 2007 - 05:45 PM

Yep, if he thinks it isn't worth $40, then fine. But to say "800GB isn't worth $40" is just insane.

How can he justify buying any $60 Xbox360 game when 20GB+ PS3 games cost the same amount?

And nobody really brought up the headset. I paid $40 for the exact same Jabra BT-125 last year, so to get the game for basically $20 more is a bargain. Plus, the headset in the WarHawk package looks a lot cooler. It has the same translucent black plastic as the PS3.

#5 Blackout

Blackout

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 31 August 2007 - 05:53 PM

The whole thing was just pretty dumb imo.

Edit- Don't people rent games?? I mean, can't you go to BB or Netflix, or something...and try out the game? Just because there isn't a demo on PSN is a pretty lame excuse not to even try the game. You can't make a simple click on the net and get the game sent to your house?



#6 DesertEagleXIX

DesertEagleXIX

    Semper Economus!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 31 August 2007 - 05:53 PM

Maybe he should have said 'content' instead of 'size'.

One of his favorite games (and mine) is Oblivion, a game full of content; it's a world on a disk, with hundreds of things to do.

Warhawk, on th other hand is a very focused, close-ended experience. I'm not sure of the extent to it's content, but it's probably the same game over different maps.

Some of my favorite disks are old-school compilations, like Taito or the Capcom Collections. They're high in content, but fairly small in size; and a great value for the money.
Posted Image
www.tech-gaming.com

#7 ryanbph

ryanbph

Posted 31 August 2007 - 05:54 PM

IMO $40 is to much for the game for my tastes..no single player and no demo to see if I like it is what prevented me from buying it this week. If I can get the retail version for $45 or so with a headset (i believe cc has that deal this week) then I might give it a go.

As for the value of the headset comments, I think that is BS...you can buy that headset on ebay for about $10 and the $40 you spent was LAST year.

Posted Image


#8 sugarhigh4242

sugarhigh4242

Posted 31 August 2007 - 07:03 PM

I'm listening to last-week's podcast, and Wombat bought Shadowrun for $30.

#9 Kayden

Kayden

Posted 31 August 2007 - 07:05 PM

I thought this thread was going to be about calling Wombat fat and worthless.

Posted Image Posted Image

Kayden you would be awesome in Congress.


#10 PyroGamer

PyroGamer

Posted 31 August 2007 - 07:17 PM

Yeah, it was a pretty stupid comment.

The size of a game has nothing to do with its value. Hell, paded Blu-Ray titles should be sold for $300 each if that were true.

#11 InuFaye

InuFaye

Posted 31 August 2007 - 07:52 PM

Im getting tired of people complaning about Warhawk for 40 dollars and it being multiplayer only. Has anyone played a battlefield game before? Battlefield is multiplayer only and its always full price. Warhawk is just an arcade-y version of battlefield.

#12 Wombat

Wombat

    CAGcast or nothin

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 31 August 2007 - 09:42 PM

I made my retraction in the main show thread

#13 Alcedes

Alcedes

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 31 August 2007 - 09:53 PM

I think ppl are missing one of the major reasons downloaded games should not be priced high. ie, trade in value... last time i checked you can't ebay your downloaded games, whereas any game you bought typically retains most of it's value if you don't wait too long to dump it. That's a huge factor, and why I wouldn't pay more then 10 bucks for an online game. The exception being sf2 since i've logged over 2000 matches, i think i got my moneys worth...

#14 ryanbph

ryanbph

Posted 31 August 2007 - 10:02 PM

I'm listening to last-week's podcast, and Wombat bought Shadowrun for $30.


At $30 I would buy warhawk without thinking...I didn't have access to the beta as I didn't have a ps3 at the time. I got shadowrun recently for about $35 shipped...As for the battlefield comments, I don't believe that should be priced at $60 either. If there was a warhawk demo, and I really enjoyed it, then I would be more likely to drop the $40 for the DL game. Since I haven't had an opportunity to see if the game is something that I would like, I really don't want to drop $40 on the game. It is a really bad precedent to set for these companies to fell that it is ok to charge so much for so little content. It is the same issue that GH2 and DLC for the 360. They wanted too much money for a 3 pack song list. A good amount of people bought the first couple of DL, and then red octane stopped offering them for awhile. Then they come back with the same program due to the fact that a shitload of people purchased them and that they made a ton of money on it.

Posted Image


#15 MSUnman

MSUnman

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 31 August 2007 - 10:49 PM

Well Im glad to see Wombat retract his statement. Just because a game is small in size does not mean it is not valuable. However it is really good when we get a large file size that corresponds with a incredibly deep game, (ie oblivion) I think this also supports that games should be considered art. Because a piece of art is not always valued by the artists technique or colors used, etc. Instead it is all in the eye of beholder, whoever is making the purchase. The nice thing about Warhawk is that there is a option for a disc version so you can sell it back if you wanted to, just dont buy the online version unless you plan to have the game forever.

PS - Congrats to wombat on manning up and doing the show this week. I trully enjoy his and Cheapy D's work every week.

#16 AmanoUsagi

AmanoUsagi

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 01 September 2007 - 03:10 AM

Shouldn't we be happy that Warhawk is only 1 gig? I hate it when games are huge and take up tons of space. *cough* bioshock demo *cough* Mabey other games will follow suit and be a bit smaller.

#17 LiK

LiK

    Internet Superstar

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 01 September 2007 - 05:35 AM

I made my retraction in the main show thread


let the debate finally end. how's Maine dude?
63362.png
Blog | Twitter
"You lazy f*ck!" - Artie Lange to CheapyD on 8/31/09

#18 RedvsBlue

RedvsBlue

    Rocket Science Level

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 01 September 2007 - 05:52 AM

Everyone should be used to Wombat's talking out of his ass and subsequent backtracking by now.

#19 jer7583

jer7583

    only 5 can ladder

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 01 September 2007 - 06:14 AM

The one way in which I agree with wombat here is that Sony is NOT passing the savings on to the consumer. Downloadable games seem to mean that a company can spend a fraction of the price developing a game, content wise, save a ton of money on manufacturing, and still charge retail prices. I bet Sony is making a good $39.98 each, straight profit on those downloads.

Retail pressure to keep prices similar has a lot to do with this, but it really does feel like screwing the customer over. I mean, this game could fit on a PSP/Gamecube disc. Did it really justify a $40 price based on the content needed to develop it? I felt the same way about the $30 Oblivion Expansion. Fortunately with XBL points, it's possible to get deals in-store and the expansion probably cost me $15. Not really possible with PSN, as far as I know.

Warhawk should have been a $20 game, and it just goes to show how prices are out of control this generation in general.

TRASH PANIC iLdJv6N.png TRASH PANIC


#20 cgarb84

cgarb84

    KEAK HEEM IN DA BALLS!!!!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 01 September 2007 - 02:58 PM

Im getting tired of people complaning about Warhawk for 40 dollars and it being multiplayer only. Has anyone played a battlefield game before? Battlefield is multiplayer only and its always full price. Warhawk is just an arcade-y version of battlefield.


Yep this is exactly how I feel. I am a huge fan of the Battlefield games on PC, they are basically MP only. I have logged over 200 hrs into BF2, so if that isn't getting your monies' worth then I don't know what is.

I also am already getting tired of all of the trashing of downloadable games. I have downloaded a few games like Half-Life 2 on Steam, I have no complaints about downloadable games if the medium in which you download and activate the games is a solid platform (which Steam is now imo). This is the wave of the future, people are going to eventually have to deal with it one way or another.
Posted Image

Posted Image
Posted Image