GGT 184 thinks gaming sucks and E3 blew Donkey Kong schlong

Status
Not open for further replies.
[quote name='panzerfaust']Time is irrelevant, I agree. It's just some people are on a tight budget and want something to entertain them longer.

I don't see how that matters to most CAGs, though, since everyone has such huge backlogs and buys so many games they don't play anyway.[/QUOTE]

I don't think time is irrelevant, there has to be some balance. I agree there isn't a magic number of time=dollars but I'm also not paying $60 for something that won't even last 2 days. I loved Shadows of the Damned, which was the last game from Grasshopper Manufacture, but I also only paid a little over $20. It was maybe 8 hours long. I felt I got my money's worth out of that. Would've felt gipped if I paid $60.
 
I'll agree.
Before I platinumed it and ruined the game entirely, Shadows of the Damned was a solid experience for the $15 or so I had paid. If I had paid any more, I would've felt ripped off though. It's all about what the experience is worth to the individual user and that varies. Uraizen gets $60 out of almost every fighter he buys, probably... me? I play quite a bit less and play more games on the whole, I think... so I'd rather not pay more than $40 for a fighter unless I think I'm going to play the shit out of it with our normal group (TTT2, I'm looking at you).
Everything is relative.
 
Yeah, but the truth is, to me, I'd rather play a game that I really get a lot out of in the least amount of time. I'd rather have an experience for between 5-10 hours, rather than one that lasts 20+. A good example would be Lone Survivor. That game lasted me about 4 hours. However, I enjoyed the vast majority of it, and took a lot away from the experience. It wasn't just fun, it transcended that. Would I have paid any asking price for that game? Provided it wasn't ridiculous, yeah, I probably would have. To me, the experience would be worth the money, not the time.

I think the problem is that most "CAG"s will just buy anything if it's fucking cheap. So they're used to paying shit for less quality, and when a good, worthwhile experience comes around, they're inclined to wait on a price drop or sale because every fucking game they own costed less than a twenty spot.

Then again, I should make it clear that I don't have many expenses, and that I really do have a relatively steady flow of cash from my job that isn't really needed to pay bills or anything. So when I want something, I'm just willing to buy it.

But really, think of it this way: You could avoid buying 12 mediocre games for $5 and buy one game that is GENUINELY worth the experience at full price. That's why I barely even check the deals forum, I feel like I spend more money on games I won't even play. Instead, I just spend five minutes checking to see if there's a sale on a game I want, and then buy it.
 
[quote name='linkpwns']I'd rather have an experience for between 5-10 hours, rather than one that lasts 20+.[/QUOTE]

While I resemble that remark, I don't think it is worth paying $60 for that.

Course, I don't think most games are worth paying $60 for. That level of quality isn't there for most of the AAA titles out there.
 
I think 10 hours is like the minimum I'd find acceptable-The Uncharted games usually run 10-12 and are all great experiences.
 
I guess I could understand that, yeah. 60 bucks is pretty expensive.
I suppose I am kind of a hypocrite, as I have difficulty shelling out 30 bucks for the Civ 5 expansion that I know I'll have a blast with :/
 
[quote name='Erad30']I think 10 hours is like the minimum I'd find acceptable-The Uncharted games usually run 10-12 and are all great experiences.[/QUOTE]

While I think Uncharted is a blast, It isn't worth $60 for me.

I did pay $50 for Xenoblade Chronicles, and so far I think that's worth the price.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
bread's done
Back
Top