aylien - platform-specific threads have been on CAGs for years. Literally hundreds of threads have been posted that are nigh identical to this one (minus to the inevitable bickering that occurs when such threads are posted on the main forum): threads that indicate the retail price of a specific game, allow people to voice their impressions/memories of said game, and just a general place to rave about how under (or over) valued a game might be... Those forums are available right now and are just a click away.
xGunCrazyx - I personally find attempts to undermine the merit of a particular argument by attempting to stereotype advocates of that position to be rather silly. My first problem is that I game on every platform, period, and I assure you that there is no bias (outside of an innate bias towards having a reasonably organized board system and common sense) prompting my responses. And even if such bias were found, what's the point of mentioning it? Are such factors useful in any way in deciding who has a better grasp of the fundamental issue? If we want to go down that road, I'd suggest we trust those who are the most long-standing veterans of CAG or those that are the most highly educated IRL...
Moreover, your repeated profane labeling of those that disagree with you is petty at best, and childish at worst--your inability to logically, step by step respond to the arguments of the (many) that disagree with you shows that all you're capable of is name calling, and not actually defending the merit and practicality of your position. And finally, as has been noted at by others, if your subjective approach were to be adopted, we'd literally have "deal" threads on every single game available at MSRP--you can always find people who claim that a particular game is an "excellent deal."
bvharris - "Its kind of silly to get so sanctimonious about something which is inherently
objective. This isn't aimed at anyone in particular, but everyone has a different definition of what a deal is."
I think you just may have subjective and objective confused
As noted in my first post on the matter in this thread, I agree that the subjectivity of the matter is a problem... hence the reason that I suggested making an official definition for the site that would add at least some objectivity to the discussion. If CheapyD wants to adopt the (extremely broad) definition advocated by some in this thread, I'd accept it--it is his site after all. I'd probably be less inclined to visit here through, as wading through dozens, if not hundreds of threads, on everyone's subjective "this game is a bargain!" posts would almost defeat the purpose for me.
Nohbdy - First off, I'd like to say that regardless of our disagreements, I actually appreciate that you DID take the time now to actually make some arguments--honest props for that. That being said, I'm not in any way convinced by your position (at least yet anyway)...
"Because they're smaller games, which can be very limited and may not offer the same value as a fully-featured, retail price game."
I acknowledge that there are differences, but you still have yet to explain ~why~ "fully featured" games releasing at MSRP are deals and why non-fully featured games releasing at MSRP are not. To me, that distinction seems entirely arbitrary and subjective... couldn't you equally argue that games in certain genres tend to be more fully featured than games in other genres (shooters tend to have robust multiplayer, singleplayer, and online components, whereas RPGs tend to not)? What about games on systems (like the DS) that simply cannot be as fully featured as games on a $1000 PC rig? And just how fully featured does a game have to be to warrant it being a deal?
"I meant to say Wiiware, the PSN store, and XBLA. I suppose it would be futile to reason older games/VC."
Yes, exactly.
This'll be my last response in this thread on the matter. But I look forward to rejoining the debate next week for the thread about Steam Babyz selling for $9.99 (MSRP)
I'm sure somebody out there will think it's worth a damn...
