Smidlee said:
I think they do understand this which is the real problem. Games are getting more expensive, gamers expect more for their money ( for example a lot console game in the past could be complete in less than 5-6 hours but now gamers complain about a game only lasting 6-10 hours) yet it harder to find those who are willing to paid the full price for the game. Like you just pointed out most find ways not paying $60 for a new game by trading a used game. This is good for the new game sales until of course you turn around and trade in that now used game.
|
The length of a game isn't a problem, it's about the overall value. I could beat old games like Mega Man, Streets of Rage, or Mario in under an hour, but we were still fine paying $50-60 for these titles. Since buying these games, I couldn't even say how many hours I dumped into them, since I beat them so many times.
Basically, the older games never get boring, which is why they're worth buying, and more importantly, keeping. The same can't be said about most games today, as they're more focused on shock value (graphics), storylines, or other things that get old after a while. When a game is disposable after you have already played it once, it deserves to get torn up by the used games market. It's that or offer some other cheaper way to play the game, because people aren't going to pay full price for it, and they shouldn't expect as much.
