sperrico87 said:
babuks said:
sperrico87 said:
babuks said:
sperrico87 said:
Well, because $60 is the accepted standard for console games, and value is relative. Even if GTA took 6 months longer to make, and the team was 40% larger than EAD's team for a Mario, why should that change the price of the game? A lot of people see value in a big 3D Mario game. They only come around every 3-4 years. Same with GTA. I see value in both.
|
Well, I don't see how you see 'same value' in both. People will not buy 'Angry Birds' for $60, though it is played by all, loved by all. People will look into it and say, this game does not look like a $60 game.
|
It's apples and oranges. Angry Bird's is a cell phone game. A 3D Mario is quite a bit different.
|
And GTA and Mario or LBP are not apples and oranges? How you determine apples and oranges?
|
No, because I'm not taking into account art style or game style. I'm taking into account the depth, scale, and immersiveness. If GTA looked like a cartoon and Mario Galaxy was M-rated and photo-realistic, it wouldn't change the factors.
|
Depth wise a Mario game is nowhere near GTA level. Same thing about scale etc. I did not finish Super Mario Galaxy 2 but played Super Mario Bros. It is a simple addicting game, but budget wise, scale wise and depth wise not GTA level. Why a game that has way less budget, less scale and less depth be priced the same?
