| LudicrousSpeed said: The gameplay is great and if someone gets hundreds of hours out of a game then it being MP only or MP focused like Evolve (it has a SP) doesn't mean it should by default be cheaper. |
If a game doesn't have a lot of content and adopts a strategy similar to that of a lot of free to play games ( release with a tiny amount of content, has extremely slow progression, sells you additional pieces of the game at a premium ), it shouldn't be trying to get away with being 60$. Its obviously not a simple time:money relationship, however, Evolve does not justify its price with only three monsters in the base game (and one as a pre order bonus). If a game cannot justify its price, it shouldn't be that price.
Once again, single player games often have more content than multiplayer games. This means more of the time spent playing, you will be seeing something new. This counts for a lot, when it comes to validating a game's price. I believe that 10 hours, seeing something new around every corner is worth more than 10 hours doing the same thing repeatedly with different people.
However, the key takeaway is that price should be dynamically evaluated for every game, looking at the content that game provides and establishing how much that game is worth. Look at the Japanese video game market for an example of this. It obviously isn't a perfect system as more value is often given to established brands, but I think it is a significant step forwards from the "everything is 60$ (excluding DLC)" model we use today...
Once again, my point is that, in this particular instance, Evolve doesn't have enough content to justify its price. Every game needs to be evaluated differently, so don't pretend like I'm trying to set some mathematical rule to be applied as a blanket for all games.
