b00moscone said:
That's like saying Mario Kart shouldn't be unplayable. Star Fox is designed with replayability in mind, and designing a game to be replayable isn't a bad thing |
Absolutely nothing wrong with that. However, I sometimes think developers are given a free pass in terms of content when they simply say, "well, you can play it over again." Why should a game with 5 hours worth of content cost the same as a game with 20 hours worth of content just because they throw in some short-cuts and collectables? That doesn't make a lot of sense to me as a consumer. Games that required significantly less resources to create should pass that value on to retail. That's the entire reason that 'middle-ware' gaming died in the first place--publishers were charging $60 across the board and people realized some games were really bad values at that price. Conversely, indie games began to grow because pricing was often in-line with content.
I'm always glad to see publishers being flexible on price points. I think it's the right way to go to keep the middle from falling out again. Pricing should be determined by content and resources used by the developers, not how often they think the average customer will bleed out more value by playing it over.
