zorg1000 said:
pokoko said:
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.
|
The thing about Star Fox replayability is that you arent just replaying the same levels over and over, it has seperate paths which feature different levels and boss battles so there truly is about 10 hours of content in Star Fox.
But i do agree with the idea that games should have more flexible pricing based on content and budget. Its good to see games like Ratchet & Clank, Captain Toad, Tearaway Unfolded, Kirby Rainbow Curse at $40.
|
Regardling Star Fox, I'm perfectly fine with NoE's pricing. That sounds just fine for 10 hours of content. NoA's "we want to make people pay for Guard's development costs, too" strategy is the only thing I have a problem with. Don't charge extra when you call it a "bonus" on the box.
However, what I said wasn't really directed at one game, it was just a general response to the debate about short replayable games and pricing.
