DonFerrari said:
Perhaps to you it is like that... for me value really depends on the content, if most of those 200 (isn't 100?) aren't of my liking then it is worthless at any price point. That is why I said you confused and is still confusing price with value. You are doing simple math "180 per year/100 games = 1.8 USD per game", even if you won't play 100 games a year even if you liked all those games. That is determining price not value. Why do you think Nintendo can keep their games at 60 USD for almost the whole gen while Fifa go half price like 2 months after release and 1/5 a year after release? It is because their userbase see the value of a Nintendo game being 60USD irrelevant of the age while Fifa userbase don't. So shoving "Gamepass is better value because it have 30x more games for the same price" over other throats simply isn't true. When only 20% of X1 userbase thought there was value in signing up even with those promotional prices you can tell the service isn't as valuable to everyone as it is for you. Price is the same for all, value isn't. |
I counted just for you Don, you good people. 249 games as of this post on GP. EA Play adding 60 something games when it merges. You don’t have to play them all, nor can you. You play the games you want to play. And given the high number, the odds of finding what you like dramatically improve.
I’m not going to give you all the AAA games and the 80+ Metacritic scores of every game on GP. Quality is implied, you can’t have a service grow if everything is shovelware. And leave Nintendo out of this, their pricing of games years later is downright criminal lol.
It’s a new thing, gaming is not used to a sub model for games. But I tell you once your in it changes your whole perspective. It’s very hard to make a argument that nothing it offers will appeal to people. I just don’t see paying full price even for a game you want as value, as it’s just standard procedure. Value is getting a game you want for cheaper then full price.








