By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony - Why PSN/XBLA is a better deal than buying disc based games.

I love games and have an extensive library but I honestly believe you get way more bang for your buck on PSN and XBLA.

Lets show a prime example. 

Dead Rising 2 costs 60 dollars

for that amount on XBLA you can get 

The Dead Rising 2 prequel for 5 bucks

Lara Croft and the Guardian of Light for 15 

Shadow Complex for 15 

and Limbo for 15 

That is just one example and you get 4 games to one. 

Now on PSN

Instead of Dead Rising 2

You buy Deathspank Thongs of Virtue 15

Flower 10

Burn Zombie Burn 10

Pixel Junk Shooter 10

and Lara Croft and the Guardian of Light for 15 

You now get 5 full games for the same price as one.

What is the better deal you tell me..



Around the Network

Uh... I mean, depends on what you compare it too... FFXIII, Oblivion, and Falloutand other RPG's are 50 hours long... I just got resonance of fate for 30 dollars and that's like 50 hours long.

Like... if you're comparing like Lara Croft to Uncharted... I mean, this is highly my opinion... but it's Lara Croft is better game and it's 6 hours versus like 10 of uncharted, and it's cheaper, the gameplay is deaper, and a lot more fun, with worse cutscenes/graphics... imo Lara Croft wins hands down.


Wipeout HD and HD FURY is 30 dollars combined... is a full game, and my favorite racer with fun local multiplayer... online is dead.
I have 50 hours in that... though to be fair... their altered versions of the psp counterparts.

But that's just value...
Sometimes... since I have to study a lot... I don't care about it length or price, as long as both is reasonable. And I just want to play a great game for my limited amount of gaming time.



It depends on what retail game you're comparing it to. Though I will say that it amazes me how many people will gripe about something being $15, and then turn around and buy a 6 hour game for $60.



themanwithnoname's law: As an America's sales or NPD thread grows longer, the probabilty of the comment "America = World" [sarcasticly] being made approaches 1.

Granted I don't do this, but if you're concerned purely about money, then you aren't paying $60 per game then keeping it.  Renting, buy it and sell it a week later, wait for price drops, etc.  You may not get as many games per dollar, but if somebody wants Gran Turismo 5 for example, then they don't really care how many games they can get for the same price if it isn't what they want.

Same thing with how many hours a game is.  Do you go into a theater and choose a movie based on its length?  I suppose the origin of this is the fact that a lot of children play games, and they have limited funds, but large amounts of free time.



I totally agree that something like Gran Turismo 5 has no counter point nor do many of the Epic Rpgs but for average action games, racers etc downloading is the way to go.



Around the Network
Yakuzaice said:

Granted I don't do this, but if you're concerned purely about money, then you aren't paying $60 per game then keeping it.  Renting, buy it and sell it a week later, wait for price drops, etc.  You may not get as many games per dollar, but if somebody wants Gran Turismo 5 for example, then they don't really care how many games they can get for the same price if it isn't what they want.

Same thing with how many hours a game is.  Do you go into a theater and choose a movie based on its length?  I suppose the origin of this is the fact that a lot of children play games, and they have limited funds, but large amounts of free time.

Yeah that is completely understandable. When I was a kid I had a lot of free time but not much money (just an allowance). I bought most of my NES and Genesis games from flea markets and garage sales and I'd borrow whatever I could from my older brother and friends. I was pretty much open to playing whatever was available to me. And I'd invest lots of time into the games I had. Even if a game was kicking my ass (and back in those days, they really kicked our asses) or I was stuck for hours on end (with no internet to help me out), I still plugged away at those games.

Nowadays, however, money isn't really an issue (and if it is, get a rental subscription and your gaming needs are pretty much covered for a reasonably low monthly fee) and I have so many options available that it's really easy for me to get bored of a game at the drop of a hat. So for me, quality matters a heck of a lot more than quantity. I find it really difficult to get through lengthy RPGs these days unless I really like the game. You know the feeling where you are playing through a lengthy game and then have a craving to play something else? That happens to me often. And then I'd feel guilty when I'd put a game on the backburner and then never or rarely touch it again (now that I mainly rent these days, I don't have to worry about that as much. I can just send the game back in the mail and get a new rental. Though I still buy games to some extent and some of those do end up getting backlogged).



billy.amick said:

I love games and have an extensive library but I honestly believe you get way more bang for your buck on PSN and XBLA.

Lets show a prime example. 

Dead Rising 2 costs 60 dollars

for that amount on XBLA you can get 

The Dead Rising 2 prequel for 5 bucks

Lara Croft and the Guardian of Light for 15 

Shadow Complex for 15 

and Limbo for 15 

That is just one example and you get 4 games to one. 

Now on PSN

Instead of Dead Rising 2

You buy Deathspank Thongs of Virtue 15

Flower 10

Burn Zombie Burn 10

Pixel Junk Shooter 10

and Lara Croft and the Guardian of Light for 15 

You now get 5 full games for the same price as one.

What is the better deal you tell me..


When a disc based game can get you 100-300 hours of playtime? Definitely a disc based game. In order to get as many hours of playtime as I have got out of Mario Kart, Brawl or the like, I would need to pay hundreds on a downloadable platform



scottie said:
billy.amick said:

I love games and have an extensive library but I honestly believe you get way more bang for your buck on PSN and XBLA.

Lets show a prime example. 

Dead Rising 2 costs 60 dollars

for that amount on XBLA you can get 

The Dead Rising 2 prequel for 5 bucks

Lara Croft and the Guardian of Light for 15 

Shadow Complex for 15 

and Limbo for 15 

That is just one example and you get 4 games to one. 

Now on PSN

Instead of Dead Rising 2

You buy Deathspank Thongs of Virtue 15

Flower 10

Burn Zombie Burn 10

Pixel Junk Shooter 10

and Lara Croft and the Guardian of Light for 15 

You now get 5 full games for the same price as one.

What is the better deal you tell me..


When a disc based game can get you 100-300 hours of playtime? Definitely a disc based game. In order to get as many hours of playtime as I have got out of Mario Kart, Brawl or the like, I would need to pay hundreds on a downloadable platformer

Yes there are those nice exceptions but then again I bet you can name like 30 games off the top of your head where 4 or 5 downloadable games would be a much better value. 



cmeese47 said:
scottie said:
billy.amick said:

I love games and have an extensive library but I honestly believe you get way more bang for your buck on PSN and XBLA.

Lets show a prime example. 

Dead Rising 2 costs 60 dollars

for that amount on XBLA you can get 

The Dead Rising 2 prequel for 5 bucks

Lara Croft and the Guardian of Light for 15 

Shadow Complex for 15 

and Limbo for 15 

That is just one example and you get 4 games to one. 

Now on PSN

Instead of Dead Rising 2

You buy Deathspank Thongs of Virtue 15

Flower 10

Burn Zombie Burn 10

Pixel Junk Shooter 10

and Lara Croft and the Guardian of Light for 15 

You now get 5 full games for the same price as one.

What is the better deal you tell me..


When a disc based game can get you 100-300 hours of playtime? Definitely a disc based game. In order to get as many hours of playtime as I have got out of Mario Kart, Brawl or the like, I would need to pay hundreds on a downloadable platformer

Yes there are those nice exceptions but then again I bet you can name like 30 games off the top of your head where 4 or 5 downloadable games would be a much better value. 


Sure, if you pick the shortest disc based games and choose to pay full price for them and pick the longest downloadable games (you have to pay full price for them unless we're talking about steam) then the comparison favours downloading.

 

If you are sensible, and buy games that either are considerably cheaper than $50-60 (or pay full price if it's a long gfame like Fire Emblem, Final Fantasy, or anything with good multiplayer like Brawl, MK or Halo) then retail is the way to go imo



It really depends on individual examples.

When I think about it, some of my PSN game purchases were played more than the typical BD based retail game, but this is not the norm.

I'm not sure how many hours I spent playing Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World, but it's safe to say that I got more play time out of that $10 title than most of my full priced retail games. I think I also played Ratchet and Clank: Quest for Booty more than most retail games even though it was short.

But anyone who ever finds themself being "done" with a game they bought as a new release at full $60 retail price after one play through or even less than 10 hours should really reconsider buying $60 games period if their dollar/entertainment hour ratio is such an issue. 

There are alternatives: renting, gamefly, buying releases when discounted, buying releases when they go to "greatest hits"/"platinum hits" pricing, and of course, inventory clearing sales at various retailers (when they stop stocking games, they usually sell the remainder of the inventory for $20 or less).

Either way, I wouldn't be satisfied just playing DD based games on consoles; very few of them offer the same experience.