| RolStoppable said:
It's strange to read that somebody who can have a game according to his wishes would not be willing to pay full price for it. If everything could go your way you would demand the game to be free; $30 is just such a weird middleground between wishful thinking and a realistic expectation.
|
Another false assumption. Time to get off your high horse, stoop down, and ask a few questions. It could be tough to realize what you had in mind may not have been the truth, but it'll pay off in the end.
To answer, no I would not want it for free, I like to pay for something I think has value, and to me, with what I had in mind, 30$ was reasonable.
(In other words, I find certain games today overpriced)
Next time, just ask.
|
Anyway, as for your reasons:
1) and 2) Okay, these points are reasonable.
3) This is wrong. Improvements in technology made game development more expensive over the years, because more artistic detail could be injected into games. Back in the NES days you had 8-10 people working on an entire 2D game, because it only took one artist (although often enough the programmers would do this job on the side), a level designer, a composer and a handful of programmers to get the job done. Nowadays you can have 15-20 people who just do the art.
|
You may be right, what do I know. I only said that based on my understanding of things. If you're right, then I should in fact pay much more for my games today.
But why were they able to make games with 8-10 people back then, a game I could thouroughly enjoy, but today it takes them so many more people? Are the priorities misplaced? How hard can it be to spot some cheese, and make minor corrections to fix it? Maybe you're right, maybe there is enough talent. Maybe it's just the direction/management that's at fault. Ultimately, what do I know. All I know is I consider 30$ a good price for such a game, after paying 40$ for NSMB on the DS, I would be fine with a game built on largely the same architecture, with only more artistic detail, and I consider 30$ a good price considering code reuse. I think that's a fair assessment.
|
4) Following the above point, this is consequently wrong as well. Besides, the price you are willing to pay for a game should not be dependent on the production costs of the game, but the entertainment value you expect to get out of the game. A turd with high production values is still a turd, because money can't replace talent in game development.
|
No, it should be based on both. And that's my PoV. It doesn't mean I don't care about Mario, it just means my purchase value set is different than yours.
|
I forgot about the PM, but now that I have reread it, what kind of motivation did you have to make this thread? Getting other opinions on the topic I could understand, but the tone in your original post doesn't imply that that is what you were after. There would have been better ways to start this discussion (but if you did that, then we wouldn't approach 400 posts in this thread).
|
Then I'll correct my tone. I'm always open to suggestions. I don't want to fight with you. Especially not if it can be avoided with a bit of effort on my part. But just remember this thread is not just written for you, it's also written for other types of fans of the series. Just keep that in mind, okay?
|
Let me ask you a simple question. If you had a game with excellent gameplay, but it was about something you really hate, I don't know pink ponies and cheesy themes all over the place. Would you still play it???
If yes, good on you. I'm just not as valiant, my level of tolerance is much lower.
|
I probably wouldn't play such a game, but I find this analogy pretty damning, because your pink pony is Super Mario.
|
Mario isn't my pink pony, the spider, the decorations and the sparkles all over the place are. Mario's doing just fine.
