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

Forums - Gaming - VGC's consensus: is Ground Zeroes worth $30?

 

Is it worth the asking price?

I haven't played it / see results 129 53.09%
 
I have played it, and it is! 38 15.64%
 
I have played it, and it isn't... 75 30.86%
 
Total:242

I haven't played it yet, but the simple fact of the matter is that no matter how enjoyable it may be while it lasts, $30-40 for a game with such a small amount of content is just unacceptable. I'm a huge MGS fan myself, but I'm sorry, I simply refuse to pay that for something that is so obviously just the intro mission of MGSV.

It's amazing to me how so often publisher and devs have gotten hate for things like on disc DLC, which people (rightfully) say should have just been part of the game because you've really already paid for it if it's on disc. Yet now when we have a scenario that is really MUCH worse, where a game has had it's whole fucking intro mission cut out and sold extra (for an insane price at that), people are buying it in droves and awarding it with great reviews.

It's honestly a joke



Around the Network

It's $20 on the PS3; consumers are essentially paying a $10 premium to see the game on the best platform, presumably because Konami knows people will pay it and presumably because there's a smaller potential market on the new consoles (PS4 sales of Ground Zeroes say otherwise) due to the smaller install base.

$20 isn't much of a value for a prologue considering that this was the kind of thing that used to be packed in with a game previously to boost sales of an average title. $30 is even worse considering the types of titles that are available at that discounted price.

But... the point of packaging Ground Zeroes and selling it as a separate product is essentially as a service for the die hard Metal Gear fans who would rather not wait for Phantom Pain. I'd say it also helps finance Phantom Pain, but that game will sell enough copies that Konami could have just given away Ground Zeroes as a promo attached to another Konami title (which would mean paying $60 for the game just to play the prologue).

So for Metal Gear fans and collectors who want another MGS item or just don't want to wait for the full game to be finished, it's worth it.

For anyone else, I could see why they would be understandably upset if they paid $30 for something that was just a teaser of a full title game.



Conegamer said:
I have a mentality that a game is "worth it" if I get around 1 hour of play time for each £ spent. Games which are way under aren't worth it, and games way over are great value for money.

I got Ground Zeroes for £28, and played it for about 4 hours. So, that's 1/7th of an hour per pound. I'm not saying it isn't good (it's enjoyable whilst it lasts), but value for money? No. It's not worth the price.

But in that case you don't think barely any game is worth your time. An full price game is £40, and not many games last 40h.



No troll is too much for me to handle. I rehabilitate trolls, I train people. I am the Troll Whisperer.

Troll_Whisperer said:
Conegamer said:
I have a mentality that a game is "worth it" if I get around 1 hour of play time for each £ spent. Games which are way under aren't worth it, and games way over are great value for money.

I got Ground Zeroes for £28, and played it for about 4 hours. So, that's 1/7th of an hour per pound. I'm not saying it isn't good (it's enjoyable whilst it lasts), but value for money? No. It's not worth the price.

But in that case you don't think barely any game is worth your time. An full price game is £40, and not many games last 40h.

That's true, but most games I don't get at launch, or subsequently replay. I can get around 30-40 hours out if even short games like The Last of Us, by replaying it a couple months after I completed it. 

 



 

Here lies the dearly departed Nintendomination Thread.

Conegamer said:
Troll_Whisperer said:
Conegamer said:
I have a mentality that a game is "worth it" if I get around 1 hour of play time for each £ spent. Games which are way under aren't worth it, and games way over are great value for money.

I got Ground Zeroes for £28, and played it for about 4 hours. So, that's 1/7th of an hour per pound. I'm not saying it isn't good (it's enjoyable whilst it lasts), but value for money? No. It's not worth the price.

But in that case you don't think barely any game is worth your time. An full price game is £40, and not many games last 40h.

That's true, but most games I don't get at launch, or subsequently replay. I can get around 30-40 hours out if even short games like The Last of Us, by replaying it a couple months after I completed it. 

 

Then you can do the same with GZ, wait for a price drop and replay it.



No troll is too much for me to handle. I rehabilitate trolls, I train people. I am the Troll Whisperer.

Around the Network

I really don't like the direction MGS has been taken in. I really doesn't excel at anything these days. And the story jut gets worse and worse. I think I wont be buying MGS again. This latest prologue just reasserts my feelings stronger, that MGS kinda sucks these days the way Resident Evil does.

I guess this is good bye Metal Gear for me. Over the last 6 years Ive said goodbye to Final Fantasy, Resi and now Metal Gear. Theay are all below average series now IMO.

Such a shame that talent from Japan like Lost Odyssey is left on shelves. It blows away the 3 mentioned series above these days.



Akiran said:
DonFerrari said:
It's clearly worth for more than 500k people who bought not sure why so many haters want to beat it out.

Don't think it is worth? Buy a different game with your money and stop worring about "tendencies".

You can't generalize for the 500k people who bought it. The fact that this game is sold for $30 could be potentially dangerous for this industry, and saying something like vote with your money is just a horrible excuse.

Although I do think this game isn't worth $30, it is fun for what it is, and makes me excited for the Phantom Pain :3

Should we also complain that non-AAA games cost 60,00 dollars as well and are shit?

Or if going by duration a RPG should charge 300,00 since a lot of "full-game" you finish in less than 10 h and you won't ever look at them again?

The only trend I see in this is a dev charging less because the game is shorter than average, more companies should do it.





duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

DonFerrari said:
It's clearly worth for more than 500k people who bought not sure why so many haters want to beat it out.

Don't think it is worth? Buy a different game with your money and stop worring about "tendencies".

around 3 out of 5 who bought it disagree with your first sentence

but other then that agreed, if you dont want it dont get it



 "I think people should define the word crap" - Kirby007

Join the Prediction League http://www.vgchartz.com/predictions

Instead of seeking to convince others, we can be open to changing our own minds, and seek out information that contradicts our own steadfast point of view. Maybe it’ll turn out that those who disagree with you actually have a solid grasp of the facts. There’s a slight possibility that, after all, you’re the one who’s wrong.

DonFerrari said:
Akiran said:

You can't generalize for the 500k people who bought it. The fact that this game is sold for $30 could be potentially dangerous for this industry, and saying something like vote with your money is just a horrible excuse.

Although I do think this game isn't worth $30, it is fun for what it is, and makes me excited for the Phantom Pain :3

Should we also complain that non-AAA games cost 60,00 dollars as well and are shit?

Or if going by duration a RPG should charge 300,00 since a lot of "full-game" you finish in less than 10 h and you won't ever look at them again?

The only trend I see in this is a dev charging less because the game is shorter than average, more companies should do it.

I'm sorry but what? This is dangerous to the industry because companies could try to sell their game in sections, example prologue, chapter 1, chapter 2 etc for a ridiculous price. Also to prove how absurd the price of Ground Zeroes is, Dead Rising Case Zero was about $5



Squeezol's Fanclub Member? is that how it works?

Why can't I hold all these no gaemz?

Always looking to improve my awful drawings ;_; 

kirby007 said:
DonFerrari said:
It's clearly worth for more than 500k people who bought not sure why so many haters want to beat it out.

Don't think it is worth? Buy a different game with your money and stop worring about "tendencies".

around 3 out of 5 who bought it disagree with your first sentence

but other then that agreed, if you dont want it dont get it


Well don't think you pooled this proportion but I wouldn't doubt it. And this is why I said in a different post that I would be favorable to devs stating standard duration on normal to complete the game (on normal)  and time to 100%



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."