Also only the MCC allows you to experience everything halo has to offer in one place where with the tlou you can get the same experience on both the ps4 and ps3

This shows that you only value cost of production and duration as opposed to enjoyment of finished product.

a 10 hour movie with $1bn budget, is not automatically better value to anyone than any other film ever with the same ticket price at a cinema. The film they enjoyed the most is the best value. That applies equally to games.

I couldn't give a flying f*ck how many hours and dollars went into a game. I care how much enjoyment I get out of it. You clearly have misplaced priorities in your gaming if you view it that way.

If LoU is $30 and the season pass is $20, how is there an $80 bundle? Seems like it's $50 for $50 worth of content on PS4 by your own estimation. And as plenty of others have already pointed out, you are including (an inflated) value figure for LoU DLC but none for Halo except Halo 4.

There are other factors at play, too. The Halo collection includes access to the Halo 5 beta. We saw people on here excited about buying GoW:A more than normal and seeing increased value because it had a Last of Us demo included. No reason the same logic cannot apply here. And it's not just a SP demo like that was, but the actual MP beta. It also has Nightfall, which will apparently cost $15 standalone. So there is more value.

On top of that, the MCC will be the first time you can play Halo CE MP in its original form online on consoles. That is a huge draw. Not to mention Halo 2, which can no longer be played online. All DLC included. And Halo 3, the most popular title in the franchise (sales wise). All download content included. Also, these games will be 2, 7, and 9 years old when the game comes out. If you want to play LoU you can play it with all the same content online and offline on PS3 just fine. You can't do that with all the content in MCC.

Of course it's all still subjective. If you don't care for Halo, all the content in the world won't make it a better value. Which is fine.

No, it doesn't. It shows that I understand value and you clearly do not. I think the original TLOU is that amazing. My personal opinion doesn't mean it wasn't a game worth $60. A 10 hour film with a budget of $1bn would not have the same ticket price of any other film. It would be 5x more expensive than a normal ticket. Film length doesn't vary like game length does. If there was a $15 movie ticket for a 20 minute short film, no one would buy it, because it's a rip off.

Surely this is a contradition.

If someone doesn't like Halo, but thinks the Last of Us was the best game ever made and would do anything to be able to play it at 60fps, how is MCC going to be better value than the PS4 port of The Last of Us?

You confirm with this that "value" is subjective.

The 20 minute short film example just shows that most people still have limits as to what they deem acceptable to pay a set price for.

So you could care less about Konami charging $40 for MGS Ground Zero as long as you enjoy the game?  To you it has the same value as a game like skyrim that has 100+ hours of content and no doubt cost a lot more money to make?

I mean I'm just saying, I don't care how good a game is, if its only a couple hours long, I expect it to be $20 or less simply because it has less content than other games.

The same thing can apply to HD remasters, if there is not a lot of effort involved in making the remaster, I expect to pay less for it than for a remaster of a game that took a lot more effort to port over and has a lot more content.

Your cinama example also is not very good as every movie offers around the same amount (time wise) of entertainment, in this case though, the MCC clearly offers a ton more content than TLOU remastered.

Well for one, I didn't buy MGS Ground Zeroes because I don't really like MGS.

But if I preferred MGS games to Skyrim, it's irrelivant that there is 100+ hours of content and a higher dev cost. MGS Ground Zero would still be better value to me.

The amount of effort and money that has gone into something, does not reflect value to the end user. Merely enjoyment of that product does.

@ Bolded, what about people who can't stand FPS games? You think they get better value having 4 games they can't stand as opposed to 1 game they can? ;)

This is why value is subjective and can't just be quantified through development cost and duration (which is the point I was trying to make with the movie example). If I don't like something, no amount of development budget and number of iterations on the disc will give me better value.

Some of the best value I've ever had from a game is actually Sega Rally on the Saturn. It had 3+1 tracks and 2+1 cars. But the course design was near perfect, the handling unmatched even now,and I poured hundreds of hours into improving my times.

I'd say for me, that was far better value than Gran Turismo which had hundreds of cars and far more tracks, but I didn't enjoy anywhere near as much because I don't like simulation racers anywhere near as much, and the course design was nowhere near as good. And 500 cars? wow, I use a whopping 10 of them frequently...

oh jesus did you read the beginning and end?  I'm not trashing Halo collection for Christ's sake!  Let's just say at this point that those DLCs would cost an extra $20?  Is that fair or is it all part of my secret agenda?  Keep in mind in Goty edition the DLCs are normally discounted very much.

Cut it out both of you or I will spank you both to banville!

Then why don't the 3 or 2 game collections on PS3 that were 1080p 60fps for all the games get as much praise for their value as MCC?  Ratchet 1,2,and 3 with 3's multiplayer (since people are making such a big deal about Halo 2 MP) for $40.  Yet no one brought that up as some amazing example of value.  Maybe Sony should have made a big part of their press conference about it.