| MikeRox said:
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...
|
Just because the game may be worth $50 to some people doesn't mean that they should sell it at $50.
Its like saying that its ok for MS to sell the Xbox One for $1000 simply because it may be worth that much to certain people who really enjoy the system.
I get what you are saying about something's value being subjective from person to person, but at the end of the day, the price of the product should be decided by a combination of the quantiy and quality of content provided.
So lets just look at this from the prespective of a neutral coustomer (someone who likes both TLOU & Halo equally). If this person only had enough money to get one of these games, which would he get? I would wager that he would get the one that he considered to have more value or bang for youur buck, and that would be the MCC by far.
I mean if you just compair the two games, the only thing that TLOU remastered gives you that you can't do on the PS3 version is better graphics.
The MCC however adds a bunch of stuff other than just a graphical update such as online MP for H1&H2 which is something that you can't already do on the older versions. It also adds custom playlist, and a MP mode that has over 100 maps to choose from. On top of that it adds Halo Nightfall, and a Halo 5 beta.
So from the point of a neutral coustomer, the Halo MCC colection offers a lot more value than TLOU remastered as it has a lot of new content on top of graphically updated old content.
Now I said all that to say this: A game's price should be determined based upon how much value it provides to a neutral coustomer.
If you based a game's price based on what a huge fan of the game would pay for it, then the price would end up being too high, and of coarse vise versa if you based the games price on someone who is not interested in the game series at all.
Like I said earlier, I'm not tring to bash TLOU remastered, I am just saying that it is silly to compair it to Halo MCC value wise as it clearly does not have the same amount of value content wise. That being said, it's not really a bad thing as Halo MCC is probabally the best value ever for any game colection remaster ever done.
