Value is a topic that comes up a lot in video gaming nowadays. 

Recent Xbox Live and Playstation Network game pricing seems to be the argument du jour, with indie favorites Braid and the recent Limbo under fire for disproportionate playtime vs. price.  The last few years have also given us both Modern Warfares, a few Halos, both Gears of War, and other AAA titles with campaigns lasting six hours or under (depending on difficulty setting and other factors, of course.)  Indeed, the last two console generations have seen a serious rise in critique over game lengths, with the most recent high definition consoles' higher priced games leading the charge that we as gamers often just aren't getting our money's worth anymore. 

But what gives something value?  Is it the length of the game?  The graphics, sound, and gameplay?  The quality of the experience?  The presence of tubby Italian plumbers that, despite their claimed occupation, are more often observed playing various sports and throwing parties rather than doing anything even vaguely plumbing related?

Value is usually balanced on the scales of public opinion, but here's the most interesting fact about it:  it is completely subjective.  I cannot force my sense of a value on anyone else, and their concept of value will be different than my own.  I may persuade, I may cheapen, I can present cases for and against all day long.  At the end of the day, I may convince some gamers that my Neo Geo AES and games are worth the money spent, but that guy with every Neo Geo game on his modded PSP or XBox will never see it as such.  Value is an extension of opinion.  And as we all know, opinions are like crazy, conspiracy-spewing, Hawaiian-shirt-wearing uncles:  everyone has one, and they are all wrong.

One thing that has spoiled our gaming masses for far too long is the typical price-point of our systems and accessories.  I believe we gamers often have a very unrealistic expectation when it comes to prices in our hobby, born of price stagnation outside of inflation.  Dsheinem's detailed article on the Atari 2600 VCS mentions that some launch games were within the $20 to $30 price point range- and that adjusted for inflation, gamers were putting down between $70 to over $100 back in the late 70's. 

In '92, I bought Axelay at my local KB Toys for 79.99.  (I remember very clearly saving $50 and then having to borrow an extra $30 from my mom to make up the difference.)  That's a twenty buck premium over our current standard pricing structure- until inflation kicks in, which puts my pricey purchase over $120 in our current futureland.

Speaking of Axelay, I can finish it at least three times over in the amount of time it took to finish Limbo.  If I were using cost-per-minute as a value indicator, comparatively Limbo might as well be an MMO.  Or a Shin Megami Tensei.

How many of us 'old-school' gamers paid well over fifty bucks for the original Phantasy Star, the old NES/SNES RPGs, or even older PC games like Wizardry or Ultima?  Price adjusted, these games were worse than Halo 3: Cat Helmet addition. 

But were they worth it?

Well, considering how fondly these games are often remembered, I rarely if ever hear complaints over their original price, unless it was about convincing our parents or saving up to buy them.  Even those lore stories tend to be recalled as worthy sacrifices, the trials we endured to partake of gaming's greatest.  Unless you bought 7th Saga for seventy bucks.  Then you just got ripped off.  ()

I find it interesting that most gamers seem to be willing to defend their beloved hobby as art, yet cry out in near unison over not getting enough 'bang for the buck' with their game purchases.  If we believe that there is true merit to the interactive experiences we enjoy, why are we not defending these products based on what we receive from our personal experience with it? 

I paid more for a new TMNT IV: Turtles in Time (SNES) than the cost of a new Wii game.  Moreover, I've traded it and bought it again a few times over.  I even bought the XBLA remake.  I can finish that game on the hardest difficulty in under twenty minutes.  I still think I've gotten my money's worth.

By the way, in the year I bought that copy of Turtles, a number 3 two McCheeseburger combo meal at McDonalds cost $2.99.  Now, the same meal is $4.97.  That's an increase of over 65% in less than twenty years.  How many decades did we expect to be able to pay around $40 to $50 for a new game and completely ignore the rates of inflation? 

But expectations are different now.  We're seventh generation, baby!  We don't buy Space Invaders for a hundred bucks:  a dollar is too much to pay for an updated version on my iPhone.  We're in a recession.  We demand an unnecessary multiplayer component that feels forced and will remain untouched after being scrounged for a few gamerpoints or trophies.  We know that despite the millions spent making and marketing a new blockbuster title, we are being overcharged for our games.  EA and Activision are evil, corporate monsters who don't deserve $60 for a cut and paste sequel to what we liked before, and what indie developer is so pretentious as to think that a few years and their life savings are worth ten more bucks than we want to spend?

Here is the problem as I see it; we, as a gaming public, have grown up with games.  What was once luxury is now viewed as necessity.  We feel we not only have the right, but the requirement to be elitist, even snobbish, over gaming.  Long ago, one or two games at most were produced a month, and we salivated over them, shared them, experienced them.  Now we buy two and get one free, without care, to grind out achievements and trophies and brag that we 'beat' them so we can move on.

Nothing is inherently wrong with more games, achievements, trophies, or 'beating' games.  But are we still having fun?  I spent a long time and lots of money in Final Fantasy XI before I realized I did not enjoy the experience.  Some love the game, and that's great for them.  But it took me a while to see that I was playing simply to be playing: gaming as a requirement, not for fun.  The treadmill is only entertaining while you are actually being entertained; after that, its just more work.

If you like burning through games as fast as possible and still enjoy each one, that's great.  But I think that the larger our industry gets, the more we have to come to respect everyone else under the gaming umbrella.  I hear plenty of complaints about short games.  What I rarely hear is the opposite complaint:  this game is not a good value for me because it is just too long.

I have a wife, three kids, an imaginary Rabbid and a ton of housework.  They all need my time.  (Except the Rabbid, I just give him imaginary time.)  If every game I want to play is twenty or more hours long, I either neglect my responsibilities or I don't finish many games.  A game with a campaign that is more than eight to ten hours long is not a good value for me if I want to play other games.  I just don't have the time, and I will want to play other things.  If I am going to spend $50 to $60 on a game I intend to finish, I want it to fit my constraints, otherwise it is not a good value to me.

Portal comes to mind.  Though there are detractors over the game's length, many critics and gamers have stated that its four or five hour run time was about perfect.  It told a story, invented interesting gameplay mechanics, and stayed just long enough to not wear out its welcome.  Unless the pacing and mechanics were radically altered, a longer experience with Portal would have likely began feeling more drawn out and even dull.  There are timing challenges, speed runs, and mods for those wanting to stretch it out further, and even a sequel that promises to expand the formula into something that supports a longer, expanded game.  But arguably, Portal 2's greatest challenge will be to match the superb pacing of the original.

I don't want every game to be done in a few hours.  I just want developers to know and gamers to respect that we are all different, and remember that just because a game takes a long time to complete doesn't mean it is a better game.  If the game I want to finish is a quality experience, and the pacing, momentum, and flow are well realized, I want to be able to get to the end!  Stretching it out does not make it better or more valuable, it just means I am less likely to complete it before moving on.  According to developer Remedy, only 30% of players finish a game they start.  If I buy a Big Gulp because the pricing means I get more Mello Yello per penny, and take two sips before tossing it aside, was it a better deal than the small cup that had less drink, but the correct amount I wanted?

The Playstation 3's launch is another perfect example.  Touted as the next gaming need, it provided Blu-Ray, HD graphics, a hard drive, HDMI output, USB ports for your USB supported hair dryer, and the weight of a Mini Cooper.  The early adopters bragged that it was well worth the cost for the Blu-Ray player alone, and that for everything it offered, it was an exceptional value. 

But that mentality assumes way too many things, including:

1. Do I have an HD TV?

2. Do I intend on starting a Blu-Ray collection right now? (versus waiting a few years?)

3. Are there any PS3 games out now or in the next month that I consider must-have, day one purchases? 

If the answer to these are no, is $600 a good value?  What price would be?  The answer is left up to the individual, as any question of value is.

Collectors are in yet another level of comparative worth.  Stadium Events for tens of thousands of dollars?  Your 99 cent copy of World Class Track Meet is identical, save for a title screen and label.  Should WCTM cost more?  Stadium Events less?  All in the eye of the beholder.  If it is worth more or less to you, congratulations:  you have an opinion.  Is a BMW worth tens of thousands?  To some, yes.   My Subaru does just fine by me.  Am I wrong, or is the BMW owner?  Neither and both.  To many people, my Panzer Dragoon Saga is not worth even the cost of a current new game, much less what it goes for now.  But it was worth every penny to me, and to argue against that is to simply admit it is not worth that price for you.

I would like to end with the admonition that yes, gaming can be expensive.  Most gamers have very limited budgets for gaming.  Of course we want our money's worth.  That's why we research to find out what is worthwhile to us individually.  Millions of fans bought maps for Modern Warefare 2 that are worthless to me, yet cost the same as the entire game of Limbo.  But the few hours I put into Limbo was worth more to me than all the hours I put into Final Fantasy XI or the recent Resonance of Fate.  It won't be worth as much to many others.  But to say a game is not worth a certain price, period, end of story, is insulting everyone who disagrees.  Over an idea of worth that is completely subjective in the first place.  For example:

If you took a million dollars of our paper currency back three hundred years, it becomes worthless; three hundred years from now it will likely become worthless again.  That same million dollars today would set me up for life; for Bill Gates or Bill Clinton, it wouldn't even change their taxes.  More valuable to some, less to others.

Let's not pretend any of us are universally correct over gaming value.  Let's just vote with our dollars to get the things of worth for us.

And, of course, check CAG for sales.

Permalink | Comments [12] | Digg This Article | Tweet