Support NeoGAF

[BibiMaghoo]

I bought Black Opseclassified yesterday. The game is pretty much universally panned. I paid £9 for it and think it's not bad at all, and this got me wondering about how much a games pricing alters it's perceived quality. At £40 I would probably be horrified.

Is a games quality judged more harshly at a steeper price? I don't mean volume of content, I mean actual quality, playability, however you want to define that.

Because if that is so, then why are publishers not taking advantage of this? Where are the £25 AAA games?

Would BF:Hardline benefit in reviews for launching at £30 instead of £50? I think yes, certainly so, even though the game is the same. Alternatively, would Watchdogs have been judged more kindly without it's pre-order / special edition DLC? If the game was all present and accounted for at £50, again I think yes.

Obviously people prefer cheaper stuff, but I want to focus on the actual games rather than the money. Is the way you look at a games quality altered by it's cost, or associated pricing for DLC / seasons passes etc? Does a game with more bullshit attached to it, make you judge it's gameplay more harshly as a result? Can we even separate that financial aspect from a games quality?

 

[mdubs]

Yeah if a game is a $29.99 or $39.99 full console retail release (not something episodic like The Walking Dead or RE Revelations 2) my overwhelming assumption is that it will be crap and to steer clear (Unless it's like a last-gen Japanese game or something)

 

[GoldCrusader]

I think that when a game prices is low we just more easily turn a blind eye on some of its problem.

Also when you pay 60 to 80$ for a game you probably have much higher expectation from them.

 

[llehuty]

Doesn't this apply to anything. Like the enjoyment of a movie, food, etc?

 

[BibiMaghoo]

Yeah if a game is a $29.99 or $39.99 full console retail release (not something episodic like The Walking Dead or RE Revelations 2) my overwhelming assumption is that it will be crap and to steer clear (Unless it's like a last-gen Japanese game or something)

So you have a price in mind where a bar of quality starts? That being full price if it's a big publisher?

Doesn't this apply to anything. Like the enjoyment of a movie, food, etc?

Food yes, movies no, I would say.

The cost of a film is generally the same regardless of what it is. A game is not. You would judge the film as bad or not, and the cost is pretty much irrelevant to it's quality. With food it definitely does apply, and you expect better when you pay more, but it's much, much more variable than either games or film.

I don't believe for example, that I would judge a film differently if I paid £15 to see it instead of £5. I would judge a game differently if I paid £5 for it instead of £15.

 

[NinjamicWZ]

Don't know if Declassified is the best example for this, beyond Activision trying to sell it for $50 instead of $40. The game was kind of a perfect storm of timing, high expectations and questions for it get critically shred. I definitely get your point, though.

 

[Deleted member 126221]

Yeah if a game is a $29.99 or $39.99 full console retail release (not something episodic like The Walking Dead or RE Revelations 2) my overwhelming assumption is that it will be crap and to steer clear (Unless it's like a last-gen Japanese game or something)

Captain Toad was really good, and I'm pretty sure Kirby Rainbow Curse will be too.

 

[bomblord1]

Yes pricing has a massive impact on a games perceived quality. It's part of the reason Nintendo's titles sell consistently throughout their lifetime they never change the price except for years after release.

 

[Moon_frogger]

of course. Games dont exist in a vacuum and a review is a consumer tool to help with purchasing. A large part of that is price. Every other consumer product review system in existence takes price into account so why should games be any different. Same with game length. How much time will I be able to spend with the game for the money I payed. It all matters.

 

[Succinct Verbosity]

Hmm. Sometimes. Alpha Protocol controls terribly, but since I bought it at such a low price it far surpassed my expectations and become one of my favourite RPGs. At other times, I have bought a game at a discounted prince and felt awful for not supportting the developers and not paying full price (mostly steam related).

 

[Emperor_Uriel]

I thought Dead Island was fantastic. I paid $5 for it.

Likewise, something as replayable as Skyrim or Dark Souls seems like a steal at $60.

 

[DaleinCalgary]

Yes pricing has a massive impact on a games perceived quality.

Or sometimes it's a deal and turns it into a massive success. See Burnout Paradise.

 

[BibiMaghoo]

Every other consumer product review system in existence takes price into account so why should games be any different. Same with game length. How much time will I be able to spend with the game for the money I payed. It all matters.

Because I don't think that is the case for other media is it?

Does a book review take into account it's £17 when it could be £8? Film reviews don't take into account the price of a movie ticket or bluray. Their pricing is less variable, and so irrelevant to their quality. The quality of neither is judged on it's cost. Perhaps this is simply because the normal price of each is much less than the normal price of a game, or because one has a standard the other does not.

 

[Fbh]

Having paid $30 for Shadows of Mordor I found the game to be pretty good.
But I would have been dissapointed by it if I had paid $60

Doesn't this apply to anything. Like the enjoyment of a movie, food, etc?

This.

Generally, the more you pay for something the better you expect it to be.
If I pay $20 for a burger and it's just above average I'll be pretty dissapointed
If I pay $5 and it's above average I'll be happy

of course. Games dont exist in a vacuum and a review is a consumer tool to help with purchasing. A large part of that is price. Every other consumer product review system in existence takes price into account so why should games be any different. Same with game length. How much time will I be able to spend with the game for the money I payed. It all matters.

Well, reviews still take price into account, just not in such a direct way.

Say, in a review for a $10 downlodable 3D indie game you won't see the reviewer pointing out that the graphics aren't up the standards of AC:Unity or The Order 1886. And a $60 that's 5 hours long might be critized for lacking content, something they don't bring up if a $10 game is 5 hours long

 

[Bricky]

People tend to judge products on their value. On top of that higher price means higher expectations, which makes disappointment more likely.

Even negative reviews of high-cost releases often advise something like 'wait for this one to hit the budget bin'. Just because someone says a game is bad doesn't necessarily mean he/she thinks it is unenjoyable or not worth playing at all.

And yes, I think Hardline would've reviewed better at a lower pricepoint. Why not sell it for less then? Because an AAA franchise like Battlefield sells regardless of reviews. Evolve would be a better example. Without all the DLC bullshit and perhaps a lower price of admission I can easily imagine it having been received better and have better sales. I've seen tons of people mention they aren't buying Evolve because of the DLC (bad value) even though they think the game itself looks fine or liked the Alpha/Beta (good quality).

 

[MormaPope]

Value means a lot less to me nowadays versus how much fun I'm having moment to moment. The metric is "am I enjoying this?" with yes or no being the answers. Spending $5 on a game I end up detesting is just as bad as buying a $60 I think it okay.

 

[RS4-]

Value means a lot less to me nowadays versus how much fun I'm having moment to moment. The metric is "am I enjoying this?" with yes or no being the answers. Spending $5 on a game I end up detesting is just as bad as buying a $60 I think it okay.

This is how I feel too, $5 or $50, a bad game is a bad game. I just feel worse about paying full price for it. COD AW for example, I'd feel ripped off even if I paid $5 for it.

 

[Pachinko]

Game A costs 60$ and it as well as others like it are "good games".

Game B costs 40$ and it as well as others like it are "okay games"

Game C costs 60$ and it as well as others like it are "okay games"


Money and time are 2 important metrics when making a video game purchase - money is also = to time (in the form of hours worked) so basically, if you can get a good experience for 60 $ and an okay experience for 40$ , why shouldn't Game C be judged a bit more harshly for charging Game A prices for a a Game B experience ?

In the case of the real world, there are many different quality levels in gaming and typically pricing levels reflect that - higher priced titles tend to have a more robust presentation but get judged quite harshly if the game play isn't at least above a lower priced title.

The more fun a game is to play the less the price becomes an issue and the more time comes into play - you don't' want to waste hours of your life on something that sucks right ?

 

[RM8]

Sometimes games simply lack content and are over too quickly (it often happens with launch games), but they're absolutely worth playing at lower prices. I bought Steel Diver for peanuts and I absolutely loved, even though it's definitely not a full-priced game.

 

[Qurupeke]

If I buy a game full price it means that the hype is real and I'm extremely excited about this. Generally, if it's not that good, I'll be disappointed. On the other hand, if I buy a game for 10% or 20% the original price, I can ignore more easily its flaws.

 

[Duxxy3]

A multiplayer only game loaded with day one dlc is immediately worth little to nothing to me (less than $10). Single player only games loaded with day one dlc are worth more (less than $20). Single player or multiplayer only without day one dlc are worth more ($40 roughly). Single/multiplayer games without day one dlc are worth the most (full price).

Just my own metrics. Not really rigid though. I like some series and genres more than others.

 

[REDSLATE]

A game's quality definitely has an impact on whether I buy it at full price or not, but when it comes to judging the game itself, I separate quality from value.

 

[Wowfunhappy]

Doesn't really make a difference to me.

I care much more about my time.

 

[BinaryPork2737]

Pricing makes a huge difference at times.

I bought The Evil Within when it was somewhere around $16 on greenmangaming back in December and I ended up loving it. I honestly think that the low price played a factor in that, since I could see myself being a little harsher on the game if I had bought at launch for full price.

 

[potam]

Yes and no, depends on a couple of things. If it's something like Grow Home, which Ubisoft just released for $7.99 (honestly figured it was like $20-30 before I looked it up right now), I understand why. It's a big publisher giving one of their smaller developers the chance to do an experimental game.

Now, if Ubisoft were publishing a traditional AAA game, like say FC4, for $40 (MSRP at release), I would begin to wonder what the quality is like and if they really don't expect it to sell well at all.

If it's a AA studio with a smaller publisher, and they release at $40 or $50, I probably wouldn't think twice about what the quality is like based on pricing alone.

So really I guess it's a case by case basis, but luckily I don't walk into stores and just randomly buy a game with no prior knowledge, so in the end, price doesn't really matter much.