RF Generation Message Board

With the predominance of multiplayer, RPGs, and various other genres, it seems to me that the single player action game has really lost it's appeal as a Buy-at-Release or Reserve-worthy genre.

I mean, even if they're GOOD (which many of them are), why would you buy it at release? I've only bought 1 Action-Adventure title at release in the last 3 years, Bioshock. And even that is considered more of a shooter-adventure.

When I see games like Ninja Gaiden, God of War, Assassin's Creed, Mirror's Edge, and various other iterations of the action genre come out I can't help but think "Why would I pay $60 for this?" and then go into a self-dialogued list of all the features it doesn't have to make it worth the money at release. The lastest upcoming effort in this list for me is likely to be [Prototype].

Don't get me wrong, all of the games I've mentioned above are really good/great games. However, nothing makes them stand out for me to want to pay $60 for them. $20 or less...sure (maybe even $30). But $60? I just don't get it.

Maybe the aspect that's driving me to this opinion is the lack of replay value in said games of this genre? Because it's not like this with RPGs, imo, because you can play RPGs repeatedly from so many different points of view, and they also frequently offer a vast amount of content in terms of game time played/game price paid ratio to warrant the $60 purchase.

What determines the value of a single-player action game for you? What makes it worthy of $60 vs deciding to wait until it's a bargain title?

I'm having a hard time understanding why I would pay €60 (or sometimes even €70) for any game.

It just feels a bit like a waste to get a game for that price when there's hundreds (if not thousands) of older good games I haven't bought/played. And those usually don't come with the €60 price tag. :D

As collectors/gamers, we have the luxury of looking long term at these games and deciding if $60 can be validated.

Mass Effect? Beat it 3 times already. That's 3 $20 games worth of value in a year and a half. By the time the next system rolls out I'll probably have 200 hours put into it. The same can be said for any of my $60-70 RPGs. Forza 2 probably has a good 80 hours put into it even if I subtract the 15-20 just spent painting cars.

Assassin's Creed on the other hand, I waited until it was $19.99 new before I bought it. With the achievements, it's only worth that to me because it may be years before I ever sit down and beat it again. Don't get me wrong, I'm having fun with it but until it gets a sequel or two it won't really endear itself to me as a series I anticipate.

RPGs are worth $60 to me. So are racing sims like Forza or Gran Turismo. Sequels to beloved franchises like Splinter Cell absolutely. Fortunately between all of that I'm only looking at paying $60 for maybe 3-4 games a year. Just about everything else is a case by case, mostly falling in the $30 or less category, $10 if it has a short single-player campaign or newer sequel.

Very few games are worth paying $60 for me. I usually wait until I can find a game for $20 or less. That being said I will buy a game for $60 if I know I will get alot of use out of it (Fallout 3, Halo 3, Guitar Hero). I like to wait until a generation is over and then go back and buy the games for a few bucks. It works for me.

For a single player action game, I don't generally care if I spend $60 on it. What matters most is to what extent I enjoy the game. Sure, people may brush off Mirror's Edge as a short game, but I don't see that as a problem. It's so damn good, that I don't mind paying $60 and giving EA a vote to continue making bold, innovative titles like it. The problem with waiting so long to buy innovative titles like Mirror's Edge is that you're not giving your vote for these companies to continue being creative, and by the time you get to a title, the company may have decided to not do a sequel or not pursue other games like it.

But of course, that's not true with all games. If it's a single player game that I don't think is particularly interesting or is doing anything to advance gaming as a medium/artform, I'll wait for the price to drop.

Am I the only one who thinks this way? Making purchases as a vote for innovation?

I feel the same way. Not just with games but anything, voting with your wallet is the best way to be heard. So as you can imagine, I take each game as it comes. If I really like it I'll get it.

With the economy and my lack of money, I can only afford the bargain bin lol.

Did you play it through on Insanity difficulty yet? And did you like the DLC (I DL'd it, but haven't had the chance to play through it yet).


No doubt it's a valid argument. A part of me probably bought Bioshock at release for the same reason.

I think the same can be said for movies. People tend not to discriminate enough when it comes to moviegoing, imo. They plunk down their money on what's new from the major studios and consequently miss out on the indy gems that are out at the same time.

It's a fine line. :-\

Call me a loner, but I prefer a game where I don't bother interacting with others.

I started a save file and played through until I was able to leave the Citadel but that's about it. The measly few points earned for an insanity run-through isn't worth it, especially since I've already capped out my character at level 60 and the last two character achievements are tedious at best.

The DLC is pretty cool. It requires a bit more strategy than most missions and the Batarians are pretty nasty. Apparently they've announced more DLC but few details are available at this point.

Meh, nothin wrong with that really. Comes down to individual preferences.

When I bought games, if it was something I wanted to support I would buy it new. Still much the same, I just don't buy many games anymore. I am, however, going to buy Empire: Total War when it comes out.

My Last Games bought at release
- Crackdown - Action/Adventure - Early 2007
- Halo 3 - Shooter - Fall 2007
- FEAR 2: Project Origin - Shooter - 2 nights ago

As you can see, I don't buy too many games at release, and 2 of them are shooters.

I usually only buy games at release if it is part of a series that I really like.

Like many have said before me I buy pretty much all my games used no matter what the genre is. I just cant bring myself to pay $60 for a game, when I know in a matter of weeks I can get it used cheaper.

We should all be thankful that games are cheaper now than they've been in almost 30 years!

Well, no. The last generation had games selling with an RRP of £30 for most of that period. I think the PS2 was RRP £40 for only one year, maybe two, after its release. The Xbox 360's RRP was £50 on release and dropped to £40 a year after.

Here they've dropped between $10-30 on average for new titles in the last couple of years. $49.99 or $59.99 games nowadays are quite common. PSP and DS games are a lot cheaper too. Xbox/GameCube/PS2 games cost as high as $79.99, N64/PS1 could be anything from $40-80, SNES games cost as high as $80 fifteen years ago, NES/SMS games were $50 twenty years ago, others as high as $90. That doesn't include the extra $10 for LEs or CEs. PC games are all over the place, some higher, some a lot lower.

Depends on where you live I guess.

Australia hasn't seen too much of a change. I remember Mega Drive games costing around $100 when released. Although admittedly back then it did feel like money well spent for a lot of those games, Phantasy Star IV in particular I remember thinking this.

The 360 is still around that price mark, Wii depends, a lot do hit that pricemark but you do get cheaper ones two. PS2 is around $50 a new game now, and PS3 is above the $100 mark each new release.

Comparing this generation with the previous generation, I must say games have become slightly more expensive here in Belgium. A new release PS2 game used to be €59.99, €63.99 maximum. (€59.99 was definitely more commonplace than prices above €60 though)

With the Xbox 360 and PS3 a new release usually is €64.99 - €69.99. Some drop fairly fast to a more acceptable €59.99, yet others seem to cling onto their release price for months on end (MGS4 being a good example...).

But I agree with Tan that gaming hasn't become more expensive in the long run. Although my memories of this era are much more vague, I remember SNES games being 3000.00BEF (Belgium Francs) which translates to roughly €75. Even without taking into account inflation, games definitely became cheaper overal. :)

Tan is definitely right for Canada at least, here it is quite common to find games for $10-$30 brand new only a year after their release. Depends on the title obviously, some of the AAA titles stay expensive longer. Makes it very hard to pay full price for any game.

Heh, I bought Donkey Kong Country 3 for $64 back in 2nd grade. I do not regret it at all because I played it all the time, beat it numerous times, and loved every second of it.

Whatever happened to those days? Getting one game and playing it over and over and over without the need to go out and buy tons of other games?

We got greedy.

That, and our attention spans got smaller and smaller. :P

That, and games started coming out much more frequently. So there's a LOT more to choose from. Instead of seeing a new game come out once a month or so, they're coming out every week nowadays!

Less interaction means less human hassle.

And I can't stand foulmouthed teens, for the record.

I'm beginning to think that the current pricing model is hurting innovation.

Think about back in the day. Say the standard game price is $50, and you're making an action game. Since "action game" had a much tighter definition back in the 80s and 90s, your development costs went into making the game more creative in terms of content. $50 pays for manufacturing as well as decent development.

Today, when the price has reached $60US for a new title, with the people used to $50, they're going to expect to enjoy that $60 game. However, the easiest way to make someone happy with your game is to make it similar to something that they've played before. Most "action games" today are slower and more focused on the cinematic elements, and you see a ton of the same thing getting marked down. If a developer is going to do something remotely different, they'll probably lower the price (Katamari for example). In terms of pricing, the Madden effect can now be applied to much more. Using movies as an example, look at how quickly the "action movies" drop in price. This is one of the prices of today's large audience, greedy producers, and the global economy. The economy is going to push this movement if it continues to get worse.

I like to call this effect "the 51% theory." Why would a studio spend serious money on an original concept, when average sales of a given media format only go so high? Instead, they can produce several products for the same budget, inundating the market with products that only go a little bit beyond acceptability. Now we're left with something great every once in a while, then a ton of painfully average content. It's hard to label things "really bad" now, because everything is just so painfully average. I personally use 51% as my description of choice, but most game reviewers will use "75%," which essentially means the same thing. I just feel that being average is a BAD thing when it comes to media, not a good thing.

Know where the innovation today is? Downloadable titles.

I can't argue that fact. However, it seems that with the innovative downloadable titles, their innovation is all they have. It seems that you can have either innovation or story, but not both.

What about Mirror's Edge or Dead Space? Those are pretty innovative and have stories.

He was talking about downloadable titles, the games you mention are both non-downloadable so you'll have to come up with something else to proove him wrong. ;)

Braid is the best example I can think of. However that's only 1 title among hundreds out there as DLC.

I was not thinking :(

Braid's a good example. But I'd say flOw, Flower, Pixeljunk Eden, World of Goo, Noby Noby Boy, and Everyday Shooter as well.

I forgot about Geometry Wars 1 & 2! Also Cloning Clyde is a very fun and underrated game. 8)

I agree with that kinda. I cant spend 50+ on a new game but a CIB Atari 2600 game no problem.

What's the difference? I guarantee you'll get less play out of the 2600 game.

I agree with Tondog. 2600 games really can't hold my attention for long. Maybe it's because I'm too young to fully appreciate them, but I can't imagine playing Combat or Asteroids for 50+ hours.

What I mean with my original statement is that I'd rather buy a last-gen game for €10-20 than a new game for €50-70, when I get just as much enjoyment out of the last-gen game.

Because in most cases the Atari game I buy for 50 I can resell for 50. New games you buy for 50 you are lucky to get 20 for them. It is all because I know that new 60 dollar game will be 15 within a year and I have plenty of other stuff I can play.