For me, yes, to a degree. Games like FF XIV, while I really enjoyed it, I didn't feel it was worth the cost of the sub. I can easily afford the sub, but I didn't feel like I was having enough fun to warrant making a monthly commitment. If it was B2P with annual or semi-annual expansions, I'd probably purchase all of the expansions and keep playing.
I purchased both GW2 and the expansion (well I received the collectors edition of heart of thorns as a gift from my wife). I have never felt that money was wasted, even if I am currently not playing it, but I know I can go back whenever.
There are some single player games I purchase straight away, but mostly I wait for sales. Most of my SP games sit in my steam list unplayed for large amounts of time. Then I'll spend a few weeks blowing through it and enjoying my time.
The fact is every producer has a right to price their game what they believe is worth, and obviously the goal is to price it as high as possible, but not as high where they would cost them more by discouraging individuals from spending any $.
This is why sometimes it's better to have a product where three individuals purchase it for $7 each over two individuals who purchase it for $9 each (especially if it will cost you the same to deliver it to all of them). Look at Blizzard for example and its hundred of empty servers.
It's safe to say all individuals have a limit, that red line for every single product no matter how much they like it or not that will eventually make them to say NO. In the past for me many products has failed to take any $ because of this. Example, look at Blizzard with World of Warcraft, I've purchased every single expansion since release on launch, so naturally they have no reason to drop or lower that entry fee until that changes. The difference though is in the power of the subscription. Over the years I've spent the least $ on sub, as well as many others and what Blizzard does to address that? They don't do nothing, they introduce a way to play the game sub free through in game currency trading for sub.
This is just one example where individuals like me who become the majority play a significant factor in lowering the cost and future cost of other products.
I voted yes, but it really depends. If it is a game I am looking forward to I will buy it regardless, but if it is something that looks cool but is a bit out of my normal taste in games (like DOOM or Overwatch for example) the price plays a part.
However, that is for games with just a box price. For sub games, and even more so for sub+box price+expansion price+ cash shop it is nearly impossible to get me to buy it these days. It would have to provide something very special for me to pay that premium considering the high quality of b2p and f2p games these days.
Well the answer is, at some level it is a factor for everyone. Whether that's useless or not depends on what the point if the question was.
I think some people are being a little too esoteric with the question. It was a simple question about the price of games as they are. Not some fantasy world where they are $2 million.
The Skyrim thread you started though was basically whether it should have been priced at c. $20, $40, $60.
And yours was just one thread - I am in no way singling you out - it sprang to mind. There is one today on the ESO DLC - "what is the DLC worth". Destiny, The Division, GW2, WoW, the latest WoW xpac. These discussions are almost a constant. And they usually about $20 or whatever.
For people have what @VengeSunsoar called levels - price bands.
There are some other factors: the product itself (we have to like it), is it even available where you are (e.g. threads on VR sets and graphics cards) and do you know it has launched (advertising - see todays thread about a game closing on Steam that many didn't even know about). With price these are the marketing 101 big four. And determining what price to set is a serious business.
Which is why my answer to the OP was Yes. It "matters". To some not so much - except when stuff comes out that we feel is "over priced".
It depends exactly what you mean.... There are a few games I might try if they were cheaper, but if a game fits my style and has reasonable reviews (been burned too many times by hype to pre-order much anymore) I am generally happy to drop money on it (and even buy DLC if I really like it).
Honestly though, it's more time than money that is a factor in what I play these days; I would rather pay $200 / $50 a month for an awesome game (assuming I have any time to play it) than waste a second on a bad F2P.
I just want to re-iterate that I am nearly positive that from a technical speaking/writing perspective 'the cost of the game' defaults to average or near average cost of a game today and does not include stastitcal outliers.
Reason is because otherwise it would completely dismantle nearly every sentence ever created from 'do you like Pink Floyd' to 'do you like Pink Floyds music' because the statements do not assume 'if Pink Floyd played music they never played before' or 'Pink Floyd played a completely different style from their average a few times and that is the style of music you are refering to'
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
No that is not right technically speaking. Technically speaking ifthe cost factors in any way into your decision whether it was 2 bucks or 2 million then cost is afactor.
that is flat out completely and totally incorrect
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I just want to re-iterate that I am nearly positive that from a technical speaking/writing perspective 'the cost of the game' defaults to average or near average cost of a game today and does not include stastitcal outliers.
Reason is because otherwise it would completely dismantle nearly every sentence ever created from 'do you like Pink Floyd' to 'do you like Pink Floyds music' because the statements do not assume 'if Pink Floyd played music they never played before' or 'Pink Floyd played a completely different style from their average a few times and that is the style of music you are refering to'
Meh, forum swallowed my response
Short version: everyone considers the price, therefore price is a factor for everyone.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
To certain degree. We all have a limit to how much we can spend on gaming after all, and low cost games will get more people trying them so a low cost game that is just as good as a high cost game will get more players.
But most of us would rather play an expensive great game then a crappy free game.
I just want to re-iterate that I am nearly positive that from a technical speaking/writing perspective 'the cost of the game' defaults to average or near average cost of a game today and does not include stastitcal outliers.
Reason is because otherwise it would completely dismantle nearly every sentence ever created from 'do you like Pink Floyd' to 'do you like Pink Floyds music' because the statements do not assume 'if Pink Floyd played music they never played before' or 'Pink Floyd played a completely different style from their average a few times and that is the style of music you are refering to'
Meh, forum swallowed my response
Short version: everyone considers the price, therefore price is a factor for everyone.
that is not true.
1. the price can not be imagined outside the average for the time peroid and can not involve stastical outliers unless otherwise specified. Example: 'Do you like Pink Floyds music' is not to be assumed to be music they have never created but 'could' or music they have performed very rarely if said music style is outside of their norm.
2. the lower the price of something is (within that existing average cost of X we talked about above) the less likely they are to pay attention to it as well as how much income they have.
3. When I go to the grocery store I literally have no idea how much what costs. I walk in, i get what I want, I leave. price does not play a role nor does a fictious imaginatary price because that factor was not added to the orignal statement
4. My mother used to call this nerd logic we are currently involved in as 'pseudo intellectualism' because its pointing out the obvious
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
The cost of games today very greatly from free to tens of thousands of dollars.
nope I am sorry but that qualifies to my point of 'stastical outlier' I am afraid for reasons I have explained here its extreemly obvious that you are incorrect.
It is incorrect to ask 'do you like Pink Floyd' and assume the person asking the question is talking about Punk Folk music
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Yes if a game is P2W like many Mobile games are then I am not going to play the game period. Also if the game is F2P I am likely staying far away from it because it can end up like Neverwinter were its all designed around road blocks that make you spend more money just because you dont want to spend 100 hours grinding.
Games that are B2P Like ESO with an optional sub or sub based games like FFXIV and WOW I will play for sure because they are not designed to make you spend too much more than a sub. Yea there are things like extra retainers in FFXIV, or the cash shop in B2P but they are not the developers sole focus. They are there just to be an incentive to spend a little more than the sub not hundreds if not thousands more than a sub.
Pink Floyd is too specific. It's akin to asking does the type of factor into whether you buy it or not..
Statistic are all too common. Therefore in many cases they are still a factor to consider. Your reasons are incorrect.
statistics are all too common?
that doesnt even make sense on multiple levels.
A 'statistical outlier' by its definition is 'not common'. plus you are wanting to change the rules as you go depending on the example without reasoning at all. That is not acceptable.
Also, despite what you might think cost DOES deminish greatly in importance the lower it gets and DOES increase in importance the higher it gets.
its extremely disingenuous to try to make the position that the same amount of concern is taken regarding cost when going for a walk on a side walk (taxes on wear and tear) as one does when considering buying a home.
Its also extremely disingenuous to try an suggest 'cost' means something that has never happened but 'could happen' that is flat out categorically incorrect use of language no wiggle room on that at all and can and has been measured with repeatable models
also...you misunderstand what my mother was saying. She was basically saying 'you guys are assholes this is a stupid debate fuck off'
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Comments
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
I purchased both GW2 and the expansion (well I received the collectors edition of heart of thorns as a gift from my wife). I have never felt that money was wasted, even if I am currently not playing it, but I know I can go back whenever.
There are some single player games I purchase straight away, but mostly I wait for sales. Most of my SP games sit in my steam list unplayed for large amounts of time. Then I'll spend a few weeks blowing through it and enjoying my time.
And as they are varies greatly from free to tens of thousands of dollars (cash shop and founders packs).
This is why sometimes it's better to have a product where three individuals purchase it for $7 each over two individuals who purchase it for $9 each (especially if it will cost you the same to deliver it to all of them). Look at Blizzard for example and its hundred of empty servers.
It's safe to say all individuals have a limit, that red line for every single product no matter how much they like it or not that will eventually make them to say NO. In the past for me many products has failed to take any $ because of this. Example, look at Blizzard with World of Warcraft, I've purchased every single expansion since release on launch, so naturally they have no reason to drop or lower that entry fee until that changes.
The difference though is in the power of the subscription. Over the years I've spent the least $ on sub, as well as many others and what Blizzard does to address that? They don't do nothing, they introduce a way to play the game sub free through in game currency trading for sub.
This is just one example where individuals like me who become the majority play a significant factor in lowering the cost and future cost of other products.
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
I don't think history does support you.
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
However, that is for games with just a box price. For sub games, and even more so for sub+box price+expansion price+ cash shop it is nearly impossible to get me to buy it these days. It would have to provide something very special for me to pay that premium considering the high quality of b2p and f2p games these days.
And yours was just one thread - I am in no way singling you out - it sprang to mind. There is one today on the ESO DLC - "what is the DLC worth". Destiny, The Division, GW2, WoW, the latest WoW xpac. These discussions are almost a constant. And they usually about $20 or whatever.
For people have what @VengeSunsoar called levels - price bands.
There are some other factors: the product itself (we have to like it), is it even available where you are (e.g. threads on VR sets and graphics cards) and do you know it has launched (advertising - see todays thread about a game closing on Steam that many didn't even know about). With price these are the marketing 101 big four. And determining what price to set is a serious business.
Which is why my answer to the OP was Yes. It "matters". To some not so much - except when stuff comes out that we feel is "over priced".
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
Honestly though, it's more time than money that is a factor in what I play these days; I would rather pay $200 / $50 a month for an awesome game (assuming I have any time to play it) than waste a second on a bad F2P.
Reason is because otherwise it would completely dismantle nearly every sentence ever created from 'do you like Pink Floyd' to 'do you like Pink Floyds music' because the statements do not assume 'if Pink Floyd played music they never played before' or 'Pink Floyd played a completely different style from their average a few times and that is the style of music you are refering to'
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Short version: everyone considers the price, therefore price is a factor for everyone.
But most of us would rather play an expensive great game then a crappy free game.
1. the price can not be imagined outside the average for the time peroid and can not involve stastical outliers unless otherwise specified. Example: 'Do you like Pink Floyds music' is not to be assumed to be music they have never created but 'could' or music they have performed very rarely if said music style is outside of their norm.
2. the lower the price of something is (within that existing average cost of X we talked about above) the less likely they are to pay attention to it as well as how much income they have.
3. When I go to the grocery store I literally have no idea how much what costs. I walk in, i get what I want, I leave. price does not play a role nor does a fictious imaginatary price because that factor was not added to the orignal statement
4. My mother used to call this nerd logic we are currently involved in as 'pseudo intellectualism' because its pointing out the obvious
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
The cost of games today very greatly from free to tens of thousands of dollars.
It is incorrect to ask 'do you like Pink Floyd' and assume the person asking the question is talking about Punk Folk music
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Games that are B2P Like ESO with an optional sub or sub based games like FFXIV and WOW I will play for sure because they are not designed to make you spend too much more than a sub. Yea there are things like extra retainers in FFXIV, or the cash shop in B2P but they are not the developers sole focus. They are there just to be an incentive to spend a little more than the sub not hundreds if not thousands more than a sub.
Statistic outliers are all too common. Therefore in many cases they are still a factor to consider. Your reasons are incorrect.
that doesnt even make sense on multiple levels.
A 'statistical outlier' by its definition is 'not common'.
plus you are wanting to change the rules as you go depending on the example without reasoning at all. That is not acceptable.
Also, despite what you might think cost DOES deminish greatly in importance the lower it gets and DOES increase in importance the higher it gets.
its extremely disingenuous to try to make the position that the same amount of concern is taken regarding cost when going for a walk on a side walk (taxes on wear and tear) as one does when considering buying a home.
Its also extremely disingenuous to try an suggest 'cost' means something that has never happened but 'could happen' that is flat out categorically incorrect use of language no wiggle room on that at all and can and has been measured with repeatable models
also...you misunderstand what my mother was saying. She was basically saying 'you guys are assholes this is a stupid debate fuck off'
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me