Video Game News and Miscellany

A dollar per hour is a little unreasonable I think, but a 60 dollar big budget game should at least last 10 in my opinion. Then it's on par with seeing a movie in theaters.
I don't often either. In most cases I can wait.
$6 to an hour is okay, but most of the time you won't pay for it? That doesn't sound like it's okay.

Keep in mind, I mentioned replay value counts. It took me about 18 hours to get through Bioshock Infinite, which I bought new for $60 (a thing I also rarely do). I know I'm going to play that game multiple more times, so it doesn't bother me (especially since I got the original Bioshock for $5 on PC and $15 on PS3 and have played through that four times now).

Yeah, that would be 60 hours minimum for a regular new release. Only a few games carry that much playtime.
I know it's not common--that's probably why I don't buy many console games at release price. Let the price dip to where I feel I'm getting my money's worth. It just doesn't seem to balance for me. A game like XCOM: Enemy Unknown would have been worth $60 for me, but I didn't get it until it was $25. Whereas a game like The Last of Us would've been worth $25 to me, but I bought it for $45.
 
Generally RPG's are the only thing I buy at release price as I know I'll get 50+ hours out of it, easy. Hell, I'm pretty sure I'll drop 50-60 on Mario 3D World, that shit looks like a lot of fun and if it's anything like the WiiU NSMB, there's more than just the main stages to do (NSMBU honestly reminded me a lot of World on the SNES).
 
I refuse to pay $60 for a game. Full stop.
I'll pay $60 for a game I know I'm going to play for years. I know I've mentioned before that I drove through an actual you-should-stay-off-the-road blizzard to buy at full price what was probably the last NIB copy of Master of Orion in the State, but I played that sucker for 5 years.

--Patrick
 
I refuse to pay $60 for a game. Full stop. You know right now there are multiple people at different publishers trying to calculate when/how they can get away with upping the "standard" price for games to 69.99, and how slow the fire has to be under the pot to boil that particular frog. Buying games at $60 damages the industry for the consumer. But not as much as those bastards who preorder - those guys deserve death with a rusty blade.
I'm with you on that. Generally, I have a policy that I won't spend more than around $20-25 on a physical game; no more than around $10 for digital. Admittedly, that rule's occasionally been bent or broken. This year, for example, I bought GTA V on release day and Bioshock: Infinite used pretty soon after release. I also made the mistake of pre-ordering LA Noire a few years ago and paying full price for Amazing Spider-Man.

But generally, I try to stick my rule. :p
 
It's always fun to point out that it's never been cheaper to be a gamer than it is right now.





Them thar cartridges were expensive.
 
Yeah that's a major reason N64 didn't see the ridiculous support PS1 did, carts were stupid expensive to produce compared to disc-based.
Of course, my N64 cartridges still work great, while probably my PS1 games (wherever they are) would make decent coasters, but my PS3 wouldn't like to play them.
 
If it's 5 hours of good gameplay, that's still more than I was expecting. Everything I heard about the game led me to believe that it was not going to be much like Asylum or City.
It's a reskinned clone of Arkham City with an unfinished story that will be continued upon with lots of upcoming story DLC, because WB is apparently just as disgusting a publisher as EA.

My opinion (from playing through half the game last night) is it might be worth buying a game of the year edition on sale.

--------

In other miscellany, does anyone know if Deus Ex: HE Director's Cut has anything more than just redone boss fights? Because 5 bucks for what is effectively a patch to fix the shitty part of a game is completely unappealing.
 
In other miscellany, does anyone know if Deus Ex: HE Director's Cut has anything more than just redone boss fights? Because 5 bucks for what is effectively a patch to fix the shitty part of a game is completely unappealing.
Supposedly there are some tweaks to the graphics & enemy AI, Missing Link integrated into the main game instead of functionally being a standalone game, & various pieces of commentary by developers can be triggered throughout the game - 8hrs worth.

At least they do have the decency to offer it at a cheaper price if you do own the original & DLC.
 
Supposedly there are some tweaks to the graphics & enemy AI, Missing Link integrated into the main game instead of functionally being a standalone game, & various pieces of commentary by developers can be triggered throughout the game - 8hrs worth.

At least they do have the decency to offer it at a cheaper price if you do own the original & DLC.
That's a little better then.
 
I still play my PS1 games on my PS3. FFTactics OG style, yo.
I was judging by my Tactics copy, which I played more than any other PS1 game ... so it might not be the best source. The disc was pretty much useless by the time I got the PSP version with its shitty load times and stupid re-translation. If it wasn't for multi-player with my wife, I'd just get the original PS1 version off PSN.
 
I'm not saying it didn't need a retranslation, but the new translation is overly stiff. It's desperate to sound like LOTR dialogue, except peppered with needless similes. Examples taken from a comparison blog:

PS1: Before that, please tell me your 'name' and 'birthday'.
PSP: Ah, but before we begin, might I ask you to share with me your name and the date of your birth?

PS1: God, please help us sinful children of Ivalice.
PSP: O Father, abandon not Your wayward children of Ivalice, but deliver us from our sins, that we might know salvation.

PS1: Damn, the Hokuten.
PSP: The Order's swords. My luck turns foul with the weather.

I prefer straightforward dialogue to this fluffy crap.
 

figmentPez

Staff member
Steam Family Sharing is pretty damn awesome so far. I got it set up for my sister and my brother-in-law yesterday. We upgraded their Steam client to the beta version, first. Then, I logged in with my account and authorized those computers to use my library, and now when they log-in to Steam they have a section for my games. They each get to have their own Steam cloud saves, they can earn achievements for their username and the vast majority of my games show up on their list. (I'm not sure if if that means they all work, though.)

If this becomes the standard for Steam, it seems like a very good thing for consumers.
 

figmentPez

Staff member
Is that almost the very same thing ms was trying to do with the xbone?
I don't know all the details, but it seems pretty damn close. Only, Steam has a much better starting point, since they're only adding the ability to share, they don't have to lock games to an account first, because that was done years ago.
 
Last edited:

GasBandit

Staff member
Also, I think people would have been a lot more enthusiastic about the XBone's paradigm shifts if they included semiannual 75% off sales.
 
I bet that steam family sharing will need periodic checks online.
I can easily see it as requiring a constant on line connection - but most people, especially in the US, have permanent broadband anyway and won't care much. Besides, it sounds like an ok reasoning - you can use your brother's games, but only when you're on line.
 
Yes - but the same line of reasoning when applied to the XBox One caused people to FREAKING LOSE THEIR SHIT! Some of it was justified however (military serving overseas).
 
Yes - but the same line of reasoning when applied to the XBox One caused people to FREAKING LOSE THEIR SHIT! Some of it was justified however (military serving overseas).
Steam has always been an online service, so people are more accepting to that. Also, Steam's required check ins are stupidly generous, I've kept a laptop loaded with steam games offline for months without it ever needing to phone home to authorize.

The xBone originally had a 24 hour check in requirement, which was unheard of for consoles. People don't mind waiting for a bus, or having it be crowded, because that is expected of the service. They'd bitch like hell if suddenly they had to do the same for their car.
 

figmentPez

Staff member
Yes - but the same line of reasoning when applied to the XBox One caused people to FREAKING LOSE THEIR SHIT! Some of it was justified however (military serving overseas).
Not the same line of reasoning at all. (We'll ignore than PC gaming in general still allows DRM-free options, so the platform as a whole doesn't force players to be online, because Steam is required for a lot of great games.)

Xbox One's abandoned pitch:
- All games, both retail and digital will now act like digital games: getting locked to an account, no selling used, etc.
- All games will require an internet check-in every 24-hours
- Then the little tiny print about family sharing.

Steam's pitch:
- You know all those games you've had locked to your account for years? Now you can share them!
- Offline mode still works just fine, and you can go weeks without logging in if everything goes right.
- The people you're sharing with might need to be online while they're playing your games. (This isn't certain yet, and Valve hasn't said anything about it. There are anecdotal accounts that people can access the games shared with them when they're in offline mode, but I haven't tested this yet.)

In short, Steam still doesn't require someone to check in every 24 hours, and you certainly don't have to be online to play single-player games (unless they have DRM besides Steam).
 
If you don't like Steam's sharing policies, you are free to not use Steam. You can buy retail, or use Origin, etc.

If you don't like the Xbox One's policies, you're out of luck. Your only option is to not use the Xbox One.
 
If you don't like Steam's sharing policies, you are free to not use Steam. You can buy retail, or use Origin, etc.

If you don't like the Xbox One's policies, you're out of luck. Your only option is to not use the Xbox One.
THIS. A THOUSAND TIMES THIS. The console market places are closed markets with no competition: if you have a console, you have to buy games from THIS source or buy a physical copy at a store. Without competition the market never has to be competitive in pricing, which means the games you own digitally are going to cost way more.

Let's compare pricing, shall we?

Left 4 Dead 2: $30 for digital on 360. Only $20 on Steam and that gives you free extra content that is paid DLC on 360.

Alan Wake: $30 on both Steam and Xbox Marketplace... except you get all the DLC for free on Steam and have to pay $6 a pop on 360. Also, I got it 2 copies of both it and it's sequel for less than $10 combined through Humble Bundle.

Deus Ex: Human Revolution: $15 on 360 and $20 on PC... except you have to buy all the DLC on 360, were as it's free on PC. Also, if you already own both HR And Missing Link, you get 75% off the Director's Cut for PC. You have to pay full price for director's cut on consoles.

So yeah... there is a clear difference in pricing.
 
I believe that the reason steam can make sales is because the games are tied to an account and you can't sell them.
 
Top