Now that I’ve lost probably everyone who was even the slightest bit interested, I’ll get to the main point of all this. People complain about the price of videogames without looking at the big picture. It’s easy to get tunnel vision when purchasing games, as they are the only form of entertainment media that sees such a widely varying range of pricing structures. The point is that despite what your math may say in terms of how long a game must be in order to be a good “value”, your logic will always be flawed and there is no magical equation that produces a correct answer.
The one thing that is a clear indicator that games cannot be thought of in the EPD realm is the differences in responses to the question, “How much do video games cost?”.
To most of you reading this, it might sound dumb, but sit back and think about it for one second. By comparison, if I asked you how much a movie ticket costs you’d be able to tell me without blinking. If I asked how much it would cost me to download the song on iTunes you’d have an answer for me before I even finished my sentence.
Now take a look back at video games. You see a different landscape, no?
How much is a video game? Now that sounds like a question from someone who has no connection or experience with the gaming whatsoever. You’d need to ask a number of follow-ups before you could even ball-park an answer. What kind of game? How old is it? What system? Is it downloadable? After getting answers to all those questions you might be able to hit the price, but the fact that the initial question sounds so ridiculous is rather telling, especially when attempting to put a value on the medium.
We’ve been conditioned to expect full retail AAA releases to land at $60 and downloadable games to be no more than $10. Whenever a title falls outside those bounds, the gaming world goes ballistic. We (and by “we” I mean “you”) equate a physical disc to higher quality and/or more playtime than something you can purchase while sitting on your couch in your underwear. Apparently I missed the memo that said that all retail games average 30 hours of gameplay while downloadable games offer no more than 6. If you lean close to your computer I’ll tell you a secret: if this is true, then the guys over at Bizzare Creations are getting the raw end of the deal because I’ve spent more time with Geometry Wars than 90 percent of the games I’ve paid $60 for.
Videogames by definition are meant to offer interactive enjoyment, meaning that the overwhelming majority of games have no certain length. This throws the argument of EPD out the window right there from the start. No two gamers are alike in their play styles. You may find similarities but that’s where it ends. You can sit two people down at two separate consoles and have them play a game like BioShock from start to finish. One might blaze through, completing objectives and soaring to the end hours before the other. Perhaps Gamer #2 just isn’t as good at shooters, or perhaps he decided to save all the Little Sisters in every level. Hell, maybe he even enjoyed the simple act of exploring the world, leaving no rock unturned, and allowed himself to truly sink into the storyline. God forbid we get the most out of our games, right?
That type of scenario is unique to games as a medium. If I go to a movie that lists its playtime as 133 minutes long, and the protagonist somehow manages to dispatch the main villain within the first 12 minutes of the film, because he’s “really, really good”, am I going to ask for my money back? I don’t know, but luckily I don’t have to worry about that because it’s just not the way the medium is used. Not to mention the fact that me and the other 75 people in the theater experienced the exact same thing. That’s a concept that just doesn’t mesh will with interactive entertainment.
Lately, the downloadable games sector has really been getting nailed by these Value Police. The first ripple in the pond came with Puzzle Quest launching at 1200 Microsoft Points, or $15. There was a catch with that one though, as the portable versions were priced higher, thus negating the argument that it wasn’t a good value. Next came the Penny Arcade title, debuting at a whopping 1600 points. This time there was nothing to compare it to, and gamers on the value hunt really made their voices heard. Hundreds of negative message board posts and poorly-conceived Photoshop’s later, Penny Arcade ended up being one of the fastest selling titles on XBLA ever.
Now, the latest on the chopping block, Braid is being called out for its 1200 point pricing. Weighing in at somewhere around 5 hours, Braid registers an EPD average of 20. Meaning 20 minutes of entertainment per dollar spent. As we’ve already determined, the EPD scale is useless but I bring it up for one reason. And that reason is that when using the very numbers (5 hours for 15 dollars) that are being called out as unacceptable by some, the “value” that Braid offers completely destroys any film you can see in your local cinema today. Not to mention the fact that you own Braid after paying for it, unlike your movie-going venture. How can numbers that seems so solid in the minds of some when arguing against Braid’s price, so deftly render that very argument completely ridiculous? It’s simple: gamers need something to complain about, or they’re just not happy.
The next title that is sure to raise the eyebrows of the anti-bargain police is Castle Crashers. Now, I don’t want to sound too insane but I’m remarkably excited for this game. I’ve been following its development for years now and I’ve even conducted an interview with the crew behind it, developer The Behemoth. CC is debuting for the same 1200 points as Braid, which is sure to ruffle some feathers, but I have some really great news for those folks. It’s 1200 points! I know, that’s the same reason people are upset, but I’m going to present that $15 dollars in a much different light…
You see that? That is the utterly craptacular Duke Nukem: Time to Kill for the PlayStation 1. Toss aside the fact that they reside in two different genres, and you have an interesting value comparison right here. Time to Kill was total shit. Castle Crashers/Braid, on the other hand, are being held up as some of the finest examples of what smaller developers can do with enough time and creativity. I’ve already purchased Braid and I’ve snapped up my MS Points in anticipation for Castle Crashers, yet I feel like I’m practically stealing from these devs. Why? Because I also purchased Time To Kill when it was released… for $39.99. What is perhaps even more sad is that $40 was a good deal back in the PS1/N64 days. I know this because I also picked up Resident Evil 2 for both the PS1 ($44.99) and N64 ($59.99) that same generation. Granted, the RE titles were the grandfathers of the modern survival horror genre, but the fact remains that RE2 can be completed (the correct way) in less than 6 hours. $60 for 6 hours? Such blasphemy would certainly not please the Price Police of today. To sum it up in one sentence: You’re lucky you live in 2008, because if this was 1998 you’d be paying $50 for Castle Crashers… and you’d be happy.
By now I’m sure there are less than 5 people still reading so I’ll wrap up shop and call it a day. The point of all of this is not to outsmart anyone or “prove” anyone wrong. What I’m trying to do is show that there is no correct answer when it comes to value in games. It is, truly, a losing argument no matter what way you cut it. I will, however, ask those of you who question the price points of today’s highest-rated and best titles, be they downloadable or retail, to pause for a moment and take a look at generations past. If after a thorough soul-searching you still feel that the number of hours a game takes to complete really does directly correlate into value, Legend of Legaia (PS1) takes an average of 60 hours to complete and you can pick it up for <$10 on eBay. Happy gaming.
