- Jan 14, 2011
- 1,172
- 16
- 81
Thanks Agent11 ... that was worth a good laugh. Especially at 7am in the morning which it is for me. (South Africa)
I get what you are saying, the mentality is such that unless people must have a title on launch day most of us will wait for a sale on one of the Digital distribution channels, aka Steam. So we wait for 50% deals or if patient enough we wait for killer deals.
I have bought a lot of games at great prices but I have also paid full price for crappy (and good) games.
I paid full price for Rage and will never repeat that mistake again.
Paying full price for Rage doesn't mean you're not cheap. It just means you're dumb.
So many bad generalizations in this post. There is, in fact, a market of gamers who are willing to pay full-price for a game like Deus Ex.
There are lots of recycled franchises, yes; but it's entirely possible to ignore those franchises and play one of the dozens of fresh, new IPs and games with creative ideas that are released every year. You just have to broaden your horizons a little bit.
Paying full price for Rage doesn't mean you're not cheap. It just means you're dumb.
You're being rude. I admit that I bought Rage at full price simply because it was id software, I had high thoughts of them from the Doom and Quake eras. They were legendary among PC gamers back then. I'm fairly certain that i've clocked more hours in Quake/Quakeworld than any other game in existence - and I've also spent a ton of time in both Q2 and Q3. So based on that, I purchased Rage - I've obviously learned from my mistake. This isn't the same ID software I knew from a decade ago, it's sad really.
There's a bit more to it than that.There was sort of a commentary on whether or not people should be controlled by such an organization for their own good. The Illuminati's goal was actually to delay people from reaching the "next stage of evolution" through augmentations because they felt people weren't ready for it, that they didn't deserve it. They felt that if people where given free access to augmentations, society would tear itself apart. Then there was Hugh Darrow, who felt that technology was already tearing apart society and it would be best if no one had advanced technology. And then there was David Sariff, who felt that the only way humanity could transcend itself and move on to something greater was if everyone was given free access to the augmentations.
You can't expect to get all the depth out of the story by reading a Wikipedia synopsis. :biggrin:
This summed up my feelings when I read the title.
You're being rude. I admit that I bought Rage at full price simply because it was id software, I had high thoughts of them from the Doom and Quake eras. They were legendary among PC gamers back then. I'm fairly certain that i've clocked more hours in Quake/Quakeworld than any other game in existence - and I've also spent a ton of time in both Q2 and Q3. So based on that, I purchased Rage - I've obviously learned from my mistake. This isn't the same ID software I knew from a decade ago, it's sad really.
DXHR was actually the last game I preordered, and also the last game I paid full purchase price for. I dont regret it actually.
LOLNo, it's not worth it.
If you were just bitten by a snake, have $3, and someone is selling anti-venom for $3.
Well said. I bought it for full price just to support that kind of thoughtful, atmospheric single player game. I found it bit slow and pedantic, perhaps relying too much on emotions that just weren't evoked in me or interactions I just didn't find plausible, and like Smackababy I found the plot and moral conflict rather silly. The "open world" concept in this game is highly over-rated; the game does offer some flexibility, but each area is mostly dead space. It's a thinking man's shooter in the sense that a fourteen year old is a man, I suppose, but there's enough gold there that I was reasonably satisfied with my purchase. It's a game that should be played by anyone with an interest in SciFi or single player shooters in general, in my opinion, and once it dropped to $30 I think it was a good deal for anyone meeting those criteria.You're both right.
There is a market who will pay full price for games; and it does seem that market is shrinking all the time, threatening the budget of high quality games.
It's good for gamers to appreciate the role each buyer has.
Think of public TV. Imagine that both $20 donors and $100,000 donors each plays a critical role, and if either type of donor stopped giving, the budget would be hurt a lot.
Game publishers rely both on the full price market and the lower segment who can't spend as much.
If the full price market waits for discounts, the average price paid falls, and the budget for games goes from quality, say, average $30 titles to, say, cheaper $15 titles.
Just as there's a big difference between well-funded HBO tv shows, and low-end basic cable reality shows.
Only a handful of publishers have been able to hold up prices longer - ok, one really, Blizzard division of Activision - with a few like Bethesda delaying discounting.
You're both right.
There is a market who will pay full price for games; and it does seem that market is shrinking all the time, threatening the budget of high quality games.
It's good for gamers to appreciate the role each buyer has.
Think of public TV. Imagine that both $20 donors and $100,000 donors each plays a critical role, and if either type of donor stopped giving, the budget would be hurt a lot.
Game publishers rely both on the full price market and the lower segment who can't spend as much.
If the full price market waits for discounts, the average price paid falls, and the budget for games goes from quality, say, average $30 titles to, say, cheaper $15 titles.
Just as there's a big difference between well-funded HBO tv shows, and low-end basic cable reality shows.
Only a handful of publishers have been able to hold up prices longer - ok, one really, Blizzard division of Activision - with a few like Bethesda delaying discounting.
LOL
Well said. I bought it for full price just to support that kind of thoughtful, atmospheric single player game. I found it bit slow and pedantic, perhaps relying too much on emotions that just weren't evoked in me or interactions I just didn't find plausible, and like Smackababy I found the plot and moral conflict rather silly. The "open world" concept in this game is highly over-rated; the game does offer some flexibility, but each area is mostly dead space. It's a thinking man's shooter in the sense that a fourteen year old is a man, I suppose, but there's enough gold there that I was reasonably satisfied with my purchase. It's a game that should be played by anyone with an interest in SciFi or single player shooters in general, in my opinion, and once it dropped to $30 I think it was a good deal for anyone meeting those criteria.
If Eidos makes another (assuming it is first person) I'll buy that one at full price as well. In the end, that's probably the most important endorsement I could make. But everyone should remember that each person's gaming budget (in dollars and in time) and each person's current list of desired games is unique. I intentionally held off on Bioshock Infinite until it hit $30 because that was its perceived value to me, and lots of other games I've delayed buying until they dropped to $10 or even $5. Just because I paid full price for this particular game and was reasonably happy does not mean that the OP asking if it's worth $3 is an unreasonable question.
I really thought i would like it. Turns out i found it rather boring. Honestly, it felt like Half Life 2 to me. I know this is going to get me a lot of hate. The story was just dull imo.
I really thought i would like it. Turns out i found it rather boring. Honestly, it felt like Half Life 2 to me. I know this is going to get me a lot of hate. The story was just dull imo.
I paid full price for it and I wasn't disappointed. I'd have been ecstatic about the value I got out of it if I'd waited for it to be $40.
But for $3? I would buy and play Barbie Fairie Solitaire for $3.