Price, what IS an acceptable price really?
Sukunai
How much SHOULD it be worth?
Is the cost to manufacture the only expense worth mention?
is how many times it can be played the best way of determining a
game's worth?
I was on a gaming forum and saw the current round of the ole
discussion of game costs and what is or is not a fair price.
Frankly, if a game, no matter how great it might be the first time,
can only realistically be played through once, then it is not on an
even par with a game with unlimited playings.
You go into a gaming store for current electronic options, and of
course a lot of them will be the adventure games, stuff like the well
known Final Fantasy genre. They sell fast and easy. They sell at about
the average being I think like 50ish bucks up to mabe 60 or almost 70.
Depends on the platform I guess.
They get played to death in a couple of weeks maybe a month, and
immediately sold as used for a fraction of their re sale worth. This
is routine.
But for me, a game you can only play once, maybe a couple of times if
you insist, is not much better than a movie which is only really an
option a couple of times on average. And I don't pay any 50-70 bucks
for a movie I can assure you. Yes the movie it only a couple of hours
and that game might be a few hundred hours. So what.
I have computer wargames that have virtually no limit to how many
times they can be played. That's what I call solid return on
investment. I have board game wargames equally unlimited in re play
worth.
Soo the question is still, how much would you pay for something of
durable worthiness?
And on that forum I was reading that some didn't like the fact some
wargames can be on average 10-20 dollars more than other non wargaming
mainstream games. But one has to wonder, do some people just need to
be told to shut up, and pay up or stop pretending to be a real
supporter of the wargaming hobby?
If a wargame can deliver an endless level of replay value, is it not
easily worth a measure more than the stuff that has a very definite
and finite play duration?
It's bad enough wargaming is a dreadful niche hobby. It's bad enough
we just don't have the numbers the mainstream games have to work with.
And it's bad enough that even wargamers can be sobs that will
illegally download a wargame instead of buying it.
But, is it fair to whine if the price is a little higher than the
mianstream stuff.
Board game wargames can also be a bit pricey. ASL can be a major shock
to the wallet of the interested fan.
I've seen what some older out of print titles of the past can fetch if
the seller feels like going the effort to sell it on a place like
eBay. I've likely dumped some fine cash worth of used games on forum
mates for the cost of just postage. But hey, not all of us are that
desperate I guess. I was able to pass them on.
Still I've seen a few titles online (board games) and its like, man I
would love to get that, but ouch, over 100 bucks for what I once would
have paid 35 bucks for in the 80s.
Yet, the truth is, even at 100 bucks, plenty of board games can be
played indefinitely.
Is a single game at 100 bucks, a better deal than two 50 dallar games
of finite play duration?
Is it better to have that one great game at 100 bucks, than the three
40 dollar games that might well be just schlock waiting to be a
disappointment?
I've literally played Civilization IV to death, and there is no end in
sight.
Would I have paid 100 bucks for it?
I've certainly seen no shortage of 50 dollar games that were not worth
50 cents.
When is a game truly worthy of the purchase?
John McLeod
>Ok Patrick loves Chess, so how much is a Chess set worth?
>How much SHOULD it be worth?
>Is the cost to manufacture the only expense worth mention?
In the case of a chess set that must be the main factor. If the price is
below the cost of manufacture, the manufacturer is going out of
business. If the price is a lot higher than the cost of manufacture
there is scope for a competitor to win business by selling sets of the
same quality more cheaply. But this works only because chess is in the
public domain, with no issues of patent, copyright, etc.
>is how many times it can be played the best way of determining a
>game's worth?
It might be a consideration. Are you equating the "worth" with the price
of the equipment? It seems unlikely that they would correspond closely.
I suppose that if the equipment is expensive and wears out quickly,
requiring frequent replacement, that might put a damper on the success
of the game.
>But for me, a game you can only play once, maybe a couple of times if
>you insist, is not much better than a movie which is only really an
>option a couple of times on average. And I don't pay any 50-70 bucks
>for a movie I can assure you. Yes the movie it only a couple of hours
>and that game might be a few hundred hours. So what.
So perhaps you should be comparing the price of the game with the price
of several dozen movies, or maybe a DVD set of a whole TV series.
>Soo the question is still, how much would you pay for something of
>durable worthiness?
It depends on how much I want it, what I can afford, and the price of
any alternatives that are (almost) equally attractive.
>Is a single game at 100 bucks, a better deal than two 50 dallar games
>of finite play duration?
>Is it better to have that one great game at 100 bucks, than the three
>40 dollar games that might well be just schlock waiting to be a
>disappointment?
Yes, it's a tricky decision. If you know in advance that the $100 game
is really good and you want it, probably you spend your money on that,
if you don't have access to it any other way. But maybe you know someone
who already has the $100 game, and you can play it with them using their
set, and so it might work better to buy the three $40 games in the hope
of discovering a new gem.
>I've literally played Civilization IV to death, and there is no end in
>sight.
>Would I have paid 100 bucks for it?
>I've certainly seen no shortage of 50 dollar games that were not worth
>50 cents.
>
>When is a game truly worthy of the purchase?
The problem is, if you are looking at proprietary games that you have
not played, you rarely know in advance how much you are going to like
them. Other players' opinions may not be a good guide to your reaction.
So you can only know in hindsight whether the purchase was worthwhile to
you.
--
John McLeod For information on card games visit
jo...@pagat.com http://www.pagat.com/
Peter Clinch
> It might be a consideration. Are you equating the "worth" with the price
> of the equipment? It seems unlikely that they would correspond closely.
Indeed. "Worth" is very hard to put your finger on.
How many copies of "Campaign for North Africa" got played even once?
It's a game to play /with/ AFAICT, rather than to play. But if playing
with it, or even having it on your shelf so you can marvel at the
extremes of 70s board wargame design with no intention of playing it
floats your boat, why not?
I personally view games as useless if they're not played, but I've been
a collector in the past and I can sympathise with the motivations of
folk who still do. For some folk a copy of Acquire signed by Sid
Sackson would be worth a lot more than mine, though I wouldn't
differentiate myself. "Worth" means different things to different people.
> So perhaps you should be comparing the price of the game with the price
> of several dozen movies, or maybe a DVD set of a whole TV series.
TV/Movies are passive and during the event are anti-social. Games are
active and often encourage socialisation, so I'm not sure there's much
to gain by assuming a similar value-for-money setup for each.
>> Soo the question is still, how much would you pay for something of
>> durable worthiness?
>
> It depends on how much I want it, what I can afford, and the price of
> any alternatives that are (almost) equally attractive.
Also, if my game shelf is almost empty I will be far more inclined to
spend than if it's very full. The range of existing alternatives I've
already bought and have available will influence the worth of a new
game. I don't buy /that/ many games now compared to 10 years ago,
because I've got lots to choose from now.
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
Patrick
> John McLeod wrote:
> > It might be a consideration. Are you equating the "worth" with the price
> > of the equipment? It seems unlikely that they would correspond closely.
>
> Indeed. "Worth" is very hard to put your finger on.
>
> How many copies of "Campaign for North Africa" got played even once?
> It's a game to play /with/ AFAICT, rather than to play. But if playing
> with it, or even having it on your shelf so you can marvel at the
> extremes of 70s board wargame design with no intention of playing it
> floats your boat, why not?
>
> I personally view games as useless if they're not played, but I've been
> a collector in the past and I can sympathise with the motivations of
> folk who still do. For some folk a copy of Acquire signed by Sid
> Sackson would be worth a lot more than mine, though I wouldn't
> differentiate myself. "Worth" means different things to different people.
But the question here is, What usually determines what you're willing
to pay? And for me, it depends. It comes down to how much I want the
game, and that's usually tied in with how much I hope or expect to
play it. But there are exceptions. I've bought games just to see
what they looked like, or just because the price seemed low and I
thought there was an outside chance I'd play the game someday.
Probably nine times out of ten, my game purchases have turned out to
be foolish, IMO. I hope to play the game, but I never do. Or I play
it once and decide I don't like it enough to play it again. Or
something else catches my eye, and earlier purchases just sit on the
shelf.
In my case, it's surprising when I do get some actual use out of a
game. These days, it's almost always a computer game that ends up
seeing some use; but I periodically get fed up with those too.
> > So perhaps you should be comparing the price of the game with the price
> > of several dozen movies, or maybe a DVD set of a whole TV series.
>
> TV/Movies are passive and during the event are anti-social. Games are
> active and often encourage socialisation, so I'm not sure there's much
> to gain by assuming a similar value-for-money setup for each.
nearly as passive as people make it out to be. The viewer's mind is
actively engaged in following the plot, interpreting the images, and
so forth. Seems studies have been done that show there's more brain
activity involved in watching TV than in playing chess. By that
measure, chess is the more passive activity.
It's true that watching TV or a movie usually doesn't involve a lot of
social interaction. But two or more people are at least taking in the
same experience at the same time, and they often make a few comments
on it to each other, during or after the show.
Board and card games can encourage socializing, but it depends on what
the players are up for. I've been in games where someone ends up
saying, "Shut up and play." Or "Are you going to sit there jabbering
all night, or are you going to play the game?" There's usually some
pressure to stay focused on the game and keep talk to a minimum--
unless it's a party game or something.
Also, games are competitive. And if the game involves hidden
information (e.g., a concealed hand of cards), players are actively
keeping secrets and perhaps seeking to deceive one another--both of
which might be called antisocial behaviors.
That problem is evidently so prevalent that there have been attempts
to turn it around. One example is "The Ungame," which (IIRC) involves
just drawing a card and following instructions to open up to the group
and share a little about yourself. It's supposed to be a device for
getting people to engage in meaningful conversation--just the opposite
of what typically happens when people are playing a regular game.
Another attempt to reverse the sometimes antisocial nature of games is
the cooperative game. A couple current ones are Pandemic and Red
November. In practice, this doesn't always end up being all that
social or cooperative, however; sometimes one player dominates the
group and starts giving directions to the other players.
As to whether "encourage socialisation" ups the worth of a game, I'm
not so sure. That might be a benefit to me if I were using the game
as an excuse to get together with people more often. But I tend to
abandon that notion more often than not and resign myself to just
playing games solitaire. Unless my life circumstances shift so as to
favor more social interaction (thus meeting me halfway, as it were),
I'm unlikely to expend all the energy it would take to get a gaming
group going. So, a game is actually worth more to me if it can be
played solitaire.
> >> Soo the question is still, how much would you pay for something of
> >> durable worthiness?
>
> > It depends on how much I want it, what I can afford, and the price of
> > any alternatives that are (almost) equally attractive.
>
> Also, if my game shelf is almost empty I will be far more inclined to
> spend than if it's very full. The range of existing alternatives I've
> already bought and have available will influence the worth of a new
> game. I don't buy /that/ many games now compared to 10 years ago,
> because I've got lots to choose from now.
I'll just mention that I've never bought a game I expected to play
just once or twice. Well, except for one DS game--Phantom Hourglass.
I consciously bought that game just to find out what it was like, even
though I knew I'd run through it once and be done forever. But I've
bought hundreds of other games over the years, and each time I fully
expected to play the game over and over again for the rest of my life.
Replayability is an essential quality of a game to me. In fact, it's
what, in my mind, separates games from puzzles. A puzzle is usually a
once-only affair, whereas a game ought to be infinitely replayable.
It used to confuse me when young people would talk about "finishing" a
game (as in, "I played the heck out of Final Fantasy II, but I
finished it a long time ago."). When I think of games, I think of
traditional board and card games, which one never "finishes." If it's
a decent game, you can play it repeatedly for a whole lifetime and
never cease to enjoy or be challenged by it.
Yet, the price of such "decent games" is trivial. A cheap deck of
cards is all you need to play many such games. A handful of dice or a
box of dominoes will also do. For the price of a typical current PC
game, you can buy a fancy wooden chest full of traditional games, any
one of which has the potential to deliver a lifetime of gaming fun.
I miss the days when one would buy such a chest of games, treasure it,
use it, and pass it on as an heirloom. If I were wealthy, I might
collect antique game sets or expensive custom-made versions of games
like chess, go, and backgammon or mah-jongg. Just to remind myself of
earlier times, when something like that would continue to mean
something to several generations.
In contrast, the ephemeral games of today--the ones that can be
"finished" and discarded--remind me too much of how fast time flies.
Computer games always seem to move at a frantic pace, even when it
would pay to stop and think deeply about strategy.
I like the idea of sitting down to a slow-paced board or card game--
making an evening of it--and being unconcerned about the passage of
time. Unfortunately, it's just an idea these days, not a reality.
--Patrick
Sukunai
dependent on digital forms of games.
A Chess can be made out of wood, plastic, solid marble, hell even
precious metals if you want.
And if your Chess set if gold plated, you can just bet it will cost a
fortune.
Now if the Chess game is a digital product played on a computer. Well
it will have taken someone some decent amount of effort to program the
game. But, a person only needs to upload the program to the internet,
and presto, anyone that simply isn't interested in being nice, can
just download it, and screw you out of a sale. And the oft mentioned
comment, oh that isn't a lost sale, the person was never going to buy
it in the first place. Bullshit, the person wanted it enough to
download it eh.
So how much is a digital game of Chess worth. Well, it's the time and
effort of the programmer, plus about 20 cents. So if the programmer
spent 3 months on a simple program, then it comes down to how much
does the programmer think 3 months of dedication is worth to him.
Because really, the 20 cents representing the cost of a disc and a
case is really so little as to be not worth inclusion.
That is precisely why it is hard to establish the worth of a digital
game product, but fairly simple to establish the worth of a physical
game product.
If I say the latest board game wargame is worth 100 bucks a unit, then
that's what you will be out if you want it. Our computers can copy a
program, but a physical object, no not in this reality.
This is why it is so hard to compare gaming prices. I spent 80 some
bucks to get War in the Pacific (and regardless of whether I think
it's a 'fun' game, it's a highly detailed game). It's not like you can
make a program that complex, and just give it away as if it was just
another mass produced main stream title. Not sure though how many
units worth of that game have sold, but you can bet it won't be many.
The target audience is just that small. Thing is, I have seen the game
on the download scene. I wonder how many sales were lost to that.
And that's also the problem. No matter what reasoning you arrive at
for establishing a game being worth twice the normal value of the
normal mainstream fare, the fact is, if it is too expensive to
anyone's thinking, it might hurt sales.
Meanwhile MMP can set outrageous prices for an ASL module, and if you
want it, you are going to have to pay it.
And I have seen board games of other companies, and my god they can be
up there in price. When I was a young adult, 35 dollars was a routine
price. Today a game is rarely less than twice that.
But, they are physical.
One has to sympathize with the makers of digital products, but really,
they are defenseless to the truth that it's just data. It's easy to
copy.
Good luck cheating MMP out of a copy of an ASL module. Although I have
seen it tried. I've seen pdf copies of darn near everything ASL on the
download scene. But the cost to print out a download copy is actually
several times the cost of just buying it. Likely has to do with how
MMP gets it done professionally by a proper printer.
Maybe electronic gaming is just incapable of defeating the ability of
people to copy them.
Maybe gaming needs to radically redefine itself in some way that
matters. DRM and laws sure ain't the way.
The only solution I can think of, is to make games soo utterly mass
produce friendly, that they can be made so incredibly cheap, that it's
more effort to get an illegal copy than a legit one.
But I am drawing a blank how to do that today.
Myself, when I want something, I'm willing to pay for it. I will even
pay a bit more than the norm to get it.
But I am a small minority and I know it. If you make the game 'seem'
expensive, people will complain that it is too expensive.