PS4 whatsawhats

[Master]

If digital versions of console games were $40 bucks at launch while physical copies were $60 (to compensate for the physical supply chain), I can personally guarantee I know about 50 people who would buy a shitload of games. I think $40 for a full console experience is a decent price point.

If you're going to prop the game up with expansions, sell the initial game for $20 and make the expansions $5-$10. I'm looking at you, developers of 5-8 hour games that cost $60.

If the games were cheap enough to access, I honestly would not care whether or not I physically owned them.

Yuuuuuuuuuuuup. Bingo. Correct. Boom.

[Strider119]

I don't equate time with pricepoint.  I HATE that argument.  Oh this shitty jrpg takes 90 hours to complete to it's "worth more" than this fantastic game like Portal that only takes 7 hours to complete.

Fuck that.  money spent should = enjoyment

not time invested.  I'm not looking to spend 60 bucks on a job.  I'd rather have something I can finish after playing off and on for a week than something that will take half a year of grinding

[Tony XerxēsTWD Stark]

Enjoyment is completely subjective.

[Wyntyr is gone, Spryng is here]

That's what I told my ex after the anal

[Nox]

Did he agree?

[Pie]

Sure. Ramz said "It's the hole I've been smashing for."

[Wyntyr is gone, Spryng is here]

smashing into at the very least

[Pie]

Very very least

But hey, it's way bigger if you measure in millimeters. Imagine. Twelve whole millimeters!

[Wyntyr is gone, Spryng is here]

LONG LIVE THE METRIC SYSTEM

[Strider119]

Enjoyment is completely subjective.

Exactly.  And I'm saying if your only metric for enjoyment is time spent at the task (ie: complaining that a game is too short / valuing one that's too laong) you are stupid.

So you are stupid.

[Tony XerxēsTWD Stark]

Exactly.  And I'm saying if your only metric for enjoyment is time spent at the task (ie: complaining that a game is too short / valuing one that's too laong) you are stupid.

So you are stupid.

I never said time was my metric for enjoyment, you fucking idiot.

I said time was a contributing metric for how much I am willing to pay. You assumed it was the only metric because I didn't create a series of percentages adding up to 100% that emphasized what value I placed on each aspect of the game.

[Tony XerxēsTWD Stark]

I will bury you, also.

[Bender]

Fight fight fight fight...

[Strider119]

This wapanese piece of shit takes 150 hours to complete, IS BETR VALU!  IM LUUK AT YEW, 8 HR DIVILIPERZ!

[IamtheRock3]

think what Xerxes is Saying is

Say you enjoy two games. Its fun to play

One of these game last an hour

while Last 6...with replaybillity value due to alternate paths, ability to pick missions, multiple endings, secret fun things to try


He be willing to pay MORE for the second one

[BigJayHam]

OSHIT! It's official. Rock is to Xerxes what Ramz is to Oats.

[BigJayHam]

(Gay lovers)

[IamtheRock3]

(Gay lovers)

if that the case, can I least be the top

so tired of being the bottom

[Strider119]

I think what I'm saying is time shouldn't be a factor.  It's independent of the discussion and I hate when people bring it up.  He said "I'm looking at you developers of 5-8 hour games that cost 60 bucks" as if that means anything. 

Portal 2 is one of the best games I've ever played.  It's short as shit.  How long it takes you to beat it should mean fucking nothing.  You don't say "oh well I went to the movies but this one was only 2 hours long while this other one was 3 hours long so it's clearly better ... I'm looking at you mr. hollywood director who only makes 120 minute long movies!"

[Wyntyr is gone, Spryng is here]

EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEH

I think an important factor is for a lot of games, length CONTRIBUTES to enjoyability.

Game A being 20 hours and Game B being 40 doesn't mean dick if Game A is Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney and Game B: is Lord of the Rings for the SNES.

But Baldur's Gate > Never Winter Nights because it's 80 hours or so and Never Winter Nights is like 30.

[Tony XerxēsTWD Stark]

Dutchman is correct. Time absolutely contributes to the enjoyment of a game.

How much weight each individual gives it varies, but it seems very likely that more people consider the amount of hours they're going to get out of playing a game rather than ignoring it altogether. Maybe Strider can cry some more, though.

[BigJayHam]

Portal 2 is better than any game you've played in the past five years.

[Tony XerxēsTWD Stark]

OK?

[BigJayHam]

OK!

[Strider119]

I'm looking at you developers who only make games that are 6-8 hours long for 60 dollars!  I'm looking right at you.  Right in your eyes.  Why not pad that shit with pointless quests to make it 12 hours longer?  That would make the 60 dollar price point SUDDENLY more reasonable and therefore I wouldn't look at you.

[IamtheRock3]

I think what I'm saying is time shouldn't be a factor.  It's independent of the discussion and I hate when people bring it up.  He said "I'm looking at you developers of 5-8 hour games that cost 60 bucks" as if that means anything. 

Portal 2 is one of the best games I've ever played.  It's short as shit.  How long it takes you to beat it should mean fucking nothing.  You don't say "oh well I went to the movies but this one was only 2 hours long while this other one was 3 hours long so it's clearly better ... I'm looking at you mr. hollywood director who only makes 120 minute long movies!"

Didnt portal also add in a 2 player game with a differnt storyline

[Strider119]

Yeah and I beat it in about 7 hours.  Beat the first one in the same amount of time and it was entirely worth the money.  Were they to elongate the experience artificially that wouldn't somehow make it any better.

A good game is a good game ... the time isn't a factor and it shouldn't be a metric.

[Tony XerxēsTWD Stark]

Time is a factor and should definitely be a metric.

You're being obtuse for no reason and pretending I asserted it was the sole criteria for a good game.

A great game with a long story to tell has greater justification for costing more money than a great game with a short story to tell. if you can't wrap your head around that, there is something wrong with you.

[Strider119]

A great game is a great game.  6-8 hours of a good game isn't worth your money?  Nonsense.  You're an idiot.  Admit it!

[Tony XerxēsTWD Stark]

A great game is a great game.  6-8 hours of a good game isn't worth your money?  Nonsense.  You're an idiot.  Admit it!

Since when is it not worth my money? I said it's worth less money than a good-great game with far longer gameplay.

[Strider119]

So no game that's less than 8 hours long is worth 60 bucks?  That's dumb.

[Tony XerxēsTWD Stark]

So no game that's less than 8 hours long is worth 60 bucks?  That's dumb.

Not to me. You're free to buy 2 copies if it hurts your feelings so much. I'm completely fine with you spending $60 on a short game that you'll enjoy.

[IamtheRock3]

Yeah and I beat it in about 7 hours.  Beat the first one in the same amount of time and it was entirely worth the money.  Were they to elongate the experience artificially that wouldn't somehow make it any better.

A good game is a good game ... the time isn't a factor and it shouldn't be a metric.

So how much was it all together
1 player game
and the 2 player game together. Seem like the game getting a bit longer


Also as I recall the first one came with like 4 other games. The orange box if I remember. It sold by itself onlinle..and cheaper...cause you know...its so short.

[Strider119]

Not to me. You're free to buy 2 copies if it hurts your feelings so much. I'm completely fine with you spending $60 on a short game that you'll enjoy.

Why is the knee jerk defense of someone who says stupid shit and then called on it (you, oates, all of the blacks) to say "omfg y r ur feelings hurt?"

Look, saying that the length of time is inherent in the value of a great game is dumb.  An enjoyable experience is an enjoyable experience.  I'd rather not have something artificially inflated to lengthen shitty playtimes.  It's the stupidest argument against a given form of media.

[Tony XerxēsTWD Stark]

You're having some kind of breakdown because I said short games, even great ones, are not games I think we should pay $60 to own. I said we should pay less for them.

What reaction do you expect people to have when you freak the fuck out over something like this?

[Strider119]

Because 6-8 hours isn't that short and it's a stupid thing to say.  Why are you getting so butthurt about being called on your stupid things that you say?

[Tony XerxēsTWD Stark]

I'm fine with you paying what you think a game is worth.

[Strider119]

It's just like ... opinion or whatever.

Last bastion of a faggot.

[Tony XerxēsTWD Stark]

No, you're obviously going to keep pretending you're right, even though the entirety of your clumsy argument depends on this:

I'm saying if your only metric for enjoyment is time spent at the task (ie: complaining that a game is too short / valuing one that's too laong)

An assertion never made by me. I said time was a contributing factor to value.

Would you pay $60 for Portal if it were 3 minutes long?

[Strider119]

I'm looking at you, developers of 5-8 hour games that cost $60.

That's a stupid thing to say.  You didn't say 3 minutes, homo.