The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Over the years the price of video games has been slowly decreasing.
Gone are the days (hopefully) that we see a game come out coupled with a huge price tag. The main offender for such a crime was Turok: Dinosaur Hunter, when it came out shortly after the N64 arrived it had an RRP of £70! (And like a sap, I bought it for that price.) You can now pick up Turok for about a fiver or less.
Many other games have been expensive over the years. Most new N64 games were sometimes £50 or more, and that was perhaps one of the reasons why the console didn’t achieve a better stranglehold on the U.K market.
Video game companies are in direct competition with other consumer electronics companies who produce cds and dvds and the cinema. Are video game companies at a disadvantage because games are more expensive than cds and dvds? Recently it was announced that the U.K video games market is worth more than all video rentals and all cinema revenues.
But who deserves our hard earned money?
Who offers us the best deal?
While games are more expensive than cds, dvds or a trip to the movies, it’s all a question of value for money.
However, it is not as simple as it first appears.
A cd, costing about ten pounds, that was bought five years ago may have been listened to hundreds of times, totalling many hours of enjoyment. In other words, a good cd can have infinite replay value, and therefore be great value for money.
A good dvd, about twenty pounds, that was bought two or three years ago may have been watched half a dozen or more times. I have dvds like T2, The Thing, Predator and James Bond films that I have watched loads of times, but some that I have owned for ages that I have only watched once. Some are short films with no extras, but still the same price as ‘bigger’ dvds.
The cinema, obviously, has the least value. Paying about five pounds to go and see The Lord of the Rings, a quality film that lasts over two hours is ok. Whereas paying the same money to see a short stinker is not quite so good.
Great games can be good value. Although I haven’t played it recently, GoldenEye proved to be exceptional value because of its superb multi player mode.
Some games, like Championship Manager and The Sims have ongoing value, where you play them hour upon hour but there’s no actual end to the game.
But, after the completion of a game, would you go back and play it again?
It would depend on whether or not it was a good game or not. I’ve played through games like Metal Gear Solid, Resident Evil 2, Broken Sword 1 & 2 many times because I love them. Sport games like Pro Evolution Soccer can be played for months on end in either single player league modes or in multi player. My younger brother has racked up hundreds of hours on his various Pokemon games. But I have only played great games like Banjo Kazooie & Tooie, Donkey Kong 64 and Shenmue only once. It is partly down to the size of the game.
Does that mean the bigger & longer the game, the less replay value it has, and therefore less value for money?
How long does it take to complete a big game like Zelda: Ocarina of Time or Donkey Kong 64? It can take dozens & dozens of hours and more if you try to find 100% of the secrets hidden within, so although you might only play them once they still provide weeks of great entertainment.
How long does it take to produce a great game?
Zelda: Ocarina of Time took Nintendo & Shigeru Miyamoto years to produce, and Shenmue took Sega years and cost them billions of yen to make it the amazing adventure it is. There is a lot of time and effort going into producing these amazing games but, in the case of games like Harry Potter, some are rushed out cash-ins.
Many people moan about how over priced games are. I agree, some can be highly priced and shallow, but some can be amazing adventures and, in the case of games like Zelda: OoT and Final Fantasy 7 & 8, great life experiences and you feel more involved than if you were watching a film or listening to music.
But are games better value for money than cds, dvds or the cinema?
I think they are. Great or good long games that can last hundreds of hours can prove to be great value for money, however the cash-ins, short & shallow games and other gaming dross aren’t quite so worth it. It’s all a question of size and quality.
There is a lot of maths to be done to work out the real winner. However, each individual is different, and it takes people less or more time to finish a game, some aim to finish a game 100%, while some just finish a game then move on to the next one. Some people (me included) buy loads of dvds and most don’t get any re-watch value, but some people only buy a few and watch them loads of times.
What do other people think?
Are good games better value for money than a good cd or dvd?
Gone are the days (hopefully) that we see a game come out coupled with a huge price tag. The main offender for such a crime was Turok: Dinosaur Hunter, when it came out shortly after the N64 arrived it had an RRP of £70! (And like a sap, I bought it for that price.) You can now pick up Turok for about a fiver or less.
Many other games have been expensive over the years. Most new N64 games were sometimes £50 or more, and that was perhaps one of the reasons why the console didn’t achieve a better stranglehold on the U.K market.
Video game companies are in direct competition with other consumer electronics companies who produce cds and dvds and the cinema. Are video game companies at a disadvantage because games are more expensive than cds and dvds? Recently it was announced that the U.K video games market is worth more than all video rentals and all cinema revenues.
But who deserves our hard earned money?
Who offers us the best deal?
While games are more expensive than cds, dvds or a trip to the movies, it’s all a question of value for money.
However, it is not as simple as it first appears.
A cd, costing about ten pounds, that was bought five years ago may have been listened to hundreds of times, totalling many hours of enjoyment. In other words, a good cd can have infinite replay value, and therefore be great value for money.
A good dvd, about twenty pounds, that was bought two or three years ago may have been watched half a dozen or more times. I have dvds like T2, The Thing, Predator and James Bond films that I have watched loads of times, but some that I have owned for ages that I have only watched once. Some are short films with no extras, but still the same price as ‘bigger’ dvds.
The cinema, obviously, has the least value. Paying about five pounds to go and see The Lord of the Rings, a quality film that lasts over two hours is ok. Whereas paying the same money to see a short stinker is not quite so good.
Great games can be good value. Although I haven’t played it recently, GoldenEye proved to be exceptional value because of its superb multi player mode.
Some games, like Championship Manager and The Sims have ongoing value, where you play them hour upon hour but there’s no actual end to the game.
But, after the completion of a game, would you go back and play it again?
It would depend on whether or not it was a good game or not. I’ve played through games like Metal Gear Solid, Resident Evil 2, Broken Sword 1 & 2 many times because I love them. Sport games like Pro Evolution Soccer can be played for months on end in either single player league modes or in multi player. My younger brother has racked up hundreds of hours on his various Pokemon games. But I have only played great games like Banjo Kazooie & Tooie, Donkey Kong 64 and Shenmue only once. It is partly down to the size of the game.
Does that mean the bigger & longer the game, the less replay value it has, and therefore less value for money?
How long does it take to complete a big game like Zelda: Ocarina of Time or Donkey Kong 64? It can take dozens & dozens of hours and more if you try to find 100% of the secrets hidden within, so although you might only play them once they still provide weeks of great entertainment.
How long does it take to produce a great game?
Zelda: Ocarina of Time took Nintendo & Shigeru Miyamoto years to produce, and Shenmue took Sega years and cost them billions of yen to make it the amazing adventure it is. There is a lot of time and effort going into producing these amazing games but, in the case of games like Harry Potter, some are rushed out cash-ins.
Many people moan about how over priced games are. I agree, some can be highly priced and shallow, but some can be amazing adventures and, in the case of games like Zelda: OoT and Final Fantasy 7 & 8, great life experiences and you feel more involved than if you were watching a film or listening to music.
But are games better value for money than cds, dvds or the cinema?
I think they are. Great or good long games that can last hundreds of hours can prove to be great value for money, however the cash-ins, short & shallow games and other gaming dross aren’t quite so worth it. It’s all a question of size and quality.
There is a lot of maths to be done to work out the real winner. However, each individual is different, and it takes people less or more time to finish a game, some aim to finish a game 100%, while some just finish a game then move on to the next one. Some people (me included) buy loads of dvds and most don’t get any re-watch value, but some people only buy a few and watch them loads of times.
What do other people think?
Are good games better value for money than a good cd or dvd?
The medium has very little effect on the actual cost of the games, although I wouldn't be surprised if the optical discs cost more than DVDs, due to Nintendo's noutorious lisencing record.
Hopefully with the increase in competition, due to the incoming 'console war' prices will go down even further, making games even better value.
Only Nintendo are yet to produce a long lasting game for their system...
Zelda had better not be "short and sweet" else it'll be well and truly ruined!
Zelda had better not be "short and sweet" else it'll be well and truly ruined!
I think that 8cm, 1.5GB, DVD discs are the answer!! - Yes I mean the GameCube's discs! You pay no more than £40, get hours of gameplay, and you're playing on Nintendo's greatest ever console!!
Which do you think gives the best value: games, dvd's or cds?
I think that £45 is the absolute maximum limit!!
And why do PS2 games (upto £45) cost so much more than PC games (£20-30), when there's not much of a difference between the 2, as they're both CD's!
And why do PS2 games (upto £45) cost so much more than PC games (£20-30), when there's not much of a difference between the 2, as they're both CD's!
I think £40 for a game is very justified. Sure, the actual mediums may not cost as much but there's the codemonkeys that need paying, as well as design, marketing and costs. £45 is too much in my opinion however.
Over the years the price of video games has been slowly decreasing.
Gone are the days (hopefully) that we see a game come out coupled with a huge price tag. The main offender for such a crime was Turok: Dinosaur Hunter, when it came out shortly after the N64 arrived it had an RRP of £70! (And like a sap, I bought it for that price.) You can now pick up Turok for about a fiver or less.
Many other games have been expensive over the years. Most new N64 games were sometimes £50 or more, and that was perhaps one of the reasons why the console didn’t achieve a better stranglehold on the U.K market.
Video game companies are in direct competition with other consumer electronics companies who produce cds and dvds and the cinema. Are video game companies at a disadvantage because games are more expensive than cds and dvds? Recently it was announced that the U.K video games market is worth more than all video rentals and all cinema revenues.
But who deserves our hard earned money?
Who offers us the best deal?
While games are more expensive than cds, dvds or a trip to the movies, it’s all a question of value for money.
However, it is not as simple as it first appears.
A cd, costing about ten pounds, that was bought five years ago may have been listened to hundreds of times, totalling many hours of enjoyment. In other words, a good cd can have infinite replay value, and therefore be great value for money.
A good dvd, about twenty pounds, that was bought two or three years ago may have been watched half a dozen or more times. I have dvds like T2, The Thing, Predator and James Bond films that I have watched loads of times, but some that I have owned for ages that I have only watched once. Some are short films with no extras, but still the same price as ‘bigger’ dvds.
The cinema, obviously, has the least value. Paying about five pounds to go and see The Lord of the Rings, a quality film that lasts over two hours is ok. Whereas paying the same money to see a short stinker is not quite so good.
Great games can be good value. Although I haven’t played it recently, GoldenEye proved to be exceptional value because of its superb multi player mode.
Some games, like Championship Manager and The Sims have ongoing value, where you play them hour upon hour but there’s no actual end to the game.
But, after the completion of a game, would you go back and play it again?
It would depend on whether or not it was a good game or not. I’ve played through games like Metal Gear Solid, Resident Evil 2, Broken Sword 1 & 2 many times because I love them. Sport games like Pro Evolution Soccer can be played for months on end in either single player league modes or in multi player. My younger brother has racked up hundreds of hours on his various Pokemon games. But I have only played great games like Banjo Kazooie & Tooie, Donkey Kong 64 and Shenmue only once. It is partly down to the size of the game.
Does that mean the bigger & longer the game, the less replay value it has, and therefore less value for money?
How long does it take to complete a big game like Zelda: Ocarina of Time or Donkey Kong 64? It can take dozens & dozens of hours and more if you try to find 100% of the secrets hidden within, so although you might only play them once they still provide weeks of great entertainment.
How long does it take to produce a great game?
Zelda: Ocarina of Time took Nintendo & Shigeru Miyamoto years to produce, and Shenmue took Sega years and cost them billions of yen to make it the amazing adventure it is. There is a lot of time and effort going into producing these amazing games but, in the case of games like Harry Potter, some are rushed out cash-ins.
Many people moan about how over priced games are. I agree, some can be highly priced and shallow, but some can be amazing adventures and, in the case of games like Zelda: OoT and Final Fantasy 7 & 8, great life experiences and you feel more involved than if you were watching a film or listening to music.
But are games better value for money than cds, dvds or the cinema?
I think they are. Great or good long games that can last hundreds of hours can prove to be great value for money, however the cash-ins, short & shallow games and other gaming dross aren’t quite so worth it. It’s all a question of size and quality.
There is a lot of maths to be done to work out the real winner. However, each individual is different, and it takes people less or more time to finish a game, some aim to finish a game 100%, while some just finish a game then move on to the next one. Some people (me included) buy loads of dvds and most don’t get any re-watch value, but some people only buy a few and watch them loads of times.
What do other people think?
Are good games better value for money than a good cd or dvd?
Gone are the days (hopefully) that we see a game come out coupled with a huge price tag. The main offender for such a crime was Turok: Dinosaur Hunter, when it came out shortly after the N64 arrived it had an RRP of £70! (And like a sap, I bought it for that price.) You can now pick up Turok for about a fiver or less.
Many other games have been expensive over the years. Most new N64 games were sometimes £50 or more, and that was perhaps one of the reasons why the console didn’t achieve a better stranglehold on the U.K market.
Video game companies are in direct competition with other consumer electronics companies who produce cds and dvds and the cinema. Are video game companies at a disadvantage because games are more expensive than cds and dvds? Recently it was announced that the U.K video games market is worth more than all video rentals and all cinema revenues.
But who deserves our hard earned money?
Who offers us the best deal?
While games are more expensive than cds, dvds or a trip to the movies, it’s all a question of value for money.
However, it is not as simple as it first appears.
A cd, costing about ten pounds, that was bought five years ago may have been listened to hundreds of times, totalling many hours of enjoyment. In other words, a good cd can have infinite replay value, and therefore be great value for money.
A good dvd, about twenty pounds, that was bought two or three years ago may have been watched half a dozen or more times. I have dvds like T2, The Thing, Predator and James Bond films that I have watched loads of times, but some that I have owned for ages that I have only watched once. Some are short films with no extras, but still the same price as ‘bigger’ dvds.
The cinema, obviously, has the least value. Paying about five pounds to go and see The Lord of the Rings, a quality film that lasts over two hours is ok. Whereas paying the same money to see a short stinker is not quite so good.
Great games can be good value. Although I haven’t played it recently, GoldenEye proved to be exceptional value because of its superb multi player mode.
Some games, like Championship Manager and The Sims have ongoing value, where you play them hour upon hour but there’s no actual end to the game.
But, after the completion of a game, would you go back and play it again?
It would depend on whether or not it was a good game or not. I’ve played through games like Metal Gear Solid, Resident Evil 2, Broken Sword 1 & 2 many times because I love them. Sport games like Pro Evolution Soccer can be played for months on end in either single player league modes or in multi player. My younger brother has racked up hundreds of hours on his various Pokemon games. But I have only played great games like Banjo Kazooie & Tooie, Donkey Kong 64 and Shenmue only once. It is partly down to the size of the game.
Does that mean the bigger & longer the game, the less replay value it has, and therefore less value for money?
How long does it take to complete a big game like Zelda: Ocarina of Time or Donkey Kong 64? It can take dozens & dozens of hours and more if you try to find 100% of the secrets hidden within, so although you might only play them once they still provide weeks of great entertainment.
How long does it take to produce a great game?
Zelda: Ocarina of Time took Nintendo & Shigeru Miyamoto years to produce, and Shenmue took Sega years and cost them billions of yen to make it the amazing adventure it is. There is a lot of time and effort going into producing these amazing games but, in the case of games like Harry Potter, some are rushed out cash-ins.
Many people moan about how over priced games are. I agree, some can be highly priced and shallow, but some can be amazing adventures and, in the case of games like Zelda: OoT and Final Fantasy 7 & 8, great life experiences and you feel more involved than if you were watching a film or listening to music.
But are games better value for money than cds, dvds or the cinema?
I think they are. Great or good long games that can last hundreds of hours can prove to be great value for money, however the cash-ins, short & shallow games and other gaming dross aren’t quite so worth it. It’s all a question of size and quality.
There is a lot of maths to be done to work out the real winner. However, each individual is different, and it takes people less or more time to finish a game, some aim to finish a game 100%, while some just finish a game then move on to the next one. Some people (me included) buy loads of dvds and most don’t get any re-watch value, but some people only buy a few and watch them loads of times.
What do other people think?
Are good games better value for money than a good cd or dvd?