Recent comments in /f/gaming

jcabia t1_j69apk7 wrote

I get what you mean and used to agree with it but my opinion has changed a bit with time.

I have not played either Stray or Dead Space for the record but I used to value games based on the hours it gives you and as I grew up and started having less time, I started taking into account the quality of those hours.

For example, most new assassin's creed games can give you hundreds of hours but for me it almost feel like a chore because of how repetitive and/or boring it can get so it ends up not being $60/70 for me and then I play a shorter indie game like Tunic or Death's Door and I feel that they are totally worth it.

My point is, I can't meassure games by hours of content anymore and sometimes even value shorter games more. Like eating a huge bowl of bland rice vs eating a very tiny dessert that blows your mind

Value is relative and a very personal metric so we can all have different opinions

1

catptain-kdar t1_j697tbx wrote

I also take into consideration the effect of inflation. In 2008 when dead space was first released the game was 60$ which is equivalent to almost 80$ now so selling the game at 70$ they are actually losing money in terms of inflation. Not to mention that games have been the same price for decades I’m suprised it took this long for them to raise the price

1

solidshakego OP t1_j696637 wrote

I use that analogy as well to justify if a price is worth it or not. Like STRAY was 40 or 50 dollars? But it was so short it didn't feel justified for me. It has an okay story and costed about 10 dollars and hour to play. Should of been $30 at release.

But you also have you're own opinions. Where I find the last of us part 1 well worth the pricetag. I enjoyed dead space at launch, but not enough to spend $70 on it for a remake.

1