Unpopular opinions go here

[Reynard]

I don't know if this is an "Unpopular Opinion" or not, but the Triple-A video game publishers seem to think so:

NO video game has ever been worth $60.

Sorry, Baldur's Gate 3; I'm going to wait until you're at least half that price. I've waited this long, I can wait another 18-24 months.

It depends on how you value your time. If you believe that no video game has ever been worth $60, you must also certainly believe that no 2 hour movie has ever been worth $10.

I take the opposite view: because I am in an economic position to value things thusly, I guge entertainment on a "would it be worth it for a movie ticket" paradigm. That is, I value entertainment at 5$ per hour. If I buy a $60 video game, I expect a solid 12 hours of enjoyable game play. Sometimes I am disappointed, but sometimes I am disappointed at the multiplex too. But sometimes -- unlike seeing a movie in the theater -- I am rewarded and get dozens or hundreds of hours of entertainment from that $60 game.

 

[payn]

60 dollar video games are actually a bargain. Adjusted for inflation video games are some of the cheapest seemingly inflation proof commodities out there.

 

[Celebrim]

NO video game has ever been worth $60.

Considering the best video games will generate 200-300 hours of fun, I think the fun per hour rate on a video game is pretty good.

Still, I do have regret purchases. Some video games aren't even worth $5.

 

[CleverNickName]

60 dollar video games are actually a bargain. Adjusted for inflation video games are some of the cheapest seemingly inflation proof commodities out there.

Considering the best video games will generate 200-300 hours of fun, I think the fun per hour rate on a video game is pretty good.

Still, I do have regret purchases. Some video games aren't even worth $5.

Here's where I'm coming from.

You may not know it, but for video games, you always pay what you want to pay. Always. If you feel a game is only worth $15 bucks, they will sell it to you for that $15.

Baldur's Gate 3 is selling for $59.99 on Steam right now. In six months, it'll be temporarily discounted at one of Steam's many online sales events (Winter Sale? Black Friday Sale? Cyber Monday Sale? 50th Tuesday of the Year Sale?), and it'll be offered at $40-50 for a few weeks before it goes back up to its release price. Next year, that price adjustment will be permanent. Or maybe it'll still sell for $60, but this time it'll be the "Game of the Year Edition" or whatever, that includes several DLCs they originally sold for $20 apiece. Give it a couple of years, and Steam will be selling that fully-loaded version for $30-40. Five years or more, it'll be $20 or less--and that's more my speed.

Since the consumer can control when they purchase the game, they also control the amount paid for it. So when I say "No video game is worth sixty bucks," I don't mean that I will never buy or play Baldur's Gate 3. I mean exactly what I said: it's just not worth sixty bucks. I'll buy it in a few years, when the price tag is more to my liking. I'll pass the time playing Witcher 3--I just picked up the Complete Edition (with all 3 DLCs) for $14.99.

The studios and distributors give their games a price on release, and you can pay that much for it if you want, but that price will drop over time. So it's never a question of "how much is Baldur's Gate 3 worth" for me. It's always "how long until I buy Baldur's Gate 3"? Since I'm a fan of the franchise, it'll probably be 2-3 years from now when the price tag is under $30.

 

[payn]

Here's where I'm coming from.

You may not know it, but for video games, you always pay what you want to pay. Always. If you feel a game is only worth $15 bucks, they will sell it to you for that $15.

Baldur's Gate 3 is selling for $59.99 on Steam right now. In six months, it'll be temporarily discounted at one of Steam's many online sales events (Winter Sale? Black Friday Sale? Cyber Monday Sale? 50th Tuesday of the Year Sale?), and it'll be offered at $40-50 for a few weeks before it goes back up to its release price. Next year, that price adjustment will be permanent. Or maybe it'll still sell for $60, but this time it'll be the "Game of the Year Edition" or whatever, that includes several multiple DLCs they originally sold for $20 apiece. Give it a couple of years, and Steam will be selling that fully-loaded version for $30-40. Five years or more, it'll be $20 or less--and that's more my speed.

Since the consumer can control when they purchase the game, they also control the amount paid for it. So when I say "No video game is worth sixty bucks," I don't mean that I will never buy or play Baldur's Gate 3. I mean exactly what I said: it's just not worth sixty bucks. I'll buy it in a few years, when the price tag is more to my liking. I'll pass the time playing Witcher 3--I just picked up the Complete Edition (with all 3 DLCs) for $14.99.

The studios and distributors give their games a price on release, and you can pay that much for it if you want, but that price will drop over time. So it's never a question of "how much is Baldur's Gate 3 worth" for me. It's always "how long until I buy Baldur's Gate 3"? Since I'm a fan of the franchise, it'll probably be 2-3 years from now when the price tag is under $30.

That doesn't change the fact that the starting price ought to be 100+ and 60 bucks at discount later on.

 

[CleverNickName]

That doesn't change the fact that the starting price ought to be 100+ and 60 bucks at discount later on.

No argument here. In fact, they should have a "pre-release" price of $1000, and sell it exclusively to all of the game streamers on YouTube and Twitch who build their whole image and reputation on being The First To Play The New Hotness^TM. Tax write-off for the steamers, free advertisement and a tidy cash boost for the studios.

 

[Thomas Shey]

That doesn't change the fact that the starting price ought to be 100+ and 60 bucks at discount later on.

At some point the discount is going to be trivial anyway, because the tail has trailed off completely. At least in digital sales, there's no point in not selling the hundred dollar game for five dollars at some point, because that's five dollars more than you're likely to get at that point.

 

[Gravenhurst48]

It depends on how you value your time. If you believe that no video game has ever been worth $60, you must also certainly believe that no 2 hour movie has ever been worth $10.

I take the opposite view: because I am in an economic position to value things thusly, I guge entertainment on a "would it be worth it for a movie ticket" paradigm. That is, I value entertainment at 5$ per hour. If I buy a $60 video game, I expect a solid 12 hours of enjoyable game play. Sometimes I am disappointed, but sometimes I am disappointed at the multiplex too. But sometimes -- unlike seeing a movie in the theater -- I am rewarded and get dozens or hundreds of hours of entertainment from that $60 game.

I am still playing PS4 AC ODYSSEY, since 2020, 3rd time around. I value what I get out of what I pay for if it's good, no matter the price tag.
For cinema films I can wait to catch on stream or disc to save money and view on my own large screen at home. Some films are meant for big screen, but a night out at the cinema aint cheap anymore at $15 CDN for one adult. No consession included. And beers are like $12 each! Craziness.
And in Canada all digital content is taxed now by the guvnt, so that $60 PS4 game is $67.80. Gift cards are always short pennies now. Rediculous.
Back to Kickstarters and RPGs. At least I own my content for life.

 

[CleverNickName]

It depends on how you value your time. If you believe that no video game has ever been worth $60, you must also certainly believe that no 2 hour movie has ever been worth $10.

I take the opposite view: because I am in an economic position to value things thusly, I guge entertainment on a "would it be worth it for a movie ticket" paradigm. That is, I value entertainment at 5$ per hour. If I buy a $60 video game, I expect a solid 12 hours of enjoyable game play. Sometimes I am disappointed, but sometimes I am disappointed at the multiplex too. But sometimes -- unlike seeing a movie in the theater -- I am rewarded and get dozens or hundreds of hours of entertainment from that $60 game.

I'm not sure that we should lump video games and movies together like that, but you're right: I wouldn't pay $10 for a movie ticket either. I'm far more likely to stream movies a year or two after they're released...or for movies that I absolutely must watch in theaters, I'll wait a few months and catch them at the smaller "dollar movie" theater downtown.

Also it's weird to break entertainment down into price-per-hour like that, but it helps argue my point. If you spent $60 on a video game that I spent $15 on, and we both get the same 200 hours of entertainment...I'm getting quadruple the value. The timeline has to count for something, because not everyone is willing to wait years to play a game/watch a movie. And does waiting that long diminish the entertainment value? I'm sure it does for some people. But I'm a weirdo.

It's not like I'm sitting here with nothing to do until I break down and buy the New Whatever; I've got a backlog of New Whatevers from 2017 that I'm still getting through.

 

[Parmandur]

I'm not sure that we should lump video games and movies together like that, but you're right: I wouldn't pay $10 for a movie ticket either. I'm far more likely to stream movies a year or two after they're released...or for movies that I absolutely must watch in theaters, I'll wait a few months and catch them at the smaller "dollar movie" theater downtown.

Also it's weird to break entertainment down into price-per-hour like that, but it helps argue my point. If you spent $60 on a video game that I spent $15 on, and we both get the same 200 hours of entertainment...I'm getting quadruple the value. The timeline has to count for something, because not everyone is willing to wait years to play a game/watch a movie. And does waiting that long diminish the entertainment value? I'm sure it does for some people.

But I'm a noted weirdo. It's not like I'm sitting here with nothing to do until I break down and buy the New Whatever; I've got a backlog of New Whatevers from 2017 that I'm still getting through.

You see, one of the advantages of playing Nintendo games is that they barely ever give major discounts, so there's no analysis paralysis: Tears of the Kingdom ain't going on sale anytime soon, and we already got hundreds of hours out of it (hours of entertainment is the only useful comparison I can think of, frankly: I'm paid by the hour, so how much of my free time a game is worth divided by itcost is the value I got out of it). It wouldn't make any sense to wait on it.