In this rolling generation of game systems, the general price of new releases per system is set at an average cost number. For the longest time this "New Release" price has never changed. And like many other tight-pocket gamers, I have always been one to wait on a game to see if it would drop in price and be what I would consider 'affordable'. This is especially true in PC games - why buy a PC game for full price, unless it was absolutely brilliant, when in a year I could buy it for a third of that cost?

However there are some games out there that sadly do not change price whatsoever. Nintendo first-party games have a knack for this; "Super Paper Mario" is still full price, as is every other Mario, Metroid, and Zelda Wii game out there. Even used does not take the edge off. In these cases the only way to make the price lessen is to wait until the next next gen console comes out and the current ones drop considerably. (Give or take an exception to Sony, as they still have the PS2 running.)

The problem concerning these games that fail to price drop is that they're popular and I usually have an urge to splurge, but I have no idea if they're all that good in the end. After all, there are fantastic gems, and then there are peer-pressure flops that people buy simply because their friend, a commercial, or a game store employee talked them into it.

So here I am asking you: What full-priced games (especially the ones that wont drop) are just not worth the price? What price would these selected titles be better suited at? How long do you think it would take for the price to drop that far? And which of the latest released titles are not worth buying entirely?

I see it like this: If you really want a particular game, then the price shouldn't matter.

MrMisfit:
I see it like this: If you really want a particular game, then the price shouldn't matter.

Agreed. I'll also add that if a game doesn't deserve to be full price, as the sales will decide, then it will drop fairly quickly.

That being said, I think we can all agree that the Madden series is the "winner" here.

You say this, however I highly doubt if you wanted a version of Wii Fit you would pay the immense price gouging costs on Amazon to get it - a price that is easily as much or more than the game system. The same would go for any PS3 or 360 title that is or would be hard to immediately find.

If I pay full price for a game, or am forced to pay above full price for any reason, I would want the game to contain something that would be worth that money. And I would on the other side want to know of games that are not.

I loved bioshock, but anything that has no appeal after six hours shouldn't cost sixty dollars. I'm fine with games with no multiplayer as long as the singleplayer is done well, and bioshock was superb, but it still just never had quite enough length or depth of gameplay to make me feel like spending full price on it. I'm really conflicted about short games in general.

I think it's prudent to point out here why games are priced the way they are in the first place - demand. The games mentioned that don't drop in price stay the same only because they're still selling like candy at the initial price, and other games only drop because they're not. It's not some kind of vast conspiracy or something. The other thing to keep in mind here is the type of game. If we're looking at FPSs, a new one comes out every other month with brand new shiny graphics and enhanced game play that usually improves tech-wise on what's come before. No one is going to pay $60 for last year's shooter when this year's is the same price and looks and plays better. Mario games are Mario games, and no one really makes anything like most Mario games, so they don't have to compete.

Now to answer the actual question. I would say that in general, a fighter or FPS like Ninja Gaiden II or Viking has a hard time justifying a $60 price tag when a game like GTAIV, with a 100 hours or more of game play, is setting itself down at the same price. But that said I paid full price for both NGII and Vik because I wanted to play both of them right away, and I'm not bitter about it - I paid for the opportunity. I also paid full for GTAIV, but I'll be playing that for months and months, so I feel like I really got a deal.

I think publishers should really look in testing at the amount of time players will want to spend on a game to determine the pricing. A game that'll get old quick should drop at $30, so more people will be willing to pay for what they can probably tell isn't going to be a long-term investment. Games like GTAIV or Rock Band, that are really going to sell regardless of price because people know they'll be playing them for months, can keep the full price.

Otherwise, it's all over the place. Two months ago I paid $14 for DOA4 and I can't help but wonder if Target priced it wrong. I mean, this is a benchmark game. But win for me in this case, so wheee!

I think chutes and ladders sucks and always have. When this comes out for PS3 I'm definitely not buying it.

the question is not wether games are worth my money, yet if they are worth my time. If i am going to spend six hours playing a game, it dosent matter if it costs 30$ or 60$, it is still six hours of my life, which is worth more than 30 dolars.

Hmmm. Spore has hit my "uncertain" list. From the demo, I'm no longer convinced it's as open and creative as promised. May not buy it, definitely won't buy it before it drops to under $40.

Any game that is a film tie in, they're all terrible

Stuff like GT4: Prolouge just shouldnt be full priced at all. It is afterall a glorified demo (a very pretty demo i will admit) but charging the full price just seems like they're tryin to take advantage of people who dont know better. Plus the new copies of a full fledged GT usually cost about 70 bucks anyway.

sandswipe:
I loved bioshock, but anything that has no appeal after six hours shouldn't cost sixty dollars. I'm fine with games with no multiplayer as long as the singleplayer is done well, and bioshock was superb, but it still just never had quite enough length or depth of gameplay to make me feel like spending full price on it. I'm really conflicted about short games in general.

You think that's bad? Bioshock is still ~$AU90... and the Aussie dollar is just about $US1. It pretty much means we're $100 for a game more than a year old.

As for games not being worth it, I must say that I saw BF2142 at the shops today, and it's still about $70-$90, and BF2 (with the expansion packs) was a whopping $100.

stompy:
You think that's bad? Bioshock is still ~$AU90... and the Aussie dollar is just about $US1. It pretty much means we're $100 for a game more than a year old.

I noticed that DS games came down in price in Australia semi-recently, although Wii games are still around the $100 mark when new (yes I'm a bit of a Nintendo fanboy).

But as far as internationalised prices go (and I know this is a bit off topic), I bought a Macbook Pro (17") to use as a work computer recently. I get an education discount, so that knocks about $150-ish off the price. Then you compare the US Apple Store price to the AU price:
US: $2,799.00
AU: $3,799.00
Actual price when converting US$ to AU$: 2,934.61
Now that's bad. And Apple tend to mark up all of their products for Australian sale by a fairly significant percentage (which is a shame because on the whole they are damned good).

Anyway, back on topic. The problem I have with a lot of games that come out is the buggy state that they're released in. You pay $80-$100 for the game only to have to wait months for a patch to come out to fix sometimes critical bugs. My favourite example of this in recent times was Hellgate: London - not only are they fixing gameplay bugs in the meantime but they were also stinging you a monthly fee if you were silly enough to subscribe.

This sort of behaviour by companies doesn't make me feel like I'm purchasing a game, but rather investing in their company (without the benefit of any renumeration for success), since you're paying them before you have a fully functional product.

I would say that Dawn Of War Soulstorm is not worth it.
Its like they copied everything from Dark Crusade, then kicked it till all the delicate bits came off, opened it up and rearranged the engine mechanics so that on my computer instead of running at just under max settings with the odd bit of lag in massive battles like its predecessors it requires me to minimize everything and expect a three minute load time for the god-damned campaign map.

That and in Australia we're still paying close to $70 dollars for it

Gears of War is starting to show up used now and then but it's still overpriced. I rented it and thought it wasn't worth much of anything. It's one of those over hyped and peer pressure games that isn't worth it. Zelda Twilight Princess was another game that isn't worth full price. It's fun to play at first but the platforming is just so frustrating and absurdly hard, especially once you turn into the dumb wolf. The graphics are so bad they hurt my eyes too. Zelda is one of those games, like Sonic, that should stay 2-D and not be 3-D. The 2-D versions of both those games are superior to the 3-D versions.

I know it costs a lot to develop games these days, but I still say $60 is too much for a game. I've noticed that some multi-platform games are cheaper on PC than they are on the consoles when they first come out. What's up with that?

Obviously games that suck aren't worth it (HAZE) but I will admit the Halo 3 legendary was not worth 129.99 (its now 79.99). Any sports game is not worth it (I got NHL 2K7 for $10 new 6 months ago)

Anything called Medal of Honour.
Apart from Undeground and the original, it always consists of the same story, pretty much the same characters, and even less brain power needed than the previous installment.
And always at $99-$110 for the first 8 months of release.

I excluded the original and Underground as they both require some form of planning, especially Underground.

Rock Band isn't really worth it. I don't think I've ever played it with three other people. I asked for it for Christmas, and it's certainly fun. However, if I had to fork out $170 plus tax, I'd be pretty disappointed.

Most FPS games aren't worth more than a rent. I don't play multiplayer though. Some may be worth the money if you're heavily in to multiplayer. Also, Bioshock and CoD 4 are an exception to this rule at least at their used price in American dollars.

However, MGS4 was worth selling my bricked xbox 360's parts and all 21 of my games on ebay and getting the PS3 bundle with MGS4.

I disagree with brenflood on the subject of Rock Band. I payed full retail price when it came out, and I play it at least every other day. Still. And I buy the downloadable songs (most of them). And I work 20 hours a week part time.

That, however, is the ONLY game I have bought at full price in about 2 years. I waited 'till last week to pick up Orange Box, and only did so because I saw the price at $30. Worth every penny (that I got from a GH3 wireless controller and 3 old games. The controller was $20 itself).

However the only game off of my head to buy outright would be Bioshock and maybe GTAIV. Well, not so much GTAIV, but definitely wait for a while. (Like, a year AT LEAST.)

sms_117b:
Any game that is a film tie in, they're all terrible

Aye tis true. And while knowing this I STILL purchased TMNT for the PSP. Granted I was not buying it for me... but I still had to play it for kicks, and kicks I got... to the metaphorical groin. The problem with Games based on films is that as a general rule of thumb, the game will have a similar (if not exact) release date to the film, to ensure it sells purely from the films hyperbole... cheap marketing, but always rubbish games. Also, The films are usually well under way before the development of the game begins (so as to mimick the style of the film more easily with perfect reference). So that basically means:

Style guide = set in stone, regardless if it doesn't suit.
Production time = Months, borderline a year. Usually outsourced to many studios.
Deadline = Non extendable. Due to relying on the films marketing.

So yes, in short... my two cence to this thread is that the vast majority of games based on films are not worth my time or money.

I dont buy any games at full price anymore. I cant afford them. Thankfully there has not been a game released in a longtime that I wish id bought sooner :-D; & after the huge mistake that was bioshock (paying £40 for it when id unknowingly pretty much already complteted it having rented the damn thing for 2days!!!!, short is short but thats a joke no matter how good it is) I dont feel im missing out not buying these games. THankfully my bro is still young enough to get games bought for him though :-D

$120 for MGS4

i bought it release day because i knew id be paying that even if i waited.

It sucks.

EDIT: the price, not the game sucks. The game is like a gift from god. Just had to clear that up.

GeeDave:
Aye tis true. And while knowing this I STILL purchased TMNT for the PSP. Granted I was not buying it for me... but I still had to play it for kicks, and kicks I got... to the metaphorical groin.

I would've mentioned that game except for the fact this thread is mainly focused on the question of what games aren't worth it and I consider the PSP TMNT game sit in the separate category of "video games that are effectively self-harm."
I only played my copy once, however I got it with the 300 game which disproves the film-to-game rule.

Lunar Genesis
It said 80 hours of gameplay on the box, I finished it in 40 and returned it to EB Games within the week.
It's pathetically easy and with a lame storyline.

The combat system is crap. You select a character and choose "Attack", "Special Attack" or "Item", and with the first two you can't even choose your damn target! Combat can be also set to "auto-attack" which defeats the purpose since you can't even choose your targets. Eliminates anything resembling strategy from the game.

The "run" command is linked to the DS' microphone, which is a pain in the ass when you're playing it in the car, or pretty much anywhere in public. Which is what a handheld is FOR, especially considering that the game imposes a HP penalty on running.

Oh, and you're forced to choose between monsters dropping items and monsters dropping EXP.

sms_117b:
Any game that is a film tie in, they're all terrible

In my opinion that's not true in all cases, The Warriors being a perfect example of a great (if not the best) movie to game adaption.

LordCraigus:

sms_117b:
Any game that is a film tie in, they're all terrible

In my opinion that's not true in all cases, The Warriors being a perfect example of a great (if not the best) movie to game adaption.

It wasn't exactly a tie-in though. It was the game version of an old film.

Halo

LordCraigus:

sms_117b:
Any game that is a film tie in, they're all terrible

In my opinion that's not true in all cases, The Warriors being a perfect example of a great (if not the best) movie to game adaption.

Indeed. That's one of the only exceptions I can think of. I loved that game (and the film, come to think of it).

Lately I've been binging on PS2 titles, since even the new releases like Persona 3: FES and the MGS Compilation are priced at $30

Some of the arguments made reinforce my view that its better to buy games second-hand, that way if they are shit and you can't get a refund, you haven't lost as much money as you would have if they were new.

You think that's bad? Try the macbook pro for a brit;

£1,779.00 For us Brits, which is a whopping $3,550.14! That's an increase of almost $1,000. And anyway Australia, it's not like there's a massive population in Australia, you've got to take into that shipping costs. In Europe, they have no excuse.

LordCraigus:

sms_117b:
Any game that is a film tie in, they're all terrible

In my opinion that's not true in all cases, The Warriors being a perfect example of a great (if not the best) movie to game adaption.

Another example (although it's also based on an old film) is STALKER: Shadow of Chernobyl. It's one of the best games I've played, and it was inspired by Stalker (which was inspired by Roadside Picnic, which is a book, a very freakin' awesome book available for free legal download), which is a Russian movie filmed in 1979. One of the worst movies I've ever seen, but the game was awesome.

A game not worth the money, though: Any MMORPG. Or Urban Champion for the NES. Even for five dollars on the Virtual Console it's not worth it. A fighting game with two different moves, a strong attack and a weak attack. It sucked beyond human comprehension.

Games that are not worth it: most of them, really. $60 American is hardly an amount fitting to pay for a game. It's a lot of money. My Wii-loving friends usually buy the eye-catching Nintendo games as soon as they come out for that price.

Nintendo: I've yet to witness anything made by Nintendo to be worth calling a 'gem.' I'll give them the fact that they go way back and set up many lasting franchises, but that's literally all they have going for them. Their games are repetitive; their boss battles are equally boring and systematic, and their production line is more redundant than tard-speech. The Smash Bros. series is the only game Nintendo made that I can play for over a period of 30-40 minutes straight and not want to tear my hair out, but they're not worth buying the Wii.

Valve: most of what they put out is brilliant, so there's a bit reassurance when it comes to seeing a $60 Valve title. Half-Life 1&2; Portal; Team Fortress 2 are nearly as perfect as FPS's are ever going to get. The Orange Box was a good deal for the $50 I spent to get it off of Steam.

MGS4: It's about $400 American if you don't already have a PS3, but so far it seems like the only game that makes owning this console worthwhile, and I'm a person who _hates_ the MGS series. I thought the game was one of the most highly invested projects I've ever seen. Everything to me was superb except for what makes MGS MGS (the intentional cheesiness; the intentionally ridiculous story that I have decided has twists for the mere sake of twisting; the facial animations, dialogue and voice acting blow donkey balls. The cutscenes, though, are astonishing to watch with the new graphics). If you're into MGS, you might even consider buying a PS3 and calling it a Metal Gear Solid 4 Television Adapter. That's what my friend did, and he's not regretting it... unless in like 3-4 months the game comes out on the Xbox 360.

Blizzard: great games if you like the formulas they tend to stick to religiously. I personally came to love their RTS's, but I can't play their RPG's without crying at how grindy they are and how there's actually no real role-playing involved in them. I used to play Diablo 2 a bunch when I was around the age of 14-15, but once I realized how systematic it was, the fun value dropped considerably for me. Blizzard do seem very committed to patching out most of the bugs and imbalances in their games. I think highly of that.

The Commandos series: the shit. If you want a game that makes you think and work for your victory, get Commandos 2/3. 1's alright, but the graphics are exceedingly shabby. Commandos 1 and 3 are arguably the two hardest games I ever played.

The Hitman series: I played 1 and 2 so far and liked both, but 2 was better by some ways than 1. I haven't played Blood Money yet, but am looking forward to. Definitely worth the price.

The Total War series: my favourite RTS's, as they are large-scale; the unit interactions are well-done; the balance is there for the most part (some factions have access to more powerful units or a greater variety of units, but those restrictions are accounted for with historical excuses). The historical accuracy is horrendous, but there are community mods that help amend this problem.

---

Mac's: considering the hardware you get for the price you paid, a Mac is the most overpriced machine you can get aside from an Alienware. Unless you absolutely can't do without OSX, you can easily build something more powerful for half the price of a corresponding Mac.