Value

The other day this comment was posted on my Braid story by reader Zombinate:

So I finished the game (Braid), the main story anyway, I haven’t gone to get the stars yet, or whatever the hell they are. I’ve decided that this game is the movie “Brazil”; It really doesn’t make any sense, but is just compelling enough to be enjoyable. That said, like Brazil, I feel it would have made a good rental. I really enjoyed my time playing the game, but wonder if the $15 was really worth it. Honestly, if I could, I would sell this at (insert favorite second-hand game store). It is kinda like Bioshock, once you are done with that game are you really gonna do it again and again?

On a bigger level, this is the problem I see with the live arcade. It isn’t a true market, as no price deductions take place as interest in the property wanes. For example Geometry wars 2 was just released, any change in the cost of the first? Nope. This is fine for classic arcade like games, where the point is a high score. For story based games though, which have limited replay value, I am disappointed that they are treated the same way.

With regard to Braid, the topic of value in story based games have been discussed before. With this game, it was fantastic, but i don’t think was a good value.

The price of Braid has bemoaned over and over again, and typically the reaction is that people should be willing to pay $15 for Braid because it’s so good. Well, here is the reaction of a gamer who paid $15 for the game and did not feel that he received a decent value for his money.

One of the problems with mainstream games journalism (which I used to be a part of, so I feel qualified to comment on the subject) is that staff game critics do not play or purchase games the same way that average gamers do. I do not think there is anything morally or ethically wrong with critics receiving free games – no one bemoans movie or music critics for doing the same, and most publishers don’t try to use freebies as leverage on the press, despite the occasional bad story that crops up. No, I think the bigger issue is that game critics play everything, buying the games they didnt’ get for free to fill in the games in their collection. The smarter ones then write off those games as a business expense, because you really do need to keep up on what’s out there to stay informed. Again, there’s nothing wrong with that. But that’s not the way the average consumer plays or buys games.

To a game critic, $15 is a steal, even if they only play a game once. After all, they routinely pay $60 for a game they only play once – or sometimes play not at all. But your average game buys far fewer titles per year, and thus expects a certain amount of value out of their purchases. Once I left the games journalism field, I gained a whole new appreciation for the cost of games that I will admit to lacking while I was a critic. Games that would have happily accepted a free copy of and played became games that I would only pick up used, or not at all. This is something that games journalists need to keep in mind during their reviews. Not everyone out there can or will purchase every title, and the average gamer also doesn’t slog through the great swaths of shovelware as critics do (which makes them more apprciative of innovative games like Braid). Clearly, not everyone agrees that $15 is a fair price for Braid. On the other hand, at $170 bucks, Rock Band was a great deal in my mind because I (and so many others, including my wife and friends) have gotten so much entertainment out of it. Perceived value is key for purchasing decisions in these rocky economic times.