I recall Secret of Mana being like, 75 or 80 bones or something like that. Can't remember for sure

 

It's called 'don't click on the thread'.

 

 

First I want to say I'm happy to see people talking sense and agreeing that games are indeed NOT too expensive. Second, though, I am surprised to see the poll has more yes votes then no.

Just a couple points that may have already been mentioned:

-Games cost a lot to make.
-Games cost a lot to make again.
-No, really, listen, they cost a lot to make. Have you seen the credit roll for for any big game you've completed recently? Lots of people, huh? Well these people all have to make a living doing this. They generally put a lot of time into their work, extra hours and such, so its not like these games are made by people on the side.
-Geez, they cost a lot to make. You know that ESRB rating? Yeah, that costs companies a butt load to get a rating. Just submitting a game costs plenty, and sometimes changes have to made to change the given rating, so they have to be RE submitted after lots of paid workers have to spend extra time changing things. ESRB also has lots of other expenses that generally aren't discussed since its a pointless argument when companie won't license your game for their platform and stores won't carry your game without a rating. Essentially, they charge what they want.
-There are plenty of used options for buyers, so guess who doesn't make money from that? Yep, the developers. So, that's undercutting them badly to.
- Eh, so many things.

Honestly, everyone should be happy that they can get games like Dragon Age and Modern Warfare 2 for the same price as a game like GI Joe Rise of Cobra (when it first came out it was $60, at least). You should be happy they don't charge by the manpower it took to make something. I think that's why I can't argue too much about day 1 DLC and the like.

 

If I felt the need to buy every new release that catches my eye at full price, then yes - but seeing as how I only buy about one 360 game a month and it usually comes out of the $20 - $30 bin, no.

I have patience.

 

What's worse is buying a game and then having to buy the dlc if you want the full experience the game has to offer, or they make it so that a games on both consoles then makes one version have more missions or whatever on the Xbox or PS3, and then doesn't bring it to the opposite console. Or having exclusive DLC that'll improve game play on one console and not both. Like GTA IV, or COD:MW

 

I'm certainly not a fan of console exclusivity. As far as the DLC goes, companies put resources aside to make this content, and a lot of games have different budgets. So, who is to say how much you "deserve" to get with a purchase? If Dragon Age cost 3 million more to make then Uncharted 2 (just examples, I don't know) then does Bioware have the right to say that the extra 3 million was meant for seperate downoadable content? And if Dragon Age takes 30 more hours to beat then Uncharted, could Bioware have said "let's make it episodic and make them pay for a second game since there is more content then other games."? It's a gray area, I'm afraid. Unless there was some way to standardize what goes into a $60 game, and then have you pay more or less depending on where you meet the standard.

 

I feel like you're missing the point of DLC. Dragon Age not included, everything else is usually after-thoughts.

 

Okay, I need to stop you there. One of my biggest pet peeves is when people assume that DLC is somehow core game content that should be included with the purchase price. All DLC is optional content that is used as either thanks for the fans (free), incentives created by third parties to promote their stuff (exclusives), or a means to generate more revenue on an existing product (paid content). You don't need any of it to play the game as it was meant to be played or experienced, though it may enhance or extend that experience.

For example, just because PS3 owners got to play as the Joker in Arkham Asylum, doesn't mean that it was an integral part of the game. Sure, it is a fun extra, but as a 360 owner, I don't feel like my time with Arkham was any less amazing. Just because Rock Band releases new songs every week doesn't mean that I need to purchase them all just to get the full experience.

Bottom line: Just like video games, nobody is forcing you to buy it. DLC is optional.

 

I know that most is after thought, but GTA IV wasn't they announced before the game was even done that the DLC was exclusively for Xbox, and there's exclusive maps for Xbox that are NOT available on PS3 for Modern Warfare 1. But I'm saying DLC can be a real killer to your budget if it helps the gameplay of a game

I know that it shouldn't be condsidered in the price of the game, I never said that. I said that there's some DLC that improves the gameplay and it just kills the bidget on some people

 

Just my 2 cents....

Way back when.... My mother paid 84 bucks for NBA Jam... Now I pay 60 for movie story quality games

With that said.... I think 60 is still a little expensive for most games. Games like EA's Madden and NCAA football for instance, lets be real here, its just an updated roster.

Now, Gears of War, God of War, Uncharted, Batman, MW2 are totally worth the 60 bucks.

Madden, NCAA, any non first party wii games should be 30-40 lol 

 

While I agree with you, it was a little annoying in Dragon Age to have someone in your parties camp tell you a story, and then ask if you would help him, only to be told you have to pay to do so. Not too subtle there.

 

Well, and that is a break from the norm which I don't nessesarily agree with since it does begin to creep into the main game experience.

 

I agree now that making games is hard and costs a lot of money.