So, I am talking about Delta Force: Black Hawk Down (which sadly isn't available on GOG), I was going through Steam's ''Under €5''-section, just to see what I could find, and it made me think of DF: BHD, so looked it up, and sure enough, it was on there, what I didn't expect was the price, €14.99 (or your regional equivalent), and it made me think, that price is actually (in my eyes) fair, I have had a lot of fun in that game (I have borrowed a few times from a friend), considering that the game is more than a decade old at this point, it's amazing that it can contain such a value, and the game is, as I mentioned before, very much worth the cost, in my eyes.

Does this post have a point, maybe not, it was just something I thought of, and found a bit interesting.

Sorry if I have wasted your time with this post.

Sincerely

Jonas P. aka DanishPsychoBoy.

Thats often true but often not. most games especialy on steam under say 10 or 5 bucks are going to be shit. Either shovleware or just flops. Also alot of companies are realizing that gamers will gladly pay 15-20 dollars for any good game not matter how old.

BUT on the other hand you have games that come out as early access at 20-25 dollars and their price climbs even as their quality deteriorates. Or commercial games costing 60-80 dollars that might not entertain you for more then an hour or are riddle with bugs or old features but repainted. Where as some games might comeout for 5-10 bucks and go on sale clear down to 1-2.50 and then be amazing games.

My favorit example is Terraria. First time I played it I bought a 4-pack on sale. It was like 2.50 per license at the time but I got the fourth free essentialy so I paid 7.50 for four copies. Then I played for nearly a thousand hours. Between single player and playing with friends and all the new content that kept coming, I couldn't belive it for less then 2.50

I even use to buy licenses everytime it went on sale to give away to friends, yeah I know the original price was 10 bucks, but 10 vs 60 is a huge diffrence for me. Eventually I stopped liking their updates and couldn't stand what the game had become. Something of a danger when patches keep coming out.

But still I had like 950 hours of of play time for between 2-8 dollars investment. I'm sure their are tons of other examples but it is unfourtant that no matter what price range their can be terrible games. I think good companies know how to price their games though.


TLDR. Yeah thats sometimes true, not always though.

I'd say the publisher determines the price, I determine what I'm willing to pay for it.

For me, how much I am willing to pay depends on how much I like the game's genre.

For example, take a Wizardry-style dungeon crawler or a gameplay-focused turn based (non tactical) RPG and I am willing to pay a premium for it.

Take a genre I have only secondary interest in (like bullet hell shoot-em-ups) and I may buy it, but will not be willing to pay as much for one.

Take genres I have no interest in (for example, FPS or pure adventure games), and I will not buy it, and will likely not play it even if I get it for free.

Also, these days I would prefer it if developers would make simpler games (which cost less to make) and sell them for less; I don't need 3D graphics, complicated game mechanics, or mini-games (which add extra development time since they have to be programmed separately) to enjoy a game; in fact, such things actually tend to detract from the experience IMO.

Wow, thats like right on point. Yeah I'll pay more for tacticle, simulation, open world or immersive. But shooter or pretty just doesn't cut it for me either. Yea I guess interest is of course a major factor that somehow doesn't seam to me to be brought alot. Like no matter how great a sci fi - first person shooter is I'm not going to value it at 60 bucks. If I played a demo and got hooked and it was 5 bucks for an FPS maybe I'd buy it. But point and click adventure, you'd have to pay me to play it.

I hope I didn't mix up you point for anyone else, but great point.

Before I read all of the above, has anyone mentioned that quality is totally subjective?

That should kind of end this thread right there. :P

arrr piracy is the answer to greedy publishers/developers arrr!

Isn't everything? Yar Har Fiddle Dee Dee

Physics isn't. :P

No, not buying and not playing is the answer. Piracy just gives them a good excuse to keep treating customers like criminals.

It would be nice if there was some true correlation between quality and price. But there isn't really. A savvy spent dollar could get you Odallus now, you could waste FORTY on Vermintide. On the other hand, that same dollar could just as easily get you Bad Rats, which isn't a fun time any way you slice it.

Quality doesn't determine price, success/demand does. A game can be utterly brillant in every conceivable way but if no one acknowledges it and it sells like shit, it will end up in the bargain bin in no time. A mediocre game on the other hand will stay at full price considerably longer if just demand is high enough.

No publisher discounts games out of the good of their heart. Discounts are a reaction to sales figures dropping below a certain threshold (or never reaching the threshold in the first place).

Wait What? Dude Albert Einstein was a physicist and well you know Time is Relative, hahaha. Just sayin. Ok maybe relative and subjective are different things. But that just seemed like a really funny response to me.

Idk there might be some indie devs who do. Or Pumpkin Studious when they went out of business they decided to release warzone basically into the public domain or open source. I honestly think they figured well fuck if we are going to go bankrupt lets just give the source code to the public, you know like out of the goodness of our hearts.

Your point still stands like 99.9% of the time of course.
Well tree stumps are dead so yeah but what if the cheese culture is still active and thus alive and those single celled organisms are clearly smarter then you. JK Sorry couldn't help myself.