tree fiddy :p

There are not that many games that goes to the 30+ hours. Some story rich RPGs? open world games where you ignore main story line? What do you think about a game like Tower of Guns? one run can take 40 min. I love that game :)

To be honest - I am not quite sure.... I tend to do a lot of investigation before buying a game, so I know it is something I will like. I have so far been disappointing more by longer games than shorter ones. I guess that it is easier to evaluate a shorter game than a longer, so you will not be disappointed, maybe?

SO far, the only games I would consider ripoffs are those hat promise something they do not deliver, and that does not actually have anything to do with game length, but game content.

At launch? Whatever the hell people are willing to pay.

Look if nobody was willing to pay that much then they wouldn't sell it at that price. I know it isn't worth that much to you personally so why not wait until it's at a price you do like? It's not like you have to wait very long.

Whatever they decide to charge for it. It's free market, demand decides what's fair.

I'd say it's the AAA studios that need to be more modest and held to higher standards, not the indies.

Indies are about as modest as you should expect them to get. $10-15 is a pretty common release price nowadays. $20 is getting into the pricier indies, and even that is only a fraction of what AAA games release for - that's the concession to lower production values, right there. That's not to mention the current deep-discount race to the bottom we're seeing on game prices in general, especially with indies, or the fact that bundling your game with five others for a buck doesn't exactly scream "hubris."

Some indie games cost too much for what you get. Almost all AAA games cost too much for what you get. That will always be the case, and there's always a premium attached to being the first on the block to play the latest releases, but rock-bottom prices are easier to find than ever. How cheap do they need to get?

Why is it you don't expect to pay a premium for buying a game at launch?

Personally I can't remember that last time I bought a game at launch. In fact I can't remember ever buying a game at launch.

For me personally? Whatever costs 20 EUR is fair game. I never get stuff at launch and I don't care much for whether or not it's on sale, that's just a ceiling I have put on any title I buy.

Eh!, nothing new here. I start a discussion about ethics and/or politics and people transform it into a question of convenience. With DRM happens a lot too: "DRM is inherently wrong because it gives absolute power to the publishers", "but it never gave me any problem, and would you look at those sales!?"

Bah!, I say, bah!

no, you would have a discussion if the games never went down in prices or where ever on sales. We know the games will go down in price, so all you need to do is wait.

edit - and that DRM thing there is just obfuscation...

Indie developers put a lot of hard work into their games and many put their own money into developing them. I think it's ethical for them to have the chance to make a good profit on this. If they charge too much then people won't buy. Simple as that.

I don't understand people who think they should put so much time and money into their game and yet not be allowed the chance of a financial reward. If you don't think it's worth as much as other people do then that's up to you. You're not forced to pay that much for an indie game as the launch price doesn't last long . People who do think they're work that much have the opportunity to show their appreciation by rewarding the indie developers.

As amok says, if the price didn't come down then you may have a point about ethics. But currently prices fall so far and fast I can't believe you would begrudge a developer starting out at the highest price point they think at least some people would buy at.

Regarding the ethics of such pricing, it might be easiest for me to make my argument by responding to something that you said earlier:
The shortcomings that you mention are important to you, but not necessarily to others--indeed, a few people here have noted that they value indie games on other grounds, and don't consider to be significant the things that you see as serious downfalls.

What then is the basis for indies to be ethically bound to those specific standards?

With regards to the length of games, would it be worth it to pay twenty dollars for a game that offered an incredibly thought-provoking, stimulating experience--something that would provoke thought, discussion and revisits for years to come--and lasted only half an hour?

What about a thirty-hour game that was only barely enjoyed, and forgotten almost immediately?

Now of course those are somewhat extreme examples; the point is to suggest that the length of an experience is often not the only deteminant of its assigned value.

IMHO, if it costs more than a movie of similar length, then it's definitely overpriced. Which means that a 2 hour game had better cost me less than $10 at launch.

so a 4 hour game is ok at about $20?

a 30h+ game is ok at about $150?

It's not exclusively about the length of the game! I could write a game in ten minutes that takes 100 hours to play through, but I bet you wouldn't pay $20 for it.

If you don't like the price at launch, don't pay it. Read reviews, purchase accordingly. There's nothing immoral going on here, just preference.