CAA: Christian Anime Alliance

So Modern Warfare 2: Prestige Edition is coming with night vision goggles... at a very steep price. There's no way I'm gonna dish out $150 for a video game, sorry.

http://videogames.yahoo.com/events/plugged-in/modern-warfare-2-prestige-edition-packs-eye-opening-bonus-costs-150/1334432

I thought this thread was going to be, "So they're selling the last factory-sealed copy of Persona 2: Eternal Punishment."

I think all games are pricey. I understand that a lot of work goes into these things but most games do not need to be 50 bucks each.

150 ain't bad for Night vision Goggles... I cant find any for less than 200 with a quick search. And the game is coming out in a regular, non NVG containing release for the standard system price, so you can just get that if 150 is too expensive.

@ Robin-$50 was so last year. $60 is the new standard for new games.

Oh the cost of fashion.

It could be worse. You could be trying to buy a Satellaview game.

@ Robin-Yeah I understand that. When a game you have some interest in is $60 or more, do a search on it. Look on IGN for a review or some other gaming sites. Believe me, I know how it feels to buy a bad game(Can't help but think of that new Gamefly commercial. AGH!). Can a bad game cost $60, well it can when it's new.

And a good game could be one of those "Classic Hit" games that cost a measely $20. Those might be your best bet sometimes.

That's not as bad as The Beatles Rock Band: Platinum Edition Bundle. For those of us who don't even have Rock Band instruments, we have to shell out 250 BUCKS, no matter what system you own. Even the Wii version costs that much. So I would have to fork over the cost of a Wii just for extra instruments? I don't care if they're custom, I would never pay that much.

@ADXC - You're very right. If I want to shell out 60 bucks for a video game, I do the research. Also, I agree with you that $20 games can be better than $60 ones, but not all. Used games can also give you more bang for your buck, though that can also depend on the game as well as the quality of the game cartridge or disc.

*remembers buying lair new... cries a bit on the inside*

I haven't bought a game I don't like since then... Except Loco Roco coccoreccho.

I do research a ton. Doesn't always help though...

I'm sure night vision goggles u get with a video game are legit.

I would never pay over 20$ for a video game unless it's MGS-related.
That's why I haven't purchased a 360.
There are so many overpriced games I want for it.

ilikegir33 (post: 1329983) wrote:@ADXC - You're very right. If I want to shell out 60 bucks for a video game, I do the research. Also, I agree with you that $20 games can be better than $60 ones, but not all. Used games can also give you more bang for your buck, though that can also depend on the game as well as the quality of the game cartridge or disc.

Yeah, I didn't say all $20 games were always going to be better than $60 ones, just that they can be.

I also totally agree with the used game tip. Believe me, if you see a game that you want that's been used, get it. You can always sell it back if it doesn't work. I would think they should.

But here's the thing, I got the lovely Shadow Hearts 2 game for like $10-$17. And the game was AWESOME!! Im like, another man's trash is another man's treasure.

Here's a list why you should get used games.

1. They are usually much cheaper than the new one you could buy.
2. The new one may not even be in stock, snatch the game if you see a used one.
3. If it turns out to be a bad game, you don't have to yell to the heavens! "AGGGGGGH, WHY DID I BUY THIS STUPID GAME!!!" Because used games usually aren't that expensive.
4. You can use the extra money you would have used on the new game, for part or all of another game you might want. Meaning if you are on a quest to see how many good video games you can buy with say $100, you could do it.

Im not saying one shouldn't buy new games. If it is a game you know you'll love, have seen that through good research(You know what I mean. You've looked at the reviews, plot, gameplay, and etc.) that it is legit, don't mind cashing out for it, have not seen any other potential games that you want(Becuase you'll say to yourself, "Why in the world did I get this game when the other was in perfect reach?! WHY, WHY, WHY?!), then I say go for it.

Plus you can return used games seven days after buying them.

Oh geez. You freaking kids today. e.e

Sixty dollars? Seriously, complaining about sixty dollars? Oooh, be glad you weren't a gamer during the N64 era. N64 games cost EIGHTY dollars. And these were 1996 dollars.

And you have it so good with your IGN and online reviews and Youtube and internet forums, don't you? In the NES days, we didn't HAVE any of that. You relied on friends you knew in real life to tell you if a game was any good, or you bit the bullet and purchased a 50 dollar NES game on the sheer HOPE that it might not suck, because it might be the only game you'd get all year. The only game magazine at the time was Nintendo Power, which you couldn't even trust for reviews because it was owned BY Nintendo.

Oh, and God help you if you got stuck in a game. There wasn't GameFAQs or online walkthroughs. No, you had to ask your parents if you could call the Nintendo Helpline, and have them spend their money so you could ask a guy on the other end how to do something in a game, WHO MIGHT NOT EVEN KNOW THE ANSWER. In fact, there are stories of some counselors who would literally lie on the spot as to how to do something in a game because they didn't have a clue.

So yeah. You'll excuse me if I fail to sympathize with people who buy a bad game for what is honestly relatively CHEAP considering the value of the dollar currently compared to the value of the dollar in 1985 (here's a hint: dollars are worth LESS now and games are about the same price, that means they're cheaper!), when there are so many game review sites there really isn't any excuse to not know what you're going to get. :p

Also, I'll step off my crotchety old-man soapbox rant for a minute. Please, don't buy used games if they're relatively new. Used games are great for finding old PS1 or PS2 classics that aren't produced any more, if you want to play FFX, go ahead and buy a used copy! But if a game just came out last week, don't buy a used copy. Seriously. It takes a LOT of time and money to produce these games, and game companies don't get any profit at all from someone buying a used game (and they shouldn't, despite what they say).

If you really want to know if a game is any good and don't want to spend 50 dollars on a new copy to find out, there's a simple solution: RENT IT! Spend five bucks or however much it costs to rent a game these days, play it for a couple of days, and see if you like it. If you don't, you haven't wasted much money. If you do, buy a new copy! This way the game company gets their profit, you get the game you want, and guess what? Then the game company will have more money to make MORE games you might like! Then everyone is happy.

[old man soapbox rant again]But don't buy used copies just because, and don't complain about the price. I honestly blame the ease of downloading and torrenting on the internet for why so many people think they deserve crap for free or at a price at which companies literally cannot make a profit if they sold the game for that low. Kids these days think they're entitled to everything and shouldn't have to spend a dime for it.

Here's an example to prove the reason WHY companies can't sell games for cheaper. Killzone 2 cost over 20 million dollars to produce. It sold a little over a million copies, or at least that's the most current figure I can find. If they sold Killzone 2 for 20 dollars, they would only BARELY cover their development costs. The more they sell it for, the more profit they can make. And while you may say "At a million copies at 60 bucks apiece, that's a 40 million dollar profit for them! They could sell it for less!"

Okay, but how much did it cost to develop Killzone 2? Over 20 million, right? Where do you think that 20 million came from? From profit from selling OTHER GAMES. The 40 million dollar profit Killzone 2 made, yeah, some of it will go into the pockets of coporate heads and whatnot, but the remaining money from the profits goes into--guess what--making OTHER GAMES!

I hope you are now enlightened as to why games cost what they do. Maybe it will help motivate you to support the video game industry instead of trying to save yourself a few measly bucks. If it doesn't, that's fine. The rest of us honest people will try and make up for you leeches. :p

Nate, I just have to ask this after your rant, but did you have to walk 15 miles, uphill, in the snow to get to the store which sold the game you were looking for?

But what Nate's stated is basically my opinion as I read these posts as well. $50-$60 for a new game isn't that bad. It's been this way as long as I can remember, so why are we complaining about this now?

The lower price on Used Games are wonderful and I would encourage everyone to buy used games. However, when it comes to recently released games, buying used doesn't necessarily save you that much money. You have to wait for the price and demand to drop before you can get these games for 20 or less dollars and by then there will be more games out that may catch your eye.

The special edition for Modern Warfare 2 also isn't that bad in terms of price. As others have pointed out, other special editions of games that have and are coming out cost more or about the same. Also, if those Nightvision goggles actually work, that's pretty reasonably priced. Sure, they're probably rather bad quality Nightvision goggles but what do you expect to be packaged with a 60 dollar video game?

Tommy (post: 1330675) wrote:I'm sure night vision goggles u get with a video game are legit.

Sarcasm y/y?

Also, props to Nate for the economic analysis and mention of the ever-present entitlement mentality in today's youth. On a not-much-related note, it seems to me that it would cut costs significantly on game production if systems went longer between new versions and every game didn't have to be more and more detailed. I'm not one of those "graphics don't matter" people (all things equal, better graphics are better), but gameplay is definitely king in my opinion, and I don't think I'm in the minority. Case in point: games such as Braid, Cave Story, or classic adventure games (although the latter's triumph is more due to writing/characterization than gameplay IMO), all held in high regard even in today's era of high-powered consoles. If gaming as a whole would focus more on the fundamentals than bleeding-edge technical details, it seems to me that games could be produced more economically and overall be equally or more satisfying experiences.

And (if this isn't exactly the same Raiden was saying in a different format) games don't HAVE to look perfectly lifelike. Matter of fact sometimes it's very nice to have something that isn't real (and brown) such as tales of legendia. Nice art style there and it certainly didn't look incredibly expensive.

Robin Firedrake (post: 1330841) wrote:And (if this isn't exactly the same Raiden was saying in a different format) games don't HAVE to look perfectly lifelike. Matter of fact sometimes it's very nice to have something that isn't real (and brown) such as tales of legendia. Nice art style there and it certainly didn't look incredibly expensive.

...Then go play Tales of Legendia.

Unfortunately, any marketing student will tell you that the task for keeping profits up is to keep changing and keep improving your product. While a gamer can (and should) be content with games that have older graphics, or more style than visual processing requirements, that doesn't necessarily mean that we aren't occasionally wow'd by the new graphics. It's hard not to get drawn in! I mean, who has seen a new game this generation and just paused to breathe "whoa..."

Anyway, yeah I'd love it if they cut the time between console generations down, but marketing wise I don't think it's honestly feasible. Generally they run until they're tapped out before being replaced, or near the end of their life-cycle. Sony got a little more use out of the PS2, but I'm going to state the opinion that the PS2 was perhaps one of the greatest consoles ever created in terms of versatility and the library. The pricepoint of the system still makes it one of the primary gaming systems in Japan, and they're not always quites so graphics gaga as the west.

Now, I didn't mean to buy used-new games. No, I just meant that for buying used games.


Anyway, you can take or leave the tip I gave.

When I got games, Sega Genesis were $20, PS2 were $50, and now PS3 are $60. And I don't really care about the past.

Are you guys seriously discouraging people from buying used games? From your arguments, it sounds like we shouldn't even wait for sales. The objective of consumers isn't to support industries, it's to buy products that industries make at a price that they consider reasonable. If you don't consider the price reasonable, then don't buy it. If the industry can't sell anything, they need to readjust their strategy.

No, I'm not accounting for piracy. If you're not pirating anything, then you, as the consumer, shouldn't have to go out of your way to make up for other peoples' pirating.

If you want to go and just give money to the industry for no reason (by not optimizing your spending power), then go ahead and do that, since it's your money. But no one should feel like they need to go out of their way to do that by avoiding things that won't give the maximum amount of money to industry.

I didn't buy the Orange Box until it was on Steam for $10 during that weekend sale in April this year. I hadn't played any of it before then, including Half-Life 2. Am I a worse gamer because I didn't buy it on launch day for $60?

ADXC wrote:When I got games, Sega Genesis were $20, PS2 were $50, and now PS3 are $60. And I don't really care about the past.

You must have been buying used Sega Genesis games because Genesis games were 50-60 dollars a pop, just like SNES games, although SNES games shot up in price mid-life cycle (I remember Super Mario All-Stars was SEVENTY dollars brand new, I got it for my birthday and I was reminded I would not get as many Christmas presents because of how much it cost).

What's interesting is that it actually costs more to make a cartridge than a CD, meaning game companies earned a LOT less profit for selling SNES games for 70 dollars than a PS3 game for 50 dollars.

You say you don't care about the past, that's fine. I have no obligation to educate you in how good you have it as far as game prices these days. If you honestly want to believe the mean ol' game companies are being greedy and charging too much, then you're welcome to join the ranks of pirates. Hey, I've pirated stuff before too, I won't lie. Though normally the stuff I pirate is stuff not for sale either because it won't be brought over to the States or it's so old.

But games cost what they cost for a REASON, games are CHEAPER, and if you still want to whine about it, you'll excuse me if I have zero sympathy. If you don't like what they cost, don't buy them, it's as simple as that. But quit pretending like game companies "owe" you somehow, or that they're not entitled to a profit.

blkmage wrote:Are you guys seriously discouraging people from buying used games?

No, I actually encourage it. I buy used games all the time. What I'm discouraging is say, for example, Halo 4 comes out and a person goes into Gamestop two days after launch date and buys a used copy for 10 or 20 dollars less than a new game. I discourage that because there's no reason for it other than to save a couple of bucks. And if people are complaining that game prices are too high (which they're not), then buying used isn't going to get their point across. The only way to get their point across is to not buy it in the first place.

If you're not pirating anything, then you, as the consumer, shouldn't have to go out of your way to make up for other peoples' pirating.

I agree completely. Despite what the game industry thinks, pirates do not count as "lost sales." They were never sales in the first place, so they don't count as losses.

And the sale price of games isn't making up for pirating. DRM is what does that. Trust me, if game companies wanted to make up for piracy games would be 100+ dollars.

If you want to go and just give money to the industry for no reason (by not optimizing your spending power), then go ahead and do that, since it's your money.

"No reason?" So wanting the company to NOT go bankrupt so they can make more games I enjoy is no reason? I don't know about you, but I know I don't want companies to not be able to turn a profit and therefore be unable to make more games. Perhaps I'm crazy, but I actually LIKE to play new games. I actually want companies to make more of them. But I guess I'm just "crazy," they must have money trees in game companies that give them funding for new games to be made, right? So I'm just a sucker I guess!

But no one should feel like they need to go out of their way to do that by avoiding things that won't give the maximum amount of money to industry.

Sigh. This isn't my argument. If I wanted people to give the maximum amount of money to the industry then I would say "Buy every new game that comes out!" Crappy games don't deserve to be bought. If a game sucks, don't buy it! If a game doesn't appeal to you, don't buy it!

What I'm saying is this. I like Dragon Quest V. I bought a brand new copy launch date. Why? One, because I like Dragon Quest and I want Square to make more. Two, because the more sales Square makes, the more likely they are to say "Hey, these games are selling well, so let's bring more to America!"

I could download it online, or buy a used copy for 20 bucks cheaper two days later. But then maybe the sales aren't so good, huh? Maybe then Square says "Y'know, people aren't buying this, let's not bring any more Dragon Quest games to America." Then what?

Keep in mind if this is like two years after Dragon Quest V came out, Square isn't producing any more copies of the game. If you find a used copy, buy it! Because the game isn't being made, sales aren't being tracked anymore, and so on. It doesn't really matter at that point.

I didn't buy the Orange Box until it was on Steam for $10 during that weekend sale in April this year. I hadn't played any of it before then, including Half-Life 2. Am I a worse gamer because I didn't buy it on launch day for $60?

Online distribution is a bit different from buying games at the store. It's much easier to track, and the profit is greater since there isn't as much to produce. It's a lot cheaper to send data on an internet line than it is to make a disc, an instruction manual, a game box, and so on. This is why Virtual Console games are around 5-10 dollars instead of 60-70 dollars like they used to be.

No, you're not a worse gamer. Your example doesn't even really count, because since you bought it off Steam, you weren't buying a used copy and thus money still went to the industry. A better question would be something like, "I didn't buy God of War II until Gamestop had a Gamer's Day sale this year and I got a used copy for 20 dollars, am I a worse gamer because I didn't buy it on launch day?" The answer is still no though, because at this point the game is no longer in production.

By the way, the price of games DO go down legitimately, ever heard of the "Greatest Hits" line where really popular games that sold really well have a retail price of 20 dollars? That's like Sony saying "Hey, we made a really good profit off this game, so we'll reduce the price because profit isn't as important now."

I'm not a video game industry shill, hell, I'm not even a computer programmer. I'm just a gamer who likes games and realizes how an economy works. I want games to keep being made, I don't want good game companies to go out of business because someone wants to be whiny about how cheap games are. Yes, there ARE game companies out there who deserve to go under, and that I won't buy any products from because of their underhanded tactics *coughEAcough*.

But if the problem is with the companies themselves, then don't buy any games, period, used or not. Don't try and compromise your morals by saying "Well used copies don't give money to the company so if I buy one I can still play it and they won't get money!" If you honestly think a game is good enough to buy? Then support the makers. If you think the company is charging too much or treating consumers poorly? THEN DON'T BUY THEIR GAMES, USED OR NOT. Otherwise you're a hypocrite. So this whole "if a person thinks games are too expensive" (which again, they are NOT) excuse as to why they should buy used games two days after launch is nothing more than a nice-sounding lie.

I am 100% agreement with Nate on this point, and yet I have bought used games that were still in production... I started buying games on gamefly before they started buying games back, because I assumed they'd replace the game they sold me with another new copy... Now that's not the case, but I've bought 2 games from them since that changed...

At the very least, I know every box I get from them means they bought it themselves, because I'm nearly certain you don't have to send them the box when you resell your games...

And additionally, in most instances the most you'll be saving on a new game is four bucks max. Gamestappo doesn't really mark down by much for the used copy, so go ahead and spend that extra four bucks. You ARE using your purchasing power as a consumer. You're telling the industry that you enjoy this particular kind of game and you would like to see more of it. Let's take a look at two games: Psychonauts and Beyond Good and Evil. Both sold dismally in new sales, but very very well in terms of used sales. BG&E in particular has had a sequel in the works, but recently has come in trouble by some of the higherups in the Ubisoft office because the original "did not sell well." This game is widely recognized as being one of the best games you can buy for any system from the last generation, and yet there may be nothing else coming from the story (which is a shame since it's kind of a cliffhanger) because people didn't buy the game when it was new.

What I'm discouraging is say, for example, Halo 4 comes out and a person goes into Gamestop two days after launch date and buys a used copy for 10 or 20 dollars less than a new game. I discourage that because there's no reason for it other than to save a couple of bucks.

Yes, this is what I don't understand. How exactly is this different from other markets like with books and movies? If there's a used copy and people shouldn't buy it, then who is supposed to buy it? Or are you suggesting that people shouldn't return games that they didn't enjoy or are done with? If I bought MGS4 and cleared it in a day and felt like I could part with and decide to sell it, why shouldn't someone be able to buy it without feeling like they're not supporting the games industry?

"No reason?" So wanting the company to NOT go bankrupt so they can make more games I enjoy is no reason? I don't know about you, but I know I don't want companies to not be able to turn a profit and therefore be unable to make more games. Perhaps I'm crazy, but I actually LIKE to play new games. I actually want companies to make more of them. But I guess I'm just "crazy," they must have money trees in game companies that give them funding for new games to be made, right? So I'm just a sucker I guess!

But no one should feel like they need to go out of their way to do that by avoiding things that won't give the maximum amount of money to industry.

Sigh. This isn't my argument.

But that is your argument. You're going out of your way to make it appear that the game is selling better and to send the message that you want more of this to be made. You're doing it because you like that game and that's fine, but I'm saying that no one should feel like they have to do what you're doing. It is not necessary for people to think about companies like that and most people don't.

I like the things that Blizzard makes and I will probably get a copy of Starcraft II when it launches. Why? I like Blizzard and enjoy their products, but above all else, I just want a shiny new copy of Starcraft II.

Let's say that I want to play GTA4. I see GTA4 used maybe a day or two after it launches and buy it. You come up to me and say that I'm not supporting the industry, etc. etc. But why do I want to spend my dollars in a way that gives Rockstar more money to make GTA5? I'm buying GTA4. I am only interested in this thing they have made and are selling. I don't like GTA that much that I will be in despair if they don't make any more. I am perfectly fine with this thing that I just bought; it's just a game.

The thing is that for people like us, who sit around on the Internet and talk about the games industry, we can see the difference. Yeah, I'll go out of my way to buy a game new if I really like the studio or whatever. You are arguing that we shouldn't buy new stuff used because of sales and monies and whatever. I am saying that most people don't see games like that. They just see a new game, say cool, it is a new game that I want to play, and buy it. And we shouldn't feel like we are obligated to support our favourite developers to that extent; people should only do it if they want to. I feel like there are a lot of things that are oversimplified when you discourage people from buying used new games that strongly.

Oh, and a sidenote Re: EA, I feel like they've gotten better over the past year or two, what with their handling of the studios they acquired and their push into original IPs. I mean, at least they're not just destroying studios like they did with Westwood anymore. The new evil publisher seems to be Activision, with their stunts like 30 billion Guitar Hero releases per year and the Brutal Legend lawsuit.

You know, I was going to bring up the Brutal Legend thing. Did you know that they stopped showing interest in the game when Doublefine said they wouldn't brand it with Guitar Hero?

Thanks for telling me that about the Sega games(I really didn't know.), I was young so yeah, I guess it was a used game.

I only came into this thread to say the good things about buying used games. Im not really complaining about the prices that much as you so infer. Really Im not really saying much about the prices, just that sometimes I prefer to buy used games because they are cheaper.

You can say that Im the one complaining night and day about the prices, but Im not. Most of the time I have bought games as they were new right of the rack making money for those companies. Most of the time, if it is for a Square-Enix game, I will buy it new if it's a new game coming out. However if it was say FFX, then Id get a used version because finding a new version would be somewhat difficult at a game store.


And Im not meaning for these companies to owe me anything! I NEVER SAID THAT!!!

Go ahead infer more stuff that isn't there.

When I started gaming, you could get a Nintendo Cartridge from anywhere between $30-$60. Nintendo and Genesis cartridges were more expensive. I think that the PS1 era was probably the golden age of console gaming with games around $30-$40 but that didn't last over long.

I don't think Nate is saying never buy used games, and I myself purchase them but usually around the time that the sales tracking ends. Often time I'll purchase a used game six to nine months after release at a local store that I do want to support because I enjoy the service at that establishment, or I like their selection of games better or what-ever. But... To reiterate the above, I think there should be a moratorium in all of this conversation on when you should purchase new over used. After a certain date it doesn't really matter too much, I think.

... Well, for the large companies. The company that produced World of Goo just went under because of a lack of sales.