[custard]

$20?

[honeycomb]

up to $50 if it was really appealing.

[Toefur]

You must have a lot of cash to blow, honeycomb.

I'd go no higher than $10. Though at $10 I would have to think about the purchase, and could possibily decide no. At $5 I would straight out pay for it.

[Fop]

I find it surprising that the elite of adventure game fans refuse to pay retail prices for their favourite genre.

[rtrooney]

Originally Posted by Fop

I find it surprising that the elite of adventure game fans refuse to pay retail prices for their favourite genre.

Retail prices in the US are under $30, with most priced at $19.95. After a year, most of these games can be found for under $10. And this is for a full-length game. (whatever that means)

So, setting a maximum price lower than that for an shorter game hardly seems unreasonable. Someone else mentioned what it costs to go to a movie. Using that analogy, I might pay $10 to see a two-hour movie, but I wouldn't pay $10 to see a twelve-minute cartoon, no matter how good it was.

[Fop]

Most games start at $50 (up to 55€ over here, though). A third of that (for a third of gameplay) would be over $15, yet only a quarter of us are willling to pay over $10. That does seem unreasonable to me.

[RLacey]

Originally Posted by Fop

Most games start at $50 (up to 55€ over here, though). A third of that (for a third of gameplay) would be over $15, yet only a quarter of us are willling to pay over $10. That does seem unreasonable to me.

You're failing to take into account the fact that there are a lot of people, like me, for whom a spectacularly good game is required for us to actually buy a game at full price. Most of my games are bought after they drop in price, so the amount I actually spend on most games is far, far closer to $30 (or even less).

[Fop]

I'm not really failing to take you into account. Rather I'm recognizing that adventure game fans seem to be wholly comprised of people who refuse to pay full price for a game.

It's a shame really, but the current system doesn't even take your sales into account when deciding whether a game was succesful or not. Games need to sell through at full price to be considered successful. This doesn't bode well for big budget adventures, which shouldn't surprise anyone.

It's mostly the system that's at fault (and partly the stagnation of adventure games), though, I'm not saying you should start paying full price to support a broken system.

[Legolas813]

Full price for an adventure game in the U.S. is usually $20-30 at the most (and the price only stays that high for a month or two and then quickly drops). Taking that into account, a 3-5 hour game should be priced significantly lower.

[SoccerDude28]

I would pay 9-10 dollars if it is good, 15-20 if the game is truly ace. (I am planning to buy Valve's Half Life 2 expansion for $20 for example, although it provides the 4-5 hour gameplay. But from experience, those 4 hours are usually better spent than playing some of the full length "experiences").

Comparing it to movies, watching a 2 hour movie at the movie theatre costs 10 dollars, and buying it on DVD is about 19 dollars. So it would be just fair that a similar criteria is used for games.

[Erwin_Br]

Originally Posted by Fop

I'm not really failing to take you into account. Rather I'm recognizing that adventure game fans seem to be wholly comprised of people who refuse to pay full price for a game.

It's a shame really, but the current system doesn't even take your sales into account when deciding whether a game was succesful or not. Games need to sell through at full price to be considered successful. This doesn't bode well for big budget adventures, which shouldn't surprise anyone.

You're right. You're completely right. I think most adventure gamers aren't impulsive, impressionable teenagers anymore, who just HAVE to buy, or let their parents buy, the latest kickass game to be up to date with the rest of the gang. Maybe that's another reason why adventure game sales declined over the years. Its audience got older, and it has to work hard to pay the rent. In short: We became cheapskates wiser with age.

--Erwin

[rtrooney]

Originally Posted by SoccerDude28

IComparing it to movies, watching a 2 hour movie at the movie theatre costs 10 dollars, and buying it on DVD is about 19 dollars. So it would be just fair that a similar criteria is used for games.

Unlike games, which drop off dramatically after they've been on the shelves for a time, movies tend to be priced at their lowest when they are initially released to DVD, then the price goes up only to go into steep decline at a later date. E.g., the new Harry Potter movie (releasing tomorrow) can be had for $15.95 US at Amazon. The third movie in the series also debuted at that price, was selling for $19.95 a month after its release, and can now be had for $6.99.

Purchasing a DVD usually assumes the movie is worth watching more than once. The second time it's watched, it's paid the equivalent of two trips to the theater. Any viewings past that is money in the bank. I must say that my DVD collection is remarkably small. Just because I loved a movie doesn't mean I want to watch it again.

Which is also how I feel about 95%+ of the games I've played. So, that would tend to reduce my maximum.

[Scoville]

What horribly expensive cities do you people live in where a movie ticket costs ten dollars? I've never paid more than $7.50.

[JohnGreenArt]

New York City.

[Once A Villain]

Originally Posted by Scoville

What horribly expensive cities do you people live in where a movie ticket costs ten dollars? I've never paid more than $7.50.

For some reason this made me think of my friend in San Diego, California. It's off subject but oh well... He can't afford a house out there, so he's throwing away his money every month on an apartment he can never own. He just got a raise, and he's making what sounds like good money, but given the cost of living out there it's really not.

So then I ask him, "Why are you in California? I used to live there man. The reason I don't anymore is because I can get everything California has to offer in other states, and I don't have to pawn off my right leg to afford it." He says, "Oh, Texas offers mountains and beautiful beaches?" This was actually what I was setting him up to say. Whenever someone from California pulls out the "mountains and beaches" card, I always ask, "How often do you go driving or hiking up mountain trails? How often do you really go to the beach? Honestly, how often are you really getting use out of the very things you claim make your state worth living in? And then you tell me if it's worth not being able to afford anything there." Some people could answer "yes" to this, but that person is rare. My friend can't say yes because I happen to know for a fact he doesn't even like salt water and NEVER goes into the mountains... At least if he had said "climate", he would have ONE decent point, but I happen to like the extremes myself...really hot summers and really cold winters.

I didn't mean to bring this up out of nowhere, but your comment made me remember all this... Who continues to pay bills for services they are no longer getting? Or what about those restaurants where the food sucks but you pay a lot for the "atmosphere". This, to me, is the same concept. If you aren't getting any real use out of what you are paying for, then go somewhere where you aren't expected to pay for those things. A lot of people do pay more than they need to pay to get by, living out on the coasts, and then bitch and moan about how the world is cruel... My buddy is one of them. He won't even listen to my favorite claim (which is totally true by the way): "The women are hotter here!"

[Scoville]

Originally Posted by Once A Villain

He won't even listen to my favorite claim (which is totally true by the way): "The women are hotter here!"

Now I need to move to Texas.

[Tiggergb]

around $15 would be my sticking point, but if it is a side adventure, then you could always sweeten the pill with a preferred buyer status for those who contributed to this so they could get the full game a day or two early, or extra screenies/music tracks whatever

[SoccerDude28]

Originally Posted by Once A Villain

For some reason this made me think of my friend in San Diego, California. It's off subject but oh well... He can't afford a house out there, so he's throwing away his money every month on an apartment he can never own. He just got a raise, and he's making what sounds like good money, but given the cost of living out there it's really not.

So then I ask him, "Why are you in California? I used to live there man. The reason I don't anymore is because I can get everything California has to offer in other states, and I don't have to pawn off my right leg to afford it." He says, "Oh, Texas offers mountains and beautiful beaches?" This was actually what I was setting him up to say. Whenever someone from California pulls out the "mountains and beaches" card, I always ask, "How often do you go driving or hiking up mountain trails? How often do you really go to the beach? Honestly, how often are you really getting use out of the very things you claim make your state worth living in? And then you tell me if it's worth not being able to afford anything there." Some people could answer "yes" to this, but that person is rare. My friend can't say yes because I happen to know for a fact he doesn't even like salt water and NEVER goes into the mountains... At least if he had said "climate", he would have ONE decent point, but I happen to like the extremes myself...really hot summers and really cold winters.

I didn't mean to bring this up out of nowhere, but your comment made me remember all this... Who continues to pay bills for services they are no longer getting? Or what about those restaurants where the food sucks but you pay a lot for the "atmosphere". This, to me, is the same concept. If you aren't getting any real use out of what you are paying for, then go somewhere where you aren't expected to pay for those things. A lot of people do pay more than they need to pay to get by, living out on the coasts, and then bitch and moan about how the world is cruel... My buddy is one of them. He won't even listen to my favorite claim (which is totally true by the way): "The women are hotter here!"

The reason I stay in California is simple... my job. I work in tech and where else in the US can you find Google, Yahoo, Oracle, Cisco, and eBay within 20 miles of each other. If I worked in a different field, I would leave tomorrow.

The only alternatives I might consider are Austin, although the tech companies there are not of the same profile, and Seattle if I land a job with the devil himself.

[The Avatar]

Well, I've got a little something to add here..

Movie ticket prices. I actually go to a cinemark movie theater that plays new releases, and their matinee ticket prices are $2.50

That's right, i said $2.50

If i want to see the ticket in the evening on opening night.. i pay...

$5.00

I just watch them during the day on the weekend for $2.50. So don't talk to me about paying more for a movie than i would for a computer game.. I think most of you pay way to much for both. After all, most of what's out there is crap. The big budget computer games I really look forward to, which include a map, and limited edition trinkets and developer's interviews and concept art.. i'll pay $70 for. Those are things I know i'll love and treasure for ever.. but a game i know nothing about, except that it's very short, and was made on no budget.. and is a download? Sounds like $2.50 material to me.

[honeycomb]

There was a fantastic free Indie game called Dead City a few years ago. I think that could have been marketed and priced at say $USD10. I actually enjoyed it more than Doom 3 so you dont always get what you paid for in terms of the experience.