[davisman]

With me, it depends on how much time I'm likely to spend on a game.

The only games I tend to buy full price are JRPGs, as I know they'll most likely give me at LEAST an hour for every dollar spent. Then there are online games like Call of Duty which I can basically play for a year if not more. Games that you know will be worth the investment in time is what I tend to pay full price on.

For everything else, there's rentals, used game sales, or since I have a PC, Steam/Dealzon savings. I basically buy my PC games when they reach under $10, which happens the vast majority of the time, within half a year of release.

Exactly. For me its about how many hours I will be entertained. When you compare gaming to any other activity you can do outside the home, gaming is a pretty good value. 

 

[phidesu]

I tend to wait few months after release of the game to get game a LOT cheaper, especially on steam. Unless i really really want to play that game when its released.

 

[safwanc]

depends on the game for me. i dont mind spending it if it is a online multiplayer fps game or a huge rpg game

 

[catscratch]

Keep in mind that the $60 pricepoint has been set in stone for many years now and doesn't take inflation into account, or the rising costs of AAA game development, so to get the same value out of a AAA title today as you did 10 years ago you'd probably have to pay $100 or so. Which is a part of why companies have turned to DLC and are pushing it so aggressively - you gotta make the money somewhere.

As far as value - that's subjective, but mostly it depends on the game. Was Skyrim worth $60 when it came out? Even if you didn't like the gameplay much (I didn't) you'd be nuts to argue that it wasn't worth it. There's simply so much work, value, and content in it that it beggars belief. On the other hand, is a AAA shooter with a linear, poorly constructed campaign with maybe 5-8 hours of content worth $60, especially if you're not planning on playing the multiplayer? For me, absolutely not, but I'm a bit of a shooter monogamist anyway, I just play Quake.

Then when you get into more fringe genres the value equation really gets weird. To get every single card in Hearthstone you're looking at $300 or so, maybe as much as $400. Is that worth it? Compared to Magic the Gathering it's far, far cheaper but compared to other games, maybe not. But collectible card games just throw our notions of value and paying to win out of the window.

And to make it even more complicated, services like Steam and Origin don't actually sell you games. They sell you a license to play a game on an account. You don't own anything. They could take your privileges away at any time. Gamers have lost the right to own games, and they didn't even notice, or maybe they were so pleased at Steam sales that they forgot they aren't actually buying a damn thing. Is a license to play a game on an account worth $60? At least on Steam, you can usually pick up a major title for a lot less.

Lastly, there's a ton of politics in gaming. Some major publishers are so terrible in how they treat their customers and developers that I just don't want to support them and give them any money. I don't really pirate games either so mostly I just ignore them, but then it leaves some pretty good games unplayed. I think Ubisoft is the biggest offender for me, but EA and Activision are pretty up there too.

I'll echo the indie game thing - there's a ton of amazing games out there that aren't worth that much. I've enjoyed the hell out of Torchlight 2 and Terraria and put quite a few hours into either. Then, there are plenty of old games that still have a ton of replay value even today. Heroes of Might and Magic 3 is still an amazing game and to this day nobody has done anything similar to it better. Yes, the graphical fidelity in indie games is often worse than AAA titles, but I'll dare anyone to take a look at Trine 2 for instance and tell me that's not a pretty game.

Personally, it just depends on how much time I think I will invest into a game. I've played Quake for years and I support QuakeLive financially even if the core game is free to play. I love what Bethesda is doing so things like Skyrim and Fallout are auto-buys for me. Fighting games are usually something I put a lot of time into, and there are a few companies out there - like Netherrealm Studios - that I want to support. And Hearthstone has recently taken up a lot of my time, so plonking down several big bills to get all the good stuff was probably worth the enjoyment. Time will tell.

 

[crisps]

And to make it even more complicated, services like Steam and Origin don't actually sell you games. They sell you a license to play a game on an account. You don't own anything. They could take your privileges away at any time. Gamers have lost the right to own games, and they didn't even notice, or maybe they were so pleased at Steam sales that they forgot they aren't actually buying a damn thing. Is a license to play a game on an account worth $60? At least on Steam, you can usually pick up a major title for a lot less.
 

This is true with any medium. The only difference is it's easier for the game to be taken away. You don't "own" the game, just the license to play, even with a disk. And taking that into account when purchasing a game is silly because it's very unlikely you will just have game removed from your account for no reason, because 1) Valve wouldn't be in business still and 2) it's more than likely illegal for them to just take your money and then revoke your purchase without a refund for no reason.

 

[gamefreak054]

As far as value - that's subjective, but mostly it depends on the game. Was Skyrim worth $60 when it came out? Even if you didn't like the gameplay much (I didn't) you'd be nuts to argue that it wasn't worth it. There's simply so much work, value, and content in it that it beggars belief. On the other hand, is a AAA shooter with a linear, poorly constructed campaign with maybe 5-8 hours of content worth $60, especially if you're not planning on playing the multiplayer? For me, absolutely not, but I'm a bit of a shooter monogamist anyway, I just play Quake.

Lastly, there's a ton of politics in gaming. Some major publishers are so terrible in how they treat their customers and developers that I just don't want to support them and give them any money. I don't really pirate games either so mostly I just ignore them, but then it leaves some pretty good games unplayed. I think Ubisoft is the biggest offender for me, but EA and Activision are pretty up there too.

 I hate skyrim, I can agree with most of what you just said in that paragraph about it being worth the money. However I do think console players can make the argument of how buggy the port is, and how unpolished  the game can be at times. The ragdoll physics from what I have seen are horrendous, 3rd person still looks strange as hell, combat is still awkward, and more. Also I still find shooters can be worth the money (when considering third person shooters as well).
 
Publishers have been a big irritant of mine for quite a while. Though I still buy certain EA games as for some reason they do not bug me as much as some of the others. Granted they have an strange urge to ruin both the Crysis and Deadspace series by making them as generic as possible. I have only bought one Activision game brand new for years, and it was like 80% off. I still do not know why they let Bobby Kotick run his mouth every once in a while. Capcom just irritates the hell out of me because I felt like they had such an awesome past. Now they are one of, if not the biggest, offender of DLC especially useless DLC and day one DLC. Along with them continuously not bringing the Monster Hunter series to the states in a timely manner, especially now that the game is in full stride feature wise and controls are vastly improved (no more claw YAY!). I have no idea what is wrong with ubisoft though. I do not really follow their games or their politics well. 

 

[reddyxm]

I'm relieved that the price of games remains $59.99 with the release of the new consoles.
 
I don't buy many games at retail price anymore. I don't like the idea of paying 59.99 and beating the game in 10-15 hours. One of the reasons why I like JRPGs and Fighting games because I know I will spend dozens of hours playing them so I don't mind paying retail but often times I find myself waiting for a sale. I don't have to play the latest and greatest anymore because I don't have as much free time as I used too. So I'm patient enough to wait for a sale.
 
Thus if the prices of games rises above to say 69.99 then you definitely won't see me buying games day one.

 

[QueenZ]

It would definitely depend on the game in my opinion. AAA titles like Bioshock and The last of us or GTA V I would not mind since the content is there and the replay value makes the purchase worth it. The problem is when you get those half decent games that are one and done and you never pick them up again. I have a rule of thumb that for every 5 dollars i spend on a game I need to put in at least an hours worth of game time. Now many games do that for me and I get my Moneys worth and then some but others like the string of 2K sports games or "yearly" release games just dont do it for me.