WHAT ARE YOU THINKING ABOUT RIGHT NOW?

ubon
I'm not really interested in hearing the ways in which the two camps are Just As Bad as each other. it's a subject that really does nothing for me.

what do you want to hear

edit: i alreday know the answer is chiptounes but

How about dragons and various other mythical creatures for mascots? :P

I was mostly joking. :P

Truth be told, I hate politics and sometimes wish the whole thing didn't exist. It seems like the main purpose of politics is to just divide the people, and make them fight so the government can get away with corrupt shit without opposition.

I also wonder why people who aren't politicians argue about it, since it won't get anything done. I haven't ever seen somebody switch sides because of a debate, all it really did was just strengthen the support they had for their political party.

thgasty bnervr ghsopoerbnd toi nme

fat fingering "that never happens to me"

author=Craze
what do you want to hear

mostly these days I want to hear from people who give a shit tbh

that's important

author=ubon

author=Craze
what do you want to hear

mostly these days I want to hear from people who give a shit tbh

that's important

I'm working on it by doing a lot of talking and correcting on Facebook.



And if that doesn't get through to them, I'll just bring up Reel Bad Arabs.

So, here's a question that (hopefully) won't turn into an arguement. Do you think a game should be priced depending on how much effort was spent on it or the content?
For example: Paying $20 for a 2 hour long game that had a LOT of effort that went into it, or paying $5 for a 20 hour long game that had little effort spent on it?

Edit: Also, for resource packs. Would you price a tile pack with only 20 tiles you spent weeks on as $20 because of your efforts or $5 because of the contents?

Personally, I think content is the way to go rather than effort, but I can understand why people would want money for their hard works.

author=Frogge
So, here's a question that (hopefully) won't turn into an arguement. Do you think a game should be priced depending on how much effort was spent on it or the content?
For example: Paying $20 for a 2 hour long game that had a LOT of effort that went into it, or paying $5 for a 20 hour long game that had little effort spent on it?

Personally, I think content is the way to go rather than effort, but I can understand why people would want money for their hard works.

I'm gonna give a pseudo corporate (read: not fully definitive) answer and say that there are a lot of variables that factor into the decision of what to set the price, not just length. Customers all have their own set of expectations and preferences into what a game should contain for its asking price, and trying to encompass all of them when naming your price is extremely difficult, if even possible.

Example 1: Metal Gear Solid 5: Ground Zeroes was priced at $30 and got serious heat due to being quite a short game (about 1-1:30 hours long for the main mission alone, and that's being generous from what I hear). However, it has its defenders who have gotten WAAAAAY more value out of it because they loved the gameplay so much that they can do that. Whether you agree with the price or not, the fact that there is such a divide means that

Example 2: The Binding of Isaac: Rebirth has hundreds of hours of content due to replayability, yet priced at $15.00. That's gonna be really hard to compete with.

Example 3: Remnants of Isolation. After reading various reviews on Steam and elsewhere, the most common criticism was that, despite being a rather enjoyable game, the asking price was a bit high for its length ($10 for a 2-3 hour game). Now that the price has dropped, the attention the game has gotten on Steam has slowly started to rise.


In the end, it's not a black or white issue you're asking. You have to take into consideration a lot of other factors than just length and content quality. Sorry I couldn't be more specific, but it's a pretty broad issue.

http://yle.fi/uutiset/osasto/news/
for Finland in English.