On Braid and Pricing
Posted by Derek Yu Fri, 08 Aug 2008 18:39:00 GMT
The latest Penny Arcade strip is about Braid! As far as I know, this is the first indie game they’ve mentioned directly in a comic, which is pretty cool. I personally enjoy PA so I’m glad to see them promote indie games through Greenhouse, PAX, and now the strip itself.
In the post accompanying the strip, Tycho/Jerry sums up the whole pricing thing for me pretty nicely:
Well, okay, maybe not that last part. At least not until rear ends start vending Cactus Coolers or bus tickets. What a waste, otherwise!
But in all seriousness, the pricing issue is another compelling problem for developers, especially an indie who can set his or her own price. It’s especially compelling because it’s become obvious that for some people (perhaps most people?), the price somehow enters into the equation that determines a game’s inherent worth. A game that costs more than it should cost becomes a worse game. Should that be the case? Should that idea be reflected in game reviews? I suppose it depends on whether the goal of the review is to help you make a purchasing decision or whether the goal is to evaluate the merits of a video game.
In Aquaria’s case, Alec and I priced the game at $30, $10 above what I guess is the “norm” is for downloadable PC indie games is, because that’s what we felt it was worth. We considered a lot of factors, from the quality of the game, to the effort we put into it, to plain ol’ numbers like how many hours of gameplay and how many assets we created. A lot of people felt it was worth what we charged, and a lot of people didn’t, which is fine. But some people took the pricing personally before they even played the game, which I’ll never truly understand.
I think the problem is that no one knows how much a game should cost, or how we should value games. Is a good, short game better than a mediocre, long game? What are pretty graphics worth to good gameplay? What about indie versus mainstream? Like with almost EVERYTHING about games, it’s just not as clear-cut as with other types of media. The industry is too young, and it’s just plain different, too.
But to quote Tycho once more:
In the end, I don’t think it makes sense to compare games to anything other than what you think is a good game. $15 is more than most XBLA games. It’s also about how much a 2-hour movie or an ironic t-shirt costs. I guess the question is… so what? What do you guys and gals think?
TIGdb: Entries for Aquaria, Braid
See Jonathan Blow’s explanation of Braid’s pricing after the jump:
(Video posted at 1up.com.)
I can’t believe this even an issue. Well, hopefully any publicity is good publicity.
You say that no-one knows how much a game should cost. I agree that everyone has a different opinion, but I think everyone knows what they think a game should cost (I also believe that people should be able to play significant portions of a game before they decide to buy it). I do wonder about models where people can pay as much for a game or any other product that they believe it is worth. Some people have tried it but it only ever seems to be people with a large number of fans, so they can rely on the fans to support them if the plan doesn’t quite work out. I’d like to see more information on whether these methods worked well.
“What do you guys and gals think?”
I think people who complain about the price are petty losers. And since nobody has done that in this thread yet, I can say so without directly offending anybody. :)
When’s the game coming out on PC? I need mah Braid.
I think people are terrible. I mean $15? I can find $15 in my room without even trying, and I’m british.
I dont think braids problem is that it costs $15 its that everything else costs less. Without any kind of PR to tell people this game is worth it then people wont recognise it as worth it. Games strongly rely on viral marketing and unless braid can get a good few fans to spread the word that $15 will still be a barrier.
Personaly if a games good i’d throw the money down strait up.
Well, I tend to base a game’s worth off of it’s replay value. If a game can be played at least one more time past the initial play-through then that definitely increases the amount that I would be willing to pay for that game. However, if I see everything there is to see the first time around then it gives me very little incentive to pay any more then $10. I haven’t played Braid yet so I can’t accurately say how I would feel about the price point but I can say that if it is a game that you can play once through and have accomplished everything that you can then it wouldn’t be worth it to me no matter how innovative the gameplay itself is. I don’t know, Sam and Max episodes come out for $10 a piece and I think that that is a perfect price for a short, linear game of that nature even $15 isn’t bad but once you start dropping $20 for a game that only lasts you a good three or four hours that is pushing it in my opinion.
By most accounts, it’s one of the best games on XBLA– maybe THE best game on XBLA. It’s a fantastic new indie game with some compelling, new gameplay ideas.
But, screw it. I’d rather spend $50 on a bunch of crappy remakes and ports than $15 on a satisfying and innovative experience.
Braid is worth $15, people aren’t.
Er. I mean I want a PC version too. Holy damn it’ll look nice on my nicenice wide laptop monitor. 2D HD, aw shit yeah. I just hope I have the gigahertz to handle it.
“Paying for a product” is a materialistic process, and a pretty straightforward one at that. We’re all used to running scenarios in our heads about how much we’d need our new pair of scissors in everyday life and therefore coming to the conclusion that we’d pay up to X amount of money for a good pair of them. The utilitarian value is evident. The problem is when the product is art or has an artistic and therefore nebulous end. A bigger problem still is when it is both utilitarian (a video game is to degrees) and artistic at the same time.
Braid (I played it last night for a couple of hours at a friend’s house, now waiting for PC port) seems to me to not be at all about replayability, and some people seem to put that very strongly in their equation of how much a game should cost.
I think that’s what we’re used at, as we were brought up by escapist-sub-hollywood-movie-style- vicarious-living videogames where the point is “for how long can I get away from reality with it before tedium sets in”. Braid doesn’t seem to be about diffusing real-world stress or an outlet for pent-up aggression at all though (I’ve never felt less desire to bonk enemies off of the screen in a game as with the walking heads or cat rabbits in Braid), so that upsets the pricing paradigm most people are used to. A good videogame straddles an uncomfortable between space as a product: it’s both exciting gameplay and something more. Exciting gameplay let’s say can be quantified to a degree, the “something more”… not so much. Yet we want the something more, don’t we? We want it to be a bigger factor in the next generation of videogames, right? We’re pushing late twenties or early thirties now and killing spider demons in FPSes isn’t as enduring a passtime as we once thought it would be, right? If we do want more we should celebrate games like Braid by well, buying them.
I personally think 15 dollars are a good price for a game that both soothes and confounds, challenges with gameplay and premise equally like Braid.
Some people are just cheap.
Nothing more to it.
15$ dollars are like… 9 euro. And with 9 eur you can barely have a decent pizza and a coke. Also, a 1 and half hour dvd movie costs more, so the “replayability” factor has little sense.
The real problem is that XBLA is full of cheap crap, and users aren’t willing to pay more than 10$ for “an xbla game”, i think microsoft needs to make a sort of filter, like “bugdet games” and “full price games” on xbla, and raise the average quality (and the prices, yes.) Would be nice to have quality games for 15$, as i’m pretty bored of frogger remakes and that kind of stuff…. So yeah, i hope microsoft will raise it’s prices, with that, developers would be more interested in putting more efforts on xbla
idon’tgetthatkindof_humor.
The burrito in the comic is disturbing to me.
@Lez: $15 is nothing to you because the exchange rate is in yore favor
$15 dollars is too much for an XBLA game. Braid looks good but after playing the Trial I can say that I don’t want to spend the full 1200 points only because I didn’t see what all the buzz was about. Pretty graphics, but I’ve had more fun revisiting Super Mario 3 and Super Mario 3 on my Wii’s Virtual Console (which are both cheaper than braid - $13 for both games).
I’m not trying to sound negative about Braid or Indie games on XBLA but there are other games on XBLA that should only be $5 dollars, Braid looks like it’s definitely worth $10, I just can’t part with an extra 400 pts on top of the 800 pts though. The Trial just didn’t do it for me, but that’s my opinion and I’m not going to waste the points based on what other peoples opinions are. Castlevania: Symphony of the Night is (arguably) the best XBLA game out and I wouldn’t have picked that one up if it cost 1200 points either but I had played it before and new what was being offered and that it was a game that could out-last many next gen games by a long shot. I have a small lot games for XBLA and I really wish they would lower the prices of a lot of them because I would probably buy more of them. Still, I usually rely on a decent Trial through the game before I’m convinced unless it’s something as monumental as Castlevania: SOTN.
I really hope Castle Crashers goes for 800 pts now, because I’d probably pick it up without even trying the trial based on Behemoths previous work.
It all comes down to opinion… so there’s my two cents.
Regarding my last post, I meant Super Mario 3 and Super Mario World (on the Wii’s Virtual Console)
yes but games and a lot of other stuff are more expensive in england, I would never price an indie game at $5 that’s roughly about £2, $10 is not really worth it, $15 is probably the least I would ever sell any (decent fully fledged) game for, because unless I have thousands of fans I wouldn’t be making much profit.
But then again I wouldn’t sell my games for anything unless I needed the money (freeware). Or I would have a donate button, but people rarely donate anyway, if they can get it for free why bother spending money on it? Seems to be most peoples way of looking at it (or they’re under 16/18).
I have no problem paying more money for bigger games. It’s short games without much replayability that I bawk at paying more than $5 for. Esushally when cheap games like Peggle are addictive as fuck and last longer.
You’re just looking for the next high, Fish. You’re no better than those random goons you blow up in NARC that eventually overrun you and win.
Wait, bad example.
Both sides of the dialogue are pretty meaningless.
In reality things are really simple: price your game however you like. Buy games if you expect what you’ll get will be worth the price.
Getting angry in forums? Fulfils no known economic purpose.
£10 for a game? This is a world where commercial console games cost £40-£50, a cinema (the usual comparison) costs about £6+transport and a DVD/CD from £5-£20. I don’t know what people are so pissed about, I’d buy a good £10 game in a second if it were on the PC.
Half-Life 2 Episode 1 was also priced $40. Has it much replayability? I didn’t think so and the game lasted for only 5 hours. I’d pay $20 for a game like braid. And the fact that it’s on xbla doesn’t mean it has to be a cheap game.
Now this is just a theory and I have no data to back it up but I believe part of the reason people are complaining about the price of Braid is because most of those people are not indie gamers. I was actually surprised that people were complaining about the price. Hell, look at Game Tunnel’s current (or any for that matter) review panel; most of those games are $20 and only one is $15. My point is that most people (especially console gamers) aren’t indie gamers and therefore aren’t used to the pricing of indie games.
I agree with Fish, he’s got an excellent point. I mentioned Super Mario 3 and Super Mario World for the Wii Virtual Console and those have a shitload of play value. I would much rather get a game that has plenty of play value for the right price than something that looks pretty but costs more. Braid doesn’t look bad but the game really didn’t show signs of anything unique enough for me to have to dish out extra dough.
Also, lets be reasonable. You can’t really compare games (even Indie games) from one platform to the next. Why? Because you can’t do things like MOD a game on XBLA, yet you can MOD all kinds of Indie games that are out for the PC. Aquaria is a perfect example. Sure it’s $30 bucks, BUT, you’re getting A LOT more bang for your buck and this is especially true if you use the level editor and enjoy modding (or even have the slightest interest in modding). So I believe I’m correct (and I agree with others) when I say that Braid is over-priced. I’d really like to get into it more but the price is not right.
Oh and it’s not really fair for Penny Arcade to try and talk shit about anyone considering their mediocre game on XBLA is 1600 PTS… That’s insane.
Again, look at Castlevania: Symphony of the Night and how much game-play value is actually there. I admit, it comes down to people opinions of the type of games they like, but you can’t argue that there is a hell of a lot of game right there for 800 pts. That, to me, is fair. Games like Soul Calibur, on the other hand, should have only cost 400 pts. Especially considering they cut the code in half and excluded half of the game-play and didn’t bother to add an online mode… it’s not even a decent port (though the controls are surprisingly better than Soul Calibur IV).
People say they’d pay $15 or $20 dollars for Braid but I think that’s only because they’ve paid the $15 for it and need to somehow justify that they’ve spent that much on it when it’s not a very long game, but just as important, it’s not everything everyone makes it out to be. I just like the unique look of it, but I’m not gonna spend the money just to check out it’s graphics. I hope they have much success, but they may have had more success if the price was more reasonable.
Just my opinion, you don’t need to agree or get upset about it.
HL2 Episode 1 - is a game from famous series HL. That’s why people bought it even for 40$. To reveal the truth.
And Braid…well. It’s even cheaper then Aquaria =) But it’s on the same level - HIGH. So…You know what i want to say - GET IT! :D
free games, supported by donations would be the most ideal solution for me. people would just spend as much money as they think it’s worth it and they could afford (1-100$?). players would be more involved that way too, because each donation would be kind of a personal appreciation for the developers. they could even be mentioned on the website as contributors, as important parts of the development process. the buissness related feelings would change for the better on both sides that way, i guess, because it would be absolutely fair. and marketing would be easier too, because players could just tell everybody about this freely downloadable game, so they would advertise it naturally.
but i know, it’s probably still unrealistic to make real money like that… most people aren’t familiar with that sort of business (yet) and think it’s not professional…
but we all know about the DRM drama and the massive software piracy issue. that will never go away, and i’m actually happy about it, because digital distribution really doesn’t fit the old market law!! although digital WORK is like any other kind of work (making games is basically no different form building a house for example), the VALUE of every pure digital PRODUCT isn’t bound to QUANTITY at all, but only to the CONTENT of the work! that’s completely different to how the analog world worked for centuries… - software products (music/movies/games/apps/…) are no PHYSICAL OBJECTS, that’s the point. all digital goods are infinitely copyable IDEAS. – i see no reason to set a fixed price for one piece of software, because there is never only ONE PIECE - but there is always an INFINITE amount of them. so it’s really time to get rid of all the old thinking here, in my opinion.
(that could be realized in the world of inide games maybe, they are so young…)
only one internet currency world wide would be ideal (something like PayPal), so that everybody could VOTE for the things he/she likes and want to see more of. supporting people, don’t exchanging value as objects. money as a real global voting system. all would be free.
(ok, i’m aware of the fact that there already are many open source projects and indie games out there which give the users the possibility to donate. but they are often clearly made as public projects, without any business in mind. it’s an more an optional thing to donate there. - but if a long awaited title like Braid would come out “for free” on PC, or even bigger games, that would change a lot, i guess.)
Well, whether people crap on me or not, this time I do plan on selling my next game, likely for short money. For me taking 3 years out of my life just to make the thing, I don’t see how that’s so unreasonable. Of course most of us here have a different opinion on what’s worth it and what’s not, but hey you gotta’ do what ya’ gotta’ do right?
I admire the fact that Derek and Alex had the balls to charge what they thought Aquaria was actually worth, rather than cave in to somebody else imposing their idea of what it should cost on them.
You know this is all opinion and also based on your living situation right? Getting mad at people just because you feel like spending 15 dollars and they don’t is fucking stupid.
please don’t get me wrong. it’s not about Braid… - a price of 15$ seems to be completely okay for such a nice game, maybe it’s even too low. – i meant more a general thing, that’s what i’m mad about :/, certainly not about indie games! indie games have big potential and i can believe in them, independently of they way they get published (at the end one has to be realistic, and on console there’s really no option)
This is only speculation, but this is what I’m seeing based on my observations. People are upset that Braid is 1200 points not because it’s converted price is $15. From what I understand, it has more to do with there being an XBLA game selling at a price higher than the average usual 800.
Eight hundred points and bellow have become the comfort zone for many. Penny Arcade’s game and Braid are both priced outside of that comfort zone. So the immediate reaction for many is to declare the games as being “too expensive.” And so the world explodes with arguments and debates.
People pay US$ 14 for a month of WoW (or any MMO IMO). Month of MMO = Grindan. Just stop playing MMOs for a month and save to buy an indie game XD
well, i haven’t seen much of braid, except a gameplay trailer at gametrailers.com, but all i saw were 3 things, namely, a pipe with a man eating flower coming out of it, canons shooting at you, and a critter you can jump on, all 3 things i saw in mario before (can’t mario sue braid? i mean, those were almost exact copies), except the main character kept going going into slow motion, i guess that was the time travel thing.
Regarding pricing: I buy 2-3 indie games of high quality for the price of 1 mainstream game at release.
The only possible rational reason that people think that its some shitty, locally-developed big-name wannabe that was released in the early beta. That, or belived to be a “casual game” that seems boring and tedious after the excitement of say, BioShock.
I was sceptical of Aquaria as well, before I played the demo and was utterly awed. I made big pains to buy the game (I didn’t have a bankcard back then), despite knowing that I could much more easily illegally.
So, yeah, a big issue is marketing. Big publishers have access to funds to make TV commercials and spam the entire net, while indie games have to rely on a relatively niché community and their own sites to get funds.
Solution to this? Well, where is the problem? Some people moaining that a game is too cheap or too expensive? Well, drive the price up and see how people like THAT.
The great thing about indie games is that at least 50% of the price goes to the developers directly, as opposed to traditional publishing where the only 20-2% trickels down to the developing company . Which isn’t small as there is more products going out there then indie ones. There is als othe fact that publishers do have greater expenses, but still, there is the princible of the matter.
Personally, I like the lower prices. I am not swimming in money and I do have other things to take care of and buy then video games, when I’m just a student! I can’t imagine how much it must cut into an independent adult’s account to buy video games.
Okay Braid fanboys, perhaps you can lay a little blame on Microsoft for slotting this game at this time, perhaps it would have been less of an issue if it was slotted during a slower or shittier time of the season… perhaps.
Here’s the facts.
There’s not enough game play for $15 dollars, and Penny Arcades Adventure: On the Rain-Slick Precipice of Darkness isn’t worth $20 dollars (or 1600 pts). I wouldn’t even buy Penny Arcade’s game if it was 800 pts, I tried the trial and didn’t enjoy it. Braid on the other hand I probably would buy for 800 pts but I can pass it up and save my points because I know 1200 pts is out of my way and I still have other games to look forward too such as Bionic Commando: Rearmed - 800 pts. And then there’s Castle Crashers. So it’s not a big deal whether or not Braid earns our 1200 pts, although since everyone wants to bring up “making money”, had they set the price at 800 pts I’m sure more people aside from just myself would have been more inclined to part with their points because lets face it the game is short, there’s no replay value and people get tired of spending just because something looks good (though there will always be people who only buy things because they look good). If you liked the Trial for Braid then buy it, don’t let anyone else stop you. Quite simply as I’ve stated time and again, I didn’t find enough reason to dish out 1200 pts and I sure wouldn’t be comfortable dishing out 1200 pts now because there are other great games coming out and they will probably last longer at a lower point cost. So in the end to each their own but don’t try to convince me to spend my money when you’ve got your own to spend. I’ll decide where my money goes and trying to guilt people into buying something only makes them resent you even more. I urge everyone to give the Trial a shot because that’s what they’re there for and Trials are free. Can’t complain about that, but don’t go on and on saying how great something is when I’ve tried the Trial out and walked away with a feeling like people are purposefully trying to coax me into spending my money either threw guilt or just because supporting Braid is “the right thing to do” even though I wasn’t as fond of the game, and lastly not comfortable with spending 1200 pts on it. Simple really. Don’t be angry about it, you bought it, enjoy it. You want to make a game and charge 1200 pts? Make sure you’re game is packed to the tits with gameplay or don’t be bothered by other people and their critical views and opinions, it’ll just frustrate or anger you and that’s counter productive. Instead, listen to the audience and either take what they say with a grain of salt or learn from the experience and improve where you can. Feel free to discuss but don’t be upset that you can’t convince others to spend the money that you have spent, that’s just ridiculous.
If you/I enjoy the game then it’s worth spending money on. If you don’t enjoy it, it obviously wasn’t worth your/my money. The issue begins and ends there. Don’t get bogged down in the details.
points and commands, “DON’T BUY MY GAME!”
“As far as I know, this is the first indie game they’ve mentioned directly in a comic, which is pretty cool. ”
Or it’s incredibly lame and bandwagon-jumpy.
How many years did it take for them to add indies to PAX? Too many! And they’re probably only doing it as support for their Greenhouse initiative ;p
My issue isn’t with the price, it’s with the game itself, seems too short.
But, to be fair I don’t know how long the other four worlds are, the first world (world 2) is painfully short, though.
With Braid, it’s a matter of TIME. 15 bucks for a game that will maybe last you 5 hours? It’s simply not enough. At least add extra modes, or something that we can come back to.
“I admit, it comes down to people opinions of the type of games they like, but you can’t argue that there is a hell of a lot of game right there for 800 pts.”
What? Sure you could argue that. SoTN is a good game, but it’s very repetitive. Go to area, kill enemies, gain level, find new items, kill new boss, repeat. Half the game’s map is even reused, the turned the castle upside down not just because it’s cool but mainly because it allowed them to double the game time with very little effort on the part of the level designers. If a game like SoTN uses cheap tricks like that to artificially expand the length of a game, is it really worth more than a game which did not use those tricks, but easily could have, to expand its length? I think Braid is worth far more than SoTN, exactly because it’s a shorter game.
“15 bucks for a game that will maybe last you 5 hours? It’s simply not enough.”
I guess maybe if you’re working for minimum wage, or you’re a starving student, or something. $15 buys a lot of Top Ramen at Costco. In that case, yeah– $10, $15, it doesn’t really matter. You can get lots of free entertainment with your PC and an internet connection, it doesn’t really make sense to get a 360 for $300.
Also, this is the funniest pair of sentences in this thread:
“Here’s the facts. There’s not enough game play for $15 dollars”
How is that a fact?
For the naysayers, there is too much emphasis being put on time. Which is pretty ironic.
The best thing John Blow did was “overprice” this game. It’s generating so much hype he’s gonna sell way more than he would at a cheaper price point where there wasn’t any “controversy.”
“At least add extra modes, or something that we can come back to.”
There is a speedrun mode after you finish the game.
1up review: http://www.gamevideos.com/video/id/20638
If you value your time, having a game be longer is not a virtue. The ideal rather is a maximally satisfying experience in as short a time as possible.
It’s kind of funny to me that when people make a movie really long, the common complaint is “They didn’t make that movie good enough to justify the 3 hours.” The complaint for a long book is, “it drags on – didn’t they have an editor?” But for games, the audience demands sprawling, blatantly repetitive epics.
I guess this is what happens to a medium whose primary vocal demographic is bored children.
“My issue isn’t with the price, it’s with the game itself, seems too short.
But, to be fair I don’t know how long the other four worlds are, the first world (world 2) is painfully short, though.”
There are puzzles in the later worlds which took me several tries to figure out. Maybe I’m stupid, but there are two puzzles specifically that I would be amazed at if anyone could figure them out without a significant amount of thought and/or experimentation. How much did they charge for a Rubik’s cube when they first came out? This is the sort of thing people should be comparing to.
Also, the second world is as boring as it gets, each world adds further mechanics that need to be used.
Dear Hmm…, You do realize that Castle Crashers will most likely cost as much if not more than Braid, don’t you? The rumor was that Braid would cost 1200 points (correct) and that Castle Crashers will cost 1800 points. And I’d like for you to explain why Braid isn’t “unique enough for you to have to dish out extra dough.” You do understand that every one of the five worlds has a unique time-based gameplay mechanic, and the mechanic in World 2 (the world from the trial) is by far the most basic of all the mechanics. Have you seen any videos of the gameplay from, say world 4 or 5?
15$ is half the price of an album. What if you didn’t like the album after you purchased it? Would you go around whining about how it’s wasn’t worth “your money” in particular? Even tho I disagree with it being xbox-exclusive, any indie game with a minimum of effort and originality should be worth every penny charged. I’ve bought Cortex Command for that exact reason. You’d rather pay 70$ for a half-assed modern doom-like with shiny graphics and cheap online gameplay that’s always been the same since Quake? Good for you.
If you really only get World 2 in the trial, that’s a disaster. World 2’s just a regular platform game with a rewind button. Doesn’t show any of the awesomeness that comes up later.
Putting it down to people being “cheap” is idiotically simplistic. It varies from game to game.
Take Greydog games, like WMMA, Total Extreme Wrestling etc… They go for $30 or higher. I personally don’t consider them worth even a third of that. The interface is archaic and clunky. Well, there’s a lot of issues, but that’s for another time.
On the other side I paid $10 for Audiosurf. I would have gladly paid $30. In fact I was shocked it was ONLY $10!
It has nothing to do with cheapness, and everything to do with relative worth to the individual. People just throw out the “people are cheap” nonsense because they’re unable or unwilling to form a coherent, deeper opinion. No, much easier to just throw out petty insults and make yourself look unintelligent.
Victo: “15$ is half the price of an album.”
Clearly you’re shopping in the WRONG PLACES. I can get any album I want for $5 less than that. And I mean REAL album. CD, packaging etc…
You’re all missing the point: Braid should’ve been released for free and made its money selling virtual hats!
Impressive turn of phrase, comment 5.
15 bucks for a good game? HELL NO!! I’m goin out to buy Halo Wars for 50 dollars!
I dont think xbox live is the right venue for indie games. I mean, just the fact that it’s called an arcade gives the impression that all the games on there are short little, throw-aways. People just buy games on there for shits & giggles. If they want a ‘real’ game, they’ll just buy Halo 3. That kinda mindset’s a real bitch.
According to the scores at Gamerankings, Braid is judged to be one of the ten best games on the Xbox 360. It’s beating titles such as Rock Band, Mass Effect, Geometry Wars 2 and Forza 2.
According to some people here, it’s not worth $15.
Won’t be buying Braid for 1200 points when Castle Crashers is just around the corner and Bionic Commando is here next week for 800 points.
Braid didn’t impress me.
someone mentioned this earlier, you can get Castlevania: SotN for 800 or the new Bionic Commando: Rearmed coming next week, or Castle Crashers. I’ll save my points for those, and yes I already picked up Castlevania and it’s great! I didn’t like the platforming in Braid. The graphics were colorful but I wouldn’t say they were spectacular. Aside from that I’d rather play Sonic or Mario.
I really think the pricing fervor is one of those thing that will die down after a few weeks, and currently it’s kind of masking the significance of everything else about the game.
This is a project done by two guys that is getting some of the most positive critical reaction by gamers and the game press that I can remember. This only bodes well for the medium, and the potential for one or two man games to get the kind of exposure acceptance as a commercially produced title on a large scale.
Well said, Mark Johns, well said.
I hope everybody heard what Mark Johns said. He is right, in all seriousness.
I can’t believe this is even an issue. I assume that most people here enjoy the freedoms provided by a society driven by a(n) (apparently) market economy. One of the rules in that market is consumers vote with their dollars. Think it’s not worth $15 bucks Stfu and don’t buy it. Think it’s worth $15 bucks? Stfu and pay for it! That’s how trade works!
Judging by the fact that there is even a discussion around this issue, it seems there are apparently people out there who think its both worth $15 bucks and not worth $15 bucks. To these people I say “grow the fuck up” and “be greatful the fact that the game was completed and is here for you to play”
I wish more people would stuff $5 up their ass. We could turn it into a treasure hunt!
I’m surprised no one’s mentioned this yet…
The decision of price - especially when it comes to anything in the entertainment industry - is “what they think they can get away with.” For example: Patapon was full price in Japan but a budget priced game in the US, as the publishers did not think people would understand it as well, so they did this to lower the entry barrier. Psychologically, people will expect a game to be crap if it’s too cheap, and this can negatively affect sales as well.
The simple fact that this controversy exists at all proves that a poor judgment was made on how much they could get away with for a modern 2d platformer on a console system, despite how good it is and despite how much work and love went into it. Price has everything to do with expectations, platform and marketing and nothing to do with quality.
(This also explains why there are so many horrible, yet fully-priced licensed games.)
It’s also just been announced that Bionic Commando: Rearmed will be $10 on consoles and $15 on PC. (Thanks, RPS!)
Damn it, so I’m gonna have to pay 5 Dollars more for BC:R! 5 Dollars!
Hehe sorry, I couldn’t resist. But I’m actually looking forward to that, likely my first purchase via Steam.
I still feel like most of the people that haven’t bought this don’t understand it at all. That’s the only reason I can think of that anyone would complain about the price. And really, guys, with all the hype Castle Crashers is getting, it is NOT going to be 800 points. The only reason SOTN is as cheap as it is is because its a game that’s already been released on two generations of consoles, and many of the people who want to play it already own it. Braid was the first madly hyped game on XBLA, so Microsoft took advantage of that and made it more expensive.
My point: Anyone who thinks the game is overpriced, watch some more trailers, read up on the subject, and see if you still think it’s too expensive. Anyone who’s played it can tell you that it’s well worth the money.
Sorry for the double post, but consider this: if Braid was a DS game and it was $15, everyone and their grandmothers would be running out to buy it.
As someone on GameFAQs said: “I wouldn’t complain about the price of the Mona Lisa just because there isn’t much to look at.” (Yeah, that’s an exaggeration, but it gets the point across.)
Well, I bought the $15 Braid on impulse after playing the demo once, and I’m still on the fence about buying the… what, $10(?) Geometry Wars 2 after playing the demo at least 5 times. I think $15 is a bargain for Braid.
I don’t know (or particularly care, since I don’t own a 360) whether Braid’s worth the money.
But I just wanted to say that the duration of enjoyable play time is [i]one[/i] perfectly valid metric for evaluating the monetary value of a game. Games vary in both second-to-second enjoyment and sustainability of such a degree of enjoyment that the time investment of playing it is worthwile. Consider Manhunt, a simple field game (started in Canada I believe) I played as a kid in the UK. One individual starts as the hunter, and tagged (or tackled in my favourite variant) players become hunters themselves. The winner is the last non-hunter player remaining. It was invariably great fun. Although the enjoyment was often low-level because of the large degree of stealth involved, each game seemed worthwile regardless of length, and I played it numerous times without becoming bored. There was an inexhaustable amount of possibility despite the simple mechanics.
Compare that to snowball fights. They’re usually pretty exhilirating, but the possibilities dry up pretty quick; I can’t imagine playing a single match for more than a few minutes. Neither can I imagine having them multiple times in a single winter. I guess some people prefer to play many games even if each never please for long, and others would rather cling to a precious few that always stay [i]somewhat[/i] fresh. Which is “better”?
Also, italics tags. I have to add that alot of people presented some pretty poor arguments here.
Helm, not all gamers who consider replay value important or even paramount like “escapist-sub-hollywood-movie-style- vicarious-living videogames”. Dodomaster, an arbitrary comparison does not help to prove the value of Braid. The opinions “somewhat overpriced” and “ridiculously overpriced” are both negative (same goes to ZeppMan217 and Keops, and similar to others). Zaphos, one can value time and also value replayability. People don’t always find long pieces boring at any time in any medium. An epic game is not as you imply necessarily repetitive (although you could argue that the audience is demanding repetitive games). And, people who value replayability are not necessarily “bored children”. Victo, an indie game with “a minimum of effort and originality” is not necessarily worth anything (even time). What if the mechanics are original but the gameplay is horribly broken, or there are numerous serious bugs? Not everyone who considers some indie games to be of poor value would rather pay a large sum for a generic FPS. nullerator, high scores from critics do not necessarily determine monetary value (I’d say they almost never do). Koholint, it’s doubtful that EVERYONE who’s played it considers it worth $15.
@Flamebait: We played that game, lions and antelopes we called it. It got banned on account of a few broken bones. Good times.
I bought Braid before trying the demo. Ive played through world 3 and 4, and I am enjoying it. Its like a cross between super mario and proffesor Layton. The problem with replay value and puzzle games is that the fun in the game is figuring stuff out on your own. Once you figure it out, its not fun anymore. Its limiting in terms of traditionally marketable replayability, but it sure as hell gets talking. So it could be argued that the extent of the game goes beyond the actual game, kinda like portal did. Naval gazing aside, its a fun game and worth 15$.
If you are a poor student gamer, what are you doing purchasing new games anyways. Don’t you gotta study?
Bionic Commando: Rearmed next week! YES! 800 pts! Sorry Braid, I’m saving those points for Bionic Commando! Yeah!
Flamebait, that comparison doesn’t work. Snowball fighting isn’t a game; there’s no real rules, no way to “win”.
“The simple fact that this controversy exists at all proves that a poor judgment was made on how much they could get away with”
No, it does not. Maybe the controversy has helped sales. Maybe it has decreased sales, but by less than 1/3.
I agree 100& with Paul Eres - I just can’t see how there’s supposedly so much replay value in SoTN. Now don’t get me wrong, it was still a fun game to play, AT FIRST. If that’s the kind of “replay value” that we’re looking for, should FFVII be priced “over 9000 dullahs & your mutha”, becouse the massive amounts of random encounters and raising up your stats by looking for them, hours and hours of text on the screen, the battle animations you can’t skip, and the game takes a quite a bit of time to complete anyway.. Hey wait did I have fun when I played that game? god!? fuck, no! To me 15$ isn’t bad at all compared to that - NO, I don’t want to play a game that lasts forever. And to compare prizes most FPS games are more expensive and last as little during singleplayer-campaing or in end drag and become over-repeatitive. They have the multiplayer though so I forgive them for now… Except for you HALO.. ..BAD HALO! BACK TO THE CORNER!
Flamebait: I never said it was all of them.
People trying to calculate game time for a videogame like Braid, perhaps you might consider this aspect as well: Do you also calculate the price/merit ratio for a book in terms of how much time it took for you to read it? You can read The Great Gatsby in 6 hours or something, yet the concepts presented in it will stay with you for a considerably longer time, you will ponder the implications and generally you will be a richer person intellectually and emotionally for having read it. Does that come into effect when considering how much money one would have to pay for it? I feel richer for having played Braid, yet not for having played Symphony of the Night, though I enjoyed the latter as a platformer, sure.
OH PLEASE guys, if you don’t want to spend 15$ it’s ok, but FUCK DAMN IT don’t try to say stuff like “it’s too short for 15$” because a game value is not on how much walking beetween an interesting point and another they throw on a level… there are plenty of crappy long games out there, spend 30$ on one of these and be happy
Excellent point, Helm! Double that!
Four damned fun hours for $15 represents good value for money. If you spend less than four hours playing a single game you are either a god or have the attention span of a gnat and deserve only to watch mindless daytime television for the rest of your miserable unfulfilled lives.
The Great Gatsby is a bad example. It’s a short work that’s out of copyright. If you pay more than a few dollars, you’re getting ripped off. Not because it’s not a good book, but because whoever published it doesn’t have to pay much to get it printed in terms of paper and royalties. And it’s not like Fitzgerald will see any of that money.
Perhaps it’s a bad example but isn’t that missing my point somewhat?
That’s somewhat of an understatement.
“Braid… seems to me to not be at all about replayability, and some people seem to put that very strongly in their equation of how much a game should cost. I think that’s what we’re used at, as we were brought up by escapist-sub-hollywood-movie-style- vicarious-living videogames where the point is “for how long can I get away from reality with it before tedium sets in””.
The obvious way to interpret those words is that the motive behind considering replay value important is to achieve the greatest duration of escapism possible. What exactly is “escapism” anyway? In SimFarm players manage a farm, is that “sub-hollywood-movie-style”? In fact, any game where the mechanics are based on a more or less unadulterated real world could be considered “escapist”, and you can’t even begin to argue that all such games are bad in themselves or for the medium. Consider that players are only engaged by realistic games because they represent a part of reality unexplored by these individuals, or allow experimentation that’s immoral, impractical, and that carries grave consequences in real life; they’re fundamentally based partly in “escapism” as they avoid the mundaneity of day-to-day life. I know you never explicitly stated anything contrary to what I’m arguing, but you did make the associations “replayability->escapism; escapism->bad”.
To answer your question, I can’t say for certain because I stopped reading heavily several years ago. But I don’t think I’d purchase a book, partly on account of the highly limited time of enjoyment I would get out of the deal. Even when I did read it was books people gave me, books I borrowed, books from the library, books at other people’s houses… Anyway, I’ve found that aside from entertainment, books provide ideas that make up the author’s belief system, which they try to instil in the reader. I find absolutely nothing wrong with that; an important aspect of our species has been the exchange of complex ideas since the beginning. But to pay to listen to someone on a soapbox seems pretty ridiculous to me. I’d play Braid for the entertainment and ideas, but only pay for the former.
Kongming: plenty of electronic games don’t have victory conditions either. Are they not actually “games”? And there are unwritten and unspoken rules in snowball fights: players throw only snowballs, not heavier objects; and often it’s played in teams. Besides, you could replace “snowball fights” with any real-world game, the argument wouldn’t change.
Eclipse: not all highly replayable games achieve it by such cheap means. And not everyone is arguing that “Braid would’ve been better value if it was longer”, did it occur to you that some people just think “Braid is too short for the money”? There’s a huge difference.
I suspect the kind of people who complain about the price and the game length are not the kind of people who read books.
I spend $15 a day on cigarettes alone.
I’m fucking poor and I bought it. I’m sick of hearing these stories on it’s pricing. First of all, cool if you’re just trying to promote it by hiding it in a story about pricing, but it’s already sold 10,000+. Second, if you want to play it, buy it, if you don’t, don’t. I tried the demo, wanted more, bought it, and felt only a little bit ripped off by the 1.5 hours longer I put into it. It’s a good game, sure, so if you’re not poor you probably won’t feel ripped off.
If you got all of the puzzle pieces in an hour and a half, that’s incredible.
I don’t think it’s at all unreasonable to charge $15 for a good indie game. Developers should be free to charge whatever they like, and $15 certainly isn’t going to break the bank for most people.
The bigger problem, I think, is with the “buy then play” model itself. Flash (formerly Macromedia, now Adobe) has made it easy for gamers uninterested in cutting-edge 3D graphics, pixel shaders, etc. to play some pretty fantastic games in their browser at absolutely no cost to them. If I want to play a fabulous platformer, Fancy Pants Adventures is at my fingertips for the attractive price of $0. If I want a puzzle game based around time manipulation, Chronotron is also available at zero cost. I haven’t played Braid, so I don’t know how much it really surpasses these games, but you get the idea: it’s competing with well-made games that are absolutely free.
Speaking personally, I’ve made far more money off of unobtrusive ads displayed on my website where people can play my games for free than I have from people actually plopping down money and deliberately ordering my games. I’m not saying this will hold true for all developers, but nonetheless, I can’t help but wonder whether XBLA is really the right venue for games of this sort to begin with.
This is a well known pricing phenomenon. People use ‘expected’ prices for commodity disposable media (like movies, music and most single player games). At some point historically the price is set, either by an industry consortium, a service provider or heaven forbid, the free market. At this point, the consumer feels like the producers have made a promise to them. “X value for Y dollars”. Each game they purchase that follows this pattern reinforces the value promise.
When a product is priced higher than the average, consumers feel betrayed. It is like you’ve been paying $10 for a hit of heroin and then your dealer raises the price to $15. Such greedy behavior is naturally seen as outrageous by some buyers. It is an emotional, not logical reaction and you can’t argue with it.
Now, this all puts content producers in a bind since it gives them zero pricing power. They can only have one price and they can’t easily adjust higher or lower.
When you only have a single price, you lose a lot of money. If you price a game at 15 dollars, you lose everyone who would have paid up to 14 dollars for the game. You also lose the the additional money from the people who would have paid more than 15 dollars.
So the mere fact that you have to set a single price point is screwing you out of cash.
Most consumer products don’t carry a single price. Instead they have price tiers. Take spark plugs. You can buy the el cheapo spark plugs, the ‘standard’ spark plugs, or the ‘advanced’ spark plugs. The first one is cheap, the second one averages cost, and the last one is surprisingly expensive. Consumers will self select which tier they want to buy into. The result is that you capture more dollars overall. You get the cheapskate’s cash, you get the average joe’s cash and you get the rich man’s cash.
Tiered pricing has some interesting side effects. It turns out that most people judge prices relative to one another, not by some objective scale. If they see those three sparkplugs, they’ll have a natural aversion to the extreme ends of the pricing scale. So most people will end up purchasing the one in the middle.
One of the problems with being a 1200 point game on a system where most comparison products are 800, is that you are at the extreme end. They need some 2400 point bundles to make Braid look reasonable.
What does this all mean for something like games?
So who is doing this right now? I know of at least one group of highly profitable independent 3rd party game developers that have already broken out of the standardized pricing trap set by portals and game services. Any guesses who they might be?
Think Puzzle Pirates. They are run free-to-play MMOs funded by microtransactions. Think about it.
It’s that ‘other’ billion dollar game industry that is growing at rates that make the console and PC retail market look like a bunch of US automakers.
take care Danc.
There is not such thing as a ripoff in the indie market. You pay to support the developer, not to have some flashy features designed especially to suit as many people’s tastes possible in order to sell more. I could pay 15$ for a lunch that’d take me a huge maximum of 5 minutes to eat. I might not feel completely full afterwards, does that mean my lunch was a ripoff?
If the game had been longer, it might have become repetitive. No indie game deserves to be like PSU single-player.
Still haven’t been convinced by anything anybody has said. I played through the Trial again just trying to get some sort of buzz that some people are feeling but it’s not there. Personally I’m just going to wait for Bionic Commando and Castle Crashers. I already know I’ll enjoy BC:R. It’s unfortunate that some people do feel the need to try and guilt others into buying a game though. I don’t know if it’s a lack of faith or a defensive nature for dishing out the extra money for a game, almost as if they have to justify why they spent the money so they don’t have to feel guilty. I’m sure some people genuinely enjoy the game, others are bickering too much about it though and taking it personal which tells me they aren’t confident in their decision.
Ah well, at least it’s a decent month for XBLA games. BC and Castle Crashers look fucking awesome!
“Still haven’t been convinced by anything anybody has said. I played through the Trial again just trying to get some sort of buzz that some people are feeling but it’s not there.”
I don’t think anyone’s trying to say that if you don’t like it, you should spend $15 on it. If you don’t like a game, you shouldn’t play it even if it’s free. :)
“Still haven’t been convinced by anything anybody has said.”
It doesn’t seem like you’re here to be convinced.
You’re also using a set of very tried platform games as your points of reference, with SOTN clearly the poster child for your comparison in gameplay value.
All of these XBLA games you mention are ports of old games that sold for $60 bucks when they were released. They are also (SOTN in particular) pretty standard rehashes of existing game types that don’t offer much to distinguish themselves. They are all superbly polished, and long of course.
They can be sold now for this price largely because porting these old titles to support the Xbox is actually relatively cheap compared to building a new game from scratch.
Braid was built from scratch, and it offers something very new to play with in the puzzle/platform genre.
I enjoy a nice polished rehash like anyone else, but I’ll pay for novelty.
Comments: tl;dr. Doubt most of them even are remotely interesting.
The game looks awesome. Makes me wish I had a 360. It’s also quite hilarious that people start pissing everywhere over 15 bucks. Fifteen god damned bucks… man…
“It’s unfortunate that some people do feel the need to try and guilt others into buying a game though.”
“others are bickering too much about it though and taking it personal which tells me they aren’t confident in their decision.”
uh..first of all I haven’t seen a single comment here that in my honest opionion should send anyone over a guilt-trip. And not really that much “forcing down the throat” has been executed either. Are you sure it’s not you who isn’t that confident if this seems like bickering to you? You wouldn’t pay 15$ for braid, fine. I wouldn’t pay 10$ for SOTN but tastes differ, right?
Flamebait, no, those are not, technically speaking, games. There’s a reason we call that kind of software sandbox games. You may want to avail yourself of a dictionary and some game theory books; rules and victory conditions are not exactly contested as qualifiers for “game” status.
Also, given all the times I’ve had massive chunks of ice thrown at me in a snowball fight or been attacked by my erstwhile teammates, I wouldn’t say snowball fights have any unspoken rules. Even if they did, it still doesn’t change the fact that there’s no way to win. It’s like splashing somebody at the swimming pool.
Finally… “Besides, you could replace “snowball fights” with any real-world game, the argument wouldn’t change.” I’m not going to make your argument for you. How could I, when I think it’s wrong? You’ll have to come up with an actual game to use as an example on your own. Good luck with that, because I don’t think you’ll be able to.
If 10$ is the “sweet spot” for an average XBLA game, 15$-20$ is what I would expect to pay for a quality downloadable title, and then 30$ would be way too much.
I still think that Aquaria was overpriced. Not because it wasn’t worth the 30$, but because it wasn’t worth more than titles like Braid or PA:OTRSPOD. There is no justification for that price other than what the creators felt was the right price, which is a weird argument.
You guys compare it to a movie, but I didn’t see The Dark Knight priced at 10$ more than the other movie at the theater, even if it was clearly superior. And I’m sorry, but I wouldn’t buy an ironic shirt for 10$ more than a comparable one, even if it had the best joke in the universe on it.
Uhh… Aquaria’s not an XBLA game.
PS : It feels like the Penny Arcade guys are using Braid as a transport to stick it to people who said the same about their game. Good to see that the maker of Aquaria aren’t doing the same!
Somehow I don’t think Penny Arcade needs a “transport” to “stick it” to people…
Since there are so many people here with $15 dollars to throw away I’d definitely be willing to let you give me the points to buy Braid. The points that I do have left right now though are going towards Bionic Commando and Castle Crashers. I don’t need or want Braid for free, but if it was $10 dollars (it’s got about $5 dollars worth of play length) but I know that a lot of heart was put into it, so 800 pts is where I draw my line though. Aside from the cute graphics the Trial didn’t encourage me to tell others about it. I’m being honest. I hope the developer has success with it, but everyone else needs to relax and enjoy the game if they bought it. Perhaps I’ll join the crowd when it becomes an arcade hit and drops in price. I was really looking forward to Braid but it didn’t really impress me with its game play and the price on top of that fact didn’t impress me either, but I’m just one person and perhaps there will be more people that feel strongly enough about it to just drop their 1200 points instantly. In the meantime there are a lot of great games coming up that I want to save my points for though. With so many good games coming it’s a great time for people who were looking forward to XBLA games, unfortunately I can’t afford to buy every single one of them and I’m not prepared to dish out more than the average price for a game that provides little more than an average play experience. Again that’s my opinion so I don’t hope or expect you to change your mind about the game and you won’t hope or expect to change mine. That way we can still respect each other even though we don’t agree with each other.
And yes (to the people who can’t admit they already bought it because they’re busy sticking up for Braid ;-) ), Castlevania was a fuckin awesome game. For $10 bucks I got more game out of that sucker than many other titles - including the so-called full priced mainstream titles. To be fair though I purchased Assault Heroes 1 and 2 as well (great little action games with some nice co-op). They’re nothing that hasn’t been done before but for $15 dollars I was able to get those 2 games and they’re both fun but they also have replay value. You get a lot of game out of them for a single player romp and then even more if you plan to play with a friend.
Don’t know why people are so pissed that others don’t want to dish out $15 dollars for a game they aren’t as interested in or don’t feel that the game warrants a $10 dollar price tag… it’s just opinion, so if they don’t feel that there’s a $15 dollar value there they won’t buy it. It’s not something that others should take personally.
Some people like it, some people don’t. If we’re being honest then we have to face the facts that if Braid was as good as some of the fanatics say it is this discussion wouldn’t exist or at the very least wouldn’t have gone on for so long. Don’t take that personally though, I’m not saying that as an attack towards people who have purchased it.
Those that bought it, enjoy it. Those that didn’t, enjoy looking forward to the titles coming up. We can all be happy then.
Well the bottom line for me is that a game should have something to bring me back to it. Some have used Portal as an example of a short game that was worth the price point but I beg to differ. I definitely wouldn’t have paid $20 for Portal but I got it with the Orange Box which was undoubtedly worth it. I don’t mind if a game is short but there are a variety of ways that a game can extend it’s replayability past the main part of the game. From what I hear Braid has a time attack mode but what else does it have? For me it isn’t about escapism or the fact that I am used to XBLA games being priced around a certain point (I don’t even have a 360) it is whether or not I feel like I have gotten enough out of the game. Someone mentioned before that Audiosurf was only $10 and that they would have paid even more than that. And why? Because Audiosurf goes beyond the core mechanics of the game itself and has an extensive amount of modes and a online scores and multiplayer as well. Hell, I would have paid $15 at the very least. From what I hear though Braid doesn’t sound like it has that much of a replay factor and for me that is what counts no matter how good the initial main game is.
I obtained Aquaria for the low price of $30 and also thought Braid was worth its price. I respect others because I respect myself!
Hmm…, the demo of Braid is not a good representation of the rest of the game. I really wish you would listen to my advice and watch some gameplay footage of the later levels. I can’t stress enough that this is NOT Mario with a rewind function, and that’s what you seem to think it is.
@Koholint,
I did check out additional footage and quite a bit of the game was shown off. It wasn’t enough to convince me and it still proved that the game was extremely short. I kinda wish I hadn’t seen some of the video though because all of the levels were basically given away. That kinda ruined it for me (not the gameplay itself but the fact that I saw so much of it in such a short time), now there won’t be any surprises, but that’s my fault for watching the video. I’d still buy it if and when it becomes an Arcade Hit but the full price now is too much especially considering I’ve seen most of it now, but that part has nothing to do with the price I don’t want to see most of a game in any video, I’d rather play them for myself. In this case now I’ll have to wait before buying it if I”m going to find any appreciation for it because I basically just watched someone else go through the game.
I was right though, there’s little to no replay value. But, you were right, there aren’t the exact same elements that are found in Mario but I still found that the Super Mario games had more to them. The rewind has been done in other games, but the platforming is still running and jumping with a few puzzles to them. To be completely honest I like the looks of Braid’s graphics, but I don’t like the looks of the game. I was much more impressed by N+ and although that game has stick-man graphics the game play has a lot to offer and all at a regular price. There are a ton of levels in N+, not to mention half a dozen multiplayer modes, and a built in level editor. It’s teeming with game and puzzles, and running and jumping, but it even offers more once you’re done with the core game… plus, it’s fun and good, to put it plain and simple.
So there is a cute quality to Braid but after watching the video I know that I would have been sorry for spending the 1200 pts. That’s just me, but I think others might feel the same, I can’t speak for anyone else though.
@Kongming: “Flamebait, no, those are not, technically speaking, games. There’s a reason we call that kind of software sandbox games.”
(Emphasis added) make up your mind: are they or aren’t they games? Even assuming the “game” in “sandbox game” is meaningless, you’d still just be appealing to a neologism in order to ignore past and current usage of a term.
“You may want to avail yourself of a dictionary,” Okay (both from dictionary.com):
3. a competitive activity involving skill, chance, or endurance on the part of two or more persons who play according to a set of rules,
Competition doesn’t imply monolithic or even formalized victory conditions; players could theoretically compete using whatever conditions they wish. Good examples are MMOs (although they remain almost exclusively one-dimensional and base). See http://www.infinity-universe.com/. Also in terms of self-determined victory conditions, a player can compete with himself or AI agents, such as in sandbox games; numerous real-world examples can be found in athletics.
8. anything resembling a game, as in requiring skill, endurance, or adherence to rules: the game of diplomacy.
Computer games certainly require the skill of traditional games, and obviously adherence to the rules (except in the case of cheating, but that’s just changing the game to something worse).
“rules and victory conditions are not exactly contested as qualifiers for “game” status.”
That’s false. In addition to the above, I’ve always heard of Maxis’ Sim_ series in the context of “games”, or explicitly referred to as “games”. As one example. Perhaps your definition is entirely prescriptive?
“Also, given all the times I’ve had massive chunks of ice thrown at me in a snowball fight or been attacked by my erstwhile teammates, I wouldn’t say snowball fights have any unspoken rules.”
Apparently the individuals you participated in snowball fights had no regard for loyalty or safety, certainly making yours a less formalized variant.
“Finally… “Besides, you could replace “snowball fights” with any real-world game, the argument wouldn’t change.” I’m not going to make your argument for you.”
Huh? The point was obviously that there are games that an individual can enjoy heavily but that carries little longevity, as well as games that lead to less satisfaction on the part of the individual at most given times, but that have greater longevity. My examples are based on my subjective observations during participation in these games and not necessarily meaningful to you, yet they don’t need to be to make a point. But to indulge you, another example: basketball. My favourite game described as a “sport”, I have found it exhilirating, yet I have not and will not return to it often (or ever), on account of my perception of its longevity rather than logistical factors.
“How could I, when I think it’s wrong?”
If you think my argument is wrong, you’re doing a very poor job, or indeed no job at all of properly disputing it. All you’ve done is raise one irrelevant objection. Even assuming it’s relevant, it’s still hardly sufficient to prove me wrong.
“You’ll have to come up with an actual game to use as an example on your own. Good luck with that, because I don’t think you’ll be able to.”
Now I think you must’ve seriously misinterpreted my post, but I can’t tell how because you haven’t presented enough.
@Kongming [comments section didn’t like the post’s length, epic 2 parter follows]: “Flamebait, no, those are not, technically speaking, games. There’s a reason we call that kind of software sandbox games.”
(Emphasis added) make up your mind: are they or aren’t they games? Even assuming the “game” in “sandbox game” is meaningless, you’d still just be appealing to a neologism in order to ignore past and current usage of a term.
“You may want to avail yourself of a dictionary,” Okay (both from dictionary.com):
3. a competitive activity involving skill, chance, or endurance on the part of two or more persons who play according to a set of rules,
Competition doesn’t imply monolithic or even formalized victory conditions; players could theoretically compete using whatever conditions they wish. Good examples are MMOs (although they remain almost exclusively one-dimensional and base). See http://www.infinity-universe.com/. Also in terms of self-determined victory conditions, a player can compete with himself or AI agents, such as in sandbox games; numerous real-world examples can be found in athletics.
8. anything resembling a game, as in requiring skill, endurance, or adherence to rules: the game of diplomacy.
Computer games certainly require the skill of traditional games, and obviously adherence to the rules (except in the case of cheating, but that’s just changing the game to something worse).
“rules and victory conditions are not exactly contested as qualifiers for “game” status.”
That’s false. In addition to the above, I’ve always heard of Maxis’ Sim_ series in the context of “games”, or explicitly referred to as “games”. As one example. Perhaps your definition is entirely prescriptive?
“Also, given all the times I’ve had massive chunks of ice thrown at me in a snowball fight or been attacked by my erstwhile teammates, I wouldn’t say snowball fights have any unspoken rules.”
Apparently the individuals you participated in snowball fights had no regard for loyalty or safety, certainly making yours a less formalized variant.
“Finally… “Besides, you could replace “snowball fights” with any real-world game, the argument wouldn’t change.” I’m not going to make your argument for you.”
Huh? The point was obviously that there are games that an individual can enjoy heavily but that carries little longevity, as well as games that lead to less satisfaction on the part of the individual at most given times, but that have greater longevity. My examples are based on my subjective observations during participation in these games and not necessarily meaningful to you, yet they don’t need to be to make a point. But to indulge you, another example: basketball. My favourite game described as a “sport”, I have found it exhilirating, yet I have not and will not return to it often (or ever), on account of my perception of its longevity rather than logistical factors.
“How could I, when I think it’s wrong?”
If you think my argument is wrong, you’re doing a very poor job, or indeed no job at all of properly disputing it. All you’ve done is raise one irrelevant objection. Even assuming it’s relevant, it’s still hardly sufficient to prove me wrong.
“You’ll have to come up with an actual game to use as an example on your own. Good luck with that, because I don’t think you’ll be able to.”
Now I think you must’ve seriously misinterpreted my post, but I can’t tell how because you haven’t presented enough.
I actually bought the orange box but only played TF2 once, and never played even half-through HL2EP2 … I felt Portal was worth the price of the orange box by itself. Any game longer than get gets repetitive, unless it’s moddable … I never really finish commercial games, they bore me. The developers know what a typical gamer expects from a commercial game : the longest possible gameplay time, because reviewers always include “time it took to complete it” in their reviews most of the time.
If you’re saying Braid isn’t worth 15$, then you’re comparing it to commercial games. A dinner can cost 20$ and won’t last more than 10 minutes. It also won’t entertain you. Braid is actually way too cheap… I don’t know shit about the XB Arcade standards, but I know for sure that any indie game with efforts put in it’s development deserves every penny it can get. If you don’t like it, just don’t buy it. Don’t go around convincing other people that the game “isn’t worth buying”. Let them judge for themselves.
I’m definitly buying that game when it comes for PC. I sincerely hope it will cost over 20$. If most people complain about how short the game is, that means you actually enjoyed it and would’ve wanted more, haha! (sorry, weird humor)
Any game longer than that*
Im totally agree with ChrisL, every single publicity is a good publicity :)
Anyone that compares Braid to Mario Bros is a complete and total moron…let alone writing an entire essay about something you don’t get. Jesus christ already. The game is more like Lolo or Fire and Ice or Portal than it is about platforming. This game is a must buy. Puzzles don’t get any more clever than what you see in this game. If you don’t like clever, that’s fine. Go play something that isn’t.
@Derek : “Somehow I don’t think Penny Arcade needs a “transport” to “stick it” to people…”
Yeah, would you have posted that comic if it was about PA:OTRSPOD? It would have made them look like whiners, whereas by doing it about Braid it makes them look like the Defenders of All Thing Indie.
In any case, people here who quantify any game as “there is 5$ worth of game play in that 10$ game” need to be shot.
@ Victo : “A dinner can cost 20$ and won’t last more than 10 minutes. It also won’t entertain you”
Like the movie and ironic shirt analogies before yours, this is a flawed argument at best. Don’t get me wrong, Braid is worth every penny, I’m just talking about the argument itself.
A 20$ dinner will last 10 minutes, but the same 10 minutes at Wolfgang Puck’s restaurant will cost you 200$. Quantifying the value of anything based on the amount of time that it entertain you is a narrow view of what makes something worth what it is.
Comparing Braid (or any games) to a McValue meal seems like a weird argument to me.
So Microsoft set the price for them. Big deal. Indies need to get used to that if they want to play in the big league, and remember that “customers” aren’t the same as “fans” or “followers of your work”. There is always someone to buy anything at any prices, (see : the “I Am Rich” iPhone app.) the trick is to find the correct threshold between sales and profit.
It’s obvious people need something to talk about more than they need games but I think that’s a given. I’d play and complete Braid if I owned it but I don’t and my side is simple. There wasn’t enough there to warrant a purchase (I came to the conclusion shortly after playing the Trial but I watched a couple of gameplay videos to be fair as well). With the other new games coming out I couldn’t find it within myself to drop 1200 points when I think there are better games around the corner. So there’s my side of it, short and sweet.
“Quantifying the value of anything based on the amount of time that it entertain you is a narrow view of what makes something worth what it is.”
That’s exactly what I was trying to prove… that the whole “longer games deserve to be more expensive” way of thinking is wrong …
I like the way Penny Arcade sticks up for Braid in their comic and how Jonathan Blow inadvertently sticks it to Penny Arcade by implying that his game isn’t like a JRPG where you fight the same creatures over and over and basically do the grind only to try and find some sort of entertainment in that grind which is what makes the game longer. The funny thing is, Penny Arcades Rainslick whatever is exactly like that.
I love the irony of it, but this works to Braids advantage and sorta kicks the behind of Rainslick.
Go Braid Go!
When Braid comes to PC I’m going to have no problem forking over the 15 dollars. which, equates to just over 7 quid 50 in good old British pound sterling. Which is the cost of a cinema ticket and some popcorn, so considering I play games more than I go to the cinema I’m obviously going to have no qualms.
I’m perfectly happy with indie games that I’ve enjoyed the demos of to pay what the developer thinks the game is worth. I did it with Aquaria, I did it with Noitu Love 2 and I’ll do it again.
In fact in my opinion sometimes developers undervalue their games. I’d be amazed if nobodies mentioned Audiosurf yet, which quite honestly I think represents the best value for money of any game I’ve played ever. Dylan could definitely have charged more in my opinion and been perfectly fair in his pricing.
I haven’t yet come across an indie game I’ve deemed to be over priced but I’m sure there’s some out there. But even if I deem it to be so it doesn’t mean there aren’t 100 other people who think it’s a bargain.
Ok now you’re just talkin out your ass.
Christ, it’s 5 bucks people. 5 bucks. :|
it went down to $5 bucks!?!? I’m buying it right now!
You fuckin liar it’s still $15!
Sorry but no matter if it’s a extra 5 bucks or a penny but the fact it’s MY MONEY.
So i can decide if i want to bargain or not. “shove your five dollars up your stupid ass.” is offensive, (ahem) stupid and pointless.
@Victo
“Any game longer than get gets repetitive, unless it’s moddable”
So? Any game gets repetitive, unless it’s pure mechanical noise that’s impossible to ever rationalize (no existing game is to my knowledge, and I don’t even know whether that’s possible). I think you’re making the errenous assumption that a game’s duration always depends solely on its content, never its mechanics. Deep games can have impressive longevity without being tiresome- see Shogun Total War.
“If you’re saying Braid isn’t worth 15$, then you’re comparing it to commercial games. A dinner can cost 20$ and won’t last more than 10 minutes.”
Wait, it’s more appropriate to compare Braid to a dinner than to another kind of game? I sure as hell wouldn’t pay more than $5 for a single dinner. Also, food is necessary to survive, giving it a huge utility boost over any game.
“Don’t go around convincing other people that the game “isn’t worth buying”. Let them judge for themselves.”
That’s a double standard coming from you. But I’d say noone should convince anyone that Braid is or isn’t worth buying; it is for some and isn’t for others, for (generally) perfectly valid reasons.
@Jean-Sebastien
“A 20$ dinner will last 10 minutes, but the same 10 minutes at Wolfgang Puck’s restaurant will cost you 200$. Quantifying the value of anything based on the amount of time that it entertain you is a narrow view of what makes something worth what it is.”
I wouldn’t enjoy myself more over those 10 minutes with the $200 than with the $20 dinner. See, nobody’s quantifying the game’s value solely on the amount of time it entertains. Both longevity and the amount a game entertains at all times are obviously considered by any rational person. Consider a game so entertaining to be considered orgasmic, but that becomes boring after 10 seconds. Of course that wouldn’t be worth more than a couple dollars.
What exactly is wrong with valuing longevity? If a game has ill-gotten longevity, such as through mounds of similar content, then its entertainment in the eyes of seasoned gamers will fall off too far anyway. As stated above, some people just prefer lasting low-level entertainment, and others go for a bunch of short but very sweet games. Both are fine.