surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
i am sorry that this comment is not about this subject but something happened to my ps3 today. after i came back home i turned it on and the free plus stuff after which i bought an avatar. but when i saw my money balance it says -14 dollars. i was surprised and checked my transaction history. it turns out that the money was used to buy plus because mine expired the day before and no in my family ever uses my ps3. so my question is, does PSN buy plus for you when yours runs out if there is the right amount amount of money in your account with or without your consent? my god iwanted to buy trine 2 with that money now i have to buy another 20 dollar card.
Wow, I didn't expect the votes to be so close!
@SomalianDude
We have Forums! Your best bet for answers and online romance!
http://forum.destructoid.com/
@SomalianDude
We have Forums! Your best bet for answers and online romance!
http://forum.destructoid.com/
49 countries? American votes are 3 times as important as other people's, did you guys calibrate for that?
Dammit, MassDebate is back?!? I didn't notice! O_O
Anyway Sean, sign me up to represent a side when you have a topic free please. I enjoy these. :O)
Anyway Sean, sign me up to represent a side when you have a topic free please. I enjoy these. :O)
I hope we see more features like this that involve the community. The only thing there is right now is Bloggers Wanted.
well at the end of the day if a game is too short its likely not worth its salt. But needless padding certainly doesn't help games out.
A game needs to be a quality product and that is going to throw some minimum expectations that games are going to have to meet to be worth top dollar. If a developer can exceed those expectation then that is a developer I will likely buy from a gain ..... however if they fail to meet the minimum expectations and try to flush their game out with padding ...... they might as well never have released the game.
just my 2c
A game needs to be a quality product and that is going to throw some minimum expectations that games are going to have to meet to be worth top dollar. If a developer can exceed those expectation then that is a developer I will likely buy from a gain ..... however if they fail to meet the minimum expectations and try to flush their game out with padding ...... they might as well never have released the game.
just my 2c
I missed the vote but I am against ;) Full priced games should promise a certain value and playtime is not really a value for me. I can play through the whole Silent Hill 2 in one sitting and it doesn't change the fact that it is my favourite game of all time and worth every money. And even if I pay let's say 60 bucks for a 5 hour long game I do not care that it lasts for 5 hours, I do care if these are the best 5 hours I can get out of gaming. For me it's all about the experience, not the length.
reading the comments made me think more about this than the original debate.
there are many games that i have bought and switched off after 5 minutes because they were terrible. I'd say those games gave me 5 minutes of playability. I returned those games anyway.
I think that is the best way to communicate value for money to companies.
game length is irrelevant if the game is fun. I've heard final fantasy crystal bearers on the wii is a very short final fantasy game, but i don't care because the opening of the game has been more fun than any final fantasy game i have ever played! in fact that game gave me more of a buzz than any game i have played in the last few years.
there are many games that i have bought and switched off after 5 minutes because they were terrible. I'd say those games gave me 5 minutes of playability. I returned those games anyway.
I think that is the best way to communicate value for money to companies.
game length is irrelevant if the game is fun. I've heard final fantasy crystal bearers on the wii is a very short final fantasy game, but i don't care because the opening of the game has been more fun than any final fantasy game i have ever played! in fact that game gave me more of a buzz than any game i have played in the last few years.
@Isay Isay
Don't worry, just make sure you get the "that's totally wrong and stuff" side when next week's debate is about EA's (soon to be announced) DRM that's powered by the blood of puppies and kittens.
Don't worry, just make sure you get the "that's totally wrong and stuff" side when next week's debate is about EA's (soon to be announced) DRM that's powered by the blood of puppies and kittens.
I missed this. My vote would have gone to Isay Isay. I also have sufficient evidence that Daniel Starkey hid this post from me. We're talking about a MassDebateGate scandal here.
one thing I forgot to post in the thread so I will post it now.
the total hours of gameplay on a game you can have is a lot more than most people actually play this is because almost every gamer always has another game he owns and can play instead be it games you already played and you could just replay, it could also be free games or just games you keep comming back at like multiplayer games such as battlefield and minecraft alternatively you can also spend the time on other stuff like watching movies. Because of this the game needs to have a quite a high standard to be worth your time in the first place so if a game is overstretched you will most likely just drop it because there are more fun games/things you can play in the same time making long games not as valued as you may think take a fun but not superb 300 hour game for example if you really consider how much extra fun you would have playing 300 hours of it instead of just playing another games or doing other things the extra amount of fun is quite low so making the game actually not really more value for money than as super fun 4 hour game because the fun you would have had when not playing the 300 hour game is not much lower while it is much lower when you are not playing the super fun 4 hour game, saying this games dont really need a minimum length because if a game is long its generally a little less fun times when playing it versus a game that is short but great so even a 4 hour game could beat a 300 hour game in value for money in my opinion.
the total hours of gameplay on a game you can have is a lot more than most people actually play this is because almost every gamer always has another game he owns and can play instead be it games you already played and you could just replay, it could also be free games or just games you keep comming back at like multiplayer games such as battlefield and minecraft alternatively you can also spend the time on other stuff like watching movies. Because of this the game needs to have a quite a high standard to be worth your time in the first place so if a game is overstretched you will most likely just drop it because there are more fun games/things you can play in the same time making long games not as valued as you may think take a fun but not superb 300 hour game for example if you really consider how much extra fun you would have playing 300 hours of it instead of just playing another games or doing other things the extra amount of fun is quite low so making the game actually not really more value for money than as super fun 4 hour game because the fun you would have had when not playing the 300 hour game is not much lower while it is much lower when you are not playing the super fun 4 hour game, saying this games dont really need a minimum length because if a game is long its generally a little less fun times when playing it versus a game that is short but great so even a 4 hour game could beat a 300 hour game in value for money in my opinion.
Mr Leghorn's side lost, but all of the highlights are from his side. Did the other side argue at all, or was it just people wanting cheaper games?
I dunno. I'm kinda with Abnegation. I'm sad that the people that voted for me didn't say much. By old Mass Debate rules, Isay would have one in an incredible landslide.
I strongly think that devs should promise a minimum value, with playtime being a primary metric, but I think Isay argued his point really well.
I strongly think that devs should promise a minimum value, with playtime being a primary metric, but I think Isay argued his point really well.
What everyone assumes is that shorter games should cost less than the standard 60 bucks. However, the more likely case, would be that your 5 to 6 hour games would still cost 50-60 dollars, but publishers would feel justified in jacking up the price for longer games. So while Gears of War might still run you $60, you'd end up paying maybe $120 for Skyrim. Win-win for publishers, lose-lose for consumers.
follow
