- porkstein
- |
- Noble Heroic Member
LW45 TS40 TO40 TSW35 TSN35 TT30 SB30 MLG25
Let me make it quite clear that I am buying ODST. Of course, that means I believe it's worth it. That begs the question, though: what is 'worth'? If all supermarkets put a 1000% mark up on all their food products, would they still be 'worth it'? Of course they would; we need food to survive. Should they cost that much? Most would agree not, because food doesn't take nearly that much to produce. The same applies to ODST.
The production cost of a game comes down to two observable factors: content, and development. That is, the stuff that comes in the box, and how that stuff is an advancement, an improvement, a development over previous titles. If we look at ODST in terms of new developments, we see that Bungie hasn't done a bad job. There's a non-linear campaign, a survival mode, the VISR, the chance to play as an ODST, a new health system, a couple of cool 'new' weapons...
The problems arise, however, when this is compared to Halo 3. Yes, you could compare it to Ice Age 3: The Game, but surely that's setting the bar pretty low, don't you agree? Are we saying that ODST is going to be as good value for money as 2008 Beijing Olympics? Bungie have set the standard, and it seems that they've fallen pretty short of it this time around.
In terms of new developments, Halo 3 came with a new engine; many new game modes; an expansive new feature set including Forge, File Sharing and Armour Customisation; new core mechanics such as equipment and support weapons, and a redefined multiplayer experience. There were a ton of new weapons, vehicles, and enemies, and any of these that had been recycled from previous games had also been, for the most part, substantially redefined.
When we view the content of ODST, another problem arises. We have a campaign, and we have a pretty in-depth new game mode. That's pretty much where it stops. Of course, there is a new multiplayer map pack, but that does happen to be content for Halo 3; if Halo 3 had come with three new Halo 2 maps, most people would have considered them a bonus rather than a part of the actual game.
I won't list the features of Halo 3 here, but it's pretty obvious that the list would supersede ODST in pretty much every way, particularly when considering the competitive multiplayer component; a feature that most people believe to be as integral to 'Halo' as its campaign.
So we see that both in terms of content, and development, Halo 3 ODST falls short by quite a way.
Of course, there are other ways to take a look at the price situation. ODST was developed by a small team over the course of just one year. Barely a few months before it was finished (and that time was spent mostly polishing) it was being called an expansion. Sure, "it's grown a lot since then", but did it really grow enough to propel itself from standalone expansion to fully fledged, Bungie-developed game?
You know what though, I think ODST will be great. I think that what it lacks in size and novelty it will make up for in quality. And even though I don't think it should cost $60, I am not going to get all hot and bothered over it; it cannot be changed, so let's just enjoy it for what it is.
So why did I bring this up? Well, part of me simply wanted to explain my stance, as well as the stance of many others who are unhappy with the price. But I also wanted you to consider another thing, something that is perhaps part of a bigger picture:
Some say the price is out of Bungie's control. Perhaps it is. But I find it strange that Microsoft allowed Valve to sell The Orange Box for a mere $60, but wouldn't let Bungie sell their game at their much-touted "value oriented" price. Me, I think that Bungie had something to do with it, and I think that above all, we should perhaps reconsider our usage of Microsoft as the infallible scapegoat.
Preemptin'
Posted by: Mr. Inevitable
Wait a second! What about the Halo: Reach beta!
Betas are generally considered bonus content, and as such do not factor into the game's price tag. Crackdown is fine example of this phenomenon.
Posted by: Captain Unavoidable
Yeah, but what about the second disc!
Ok, let's assume that when Reach is released, it comes bundled with all of Halo 3; there's no way to buy Reach without also purchasing this other disc. Should Reach then be priced at $120? No, it shouldn't. Equally, Halo 3 ODST's price should not be augmented by content that most people already own, and content that is 100% recycled material.
Posted by: Sir Skimmalot
Look, mate.
Campaign = $30
Firefight = $20
MMP2 = $10
Unfortunately, this is not an appropriate way of viewing the situation. For starters, you are ignoring half of the picture. Everything related to that which I dubbed 'development' is dubiously absent from your analysis.
For seconds, we see that by this logic, other games should cost tremendous amounts of money. Let's take Halo 3 as a point in case:
Campaign = $30
Multiplayer = $30
Forge = $10
Theatre = $10
11 Maps = $36.63
File Sharing = $5
Armour Perms = $5
Gametypes = $10
Hey look, Halo 3 should have cost $136.63!
And finally, we have the sweet, sweet side of subjectivity. In the end, value judgments such as those are all opinion, and as such have no place in argument.
Anyway, please discuss respectfully.
[Edited on 08.22.2009 5:57 PM PDT]