"I know that I've logged far more than 60 hours in Civ 4 (lack of strategy?) and its mods."
Oh yeah, I certainly have gotten more than my money's worth out of the Civ franchise. I don't mean to sound like video games suck or anything, I still play my fair share. I just grew up with the video game hype, kept trading in the old systems and games for mere fractions of their original worth for the next best thing, and came to realize this when I was 20-22. I was really simply replying to the claim that > $50 for a board game is unreasonable and a bad investment. I have also not yet seen a good board game in a bargain bin. If you are buying what is good and new, in 5 years' time, that same game will still be good but old, and have a high value. Look at games from 2004 if you don't believe me. Ask yourself how many of the good games from this time are difficult to trade? You want to avoid depreciation? Easy. Get only good games, not whatever hype is spewing forth. Good video games still depreciate (with 2 exceptions, apparently), largely due to reliance on graphics. When you consider that Metal Gear Solid 4 is largely the same gameplay as Metal Gear Solid 2, except the story and the better graphics (bad example, as story is more than half the game), and compare the price on each of these, you get a real sense of the depreciation MGS 2 has undergone, and where MGS 4 is going. I agree with the poster about buying behind the curve. I'm waiting for PS3 to drop under $100. Then I might consider it, if there was anything good. On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 9:06 AM, DuckAndCower <[email protected]>wrote: > > Of course, your argument can be applied the other way around, too. If > you aren't buying video and computer games as soon as they come out, > you get them for far, far less than the $50 you're quoting. Some > games, especially when taking multiplayer into account, provide much > more than 60 hours of entertainment. > > I know that I've logged far more than 60 hours in Civ 4 (lack of > strategy?) and its mods. > > On Feb 3, 10:59 am, Eric Flood <[email protected]> wrote: > > "Totally agree with what others are saying in here - no board game is > > worth $130. I would be much more prone to paying say $60-70 for a PC > > game that I really wanted..say a big title like StarCraft 2 or Diablo > > 3, but no way would I pay more than $50 for a board game. Especially > > since nobody who has responsibilities and a family can really play > > games on a daily basis (which is about the only thing that might make > > a $50+ board game worth it)." > > > > Your logic here is bad. > > > > Video games are the most depreciating asset one can acquire. I just > traded > > in 4 N64 games, got $15 for them. This was in addition to another 2 the > > store didn't even want. These games cost no less than $360 in their > time. > > > > How much do you think you will be able to sell your PS3 for in 5 years? > > > > Meanwhile, in 5 years, R+B will still be trading/selling for a high price > > (unless Splotter produces it more cheaply and makes it much more widely > > available, which is highly unlikely). > > > > You will also play that video game for ~60 hours. Solo. After that you > > will be done with it. You've experienced all that the game has to offer. > > With R+B, each game lasts about 3-4 hours. That's 15-20 games. You > won't > > be done with the experience by then (assuming you enjoy the play). And > even > > if you are, you can then trade it off for nearly the same price you got > it > > for in the first place. After 6 months, you'll be hard-pressed to get > $20 > > out of your $60-$70 Starcraft purchase. > > > > Most videogames are like a television show - you go through it, it's > done, > > you chuck it aside for the next one. It's an entirely different > consumption > > method from board games. > > > > I got fed up with this consumptive/depreciative nature of video games, > along > > with lack of strategy/random aspects required in most, and hence was my > > board game playing born. > > > > On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 8:39 AM, Wytefang <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Totally agree with what others are saying in here - no board game is > > > worth $130. I would be much more prone to paying say $60-70 for a PC > > > game that I really wanted..say a big title like StarCraft 2 or Diablo > > > 3, but no way would I pay more than $50 for a board game. Especially > > > since nobody who has responsibilities and a family can really play > > > games on a daily basis (which is about the only thing that might make > > > a $50+ board game worth it). > > > > > You'll note that nowhere in that tiny rant did I say that Planet Steam > > > is a bad game or something like that but I'll just wait until someone > > > re-creates the same game for cheaper. > > > > > ;) > > > > > On Feb 3, 9:32 am, "[email protected]" > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > The most I ever paid was for Antiquity which I ended up trading for > > > > R&B and I'm the Boss. I didn't regret it as R&B is an outstanding > > > > game, but if I really had to put its worth up against other games in > > > > my collection I don't think I could consider it to be worth $100. > > > > That dosen't mean I don't want to keep it. It is just one of those > > > > games for me that provides a lot of play options since I can play it > > > > solo and it is really good and has a lot of character. Character is > > > > important right?.......not just a pretty face? ;) > > > > > > On Feb 3, 9:24 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > It's stinky, ugly, and it hates your mother. > > > > > > > On Feb 3, 10:12 am, Locusshifter <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > And my geekbuddies continue to chime in against it. > > > > > > > > The evidence is piling up. Please continue to voice your > opinions. > > > > > > > > On Feb 3, 10:08 am, vandemonium <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > It isn't worth it because it ain't that great of a game. > Unless > > > you > > > > > > > get the version with Dale Yu's belt buckle in it... > > > > > > > > > It is an OK game but I'd never buy it. > > > > > > > > > On Feb 3, 9:23 am, Mike Chapel <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > It's not worth it. > > > > > > > > > > Chapel > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 7:52 AM, Locusshifter < > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > No Planet Steam for me. > > > > > > > > > > > Freakin' Boulder Games raised the price $20 because "NOTE: > > > Sorry, but > > > > > > > > > we had to raise the price of this game because it is huge > and > > > heavy > > > > > > > > > and gets FREE SHIPPING." > > > > > > > > > > > First they say the price will likely go down, then they > raise > > > the > > > > > > > > > price.... > > > > > > > > > > > To be honest, I would have preferred a lower price and had > to > > > pay > > > > > > > > > shipping. Boulder is anti price fixing, so why do I feel > like > > > they are > > > > > > > > > taking advantage of this game selling as fast as they can > get > > > it? > > > > > > > > > > > They are a business after all, and it's their prerogative, > but > > > to > > > > > > > > > Boulder I say "you just lost a sale", and while I'm certain > > > that won't > > > > > > > > > impact their sales of Planet Steam, mayhaps they won't get > my > > > next > > > > > > > > > order either.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BGG Down" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/BGG_down?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
