I can agree IF you factor in replayability, but this is coming from the other side of your equation. Once you tack on some rug rats to that mortgage and car payment, and start pinching pennies to shoo them all out of the nest and off to college, you get cheap again (though without the peanut butter). I’ve no problem laying down the duckets for a “shortie” if I’m going to play it again, and again, and again, but if it’s going to spend most of the rest of its existence sitting on a shelf, I gotta pass. That’s what rentals are for.

Even if you have money to burn, there does come a point where you have to ask yourself “Is it really worth it?” For me, most games — at $60 a pop — aren’t going to be worth it if they only offer a few hours of even intense enjoyment. Why buy then when I can wait a few months and get it used for $40 or $30? As far as the whole “You can’t have your cake and eat it too,” well, yes, you can, but you won’t be having or eating all that often if you set your standards that high AND want to buy a brand new game right when it comes out.

For me, even if I can afford it, there are other things I’d rather spend my money on than a highly entertaining, but quickly consumed video game for $60. I’d rather spend $60 on a really good meal or a bottle of wine — both of which will also be quickly consumed. But, I make that decision because I KNOW that the prices of the games I want to play will come down and — even new — I can get them cheaper if I wait a bit. Given the other stuff I have to entertain me, and the other things I have going on in my life, that’s a pretty easy decision for me to make.

Now, I’m not saying that a new game can’t be worth $60. Based on how much I enjoyed Battlefield Bad Company 1, I pre-ordered Bad Company 2. That’s literally the first pre-order I’ve EVER made, but I made the decision that the game will likely be worth it. I spent a lot of time playing BF:BC1, and I’m pretty sure I’ll do the same with BF:BC2. On the other hand, had I bought, say, Conan for $60, I’d have been pretty disappointed, given the relative brevity of the game. Instead, I bought it used for $10 and had a blast with it.

“Shorties” aren’t necessarily bad games, but folks need to make their own decisions about how much they value them, and that’s true across all expenditures related purely to one’s enjoyment. Me, I’m happy to spend $60 on a bottle of wine that I’ll drink in maybe 2 hours with company I enjoy, even though I tend to think that a short video game for $60 is a waste of money. I’m sure plenty of folks would reverse that statement and would far rather spend $60 on a game than on booze. It’s all just a question of how you value your entertainment, and at the end of the day, what people ought to do is figure out the way to get the most value for their entertainment dollars.

But Ryan, I want to have a blast and play for 40 hours!

I like short games. Portal, for one, was awesome. So was Trine. Still, I want them to cost a little less. I think it’s reasonable.

@Patrick LOL!

I don’t mind length so much either but I’m with Alaric on this one, bring the prices down a bit. At least back to $50 bucks like before this generation of consoles. Why did Microsoft ever decide to start the trend and start selling them at $60 with the 360. I guess the answer is they knew we would pay it. And of course we do.

The problem isn’t that some games are short, the problem is that those games are full-priced.

Portal is a perfect example. Portal was an awesome game, but it was over in three hours. Portal came included in The Orange Box. It wasn’t full priced by itself. If Portal had been $60 by itself, everyone would have been pissed off, regardless of how good it was. It is just not worth it.

Another reason longer games are better is because they give you more time to get into them. What fun is something that ends just as you are getting into it?

Hahaha Patrick, well said.

I suppose I understand everyone’s comments. Unfortunately, money really has no value to me. It’s just a bunch of slips of green paper, and you make it, to spend it. And I say this while having plenty of bills and a mortgage to pay every month. So what’s $60, to $30?

It’s a $30 difference? Are those dollars saved really going to make a short game any sweeter? Not in my opinion.

If I enjoy a game, I enjoy a game. Cost isn’t a factor. I would have spent $60 on Portal, and enjoyed it. It was a fantastic game and it didn’t need to be any longer. And it’s certainly a lot better than some of the more “epic and lengthy” games I’ve played in recent years.

On the other hand, I spent $10 on Trine, and I felt the game was awful. Played the first level and haven’t touched it since. And I won’t bother. Am I angry I spent $10 on a game that was miserable? No. I’m angry the game was miserable.

And Solo, spending $120 on a new game and some booze is my kind of night! You’re talking with someone who used to drink Irish Car bombs exclusively (see picture), and would rake up $200 bar tabs in an evening. If I could still stomach those things, I would still do it without hesitation because you can’t put a price on fun. (Unless, like Michele alluded to, you have little ones. Then you can. )