Right… worth is subjective. Not gonna argue that. What I’m talking about is the effort put into the game and the value presented to the customer base. Madden 24 vs. Baldur’s Gate 3. One is from a company who is copy-pasting the previous year’s game and updating the roster. The other is a years long effort and labor of love in a feature complete package. Both are priced at $60. Only one is “worth” $60 if we go by the effort and work put into it. That’s what I mean when I talk about a game being actually worth $60.
Baldur’s Gate 3 isn’t worth $60 to someone who loves sports games, and the opposite is true for those who don’t. A lot of the target demographic is sports fans who like playing with friends sometimes, and having an accurate roster is a huge part of the experience. Games like Madden pay a ton in royalties to license those names because that’s what players want.
If you’re going to get hundreds if not thousands of hours in a game, $60 is a pretty good deal. I pay far more than that for Paradox strategy games, and I think it’s a pretty good deal. But your average gamer wouldn’t and complains about DLC prices and whatnot.
That said, I don’t think a game like Madden should be in the running for Game of the Year awards but a game like Baldur’s Gate 3 absolutely should, and that’s based on objective impact of the game on its genre. But that’s completely independent of sale price and value.
You are confusing subjective and objective. I’m comparing the objective prices of two games based on the quality of work put into them, you are talking about the subjective value on a per-customer basis. There is no accounting for taste, so I won’t argue the subjective nature of perceived worth. What I’m arguing is the actual worth of the game based on the effort put into it. You can microwave a steak, or you can grill it, in both examples the meal is cooked. Either one can be priced at $25, but only one is worth it for the work that went into the meal. Regardless of how much the NFL license costs, the value of the work put into the yearly Madden release pales in comparison to most games, let alone BG3, or most 4x/strategy games. The cost to produce Madden is much lower than other games, and so when it gets resold, it’s rarely resold at a loss. Granted, volume should also be taken into consideration, but I don’t want to overcomplicate things further.
Value is always subjective and generally has nothing to do with effort, but supply and demand. The NFL IP is a lot more valuable than the Baldur’s Gate IP, so having a monopoly on that IP drives up price.
When you buy a product, you’re not paying for the labor to create it, you’re paying for its utility to you. The cost of labor and materials are waste that should be reduced and has little to do with the attractiveness of the product. If cook A can make one steak at a time and cook B can do two, that doesn’t make A’s steak more valuable, it just means the labor cost is higher. If B’s steak tastes better, B can command a higher price than A.
EA pays ~$50M per year for exclusive use of their IP and probably some amount to the Madden estate as well. When you buy a Madden game, you’re paying for that exclusively, and that’s the utility that series provides. It just so happens that the NFL and Madden IPs are more valuable than the a Baldur’s Gate IPs, so Larian needs to put a lot more effort in to sell their games than EA with Madden despite also having exclusivity over their own IPs.
So yes, BG3 costs more to make than Madden, but that doesn’t mean it has higher value, it just means it costs more. Just like that steak from cook A, more effort doesn’t increase value, it just increases costs, value is a subjective evaluation by the customer about utility.
Right… worth is subjective. Not gonna argue that. What I’m talking about is the effort put into the game and the value presented to the customer base. Madden 24 vs. Baldur’s Gate 3. One is from a company who is copy-pasting the previous year’s game and updating the roster. The other is a years long effort and labor of love in a feature complete package. Both are priced at $60. Only one is “worth” $60 if we go by the effort and work put into it. That’s what I mean when I talk about a game being actually worth $60.
Baldur’s Gate 3 isn’t worth $60 to someone who loves sports games, and the opposite is true for those who don’t. A lot of the target demographic is sports fans who like playing with friends sometimes, and having an accurate roster is a huge part of the experience. Games like Madden pay a ton in royalties to license those names because that’s what players want.
If you’re going to get hundreds if not thousands of hours in a game, $60 is a pretty good deal. I pay far more than that for Paradox strategy games, and I think it’s a pretty good deal. But your average gamer wouldn’t and complains about DLC prices and whatnot.
That said, I don’t think a game like Madden should be in the running for Game of the Year awards but a game like Baldur’s Gate 3 absolutely should, and that’s based on objective impact of the game on its genre. But that’s completely independent of sale price and value.
You are confusing subjective and objective. I’m comparing the objective prices of two games based on the quality of work put into them, you are talking about the subjective value on a per-customer basis. There is no accounting for taste, so I won’t argue the subjective nature of perceived worth. What I’m arguing is the actual worth of the game based on the effort put into it. You can microwave a steak, or you can grill it, in both examples the meal is cooked. Either one can be priced at $25, but only one is worth it for the work that went into the meal. Regardless of how much the NFL license costs, the value of the work put into the yearly Madden release pales in comparison to most games, let alone BG3, or most 4x/strategy games. The cost to produce Madden is much lower than other games, and so when it gets resold, it’s rarely resold at a loss. Granted, volume should also be taken into consideration, but I don’t want to overcomplicate things further.
Value is always subjective and generally has nothing to do with effort, but supply and demand. The NFL IP is a lot more valuable than the Baldur’s Gate IP, so having a monopoly on that IP drives up price.
When you buy a product, you’re not paying for the labor to create it, you’re paying for its utility to you. The cost of labor and materials are waste that should be reduced and has little to do with the attractiveness of the product. If cook A can make one steak at a time and cook B can do two, that doesn’t make A’s steak more valuable, it just means the labor cost is higher. If B’s steak tastes better, B can command a higher price than A.
EA pays ~$50M per year for exclusive use of their IP and probably some amount to the Madden estate as well. When you buy a Madden game, you’re paying for that exclusively, and that’s the utility that series provides. It just so happens that the NFL and Madden IPs are more valuable than the a Baldur’s Gate IPs, so Larian needs to put a lot more effort in to sell their games than EA with Madden despite also having exclusivity over their own IPs.
So yes, BG3 costs more to make than Madden, but that doesn’t mean it has higher value, it just means it costs more. Just like that steak from cook A, more effort doesn’t increase value, it just increases costs, value is a subjective evaluation by the customer about utility.