Topic: Japanese games vs Western games... The big divide.

I'm changing the title of this topic from 'Should console manufacturers stop promoting $60 games?', since the debate has now become much more interesting.

Thanks @WaltzElf !
_{please make sure to leave reference to what the thread used to be called; it saves time and confusion — TBD}

I'd rather have one big budget game like Zelda than 30 small Iphone games. And I'm willing to pay for it.

No. No no no no no no no. Oh god please no.

What's wrong with cheaper games? Look at how popular Xbox Live Arcade is. Look at the iOS service. Granted iOS has plenty of crap, but it has tons of potential too.

I don't mind cheap games. But just because the iOS/XBL/PSN games are popular does not mean they are good. You can put ANY iOS/XBL/PSN game next to a big budget retail title and it'll look like crap compared to it.

You pretty much get what you're paying for with big budget titles. A big and lengthy experience, same thing goes for cheap games which are often short and a lot less memorable.

>:[ Scott Pilgrim VS The World: The Game is better than 50% of big budget retail games!

It might be. That's why I said 'big budget retail games' and not just retail games.

Back in my day we use to pay $50 for a copy of Super Mario Galaxy and we liked it, you wiper snappers and your 1 dollar games.

@19Robb92

That comment just disregarded practically every single game for the NES, Super NES, Sega Genesis, Game Boy, DS, etc. You're saying smaller games can't be compared favorably to big-budget games? Games during the NES era were extremely limited, yet they were still fun. This whole "the bigger the game, the better it is" philosophy is ridiculous; it's like saying a low-budget movie is crap just because it doesn't have the latest CG effects or doesn't star any big-name actors.

To all the people who are against "cheap games":
I guarantee you've bought stuff from WiiWare, Xbox Live Arcade, or PSN. Did you find value in those titles? If so, then my point is proven.

There are games that are totally worth the $60 price point though, and I don't want to see those disappear. Especially if it's just so developers can get lazy and develop cheap, easy stuff all across the board.

No. I count the big games compared to the system they are on. I count A Link to the Past as a 'big budget title' for the SNES and so on. Can't compare old games with new ones, no point.

The point is however, that new XBL/PSN/iOS games don't compare in quality, length, story or anything really compared to the big titles like Zelda or Uncharted. Even older big retail games like Super Mario World for SNES is still A LOT better than 90% of the XBL/PSN/iOS games.

This.

Do you really think that we need four different "Apples" in the gaming market? NO. Absolutely not.

Well you're right about that. But look at Dead Space for the iPod. It's a $5 game, yet it looks and plays like a console title. The reason those games are so cheap is cause they know people will buy them. This generates more sales.

People like buying cheap things. The more expensive something is, the less likely people will buy it. Look at the PS3 when it was $500+.

This.

Do you really think that we need four different "Apples" in the gaming market? NO. Absolutely not.

Stop giving Apple all the credit. This whole thing started with Microsoft and Xbox Live Arcade. Apple just monetized it, using real money instead of "points".

I'd rather pay full price for a quality game, then a buck for something that's good for a few minutes.

Yes, but do you really think they want it to replace their big games that really bring in the money? No. Think about it. Sure, there are great downloadable games out there, and some of em ARE better than several big budget releases. At the same time, would you really want to have a lot of good-quality, smaller, downloadable titles, or a lot of good-quality, long, big budget titles?

How exactly does this prove why console manufacturers should abandon the "big-budget" $60 games and instead focus on cheaper downloadable titles?

They still don't offer the same experience. If I would buy a game from say, PSN, and was expecting something like Zelda. I would be severely disappointed and don't think it would be worth the money spent. But when I download a PSN title I expect a smaller but till enjoyable experience, not Zelda or any other big budget title. That's why it becomes worth the money.

I enjoyed the cheaper games I downloaded on PSN but that does not prove your point. You suggested that companies flat out abandon "big budget" titles and focus on cheaper downloadable titles, which I would not wish happen at all, despite the joy I find out of my cheaper games. My $10 tetris for my PS3 has offered me a lot of fun, but it pales in comparison to the amount of gameplay and fun that the $60 Red Dead Redemption gave me. I'll quit gaming if all of the companies resort to $2 games. Indeed, gaming will be easier on my wallet, but the experience offered by those games just isn't what I desire from my video games.