$50 vs. $5

[steven]

The beauty of old games, like Saturn or SNES titles... is that they sold for $50 or more in their hey day, but many can now be picked up for as low as $5. Does that affect you in how you feel about the game itself? For example, take B.O.B on SNES for example. It's just one of countless hundreds me-too platformers... and while I have beaten it and enjoyed it tremendously -- at $50 I would feel slightly cheated.

At $5? It was a great buy, Naturally, it affects the overall way I feel about the game... as I'm more friendly to gameplay "faults" because hey, I didn't pay an arm and leg for it.

So do you judge games good or bad based somewhat on how much it cost you?

Maybe it's not the best rating system, but that's how I operate. I give B.O.B an 8/10.... but had it been 1993 again and I paid $50, I'd probably slag it more toward the 7/10 range and definitely be less hesitant to recommend it.

Just curious on different perspectives here.

[shido]

But the thing is that most of the good SNES or Saturn games are cost now much more than 50$ (see for example Pazner Dragoon Saga or Lufia 2 or Guardian Heroes or many more). But if you do find some avarge plus game for 5$ yeah it's a good deal.

[The bag of sand]

yeah i'm the same. I got some james bond game for game cube and it sucks balls, I got it for $6 but if i payed $20-30 I would of probaly been pissed.

[Discoalucard]

Definitely. It applies to old games too though. Like Dracula X I'd recommend even though it's really expensive. On the other hand, Kaze Kiri is a fun game, but definitely not $100 good. I've got a burned copy, so I never paid money for it to begin with, but I probably would've liked it less if I had.

I sometimes score games based on this when I write reviews elsewhere. Like, that Rockstar Table Tennis game is fun, but not remotely worth $40. Would've been much better as a Xbox Live Arcade game.

[megatronbison]

In the same vein as what Kurt said: Ginga Fukei Densetsu Sapphire is a great wee shooter on the PC Engine and for what it technically does it is rather amazing. However is it worth £300+? I would say no and in a lot of ways declare it overrated for its price tag.
I tend to find that with buying up older games etc... I tend to play them less now because I can get them for so cheap. Its almost as if when I buy a new/recent game I feel as though I have to milk it for every penny of its £30+ worth. (Unless it is something that underwhelmed me as much as Mega Man ZX...Wish I had left it another 3 years before I picked it up!)

[ahnslaught]

I don't really judge the fun of games based on how much I paid for it. I do judge a game based on how fun it is as compared to all stuff I could be playing, though, so I never take how amazing or whatever it was back in the day into account for judging how much I like a game.

To use Sapphire as an example again, I've heard people say it's great because of its technical achievements for its time and is worth it because of that and its rarity. I've also heard comments that suggest the gameplay's pretty archaic and doesn't really stand the test of time. In this example, I would never fork out the money for it since it's just not that fun to play now - I have enough games on my to-play list that would be much more entertaining.

On the other hand, I would gladly shell out lots of cash for games like Thunder Force 3 or Layer Section just because it's still as fun to play now as it was then, at least for me. I have no problem with paying lots for old games; as long as it's still fun, I consider it money well spent.