Gaming and the Perception of Value

In the February 2010 issue of Game Informer magazine, a reader wrote into the Feedback section stating he found an inexpensive game for $13. While he agrees the game did not warrant its initial price $60 tag, he found the game to be well worth the price he did pay. He went on to ask if the magazine could include a section for games that had dropped in price and are better off for it.

GI hints that the game the reader is referring to is D3 Publisher’s Xbox 360 cult favorite, Earth Defense Force 2017, by printing an image of the game and begins its response, “A below-average game is a below-average game; it isn’t worth talking about no matter how much it costs. With all of the great titles on the horizon for 2010, why spend time dwelling on garbage from the past?”

I was very off-put by this comment. Of course, GI has a point; a game’s actual merits don’t change simply because the price does. However, it stands to reason the perception of the game’s value does, indeed, change. My first problem with GI’s statement is more of a tangent than anything else, and it is the magazine’s stark black-and-white outlook on games. Earth Defense Force 2017 received mostly positive or average reviews, if anything, from the gaming media and in fact, GI itself awarded the game an 8 out of 10. Where does this talk of “below-average” and “garbage” games come from? The reader didn’t say anything about a bad game, and putting words in his mouth doesn’t answer his question. Unfortunately, this mentality is likely because GI’s own rating system isn’t terribly accommodating for games that hang out somewhere in the middle. Its rating system guide states that a 7/10 is an “average” game, leaving only a few points (8-10) for good or great games, and over half the scale for what it deems are obviously below average games. That’s not a great way to dissect games, and it obviously pervades how the staff approaches discussing games even outside the context of reviews. It may be a fine scale to ensure a high school student understands and passes Algebra, but it’s not a very good way to mark the intricacies of a medium like video games.

If the only thing gamers play are the games that fall into GI’s 8 or 9 range (which is a rather small range, mind you) as the magazine is surely advocating here, that’s an immense amount of gaming folks are missing out on. If the only thing we gamers purchased were the giant blockbusters, gaming would collapse under its own weight. We’re already seeing it. Budgets in the tens of millions, development teams in the hundreds, studios closing, massive layoffs, and a real aversion to innovation.

GI goes on to say, “Value is important, but you don’t need to settle for bad games.” Again, with the “bad games.” It’s as if the magazine does not understand the many levels of gray. It caps off the response by suggesting the reader check out the console manufacturers’ Greatest Hits games, or inexpensive downloadable games on Xbox Live Arcade or Playstation Network. It also takes a final swipe at “crummy games,” because as we have established, GI has no concept of a “pretty decent” game or a “not-half-bad” game.

I think GI undermines its own point by suggesting the reader play XBLA or PSN games. These games are usually inexpensive, but also do not provide the content or frills that their retail big cousins do. And we, as gamers, tend to understand this. “I’m only getting X amount of content, but then again, I’m paying much less than I would for a title with Y amount of content,” we often rationalize. It’s the whole crux of Microsoft and Sony’s digital stores.

Think of a fast food place, like McDonald’s and a casual sit down place, perhaps like Applebee’s. Now think of the burgers that both eateries offer. One gets a less filling burger at McDonald’s than one would at Applebee’s, but the price difference compensates for this. It’s as if GI is suggesting no one should ever eat at a fast food place again because there are better burgers at other places. Given the price difference, this assertion doesn’t make any sense. There is a reason why both establishments exist, and a reason why cheap games exist.

When a gamer purchases a discounted game, such as Earth Defense Force 2017, I’m sure he or she is under no illusion that the game is suddenly better because it costs less money. But the game’s deficiencies (in the case of Earth Defense Force 2017, perhaps the lack of an online multiplayer) are easily overlooked because the gamer isn’t paying for them. It’s not a difficult concept. And even gamers that don’t sift through the bargain bin for little-known gems like Earth Defense Force 2017 still practice this idea of perceived value. Many such gamers do not hesitate to rush out and buy one game for $60 on launch day, but wait for a price drop for a second game until it hits a desirable level. This may be frugality just as much as it is perceived value, but why buy the first game at full price and not the second? It’s an obvious management of funds versus content, or anticipated enjoyment, or perceived value. It’s laughable that GI would suggest gamers shouldn’t do what we already do everyday, whether we’re picking up Earth Defense Force 2017 on the cheap, or Batman: Arkham Asylum.

And in the end, it’s these gray-area games, these “y’know, it’s pretty good for 20 bucks” games that we really should be taking a look at every now and then. The big name games will always be there, churning out one right after another, and GI will be right there to let us know. But games like Earth Defense Force 2017, they’re not as noticeable. Their mascots are not plastered on the side of soft-drink cans, and they don’t have boisterous Flash ads on ign.com. We, as gamers, should take the time to notice them once in a while. And if they offer some entertainment for a paltry asking fee, we shouldn’t be discouraged from being a little adventurous. That’s the last thing this industry needs.