Why do we keep paying $50-$60 for the same thing over and over?

Take a look at the Call of Duty series for example.

Call of Duty (2003), Call of Duty: United Offensive (2004), Call of Duty 2 (2006), were all based on WWII. Then they released Modern Warfare, which was a fresh and new change, added things like perks and experience. Then they decided to see if they could milk WWII for another release and made World at War in 2008. Then came MW2 in 2009, and Black Ops in 2010. Now they are working on MW3.

Maybe I'm not looking very hard in comparing these games, but they've done 4 games covering WWII, and 3 games covering modern times with almost identical gameplay (soon to be 4). And we as a public continued to buy these games. What about WWI, Vietnam, Korea, Civil War, or even the Revolutionary War. It amazes me how they have continued to be successful with 7 titles with so little differences. Am I missing something?
 
Because people are stupid. Please stop making these threads. Thanks :cool:
 
I don't pay $60 for the same thing over and over again. I gave up on the gaming industry years ago. It's only about every 3 years that a decent PC game comes out anymore anyway.

Go boot up Dosbox and check out abandonia.com to see what "variety" used to mean when it came to PC gaming.
 
I only buy games I like. In the past 4 years I have bought wow, sc2 and halo. That's about it.
 
[F8];1037843185 said:
Maybe I'm not looking very hard in comparing these games, but they've done 4 games covering WWII, and 3 games covering modern times with almost identical gameplay (soon to be 4). And we as a public continued to buy these games. What about WWI, Vietnam, Korea, Civil War, or even the Revolutionary War. It amazes me how they have continued to be successful with 7 titles with so little differences. Am I missing something?
Click to expand...

Ideas:

WWI - Spend the game sitting in a trench until you die of cholera before the credits

Vietnam - Get your legs blown off and then have an FPS simulating a returning soldier getting insulted and called a baby killer by hippie protesters

Korea - I'd play a M*A*S*H* FPS if I get to shoot Radar

Civil War - Stand in a line and fire. Die. Respawn. Repeat

Revolutionary War - Paul Revere Super Horse Rally Racing

Bonus Mission: War of 1812 - Play Canadian troops and the last mission is when they burn down the Whitehouse.
 
There are certain game franchises that I like to play. Honestly, I hate that I paid $$$ for MW and then a couple weeks later MW2. I didn't buy Black Ops because I ended up really disliking the playstyle of the previous two. Instead, I played BC2, which I enjoy a lot. I'll more than likely get BF3, as well. I'm really enjoying the gameplay there.
 
Probably because many people just want more of the same thing but with greater variety to mix things up. There's nothing wrong with that. If you don't want these types of games don't buy them.

The bad thing about this is it means much less innovation in the gaming industry. That's why the indy business is booming.
 
Who's this "we" business? All the games I've bought I've enjoyed immensely... just be a little more cautious, a little more patience...
 
I think this argument is literally people over 25 vs people under 25
 
I don't play first person shooters in general any more. They have to be really, really good. The last one I played was the original modern warfare. Though that's not the important part, I think once you get a bit older and you've had the experience before, people adapt and spend their money elsewhere. I almost never buy games brand new any more. I just picked up portal 2 for 15 bucks, and I feel great about it.
 
The last games I paid full price for was Crysis 2 (March 2011), WoW: Cataclysm (Dec 2010), and WoW: WotlK (Nov 2008). I bought Crysis 2 on release day because my old roommate wanted to do some MP (and I had no interest in MW2), and the WoW expansions, well, if you've played any MMO, you know why I paid full price for those.

Anyway, in the last 6 months, I've gotten each of these games for as little as, well, free:
Batman AA ($8)
Splinter Cell: Conviction ($7)
Grid ($5)
Portal (free)
Crysis + Warhead ($10)
Shogun 2 (free w/ video card)
Dirt 3 (free w/ video card)
BFBC2 ($5)
Dragon Age Origins Ultimate ($8)

That's $43 for 10 games. Once upon a time, I would've probably paid $40-60 each for those. Then I realized how stupid it was to pay full price just to get it on/near release day. The games will be the same, or even better (yay for patches), 6 months later for 1/6th or 1/8th the price.
 
sd11 said:
Provided you have a PC that can make it look better than the console, for the overwhelming majority of people that own computers, as in non upgradable laptops, and all in one desktops, the console version will look better.

And large maps aren't classic, Quake is classic. BF is noobed up large map, no personal skill involved, garbage. Bring on a new tribes if you want a truly classic large map game. You kids and your BF.;)
Click to expand...
That is true, assuming that you are talking about a laptop from 2005, back when the Xbox 360 technology was actually relevant. :D It looks a HELL of a lot better on my Asus G53SW laptop though w/ a quadcore and GTX 460M.
 
I generally been only buying the games when they are super cheap as well. Still haven't played them all.

BFBC2 got 29.99 from me though. Game was worth about that much though IMHO, its good.

Also im still paying 15$ a month for WoW.

Outgrowing old hobbies isn't a bad thing. Feeling like you're not enjoying them as much as you have in the past can be unsettling, but its actually healthy to expand your interests beyond video games.

Has given me more perspective on what is worth my time and money now days.
 
[F8];1037843185 said:
Take a look at the Call of Duty series for example.

Call of Duty (2003), Call of Duty: United Offensive (2004), Call of Duty 2 (2006), were all based on WWII. Then they released Modern Warfare, which was a fresh and new change, added things like perks and experience. Then they decided to see if they could milk WWII for another release and made World at War in 2008. Then came MW2 in 2009, and Black Ops in 2010. Now they are working on MW3.

Maybe I'm not looking very hard in comparing these games, but they've done 4 games covering WWII, and 3 games covering modern times with almost identical gameplay (soon to be 4). And we as a public continued to buy these games. What about WWI, Vietnam, Korea, Civil War, or even the Revolutionary War. It amazes me how they have continued to be successful with 7 titles with so little differences. Am I missing something?
Click to expand...

Yes, you're missing everything I said in my response. It's no coincidence that the COD game surplus started at the same time as when the series hit consoles and started getting really popular.

Activision intentionally saw the success it was having and setup IW and Treyarch to have a new game come out for each year because the demand was there.

As for lack of originality, I don't think there's any more lack than there was in the past. Games like Portal, Deus Ex, and Left 4 Dead show there is still innovation in the genre.
 
MW is amazing for online play but MW2 and 3 I will buy for the single player
 
There are many reasons to answer the OP.

1 people are not really that excited to change in the first place. I have seen so many games like the quakes, UT, CS, WC3 and so on where the old players hated the new changes in the game. If developers listen to that the obvious solution is to keep releasing the same thing over and over with slightly updated graphics.

2 Alot of people just do not care, they want to be slightly amused for a while, not much different than watching TV. Why do people willingly go pay money to see remade movies constantly. Then they sit around and chat about the minor differences. To the vast majority of people gaming is just basic entertainment. Lots of people get a kick out of going to the same bar and drinking the same drink, watching remade movies, and sequals, and playing 30 different itterations of COD/MW/CS/what ever which are all the same to me.

A games success is alot of things including how many players it has. I will be honest I have played alot of games I thought were boring and dumb including CS for one and only one reason, all my friends play it. And there are thousands of stocked servers. I have played alot of sports for the same reason, I really cannot tell you that I enjoy alot of these games and sports the best but heck I guess it is better than watching TV.

I really wish the world was not this way but it is. And now days only a select few companies like Valve have the money and attitude to take a risk on something different (lol and I am not talking about much different). But that is reality. There are lots of cool games out there that have cool features but because they have limited money they are usually very low end in graphics and quality (minecraft). But I suppose eventually if they get popular enough a big studio will dump cash into it and turn it into a AAA title.

Also I like to think of PC games today and all software like this. OSes have gotten better due to competition. Doesnt matter if it is consoles, computers, phones, or tablets. They have all really made alot of progress in recent years. But software has gone down hill. That is because developers no longer have 1 platform they have to think about 6 platforms to develop for. And they have found a great way to make money is to sell people more than 1 item since they want to play on xbox live with their friends who dont know anything and play on a PC to see the great graphics. Things like that.
 
Why do we keep paying $50-$60 for the same thing over and over?

because credit cards are easy to get nowadays

games even at $60 a pop don't kill anyone's wallet...it's the $25 lunches every day or the hundreds of other useless purchases that people make that matter more
 
[F8];1037843185 said:
Take a look at the Call of Duty series for example.

Call of Duty (2003), Call of Duty: United Offensive (2004), Call of Duty 2 (2006), were all based on WWII. Then they released Modern Warfare, which was a fresh and new change, added things like perks and experience. Then they decided to see if they could milk WWII for another release and made World at War in 2008. Then came MW2 in 2009, and Black Ops in 2010. Now they are working on MW3.

Maybe I'm not looking very hard in comparing these games, but they've done 4 games covering WWII, and 3 games covering modern times with almost identical gameplay (soon to be 4). And we as a public continued to buy these games. What about WWI, Vietnam, Korea, Civil War, or even the Revolutionary War. It amazes me how they have continued to be successful with 7 titles with so little differences. Am I missing something?
Click to expand...

Like I said before... people aren't buying it because they want something new. They are buying it because they want more of the same. Who ever said a game had to be new and innovative to be good?

If you dont like buying the same game every few years, dont, simple as that. You aren't going to convince the teeming masses they are doing something wrong for buying a game they enjoy.

If you keep buying it even though its the same AND you dont enjoy it, THEN there's something wrong with you. Like, why the hell would you go buy MW3 if you didn't enjoy BLOPS, MW2 and MW1 and weren't looking for more of the same?
 
Tudz said:
Like I said before... people aren't buying it because they want something new. They are buying it because they want more of the same. Who ever said a game had to be new and innovative to be good?

If you dont like buying the same game every few years, dont, simple as that. You aren't going to convince the teeming masses they are doing something wrong for buying a game they enjoy.

If you keep buying it even though its the same AND you dont enjoy it, THEN there's something wrong with you. Like, why the hell would you go buy MW3 if you didn't enjoy BLOPS, MW2 and MW1 and weren't looking for more of the same?
Click to expand...
Mmmm...MW3. :eek:
 
Games are repetitive. In part, you recognize it because you are older. Lately, I've found chess my most played online game. Tired of all the crap that goes along with other types of gaming
 
Last edited:
The simple answer is because people want something new, regardless of whether it is a rehash or not, it's "new" in name only. People like new things, so therefore, people who like new things buy new things.

I don't think it's a novel concept, it's been that way since the beginning of time.
 
You can always just not buy stuff if you don't like it. You can decide for yourself whether it is worth your money or not, the decision for naming and using franchise games is something which has been cornered a long time ago, look at the endorsements of sports games in the early days.

Technical progress on a title can be very good, you named BF3 and that is surely a step up from the engine they used in the previous BF, but gameplay is still king.....

Once you get older the more you will find most games do not stand out anymore, saves you some cash :) .
 
I'm sick of following an NPC to then next checkpoint. I'm sick of that if I don't run and run like the game wants me to, then the mission fails since I didn't reach the marker specified in time. I'm sick of NPCs yelling at me to do something while I'm enjoying the scenery of the game.

I mean they are making these games idiot proof. They keep barking at the player telling him/her to pull the lever to open the door. Fuck I don't want to open the door right now.

Gone are the games that let you do what you want.

Few of them remain, that is why Oblivion is still installed on my PC. Duke 3D, Half Life. I can stand in a level for hours doing nothing and the mission won't fail and no one will keep barking the same order at me

I was excited about Resistance 3, I enjoyed the first 2 however the 3rd one is just crap. I'm sick of it and can't even fire it up again to finish the SP.

Gonna sell/trade it for AC Revelations when it comes out.
 
Why do we keep paying $50-$60 for the same thing over and over?
Click to expand...
Some of us don't. CoD4 was the last CoD game I bought. I saw no reason to get any of the newer ones, when I could just play CoD4 again if I wanted to play a CoD game.
 
People grow up, they have other things to do. I finally realized this about two years ago...single player gaming is just an interactive movie, so i quit. GTA:IV is a prime example..."chase this guy and kill him"

I know play only multiplayer games against other people and maybe co-op modes.

Torchlight 2
Diablo 3
SW TOR

All upcomming releases.

I will gladly pay $60+ for BF3 because I will play it for months....just like I did COD:MW2 and BF:BC2.
 
boxterduke said:
I'm sick of following an NPC to then next checkpoint. I'm sick of that if I don't run and run like the game wants me to, then the mission fails since I didn't reach the marker specified in time. I'm sick of NPCs yelling at me to do something while I'm enjoying the scenery of the game.

I mean they are making these games idiot proof. They keep barking at the player telling him/her to pull the lever to open the door. Fuck I don't want to open the door right now.

Gone are the games that let you do what you want.

Few of them remain, that is why Oblivion is still installed on my PC. Duke 3D, Half Life. I can stand in a level for hours doing nothing and the mission won't fail and no one will keep barking the same order at me

I was excited about Resistance 3, I enjoyed the first 2 however the 3rd one is just crap. I'm sick of it and can't even fire it up again to finish the SP.

Gonna sell/trade it for AC Revelations when it comes out.
Click to expand...

So, err, stop buying games from the cinematic category? Its not like "cinematic FPS" is the only genre out there. You are allowed to not buy them :p

There's still games being made which dont have big hairy men screaming at you telling you what to do.
 
There are a buttload of games that pretty much make one feel like a passive actor in a crappy movie.
 
Some of us play the superior game called TF2 and we get free new content all the time. Seriously

Blizzard comes out with a playable game once every ten years these days.

Still have to buy all the COD games though since fresh ragers are the best ragers. And honestly if you can look past the lack of a server browser and crappy anti-cheat, in terms of gameplay MW2 is way better than all the other COD's. COD4 is a glorified whack-a-mole that offers nothing different than CS except noob tubes when played properly.

Beta-metro-BF3 was free and is probably better (moving glitch aside) than anything the full release will offer as well with its crappy conquest mode and tickle-me-elmo jets.

TOR looks like it will be worth the money.

Ratchet and Clank and the God of War series will take my money every time. But since they are single player you can just buy those used for 1/5th the price 3 months after release if you are broke.

So not much money really needs to be spent for a good gaming experience in my view of the world.
 
Last edited:
There is probably better gameplay in the bargain bin than the new releases (the older games, the newer ones are there because they suck). You won't need to update your video card to run them, either (of course, you will have a hard time noticing the difference between today's console ports).

The big issue is that the amount of time spent is unlikely to change regardless of the price (well, for games you care to finish). The difference is that you should be able to find a bunch of user driven content for your bargain bin game (PR can buy all the reviews in the world, but I doubt they will pay for a solid wiki plus user made guides). If you can't find the user driven content, forget that game. Life is to short to start a bad game, let alone finish one.
 
I got bored of FPS games after Doom II so... I tend to play a lot of niche indie games that you can find on Steam.
 
Starcrossed said:
Games are repetitive. In part, you recognize it because you are older. Lately, I've found chess my most played online game. Tired of all the crap that goes along with other types of gaming
Click to expand...

Cool. I recently started playing chess again almost every day and enjoy it more than some modern single player games. I still play other co-op/multiplayer games like L4d2 versus and Battlefield 3 on a daily basis though.
 
They release a new game every year just to make money. The games you mentioned(CoD Series) are VERY similar. I don't see a reason to pay $60 every year just to get minor tweaks and bug fixes.
 
CS, Starcraft BW, D2, L4D2, SC2 -- almost all of these games I have 1000+ hours play time. Blizzard and Valve have been good to me. A large part of this is the competitive aspect of these games, so for me, there is ALWAYS something to improve upon or learn. It also helps that I have a group of friends that I'm able to play or scrim with.

I have played other games such as CoD when it was free but to me the replayabilty of many of these games just isn't there. That is especially true for single player games, those will get old fast.
 
These days its impossible for me to justify spending $60 on a new game. Even $50 is something I don't do anymore. $40 is more reasonable.
 
I don't, I can't say why you do..

I don't pay more than $30 for any game, and I don't buy recycled stuff. But apparently someone is since they keep making it. They're just selling what people want, and most people will pick up whatever crap is shoved in front of them. Generally the quality, or amount, of marketing matters more than game quality. The sooner you realize this and get over it the better off you'll be.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top