Tobold's Blog
Friday, July 14, 2023
 
Another pre-order: Jagged Alliance 3

2023 is developing into an unusual year for my video game purchasing habits: I am buying far more games on release than usual. Today is the release of Jagged Alliance 3, and I bought a pre-order key from a key reseller. Assuming I didn't get scammed somewhere during that process, I'll be able to play JA3 from this afternoon on. Until then, I have time to ponder the reasons why I am more willing to buy a game on release than I used to.

One factor is certainly my changed personal situation. As I am retired now, the large chunk of my time that used to be eaten up by work is free time now. Thus hobby events, like game releases, have become relatively more important to me, while they previously were overshadowed by work events. I can actually be there today at 3 pm on a Friday for the release of Jagged Alliance 3, while previously I would at best have downloaded the game on Friday evening after a long day at work, and only started playing on the weekend.

Another factor is price. I haven't become less price sensitive; if anything, I am more price sensitive now, because a pension is always less than the previous salary. But Jagged Alliance 3 is not a terribly expensive game; it's full price is $45, which is already moderate in this new world of $70 games. And then there are pre-order price reductions, and further rebates, even on sites that have an official license from the game developers. Add a further "rebate" by using a grey market key reseller, and I ended up paying only $25. Another case this year was Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom on the Switch, where with the Amazon pre-order price guarantee I ended up paying $60 instead of $70 for my pre-ordered physical game. Knowing Nintendo, the game won't get much cheaper in the future, so I could as well buy it on release.

The counterweight to price is value. I typically ask myself whether for a price of X dollars I'll get at least X hours of fun out of a game. Zelda was a resounding success there, and so was for example Age of Wonders 4, where I have already played 100 hours. For a pre-order, there is a certain amount of guesswork that has to go into this calculation; I guess Jagged Alliance 3 will be another 100+ hour game for me. How do I know? Modern video game marketing via Twitch and YouTube really helps me here. I wouldn't buy a game based on pretty trailer, but I will buy it based on having watched some streamer play the game for several hours. This now being possible before release is great. Even if you have to take into account the possible bias of the streamer being paid to influence me. But watching actual gameplay tells me a lot more than whatever influencing comments that streamer makes, and most people can't fake excitement for hours on end anyway. It also helps that all of the games I mentioned so far were sequels. Knowing how much I played previous games, plus watching actual gameplay confirming the sequel isn't totally different (casting an angry stare at FF16 here), makes it rather likely that I'll get my targeted hours of fun.

The weirdest game I'll probably play for 100+ hours in 2023 and that I pre-ordered is Baldur's Gate 3. I paid full price, $60, for that as far back as October 2020. But then I already played the Early Access for 124 hours, so I can't complain about value for money. The release in August will basically be a non-event. I'm not even sure I'll play the release version more than the early access version, because I actually consider the higher levels of Dungeons & Dragons less interesting than the lower ones. The fact that for the start I'll have to play through an only slightly changed Act I again, which I have already done several times, isn't really that enticing.


Comments:
I'm curious about your metric for value earned, which seems to rely on a flat level of "fun" across a variable amount of time. Fun, though, isn't an unwavering constant. As you allude to in the post, when you suggest people can't generally fake excitement for prolonged periods, fun varies in intensity.

If you paid $60 for a game and had a dozen hours of such intense fun at the start that you almost literally could think of nothing you wanted to do more than play the game (an experience I'm sure we've all had with a game at some time) but then only had a moderate amount of fun for the next dozen hours before losing interest completely at the thirty hour mark, would that constitute equivalent value for money when compared to another $60 game that you considered to be only moderate fun throughout, but which held your attention for a full sixty hours?

Personally, I consider I've had my money's worth if either the initial rush is intense or there's a long, slow burn. Intensity is a factor just as much as longevity - or, indeed, replayability. It's only if I don't really get *either* an overwhelming rush of intense excitement at the start *or* an steady, comfortable flow of entertainment for a good, long time that I'd consider my money wasted.
 
As a professional deformation from being a scientist, I tend to use metrics that are actually measurable. I totally know what you mean when you talk about "intensity of fun", but I wouldn't know how to measure it.

"Hours of fun" works for me, because I have so many games, that when "fun" falls below a certain level, I actually stop playing. I'm not a completionist, and I am not very competitive, thus many of the tactics that game developers use to make people keep playing don't really work on me. With a few exceptions from idle games that ran in the background, the number of hours Steam shows as played are my "hours of fun".
 
Post a Comment

<< Home
Newer›  ‹Older

  Powered by Blogger   Free Page Rank Tool