After reading all the posts slamming Bethesda and Obsidian for the overall state of the game, I started to give some consideration to the economics involved.

Before I start, let me preface this my stating that prior to the initial patch I experienced crashes and save game problems. I patched and then dropped my Hardware Sound Acceleration a notch (which I blame Creative for, btw) and haven't had a single problem. I've completed the game once and just reached The Strip on my second run through.

For those that started with the classics, Zork, Wasteland, Bard's Tale etc.., it's fairly apparent that as PC gaming ages, the number of bug ridden releases increases as well. Given the possible number of hardware/software configurations 30 years ago versus today and the skyrocketing cost of labour it's not hard to understand why - it is impossible to test for every configuration and still maintain a profit margin that will appease shareholders; that's why consoles are so appealing to developers and publishers.

Looking at the retail cost of a PC game today, the price hasn't changed appreciably compared to most other retail items in the last couple of decades - of course consumer expectations have increased drastically. We want bigger, better and faster - all for less.

So how much extra would you be willing to pay for your games if that meant an increased level of testing and end product stability? $10, $20, $30?

About 30 bucks...which is what I've been paying all along for the "much lower bug count" versions.

Step 1: Ignore pricey $60-range release-day version.

Step 2: Ignore $10-a-pop DLCs

Step 3: Once Gold/GotY version is released, wait for sale rack.

Step 4: Get whole shebang for $30 after the post-release testing and patching cycle with paying theta testers is over.


I made the mistake of not following my own rules with New Vegas. Never again, believe you me.

I have not had that much trouble with FO3 or New Vegas. I did have some crashes but patch fixed it. Its not a matter of cost for me its a matter of waiting.

What format has the most problems? PC, Xbox or Playstation?

$0.00

I simply don't experience the same kinds of problems everybody else seems to be experiencing. I never have. I am content paying what I have been paying and not a dollar more.

For a functioning game, I would pay what I paid when I assumed I was getting a functional game.

I'm not sure if I would pay anything extra. Although from my memory, major game prices have remained largely flat or declining, until recently.

The reason that i would not be willing to pay extra for a supposedly better tested or guaranteed game at the outset is complicated.

1. It is impossible to thoroughly test a modern game in-house. No captive QA team can even approximate the level of testing by an avid fan-base in the wild.

2. I almost never buy a first release (FONV was a rare exception.) I wait until the first patch, check the forums and look for the first cheat codes. That way if there are any big bugs left I can console around them.

Nothing. It shouldn't be a problem in the first place, and they should be able to produce a bug-free game.

I was NV bug-free though so I don't care.

0.00 I simply don't experience the level of bugs some people have problems with. The worst game for me was fable 2 was unplayable but I found out months later the problem was my controller.

Well New Vegas has worked fine for me so far (though I'm on the 360). That said, I think I can still comment on what I'd pay for games, and it stands at $60. If it had to raise any, maybe $62. I mean sure movie tickets have risen recently, but only by a few bucks so if game prices do rise I wouldn't expect them to take a huge leap. If they'd jump to $70 and game companies continue to try to stop used game sales (quoted from the current issue of OXM: "A recent federal court ruling stated that a software publisher can prohibit people who purchase its software from reselling the product to others. This ruling could impact not only GameStop's hearty resale business, but also eBay and any other outlets that sell used games.) I'd just stop buying video games and find a new hobby.

$0.00 - They are already way too expensive at release.

Hell, I didn't even pay for New Vegas at full price. I wouldn't have even bought it but it happened to be Blackfriday and there was a good sale. I expected it to be buggy, but it was worse than I thought.

As I get older it seems much easier to restrain myself to impulse buy, so I usually hold off on games in general until they reduce in price and get the glitches sorted out. Plus you get to let the biased reviews settle and people get more of a chance to decide its a good game or not.

Waaaiit a minute...
Back then software companies had no Direct X (or equivalent). You had to have overlay drivers for graphics and sound that supported whatever the machine had (not just ATI/Nvidia).
Today they make the game for each console, but then they made for each OS.
You'll find a lot of games that list the credits of different teams responsible for each version of the game.

Games back then cost more (at retail) than they do now .

http://www.mobygames.com/game/curse-of-the-azure-bonds cost $50...
and some cost as much as $90.

For me, I would have to decide on a game by game basis.

I'm not often presented with major bugs. So with that history I would not be eager to pay more.
But this solely based on my inexperience with fatally buggy games.

You do raise an interesting point. Game prices have indeed remained pretty stable over the years.
Still most of my games are bought through sales and I only buy games that I'm either really excited about on or before release.

Aside from the occasional ctd, the cowboy repeater acting weird now and then, and the scorpion graphics glitches I'm pretty happy with the game. This is a huge game with a gazillion different variables.. I'm honestly amazed it works this good.

Err the same I paid for Fallout 3? Had no problems with FO3 on the 360....... Massive problems with the DLC bug on FONV to the point were I am waiting for the fix as not willing to play the 10 hours over again. And come on, apart from the storyline you ain't telling me FONV is leaps or bounds technology wise over FO3 surely? It's not. It's clealy built on FO3. Same coding team? Doubt it. I paid ￡40 or $70 for FONV. I'm not happy, but I was content and enjoying the game up to the DLC point. So you can build on previous titles with the same level of graphics (and background music) and still make a great game but FONV has been massively let down and I feel let down. So I think your argument is wrong in this case. This is not a new base build i.e. years of graphics engine development. Jingle bells, jingle bells, jingle all the way to the cash register is the main fault here............. in my opinion. Plus Rogue agent probably didn't help. From a serious gamer to another.

No argument here - I'm not saying what is right, or what is wrong just a few observations.

I agree with you - NV was built of the FO3 platform, so actual development would probably be easier than a brand new game. I'm not sure how much easier, but certainly a little less time should have been required.

Yes, no Direct X but there was also MUCH less hardware/software on the market to cause conflicts or unexpected bugs. Testing the game on all possible configurations was a somewhat realistic goal - impossible by todays standards.

Same as I paid at release. 125 US Dollars and 7 cents

$0 extra.

They can't handle making anything but bug-ridden games, get out of the business.

Games back then had to deal with segmented memory and had extended memory, and/or expanded memory, and CGA, EGA, VGA, MCGA, or Tandy video (and this just on the PC); and optional mouse and sound, Tandy Sound, Adlib, Gravis, Roland. (even optional hard disks!)...
A lot of hardware, (that was just as expensive then as now ~often more so).... and with a greatly reduced potential market. Buying all that stuff and testing it all could have been equally impossible for many studios.

These days... when you are selling 5 million copies and getting 300 million out of it (eventually); is there an excuse not to contract Q&A? Not to contract 2 or 3 independent Q& A teams and compare the results?
~and this, without any price increase.

A game company [any company!] should pride itself on their product, and be loathe to sign their name to it if its flawed. If you bought a tv that needed firmware updates to function as advertised, how would you feel?
(would you feel comfortable paying them more if they promised to test it more before offering it?)

So, pay extra money for something they should already do at the current price?
[censored] no.
Nu-uh.
Game prices are already sky-high, do not want them to raise 'em even more.

QFT... some titles are now around ￡50 sterling in the UK.... what's that now? $70 or so. Is that not an adequate price and worthy of expecting release titles to work properly? Seems to pay the bills ok at most gaming studios... at least to keep the lights on, power at least one PC and make millions in profit...

I would pay a hundred bucks for an ES Title though.

Same gameplay as Oblivion? (leveled loot, enemies, and amnesia)

If that's how much I end up paying for ES V, I will remember your comment and persecute you mercilessly in this life and the next.

*fixed? (I haven't played the old games... Don't hurt me. )