Topic: Steven Spielberg Wii exclusive

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

Boom Blox makes Wiis explode?  Oh, I'll have to pass on it for now then.

[GoldenPhoenix]

I haven't had any problem with the disk.

[Jonnyboy117]

Boom Blox is awesome.  I played it for hours and hours today, both single and multi.

[Spak-Spang]

After some more time with the game, I can tell you that this game can get frustrating.  The time limit on the levels involving pulling pieces out Jenga style is just evil.  Sometimes gold is seems impossible. 

I would limit the game to about an 8 rating, now...but still recommend it to everyone, it deserves to be bought...I can't wait for the sequel.

[Morari]

Boom Blox has definitely proven itself as a fun title. The game modes can vary wildly in quality however, and I was disappointed that some sort of Adventure Mode wasn't available for multiple players. I do also wish that I could zoom in and out in the game. You can do so in the level editor, but nowhere else where it might be handy. :\

I've also had quite a bit of skittish behavior from the Wii remotes when starting a turn or such. The cursor will just flail around wildly or the nunchuck's analog stick won't work at first. Odd.

And that damn "Chemical Golf" level remains as the only non-gold level I have. I hate that level.

[decoyman]

I haven't played the game yet, but was really hoping that it wouldn't be priced at $50, and it is. Was thinking that $40 for a puzzle game would be the sweet spot. Worst case, I'd hoped there'd be some sort of deals on it during the release week, but there aren't any that I've seen, other than "Get a $10 GC at Circuit City." That doesn't help my out-of-pocket expenditures, though.

Granted, the game's apparently just brilliant, so I'll still probably get it, even at full price. I'm all for supporting a solid 3rd party effort.

What exactly did Spielberg do in this game, anyways? Apparently it's not story...

[Kairon]

What IS IT that makes gamers think that puzzle games are somehow worth less money than other games? I mean... odds are that puzzle games are the only genre to rival RPGs in terms of total playtime.

[GoldenPhoenix]

What IS IT that makes gamers think that puzzle games are somehow worth less money than other games? I mean... odds are that puzzle games are the only genre to rival RPGs in terms of total playtime.

Good point. Boom Blox is not a shallow game and it is obvious alot of development time went into it. The game is fully featured with more modes than most traditional games have.

[Flames_of_chaos]

What exactly did Spielberg do in this game, anyways? Apparently it's not story...

Spielberg developed the game concept, mechanics and the characters in the game. I think Spielberg did an excellent job to lead the EA team to make a superb game.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

Spielberg rode a bicycle in the air thru EA's dev offices while eating Miyamoto Mushrooms(TM).

[decoyman]

What IS IT that makes gamers think that puzzle games are somehow worth less money than other games? I mean... odds are that puzzle games are the only genre to rival RPGs in terms of total playtime.

Good point. Boom Blox is not a shallow game and it is obvious alot of development time went into it. The game is fully featured with more modes than most traditional games have.

I'm thinking of development time. Do you think Boom Blox took as long in development as Spielberg's two other games he's working on? HINT: there's a reason this one was released first, and we barely know anything about the other two games. Yet, they will only cost the same amount as all other games on the PS360, which is slightly more expensive than Boom Blox, just because of the pricing standards which have been set.

To take the analogy further, do you think Boom Blox spent as much time in development as Mario Galaxy or Brawl? Those both retailed for $50, the same as Boom Blox. GP and Kairon, do you think as much development time went into Boom Blox as Galaxy or Brawl? I sure don't.

If I'm designing a logo, I don't charge based on how much use the client is going to get out of the logo. I charge based on how long it takes me to concept and design. The same should hold true for games.

[Kairon]

If I'm designing a logo, I don't charge based on how much use the client is going to get out of the logo. I charge based on how long it takes me to concept and design. The same should hold true for games.

But you're selling an ongoing collaborative design service whereas games are sold as 100% complete (hopefully) pre-packaged commodities. As such, their prices reflect end user utility and... well, I guess market demand.

[decoyman]

If I'm designing a logo, I don't charge based on how much use the client is going to get out of the logo. I charge based on how long it takes me to concept and design. The same should hold true for games.

But you're selling an ongoing collaborative design service whereas games are sold as 100% complete (hopefully) pre-packaged commodities. As such, their prices reflect end user utility and... well, I guess market demand.

Nope. Once I'm finished with the logo, I prepare all the files they'll ever need for production, burn a CD and send it off to the client with the invoice for number of hours worked. They take it and run with it, and I never have to deal with it again.

What do you think they'd do if I said, "I spent 15 hours on this logo. However, I'm going to charge you a different way this time. See, I've estimated the number of times this logo will be viewed over its lifetime, and the price is now, (some much higher number)." What do you think they'd say? They'd freak out. Should a mechanic, after replacing your engine, say, "Ok, you're gonna get 100,000 more miles out of this baby now, that'll be..." ? No, he'll say, "For X hours of labor, and the cost of parts, this is what you'll pay."

NOW... if we're going off of Market Demand, ok. I'll accept that, if the copies go flying off the shelf at $50, they were right to charge that much, and I can't argue with them. But I wonder what the elasticity of a price of a game is... Would they have earned more if they'd charged $40 and sold a bunch more? I have no clue.

For me, though, the point is pretty much moot. As I said, I'll still probably be picking this one up, full-price. Meh. I just wished it was cheaper because I'm po' this month.

Edit: Nearly forgot my last point... Are we paying extra to get a Nike logo on a t-shirt?

[Kairon]

I believe this title has been in development ever since shortly after that E3 2006 photo of Miyamoto and Spielberg playing Wii Sports. The EA-Spielberg partnership was actually announced before then, in October 2005. Given a development cycle probably 2 years long, does that make the $50 price easier to swallow?

[decoyman]

I believe this title has been in development ever since shortly after that E3 2006 photo of Miyamoto and Spielberg playing Wii Sports. The EA-Spielberg partnership was actually announced before then, in October 2005. Given a development cycle probably 2 years long, does that make the $50 price easier to swallow?

It depends on how big the team was. Maybe.

[Kairon]

It included Spielberg. That's a guy who earns a good $20 million for every movie he makes... So no matter the number of people on the team, you can be sure that in dollar terms it was sizable.

[decoyman]

Edit: Nearly forgot my last point... Are we paying extra to get a Nike logo on a t-shirt?

[Kairon]

OH, that's what you meant by that! Well... yes. If that Nike logo added value, then it makes sense to. Based on what I know of the development, Spielberg really WAS integral to the shaping of the game.

I mean, you DO pay more for better service and quality. If you were known as the top guy in your field, you'd be able to command higher rates for your work. This qualifies for developers and logo designers alike.

And, whether we like it or not, In the real world Air Jordan's DO cost extra.

[Mario]

Who cares, this is way more fun than Galaxy. Silly nintards trying to justify destroying the industry (with speculation no less). Third parties were RIGHT!

[GoldenPhoenix]

I don't think development time or budget should reflect price. Take the movie industry example a low budget movie is going to cost as much to see as a big budget one. The "value" comes from the experience the customer has with not the material cost to create it.

[Spak-Spang]

Are we still arguing about the value of this game?  When Tetris came out did you buy it for $40.00 or whatever price it was at the time?  When Planet Puzzle League came out for the DS did you spend the full $30.00 for the game? 

Just because it doesn't have HD graphics, a story, or kick ass sound does not make the game bad.

The graphics are stylized and do the job it needs.  The game controls well enough, but not perfect...and the game is full of options.

Jenga like puzzles, Point collection Puzzles, Targeted Destruction puzzles and Adventure/Story mode puzzles.  Not to mention create a puzzle mode, and a pretty fun multi player game experience.  Nobody ever thought the game was perfect, but it is fun and worth buying.

In fact, yesterday I had a group of friends over, two were novice gamers or non gamers, we focused on Mario Kart, and Boom Blox, and Boom Blox was the game that was the sure fire hit.  Everyone had a blast, and everyone figured out how to play it.  The game is simple, but it has great depth and design.

Honestly, it is worth the price. 

[Kairon]

In fact, yesterday I had a group of friends over, two were novice gamers or non gamers, we focused on Mario Kart, and Boom Blox, and Boom Blox was the game that was the sure fire hit.  Everyone had a blast, and everyone figured out how to play it.  The game is simple, but it has great depth and design.

Honestly, it is worth the price. 

Sounds great. Can't wait for mine to arrive!

[blackfootsteps]

If I'm designing a logo, I don't charge based on how much use the client is going to get out of the logo. I charge based on how long it takes me to concept and design. The same should hold true for games.

I don't know the state of the law in America but in Australia the designer of a logo retains ownership of the logo. Obviously in most cases the client will purchase the right to use that logo in addition to the work done. Hence why our largest telecommunication provider Telstra paid half a million for the rights to use the logo howsoever they wish.

[Gamejunkie]

Are we still arguing about the value of this game?  When Tetris came out did you buy it for $40.00 or whatever price it was at the time?  When Planet Puzzle League came out for the DS did you spend the full $30.00 for the game? 

Just because it doesn't have HD graphics, a story, or kick ass sound does not make the game bad.

The graphics are stylized and do the job it needs.  The game controls well enough, but not perfect...and the game is full of options.

Jenga like puzzles, Point collection Puzzles, Targeted Destruction puzzles and Adventure/Story mode puzzles.  Not to mention create a puzzle mode, and a pretty fun multi player game experience.  Nobody ever thought the game was perfect, but it is fun and worth buying.

Honestly, it is worth the price. 

My sentiments exactly.

[decoyman]

If I'm designing a logo, I don't charge based on how much use the client is going to get out of the logo. I charge based on how long it takes me to concept and design. The same should hold true for games.

I don't know the state of the law in America but in Australia the designer of a logo retains ownership of the logo. Obviously in most cases the client will purchase the right to use that logo in addition to the work done. Hence why our largest telecommunication provider Telstra paid half a million for the rights to use the logo howsoever they wish.

It's a case-by-case basis for rights/ownership over creative materials. Unless you're working for a huge corporation, that sort of thing (charging crazy amounts for ownership) won't generally go over. And I'm definitely not a Telstra or the person-equivalent when it comes to ability to spend crazy amounts for the things I buy.

 But really, I think this whole debate stemmed from my one little comment:

... was really hoping that it wouldn't be priced at $50, and it is. Was thinking that $40 for a puzzle game would be the sweet spot.

That's it, really. One little line of text that didn't even preclude my intention to buy the game, even at that price. I just wish it weren't full-price, that's all. Maybe after I play it, and find I've put 100 hours into it, I'll say, "Yeah, it was totally worth it."

Till then, we can agree to disagree on the two schools of game pricing theory - projected "perceived end-value" by the consumer or development time costs.