Noticing a new trend

[Alienman]

It's the "it's only 20 euros, what do you expect?"

I have seen it in many discussions lately - it's like a immunity shield from all criticism, especially combined with the "few developer on the project" -argument. It frustrates the hell out of me. Many discussions just ebbs out into a discussion about AAA vs. Indie with a pinch of "unrealistic expectations". It perplex me as well, since this argument seems to make the statement that everything under 20 is of lower quality, but it's just not true since you can buy both 'new' and old great games for far less. Fresh releases seems to have this immunity though.

Is this a fair argument to make? What do you all think?

I personally don't know. Maybe it is something you will have to take into consideration, maybe I'm unfair. Maybe it's a case to case basis? But the thing is I value my money and spending it on mediocrity is so damn angsty.

 

[DragoFireheart]

If a pile of shit is a pile of shit, I'm going to call it a pile of shit regardless of what makeup or price tag you put on it.

 

[Alienman]

If a pile of shit is a pile of shit, I'm going to call it a pile of shit regardless of what makeup or price tag you put on it.

Sure, but I'm thinking more in the lines of price of the game ever should be taking into considering - quality-wise (like there is something missing, but overlooked and ignored by people because of price)
But if a game is shit, it's shit, no matter what price point I guess.

 

[Angthoron]

How's this a new trend? This shit's been around for ages.

 

[JarlFrank]

The good thing about being a pirate: all games are free, so you will compare a shitgame to good games, not to other shitgames.

Also, GoG offers some of the best games ever for less than 20 bucks. Yeah, they're 10 to 20 years old, but they're good and they're cheap.
One could excuse a short gamelength or comparatively simple design with small team and low price, but you can't ever excuse shit quality.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

It should be taken into consideration when aspects that cost money are being discussed (of course you can't expect bleeding edge graphics or full orchestral symphonic soundtrack from a budget title), but creativity and good taste (dialogue, level design, sensible UI, etc) aren't restricted by that so it's fair to take jabs at those.

 

[pippin]

I think that perspective is held by people who are constantly paying 60 bucks for the new AAA release, and ignore that digital distribution is way cheaper than making physical copies. This is probably why people complained so much about The Order, even when a 7-8 hour long "cinematic" shooter is not too far away from Bioshock Infinite, aka The BEST game EVER. At least for me this is very confusing. I am used to pay up to 20 bucks for my games, and that "it's just 20 bucks, what did you expect?" is kinda invalid when most of the greatest games I've played were between $6 and $20.
This happens because people want to be sure and happy with the idea of heir money being well spent in every aspect of their lives, as if good taste could be quantified and bought.

 

[Average Manatee]

It's an OK perspective to take when talking about things that cost lots of money. If some indie company with 2 people is making an RPG I don't expect full quality voice acting or texture and model quality that will put my video card to the test.

Where it falls apart is when using it to defend things that are money-independent. If a game has basic balance problems, glaring plot holes, a horrendous UI, outright bugs, or other such things, you can't defend shit with the "only $20" shtick.

 

[Abu Antar]

If a game has good gameplay but not top notch presentation, I can accept this statement. If a game has shit gameplay, I don't care what the price point is.

 

[deuxhero]

Being low price can make a 3/5 game a 4/5, but it can't make a 4/5 a 5/5 on its own, and it won't make a 2/5 a 3/5 or a 1/5 a 2/5.

One thing I AM completely willing to overlook because of price point is a game being short.