Andrew - your trolling attempts aren't going to get a reaction out of anyone here. I had a feeling the liberals were behind this, and Rainer just confirms it. The socialists would probably say "Oh, free Portal 2 for everyone" if Obama had his way.
Yeah the first was even just kind of an experiment, they had no idea how popular it would become. This one's single player campaign is was longer with loads of new experimental scientific stuff, like the gels for instance. I don't know how much longer it will be, but it will be much longer. IMO the co-op is what's the most exciting, the co-op alone was estimated to be around... 3 times longer than the single player from portal 1. (i think... it was something like that). and from what I've heard, Valve is most excited about it too, saying they were surprised at how co-op changed the gameplay so dramatically, it's more than just having 4 portals to work with, "players not only have to play cooperatively but also think cooperatively".
no the single player is about 3.5 times as long as the first game and the coop is about twice as long. its 60 bucks because the first game was more of an experiment by valve to see if the concept was solid enough to be successful. we could go so far as to say that the first game was just a taste of the full experience.
So... Someone is complaining that a full game, several years in the making, shouldn't be full price? The much larger dev team shouldn't be paid for their time?
Alright, fine, I'll agree with you. Why not? Valve should be unable to pay its workers and the talent should go to other places while great games from the company fall by the wayside in order to give us more generic shooters in World War II settings.
I always buy my games 6+ months later, save yourself 50-80% the majority of the time. However, rewarding good developers by purchasing their products encourages development of new products with greater expectations, from both the consumer and the developer. Then you have companies that abuse the relationship and release the same generic shooters every year. I think valve is definitely one of the more reputable developers/publishers in terms of customer relations though.
Some people should never have the right to have access to a computer. A good amount are commenting on this discussion. Thought the title of the discussion is stupid so I looked in for a good laugh. Sorry to add on but most republicans are stupid. I mean like stupid stupid. Liberals have more education and better education.....so thats settled. Topic at hand. You dont think the game is worth full price well your in luck! because its not full price its $55 with $20GC. So look at it like $35. Also just think for a sec. about this one ok. I am guessing and 99% sure I will be right but Portal2 will be a lot better then that homefront game which amazon is being nice and offering a $32 tradein credit as of now(personally that game will be hard to resell so I would of just taken the profits and made the consumer eat the game and the poor value it really is at)...well anyways point is if you buy the game and just absolutely hate it then I am sure you will get around $35 or more back for tradein so in the end you might end ahead by a bit or glad you took the chance and still ahead.
It's worth $60 (or $55, or $35... o_o;) simply for being different, in a genre plagued by repetitious Call of Duty-, or Modern-Times-Military-Game-With-Killstreaks-, clones. I understand that some people may be wondering how you can improve on something so unique and classic like Portal 1, but if anyone can put out a sequel, it's Valve.
And before anyone goes, "HOW DARE YOU TALK POORLY ABOUT 'COD'!1!", I'm simply talking about how many games are coming to the market trying to imitate it. It's resulting in poorer-quality games, and it's also seemingly stifling creativity. That's why Bulletstorm and Portal 2 (and to a lesser extent, Homefront's MP, despite all of the bugs and glitches) are worth it. Maybe not Bulletstorm since it lacks replay value, but it was still hella fun the first few times around.
That's just my reasoning, though... Plenty of time to make up your mind. I'd say $25 off a new release is pretty good, though, at the very least.
LOL, games are overpriced? In over 15 years the price of games has only increase by $10 and games are over priced? No... gas is overpriced. Milk is overpriced. Popcorn at the movie theater is indeed overpriced (though the price of the tickets is underpriced compared to what the movie theaters pay for the film). Video games have barely increased while inflation has run rampant. Video games are very much not overpriced. They were definitely overpriced 15 years ago when it took 15 people 6 months to make a game. Nowadays with 250+ people working on a game for 2-4 years, they're finally at the right price for the work put into them. Video games cost money to make. Don't complain about the price and still buy the game. That's just stupid.
Liberals and conservatives in politics have absolutely nothing to do with Valve charging the normal price for a video game they spent 2 years creating. You're delusional.
As for buying games later? I often buy games later in their lifecycle when they go on sale, but there are also many games I buy as soon as they release. Diablo 3 will very much be a day one purchase for me. There are some RPGs that are day one purchases for me. If I'm interested enough in a game I'll shell out the full price for it. Many people feel the same way. I'm sorry you don't make enough money to buy games at full price. Don't ridicule others because your mom won't buy you $60 games.
Yes, liberals claim to hate capitalism all the while fattening their banks (example: Michael Moore, though he fattened more than just his bank account).
Yes, game developers can charge whatever value they believe their product is worth, it won't be long before a single game will cost $100...and plenty of consumers will find it has value. $15 for a 1.5 hour movie, what's the value of a game that engages you for 100 hours?
Liberals just claim that common market failures justify regulation and intervention at times, and a social safety net... they aren't themselves supposed to function in the market economy like conservatives do? Lol, you idiots. At least rich liberals aren't trying to lower taxes for the rich like the rich conservatives do. "Suck it, peasants" -- rich conservatives. "Liberals are the problem" -- non-rich conservatives who believe Fox News.