By "not worth it" I don't mean you shouldn't get it if it's your thing. Hell, I got it myself and it's great. But there aren't enough bits and cards to warrant the price tag.

*Only 6 heroes? C'mmon, we should have got at least 8. Hell, Descent has 20 and AH has 16...
*Only 50 dungeon cards and only 15 cards in most other decks.
*Only 4 dice. In a 4 player game players would need to share dice. 8 would have been optimal.

So either we should have gotten more bits and cards or the price should have been $49.95 at most.

The pricing of game really isn't as much about the number of components. And overall, production costs for all business (and then there is the rising cost of retail and wholesale shipping) are on the rise. It's inevitable with the state of the world economy.  I agree that the price tag is stiff, but there it is.  More components would have raised the price even more, and already this edition is more fiddly and fussy than the previous one.

Get it on amazon for $40.

Whaaaa? Avi has DQ ?

JCHendee said:

that's blullshit and you know it. I can list you 10 ffg games for $40-$50 that have more components.

Dam said:

Yeah, maybe because of you. Now you should get Kingsport because of him ::laughter::

If I'd have that kind of clout over Avi, I'd rather get him to toss away his KH and join the anti-KH-Alliance .

Dam said:

::laughter:: anyway, he bought DQ just after you and the-troll-who-should-not-be-fed talked about the game. I hope it's because of you, and not because of K. Anyway, if you're curious, just PM him and ask :-)

if you dont think its worth it JUST based on contenets of the box , sell your copy , it's obviously not for you .  

Julia said:

I categorically deny that it's because of either of them, especially Dam.  I give credit to J.R.R. Tolkien.  Dam gets nothing.  Noooooothiiiiiiiing!  Unless conceding that Dam might have had some influence over my decision will get him to finally get Kingsport, in which case, yes, yes that is why.

...

This forum is reeeeeally slow.  Back to Arkham!

Unknown said:

This.

I've always felt that the primary consideration of whether or not a game is "worth the price" should be the entertainment you derive from it.  That is the purpose of the product after all.  Movies sell for upwards of $40 sometimes, despite the fact that it only costs pennies to make a DVD and I doubt it's that much more for the rest of the packaging materials.  Admittedly, that price tag is inflated in part because of royalties to Hollywood fat cats, blah, blah, blah.  When I see the same movie selling for $20 around Christmas time I have a hard time believing that all of that price tag is consumed by legitimate production costs, though.

The point is that the entertainment provided by the product has value, too.  On top of all material, labour and manufacturing costs, the amount of fun you have playing it is worth something.  So if you have $60 worth of fun playing DQ, you have no grounds to bitch about the price.  If you don't have $60 worth of fun, sell it.  You should at least be able to recoup enough of the costs to cover the difference between what you paid and the actual material value of the components, thereby absolving you of having "wasted" any of your precious money.

Besides which, DQ is a GW brand name.  That means two things: 1) FFG has additional licensing costs to pay to GW, and 2) DQ is an established and recognized brand name from days of yore.  In today's society, brand names are worth money all by themselves.  If you absolutely can't stand that, you should stop buying brand name gaming products.

I think that this type of criticism has a reason, but perhaps needs to be addressed with more commonsense.

DQ costs exactly like Talisman. Both are well known titles and require FFG to pay licenses to others (I think GW for both); if we look at the components, we can compare:

Talisman / Dungeonquest

18 miniatures + sheets / 6 miniatures + sheets

6 custom dice / 4 dice

6-folded gameboard / 4-folded gameboard

166 cards / 330 cards

36 cardboard Fate tokens  / 99 various cardboard tokens

30 plastic Gold coins+ 120 plastic cones / 117 Dungeon Tiles

Some of these components are not easy to compare, but while Talisman has more Characters/dice and a better game board, Dungeonquest has a lot more cards, cardboard tokens and the high quality and varied Dungeon Tiles, which can be considered superior to Talisman plastic components.

I believe that the component value is pretty much the same. What DQ seems to lack is the variety of components. In Talisman almost every card is a unique piece, while in Dungeonquest cards are often "mechanical" and act as substitutes for a die roll. For example, instead of rolling a dice you draw a Door card to see if it opens, it stays shut or it triggers a trap. This is true for many DQ decks, but I think that drawing a card is funnier than just rolling a stupid die.

The design value in DQ seems lower than Talisman's, or what we usually find in FFG games like Arkham Horror, Descent, Twilight Imperium and the out of production WoW titles.

Fun while playing is of course a major factor; DQ is our favourite choice when we want to relax and have a laugh together. People who like the gameplay and the fun won't care very much about price, but if you objectively look at the variety, uniqueness and longevity of the components.

After saying this, I think that from the rule design perspective FFG did a good job. The combat system is entertaining and provides the game climactic moments. I like this change and appreciate the clarity and completeness of the rulebook. They did a better work than when they revised Black Industries Talisman 4th edition.

The game works fine as it is. I hope that with expansions FFG can provide a little more flare and variety to Dungeonquest. Perhaps it's time for a DQ expansion too!

All of the positive reviews are pretty much the same in here, and while I agree with the reasoning, all of them avoid one major factor: you don't know if you'll get your money's worth in entertainment until you've already spent the $60.  An NO, most people do not get a chance to try before you buy with a game, so that recommendation is hollow. 

So in hard times or not, does $60 overstep some range when risk outweighs the potential payoff?  Yes, for many it will.  That's something only the individual can answer one by one, but aside from good reasoning for cost and the potential value, it's time some of you stop overlooking the price factor. 

And glitz isn't part of the "value" for me. Something can be made quite attractive and superficially enjoyable without going too far... and adding to cost. I'm not saying that's what was done with DQ3... well, not in all areas. As one example, there really was no need for those oversized character cards, and with much space, iconization of information wasn't necessary and was just clinging to a fad.  Other aspects stand out as well, or more, but are not worth itemizing.

In the end, no one is really going to change anyone else's mind on this topic, though it is still interesting to see what different people find to be value for the buck. That's the only worthwhile part; to raise something that others maybe didn't consider... as an addition and not a replacement for how others can/should value their purchases.

I would not say DQ3 was horribly overpriced, but there were things about it that I consider unnecessary or superficial enough that they added nothing to the bang for the buck. Designwise, there was wasted money in there. Comparatively, and putting aside their differences in play, Talisman was the better buy at $49.95.

one of the best gamebuys i have made.

Agreed. You should consider also Wiz-War and Fury of Dracula. You might like those too. Upcoming Infiltration might be another game you will like from FFG.

 This game got all my friends into board games.  I got my DQ game for $38 on Ebay, but if that were not an option, I would have gladly payed the full $60 price for such a fun game.