There's been a bit of a controversy going around with the release of the latest Fire Emblem, and I'm not talking about that weird "petting" minigame. Basically, Fire Emblem Fates has three unique, full-length campaigns: one easier and tooled for newcomers, one more difficult for veterans, and a third which is something of a mixture. The controversial part, though, is that Nintendo split them into three different, full-priced games: Birthright, Conquest, and Revelation. Whichever you buy first costs you $40, and then if you choose to buy either or both of the other two, they're bumped down to $20. The argument is over whether Fates' individual campaigns ought to have been split up like this, essentially doubling their price.
The whole thing's stirred some fun back-and-forth, even here on our own site. Some say the individual titles each having campaigns of unique content roughly the size of the previous Fire Emblem Awakening justifies their full prices, others say Fates is all one game and should be released as such, and neither has particularly solid grounding. To actually figure this out requires a lot more thought and a little bit of delving. It's inspired me to think about exactly what it means to pay for a video game and how the price and value of these products actually works.
See, there's something really interesting about the common argument approving of Fire Emblem Fates' split. "The games are worth their individual prices because each of the three campaigns are about as long as the one of Fire Emblem Awakening," is the generic version, but the true argument therein is that a sizable part of a game's worth can be determined by its amount of content. Unpacking that statement is where things really start to get interesting.