Now you see, THAT is a legitimate reason.  I do not agree that budget dictates price.  It is all about content, and if I enjoy the game for 100 hours, 60 dollars is not a problem.

The Order 1886 had a big budget due to all of the visual tech and engine building, so it was priced at 60 dollars.  Many people felt that a 6 to 8 hour game at 60 dollars was ridiculous, so now I have to ask, which is it?  Pretty visuals or content provided?  Battlefront 2 was lacking in content for only paying the base 60 dollars, but it was heavy budget and had great visuals so it was ok right?  Oh wait...no it was not.

The bolded at the end of your post, that is all you need to say.  There is no need to complain about the price despite giving you tons of enjoyable gameplay that would be well worth the 60 dollars.  If you feel you might not enjoy that content however, well no one can argue that.  Only you can make that choice.

That's one way to answer a hypothetical question, but same content with AAA production value shouldn't change the fairness of the $60 price one bit.

Production value in video games isn't unlike production value in movies. At the end of the day, all that matters to the consumer is if the product was enjoyable relative to the price that was paid to consume the product. Special effects and other fluff only make few kinds of movies better than they would be without them, so there is hardly ever a clear correlation between cost of the film and quality of the film. Where production values matter are shitty action movies, because the special effects can make up for nonsensical plots and rubbish acting and writing.

In the specific case of Octopath Traveler, higher production values wouldn't increase the quality of the game because it's a turn-based JRPG. As such, its quality is determined by gameplay systems, writing and length. Whether its graphics are serviceable or outstanding wouldn't make a difference, because it's enjoyable either way. Actually, it can be easily argued that Octopath Traveler's real graphics make the game better than hypothetical AAA 3D graphics would have.

Production values for video games only really matter when shitty games need to be sold. The question whether an aesthetically pleasing looking game would be worth a higher asking price if it had the most expensive graphics it could have at the given time is ultimately moot, because when gameplay and content of a game are good, it's satisfying without superficial bells and whistles.

Food for thought: If AAA production values justified higher price tags, then why are AAA publishers so scared to raise the standard price of their games above $60?

Does everything just go over your head or do you not think about what you write?

You just described a completely different game. You clearly have no interest in the game or what it's trying to do, so I'm not sure why you're even here discussing it since you'll probably never play it.

This is why there's no point to a thread like this. It's not a debate over a genuine issue that has people split, it's just a few very loud and opinionated voices trying to create an issue where there is none, and most of them seem to have no clue what they're even talking about.

(1) Sorry, this argument sounds like we should pay more if the company making a product is bad with budget and punish them for calculating well their costs. This sounds like communism. In free market though, if you make a product of the same quality as your competition, but for half the price, you get just more money. Nobody forces you to ask a lower price (although you could). I'm not willing to pay up for a game that isn't up to my standards, only because the production burned a lot of money. That's why I bought Assassins Creed 3 and 4 for 10€ each.

Are you trying to ignore half the point? I have clearly said it is the full package and that a customer should look for reasons to not pay 60 usd in a game instead of justifying that others should pay it. So if a game have a big budget that was badly managed and end result isn't great it also isn't worth 60 USD and you shouldn't pay it. And communism is almost the opposite of what you are saying. It's paying the same price independent of the effort and investiment made. I see no problem in you paying AC3 and 4 10 bucks, you didn't saw value in some of the areas. And if you say to me that those games doesn't value 60 because of those reasons I could disagree of the reasons being valid for me, but I would have no issue with you saying that because of that for you the game value is lower than 60. But for some reason you have to say it is invalid to think the same for Octopath.

(2) Yeah, we have our gripes with it. But what better measure of quality? Your subjective feelings? No, I take Meta over it every day. You can't say for subjective criteria Octopath would've no value and then dismiss Meta. With all it's problems, it is way more objective than what you have to offer.

I have no problem with Metacritic being used as compass, but still having a high Meta doesn't make it a great and valuable game, because if it was as I also proved there are games with higher Meta and lower price. So Meta = value already disproved.

(3) Yes, I can dislike games with high Meta. I would never say though, they don't deserve the price-point. Spoiler-alert, I disliked GTA V. Should I go around and claim it is worth no more than 15€ or so? I can decide which games are to my liking and which not, but still accept that games I dislike have good quality and value.

If you find valid reasons that aren't taste to say it is worth less than 15 (I wouldn't pay even 5 because I'm not interested in the game, although I myself doesn't see areas where I could objectively discount the merit of the game, as you can for the production value of Octopath, quality of content for AC, lenghty for The Order, etc)

(4) Sadly Indies have a difficult position. People buy the games of big publishers, that are able to print physical copies and push them into the retailers, while maintaining advertisement for it. Is Resogun worth more than Star Wars Battlefront II? Sure it is. It has more value. But EA being a big company with ads and licensing a big IP to put their game into put them on the better position. So yes, Resogun is worth more than many AAA-shit.

Sony could have made Resogun printed if they wanted. And I bet a lot of people would see more value in it even at 60 than for BF2 (doubt would be many) and since value is totally subjective we wouldn't be able to say they are wrong.

You seem to not get that the problem with OP and people saying one can't see Octopath and say it isn't worht 60 USD because of listed reasons is exactly that you can't prove the game value should be 60 for everyone, but anyone can say any game value is lower because of his own reason and unless he is trolling or flaming it is totally valid (for me GT shouldn't have any score lower than 80 without being a troll and all GT1-6+GTS deserve 10's, but I won't say you can't have your opinion based on objective concerns that the game isn't a 10, for me the issue on the sub 80 is because you would have several games that got higher scores while lacking a lot more).

But thanks that you agreed with the Resogun point, so if it's 84 Meta, have more than 100h, among the best in it's genre and is priced 15, Octopath should be 15 as well right?

(5) Bwahahaha. Yeah, keep telling yourself that.

So, in conclusion, you can pay inflated prices on shitty games that just happened to burn a lot of money in production as much as you like and justify it as you want (Yeah, because the producers never learned how to use money, we throw more at them, yesyesyes!). But don't tell anyone a quality game like Ocotpath Traveler has no objective value, because it obviously has. Your argument would look a lot better, if the game had a mediocre score on Meta, because optics do influence the score. But maybe in difference to you the critics may recognize the art-style as unique and charming.

There is no objective value, value is totally subjective, go have some economy classes. The only part of "value" that you can determine objectively is how much money was used to make it. None of those games with bloated budgets retailed for more than 60 to say the price is inflated (but surely you can say they don't have enough value to cost that much) so when you reread that you should look at reasons to discount then you'll see that neither is the content nor the production value (which is also not the same as budget) nor the budget alone determinant to value. It's the total package the game offer plus individual evaluation.

If my point is weak how come the are many others here that have said the exact same thing to you? How come the are others who have made the exact same break down I've just made? Fact is my point is solid with not only concrete factors as well as logic behind behind it but it's been highlight by others the broken angle you're trying to argue.

Have we missed an argumentation class where they explain the phallacy of "a lot of other people is also saying the same thing so it's true"? Let me tell you that at the time Einstein showed the theory of relativity there would be about 2 Billion people in the planet that disagreed with it and at the moment only him that saw it as right, was his theory wrong because most would say it was wrong?

PS4 had major stock issues launch window it sold 1m on launch and following week it sold less than 100k and this was during the holiday season numbers are even on this site, when they had stock they would double X1 sales.

Now we changed from production to stock, much better. That have more to do with they having to attend multiple markets (they even have had made escalonated launch of europe and usa) and had to air transport their consoles for Xmas sales. Still go and track USA during the whole gen and you'll see that X1 was never very far from PS4 in USA. But now if you want to equate sales and value. Xbox retails for 199 a lot of time and PS4 for 299, still PS4 is selling 3x as much WW, so per your strong logic as you self claimed (which is another bullock, the argument stand or not by itself not by you claiming they are great) PS4 would value 299 and Xbox should value 1/3 of it's 199 so less than 69. Right?

This part about sales is why I asked you if English was your first language not once in any post did I even mention Octopath sales at any point and seeing as you seem adamant that the is no language barrier explain this then because right here you're arguing something that not only was never said but matches no context in what you're replying to to and highlights you making any old nonsense up to keep this circus act of yours going.

If you think Octopath sales was never used as argument in this thread then call it strawman not language barrier, which is quite easy to check, click the name and see place of birth.

Again no people have listed content as one reason out of many you have not at any point given a well thought out explanation to counter what anyone you've replied to has said and it is summed up by your AAA comment, people have given reasoning as to why they see value and your only response is "AAA have more value" this is not a counter in any shape or form and hilariously proves the OP and everyone on the first page correct. You've dug yourself in a hole with the nonsense you've brought here and each post you've made has further gone against you.

You miss so much that it's funny. No one have claimed that content as one out of many reason for the value for Octopath?

I more than once said that production value and budget alone doesn't determine the value of a game (but that it already determines a base line for the price it will be sold). If you read the multiple replies you'll see that is one of the aspects but the game must be seem on all aspects and as customer one should be discounting the price of the product for what it lacks, so if it's an AAA with top level graphics, IA, models, textures, etc then one aspect is covered, then you shall also see the lenghty of the game compared to at least standard, gameplay, how entretaining the game is, etc and if any of this is missing for you then you are totally fine considering the game isn't worth 60 for you.

You assume to much and argument over your own interpretation and calls that logic.

What are you even on about? We've been playing turn based games MUCH longer than 30 years. Ever heard of Checkers? Chess? Backgammon? Go fish? Red Rover? Turn based is not 'archaic', it's 'timeless'. 

We are talking about JRPG, but sure you may bring other games if you want. Your are just changing the word because you feel offended by someone calling it archaic, it doesn't change the truth. And for a lot of people (not me) turn based is archaic compared to more modern takes on RPG.

Just like running and jumping in platformers. 

Sure run&jump is archaic and that is why every Nintendo platforms reinvent the formula to have a gameplay that is much more than this an feel different

Just like pointing and shooting in FPS games. 

Yep, reason why Gears of War got so much following with their cover system and running and shooting, all which were quickly copied by others.

Just like going fast and turning left in Racing games.

Sure, simulation racing games is about getting every more precise in simulating real life. If you say it's archaic I would agree and say it doesn't bother me.

The key is that it gives us new permutations on an existing formula. The BP system and shield breaking system working in tandem is an absolutely great battle system that is, by far, the best turn based RPG battle system I think I've ever played. To say this battle system is archaic just because it uses an old foundation is absolute silliness. Octopath Traveler is a blend of old styles with new polish, making it EXACTLY what it advertised, giving its fanbase exactly what they wanted. The fact that you can't find if anywhere in spite of its full price tag shows that it IS worth $60 bucks to a LARGE group of people. It might not be worth it to you, and that's fine, but don't act like YOU not liking a feature makes it not worth it. You're asserting a subjective opinion as an objective fact, and that makes you provably wrong. 

Your counter could start exactly on this and say that it isn't simply turn based, it have a lot of elements that weren't ever made that make it fell very fresh (sure someone that doesn't like turn based won't like anyway, but that is taste and not a factual element anymore). It may be the 100th time I said it but value is totally subjective so you seeing a game you don't like and saying that for you it isn't worth 60 USD is totally fine, see the other replies in this post. I wouldn't discount from the price the fact of it being turn based (although I understand people saying that standard pricing for turn based have been less than 60 this gen and using that as an objective reason for their reducing the value) for me it's more on the production value.

Example: I don't think Call of Duty is worth it because it's the same boring gameplay, shoddy campaigns (and this year no campaign) for full price every year. However, I don't go into threads about people discussing the value of that franchise to shit on it because I understand that, just because it's not worth it to me, that doesn't mean it's not worth it to the tens of millions of people who buy each new game every year. 

You not doing it doesn't make it the standard as well. There is nothing wrong in you saying why you don't think CoD isn't worth 60 (may it be lacking campaign or it being the same game over and over again just made to nick and dimme) saying why you don't think the value is the same as others isn't shitting, it's disagreeing and that is healthy. I myself wouldn't review a game in a genre I don't like because I know the score I would give isn't fair and I take reviews as a try to be objective, but I wouldn't see a problem in saying why it isn't worth full price (excluding not liking the genre, but could be lack of VA, rehashed engine and assets that they just made some new maps and story that could have been a DLC and called a full game, etc).

See? that's called not being narrow-minded.

Not accepting others reason for seeing a game being worth less is much more narrow-minded than not going to those threads and exposing your opinion, Perhaps when you go there and voice your opinion and discuss you may learn some stuff that may make you try it (even if loaned the game). I have discussed the issues of open world and GTA recently and will try at some point to play GTA V as the person instructed and see if I like it.

The thing that gets me most is that even if it WAS archaic, it'd still be worth it because it's catering to a group pining for turn based battle systems. this was always MEANT for people seeking out the classic style.

Anyone saying that for you and these team the game shouldn't be worth 60 is wrong because you decide if for you the game is worth 60 (archaic system or not) but when you try to say that objectively no one can say the game is worth less than 60 for him is where you go wrong.

This Alternate Universe "Octopath Traveler" Would be Path Traveler. The half the cast would be cut. The cool 16 bit in 3D aesthetic that is huge part of it's appeal would be replaced with a modern graphic design.The game would be launching 3 years from now. "Octo" DLC sold back to us in four $15 increments over the course of the year following it's 2021 launch. Part of the appeal of the game is that not only is it's classic aesthetic but the fact that like te classic JRPGs of the era. It's a full featured experience. The game just launched and unlike FFXV it is already finished.

I have to preface my response to you with a few things. I play games for their content, not their graphics. The industry has decided to not go above $60 in the USA (€60-70 in Europe) for their games, so that's the generally accepted price for a premium game. In Europe PS2/Xbox/GC games used to release at €60, so prices for games have barely changed since then. I don't think I'd pay more than €60-70, unless there were a universal increase in game prices; Breath of the Wild at €65 (eShop price is actually €70, seems to be the sole exception on Switch) has been the only game I paid more than €60 for since the currency was introduced in 2002. PS and Xbox games are more regularly seen at €70.

There's nothing in general that speaks against JRPGs costing $60. If they provide both gameplay quality and length to be $60, then it's fine if they cost that much. Of course that makes the genre a case by case thing like everything else. For example, other Square-Enix JRPGs like I Am Setsuna and Lost Sphear are overpriced despite sporting lower price tags than Octopath Traveler which is a 60 hours game with better gameplay systems and writing.

Lower prices are always a benefit for customers, so the real question of importance is if customers get what they pay for. That's why it isn't a problem that Octopath Traveler costs $60, because the general expectation for a good full-priced JRPG is a length of 30-40 hours, a mark that Octopath Traveler comfortably exceeds. It's important to remember that this isn't an ugly game; the point of contention regarding production values is that a game shouldn't only look good in order to cost $60, rather it should look great.

Haven't bought or played any of the FF XV DLCs and don't miss any of it so for me it's a full experience, they wanting to expand with DLC and earn extra cash is of no consequence for me (I think about selling my FF XV to a friend to buy the gold edition but I'm in no rush). And the complete crazyness of SE development is no metric for anything.

The only one who has used fallacious arguments has been you in all your replies to everyone here an example is your Einstein argument ironically, in case you don't understand a theory is something that is not proven even though based on some logic so people can disagree here how ever it's a concrete fact in regards to the game's reception of its overall package and when people are using concrete factors it's not a theory as it has objectivity to it.

Guess what production affects stock let that sink in, X1 only began competing in US when the price cuts came in which was early in its life before that when stock was sorted out it was being demolished and even now at the same price PS4 has more value for the majority which shoots down your whole cost determines value notion.

What about sales being used by someone else? Is that my concern or has anything to do with what I was debating? No this is straight up Red Herring on your part because you have no concrete stance in your argument so try to shift attention to another argument to save yourself.

No one you say? Funny because Alara317's post basically just contradicts this part of your post and he/she isn't the only one either like others he or she has highlighted music, writing, content etc... So we can confirm BS on your part here the rest of the last part just prove the replies on the first page right congratulations the last part is a prime example of what people were mocking. I didn't need to assume anything as your posts themselves hung your own argument as is shown by the inconsistent flip flopping, back peddles and fallacies.

Not missing something doens't make it the full experience.  Even without the DLC, they were adding story content to the base FFXV to fill in the gaps. I enjoyed FFXV but it was not the full story. It was the cliff notes version of the story at full MSRP. I commend the director for being to come in and stitch together a good game amount what was clearly intended to be much more. SE's development cycles is pertinent to this discussion because Octopath Traveler is a SE game. When is the last time SE released a "AAA" RPG that was not delayed repeatedly? There last two mainline FF entries had development issues. If it weren't for their Western studios, they wouldn't put out anything in a timely fashion.

Theory of relativity  also wasn't prove false at the time, so the 1B people saying it was wrong also weren't right. The point is amount of people that agree with a point doesn't make it right, that is a phallacy, but seems like you don't know them very well since you don't recognize your own use.

Not being able to ramp a production from 1M to 3M on launch and return to 1M after doesn't mean production problems, they were steadily producing the contracted amount and delivering. The problem of stock they had were solely due to demand outpacing supply, something that have happened to about any successful HW in history and never claimed as production issues just stock issue. But for your perfect logic it must not make sense. Having more value to most doesn't make it a rule that objectively a product have more value than another, it just means that at a determined price one product is found by the customer to have more value... unless you think 2018 Hip Hop is more valuable than Mozart because it sells more. Or in fact that all games that sold more than Octopath are more valuable (even more since they cost the same) CoD, Fifa, sold much much more, are they more valuable?

I shall also give you a hint, if 2 words ment exactly the same you wouldn't need both. So production and stock aren't the same and even if they are related a problem in one isn't a direct proof of problem in another. If Sony had a issue on production and let's say that for 1 month (or even 1 week) they weren't able to produce the planned they would have a problem on production, now if they kept steady production but there was more demand they don't have a problem in production. You used another phallacy of cause and consequence.

Do you even read your own answer? Alara is saying that content among others is why he thinks the game is worth 60. Let me copy your quote for you.

Again no people have listed content as one reason out of many you have not at any point given a well thought out explanation 

So you are the one that said no one listed it as one among other reason, and then are saying a lot have done... and accuse me of flip flopping.