for the life of me, I do not understand why people are so hung up on the price of this game compared to the graphics.

Sure, I admit that when I first saw the price on Amazon I was a little surprised at such a price but within hours of playing the demo I agreed that it was worth every penny. Now, 30 hours into the game and well into doing the cycle of chapter 2's, I am more convinced that it's worth every penny. (To be fair, me being at 30 hours for that far is a bit on the long side, but I'm bad for leaving it on or SLOWLY going through cutscenes so my number is inflated. Still, 20 hours in and I've done a total of like 10/32 chapters not including side or post game content is a lot)

My point is, this game is long. It has a lot of content. The writing is leagues better than most stuff in gaming, the stories and characters are compelling, the world is massive, and there's SO much to do and so many branching paths that it's worth every second. If you're the kind of person who thinks that having 16-bit inspired graphics somehow makes a game less valuable (then backpedaling to complain about 'archaic' game design like turn based combat and random encounters when it's shown how flimsy the graphics > gameplay argument is), then you're exactly the kind of person this game wasn't made for.

Not every game is going to cater to every crowd. Octopath Traveler is a game specifically made and marketed to an audience of people who feel nostalgia for SNES-era JRPGs, that's why it has the graphics it has and that's why it has the battle system it has. and while yes, one could argue you'd never pay for a game like Final Fantasy at a cost of 60 bucks in today's era, I say to you of course you wouldn't, because despite being my favorite game of all time it's not exactly a long game. There's not THAT much content to it, really. Sure, compared to other SNES games it's massive, but compared to even FFVII or FFX, it's really not that long, there aren't that many events, and the battle system was quite simple.

Octopath traveler, on the other hand, is leagues bigger than FFVI in terms of world, villages, and depth of combat. The dozens of side quests almost all have multiple solutions based on what character you have in your party, the game is designed in such a way you can collect as many or as few of the characters as you wish, it's both linear and nonlinear at the same time, and despite having a super tight combat system it really does give the player a lot of freedom and choice.

It's worth $60 easily to me, because there's a lot of gameplay there. Not only is the game long, but I've enjoyed every minute of it. The different characters and jobs and abilities all mean that there are dozens of ways to play it, the world is deep and well realized, each new region brings new challenges and enemies, the graphics are like the old style but so much more crisp and well designed, and again, there's a LOT of content here.

Like others have said, how can you argue that this game is not worth $60 due to its graphics or combat (both made to cater to a specific crowd) when EA is charging 60 bucks for Star Wars Battlefront when CD Projekt Red are selling The Witcher 3 for the same price. Value is subjective, sure, but Octopath Traveler gives you a lot of content, especially when compared to other games of its ilk. I've already spent more time on this than I did with The Last of Us or any Uncharted game. I've played more of this game than I have ALL my games on Xbox One combined. (Not an exagerration, I barely crested 20 hours of gameplay on my Xbox One before packing it up).

Some people don't like the turn based gameplay, and that's fine. Don't pretend that it's archaic just because it's not for you. Same with random encounters. I happen to not like pressing F to pay tribute, but I'm not going to pretend that all context sensitive cues and stuff are bad. Some games quick-time events are good, like God of War, just like Random encounters and turn based combat are good with some games, Octopath Traveler being a good example.

To all those who think this game isn't worth it becuase of the graphics, know that your opinion does not matter. If you don't like a game's aesthetic, that's fine, but don't call yourself gamers when you should be labeling yourselves as graphics whores.

You thinking that as a customer it doesn't matter how much it cost doesn't make it silly. I'm completely against paying more than I should. For me a company should make no more than 25% of profit margin over me. So if a game is cheap to make and will sell a lot I don't see any reason to pay 60 USD. Will wait for it to be cheap to me to buy as it was to be made. But guess which between Destiny, Knack 2, The Order, Wolfenstein, GR2 and YK I have paid 60 USD? None.

You are 10 years late to VGC? Been like this since Metacritic isn't considered a measure of quality.

If you don't like a product that critics regards as 100, it have 0 value for you. Have you bought all games that have been over 84 in metacritic for 60 USD? Resogun launched with 84 in metacritic have over 100h of play time and costed less than 15 USD (and were free with PS+) so using your argument based on metacritic games that are equal or lower on metacritic should cost no more than Resogun right?

Nope, I didn't use the words because that wasn't what I tried to say. You think you are so superior that you lose even the most basic on cheer arrogance. The louder you try to convey your point the easier to see how weak it is.

PS4 had no manufacturing issues. They manufactured about 1M consoles monthly from couple months before release to the end of 1st year on the market. Console lack of supply at launch is quite common. Your personal attacks are just unnecessary.

You are saying Octopath have value because it sold a lot, so you can't have it 2 ways. If you infer that Octopath have value because it sold a lot then all AAA that sold more have more value using your own argument, or does your argument follow any special rule that they are only valid when you want?

I'm replying them because the thread isn't limited to those that think the content is good or bad, is explaining reasons and explanation on why people that think the value is lower because the production value is low. Have you missed your discussion classes where you don't need to agree with an argument for it to be true (even if for the POV of the ones you are talking about in the discussion)? Also the claim of AAA having more value is a direct counter to your argument that Octopath have value because it sold good (or that X1 values less because it sold less). If you can't understand an explanation or the logic of it doesn't mean it doesn't have both or either, it's just that you didn't understood.

Such a shame some other PC gamers aren't here. Because this was a discussion in VGC about 2 months or more ago, where there were at least equal evidence for same pricing and lower pricing for the PC versions (of course with 0 discussion on the speed at which PC games are discounted), but this is needless information on this discussion (and a very good reason for PC games to cost at least 10 USD less is that they don't pay a fee for the platform holders).

Not latest engine (they used a current one), they didn't use assets and techniques more in line with current games. No one said just because it cost a lot to make it holds value. It is a package, so if you have 2 games that have good content, but one have excellent production value and the other just ok then value of the first should be higher. And that is the root of people thinking 8T should cost less than it cost.

I pay equivalent to less than 10 USD month for netflix for basically equivalent to maybe 30 theather session a month or 10 games... so it cost 1/60 of gaming (disconsidering the need to buy HW as well) so how is it cheap compared to other forms of entertainment? Basic economic rule, customers look for the cheapest alternative and companies look at maximum profit. If you as a customer start defending companies charging you more you are doing a disservice for yourself. You should be looking at reasons to pay less and not justifications for paying more.

And no comment said a game is 60 USD value based solely on graphics (while quite a lot is basically saying that content alone justifies price, even though plenty of real world examples show it isn't true).

Perhaps those would also see the 84 in Meta undeserved because it should lose a lot of points because it doesn't meet the standard in several areas and the reason for the score is perhaps they taking it lighter because they considered it as if older gen.

Sorry but no, you can have AAA production level value and still keep the concept, you would basically change the art direction and have more cutscenes. When someone pretend something couldn't be made better is where you are saying that is the end of the road and nothing more should be done, that is a very stagnant approach.

A one liner for you... you liking turn based RPG (I like it) doesn't make it any less archaic considering it is with us for over 30 years. And the thing you also don't get is that for some the graphics not being top notch doesn't warrant 60 USD, for others the duration not being long doesn't warrant 60 USD. So for a very large amount of people you need everything in the package to justify 60 USD.

This is the best post of this entire thread.

I don't think Battlefront should be $60 game - yet, I can't judge its content value since I haven't played it, but its productiuon value is, on the other hand, in highest tier.

In my opinion, highest price bracket should be reserved for games with both highest content and production values.
That means Divinity: Original Sin 2, 93 Meta CRPG, probably best ISO CRPG since golden days of Black Isle/Bioware, with great content value, should not be $60 game (as advertised for consoles, $45 on PC) - since, however great looking that game is, its production value is not comparable to AAA games.

So, no, in my opionion, Octopath's value is not $60...though it might be worth that much to you and others that bought it.

Entitled gamers are silly.

It's a full price game in every sense.

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.

Does this alternate universe Octopath also have a Meta of 84?

(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.

(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.

(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.

(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.

(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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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'. 

Just like running and jumping in platformers. 

Just like pointing and shooting in FPS games. 

Just like going fast and turning left in Racing games. 

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. 

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. 

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

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.