Quantcast
To those who say Octopath is not worth 60 dollars...

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - To those who say Octopath is not worth 60 dollars...

Mandalore76 said:

 

DonFerrari said:

Some people on VGC doesn't see a problem in a game costing 1M to make, selling for 60USD for 10M people and rack in over 300M in profits.... but they will day in and out complain about companies that put 100M to make a game sell 5M copies at the same 60USD to make 50M profit.

I rather have the money I pay being utilized to push the games I buy to the limit then defending that they took a lot of effort to disguise low investiment in graphics behind retro look.

Wow, so in your opinion, all the work that went into the story, the battle system, the abundant hours of content, the voice acting, and soundtrack (all of which have been highly praised) were only done to "disguise the low investment in graphics".  Just... wow.  I would argue that Square put more care into some of those aspects than they do their "AAA" flagship Final Fantasy series.  I have often found the voice acting and dialogue in particular in Final Fantasy games to be so atrocious and off-putting as to make me not want to play the game regardless of how "pretty" the graphics look.  Some people appreciate the total sum of a game's parts.  I'd much rather the money I spend go to a total enjoyable package, rather than a game that took a lot of effort pushing graphics to disguise a low investment in the actual game itself.

You should probably quit wasting your time. It's clear at this point the dude thinks graphics and production values are more important than gameplay, story, longevity, or any other method of getting value. None of that matters to him if the game doesn't run at 60 FPS with photorealistic and physics intensive hair flow, it's not worth full price (Clearly a facetious exaggeration but the point stands.) That said, he has made it clear that a game's value should be directly tied to its budget, so a game with a 10 million dollar price tag should invariably cost less than a game with a 50 million dollar price tag; yet, in spite of that I guarantee he'd not be willing to pay 100 dollars for a game like Grand Theft auto V or Destiny in spite of their massive budgets. 

Fairweather consumer, I believe is one way of putting it. He wants every excuse to lower the price because he's cheap (he even said he rarely buys games at full price), but won't apply the logic he uses to go in the other direction. 

I, like most people, determine a game's value by its volume of content, price, hours of time it gets out of me, and quality of time spent with it. Octopath, so far, has excelled in all of those categories. I'm almost done Chapter 2 for all characters and I'm coming up on about 40 hours (I'm slow, sue me). yeah, that's worth it. Even if I stopped now - less than half way through the game and having probably seen less than a third of all the game's content - I still feel the full price I paid would have been worth it. 

So yeah, DonFerrari is CLEARLY a person who values graphics and production costs over fun factor or gameplay. Best to not keep indulging him. that's why I didn't respond to his last response to me; his worldview is so fundamentally flawed (or at least so distanced from my own) that I don't feel I can have a reasonable conversation with him about the subject. 

So yes, I DO feel that a game's profit should be linked to quality, not productuon cost. I DO think a game developed for 1 million should still make a tonne of profit if it's a good and appealing concept. Look at Minecraft; THAT game hit home for a lot of people despite it being a game that could almost be rendered on an N64. sure, the game was only 30 bucks (or 20 or 10, I don't know anymore' seen it everywhere from 5 to 50), but the game's core mechanic is the sort of thing you can get in a $1 mobile game.

Last edited by Alara317 - on 23 July 2018

Around the Network
Alara317 said:
Mandalore76 said:

 

Wow, so in your opinion, all the work that went into the story, the battle system, the abundant hours of content, the voice acting, and soundtrack (all of which have been highly praised) were only done to "disguise the low investment in graphics".  Just... wow.  I would argue that Square put more care into some of those aspects than they do their "AAA" flagship Final Fantasy series.  I have often found the voice acting and dialogue in particular in Final Fantasy games to be so atrocious and off-putting as to make me not want to play the game regardless of how "pretty" the graphics look.  Some people appreciate the total sum of a game's parts.  I'd much rather the money I spend go to a total enjoyable package, rather than a game that took a lot of effort pushing graphics to disguise a low investment in the actual game itself.

You should probably quit wasting your time. It's clear at this point the dude thinks graphics and production values are more important than gameplay, story, longevity, or any other method of getting value. None of that matters to him if the game doesn't run at 60 FPS with photorealistic and physics intensive hair flow, it's not worth full price (Clearly a facetious exaggeration but the point stands.) That said, he has made it clear that a game's value should be directly tied to its budget, so a game with a 10 million dollar price tag should invariably cost less than a game with a 50 million dollar price tag; yet, in spite of that I guarantee he'd not be willing to pay 100 dollars for a game like Grand Theft auto V or Destiny in spite of their massive budgets. 

Fairweather consumer, I believe is one way of putting it. He wants every excuse to lower the price because he's cheap (he even said he rarely buys games at full price), but won't apply the logic he uses to go in the other direction. 

I, like most people, determine a game's value by its volume of content, price, hours of time it gets out of me, and quality of time spent with it. Octopath, so far, has excelled in all of those categories. I'm almost done Chapter 2 for all characters and I'm coming up on about 40 hours (I'm slow, sue me). yeah, that's worth it. Even if I stopped now - less than half way through the game and having probably seen less than a third of all the game's content - I still feel the full price I paid would have been worth it. 

So yeah, DonFerrari is CLEARLY a person who values graphics and production costs over fun factor or gameplay. Best to not keep indulging him. that's why I didn't respond to his last response to me; his worldview is so fundamentally flawed (or at least so distanced from my own) that I don't feel I can have a reasonable conversation with him about the subject. 

So yes, I DO feel that a game's profit should be linked to quality, not productuon cost. I DO think a game developed for 1 million should still make a tonne of profit if it's a good and appealing concept. Look at Minecraft; THAT game hit home for a lot of people despite it being a game that could almost be rendered on an N64. sure, the game was only 30 bucks (or 20 or 10, I don't know anymore' seen it everywhere from 5 to 50), but the game's core mechanic is the sort of thing you can get in a $1 mobile game.

Thank you for admitting you were exaggerating and distorting.

The game needs ALL to be worth 60 USD. so if I would use the points you listed it would be as in group theory.

Game that have only graphics, production value and big budget -> not worth 60 USD.

Games with only gameplay, story, longevity -> not worth 60 USD.

Games with both and other not listed -> May be worth 60 USD.

Having all this and I liking -> worth 60 USD.

Not that hard to understand when you aren't trying to defend a product price point instead of acting like a costumer look at control and enhance your own budget. Basically any game that doesn't have the full package can go to the wait list and be bought for 10, 20, 40 or what much worth I personally decide for it. Very few games end up entering my 60 bracket, about 2 per year or so.

So you can say that even my favorite franchise (Gran Turismo) is not worth 60 to you (may not even be worth 10 for you, and you'll listen your reasons, could even be just one -> doesn't like the genre) and I'll have no problem with it. As long as you don't try to put "objective value" or "others can't have a different opinion based on these reasons" I won't have any problem with it. At most I'll be sad that you are losing a great experience, but that is your choice.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Aeolus451 said:
mjk45 said:

Worth. just like Art is in the eye of the beholder.

That's true that art is in the eye of the beholder but all art has objective value as a product. There's some art that's only valuable in a certain market to certain people.

That's what I'm saying, a products worth is not concrete and doesn't always follow the rrp model, it depending on an individual's valuation may fluctuate from zero to infinite worth , in this case I agree that making threads expounding a games worth/value whether positive or negative  without any consensus of  its definition.will get you nowhere.



DonFerrari said:
Mnementh said:

Sure, one single purchase doesn't change the world. But I hope I'm not alone in such things. And I agree, it is a good thing if companies see the wishes of the customers.

From what I know Bravely Default and Bravely Second were very good success and exceed expectations, so it wasn't just your purchase =) probably most that bought would also want more quality turn based JRPG.

From what I can gather, Bravely Second flopped in Japan and did meh in the rest of the world, though.



 
I WON A BET AGAINST AZUREN! WOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

:3

TheWPCTraveler said:
DonFerrari said:

From what I know Bravely Default and Bravely Second were very good success and exceed expectations, so it wasn't just your purchase =) probably most that bought would also want more quality turn based JRPG.

From what I can gather, Bravely Second flopped in Japan and did meh in the rest of the world, though.

Didn't know it, for me both did good, perhaps that is the reason for a time without turn based



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Around the Network
DonFerrari said:
HoloDust said:

South Park games ..............

I hope the real animation doesn't take as much effort, because it look to ugly to have this much effort being throw at it =p

Apparently, they have 70 animators doing episode for a week. Not sure what their salaries are, but I think episode costs around $1.3M (that is whole budget, not just animation). Not sure why it's that much, Star Wars: Clone Wars episode was $1M, SW:Rebels is $500K. Family Guy is $2M a pop, American Dad is $1M per episode (or other way around, can't recall). Lot of that money goes to actors, I suppose...

The_Liquid_Laser said:
HoloDust said:

South Park games have great content value and very high production value - still, they are treated as "low-cost AAA title" that require "a relatively smaller investment than other (AAA) titles due to its simple animation" (THQ on South Park: The Stick of Truth).

So, maybe South Park shouldn't be $60 game since its production value is not as high as high-cost AAA games...then again, maybe it should:

"...when you’re animating to a very specific look and style, there’s not really compromising. There’s no shortcuts. And it’s funny that with something that’s more like a traditional 3D model-type rig, there’s actually a lot of ways that Maya and other programs help. They smooth things out. They give you some of the in-between positions, and you set targets for where those limbs will go. Not so with South Park. You have to move those frames. So you’re stepping animation all over the place, and if you want to have a unique facial expressions—and so much of the action of the show actually takes place on those big eyes and little mouth shapes—if you want it to be really expressive, you’ve gotta animate that too. You’ve gotta show pain, show effort, show all this stuff." (Jason Schroeder, game director of The Fractured But Whole)

I'm just hoping you're not implying that Octopath Traveler production value in on par with something like South Park...cause it's really nowhere near it.

It depends on what you mean by production values.  When it comes to art and animation, both OT and the South Park games pale in comparison to games like God of War 4 or Zelda: Breath of the Wild.  South Park's art is like something a person drew on the back of a paper napkin.  But that is cool, because that is the look that they are intentionally going for.  OT is intentionally going for a 16 bit look.  Neither one is investing much into art compared to the average AAA game made today.

Instead the art of South Park is there to make a person feel like this is really a South Park game they are playing.  And players are hoping that the game is going to be just as funny as watching South Park.  Octopath is going for the 16 bit look, because they are telling players that the gameplay, story and music are going to be of the same quality as Final Fantasy 6.  In both cases the art is there to tell people what the game is really about.  The art is not the draw in itself like it is in a game like God of War 4.

That's what this discussion is really about.  Does $60 mean, that the game needs a huge art budget?  Or is it enough to be really exceptional in other ways like gameplay, writing, music, etc... without having a huge art budget?

Yeah, South Park might not have high end AAA art budget, yet it is hand animated, and that still costs pretty penny - I'd wager much more than retro visuals of Octopath, given that  South Park (at least first one) is treated as lower cost AAA.

I think the whole problem with $60 is that it's accepted as sort of a ceiling (bar some fancy editions) - which in turn, at least in my view, should warrant a game that has both content and production values at highest level. Not just one...or the other. In the case of Octopath, from everything I heard, content value is quite high...but I don't think production value is up their with the best.

Let me give another example from fairly similar, yet different field - boardgames.
Content value would be how good the game is, how good mechanisms are and how well they click with a theme (if game is not abstract), how long the game is for what it offers, how replayable it is...and other similar things.
Production value would be amount of components, quality of art, quality of materials used for board, cards, tokens and inserts and such things.
So (and I'm speaking about hobby boardgames, what is often referred to as designer board-games, not mass-market ones) there is way more difference in prices - there's no artificial $60 cap like in video games - you can have games as low as $5 (for simple card games) all the way to $400 (Kingdom Death: Monster), probably even more.
It's not even uncommon that very same game is picked up by another publisher few years after initial release, made with higher quality components and art and than sold at higher price.

Video games, on the other hand, are stuck in the mass market - for example, Witcher 3 (game that I rate as 8/10) is high quality both in content and in production - yet it's $60 game, because of that cap that is there cause of mass market. If you take that $60 cap into account, you can understand why I think only highest quality content + production value deserves that price tag.

I can see why Octopath might be worth for many $60 - I'm guilty of similar thing with Combat Mission games (tactical simultaneous turn-based wargames) for last 17 years, games with high content value (for its genre), yet not that great production values - $60 per pop, sold only on their site - because they're worth that much to me - yet, not for a second, would I ever think that in this $60 capped video game economy, value of those games is actually that.



HoloDust said:
DonFerrari said:

I hope the real animation doesn't take as much effort, because it look to ugly to have this much effort being throw at it =p

Apparently, they have 70 animators doing episode for a week. Not sure what their salaries are, but I think episode costs around $1.3M (that is whole budget, not just animation). Not sure why it's that much, Star Wars: Clone Wars episode was $1M, SW:Rebels is $500K. Family Guy is $2M a pop, American Dad is $1M per episode (or other way around, can't recall). Lot of that money goes to actors, I suppose...

The_Liquid_Laser said:

It depends on what you mean by production values.  When it comes to art and animation, both OT and the South Park games pale in comparison to games like God of War 4 or Zelda: Breath of the Wild.  South Park's art is like something a person drew on the back of a paper napkin.  But that is cool, because that is the look that they are intentionally going for.  OT is intentionally going for a 16 bit look.  Neither one is investing much into art compared to the average AAA game made today.

Instead the art of South Park is there to make a person feel like this is really a South Park game they are playing.  And players are hoping that the game is going to be just as funny as watching South Park.  Octopath is going for the 16 bit look, because they are telling players that the gameplay, story and music are going to be of the same quality as Final Fantasy 6.  In both cases the art is there to tell people what the game is really about.  The art is not the draw in itself like it is in a game like God of War 4.

That's what this discussion is really about.  Does $60 mean, that the game needs a huge art budget?  Or is it enough to be really exceptional in other ways like gameplay, writing, music, etc... without having a huge art budget?

Yeah, South Park might not have high end AAA art budget, yet it is hand animated, and that still costs pretty penny - I'd wager much more than retro visuals of Octopath, given that  South Park (at least first one) is treated as lower cost AAA.

I think the whole problem with $60 is that it's accepted as sort of a ceiling (bar some fancy editions) - which in turn, at least in my view, should warrant a game that has both content and production values at highest level. Not just one...or the other. In the case of Octopath, from everything I heard, content value is quite high...but I don't think production value is up their with the best.

Let me give another example from fairly similar, yet different field - boardgames.
Content value would be how good the game is, how good mechanisms are and how well they click with a theme (if game is not abstract), how long the game is for what it offers, how replayable it is...and other similar things.
Production value would be amount of components, quality of art, quality of materials used for board, cards, tokens and inserts and such things.
So (and I'm speaking about hobby boardgames, what is often referred to as designer board-games, not mass-market ones) there is way more difference in prices - there's no artificial $60 cap like in video games - you can have games as low as $5 (for simple card games) all the way to $400 (Kingdom Death: Monster), probably even more.
It's not even uncommon that very same game is picked up by another publisher few years after initial release, made with higher quality components and art and than sold at higher price.

Video games, on the other hand, are stuck in the mass market - for example, Witcher 3 (game that I rate as 8/10) is high quality both in content and in production - yet it's $60 game, because of that cap that is there cause of mass market. If you take that $60 cap into account, you can understand why I think only highest quality content + production value deserves that price tag.

I can see why Octopath might be worth for many $60 - I'm guilty of similar thing with Combat Mission games (tactical simultaneous turn-based wargames) for last 17 years, games with high content value (for its genre), yet not that great production values - $60 per pop, sold only on their site - because they're worth that much to me - yet, not for a second, would I ever think that in this $60 capped video game economy, value of those games is actually that.

1) South Park animation does not cost a lot.  It is cheap compared to any other AAA game.  It is cheap compared to Cuphead which is not considered AAA.  It is supposed to look cheap.  That is intentional.  The writing, voice acting and humor in the South Park games are better than 99% of games out there.  That is why they are selling it with a $60 price (or they did at launch at least).


2) Every medium is different in how it does pricing.  When I go to see a movie I pay the same amount regardless of the budget.  Infinity War had a budget of over $300 million, while Sorry to Bother You has a budget of about $3 million.  They charge the same price to see both movies.

Video games are somewhere between board games and movies.  Most games that get a physical release end up with a $60 price tag, while indie games usually plan to be digital only and so they end up with a much smaller price tag, although sometimes they also get a physical release too with a similar (or perhaps slightly higher) price.  And that has kind of blurred things, so that now every game with a physical release has to determine if they are going to charge $60 or not.  With Octopath Traveler they decided to go with the $60 price tag.  Clearly that was the right decision, because they are selling out of stock even at that price.



HoloDust said:
DonFerrari said:

I hope the real animation doesn't take as much effort, because it look to ugly to have this much effort being throw at it =p

Apparently, they have 70 animators doing episode for a week. Not sure what their salaries are, but I think episode costs around $1.3M (that is whole budget, not just animation). Not sure why it's that much, Star Wars: Clone Wars episode was $1M, SW:Rebels is $500K. Family Guy is $2M a pop, American Dad is $1M per episode (or other way around, can't recall). Lot of that money goes to actors, I suppose...

The_Liquid_Laser said:

It depends on what you mean by production values.  When it comes to art and animation, both OT and the South Park games pale in comparison to games like God of War 4 or Zelda: Breath of the Wild.  South Park's art is like something a person drew on the back of a paper napkin.  But that is cool, because that is the look that they are intentionally going for.  OT is intentionally going for a 16 bit look.  Neither one is investing much into art compared to the average AAA game made today.

Instead the art of South Park is there to make a person feel like this is really a South Park game they are playing.  And players are hoping that the game is going to be just as funny as watching South Park.  Octopath is going for the 16 bit look, because they are telling players that the gameplay, story and music are going to be of the same quality as Final Fantasy 6.  In both cases the art is there to tell people what the game is really about.  The art is not the draw in itself like it is in a game like God of War 4.

That's what this discussion is really about.  Does $60 mean, that the game needs a huge art budget?  Or is it enough to be really exceptional in other ways like gameplay, writing, music, etc... without having a huge art budget?

Yeah, South Park might not have high end AAA art budget, yet it is hand animated, and that still costs pretty penny - I'd wager much more than retro visuals of Octopath, given that  South Park (at least first one) is treated as lower cost AAA.

I think the whole problem with $60 is that it's accepted as sort of a ceiling (bar some fancy editions) - which in turn, at least in my view, should warrant a game that has both content and production values at highest level. Not just one...or the other. In the case of Octopath, from everything I heard, content value is quite high...but I don't think production value is up their with the best.

Let me give another example from fairly similar, yet different field - boardgames.
Content value would be how good the game is, how good mechanisms are and how well they click with a theme (if game is not abstract), how long the game is for what it offers, how replayable it is...and other similar things.
Production value would be amount of components, quality of art, quality of materials used for board, cards, tokens and inserts and such things.
So (and I'm speaking about hobby boardgames, what is often referred to as designer board-games, not mass-market ones) there is way more difference in prices - there's no artificial $60 cap like in video games - you can have games as low as $5 (for simple card games) all the way to $400 (Kingdom Death: Monster), probably even more.
It's not even uncommon that very same game is picked up by another publisher few years after initial release, made with higher quality components and art and than sold at higher price.

Video games, on the other hand, are stuck in the mass market - for example, Witcher 3 (game that I rate as 8/10) is high quality both in content and in production - yet it's $60 game, because of that cap that is there cause of mass market. If you take that $60 cap into account, you can understand why I think only highest quality content + production value deserves that price tag.

I can see why Octopath might be worth for many $60 - I'm guilty of similar thing with Combat Mission games (tactical simultaneous turn-based wargames) for last 17 years, games with high content value (for its genre), yet not that great production values - $60 per pop, sold only on their site - because they're worth that much to me - yet, not for a second, would I ever think that in this $60 capped video game economy, value of those games is actually that.

To me, personally, it's ridiculous to put a lot of money and effort to have a poor look intentionally, but I do know a lot do it =] I rather invest on pristine and pretty



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Shiken said:
Mnementh said:
People think the game is too short? No idea, I myself aren't to far advanced (have to work sometimes between play-sessions).

The graphic is very different, but I like it. But I barely justify game purchases with graphics anyways, I tend to look more into gameplay, playtime and fun.

A lot of people were trying to say it could would have like 35 hours of content, but that was early on.  Now that it has been confirmed to have well over 100 hours of content, they has since put their foot in their mouths.

 

The main thing I see being mentioned is the graphics.  But like you, an experience is not soley based on visuals, in fact, it has the least impact of all factors.  I even see people who used to hate 16 bit style games (younger crowed) pulling a 180 and loving it after actually playing the game.  However I have a feeling people trying to downplay it in light of a "console war" and are grasping at straws at this point.

Naum said:

Its the old "if it isnt 3D" or "it didn't cost 40 million to develop" it's not Worth more then 40$ mentality.. kinds sad really.

I've been playing for 20 hours and I'm having a blast especially now when I do chapter 2+ for the characters and it's hard as hell and me as a old turnbased fan love it.

Yeah, my step son refuses to try the demo and won't play Zelda Four Swords with me because the game has "little characters".  Kid has no idea what he is missing.

 

But yeah, I needed a good turnbased JRPG in my life.  Too many of them try to follow the action RPG model or MMO style model.  Nothing wrong with those games, but we need more turn based games as well.

But we have plenty of TRP's out there like Fire Emblem, XCOM and more out there.

IF anything we don't have good ARPG's these days, as in good quality ones. 



                                       

DonFerrari said:

To me, personally, it's ridiculous to put a lot of money and effort to have a poor look intentionally, but I do know a lot do it =] I rather invest on pristine and pretty

Honestly, I'm not sure why South Park costs as much as it does (meaning per episode). I can only speculate that due to animation team being in US, being fairly large (70) and having to do the job in a week (and often making changes day before airing an episode) they are well compensated. Do the same thing in India or South Korea, where I believe most of 2D stuff is done, and it will be fairly cheaper.