By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

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

Spindel said:

I payed $120 (adjusted for inflation) for Kirbys Adventure in 1994. Given it’s a good game, but the amount of hours you get from that game is sverley limited.

So in my opinion this is a stupid discussion made by stupid people. Heck a lot of shooters have a campaign that is 7-12 hours. THAT is not worth $60.

You may not agree with people on the other side of the isle, but there's no need to get hostile to call everyone who doesnt agree with you ''stupid people'' and calling them stupid in general. Not everyone feels the same way about every game. Please refrain from insulting others please. Thank you.



NND: 0047-7271-7918 | XBL: Nights illusion | PSN: GameNChick

Around the Network

I feel like people who complain about $60 games didn't live through the SNES era



areason said:
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.

If you think it's sensible for developers to charge full price for a game that is on the lower end of developing costs then you are supporting bad business practices. 

 Just like Divinity Original Sin 2 didn't cost 60 dollars, their is no reason for a game that doesn't use the expensive technology of AAA games to cost that much. 

Development costs means bugger all as far as value goes, they can make the game for free for any of us cares if the game delivers worth while content then that's all that matters.



think-man said:
Conina said:

Almost no game is worth $60. But I have no problem to wait a few months and pay half or less.

Actually almost every game is worth more than 60 bucks. Game prices are far below what they should cost. Everything has gone up in price with time, except games..  

Sooo... are you buying almost every game (and most of them for 60 bucks)?

Is it fair if two games are both worth $60 and you only buy one of them and the developers of the second game get nothing from you?

Or is it more fair to buy both of the games for $30 - $40 each and both developers get something for their efforts?

Is it fair if three games are all worth $60 and you only buy one of them and the developers of the other two games get nothing from you?

Or is it more fair to buy all three games games for $20 - $30 each and all three developers get something for their efforts?



GoOnKid 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.

Why don't you name those people?

Because there are no need. There are plenty who do and who don't.

Seems like you decided to quote me just because you yourself is like that with "customers doesn't need to care about how much developers take to develop". If you like to pay 60 for something that could cost 5 and still be profitable be my guest.



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

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Around the Network
Conina said:
think-man said:

Actually almost every game is worth more than 60 bucks. Game prices are far below what they should cost. Everything has gone up in price with time, except games..  

Sooo... are you buying almost every game (and most of them for 60 bucks)?

Is it fair if two games are both worth $60 and you only buy one of them and the developers of the second game get nothing from you?

Or is it more fair to buy both of the games for $30 - $40 each and both developers get something for their efforts?

Is it fair if three games are all worth $60 and you only buy one of them and the developers of the other two games get nothing from you?

Or is it more fair to buy all three games games for $20 - $30 each and all three developers get something for their efforts?

I usually buy all the games i want at full retail price. I have a collection of over 700 physical games and about 400 digital. Of that I'd say 80% were bought at full retail. 



Maybe because the development budget wasn't very high and so doesn't need a high price tag to recoup costs and profit. People might perceive it as greed on Square Enix's part, since other publishers are willing to sell lower budget games (even very good ones) at lower prices. So Square Enix knows the hype and prices the game higher than they otherwise would have.

Thats my guess, I don't know the dev costs, it's clearly a lot lower than FFXV or Kingdom Hearts though and I could understand people following this line of thought, Square is a business though and its in their interest to make as much money as possible. Personally, number of gameplay hours do not translate into money well spent in my opinion and the reason I won't buy Octopath Traveller at full RRP is because I haven't been convinced yet that I will enjoy the game enough to spend that much on it.



Azuren said:
I'm just not interested in paying full price for a turn-based game.

Nice story bro. I myself am just not interested in paying full price for a soccer game (like FIFA). Or even 10€. Still I don't think these games aren't worth it.



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023

10 years greatest game event!

bets: [peak year] [+], [1], [2], [3], [4]

Wyrdness said:
areason said:

If you think it's sensible for developers to charge full price for a game that is on the lower end of developing costs then you are supporting bad business practices. 

 Just like Divinity Original Sin 2 didn't cost 60 dollars, their is no reason for a game that doesn't use the expensive technology of AAA games to cost that much. 

Development costs means bugger all as far as value goes, they can make the game for free for any of us cares if the game delivers worth while content then that's all that matters.

It doesn't offer worthwhile content that's worthy of the 60 dollar price tag. 

It's a handheld game, on a console. Divinity Original Sin 2 retails for 45 dollars, all of the games which are similar to it do not retail for 60 dollars. 

Compared to the market, compared to its competition it does not hold up to it's price tag. 

And the idea that development costs do not matter is insane, you're basically asking to get ripped off. 



Mnementh said:
Azuren said:
I'm just not interested in paying full price for a turn-based game.

Nice story bro. I myself am just not interested in paying full price for a soccer game (like FIFA). Or even 10€. Still I don't think these games aren't worth it.

If you think that Fifa 18, which is Fifa 17 with a patch is worth 60 dollars then you have a problem man.