By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
midrange on 09 June 2015
Edit Thread
Johnw1104 said:
yvanjean said:


That's exactly what's nagging me!! They had more then enough time to add more content to this game before release. If anything this game was delayed, it certaintly wasn't rushed. It's either a marketing strategy or most likely it was a very small team at Nintendo working on this game full time.  

Splatoon in my book doesn't deserve the same retail price has Mario Kart 8, Super Smash bros WiiU & Mario 3D world. Splatoon is more like a Captain Toad Treasure tracker effort. 

On the plus side, if this game sell a bunch of copies at full retail, you can expect more support from future DLC by Nintendo. Could be a win/win for everyone. I just know that i'm going to wait for a price drop or not bother with Splatoon. 


All I'll say is I've played a number of the "AAA" blockbuster games, and it's already clear I'll get more hours of fun out it than I did Far Cry 4 or Shadows of Mordor. Likewise, the same parts of the brain that fire up and get you excited playing BF3 are also active while playing Splatoon, so the experience feels quite similar, if not even more frantic as you race against that 3 minute countdown.

Really, if $60 is still a sticking point it's more your valuation of the time and resources they devoted to making this game as compared to some other $60 games that's holding you back, as the experience itself is a $60 one. That comparison to cheap app games like angry birds really doesn't work, as the experience is entirely different and it's more a time-waster than the fun, frantic nonsense that you're forced to focus on while playing Splatoon. Splatoon, essentially, is full-priced fun.

Well, in order to have an unbiased valuation of a game, we have to have a certain standard to the games we play. If most $60 games have voice chat, is it fair to pay $60 for another game that does not have voice chat. If most $60 games have customizable online games, is it fair to pay $60 for a game that does not. If most $60 games have a heavily packed local multiplayer mode, is it fair to pay $60 for a game that does not. The paintball gameplay seems like a mode that call of duty could implement for $10 rather than a fully fledged $60 title.

While it is true that you may have spent 80 hours in splatoon and 10 in far cry, I may have spent 10 hours in splatoon and and 80 hours in far cry (obviously these numbers are not real). However your experience does not warrant splatoon to be an $80 game, and my experience does not warrant it to be a $10 game. So the best way to actually price it, is by comparing it to the features of other similar titles that are actually $60 (or $40 or $20 ... you get the idea)