Wyrdness said:
Strawman argument because your argument here hinges on the quality of materials used to build a house when in fact the actual scenario is you buy a house that was built with materials that weren't from top expensive brands but are still of good quality resulting in a house that still stands up to other houses. In that scenario the cost to build it doesn't matter because the quality still matches any other product out there. |
Nope, Octopath wasn't made using good quality material in the same venue as AAA games are. It was made using cheap alternatives.
And just to make something very clear to you, 100h of content that aren't as good as 30h of another doesn't make it same value. And that is the root of those people point.
Also if amount of content and duration would be a good reason to charge 60 USD them you should be charged 60 USD to buy the classics (like FFs from PS1) on your current system, but no company do that because those games aren't up to the same standard of games that are charged 60 USD nowadays.
For me it seems more like you are trying to validate your own expenditure and an attempt to deflect any critics that you were overcharged and should feel bad about your purchase.
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."