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

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.

No dude Octopath was made using UE4 the same engine as many other AAA games which hilariously shoots down your analogy all together because it's using the same materials essentially.

As for content too bad for you that the majority who have played through it flat out say the 50+ hours are as good as any other good game which again contradicts your argument. PS1 games aren't newly developed which again is another strawman argument.

To me it seems like you're reaching to justify your own stance, I have logical reasoning as well as concrete facts that back my stance you on the other hand have nothing in your argument and seem irritated by people liking the game, if you also want to go the personal route just say because like other so called keyboard commandos before you who have tried I'll leave you as a wreck in the corner rolling around like your name is Neymar.

Using UE4 doesn't make it go to same standard or materials... unless using hammer is all you need for your house to be built with quality.

Majority that bought it didn't though it was too expensive, so that doesn't help your argument at all. Since I didn't say everyone thinks the content is bad or the game is overpriced, did I?

I have no problem with people liking the game or thinking it's price is justified. Don't forget you are the one with pitchfork complaining about people not seeing the same value as you. Have no idea what Neymar have to do with it.

You put content justifies the price, a game being developed for PS1 doesn't make its content any less than if being developed today (still a lot of remasters were revamped and made to a standard above what Octopath reaches and still doesn't retail for 60 usd).

Customer should find reasons to request lower price instead of finding justification to defend devs that charges them.



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."