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

[DonFerrari]

Mnementh said:

DonFerrari said:

So let's say when you buy a house you don't care if they used the most garbage material or top notch, the price should be the same and companies should suck as much profit as possible from you and you wouldn't care as long as you like the house itself?

You make the wrong comparison. If I find a better house for cheaper that fulfills the same criteria (rooms, area and so on), I'll take that obviously. But as prices of houses in different areas differ it happens people buy more expensive houses with cheaper materials in areas they want to live in instead of taking the cheaper house with better materials in an area they don't want to live in.

Same with games. Name me the game which offers me the same as Octopath traveler but is better? You'll probably not find it. If I want a well-done turn-based RPG game with awesome art-style, then God of War just doesn't help.

There was the comparison with Shining Resonance in the thread. Both games had demos. And while I liked  the Shining Resonance demo and might purchase this game later on (maybe on lower price), the Octopath traveler demo blew me away. I can't say Shining Resonance has Waifus and is therefore the better game. Because Octopath traveler offers so much enjoyment, Shining Resonance is just no comparison. With all on the table it is obvious that Octopath has way more value than Shining. At least for me. And seemingly it is a big success worldwide, so this is true of many others. Octopath is just way more unique, that alone adds a lot to value.

Same critereas.... in this case for this game the only same criterea it would meet would be duration? (and arguibly quality of the story and/or gameplay) because the build itself, assets, models, etc would all be of inferior scale. On the house, same neighbourhood and same size (as you put for criterea two points that basically show area) one with very basic materials and another with best in class, plus having more amenities (like solar power, rooms prepared and finished for use, furnitured, etc). Nope they won't fall for same price or criterea.

Is God of War the only option in the market for high quality game? People will probably point you that Persona is a superior title or even buying FF X/X-2 or FF XII remastered and will be much cheaper. World of Final Fantasy seem a much better polished turn based game. And I bet we can find several JRPG in the market that have more polish if you go and look for.

You thinking Octopath is the highest value there is for me have no problem since value is individually assessed. But to say others can't see it as less valuable because it doesn't meet the standard of the gen is wrong. Do you think it would sell a lot as FF or even Persona if it released on PS4 looking exactly as it looks?

Mnementh 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.

They don't charge that much for the classics, because they are old, and the many already played it. If you lower the price people are willing to pay AGAIN, but not full-price.

Besides that, a company can spend a lot and I mean a LOT of money in producing a game, and it still turns out shit. It has low value, despite being costly to produce, as you would say using premium materials. On the other hand, something  with low-tech materials made in manual work can be way more valuable to people than something high-tech made with the best materials. Because it is unique and they like it the way it is. Octopath traveler is pretty unique. I don't get anything else which offers a similar experience. There might be the possibility I don't like the experience - that is OK, in that case I wouldn't buy it. But as it happens I like this experience, I can get it off no other game and content and art-style are pleasing.

So yes, it obviously has way more value to me than say Ryse. Ryse (seven years? oh my) had probably a higher budget than Octopath. Ryse had a meta of 60, Octopath of 84. Do you really want to push the point Ryse had more value than Octopath has, only because the devs burned more money? I don't play games based on the money the game maker invested, but in the result. Given, with higher budget the devs are often able to produce a better game. But as these examples show it is no iron rule.

The dev cost argument reminds me somehow of people, that drive a Ferrari not because they enjoy it, but to show off how rich they are. Gaming is no status thing for me, it is entertainment. So I look for the entertainment value, not the production value.

So you already accepted that having content isn't cutting it. The game needs to have current standard to meet the need (going back to the house comparison, you won't pay 1/5 of the price because the house was made 15 years ago, when it meets all your needs and is well kept, you'll pay about a similar price to a new house).

Sure someone can make a shitty product using a lot of money, and people won't buy it. But still the price is more justified. The point that seems to be going over your head is that production cost alone doesn't justify the price (similar to lenght also doesn't) it is the full package, so if a game is missing a lot in one area the price doesn't meet the value for a lot of people which is the premise of OP (that people can't say it isn't worth 60 USD because it have 100h gameplay). I have played FF Exvius (turn based cellphone game) that looks similar in graphic, have gave me over 1000h of gameplay and I didn't pay 1 dollar on it, should it value be over 100 USD using your premisses? You are making a strawman on the Ryse versus Octopath because no one here said production cost alone defines value.

I look to not be ripped off. I won't pay premium price for a product that costed budget.

Wyrdness said:

DonFerrari said:

No that is you that accuses me of not being good in English failing at logic, nowhere in that sentence I say that is the case of Octopath. The argument is over content being what justifies price (or in this case more precisely lenght). Plethora of content that isn't very good doesn't overvalue small content of exceptional quality. You again ASSUMED it was saying Octopath content is bad (which you then tried to put in my mouth, and when I said I didn't say it, you put in my mouth that I agreed or said the content was good).

X1 was seem as lower value to the people that preffered PS4, does that mean it values lower? Not to the people that bought it first (and in USA they have been very close for the whole gen). So?

Drop off of your very high horse.

And UE4 being used is a toll not an asset, so using UE4 doesn't make a game meet the standard production value of this gen, it just make it uses the average tool. I would bet there are a lot of low quality Indies using UE4 that would look and play a lot worse than games made on perhaps even UE2.

Take your own advise before I drop you off your high horse that sentence was you replying in regards to Octopath content this is why I asked you about English because your replies have not matched the context of what you replied to because the post you tried arguing against was highlighting the overall package (Content, Music, Story etc...) even now you still can't grasp it or refuse to because you wanted to cherry pick one word, I didn't assume I read your replies and you were replying to me so you were taking an angle in a debate in regards to what you replied to even trying to be personal before your balls shrunk when I warned you to watch yourself, as I said before every time you continue your nonsense I'll shut it down hard.

X1 didn't appear to have lower value than it's competitor it flat out did it only became close in US after the super early price cuts to match the more popular product meaning people had a different view of its value the cheaper product even at the same price which still beats it out today very handily. This is a prime example of cost not determining value.

Man I won't use the right words that you deserve due to being polite. But yes you assumed. It wasn't written or infered anywhere, you just assumed to make your argument.

Nope First 2 months in USA PS4 and X1 were neck to neck, even first full year wasn't that far off. To a lot of people X1 had more value even costing more. But to general market it had lower value hence it sold less. But if you want to go that route, a lot of games that go the full AAA production sold much much much more tha Octopath so they have more value and Octopath should cost less than they right?

Wyrdness said:

areason said:

Did you bother to read the rest of my post?

It doesn't matter how many hours it offers, its competition and the rest of the market that it's in do not retail for 60 dollars. 

Divinity Original Sin 2 costs 45.  

Divinity Sin 2 released last year on PC which has cheaper prices than consoles that's not a good argument as on PS4 it will cost full price.

You have the same wrong impression I had. Currently games on PC and console release for the same price, sure PC have discounts earlier on.