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

[DonFerrari]

Shaunodon said:

DonFerrari said:

Sorry but no, you can have AAA production level value and still keep the concept, you would basically change the art direction and have more cutscenes. When someone pretend something couldn't be made better is where you are saying that is the end of the road and nothing more should be done, that is a very stagnant approach.

Does everything just go over your head or do you not think about what you write?

You just described a completely different game. You clearly have no interest in the game or what it's trying to do, so I'm not sure why you're even here discussing it since you'll probably never play it.

This is why there's no point to a thread like this. It's not a debate over a genuine issue that has people split, it's just a few very loud and opinionated voices trying to create an issue where there is none, and most of them seem to have no clue what they're even talking about.

1) So instead of discussing you rather dismiss.

2) What have got into VGC these days that all people asking "you don't care about this product so why are you discussing", If we go and look at your 517 posts they will be all about product you bought right?

3) Let's do more attacks.

So basically instead of replying to the post that on your mind have totally missed the point you just decided to do 3 different personal attacks for the sake of it?

Mnementh said:

DonFerrari said:

(1) You thinking that as a customer it doesn't matter how much it cost doesn't make it silly. I'm completely against paying more than I should. For me a company should make no more than 25% of profit margin over me. So if a game is cheap to make and will sell a lot I don't see any reason to pay 60 USD. Will wait for it to be cheap to me to buy as it was to be made. But guess which between Destiny, Knack 2, The Order, Wolfenstein, GR2 and YK I have paid 60 USD? None.

(2) You are 10 years late to VGC? Been like this since Metacritic isn't considered a measure of quality.

(3) If you don't like a product that critics regards as 100, it have 0 value for you. Have you bought all games that have been over 84 in metacritic for 60 USD? (4) Resogun launched with 84 in metacritic have over 100h of play time and costed less than 15 USD (and were free with PS+) so using your argument based on metacritic games that are equal or lower on metacritic should cost no more than Resogun right?

Perhaps those would also see the 84 in Meta undeserved because it should lose a lot of points because it doesn't meet the standard in several areas (5) and the reason for the score is perhaps they taking it lighter because they considered it as if older gen.

(1) Sorry, this argument sounds like we should pay more if the company making a product is bad with budget and punish them for calculating well their costs. This sounds like communism. In free market though, if you make a product of the same quality as your competition, but for half the price, you get just more money. Nobody forces you to ask a lower price (although you could). I'm not willing to pay up for a game that isn't up to my standards, only because the production burned a lot of money. That's why I bought Assassins Creed 3 and 4 for 10€ each.

Are you trying to ignore half the point? I have clearly said it is the full package and that a customer should look for reasons to not pay 60 usd in a game instead of justifying that others should pay it. So if a game have a big budget that was badly managed and end result isn't great it also isn't worth 60 USD and you shouldn't pay it. And communism is almost the opposite of what you are saying. It's paying the same price independent of the effort and investiment made. I see no problem in you paying AC3 and 4 10 bucks, you didn't saw value in some of the areas. And if you say to me that those games doesn't value 60 because of those reasons I could disagree of the reasons being valid for me, but I would have no issue with you saying that because of that for you the game value is lower than 60. But for some reason you have to say it is invalid to think the same for Octopath.

(2) Yeah, we have our gripes with it. But what better measure of quality? Your subjective feelings? No, I take Meta over it every day. You can't say for subjective criteria Octopath would've no value and then dismiss Meta. With all it's problems, it is way more objective than what you have to offer.

I have no problem with Metacritic being used as compass, but still having a high Meta doesn't make it a great and valuable game, because if it was as I also proved there are games with higher Meta and lower price. So Meta = value already disproved.

(3) Yes, I can dislike games with high Meta. I would never say though, they don't deserve the price-point. Spoiler-alert, I disliked GTA V. Should I go around and claim it is worth no more than 15€ or so? I can decide which games are to my liking and which not, but still accept that games I dislike have good quality and value.

If you find valid reasons that aren't taste to say it is worth less than 15 (I wouldn't pay even 5 because I'm not interested in the game, although I myself doesn't see areas where I could objectively discount the merit of the game, as you can for the production value of Octopath, quality of content for AC, lenghty for The Order, etc)

(4) Sadly Indies have a difficult position. People buy the games of big publishers, that are able to print physical copies and push them into the retailers, while maintaining advertisement for it. Is Resogun worth more than Star Wars Battlefront II? Sure it is. It has more value. But EA being a big company with ads and licensing a big IP to put their game into put them on the better position. So yes, Resogun is worth more than many AAA-shit.

Sony could have made Resogun printed if they wanted. And I bet a lot of people would see more value in it even at 60 than for BF2 (doubt would be many) and since value is totally subjective we wouldn't be able to say they are wrong.

You seem to not get that the problem with OP and people saying one can't see Octopath and say it isn't worht 60 USD because of listed reasons is exactly that you can't prove the game value should be 60 for everyone, but anyone can say any game value is lower because of his own reason and unless he is trolling or flaming it is totally valid (for me GT shouldn't have any score lower than 80 without being a troll and all GT1-6+GTS deserve 10's, but I won't say you can't have your opinion based on objective concerns that the game isn't a 10, for me the issue on the sub 80 is because you would have several games that got higher scores while lacking a lot more).

But thanks that you agreed with the Resogun point, so if it's 84 Meta, have more than 100h, among the best in it's genre and is priced 15, Octopath should be 15 as well right?

(5) Bwahahaha. Yeah, keep telling yourself that.

 

So, in conclusion, you can pay inflated prices on shitty games that just happened to burn a lot of money in production as much as you like and justify it as you want (Yeah, because the producers never learned how to use money, we throw more at them, yesyesyes!). But don't tell anyone a quality game like Ocotpath Traveler has no objective value, because it obviously has. Your argument would look a lot better, if the game had a mediocre score on Meta, because optics do influence the score. But maybe in difference to you the critics may recognize the art-style as unique and charming.

There is no objective value, value is totally subjective, go have some economy classes. The only part of "value" that you can determine objectively is how much money was used to make it. None of those games with bloated budgets retailed for more than 60 to say the price is inflated (but surely you can say they don't have enough value to cost that much) so when you reread that you should look at reasons to discount then you'll see that neither is the content nor the production value (which is also not the same as budget) nor the budget alone determinant to value. It's the total package the game offer plus individual evaluation.

 

Wyrdness said:

DonFerrari said:

Nope, I didn't use the words because that wasn't what I tried to say. You think you are so superior that you lose even the most basic on cheer arrogance. The louder you try to convey your point the easier to see how weak it is.

PS4 had no manufacturing issues. They manufactured about 1M consoles monthly from couple months before release to the end of 1st year on the market. Console lack of supply at launch is quite common. Your personal attacks are just unnecessary.

You are saying Octopath have value because it sold a lot, so you can't have it 2 ways. If you infer that Octopath have value because it sold a lot then all AAA that sold more have more value using your own argument, or does your argument follow any special rule that they are only valid when you want?

I'm replying them because the thread isn't limited to those that think the content is good or bad, is explaining reasons and explanation on why people that think the value is lower because the production value is low. Have you missed your discussion classes where you don't need to agree with an argument for it to be true (even if for the POV of the ones you are talking about in the discussion)? Also the claim of AAA having more value is a direct counter to your argument that Octopath have value because it sold good (or that X1 values less because it sold less). If you can't understand an explanation or the logic of it doesn't mean it doesn't have both or either, it's just that you didn't understood.

Such a shame some other PC gamers aren't here. Because this was a discussion in VGC about 2 months or more ago, where there were at least equal evidence for same pricing and lower pricing for the PC versions (of course with 0 discussion on the speed at which PC games are discounted), but this is needless information on this discussion (and a very good reason for PC games to cost at least 10 USD less is that they don't pay a fee for the platform holders).

If my point is weak how come the are many others here that have said the exact same thing to you? How come the are others who have made the exact same break down I've just made? Fact is my point is solid with not only concrete factors as well as logic behind behind it but it's been highlight by others the broken angle you're trying to argue.

Have we missed an argumentation class where they explain the phallacy of "a lot of other people is also saying the same thing so it's true"? Let me tell you that at the time Einstein showed the theory of relativity there would be about 2 Billion people in the planet that disagreed with it and at the moment only him that saw it as right, was his theory wrong because most would say it was wrong?

PS4 had major stock issues launch window it sold 1m on launch and following week it sold less than 100k and this was during the holiday season numbers are even on this site, when they had stock they would double X1 sales.

Now we changed from production to stock, much better. That have more to do with they having to attend multiple markets (they even have had made escalonated launch of europe and usa) and had to air transport their consoles for Xmas sales. Still go and track USA during the whole gen and you'll see that X1 was never very far from PS4 in USA. But now if you want to equate sales and value. Xbox retails for 199 a lot of time and PS4 for 299, still PS4 is selling 3x as much WW, so per your strong logic as you self claimed (which is another bullock, the argument stand or not by itself not by you claiming they are great) PS4 would value 299 and Xbox should value 1/3 of it's 199 so less than 69. Right?

This part about sales is why I asked you if English was your first language not once in any post did I even mention Octopath sales at any point and seeing as you seem adamant that the is no language barrier explain this then because right here you're arguing something that not only was never said but matches no context in what you're replying to to and highlights you making any old nonsense up to keep this circus act of yours going.

If you think Octopath sales was never used as argument in this thread then call it strawman not language barrier, which is quite easy to check, click the name and see place of birth.

Again no people have listed content as one reason out of many you have not at any point given a well thought out explanation to counter what anyone you've replied to has said and it is summed up by your AAA comment, people have given reasoning as to why they see value and your only response is "AAA have more value" this is not a counter in any shape or form and hilariously proves the OP and everyone on the first page correct. You've dug yourself in a hole with the nonsense you've brought here and each post you've made has further gone against you.

You miss so much that it's funny. No one have claimed that content as one out of many reason for the value for Octopath?

I more than once said that production value and budget alone doesn't determine the value of a game (but that it already determines a base line for the price it will be sold). If you read the multiple replies you'll see that is one of the aspects but the game must be seem on all aspects and as customer one should be discounting the price of the product for what it lacks, so if it's an AAA with top level graphics, IA, models, textures, etc then one aspect is covered, then you shall also see the lenghty of the game compared to at least standard, gameplay, how entretaining the game is, etc and if any of this is missing for you then you are totally fine considering the game isn't worth 60 for you.

You assume to much and argument over your own interpretation and calls that logic.

 

Alara317 said:

DonFerrari said:

A one liner for you... you liking turn based RPG (I like it) doesn't make it any less archaic considering it is with us for over 30 years. And the thing you also don't get is that for some the graphics not being top notch doesn't warrant 60 USD, for others the duration not being long doesn't warrant 60 USD. So for a very large amount of people you need everything in the package to justify 60 USD.

What are you even on about? We've been playing turn based games MUCH longer than 30 years. Ever heard of Checkers? Chess? Backgammon? Go fish? Red Rover? Turn based is not 'archaic', it's 'timeless'. 

We are talking about JRPG, but sure you may bring other games if you want. Your are just changing the word because you feel offended by someone calling it archaic, it doesn't change the truth. And for a lot of people (not me) turn based is archaic compared to more modern takes on RPG.

Just like running and jumping in platformers. 

Sure run&jump is archaic and that is why every Nintendo platforms reinvent the formula to have a gameplay that is much more than this an feel different

Just like pointing and shooting in FPS games. 

Yep, reason why Gears of War got so much following with their cover system and running and shooting, all which were quickly copied by others.

Just like going fast and turning left in Racing games.

Sure, simulation racing games is about getting every more precise in simulating real life. If you say it's archaic I would agree and say it doesn't bother me.

The key is that it gives us new permutations on an existing formula. The BP system and shield breaking system working in tandem is an absolutely great battle system that is, by far, the best turn based RPG battle system I think I've ever played. To say this battle system is archaic just because it uses an old foundation is absolute silliness. Octopath Traveler is a blend of old styles with new polish, making it EXACTLY what it advertised, giving its fanbase exactly what they wanted. The fact that you can't find if anywhere in spite of its full price tag shows that it IS worth $60 bucks to a LARGE group of people. It might not be worth it to you, and that's fine, but don't act like YOU not liking a feature makes it not worth it. You're asserting a subjective opinion as an objective fact, and that makes you provably wrong. 

Your counter could start exactly on this and say that it isn't simply turn based, it have a lot of elements that weren't ever made that make it fell very fresh (sure someone that doesn't like turn based won't like anyway, but that is taste and not a factual element anymore). It may be the 100th time I said it but value is totally subjective so you seeing a game you don't like and saying that for you it isn't worth 60 USD is totally fine, see the other replies in this post. I wouldn't discount from the price the fact of it being turn based (although I understand people saying that standard pricing for turn based have been less than 60 this gen and using that as an objective reason for their reducing the value) for me it's more on the production value.

Example: I don't think Call of Duty is worth it because it's the same boring gameplay, shoddy campaigns (and this year no campaign) for full price every year. However, I don't go into threads about people discussing the value of that franchise to shit on it because I understand that, just because it's not worth it to me, that doesn't mean it's not worth it to the tens of millions of people who buy each new game every year. 

You not doing it doesn't make it the standard as well. There is nothing wrong in you saying why you don't think CoD isn't worth 60 (may it be lacking campaign or it being the same game over and over again just made to nick and dimme) saying why you don't think the value is the same as others isn't shitting, it's disagreeing and that is healthy. I myself wouldn't review a game in a genre I don't like because I know the score I would give isn't fair and I take reviews as a try to be objective, but I wouldn't see a problem in saying why it isn't worth full price (excluding not liking the genre, but could be lack of VA, rehashed engine and assets that they just made some new maps and story that could have been a DLC and called a full game, etc).

See? that's called not being narrow-minded.

Not accepting others reason for seeing a game being worth less is much more narrow-minded than not going to those threads and exposing your opinion, Perhaps when you go there and voice your opinion and discuss you may learn some stuff that may make you try it (even if loaned the game). I have discussed the issues of open world and GTA recently and will try at some point to play GTA V as the person instructed and see if I like it.

The thing that gets me most is that even if it WAS archaic, it'd still be worth it because it's catering to a group pining for turn based battle systems. this was always MEANT for people seeking out the classic style.

Anyone saying that for you and these team the game shouldn't be worth 60 is wrong because you decide if for you the game is worth 60 (archaic system or not) but when you try to say that objectively no one can say the game is worth less than 60 for him is where you go wrong.

 

Darc Requiem said:

HoloDust said:
Honest question for folks that think $60 is fair price for this game - in your opinion, what is fair price for alternate universe Octopath, with same content, just with AAA production value?

This Alternate Universe "Octopath Traveler" Would be Path Traveler. The half the cast would be cut. The cool 16 bit in 3D aesthetic that is huge part of it's appeal would be replaced with a modern graphic design.The game would be launching 3 years from now. "Octo" DLC sold back to us in four $15 increments over the course of the year following it's 2021 launch. Part of the appeal of the game is that not only is it's classic aesthetic but the fact that like te classic JRPGs of the era. It's a full featured experience. The game just launched and unlike FFXV it is already finished.

Haven't bought or played any of the FF XV DLCs and don't miss any of it so for me it's a full experience, they wanting to expand with DLC and earn extra cash is of no consequence for me (I think about selling my FF XV to a friend to buy the gold edition but I'm in no rush). And the complete crazyness of SE development is no metric for anything.