Angelus said:
| Ryuu96 said:
I would hope Obsidian have enough clout inside of Microsoft to say "Hey, we need to lower the price" but I doubt it. I do believe from a budget and content perspective it is fully justified at being $70 but $80 should be reserved for the biggest of titles (Call of Duty, GTA) and a major problem is that I don't believe The Outer Worlds is a big enough (in terms of fanbase) IP for $80.
All major publishers will start following soon but CoD should have been the first $80 from Microsoft and now they may see the reception to The Outer Worlds and just sit back and let Microsoft take the blunt of the negativity until things die down and only then come in with their $80 titles, Lmao. If Microsoft backtracks, it will hopefully cause other publishers to only reserve $80 for their biggest titles.ÂÂ
konnichiwa said:
Well the xbox team all talk about freedom but the only freedom it is giving people is the freedom to not buy Outer worlds 2, would be a perfect 50 dollar game.
Game probably will not do well, steam numbers will be low and we another low player number 3 million or so and xbox will call it another groundbreaking succes while gamers and gaming media will roll their eyes with those kind of sad statements. 50 dollars would make it huge and create a lot of goodwill..
|
Well I won't be buying it because I'll be playing it through Game Pass.
But The Outer Worlds 2 is absolutely not a $50 game either, what are you talking about? The first The Outer Worlds was $60, did you even watch the stream? The Outer Worlds 2 is bigger and better in practically every single way, Lol. It should be $60 again but $70 would be justifiable Imo from a budget and content perspective, it's as AAA as any other $70 title. The first The Outer Worlds launched literally on the same date as CoD at $60 and went on to be a big success which generated a sequel.
I'm not even going to touch the "narrative" about Steam CCU or "low" player numbers, Lol.
|
Outer Worlds 2 certainly looks to be a nice step above the first game, sure, but I don't really agree that it should be more than 60 bucks. In fact, I'd argue that Obsidian's own statements, about how they look to purposefully keep budgets down and focus more on making mid tier games (in scope) rather flies in the face of MS then turning around and charging 80 bucks for them.Â
We got games like Clair Obscur, and Mafia Old Country releasing for 50 bucks...it doesn't affect me, cus I'm just gonna play it through GP, but Obsidian to me very much feels like a developer that could thrive, and perhaps belongs in that 50 dollar region. I know for damn sure I wouldn't pay 70 or 80 bucks for their games.Â
|
A lot of the marketing is about how The Outer Worlds 2 is bigger in every way than The Outer Worlds 1, I think they also said it is their biggest game ever, that is naturally going to come with a bigger budget. Obsidian's own statements can be true whilst The Outer Worlds 2 still remains a fairly expensive game to make, I think that more speaks to how gross AAA budgets are nowadays.
But I don't understand why we're telling them to make The Outer Worlds 2 cost less than The Outer Worlds 1, Lol. The Outer Worlds 1 launched on the same date as Call of Duty, without Steam and at $60 and thrived, it went on to sell 5m+ copies and that's not even including player numbers which we don't know. It caused a sequel to be almost immediately greenlit, that despite a Steam CCU almost exactly the same as Avowed! 
It's bigger in every single way than the $60 The Outer Worlds so why would they make it $50 when it's bigger, cost more to make and $60 was already a proven success for them. I mean sure, $50 would be even more sales but, everything would sell more if it cost less, Lol. I think $60 is what it SHOULD be. But I just wouldn't be angry at $70. But $80 is nonsense.
Lets meet in the middle and agree on $60 
Last edited by Ryuu96 - on 09 June 2025
