Forums - Nintendo Discussion - To those who say Octopath is not worth 60 dollars...

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.



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

Around the Network
DonFerrari said:
Mnementh said:

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:

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.

The bolded is just silly. As a consumer it doesn't matter at all to me, how much the productions costs. The only relevant thing is the result. As the Metascore shows, Octopath as a result is of higher quality than Destiny, Knack 2, Ryse, The Order, Wolfenstein: The Old Blood, Gravity Rush 2 or Yakuza Kiwami. If you pay more for inferior games that's totally fine and your thing, but your justification it is fair because the devs burned more money is pretty off. That is only relevant if the game is status object, not something that entertains you. Because in the latter case costs are irrelevant if the result is of high quality.

Basically you're and others are saying a game with 84 Meta has not much value. That is incredibly off.



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018, 2019

Predictions: Switch / Switch vs. XB1 in the US / Three Houses first quarter

DonFerrari said:

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?

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.

 

You won't use what ever words because you know you'll be torn to pieces, my argument was already present before you even showed up you tried to cherry pick what you wanted to argue but it doesn't work out because the context doesn't fit.

First 2 Months PS4 had supply issues they launched the same time but PS4 had no stock in its second and third week (it was even outsold by the Wii U) it took about two months to get their manufacturing issues sorted out which buries  this part of your argument. The AAA part of of your post here highlights exactly what I've pointed out in this thread your arguments have had bugger all with what has been lets break it down to show how desperate you want continue this nonsense.

AAA games have sold more than Octopath Yeah and? How do you discern they have more value you look at the overall package from content, music, story, replayability etc... this is what I highlight with Octopath earlier in that it has all of these and your responses were harping on about content only for you to side step and say "I uhhh never said any of it was bad" then why are you even replying then? You effectively admitted you have no place in that particular debate, the's no middle ground either before you try the BS about I'm not saying its good or bad like you did earlier, look at your AAA response you just say they have more value with no explanation in the logic behind it of such what so ever. The irony is that such arguments are what the OP and people on the first page are directing their responses to congratulations you just provided them with a perfect example for their arguments

I've been gaming on PC for over 10 years it's not a wrong impression most games on the platform are cheaper than on console we even have an example right here in this thread of it in the mentioned game this is one reason companies do multiple types of season passes and pre-order packages to force people to pay more and bump up the prices.



areason said:
Shaunodon said:

Divinity Original Sin 2 on console ($60)

Pillars of Eternity 2 on console ($60)

Neither of them will have close to the demand or sales of Octopath Traveler as they're both niche PC-centric titles, so it'd make sense for them to be cheaper or drop in price faster.

They both cost less on steam. 

Niche? DOS2 had close to 2 million sales on steam last year. They aren't niche games. 

They are not niche, and they are priced that way because that is what the market expects. I disagree with the console ports costing more, but imo that is a result of console gamers bending to publishers. Which is what people are doing in this thread. 

The console prices of those games are just fine considering that you get a physical copy. IMO all digital-only AAA steam games should launch at $45. And they should be heavily discounted down to $20 by the 2nd Anniversary of release. 



The sentence below is false. 
The sentence above is true. 

Currently playing Skryim modded to hell and back. 

https://www.ultimateskyrim.com/

DonFerrari said:
Ulternia said:
I hate this conversation. It’s always done from a consumer’s perspective and never takes regard for risk or how the employees who worked on the games are paid.

On top of that, it hurts me as a fanboy to see people being stingy with the games we love. If it’s a great experience, I don’t see why it wouldn’t warrant a higher price just because the producer didn’t pay as much in to the game.

So much contradiction in your comment.

If you think risk and cost should be considered (to not be only customer perspective) then you can't at the same side say the price it is sold at should reflect that effort, risk and cost.

I believe risk, cost, investment and sale volume should be considered for every project. Just because 8T didn’t use the latest engines doesn’t mean that they can thrive easily off of 2M $40 purchases and pull off an improved sequel and thrive with a new series. This notion that only the latest tech is deserving of a normal price tag is nonsensical - just because a game cost a lot doesn’t mean it holds value. 

 

The biggest thing that confuses me is how cheap some some people are over $20. Games are already not expensive at all compared to other forms of entertainment.



Around the Network
HintHRO said:
And who is saying this exactly? Never saw a comment like that here or on any other forum.

Have you even looked at the other 14 pages of this topic?



Nintendo Switch Friend Code: SW-5643-2927-1984

Goddammit, I just wrote my comment and then accidentally exited the tab ... ugh ... !!!

For me, it's more like there's no genuine guarantee that I will enjoy the game. There isn't a guarantee that you will like any game before you play it, but with JRPGs there is even less assurance. I've tried many times to get into the genre, and there are a few games I really enjoyed [Final Fantasy 7, Xenoblade Chronicles 2, maybe Etrian Odyssey 5 if that counts even though it isn't a traditional JRPG], but ultimately the problem is I've never finished one. I don't think it's even anything against these particular type of games, on paper I should love them, it just seems like they're bloated with so many design decisions that don't make sense. You're constantly collecting shit that either isn't important to you, or that you don't know how to use. The combat system either has to be boring as hell, or unnecessarily multi-faceted. Also, I really don't know what is up with video game fans having very low standards for what makes a "great" story. The amount of times I've heard that a JRPG or a Triple A action game has a great story is honestly incredible, and it's almost never true. 

But, I really do like the concept of the game, and the graphics are some of the most unique and beautiful I've seen. I'm just on the fence because I can't tell if the praise is earned, or from my perspective, as unjustified as it's been in the past. I want to buy it, I'm just naturally cautious. I hope the story is good. 

Also, I don't know if it's just me, but the Bravely Default/Attack and Defend system makes no sense. I've played the first 2 hours of Bravely Default and the first demo of Octopath that came out last year, and it just seems like nothing more than a gimmick. You can defend to make your attacks more powerful later on, or you can just attack right away. All it does is drag out the battles, the armor system makes it a bit more interesting (I don't seem to remember that in the first 2 hours of BD but I think it was in Octopath's OG demo?), but even that seems like very little use of the system. Is it more fleshed out in the final game? 



jason1637 said:
It's not AAA.

LMAO



For the same reason the majority of people don't pay $60 for mobile titles. There are lots of titles with 100s of hours of great gameplay that are priced based on the budget of production. 

Some Switch games just seem like a rip off when you consider what you got for $40 on 3DS in its first year or PS4/XBO where competition is more intense. 

Last edited by xxbrothawizxx63 - on 21 July 2018

Maybe it has to do with the game being a turn-based RPG. Turn-based RPG's are honestly kinda boring for many people including me. It also has to do with the fact that it's a JRPG, their stories are sooooo slow paced and it takes a long time to get to the good stuff.

I mean this game being turn-based and all shouldn't really be 60$, to me it's not worth it. Plus I played the demo and it was mehh. It was just as I thought, slow and kinda boring.

Also, chill out, everyone is entitled to their opinion, just because some people don't like it doesn't mean that it has to hinder your enjoyment of the game. Why do their opinions matter?