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

Cerebralbore101 said:
areason said:

60 dollars for a game is cheap. 

Movie tickets average at 10 dollars for about 2 hours of entertainment. 

Games are able to give up to 200 times that, while only costing 6 times as much. 

Crunchyroll, Netflix, and Hulu are about $10-$15 a month and offer hundreds of hours of entertainment. Most games run 40 to 60 hours. If they are online there's a subscription service unless you play on PC. Then you have to pay upfront for the hardware to play them on. Considering that, games are priced about the same per hour as other forms of media. So no. Game prices do not need to be raised. 

The argument you are making is the same one put forth by "games as a service" CEOs. I've seen news segments where some corporate stooge is making the exact same argument.  And it fails completely. 

By comparing prices to a streaming service, you are saying you would prefer game as a service like PSNow.  This is what corporations would prefer anyway so it is you who are playing into their hands with that argument.

 

No thank you, I would rather own physical copies or at least download the game to my own media.



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

Around the Network
outlawauron said:
Mar1217 said:

I heard many people complain over the short the campaign of Mario Odyssey which in turn made them question if it was worth the 80$ 

And seriously ?! A high-end stylised JRPG called low-fidelity game ? On the basis of what ?  Don't mask your opinion on the basis of critism.

What about Octopath makes it high-end? Quality of art and sprites? Neither of those disqualify it from being called low fidelity. I think Octopath is worth $60 because I'll pay just about anything for high quality JRPGs. That said, it's not a hard argument to make that it should be priced differently. Much like I Am Setsuna and Lost Sphear, it should have been priced differently from an $60 game.

Shaunodon said:

(0:21) "Exclusive to Switch, it takes the traditional top down style of SNES greats like FFVI and blends it with the cutting edge rendering techniques of Unreal Engine 4."

I don't see how this helps your argument. Game is beautiful, but it's clearly not pushing any boundaries. They went with style over fidelity. That's ok. At full price, it's going to be compared to other $60 games, regardless of length.

Did you bother watching the video? Just because it's not on the same scale as FFXV or DQXI doesn't mean there's nothing high-end about it. Persona 5 is not on the same scale as those games and went with style over fidelity, but that's somehow different because it has 3D models and cutscenes?
What magical line in the sand are we drawing here.

Grouping it directly with I am Setsuna and Lost Sphear is just lazy at best.



Shiken said:
Cerebralbore101 said:

Crunchyroll, Netflix, and Hulu are about $10-$15 a month and offer hundreds of hours of entertainment. Most games run 40 to 60 hours. If they are online there's a subscription service unless you play on PC. Then you have to pay upfront for the hardware to play them on. Considering that, games are priced about the same per hour as other forms of media. So no. Game prices do not need to be raised. 

The argument you are making is the same one put forth by "games as a service" CEOs. I've seen news segments where some corporate stooge is making the exact same argument.  And it fails completely. 

By comparing prices to a streaming service, you are saying you would prefer game as a service like PSNow.  This is what corporations would prefer anyway so it is you who are playing into their hands with that argument.

 

No thank you, I would rather own physical copies or at least download the game to my own media.

If they could offer up every single brand new game for $15 a month, with no input lag, and no hardware to buy, I'd do it. But they won't do every single new game. And if they did they wouldn't just charge $15 a month. The fact that they want to charge $4 to $10 a month just for the ability to play online-multiplayer proves that. XBL is about $5 a month, and gamepass is $10. But those are mostly old games. And you still have to shell out money for the system to play it on. 

I have no doubt that once MS eventually kills off the Xbox brand and goes for "Games as a Service" full time, they will try to charge people $30 to $40 a month. And they will do a bunch of other scams to get even more money out of you on top of that, like holding your game saves hostage on the cloud. Or offering a premium monthly price, just to get all the DLC. People forget how MS wanted to charge people $10 just for the ability to sell their used copy. 

You already know this, but most people don't so I'll say it anyway. Once physical games disappear game companies will be able to charge whatever the hell they want, because there will be no alternative. Steam sales are driven by the used game market. Once there is no more used game market there will be no more steam sales.

Edit: I'd also like to point out that the corporate stooges aren't advocating a $15 streaming service. They are making this argument to justify content carving, season passes, and micro-transactions. 

Last edited by Cerebralbore101 - on 20 July 2018

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

Currently playing Skryim modded to hell and back. 

https://www.ultimateskyrim.com/

I think it is more expectations. It's got the retro FFVI graphics but done in 3D, still retro though. People expect retro styled games to be at a discount. I suspect I will get the game at some point, I was quite excited about it, but I never even considered that it would be a full priced game because it looks like a 3D version of a 16 bit game. I just assumed it would be like $30 bucks the entire time I knew about it and then when I realized it was gonna be twice that cost I was like ok no way in hell I'm paying twice what I expected to pay. So for me I'll wait until its discounted to pick it up. I'm not a graphics whore at all and think that people still are obsessed with graphics these days when every single system has unbelievable graphics is crazy, but my expectation for a retro styled game is that it will be cheaper. No doubt the game is worth more than plenty of other $60 games, but in terms of presentation it looks like a (REALLY COOL) retro indie style game, so the expectation from the presentation of the game is that it should cost like $30-$40.



Wyrdness 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?

Strawman argument because your argument here hinges on the quality of materials used to build a house when in fact the actual scenario is you buy a house that was built with materials that weren't from top expensive brands but are still of good quality resulting in a house that still stands up to other houses. In that scenario the cost to build it doesn't matter because the quality still matches any other product out there.

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.



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:
Wyrdness said:

Strawman argument because your argument here hinges on the quality of materials used to build a house when in fact the actual scenario is you buy a house that was built with materials that weren't from top expensive brands but are still of good quality resulting in a house that still stands up to other houses. In that scenario the cost to build it doesn't matter because the quality still matches any other product out there.

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.



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

Yeah, sorry OP, that's not how it works with games.
For example, Witcher 3 is game with more content and way higher production value, yet it was $60 game.
Octopath is just nowhere near that production level, so $60 is really too much for it.
Of course, publisher at least suspects it can get away with it in this case, so that's their asking price - and whoever is fine with it will obviously dip in.



HoloDust said:
Yeah, sorry OP, that's not how it works with games.
For example, Witcher 3 is game with more content and way higher production value, yet it was $60 game.
Octopath is just nowhere near that production level, so $60 is really too much for it.
Of course, publisher at least suspects it can get away with it in this case, so that's their asking price - and whoever is fine with it will obviously dip in.

Yep. If enough people find the value on it, as much to justify the buying and make it profitable publishers will do the price that maximize profit.



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

It's probably because it doesn't have battle royale or loot boxes.