Sounds like a copout to avoid admitting ur wrong

Yawn I guess I can respond (because I'm not wrong!) but I've been here long enough to know this discussion isn't going anywhere when one side reacts so defensively.

JWeinCom wasn't even acting defensive, u made an extremely ignorant comment and he explained how it was.

Ill pick it, no doubt.

yay!

"There are many games that can and should be priced at a much lower rate by your silly and arbitrary standards, but are not."

That's a defensive reply. I don't know what kind of discussions you have with people but I don't call their opinion silly because I disagree with them.

1. Then what were you talking about?

2. The scale of the changes from early 2D platformers to recent ones isn't even close to the ones for first-person shooters. The more complex game design of first-person shooters has allowed for far greater improvements along the years.

3. But they don't require as limited of technologies as 2D platformers. And that's a very important aspect because that's the difference between a small budget and a big budget which is the difference between a low retail price and a high retail price. First-person shooters are quite a notch above 2D platformers when it comes to the complexity of the game design. They imply 3D environements which then involves a more complex level design, control scheme, collision system and so much more and all of that means more bugs and glitches that require extensive testing phase.

4. Never said that?

5. I said they all play the same or so. And I meant ultimately the same as something that's already out there. Rainbow Curse does try to bring a twist the way Canvas Curse did but if it's already been done in Canvas Curse than we can say it recycled the idea. And that's only meaningful because then they didn't have to come up with a new idea for Rainbow Curse (which would imply R&D costs) which lowers the budget and allows for a lower price point. Call of Duty isn't unique no but they still cost a ton of money to make however much similar they are one another and that justifies the full retail price.

6. I said that pertaining to the complexity of creating a 2D platformer that uses previously developed assets and ideas. 2D platformers are as simple as it gets on a technical level which is why they've been around for so long and are still the go-to genre for small teams or indie developers. It requires less ressources to create than pretty much any other genre. That means a lower budget and thus an appropriately lower retail pricing.  What is there to deny?

7. Where did I disagree with that?

8. LOL lower budget = lower price point is certainly not an arbitrary standard. And again I don't disagree that many sequels should be priced lower but there's no reason for companies to do this if their games sell regardless of how much smiliar they are to their predecessors (Cod, AC and every sports games really).

The $40 price tag has made me reconsider picking this up.

But ur post was silly, u downplayed a game by describing things that most games are guilty of.

Wth I didn't downplay the game at all. I gave a justification for the lower retail pricing. And my comment applied to the whole 2D platformer genre. They just don't cost as much to make. It's as simple as that. I don't know what's silly or ignorant about it. Puppeteer is another example of a 2D platformer given a 40$ price point and rightfully so. Not because of its quality or its value but because it was a smaller project that didn't justify a full price at retail.