By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

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

Cerebralbore101 on 20 July 2018
John2290 said:
My reasoning is having bought half a dozen to a dozen or so games in this genre and style, length and scope included over the last few years and being able to pick out at least three, maybe four at launch prices for that 70 euro price tag. Or simply gathering bundles and antologies of older games ammouting to dozens and dozens of games from the last two decades and thousands of hours.
It's also pretty much set in stone with no chance of any meaningful sale. I don't judge a game on hours or price but the industry had pretty much agreed throwback games in this genre, regardless of length or scope would not exceed 40 euro and this is a slap to the face, cartridge tax or not. This games budget does not need the retail price to be anywhere near 70 euro to make a profit, it's gross overkill.

70 Euro? That's like $82! Highway robbery for any game, much less this one! I payed $48 for this one, and I still get $2.88 in rewards points, as well as $0.60 in Nintendo Coins. 

Last edited by Cerebralbore101 - on 20 July 2018

Around the Network
HoloDust on 20 July 2018
Shiken said:
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.

So you would rather pay 60 bucks for a 6-8 hour game like The Order 1886, Battlefront 2, or Quantum Break than for a 100 hour plus game like Octopath Traveler based soley on production cost?

 

Seems self limiting if you ask me.  And judging by the sales for Octo so far, it seems that the price based on content view I spoke of is exactly how it work...just sayin'.

Nah...it's based on content value AND production value. $60 games should have both, though content value can be often much harder to measure than production value.



DonFerrari on 20 July 2018
Wyrdness said:
DonFerrari said:

Nope UE4 is a tool not material (asset)... The asset would be texture, models, polygons, etc, exactly the things that are not cutting edge.

Budget never equates value. Nothing tangible and objective equates value (things like you saying solid facts would make it even funnier).

Strawman isn't focusing in part of the argument, wanted to remember you of it. I admitted the content is good? You try to shove words in my mouth (I didn't say the content is good or bad, but you tried to shoehorn both opinions on me). I said that if someone think the content isn't good (hint, the polish, graphic and other aspects can be relevant for someone that thinks the content isn't good...) content isn't simply the amount of time it takes you to do something.

Trying to use my language as merit of discussion is another fallacy of argumentation, funny for someone accusing another of doing personal route.

Yes customers pay what they think something is worth. Which already put the premise of OP to rest. For people that think this game isn't worth because it doesn't have the level of detail and production value AAA games have then for them it's true. Now please go and say the same to OP.

Not cutting edge doesn't equate to poor like you've tried to argue.

When you try to argue a stance you take on the angle you're coming from in this case you tried arguing the content was not as good as what it is in other games so you got a rebuttal that dealt with that angle it's only when you were debunked that you began back peddling saying you meant this and that. Even the non sense you're coming up with now about saying it's not to some people's tastes has bugger all to do with what I said because I was addressing someone who was equating budget to value.

I'm pulling you on whether it's your first language because your responses do not match the debate you're arguing in any context the only way for that to happen is either a language barrier or if you're deliberately arguing something to just try and push your stance, as for being personal believe me if I went personal after you tried to slick you wouldn't be here right now your hands would be shaking while you look off into the sky somewhere.

Why should I say the same to the OP I wasn't responding to him and he hasn't responded to me I responded to a post about budget how about you say it to the op and don't tell others what to do.

sure not cut edge doesn't equate poor but also doesn't scream 60 usd.

you assume to much and the claim back pedalling. quote me saying the cont is good or bad and then you can try and claim back pedaling. still something costing more to make generally justifies a higher price.

the argument is the OP so if you want to deviate from that and say you only want to discuss the premise someone else made fine, but that have nothing to do with language barrier. But please make me shake in fear of your excellent arguments. Seems like ypu quickly forgot your confusion between tool and material.

The thread is to discuss what was put by OP so if you don't want to discuss what he put the you are derailing and being of topic... besides being condescending. I have already replied OP.



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

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

DonFerrari on 20 July 2018
Shiken said:
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.

So you would rather pay 60 bucks for a 6-8 hour game like The Order 1886, Battlefront 2, or Quantum Break than for a 100 hour plus game like Octopath Traveler based soley on production cost?

 

Seems self limiting if you ask me.  And judging by the sales for Octo so far, it seems that the price based on content view I spoke of is exactly how it work...just sayin'.

And wouldn't you also be limiting yourself by not playing games with 8h because it would cost 60?

If duration equate value or price then GT5 should have retailed for 1000 usd



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

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Wyrdness on 20 July 2018
DonFerrari said:

sure not cut edge doesn't equate poor but also doesn't scream 60 usd.

you assume to much and the claim back pedalling. quote me saying the cont is good or bad and then you can try and claim back pedaling. still something costing more to make generally justifies a higher price.

the argument is the OP so if you want to deviate from that and say you only want to discuss the premise someone else made fine, but that have nothing to do with language barrier. But please make me shake in fear of your excellent arguments. Seems like ypu quickly forgot your confusion between tool and material.

The thread is to discuss what was put by OP so if you don't want to discuss what he put the you are derailing and being of topic... besides being condescending. I have already replied OP.

Yet good story, gameplay, content etc.. does. You earlier:

"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."

This is you trying to play down the content's quality earlier and now you're claiming you never questioned quality, costing more doesn't justify having a higher price value does this is why X1 had issues selling early on because the was cheaper made product that delivered better value to the point the more expensive product had to have price cuts to match.

I didn't deviate from anything cut the BS I responded to someone who tried saying that the budget in development determines the value as their reasoning at which point you tried to dance your way in and got dismantled now here you are trying to shift the argument to make it look like you had a point when in actual case you had sod all to add to it. Guess what people can respond to others in related branches of debate only one derailing is you with your continued nonsense because my original post was still part of the topic unlike you here.

I'll tell you this right here don't respond to me with your nonsense ever if you can't accept the rebuttals that come your way because I'll shut it down over and over and don't ever try to act high and mighty when earlier you tried to become personal because I can already see you're one to try and start something then crumble when things become too hot for you to handle. I'm not here to sugar coat responses to replies when they're type you've been bringing remember that next time you want to try your hand at being a commando.

Last edited by Wyrdness - on 20 July 2018

Around the Network
Shiken on 20 July 2018
DonFerrari said:
Shiken said:

So you would rather pay 60 bucks for a 6-8 hour game like The Order 1886, Battlefront 2, or Quantum Break than for a 100 hour plus game like Octopath Traveler based soley on production cost?

 

Seems self limiting if you ask me.  And judging by the sales for Octo so far, it seems that the price based on content view I spoke of is exactly how it work...just sayin'.

And wouldn't you also be limiting yourself by not playing games with 8h because it would cost 60?

If duration equate value or price then GT5 should have retailed for 1000 usd

I played The Order 1886 and enjoyed it when it first came out.  I am just taking the perspective of the general masses at the time and using it to counter a point on the other end of the spectrum.

When a game like The Order comes out and people say, "visuals are great and the gunplay is great, but it can be beaten in 6 hours so it should cost 20-30 bucks" with many of them pulling a 180 years later with an game like Octopath and say, "The visuals are too primitive so it should only cost 40 bucks despite having around 100 hours of enjoyable gameplay (if you like JRPGs), solid gameplay mechanics, and interesting plotlines," it just does not make sense to me.  I was simply making a point, not expressing my own feeling towards shorter games.  I am with you, it would be limiting.  That is why I play both.

 

To me, one aspect can balance another.  Of a game is enjoyable and is a technical feat for its time, the 60 is fine.  If a game has low production cost but offers more content than many other games for the same price, 60 is also fine.  It is not one way or the other, they are interchangeable.



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

Animal Crossing NH Dream Address: DA-1078-9916-3261

Farsala on 20 July 2018
Shiken said:
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.

So you would rather pay 60 bucks for a 6-8 hour game like The Order 1886, Battlefront 2, or Quantum Break than for a 100 hour plus game like Octopath Traveler based soley on production cost?

 

Seems self limiting if you ask me.  And judging by the sales for Octo so far, it seems that the price based on content view I spoke of is exactly how it work...just sayin'.

Those games should be less too. Publishers should try different prices like Sony did with Sly Cooper and Ratchet and Clank. The Order 1886 might have been a success if it was $30, but it could have flopped again who knows.



Shaunodon on 20 July 2018
Farsala said:
Shiken said:

So you would rather pay 60 bucks for a 6-8 hour game like The Order 1886, Battlefront 2, or Quantum Break than for a 100 hour plus game like Octopath Traveler based soley on production cost?

 

Seems self limiting if you ask me.  And judging by the sales for Octo so far, it seems that the price based on content view I spoke of is exactly how it work...just sayin'.

Those games should be less too. Publishers should try different prices like Sony did with Sly Cooper and Ratchet and Clank. The Order 1886 might have been a success if it was $30, but it could have flopped again who knows.

Why should Octopath be a lower price? It's selling out world over and it's critically acclaimed. As I said before this isn't a widespread problem or complaint for Octopath Traveler, so I don't know why we're even having this debate.



Shiken on 20 July 2018
Shaunodon said:
Farsala said:

Those games should be less too. Publishers should try different prices like Sony did with Sly Cooper and Ratchet and Clank. The Order 1886 might have been a success if it was $30, but it could have flopped again who knows.

Why should Octopath be a lower price? It's selling out world over and it's critically acclaimed. As I said before this isn't a widespread problem or complaint for Octopath Traveler, so I don't know why we're even having this debate.

No it is not a widespread problem, thank god.  The game is amazing.  I just brought the subject up because I see enough people on forums making the claim and I figured it would be a decent topic of discussion.



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

Animal Crossing NH Dream Address: DA-1078-9916-3261

Medisti on 21 July 2018

Apparently they did an excellent job making it look like a 16-bit game, because people are fooled to the point they don't realize how much impressive Unreal Engine tech is in the game, and they're even calling it a 2D game, when everything is 3D except the character sprites.