The Order Costed About 60 Dollaroos, right?

Remember that game? Yeah, surprised you didn't. It wasn't brilliant.

Now, this thread isn't as much about The Order. It's just that I've seen people complain about No Man's Sky costing 60. That's a problem, apparently. Why? So far, it seems because people thought it was indy. Indy, as in, independent development. Just dudes and dudettes making a game. Yet I've heard Sony been doing stuff with it, too.

Regardless, the price has got people weirded out, much like The Witness. It's a lot of money for an "indie game". That's how it goes, right? I mean, that's what I've been seeing. The boundary between triple A and indie. Why?

What's the difference? Hell, we're talking about price-value-to customer here. Recently, The Witness and NMS have been victim of this. Why? Is it because it's indie, and by God, we know we only have to pay around 20 buckaroos when it comes down to these types of games?

The Order, yeah, in my thread title. That's a AAA title. It's a singleplayer game. A short one. Not much going on, and it's full price. I'm not here to tell you that nobody made a fuzz about this. They did. I just wonder... Where does it start and end? Value and price. How much a consumer gets out of it, and why does it matter if it's got a publisher indie or not?

Again, not arguing, I don't care that much, but let me know your thoughts on this whole price/value thing?

I remember The Order, and that's because I liked it a lot. I also didn't pay a cent for it though.

And yeah, **** indie bitching, because

A) indie isn't a fucking genre you twats

B) good content and diversity can be found in spades in any development budget, but less in the AAA space.

NMS is an independent game, sure, but I'm solely judging it on its videos so far, which don't warrant a $60 purchase on me.

If a game costs more than $20 it should have a physical version imo.

This, games like The Talos Principle and The Witness more than justify their price of admission.

Triple A wank aren't even worth their graphics engine.

I think it has to do with the track record from the studio developing the game. People lack trust. When you dont give people much to show for, its hard for people to put faith in. You have to make your game seem worth it, show us that its worth $60.

It's not about having a great quality, it's about the investment and effort.

When you say my title is indie it means that you haven't invested a lot on it , i mean financially, the budget is not high so no matter how great of a game it turns out to be it should be priced like an indie game , proportionate to the budget.

I dont mind the cost if the game is good, so we'll see.

I have no problems with the price.

They need to show more of it so we can decide if it's worth $60

So far I've seen the same demo over and over again. Show us what all we can do on these planets and it'll speak for itself. With so many planets to explore we need to great gameplay to keep us exploring and engaged. So far they haven't shown that. Also, can we contact friends and explore together? That stuff matters.

The complaining is stupid. If the exact same game was released by a big publisher there would be no complaining. However, since gamers don't actually understand what indie development is, they believe every indie game should cheap. Not every indie game is made equal, much like not every game made with the help of a big publisher is made equal.

*COST

Conjugation is cost-cost-cost.

I paid $10 for The Order on psn

This will be released physically.

I would gladly pay $60 for this game.

No issues with the price.

Yep, people were bitching over the same stuff when The Witness released as well. And I was arguing over pretty much the same points as you right now.

I don't get it, what does it matter how large a game's development team was if it's giving you enough content to last you like 20-30 hours at the very least? If that isn't worth the price of admission, I don't know what is. Meanwhile, people are perfectly happy paying for games like The Order because they're "AAA".

I keep thinking the same, some "AAA" games made by big dev teams and published by the likes of ea, activision, and ubi are ridiculously prized(60 for regular unfinished, day one patch games) and then you have the "deluxe" or "ultimate" editions that have the rest of the game locked. And you have to pay up to 90 for those. Seeing an indie dev making a game that is likely to be more complete, have several hours of gameplay and replayability doesn't seem so bad for 60, at least I know I won't have to get those 1gb patches on day one.

MSRP can't be based off of the individual value each person gives to an item. That's why it's more appropriate to price something in line with the cost to make the product while leaving a nice profit at the end of the day. I'm glad some people feel this game is worth $60, but I don't doubt some of you also value certain games in your collection beyond $100, or maybe even beyond $200 or $300... That doesn't mean games should sell for $300. And comparing this game to bad games like The Order isn't really a good argument. The Order was punished for being $60 by not selling well.

@freedomfreak: You're forgetting this news of No Man's Skys price is coming months and months before its release date. We all knew it was an indie game. The Order was announced for years and wasn't it just several days to a week before its release that the game's very short length came to surface?

Its the same stupid logic people use against multiplayer only games. I have put way more time and have gotten way more enjoyment from Rainbow Six Siege than I did from any game last year including the witcher 3 and Fallout 4. If a game is fun and hooks me for dozens and dozens of hours I have no problem shelling out $60

TO1886 was down to $30 2 months after it release and it went on sell for a whole month for $10 with PSN+

The game has been at $20 for a long time now and it hasnt been out for a year yet.

No Man's Sky looks like a very boring game, thats why Im super surprised its more than $20

Marketing.

More precisely,a video game publisher who responsible for eaily research,marketing,manufacturing,logistics etc,etc.Those thing cost money,well cost alots more than code monkeys so it raise the price.

No man sky is still an indy title in theory,they claim Sony can't get their hand on it.But there are many unusual media attention around this game,IGN even host a demonstration event for it,those are some major advertises and in no way are free.

I suppose if a game's developer is investing in marketing on the same sacle as a major publisher,they shouldn't be treated as an indie title anymore.

And no man sky have price as $60,which make it very clear it is not.

If people are willing to pay $60 for repetitive and shallow dude bro titles year after year, this game must seem like a utopia of content. I don't see a problem with the price.

I played the Order 1886 it's the best looking Videogame I've ever played at the start I didn't realise the cutscene had ended and I was suppose to play, it's like CGI

It's called supply and demand. You make it good, people will pay good price for it

Indie? Pokemon games are recycled garbage and it cost more than indie games. Scream at that

Gamers are fucking idiots. Not even speaking of No Mans Sky here, I haven't even kept up with the game, so I have no clue. But generally speaking, so many gamers today subscribe to some magical checklist as if a games value is something that can be translated into bullet points and numbers.

A game can play like droopy ass cheeks and do absolutely nothing new, but it's worth 60 bucks because it came from a AAA publisher, meets the game-per-square-inch quota, and has some fresh technical graphics. Throw in the morons who think every game needs both single and multiplayer modes while we're at it.

mmhmm

Still not worth £40 odd quid.

Wow, we sound really cheap.

Do what i'm doing - don't buy it.

I'm paying 80 for mine. You're all cheap. :P

It is not about the price really. The game doesn't look good. I still dun know what your objective is beside exploring for the sake of exploring.

Game looks boring. I didn't know they are charging 60 for it. Destiny 2.0...

http://nerdist.com/no-mans-sky-7-things-you-didnt-know/

I saw an interview with some gameplay and the guy said it was to discover center of universe. You start on outside and work in, learning new tech, languages and skills along the way. That sounds like it could be fun.

@freedomfreak: Sorry to rain on your parade but COST doesn't have a past form with -ED. It's irregular - COST.

@Salt_The_Fries: Sony won.

@freedomfreak: You are preaching to the choir. Why gamers have an erroneous idea of "indie" in their minds and wont let it go is beyond me. And I have no answers concerning how these people have judged a game that is not out yet, and the developer has said he wants to keep a lot of info concerning it under wraps, boring. It apears you can do quite a lot from what they have told us. Not enough action for them? Are they also the ones who make fun of COD? Does not compute. There has got to be a reason for this but I just can't figure it out.

So apparently now grammar is paramount when you post on System Wars

well tormentos is fucked

Yeah, I pirate a lot of stuff, and I'm gonna pay full price for No Man's Sky. Give me quality and you get my money, simple as that. Back in the Xbox era I bought a lot of shooter games, didn't and does not matter to me if they are short, quality was what mattered then, and still does 15 years later. I will always regret getting Dead To Rights though....

But the gamers have nothing to do with the budget. Unless it's a Kickstarter title (or something similar) we're talking about, I really don't see why gamers as consumers should judge a game's pricing based on who developed it and how much money they spent developing it. It's really the content that matters, and if a game is giving you like 20-30 hours' worth of content (and if that content is good), it should be worth the $60 (or $40, like with The Witness).

I mean, people are more than willing to pay the same amounts for shallow, meatless titles just because they have the "AAA" tag slapped on them. I don't see why those games are worth their price tag, just because they've got the name of a big studio attached to them.

i lol'd

almost everyone on SW is fucked

Don't get me wrong, obviously you gotta see the content worth the price or not but this is highly subjective. You can't base your pricing policy on subjectivity , it's impossible. So you gotta consider the budget of development of your product , it's the consumer that decides whether or not it does worth it. For instance, i'd personally pay 60$ for Rocket League but i wouldn't pay even 20 for Star Wars Battlefront, but this is purely subjective, definitely SW Battlefront had more budget than the RC hence the higher price point. (Although, i believe MP only games should not be higher that 40$ but as i said it all depends on your customer)

And we all know that if a game is flat out bad or mediocre its price will go down quickly and vice versa, the evident example is GTA V which man this game doesn't go down on price why? because the demand is so high but the opposite is true for like Watch Dogs.

You guys are 2 beautiful souls. Never change.

But seriously, I agree. I get tired of the "bullet-point" gamers these days.

Let's talk about price/value yes.

AAA publishers tell us it costs so much to make a singleplayer campaign in first person shooters.

So they take that element away, and still charge the same base 60 dollars ? Say wut ?!

It actually happens in many industries.

70 minute feature length films exist. Fat chance coughing up $20 to see it in theatres when a 2.5 hour Christopher Nolan film is playing at the same time.

Short stories on the Amazon Kindle store exist alongside 99c novel sagas. Guess what people think is value for money.

Fast food chains sell most of their products through combo 'value' meals. Smaller businesses can only really afford higher priced single items, but do try copy the 'combo' anyway because that's what people expect.

So yeah, happens in all industries. In saying that, the video gamers are the absolute worst. That's because most of us are proper scum anyway.

Couldn't agree more.

Didn't get what you're saying completely , what defines a game's value in your perspective? How the pricing policy should be?

The whole statement of "does it worth it?" is subjective , you can't have a per-defined "worth" system for everyone , i'd pay 60$ for an indie game like Rocket League but i wouldn't for an AAA game like Fallout 4 , but me being like "RC should be 60 and Fallout should be 20" is nonsensical....because obviously a lot more ppl have worked on Fallout 4 , a lot more investment has been into that game hence higher price point.

What games aren't being punished for doing that?

That goes for anyone really. I see a bunch of people saying gamers are idiots who aren't valuing each game based on the same merits, and are simply associating indie to mean lower quality, and lower value... but what games are people buying at $60 that are stripped of content that aren't being punished for shipping that way? It happens in most cases. Same in reverse when indie games with high amounts of content are being rewarded with high sales.

@freedomfreak: I stopped reading at "The Order was brilliant" lol!! As for No Man's Sky, I'm preordering it, but probably won't get it on day one.

The Order cost $10 last I saw... thought about finally playing it, at very least a perverse curiosity. Regardless of whether it seems worth it at $60, it will get cheap enough where I won't pass it up... maybe.

Let's be honest, judging from your post, you never started reading.