40 goddamn dollars!?

[CookeKeyes]

For a game that can be beaten in 10 hours?! There’s even a trophy for beating it in less than 3!!
 

WTF is with this ridiculous pricing? This is like The Pathless all over again, except that game was longer.

 

I was really looking forward to this, but there’s no way I’m paying $40 for it.

 

This isn’t really an issue of game length per say, it’s about a game charging more than it’s worth. Play time isn’t my only criteria, and isn’t the sole reason I take umbrage with the price. This is a very short game with very little replay value and is obviously an indie game in scale and scope. It all boils down to: 

 

This is a single A game with a double A price.

 

 

Edited December 2, 2021 by CookeKeyes

[DaivRules]

7 minutes ago, CookeKeyes said:

For a game that can be beaten in 10 hours?!

How long without a guide? If it challenges you for another ~10 hours when you don’t have all the collectible locations called out, would it be worth $40 then?

 

 

[CookeKeyes]

4 minutes ago, DaivRules said:

How long without a guide? If it challenges you for another ~10 hours when you don’t have all the collectible locations called out, would it be worth $40 then?

 

 

Nope. That’s an artificial increase to play time; the amount of content is the same. This is a $25 game at best.

Edited December 2, 2021 by CookeKeyes

[Inuty]

Well if i go in a cinema and look 4 movies i will pay at least 40 Euro and have at highest 8 hours to watch. Sounds like a good Deal for me if someone is interested in the game

[Yoey_666]

I never understand those threads. If you don't wanna pay that much it is ok. But are you the one who defines what a game is worth or not ? 

 

Just wait for a sale then.

 

Some people seem to think that gamedevs can survive from absorbing monitor light.

[Maxemole]

Just now, Yoey_666 said:

I never understand those threads. If you don't wanna pay that much it is ok. But are you the one who defines what a game is worth or not ? 

 

Just wait for a sale then.

 

Some people seem to think that gamedevs can survive from absorbing monitor light.

Seriously lol. That game took years of time and effort to make. I don't think game length transfers to value in the slightest. If you have a problem with it, just wait for a sale ig.

[NMErickson]

Wait for sale like many other people do for games. No one says you need to play it at launch.

 

Price per hour of gameplay is subjective. If it’s enjoyable then $40 for 10 hours is not bad. Like Inuty said it’s roughly the same price as seeing movies at a theater in that same timespan.

[Rakurisan]

I really don't agree with the price either. I was expecting 20€. 

[ConAir]

The time to play doesn't really matter to me, but it does worry me that indie titles become more expensive. And offcourse, the developer has to eat and live, but at 40 euros it competes with midprice games from the larger publishers or have big budget ones after their first pricecut.

 

With a few exceptions (Streets of Rage, Dead Cells) I hardly buy indiegames at a price above 15 euro's.

[CookeKeyes]

Firstly, I don’t watch movies, so I couldn’t care less about that analogy; it has no effect on me. 
 

Secondly, I know you’re all trying to justify your purchases so you don’t feel like you got ripped off….but you got ripped off my dudes. Sunk cost fallacy and all that. 
 

Thirdly, if this game was priced more reasonably then they’d get more sales. Instead, they overcharge for it knowing it’s going to divide their customer base.

 

Lastly, “just wait for a sale.” I am, but that doesn’t change the fact that this game is overpriced.

Like I said, I was really looking forward to playing this on launch, but now I have to wait who knows how many weeks or months before it comes down to a reasonable price; a price it should have been from the beginning.

 

For $40, I could buy games with way more content than this one. For example, Evil Genius 2 just came out for the same price and it’s easily 3 times the size of this game.

$70 is a AAA price (used to be $60) $40 is a AA price, and

$25 is a single A price.

 

This is a single A game with a double A price.

 

Edited December 2, 2021 by CookeKeyes

[Gage]

This attitude is the reason tons of modern AAA games fill their games with garbage bloat to meet the arbitrary and toxic "hours played = good value" idea. 

[CookeKeyes]

6 minutes ago, Gage said:

This attitude is the reason tons of modern AAA games fill their games with garbage bloat to meet the arbitrary and toxic "hours played = good value" idea. 

I get what you’re saying, and I hate that train of thought that big publishers have too.
 

I also see now that my original post would lead you think that my issue with this game is based solely on play time, but it isn’t. I’ve edited the original post to expand on my problem with this game’s price. ?

[SeedersPhD]

This is such a weird thing to whine about.

 

There's more to a game then how long it is. A high-quality indie game takes a lot of people and a company can't always chew a low launch price. You're obviously not aware of the financial situation of the company but it has been in development for a long while and and it's from a studio known for their quality.

 

I'd rather have an extremely high quality game that's a decent length then a long game with little staying power and fails to impress. I can pay $20+ for a great meal at a restaurant but I don't eat it for 20 hours. I can pay $10 to see a movie for <2 hours. Heck, people pay thousands to go to Disney but you better bet they aren't going to be there for longer than 41 days. The only thing that expecting excessively long games is going to get us is excessively mediocre games.

 

If it's not for you then you can wait for a sale but it's not the game that's the problem, it's your crybaby attitude.

[Snake_1302]

I understand where you're coming from, but there's nothing to be done from complaining about it. You're just going to rile up people who disagree with you. This same argument is brought up with the Resident Evil series even though those games are designed to be played multiple times to complete different challenges and earn different unlockables.

I've rarely ever payed more than 20 dollars for a game in the past decade or so, I see no reason to rush out and get it brand new when it will inevitably hit that 20 dollar price mark (most of the time, some niche or limited games never go down in price), these aren't Nintendo first party titles we're talking about, so price cuts for Playstation games are inevitable. The vast majority of my library has come from gamefly sales, and the waiting usually pays off with complete versions that include all DLC. Ghost of Tushima Directors Cut? Didn't affect me because the original never went on sale for $20, so now I can just bide my time for the complete version to go on sale.

 

You're going to have to decide what's more important, playing an expensive game immediately, or waiting up to a year or two to play it for cheap. Sounds like you're definitely in the latter category for this game, so just wait it out. Let the first wave buyers support the devs at the original pricepoint and you can pick it up later.

 

Edited December 3, 2021 by Snake_1302

[CookeKeyes]

1 hour ago, SeedersPhD said:

This is such a weird thing to whine about.

 

You're obviously not aware of the financial situation of the company but it has been in development for a long while and and it's from a studio known for their quality.

Oh, and you are? Do you work for them? Are you their accountant? No? Then you’re not qualified to speak on their financial situation either, so don’t act like you are.

 

Quote

 

If it's not for you then you can wait for a sale but it's not the game that's the problem, it's your crybaby attitude.

 

Lmao…It’s this kind of attitude why we now have $70 games instead of $60. It has nothing to do with inflation. It’s 100% about greed. Publishers raised their prices because they know people will pay it, thinking they’re supporting the company, even if the game launches completely broken; which is now the norm instead of the exception. Is that the kind of company you want to support? One that charges you more for something that barely works? I know I wouldn’t support such a company.

We shouldn’t have to wait for a sale for a game to finally be priced what it’s actually worth.

Edited December 3, 2021 by CookeKeyes

[yowzagabowza]

I have stopped buying games at their first price. I stopped near the end of PS3 when dlc and season passes started becoming so prolific. I know this game has neither of those things, but $40 is above what I paid for Guardians of the Galaxy, Miles Morales, Fenyx Rising, Resident Evil Vlll and about a hundred other games.

[SeedersPhD]

45 minutes ago, CookeKeyes said:

We shouldn’t have to wait for a sale for a game to finally be priced what it’s actually worth.

 

And you know what it's worth...how?

 

If you aren't gonna address anything in this thread and continue to make excuses for your aggressive yet poorly thought through take...I don't know why you made this thread in the first place...

[BlackCatBurrito]

5 hours ago, CookeKeyes said:

For a game that can be beaten in 10 hours?! There’s even a trophy for beating it in less than 3!!
 

WTF is with this ridiculous pricing? This is like The Pathless all over again, except that game was longer.

 

I was really looking forward to this, but there’s no way I’m paying $40 for it.

 

This isn’t really an issue of game length per say, it’s about a game charging more than it’s worth. Play time isn’t my only criteria, and isn’t the sole reason I take umbrage with the price. This is a very short game with very little replay value and is obviously an indie game in scale and scope. It all boils down to: 

 

This is a single A game with a double A price.

 

 

Did daddy take his credit card back? 

[TrophyChief]

When I saw the title, I already predicted. See ya

[Quink666]

I played games that were really short and worth 60 bucks. This game looks pretty good and is getting good reviews. But you usually don't have to wait long before indies go one sale. Give it 2-3 months and it'll be at 20-30% off.

[xKingintheNorthx]

Quality > quantity in my book. I do find it pretty funny that without playing the game someone could determine it’s worth ?

[RogueAgent-Code7]

OP is just being a cheapskate you guys ???

[DrBloodmoney]

Trying to come up with a broad "formula" for what should constitute valid price points for games is a fool's errand.

 

Games are worth what people are willing to pay, and what people are willing to pay for changes from person to person.

 

Personally, quality is more important to me than length. In fact, I would argue most of the best (i.e. "most valuable")  gaming experiences I've had are in shorter games - games that don't pad their good stuff with fluff and time-sink busy-work.

 

 

 

7 hours ago, CookeKeyes said:

Lmao…It’s this kind of attitude why we now have $70 games instead of $60. It has nothing to do with inflation. It’s 100% about greed. Publishers raised their prices because they know people will pay it, thinking they’re supporting the company, even if the game launches completely broken; which is now the norm instead of the exception. Is that the kind of company you want to support? One that charges you more for something that barely works? I know I wouldn’t support such a company.

 

Well, as I understand it,  given the high quality of Hyper Light Drifter, it is highly unlikely that Solar Ash will launch in a broken state, so this statement seems to counter your own original point.

 

You say you don't like paying market value for AAA games, as you perceive them to all be 'broken at launch' (a wild exaggeration IMO, but that's by-the-by, and there is certainly some specific examples that could be cited to support your broad point,) but then, shouldn't that mean you should, conversely, be happier to pay market value for a product that isn't 'broken at launch'?

 

Assuming Solar Ash launches without the kind of issues the 'AAA' games you are talking about have, wouldn't that mean it is worth paying market value for - supporting developers who do polish their games prior to launch, and don't require long patching-tails, encouraging that practice with your wallet, and not just by the absence of impotent forum rage?

 

 

 

 

Anyways, it's a moot point. The fact is, games have always cost what people will pay.

 

Atari 2600 games would run the gambit, in todays money, of anywhere from $110-170 adjusted for inflation.

Cartridge games on the NES, SNES and Genesis would around $105-$120 adjusted for inflation.

NeoGeo games were insane, at around $390 in today's money.

Hell, even PS1 and N64 games, adjusted for inflation, were in the $85 range.

 

There is, in fact, a very real argument that, adjusted for inflation, even with the broad increase from $60 to $70 for new 'AAA' games, it has never been cheaper to buy videogames...

...and that's without even considering both the increase in deep, broad sales in digital stores, and the huge diversification of price ranges, driven by indie gaming, where publishers are much more free to set a price point anywhere from $1 to $100, (running the gambit from one-man-band pixel-art indies, to multi-studio AAA blockbusters, and the whole spectrum in-between,) and let the market decide if they hit the sweet spot or not.

Edited December 3, 2021 by DrBloodmoney

[VacuusDeus]

.......then don't buy it?

 

As I've gotten older I would rather have a great 10 hour experience than 120 hours of nonsense like when I got the plat for AC Valhalla. 

[TheKingpin893]

If you want to play a cool and fun game there's a game called deaths door which is like 20$ it's really really really fantastically AWESOME