Impeccable
Member
Then wait and buy it at a price you deem appropriate.
Ready at Dawn responds to "concern" over The Order: 1886 campaign length
- Thread starter DarkLordMalik
- Start date
Then wait and buy it at a price you deem appropriate.
BreezyLimbo
Banned
Sure if you want to reduce my argument based on 'Length:cost' you can make an argument. But $60 is still the baseline, and when I look at a games length, then I'll compare it to $60 hits such as Dragon Age:Inquisition or GTAV which launched at $60.
Ask the games industry why that's the baseline.
Whoa there buddy, calm down. You were the one responding to me and twisting my argument.
Fixed2BeBroken
Member
Don't ever think I said I wouldn't do that, and that isn't the argument
Interfectum
Member
Yeah it's almost time to close this sucker down I think.
ProfessorMoran
Member
The Order 1886 OT: Longer than a blowjob and HALF THE PRICE!!!
Clinton514
Member
That works out to be just fine with me. I have to game in smaller chunks so it all works out.
Elitist1945
Member
Looks like I'll be playing it on Hard, then!
HAHAHA! Please make this happen
jmaine_ph
Member
Hard it is. As I always do with all my games where difficulty can be chosen
CosmicQueso
Member
I'm asking you because you said there was a reason $60 was the baseline.
Apparently you don't know that reason, which is fine.
Just thought you had some insight to share given your statement.
Well, i paid 60$ in PS2 days for Zone Of The Enders. Beat the game under 3 hours. Great gaming experience. I paid 60$ for ICO. Beat game under 5 hours. Great gaming experience. I paid 60$ for first Devil May Cry. Beat the shit out of game under 5 hours. Great gaming experience.
Great gaming experiences are worth 60$
BreezyLimbo
Banned
There is a reason why games are $60. Well, those released by major companies atleast. Maybe it's because of production costs, or maybe it's just what people are used to the prices introduced during last gen. Dunno why you assumed I had some insight why it was the way it was. It just is.
ZoE was ok, I liked ZoE 2 more. Offered alot more to the game.(I also paid only $50.) DMC also had a bunch of replayability and gameplay to it. Never played Ico, never interested in it.
Fixed2BeBroken
Member
PRETTY sure....all those games were $50 when they came out...
and from my experience, payed ICO and DMC1 for $20 each....great value and experience. never cared for ZOE
Daffy Duck
Member
And then there's the nutted but she still sucking aspect of games going on too long after you're "done" when all you're doing is sitting there thinking "how much longer"?
JackLongRod
Banned
LMFAO !!!
Not gonna lie that would be amazing if that ended up being the Thread title.
Alien: Isolation did that and I still haven't recovered.
Fixed2BeBroken
Member
all those games were $50 when they came out....that guy doesn't know what he's talking about.
BreezyLimbo
Banned
Yeah I tried uh, being nice by responding to him.
I also had no idea when he mentioned he paid $60...and I'm pretty sure ZoE was bashed for being a short game back in the day, the only reason people brought it was for the MGS2 demo.
Fixed2BeBroken
Member
it was and the main reason people got it was MGS2 demo as you said..so yea. terrible examples basically.
BreezyLimbo
Banned
I remember the jokes back in the day that people were basically buying the MGS2 and getting a free short game to go with it.
FrankWza
Member
this reminds me of the ground zeroes situation. pretty soon some reviewer will do a "this game is ONLY 5 hours" rant and the arguing will continue. that time could actually be spent playing the game. no matter what, $60 be entertained for 5 hours is better than whining for 5 hours and wasting your time arguing. NOTHING is more valuable than time. yet most of the complainers are wasting their time complaining.
Crossing Eden
Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
We're not just buying cutscenes.
Fixed2BeBroken
Member
yea, AngryJoe might go in on this one. haha
they probably finished the game since it was so short so now they want to use their time to argue about the length.
TrojanBlade
Member
WTH, can't believe this thread is still alive. From what I see it boils down to this:
1. If you like what you have seen so far and like a story driven, linear, high production values shooter, this game is for you. If you have the money, buy it now or later when its cheaper.
2. If you are skeptic about the game, and not convinced it''s worth the full price, but still have the itch to play this game, wait till price drops to what you think this game should be worth and buy it then.
3. If you hate linear, story driven games, just avoid this game and go find a game that fancies you. You will not be convinced to buy it and you will not convince others who want this game to not buy it. This game is not for you. Stop being 'concerned' for this game. It will be fine without you.
Now where is the OT for The Order?
1. If you like what you have seen so far and like a story driven, linear, high production values shooter, this game is for you. If you have the money, buy it now or later when its cheaper.
2. If you are skeptic about the game, and not convinced it''s worth the full price, but still have the itch to play this game, wait till price drops to what you think this game should be worth and buy it then.
3. If you hate linear, story driven games, just avoid this game and go find a game that fancies you. You will not be convinced to buy it and you will not convince others who want this game to not buy it. This game is not for you. Stop being 'concerned' for this game. It will be fine without you.
Now where is the OT for The Order?
Lol, I hope this is a joke post.
TheJollyCorner
Member
This, right here, made this entire 36 page ridiculous thread worth it.
BreezyLimbo
Banned
I'm sorry you had to pay $10 more dollars for the MGS2 demo.
Fixed2BeBroken
Member
then in your country, games are $10.00 more than what they were then...
so our 50 is your 60 and our 60 is your 70....basically the value is the same so your point is still nullified.
Lol
WordsintheWater
Member
Holy fuck, the game is short, if that bothers you don't purchase it, if it doesn't buy it. All these analogies that don't work mind you are useless. Some people don't think that a 60 dollar game for 6 hours is worth it for them, others do, why can't we agree to disagree. Is there really anything else left to debate on this topic?
Not that you were asking me, but isn't it because publishers determined that it was the optimal point between having to pay licensing fees/retail margins and keeping the price low enough to get people on board (and then selectively monetize them further with special editions, DLC, season passes, and microtransactions)?
Like I remember a few publishers who tried $40 at retail that felt it wasn't profitable enough to be worth it (and didn't see enough change in consumer behavior), and then some games make astronomical amounts of money by reaching as many people as possible and then monetizing them with things like GTA monies or FIFA card packs.
CosmicQueso
Member
Industry secret... want to know why PS3/X360 games went to $60? Activision (in particular Bobby Kotick) said Call of Duty 2 was going to launch at $59.99 because they wanted it to. Then everyone else jumped on board and it became standard.
And that's why Destiny didn't launch at $69.99...
THQ's MX vs ATV experiment was something everyone in the industry was watching closely. When it failed, the cheaper base game/MTX model wasn't embraced. What would REALLY mess you up is if you saw the consumer research on lower price points. A $49.99 price point, for example, is received by consumers as a direct reflection of a games quality. Not only will you sell for a lower price, you'll sell far fewer units at $49.99 than by selling the exact same game at $59.99 (talking disc based stuff here). The purchase intent of a $49.99 game falls off meaningfully from the exact same game description at $59.99.
That's the current dream. Everyone wants to make an Ultimate Team version for their game.
So the reason games are priced at $60 is because games are priced at $60.
EightBitNate
Member
I also just remember all the people celebrating that the game didn't have multiplayer because they thought it would make the single player better. lol
I didn't regret it.
I'm from Europe, rather from Croatia. Games were ( and still are ) more expensive in those days.
Weren't almost all games at that time priced at $50?
Also I keep hearing people talk about 5 hours, but from what I've read regarding people actually playing and finishing the game I've not seen anywhere mentioning that length.
The_Darkest_Red
Member
That seemed to help out Wolfenstein quite a bit last year. The game had a meaty campaign loaded with replay value and unlockables, the kind of stuff that's very rare in games these days.
No matter what the length or quality of The Order is I can't imagine adding a half-hearted multiplayer portion would have made it any better.
Mass_Pincup
Banned
Longer is not better.
Freshmaker
I am Korean.
No. I'm getting it just to stream my negative reactions. I hate it soooooo much.
GHG
Member
Out of interest, what do you gain from doing this?
enigmatikone
Member
EightBitNate
Member
Yeah but could you imagine what it would be like?
True dat.
I can't really blame consumers on that one.
The games that weren't being released for $59.99 a year or so after the switch usually were actually notably worse games, which is why they got the price cut.
Given how many bad licensed games you could run into, consumers had to get pretty cautious on what they were picking up, so once the correlation popped up, it became ingrained.
Though with the digital market people are more open minded so there seems to be some hope for staggered pricing again.
The soft price cuts we saw were pretty interesting though, where games would basically release at $40 by being on sale for $20 off right after release. I remember Dragon Age: Origins doing something like that.