No Man's Sky is the featured game for IGN's First of July

Idea dump. Not sure if any of them are contenders, but maybe something to riff on.



  • No Man's Sky |OT| One Giant Leap
  • No Man's Sky |OT| It's full of stars (a nod to Space Odyssey)
  • No Man's Sky |OT| 65 Billion Leagues (a nod to classic scifi, the scale of NMS, and the OST artists)
  • No Man's Sky |OT| Every Man's Journey (a dig at the Elite OT title)
  • No Man's Sky |OT| Any black hole's a goal (sorry)

I would hate for it to be any reference to 'what you do', because that whole thing has become a really annoying blemish on NMS discussions. Along with the heated debate over the as yet unknown price.

And a request for the OT maker: Please give a good paragraph to 65 Days of Static. Their work will be pivotal to the atmosphere of the game, and of course they are an amazing band in their own right who deserve some love and recognition.
 
No Man's Sky |OT| - 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 Man's Skies
No Man's Sky |OT| - or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Big Bang
No Man's Sky |OT| - or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love No Man's Sky
No Man's Sky |OT| - To infinity... and beyond
No Man's Sky |OT| - 42?
 
Walpurgis said:
I agree. A lot of people will be very mad if this indie game that they've been building up for years turns out to be AAA game priced. The game is huge but it is still being made by 14 or whatever people. If we look at a game like Transistor and No Man's Sky, who is to say which game required more work? Obviously No Man's Sky is way bigger but that is because of procedural generation. Other then the fact that the game is huge, there isn't any excuse to price it at $80. I would be very surprised if Sean Murray even allowed such a thing. I think $20 is the right price point.
Click to expand...

I always think it's strange (read: fucked up) that videogames have evolved into a world where it is amount of people who worked on it or size of the budget, rather than the far more important metric of quality or level of content or amount of enjoyment you get out of it that justifies its dollar amount.

What a strange and immature industry games have developed into. Nobody would ever say "this movie was made by 2 people, so this blu-ray should cost $4.99 instead of $19.99." Nobody would say "wow this movie was rated one of the best of the year, but it was only made for $2 million dollars so I'm not paying that much for the DVD!" If it happens it happens, but there is not an active community that endorses this sort of absurd behavior.
 
No Man's Sky |OT| Big enough for everyone's ego
No Man's Sky |OT| Be elite, be dangerous, be procedural
No Man's Sky |OT| No one can hear you nitpick in space
 
No Man's Sky |OT| Do Not Go Gentle into That Good Night
No Man's Sky |OT| A Space Odyssey
No Man's Sky |OT| Yeah, but exactly do you DO in this OT?
No Man's Sky |OT| Rage, Rage Against the Dying of the Light
 
Amir0x said:
I always think it's strange (read: fucked up) that videogames have evolved into a world where it is amount of people who worked on it or size of the budget, rather than the far more important metric of quality or level of content or amount of enjoyment you get out of it that justifies its dollar amount.

What a strange and immature industry games have developed into. Nobody would ever say "this movie was made by 2 people, so this blu-ray should cost $4.99 instead of $19.99." Nobody would say "wow this movie was rated one of the best of the year, but it was only made for $2 million dollars so I'm not paying that much for the DVD!" If it happens it happens, but there is not an active community that endorses this sort of absurd behavior.
Click to expand...

If it were announced as a retail title, no one would bat an eye at the game costing full price. Downloadable titles should not be full price and as far as we know, that is what this is.
Gruso said:
  • No Man's Sky |OT| One Giant Leap
Click to expand...
I like this one. Simple, to the point and easy to understand. Speaking of which, thank you for putting explanations besides the OT titles. If there is one thing that I don't like, it is incomprehensible OT titles.
 
Walpurgis said:
If it were announced as a retail title, no one would bat an eye at the game costing full price. Downloadable titles should not be full price and as far as we know, that is what this is.
Click to expand...

You didn't even mention downloadable nature as part of your critique, so there's really no way anyone could draw that from your comment. Read your comment:

Walpurgis said:
● "A lot of people will be very mad if this indie game that they've been building up for years turns out to be AAA game priced."

● "The game is huge but it is still being made by 14 or whatever people."

● "Other then the fact that the game is huge, there isn't any excuse to price it at $80. I would be very surprised if Sean Murray even allowed such a thing. I think $20 is the right price point."
Click to expand...

Things you're criticizing either directly or implicitly: the fact that it might be AAA priced, as if an indie game never should be. The fact that it might be made by 14 people, as if that should matter in the evaluation of the price. That "other than being huge" (so, what, does that mean since it is huge we should say it needs to be a higher price?), there is "no excuse" to price it at that point.

And even if we take the "downloadable" thing into consideration, what does it mean? AAA games are downloadable, and most of the time they cost the same as their retail cousins on consoles. So only AAA games should be able to do that? I agree that downloadable games should be at least ten dollars cheaper due to the difference in pricing structure between getting a game in stores (and getting physical packaging in the exchange) vs. the alternative, but that should be applied to all games. AAA or indie or number of people working on a game has nothing to do with it.

Personally, I think there is simply this genuinely offensive line of thought amongst some gamers that believe indie means somehow an inherently less valuable gaming proposition (even though this has proven false an almost incalculable number of times), and I'm at the point that the industry needs to push back against this nonsense narrative among certain gamers. It's absolutely contributing to a toxic, immature atmosphere where what matters is some bulletpoint argument over budgets and staff size rather than a games contribution to the breadth of quality available to us within this industry.
 
Personally, I'd like the game to be priced such that it strikes the balance of reaching the most people while simultaneously being wildly financially successful for Hello Games. My gut tells me that price point is $40.

Edit: A bit of math to go with my gut feeling.

Let's say the game would sell 100k copies at $60. To make the same amount of revenue, they would need to sell 150k at $40, or 300k at $20.

The ultimate questions are then:
1. Would the game sell 50% more at $40 than $60? My gut says yes.
2. Would the game sell 100% more at $20 than $40? My gut says maybe at launch, but the tail would essentially be cut off the game since any discount would put it in the bargain bin.
 
Trouble said:
Personally, I'd like the game to be priced such that it strikes the balance of reaching the most people while simultaneously being wildly financially successful for Hello Games. My gut tells me that price point is $40.

Edit: A bit of math to go with my gut feeling.

Let's say the game would sell 100k copies at $60. To make the same amount of revenue, they would need to sell 150k at $40, or 300k at $20.

The ultimate questions are then:
1. Would the game sell 50% more at $40 than $60? My gut says yes.
2. Would the game sell 100% more at $20 than $40? My gut says maybe at launch, but the tail would essentially be cut off the game since any discount would put it in the bargain bin.
Click to expand...


Apply that model to assassins creed. You'd probably also get $40. But it'll sell for $60
 
I am so excited for this game :) I have seen a couple of impressions and everyone seems to have been just blown away by what they played, everyone just seems to be absolutely happy to have played it. Which is only hyping me even more,

On a side note why do some people think that Hello Games doesn't deserve to price this at $60?
 
mrklaw said:
Apply that model to assassins creed. You'd probably also get $40. But it'll sell for $60
Click to expand...

Not so sure. Assassin's Creed has a big publisher doing massive amounts of advertisement. If Assassin's Creed would make more money selling at a lower price point, I'd think UbiSoft would be pragmatic/greedy/whatever enough to do that.

Anyways, I'm not making an argument about what any particular developer 'deserves', just trying to point out that when it comes to pricing a game making it $60 doesn't necessarily mean the developer makes more money. These are decisions that all non-AAA (I hate that term) devs/publishers have to make, hence prices being all over the place (not a bad thing).
 
Trouble said:
Personally, I'd like the game to be priced such that it strikes the balance of reaching the most people while simultaneously being wildly financially successful for Hello Games. My gut tells me that price point is $40.

Edit: A bit of math to go with my gut feeling.

Let's say the game would sell 100k copies at $60. To make the same amount of revenue, they would need to sell 150k at $40, or 300k at $20.

The ultimate questions are then:
1. Would the game sell 50% more at $40 than $60? My gut says yes.
2. Would the game sell 100% more at $20 than $40? My gut says maybe at launch, but the tail would essentially be cut off the game since any discount would put it in the bargain bin.
Click to expand...

$40 is what I've been guessing all along as well. At most though. I could even see $30.

I'd pay full retail, haven't been this excited for a game since the NES days.
 
|OT| The Glory of Black Holes

Pestilence11 said:
$40 is what I've been guessing all along as well. At most though. I could even see $30.

I'd pay full retail, haven't been this excited for a game since the NES days.
Click to expand...

There's the problem of perceived value to consider. A new game being hyped by the dominant console manufacturer releasing at a bargain price may have consumers thinking that they're getting what they're paying for. I'm sure everything about the game will be focus group tested to hell and back, so even Sony shouldn't be able to fuck it up too bad.
 
Amir0x said:
You didn't even mention downloadable nature as part of your critique, so there's really no way anyone could draw that from your comment. Read your comment:



Things you're criticizing either directly or implicitly: the fact that it might be AAA priced, as if an indie game never should be. The fact that it might be made by 14 people, as if that should matter in the evaluation of the price. That "other than being huge" (so, what, does that mean since it is huge we should say it needs to be a higher price?), there is "no excuse" to price it at that point.

And even if we take the "downloadable" thing into consideration, what does it mean? AAA games are downloadable, and most of the time they cost the same as their retail cousins on consoles. So only AAA games should be able to do that? I agree that downloadable games should be at least ten dollars cheaper due to the difference in pricing structure between getting a game in stores (and getting physical packaging in the exchange) vs. the alternative, but that should be applied to all games. AAA or indie or number of people working on a game has nothing to do with it.

Personally, I think there is simply this genuinely offensive line of thought amongst some gamers that believe indie means somehow an inherently less valuable gaming proposition (even though this has proven false an almost incalculable number of times), and I'm at the point that the industry needs to push back against this nonsense narrative among certain gamers. It's absolutely contributing to a toxic, immature atmosphere where what matters is some bulletpoint argument over budgets and staff size rather than a games contribution to the breadth of quality available to us within this industry.
Click to expand...
I generally use downloadable and indie interchangeably. Sorry that wasn't clear. AAA games having downloadable versions alongside a retail version is normal and if No Man's Sky was announced to be that way, pricing it at full price wouldn't alarm anyone. When I talked about the game being huge, I meant that that would be the only reason that this would cost more than something like Transistor and that is why people are having this conversation about No Man's Sky but not other indie games.

I don't think gamers viewing indie games as having less value is offensive at all. In my experience, with PS+ games, it is generally true. There are AAA games that have "indie value" like The Order and games like that get a ton of backlash for their lack of content. I really like Transistor but that game would need to be 3-4 times as long if they wanted to sell it as a full price RPG. I'm sure that there are exceptions with indie games that have enough unique content to be similar to other full price games but I am not aware of any (maybe those open world PC survival games?). There is also the fact that indie games literally have less value, they are cheaper and gamers perceive them that way. This is why, after charging for online, PS+ is almost exclusively made of indie games. It costs less money. If a game falls under the indie classification, people (me included) expect it to fall in line with other indie games, in terms of price.
 
No Man's Sky |OT| "But what do you do?"

and

Trouble said:
No Man's Sky |OT| Hello Worlds
Click to expand...

get my votes.

The first is the obvious play on the fact almost every thread is messed up with people constantly saying "but what do you do" every time, even with posts quoted with a huge wall of information it still persists.

The second is also very fitting and very smartly done.

I'd be happy with either of the above, and I hope to see many GAF in the OT and especially hope there's a No Man's Sky Photomode |OT| too, because I know I'm going to take so many screenshots :P
 
I've seen a lot of good suggestions for the OT, but really do think it should recall the almost stubborn refusal of some people to educate themselves about a title they're more than willing to ask ignorant questions about.
 
Just to be clear, I don't think this game wont be worth $60 or that I'd have a problem paying the price, I just could not see it happening based off of industry trends. That is, if Sony weren't involved. I think the game could be priced at $60 only because of their influence.
 
Walpurgis said:
I don't think gamers viewing indie games as having less value is offensive at all. In my experience, with PS+ games, it is generally true. There are AAA games that have "indie value" like The Order and games like that get a ton of backlash for their lack of content. I really like Transistor but that game would need to be 3-4 times as long if they wanted to sell it as a full price RPG. I'm sure that there are exceptions with indie games that have enough unique content to be similar to other full price games but I am not aware of any (maybe those open world PC survival games?). There is also the fact that indie games literally have less value, they are cheaper and gamers perceive them that way. This is why, after charging for online, PS+ is almost exclusively made of indie games. It costs less money. If a game falls under the indie classification, people (me included) expect it to fall in line with other indie games, in terms of price.
Click to expand...

There have been games that are 4 hours long that are considered all-time classics and were made by AAA developers and sold at full price. There are indie games that literally are over in 4 hours that I would have paid $80 for if possible because they delivered experiences that are unparalleled in the industry. Your independent evaluation of the value of indie games on PS+ is just meaningless. Many of the PS+ games I've played are infinitely better than retail games I've payed $60 on the same platform. Oops, guess I canceled out your view and win by default! This is why such commentary is meaningless in determining the truth of how dumb it is that some gamers want to pin an inherently inferior value on indies.

Indies, like AAAs, cover the full gamut of quality and genre types, and have pushed some of the most groundbreaking gameplay types of the last ten years. They come in every size, shape and visual quality. So do AAAs. Indies should not have pressure to price lower just because some gamers are insane and try to connect value of product with staff size or budget or whatever. If they want to be priced lower, that's cool... but this stigma needs to end. It is suffocating the industry. Infantile gamers.

I mean in your comment you're essentially saying that because many gamers are literally grown children incapable of viewing the relationship between price and content delivered in the same way that mature adults do for every other medium - including books, tv and movies - that this expectation should be codified and encouraged. Here once again you try to push the narrative that budget should be related to price you get for the game ("they are cheaper") and that there should be some expectation regarding indie game price. Nobody else thinks this way in any other of the major mediums (tv, books, movies). Gamers are wrong for thinking that way, and the industry needs to push back against such unashamed nonsense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

No Man's Sky: Relics (New update)
35
2K
Trogdor1123 replied
No Man's Sky Aquarius Update
38
3K
cyberheater replied
IGN's 2024 Game of the Year is Metaphor ReFantazio
2
82
4K
xenosys replied
Trails in the Sky 1st Chapter Remake Will Feature a New Localization "That Honors the Original Japanese Text"
Game Dev 
31
982
mèx replied
The Outer Words 2: 11 Minutes of Exclusive Gameplay – IGN First
News  2 3
119
5K
March Climber replied
Top Bottom