TheOfficeMut
Unconfirmed Member
Great. It doesn't make a difference to you.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
No Man's Sky Amazon Pre Order
- Thread starter PapaEmeritus
- Start date
Great. It doesn't make a difference to you.
AmaterasuOni
Banned
Why isn't R* independent then? They're releasing all their own games.
Yeah, semantics. And that is when people bring out indie as a synonym for shit.
Indie games cost less to make in general. The rented office space is smaller, the developer paycheck is supremely smaller, there is no white collar bloat from the publisher making a huge cut of the money. Not seeing justification in paying the same price for a game made by 10 people as a game made by 1000 people is not the same thing as "I think the developer is shit". It's more a case that many people don't feel like the $60 price point is justified like it is with AAA games which pay an assload of money to publishers and thousands of salaries at these companies.
You see it as a "shit-not-shit" dividing line when in reality for people complaining about the price and mentioning "indie developers", it's "justified based on development expense/not-justified based on developer expense".
That doesn't mean those gamers think the indie devs are shit. They just think the budget required to make the game on the indie side is a mere fraction what it costs to make a AAA game and are unwilling to see justification for a $60 price tag on this particular indie game. This opinion is not shrouded in this "gamers think indie devs are shit" cloud you think it is. Perception of a game's worth takes on many forms besides the one form you're choosing to see.
Bottom line is you're not going to convince those people that the $60 is completely justified and that they should pay it. Each gamer will make that decision on their own.
With what they have showed so far I expected it to be 40$. I can not pinpoint why, but it does not feel like a 60$ game to me. From all they showed so far there does not seem to be a lot of gameplay variety. So far it seems like the game lives "only" from exploring and crafting new stuff for your suit, weapon and ship in order to become stronger and be able to explore deeper. That's fine and I am looking forward to it. But without a compelling storyline and a good multiplayer component I have the feeling that many peolpe will loose interest long before they reach the center. They are a small team and I think it shows in the scope the game. Not from a standpoint as how big the universe is (obviously), but how deep the gameplay mechanics seem to be. Those make the difference between a indie game and a big publisher AAA game, because you need manpower in order to create these. A compelling story or gameplay mechanics can not be procedually generated!
AmaterasuOni
Banned
BTW, bo you value indie devs work less than i.e. Bethesda's? Indie devs have lower salary because... reasons? Their games are worth less than the huge yearly franchises which are just buggy copy-paste creations? I could actually ask these same questions from everyone who thinks $60 is too much for NMS.
More_Badass
Member
Deep gameplay mechanics like those seen in Assassins Creed or CoD or The Order and other AAA franchises?
But indie dev salaries AREN'T less than AAA. I bet the devs at Hello Games have made more from Joe Danger than those same devs did when they worked at places like Criteron. You seem to think that $60 is the only price point that would pay Hello Games devs more than Ubisoft devs. That's simply not the case. Otherwise every indie game would be $60 in order to keep their business afloat. The fact of the matter is the publisher makes a large percentage of the money. Not having a publisher frees up a TON of that money as profit. Only having to pay 10 employees frees up even more money. The "development cost-to-price point" ratio in this situation is like Ubisoft charging $1000 for the next assassins creed.
TheOfficeMut
Unconfirmed Member
What? My back-and-forth with you has nothing to do with how I value developers, whether indie or AAA. I don't like to buy $60 games from any developer, no matter who they are (although I have in the past). That's because *I* don't want to spend that much. This has nothing to do with the developer.
More_Badass
Member
That's a very astute and reasonable observation
AmaterasuOni
Banned
So you think they're lesser just because they do things on their own? Probably spending their life savings and few bank loans on something they believe and love. And they're not worth the same $60 tag as the bigger corporations who run the whole gaming business? Right so. That's capitalism 101 right there. The bigger you are the more you're worth. That's fucked up. If something, we should value these small devs as they're the ones creating new genres and game mechanics. Big publishers don't dare to try new, because if they flop, they flop hard. They just steal the ideas from the small devs or buy the whole company.
No. I'm just saying what I'm reading here on GAF and on other forums as well. People think indies are shit because they're indies. The same people whine about PS+ because indies are shit and therefore PS+ is shit.
Most of them think that way and justify their no purchase with that. Even though in real world 20 dollars means absolutely nothing. Somehow it makes such a huge difference in gaming world even though most gamers these days are well earning men and women in their 30s and 40s. They're not living with their parents anymore. And at the same time they spend that $20 to get some McFries with Netflix Cola and Nike chocolate without even thinking about it. 20 dollars is nothing. You can check this at the grocery store next time, check the recipe from all your impulse purchases ans see what you get.
Consumerism is shit. Indie games are thought like indie movies: "they're just artsy crap. And who the hell could spend money on art? But Let me buy these Halo 5/CoD microtransaction goodies for $50 because they look RAD and I'm a goddamn badass." Yeah, I'm stretching it.
I'm not convincing anyone, I'm just questioning them, because I think most of the whine comes purely from the "indies are shit" ignorance. I have nothing invested here. I just hate this kind of flock mentality (says the guy who pays that $60 on day 1 or pre-orders the game).
The Lamonster
Member
I can't believe people were expecting this to be less than full price.
RoadHazard
Gold Member
Why isn't R* independent then? They're releasing all their own games.
Yeah, semantics. And that is when people bring out indie as a synonym for shit.
Well, the developer of GTA V (say) is Rockstar North, the publisher is Rockstar Games, and the distributor is Take-Two.
PdotMichael
Banned
People should stop image indie developers as some garage developers. That are often enough absolutely professional operating companies and if they think that a game like No Man's Sky has the content of a full price title then why not selling it for that price?
TheOfficeMut
Unconfirmed Member
Agreed here.
AmaterasuOni
Banned
Well, the developer of GTA V (say) is Rockstar North, the publisher is Rockstar Games, and the distributor is Take-Two.
Same company, different tax evasions!
This thread seriously boggles my mind.
I almost refuse to believe the majority of these responses are real and aren't some sort of running joke or parody.
We have a game that for all intents and purposes is pushing out some seriously innovative and ambitious technology and promises to hold a pretty high amount of content and people want it to cost $20 yet I can go into the thread for the latest re-skinned Assassin's Creed game and find approximately zero responses questioning why it will have a $60 retail price?
And people still want to bitch about stagnation and a lack of innovation in gaming? Really?
I've been pretty disillusioned with gaming politics and culture for years now, and threads like this only further increase that sentiment for me.
I almost refuse to believe the majority of these responses are real and aren't some sort of running joke or parody.
We have a game that for all intents and purposes is pushing out some seriously innovative and ambitious technology and promises to hold a pretty high amount of content and people want it to cost $20 yet I can go into the thread for the latest re-skinned Assassin's Creed game and find approximately zero responses questioning why it will have a $60 retail price?
And people still want to bitch about stagnation and a lack of innovation in gaming? Really?
I've been pretty disillusioned with gaming politics and culture for years now, and threads like this only further increase that sentiment for me.
I don't think its debatable wether or not there is a lot of stuff going on in these games. From a long storyline with lots of writing and voice acting to the creation of many assets. If they created something to your liking is debatable but that there is a lot of stuff going on in these games is not.
I am on team "No man's sky", I have been looking forward to this game since it was revealed. But they failed to reveal any substantial gameplay mechanics! I will be fine with just exploring a vast universe, but I understand that many people are not. The gameplay loop ist probably:
Fly to system --> Land on planet --> Be amazed by wildlife / plants / landscape --> Hopefully more often than not --> Scavange planet for materials --> Fight Planet Police --> Flee to next system --> Rinse and repeat
Maybe sometimes in between you will get in a fight between fractions and take sides or attack a freigther or something. From what we have seen so far there will be no "quest" that follow a specific story line or any kind of verbal interaction with the species in this universe. Everything they showed so far made it feel very isolated and the KI faceless. Maybe that's intended but I believe it is because It can not be procedually generated and would cost a lot of manpower and therefore money to create.
I guess after a while you will begin to see through the algorithms that create the world and will more and more recognize shapes and forms that are familiar. Because the formulars they use are bound by human imagination and have to follow certain rules in order to make sure they don't break the universe.
I may be wrong, I hope I am. Sean may be a mathematical genius but he is still only cooking with water and not able to work miracles.
But I digress, point is: It is created by only 10 people. This naturally leads to certain restrictions in the scope of things they will be able to implement. This will impact how long the game will be able to hold my attention. How long I believe a game is able to hold my attention determines the price I am willing to pay. I put over 100 hours into The Witcher 3, I bought this game for full price day 1 and also bought the first expansion. I consider this game to be a bargain! I expect to put maybe 7 hours into The Order 1886, I bought this game last week for 20$ used. I think that is kinda okay. From what I have seen so far I expect No Man's Sky to entertain me for about 20 hours, therefore I am willing to pay around 40$.
TheOfficeMut
Unconfirmed Member
It's your prerogative to breakdown worth like that, but I can't imagine doing it myself. All I know is that I'd rather not spend $60 on games, regardless of the game. That's because I can comfortably afford around $35-40. But as a personal anecdote, I spent $20 on Axiom Verge and thought that it was criminally underpriced. And that game was made by one person.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Now that shit is funny... Minecraft too!
YianGaruga
Banned
Minecraft is $20
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
It was also bought for $2.5 billion, maybe MSFT should have paid far less, for you know, Indie reasons.
Coffee Dog
Banned
Quit holding No Man's and Minecraft to the same standard. Even though both games are incredibly similar, No Man's is pretty.
YianGaruga
Banned
It's also backed by Sony instead of Microsoft, which explains the difference!
Not trying to shit on NMS here, I believe it will be a fun game, but some people seem to have bought into the hype a bit too much.
travisbickle
Member
I agree the "gameplay system" is basic, but from what Sean's said I expect a lot more interaction with wildlife. Carnivorous plants have been mentioned and animals that can swallow you whole?
More_Badass
Member
The main difference is that Minecraft started as an early alpha release in 2010 and stayed around that price ever since
http://forums.tigsource.com/index.php?topic=6273
2010 was the year of Limbo and Super Meat Boy. Around the time that indies were breaking into the mainstream. Those intital indies were around $10-$20
Why would Minecraft, a no-name debut project for a niche PC audience, be priced higher at that time?
YianGaruga
Banned
Why would NMS be priced at $60 in 2016, a time when $20 is still generally seen as the upper limit for indie releases (yes there are exceptions you don't need to show me examples)?
There's so much room between 20 and 60, I don't get why we focus on those two exclusively. $30 could be a great pricepoint for NMS and continue the process of introducing higher valued indie games gradually without jumping straight to AAA retail pricing.
Nowhere Man
Member
As soon as the internets decided it was the hotness.
AmaterasuOni
Banned
And the internets is right! Just ask google (or Jeeves).
More_Badass
Member
It's seen that way because it's never been done.
It's not like indie games have been varying prices and through sales and critical reception, it was shown that $10-$20 is the best price for indie games
Indie games started at $10-$20 and haven't really been able to expand beyond that, precisely because of that mindset you mentioned. There are some exceptions, like Talos and Elite
Since those days of XBLA and the rush of 2D platformer indies like Braid and Limbo, indie games have only gotten bigger, more complex, featuring more advanced visuals, and such.
But due to that perception, the acceptable price range hasn't evolved along with the quality of the games. The games have gotten bigger and more advanced but the prices have remained stagnant
"It's an indie game, it should be $X"
AA and AAA games have a wide range of price ranges, from $60 for the biggest games to $40 for remastered to $25/$30 for episodic games to $15 for expansions/standalones
Indies? 99% of the time around $10-$20, with some being in the $20-$30 range, and even fewer being higher than $30
Shouldn't indie games be able to have that span of price ranges rather be confined to that perceived upper limit of $20 regardless of gameplay, depth, visuals, music, etc.
AmaterasuOni
Banned
Don't forget Star Citizen. That's an expensive indie. $3000 game purchases.
BleedOrange
Banned
The fanboys have reached Molyneux levels of delusion.
YianGaruga
Banned
Indie games started at primarily $10 on XBLA and PSN with the higher end being $15. This has changed now to $15-$20 and as you said there are already bigger exceptions. It's a slow process. But it's not stagnant. And we see devs that are successful at all of these pricepoints.
You can make the same argument for retail games. $60 is still the standard even though budgets have increased immensely. Should the next Ubi game cost $120 if they went crazy and doubled their team size? Or should there be an upper limit for what people should be expected to pay for an AAA game?
Of course there are those "AAA-indies" which have higher than average budgets, but if you price yourself at $60 you still have to be compared to other games priced $60.
Assuming there's a constant audience of X people willing to buy NMS at any price and due to the relatively small budget the game can break even and make a very good profit at $30, wouldn't selling the game at $60 be somewhat.. greedy? If they can only make a profit by selling the game at $60 then well good luck to them, but I'd say they fucked up somewhere in the process.
What should determine the pricing of a game? The creativity that went into it? The amount of planets a procedual engine can spit out? The quality of the music? Number of shaders?
Or rather basic calculations of return on investment?
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Because maybe it is no longer "Indie" since you know, they have a publisher in Sony.
How come people cannot grasp this?
It will also apparently receive a retail release, something most Indies do not, as well as this is still, placeholder, lol.
YianGaruga
Banned
Because maybe it is no longer "Indie" since you know, they have a publisher in Sony.
You don't understand what the word indie means these days. Words evolve but I really don't think this needs to be explained every single time.
Having a publisher doesn't and shouldn't dictate the pricepoint, and never has.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Indie means Independent developer. Guess who else is "Indie"... Insomniac. Zing!
YianGaruga
Banned
I'm not interested in semantic discussions. If you don't understand what people refer to when they say "indie game" then that's your problem.
Your definition of "indie game" has literally zero utility in describing games or studios.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
My definitely is the ACTUAL definition, lol.
You are arguing based on opinionated feelings, which have no basis to what Indie actually is.
More_Badass
Member
If an indie game has a publisher but the developers still work on the game independently (I.e games like Hotline Miami, Rain World, etc.), with the publisher only helping with marketing and exposure, is it still an indie game?
AmaterasuOni
Banned
I think that's called semantics again.
Honestly, we all know what an "indie game" is, but I don't get it why something like NMS cannot be price tagged for $60. It's as ambitious or even more than most AAA games. Why the team size matters when (if) the product is better than these annual AAA turds? Why indies devs are inferior? I just can't understand this reasoning.
I think it's up to the creator to price their own handiwork, it's not up to some cheapskates who normally scavenge the Steam's one dollar bargain bins. IMHO the indie devs deserve the paycheck more than all these annual copy-paste franchise developers.
At least indie devs try to create something new and interesting.
FireBeaver
Banned
Given the size and scope of this game, it's understandable that it would be $60
If an Indie makes a potential GOTY contender that took years to make, why should they sell it a price of a 2d side scrolling game that took 6 months to make??
Price on quality, and demand, if its a $60 game, it'll fetch $60, if it isn't, it'll bomb and do irreparable harm to the studio.
I'm betting its $60, or free with PSVR, as a means to drive VR sales.
Price on quality, and demand, if its a $60 game, it'll fetch $60, if it isn't, it'll bomb and do irreparable harm to the studio.
I'm betting its $60, or free with PSVR, as a means to drive VR sales.
Not gonna pay 60 for it.
Its not a feature rich game.
As much as people like to throw around the planet numbers and the size of the universe, its hardly impressive when its all procedural. Which we all knows just becomes boring after a while, nothing feels unique or special. All just drab and kinda uninspired because math created everything.
As redundant as it is, the Minecraft analogue is perfect. It will be mostly making your own fun and not much else.
Its not a feature rich game.
As much as people like to throw around the planet numbers and the size of the universe, its hardly impressive when its all procedural. Which we all knows just becomes boring after a while, nothing feels unique or special. All just drab and kinda uninspired because math created everything.
As redundant as it is, the Minecraft analogue is perfect. It will be mostly making your own fun and not much else.
More_Badass
Member
You do realize the devs have to design the art, and parts of the environments, and creatures, and technology, and AI, and everything else for the procedual elements to work? It's not just "math". You actually need to design content for the procedural generation to work with. And then you need to design the framework that puts that content together. Or do you think the math creates everything?
And what exactly is your definition of "feature rich"? Off the top of my head: trading and trade routes, space combat, dynamic ecosystems, dynamic battles that you can ignore or influence, first person combat, a wanted system, multiplayer, factions and a faction relationship system, ship classes and ship upgrades, and so on
In what world is that a not feature-rich game? Or not impressive?
Captin Quacker
Member
Why is that?