dstarr3 :
Myrmidonas :
Seriously? 60$ for an indy game? Give me a brake.......
You're right, the budget for this game was comparable to AAA games, but because they're indie, it's not worth more than a fiver. Same with Witcher 3, for that matter.
Be that as it may, Witcher 3 is an AAA title in all respects, more than most AAA titles. If you consider the developer excelence, dedication and vastness of that game it's kind of cheap. Nobody looked at Witcher 3 and thought... hey this is kind of a shallow game for the price.
Don't get me wrong, I'm very much enamored by the concept and what I've seen of NMS, but a LOT of people won't go for the old-school sci-fi style art/graphics, the relatively reppetitive and mellow tone of the game, the exploration aspect of it (as opposed to based buliding, multiplayer or action aspects). And although I'm sure the the game must have been especially hard to make for different reasons than traditional ones, the cost to produce with 10 people is massively smaller than bigger studios.
I'm sure that the price is probably set this way for two reasons: 1 - to be on par with console pricing, Sony probably doesn't want people who have both PS4's and PC's choosing the PC version. 2 - they probably think they can charge this from the reaction people have had and the hype they built. (They being Sony, I'll bet the developer would have been comfortable with a smaller price).
Ultimately I think this price will hurt their initial sales. This was a game I had on my rare list of pre-purchases (I only bought Witcher 3 on pre-order before) and now it's on my wishlist to buy after realease, reviews and maybe even waith for a sale. On the long run they should lower the price and they'll get more people involved, this game is kind of something you play casually for ages.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram