Same reason why movie critics dont complain about it; it doesn't account for the value found in the quality of the product. Value isnt found in length. I could make an absolute shit fucking game that lasted 500 hours and it wouldnt be worth anything. Its all dependent on whether you're willing or not to spend a certain amount of money for a certain experience. Research the stuff you buy and you'll never get burned by a purchase. It's worked for me so far.

there has to be a better way to cover this stuff. I never heard about this game till today.

Had no clue what this was. Saw the banner ad on steam just now. Man, I'm so so over these indie games with bad sprite art.

I kind of am to, but this one is really god damn fun. I wouldn't have bought it if it didn't have matchmaking though, local-only competitive PC games aren't exactly appealing to me, hopefully that trend doesn't continue.

I'm not going to say it isn't fun and I won't deny its shallow as fuck but I just instantly am turned off from playing games now with this kind of art.

I'm sorry, but who made you the person who decides what is or isn't worth $15? Hour per dollar has always been a bullshit way to determine value, and so is "indie pixel art" or whatever. Also, treating every game like it needs to fit some "one size fits all" pricing would keep awesome games like this from releasing in the first place. This person poured their blood, sweat and tears into a game FOR FOUR YEARS, made one hell of a dueling game that is hardly like anything we usually see today, and you're going to turn up your nose and act like you know better just because it doesn't have a 500 hour campaign and a $60 million budget?

Like it or not, creators have to make a living. They shouldn't be denied that just because they don't jump through whatever arbitrary hoops you construct.

I've only played this game for about an hour in single player, and I'm already having quite a lot of fun. I can only imagine that will be amplified once I get some friends over to play it for real.

I've been hoping to play this for years, and it turned out pretty much exactly how I hoped it would. It's a damn well tuned game.

If you don't see what's interesting about it, no it's probably not for you, at least not at this price. If you do think it looks interesting, though, I'd say you should give it a shot. Besides, it's only $12 right now.

I also can't think of a game that looks like this. It's definitely not a style of graphics I've seen lately.

I don't think fifteen is unreasonable. We're accustomed to seeing comparable games for less, but fifteen bucks is about what it costs me to go to the movies or buy a decent lunch. I'd like to pay less than fifteen dollars for video games. I probably won't buy Nidhogg. But, if I was interested in the game, I wouldn't hate paying fifteen dollars for it.

Ehhh... Maybe.

If you think it's overpriced wait for the Steamsale. If that's the only thing keeping you from buying the game. I think it looks good and I have money.

While personally I think it's overpriced to what I gauge my value out of it at, I'm sure there are plenty of people are more than happy to pay $15 for a great local multiplayer experience. I guess the question has to be raised, if you don't see it as value for $15, then what suddenly changes if it were $10? Most likely it would become yet another game that you pick up, add to your library and never play. I find it amazing how $5 (or $2.50 right now) psychologically makes people think they're getting their money's worth. I suppose it carries the same principle of why retail stores price everything $.01-.03 under a dollar.

Everybody has their price point. For me, it is overpriced, but that's the least of its worries. I don't like the aesthetics. It looks lazy and boring. With this and Gunpoint, it's only a matter of time that we'll have just a blue square bumping against a red square.

@thecheese33: No, you're missing the point entirely.

it sounds like you're getting hung up on this game just because of the art style. sure that may (rather unfortunately) inform the rest of the game and make it feel like it isn't worth your time as a whole, but looks aren't everything. if i'm understanding you correctly you had a blast playing 40 hours of AC and you could see how based on worthwhile content alone it could be considered worth more. was your liking of that game largely based on the graphics fidelity alone? what if someone got the same amount of fun and value playing this competitively against their buddies? isn't it a bit disingenuous to say this game wouldn't be worth the $15 to them?

I think the price point is perfectly fine, but honestly, as someone that is almost never in a position to play local multiplayer, I was never going to buy this regardless of price.

@ripelivejam: It's not the graphics, and it's not even this game in particular that I am hung up on - I mentioned earlier in the thread that I actually think this game isn't egregiously priced but I do think it should be less. I'm kind of giving up on the argument because it seems that indie games are immune to any sort of criticism these days, because "some people worked hard on this" unlike any other product ever made that gets completely ripped to shreds on these very same forums. When you have big budget games come out, like let's say Call of Duty, people have no problems saying "oh a 5 hr campaign? I'm not paying $60 to play something that uses Quake code man the graphics look like something from PS2 era can't believe they're charging full price for this!" Same thing with Syndicate when it came out, people heard it's short and only has co-op multiplayer and nope not worth $60 no one bought it, because apparently the fact that it was a really fun game to play was completely lost on everyone. Yet whenever anyone makes a thread about an indie game being overpriced this haze settles over where nothing is really definite anymore and like price isn't really that important it's like totally how much fun you have with the game man, even if it is 45 min long.

My main issue is that a lot of these games that used to be free flash novelties on Newgrounds a few years back are now being sold as retail products in the $15-20 price range. Fez was a full featured game, I have no problem paying $15 for that. Mark of the Ninja? It is a very complete and worthy experience. Even Warp from back in the day was a really novel and interesting puzzle platformer. Samurai Gun being $15? I dunno, I take issue with that. As I said, I'm dropping it cause apparently I'm the only one that thinks this way.

Local-multiplayer only for a multiplayer focused game = no sale everytime for me. The fact that this has online, granted I have no idea if it works, but the steam page says it has it, instantly makes it a better value than Towerfall or Samurai Gunn to me. I can't play those games as intended. This I could at least play, making it by default a better value. I find it upsetting that in an era where nearly every game of this sort is released on digital-only marketplaces you can't count on multiplayer focused games to have online play.

But on the other hand, if the online doesn't work in Nidhogg I'm instantly putting in in the Towerfall and Samurai Gunn category of games I will never buy.

I get the feeling a lot of people are finding it hard to pay $15 (or $12 right now) for this game because "looks like old games", which seems to miss the point. It's got a single-player mode, local and online multiplayer, and is unique as hell. $15 for something this different is fine by me.

Yes its to expensive.

It's tough. I think it's maybe more money than people would expect but I also feel like for the amount of effort, work and history in the game it's more than worth it. Happy to donate that much to such an awesome developer. You can play most of his other amazing games like Flywrench for free :D

You should check out Flywrench!

Samurai Gunn costs $15? Cripes, put a dozen monkeys in a room with a computer for a year and they would make that game.

I don't think this game is overpriced because the balance and game mechanics look really fun. Watching NL get his ass kicked by his girlfriend (and hearing her shrieking with joy in the background) was hilarious.

However, I'm not buying this game because it's under-featured. 4 maps, no character stats. Comparing this to Windjammers is apt but that game had more going on, multiple levels, characters with +/- traits to choose from. It even has more interesting graphics. I know this is a small dev but they took a hell of a long time to develop this game and it still doesn't seem to be done.

Just gonna pop my head in and say:

1. Most critics will tend to put a caveat about price/length of game in the review if there isn't multiplayer, or there isn't online multiplayer. Or if the game is only doing one or two things - even if it does those things exceedingly well.
2. At no point should price be a central metric of a game's value. Pricing fluctuates too rapidly, and the way that individuals value money or time is already so subjective that even attaching these objective-looking numbers to the critique, it falls apart on a case-by-case basis.

Can't get friends together on the regular to play a local multiplayer game? Then as cool as that game is, it's probably not for you. This is OK. Not all games are for everybody. However, just because the game isn't worth that money to *you* doesn't make it overpriced or above some arbitrarily "ideal" price. It just means that the game isn't worth the money to *you* - it's an opinion, and those are never universal (yes, even when a game is frequently praised by critics).

Well, I was preparing to say that the game was not worth the price for me. but after that display in the video between the comentator and his girlfriend/partner, it does look a lot of fun!

I'm inclined to say that the price to a developer and a consumer are generally different things. To a developer who had to work in the game, and has bills to pay, and is also a gamer is different from a consumer who prices games mostly based on length and fun. It is also weighted diferently from person to person even among people from the same category (developer or consumer). Like it was said before, It is a good business practice to overcharge by a percentage too, like 50% if the price of the game is cheap money-wise, because of sales and consumer perspective (you'll get the same game 50% CHEAPER - SALE!i!i!)

Personally I rank games on length and fun, but mostly fun, Because although I buy things to fill my time, nothing is as sweet as having a blast.

$.99 would be right. Its a game I could see a friend and I play for an hour or two then never touch again.

Uggg no no no your logic is so fail, Created expectations of what everything should be in gamers is what makes so difficult to make anything different. TitanFall is a good example, WHY NO CAMPAIGN? 60 dollars game MUST HAVE CAMPAIGN!! when most people don't even play campaigns..

anyway, price point is subjective some people loved gone home and where happy about their purchase.

I feel at a point, length should be a part of the discussion for pricing for a game. I paid £15 (Around $20) for Gone Home, and what I ended up with was a game I beat in less than an hour with zero replayability. If you want to keep using that movie analogy, that's like paying DVD box-set prices for a single episode of a show. I knew i'd be getting a short experience from reviews, but I was pretty shocked by just how little there was to the experience.

I play campaigns. If I'm buying a game with only multiplayer then it better not cost a full $60 because that means I AM missing out on something. Killzone 3 had a deal at one point where you could purchase just the multiplayer and it cost $20. and if you wanted you could upgrade to the full game later. If a game like the Last of Us can have a long and compelling single player campaign as well as a fleshed out multiplayer mode, then a first person shooter should have a campaign as well. People don't play Battlefield campaigns mainly because they are bad, and that is Dice's problem. Some people are willing to put up with that. Heck I've never played a Battlefield single player campaign in my life and I've played all of them from BF1942 up until Battlefield 3. In retrospect I've played all the Call of Duty campaigns and thought they were all really fun and exciting. People are willing to put up with the fact that Battlefield has shit single player and they're basically multiplayer games but that's really unfortunate.

When a game is cheap on steam sale or in a humble bundloe I always end up buying it, but i've done that so much that I need to stop myself before I buy games at full value haha

I would get my moneys worth at 15 for sure. IT's on sale now too. Easy buy.

Just so you know, I completely agree with you.

Also, you people that are paying $15-20 for movies or dinner are insane. If I had that kind of money to throw around I'd buy every game I even had a passing interest in at full price at launch.

It sounds like you might nid a hogg.

I'm watching the quick look for this now. It totally looks like it's worth $15 to me! Yeah the graphics are kind of primitive, but that game play and functionality took a lot of hard work. And Holy SHIIT it looks fun!