Price parity turning into disparity

#1 Edited by granderojo (1778 posts) -

I'm someone who thought Rayman Origins was okay. I wouldn't say I loved my experience with the first game, but for what I payed for, it was worth what I payed for. Now I hear they essentially made the same game, with only refinements on the previous game & I'm sort of baffled. Much of what I thought about the first game is mirrored in ex-1uper Jeremy Parish's review of Legends. Put aside the fact that I don't necessarily like what this game is trying to do, can someone answer to me where they get the gall charging 40$ for this? I mean is this the mid-tier 40$ game future that developers are promising us? Instead of 60$ games scaled down it's 20$ games scaled up? That's cool & all but where's the moxie? I know this was a labor of love with a lot of great art, and I don't really care about the length but from a design perspective of how you're interacting in the environment of the game, what justifies the cost?

Is it because Vita is the main platform & you charge 40$ on Vita so they think they can on all platforms? Again this isn't a length argument, I don't give a shit how long a game is before I buy it generally unless it upset the story/gameplay. This game could be 100 hours long as opposed to the first game and I'd still be asking this.

The first game did not feel minimal, it felt lazy & without intent. If you love this game, and I know Alex did, more power to you, I just want to hear more perspectives on what makes Rayman fans tick.

#2 Edited by Hailinel (23941 posts) -

I'm someone who thought Rayman Origins was okay. I wouldn't say I loved my experience with the first game, but for what I payed for, it was worth what I payed for. Now I hear they essentially made the same game, with only refinements on the previous game & I'm sort of baffled. Much of what I thought about the first game is mirrored in ex-1uper Jeremy Parish's review of Legends. Put aside the fact that I don't necessarily like what this game is trying to do, can someone answer to me where they get the gall charging 40$ for this? I mean is this the mid-tier 40$ game future that developers are promising us? Instead of 60$ games scaled down it's 20$ games scaled up? That's cool & all but where's the moxie? I know this was a labor of love with a lot of great art, and I don't really care about the length but from a design perspective of how you're interacting in the environment of the game, what justifies the cost?

Is it because Vita is the main platform & you charge 40$ on Vita so they think they can on all platforms? Again this isn't a length argument, I don't give a shit how long a game is before I buy it generally unless it upset the story/gameplay. This game could be 100 hours long as opposed to the first game and I'd still be asking this.

The first game did not feel minimal, it felt lazy & without intent. If you love this game, and I know Alex did, more power to you, I just want to hear more perspectives on what makes Rayman fans tick.

Vita is not the "main" platform. That version is just priced akin to most Vita titles. It's actually missing content from the other releases (that will supposedly be patched in free of charge).

The lead platform is actually the Wii U; it was actually a Wii U exclusive until Ubisoft decided to hold off on the release this past April and shit out versions on more platforms.

Online
#3 Posted by Ares42 (2586 posts) -

Are you saying Legends is a "20$ game scaled up" ? If so, I wonder by what standards. I mean, the graphics are great, the music is splendid, the gameplay is varied and engaging, it has plenty of features. What about the game makes it a low budget game in your eyes ? Is it just because it doesn't have some intricate cinematic campaign or something ?

#4 Edited by granderojo (1778 posts) -

@ares42 said:

Are you saying Legends is a "20$ game scaled up" ? If so, I wonder by what standards. I mean, the graphics are great, the music is splendid, the gameplay is varied and engaging, it has plenty of features. What about the game makes it a low budget game in your eyes ? Is it just because it doesn't have some intricate cinematic campaign or something ?

Alright, let me explain. Other 2d releases in 2013 for instance, The Swapper, Rogue Legacy, Spelunky(PC for me) feel like they went through a much more rigorous play testing process than Rayman Origins did for me, and without playing Legends I hear from everyone that it's essentially more of that but more refinement. But also less refinement because there are tons of new ideas in the game with no real aim?

I guess this is a weird question for most people, I just don't enjoy the design of these games and it's probably a dumb question. I guess I just don't care that it has a ton of great art because other games have tons of great art too & don't charge this much. It's more a matter of design of the game for me.

#5 Posted by super2j (1654 posts) -

@ares42 said:

Are you saying Legends is a "20$ game scaled up" ? If so, I wonder by what standards. I mean, the graphics are great, the music is splendid, the gameplay is varied and engaging, it has plenty of features. What about the game makes it a low budget game in your eyes ? Is it just because it doesn't have some intricate cinematic campaign or something ?

its probably because it doesn't have that new fangled 3D.

#6 Posted by granderojo (1778 posts) -

@super2j said:

@ares42 said:

Are you saying Legends is a "20$ game scaled up" ? If so, I wonder by what standards. I mean, the graphics are great, the music is splendid, the gameplay is varied and engaging, it has plenty of features. What about the game makes it a low budget game in your eyes ? Is it just because it doesn't have some intricate cinematic campaign or something ?

its probably because it doesn't have that new fangled 3D.

No I specifically mentioned alternative 2D games that I love that didn't feel lazy like this does. I hold no prejudice about two dimensional art.

#7 Edited by Ares42 (2586 posts) -

@granderojo: I can't speak for the Swapper, but comparing to Rogue Legacy and Spelunky this game is much grander in every way. Each of those games are basically just a decent chunk of one of the main features in Legends. Also, are you making this into a 2D thing ... ?

As for your "no aim" comment, I don't really get it. It's a platformer, it does platforming in many different interesting ways. It has your normal run around and explore a level mode, it has rythm-based levels, it has races, it has presicion based levels, and they're all done well. I dunno how much Origins you played, but there's much more to these games than just your standard Mario "get to the end of the level" scenario. I could see you finding the games lacking if you're coming at them from that angle (and iirc I did too when I first played Origins), but that's not really what these games are about. I can't think of a good analogy, but just finishing every level is sorta like finsihing Diablo on normal, you've barely scratched the surface.

#8 Edited by Chaser324 (6331 posts) -

Alright, let me explain. Other 2d releases in 2013 for instance, The Swapper, Rogue Legacy, Spelunky(PC for me) feel like they went through a much more rigorous play testing process than Rayman Origins did for me, and without playing Legends I hear from everyone that it's essentially more of that but more refinement. But also less refinement because there are tons of new ideas in the game with no real aim?

Just purely in terms of scale, Rayman Legends is a far larger production than any of those other games that you mention, and I really don't think it's at all outlandish for Ubisoft to charge standard retail pricing for it.

All of the games you mentioned might be 2D platformers, but they have little in common aside from that. They're all different games attempting to deliver different types of experiences. Not being equivalent products, there's no real reason to expect that they should all be equally priced.

Moderator
#9 Posted by e30bmw (356 posts) -

So basically you're saying that you didn't like the first game and as such, the developers should charge less for the second game?

And this game is $60 on Amazon right now for Wii U, PS3, and 360.

#10 Posted by Hunkulese (2652 posts) -

@super2j said:

@ares42 said:

Are you saying Legends is a "20$ game scaled up" ? If so, I wonder by what standards. I mean, the graphics are great, the music is splendid, the gameplay is varied and engaging, it has plenty of features. What about the game makes it a low budget game in your eyes ? Is it just because it doesn't have some intricate cinematic campaign or something ?

its probably because it doesn't have that new fangled 3D.

No I specifically mentioned alternative 2D games that I love that didn't feel lazy like this does. I hold no prejudice about two dimensional art.

You said it has nothing to do with the art. None of the games you mentioned are really like Rayman except that they're 2D. Sequels tend to be a lot like the first game. If you didn't like the first game why do you even care?

#11 Posted by granderojo (1778 posts) -

@chaser324: I guess I just thought they all are doing more exciting & interesting things, so I mentioned them. I think they are very much equivalent products, and superior at least to the first game in many ways. Strip it away of all that art & it doesn't stand up design wise, and it seems it's getting a pass just because of the scale of the production. I think whoever designed the game needs to revisit their design because it doesn't stand up.

I mean Transformers has a huge scale and cost of it's production but we don't expect to pay more for that ticket than say Argo, do we? I don't get why video games have this expectation.

@e30bmw said:

And this game is $60 on Amazon right now for Wii U, PS3, and 360.

I am baffled.

#12 Posted by Chaser324 (6331 posts) -

@granderojo: I think Legends and Origins are better games than you give them credit for being. Maybe you personally don't like them, but that doesn't mean that they should be priced lower. Indie games like Rogue Legacy and Spelunky, while they do unique and interesting things, are clearly far smaller in scope and that isn't something that can just be dismissed when considering price.

Also, comparing game pricing to movie pricing typically isn't viewed as being very valid. The revenue streams available to each differ quite a bit.

Moderator
#13 Edited by awesomeusername (4154 posts) -

You joke, yes?

#14 Posted by Hailinel (23941 posts) -


I am baffled.

Being a 2D, sprite-animated platformer doesn't mean that the game was inexpensive to make. A game's price isn't dictated by its art style or genre.

Online
#15 Posted by MariachiMacabre (7054 posts) -

It's a gorgeous 2D platformer with fantastic sound design and music. Origins and Legends also both have a pretty large amount of content for 2D platformers. It took me around 12-15 hours to 100% that game. Whatever your opinions are on the game, it has plenty of content to justify it's price.

Online
#16 Posted by chiablo (907 posts) -

If the game is worth $20 to you, then wait until spring when the price will drop to $20. This is how you tell the publisher how much you are willing to spend.

#17 Posted by Abendlaender (2766 posts) -

I played ~16 hours and am not done. I don't get why the price shouldn't be as high as it is. And just because you didn't like the design doesn't mean that it doesnt hold up

#19 Posted by probablytuna (3547 posts) -

So you're saying each subsequent sequel should be priced lower than its predecessor because they're usually more of a refinement than a design overhaul? In that case, Call of Duty: Ghosts should be priced at $5.

#20 Edited by Blargonaut (146 posts) -

@granderojo said:

@chaser324: I guess I just thought they all are doing more exciting & interesting things, so I mentioned them. I think they are very much equivalent products, and superior at least to the first game in many ways. Strip it away of all that art & it doesn't stand up design wise, and it seems it's getting a pass just because of the scale of the production. I think whoever designed the game needs to revisit their design because it doesn't stand up.

I mean Transformers has a huge scale and cost of it's production but we don't expect to pay more for that ticket than say Argo, do we? I don't get why video games have this expectation.

@e30bmw said:

And this game is $60 on Amazon right now for Wii U, PS3, and 360.

I am baffled.

It's totally your opinion that the design doesn't stand up. I love the design of this game. If you think its about running only from left to right, you are wrong because there is so much more to it than that. I do recall the Giant Bomb guys saying of Origins that the playing part of it wasn't really their favorite. I disagreed with that then and I disagree with it now. Sure, it's a classic gameplay design and doesn't offer new mechanics like those other games you mentioned, but it has amazing art and incredibly tight level design. Pure joy plain and simple

#21 Posted by Klei (1768 posts) -

I don't really like Rayman Legends either. There's something wrong with the gameplay, and I can't put my finger on it. It feels... cheap. Like if I was playing some kind of indie game made by two dudes. Sure, the art looks great, but it also looks a tad bit unrefined. The levels don't feel unique and crafted with love and expertise, they just feel kinda mix and mashed together. I had the same problem with Origins.

#22 Posted by ArtisanBreads (3756 posts) -

So you're saying each subsequent sequel should be priced lower than its predecessor because they're usually more of a refinement than a design overhaul? In that case, Call of Duty: Ghosts should be priced at $5.

Madden 25: $0.25

This is a dumb thread. Sorry you don't like the game, it's a full retail release.

#23 Edited by ajamafalous (11864 posts) -

@granderojo said:

@chaser324: I guess I just thought they all are doing more exciting & interesting things, so I mentioned them. I think they are very much equivalent products, and superior at least to the first game in many ways. Strip it away of all that art & it doesn't stand up design wise, and it seems it's getting a pass just because of the scale of the production. I think whoever designed the game needs to revisit their design because it doesn't stand up.

Judging by the responses in this very thread, plenty of people disagree with your opinion.

#24 Posted by GERALTITUDE (2959 posts) -

@ares42 said:

Are you saying Legends is a "20$ game scaled up" ? If so, I wonder by what standards. I mean, the graphics are great, the music is splendid, the gameplay is varied and engaging, it has plenty of features. What about the game makes it a low budget game in your eyes ? Is it just because it doesn't have some intricate cinematic campaign or something ?

Alright, let me explain. Other 2d releases in 2013 for instance, The Swapper, Rogue Legacy, Spelunky(PC for me) feel like they went through a much more rigorous play testing process than Rayman Origins did for me, and without playing Legends I hear from everyone that it's essentially more of that but more refinement. But also less refinement because there are tons of new ideas in the game with no real aim?

I guess this is a weird question for most people, I just don't enjoy the design of these games and it's probably a dumb question. I guess I just don't care that it has a ton of great art because other games have tons of great art too & don't charge this much. It's more a matter of design of the game for me.

You're joking right? You must be...

If you took the teams that made the Swapper, Rogue Legacy and Spelunky and added them up and multiplied the staff by two you would have something like half the people who made Rayman, which by the by has about 1000% more art than those games. Then you have the added fact of it's a brand that sells. There are so, so many reasons for Rayman to cost what it does, from its marketing budget to its team size to the value of the brand - did all of this really just skip your mind?

#25 Posted by granderojo (1778 posts) -

So you're saying each subsequent sequel should be priced lower than its predecessor because they're usually more of a refinement than a design overhaul? In that case, Call of Duty: Ghosts should be priced at $5.

No that isn't what I said at all.

@klei said:

I don't really like Rayman Legends either. There's something wrong with the gameplay, and I can't put my finger on it. It feels... cheap. Like if I was playing some kind of indie game made by two dudes. Sure, the art looks great, but it also looks a tad bit unrefined. The levels don't feel unique and crafted with love and expertise, they just feel kinda mix and mashed together. I had the same problem with Origins.

I wouldn't say it played like an indie game made by two dudes or that the the art was unrefined but Origins definitely felt mix and mashed together. It just seemed lazy.

@granderojo said:

@ares42 said:

Are you saying Legends is a "20$ game scaled up" ? If so, I wonder by what standards. I mean, the graphics are great, the music is splendid, the gameplay is varied and engaging, it has plenty of features. What about the game makes it a low budget game in your eyes ? Is it just because it doesn't have some intricate cinematic campaign or something ?

Alright, let me explain. Other 2d releases in 2013 for instance, The Swapper, Rogue Legacy, Spelunky(PC for me) feel like they went through a much more rigorous play testing process than Rayman Origins did for me, and without playing Legends I hear from everyone that it's essentially more of that but more refinement. But also less refinement because there are tons of new ideas in the game with no real aim?

I guess this is a weird question for most people, I just don't enjoy the design of these games and it's probably a dumb question. I guess I just don't care that it has a ton of great art because other games have tons of great art too & don't charge this much. It's more a matter of design of the game for me.

You're joking right? You must be...

If you took the teams that made the Swapper, Rogue Legacy and Spelunky and added them up and multiplied the staff by two you would have something like half the people who made Rayman, which by the by has about 1000% more art than those games. Then you have the added fact of it's a brand that sells. There are so, so many reasons for Rayman to cost what it does, from its marketing budget to its team size to the value of the brand - did all of this really just skip your mind?

I guess I just don't really give a shit about it's marketing budget, or team size or value of brand because those aren't expectations for other industries. This discussion isn't really going anywhere, I guess the design of a game isn't worth taking into monetary consideration.

#26 Edited by Rowr (5485 posts) -

@granderojo said:

I guess I just don't really give a shit about it's marketing budget, or team size or value of brand because those aren't expectations for other industries. This discussion isn't really going anywhere, I guess the design of a game isn't worth taking into monetary consideration.

I'm baffled why we are talking about a game you have no appreciation for, or no desire to listen. Why does this thread exist?

Everything indicates to me that this game is well worth that low cost.

To be frank your offending me by your shitty presence and lack of real discussion. This is a platformer that at it's heart follows most traditional platformer design layed in place upwards from mario. To say you "don't like the design". Is just saying you don't like tradiitonal platformers. Well good for you because you are in the minority buddy, I have no doubts this game is selling great at that price point.

I'm not sure that you understand that these new rogue-like platformers are pretty much a new genre that evolved out of more traditional platformers. Ubisoft didn't make these new rayman games like they where creating something new based off success of these indie rogue likes...

Theres no platformer i've played in recent times with the polish and tightness of the origins. It's accessible to people who aren't skilled at platformers, while the levels are filled with challenges for even the most skilled players and completionists, the levels flow and evolve interestingly and new elements are consistently added throughout the game. If the newer one is an improved version of this well i'd probably pay 80 dollars for it.

#27 Posted by TheMasterDS (2017 posts) -

This game is a retail game. Retail games are 60 bucks. This is a pretty damn good one for that price though, admittedly, the Murphy levels are really really bad and are way too much of the game.

#28 Posted by spraynardtatum (2615 posts) -

what do you mean lazy? Do you mean you thought the developers were lazy or something about the actual game was lazy?

#29 Posted by MetalBaofu (1352 posts) -
@granderojo said:I guess the design of a game isn't worth taking into monetary consideration.

I think the problem there is that people are disagreeing with your opinion on the quality of the game's design. Personally, I think calling Origins "lazy" is insanity. I can't think of anything I disliked about that game. If you don't like it, that's fine, but that doesn't mean it's overpriced for everyone, just you. Others find the price perfectly acceptable.

#30 Posted by ShaggE (6341 posts) -

It seems that your argument is based on the assumption that the game industry was created to accommodate your personal tastes and opinions. You asked what justified the cost, and when people told you, you dismissed it because you "don't really give a shit". So, basically, the entire intent of this thread appears to be "if you don't agree with me or say what I want to hear, then you're wasting my time".

#31 Posted by GERALTITUDE (2959 posts) -

@granderojo said:

I guess I just don't really give a shit about it's marketing budget, or team size or value of brand because those aren't expectations for other industries.

Really.

The cost of a movie blu ray, or a music CD, is not, partly, due to the brand and marketing budget? The cost of a concert directly correlates to what, exactly? WHAT ARE YOU ON?

Where in the world do you live duder? Someone ship me there.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.