Is the price tag appropriate?

[Alpha]

I bet this was the initial intent but you should have really gone with an appropriate price tag(30-40 euroes), it would have received far far less criticism then.

no matter how much effort the devs did to bring a good game ; haters will criticize it no matter if is cheap or not. DA2 offers less with reuse maps but nobody said should be priced 40-30 or less when was released.

 

to answer the question : Yes.

Edited June 29, 2011 by Alpha

[Labadal]

Worth the money imo. Actually bought 2 copies.

[Tigranes]

I've spent 44 hours on it so far. I'm not done with it. I'm having fun. If I play a co-op campaign with my friend like I plan to, I'll have spent more time on it than Oblivion. Length, replayability and value is not a "x hours vs. y" kind of thing that some people confuse it as. Judging DS3's length involves looking at the game itself, not some half-baked comparisons to whatever any given person thinks is the "standard". IMO, 2 things stand out when you look at DS3;

 

(1) The game would indeed have benefited from a few more quests and a couple more minor areas just to give a sense of variety and to explore the story. e.g. One more town that you visit to try and secure an alliance but where your efforts are cut short, or one small area where theres a Legion remnant (i.e. a Legion admirer that is defending an old stronghold), etc. I think this would have made it feel a more 'fuller' game.

 

(2) Something that strikes me is that if DS3 was made like manhy other ARPGs, every single wilderness area would have been 50% as long. e.g. Look at East Forest - if a 'in-between', filler mob area like that was found in Torchlight or Diablo 2 (forgetting for a moment D2 had procedurally generated maps), it would have been twice as large, but with no new content; there would simply have been twice as many trees, spiders, chests full of random items, and one or two more dakkenweyrs. i.e. DS3 features less grind than many other ARPGs, and this makes it feel shorter. That was quite obviously a design decision - DS3 could easily have gotten away with making every single area 50% larger or something, then slowing down your XP gain. Whether this is a good thing or not depends on the type of player you are. I sit on the fence to grinding, but I know there are people who love it and people who hate it.

[leeloodallas]

The PC version was $49.99 on Amazon pre-order, and though it was a little short by RPG standards, I really enjoyed it and will be getting a lot of replay value for my money. It took me about 24 hours for the first playthrough. Honestly, this game felt like a far better value for my money than Dragon Age 2. I haven't run into any game-breaking bugs, and though the PC controls aren't the best, the game flows really well. I'm having a blast on my second playthrough with Reinhart.

[Sacrosanct]

For the people willing to pay the price it was fair.If you slopped down x amount for it, you are admitting that it was a fair price.

 

Absolutely ridiculous comment. You're saying people know what a fair price for the game is before they've played it? lolz.

 

I don't think DS3 is a full price game it feels like an expansion to me and lasts about as long. It's a quick blast, not a bad one, but nothing you'd ever get lost in. I can think of tons of RPG's with more depth, better design and gameplay with great stories that lasted ten times longer. DS3 is RPGlite.

[Hurlshort]

The product costs millions to make, so it is pretty hard to argue that $50 or $60 is too much for it. You can talk about opinions and it being worth your personal money, but from a business perspective the price point is very reasonable.

[Sacrosanct]

The product costs millions to make, so it is pretty hard to argue that $50 or $60 is too much for it. You can talk about opinions and it being worth your personal money, but from a business perspective the price point is very reasonable.

 

So no matter how good or bad it is or how much the playing experience represents value for money (or not as the case may be) the amount of money it cost to make it justifies the price tag?

 

Have I missed something or is it Clown Night on the Obsidian forums?

[Hurlshort]

The product costs millions to make, so it is pretty hard to argue that $50 or $60 is too much for it. You can talk about opinions and it being worth your personal money, but from a business perspective the price point is very reasonable.

 

So no matter how good or bad it is or how much the playing experience represents value for money (or not as the case may be) the amount of money it cost to make it justifies the price tag?

 

Have I missed something or is it Clown Night on the Obsidian forums?

 

Quality has very little to do with pricing, that's a fairly subjective criteria. It was not developed to be sold as a low budget piece of software. The market has set the price point at $60 for a new release.

 

Do movie theaters change ticket prices based on the quality of the movie?

[metamag]

I paid 30 euros for the PC game, by the way. Pre-ordered.

 

I forgot to ask, how the hell did you manage that? It costs 50 euros on steam!

[Tigranes]

Steam is always expensive except when it has one of its sales. It's never a good place to buy.

[GreasyDogMeat]

If you judge the gameplay time based on what DS 3 truly is, Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance 3, then the game actually takes roughly the same amount of time that those games did. That said I would have liked the game to take a bit longer. My first Anjali playthrough took 14 hours & 20 minutes. I've heard the in game clock doesn't take into account inventory management time, and I'm willing to bet this is true as the game felt longer. That said, I would have liked the game to have been a few hours longer. I like my RPGs, action or otherwise, to be in the 20 hour range.

[Matt-C]

The game is comparable to that of an XBLA game, so paying anything more than that seems like a rip off to me. In fact I've spent more time playing every single XBLA game I've purchased compared to DS3... considering I also forced myself to play through DS3 four times (playing a different character and different choices barely adds anything to make an additional playthrough worthwhile)... The only replayability DS3 offered was to get all achievements, not the actual game itself.

 

For the people willing to pay the price it was fair.If you slopped down x amount for it, you are admitting that it was a fair price.

 

Don't be stupid. Unless you happen to be able to see the future there is no way to know how much you are going to enjoy something... you only have expectations. This game failed to meet those expectations for many, there for they are not happy with the price they paid and deemed it not to be fair. It's like going to a restaurant and getting a meal... you have a general expectation of what it's going to be like, and how much you are typically willing to spend on it... however it was completely ****ed up and tasted terrible... does it still mean the meal was at a fair price? of course not.

[Matt-C]

The product costs millions to make, so it is pretty hard to argue that $50 or $60 is too much for it. You can talk about opinions and it being worth your personal money, but from a business perspective the price point is very reasonable.

However the resources were not used wisely, should that cost then be pushed on to the purchaser? All it does is give the company a terrible reputation of 'wait for bargain bin, if that' for each new game they develop. So from a business perspective it is not reasonable. Maybe if this was the last game for the developer to ever make it would be okay from a business perspective to have an inflated price to begin with to see how many people buy it... but they need to create/maintain a reputation otherwise it will simply destroy chances of future products being a success.

[Lycidas]

I spent about 70 hours on the game so far. So hell yes it's worth my money.

[Hurlshort]

The product costs millions to make, so it is pretty hard to argue that $50 or $60 is too much for it. You can talk about opinions and it being worth your personal money, but from a business perspective the price point is very reasonable.

However the resources were not used wisely, should that cost then be pushed on to the purchaser? All it does is give the company a terrible reputation of 'wait for bargain bin, if that' for each new game they develop. So from a business perspective it is not reasonable. Maybe if this was the last game for the developer to ever make it would be okay from a business perspective to have an inflated price to begin with to see how many people buy it... but they need to create/maintain a reputation otherwise it will simply destroy chances of future products being a success.

 

Uh, were you a project manager on DS3? I'm not sure how you can speak with much authority on use of resources.

 

There is no concensus that this is a bargain bin title. That is your opinion. Reviews have been mixed, as has the reception of users here.

 

As for maintaining a reputation, if the publisher paid AAA money and got what they considered a bargain bin product, and had to lower the price point to get it out the door, that would be a gigantic blow to Obsidian's reputation. That obviously isn't the case, Square Enix and Obsidian clearly have confidence in the product. Sales seem to be supporting that confidence so far, although it is really to early to tell.

[Volourn]

"Absolutely ridiculous comment. You're saying people know what a fair price for the game is before they've played it? lolz."

 

 

"Don't be stupid."

 

You both are absolutely ridiculous stupid. If someone sees the price of something is x and decided to buy that is them admitting theyf eel that product is worth it. It's called supply and demand. iIt doesn't matter if you ended up dislking it, or being dissapointed it, you felt the price was worth it or you would not have bought it. period.

 

Plus, as for not knowing you were gonna hate it, tough. There's plenty of ways to figure out if a game is for you. Don't worry, I've made game purchases I've regreeted. I say suck it up. You dont' see me whining about how Obsidian owes me money for AP... because they don't.

 

The price tag for DS3 is very much appropriate for those who boguht it. period.

 

me? i was going to buy it full pirce but I'mm going to hold back on a purchase... this means the current price tag isn't approrpiate for me.

 

See, how that works?

 

Obsidian/SS did absolutely nothingw rongg in regards to pricing of DS3. period.

[deteego]

Also, by now Dungeon Siege 3 is probably the best RPG purchase I've made since Risen. It focuses almost exclusively on the combat, but one of the big problems with ARPGs on the PC is that they never ever focus on the combat mechanics. So it's a big breath of fresh air for me. I'll take this any day of the week over playing the same game over and over again on a random map.

 

+9000

 

I just went back to playing Titan Quest because unfortunately I got stuck due to a bug (yes I reported it)

 

Then I realized how BOOOORING the combat is compared to DS3. I mean yes the game is longer, and its more "open" (well, not really, I mean, both games still have linear quests and campaings, its just that the level design in TQ/Diablo is of open worlds more so then "corriders" that DS3 is), but it just ended up getting boring. In fact I know just started a new campaign with the sword character

 

Luckily if Obsidian can release a lot of DLC, it can turn DS3 into a true gem

Edited June 30, 2011 by deteego

[Bakercompany86]

Also, by now Dungeon Siege 3 is probably the best RPG purchase I've made since Risen. It focuses almost exclusively on the combat, but one of the big problems with ARPGs on the PC is that they never ever focus on the combat mechanics. So it's a big breath of fresh air for me. I'll take this any day of the week over playing the same game over and over again on a random map.

 

+9000

 

I just went back to playing Titan Quest because unfortunately I got stuck due to a bug (yes I reported it)

 

Then I realized how BOOOORING the combat is compared to DS3. I mean yes the game is longer, and its more "open" (well, not really, I mean, both games still have linear quests and campaings, its just that the level design in TQ/Diablo is of open worlds more so then "corriders" that DS3 is), but it just ended up getting boring. In fact I know just started a new campaign with the sword character

 

Luckily if Obsidian can release a lot of DLC, it can turn DS3 into a true gem

 

 

Agreed. The combat keeps me perfectly interested at all times. After completing a hardcore Reinhart playthrough i'm doing it now as Katarina (who has the best Standard Empowered Moves if you ask me).

 

Yes DLC can turn DS3 into a true gem. The game itself as is, is fantastic to me. I loved the campaign and I thought it was well thought out. I liked seeing my decisions actually matter towards the end, that was neat and they didn't even really have to do that in this game.

 

Yes its a game loaded with corridors, and very linear. But thats okay for me because the game as a whole was beautiful and fun. As its been repeated by even the haters, its some of the best combat mechanics in this game type ever.

 

I'll take any DLC we can get. Anything that enables me to play this game more would be appreciated and purchased quickly

 

If they could just fix the MP loot balance and the camera, this game would be perfect in my eyes.

[metamag]

My first Anjali playthrough took 14 hours & 20 minutes.

 

Why are you focusing on the counting of time instead of the content, I was not talking about the time but the content. I spent at least 16 hours(backtracking between quests and shop randomizing) in a single playthrough.

 

But in that time you have only 4 distinct areas with a couple of surrounding caves and corridors.

 

It simply doesn't feel like an epic journey like previous Dungeon Siege's and other RPGs do, this is just a really good episode.

[Tigranes]

A good episode is better than a mediocre journey, for me. I didn't enjoy DS1 at all so it wouldn't have mattered if it gave me 50 planets and continents. DS3 has no fat - from start to finish, you're never going through dull filler or a dip in quality. Obviously, if you didn't find DS3 fun then that's a different story, but isn't that the whole point? If you have a lot of fun and you spend a reasonable amount of time on it, there's your 'money's worth'. Get too far into trying to define what's long enough and how many granules of particular types of content, and it just leads to everyone harping on about what they think is Totally Awesome.

 

Of course, as I've said elsewhere, I think DS3 would have benefited from a couple more minor areas and quests to flesh things out.

[Bakercompany86]

A good episode is better than a mediocre journey, for me. I didn't enjoy DS1 at all so it wouldn't have mattered if it gave me 50 planets and continents. DS3 has no fat - from start to finish, you're never going through dull filler or a dip in quality. Obviously, if you didn't find DS3 fun then that's a different story, but isn't that the whole point? If you have a lot of fun and you spend a reasonable amount of time on it, there's your 'money's worth'. Get too far into trying to define what's long enough and how many granules of particular types of content, and it just leads to everyone harping on about what they think is Totally Awesome.

 

Of course, as I've said elsewhere, I think DS3 would have benefited from a couple more minor areas and quests to flesh things out.

 

Agreed. I certainly wasn't unhappy with the campaign of DS3, it was wonderful. Would I have liked more? Of course, who wouldn't?

 

I think from pretty much any good game that comes out, *more* is a general thing that everyone wants. Nobody wants a great experience to end.

[MonkeyLungs]

If you judge the gameplay time based on what DS 3 truly is, Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance 3, then the game actually takes roughly the same amount of time that those games did. That said I would have liked the game to take a bit longer.

 

Dark Allaince 2 has a much richer feature list and more replay oriented gameplay though. Multiple difficulty levels ... with unlockables and stuff. Drizzt was playable as an unlockable rewards for instance. DS3 pales in comparison to Dark Alliance 2.

[Hurlshort]

If you judge the gameplay time based on what DS 3 truly is, Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance 3, then the game actually takes roughly the same amount of time that those games did. That said I would have liked the game to take a bit longer.

 

Dark Allaince 2 has a much richer feature list and more replay oriented gameplay though. Multiple difficulty levels ... with unlockables and stuff. Drizzt was playable as an unlockable rewards for instance. DS3 pales in comparison to Dark Alliance 2.

 

Geez, Dark Alliance 1 and 2 were even worse than Dungeon Siege 1 and 2.

 

 

As for Drizzt

 

Maybe DS3 should have had an unlockable Jason Statham character.

[Volourn]

"Geez, Dark Alliance 1 and 2 were even worse than Dungeon Siege 1 and 2. "

 

You jokin right? DS games (not coutning 3 hopefully) are amongst the worst games ever. BGDA series are pretty damn fun games with greta graphics, fun combat, a pretty darn good character system espciailly for an action (light rpg) game, and worthwhile stories.

 

How cna any sane perosn - espciially an Obsidian fanboy like youn - truly believe that the DS games ar ebetetr than the BGDA games. L0LZ

[Renevent]

How can any sane person actually believe the DS games are among "the worst games ever"? There's opinion, and then there's just idiocy.

 

Dark Alliance was cool though, fun game.