Confused on the price tag.

[Kashra Fall]

Is this the final price tag, or is it going to go up? I recall when slime rancher 1 went into EA, I bought it on humble bundle for the DRM free copy and rebought it on steam sometime later. The price definitely wasn't 30 for an EA. How long of EA are we talking here?

[Katzena]

Its the final price heres the faq:
https://www.slimerancher.com/faqs/

the price wont be going up
the price is justifyable its only $10 more, this ISNT slime rancher 1. so theres graphical improvements

id estimate the EA access be a few years like slime rancher 1.

[Kashra Fall]

Originally posted by Katzena:

Its the final price heres the faq:
https://www.slimerancher.com/faqs/

the price wont be going up
the price is justifyable its only $10 more, this ISNT slime rancher 1. so theres graphical improvements

id estimate the EA access be a few years like slime rancher 1.

Ah, so final price tag at the start of EA? Got ya, graphical improvements aside that is a kind of weird business model and hope it works out for em! I'll look into the game in the future then.

[Quagimus Decimus]

$30 out the door in EA + on gamepass.. really shoddy expectations already.

[Middy]

Originally posted by Katzena:

the price is justifyable its only $10 more, this ISNT slime rancher 1.

That's the thing... so far it seems almost exactly the same as Slime Rancher 1. This is the best example of a reskin I've seen in a long time. Where are the new mechanics?

[404_Not_Found]

Everyone knows sequels accrue a Brand Tax.

Well that and they have more staff to pay than they did with the first game, which IIRC launched with just 4 employees.

The price hike is probably just about paying more people, which makes sense I guess. It does feel like games get more expensive all the time though...

[Kashra Fall]

Originally posted by 404_Not_Found:

Everyone knows sequels accrue a Brand Tax.

Well that and they have more staff to pay than they did with the first game, which IIRC launched with just 4 employees.

The price hike is probably just about paying more people, which makes sense I guess. It does feel like games get more expensive all the time though...

The expense is fine, I'm alright with that. I however have and will always be against the start of EA charging release price. Because we are basically paying to be their beta testers. The general consumer/dev agreement for EA is lower price/lower quality game/feedback to change it at release into EA. Vs, final release, final price, hopefully they listened to player feedback.

[Viralyte]

Originally posted by Kashra Fall:

The expense is fine, I'm alright with that. I however have and will always be against the start of EA charging release price. Because we are basically paying to be their beta testers. The general consumer/dev agreement for EA is lower price/lower quality game/feedback to change it at release into EA. Vs, final release, final price, hopefully they listened to player feedback.

The opposite is also in affect, people buy EA games expecting them to be feature complete then never come back on full release. That's a large problem with single player games, beat EA then never see how it shapes up. Not saying it's a bad or good idea but a standard price, which is still relatively cheap, doesn't bother me much at all.

[Gibbs]

The price will likely go down by 10-25% before the game even leaves early access, as it rotates in and out of various steam sales over the next 18 months (!!!) of early access.

Buying it today means you get it ASAP, but you're paying the highest price for the least amount of content there will be.

[Zodion]

Why do people never want to pay for things? It's half the price of most (decent) games, less than that in my region in fact. From what I can tell so far it is a high quality game already with most content available from the start. I don't think it's a great burden to pay what they are asking to support further development and the studio.

[Kashra Fall]

Originally posted by Zodion:

Why do people never want to pay for things? It's half the price of most (decent) games, less than that in my region in fact. From what I can tell so far it is a high quality game already with most content available from the start. I don't think it's a great burden to pay what they are asking to support further development and the studio.

Again, I do not mind paying for things. You can look at my profile to see that as proof. I am however fully against full priced EA titles as they are not feature complete. Seeing as the first game didn't do this, it is suprising that the second game chose to. Hence, the confusion. I will check back with it in a few months to see the feedback etc, because going off of day 1, you will get very bias views.