Praise for Avowed

[Silhouette Fleur]

Sooo, couple things.

1) I've played both Pillars of Eternity games, absolutely loved them.
2) I'm not sure where the Bethesda comparisons are coming from.
3) Marketing really tries to do Obsid games dirty.

Not much more to say on my first point.

On the second..
Where is the Oblivion / Skyrim comparison coming from?
Avowed is so much more focused on tight lore, good dungeons, good mechanics, and proper story interaction.
Yes, they are both fantasy games, Avowed is dipping its toes in open world with this engine, that's about where my comparisons would stop.
If there is any comparison to be made at all, I'd say Morrowind, but it's got a ways to go to fill those shoes, as does anything Bethesda has made in recent decades.

As to the marketing..
Wow, honestly, I really want to give The Outer Worlds and Avowed positive reviews, I do.
But.
Between epic exclusives, New Vegas comparisons to set expectations, and the $70+ USD price tag?
You're not getting one from me.
Do better.

Avowed itself?
From the solid parkour, to semi destructible environments, to the subtle puzzle solving that doesn't lay it on thick, to the absolute gem of an interactive magic system, to the levelling system, and actually having dialogue /options/ that tell you what you're saying.. I'm honestly impressed.
The steps forward that have been made in this engine since The Outer Worlds was made, is incredible.
The dev team has outdone themselves and if I knew the extra money was going to them and not execs, I wouldn't have an issue with a price hike.
You folks did great.

[JKHasting]

You're right. If they took the initial price down another $30, I'd agree with you.
But at $70, it's like paying for a ferrari and getting a Miata.

When they advertise at that price, they need to deliver at that price, and even the people defending this game have no choice but to admit they utterly failed in that aspect.

[Miro Fox]

the price is high so you get it on the game-pass, its a disingenuous price.

but it was also probably like that through a Microsoft Contract.

[Silhouette Fleur]

Originally posted by JKHasting:

You're right. If they took the initial price down another $30, I'd agree with you.
But at $70, it's like paying for a ferrari and getting a Miata.

When they advertise at that price, they need to deliver at that price, and even the people defending this game have no choice but to admit they utterly failed in that aspect.

Standard price of games like this is $60 at launch.
I wouldn't have complained about that.
I do not like that that is the standard price for games at all, but I'm used to that level of corporate greed.

I don't know why you might not like it, but in my mind, the game is pretty solid, it continues really well from where the prior games took off, and has lots of good lore and gameplay.

[Silhouette Fleur]

Originally posted by Miro Fox:

the price is high so you get it on the game-pass, its a disingenuous price.

but it was also probably like that through a Microsoft Contract.

Probably so.
Again, it's what I attribute to their marketing team.
I don't know who is making the greedy financial decisions, but it's not consumer friendly.

[LazyJoeBeard]

The magic in avowed looks interesting.

[Pyro3000]

Avowed is so much more focused on tight lore, good dungeons, good mechanics, and proper story interaction.

This game could have fooled me, I guess.

Only praise I can give is that combat feels like it has weight to it, and it was neat to see a health potion get knocked out of my hand.

[JKHasting]

Originally posted by Silhouette Fleur:

Originally posted by JKHasting:

You're right. If they took the initial price down another $30, I'd agree with you.
But at $70, it's like paying for a ferrari and getting a Miata.

When they advertise at that price, they need to deliver at that price, and even the people defending this game have no choice but to admit they utterly failed in that aspect.

Standard price of games like this is $60 at launch.
I wouldn't have complained about that.
I do not like that that is the standard price for games at all, but I'm used to that level of corporate greed.

I don't know why you might not like it, but in my mind, the game is pretty solid, it continues really well from where the prior games took off, and has lots of good lore and gameplay.

Wait a second, I'm a bit confused. You're saying that $60 being a standard price is just an example of corporate greed, but you also wouldn't complain if they had launched the game at that price because it's standard? But also, in your original post, you're dragging this game across the coals over a $10 difference even though $70 IS the new standard?

[Silhouette Fleur]

Originally posted by JKHasting:

Originally posted by Silhouette Fleur:

Standard price of games like this is $60 at launch.
I wouldn't have complained about that.
I do not like that that is the standard price for games at all, but I'm used to that level of corporate greed.

I don't know why you might not like it, but in my mind, the game is pretty solid, it continues really well from where the prior games took off, and has lots of good lore and gameplay.

Wait a second, I'm a bit confused. You're saying that $60 being a standard price is just an example of corporate greed, but you also wouldn't complain if they had launched the game at that price because it's standard? But also, in your original post, you're dragging this game across the coals over a $10 difference even though $70 IS the new standard?

That's about the gist of it.
Thing about that price difference is that in my currency, $60 USD is $100, and that $10 difference? That's $20 in my currency.

$60 / $100 is pretty damn steep, and I reiterate, I hate it, I hate that it's the norm, but it's been the norm for me for 20+ years, it was the price of new PS1 games.
That there would cost a family a couple months savings and probably be the only game a kid got in six months.
It's why games like Final Fantasy have so many mini games, the appeal of "100+ hours of gameplay" was an appeal to parents saying "your kid will get the most value for your money out of this".

[dulany67]

Originally posted by Silhouette Fleur:

Originally posted by JKHasting:

You're right. If they took the initial price down another $30, I'd agree with you.
But at $70, it's like paying for a ferrari and getting a Miata.

When they advertise at that price, they need to deliver at that price, and even the people defending this game have no choice but to admit they utterly failed in that aspect.

Standard price of games like this is $60 at launch.
I wouldn't have complained about that.
I do not like that that is the standard price for games at all, but I'm used to that level of corporate greed.

I don't know why you might not like it, but in my mind, the game is pretty solid, it continues really well from where the prior games took off, and has lots of good lore and gameplay.

TBH, if it were $60 I would own it and still complain about the lack of NPC reactivity. But I would own it.

Not going to get Gamepass because I hope it fails. I don't see any pluses for the netflixication of gaming.

[BlissfulPluto]

Originally posted by dulany67:

Originally posted by Silhouette Fleur:

Standard price of games like this is $60 at launch.
I wouldn't have complained about that.
I do not like that that is the standard price for games at all, but I'm used to that level of corporate greed.

I don't know why you might not like it, but in my mind, the game is pretty solid, it continues really well from where the prior games took off, and has lots of good lore and gameplay.

TBH, if it were $60 I would own it and still complain about the lack of NPC reactivity. But I would own it.

Not going to get Gamepass because I hope it fails. I don't see any pluses for the netflixication of gaming.

Got some bad news for you. Even on steam you don't own your games.

[Kain]

Originally posted by Miro Fox:

the price is high so you get it on the game-pass, its a disingenuous price.

but it was also probably like that through a Microsoft Contract.

Hmmm, it is a possibility.

[PrimalVoid]

Originally posted by Miro Fox:

the price is high so you get it on the game-pass, its a disingenuous price.

but it was also probably like that through a Microsoft Contract.

Adjusting for inflation, Avowed would have launched for $50 in 2011 and Skyrim base game would have launched for $84 today.

[dulany67]

Originally posted by BlissfulPluto:

Originally posted by dulany67:

TBH, if it were $60 I would own it and still complain about the lack of NPC reactivity. But I would own it.

Not going to get Gamepass because I hope it fails. I don't see any pluses for the netflixication of gaming.

Got some bad news for you. Even on steam you don't own your games.

No we don't, but that's not the point. Would you like to see MS have the market power of Netflix in gaming?

[Silhouette Fleur]

Originally posted by PrimalVoid:

Originally posted by Miro Fox:

the price is high so you get it on the game-pass, its a disingenuous price.

but it was also probably like that through a Microsoft Contract.

Adjusting for inflation, Avowed would have launched for $50 in 2011 and Skyrim base game would have launched for $84 today.

Sadly I don't think we can factor inflation into it at all.

Something I said up above, ps1 games (in my currency), launched for $100, that's about $60 USD.

Were most of them worth that much?
Hells no.
Even the average wage at the time would barely support that claim.

Wages compared to inflation today, even less so, since the average wage has not kept up with inflation for over a decade.

[dulany67]

Originally posted by PrimalVoid:

Originally posted by Miro Fox:

the price is high so you get it on the game-pass, its a disingenuous price.

but it was also probably like that through a Microsoft Contract.

Adjusting for inflation, Avowed would have launched for $50 in 2011 and Skyrim base game would have launched for $84 today.

For me, it's not the price. I have bought $70 games without hesitation. It's the purely manipulative push for GP.