Would you buy it on Console or PC for that price?!
suposedly you will be able to pre-order it tomorow
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh. I thought it might be like "3 out of 3" or something. Well, aren't all games $60 on release these days though?
And seeing as they hyped it as a game that's literally better than any game that has ever existed, it'd make sense if it were in a AAA price range. (I know it'll be painfully average, but let the fanboys get stung.)
Comment has been collapsed.
My analysis is No Man's Sky is created by an indie company, so to place the $60 price tag like the big AAA companies do leads to some people to be uncomfortable...? Players assume indie companies would place a price tag on their games less than $60 because the pattern is consistent based from past indie games. On top of the price tag situation, the amount of hype might lead to worrying because any game that is given the hype has a decent proportional tendency to be another "meh". We cannot forget about Evolve, Destiny, or Watch Dogs.
Comment has been collapsed.
That game should be maximum $30 imo, but obviously they advertised it too much so now lots of hyped ppl will pay even $60, big overprice.
Comment has been collapsed.
yeah my thoughts exactly.
i mean theres a game very similar to this one already (GRAV) and it has like 150 players on steam. it has tons of planets, crafting, blabla and different planets also have their own ecosystems, gravity, weather, whatever.
Its $20 and yet it has like 150 players atm, so yeah i think $60 might be a bit overpriced >.<
Comment has been collapsed.
There doesn't seem to be any pics of space from GRAV in the store, does it have that or do you just fast travel between planets? That seems to be the biggest draw from No Man's Sky. Not saying that justifies the increase in price just mere curiosity.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't really understand the hype for this game...
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't really understand the hype for any game that's not a sequel. Especially when the developers always say "procedural generated universe / exploration / millionbillion and three possible planet" like a mantra. Socialism was also a promising ideology in the time of Marx, later millions died because how leaders wanted to implement the ideology to reality.
Comment has been collapsed.
Of course not, socialism works through a parasitic relationship with capitalism, where as long as someone else is paying the bills it will work.
Communism works by destroying the prior system, obtaining the wealth, and distributing it. Sadly it only works for roughly 1-2 generations, unless you dont mind a bit of blood to feed the system.
In the end they are both wealth redistribution, and are doomed to fail, but socialism takes a bit longer since instead of killing the goose that lays the golden egg as in communism, you just cage it and force it to lay more and more until either it dies, leaves, or revolts.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, no. I mean, I agree with communism, but socialism has worked very well in Northern Europe.
Keep in mind that all economic systems are a form of wealth distribution. The questions are hide, how much
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, no. I mean, I agree with communism, but socialism has worked very well in Northern Europe.
Keep in mind that all economic systems are a form of wealth distribution. The questions are how much to distribute, and to whom.
Comment has been collapsed.
Actually their system did (past tense) work very well. But that was because no one was abusing the system. Now that they are letting in "refugees" problems are popping up. Like the vets being kicked out of their homes in Germany, or people demanding gastric bypass on the tax payers dime while people with broken arms are left waiting for months until they can get operated on.
Also in the U.S. Capitalist system there wasn't wealth redistribution until LBJ and it isn't ending very well.
You know that rumor that most of the budget goes to the military, in reality 58% goes to wealth redistribution, welfare, and entitlement in the U.S. while only 18% goes to defense.
Comment has been collapsed.
There was wealth redistribution long before LBJ. FDR's policies of wealth redistribution were quite successful. But unbridled capitalism is also a form of wealth distribution, just in the opposite direction.
You're more or less right in that Medicare, Income Security and Social Security make up approximately 52% (of the 2014 budget) of the total U.S. budget. However, when you offset that by social security tax, "welfare" is actually about 33% of the budget, and national defense, together with veterans benefits & services, amounts to 30%.
*remember, social security is a government mandated and administered savings program.
Of the remainer, approximately 8.6% is debt servicing, less than 5% is for government functions (including justice and international affairs) and the remaining 22-23% is corporate welfare, subsidies, earmarks, etc. (including transportation, science, and agriculture)
Comment has been collapsed.
Mega-rich people sacrificing a tiny portion of their monstrous amounts of wealth while still being the wealthiest people on the planet so that poor people don't die from preventable illness and are able to receive an education if they work for it results in the total collapse of society? Huh, weird, didn't know that.
Comment has been collapsed.
Tell me something, lets take a random individual lets call him... Mr Rich, that sounds fun. Okay so we got Mr. Rich in our socialist society and he being the 1% should be taxed for everyone not as fortunate. So lets go up to Mr. Rich and tell him "We are going to take 30% of all the money you are making."
So what will he do?
Lets say he is a nice guy and goes "Fine, I love this country so I will pay you 30% of everything I make for the rest of my life." But of course as the population increases that isn't enough, let me see the Bern man (we all know him) want to make it greater than 50% and he says he is a socialist. So now lets tell Mr. Rich he needs to give us half of the money he eared.
Do you think he will pay it? No of course not that is getting ridiculous, so at this point what he does is obvious he will move all assets and business overseas to where there is less taxes so Mr. Rich is no longer the 1% because on paper he makes nothing in the U.S. and soon the definition changes and changes as more and more people that actually do have excess disposable income leave, until small business owners are the 1%, they cant leave and they will be taxed to make up for the lost income until they are broke and this will go on and on. Also there is something about less jobs and people being out of work, but that is another discussion.
That is the pitfall of socialism, it relies on capitalists and of course unless you chain them down they will leave if you make the conditions opposing to them.
Comment has been collapsed.
In the 1950's, taxes were significantly higher, and yet there was unrivaled prosperity.
But let's ignore that, because I'll agree that it's not exactly fair.
I'll agree with you that we can't keep raising taxes forever and ever. But, on the other hand, not providing any social services is equally problematic, for very different reasons. At the very least, if people can't afford to eat, they'll resort to crime to feed themselves. If for no other reason, it's cheaper to provide minimal welfare so people can eat than it is to pay for increased police services and more and more prisons.
As for your hypothetical mr. rich moving his assets overseas, it's not that simple, nor is it necessary. The reason is, he gets taxed by a particular country on income earned or wealth generated in that country. So if he wants to keep earning money in X, then he needs to keep paying taxes in X.
The reason it isn't necessary, is that there are far more efficient ways to lower your taxes than to move your money abroad. And I'm not just talking about certain tech billionaires who don't draw a salary. Feel free to hit me up offline if you want to learn more about that.
Which also brings up a different point, which is that your main point involves an assumption that only a tax on income is possible. But other methods of taxing people are also possible, and may be more fair or more practical than a tax on income. As an example, Adam Smith observed that a tax on land value is more economically efficient than a tax on income.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah I know, that is why my family just got out of a court case with the city trying to tax our business property 5 times what it was worth to get their welfare money. At the rate they were going if we lost the case we were going to sell and leave the state, and a few people would have been left without a job, but that is something else.
Also Mr. Rich will make money bribe Mexico's el presidente and still save much more than they would here. But regardless you do see, if you overtax they wont pay, so it is up to small businesses and people like us to foot the bill. I honestly dont feel like anyone else deserves to pay for someone else's mistake.
Comment has been collapsed.
So, you're saying the mega-rich people will leave and stop collecting 90% of our money and not giving it back to society? Sounds like a win to me.
Further, there will ALWAYS be an upper class of wealthy people. If a few billionaires are crybabies because they are only allowed to earn $1 billion instead of $1.2 billion a year, and flee the country with all their earnings, someone else will just fill their place in the market. Your assumption is that they provide some kind of essential service to us, when they're just as expendable as any one of us, and there will always be someone eager to take their place.
Comment has been collapsed.
What 90% you mean the 90% people pay them for goods and services?
Also if you are sure they are easily replaced, instead of complaining about the rich people why don't you become the next one?
My parents came here without a penny to their name and now I am attending college and I hope to make my way in life without handout. I remember when I was little and I didn't have much to eat or any money to buy things with , I dealt with it and struggled. My parents never took handouts and I won't either. And I certainly would be mad if someone took the money I earned and gave it to someone else.
Comment has been collapsed.
They don't get paid directly for goods and services. They take a salary from their corporation, which provides the goods and services. If they leave the country and choose to shut down their corporation, their competition will take all their business. Do you really not understand how this works?
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh wait, you aren't mad at the business owners that made the company that makes the good, you are mad at the CEOs that don't do much but get paid a large salary?
Comment has been collapsed.
Great so who is going to foot the bill while we are waiting for their competition to take over?
Like for example if Microsoft and Apple leave, take all their jobs with them how long until a new OS becomes something worth using by the consumer market? You do realize if they leave and people still like their stuff no one will swap to anything new unless it is better. So effectively Paraguay will get all the tax revenue we forced out of the country.
Also what incentive is there for someone else to take over? So they can be taxed to death and leave themselves?
This is the same reason communism fell, what is the point of going up in life if you increased effort and time doesn't equate to increased pay? Why should someone strive to make $100k when thanks to taxes and stringent tax brackets they would have ended up with more money when making $99k? Why should people try to do anything if what they make is taken from them?
Comment has been collapsed.
Your argument about people not trying to earn more because the tax rates go up is also hilariously ridiculous. As long as the capacity to earn more exists, people will ALWAYS want to earn more. It's an absurd straw man argument. Of course someone else will take over and fill the void they leave. That's how capitalism works. You exploit every opportunity you're given. That's why we need to make it less advantageous to export their business overseas via trade policies and tariffs that prevent profitability by outsourcing.
Further, you seem to have a systemic misunderstanding of how the tax system works. If the tax rate for $0-$100,000 is 20% and the tax rate for $100,000-200,000 goes up to 25%, and you make $110,000, you'll earn $87,500, and pay an effective tax rate of barely over 20%. In this example, similar to the real tax code, only the income earned BEYOND $100,000 is taxed at 25%, meaning you'd pay $20,000 tax on the first $100,000 and then $2,500 on the remaining $10,000. If you make $101,000, you still earn more money than you would if you made $100,000, it just slows the rate at which you're able to earn each time you cross a new tax bracket. Which, if you understood economics, is a good thing because it means you're much more likely to stop paying yourself so much because it becomes a more logical and viable plan to invest in the longevity of your business rather than simply pocketing as much cash as you can before your business folds, like CEOs in modern America tend to do.
Comment has been collapsed.
Aww the line about deductions per bracket for business didn't carry over, oh well. Also great we should increase tariffs, sadly I don't see why you should blame businesses for doing what is in their interest trying to lower them, and not look down upon corrupt politicians for letting them get so low in exchange for their personal gain. Who would you blame someone tempting someone else, or the person that gave into the temptation?
Now something else does interest me.
If you hate the rich because they take money from their corporation, are corrupt, etc. Then can I ask you, how are you sure that when one business owner leaves and another takes their place they wont do the exact same thing?
Also one final thing, my family has its own business, we put money into it and built it from the ground up. Who are you to say I can't take my own money out of it and let it fall?
Comment has been collapsed.
It's wildly unethical to gut a company by looting its warchests and casting all the employees into the abyss. "Thanks for all the hard work, I'm rich enough now, go get your next meal at the soup kitchen lol"
Comment has been collapsed.
Again, how sure are you the new rich person won't do the same thing as the old rich person, and why do you think a business owner doesn't have the right to take their own money and liquidate their own assets?
Comment has been collapsed.
Sequels are overhyped nowadays aswell. Fallout 4 - even though Fallout series are good, they never had as much fans compared to the hype the 4th got. Why did it get this much hype? Did it offer something revolutionary, extraordinary, new? No. XCOM 2 etc.
Social media is just constantly growing part of our lives.
Comment has been collapsed.
They turned out differently, but at least they had a first game to build upon. For example Dishonored 1 was great, so I would expect a similar second with the same base principles. While the studio that makes No Man's Sky only created Joe Danger so far, which doesn't really mean they have any experience in the genre. It does NOT mean it will be bad, but we literally only have promises. And while I can understand, or even could get hyped if a new Obsidian game is announced, I can't comprehend how can people believe that "this will be the best game ever" because the goals and ambitions sound good.
Comment has been collapsed.
this is lame consumption approach and well hype by definition is pretty lame thing
hype about new games based on need for something new (not same shit every year), I could tolerate it
Comment has been collapsed.
I can't believe you "can't comprehend how can people believe that "this will be the best game ever" because the goals and ambitions sound good" ;)
Because it happens all the time (not just games - everything).
Comment has been collapsed.
I still can't understand - I'm more of a pessimist/careful person. I know the thing exists and widespread, but that people go such lengths to trashtalks others just because someone promised a nice thing, making a total fool of themselves is just mindnumbling.
Comment has been collapsed.
How much of that is there? Because I scimmed through discussions and haven't seen anything like that. Either unfounded negativity towards the game or legit discussions about features.
Comment has been collapsed.
Capitalism was wonderful ideology, all the rotten meat sold and sub-liveable wages paid.
Comment has been collapsed.
The more people want it, the more it will cost - it's not that evil until monopolies appear and/or life saving medications are involved :|
Comment has been collapsed.
So you mean there is nothing wrong with selling rotten/poisonous/contaminated food to people?
Comment has been collapsed.
Okay, switched up capitalism with free market.
capitalism is "an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth." Not rotten food mentioned, that's an individual's choice and not the mandatory part of capitalism.
Comment has been collapsed.
Vast open world to explore I guess. And open world in a true sense - not just bigger maps with 4 paths instead of 1.
Comment has been collapsed.
As soon as I heard about that, the first thing I thought of was [Whiny Consumer] "everyone is too far away, why does it take so long to get to my friends :'(" bigger is not always better and I am interested to see how it plays out in this game
Comment has been collapsed.
Don't you spawn together with your friends? To be honest I don't know much about the game - just what I saw on E3, trailers and screenshots.
But compared to any other $60 game same price for this game looks very reasonable in my opionion.
Comment has been collapsed.
For people who haven't played Spore, the idea of a giant universe (with nothing interesting to do in it) seems really innovative and interesting.
Every time I've seen the developer or whoever talk about NMS, it's always 'You can do anything, seriously it's so great you guys'
It's basically zombo.com the game.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, if it does actually offer what it promised then this price is more than justified... I was never going to buy it though and I'm still not, so no skin off my nose.
Comment has been collapsed.
You all know what's coming...
Comment has been collapsed.
I'll just wait for the price to land on the planet, then I'll be happy to pay for it!
6-12 months should do it. :)
Comment has been collapsed.
Any gameplay videos, screenshots, or even Steam Greenlight pages?
Comment has been collapsed.
Looks decent. Too bad it is not available for my region
Comment has been collapsed.
what makes you think it's not available in your region? it's not available to buy/pre-purchase for anyone... and you wouldn't be able to see the store page if it wasn't available for you
Comment has been collapsed.
A game's price is calculated by number of polygons, multiplied by designer's shoe size, divided by number of mugs in the studio's breakroom
basically, you have absolutely no right to judge how much money someone elses work is worth monetarily.
Comment has been collapsed.
Basically,i have all rights to judge how much money im spending on things.
Btw,into real life,everyone is judging how much other job should worth...
Comment has been collapsed.
you have the right to spend your money on something or not and thats where your right end.
And no, you dont go around saying, "coke its to expensive, im not paying that for it and nobody else should."
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, he said I'm.
Also I think people have right to say it loud if they think that some product is to expensive (especially if they can somehow back it up). I will give some extreme example (it is suppose to be extreme) - a bottle of water would cost 100$. Would you just say 'well ok, I will dehydrate' or say out loud that it's to expensive and try to explain other people why you think that?
Comment has been collapsed.
No situation is equal but you might want to read this - clickity click
However your argument about other people job's worth is good and I can agree with that.
Comment has been collapsed.
Reading stuff like really hits me. I mean, you can definitely feel the passion and dedication of whoever wrote that(and presumably the whole team) in that single post and it sums up what making a game is generally like. A game isn't made in one day(like Rome, haha, I'm funny?) and despite not trying even a tiny bit of game development or researching anything about it, I feel like I can still relate with the issue of varying opinions on the worth of something. You get this kind of thing every single day but the difficulty of dealing with it is increased ten folds on the internet, especially when there are alternatives and the power is 100% in the eyes of the public, as opposed to real life where sales and prices are a lot more black and white. I don't even want to think about the number of developers that have hit rock bottom because their prices weren't good enough or their games were misjudged. In real life, somebody's worth is generally judged on their success in life but the hard truth is that success doesn't always mean hard work. Wish I could relate to success in a way but I digress. I admire developers like the one above.
Sorry to necro your post. I just think stuff like that is amazing, when a developer is down to earth and explains their position as if they're just another person and don't freak out about it. Regardless of the game, the developer/the person who wrote that has to be an amazingly intelligent individual, then there's me who awkwardly necros comment chains and rambles incoherently.
Comment has been collapsed.
Worth is the inherent objective value of an object or individual, in contrast to value, which is subjective.
Hence, an apple is worth more to a person who would die without it, But of two people who aren't going to starve without it, one may value the apple more, though the worth is the same.
Likewise, the value of a game will differ person to person, while the worth could only really be assed against a subjective valuation system.
[IE, 'according to this economic assessment, this milk is worth less than what you're paying for it'
or in the case of the game, 'this game is worth less compared to its development cost, than than this other game- thus this other game is clearly a better deal (until you add in subjective valuation)'].
So, while I'm not arguing your point, you meant to say 'valued monetarily', not 'worth monetarily', as clearly each individual would assess that based off their own circumstances, much like TabarnaQ noted.
Comment has been collapsed.
yes, i meant to say that, im not like drumpf i dont have the best words :c
Comment has been collapsed.
It's one of those regularly confused words, I wasn't faulting you for it. Just was trying to point out that could be furthering any confusions on your intent. :)
Pff, drumpf.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'll pre-order it if there's a price mistake on amazon for this one :D
Comment has been collapsed.
Ha hahaha. No.
I wouldn't buy any of those games at those price even if I could afford to. Not on pre-order or day one anyway.
Comment has been collapsed.
I would never buy a game at that price. Heck, I don't buy games over $5-10 in general.
However, the price seems about right, doesn't it? Most newer games are over $60. No Man's Sky looks good, and people are hyped for it. If the developers don't fail to delivers a decent game, then no complaint. However, if the game is crap, now that's an entire different thing.
Personally, I did not expect the game to be priced any lower than the average for AAA games.
Comment has been collapsed.
Had to Google what the heck this even is. Looks like Daggerfall… in spaaaaaaaaaaaaaace.
Comment has been collapsed.
Wait, PS4 version of these games is cheaper than the PC versions? Where?
Comment has been collapsed.
Ehh, that means I can find it for €45- here. Not sure whats wrong with that...
Comment has been collapsed.
So what's surprising about the pricing? Every "new" Ubisoft breadloaf is 60$.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's quite an important game for Sony since there are not that many interesting games on the PS4 platform right now.
Comment has been collapsed.
I've seen too many hyped up pre-orders that turned out to have terrible gameplay.
What they're doing is begging you to buy it before the release version is reviewed.
Comment has been collapsed.
If it's as good as they're advertising/claiming, then yes, I'd buy it at that point. However, I'm definitely going to wait for it to come out and see what the reviews are like on it before I even consider purchasing it. Too much hype, too little actual gameplay released by the developers for me to trust that this isn't going to be a massively over-hyped flop.
Comment has been collapsed.
I like what this guy says regarding the topic matter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhc0KVwB9dQ
Comment has been collapsed.
Comment has been collapsed.