It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussionLast chance – grab We Happy Few before the price goes up(305 posts)(305 posts)
(305 posts)
Pages:
1
5
6
7
8
9
10
15
21
This is my favourite topic
Posted August 10, 2017
Final pre-release update and price increase coming August 16.

So much has been happening with We Happy Few since the title joined Games in Development, but this journey is almost at its end. As the full game's release approaches, developers Compulsion Games are beginning revealed their plans for the near future.

The final in-development update "Life in Technicolor" is dropping August 16, introducing new Joy effects as well as a brand new UI (still WIP), AI reworks and much more. This date also marks the previously-announced price change – jumping to $50.99 (or your local equivalent).

You can read the full announcement here.

If you've been on the fence, this is a great time to hop over – and stay tuned for more info coming soon!
Posted August 11, 2017
avatar
Anime-BlackWolf: Yeah. PC games went to the gutter, when internet-access became more and more common. Why deliver a finished product, when you can push it out early and "fix" it later? Consoles were free from this problem, until this generation, where internet is a foundation, which cannot be avoided anymore. Patches for console games are NOT A GOOD thing.
It already started during the 360/PS3 era, and only got worse with the current gen. The current consoles have lost all appeal for me -- they're just heavily restricted, mediocre gaming PCs. The only thing they still have going for them is nice exclusive games, every once in a while. ( And even those are an awful concept to begin with. ) Meanwhile PC gaming is slowly taking on some of the negative aspects of consoles, due to mandatory clients and other artificial soft- and hardware restrictions.

avatar
Anime-BlackWolf: Just because there are more and more morons out there, who think frequent patches for an unfinished game is a good thing, this must not be true. If they want unfinished DEMOS/ALPHAS, it's their problem. But most of them won't buy a title like this...
Depends on the reason for the patches... In example, the Terraria dev has been pushing out dozens of updates since its release. Not because the game was badly broken, but because they still care about it and keep adding new content.
Post edited August 11, 2017 by CharlesGrey
Posted August 11, 2017
avatar
Manywhelps: Gotta admit, it's pretty hard to be active on GOG.com. You guys are really passionate, but you have to stop thinking that publishers and devs are out to screw consumers. Those examples exist, but they're few and far between, and by and large people are just trying to make a living and charge a reasonable price for their work.
That's why the GOG forums are great: they have many gamers who are not "Yes Men" and they therefore tell it like it is, even when the truth is harsh. If all gamers were like that, then games on the whole would be much better because devs and publishers would hold their games to higher standards (like they used to do, decades ago).

Maybe sometimes we overdo it when complaining about being ripped off, but if so, that is caused by and proportional to publishers/devs who for years have been overdoing how much they take advantage of their customers.

avatar
yogsloth: I don't think many people are saying that, though.
The amount of people who do or do not say something has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not it is true. To claim otherwise is a logical fallacy called appeal to popularity.

Anyone who has been gaming long enough to remember the non-gouging era can easily make a very reasonable case as to why it stands in great contrast to today's era of price gouging.

Today, most publishers/devs are absolutely out to screw consumers with price gouging. The standard for video games used to be that $49.99 USD bought you a full game with at least 30 hours (at bare minimum) of hand-crafted, varied gameplay. That also included patches for six months to a year after release, many of which added new content, and all of which were free of charge.

Then that standard of 30 hours of gameplay eroded down to 20 hours, then to 15 hours, then to 10 hours, then to 5-10 hours...and now the new standard is becoming 3-4 hours. And the prices went up as well.

Not only that, but now games are filled with microtransactions/DLC/loot crates/'season passes' etc., each of which usually consists of an overpriced, small amount of content that the devs deliberately cut out of the main game, so that their customers will have to pay for that same one game multiple times.

And there is also "procedural generation," which is the diplomatic way to say "random copy & pasting [in lieu of real work that would have resulted in fun, interesting & varied gameplay] of the same few identical environments, ad infinitum."

If the devs of yesterday could make long, good games without including any of those bad things I've mentioned, then so can the devs of today. The only thing that could possibly prevent that from happening is greed (coupled with gamers lowering their standards and buying these gougey games even though doing so is not in their best interest, because it just perpetuates the problem more).
Posted August 11, 2017
The current price is a bit much for me for "In Development". The increased price is far too much. I'm really keen on this game and would have happily picked it up for the current price once released, but with the sudden increase, no chance.

Because of your crazy increase, I will just have to wait until it is on a massive sale. Probably end up paying much less than the current price for this down the line.

If you kept it at the current price, you would have had a sale from me at release, but not now.
Posted August 11, 2017
I would say the price a game should cost should depend on the scale of the game. It should have nothing to do with whether it's AAA published or indie and more to do with how much work went into it.

But in the end, indie games are simply much smaller scale than (most) AAA titles and consequently shouldn't ask for as much money as AAA titles.
I have yet to see an indie title that's actually so huge and polished that it would be worth more than $30, even if I really loved it.

I can't really comment too much on We Happy Few. For me it was a title I was really interested about when I heard about its setting, so I watched a Let's Play of it on my favorite channel about a year ago. I really loved the introduction but then quickly realized that it's actually just another random survival game with interesting skin wrapped around. So it quickly dropped to a "Well if it drops below $10 on a sale I might give it a try" title for me (not saying that it's only worth that much).

Increasing the already high price for such a game even higher just doesn't feel right. Also even if that reveal on the 16th would be something like "Got AAA publisher to make a real high budget game out of it now", I'd probably just release the current game as it is without price increase and then make another title from the budget, rather than just raising the price of the original title hoping the people would jump on that wagon. Better create new hype than trying to let it survive for several years.

Well, we'll see how well the game will sell for $50.99. I have honest doubts.
Posted August 11, 2017
30 dollars to play an alpha, 50 to play what, a beta you call version one? Yeah, try to justify what the gaming industry does all you like, but really, the bottom line is you just do whatever you figure you can get away with, game developer, and lucky for you there are so many damn people that never even think about what they're really, truly paying for, that you can get away with a lot of shady tactics. That's the plain and simple reality of the situation, and anyone who tries to justify it is one sad individual. Anyone.
Posted August 11, 2017
Oh right, wanted to add to the topic of Early Access being cheaper: Well I can see how that's reasonable, but I think that 10% cheaper is enough incentive to try it without making full version buyers feel ripped off later.
Posted August 11, 2017
We Happy Few is number 25 on the 'Popular' games featured on GOG's main page, so I guess *some* people are buying it while it's still sold for $30. Good for those customers, I guess, and good for Compulsion Games; being 25th on GOG's popular list isn't all that great, but it's still better than what the backlash in the forums made it look like.

I'll wait for the 16th with skepticism. I can't, for the life of me, fathom a single reason that would justify a price increase this steep. And if it's because Microsoft is publishing the game and selling it for $50 is part of the agreement (which, at this point, seems to be very likely), please, don't try selling that to your customers as a "good thing". From my experience with the gaming community, major big studios attached to a project are more of a hindrance than a benefit, since most gamers don't even like studios like EA, Ubisoft or Microsoft that much, these days.
Posted August 11, 2017
avatar
Zoidberg: Wow, I appreciate the warning but damn... 50 eurodollars for this?

I cannot condone this in any way.

The studio has dug its own hole with this. :(
Or they will very soon discount the game somewhere near its current price.

Honestly, I don´t have problem with them doing so, since they announced it before hand, didn´t keep it a secret, but I also think that the current price is adequate and doubling (!) it is simply too much.
Put the game out for 35€ as a full price - fine.
50? Not so fine, putting it mildly.

I hope this game will be successful, because it shows potential (already bought it several months back), I am afraid this will do more damage than good - similar like certain space FaceBook simulator game here on GOG, which was way overpriced, they were forced to lower the price quite soon after release, but the damage was done - people weren´t willing to buy it much even afterwards, and to my knowledge it was a financial failure.

Really wouldn´t like to see this happen to this game.
Posted August 11, 2017
avatar
Manywhelps: snip
With kick Starters and In Dev/Early Access you are buying the promise of a complete game. Saying the game has 3 times the content it did when its was first released In Dev is misleading since it was released as an incomplete game and not really a justifiable reason for a price increase.

If you said the game is now twice the size than originally planned, that would be more acceptable.

As I said, I understand In Dev/Early Access backers get a discount and should be rewarded for their investment, and thus the final product will have always been higher. I still feel new players may be alienated by the large difference in cost though.

Now I bought this the day it came out In Dev on GoG. I think the game's premise is amazing and a small play through of the early beta showed a game and a team that can deliver on that promise. I felt the survival aspect was a little too harsh and you addressed that.

But I didn't play any more as I didn't want to ruin story of the competed game.

I can only guess at what you have planned to justify the new price. I hope its multiplayer, this game is screaming for a "Dying Light" style cooperative multiplayer (with LAN Support). If it is, PM me or drop a subtle hint, I'll buy a second copy in an instant.
Posted August 11, 2017
avatar
nightcraw1er.488: At least this isn't the only thing released today...
Dismal week, month, year, and going downwards.
Oh, c´mon, was it really such a bad year, month, week?

What about Long Dark, successfully getting out of InDev phase?
And all the other games released this year up until today (Fallout 3, NV) of any genre?
Posted August 11, 2017
avatar
mechmouse: I can only guess at what you have planned to justify the new price. I hope its multiplayer, this game is screaming for a "Dying Light" style cooperative multiplayer (with LAN Support). If it is, PM me or drop a subtle hint, I'll buy a second copy in an instant.
If it is, in fact, the addition of multiplayer, good luck selling it here on GOG, seeing as most of the usual GOG-heads in these forums are downright anti-multiplayer and will tell you time and time again how they only play games for the story and the single player modes. I know I won't be getting multiplayer games on GOG, as the online community simply isn't there (I'm looking forward to Absolver, but I'll probably just get it on Steam, since there's no online GOG community to speak of). I was never able to play any of the multiplayer games I own on GOG with other people, they simply aren't there. So, if that's the big announcement Compulsion has in store... ouch, I wouldn't want to be their poor PR in charge of the GOG side of things.

Plus, is the addition of multiplayer really worth of a $20 price increase?! I mean, yeah, they never hid they would, at some point close to release, raise the price of the game. Such transparency is commendable, indeed. But, still... it's $20 more, that seems a bit too much, and nothing I've seen of this game so far (I've even watched a stream a few days ago of the up-to-date GOG version, mind you) seems to justify a $50 price tag for an Early Access/In Dev game.

I still stand by what I've been saying, it seems to be the most likely scenario: a big AAA studio will be publishing We Happy Few (probably Microsoft), and this ridiculous price increase is part of the agreement. If that's the case, I just hope Compulsion has the decency to stop announcing it as a positive thing, because almost all of the contemporary gaming scene kind of loathes big studios.
Posted August 11, 2017
avatar
koima57: Spider senses tingling... Greed in the airrrr!

Edit : to be constructive... @Manywhelps 40 price tag would be more appropriate, seriously.

Aaand what's that secret!?
Everyone's "greedy", just in different directions. They want money for their efforts (greed). Consumers want to keep as much of their money as they can (selfish). Fortunately society has a way of resolving this emass, aka the market, or voting with one's dollars. The only other way is the "patron" model aka kickstarter but that has limits.
Posted August 11, 2017
avatar
trusteft: Oh I am not blaming you for this alone. Obviously you are not the first or the last to do this.
But just because more do this it doesn't mean it is right or justified. Yes also many people prefer this, that's because many people are (I will keep it safe for this thread)...sheep. Yes, sheep let's go with that.
The same people who accept Windows 10 spying on them because "everybody does it", the same people who publish everything on their facebook accounts, the same people...anyway, it doesn't matter now.
Yes I will not buy the game while it is still in development, that was my point. I will wait till it is finished in a couple of years with all the "patches" and potential DLC and then I will consider it.
Good luck with the game, I hope it ends up being great.
Want to say I am glad there are people like you around still. Means we are at least a crowd of two that think before acting.

Can only re-iterate, I find it incredible how much BS gaming companies are able to get away with -- even getting praised for. Honestly, it often feels like I live in a parallel universe, where people have been replaced by Pavlovian dogs.
Posted August 11, 2017
avatar
mechmouse: I can only guess at what you have planned to justify the new price. I hope its multiplayer, this game is screaming for a "Dying Light" style cooperative multiplayer (with LAN Support). If it is, PM me or drop a subtle hint, I'll buy a second copy in an instant.
avatar
groze: If it is, in fact, the addition of multiplayer, good luck selling it here on GOG, seeing as most of the usual GOG-heads in these forums are downright anti-multiplayer and will tell you time and time again how they only play games for the story and the single player modes. I know I won't be getting multiplayer games on GOG, as the online community simply isn't there (I'm looking forward to Absolver, but I'll probably just get it on Steam, since there's no online GOG community to speak of). I was never able to play any of the multiplayer games I own on GOG with other people, they simply aren't there. So, if that's the big announcement Compulsion has in store... ouch, I wouldn't want to be their poor PR in charge of the GOG side of things.

Plus, is the addition of multiplayer really worth of a $20 price increase?! I mean, yeah, they never hid they would, at some point close to release, raise the price of the game. Such transparency is commendable, indeed. But, still... it's $20 more, that seems a bit too much, and nothing I've seen of this game so far (I've even watched a stream a few days ago of the up-to-date GOG version, mind you) seems to justify a $50 price tag for an Early Access/In Dev game.

I still stand by what I've been saying, it seems to be the most likely scenario: a big AAA studio will be publishing We Happy Few (probably Microsoft), and this ridiculous price increase is part of the agreement. If that's the case, I just hope Compulsion has the decency to stop announcing it as a positive thing, because almost all of the contemporary gaming scene kind of loathes big studios.
Assuming there was always going to be at least a $10 increase once live, and additional $10 for multiplayer isn't extortionate.

As for multiplayer, I'd be playing with my wife. I've never really enjoyed playing with total strangers. Which you might consider odd since I played WoW for nearly 10 years.

However with WoW, me and the wife played mostly PvE. Yes there was other players but our enjoyment of the game wasn't dependant on them. 4 times out of 10 a Pick Up Group (PUG) for a dungeon would be a horrible experience and 5 times out of 10 it was bearable. Once in a while you'll find someone interesting your can get along with. We got to know them, they weren't strangers any more.

The idea of playing this or any game where I've got a 1 in 10 chance of an enjoyable experience just fills me with dread.

Steam is for those that use the Facebook definition of "Friend", unless you've helped me move a dead body your not a friend. Likely explains why I've only got 5 people I'd call a friend.
Posted August 11, 2017
avatar
koima57:
avatar
Ostracus: Consumers want to keep as much of their money as they can (selfish).
That's a bit if a blanket statement and as such a tad unfair.
Since when is wanting to have enough money to eat selfish? :P

-It's too expensive. If I buy it I won't have enough money for rent.

-You're just being selfish!
Post edited August 11, 2017 by tinyE
Pages:
1
5
6
7
8
9
10
15
21
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussionLast chance – grab We Happy Few before the price goes up(305 posts)(305 posts)
(305 posts)