No Man’s Sky Leak Hints $60 Pre-Orders Start Tomorrow

Graham: Adam! Adam! Yesterday a listing on the US PlayStation blog appeared suggesting that No Man’s Sky [official site] pre-orders are due to start tomorrow, the 3rd of March, and that on PlayStation at least the game would cost $60. That seems like the price of a videogame to me, but other people are upset. How much would you pay for a functionally infinite galaxy of planets to explore? $55 tops?

Adam: Hundreds of pounds. Thousands. A procedurally generated bank vault’s worth of infinite money.

But, seriously, $59.99 sounds entirely reasonable to me (not a cent more). There are two things that came to my mind when I saw all of the conversation around this latest DRAMA when I sat down at my computer this morning.

1) I don’t think of games as having specific value. By which I mean, the games that I own do not gain or lose value depending on how much I play or enjoy them. If the games I played most were worth the most money, Football Manager would be worth more than I could possibly afford and I wouldn’t pay more than a few pennies for Her Story. As it is, I’m more inclined to spend the bigger wodge of cash on Her Story because I know that money – or at least a sizeable portion of it – is going to the chap who made the game and the person who had an acting role in the game. With Football Manager, I have no idea how the money divides among the team, how much Sega skim off the top and which people within Sports Interactive really worked on the best features that year. Maybe I should be able to specify where within the company I want my money to go.

2) And that’s the heart of the second point. With No Man’s Sky a lot of the griping about the possibility that it is a ‘full price game’ seems to relate to whatever the hell the word ‘indie’ means today AND to the size of the team. It’s wrapped up in notions of what people deserve. And I can’t help but think that big corporations (and Sony are involved with NMS, of course) are spending a lot of the money to pay back marketing costs. The twelve people, or however many, at Hello Games most likely aren’t setting the price themselves and they’re certainly not dividing the takings between them evenly, twelve ways. There are so many assumptions about how all of this works.

So, yes, I’d pay a lot of money for the game. $60 is a lot of money. Most copies will probably be sold for less given how many sales will happen within the game’s lifespan and how many people wait for those sales or simply only buy ANY game once it’s on sale. $60, if that is the price, is the upper limit of what it will ever cost. It seems sensible to set that high knowing that it’ll be cut down by 30/50/75% at regular periods down the line.

It’s worth noting that I live in a constant state of anxiety – every time I remember that Dwarf Fortress is free I want to throw money at Tarn Adams because I want that thing to exist and I want the person making it to be able to carry on making it, or something else creative and wonderful, for a very long time.

Am I a fool too easily parted from my money?

Graham: I subscribed to Dwarf Fortress’ Patreon, so paid $5 towards it each month for a year. Now that I think about it, that works out to be $60.

That said, while I agree with you broadly, I’m not yet ready to spend $60 on No Man’s Sky. Maybe when it’s out, when it’s been reviewed, when all my friends are playing it, when I know that either it is good or interesting or contains something that will fill my value bucket to its brim. For now, when it’s still an unknown – both in content and quality – $60 is too rich for my blood.

But yes, theoretically I feel the same as you. $60 doesn’t seem too much for this game or any game, particularly, and those sorts of decisions feel so personal, determined by your bank account and bills, that it’s foolish to try to put a fixed number on what something should cost.

Except for Dwarf Fortress.

Also, to throw a final few caveats into the ring: aside from neither Sony or Hello Games confirming that the date and price are accurate, there’s no guarantee that the price or pre-order date will be the same on PC, even though we know it’ll be released on both platforms simultaneously. It seems relatively safe to assume that the price at least will be the same, but we don’t know anything for sure.

Of that we can be sure.

What do ye think, readers? Here’s a screengrab of the US PlayStation Blog listing, to stare at while your construct your arguments:

Sponsored links by Taboola

More from the web

From this site

97 Comments

  1. xcession says:

    Wouldn’t they want to first announce the date of the opening of pre-orders, to shift the hypetrain into Ludicrous Speed?

    • C0llic says:

      They would, but then this is described as a leak. Someone updated the storefront a little early.

      • Geebs says:

        Obviously the trailer for the preview of the leak of the pre-announcement of the pre-order failed to leak before the pre-announcement of the pre-order.

      • Napalm Sushi says:

        There was a press event for the game last weak, and the journalists involved are under embargo until tomorrow. Looks like they do have quite the announcement planned.

    • grundus says:

      It looks to me like whoever schedules the blog went over the higher-ups collective helmets.

  2. Luciferous says:

    It is simple, No Man’s Sky has always been a full sized game and full sized games have a set(ish) retail price that very rarely fluctuated at launch by more than a tenner.

    Thinking of NMS as a ‘budget’ title is moronic. Will it be good is a better question and one we can only answer for ourselves when we get our hands on it.

    • Premium User Badge

      Nauallis says:

      I’m a fan of your hilariously self-affected indignation!

      Seriously though, what does “full sized game” even mean? It’s so arbitrary – just like “budget title” and “is it good”.

      • slerbal says:

        I believe it means that the game occupies at least 12m2 and displaces at least 12 metric tonnes when fully loaded ;)

        (I agree with you about the meaningless of the term)

        • Smoky_the_Bear says:

          It means that it’s a title with enough scope and content to justify a full price. Not a hard concept. Lots of indie games are a couple of hours long and not worth $60. NMS promises hours and hours of gameplay and exploration. I fail to see how that definition is meaningless.

          • Smoky_the_Bear says:

            Unless of course you want to be pseudo-intellectual, self superior idiots and quibble over semantics, it’s not hard to garner what the phrase actually means to anyone who isn’t automatically looking to “win” an argument at every turn.

          • KreissV says:

            Yep I agree with you, didn’t see a reason to attack another comment for no reason, especially if you can deduce the meaning of “full game”. But no let’s win arguments!

            That said, my interpretation of what he meant was that it wasn’t early access garbage, it’s a complete game? Not to mention plenty of developers release games at a full price, I’m not sure what the big deal is.

    • Shadow says:

      Fact is, it’s a AAA-level pricetag, asked by a new, unproven developer. I’d expect several dozen hours of entertainment for 60 dollars, and NMS might very well deliver. However, uncertainty is as high as the asking price, enough to warrant waiting for reviews.

      • RobF says:

        See, this is a weird one to me because a) they’re two games in as a studio and both are great and b) headed up by industry veterans

        Now, obviously that doesn’t mean No Man’s Sky is going to be good but given -you don’t know who makes your games for the most part- “a new and unproven team” is such an odd thing to level at anyone in games who isn’t, like, a one man show or whatever. Given the high turnover and rapid layoff cycle of the games industry, all this is suggesting is that we’re going to value a brand over humans.

        That’s odd, y’know?

        • Premium User Badge

          DelrueOfDetroit says:

          Not only that but I don’t believe that a game dev should have to prove themselves before gaining the right to not undersell themselves. We don’t make that expectation for directors or authors. A movie ticket costs the same no matter how many movies that person has made. It’s not like Moon was matinee price but Warcraft will be full price because Duncan Jones has shown himself to be a competent director to consumers.

          • Smoky_the_Bear says:

            I’d disagree with that slightly. A cinema ticket is set by the cinema, based on their overheads, staff, quality of facilities etc etc (Pay more for the IMax because it’s a bigger room, they need to charge more for that space etc etc).
            “We don’t make that expectation for directors and authors.” But movie studios and book publishers do. They aren’t giving some aspiring wanna be who’s straight out of college hundreds of millions to make a movie, whereas if Christopher Nolan signs up for it, out come the checkbooks. And yet, I still feel your sentiment is slightly incorrect. I’d be more likely to go and watch something made by Nolan or Scorsese, with a cast I liked, without reading reviews and hearing the movie was good, than I would a movie full of people I’d never heard of. I’d be LESS likely to do that with a game because regardless of who made it I want to read reviews as a £45 game is far more substantial than a £10 cinema ticket.

            When talking about DVDs, the difference is that movies all represent a similar time/money investment, 90 minutes – 2 hours on average. Of course the price will be similar, that said less popular movies will quickly find themselves in the bargain bins.

          • Premium User Badge

            DelrueOfDetroit says:

            There is still no pretense that a director has to prove themselves before a theatre may be allowed to charge the same amount for a movie ticket that they would for a veteran director’s film. Mean Streets cost the same as any other ticket when it came out, as did Memento. As long as the movie is a quality made film with a standard length then there is a set price.

            “They aren’t giving some aspiring wanna be who’s straight out of college hundreds of millions to make a movie, whereas if Christopher Nolan signs up for it, out come the checkbooks.”

            That’s purely studio politics. The amount of money put up by the studio does not affect ticket prices whatsoever. Clerks independently cost 250k to produce. Speed cost a studio 28 million. Theatres charged the same ticket price. So were people getting ripped off watching Clerks or a bargain watching Speed?

            “I want to read reviews as a £45 game”

            As you should. There’s a larger investment. What does that have to do with a developer being obligated to charge less for a game that is of equal scope and quality as a big budget title?

          • Premium User Badge

            DelrueOfDetroit says:

            Blah, sorry, Clerks cost $27k to produce plus the rest for marketing and whatnot.

          • Smoky_the_Bear says:

            Well Cinemas have limited capacity to show movies, there are only so many screens, they pick the movies to show that they think will show the best. So again, yes if an acclaimed director puts out a big budget movie, it could be a stinker, cinemas will still likely pick it up because there is enough interest behind it. Lesser know directors DO have to prove themselves before cinemas will pick them up, the movie has to get good reviews etc etc.
            Most movies don’t make it to the cinema. Pretty much everything made by Nolan or Scorcese does.

          • Smoky_the_Bear says:

            Where is the pretense that a games studio must prove themselves first? There isn’t, but people will rightly be more skeptical when that studio charges full price for a game. They don’t have to charge less, but for lots of indie studios it’s the smart move because people are more willing to buy their game at a lower price where they aren’t competing with big budget titles.
            This situation doesn’t really exist in the cinema because their pricing is based on making a profit after their overheads, so showing a movie at half price makes little sense if they can find another movie to show that they can charge full price for.

          • Smoky_the_Bear says:

            The difference is despite the budget, those two movies constituted the same value proposition. 90 mins – 2 hours of entertainment in the cinema. Very different for games. Still I’m not disagreeing that if No Mans Sky represents similar quality and value proposition to a AAA game that it should be allowed to charge that. That’s for the market to decide after all.

  3. cardigait says:

    Cities: Skylines drew the line for me, 30€ now, and more on dlc later.
    ‘Cause there will be dlc. Sure there will be.
    Thank i expected from NMS, that i’ll wait.

    • cardigait says:

      (typos, sorry, i forgot the no-edit fate of my posts here).

  4. jasta85 says:

    I really need to see what the game has to offer before jumping in. The procedural universe is very impressive but so far all they have shown is exploration (discovering species and planets) and resource gathering (which means crafting of some kind). Will most likely wait for launch to see the reviews and a couple let’s plays before picking this up, unless they release a ton more info on it prior to release

  5. Shiloh says:

    Like Adam, I think I’ll hold off on this one just for now – for starters, I don’t know if my PC will be able to run it. Are there any specs available?

  6. Danarchist says:

    It’s funny how current day me reacted to this by thinking “what’s the big deal? It’s the cost of dinner for hours of entertainment”. A few seconds later I remembered me and my roommates pooling our money to buy street fighter 3, and just barely making it (including couch change).

    • Zenicetus says:

      Yeah, that’s the problem with discussing “value” of a game. We’re all at different stages of life, different financial resources. Even different amounts of free time for gaming, which has a huge impact on how “value” is perceived.

      • ivanmussa says:

        Not to mention different countries with different currencies. I am currently at a stable situation in the money department, but I live in Brazil. Right now, an american dollar here is worth 4 units of our own currency (reals). Steam doesn’t exactly multiply the base value by 4, but still it’s a LOT more expensive for me.

        • finc says:

          If your currency is four units to the dollar and Steam don’t multiply the dollar price by four to get the price in reals, surely it’s cheaper?

    • Don Reba says:

      Do all of your dinners cost $60? I guess you spend around $5000/month on food, then. O_O

      • Danarchist says:

        I guess I should have said “Dinner out”. An average meal at a restaurant for me ends up around 60 usually. Ya I know first world problems. What I was getting at though is in my current situation I had a hard time remembering what it was like to scrape for a game I was really looking forward too. I honestly think I enjoyed games a hell of allot more when I was forced to save for them. Then again I was probably ten times as pissed when they sucked

        • cunningmunki says:

          We knew what you meant. Don’s just being a pedantic ant.

  7. iainl says:

    I really don’t get how people can look at the reception the trailer received, or how much appears to be in the game, and argue that it’s worth less than the average new Ubisoft release.

    That said, I won’t preorder it, because I don’t preorder games. I’ll buy it when I’ve actually got time to play it, in case it gets cheaper first.

  8. draglikepull says:

    I think a lot of pricing storms take place primarily in tea cups. Look at all the hand-wringing about the price of The Witness, and yet Blow reported that it was doing *better* than Braid, despite being more than twice as expensive. Most players don’t really follow studios or developers very closely, so they don’t spend a lot of time trying to figure out if a game has the “right” price for the size of developer. Players just look at whether the game seems worthwhile and if they can afford it.

    That said, for me personally, a higher price makes more more reticent to buy. If I’m not sure if I’ll like a game, but I’ve heard good things, I’m willing to take a chance on it if it’s inexpensive (say $15). On the other hand, if a game is going to be priced at $60, I’m not buying it unless I’m pretty certain I’m going to feel like I’ve gotten good value out of it.

    I only bought two games at $60 last year (Fallout 4 and Metal Gear Solid 5). I bought a few dozen games that were less than half that price. If a game costs a lot, I’m probably going to wait out a price drop unless it’s something I’m very sure about.

    • draglikepull says:

      On No Man’s Sky in particular, I suspect that once Sony announces that it’s a pack-in title with Morpheus (which I assume is why it was delayed until the same window as the Morpheus launch), people will spend more time talking about that than its price.

    • Premium User Badge

      Qazinsky says:

      Oh, it is absolutely in tea cups. So are most of the outrage about games. The people like us that actively sit here and discuss games on a gaming web site is the minority of the people that actually come to sites to read about games. And people that actively visits gaming sites are a minority to people that actually buy and play games.

      What the big majority thinks is unknown.

  9. Premium User Badge

    Qazinsky says:

    Personally, I don’t see anything wrong with the price tag. It’s is probably due to having to pay $50 for a game since I started to buy them. The first game I bought for my own money was Fallout 2 and that costed me $50. I paid the same for Arcanum, Morrowind, KotOR and every other game I’ve bought for the last twenty years. That it took so long time for new games to go from $50 to $60 honestly surprises me.

    As for if this particular game is worth $60, I’d say so. It absolutely seems to have had much work put into it with alot of content (as in assets, graphics, music, not content as in how long you can play it) to show for it.

    I am not sure I will buy it though. I like space pilot games in theory, the possability to explore off in any direction, but when I play them, I usually find space faring a bit overwhelming and quite dull. No Man’s Sky seems to have alot of planet exploring though and that I think I would like better.

    TL:DR: Worth the money. Space dull. Colours pretty!

  10. Golwar says:

    Interesting that the size of the game matters value wise as an argument, if it is procedurally generated.

    I mean I actually refused to join the NMS hype train ever since its first proper introduction, because I never found an appeal in what it has to offer. Jump from one ‘randomized’ entity to another? Tag your name on stuff, collect ressources, improve your hardware to find even more stuff to tag your name on.
    The remaining elements of the game simply always seemed too limited and they did nothing in all that time to present anything new.

    Yes, the technical part about the procedural generation of worlds is impressive. But of what use is that if the game itself plays like a $15 shooter, be it in space or on 2 feet? Gameplay matters more than an infinite availability to get bored.

    And now I’ll get burned for having a minority opinion! :D

    • Zenicetus says:

      Not necessarily a minority opinion. It might have the same issues as Elite Dangerous. if it’s basically a cool tech demo without enough content to prop up the space simulation. I’ll need some good, deep reviews before buying it.

      Also… speaking of naming things… is this still the game where you’ll run into planets and stuff named by other players? I seem to remember something else about how other players can modify the gameworld, but you won’t actually run into them in space. That could be interesting, or a real disaster depending on how it’s handled.

      • Premium User Badge

        Nauallis says:

        Theoretically that will happen, although my impression from the developer (taken with a grain of salt) was that there would be enough systems generating that running into another player is going to be rare, and finding an already-discovered system is going to be uncommon. I am hoping/assuming that there is some way to meet up with other people for shenanigans.

      • fish99 says:

        I think it shows who discovered a planet, but they don’t get to name it. I seem to remember if they’ve affected stuff on the planet, other people can see it, but it doesn’t happen in real time. Whether you ever see other players I’m not sure, but I hope so.

      • Czrly says:

        This is why I completely lost all interest in NMS. I play games to escape reality, not so that other people can influence my experience. It’s why I hacked Dark Souls to prevent other players dicking about in my instance and it’s why I have no interest in MMOs. Furthermore, I sometimes lose interest in games and relegate them to The Shelf for months, if not years, and I hate the feeling that the status quo will be different when I pick them up again. If it ain’t running, it had better be frozen apart from official, curated changes made by the developers and realeased as patches.

        If I want multi-player gaming, it will be a proper, competitive game like Quake or Starcraft with a bunch of friends in a room, with beer, heckling and stuff to throw at them when they’re winning and other stuff to defend against projectiles in the rare instance that I’m winning.

        • Axess Denyd says:

          And if I want multiplayer gaming, I’ll have a nice lie down until I come to my senses and the urge passes.

    • draglikepull says:

      I guess it depends what kind of experience you’re looking for. Exploring a procedurally generated universe filled with exotic, undiscovered animal species sounds like a lot of fun to me. I don’t need anything beyond that. I love loading up a game that’s in an interesting setting and just exploring. For example, I quickly grow bored with the combat of Assassin’s Creed 2, but I love just climbing around Venice, finding great vistas and exploring the space.

      I actually kind of hate the question “But what is the *game*?” in regards to No Man’s Sky as though the only thing worth doing with a controller/keyboard is pretending to kill things to fill up meters to pretend to kill things to fill up meters and so forth. Exploring *is* the game. If you aren’t into that, that’s cool, but it isn’t missing a “game”, it’s just one that you’re not into.

      • Golwar says:

        For me it’s about as promising as an image gallery, filled with an infinite amount of procedurally generated images. All familiar, because just an endless combination of well-known elements.
        Frankly, I’d probably rather spend time with Google Street View, if NMS is as poor as expected, regarding its gameplay. I agree though, that games can and should offer more than just plain old killing.

        • Distec says:

          I’ll also add that exploring in a game (by itself) really lacks what makes exploring the real world so interesting.

          SUBJECTIVE OPINION ALERT

          I can guarantee that the simple, mundane forest by my house has a lot more going on than anything NMS can offer. That’s because there is an amazingly complex and historied ecosystem that has played out there. You could kick over a rock to see the insects and small critters up to their business, or observe how a river naturally carved its path through the earth, or find a crag that a human hasn’t scaled before. I can wonder “what would have been like to live in something like this years and years ago?” and it would be a completely valid question to entertain! You can stand still in the middle of the woods and, if you clear your mind just a little bit, be astounded by just how much activity is happening underneath the stillness. There are just layers and layers of nature’s machinations producing a variety of sights, smells, and sensations, all existing indepedently of you and going on since long before you were born.

          I have never played a game that can produce something like this beyond the surface level (maybe an inch or two lower), and I’m not convinced NMS is likely to solve this problem either. In most games with this bent I don’t feel like I’m entering a world; it’s a wallpaper with NPCs dropped on top of it. It may be very pretty to look at, but it’s virtual tourism with none of the intimacy that actually comes from inhabiting a physical space with its own story. And it’s not so much that games can’t inherently replicate some of this, so much as that the attempted simulations of “real” worlds are nowhere near deep enough. The artifice is so easily detectable.

          So yah, you gotta give me more to do. That at least allows me to appreciate your simulation aspects for what they are (or overlook them) if they’re in service of another goal. If the exploration is all there is, then I’m going to find plenty more to bitch about or find not up to snuff. I don’t need to be murdering everything, but I need to be doing something.

          More power to people who can play a game and just marvel at the sights, but I can’t shake the feeling of how meaningless and shallow it is. I do think this is something that could be done in the future, but the trends don’t point to it being actualized any time soon. The growth of technology and capability in games has ironically coincided with the abandoned promise of rich simulations.

          I guess it also depends on what’s being explored. If all I’m doing is visiting structures and landscapes – doing the equivalent of snapshot sightseeing with a camera – then I couldn’t care less. But if I’m exploring some kind of simulated ant colony with moving parts and procedural interactions? I’m suddenly a lot more interested.

      • LacSlyer says:

        It’s debatable labeling a purely exploration game a game for some people though, and that’s where the issue lies. For some people, actually very likely the majority of people, a game that solely relies upon exploration only that constitutes more of an interactive experience than what people come to expect in a game. And they’re not right or wrong for believing that, as everyone’s opinion of the definition of a game is very much their own.

        We’ve had these discussion before over games like Dear Esther and the like, so there’s not really a congruent argument that games like this are considered games to some people. So there’s no reason to belittle people who question what there is to the game, because it’s just them having a differing point of you to yours as to what makes up a game.

        • draglikepull says:

          We have a reasonably good idea what kind of experience No Man’s Sky is going to offer. If you’re not into that experience, whether you want to call it a “game” or an “interactive digital space” or a “garbledeewhudzit”, that’s fine, no one’s under any obligation to like all possible experiences. But it’s ridiculous to constantly ask when No Man’s Sky is going to turn into something other than what it is.

          • Distec says:

            “We have a reasonably good idea what kind of experience No Man’s Sky is going to offer.”

            I’m not sure we actually do.

            I can’t even seem to get a straight answer on whether or not I’ll be able to see another player, or even how the exploration system is going to actually work. NMS’ hype has been fueled by a lot of vague implications and hope. Have fans run wild with their fantasies? But of course; they are wont do so. All the more reason for the developer/publisher to manage expectations before we hit the inevitable disappointment. I’d say they have not done so.

            If NMS is going to be little more than “Sight-Seeing in Space” with some purely incidental crafting and dog fighting, then they really need to be more explicit with that. Their marketing has consistently implied so much more. It’s not fair to ask for a game to deliver an entirely different experience from the one it’s offering, but it is fair to ask just what the hell it is in the first place.

            Unless some infobomb has recently dropped, Hello Games’ have provided little indication as to how much depth there are to any of the game’s mechanics. It is that depth, or lack thereof, that will ultimately determine what “type” of game it’s going to be.

          • LacSlyer says:

            It’s not ridiculous for people to ask about a game they don’t know about, which is why people are asking.

      • malkav11 says:

        The thing is, the great vistas and whatever in Venice were made and placed by people. I’m not seeing that pleasure coming from a script that’s built to make infinite city.

    • Premium User Badge

      Harlander says:

      I won’t burn you for having an “unpopular opinion”, but I will pour my scorn at you for indulging in that “I’ll probably get downvoted for this, hee hee!” twaddle.

      It’s narcissistic nonsense. I don’t even know you, and I know you’re better than this.

  11. Halk says:

    Sure. Let’s spend $60 on a game we barely know anything about.

    • TillEulenspiegel says:

      Quite. Seems like a huge amount of the hype is due to people projecting their fondest wishes based on minimal information.

      I can certainly imagine a really cool space-exploring game head. I haven’t the slightest clue if NMS is anything like that.

    • FrumiousBandersnatch says:

      We know that it’s INFINITE! Anything times infinity equals infinity!

      • Don Reba says:

        Except zero, of course. Or infinitesimals, if you want to allow strange things into your numbers.

  12. Andrew says:

    I have a question for everyone. Since we have Steam refunds, aren’t those types of discussions kinda pointless?

    I mean, preorder it for bonus (if any), then try it for couple of hours, if not good enough (for this price) — refund (and wait for discount). Simple, no hassle, no DRAMA, pleasant for everyone.

    • Golwar says:

      1. Steam doesn’t sell all the games in the world. Especially not on Playstation
      2. A game with the promise of NMS, usually requires more than 2h to be fairly judged. Only exception is if would be a complete disaster.

      • Andrew says:

        1. Yes it does. NMS is on Steam.
        2. Ok, sure, then for such occasions: preorder it for bonus (if any), then try it for couple of hours for yourself, while reading reviews and listening to other people for two weeks, if not good enough (for this price) — refund (and wait for discount).

        And, to clarify, I’m not talking about news part — it is news, so RPS needs to report it. I’m talking about this discussion about money and games (preorders, DLCs, “worth it?” etc.)

        • Golwar says:

          Dude, my reply meant that your hint about Steam refunds is no solution for people buying games on Playstation’s store. You acted as Steam would solve that problem for everyone. But it does not.

    • Stellar Duck says:

      Steam refunds to fake Steam money, meaning that you’ll end up with 60$ stuck in your fake wallet.

      • Andrew says:

        Nope. If you paid from credit/debit card, you can refund back to that card.

  13. Joshua Northey says:

    If a game is really good $60 is much to little to pay for it, and if it is really bad it is way too much.

    People would be much better off spending the time they spend bitching about DLC, or pricing, or early access, or whatever on actually researching their purchases.

    The world doesn’t need to operate according to your budget. I would really love to own an airplane, despite the fact that I am comfortably upper middle class in one of the wealthiest nations in the world, that is just not possible for me. That is not the airplane manufacturers fault.

    • Andrew says:

      People would be much better off spending the time they spend bitching about DLC, or pricing, or early access, or whatever on actually researching their purchases.

      Stop being rational!

    • LacSlyer says:

      I think you’re missing the point a bit. People aren’t really complaining about the price here, but stating they won’t buy it at launch because of the release price. That’s a considerable difference.

      You’re analogy falls a little flat as well, not to be rude. Because while planes are a static thing that provides a single objective purpose, games provide a single purpose that’s highly subjective, therein making some games more worthwhile to others and vice versa.

      • Joshua Northey says:

        Let me get this straight, you don’t think different people subjectively value owning a plane differently? Really? That is an odd argument. I would mostly use a plane to go explore urban planning decisions from the air, I doubt many people would do that. Some would use them to get around Alaska, or Skydive, or move clients, or avoid commercial airports.

        • LacSlyer says:

          Yes, obviously there are subjective values to owning a plane, just not nearly in the same way as to playing a video game. Hence why I said it falls a little flat rather than completely misses the point. My point was more that games are 100% subjective entertainment while buying a plane fulfills a different use that is typically more objective – flying, regardless of why you’re flying.

          That wasn’t really my primary argument though, but rather that people aren’t complaining about the price, just commenting that it’s not worth it to them.

  14. RickB says:

    I’m excited about this game – I will almost certainly buy this game. Just the ability to jump in a ship and fly planet to planet looks ace, before you even get to the range of flora, fauna, landscapes and structures! $60 seems reasonable to me.

    BUT – As reputable sites keep saying – Never pre-order!

    Also – Even if there are pre-order incentives, they will still be available the day before release. I can’t imagine any reason to pre-order 3 months in advance.

    • Premium User Badge

      aleander says:

      Never pre-order!

      Except for Dwarf Fortress.

      • keefybabe says:

        I’ve been burned WAAAAAAAY too many times by preorders, so yeah, I’ll be waiting for reviews/user comments.

        Never preorder, as the previous poster said, except for Dwarf Fortress.

  15. Colthor says:

    The only game I can remember paying more than about £30 on is Eve Online, and I don’t think any of that was up front. Maybe there have been others if you include expansions or DLC, but again, not up front.

    So it seems unlikely that I’ll pay £45 for this, or any other game, up front in the near future. It’s just flagged as “more than games cost” in my head.

    But at some point it’ll be cheaper than I feel like paying, so whatever. Plenty to do in the meantime.

    • Colthor says:

      Blah, “spending more” not “paying more”.

    • fish99 says:

      This is PS4 pricing on the PS4 store, where all new AAA games cost $60. It doesn’t mean you won’t be able to find a PC steam key for under £30 by shopping around.

  16. fish99 says:

    I always expected a full price release, so $60 on console and regular pricing on PC.

    I probably won’t be pre-ordering because I feel like the movies were too idealized/scripted rather than showing typical minute-by-minute gameplay, and they haven’t talked enough about the games systems, but I’ll pick it up if it reviews well.

  17. yogibbear says:

    Since when was this a controversy? I’m down and buying it. Looks like a great game.

    You know what is controversy? Firewatch for $20 for a 3 hr on-rail boring bait and switch story.

    • Shadow says:

      Famous last words.

      • Shadow says:

        Goddamn inexplicable blockquote and the lack of edit.

        I meant to say “Looks like a great game” are famous last words.

  18. slerbal says:

    I’ll read the reviews when it comes out, if it sounds good I’ll pick it up, if not, I won’t :)

  19. ribby says:

    You shouldn’t pre-order anyway.

    I think pre-ordering No Man’s Sky is a dumb, dumb idea, considering how little we’ve seen of it.

  20. Avus says:

    It is a high profile game and hyped to the max. Of course I won’t be surprised they (Sony/developer) will price it at $60. There is no rule that first time/indie developer cannot make/charge a game for $60. As long as the game is good enough and worth the hype, it is worth the price. For those who can’t afford a $60 game (like me), play it later and wait for Steam sales. There are lots of good $30 and under games waiting for me to play.

  21. Arithon says:

    I think people are confused.

    Price, cost and value are all exclusive terms. They do not mean the same thing and while being interchangeable in some examples, there is nothing to say they have to be.

    No Man’s Sky is priced the same as most other games. These days PC games are £30-45 and console games £40-60. So a console game for £45 is hardly a shocker.
    From my perspective “AAA” means overpriced sequel with the same graphics and scenario in a slightly different setting. Call of Assassin’s Fifa Racing.
    “Indie” means less likely to hold back half the game to gouge you with DLC later.
    I’ll read reviews of NMS after release and take a decision on whether the price offers any value then.

  22. GomezTheChimp says:

    Devil Daggers: Now there`s value for money. £3.99 (don`t know what that is in $; do we have to convert now?).
    Anyway, I`ve played that game for, let me see, seven minutes so far, and those minutes have been divided up into roughly 30 second chunks. Never has 30 seconds seemed so long.
    I`ve got more out of those seven minutes than some games have offered in seven hours. Stress. Anxiety. Fear.
    I`ll go and lie down now.
    I think I have PTSD.

  23. drucifer says:

    I’m very wary of No Man’s Sky’s gameplay. I sounds like you have to vacuum a mansion & occasionally find a pound coin. Not only will I wait for reviews, but also a price of £20.

  24. Axess Denyd says:

    Don’t know how much I think this game will be worth until more reviews and Let’s Play-style videos come out, but I have always found $60 to be too high a price for a game.

    I’m perfectly happy to wait for it to become cheaper or never play it.

  25. geldonyetich says:

    No Man’s Sky has been at the top (or nearlt) of my Steam wish list for about a year, but I’m still not dropping money on a pre-order of a game whose release date is tentatively set for another 3 months away.

    Actually, pre-orders are a pretty creepy norm. Anyone want to explain to me why I need to put down a reservation on something with unlimited availability on release due to being digitally distributed? Look at yourself, Internet, look what hype has made you. Can you even be called human anymore?

  26. typographie says:

    There’s not necessarily anything wrong with the price tag. My concern is about how the game plays and the technical state it’s in at launch. This is a very risky pre-order, even by pre-order standards, in my opinion. I’ll worry about the price once it’s out and critiqued.

  27. Peppergomez says:

    My spider senses tell me that there’s a big possibility that this game will get very samey very quickly.

  28. Peppergomez says:

    No edit ability? Weird, RPS.

    And the combat looks for shit, which leaves…exploration.

  29. Premium User Badge

    JiminyJickers says:

    Take my money and give me the game now!!!

  30. Smoky_the_Bear says:

    “I don’t think of games as having specific value. By which I mean, the games that I own do not gain or lose value depending on how much I play or enjoy them.”
    Because you largely don’t have to pay for your games.

    Value to me should come from a minimum value proposition. Of course a game isn’t worth exponentially more because it’s the one you got addicted to, that’s a silly idea. However, if a game is 2 hours long, yes I do expect that it is priced accordingly due to a minimum value proposition that I personally think is fair. If a game is full price it had better give me a solid 8 hours of experience that doesn’t involve walking around picking up collectibles etc.

    I agree though that “indie” or “AAA” should not matter when it comes to the price of the game, if it is worth full price because of it’s features and scope then it doesn’t matter about vague descriptions of the makeup of the dev team.

    “I’m not yet ready to spend $60 on No Man’s Sky. Maybe when it’s out,”
    EVERYBODY should be taking this standpoint for gods sake. People are gaining literally NOTHING from throwing money at this game now, it will still be there on release, they won’t run out, it’s a digital product…………I just do not understand why so many people are still supporting pre-order culture, you are just making the industry worse for everybody with the most childish “must have it now (even though you can’t)” attitude I’ve ever seen en-masse from adults. Please lets stop doing it.

    • Czrly says:

      I’ll admit that I pre-order games very occasionally, purely out of loyalty. For me, it is the ultimate vote of confidence in the developers and studio and IP. For example, I’ll not pre-order NMS but I’d pay anything Valve asked if they put Portal 3 up for pre-order simply because I like the Portal concept and IP and I have tonnes of confidence in Valve’s ability to make the game.

  31. racccoon says:

    If most games can come out with the 30 dollar mark & some of which are very highly complex, that’s the price it should be.
    Its far better to have far more people paying than none at all but the few.
    When they announce a basement price the reaction is far greater than over priced one.

  32. Urthman says:

    I won’t pay $60 for it, but I appreciate all of you who will who are helping subsidize the game for the poorer folks who will get to play it 6 months or a year later.

  33. Alberto says:

    Hello Games and Sony can ask as much as they want for their game. It’s up for the players to pay or to wait or to ignore if there are better options.

    There will be sales, the game will get older and cheaper while we play other things.

    Like, yes, Dwarf Fortress.

  34. Czrly says:

    They’re asking AAA-money for a procedurally generated game. Does this mean that they spent a AAA content-creation budget (minus the cost of textures, materials and elementary models, the building blocks used by the generators) on development time on the procedural-content procedures? I doubt it. I think it means they’re running a AAA marketing budget. The sheer volume of hype supports this hypothesis.

  35. Jeremy says:

    I just paid $40 for an indie first person puzzle game. Value is relative to each person. If $60 doesn’t constitute a “value” then you’re not entitled to the developer reducing that price, you’re simply making a personal decision after weighing all the data.