Support NeoGAF

[Draugoth]

In an interview with Remap Radio, Ascendant Studios CEO Bret Robbins said;

"Now the game is on sale, and sure enough, we've seen a huge uptick in sales because of the price. The price is interesting, there's an argument to be made that we should've come out at a lower price point."

At the moment this interview was recorded, Immortals of Aveum was on sale for half price. Robbins also mentioned that a different release window would've been better for the game. In particular, Robbins preferred a January 2024 release date, but there were financial considerations, such as the studio having enough revenue to survive a few months without funds from game sales coming in.

Due to the game's low sales, Ascendant Studios laid off almost half of its staff back in September 2023. Robbins mentioned the possibility of getting the game onto subscription services like Xbox Game Pass and PlayStation Plus, but hasn't confirmed anything yet.

Via Gamespot

 

[Punished Miku]

$70 is a death sentence for most games.

 

[Buggy Loop]

Or don’t release in the middle of Starfield, BG3, Armored Core 6. Maybe we’ll never know what it could have been.

 

[ByWatterson]

$70 is a death sentence for most games.

Yeah.

Sony was right to push for the higher price for its own games, given how high-budget and high-quality they tend to be, but a lower price of entry needed for sales of other games is a pretty good motivator to shrink teams sizes, timelines, and costs.

I expect to see lots of teams and even major publishers experiment with different price structures.

 

[analog_future]

Still waiting for it to hit Game Pass. Not worth my $70 but I could see it being a fun time over a weekend.

 

[lughnasadh123]

It's really risky unless you're a known quantity. This was a clear case of "just cause you can doesn't mean you should".

 

[T4keD0wN]

Mightve done even better if it was good.

 

[ManaByte]

Mightve done even better if it was good.

It is. It’s a next gen mix of Metroid Prime and Hexen.

 

[MiguelItUp]

Maybe, but I still think the overall look and vibe of the game just didn't feel appealing to the masses. Of course tack on a full price and it probably looks even less appealing.

I've heard it's pretty good fun, and I don't doubt it. I personally just didn't want to drop that kind of money on a gamble.

 

[Del_X]

I bought it for like $28. Too busy to play it but will later this year. It looked kinda like it should have launched at $50.

 

[Fake]

Or with a better game. Who knows.

 

[Hollowpoint5557]

I got it for $10 and I feel like I still paid too much.

 

[HL3.exe]

Or, just the whole premise was misguided from the get-go with uninteresting 'witty' characters and ho-hum fantasy design and gameplay.

 

[Saber]

Just ask yourself next time if a low quality restaurant serving an ass steak charges you high price for it.

 

[Dr.D00p]

Waiting for the 'Free on Epic Game Store' final reduction. Will be a definite purchase from me.

 

[Nydius]

File under “D” for Duh.

Everything about the game screamed $40 AA title at launch but EA thought they could slap a $70 price tag on an “EA Originals” title and get away with it.

I picked it up back in early December when Xbox had it on deep, deep sale ($7.99 for the Deluxe Edition). At that price it was a no brainer but after playing it I realized if I had paid more than $20 I would have felt ripped off.

 

[xrnzaaas]

There are no games like Aveum for 60 or 70$, because no one would buy them.

40$ and a game done on a reasonable AA budget should be the way to go. If it's successful - then you can expand with the sequel.

 

[TheUsual]

It was a solid experience at the $35 I paid for it. Played on my PS5. Should've played on PC as the game screams keyboard and mouse controls. That is my only real major compliant : controller doesn't feel good when the gameplay gets hectic

 

[Shake Your Rump]

I paid $50 but would not have been upset to pay full price. It was a fun game and a surprise hit for me.

 

[Feel Like I'm On 42]

File under “D” for Duh.

Everything about the game screamed $40 AA title at launch but EA thought they could slap a $70 price tag on an “EA Originals” title and get away with it.

I picked it up back in early December when Xbox had it on deep, deep sale ($7.99 for the Deluxe Edition). At that price it was a no brainer but after playing it I realized if I had paid more than $20 I would have felt ripped off.

I did the same on Xbox. The game runs piss poor on Series X. Framerate isn't smooth and its blurry ...ugh

These devs took the wrong lessons...put out an optomized product first then worry about price!

 

[sendit]

I pay 99 a year on PC for EA Play Pro to play their releases Day 1 + early access. I'm a sucker for yearly sports games so cost is justified for me. Last year had:
- Immortals of Aveum
- WRC
- Madden
- FIFA
- Jedi Survivor

No way I would have bought Immortals of Aveum, WRC, or Jedi Survivor to try.

 

[Beer Baelly]

I picked it up for 12 bucks

 

[StreetsofBeige]

$70 is a death sentence for most games.

Pretty much.

The farther back you go in gaming eras, the more full priced discs and cartridges could be anything. It could be AAA games, shitty LJN NES games, long RPGs, short arcadey shooters you beat in an hour after you open it etc.... Nothing really stood out and most games (aside from beefy RPGs, PC strategy games, or sports games you play over and over again) were pretty short in length and content.

Now, for full bang for your dollar it better be a top notch game gamers will like. Quality, content, replayability etc... If not, bargain price it or F2P it if it's a GAAS grindy kind of game. Or if a studio wants max revenue from early adopters, full price the game for the gamers itching, but know sales will be slow and forecast bulk of revenue when it's 50% off shortly after. So revenue forecasting wise, make sure the budget expects lots of of bargain sales. Not $70 sales.

 

[Audiophile]

A lot of people only buy games they really, really want at $70/£60.

I think a lot of games could do far better by dropping the price by 15-30% and reeling in many more buyers.

Unfortunately the exec mindset is charge more, make more now. They'd almost rather spite individual buyers with higher prices than be pragmatic and sell more with lower prices. There's also the general lack of confidence angle compounding the issue where they think it's not gonna do great, so they push the cost as high as they think they can for the priced in buyers to recoup as much as possible.

I'd like to see this mindset of "charge less per unit but make more overall".. extend in a more extreme way to microtransactions in other properties.

Take COD for eg. where you're forced to buy a ridiculously overpriced bundle for that one gun skin you like while receiving 5 or 6 other pieces of trash you have no interest in. No one I know will engage in these ridiculous bundles but everyone I've asked said that they'd buy plenty of stuff if they could just pick out individual gun skins or items for £0.49-0.99 each on a fully exposed storefront; probably over a total value of one or more of those bundles. Acti/MS/IW etc. are doing fine on their finances I'm sure but it's reliant on whales and a win-win solution could be on the cards if they weren't so stuck with the predatory mindset.

 

[Esppiral]

Bought It for 40€ a month after release, worth every cent.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

A lot of people only buy games they really, really want at $70/£60.

I think a lot of games could do far better by dropping the price by 15-30% and reeling in many more buyers.

There's still a lot of launch day gamers buying at full price for the big titles, but I think just about every gamer is conditioned now for e-store deals or sub plans, especially for B-tier games or IPs that are unknown. I enjoy NHL games. I havent bought one since I think NHL 16. Why? The game hasnt progressed much, so why buy it. Even when it's bargain binned for $14.99, why? It goes on sub plan every year at playoffs time. Thats good enough.

Console gamers got a taste of good digital deals maybe sometime around 2016-17(?). I know for sure when Xbox and PS started doing digital downloads at the end of the 360 era and leading into the 2013 era, the digital deals were junk. Now it's kind of close to Steam and GOG. You get sweet 50 or 75% off deals etc just like on PC. It'll never be as good as PC pricing, but every console gamer knows those full priced games get bargain binned pretty darn fast now.

 

[Gamer_By_Proxy]

With how saterated the market is with content, I think any new IP not from a platform holder should come out at $40.
Prince of Persia also should have came out lower than $50.

These companies are dreaming. There's so many games now, no one buys all the games they want at full price anymore. You can't keep up.
So you're competing with other games people are waiting to buy.

 

[SHA]

Still waiting for it to hit Game Pass. Not worth my $70 but I could see it being a fun time over a weekend.

$70 translate to "there's money to burn", I don't see other explanations.

 

[eats]

I thought the trailer looked pretty cool for this game.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

With how saterated the market is with content, I think any new IP not from a platform holder should come out at $40.
Prince of Persia also should have came out lower than $50.

These companies are dreaming. There's so many games now, no one buys all the games they want at full price anymore. You can't keep up.
So you're competing with other games people are waiting to buy.

Yup.

There's only so many gamers out there and added up so much collective gaming time they have.

In modern day, successful GAAS games will literally eat up 100% of a gamer's time all year. Ok, maybe that guy splits his time into two games all year. But to pull away entrenched gamers is pretty hard when a lot of those games are pretty good in terms of production values, gameplay and content. It's not like the old days where most games were short, you beat it over a week and its time to trade it in for another game. Rinse and repeat. And back then there were fewer games. So if it's time to trade in a game, you might end up just picking something on the shelf for sake of it. Not now. There's no trading in opportunity purchases for companies.

The money is there. But gamers are picky on bargain binning or would rather spend it all on a game they really like which they can play all year like Fortnite and such. Even if they got $300 to spend, they'd rather spend it on COD or Fortnite then buy four $70 games. Not worth the risk if those games suck, but they know they are guaranteed satisfying gaming on FIFA or whatever where it's worth spending his entire $300 budget on it.

 

[Gamer_By_Proxy]

Yup.

There's only so many gamers out there and added up so much collective gaming time they have.

In modern day, successful GAAS games will literally eat up 100% of a gamer's time all year. Ok, maybe that guy splits his time into two games all year. But to pull away entrenched gamers is pretty hard when a lot of those games are pretty good in terms of production values, gameplay and content. It's not like the old days where most games were short, you beat it over a week and its time to trade it in for another game. Rinse and repeat. And back then there were fewer games. So if it's time to trade in a game, you might end up just picking something on the shelf for sake of it. Not now. There's no trading in opportunity purchases for companies.

The money is there. But gamers are picky on bargain binning or would rather spend it all on a game they really like which they can play all year like Fortnite and such. Even if they got $300 to spend, they'd rather spend it on COD or Fortnite then buy four $70 games. Not worth the risk if those games suck, but they know they are guaranteed satisfying gaming on FIFA or whatever where it's worth spending his entire $300 budget on it.

I play almost only single player. I got the income to buy whatever in terms of games. But time and the sateration is what gets to me.
I plan to get that Prince of Persia and Granblue Fantasy Relink, but I also know I have FF7 Rebirth preordered and can just work on my backlog until that releases.
So why buy those 2 at full price now?

It's especially true for my PSVR2 games. My wish list on PS5 is basically waiting for deep sales on PSVR2 games. I have even less time for VR so I'm almost never in a rush for any of the games.

 

[Umbral]

Or don’t release in the middle of Starfield, BG3, Armored Core 6. Maybe we’ll never know what it could have been.

Armored Core 6 came out at $60. They could have seen that one of the giants of gaming doesn’t do $70 releases and said to themselves, maybe we’re not on their level so we shouldn’t even be $60, let alone $70.

That’s not even dealing with how unappealing the game looked.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

I play almost only single player. I got the income to buy whatever in terms of games. But time and the sateration is what gets to me.
I plan to get that Prince of Persia and Granblue Fantasy Relink, but I also know I have FF7 Rebirth preordered and can just work on my backlog until that releases.
So why buy those 2 at full price now?

It's especially true for my PSVR2 games. My wish list on PS5 is basically waiting for deep sales on PSVR2 games. I have even less time for VR so I'm almost never in a rush for any of the games.

Make sense. Buy one, get your fill and buy the others when it's time. Preorders are the dumbest thing in gaming if you backlog too much unless someone is desperate for some pre-order trinket, or it's one of those deals if they are still around in console gaming where you buy 2 get 1 free kind of thing. OK, it might be worth it. Other than that, who cares. Its not like digital files run out like the old days you hear about some gamers who live in Bumfuck USA and their local game store in a town of 5000 people only gets the key sellers. In that case, fine. Preorder that obscure anime game which will be the only copy sold in that store ever.

But gaming is one of those industries with pre-orders so every store and game company wants gamers loading up on pre-orders. At the click of a button they got a sale, and even better it might be a forever backlogged game so they just got a sale and there's possibility the gamer wont even play it. Its no different than someone buying new clothes or shoes and never wearing it.

Only time I buy regular price is if its a game my buddy and I agree on splitting 50/50 with home sharing like launch day COD which we both want to get in on the action fast, have fun so we arent classified as noobs getting destroyed if we get the game months later.

Other than that, I think the only games I buy regular price are some obscure indie games for like $5. But even then, all those Steam and GOG low end games for $10-15 I'm interested in, I still wait for them to go on sale for $5! LOL I'm in no rush.

 

[Gamer_By_Proxy]

Make sense. Buy one, get your fill and buy the others when it's time. Preorders are the dumbest thing in gaming if you backlog too much unless someone is desperate for some pre-order trinket, or it's one of those deals if they are still around in console gaming where you buy 2 get 1 free kind of thing. OK, it might be worth it. Other than that, who cares. Its not like digital files run out like the old days you hear about some gamers who live in Bumfuck USA and their local game store in a town of 5000 people only gets the key sellers. In that case, fine. Preorder that obscure anime game which will be the only copy sold in that store ever.

Only time I buy regular price is if its a game my buddy and I agree on splitting 50/50 with home sharing like launch day COD which we both want to get in on the action fast, have fun so we arent classified as noobs getting destroyed if we get the game months later.

Other than that, I think the only games I buy regular price are some obscure indie games for like $5. But even then, all those Steam and GOG low end games for $10-15 I'm interested in, I still wait for them to go on sale for $5! LOL I'm in no rush.

I'm getting to the point where it's gotta be GOTY tier games for me to buy full price. Your FF7, Spiderman, God of War, etc. I think a lot of people will slowly get more and more like me and only pay top dollar for the top tier games with the rest suffering because of it. There is just too much.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

I'm getting to the point where it's gotta be GOTY tier games for me to buy full price. Your FF7, Spiderman, God of War, etc. I think a lot of people will slowly get more and more like me and only pay top dollar for the top tier games with the rest suffering because of it. There is just too much.

I think a lot of gamers think like you. If it's going to be a full priced game, it better be proven and good. There's exception though. Harry Potter and Elden Ring and Palworld sold a shit load, but at least those games have some legacy (From Software, a popular HP franchise and the other is a Pokemon rip off)

 

[Fbh]

A lower price might have helped it at least get like Atlas Fallen numbers or something like that but I think the game was pretty screwed either way last year.
Too many high profile releases for something like Immortals of Aveum to stand out.

I know it's not like they could push it a year forward but this is the sort of game that should have come out in like mid 2022 with little competition and when everyone was bitching about not enough next gen only games.

 

[Gamer_By_Proxy]

I think a lot of gamers think like you. If it's going to be a full priced game, it better be proven and good. There's exception though. Harry Potter and Elden Ring and Palworld sold a shit load, but at least those games have some legacy (From Software, a popular HP franchise and the other is a Pokemon rip off)

Palworld is also doing good casue it's $30 early access and in gamepass. Might be a different story if it was $70. Different buy in for that.
I think with Hogwarts, most people waited for the reviews and reception, cause that studio only did like disney infinity.

 

[March Climber]

That random winter EA sale a few months ago should have helped.

 

[saintjules]

Or don’t release in the middle of Starfield, BG3, Armored Core 6. Maybe we’ll never know what it could have been.

I don't know if I agree. The assumption you're making is that a majority of players will play all of those games. Not everyone are into all genres to say to devs hold off on releasing this because x y z game is releasing this month.

If it was all the same type, like Persona 3 releasing the same month as Rebirth, you could make such an argument. A game like Tetris versus a game like Doom releasing in the same month. Different strokes.

 

[Mr.Phoenix]

No shit...

I said it at the start of this gen, that $70 price point pushes games firmly out of that impulse buy/curious buy/FOMO buy category. You have to really want that game to spend $70 on it.

I said it before and I'll repeat it, the best price for games in this industry is $50. That special price point has this unique way of not just justifying itself, it encourages more sales.

At the time of buying any game, pretty much everyone can afford to spend $50 for a new game, and the majority of people would even have $100 in any given month they can spend on games. But it's a much easier sell to say, spend $100 and get two games than spend $70 for one.

I mean I get it, I get why game prices went up, considering how much was being spent making games, they simply needed to get more money from selling them. And there are only two ways to do that, you either sell to a lot of people at $50, or sell to enough people at $70. Guess they concluded that they would rather just sell to 3M people at $70 than sell to 5M at $50. What these publishers are going to quickly learn, is that an average game can do well commercially if its priced at $50. You are sending it out to die, however, if its priced at $70.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

It would have done better if it was a good game

 

[adamsapple]

It would have done better if it was a good game

Came here to post the same.

Tech aside, it's the gaming equivalent of white-bread. Generic as hell. The 'hook' isn't interesting, the story is expected tripe, the characters are cardboard cut-outs at best etc etc.

 

[Buggy Loop]

I don't know if I agree. The assumption you're making is that a majority of players will play all of those games. Not everyone are into all genres to say to devs hold off on releasing this because x y z game is releasing this month.

If it was all the same type, like Persona 3 releasing the same month as Rebirth, you could make such an argument. A game like Tetris versus a game like Doom releasing in the same month. Different strokes.

I’m not making the assumption that players will play all those games (I did though), but that this period in time was stacked with quality games, many genres and hyped games that were long awaited.

For a first person shooter with a no name franchise, full price and poor review scores… what were the expectations? Even something named Doom would have struggled in those months, although that franchise has leg at least.

 

[Stuart360]

It had the worst shader stutter i have seen yet, and i usually do pretty well with shader stutter (i play on a 60hz tv, and its usually people playing at way higher framerates that get the really bad stutter).

It also didnt play very good, and was a bit boring. I only played it for about 3 hours but that should be enough time to hook the player.

 

[proandrad]

No shit, it's insane that publishers think all games are worth $70.

 

[Holammer]

Maybe, but the game still needs to be good. Like Palworld, which is selling like hotcakes at 29€.
Selling cheap can trigger a positive feedback loop where the game reaches more eyes & starts trending. Terraria & Stardew Valley capitalized extensively on this phenomena and their mega updates to drive interest.

Worth thinking about, but I reckon Japanese publishers would baulk at the idea.

 

[StereoVsn]

Or don’t release in the middle of Starfield, BG3, Armored Core 6. Maybe we’ll never know what it could have been.

Yeah, that was very unfortunate time window. Mind you as a small team they may not have had the luxury of waiting, but still, oof.

 

[StereoVsn]

I'm getting to the point where it's gotta be GOTY tier games for me to buy full price. Your FF7, Spiderman, God of War, etc. I think a lot of people will slowly get more and more like me and only pay top dollar for the top tier games with the rest suffering because of it. There is just too much.

For me FFVII Rebirth is going to be the only game I preordered since Cyberpunk fiasco and probably only one out of two or three full priced games (the rest will be PC so take 20% or so off that) this entire year.

So yeah, I agree, I think having inflexible $70 price is detrimental to a lot of games. Too much competition and not only from this year’s games but also from the AAA titles from last few years there can be had for $15-30 on sale.

You better bring a true AAA game for the $70. I know what I am getting with Rebirth at this point. Pretty much nothing else is guaranteed.

Well, Infinite Wealth is great but even then they hit New Game+ behind a stupid DLC so I won’t be getting that full priced.

 

[Rhazer Fusion]

I’m sure many games having a lower price point would lead to higher sales for the majority of them especially with so much competition and assortment in the games industry nowadays.

 

[StereoVsn]

I don't know if I agree. The assumption you're making is that a majority of players will play all of those games. Not everyone are into all genres to say to devs hold off on releasing this because x y z game is releasing this month.

If it was all the same type, like Persona 3 releasing the same month as Rebirth, you could make such an argument. A game like Tetris versus a game like Doom releasing in the same month. Different strokes.

Starfield - an action RPG with Bethesda’s customizations.

BG3 - literal game of the year for a ton of people.

Armored Core - a superb action game.

Who would pick Aveum here for the same $70 or even more vs BG3 and Armored Core? And hell, Starfield was on GamePass.

The answer is very few people which is exactly what happened.