Pre-Order Rayman Origins (360/Wii/Ps3) get free Beyond Good and Evil HD

[quote name='Master Troll']Where's the pre-order bonus where I pay only $15?[/QUOTE]

Really living up to your name there huh buddy.

I'm keeping my eye on both this and Sonic Generations hoping they will be good platformers in a sea of FPS. Will wait to see some reviews on both though.
 
[quote name='Master Troll']Where's the pre-order bonus where I pay only $15?[/QUOTE]

It is always funny when people post stuff like this, when games that are typically $15 are real!y only worth that much.

Good platformers are usually worth the price. I guess my question about the deal is that it i relatively worthless for Wii users.
 
Oh hell, I thought this was a downloadable title. I'm really stoked to play it, and I love the art, but I'm not dishing out 60 bucks for it.

Thanks for the heads up either way, OP!
 
GameStop only? No thanks.

[quote name='ChaosLaw']No online co-op. =\
I love Rayman but wtf[/QUOTE]

Um... when has a non-Rabbids Rayman game had multiplayer? NOT EVERY GAME HAS TO HAVE ONLINE. :roll:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='mcdaking84']$60 for a platformer that will most likely by short?

no thanks[/QUOTE]

[quote name='Master Troll']Where's the pre-order bonus where I pay only $15?[/QUOTE]

Annnnnd hidden from view!
 
[quote name='VyseArcad1a']GameStop only? No thanks.



Um... when has a non-Rabbids Rayman game had multiplayer? NOT EVERY GAME HAS TO HAVE ONLINE. :roll:[/QUOTE]

The last non-Rabbids Rayman game came in the middle of the previous generation--years before online gaming took off. Additionally, it didn't have co-op (so online would be pointless).

Features are included in games so that people will pay for them. Your argument reveals its absurdity if we examine what things a game "doesn't have to have" until the game is reduced to literally nothingness. Is that worth $60? No? How about a game with half the features? etc.

But online co-op is a very important feature among a variety of features that a game could indeed exclude (reducing its value, of course). It adds immense replay value. I equate replay value with being willing to pay additional funds in order to play said game.

And, of course, a game does not have to have anything. But, of course, nor does anyone have to purchase it over other games that do offer more features for the same (or lower) price.
 
[quote name='VyseArcad1a'] NOT EVERY GAME HAS TO HAVE ONLINE. :roll:[/QUOTE]

If I'm buying it, it does. Well... 95% of the time. Just a heads-up, this internet thing is pretty cool.
Not everyone has someone that will play local co-op.
 
As much as I would like this game, I just feel it will drop in price quickly, plus I already own BG&E HD. That reminds me, I should play that sometime :lol:
 
[quote name='ChaosLaw']Features are included in games so that people will pay for them. Your argument reveals its absurdity if we examine what things a game "doesn't have to have" until the game is reduced to literally nothingness. Is that worth $60? No? How about a game with half the features? etc.[/QUOTE]

I had to respond to this, not because I particularly care about this title, but because you attack someone for making an "absurd argument" when he in fact just made a perfectly true statement, and then go on to assert an actually absurd straw man. As for his statement- "not every game has to have online"- this is true. Many games do not need it and would not be substantially improved by it. Single player games, for instance. In my experience, online co-op is often not as enjoyable, and sometimes drastically less, then in person co-op. Maybe that's the case here- maybe not.

But your strange slippery slope argument doesn't make sense. Some features are important, some aren't- which is which depends on the game, platform and consumer, all of which are unique to every title and gamer.

Your purchasing decisions are your own, and you don't have to justify them to anybody- but neither does anyone else. If you won't buy any game that doesn't have online co-op (or whatever) that's fine. But don't back that position up with attacks on the opinions of others and bad arguments.

When you do that, you get somebody like me that has to waste time arguing on a message board because of an obsessive hatred of poor logic. And I think we can all agree that's no fun for anybody.
 
This game LOOKS AMAZING. But who are we kidding here - it's Ubisoft. The price is gonna hit the floor double-quick, like every other game they put out. Trying to charge $60 for this is pretty ludicrous, even if you count in the pre-order bonuses (the art book looks nice, and the free game don't hurt either).

Bottom line - it should have been $40 at most, and online co-op for this kind of high-speed game could have been ugly and useless. Better off without in mind.

PEANUTS = TRUST
 
I don't know what to do about this game. I really want it, but like you guys are saying, it's not worth $60. On the other hand, I really want that art book, too. And I want to show these studios that platformers can sell and more of them should be full retail releases on consoles that aren't the Wii. I don't want to send the message that I'm ready to overpay for said platformers though. It's worth $40 on day one. I guess I have a month to ponder it, assuming all the art books aren't committed to pre-orders placed between now and then. But realistically, how many people are going to pre-order this one?
 
The fact that people have no problem paying $60 for the same military shooter that comes out every few months but balk at paying $60 for a game with some actual soul to it is quite disconcerting.
 
I have a problem paying $60 for almost any game (JRPGS which last over 60 hours are the exception) - which is why I'm here - but this looks like WiiWare. Its' a great look, but compare it to R&C, which has 4 player online (the beta was seamless in R&C, I didn't even realize my 6 yr. old was playing online) and no way no how I can justify this for $60. I want to play it, and will, but it will be $20 on sale somewhere soon enough. Hell, it doesn't even compare to Kirby.
 
I'm a big Rayman fan, but even I would say at $60 it's probably not going to be worth it, unfortunately. I'd wait for a drop.
 
Any info on what the physical dimensions of the art book are? 48 pages is not a lot.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='blackstarre']I had to respond to this, not because I particularly care about this title, but because you attack someone for making an "absurd argument" when he in fact just made a perfectly true statement, and then go on to assert an actually absurd straw man. As for his statement- "not every game has to have online"- this is true. Many games do not need it and would not be substantially improved by it. Single player games, for instance. In my experience, online co-op is often not as enjoyable, and sometimes drastically less, then in person co-op. Maybe that's the case here- maybe not.

But your strange slippery slope argument doesn't make sense. Some features are important, some aren't- which is which depends on the game, platform and consumer, all of which are unique to every title and gamer.

Your purchasing decisions are your own, and you don't have to justify them to anybody- but neither does anyone else. If you won't buy any game that doesn't have online co-op (or whatever) that's fine. But don't back that position up with attacks on the opinions of others and bad arguments.

When you do that, you get somebody like me that has to waste time arguing on a message board because of an obsessive hatred of poor logic. And I think we can all agree that's no fun for anybody.[/QUOTE]

What slippery slope? You really think video games are some magical entitites that can't be broken down into their respective features? And each of those features have a dollar value assigned to it?

The game has co-op. Co-op without online is shitty. It diminishes the value of the game. This makes its value go below $60. I'm not paying $60. Simple.

I don't give a fuck about what you feel compelled to waste your time on, so that doesn't factor into my behavior on whether or not I post. Thanks for the anecdote, though.
 
[quote name='gothamcentral79']The fact that people have no problem paying $60 for the same military shooter that comes out every few months but balk at paying $60 for a game with some actual soul to it is quite disconcerting.[/QUOTE]

That's not really a fair statement. People are also putting 100 or more hours into those military shooters. There's no way I'm putting 100 hours into Rayman. The gameplay just won't be there to make that happen. They'd have to turn it into a massive collectathon, add some kind of multiplayer component (which I agree doesn't belong here), or make the game so brutally hard that you have to replay it over and over to beat it. None of those are good options. So we're looking at a game that might take 10-12 hours IF you get all the achievements, less if you play it just to play it.

$60 is a lot of money, and if I'm there day one I want to see 60 hours of gameplay and big budget production value. It isn't fair for these guys to charge the same price for a game that costs significantly less to make than say Skyrim, MW3 or Battlefield 3, especially since you'll be playing it a fraction of the time and the game won't need continued support after release.
 
That $60 price tag is a bit steep. Does this come with like, an original HD remake of the previous ones or something?

I guess I'll just wait for the drop. I love me some Rayman.
 
[quote name='ChaosLaw']Co-op without online is shitty.[/QUOTE]

Just because you have no face-to-face social skills doesn't make it shitty. Spoken from the Call of Duty generation, as expected.
 
[quote name='VyseArcad1a']Just because you have no face-to-face social skills doesn't make it shitty. Spoken from the Call of Duty generation, as expected.[/QUOTE]

I don't have many friends that play videogames. And even less that like Rayman (none).

Besides, since when is an added feature ever a bad thing?

Call of Duty generation? Welcome to the future, gramps. Shove your nostalgia somewhere else. I'm not paying $60 for a game bereft of a feature required in 2011.
 
[quote name='ChaosLaw']I don't have many friends that play videogames. And even less that like Rayman (none).

Besides, since when is an added feature ever a bad thing?

Call of Duty generation? Welcome to the future, gramps. Shove your nostalgia somewhere else. I'm not paying $60 for a game bereft of a feature required in 2011.[/QUOTE]

Do you realize how dumb that sounds? Since when is anything required in a video game? An added feature is not a bad thing at all. Chastising a game just because of a feature that not all games have to have is just stupid. Someone earlier said that no game HAS to have anything. A great single player experience is important in any type of game, so why should it be wrong that a game focuses on just to be a fantastic gaming experience? Rayman has NEVER been a co-op oriented game, so who says this one has to be? As for co-op, there are people that prefer to have their friends come over to play rather than play with random people online, so why is that bad?

I'd be willing to bet money that you're going to praise all over Batman: Arkham City (which is amazing), which... wait for it... has NO MULTIPLAYER. But wait... it's required, right?

Maybe I do reminisce about games of yore, but at least many of the games in the past have true blood sweat and tears put into it for a great gaming experience unlike a good chunk of recent games. But then again I don't need to cap random people's heads off and waggle my e-penis in generic military shooter #3209. That's just my opinion.

So in conclusion, it's not necessary. Oh yeah, and bite me you young whippersnapper. :D

Anyway, BACK ON TOPIC: Rayman has been awesome for years, and I'm glad to see him come back in a non-Rabbids game, but I'll wait for it to go below $40.
 
[quote name='VyseArcad1a']An added feature is not a bad thing at all. Chastising a game just because of a feature that not all games have to have is just stupid. Someone earlier said that no game HAS to have anything. A great single player experience is important in any type of game, so why should it be wrong that a game focuses on just to be a fantastic gaming experience. There are people that prefer to have their friends come over to play rather than play with random people online, so why is that bad?

Maybe I do reminisce about games of yore, but at least many of the games in the past have true blood sweat and tears put into it for a great gaming experience unlike a good chunk of recent games. But then again I don't need to cap random people's heads off and waggle my e-penis in generic military shooter #3209. That's just my opinion.

So in conclusion, it's not necessary. Oh yeah, and bite me you young whippersnapper. :D
Anyway, BACK ON TOPIC: Rayman has been awesome for years, and I'm glad to see him come back in a non-Rabbids game, but I'll wait for it to go below $40.[/QUOTE]

lol@you not being willing to pay even $40 for it.

Yeah, I said games don't have to have anything. Nor do I have to buy them. I think we're getting confused here with the sense in which "have to" is being used. Online co-op being available wouldn't prohibit your enjoyment of offline co-op. At all. It is, however, a feature that adds more value than a variety of other features in the form of time played. I'm going to beat this game in a day (probably) and it will be close to worthless to me because I'm not going to wait around until one of my friends randomly says "yo dawg you got rayman?! fuck YEAH LETS PLAY IT". So it's going to be collecting dust. Or I'll resell it. Either way, I'd like to minimize my initial investment. Ergo, I'm not paying $60. And neither are you so wtf do I even have to explain this!

By the way, online being included in a game is a great determinent of how quickly its price will plummet (and to which extent). Regardless of how "great" a game is. And I'm sure this game will be great. Just...not worth $60!

*The required is attached to the fact this game already has co-op. It's silly to include co-op and not allow me to play with my Xbox LIVE friends.
 
[quote name='ChaosLaw']I'm not paying $60 for a game bereft of a feature required in 2011.[/QUOTE]

Regardless of the willing price to pay for it, it's required, right?
+Ux0TqIJHewuLG8GIqbyaAV3MMiRMTQbEFmKDHvaLiTDT2Ne7+tpxv8A2Jm+X3XH6Y3AAAAAElFTkSuQmCC
 
[quote name='VyseArcad1a']Regardless of the willing price to pay for it, it's required, right?
+Ux0TqIJHewuLG8GIqbyaAV3MMiRMTQbEFmKDHvaLiTDT2Ne7+tpxv8A2Jm+X3XH6Y3AAAAAElFTkSuQmCC
[/QUOTE]

UbiSoft doesn't give a fuck about that. If fools are willing to pay $60 for something that was supposed to be a downloadable game at $15 (That's what you mean by blood, sweat, and tears, right? Delay a game, release it for *4 the price when it's finished. I'd love to invest with UbiSoft) why would they refuse your money for being lazy. If anything, that's the best case scenario for them. Or for any business. Perform less of a service, get paid more for it? Amazing (for them).
 
[quote name='ChaosLaw']UbiSoft doesn't give a fuck about that. If fools are willing to pay $60 for something that was supposed to be a downloadable game at $15 (That's what you mean by blood, sweat, and tears, right? Delay a game, release it for *4 the price when it's finished. I'd love to invest with UbiSoft) why would they refuse your money for being lazy. If anything, that's the best case scenario for them. Or for any business. Perform less of a service, get paid more for it? Amazing (for them).[/QUOTE]

It is UbiSoft, I'm not going to disagree with that statement. But I'd still rather spend $40 on a new Rayman game than spend a dime on a Call of Duty game.
 
[quote name='VyseArcad1a']It is UbiSoft, I'm not going to disagree with that statement. But I'd still rather spend $40 on a new Rayman game than spend a dime on a Call of Duty game.[/QUOTE]

What does ANY OF THIS have to do with Call of Duty? Does the CoD series have a monopoly on all online capabilities in video gaming?
 
[quote name='ChaosLaw']What does ANY OF THIS have to do with Call of Duty? Does the CoD series have a monopoly on all online capabilities in video gaming?[/QUOTE]

A good chunk of gamers today think it does. That and Halo, but at least Halo has a rich single-player experience and tried to be different.

I think I'm gonna buy Rayman now just to support the devs. Michel Ancel FTW.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top