I'm not sure how you could abuse a system if a currently $14.99 game could be bought for at least $14.99 + a tip for the developer?
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Indie Games Should Be Cheaper
- Thread starter Robert at Zeboyd Games
- Start date
I'm not sure how you could abuse a system if a currently $14.99 game could be bought for at least $14.99 + a tip for the developer?
alexandros
Banned
That's the way to go imo. Jeff Vogel's RPGs are, I feel, a good example for games that can be priced higher (the latest one is priced at $20 currently). They usually offer tens of hours of gameplay, even though the production values are rather low. It's all about the content and its quality.
More Fun To Compute
Member
The idea that some people have that they should always pay relative to the budget of the game or the number of hours is not really useful. Some games just don't have mass market appeal so both have to be made on a limited budget and be priced more than AAA games to be profitable. Probably those games will just never be made unless there is something like a kickstarter where some people are prepared to pay a large price to see the game made.
But if someone makes a super mass market mobile game and decides to charge 100 dollars for it then they are pretty clueless.
But if someone makes a super mass market mobile game and decides to charge 100 dollars for it then they are pretty clueless.
Ingueferroque
Banned
I don't see how it does.
We can't set up a pricing barrier for indie devs. If a dev, indie or not, is confident enough to release their product at $60, so be it. It is up to them, and up to us, to agree to that price.
alexandros
Banned
Most people in niche games communities understand that. Quite a few sim and war games are rather expensive but they cater to very specific niches.
SatelliteOfLove
Member
All I'm saying is it shouldn't have took 75% for the GOAT Legend of Grimrock 2 to sell like mad.
OK, also seriously but real: IMO, competition is fierce and some developers have bigger aims. Steam Sale-calibur sales are now the norm, and as we've seen above, they can get attention worthy long-tail excellence the sales they deserve. Those of...OK quality and niche pleasing should go lower, as they don't have those "ins".
OK, also seriously but real: IMO, competition is fierce and some developers have bigger aims. Steam Sale-calibur sales are now the norm, and as we've seen above, they can get attention worthy long-tail excellence the sales they deserve. Those of...OK quality and niche pleasing should go lower, as they don't have those "ins".
For a PC game, $20 is only something I'd pay if I got one of their prior games and really liked it.
Most indie games are stuff I've either received off bundles, or on a 75% sale that looked interesting enough to take a chance on. I'm not going to risk over $10 on some dev I know nothing about.
If your game is good, your next game is something I'm willing to pay more for, if not, well it's lesson learned or Steam Refund time depending on how it was.
The indie market, and the PC market in general, has a heavy downward pressure on pricing. The only real upward pressures is new entrants into the market, and the need for new games every now and then. The big downward pressure if this isn't a storefront with limited shelf space, it's a storefront of every game on the platform, many of which go on fire sales, and some are almost given away. It's rough, but if you're good and lucky you'll make it.
I don't differentiate between indie, mid-market and AAA with this stance. Ultimately those are just labels, it's the dev's reputation that matters the most.
Examples: Dungeons of Dredmor means I'll buy Clockwork Empires when it leaves EA (the impression I got was that it's too rough to buy in EA, though that was months ago)
Din's Curse led to Drox Operative and I'll buy Zombasite day 1 on Steam.
Most indie games are stuff I've either received off bundles, or on a 75% sale that looked interesting enough to take a chance on. I'm not going to risk over $10 on some dev I know nothing about.
If your game is good, your next game is something I'm willing to pay more for, if not, well it's lesson learned or Steam Refund time depending on how it was.
The indie market, and the PC market in general, has a heavy downward pressure on pricing. The only real upward pressures is new entrants into the market, and the need for new games every now and then. The big downward pressure if this isn't a storefront with limited shelf space, it's a storefront of every game on the platform, many of which go on fire sales, and some are almost given away. It's rough, but if you're good and lucky you'll make it.
I don't differentiate between indie, mid-market and AAA with this stance. Ultimately those are just labels, it's the dev's reputation that matters the most.
Examples: Dungeons of Dredmor means I'll buy Clockwork Empires when it leaves EA (the impression I got was that it's too rough to buy in EA, though that was months ago)
Din's Curse led to Drox Operative and I'll buy Zombasite day 1 on Steam.
toythatkills
Member
Games are worth what they're worth, that's all there is to it. There's no "indie price," if a developer feels their game is worth $20 then that's their business.
It's far too easy to say "oh well you'll sell more copies at half the price" because obviously it's true, but will you sell more than double the amount of copies? That's the important question. For some games, you might, like a JRPG for example. For some other games the market is small to begin with and so it simply won't happen. There's no "one size fits all" approach to business and it's ridiculous to suggest that there is.
It's an interesting stance you're taking though, Robert, since encouraging this race to the bottom will directly affect the perceived value of your own games. Your whole business is based on being at the cheap end of the market, and you can't be at the cheap end if there's no expensive end.
It's far too easy to say "oh well you'll sell more copies at half the price" because obviously it's true, but will you sell more than double the amount of copies? That's the important question. For some games, you might, like a JRPG for example. For some other games the market is small to begin with and so it simply won't happen. There's no "one size fits all" approach to business and it's ridiculous to suggest that there is.
It's an interesting stance you're taking though, Robert, since encouraging this race to the bottom will directly affect the perceived value of your own games. Your whole business is based on being at the cheap end of the market, and you can't be at the cheap end if there's no expensive end.
I'm glad someone on "the inside" said it.
Last gen, $15 was the high end for most XBLA/PSN games even as budget and scope were on the rise, and most tended to weigh in at $10. The new consoles came and almost overnight that turned into $15-20. Consequentially, where once every XBLA/PSN release would meet with some fanfare, now it seems we're getting several every week and the lion's share are sailing in from out of left-field in terms of previous awareness, and not faring much better post-release. Add in the "it's an indie, it'll probably be on PS+/GWG if I wait" sword hanging over their heads, and the general rising tide of prices is a very counter-intuitive trend. It's harder than ever for indies to make a wave, and attractive, impulse-buy pricing is definitely one of the better tools in the kit that could be used to counter-act that.
I understand that devs don't want to devalue their game, but pricing definitely needs to be weighed against the various factors at play. Sometimes there's just going to be a disconnect between "what I think my game is worth" and "what someone looking for a new game imagines my game is worth," and it's not in anyone's best interest, in the end, to weigh heavily towards the former and disregard the latter. Even if it may be objectively fairer to the dev's side.
There's certainly games out there that can justify being "premium" indies, $20+ pricing should definitely be on the table for those that can pull it off. But there seems to be lot of devs lately that are estimating that their game falls under that category when there's not the faintest indication that the market shares their perception.
Last gen, $15 was the high end for most XBLA/PSN games even as budget and scope were on the rise, and most tended to weigh in at $10. The new consoles came and almost overnight that turned into $15-20. Consequentially, where once every XBLA/PSN release would meet with some fanfare, now it seems we're getting several every week and the lion's share are sailing in from out of left-field in terms of previous awareness, and not faring much better post-release. Add in the "it's an indie, it'll probably be on PS+/GWG if I wait" sword hanging over their heads, and the general rising tide of prices is a very counter-intuitive trend. It's harder than ever for indies to make a wave, and attractive, impulse-buy pricing is definitely one of the better tools in the kit that could be used to counter-act that.
I understand that devs don't want to devalue their game, but pricing definitely needs to be weighed against the various factors at play. Sometimes there's just going to be a disconnect between "what I think my game is worth" and "what someone looking for a new game imagines my game is worth," and it's not in anyone's best interest, in the end, to weigh heavily towards the former and disregard the latter. Even if it may be objectively fairer to the dev's side.
There's certainly games out there that can justify being "premium" indies, $20+ pricing should definitely be on the table for those that can pull it off. But there seems to be lot of devs lately that are estimating that their game falls under that category when there's not the faintest indication that the market shares their perception.
Robert at Zeboyd Games
Banned
I leave for an hour or so and this thread blew up. Let me try to address some of the comments.
First of all, I'm not advocating for a one size fits all price. I'm saying that I feel that many indie games overprice their games and would find more success at a lower price. I feel the price that you sell a game for shouldn't feel like a "fair" price, it should be a "good" price - one that makes the player feel like the developer is on their side and is giving a bargain.
When I used the example of many $20 indie games feeling like they'd do better at $10-$15, I'm specifically referring to traditional smaller, low budget development teams. Games like Divinity: Original Sin & Wasteland 2 aren't really competing in the same arena; they're at or near the top of their particular sub-genre's budget - they're competing against Dragon Age: Origins, not Citizens of Earth. And hey, at $40, they are cheaper than the AAA RPG competition.
And then you look at reviews & see that they're positive and you buy it.
In the opening, I specifically mentioned Ori as a game that works at $20. It has great production values, it's nice & meaty, and it had a solid marketing campaign. Not everybody can make Ori.
I enjoyed Race the Sun but at one point your game was free (if you had PS+).
Research is needed, but it's my belief that success at launch affects your success later on when you decide to run sales. A game that is a huge success at launch is going to find it easier to be successful later when they do sales - more people will know about the game, more people will be recommending the game, and they're more likely to get good visibility from storefronts as well as the possibility of special promotions like Humble Bundle.
Someone mentioned that they hate indie games feeling like they're stuck in the ghetto because of low prices. I don't feel that way at all. I personally find it amazing & feel so blessed that we've been able to release games that not only have people been able to buy & play but that have been played by more people than many, much more expensive to make games. I mean, our best selling game is owned by over half a million people. That's a very respectable number in our genre with a game that isn't Pokemon, Final Fantasy, or Dragon Quest. Yeah, we made a lot less money from those 500k+ owners than a game that was more expensive with those sales would have, but we also spent a lot less money on making the game so it evens out.
First of all, I'm not advocating for a one size fits all price. I'm saying that I feel that many indie games overprice their games and would find more success at a lower price. I feel the price that you sell a game for shouldn't feel like a "fair" price, it should be a "good" price - one that makes the player feel like the developer is on their side and is giving a bargain.
When I used the example of many $20 indie games feeling like they'd do better at $10-$15, I'm specifically referring to traditional smaller, low budget development teams. Games like Divinity: Original Sin & Wasteland 2 aren't really competing in the same arena; they're at or near the top of their particular sub-genre's budget - they're competing against Dragon Age: Origins, not Citizens of Earth. And hey, at $40, they are cheaper than the AAA RPG competition.
And then you look at reviews & see that they're positive and you buy it.
In the opening, I specifically mentioned Ori as a game that works at $20. It has great production values, it's nice & meaty, and it had a solid marketing campaign. Not everybody can make Ori.
(Race The Sun developer here.)
Oh man, I disagree so hard with this.
A MUCH bigger problem is that indies don't value their own work, and too often underprice.
People DO see sometimes cheap games on PC as shovelware, and don't bother. Just ask the people who participated in our "Not on Steam" sale. The cheapest games, discounted to $0.99 for the sale, didn't do very well compared to the $10-$20 games. Price communicates quality in a very direct way.
Pricing higher gives more room for sales and discounts later. A $20 game at 75% off in a Steam Christmas sale is a helluva lot more attractive than a $10 game at 50% off.
I think we should be doing everything we can to fight the race to the bottom, and the perception that games should be super cheap or free.
Our next game will likely be at least $10 - maybe as high as $20 depending on the depth and production values.
And when Race the Sun launches this week on iOS, it'll be $4.99. So there
I enjoyed Race the Sun but at one point your game was free (if you had PS+).
Research is needed, but it's my belief that success at launch affects your success later on when you decide to run sales. A game that is a huge success at launch is going to find it easier to be successful later when they do sales - more people will know about the game, more people will be recommending the game, and they're more likely to get good visibility from storefronts as well as the possibility of special promotions like Humble Bundle.
Someone mentioned that they hate indie games feeling like they're stuck in the ghetto because of low prices. I don't feel that way at all. I personally find it amazing & feel so blessed that we've been able to release games that not only have people been able to buy & play but that have been played by more people than many, much more expensive to make games. I mean, our best selling game is owned by over half a million people. That's a very respectable number in our genre with a game that isn't Pokemon, Final Fantasy, or Dragon Quest. Yeah, we made a lot less money from those 500k+ owners than a game that was more expensive with those sales would have, but we also spent a lot less money on making the game so it evens out.
I do think that an expensive game with a bigger cut is more attractive than a cheap game at full price. I bought Ori and that Power Rangers indie game when they had price mistakes, but I never planned to splurge more than $5 for each. If they were $5-10 full price I would have probably waited until they were bundled or something.
Very cheap pre-order or first week price price (like what Idea Factory and Ghostlight have been doing) also gets me.
Very cheap pre-order or first week price price (like what Idea Factory and Ghostlight have been doing) also gets me.
Disagree. We need to embrace more flexibility in pricing our products.
If indie games want to charge $20, $30, $40 to reflect the complexity and quality of their content, then all the more power to them.
The market will decide whether they are willing to sustain that price.
Edit: Wait, I think I'm getting indie games mixed up with low-budget/mid-tier studio-developed games.
My point still stands though. Prices should never conform to indie = $10 or less or AAA = 79.99.
If indie games want to charge $20, $30, $40 to reflect the complexity and quality of their content, then all the more power to them.
The market will decide whether they are willing to sustain that price.
Edit: Wait, I think I'm getting indie games mixed up with low-budget/mid-tier studio-developed games.
My point still stands though. Prices should never conform to indie = $10 or less or AAA = 79.99.
I didn't see it yet, but how about you throw us an example of a $20 indie game that you thought was overvalued and specifically what about it made you feel that way.
family_guy
Member
I agree. They should be cheaper. Pretty much all I do now is add a game to my wish list on Steam and play the waiting game. I wouldn't do that if it were cheaper at launch. Also pricing too high on consoles is riskier because at least in the case of PSN, there is no wish list. People will wait for a price drop sure, but it's more likely that your game will be long forgotten by the time the price drops and it will be lost in the sea of unorganized titles on the Playstation Store.
I've been making mobile games for the last five years. We started out making premium games, then moved to F2P. The reason we moved to F2P was simple - there was such pressure to drop your price, but at <$2, sustaining a game over the long term from a single $2 shot per player was functionally impossible. And even if you have a Monument Valley style hit, you're not getting wealthy off it, you're simply buying a little bit more time to keep making games. And if you ever make a game that isn't a hit, your studio is dead.
If you don't like F2P, AND you don't like paying a decent price for premium games, guess what? You're the *reason* that F2P exists!
Now, F2P *can* provide a wealth of positives *if* done with the player in mind (think Riot, not Zynga), and it enables developers to do much, much more interesting things (again, provided they're not in the "Let's make the next Clash of Clans!" mindset). But right now, the business model carries a lot of baggage with it, which is problematic.
But yeah - indies charging more isn't a bad thing to me. If the indie dev scene as a whole starts pushing prices down to compete on volume, it's just going to result in exactly the same evolution that occurred on the App Store, which is basically poison to people that want to actually buy games & get a complete experience in one go.
seppo
If you don't like F2P, AND you don't like paying a decent price for premium games, guess what? You're the *reason* that F2P exists!
Now, F2P *can* provide a wealth of positives *if* done with the player in mind (think Riot, not Zynga), and it enables developers to do much, much more interesting things (again, provided they're not in the "Let's make the next Clash of Clans!" mindset). But right now, the business model carries a lot of baggage with it, which is problematic.
But yeah - indies charging more isn't a bad thing to me. If the indie dev scene as a whole starts pushing prices down to compete on volume, it's just going to result in exactly the same evolution that occurred on the App Store, which is basically poison to people that want to actually buy games & get a complete experience in one go.
seppo
Warm Machine
Member
Our next game is iOS free to play as well.
Can't remember but I think they are not able to give games the individual treatment they were able to in the past before the flood gates opened.
Can't remember but I think they are not able to give games the individual treatment they were able to in the past before the flood gates opened.
Robert at Zeboyd Games
Banned
Exactly.
Like right now, I have 30 games on my Steam wishlish, the vast majority of which are indie games. When the next big Steam sale comes around or I feel like buying a new game, am I going to buy all 30 games? Of course not; I don't have time to play 30 games at once. I'm going to most likely end up buying a couple of games on the list that I want the most and maybe a couple more games that are extremely discounted and leave the rest on the list. And eventually, I'll decide that I don't actually want all of the games on my wishlist and I'll start removing some.
I want to make it clear that I think these games and others would do better at lower prices, not that I think they're bad games. When all is said and done, I think both games will end up being two of my favorite games of the year. I hold both developers in the highest respect, I just disagree with their pricing strategies.
OP never mentions N++, although someone said this thread was inspired by it, and they never gave a reason as to why Axiom Verge should be lower, unless stating what it sold so far is the reason.
toythatkills
Member
Yes you would.
I'd agree, although there is a problem when it comes for us devs in switzerland
Living here is expensive as shit. A movie ticket can cost up to 22 bucks. Average food menus in like fast food or takeaways or small restaurants can cost between 15 to 25 bucks (1 franc roughly equals 1 euro or 1 dollar nowadays. Example: a macdonalds menu can cost up to 14 francs). The overall cost of living, depending on the country, is pretty high.
Because of that, we're kinda fucked by our strong money and it's hard sometimes to make even small games cost less than 10 bucks. And usually, if the content is here of course, we'll gravitate probably towards 20, maybe slightly more
Living here is expensive as shit. A movie ticket can cost up to 22 bucks. Average food menus in like fast food or takeaways or small restaurants can cost between 15 to 25 bucks (1 franc roughly equals 1 euro or 1 dollar nowadays. Example: a macdonalds menu can cost up to 14 francs). The overall cost of living, depending on the country, is pretty high.
Because of that, we're kinda fucked by our strong money and it's hard sometimes to make even small games cost less than 10 bucks. And usually, if the content is here of course, we'll gravitate probably towards 20, maybe slightly more
This is not how you should be thinking about pricing, though.
As far as maximizing revenues goes, your particular cost of living is irrelevant.
Dr_LucienSanchez
Banned
No, they shouldn't be.
It's true but it's definitively a factor for a lot living here.
Warm Machine
Member
Actually the more niche a game is I think the more money it should be. If someone made a wicked bullet hell for bullet hell fans they should probably be charging $100 for it. No one else is making them and the fan base is incredibly small.
family_guy
Member
Also about devaluation of indie games. Is that really our fault when we get 1 or 2 free indie games a month on PS+? I think giving away your game for "free" is worse. Why? People don't tend to value free games as much as games they paid for. I have a bunch of indie games on PS+ I played for an hour or not at all. Not saying they aren't good games, a lot of them are, but I'm more likely to give priority to something I spent my money on.
Robert at Zeboyd Games
Banned
This is true. However, a lot of games aren't as niche as you might think.
Why not?
With constant marginal costs (usually zero, for games that don't require servers) your only concern should be how to extract as much as possible from the demand when deciding on pricing.
Other games have more complicated issues at hand, like Rocket League and N++ dealing with complex server structures that could and should impact the floor of their pricing, but overall, it's important to keep things separate. The cost of living and these other expenses should definitely be part of the analysis on whether or not the project should be done in the first place, but it should not impact pricing on the margin.
There is zero evidence that the residual demand curve is the same for every game. Therefore, not every game should have the same price of $10.
That is sound advice (won't lie, not a professional in the field of business myself)
Eh, there should be variable pricing for games... However, if your game is more than $20, there better be an option for a physical release in my mind. Anything less than $20 being digital only is understandable and $20 itself is on the border.
Personally, I will pay the price I feel a game is worth. I did end up buying all of Zeboyd Games' 2D RPGs so far and am anticipating Cosmic Star Heroine.
Personally, I will pay the price I feel a game is worth. I did end up buying all of Zeboyd Games' 2D RPGs so far and am anticipating Cosmic Star Heroine.
I think that it's seen as safer to guess high than low, because you can always do sales if you went high. And a lot of these indie teams are guessing. They don't have piles of marketing data and expertise to draw upon, it's basically like asking a lay person to price it.
But I agree with Robert that there is a cost to going over the ideal price. I just took a look at my wishlist and 2 of the games on it are ones that I would have bought at their current price if that was the price at release, but I haven't picked up yet. I guess it's inertia, but it's like the price I'm willing to pay for a game drops once I decide to wait on it.
And that "ideal price" I mention is the one where the dev makes the most profit. In my example above, it's entirely possible that those games were at the ideal price and it just didn't fit me. And just because some diehard on GAF is willing to pay double or triple the price, it doesn't make it a good idea to actually do so. I'd probably be willing to pay $100 for Persona 5 when it comes out, but it'd be disastrous for Atlus to actually do that.
But I agree with Robert that there is a cost to going over the ideal price. I just took a look at my wishlist and 2 of the games on it are ones that I would have bought at their current price if that was the price at release, but I haven't picked up yet. I guess it's inertia, but it's like the price I'm willing to pay for a game drops once I decide to wait on it.
And that "ideal price" I mention is the one where the dev makes the most profit. In my example above, it's entirely possible that those games were at the ideal price and it just didn't fit me. And just because some diehard on GAF is willing to pay double or triple the price, it doesn't make it a good idea to actually do so. I'd probably be willing to pay $100 for Persona 5 when it comes out, but it'd be disastrous for Atlus to actually do that.
From my personal perspective, as a consumer and not a developer, my generally followed rule is less than $10 and I'll take a look. Any more than that and I'll wait for a sale. Granted that isn't the case for all games but I'd say it is for the vast majority. Also I don't have much spare money to spend on games and my steam backlog is huge. As an example, I got Wolfenstein: TNO for $10 and considered getting The Old Blood for the same price but decided to wait. This was all done with Steam credit from selling cards as well and not actual money from my bank account. What can I say? I'm a sucker for a good deal. AKA $5 or less.
AeornFlippout
Neo Member
I enjoyed Race the Sun but at one point your game was free (if you had PS+).
For sure! It won't be the last time it goes free in some situations either, if it works in the best interest of us maximizing our player base + revenue.
But I'm speaking mostly of the base price for the game, and I got the impression that you were too. I think with the sale-driven climate we're in right now, setting the base price higher is wise, gives developers a lot more flexibility, and also communicates to players what the game is "worth."
Haunted
Member
On the one hand, I'm a consumer and I love cheap games. I regularly buy bundles and have waited for Steam sales, even if the asking price of a game wasn't particularly high in the first place. I love it when indie devs go the non-exploitative route of starting off cheap to quickly build a larger audience and increase the word of mouth.
On the other hand, I can see that the indie scene on PC is actively trying to counteract what happened to the ios store: a race to the bottom, where the most exploitative, cynical and disheartening business models are the most successful, where the player isn't seen as a partner, or someone to be served, just a potential whale to be squeezed dry, manipulated into emptying its wallet. It is really, really, really hard to get a great game to be noticed, and be ready to get a lot of negative feedback and backlash from a customer base that has been conditioned to balk at anything over 1,99. It's not as bad on PC (yet?) and if indies pricing their games a bit higher instead of racing to the bottom together, I can't really hate on that.
On the other hand, I can see that the indie scene on PC is actively trying to counteract what happened to the ios store: a race to the bottom, where the most exploitative, cynical and disheartening business models are the most successful, where the player isn't seen as a partner, or someone to be served, just a potential whale to be squeezed dry, manipulated into emptying its wallet. It is really, really, really hard to get a great game to be noticed, and be ready to get a lot of negative feedback and backlash from a customer base that has been conditioned to balk at anything over 1,99. It's not as bad on PC (yet?) and if indies pricing their games a bit higher instead of racing to the bottom together, I can't really hate on that.
AHA-Lambda
Member
I feel this is an arbitrary distinction you're making now, "they're indie" but don't count cos it doesn't fit my vision?
One more thing about N++: It includes any and all future DLC, which is coming to the game.
The devs have pointed out that, once the DLC actually starts coming out to the game, the actual price of buying everything will be higher than the $16 it was at launch:
http://blog.us.playstation.com/2015/07/28/n-nimbly-soars-to-ps4-today/
So, sure, there's no baseline version with no "season pass", but it's not quite a $20 game, and certainly not at launch when PS+ players can buy it at $16.
N+ on the Xbox 360 was $10, then had two $2.50 downloadable packs. Obviously not everyone would buy the DLC packs, but as it stands N++ is sort of a giant bundle at a single price, of the final version of a game, with all current and upcoming content included.
It's had great, multimedia marketing campaign, it is part of a major promotion, had a long development period, has a 6-hour licensed soundtrack, has a significant and robust server structure. I see no reason to make a distinction between Ori and N++ as highlighted above -- it was pushed just as much by Sony as Microsoft pushed Ori.
I'm not taking a stand on whether or not structuring the product that way was a good idea or not until we hear about sales, but I think it's a good example of varied pricing structures, even if on the surface level it technically is on the "$20 indie games" group.
The devs have pointed out that, once the DLC actually starts coming out to the game, the actual price of buying everything will be higher than the $16 it was at launch:
http://blog.us.playstation.com/2015/07/28/n-nimbly-soars-to-ps4-today/
So, sure, there's no baseline version with no "season pass", but it's not quite a $20 game, and certainly not at launch when PS+ players can buy it at $16.
N+ on the Xbox 360 was $10, then had two $2.50 downloadable packs. Obviously not everyone would buy the DLC packs, but as it stands N++ is sort of a giant bundle at a single price, of the final version of a game, with all current and upcoming content included.
It's had great, multimedia marketing campaign, it is part of a major promotion, had a long development period, has a 6-hour licensed soundtrack, has a significant and robust server structure. I see no reason to make a distinction between Ori and N++ as highlighted above -- it was pushed just as much by Sony as Microsoft pushed Ori.
I'm not taking a stand on whether or not structuring the product that way was a good idea or not until we hear about sales, but I think it's a good example of varied pricing structures, even if on the surface level it technically is on the "$20 indie games" group.
Perfect first post. Some indie games are really short and lack replay value. Some indie games are great with much replay value and great production.
Robert at Zeboyd Games
Banned
Very first paragraph of the OP, I stated that I felt like many games that would have been sold for $10-$15 just a few years ago are now being debuted for $20. So no, I wasn't really saying anything about $40 games.
Mentally, it feels like $20 is an expensive cheap game whereas $40 is a cheap expensive game if that makes any sense. $20 is on the expensive end of one spectrum, while $40 is on the cheap end of a different spectrum.
Again, I'm not saying all indie games should be cheaper. I'm saying that I think the mentality that $20 should be the standard minimum price of a good indie game is a bad idea.
No kidding. After trying to compete on XBLIG and briefly on mobile, the thought of being able to release a game at say $10 and have that be considered an amazing bargain is incredible.
I'm glad this thread was started by a developer, I feel like responses would have been different otherwise.
I agree with a lot of what's been said (<$10 is impulse buy territory; $20 means your game better be golden; between the two is where people argue). I can only speak as a consumer myself however with little knowledge of micro-economics.
As a consumer however I'll say I'm FAR more likely to get a game if it's on sale when it comes out. Not just discounted pre-orders, but being a little cheaper for the first week. I see it on steam occasionally and PSN did that for their spring sale, so I hope it's working and we see more of it.
If I was interested in your game, then I'm probably going to buy it right away before the price goes up. Also if it's really good buzz will travel and you can build a following which can help your marketing after the price goes back up. Not that I think every game should do that but I'd like to see it happen more often. Again though, I don't actually know if there's any data on whether that kind of thing helps developers overall.
I agree with a lot of what's been said (<$10 is impulse buy territory; $20 means your game better be golden; between the two is where people argue). I can only speak as a consumer myself however with little knowledge of micro-economics.
As a consumer however I'll say I'm FAR more likely to get a game if it's on sale when it comes out. Not just discounted pre-orders, but being a little cheaper for the first week. I see it on steam occasionally and PSN did that for their spring sale, so I hope it's working and we see more of it.
If I was interested in your game, then I'm probably going to buy it right away before the price goes up. Also if it's really good buzz will travel and you can build a following which can help your marketing after the price goes back up. Not that I think every game should do that but I'd like to see it happen more often. Again though, I don't actually know if there's any data on whether that kind of thing helps developers overall.
Robert at Zeboyd Games
Banned
Yeah, it's very common to do a small discount (say 10%-20%) around launch for precisely that reason. It encourages fence sitters to take the plunge rather than wait which hopefully gets you some nice momentum to keep sales going for longer. Plus it also gives you more visibility (New Games AND Games on Sale lists).
No one says that out loud, but I wouldn't be surprised if there's a psychological element to it, especially when just skimming through Steam as opposed to following a Gaf thread.
I wish I could remember where I read that a low price point has the ability to negatively impact a game. It specifically brought up Valve offering price recommendations to avoid that.
Dreamwriter
Member
Pricing your new game too low lowers the perceived value of all other indie games, which is what happened to the mobile market where people bitch about $5 games being too expensive. And you have to realize that the game you spent hundreds or thousands of hours making has value, your time and skills are worth a lot, whether you are making an 8-bit pixelthon or an MMO, and you should be compensated for that time/effort. Being "indie" should make zero difference on a game's price, indie games can be just as fun and high quality as publisher-created games.
And yeah, that is a problem when PSN and XBox Live give away "free" games every month, that hurts the little guy, but unfortunately there's little we can do about it.
And yeah, that is a problem when PSN and XBox Live give away "free" games every month, that hurts the little guy, but unfortunately there's little we can do about it.
"Lower prices often benefit both players and the developer. Lower prices mean more people play your game. Lower prices often result in more positive reviews. Lower prices means more buzz around your game and more people tell their friends to play the game. Lower prices often means more total revenue for the developer as dropping the price in half often results in WAY more than double the sales."
To OP, you really gotta back up your claims with hard data....
To OP, you really gotta back up your claims with hard data....
Dreamwriter
Member
I've read more than one account of a developer who had a really low price for a steam sale, they sold a metric ton of copies, making very little money - and then sold none more after the sale was over. Getting more people to play your game doesn't always help, especially when a guy can tell his friends "it's great, but I only paid $X for it, you should wait for the next sale."
And someone brought up N++? A game with literally thousands of levels, multiple modes, over 30 hours of gameplay just in single-player mode, not worth $20??? Are you on drugs?
And someone brought up N++? A game with literally thousands of levels, multiple modes, over 30 hours of gameplay just in single-player mode, not worth $20??? Are you on drugs?