Support NeoGAF

[More_Badass]

Mobile pricing is ass-backwards indeed, but they have already priced the exact same product with the exact same features in a market I can easily access, I think it's plenty fair to judge their PC price based on that. If you want to fight shitty pricing IMO you should go whole hog, not just do it where you think you can get away with it. Honestly my problem is more with the mobile price than the PC price, but I think trying to have it both ways is a bit iffy. It's certainly not going to endear me to the dev

Another example of the mobile-PC gap is the ports going the other way. XCOM Enemy Within is $30 on PC, $13 on mobile. Incredipede $10 on PC, $5 on mobile

Except for the rare exceptions, you simply can't price your game the same on mobile as you would on other platforms. People won't buy it. You think some unknown indie dev is going to risk selling their game for $10 on IOS, even if the game would sell perfectly fine for $10 or even just $5 if it was on PC? That's why I find this mindset that "IOS port is more expensive than on App Store = greedy and exploiting" just ridiculous. And that's not even considering that most of the time, devs add new content and features to the PC versions of their games

 

[SerTapTap]

Another example of the mobile-PC gap is the ports going the other way. XCOM Enemy Within is $30 on other platforms, $13 on mobile.

Except for the rare exceptions, you simply can't price your game the same on mobile as you would on other platforms. People won't buy it. You think some unknown indie dev is going to risk selling their game for $10 on IOS, even if the game would sell perfectly fine for $10 or even just $5 if it was on PC? That's why I find this mindset that "IOS port is more expensive than on App Store = greedy and exploiting" just ridiculous. And that's not even considering that most of the time, devs add new content and features to the PC versions of their versions

I'm not sure I'd call it greedy and exploiting, but it's willingly playing the race-to-the-bottom on mobile then pretending it ain't like that when you're on PC. It's still pretty gross to me. If you actually had a proper moral objection to race-to-the-bottom IMO you should either price your game the same or simply say "fuck mobile", plenty of indie devs do the latter at least.

And I don't have much sympathy for devs playing into the gross parts of mobile. I don't view it all that much different than injecting rampant F2P mechanics "because that's the mobile market". At least price doesn't affect gameplay, but I still consider it gross business.

 

[D-VoN]

Now that I have sunk some serious hours into Rouge Legacy, I would have easily payed double for that game.

 

[benny_a]

Very good article.

 

[Robert at Zeboyd Games]

I don't think this is any less inherently biased than "what you think it's worth". If you price it at $15 which is a good deal to you, you can still be way disconnected from what your fans consider a good deal. The difference between "worth it" and "good deal" varies a lot between person to person too. A lot of people only buy games if they think they're a "good deal" so for them they may in fact be basically the same. I don't think there's any simple way to determine either good deal or "just barely worth it".

In both cases you're guessing, but in one case, a wrong guess is likely to end up with people thinking your game is too expensive.

For what it's worth, I would have priced Axiom Verge at $10 simply because I think they would sell way more than double the copies at that price than they would at $20. I also think the game would have a much better tail with the lower price.

 

[CambriaRising]

$20 is fair. I don't see the problem with it.

Same. I don't have any issues with that.

 

[OniBarubary]

In both cases you're guessing, but in one case, a wrong guess is likely to end up with people thinking your game is too expensive.

For what it's worth, I would have priced Axiom Verge at $10 simply because I think they would sell way more than double the copies at that price than they would at $20. I also think the game would have a much better tail with the lower price.

I'm only really agreeing because I'd buy it immediately at $10 but at $20 I won't until it drops in a sale. And if it never does like a couple games I've had my eye on...well, then I simply won't play it.

 

[Jotamide]

Yeah, I'm just gonna wait for this to hit PS+ next year.

 

[BPoole]

I'm don't have time to read this in its entirety right now, but I hope my comments made in the release/price thread was not the sole cause of this.

 

[nynt9]

In both cases you're guessing, but in one case, a wrong guess is likely to end up with people thinking your game is too expensive.

For what it's worth, I would have priced Axiom Verge at $10 simply because I think they would sell way more than double the copies at that price than they would at $20. I also think the game would have a much better tail with the lower price.

I actually disagree with this. Indie games are niche so most people who are interested in getting them wouldn't be too sensitive to the price to begin with. They might lose out on some impulse buys but I'd say that a majority of the market has already made up their mind on whether they will be getting this game and $10 isn't low enough for a majority of impulse buyers. It might sway some fence sitters but I wouldn't be surprised if the ratio of fence sitters is super small. Most people who are aware of this game's existence and interested in it don't care about the price.

I don't see how a lower price gives you a better tail as lowering your price over time would spark interest in the game over and over. And since indie games aren't market d by strong PR machines the game will disappear after a while so again, the tail will be short because people who care about the genre will already know it's coming/out

 

[Robert Williams]

Now that I have sunk some serious hours into Rouge Legacy, I would have easily payed double for that game.

This is what I'm saying. And there's no way to know before hand when a game will be this good.

 

[hawk2025]

I'm don't have time to read this in its entirety right now, but I hope my comments made in the release/price thread was not the sole cause of this.

You've spent hours typing post after post on this subject, and you don't have time to read a fairly short blog post that addresses every single one of the points you brought up?

 

[DarkCronos]

I wish I'll someday have the confidence to charge $10 or more for a game. I should probably make a game that's longer than an hour first though

Given the quality of Gunman Clive 1 & 2 you probably should. I'd pay even 15 € for a Gunman Clive-quality game that's 6 - 8 hours long

 

[a916]

Just because it's an indie game doesn't mean it couldn't be worth X dollars...

If the game is worth $20, it's worth $20.

And this game sure damn looks and plays like it is worth $20.

Thread should've ended here. Or opened up a discussion for when the game comes out and people felt they can or not see the value after playing through it.

 

[More_Badass]

Just because it's an indie game doesn't mean it couldn't be worth X dollars...

If the game is worth $20, it's worth $20.

And this game sure damn looks and plays like it is worth $20.

Have you played it?

 

[Jobbs]

I'll be buying Axiom Verge day one, I'm excited to play it.

I think setting limits for yourself on when you discount your game is definitely a risky move. A lot of indies make most of their money during ridiculous sales. It's hard to quantify why it's therefore better for an individual indie to avoid deeply discounting their game, even if they do believe it to be worth the full price. Sometimes the bottom line is the bottom line. The principled stand is admirable, of course, but again, I feel risky.

 

[yurinka]

I love the indie and retro games but I think $20 is too expensive for this kind of game. Even if it had modern visuals, its price range should be $9.99-$14.99 max.

I'm not saying that another 2D platformer made by an unknown indie doesn't deserve it. I think that when compared to similar games many people would see it too expensive and won't buy it.

I think the game looks cool, but didn't see anything special to make it 2x or 3x more expensive than other very similar games. I think the PR must focus there, explaining why it's special and offers extra value that justifies this extra price.

 

[Primethius]

When it was announced that it was a Metroid like game at $20, I had no problems. I have no problems with paying that much for games, regardless of what "label" they belong under if the game is worth the price of admission.

This definitely seems to be worth the price of admission.

 

[Portugeezer]

$20 seems great for this game.

This issue is not unique to Indie devs though, Ubisoft had similar problems with Rayman Origins and Rayman Legends pricing because it was 2D, and to a lesser extent, Nintendo with DKCR/TF. 2D games have been devalued since the transition to 3D many years ago, most games last gen were 3D and you mostly saw 2D games on XBLIG or XBL/PSN.

2D is a popular choice among Indie developers because, let's face it, it's easier (not easy) to make a 2D game than a 3D game and so maybe people think less effort is required. The second reason I think it's popular is that many indie developers grew up playing games during the NES/SNES/Genesis era, they probably have many great memories playing those 2D games and when in the situation to create a game they choose to make a 2D game because they like it.

It doesn't also help that some gamers are apologists for poor budgeting practises among AAA development, that somehow because a game is AAA and developed by hundreds of people it innately deserves more money than a game made by a small group of people, or in this case a single person (with minor outside help in other aspects).

Good games deserve more money than bad games, and so it seems more justified that people should sound their disapproval at the next Assassins Creeds $60 price tag (going by prior game quality) rather than moaning that some Indie game is priced too highly at $20. But, I don't mean to shit on AAA development, I also like to see visuals and game design (in the rare cases it happens) being pushed in ways that some indies just can't do, I am content in playing some good AAA games.

 

[Mabase]

$20 is not particularly expensive in my eyes, but then again I understand the situation indies are with the race-to-the-bottom pricing structures nowadays. Unfortunately it's not so easy to say which price point is the sweet spot for a game, as every game and its audience is different. My guess with Axiom Verge is, that its audience is rather focussed anyway, and that the range of 10$ to 20$ maybe doesn't make much of a difference: the people who are buying it, were able to identify the game's qualities "despite" the "bad graphics" and know the references games liek Castlevania and Metroid enough to find value in Axiom's premise.

Those who are on the fence probably will only be swayed by critical reception/word-of-mouth.

Compared to Shovel Knight, I think Axiom Verge will sell less. Shovel Knight after all had a better name, and a charming character who drew people in regardless of the genre. Axiom Verge doesn't have that.

I still strongly hope that the game is succesful at their targeted price point however. It would be great for Indies, no, Developers EVERYWHERE if more price points were accepted by the market.