I don't like the idea that game price should depend on the length of the game. Maybe it's cos I is old but I prefer to reward an hour of quality gaming over hours and hours of meh.

Shareware.... you mean like doom ? :)

Who is talking about developers here? I said "industry". The industry of video games consists on many big publishers with a hierarchy in which the developers are at the bottom of the decision chain. Your friend does not want to make Barbie games, your friend is doing Barbie games because someone higher up, who does not care about video games, read a marketing report saying "Barbie games make this: $$". I have no doubt many, probably most developers love the act itself of doing video games, but that is different from having actual power over what they do. And before you say anything, yes, sometimes good games come out of the industry, but that is incidental because it is not the main goal, not the priority.

That is the thing, indie has typically meant simply "independent of a publisher", but by asking for higher standards over a diffuse term we could make it more useful. After all, if indies have achieved any prestige, it is because they were doing what the industry was not able to do. That idea could be extended (and has been partially extended) to the way in which they sell games too.

so why is not indie games industry and industry? Do indie developer not need to live? Or do you suggest they live by handouts (I know you would not give them....)

And no, it is not accidental, but it is because they do want to make good games - it is the main goal as good games also makes lots of monies. The same can be said about indies, they are also making games because the want them to make them lots of monies, as well as doing something they like.

If an indie developer makes a game which do not make any monies, he is on a lesser position then one who does. This means that the indie developer who makes monies is freer to make the games he wants to make, than the one who do not and have to work fulltime on something else. This is also an industry. This is also reflected in the AAA industry, as the developers who makes games that makes monies are freer to make other games who would also more likely to make more monies.

(and my friend wanted to make the Barbie game, he found the challenges by the constraints interesting. )

That's the point though. By your definition, all games by Valve are indie, as well as those made in-house by EA or UBISoft. All of them also self publish their games. And sell it in own stores, for that matter. You can not get more indie then that.

Yes, I understand all of what you say. It is true that value is a complex concept that is not necessarily proportional to quantity or production costs. But what I'm suggesting here is that indie developers should avoid charging all they can and price their games with modesty. Indie games tend to have important shortcomings with respect to bigger budget games, they tend to be shorter, offer less variety in terms of mechanics or even have important problems in terms of polishing. Little Inferno, for instance, has exactly one mechanic. I liked it, but no way it was worth $20. I still like those games, but their developers should accept those shortcomings and price them accordingly. Even if they make a marketing study that says that people will pay those $20, they should still choose a fairer price. Hell!, that price could be higher too if the game is worth it.

If you don't think indies are worth that much then wait a little while until it's at a price you do like. You can currently buy Little Inferno for $4.99.

and that's all there is to it!

This thread is insane, indies are constantly on sale, often in pay what you want bundles. They're so insanely cheap (as are old games) that I've bought tons I'm likely never going to get around to playing. Sure if you only compare the base price most probably don't provide as good of a value as the best of the AAA games (though at a 3rd of the price point it's a less risky investment anyway), but it's still better than other forms of entertainment.

Even a short game is usually longer than a movie, and the sales are far deeper. Dinner at a nice restaurant will cost more. Bowling is comparable to the base price for time for the shorter ones, golf is probably more expensive, swimming is cheaper.

Some of the best games I've played and got excited about recently were Indie.

I've become a bit jaded (been playing games consistently since the mid-80s and at some points in my life went through a game a week or more, I've seen a lot) about games during the past 15 years and at this point, originality, daring and artful execution counts for a lot in my book.

I got some AAA games that are sitting in my backlog untouched, because I'm busy playing more recently acquired Indie games I'm excited about. I'm probably their target audience as I care a lot more about gameplay than graphics at this point, unlike a lot of people in the mainstream.

I don't mind a shorter game either if it's well executed. My time is limited and it's better than a repetitive longer game. Quit while you're ahead. Same as for TV series: Give me a 10 episode season over a 22 episodes season with filler. I hate filler, it breaks the pace.

I get what you are saying that 20$ might be a lot for a 4 hours game, though a lot of Indie games I've played are a lot longer than that and aren't 20$...

Ultimately, the price is still accessible because of promos. Let them make their money from folks who don't mind paying for a steeper opening price. Cheepos like me who churn up a lot of games or stiffs earning minimum wage will still get their mits on the titles during an upcoming promo. It's a lot more accessible than some luxury goods that never go down in price.

so what is your scale like? how long should a game be to warrant $30? And does it matter what those hours consist of?

Brothers: A tale of two sons lasted like 2,5 and I would most definitely not mind paying that for it as it was one of the best experiences I've had with a videogame for years. Short game can easily beat one which last hundreds of hours.

Rating games and their price by length is just idiotic, especially since it's very easy to figure out how long they are just couple of days after release.

I DO agree it SHOULD be more about the quality of the game, BUT there is a point where buyers should be getting a decent amount of content for what they expect from a game. Know what i mean?.
For example -- backing a $25 Kickstarter indie game - wait 2 years - game ends up being a 4 hour average to good game.

Honestly i don't know what how long a game should be - but a reasonable person would think for example a $10 game should last more than 30 minutes? (as reported for the odd indie game).

Im curious. What would consider a bit of a ripoff yourself when it comes to prices of an indie game?

If it wasn't for indies AAA games 5 years old would cost 20€ now. The indie game market is one of the best markets around for consumers.

But what would you consider a reasonable and fair price for an indie game like that *at launch* ?