It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussion (archive)Indie developers should be more modest with prices(111 posts)(111 posts)
(111 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
This is my favourite topic
Posted June 27, 2014
avatar
Niggles: But what would you consider a reasonable and fair price for an indie game like that *at launch* ?
tree fiddy :p
Posted June 27, 2014
avatar
amok: so what is your scale like? how long should a game be to warrant $30? And does it matter what those hours consist of?
avatar
Niggles: 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).
There are not that many games that goes to the 30+ hours. Some story rich RPGs? open world games where you ignore main story line? What do you think about a game like Tower of Guns? one run can take 40 min. I love that game :)

avatar
Niggles: Im curious. What would consider a bit of a ripoff yourself when it comes to prices of an indie game?
To be honest - I am not quite sure.... I tend to do a lot of investigation before buying a game, so I know it is something I will like. I have so far been disappointing more by longer games than shorter ones. I guess that it is easier to evaluate a shorter game than a longer, so you will not be disappointed, maybe?

SO far, the only games I would consider ripoffs are those hat promise something they do not deliver, and that does not actually have anything to do with game length, but game content.
Posted June 27, 2014
avatar
Fenixp: 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.
avatar
Niggles: But what would you consider a reasonable and fair price for an indie game like that *at launch* ?
At launch? Whatever the hell people are willing to pay.

Look if nobody was willing to pay that much then they wouldn't sell it at that price. I know it isn't worth that much to you personally so why not wait until it's at a price you do like? It's not like you have to wait very long.
Posted June 27, 2014
avatar
Niggles: But what would you consider a reasonable and fair price for an indie game like that *at launch* ?
Whatever they decide to charge for it. It's free market, demand decides what's fair.
Posted June 27, 2014
avatar
Niggles: But what would you consider a reasonable and fair price for an indie game like that *at launch* ?
avatar
Fenixp: Whatever they decide to charge for it. It's free market, demand decides what's fair.
I mean you personally
Posted June 27, 2014
I'd say it's the AAA studios that need to be more modest and held to higher standards, not the indies.

Indies are about as modest as you should expect them to get. $10-15 is a pretty common release price nowadays. $20 is getting into the pricier indies, and even that is only a fraction of what AAA games release for - that's the concession to lower production values, right there. That's not to mention the current deep-discount race to the bottom we're seeing on game prices in general, especially with indies, or the fact that bundling your game with five others for a buck doesn't exactly scream "hubris."

Some indie games cost too much for what you get. Almost all AAA games cost too much for what you get. That will always be the case, and there's always a premium attached to being the first on the block to play the latest releases, but rock-bottom prices are easier to find than ever. How cheap do they need to get?
Posted June 27, 2014
Why is it you don't expect to pay a premium for buying a game at launch?

Personally I can't remember that last time I bought a game at launch. In fact I can't remember ever buying a game at launch.
Posted June 27, 2014
avatar
Niggles: I mean you personally
For me personally? Whatever costs 20 EUR is fair game. I never get stuff at launch and I don't care much for whether or not it's on sale, that's just a ceiling I have put on any title I buy.
Posted June 27, 2014
avatar
ChrisSD: 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.
avatar
amok: and that's all there is to it!
Eh!, nothing new here. I start a discussion about ethics and/or politics and people transform it into a question of convenience. With DRM happens a lot too: "DRM is inherently wrong because it gives absolute power to the publishers", "but it never gave me any problem, and would you look at those sales!?"

Bah!, I say, bah!
Posted June 27, 2014
avatar
amok: and that's all there is to it!
avatar
MichaelPalin: Eh!, nothing new here. I start a discussion about ethics and/or politics and people transform it into a question of convenience. With DRM happens a lot too: "DRM is inherently wrong because it gives absolute power to the publishers", "but it never gave me any problem, and would you look at those sales!?"

Bah!, I say, bah!
no, you would have a discussion if the games never went down in prices or where ever on sales. We know the games will go down in price, so all you need to do is wait.

edit - and that DRM thing there is just obfuscation...
Post edited June 27, 2014 by amok
Posted June 27, 2014
avatar
amok: and that's all there is to it!
avatar
MichaelPalin: Eh!, nothing new here. I start a discussion about ethics and/or politics and people transform it into a question of convenience. With DRM happens a lot too: "DRM is inherently wrong because it gives absolute power to the publishers", "but it never gave me any problem, and would you look at those sales!?"

Bah!, I say, bah!
Indie developers put a lot of hard work into their games and many put their own money into developing them. I think it's ethical for them to have the chance to make a good profit on this. If they charge too much then people won't buy. Simple as that.

I don't understand people who think they should put so much time and money into their game and yet not be allowed the chance of a financial reward. If you don't think it's worth as much as other people do then that's up to you. You're not forced to pay that much for an indie game as the launch price doesn't last long . People who do think they're work that much have the opportunity to show their appreciation by rewarding the indie developers.

As amok says, if the price didn't come down then you may have a point about ethics. But currently prices fall so far and fast I can't believe you would begrudge a developer starting out at the highest price point they think at least some people would buy at.
Posted June 27, 2014
Regarding the ethics of such pricing, it might be easiest for me to make my argument by responding to something that you said earlier:
avatar
MichaelPalin: 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.
The shortcomings that you mention are important to you, but not necessarily to others--indeed, a few people here have noted that they value indie games on other grounds, and don't consider to be significant the things that you see as serious downfalls.

What then is the basis for indies to be ethically bound to those specific standards?

With regards to the length of games, would it be worth it to pay twenty dollars for a game that offered an incredibly thought-provoking, stimulating experience--something that would provoke thought, discussion and revisits for years to come--and lasted only half an hour?

What about a thirty-hour game that was only barely enjoyed, and forgotten almost immediately?

Now of course those are somewhat extreme examples; the point is to suggest that the length of an experience is often not the only deteminant of its assigned value.
Post edited June 27, 2014 by Thaumaturge
Posted June 27, 2014
avatar
Niggles: So you'd be happy paying 30 bucks for a 2 hour game at launch?
avatar
amok: so what is your scale like? how long should a game be to warrant $30? And does it matter what those hours consist of?
IMHO, if it costs more than a movie of similar length, then it's definitely overpriced. Which means that a 2 hour game had better cost me less than $10 at launch.
Posted June 27, 2014
avatar
amok: so what is your scale like? how long should a game be to warrant $30? And does it matter what those hours consist of?
avatar
hedwards: IMHO, if it costs more than a movie of similar length, then it's definitely overpriced. Which means that a 2 hour game had better cost me less than $10 at launch.
so a 4 hour game is ok at about $20?

a 30h+ game is ok at about $150?
Posted June 27, 2014
avatar
hedwards: IMHO, if it costs more than a movie of similar length, then it's definitely overpriced. Which means that a 2 hour game had better cost me less than $10 at launch.
avatar
amok: so a 4 hour game is ok at about $20?

a 30h+ game is ok at about $150?
It's not exclusively about the length of the game! I could write a game in ten minutes that takes 100 hours to play through, but I bet you wouldn't pay $20 for it.

If you don't like the price at launch, don't pay it. Read reviews, purchase accordingly. There's nothing immoral going on here, just preference.
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)Indie developers should be more modest with prices(111 posts)(111 posts)
(111 posts)