I'm also not a fan of "boomer shooter" term, for me it sounds stupid and unappealing. If I must to label that sort of games for whatever reason I would go for "retro FPS", "old school shooter" or something like that.

And you are telling me that why?

There are different types or levels of Capitalism, and it isn't a valid excuse to overcharge.

The correct price point is a fair one.

Sure there will always be those who will be willing to pay too much, either because they have so much money they don't care or those who cannot really afford but just have to have it ... a weakness that is unethically taken advantage of.

Decent gaming folk should not encourage such pricing, end of story. Be strong, be patient, and send the right message to sellers. We are where we are now, because that hasn't been done, and Capitalism in some sectors has been allowed to go feral and rampant.

Thank you for the information.

good luck with that

And now for a bit funny statistics:
I just counted the posts in this thread and categorized them in votes of "Pro" and "Contra" concerning buying the game at this prize (nearly 20€ respectively 18.02€ with 10% release discount).
Pro means the user has no problem with the prize or at least the game is worth its price. Such posts I counted as "Buy".
Contra means the user criticizes the prize, I counted such posts as a "No buy".
So far I counted:

Pro: 6 votes / buyers
Contra: 14 votes / non-buyers (including me)

So, that makes that most people (70%) are not willing to pay the announced price and following your (fully true) thesis one can say: It's not the correct price.

Wish they had a way to contact them, can't find a website or anything.

I wonder if JudasIscariot went with them or just left altogether, haven't seen him post in a while.

That's not even vaguely a representative sample, and it's meaningless anyway. What actually counts is what people do, not what some malcontents post on forums, and you have no idea whatsoever what their sales are. Most of the other remastered old shooters are $20, as I pointed out, and have been priced like that for years. So it's clearly and objectively the correct price for the devs, or else they'd have changed it by now.

to add to your intersting statistics. do you think that the people who bought it, just bought it without telling the world? and do you think that the people who think the price point was to high would complain? do you think there may be a form of bias here that makes this completely invalid?

Honestly, that says nothing. It only means that people who are not happy with the price like to vent in forums.
Those who just bought it probably don't feel the need to announce that. So without actual sales data, any analytics are pointless. I can understand if the game's to expensive for some, but I can also see the work that went into this. So I bought it without a second thought. Being finally able to play this legally and without hackery. Hell yes! So add that to your calculation - for whatever it is worth. But as I said, I can understand that it IS expensive and if you are not willing to pay the price, that's your decision and a valid one.
Either way, I am sure the next sale is just around the corner, because that is in fact for sure: Sales happen all the time.

Chasm is 2,777th in bestselling of all time out of 6,952. Seems like a "Buy" to me.

Oops. I was looking at the wrong Chasm. Still seems like a buy to me, especially since I bought it. :)

I believe in thinking about the impact a price has on others, so I actively discourage high pricing and encourage fair pricing.

Of course there are a good number of folk in this world with plenty of money, such that their sense of value is very different to that of the majority, who have far less money.
But can you really know exactly what work was involved, and compare that to creating a game from the ground up. And never forget, this is an old game, that has been polished a bit. How much is fair to pay for polishing?

It seems a pretty steep price to me, going by what was likely done to the revamped version.

The price feels more like a company trying to milk the game for whatever they can get away with, and nothing at all to do with being a fair price.

We, all of us, need to encourage fair pricing. That's if you care for others beyond yourself and your affluence.

Technically, no I cannot. I am going by experience of a developer and one who worked a decade on a source port for Descent 1 & 2 - one I DID have the source to - which was not the case here from what I could gather. I also did play Chasm: Portable which was excellent, but especially in 640x480 it didn't run even remotely as smoothly as the DOSBox version which is included as an extra here. And I have no idea how complicated it was to solve the licensing situation of this game, but it couldn't have been easy considering this is - from what I know - the first official digital re-release of the game.
So all these things considered, I can understand the pricing. But as I said before, I can also understand if it's too much for some - especially these days.

I just disproved your thesis with the information that I got, that's all.

Link to the source please.

You didn´t disprove anything, since you don´t have relevant data, that small fraction of people who actually bought the game AND wrote something about price is irrelevant, just as the "statistic" itself, as amok politely tried to tell you.

It's like I wrote and you won't change anything about that.

Of course I disproved amok's thesis with the information that was in my reach. But also: of course they're not relevant or official. WHO alleged that? Me not. Read what's written, not what you make it in your head.
I can't see through walls or see any (for you) "relevant" invisible data, and so can't you or amok or who else.
That's how statistics work, just for the case you don't know that Tarhiel: You get the information that you get with the way you gather them... and then you make charts and numbers out of it. No?*
Again: That's all. I didn't make anything else.

*) If "No": Then you have to admit that NO statistics can be relevant for anyone or anything...

Really? ...