next »

[tametick]

If you can write a game with a high replay value, procedural content generation, a rewarding learning curve and plenty of variety, people will know that they're going to enjoy it for years to come.  And when you view things that way, the price of games doesn't seem that expensive at all.

Not factoring in lost productivity there I see

I don't really view game value that way personally.

I actually don't have a ton of time to play games and I'm happy when I feel like I've gotten something out of a game even if it was short (e.g.: portal, knytt stories).

On the other hand a lot of *cough* bethesda *cough* RPGs last a ton of time but just feel like work to me. I'd get better value out of these games if they were shorter and more condensed.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

diffrent games for different needs. for myself i tend not to like games that are either too short or too long. i don't want a game to be just a couple of hours, but i don't want it to be hundreds of hours either; i prefer in the 20-30 hour range, like most snes rpgs used to be

that gives me time to get to know a game and understand it, and gives time to get to know the characters and world, while not being so long that it becomes filled with lore / trivia / filler that isn't that important to know about

indie games that were a length i liked are aquaria, super meat boy, bastion, exit fate, spacechem, barkley shut up and jam gaiden, etc.

this is also the length i try to go for with my own games; i feel that most indie games are too short, and a couple are too long (such as the spiderweb software games)

[increpare]

And when you view things that way, the price of games doesn't seem that expensive at all.

Not factoring in lost productivity there I see

I don't really view game value that way personally.

Was talking about price, not value.  Opportunity cost is important!

[MattG]

hey everybody, the big guys charge 60.00$ a game! They make hundreds of millions, we dont. LET RAISE OUR FUCKING PRICES LADIES. I wanna see more indies at 19.99 +

[hanako]

... ladies? Should I thank you for noticing that I already am, and therefore suggesting that more people should be like me, or what?

[tametick]

hey everybody, the big guys charge 60.00$ a game! They make hundreds of millions, we dont. LET RAISE OUR FUCKING PRICES LADIES. I wanna see more indies at 19.99 +

My next game will cost $999.99 and will be delivered as an autographed CD by a guy in a tuxedo and white gloves.

[MattG]

hey everybody, the big guys charge 60.00$ a game! They make hundreds of millions, we dont. LET RAISE OUR FUCKING PRICES LADIES. I wanna see more indies at 19.99 +

My next game will cost $999.99 and will be delivered as an autographed CD by a guy in a tuxedo and white gloves.

sweet

[ubik]

I'd get better value out of these games if they were shorter and more condensed.

The way to play Bethesda games for the long haul is to go around the countryside and make your own fun in some way.  Until Skyrim came out, I was playing Oblivion (with the Oscuro's Overhaul mod) as a semi-casual dungeonhack game.  I would just roam the countryside, find a dungeon and try to finish it.  There are also other ways you can make them more interesting, like not using potions or making some sort of unusual or restrictive class.

I never played more than a few missions of the main quest in that game and will very likely not do so in Skyrim either.  I am not really on board with the idea of fighting dragons all the time.

[cliffski]

hey everybody, the big guys charge 60.00$ a game! They make hundreds of millions, we dont. LET RAISE OUR FUCKING PRICES LADIES. I wanna see more indies at 19.99 +

Although generally I agree, it comes down to perceived value. There are a lot of people who would not pay $30 for an indie game 'on principle'. These people, are of course idiots, becauyse you should pay what equates to a decent price given the entertainment you receive from a game, regardless of who made it.
However, such people exist. They also tend to assume all indies are penniless, and are just trying to break into the 'proper' industry.
Uh no.... :D

[tametick]

They also tend to assume all indies are penniless, and are just trying to break into the 'proper' industry.

Either that or that we're swimming in money like Scrooge McDuck.

[Christian Knudsen]

Why won't you hire me Valve?!

[Majestic]

i agree with moi; devaluation doesn't mean 'doesn't make money' it means 'seen as lower value to customers'. if you sell 1 million copies of something at 10 cents each, you may make a lot of money, but it's still seen as a low-value item by the customers

Your right, selling your products that low is devaluing. But customers will see value in the developer..not the price.
 
The value is the relationship with the developer.

I've said it once I'll say it again, the secret is internet marketing. It's basically a numbers game. The internet marketplace is virtually unlimited, you can sell your products( games ) for any amount you want but the the trick is to build a loyal following. Direct content-maker to consumer is the future now.

You can easily sell your games for $50 or $100 or whatever you want, the trick is building the customer list. Have gamers go to your website and sign up for your mailing list. If 20,000 people sign up for your mailing list and you send out an email to all of them saying you have released a new game, even if 1% buys your game for $50 that's $10,000. It's all numbers

This goes for any kind of of virtual and even physical product too.

[Christian Knudsen]

And if you can get 10,000,000 people to sign your mailing list and you sell your game for $1,000, you only have to sell it to 0.001% of them to earn $100,000. It's all numbers.

[gambrinous]

And yet Dominions 3 still costs $55, and it came out in 2006. It's a pretty damn popular game. I think they have their pricing right!

There's nothing stopping you from charging a premium.

[Christian Knudsen]

I don't think there was any problems with charging $55 for an indie game in 2006 (the App Store opened in 2008, Steam didn't really start selling games until 2005 and you could argue that the extremely low prices for games started there). The fact that they haven't lowered the price since doesn't prove that it's still selling well. I'd love to know how many copies they're selling today at that price.

[dustin]

i agree with moi; devaluation doesn't mean 'doesn't make money' it means 'seen as lower value to customers'. if you sell 1 million copies of something at 10 cents each, you may make a lot of money, but it's still seen as a low-value item by the customers

I don't really understand this viewpoint.  I can understand this view if the view is that by devalueing your game (by charging 10 cents)and then making a lot of money you've everyone else who comes later because they will be forced to charge 10 cents also, even though I'm not positive this is a real effect.

but if the view is just that you don't want people viewing your game as a low-value item who cares.  I want as many people as possible to play my game (in addition to earning a living and making a game I enjoy) who cares what they pay for it?  It seems to much like snooty art people who look down on art that isn't available in limited quantities to me.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

"I want as many people as possible to play my game (in addition to earning a living and making a game I enjoy) who cares what they pay for it?"

this is a side note, but then why not make it free? if you care more about the number of people playing your game than being able to support yourself (and a family if you have one) then there's no reason not to make your game free

anyway, if you devalue something it means that people expect that thing cheaply, and are unwilling to pay more for it. it's not really that complicated -- it means an overall loss of value. as an example, take a currency system. if you print more money, you devalue the dollar, because you increase the supply; because there is more money circulating, each individual dollar is worth less than it was before (this is called inflation). the same thing happens with bundles and indie games, they cause artificial "inflation" by a minority selling games for less money than is sustainable long-term for the majority. that minority can afford to do it because their games are more popular, but if everyone did it, it wouldn't be sustainable

i'm not sure how you're getting snooty art people out of all that, that seems totally unrelated to what we're talking about

[dustin]

anyway, if you devalue something it means that people expect that thing cheaply, and are unwilling to pay more for it. it's not really that complicated

yeah i understand that people will be unwilling to pay more for it but from this part of your post...

if you sell 1 million copies of something at 10 cents each, you may make a lot of money

I thought your point was that by lowering your game price you may make more money but even if you are making more money and more people are playing your game (which seems like a win win to me) it's still bad.

Now I'm thinking you meant that you may make a lot by lowering your game price initially but it's still a bad move in the long run financially because it devalues it for later.  Is this a better interpretation of what you wrote?

The snooty art people part doesn't make any since if my initial reading of your post was wrong (which it seems like it now is) so I'll explain what I meant going off the initial reading.

From my original reading it seemed like what you were saying was not charging much for your game even if that meant making more money and having more people play your game was bad because it caused people to think of your game as "cheap".  This seems akin to various snooty art critic people who seem to view certain pieces as having of some type of inherit higher quality simply because they are restrictive in who can view/appreciate them.  As if anything that was widely available to the public was somehow soiled by it's physical accessibility.

Hope that makes sense.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

yeah it's still bad but it's still bad because you devalued the value of games *for other people*. so it's not win-win, it's win for you, lose for others

it's also not even sustainable for oneself, long-term, since not every game will be popular enough to sell a million copies at 10 cents; what if you want your next game to be niche, where an audience of one million people don't even exist for that type of game? etc.

[dustin]

yeah it's still bad but it's still bad because you devalued the value of games *for other people*. so it's not win-win, it's win for you, lose for others

it's also not even sustainable for oneself, long-term, since not every game will be popular enough to sell a million copies at 10 cents; what if you want your next game to be niche, where an audience of one million people don't even exist for that type of game? etc.

Yep that makes sense, sorry I just misread your original post.  Also I'm curious as to what people's opinion on people releasing high quality free games is?  Does this devalue games as much as a very cheap but only available for free game?  Strange as it seems in my mind I feel like a very cheap game is going to devalue games as a whole more so then just a free one.