congratulations on the release.
just wondered about how you came up with the decision/strategy for the way you're selling your game (which i find pretty special), pay what you want.
what is the most sold package?
Thanks a lot!
As for your question, it's actually layered and a bit complex, so my answer will be long, please bear with me!
First of all, pay-what-you-want is nothing new: itch.io has been doing it for quite a while, as well as numerous indie-centric platforms. It's also a staple of several other industries. Steam is lacking in that respect, as no such model is available, so I was looking for a way to implement a "pay-what-you-want" type model using their systems.
The idea to use DLC has been suggested by a member during the Greenlight campaign. I decided to present it as a "tiered suggestions" representing what I think to be the "classic" pricepoints, the aim being that none of these would ever go on sale, so they'd need to reflect a wide range. I didn't want to go too high with any single DLC, since it's possible to buy them all separately and thus, give more money - a possibility I wanted, but I also wanted to "cap", to avoid putting the weight of the model on a few select enthusiasts. My aim for this model is to offer all players a choice, and call to their sense of enjoyment and responsibility: did they enjoy the game they played? Do they understand that a game like this costs in the tens of thousands to make, both in dollars and man-hours? If so, then I want them to have the opportunity to support the project, but I don't want this opportunity to become a barrier of entry. If they so choose, the game is entirely free, and will remain so, even should the model completely fail.
This idea in and of itself is also nothing new, and it was basically the principle behind the "shareware" model of the 90's, except it used a paywall tactic at the time to ensure payment: the content was usually limited, and access to the rest of the game was restricted to paying users. I aimed to open both the accessible content, and to make the range of possible payment as wide as I could according to the pay-what-you-want models.
In the end, on my site and on itch.io, the model is truly "pay-what-you-want", while on Steam it's a stand-in, using their built in systems in another way. There have already been examples of games using DLC in a similar fashion (the "buy a certificate" or "buy the dev a coffee" DLC are notable ones), but to my knowledge, none had coupled them with a free game with the explicit goal to make the DLC the remuneration, not the base price.
As for why I decided to use this model at all in the first place... to be perfectly honest, I find the current big-budget industry practices to be morally wrong and often predatory, and I find the industry as a whole to be dismissive towards its creators and audience both. Indies are often obligated to bow to the accepted practices and operate along the same rules, if not at the same level. I believe a change is necessary, and I'd like to try something different!
So far, it's much too early to determine if the model will be a success or not, as by design it should happen over a longer period of time than traditional ones. While the very early remuneration numbers aren't encouraging (player numbers are, though!), I find the overall attitude and reception towards the model itself positive and I'm hopeful to be able to report positive results in the months to come!
As to your last question: the two packages the most sold so far have been the "symbolic" tier and the "above and beyond" tier, which are respectively the cheapest and most expensive. The first one should come as no surprise and is completely understandable and expected, but the second one is the true surprise, and the sign that the model may turn into a viable remuneration model, not simply a good idea, or so I hope!
Community
