TIGSource Forums

Here it is : http://joostdevblog.blogspot.com/2011/10/proun-is-big-success-pay-what-you-want.html

Lot of data to learn or discuss about.

(comment is referring to when the game was free, I see now that it is no longer free at all)

Pay what you want is kinda fuzzy for Proun, as you did get something for paying, mainly an extra level, for a game that has only 3 levels (4 with the extra)  .  If I recall you can make your own in 3ds max, which only cost about $3,495.00 (according to autodesk's own web site).  Quite an expensive piece of software for an indie!  If it were blender or some other cheap/free modeling tool it might be different, there might be hundreds of user tracks (only users that have 3ds max are going to make tracks, nobody is going to buy 3ds max to make them, but someone might download and learn blender to make their own for instance)

As such, there are only 6 user tracks on the site, and they don't look as good as the ones included with the game.

Overall I think it could have done better to use something free to make the levels (nothing about their design requires 3ds max), give away the game with the 3 levels, make about 20 more and sell that for $10.

Removing the free version of the game is a pretty crappy thing to do.  Don't take things away.  That sorta move ensures I'll never buy from anything from them.  Come on, the free version had 3 levels, that's a demo, but then again, the paid version only had 4 (possibly 5 now?).  That's pretty lame.  The reason I didn't buy it was because it was so short.  Seriously, who buys race games that have 4 tracks?  That would be like buying minecraft if it only had 9 chunks.

Anyway, that's my 2 cents.

Well, I think there are a whole bunch of faulty assumptions in his post.  He thinks he would have made 5 to 10 times as much with a fixed pricing model?  Where is the data that supports that?  Here's my quick arm-chair analysis:

(I'm going to round up to the nearest 100 from his chart, to be generous)
He had ~1800 people pay $2, ~1800 pay $5, and ~600 pay $10. Assuming that all of the people who paid would pay any reasonable price, he has 4200 paying customers. I'm going to assume that $10 is the maximum reasonable price (given that it is the highest price that still had any significant number of sales) then he would have made $42,000 instead of the $20,000 that he made.  And this is in magical christmas land where increasing the price has no effect on the number of customers. 

If he's thinking that he would have converted a significant number of the people who paid nothing, then he's an idiot.  Even if he hadn't had his game up for free, four times as many people torrented it than downloaded it for free from his site.  The most logical conclusion in my mind is that the people who downloaded it for free would have just torrented it, had he not had it up on his site. 

I have the opposite take away that he had.  I think the game was a mild success, and that the pay what you want was a moderate success.  The standard word online is that the game didn't have anywhere near enough content, and people who downloaded it for free and played the 3 levels didn't really care to pay to get the extra 4th level. 

I think you have the right idea CowBoyDan.  If he had an always free version (i.e. demo) with the 3 levels, and a pay version with at least 10 levels (if not more, I think 20 would be the ideal start), I think he would have been much more successful.
I agree that removing the free version is probably a bad move.  I think he's coming at it from the wrong angle.  Instead of thinking, "I need to get money for this version" he should be thinking, "How can I add value to this free version, so that people will want to pay for it."

My (very badly worded/rant) point was that if there had been more content, he would have made a lot more even without an experimental pricing model.  As such, its difficult to truly evaluate the pay what you want from the data.

Also, 'modding' didn't require 3ds max, the game could have (still could) become more popular over time as more mods (tracks really) get posted.  And of course only the pay version would support the self made tracks.

Was there any particular reason he didn't ALSO try putting it up on steam or some other fixed-price downloadable service in addition to his own store-front? I thought Steam let you do that?

EDIT:
Nevermind, just read this thread (http://forums.tigsource.com/index.php?topic=19901.0).

So, apparently steam is really tough to get onto.

yeah, steam is extremely tough to get into -- i'd say 1-3% of indies or less are allowed on it

that said, i think there are problems in this report, it's not a controlled comparison, because you need a demo, etc.

my own experience with pay what you want is much better

Yeah? Did you ever do a write-up on your results? (Sorry if you already posted it here and I missed it).

Yeah your quick analysis seems much more accurate then his was.  It's like me saying I could have made a ton off my flash game because it got 3 million views.  If only I had been charging everyone a penny to play it I would have made 30,000$!

I did agree with him that making the free version easier to get (not having to put in a credit card etc.) probably lead to some losses of sales though.

i did, many years ago though so i don't have the link offhand

Is it this one?:
http://studioeres.com/games/content/immortal-defense-pay-what-you-want-sale

I really loved Immortal Defense!

yes i think that's it -- i think i made a couple posts about it in the blog there (not sure if that's the most recent or not)

and thanks, glad you liked it

but anyway, the primary motivation for me to make my game pay what you want is *not* to make more money, i think that's irrelevant to it. it'd be great if it happens, but if it makes less money that's okay too. the purpose of it is to allow those people who can't afford full price but want to buy it to be able to buy it. that's the main reason we should do it

my experience has been the sales have been about the same: more sales, but lower average amount so that it roughly evens out. but these things are hard to measure because as the game ages it's expected to get fewer sales anyway

Hey Paul, from a technical perspective, is there anything particularly difficult with setting up a pay-what-you-want system? Ie, do the usual e-payment providers like FastSpring, etc al, make it easy to integrate a front-end that lets the user select the price and then pipe that into their service?

you do have to use some php code yourself, but you can just copy and paste that php code from other people who also use that payment provider and do pay what you want. for instance, jason rohrer sent me the code required to get my site working with pay what you want, since he also uses pay what you want and also uses fastspring. it's not particularly complicated (it took me about an hour or two to set up) but it's not "as easy as pie" either

Ah, cool, I'm pretty familiar with PHP so that's good to know. When my game gets closer to release I might ask you for that PHP code since I'm interested in doing a PWYW promotion.

Question - most of the time, people do these as a temporary promotion. Is there any particular logic behind doing it for only a limited time? I know Jason Rohrer seems to be doing them permanently these days.

He has some pretty strong philosophical motivations (as you seem to as well, something I can relate to), so there's more there than just the financial question.

So, financially, and philosophically, what are the various reasons for only doing it temporarily vs. permanently?

i think a relatively high (15-20$ or so) normal price with temporary sales (either pay what you want sales or otherwise) is probably the optimum way to make money from a game. the reason most people make them temporary is that people impulse-buy while it's temporary to make sure they won't miss it. before i made my game permanently pay what you want, i had a few temporary pay what you want sales

notable is: one temporary pay what you want sale around xmas of 2009, which lasted 5 days, earned more money than an entire year of sales at permanent pay what you want after that. so i do think temporary pay what you want is more effective, even if permanent pay what you want is more egalitarian / democratic

Interesting!

And of course, being able to draw attention probably has a lot to do with the success of temporary pay what you want sales, etc.

Another question - I've seen some people (The Gratuitous Space Battles guy, for instance) have had some success with "Pick a Price" sales, where they offer several discrete suggested prices and you can pick any of them.

Got any opinion on those? Although superficially similar, I wonder if there's any psychological difference in how customers respond to it. I guess from a technical perspective it might be easier than pay-what-you-want as you could just create multiple "products" with your e-payment provider of the same game at different prices.

i think that can work too, no experience with it though; if i were to try it i might give different 'rewards' for different levels. for instance, free soundtrack at 15$ or above, free copy on cd for 25$ and above, free t-shirt for 40$ and above, and so on

Gotcha.  Sounds cool! I am a big fan of the pay-what-you-want model, mostly because if I can make enough to eat, then why not make the game available to as many people as possible? There's no marginal cost on a digital copy, so there's no fundamental reason for a fixed price floor.

Those items don't sound very free. :p

(And thanks for sharing your stats, Proun dude. Very interesting, g'luck for the future)

Having more expensive versions is a nice way to let superfans pay you more than the normal price. Collector's editions for example. The 'value' of the extras isn't usually less than the extra cost to the player (nor should it be!)

I asked Joost to check this thread to maybe react to your comments. (He's part of the Ogre3D community that I'm following)

Registration on the forum are deactivated, certainly because of recent spambot attacks, so I'm posting here the message he sent me to post for him :

I think some of the stats may be skewed as well... for instance, I downloaded the free version first and threw a couple of bucks his way afterward based on how much I thought it was worth.

Well, as Proun's data shows, people essentially discretize the prices themselves.  People like to have nice, round numbers, and I would guess that the salient price points for consumers of indie games are probably:
0 --  1 -- 2 -- 5 -- 10 -- 15 -- 20 -- 30
And the 30 is probably stretching it.

Responding to Joost (and thanks for contacting him Klaim!)

I didn't realize that the torrent went through his site.  I assumed that when he broke out paying 0 and torrenting (effectively the same thing for the consumer, although different bandwidth usage, etc.) that he meant that paying 0 was from his site and torrenting was elsewhere, my bad.

I don't really understand this portion "Even if only 1% of those would be converted to paying if the game were not available for free, that would still be a 50% increase in the amount of people who paid for the game!" 
It seems there are a couple of assumptions rolled up in that they I think are specious at best. Does he know that he didn't convert 1% of those people already? I.e. is each person only counted once (with the highest amount they paid) or are all downloads counted. I'm guessing it is the latter.  Given that most of the comments that I have seen (over at indiegames.com and MindEraser's comment) seem to indicate that people treated the free download as a demo.  Does he have any statistics on the number of people who downloaded it for free, and then kicked a couple of bucks back?  Or the number of people who dove straight in and just gave him money. 
If all of his sales were converts who downloaded it for free then he got a conversion rate of about 1.8%.
If we assume that all of the people who paid above $2 were people who dove straight in, and all people who paid $2 or less were people who played, liked what they saw, wanted another level, and paid in, then the conversion rate is ~0.8%. 
Given the limited data with no cross-correlation information, I'm going to guess that he got somewhere on the order of a 1% conversion. 

tl;dr  I think it is incorrect to assume that all of the people who paid would have paid had there been no "demo".

Maybe his data actually says otherwise,  but from my limited armchair point of view, I'd say that he did pretty well with the pay what you will. 

If I were in his place here is what I would have done (knowing what we know now):
*Have a demo (Which he essentially did, i.e. a lesser free version)
*Have a greater differentiation between the demo and the paid version (What is the incentive to pay, except for the heartwarming feeling of supporting the developer?  One level doesn't seem enough)
*Release the game through Steam (If it isn't that hard for him, why wouldn't he do it?  It seems like a bad business decision to not go through the number one digital distribution system)
*Go for a fixed $10 price point.  At first.  The market seems to indicate that $10 is about what people will pay for this type of game (i.e. an abstract, surreal racer [I'm going to say that AaaaaAAaaaAAAaaAAAAaAAAAA!!! is the closest analogue for Proun]). When sales start to flag, then go for the limited time pay what you want model.  I think a major factor in the success of the HIB's is their seeming scarcity.  They only last for a short time, they only pop up a few times a year.  It makes people think, "ooh I have to get in on this now"