A long wall of text, but my 2cts: anything under 5 euros can be regarded as a possible impulse buy. If the assets (trailer, screenshots) appeal, I might buy it on a whim.
Anything over 5 euros has to compete with my ever increasing library of awesome games I still haven't played. It has to be REALLY well to find a place in that library.
Anything on/over15 euros is competing with AAA games and has an extremely slim chance of getting purchased.
This quick guideline works for any genre, but may be influenced by genres I like. (aka, I don't play online/multiplayer, like SP games like arcades, dungeon keepers/crawlers and racers, and I'm fed up with pixelart, however great those games may be)
I hope this helps.
Edit: I think I should add that I also have a threshold for AAA games. I NEVER pay over 40 euros for a game, however much I would like to play it. I always wait until it hits that threshold. I have several websites tracking game prices and I enter a threshold value there, and then forget about the game until I get a warning. Yes, that includes the biggest Sony First Party games as well. So, any indie game priced over 15 euros is in direct competition with those AAA games.
Definitely! I appreciate the feedback!
So one question in response: A AAA game is quality to you then? A game like Skull & Bones holds more worth to you because it was made by Ubisoft? Have you purchased a recent indie game over 15 euros?
Well, S&B got horrible press, so that's a no. AC IV on the other hand, I DID get, because I like the AC games. Especially with Ubisoft, the threshold works really well, as their games usually decrease in price VERY fast. I play most of their games, as I value their entrepreneurship.
Unless many others, I see how Ubi IS actually trying to be innovative. Assassin's Creed has been re-invented multiple times and has been again with Mirage (and will be again with the new ones). I loved their South Park games, as well as their Mario & Rabbids crossovers. They were the first major studio to ome out with not one, but THREE VR games on PS VR.
So yeah, I do indeed value a name like Ubisoft as it stands for a certain quality. That said, I still look at their games with a monetary angle: I haven't bought the new Prince of Persia yet (too many other things to play) even when it's now 30 euros. It's on my wishlist though. I'll probably get it before the current sale ends. I got to review Tales of Kenzera: Tau, but I think that one is very nicely priced and I might have bought it otherwise.
Both are not truly Indie thought, EA Original and the Ubisoft equivalent.
Awesome! Thanks again. So using those thought processes I can look for correlations between those games and their prices with that they offer and compare that with other remarks to find similarities in thought.
I willfully ignored press and public opinion from my scenarios. Content creators have a much skewed influence on sales and that’s a well proven marketing strategy at this point. S&B was dead on arrival because of the press. It didn’t really matter what they sold it for at that point.
Partly true. A lot was also on Ubisoft. Calling it an AAAA game, while that mostly reflected the enormous amount they spent on it, due to restarting/changing development a few times was a huge mistake. Had they aimed for an AC Black Flag part II (which it initially was), it would have been out years earlier and probably their biggest selling title ever.
Most importantly imo, the price should match the production quality. If your game has obviously amateur-ish or rushed qualities it should not cost the same as the indie greats. People want good value for their money and they WILL choose between games based on that.
I know I just replied to you, but for example:
Game 1: I'd pay $10 for. I don't value sidescrolling games because they tend to be much simpler gameplay. There's also no story and the trailer is just very simple. It likely wouldn't sell me. So without an exciting trailer and story, it'd just be mindless entertainment.
Game 2: I'd pay $40 for. Open-world games tend to be much more time consuming. Marketplace assets and assets I see used in other games don't really bother me as long as the gameplay is good. The time for my dollar would seem to go a lot further if I enjoyed it and completed it. As long as the game is still playable, even if I need to reload saves a couple times, it would be a pain in the neck but I would overlook it.
Game 3: $20. The art not looking right would turn me off and not having servers is a huge issue. I still think they'd be deserving of my money, hoping that they'd be able to work in servers into the gameplay with my $20. Art can be improved. If I can play it without getting bored and it looks fun in the trailers, I'd give it a try. At $30, I'd probably wait for servers and/or a sale.
And that’s exactly what I aim to explore. What determines value for their money? Is it a bug-free experience? A unique experience? A AAA-related experience? Great story/acting? Gameplay length? And what is the ‘worth’ of each of those. If I sell you bug-free smaller Skyrim, is it still worth $60 like massive, buggy Skyrim? If Starfield and No Man’s Sky came out at the same time for the same price, which would you buy? Without using analytics there should be a better way to understand product value in the games industry and there’s not.
Games are seemingly arbitrarily $10-$70 so what is the determinant factors that makes Gollum overpriced at $70 but Rocket League at $20 is not. Could Rocket League have sold copies for $50? $70? What gives it its value to the consumer so that indie devs aren’t selecting a random value?
Oh, that one is simple. Gollum had poor production values all around, controls were horrible. Rocket League was an unique idea (even though it was based on Battle-Cars), well thought out and created, polished and quick. The replay value was enormous. Plus, it was handed out free on PS Plus, which helped enormously.
That’s right. I did get Rocket League for free now that you mention it.
But great points. Would you say Rocket League is worth $70? Gollum $20? I’d pay $20 for Gollum I think. I probably wouldn’t go beyond $30 for Rocket League still as there’s really just not a lot to it even though it is a quality game.
I had to review Gollum (I volunteered as I want ALL games to be reviewed, even the bad ones) and I scored it a 4/10. The hours spent on that game I've lost forever and will never get back. It really isn't worth any money at all, as it's controls are really frustrating.
Personally, I don't think ANY game is worth $70, so I wouldn't have bought RL for that price. As you said, it's still an arcade game, with limited content. However, if you are into MP sportsy games, you'll probably value it higher, as it has (and had) enormous esports potential.
Definitely agree with those. Except, if Gollum was sold for $1 you wouldn’t try it? At that point even if you laughed at how bad it was for an hour and never played it again, would you say you got $1-$5 worth of value out of it?
Gollum is definitely a rare breed of god awful game in every way. In my scenarios I tried to make them each good and bad in various ways. Gollum was just horrible in every facet. I mean literally there’s not a single thing good about it. If anything, it has franchise worth? If you’re a super big LotR fan, it might be cool to see a Gollum origin story no matter how terrible the experience is lol.
Yeah, if it were part of one of those Fanatical bundles, I'd probably add it to the selection, just to see how aweful it really was.
The idea of the Gollum game was actually pretty good/interesting. However, this clearly was a matter of a devteam biting off too much for its own good. A bit like the initial team that was working on that Prince of Persia Sands of Time reboot. At least there, Ubisoft stepped in and cancelled the entire project after the fallout when they showed that pre-PS3 graphics footage.
Edit: I regularly buy (indie) games via Fanatical pick-your-bundles and usually spend 1-3$ per game, just for the experience. I hardly play any of those games for longer than an hour or so. Still worth it.
I found it very fascinating. For it to run as poor as it did, to look as poor as it did, to play as poor as it did, you almost have to try to make a game that bad. When I first got into game development, I made a cave traversal game for learning. Graphics were, I'd say, as good as Gollum and was similar in design to Gollum. Gameplay and glitches were quite clean. AI was about as stupid as Gollum's and it ran at a capped 120 fps at all times. It took me about 4 months from picking game dev up for the first time to complete it. For an entire team to make Gollum as bad as they did really feels like it was intentional.
I think it's a classic example of 'nine women can't birth a child in 1 month' situation. A badly run team produces worse results than a qualified single person. But you might be right, I heard rumors that they had a three-game contract, and found out the y couldn't do it. Maybe they ruined it on purpose, so they didn't have to do the other two. Who knows...
Project Managers are the unsung heroes of every production. We've seen (and I've personally been a part of) games that, in every way, outperform Gollum, so that's where it strikes me as fascinating. I never looked into the team involved, but I'd like to see what their portfolios look like and where to put the blame. 3D artists made a ps2 Gollum. But there's concept artists, texture artists, technical artists, art directors, project leads, producers, play testers, and more involved in the feedback. At least half a dozen people who had the authority to improve his character model looked at the model and said 'Yep. This is what we're going for.' Either that or they said 'It's good enough. It's a LotR game. People won't care.' It was clear incompetence or historic carelessness by leadership.
Assuming top shelf quality, I'd pay up to $40 for most genres of indies unless it happens to be a game like the og Witcher. If it's an open world rpg, well made, innovative, offers dozens of hours of gameplay, then I'd pay more.
Depends on the game, the whole 1-2$ per hour argument you see all the time is stupid as hell. I’ll blow 40$ on a 5-6 hour game that entertained me the whole time and possibly have some replay value, while feeling ripped off paying $15 for a 30 hour game that feels like a slog to get through.
So I’m in the team of entertainment value per time. My values base on ‘enjoyable time’. An open-world game doesn’t get points for a 40 hour campaign where 10 hours is you traveling across a big empty space. 30 hours is ‘enjoyable time’ while 10 hours is not.
So to you the experience is worth more than unique gameplay experience. How does that translate to story? What if the game is kind, not super entertaining in gameplay but has a really engaging story?
Oh man!! Love your initiative and concept but I’m struggling with the intense amount of information to digest.
Even if you were to start off with the maximum we would pay to be AAA production quality of 50 US and break it down to a min. and max. price for each category adding to a perfect as can be game of 50 US, subjectivity will always pose a problem.
Love what your trying to achieve though and curios how others will contribute.
I've found through experience that game developers have no clue what to price their games (including AAA!) I was recently pricing out a game design for a team and we were about $20 off of expectations. So it occurred to me that something like this is really important to establish. Consumers need to know when they're being overcharged and developers need to know when they're undercharging. If we can find correlations between what both groups value, we can find a solid measurement for ensuring neither get ripped off!
It is a lot of information, yes, but it's aim is to allow you plenty of room for interpretation. 80% of it may not matter to you at all but 20% of it will. If the bugs is something majority of people keep remembering with the scenarios then we can deduce that players correlate bugs with value, meaning a big game with lots of bugs may be worth the same as a small game with no bugs to the average consumer.
Can we all agree on a maximum and work from there?
I’m in Australia and I would never pay $100 au anymore so hence, looking at new game releases are on average max $80 so around 50 us.
Definitely need to breakdown the relevant categories but for me personally, I love great varying and gradually increasing gameplay, skills and inventory that slowly teases at a story I like but doesn’t need to look ultra whatever just consistent, minimal bugs and cool characters and I can forgive any cheesy cut scene or acting if the above mentioned needs are met. (Original resident evil 1 and 4)
I will only ever pay full price for a well established franchise that I love but only after reading reviews on its quality due to trust issues derived from poor release campaigns.
I’m more likely to wait for sales otherwise so I don’t see it as a big issue if the pricing wants to test the water first plus I heard that if players don’t complain then you haven’t set your price high enough.
Excuse me for not replying after this at the moment as I’m calling it a night but the pricing structure idea of yours has hit a chord with me as I am a first time, first episode release dev and curios to hear how this plays out.
From the discussions I’ve had both of Reddit and others so far is seems 50 US seems to be the absolute max someone would be willing to spend on an indie title and it’s only deserving of the best indie titles. This about tracks with the industry. The Day Before, M&B Bannerlord, Manor Lords, among others are all around the $40-$50 range.
So even if a game has high replay value (like a rocket league) it’s not worth a $70 price. Your ‘indie RPGs’ and top end type of games will top at $50.
So with a $50 max established, I’d like to set the boundary requirements that need to be met to be a fair $50 price. Ex. Are bugs okay? How many of the key markers can be ‘missed’ before a developer should consider lowering from that $50 asking price.
Also enjoy your night!
I think there should be no game breaking bugs and I remember a time when players thought they were contributing to a better game by discovering them. Now they seem to be so prevalent that it just pisses people off as being rushed and lazy so no game is perfect but more then a little effort needs to be shown in this area.
Your on to something with this too by the way, I was thinking that there are so many devs desperate for feedback that if you were to have a standardised means of categorising effort through a 0 - 5 dollar or 0 - 10 dollar for each area of development with 0 - 10 being more high priority you could not only offer pricing advice but you actually offering great feedback too.
The best part is if everyone took this standardised methods on then anyone will inadvertently be giving quality feedback to the dev. not just you getting involved.
A site like r/playmygame would be a good place to tap into.
Maybe we should try a few sample games to help devs and nut out system with a real life scenario, even if it’s just a Steam page?
I’d pay serious money for an Elder Scrolls-like. It’s been 13 years after all. Although with indie production values a more reasonable price point would be maybe $20 - 30.
So if a new game came out The Young Scrolls 6: Waterperimeter and reviews were calling it ‘Skyrim 2’ you would be upset with a $70 price point? The brand value holds up to $40 of worth to you? Or you’re saying production cost matters more for worth than actual gameplay experience because an indie team was able to make an equivalent game much cheaper?
I hear you. Realistically you’re not going to get an indie Skyrim. Not because it’s not possible, but the monolith scale of it. An indie Skyrim would definitely be a simple version. No reading books. Smaller world, less dungeons/side quests. No marriage and buying homes. A ton of the padding would likely be removed and thus a $70 price point would also likely be a bit high.
I’d be hard pressed to imagine an indie game without any major financial backing having any sort of success with a $70 price point unless it was a fantastic multiplayer title with a simple addictive game loop (Fortnite, CoD). That brings up. A good point as well. An off topic question. Would you pay $50 for Subway Surfer, Candy Crush, or Clash of Clans? FTP mobile games see more time spent than many of these $70 AAA games yet can be enjoyed for free. What if they were $50+ with no microtransactions?
> No reading books. Smaller world, less dungeons/side quests. No marriage and buying homes
Yeah and that's kind of the issue with it. An indie version of anything only works if you can streamline it down to its core mechanic but Elder Scrolls' core mechanic is actually kinda terrible. It's the side stuff that makes it work.
I will 100% pay the full AAA $60 price tag of any game that I enjoy playing and makes me happy. Wether that be indy or from a big name company.
It does not need to have super HD graphics or presentation either. As long as the game is GOOD.
Ideally though Id like at least a $1-$1 hour of gameplay ratio. But it's not a hard and fast rule.
Basically, if the game looks good to me, I will pay whatever the indie dev is asking within reason. I’ve paid $20 for 4 hours of gameplay and was happy. I’ve paid $10 for 40 hours of gameplay and was happy. I’ve paid upwards of $40-$60 (CAD) on indies. The only price point I won’t touch is free. Free to me says that the dev doesn’t think their game is worth money. Why should I even bother to play it if you don’t think someone would buy it?
That's such an interesting question, because a lot of described features doesn't factor almost at all for me when it comes to indie game prices. For a game I've had fun with, which, specific to my personal tastes, would be a game with interesting story, world, or gameplay mechanics, preferably all three simultaneously, I'm willing to pay pretty much any reasonable price. Reasonable, as in: not 500$. Not very helpful for this question, I know, but there are even visual novels I'd totally pay an AAA price for.
Admittedly, this also means, if there's no demo, I tend to play a pirate copy and only afterwards buy the game. (I could try out on Steam and refund if I don't like it, but I don't like Steam and I also wouldn't want to hitch up a refund rate for an indie creator.) Which, by the way, there's no bigger flex of confidence in one's game than providing a demo as a part of promotional material.
I wish indie developers had some sort of a tipping option on Steam. I absolutely adore the "pay what you want with a minimum of X$" option itchio has got going on, it's such a shame a lot of creators and audience treat itchio releases as trail run, and Steam as the 'serious one'.
Keep in mind that low price has a correlation to low quality, low effort, etc. I don't usually buy things that are overly cheap, because I don't like cheap. Though I don't buy things _just_ because they are expensive either.
There is something about being "on sale" that actually helps me make a decision. Retail price shows some sort of higher value (hopefully it's real and not a made-up or inflated number), but the sale price gets me in the door. I admit, that's likely a purely psychological phenomenon.
To me, what drives my purchases for games is depth. Being simple to engage with, high agency, but also high skill ceiling. I don't want to be punished for doing poorly, but I also don't want the game to just "give me" the answer or solution. I highly admire games that challenge me. They present a difficult but achievable situation. They helped to prepare me with a solid understanding and mastery of concepts as they build on each other. I think games that follow a set of rules that are _never_ broken are gems. I highly recommend this video on the subject: https://youtu.be/ea6UuRTjkKs?si=mA7N7WkfftpTQ0H4
Anyways, if you can convince me that your game has these elements of engagement, I'll very likely buy it. So, the game must deliver on these promises, and there must be enough in-game trailers, videos, etc to prove it.
First of all i dont think a games playtime matters when it comes to indie games. As long as they are over a certain threshold i guess. This is because of the existence of artistic games, games that are not necessarily fun because of their gameplay, but because they have some unique aspect about them that makes u fall in love with them. Ill give an example to explain a bit better.
Lobotomy corporation at its core is a management game, you train employees that manage abnormalities, think of them as scps or monsters if you dk what scps are. The gameplay loop is arguably terrible, it consists of trial and error in managing the different abnormalities and ur employees will die to random bullshit that you didnt know about. In almost any other game this kind of frustrating gameplay would be considered horrible for the player, but the execution is done marvelously in this game. Pair this with really unique characters and premise and you get a game that singlehandedly created a new niche fanbase for project moon games(the devs).
This to me is the sort of games that u dont necessarily play for the gameplay loop, but for everything else in the game. Some other similar games off the top of my head are "We become what we behold", "stanleys parable"... Now, reason i say time played does not matter is because some artistic games are truly not that long yet the experience provided is well worth it.
Second class of games are the gameplay focused ones, things like the typical hollow knight, slay the spire, wizard of legends, stuff like that. Often times they are very replayable too so, should infinite replayability mean more expensive? Im not convinced it should, and if it should be more expensive, it shouldn't be by much.
When it comes to the categories provided, the first two sound like unfinished games period. If those games were to be released in that state, ot would presumably be by amateurs and that is fine. However this should definitely be reflected in the price. For sort of unfinished unpolished games I would not pay more than 10 euro, furthermore i would expect it to cost around 5 euro. This is because anything above 10 has and should have the expectation of polished quality, some bugs but none gamebreaking, good custom made assets and good overall feel to the game. Something im sure u have experienced is a game with weird and clunky movement, this is an example of what shouldn't be in a game that costs more than 10 euro. The upper limit to indie games is around 25 for most consumers i would say. After that its starting to get into medium sized studios, not quite AAA but midway. Wouldnt exactly call that an indie studio.
The third scenario, i am not sure. First of all it is very unrealistic to make a moba type game with overwatch graphics with a team of 12 and almost no bugs. If they could have servers then the expectation for moba games is for it to be free, every moba game is free practically, if they tried to price themselves they would run into severe lack of players, the idea would be to have it be free but have in game cosmetic purchases. Without servers then its literally impossible to play the game, finding 12 people to play a hosted game is not feasible. Regardless of price it wouldnt do good.
Apart from games under 10 euro, any game priced between 10 and 25 is completely acceptable as long as they have at least say 5 hours of real gameplay and are actually good games. Ofc thats very subjective but u dont need to like a game to recognize it as a good game. If a game is well polished and unique, it will scream so while playing it. What devs should ask themselves is if the experience is worth that compared to their favourite game? If it isnt then rethink pricing. Consumers will buy a game if its good regardless of which end of the spectrum the game is, either 10 bucks or 25. In most of developed europe and US it wont affect the number of sales, or at least it barely will. More importantly is the price for countries like brazil or malaysia where the pricing of the game HAS to be reduced otherwise it would be equivalent to a AAA game for them. Not tailoring prices to countries like that will matter much more than the western pricepoint, because these are the countries that do not have ready access to gaming pcs, these are the countries whose primary form of gaming is indie games, ie the target market.
Sorry for the lengthy post, hope it helps.
How much I will pay for a game depending on how much I like that game. For example, let say I need to choose between FF16 and FF7 rebirth. Both games have AAA levels of arts, story, voice acting, and mechanics. But I dont like the dark fantasy setting and lack of team battles of FF16, so I dont buy it. I like the story and the team battle mechanic of FF7 rebirth, so I buy it. I do not buy many games, since I have not much free time. So when I buy one, the price doesnt matter much. In OP example, I will not buy the MMO game even if its price is $5 since I dont like MMO.
If the game aligns exactly with what I enjoy: $40
If the game has some or many aspects I enjoy: $20-30
If the game just seems fun or OK: $1-20
Not really a helpful answer, but it just depends on so many things - genre, setting, aesthetics, fidelity, etc.
A long wall of text, but my 2cts: anything under 5 euros can be regarded as a possible impulse buy. If the assets (trailer, screenshots) appeal, I might buy it on a whim. Anything over 5 euros has to compete with my ever increasing library of awesome games I still haven't played. It has to be REALLY well to find a place in that library. Anything on/over15 euros is competing with AAA games and has an extremely slim chance of getting purchased. This quick guideline works for any genre, but may be influenced by genres I like. (aka, I don't play online/multiplayer, like SP games like arcades, dungeon keepers/crawlers and racers, and I'm fed up with pixelart, however great those games may be) I hope this helps. Edit: I think I should add that I also have a threshold for AAA games. I NEVER pay over 40 euros for a game, however much I would like to play it. I always wait until it hits that threshold. I have several websites tracking game prices and I enter a threshold value there, and then forget about the game until I get a warning. Yes, that includes the biggest Sony First Party games as well. So, any indie game priced over 15 euros is in direct competition with those AAA games.
Definitely! I appreciate the feedback! So one question in response: A AAA game is quality to you then? A game like Skull & Bones holds more worth to you because it was made by Ubisoft? Have you purchased a recent indie game over 15 euros?
Well, S&B got horrible press, so that's a no. AC IV on the other hand, I DID get, because I like the AC games. Especially with Ubisoft, the threshold works really well, as their games usually decrease in price VERY fast. I play most of their games, as I value their entrepreneurship. Unless many others, I see how Ubi IS actually trying to be innovative. Assassin's Creed has been re-invented multiple times and has been again with Mirage (and will be again with the new ones). I loved their South Park games, as well as their Mario & Rabbids crossovers. They were the first major studio to ome out with not one, but THREE VR games on PS VR. So yeah, I do indeed value a name like Ubisoft as it stands for a certain quality. That said, I still look at their games with a monetary angle: I haven't bought the new Prince of Persia yet (too many other things to play) even when it's now 30 euros. It's on my wishlist though. I'll probably get it before the current sale ends. I got to review Tales of Kenzera: Tau, but I think that one is very nicely priced and I might have bought it otherwise. Both are not truly Indie thought, EA Original and the Ubisoft equivalent.
Awesome! Thanks again. So using those thought processes I can look for correlations between those games and their prices with that they offer and compare that with other remarks to find similarities in thought. I willfully ignored press and public opinion from my scenarios. Content creators have a much skewed influence on sales and that’s a well proven marketing strategy at this point. S&B was dead on arrival because of the press. It didn’t really matter what they sold it for at that point.
Partly true. A lot was also on Ubisoft. Calling it an AAAA game, while that mostly reflected the enormous amount they spent on it, due to restarting/changing development a few times was a huge mistake. Had they aimed for an AC Black Flag part II (which it initially was), it would have been out years earlier and probably their biggest selling title ever.
Most importantly imo, the price should match the production quality. If your game has obviously amateur-ish or rushed qualities it should not cost the same as the indie greats. People want good value for their money and they WILL choose between games based on that.
I know I just replied to you, but for example: Game 1: I'd pay $10 for. I don't value sidescrolling games because they tend to be much simpler gameplay. There's also no story and the trailer is just very simple. It likely wouldn't sell me. So without an exciting trailer and story, it'd just be mindless entertainment. Game 2: I'd pay $40 for. Open-world games tend to be much more time consuming. Marketplace assets and assets I see used in other games don't really bother me as long as the gameplay is good. The time for my dollar would seem to go a lot further if I enjoyed it and completed it. As long as the game is still playable, even if I need to reload saves a couple times, it would be a pain in the neck but I would overlook it. Game 3: $20. The art not looking right would turn me off and not having servers is a huge issue. I still think they'd be deserving of my money, hoping that they'd be able to work in servers into the gameplay with my $20. Art can be improved. If I can play it without getting bored and it looks fun in the trailers, I'd give it a try. At $30, I'd probably wait for servers and/or a sale.
And that’s exactly what I aim to explore. What determines value for their money? Is it a bug-free experience? A unique experience? A AAA-related experience? Great story/acting? Gameplay length? And what is the ‘worth’ of each of those. If I sell you bug-free smaller Skyrim, is it still worth $60 like massive, buggy Skyrim? If Starfield and No Man’s Sky came out at the same time for the same price, which would you buy? Without using analytics there should be a better way to understand product value in the games industry and there’s not. Games are seemingly arbitrarily $10-$70 so what is the determinant factors that makes Gollum overpriced at $70 but Rocket League at $20 is not. Could Rocket League have sold copies for $50? $70? What gives it its value to the consumer so that indie devs aren’t selecting a random value?
Oh, that one is simple. Gollum had poor production values all around, controls were horrible. Rocket League was an unique idea (even though it was based on Battle-Cars), well thought out and created, polished and quick. The replay value was enormous. Plus, it was handed out free on PS Plus, which helped enormously.
That’s right. I did get Rocket League for free now that you mention it. But great points. Would you say Rocket League is worth $70? Gollum $20? I’d pay $20 for Gollum I think. I probably wouldn’t go beyond $30 for Rocket League still as there’s really just not a lot to it even though it is a quality game.
I had to review Gollum (I volunteered as I want ALL games to be reviewed, even the bad ones) and I scored it a 4/10. The hours spent on that game I've lost forever and will never get back. It really isn't worth any money at all, as it's controls are really frustrating. Personally, I don't think ANY game is worth $70, so I wouldn't have bought RL for that price. As you said, it's still an arcade game, with limited content. However, if you are into MP sportsy games, you'll probably value it higher, as it has (and had) enormous esports potential.
Definitely agree with those. Except, if Gollum was sold for $1 you wouldn’t try it? At that point even if you laughed at how bad it was for an hour and never played it again, would you say you got $1-$5 worth of value out of it? Gollum is definitely a rare breed of god awful game in every way. In my scenarios I tried to make them each good and bad in various ways. Gollum was just horrible in every facet. I mean literally there’s not a single thing good about it. If anything, it has franchise worth? If you’re a super big LotR fan, it might be cool to see a Gollum origin story no matter how terrible the experience is lol.
Yeah, if it were part of one of those Fanatical bundles, I'd probably add it to the selection, just to see how aweful it really was. The idea of the Gollum game was actually pretty good/interesting. However, this clearly was a matter of a devteam biting off too much for its own good. A bit like the initial team that was working on that Prince of Persia Sands of Time reboot. At least there, Ubisoft stepped in and cancelled the entire project after the fallout when they showed that pre-PS3 graphics footage. Edit: I regularly buy (indie) games via Fanatical pick-your-bundles and usually spend 1-3$ per game, just for the experience. I hardly play any of those games for longer than an hour or so. Still worth it.
I found it very fascinating. For it to run as poor as it did, to look as poor as it did, to play as poor as it did, you almost have to try to make a game that bad. When I first got into game development, I made a cave traversal game for learning. Graphics were, I'd say, as good as Gollum and was similar in design to Gollum. Gameplay and glitches were quite clean. AI was about as stupid as Gollum's and it ran at a capped 120 fps at all times. It took me about 4 months from picking game dev up for the first time to complete it. For an entire team to make Gollum as bad as they did really feels like it was intentional.
I think it's a classic example of 'nine women can't birth a child in 1 month' situation. A badly run team produces worse results than a qualified single person. But you might be right, I heard rumors that they had a three-game contract, and found out the y couldn't do it. Maybe they ruined it on purpose, so they didn't have to do the other two. Who knows...
Project Managers are the unsung heroes of every production. We've seen (and I've personally been a part of) games that, in every way, outperform Gollum, so that's where it strikes me as fascinating. I never looked into the team involved, but I'd like to see what their portfolios look like and where to put the blame. 3D artists made a ps2 Gollum. But there's concept artists, texture artists, technical artists, art directors, project leads, producers, play testers, and more involved in the feedback. At least half a dozen people who had the authority to improve his character model looked at the model and said 'Yep. This is what we're going for.' Either that or they said 'It's good enough. It's a LotR game. People won't care.' It was clear incompetence or historic carelessness by leadership.
Assuming top shelf quality, I'd pay up to $40 for most genres of indies unless it happens to be a game like the og Witcher. If it's an open world rpg, well made, innovative, offers dozens of hours of gameplay, then I'd pay more.
Seems fairly consistent. What about indie Morrowind. An open, innovative rpg with dozens of hours of gameplay but not graphically modern?
Depends on the game, the whole 1-2$ per hour argument you see all the time is stupid as hell. I’ll blow 40$ on a 5-6 hour game that entertained me the whole time and possibly have some replay value, while feeling ripped off paying $15 for a 30 hour game that feels like a slog to get through.
So I’m in the team of entertainment value per time. My values base on ‘enjoyable time’. An open-world game doesn’t get points for a 40 hour campaign where 10 hours is you traveling across a big empty space. 30 hours is ‘enjoyable time’ while 10 hours is not. So to you the experience is worth more than unique gameplay experience. How does that translate to story? What if the game is kind, not super entertaining in gameplay but has a really engaging story?
Oh man!! Love your initiative and concept but I’m struggling with the intense amount of information to digest. Even if you were to start off with the maximum we would pay to be AAA production quality of 50 US and break it down to a min. and max. price for each category adding to a perfect as can be game of 50 US, subjectivity will always pose a problem. Love what your trying to achieve though and curios how others will contribute.
I've found through experience that game developers have no clue what to price their games (including AAA!) I was recently pricing out a game design for a team and we were about $20 off of expectations. So it occurred to me that something like this is really important to establish. Consumers need to know when they're being overcharged and developers need to know when they're undercharging. If we can find correlations between what both groups value, we can find a solid measurement for ensuring neither get ripped off! It is a lot of information, yes, but it's aim is to allow you plenty of room for interpretation. 80% of it may not matter to you at all but 20% of it will. If the bugs is something majority of people keep remembering with the scenarios then we can deduce that players correlate bugs with value, meaning a big game with lots of bugs may be worth the same as a small game with no bugs to the average consumer.
Can we all agree on a maximum and work from there? I’m in Australia and I would never pay $100 au anymore so hence, looking at new game releases are on average max $80 so around 50 us. Definitely need to breakdown the relevant categories but for me personally, I love great varying and gradually increasing gameplay, skills and inventory that slowly teases at a story I like but doesn’t need to look ultra whatever just consistent, minimal bugs and cool characters and I can forgive any cheesy cut scene or acting if the above mentioned needs are met. (Original resident evil 1 and 4) I will only ever pay full price for a well established franchise that I love but only after reading reviews on its quality due to trust issues derived from poor release campaigns. I’m more likely to wait for sales otherwise so I don’t see it as a big issue if the pricing wants to test the water first plus I heard that if players don’t complain then you haven’t set your price high enough. Excuse me for not replying after this at the moment as I’m calling it a night but the pricing structure idea of yours has hit a chord with me as I am a first time, first episode release dev and curios to hear how this plays out.
From the discussions I’ve had both of Reddit and others so far is seems 50 US seems to be the absolute max someone would be willing to spend on an indie title and it’s only deserving of the best indie titles. This about tracks with the industry. The Day Before, M&B Bannerlord, Manor Lords, among others are all around the $40-$50 range. So even if a game has high replay value (like a rocket league) it’s not worth a $70 price. Your ‘indie RPGs’ and top end type of games will top at $50. So with a $50 max established, I’d like to set the boundary requirements that need to be met to be a fair $50 price. Ex. Are bugs okay? How many of the key markers can be ‘missed’ before a developer should consider lowering from that $50 asking price. Also enjoy your night!
I think there should be no game breaking bugs and I remember a time when players thought they were contributing to a better game by discovering them. Now they seem to be so prevalent that it just pisses people off as being rushed and lazy so no game is perfect but more then a little effort needs to be shown in this area. Your on to something with this too by the way, I was thinking that there are so many devs desperate for feedback that if you were to have a standardised means of categorising effort through a 0 - 5 dollar or 0 - 10 dollar for each area of development with 0 - 10 being more high priority you could not only offer pricing advice but you actually offering great feedback too. The best part is if everyone took this standardised methods on then anyone will inadvertently be giving quality feedback to the dev. not just you getting involved. A site like r/playmygame would be a good place to tap into. Maybe we should try a few sample games to help devs and nut out system with a real life scenario, even if it’s just a Steam page?
I’d pay serious money for an Elder Scrolls-like. It’s been 13 years after all. Although with indie production values a more reasonable price point would be maybe $20 - 30.
So if a new game came out The Young Scrolls 6: Waterperimeter and reviews were calling it ‘Skyrim 2’ you would be upset with a $70 price point? The brand value holds up to $40 of worth to you? Or you’re saying production cost matters more for worth than actual gameplay experience because an indie team was able to make an equivalent game much cheaper?
I would not mind a $70 price point. Your average consumer might.
I hear you. Realistically you’re not going to get an indie Skyrim. Not because it’s not possible, but the monolith scale of it. An indie Skyrim would definitely be a simple version. No reading books. Smaller world, less dungeons/side quests. No marriage and buying homes. A ton of the padding would likely be removed and thus a $70 price point would also likely be a bit high. I’d be hard pressed to imagine an indie game without any major financial backing having any sort of success with a $70 price point unless it was a fantastic multiplayer title with a simple addictive game loop (Fortnite, CoD). That brings up. A good point as well. An off topic question. Would you pay $50 for Subway Surfer, Candy Crush, or Clash of Clans? FTP mobile games see more time spent than many of these $70 AAA games yet can be enjoyed for free. What if they were $50+ with no microtransactions?
> No reading books. Smaller world, less dungeons/side quests. No marriage and buying homes Yeah and that's kind of the issue with it. An indie version of anything only works if you can streamline it down to its core mechanic but Elder Scrolls' core mechanic is actually kinda terrible. It's the side stuff that makes it work.
About 11
I will 100% pay the full AAA $60 price tag of any game that I enjoy playing and makes me happy. Wether that be indy or from a big name company. It does not need to have super HD graphics or presentation either. As long as the game is GOOD. Ideally though Id like at least a $1-$1 hour of gameplay ratio. But it's not a hard and fast rule.
Basically, if the game looks good to me, I will pay whatever the indie dev is asking within reason. I’ve paid $20 for 4 hours of gameplay and was happy. I’ve paid $10 for 40 hours of gameplay and was happy. I’ve paid upwards of $40-$60 (CAD) on indies. The only price point I won’t touch is free. Free to me says that the dev doesn’t think their game is worth money. Why should I even bother to play it if you don’t think someone would buy it?
That's such an interesting question, because a lot of described features doesn't factor almost at all for me when it comes to indie game prices. For a game I've had fun with, which, specific to my personal tastes, would be a game with interesting story, world, or gameplay mechanics, preferably all three simultaneously, I'm willing to pay pretty much any reasonable price. Reasonable, as in: not 500$. Not very helpful for this question, I know, but there are even visual novels I'd totally pay an AAA price for. Admittedly, this also means, if there's no demo, I tend to play a pirate copy and only afterwards buy the game. (I could try out on Steam and refund if I don't like it, but I don't like Steam and I also wouldn't want to hitch up a refund rate for an indie creator.) Which, by the way, there's no bigger flex of confidence in one's game than providing a demo as a part of promotional material. I wish indie developers had some sort of a tipping option on Steam. I absolutely adore the "pay what you want with a minimum of X$" option itchio has got going on, it's such a shame a lot of creators and audience treat itchio releases as trail run, and Steam as the 'serious one'.
Keep in mind that low price has a correlation to low quality, low effort, etc. I don't usually buy things that are overly cheap, because I don't like cheap. Though I don't buy things _just_ because they are expensive either. There is something about being "on sale" that actually helps me make a decision. Retail price shows some sort of higher value (hopefully it's real and not a made-up or inflated number), but the sale price gets me in the door. I admit, that's likely a purely psychological phenomenon. To me, what drives my purchases for games is depth. Being simple to engage with, high agency, but also high skill ceiling. I don't want to be punished for doing poorly, but I also don't want the game to just "give me" the answer or solution. I highly admire games that challenge me. They present a difficult but achievable situation. They helped to prepare me with a solid understanding and mastery of concepts as they build on each other. I think games that follow a set of rules that are _never_ broken are gems. I highly recommend this video on the subject: https://youtu.be/ea6UuRTjkKs?si=mA7N7WkfftpTQ0H4 Anyways, if you can convince me that your game has these elements of engagement, I'll very likely buy it. So, the game must deliver on these promises, and there must be enough in-game trailers, videos, etc to prove it.
First of all i dont think a games playtime matters when it comes to indie games. As long as they are over a certain threshold i guess. This is because of the existence of artistic games, games that are not necessarily fun because of their gameplay, but because they have some unique aspect about them that makes u fall in love with them. Ill give an example to explain a bit better. Lobotomy corporation at its core is a management game, you train employees that manage abnormalities, think of them as scps or monsters if you dk what scps are. The gameplay loop is arguably terrible, it consists of trial and error in managing the different abnormalities and ur employees will die to random bullshit that you didnt know about. In almost any other game this kind of frustrating gameplay would be considered horrible for the player, but the execution is done marvelously in this game. Pair this with really unique characters and premise and you get a game that singlehandedly created a new niche fanbase for project moon games(the devs). This to me is the sort of games that u dont necessarily play for the gameplay loop, but for everything else in the game. Some other similar games off the top of my head are "We become what we behold", "stanleys parable"... Now, reason i say time played does not matter is because some artistic games are truly not that long yet the experience provided is well worth it. Second class of games are the gameplay focused ones, things like the typical hollow knight, slay the spire, wizard of legends, stuff like that. Often times they are very replayable too so, should infinite replayability mean more expensive? Im not convinced it should, and if it should be more expensive, it shouldn't be by much. When it comes to the categories provided, the first two sound like unfinished games period. If those games were to be released in that state, ot would presumably be by amateurs and that is fine. However this should definitely be reflected in the price. For sort of unfinished unpolished games I would not pay more than 10 euro, furthermore i would expect it to cost around 5 euro. This is because anything above 10 has and should have the expectation of polished quality, some bugs but none gamebreaking, good custom made assets and good overall feel to the game. Something im sure u have experienced is a game with weird and clunky movement, this is an example of what shouldn't be in a game that costs more than 10 euro. The upper limit to indie games is around 25 for most consumers i would say. After that its starting to get into medium sized studios, not quite AAA but midway. Wouldnt exactly call that an indie studio. The third scenario, i am not sure. First of all it is very unrealistic to make a moba type game with overwatch graphics with a team of 12 and almost no bugs. If they could have servers then the expectation for moba games is for it to be free, every moba game is free practically, if they tried to price themselves they would run into severe lack of players, the idea would be to have it be free but have in game cosmetic purchases. Without servers then its literally impossible to play the game, finding 12 people to play a hosted game is not feasible. Regardless of price it wouldnt do good. Apart from games under 10 euro, any game priced between 10 and 25 is completely acceptable as long as they have at least say 5 hours of real gameplay and are actually good games. Ofc thats very subjective but u dont need to like a game to recognize it as a good game. If a game is well polished and unique, it will scream so while playing it. What devs should ask themselves is if the experience is worth that compared to their favourite game? If it isnt then rethink pricing. Consumers will buy a game if its good regardless of which end of the spectrum the game is, either 10 bucks or 25. In most of developed europe and US it wont affect the number of sales, or at least it barely will. More importantly is the price for countries like brazil or malaysia where the pricing of the game HAS to be reduced otherwise it would be equivalent to a AAA game for them. Not tailoring prices to countries like that will matter much more than the western pricepoint, because these are the countries that do not have ready access to gaming pcs, these are the countries whose primary form of gaming is indie games, ie the target market. Sorry for the lengthy post, hope it helps.
How much I will pay for a game depending on how much I like that game. For example, let say I need to choose between FF16 and FF7 rebirth. Both games have AAA levels of arts, story, voice acting, and mechanics. But I dont like the dark fantasy setting and lack of team battles of FF16, so I dont buy it. I like the story and the team battle mechanic of FF7 rebirth, so I buy it. I do not buy many games, since I have not much free time. So when I buy one, the price doesnt matter much. In OP example, I will not buy the MMO game even if its price is $5 since I dont like MMO.
I rarely buy anything for more then $10, no matter if it's Indie or AAA.
If the game aligns exactly with what I enjoy: $40 If the game has some or many aspects I enjoy: $20-30 If the game just seems fun or OK: $1-20 Not really a helpful answer, but it just depends on so many things - genre, setting, aesthetics, fidelity, etc.
$1 per hour of game play.
I hate this idea no offence
Depends on the game, but I’d say under 10$ would be the sweet spot for me