Looks like a sick game, how much will it cost? 10$ or 35$??
Since it's currently in pre-alpha, I'm not sure there's a fixed price point yet.
Honestly, I don't know. I'm still thinking about pricing. Not $35 though.
Make a poll after beta... ask how much ppl are willing to pay.
Make an avarage... and ask for double that!
MUAHAHAHAHAHA!
You should always charge what the market will bare.
This game will fund your next assuming you do it right, dont sell yourself short.
make it like FTL (http://www.ftlgame.com/)
bid for a price + option for more support ^^
Quote from: The Ataraxist on September 19, 2013, 07:56:11 PM
You should always charge what the market will bare.
This game will fund your next assuming you do it right, dont sell yourself short.
This a million times, don't short-change yourself man.
Quote from: The Ataraxist on September 19, 2013, 07:56:11 PM
This game will fund your next assuming you do it right.
The problem with a kickstarted game is that the game has to fund itself before being able to fun the next one. In a more conventionally funded environment, investors put money up front into the making of a game. When the game is released, the studio has already been paid in full, so the price tag is divided between the investors' cut and the funding of the next game.
In a crowdfunded environment, a lot of the future potential customers a regular game would have targeted have already paid their fair share even before the game is out. And the amount paid by the backers are divided between the price of their reward (especially physical one that can eat up amount backed fast) and funding the current game. It is a double-edged sword : the studio gets money faster they don't own to anyone but themselves, but it is also money that won't be available for the next game, which will probably also need to be crowdfunded.
Just my 2 cents here, whatever the funding model, the follwing stands true :
Quote from: The Ataraxist on September 19, 2013, 07:56:11 PMdont sell yourself short.
But it is a very hard balance to achieve no matter what. Because it is very difficult to estimate how much the market will bare.
Quote from: Hypolite on September 21, 2013, 04:23:39 PMBut it is a very hard balance to achieve no matter what. Because it is very difficult to estimate how much the market will bare.
This is why I think the multiple pricing tiers are a good idea. It's a form of price discrimination. If someone is willing to pay more than the $20 base cost, for example, they can get the Prototype pack of game designs that eventually evolved into RimWorld (and they're surprisingly diverse, as you'll see). And so on up until the highest tiers.
Quote from: Tynan on September 21, 2013, 04:43:13 PMIf someone is willing to pay more than the $20 base cost, for example, they can get the Prototype pack of game designs that eventually evolved into RimWorld (and they're surprisingly diverse, as you'll see).
And now I want them :(
(But don't do anything before you've read my doubts about an early Kickstarter campaign (http://ludeon.com/forums/index.php?topic=55.msg432#msg432))
Quote from: Tynan on September 21, 2013, 04:43:13 PM
Quote from: Hypolite on September 21, 2013, 04:23:39 PMBut it is a very hard balance to achieve no matter what. Because it is very difficult to estimate how much the market will bare.
This is why I think the multiple pricing tiers are a good idea. It's a form of price discrimination. If someone is willing to pay more than the $20 base cost, for example, they can get the Prototype pack of game designs that eventually evolved into RimWorld (and they're surprisingly diverse, as you'll see). And so on up until the highest tiers.
Huh, are the games any good?
Not trying to insult, just curious.
They have some charm, but RimWorld is better. They're buggy and unfinished and unrefined. So no, I wouldn't play them just as games, but I think they're interesting if you're curious about how a game develops.
I most definitely am. :)
Quote from: Tynan on September 21, 2013, 05:01:19 PM
They have some charm, but RimWorld is better. They're buggy and unfinished and unrefined. So no, I wouldn't play them just as games, but I think they're interesting if you're curious about how a game develops.
Any more ideas on the pricing and extras of the higher backer tiers?
I think there ought to be more thought into tier pricing. It's not just about the elasticities. More backers means more people spreading the word about the game, more momentum, there are psychological bandwagoning aspects to kickstarter. All things being equal getting 10 bucks from 10 people is better than 100 bucks from one, getting them on day 1 is better than on day 2. I wouldn't be too concerned about cannibalizing future sales, just look at the number of backers of the biggest campaigns and compare that to what their eventual sales numbers were. Miniscule fraction. Introversion IMO shot themselves in the foot with their higher pricing scheme for true believers, it's exact reverse opposite of what they oughta done. You want to reward your true believers who are also signing up for debugging and rebalancing and all that jazz.
Quote from: Yarkista on September 21, 2013, 04:58:12 PM
Huh, are the games any good? Not trying to insult, just curious.
LOL you made me gigglesnort with that one. ;D
Quote from: oasis789 on September 21, 2013, 05:13:59 PM
All things being equal getting 10 bucks from 10 people is better than 100 bucks from one, getting them on day 1 is better than on day 2.
This is also a strong point, selling the game for $10 or even $5 might mean that you get less per gamer, but people on the fence, like friends of mine who have NO IDEA what dwarf fortress was might be willing to pick up a game if it costs as much as their coffee.
I suppose this is part of the trade off eh?
In these situations, I always turn towards successful examples of other's work to model from.
Thing is, the most successful example of this kind of game IMO is Prison Architect, which is past $7.6 million on their self-selling pre-alpha alone not counting Steam sales or anything else. They priced the base game at $30, but I won't be pricing it that high.
I saw an interview with the IV guys about why they set that price point. They basically said that they would like people to think about the game before they get it. They think the game is best experienced when you've thought about it a little bit and decided it's something for you. I basically agree with that notion. I don't really want to position RimWorld as an impulse buy like an iPhone app - at least not at release.
To pick up the $5-level players, I suspect the game will end up in some bundle or Steam sale in a few years. That's pretty much how game pricing seems to go these days.
This is very true aswell,
I know I sure as hell have picked up games in the 5 dollar bucket years after release only because it was cheap, and not because I was interested in the game itself
I also agree on that point. I make a clear separation between games I want to play and games I should play. I'm ready to spend a lot more on the first category, even if the game is not ready yet, than on the second. Because there is so much games in the latter that by the time I'll be done with all the games there is in, new games belonging in that category will already part of cheap bundles.
I'm also ready to spend more on the first because there is very few games that get me really excited about them.
Quote from: Tynan on September 22, 2013, 12:31:53 AM
I saw an interview with the IV guys about why they set that price point. They basically said that they would like people to think about the game before they get it. They think the game is best experienced when you've thought about it a little bit and decided it's something for you. I basically agree with that notion. I don't really want to position RimWorld as an impulse buy like an iPhone app - at least not at release.
So on the other hand, when I thought about PA, I had already played Uplink, DEFCON, and Darwinia, so I had plenty of faith that PA was going to be a game that I would get multiple hours out of and would evolve into a game that I would get much enjoyment out of. It makes the price more palpable since I need to stop spending infinite amounts of money on games.
My opinion on price for RimWorld:
Alpha: 15$(When the Alpha stages finished, people who purchased the game on alpha version, the game version will automatically enter FULL VERSION stage)
Full Version:20$(Only if People didnt buy Alpha version)
Hows that?
Quote from: thekillergreece on September 22, 2013, 01:16:12 PM
My opinion on price for RimWorld:
Alpha: 15$(When the Alpha stages finished, people who purchased the game on alpha version, the game version will automatically enter FULL VERSION stage)
Full Version:20$(Only if People didnt buy Alpha version)
Hows that?
I don't think it's as simple as that.
Quote from: Tynan on September 22, 2013, 12:31:53 AM
Thing is, the most successful example of this kind of game IMO is Prison Architect, which is past $7.6 million on their self-selling pre-alpha alone not counting Steam sales or anything else. They priced the base game at $30, but I won't be pricing it that high.
I saw an interview with the IV guys about why they set that price point. They basically said that they would like people to think about the game before they get it. They think the game is best experienced when you've thought about it a little bit and decided it's something for you. I basically agree with that notion. I don't really want to position RimWorld as an impulse buy like an iPhone app - at least not at release.
To pick up the $5-level players, I suspect the game will end up in some bundle or Steam sale in a few years. That's pretty much how game pricing seems to go these days.
The other close analogue is minecraft, which charged 10 and 15 pounds for alpha/beta respectively, and minecraft has made several orders of magnitude more than prison architect by now.
I've been lurking the forums for a week now.
Desided to register to pitch in on this thread.
I think the minecraft model is a really good one. Basically what they did was increase the price the closer you got to release.
But that is kind of hard to do with a kickstarter.
I'd easily pay 30$ for this game, especially if it means I can play the alpha version right away.
And I've already told a few select friends about it, that I know will enjoy this kind of game.
That is the exact same thing that happened with minecraft. A friend of mine bought it when it was 10$ tried it, love it and told me (and others)about it. And since it was only 10$ based on his enthusiasm it was a nobrainer for me to pick it up.
Quote from: oasis789 on September 22, 2013, 10:58:25 PM
Quote from: Tynan on September 22, 2013, 12:31:53 AM
Thing is, the most successful example of this kind of game IMO is Prison Architect, which is past $7.6 million on their self-selling pre-alpha alone not counting Steam sales or anything else. They priced the base game at $30, but I won't be pricing it that high.
I saw an interview with the IV guys about why they set that price point. They basically said that they would like people to think about the game before they get it. They think the game is best experienced when you've thought about it a little bit and decided it's something for you. I basically agree with that notion. I don't really want to position RimWorld as an impulse buy like an iPhone app - at least not at release.
To pick up the $5-level players, I suspect the game will end up in some bundle or Steam sale in a few years. That's pretty much how game pricing seems to go these days.
The other close analogue is minecraft, which charged 10 and 15 pounds for alpha/beta respectively, and minecraft has made several orders of magnitude more than prison architect by now.
Yes, but a large part of that success was because of letsplayers and youtube reviews.
Not saying yours isn't a good idea, just playing devil's advocate a little bit.
I think you overlooked something about Minecraft alpha success: Notch didn't care about piracy back then, which made the game very well-known, both because it was free to try and because the guy that made it was fine with that. If it wasn't for that try period that the creator didn't intend to make available but didn't mind it existed, I wouldn't have bought it at all.
Quote from: Yarkista on September 24, 2013, 10:16:43 AM
Quote from: oasis789 on September 22, 2013, 10:58:25 PM
Quote from: Tynan on September 22, 2013, 12:31:53 AM
Thing is, the most successful example of this kind of game IMO is Prison Architect, which is past $7.6 million on their self-selling pre-alpha alone not counting Steam sales or anything else. They priced the base game at $30, but I won't be pricing it that high.
I saw an interview with the IV guys about why they set that price point. They basically said that they would like people to think about the game before they get it. They think the game is best experienced when you've thought about it a little bit and decided it's something for you. I basically agree with that notion. I don't really want to position RimWorld as an impulse buy like an iPhone app - at least not at release.
To pick up the $5-level players, I suspect the game will end up in some bundle or Steam sale in a few years. That's pretty much how game pricing seems to go these days.
The other close analogue is minecraft, which charged 10 and 15 pounds for alpha/beta respectively, and minecraft has made several orders of magnitude more than prison architect by now.
Yes, but a large part of that success was because of letsplayers and youtube reviews.
Not saying yours isn't a good idea, just playing devil's advocate a little bit.
true but where did all these LPers and youtubers come from? how did the hype train get started? surely it was those folks who bought in at the alpha price
I may have to repeat myself, but before actually buying the game in alpha or beta, a lot of people got it for free, either from Minecraft.net directly, with all single player features, or a cracked version allowing multiplayer on cracked servers. And that was totally fine.
Quote from: Hypolite on September 25, 2013, 03:11:11 AM
I may have to repeat myself, but before actually buying the game in alpha or beta, a lot of people got it for free, either from Minecraft.net directly, with all single player features, or a cracked version allowing multiplayer on cracked servers. And that was totally fine.
And this happen to most games, but most games do not become Minecraft.
A developer voicing publicly being fine with piracy of its own game does not happen to most games. Most devs don't tell anything about it, some get angry at it, and a few make fun of it, like the devs of Game Dev Tycoon did.
It surely helped spreading the word, as it wasn't a "bad" thing to get the game for free. As you didn't feel like a thief or a pirate, it became natural for most people to buy it after a while. The game has many other qualities as well that made it that famous, but the "fine with piracy" aspect is often overlooked.
Didnt minecraft start off as free anyways? It kind of evolved into a lets add all these features and start charging people as far as I remember.
However going based on other indie developers prices, a range of $10-$30 is what I kind of would guess. I would pay for more though if I really like the game.
Quote from: Hypolite on September 25, 2013, 11:28:59 AM
A developer voicing publicly being fine with piracy of its own game does not happen to most games. Most devs don't tell anything about it, some get angry at it, and a few make fun of it, like the devs of Game Dev Tycoon did.
It surely helped spreading the word, as it wasn't a "bad" thing to get the game for free. As you didn't feel like a thief or a pirate, it became natural for most people to buy it after a while. The game has many other qualities as well that made it that famous, but the "fine with piracy" aspect is often overlooked.
Gratuitous Space Battles, Hotline Miami, McPixel (even promoted on The Pirate Bay), Amnesia, many Indie games have gone the route where its "not a big deal."
But in general the gaming industry has by and large just not done anything. They are not the MPAA and the whole "kill all pirates" idea is mainly just some executives at the main studios and no one else cares.
And yes, Minecraft at the very very beginning had what is now known as Classic Minecraft and you can still in fact play it for free.
Frankly, I think the best thing to do now is add on more than the 8 or so testers there are, and thus have the game start to gestate in the public. That of course is my shameless attempt at getting to play the game, I'll even do a Let's Play!
Haha we all want to play the game and we will try and find the best way to do so :P
Quote from: enystrom8734 on September 26, 2013, 10:17:38 AM
Haha we all want to play the game and we will try and find the best way to do so :P
Which is to pay for it fully and also buy 20 copies of it for friends. ;)