Ludeon Forums

This thread is for discussing this blog post (https://ludeon.com/blog/?p=1148&preview=true).

You could charge this game for 60 dollars and I'd still buy it. Not sure about potential customers however.

That being said, I think 40-50 USD sounds like the right amount. Unlike say, Fallout 4, there's no extra DLC to help the game get money post-launch.

I know it's going to make me sound like a cheapskate, but is there any chance of a sale that may drop the release price of the game below the current early access price? I'm a bit frugal at the moment (not going to give you guys a sob story), and am a bit sale-reliant at the moment. No offense to the developers, I'm not saying your half-a-decade of hard work isn't worth $30-$60, I just can't pay that much in my current position.

Ser K: I appreciate the vote of confidence :)

Arty: Well, we've had a no-sale policy for a long time and I'm not planning on changing that soon, especially around the 1.0 release. Of course, some day the game will be cheaper (likely years and years in the future) but for the foreseeable future it won't go on sale.

Quote from: Tynan on September 02, 2018, 12:33:33 AM
Arty: Well, we've had a no-sale policy for a long time and I'm not planning on changing that soon, especially around the 1.0 release. Of course, some day the game will be cheaper (likely years and years in the future) but for the foreseeable future it won't go on sale.

Alright, understandable. I've spent a fair amount of time buying many games for cheap instead of one for full price, but Rimworld may be the game that breaks that rule. . . depending on how soon it takes some of my favorite mods that've missed an update or five to get picked up again (vanilla is fine, but I need my xenohumans (https://ludeon.com/forums/index.php?topic=41378.0)!).

Don't forget Rimworld isn't a AAA title like Fallout 4.
When new people watch the screenshots and see the price of $60 they think "What the heck, 60 bucks for that graphics!" and go away.

I have played this game for 1554 hours so far, but I bought this game for only 30$.
This game entertained me a lot for 30$, honestly. ;D

"Modern AAA games" is modern boogieman with endless payed DLCs, microtransactions in singleplayer and season passes for season passes...
Fallout 4 price actually over 200 due to this "features".

issue is not "work and talent not worth 60" issue with customers, not everyone ready and willing to pay 60 for isometric single player game.

and much more severe issue with customers that have specific expectations for 60 game, most noticeble are "trading cancer" and "cancervements"

I value a game by playtime value, not graphics.  There are many triple AAA games for $60 where you get < 100 hours of playtime.  It's not hard to exceed that on Rimworld.  Rimworld could be $100+ and it would be worth it (though, that would be a tough sell marketing-wise)

I would GLADDLY pay 59.99 USD for this game. This is just remarkable example of how indie games should be developed. In future I really hope that these things will improve a lot:

1. Graphics. Add a bit more candy to the eye ;)
2. Better performance with a ton of mods. Need an example with modded game performance? Look at https://www.factorio.com/

I share the worry about graphics/looks and a higher price.

While Rimworld is without a doubt worth a lot, I wouldn't increase the price too much. Imho many people will look at the screenshots and turn away if the price is too high.

Regarding to numbers, I think an increase to 35 USD should still be fine, but not more than 40 USD.

I have over a thousand hours in Rimworld, and I think the game is worth more than I bought it for. Goes without saying that any potential price hike doesn't afffect me. But it got me thinking.

It wonder if this might hurt the sales not only in terms of copies sold (that's a granted) but also total money made. Currently Rimworld is 28€ in my client (32,5$) , Tynan says Rimworld is priced at 30$ so let's go with that. Let's say the price increases only to 35$. That's a 1/6 price hike. That means that if this price increase discourages more than 1 in 7 people, it's a financial loss (exactly 1 in 7 to break even).

If the price increses to 40$, than discouraging more than 25% potential buyers would be losing money.

That is of course a gross oversimplification. Not to mention the sales that this announcement itself will generate. But I do wonder, what market is there left for Rimworld? It seems to me that the people who are most likely to get it bought it already. The ones who haven't bought it yet is the more general audience, people who usually play different genras, who don't follow game developements, people who don't buy Early Access on principle etc. Those people are going to be looking at 'similar' titles (actually not similar at all, but clumped with Rimworld on Steam) such as FactorIo ($30), FrostPunk ($25). Visually, Rimworld might not be all that apealling to them (once again, I'm talking about the demographic not normally interested in colony sim kinda games). The question is, how many of them will be discouraged by the price. Will it be 1 in 5? 1 in 10? 1 in 3? They could go read some reviews, check out some let's play, or they could say fuck it and get an AAA title that's on sale for the same money. (I have personally seen people discouraged by the price on /r/basebuildinggames for example)

Of course I might be completely off the mark here, this is just pure speculation. I would be very surprised if Tynan didn't take all of this and much more into consideration. Plus he has all the charts and data, knows how his past announcements affected the sales, and probably has a very good idea of the potential market (certainly better than I do). Since Tynan obviously thinks this is the right move, I would be interested reading about how he arrived to the decision.

Once again I want to stress that I don't agree or disagree with the decision (since I'm not equiped to do so), nor do I think that I know better. We all want Rimworld to be a success (again, Tynan most of all) so I'm just being curious how he expects this to affect sales.

I'm curious if Steam has any data available for developers to get the most bang for their buck, that seems like it would be extremely useful.

I'd easily pay $60 for this game. I'd say it was a good business decision to raise the price for 1.0 Maybe not to $60 but $40-$50 like others have said. I have about 1,500 hours in this (half of that probably idling in the background while I work - there's not many games I've ever left on like that! LOL) and I know most people have a lot more.

Arty: Just buy RimWorld for your birthday. I am a cheapskate like you but for my birthday I always spend $50 on a game I really wanted. No budget, no matter how strict you are, will tank from that!

are we going to have to re-buy the game once it gets released into 1.0?

Quote from: mattig89ch on September 02, 2018, 03:23:31 PM
are we going to have to re-buy the game once it gets released into 1.0?

No, just because you bought it during early access doesn't mean you'll lose access to it once it fully gets released. No worries.

That aside, I'm sure 40 USD would be fair price for a game like this.

For me money is most of the time tight so when I saw a streamer play this game and I got interested in it 30$ sounded at first a bit much (mind you I buy most of my games on sale or when they drop heavely in price). The more I watched it the more I wanted to play it myself so I bought it in the end. I don't know how many hours I played of it because I play the DRM free Version (thank you again for giving us the possibility to choose) but I guess in the high hundreds. I never regret buying this game for the full price and tbh it didn't even feel early Access to me (compared to nowadays early access game standards).
Is this game worth 30$ YES! Is this game worth 60$ SURE! But will someone who never played the game see it that way? That I guess no one can tell. But what I am sure of is that the Rimworld Community will help make people understand that the game is worth it's price if it will be 30,40,50 or 60$ in the end.

I think people are misunderstanding something about playtime. Playtime is NOT a good indicator of a quality of a game. I'd rather play 8 hours of amazing gameplay than 30 hours of average gameplay.

That being said, the fact that people have spent so much time on Rimworld can be a good indicator of quality.

gametime itself is not indicator of content, quality and replayability.

yes i have ~300 hours and this makes game cost less then 0.1 per hour, but i could not know in advance, will i play that long or not...

While I think that RimWorld has definitely earned a higher price tag with the amount of content it offers, I think that if the price was higher than 40-50 euros, then many potential players would think that "Eh, I'll buy it on a sale", and then never look at the game again. The thing with this game is that until somebody sinks some time into it, they won't get just how much you can do here, even without mods. Once they do then they will understand why the game costs 40/50 euros, but for a new player who has never tried the game before, that price might be too risky.

I don't know how Ludeon feels about demos, or if you can even make one for RimWorld, but having one for 1.0 might make the decision to buy easier for less wealthy players.

I love this game and definitely think it's worth the money but of course I didn't know that before I bought it. It's extremely rare for me to ever buy a game that costs more than $30. I'll get maybe one every 3 years. I just have too many unplayed games in my library to justify it. Even if the game looks really good if it's $50 I'll just wait for a sale and if it never goes on sale then I just won't bother. There are more than enough good games out there to fill my time. I thought this game looked interesting for a long time but was always turned away by the price. If it was $20 I probably would have bought it at least a year earlier than I did.

personally, I got more time and enjoyment out of it than say, jurassic world evolution (60+ usd)

as for new comers, given how this will be compared to other games. I would say somewhere between 30 to 40 is the limit where you can push the price before naysayers get too judgemental and hold on it.


We KNOW how much fun this is from playing it, but most people will say: "oh, another one of those bad graphics"...

I personally think Rimworld is worth upwards of $40, but at the same time I must admit that I played a cracked version for quite a long time (I think this was back in alpha 12, and well before I had any kind of personal income lol ) and I bought it this evening, because I do feel that it's worth the asking price.

That said, I think that if there were a time-limited demo, 1-x hours playtime then it would be apparent just how deep this rabbit-hole goes. Especially if people are willing to read reviews and see the massive playtimes that people put in on Steam.

I feel that Rimworld is very much a case of gameplay > graphics, without the graphics necessarily even being bad.

P.S. Or there could be some more creative way to make a demo work.

Perhaps not allowing mods to be run with the demo, and then cutting it off when the player's base reaches a certain level of wealth, or research or progression &c. A gimped game so to speak. Because there will always be ways around copy protection, especially if you're an advocate of DRM-free. Which on its own gives the game some merits.

Sorry if this seems kind of all over the place, it's Janmastami today, and I went about 20 hours without food or water.

Keep up the good work! <3

Dear Tynan,

RimWorld has been a constant source of joy for me since almost two years, and there is no end in sight. Every game element is thought through thoroughly and well designed, thus resulting in a more complete experience than other genre colleagues like dwarf fortress and gnomoria (also great games!) manage to achieve. Players decisions and all the random factors come together to create stories that are truly rich and thrilling. For this unique game I personally would gladly pay above 100 Euros.

Of course, the buying decision is made before the actual experience. As others have pointed out before, the graphics may scare away some potential buyers at first glance. On the other hand, the reviews on Steam are extremely positive, and anyone looking for a story-driven colony simulator will not hesitate to buy RimWorld because of its graphics. I believe that a price of 40 to 45 € would be successful in convincing new players to buy the game and still be fair to the work that you put into the game.

I perfectly understand that the development of RimWorld needs a defined finishing point (Version 1.0). You need to deliver a finished product, and like you wrote, RimWorld would probably never reach a point at which it would really feel "done". You have been working for half a decade on this game, and you delivered the game that early backers wished and payed for. Surely, at times it has been also personally exhausting to be "stuck" with the same project for five years.

However, after a million copies sold, the community is full of people like me that would love to pay you for a professional development of RimWorld beyond version 1.0. I guess you will not feel the urge to work on RimWorld for a while, and economically wise I expect that after having created a top 25 ranked game on steam you will not need to work at all for very long. Still, since we are talking about fair pricing and making money here, I just wanted to express my wish that you may continue the development of RimWorld at a later point and transform my money into even more hours of great fun in the universe of RimWorld.

Best regards from Germany :)

Thanks for the feedback everyone! Happy to hear more views as well.

45$ is probably a good asking price on final release, although there are people who thought 30$ was too much for their wallet at the time (they may of been right a few versions ago, but it's more than worth it for the vanilla content now).

A time-limited demo (45-60 in-game days?) would probably help a ton with helping people decide on the purchase, if they aren't already the type to 'borrow' the game before buying it. It would at the least be a nice surprise in this day in age where actual game demos are rare and your 'trial' is the refund period before steam won't allow an automated refund.

I would be happy to pay a monthly subscription and see this game develop indefinitely.

I think you should keep the price the same for two reasons:

When I bought it I was kind of pained by how expensive it was relative to many other games.

More people will buy it at the current price, and they will have an easier time convincing their friends to buy your game. Would you rather have 50 000 people buying the game at $40 or 66 000 people buying it at $30?

Obviously arbitrary numbers of sales there, as I have no data on your sales predictions.

tl;dr: I would be very careful increasing the price too much as it could hinder the "viral" spread of someone getting it and playing it, convincing his friends to get it too.

Quote from: vzoxz0 on September 04, 2018, 01:24:27 PM
...
More people will buy it at the current price, and they will have an easier time convincing their friends to buy your game. Would you rather have 50 000 people buying the game at $40 or 66 000 people buying it at $30?
...

I get what you are trying to say but your argument doesn't help.
50k * 40 = 2000k
66k * 30 = 1980k

Clearly the incentive would be the higher price...
I get that you provided "arbitrary numbers of sales" and the point is that more sales = more profit; but if you want your argument to hold weight it is usually a good idea that you, at the very least, present it in a manner that doesn't show a reason to move in the exact opposite of what you are trying to say.

Okay, 66 677 people then, since you seem unfamiliar with back-of-an-envelope calculations.

The point was NOT that "more sales == more profit" it is _more advertising_ which leads to _more sales over time_ and _more community work_ like mods, which this game RELIES on for value.

"more sales, given that earnings stay approximately the same == more net value" is a more accurate statement.

I can tell you that for certain, if this game was priced at $40, I would never have bought it -- not because I don't have the money, but because my cost/benefit analysis would favour other games. I think more than a few other people think exactly the same way and start weighing options once prices go above $25.

Edit:

Steam Spy indicates this game has ~500 000 owners. It would be interesting to see other popular early access games (with similar stats) and what happened when they released, and whether they changed their numbers.

Completely agree with what the first member wrote. I bought the gama already knowing that i would gladly pay 60 bucks for it, but i agree it may be too much for some players.

In terms of knowing in advance how much invested a person will be... well, there are Steam reviews, and dozens of gameplays on YT that will give anyone an idea on what they are getting, so i doubt many will get shocked about the visuals and such.

The mod and community also provides a TON of replayability for this game, too. If i was Tynan, i would release it at 39.99. Cheaper than a AAA while still at a decent price, and with a price increase that will make any early access user happy they purchased and supported this game in advance. Though personally i would still be fine if the price tag was the same, because other players didn't had the experience of playing the game "as it grew". Some might not agree with my view, so that price tag would likely be fine.

And of course, wonderful piece of work, all of Ludeon Staff ;)

Personally I feel 35-40 dollars USD is the safest bet.

The game offers content, options, a large scale modding community, and an incredibly active developer/team. Go too much higher and we do risk the piracy side of things increasing; not that pirates won't pirate if they want to but more one less reason to pirate if they don't have to.

What Ramsis said. I feel like a price increase of 50% of the original price or more is going to hurt sales rather than increase them, thats going to make potential buyers think twice.

I'd say aim for £25-30, or $30-35. Why not higher?

1. You have made a truly amazing game which has inspired *so* many people to then produce a rediculous number of mods as well, which are all free, providing a near-infinity of options and preferences, and thus a large spread of appeal.

2. The spec requirements are so low that there isn't a machine on the planet that couldn't run it.

3. I routinely browse the mods workshop on Steam, and there is a massive variety of first-languages amongst the mod developers, which means that Rimworld already has a market base in many, many countries.

As first sales go ahead, the overwhelmingly positive reviews will keep rolling in, and to be honest this game is by far and away going to be a classic; one of those ones that will be referenced to in decades to come as a benchmark of what games *can* be, and future games will be compared against it to judge how good they are on the "Rimworld scale". It wouldn't surprise me if this game's popularity (and sales) will be measured in years; most games peak after a few weeks and then fizzle out.

When I paid 30, I knew I wanted this kind of game. I simply wanted to support development in hopes it wouldn't get abandoned too early. Glad to see it come this far!

If features/content keeps getting added over time then the price is understandable, but if this is pretty much all there's gonna be (mainly bug fixing here on out) with price jacked up past 30, then it's hard to refrain from thumbing it down.

I know I will fight myself on this. (I won't thumb it down on steam, but I won't recommend it either) Not because it's a bad game but because I can't recommend it for the price.  When a game gets in that price range then it raises my expectations. I do have fun in Rimworld, but it doesn't reach my expectations. The feeling of an incomplete game was always there in just about every game I boot up in Rimworld.  I have this feeling with several other indie games but I didn't pay 30+ for them. It's great to see players completely satisfied with it and would gladly pay more.. But TBH I've gotten at least six people to buy this game and sort of regret it based on most of their reactions, so I'll be very hesitant to even bring it up with friends/random encounters with price increased. I know this post is sort of on the negative side, sorry.  I will say that you guys have done some great work so far! So thanks for the experience.

Quote from: vzoxz0 on September 04, 2018, 04:20:25 PM

Steam Spy indicates this game has ~500 000 owners. It would be interesting to see other popular early access games (with similar stats) and what happened when they released, and whether they changed their numbers.

Tynan announced a while back that the game had officially hit 1 million sales.

https://ludeon.com/blog/2018/01/one-million-copies-sold/

I just made it into the kickstarter at $15, and for a game I've been coming back to since the early versions I've more then gotten my money's worth. And as many have reflected, knowing what I know of the game now, how deep and wide it is, how vibrant, diverse and active the mod community is and how on top of the community you are, I'd gladly pay $60 for it. You've made a great game tynan, and I really can't wait to see what you do next, especially excited to see what your next project may be :-)

As for what the final price should be it's really hard to say. Thinking of how I approach buying a game on steam (which I do way more then I should)I know that $30 is right at the top of my 'impulse buy if it's in a genre I really like' range, and 40+ would push it into a 'lets wait and see' for a new release, and a 'let's see how patching has looked over the last few months and what the glowing reviews and the scathing reviews say'. Additionally I'll ask any friends who also own it for their feedback.  I also am seeing a lot of developer responses to negative feedback lately, and when it's a well thought out response to a well thought out bad review that is a tremendous boost to my outlook on the developer.

Given the "overwhelmingly positive" reviews on steam and with several of my friends having have played and loved it I think if I were approaching it new you could get $40 out of me. Anyway, this post really got away from me. I hope it was helpful.
How ever you fall on the pricing I'm sure it will continue to be a success, because at the end of the day it's a great product with a great community around it that loves it.

I'm willing to pay 0,25$ per hour of good game. I have 165h in Rimworld so it is worth ~40$ at the moment for me. I reckon that after 1.0 I'll have 300h or more. So if you ask me about value of Rimworld I would say it's about 70$. However I would strongly discourage rising price to anything above 35$ because this would discourage many potential players. Larger player base is important because it means more word of mouth, more modders, more fame for devs and better sales for next product. I personally would prefer to sell 1M cheaper copies than 100K more expensive copies of the game. Especially if you don't plan any price drops for long time there's no need to ramp up the price. Just keep it reasonable and steady and cash will flow.
Oh and I'm also willing to pay 2$ subscription a month for continued development ;)

its gonna cost more? damn. Hope 1.0 doesnt come until after christmas then

Personally I would agree with some of the others. A price range between 35 and 45 would probably work best. Not because of how much the game is worth, though. If it's just for myself then yeah, this is a game I would have happily paid 60 dollars for it. I've gotten hours upon hours of enjoyment out of it and will probably get hundreds of hours more enjoyment still in the future.

My reasoning is purely consumer based. One of the trends I've noticed on steam is that you can easily see which are the indie games and which are the AAA titles purely based on price most of the time. Till 10 dollars you have the easy platformers, puzzle games and visual novels. From 10 to 30 you have the indie titles. 60 dollars....almost all of them are AAA titles.

And with those, come certain expectations and limits. So if you price it at 60 then people will probably expect an AAA production...and DLC...and let's not forget the whining that a lot of those titles bring forth if the smallest thing doesn't work.

35 to 45 is probably a price that shows "hey, complete game but not completely indie but not an AAA either." if that makes sense.

Before I share my thoughts I just want to put out there that this is my 3rd most played game with ~300 hours. I even purchased a backstory to help support as much as I could :P. I would only want the best for this game and the developer for all his hard work!

That being said, I would actually advise going the other direction in terms of pricing.  If you look at all the top steam games rated 10/10: https://steamdb.info/stats/gameratings/ You will notice that about a good amount of the top games can have graphics that can be deemed similar to Rimworld.  This includes things like Factorio and Don't Starve.  However, what you notice with those games is that they already cost at or below what Rimworld does: $30 and $15 respectively.  So if you were to increase the price of the game, from a behavioral standpoint, If i only have $30 dollars to spend, Factorio seems to be fun according to the reviews, so eh lemme buy that instead of saving $x amount to get to the new rimworld price.  What would be interesting to learn is how many people have both rimworld and factorio, or just one of the two but wanted both. (you would never be able to get this info but interesting none the less)

Additionally, looking through the above posts, many of the people claim that they would not have bought the game unless X happened, i.e. watching a streamer. Not only would they have not bought the game, but many couldn't simply afford it. By increasing the price, you may scare people away, where now if the price is $50, Why should I get this game, when I can get The Witcher 3.  Not saying this game is inferior to the Witcher 3, but if people had doubts of buying it at $30, i don't know if they would want to buy it at $50.  This can be also related to the idea of price discrimination, where at movie theaters, they give discounts to college kids not to be nice, but because they know college kids can't afford the regular price ticket.  So essentially ( in theory) everyone who would buy the game, would have already bought it by now.  While I know this can't be true because you get new sales everyday, there is a ton of kids who would buy "the movie ticket" if it were only cheaper.  What you could do in that instance is just put the game on sale. 

As to the point of "we have never gone on sale and we will never go on sale" This may work for an individual standing item but when you are listed with other items it is much harder to pull off.  For instance, I have 22 some odd things on my wishlist.  Do I remember when the last time "northgard" went on sale? HAS it ever gone on sale? beats me!  But I guess I will just wait until it does because I like the idea of saving money and something seems to go on sale on my wishlist every week anyway! Additionally, if I still only had $30 bucks and Factorio goes on sale, now I could afford Factorio AND Don't Starve.  One of the key components of the above is everybody had to "discover" how good this game was.  While there is nothing wrong with that only a slight proportion of people would bother reading the fourms of a game they are considering.  Which leads to people probably choosing to buy multiple games that are on sale instead of just one at the full price. 

Moreover, connecting this with the above, if Northgard all of a sudden increased by $15 bucks, my inclination is to stay even farther away from it.  Sure it may have come out with more content, and sure it may be out of early access, but if DayZ suddenly came out of early access 5 years in development, I don't know if 1 dev cycle would justify a huge increase in price to a bystander who was already on the fence of getting it. 

The other problem that you run into is that if you were to follow the recommendation above and lowered the price, you might alienate the community that already bought your game as they may feel ripped off.  Additionally, it already seems like you are convinced in setting it to some price above the current $30, so my suggestion is to input it so that it is lets say $45, but then instantly have a 33% sale for the first month or so in "celebrating" the release.  This way you target those "sale seekers" and hopefully you will receive good press from the big gamer sites/magazines creating even more of an incentive to buy your game.  This would also seemingly be a "method" to satisfy all the arguments above.

Again, I don't even know if the above makes sense. Please don't take this post the wrong way.  I know you worked for years on this game and I get that you think your work should be worth more, but I would honestly think you would be compensated more in the above fashion.  I would be happy to explain it in more detail if you would like.  Just my 2 cents.

Hmm, to be honest I'm not sure how I feel about that. Don't get me wrong, the game is absolutely worth 30 dollars. If I had been trialing it until now I would likely be willing to spend more than 30, however, I am not so sure I would have bought the game if it had been at a higher price point than it is currently. Especially with the lack of sales. I get Tynan may not like sales, but that is simply how I feel. In my opinion, due to the nature of the story telling aspect of the game, it does not translate very well into other media aside from text based stories. Based off of the steam page it appears to not have much depth. Based off of youtube and twitch it appeared very boring to me due to the downtime. I very rarely pay more than 30, and almost never pay above 40 for a game. The combination of reading the steam review and steam's refund allowed me to push through and take the chance.

I don't think this is just me either. 2-maybe 3 people in my very close circle have been put off due to this as well. I'm not saying that the game should be less than 30, but before playing it, a combination of the graphics/viewing the gameplay was not too interesting. That's just my two cents worth though.

Bit more on why I do not find it interesting to watch gameplay. I find it hard to both acquire and maintain an interest in the pawns and their stories outside of my own game. In a "make your own story" game like rimworld I believe this to majorly detract for the enjoyment.

I am convinced that anything more than currently will only lower sales. As others have stated the game is expensive for a indie right now.

Quote from: korppi on September 06, 2018, 02:28:06 AM
I am convinced that anything more than currently will only lower sales. As others have stated the game is expensive for a indie right now.

I agree. When I bought the game I was already very hesitant, the 30$ tag already seemed like a lot, but the positive feedback the game received as well as the concept I really like finally convinced me. If you look at other indie games with overwhelmingly positive reviews, they're all priced slightly lower than Rimworld. If you have to choose between those games and Rimworld, a 5$ price difference isn't likely to matter much, but if the price of Rimworld increases it'll more likely be a 10-15$ difference. I think that would put a lot of people off, at least it might have putten me off.

So I think the 30$ is spot on. The game is worth more to me, but that doesn't mean asking more is wise.

Even at the 30$ price tag, I spent an amount of time watching people playing on YouTube and skimming through the reviews before buying.
If there were any price increases, I believe that ~40$ would be the top for me. I veeery rarely buy a game above that price range, only if I've been eyeing something for a long time, and after the initial reviews of course.

---

Two games that Rimworld has drawn a lot from have sold a fair bit over one million (https://techraptor.net/content/factorio-has-sold-over-1-million-copies) and two million (https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2016-07-07-prison-architect-sells-2m-copies) respectively - at $30. If we assume that people look at Rimworld and have a similar level of interest, a price increase may hold it back from similiar levels of success. Say what you will about DLC, but I think that may be the way to go. The game's sold a significant amount of copies, and (no disrespect) it's hard to picture it going too much further at an increased price, as similar games would be available for less and those who thought a not-amazing-looking complicated and harsh colony management sim for $30 (bit of a gamble) already have, it's not a huge demographic. Meanwhile: look at Civilization V. Not only was it already twice the price of Rimworld, but it's best-rated DLC pack added half the price back on in addition to it selling very well in it's vanilla state. Yes, it's apples to oranges, but there's something there. They sell Civ and Scenario packs for around $4.99. The price would have to be adjusted, but the content would translate perfectly. There are plenty of mods that add new factions and respective technology (Rimsenal, Apini, The German Imperial Army (https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1125526673)), a decent price tag could add new content for existing players, and make what's there look all the more appealing than a price increase alongside "I don't feel like adding more content" (respect the choice, just sayin').

For example: the Cryptosleep Revival Briefing (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fUO3KKbAbTxMP1lqphnnodY0NPoOVblCUkDw-54MDUc/pub) has plenty of more content I'd love to see, without having to "steal" from other games or mods. More additions to the technology we already have (Proof of Concept: Medival Times (https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=732569232) and Glittertech (https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=725576127), averaging 87k subscribers), the addition of robotics and artificial intelligence (Proof of Concept: Androids (https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1204079337) and Misc Robots++ (https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=747645520) having 24k and 75k subscribers respectively), xenohumans (Proof of Concept: Beastmen (https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1119191638&searchtext=) at 14k and Dwarves (https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1400238872&searchtext=) at 23k, plus, an incredibly handsome man typed this excellent argument (https://ludeon.com/forums/index.php?topic=41378.0)), terraforming (MarsX (https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=732754899), in addition to getting Tynan's approval (https://twitter.com/tynansylvester/status/761091931657019396?lang=en), could be seen as a proof of concept for Dead and Toxic worlds), and crimes against nature (Proof of Concept: GeneticRim (https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1113137502) and Dinosauria (https://steamcommunity.com/workshop/filedetails/?id=1136958577) averaging 35k subscribers). All of these mods have either personally given me hours of additional content, or might have well because a similiar mod did it instead. All have significant effect on gameplay (as opposed to additional particle effects (https://store.steampowered.com/app/404011/Total_War_WARHAMMER__Blood_for_the_Blood_God/) or bling in a singleplayer game (https://kotaku.com/never-forget-your-horse-armor-1768813271)) be it opening a sort of prehistoric park or dwelling longer in a tech level which has no impact beyond it's research speed for one scenario. I'd hardly expect any reviews or articles criticizing the addition of hours more content while keeping the game at $30. That way, the game could technically get a technical price increase, while keeping the momentum of its current price, and giving those who already own the game more ways to support the continued development.
It doesn't even need to have been shown in abstract in a mod, a cactus that whips people and animals with human-level intelligence are objectively interesting.

Or, y'know, just increase the price anyways and add a bit more code that doesn't do anything to the vanilla game so that modders have more things to play around with (like, idunno, enough to manipulate into a scent system, don't think you can do that with what we have now). I have nothing against "just let the modders do it", but the game's developers are at least restricted, in a good way. "I want a big faction" will net you Starwars or Space furries (https://ludeon.com/forums/index.php?topic=22336.0). oh (https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1240151337) god (https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1120946454) so (https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=940371232) many (https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=947861311) space (https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=918312251) furries (https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1115882219). †

† Not shitting on any of these mods by the way, I've used most of them. I'm just sayin', maybe the occasional cactus (https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=974612964&searchtext=Cactaceae), gemstone (https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=972897322), insect (https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=881864390), or abomination (https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=882126182) would spice things up a bit.

As with others I took a long while to decide whether to buy Rimworld, and a big factor that prevented me buying so long was the current price. I bet many have been stung by other cheaper indie games that were awful or abandoned by the devs, so i would say Rimworld is 'seen' as a big gamble. £23 for a indie game that is early access seems steep.

My gamble paid off as i love the game, and I recommend friends who are interested in indie games that this is worthwhile, but they see the graphics and early access label and they are turned away, especially when you can get games made by well known established companies on sale for under £10.

My advice is that the game go no higher than £25 when on full release (v1.0). I'd then advise future development be funded by DLC. However, please do not follow the Paradox model. I'd rather pay for one good DLC release that adds lots of content, than small crappy DLC releases that are clearly money making gimics.   

After some more consideration and reading the comments here, I would argue for leaving the current price as it is, 30 USD.

- Is there a need to increase the price besides your promise?
- 30 USD are imho the maximum price for such a game, no matter the game time.
- Are sales still going up? Is there still a big enough market for increasing the price or did most of the people already bought their copy?
- Will customers who already bought their copy care about what others will pay in the future? Personally, I don't.

I would rather argue for some ingame gimmick to all pre-release customers instead of a price increase.

I made an account just to say what a terrible idea I think this is. Simply because I love the game and feel like I owe you this little courtesy of warning you of a grave mistake.

I have hundreds of hours in the game, so I know it's worth 60€. People who don't own the game don't know that. I put off purchasing it myself, because I thought 27.99€ was steep for an indie game, even if it has endless replayability. I play a lot of indie games, and here's what I've paid for them, all at release or in early access.

Into the Breach 12€
Stardew Valley 14€
Factorio 20€
Hotline Miami 10€
Banished 10€
Cities Skylines 25€
Darkest Dungeon $25
FTL $10
Don't Starve $15
Prison Architech $15

The list goes on, but I think you get the point. 29.99€ is the maximum I'd ask for an indie game with a simple presentation like this one. Even if you desperately need money, I'm willing to bet a price of 40€ will scare away so many customers you'll end up making less than you would've with 30€ or even 20€ price tag.

The 1.0 release will likely be your last big spike in media coverage. Don't waste that opportunity by alienating customers right when you have the most traffic on your Steam page.

If you look at AAA games, their prices go from 60€ to 30€ in a matter of 6 months. Just yesterday I saw Ni No Kuni 2 for 25€, a game that released in March 2018 to critical acclaim. Consumers expect video game prices to go down after release anyway, so increasing the price at 1.0 would end up being this weird little spike after years and years of 27€ just to go down a few months later. Why? Right when you have the opportunity to present yourself for the largest simultaneous audience you choose to drive customers away.

Quote from: Call me Arty on September 06, 2018, 06:52:33 AM
Two games that Rimworld has drawn a lot from have sold a fair bit over one million (https://techraptor.net/content/factorio-has-sold-over-1-million-copies) and two million (https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2016-07-07-prison-architect-sells-2m-copies) respectively - at $30.

I bought both of those games during early access, and like I said I paid $15 and 20€ for them. I have the receipts right here.

Prison Architect  November 12, 2013  $14.99

Receipt for Your Payment to Wube Software Ltd. ([email protected])
Payment   €20.00 EUR
Apr 1, 2016

So Rimworld is already 33-50% more expensive than those two, and they're also the type of games that theoretically can provide you with endless game time.

I've been a gamer all my life, well, for the last 35 years anyway. When I think of VALUE of games, I think of how many hours of enjoyment/playtime did I get for the purchase price. A cheap game is not good value if you decide in 15 minutes it is not for you. Anyway, in my experience there have been a few games with absolutely stellar value, and perhaps top of the list is Minecraft. So cheap, and so many, many hundreds of hours. The next two behind that are probably Rimworld and 7D2D, very different games. Stupendous value, for me, even at double or triple what I paid for them. The thing is, you just don't know which games are going to turn into this kind of value when you are paying for them, and most people have been burnt a few times by really disappointing games.
I will recommend Rimworld to anyone who listens, but for those fresh off the street, probably $30 seems like about right for this. If you do go up from there, I don't think it could be much, and it will eat into sales. There is diminishing returns of price rises, and the perfect price is of course a guess. I would suggest, like Minecraft, the best strat is to err on the side of low price / high volume. This can snowball into a very huge income, as it pretty much has already. I would not rush out and buy that gold Lambo yet, but I can see the sales more than double on v1.0, and continue to grow over the years if it is fairly maintained. Clearly there is a lot of scope for DLC as is evident in the large mod community, this game could be milked for years and years if so desired.
So, what is my point? Like Grandpa Simpson, I'm not really sure. I guess I'm just saying not to be greedy, and the success will come.

After reading many replies after mine, I think that I have to change my stance a little bit.

I actually think that $30 is a good price point for what we have, as others have said, if it were $40 I probably wouldn't have gone for it, at least not for a longer period of time. Ultimately I probably would have waited for a sale or a price drop, lest some sizable stipend fell out of the sky.

Something that was on my mind, that I left out of my previous post, was that I think, perhaps, an option to donate to your future endeavors would be a nice way to go.

DLC, as mentioned eariler by someone else, would be a cool way to sell nice bits of dev time in chunks and give more support to a game that we came to realize, over time, was a good decision to purchase. However, I think that modders are capable of delivering DLC-scale content.

So here on some thoughts on that:
*

• I'd imagine that some of the more capable modders would be able to make quite nice DLC if they could take some percentage of sales, given that they could devote more time to their dev-process. With that said, I don't know much about the level of fees incurred by DLC sales, nor the legal stuff that would undoubtedly eat time. And the ethics are rather dubious, it seems, because "what level of free content might we have missed out on?"
  

*

• I DO think that, perhaps rather than adding more features directly to RW, maybe one more update before you take a break that gives these volunteer developers some more tools to work with.
  //I don't actually know much about coding beyond some basic Java and data structures and whatever can be inferred from that level of expertise.
  
  

• Finally, I think that a donation link or button on your storefront, as opposed to anywhere in-game, placed there to "support your future endeavors and projects" would be a good thing. As several of the people who cared enough to comment on this have stated, they would have been willing to pay a higher price, especially after they found out just how much value that they got from this game, and would like to support you more. But, as others have pointed out raising the price now, save more than perhaps $5 if you added the extra mod-tools (!!Free DLC & Devs!!), would likely scare off many potential customers.
  
  

I played the game for about 8 hours before I knew that it was something that I wanted to support when I could in the future. $30 was really pushing the threshold on my willingness to do that in a timely manner, however.

P.S. I don't really care what others in the future have to pay for the game. I think that the money that I spent was worth what I got. That said, some part of me would probably be the slightest bit miffed if the price dropped immediately upon release, but I would get over it in a day or two, as, ultimately, it doesn't really matter. lol

EDIT: Post Post Script: I'm not actually sure what YOU could add to the game with regards to DLC that modders couldn't do for free other than devote more time, something you don't seem very keen on doing, because you'd be compensated for your development time. As I doubt there will be any major game mechanic changes out side of, perhaps, some debugging and balance changes ( which I believe amount to chaning numerical values in code, more or less).

Quote from: saulysw on September 06, 2018, 09:58:23 PM
I've been a gamer all my life, well, for the last 35 years anyway. When I think of VALUE of games, I think of how many hours of enjoyment/playtime did I get for the purchase price.

I'm not calling you wrong because people have different priorities, but personally I hate this argument and how common it is.

You wouldn't go see a 3 hour movie instead of a 2 hour one because "you get more value". You wouldn't read a 1000-page book over a 300-page one simply because there's more of it. Bold and the beautiful isn't a better TV show than Sopranos simply because they've made 7000 episodes.

As a kid with very limited income and before Steam/GoG/Humble etc. sales this logic had some reasoning to it, I wouldn't blow my savings in a game I couldn't play for months. These days with limited free time I view it the other way around. Time is an investment just like money. I want a return for my investment. A 5-hour game that's extremely polished and doesn't drag or dip in quality is a better value for time than a 10-hour game with the same amount of work put into it but spaced out.

A game like INSIDE only takes 3 hours to complete, but every second of it is hand-crafted with love and the experience is well worth 20€ without hesitation. Meanwhile Steam is full of free2play games with content for thoudands of hours I wouldn't touch with a long stick.

RimWorld is an not an amazing game because you get so many hours from it. It's an amazing game because those hours are fun and barring extremes that's all that really matters. The average amount of "enjoyment per hour" you experience while playing the game.

Quote from: poika22 on September 07, 2018, 02:44:14 AM

Quote from: saulysw on September 06, 2018, 09:58:23 PM
I've been a gamer all my life, well, for the last 35 years anyway. When I think of VALUE of games, I think of how many hours of enjoyment/playtime did I get for the purchase price.

I'm not calling you wrong because people have different priorities, but personally I hate this argument and how common it is.

You wouldn't go see a 3 hour movie instead of a 2 hour one because "you get more value". You wouldn't read a 1000-page book over a 300-page one simply because there's more of it. Bold and the beautiful isn't a better TV show than Sopranos simply because they've made 7000 episodes.

I similarly hate this refutation of the idea and how common and - in my opinion - wrong it is.

Of course I wouldn't prefer a 7000-episode soap opera to a 13-episode series like Firefly. But if Firefly and Stargate are both $100 for the full series, you bet your ass I'm going to forget all about how cute Kaylee is and nab me up 200+ episodes of cheesy scifi goodness.

Also, it's not that there are 7000 episodes of the soap opera. It's that the person making the purchase *will enjoy watching them*. If someone would actually enjoy watching 7000 episodes of a soap opera as much per episode as they would enjoy watching the Sopranos - and trust me these people exist - then yes. The soap opera is a much better purchase for them.

If you play 1000 hours of a video game then you either really like that video game or you're a masochist. Either way, you're getting more fun than someone who spent the same money and finished a similarly enjoyable game in 3 hours.

Quote from: 5thHorseman on September 07, 2018, 03:15:18 AM

Quote from: poika22 on September 07, 2018, 02:44:14 AM

Quote from: saulysw on September 06, 2018, 09:58:23 PM
I've been a gamer all my life, well, for the last 35 years anyway. When I think of VALUE of games, I think of how many hours of enjoyment/playtime did I get for the purchase price.

I'm not calling you wrong because people have different priorities, but personally I hate this argument and how common it is.

You wouldn't go see a 3 hour movie instead of a 2 hour one because "you get more value". You wouldn't read a 1000-page book over a 300-page one simply because there's more of it. Bold and the beautiful isn't a better TV show than Sopranos simply because they've made 7000 episodes.

I similarly hate this refutation of the idea and how common and - in my opinion - wrong it is.

Of course I wouldn't prefer a 7000-episode soap opera to a 13-episode series like Firefly. But if Firefly and Stargate are both $100 for the full series, you bet your ass I'm going to forget all about how cute Kaylee is and nab me up 200+ episodes of cheesy scifi goodness.

Also, it's not that there are 7000 episodes of the soap opera. It's that the person making the purchase *will enjoy watching them*. If someone would actually enjoy watching 7000 episodes of a soap opera as much per episode as they would enjoy watching the Sopranos - and trust me these people exist - then yes. The soap opera is a much better purchase for them.

If you play 1000 hours of a video game then you either really like that video game or you're a masochist. Either way, you're getting more fun than someone who spent the same money and finished a similarly enjoyable game in 3 hours.

"If someone would actually enjoy watching 7000 episodes of a soap opera as much per episode"

But that's the crucial "if" which isn't present in the original argument that simply values hours of gaming as equal.

"If you play 1000 hours of a video game then you either really like that video game or you're a masochist."

True, but I've put a thousand hours into very few games. On the other hand there are plenty of games I've invested 20, 50 or even a 100 hours into before realizing I wasn't having any fun. A personal example for myself would be Warframe.

It's very hard to judge a game by the first hours unless it's technically broken. Many games seem like they "will" be fun, as soon as you get past the initial learning curve. Warframe seemed like a game that would be awesome once you grind enough to get good gear, but once I reached that stage I realized the end game content was very weak and that for the past dozens of hours I had simply been playing at the hopes of delayed gratitude which never came. I didn't feel glad that I at least got 50+ hours from it, I felt angry that I had wasted so many hours of my life into this game in the hopes that I'll start having fun at some point. I have to congratulate the devs for making the grind-cycle seem seem so promising and addictive at first glance though, that's a huge part of making a f2p game. Another example for me would be Planetside 2 for the same reasons.

"Either way, you're getting more fun than someone who spent the same money and finished a similarly enjoyable game in 3 hours."

But if I finish that enjoyable game in 3 hours I can go on to do other enjoyable things. "Fun" is hard to quantify, but if we pretend for a moment it could be done, a 5 hour game with 100 units of fun per hour would allow for more enjoyment per hour in my life overall than a 20 hour game with 50 units of fun per hour, even if the total fun to be gained from completing the game is lower.

I consider a 5-8 hour game with constant edge of the seat action like Furi for example a better return for investment overall (when money AND time are combined) than a similiarly priced longer game that has ups and downs. Not a bad game, but a stellar mediocre one. It's reflected in development as well, many of these "short but sweet" (again, INSIDE) took as long to develop as games with 100+ hours of "content". It's like drinking sweet syrupy juice concentrate as opposed to a drink someone dilluted with a gallon of water.

Ser Kitteh, 100 people had been working on fallout 4, the witcher 3 had 150 and up to 1500 people involved with 81m$ budget and in general 50-60$ games are having teams like that. I'm not sure why would something like rimworld, which didn't have that high cost of development have the same price, it's unjustified, even if the game is good, the witcher 3 is good and it costs 30$, cities skylines is good and it is 30$. The price should go down over time to keep up with the reduction in popularity and competition, not up.
Since the game didn't cost as much to develop the only thing the higher price means is more profit per sale, it's not a necessity, but pure greed.
Entertainment value argument doesn't really work either - you can spend your entire life playing chess, it doesn't mean that you have to pay 1000$ for the set. That's just backwards thinking; by that logic if you don't enjoy your car it should cost 1$ to drive.

as soon as developer try to milk customers with DLC and payed mods, and especially horse armor DLCs ever most loyal customers may suddenly change mind and run away (also they likely to review bomb game on steam)

also for me, dayzero DLC is solid no buy ever if game is perfectly fine and i really like it, more over, i won't buy anything from that developer ever.

also payed DLC will fragment community, especially if developer made DLC wrong, like destiny, that instead of adding new content for people who bought DLC, removed content from people who dont. (absolutely genious buisness plan btw)

Quote from: RawCode on September 07, 2018, 06:24:28 AM
as soon as developer try to milk customers with DLC and payed mods, and especially horse armor DLCs ever most loyal customers may suddenly change mind and run away (also they likely to review bomb game on steam)

also for me, dayzero DLC is solid no buy ever if game is perfectly fine and i really like it, more over, i won't buy anything from that developer ever.

also payed DLC will fragment community, especially if developer made DLC wrong, like destiny, that instead of adding new content for people who bought DLC, removed content from people who dont. (absolutely genious buisness plan btw)

While I don't disagree with the general principles you laid out, DLC fragmenting the player base isn't really a thing in a single player only game.

I always considered outright hostility towards DLC to be strange. Don't get me wrong, I'm not approving of Day 0 DLC. But no one's proposing Rimworld to include any. DLC utilized properly is today's equivalent of expansion packs, and people fucking loved expansion packs back in the day.

Diablo 2 Lord of Destruction is the D2 everyone remembers. Warcraft 3 the Frozen Throne was not only a solid second single player campaign and overhauled multiplayer, but it spawned Dota, something the original WC3 couldn't have supported. Witcher 3's DLC's would've been packaged as a separate disc a decade ago, and customer's would've been more than happy with their purchase. Company of Heroes' expansion packs equaled more content than the original campaign. The base game was solid, so it would've been a shame to only have one campaign for it. The list goes on.

Despite certain companies abusing the DLC system, delivering additional content for a well-crafted base game is a consumer-friendly concept. Rimworld's core principles are so good I would love to see an extensive expansion pack (=DLC) for it. Not horse armors and save slots for sale, but an extension that utilizes the same core mechanics established in the release game while expanding the experience without the need for a full sequel. Speaking of that, a lot of sequels these days could've just been expansion packs.

Darkest Dungeon is a great modern example. A single player indie game that felt like a complete package without compromises at release. A year later they released DLC content and no one thought they had been "holding back" content at release. The game was ready to release, but the devs knew it had even more potential yet to be utilized. That's where I see Rimworld.

"While I don't disagree with the general principles you laid out, DLC fragmenting the player base isn't really a thing in a single player only game."

... horse DLC.

Quote from: vzoxz0 on September 07, 2018, 05:27:07 PM
"While I don't disagree with the general principles you laid out, DLC fragmenting the player base isn't really a thing in a single player only game."

... horse DLC.

I feel like you don't understand what the phrase "fragmenting the player base" refers to.

A prime example of it would be Call of Duty map packs, which separate the online que to a plethora of queues based on their DLC availability thus making everyone wait longer. Whether your neighbour has the horse DLC or not doesn't impact your gaming experience.

High price and random sales and DLC.  A cash store that sells bombardment targeters and healer mech serums.  Also let people pay to incorporate their cosmetics and custom race mods.

Quote from: gendalf on September 07, 2018, 05:45:04 AM
Since the game didn't cost as much to develop the only thing the higher price means is more profit per sale, it's not a necessity, but pure greed.

Economics doesn't care how much something costs (when designating the price). All it cares about is maximum profit. If selling the game for $40 makes more money in total than selling for $30 they should sell for $40. If the opposite is true, they should sell for $30.

If you want to call it greedy then so be it. I ask you though next time your boss offers you a raise you should turn it down on the grounds that you don't want to be greedy.

That's very naïve. Stardew Valley didn't "maximize" its profit, and it is incredibly successful. The value for Chucklefish supporting it is immense and difficult to quantify as well. If you're a one hit wonder, then yes, you want to "maximize profit" for that one game, or that one period of time.

Quote from: 5thHorseman on September 07, 2018, 06:10:45 PM

Quote from: gendalf on September 07, 2018, 05:45:04 AM
Since the game didn't cost as much to develop the only thing the higher price means is more profit per sale, it's not a necessity, but pure greed.

Economics doesn't care how much something costs (when designating the price). All it cares about is maximum profit. If selling the game for $40 makes more money in total than selling for $30 they should sell for $40. If the opposite is true, they should sell for $30.

If you want to call it greedy then so be it. I ask you though next time your boss offers you a raise you should turn it down on the grounds that you don't want to be greedy.

Consumers do though and it's not limited to video games. No matter how badly you need a certain product it's very easy to pass up on it if you simply feel it's overpriced compared to how expensive it was to make. Even if their need was high enough to justify a higher price it quickly becomes a matter of principle

I don't disagree with what you said about greed, but I think the main point in this thread is that most people do not believe a higher price tag would yield a bigger return. Especially in an industry where manufacturing additional copies has zero extra cost once the product is finished.

I've already purchased the game so there is no ulterior motive for me aside from me wanting the studio to make as much money as possible to support future development. I see no reason that wouldn't be their primary interest as well, greedy or not.

Thanks for the discussion everyone. I honestly didn't expect people to take the time to write out such in-depth analyses of the market and how they see it. Lots to think about for me.

A few things I feel are just worth noting. Note that I'm not arguing in any particular direction here; I just think it's worth getting some info on the table.

• Inflation. Because of inflation, the $30 price from 2013 is equivalent to $32.50 in 2018.
• We've never had a sale and I'm not planning one. But of course some day the price will go down, or the game will go on sale. Even if it's not until ten years from now, it'll happen.
• Two Point Hospital costs $35, seems to have done okay.
• Crusader Kings 2 costs $40 (but they regularly put it deep on sale).
• RimWorld did cost $20 if you bought it during the Kickstarter in 2013.
• Because of the dynamics of the market, niche games will cost more per developer hour, and the games will tend to have less developer hours in them. A player in a niche market will tend to get a smaller number of developer hours per dollar since that dollar's value is copied to fewer people. It can be easier to understand if you imagine the extreme case of a niche of 1 person who wants a special game just for himself - he has to pay all the development cost alone, and that cost will have to be low. RW-like games exist on the spectrum between this and AAA games with huge target markets like CoD, DOOM, WoW, etc.

We already seen how "definely not greedy" developers are making games:

early early access (not a joke)
early access payed DLCs
day zero content payed DLCs (developers literally cut out quests and content from game and sell it separately)
Micro transactions in 60 buck single player game (hello deus ex)
Loot boxes
Horse armor DLCs
Payed mods (especially fun when developers lock modloading from "unathorized sources")
Remasters with maps sold as DLCs (when in base game all maps were free and embedded into base game)

Everything is perfectly fine and reasonable and absolutely not related to greed and ofc do not prevent any customers from enjoying games...
Also there is solid evidence in form of mass effect andromeda, that such actions increase quality of products.

As soon as developer stop making game and start making money, there is no way back.

Quote from: Tynan on September 07, 2018, 09:56:43 PM
A few things I feel are just worth noting. Note that I'm not arguing in any particular direction here; I just think it's worth getting some info on the table.

<Snip>

• We've never had a sale and I'm not planning one. But of course some day the price will go down, or the game will go on sale. Even if it's not until ten years from now, it'll happen.
• Two Point Hospital costs $35, seems to have done okay.
• Crusader Kings 2 costs $40 (but they regularly put it deep on sale).
• RimWorld did cost $20 if you bought it during the Kickstarter in 2013.
<Snip>

I'm no market expert, but I feel that I can at least fairly debate these. $30 is an excellent price for Rimworld, and $20 is an amazing deal, but there's a difference between it and the other games listed. Two Point hospital is fresh, backed by Sega, and fits a niche. After a bit of research, I have found that there are not a lot of hospital games (https://www.ranker.com/list/best-medical-simulator-games/ranker-games), and the ones we have access to on Steam are either not great (https://store.steampowered.com/app/503370/Hospitalize/) or not the most serious (https://store.steampowered.com/app/233720/Surgeon_Simulator/). Similarly, there aren't many games that can compete with Crusader Kings II and what it does, the closest is another game by the same developers. It's got cult status and the aforementioned frequent sales that can bring it down to a quarter of its price. Rimworld doesn't occupy the niche of no-other-game-like-it, or at least, nothing-else-good-that's-like-it. Prison Architect, Factorio, and Dwarf Fortress are the obvious competitors for attention, with a few choice others such as Rise to Ruins, Banished, and Oxygen not Included being well-received and also hitting the same notes that make Rimworld and the aforementioned titles work.

I'm not here trying to shit on Rimworld, I love it, it's great. There's just a reason why Verdun did so well when Battlefield I hit the scene, or how Team Fortress is still played so much despite all the new hero shooters. I don't think an increase in price would do much good for it's sales, and might just make people more aware of alternatives. I'm not saying it'll bring sales to a standstill, but it will certainly get an article or comment saying "Didja know that Rise to Ruins is like Rimworld in a fantasy setting for a third of the price?"

I personally believe that DLC is still the way to go. If the intention of 1.0 is to finish Rimworld and move on to other projects, then it, of course, isn't. However, if there is still some intent to expand it further, then I think the game should still see work. There is so much potential left in the game and the Cryptosleep Revival Briefing, I'd happily support the DLC - and I'm certain that a sizeable amount of the one million sales would too. Again: Keep the momentum of it's current price going, and get support from those who already bought it.

Quote from: RawCode on September 08, 2018, 12:13:01 AM
We already seen how "definely not greedy" developers are making games:
A bunch of examples here

Are you trying to say that if the devs made DLC for Rimworld, then they'd go crazy with power? It's sold around a million copies, $30 apiece, with 30% going to Steam. That's already like, twenty-one million AmericaBucks. I'm sure they would've just stopped at B18 or added plate armor as DLC if they were that scummy. Besides, you're completely ignoring Lair of the Shadow Broker, Blood and Wine, Tiny Tina's Assault on Dragon Keep, and everything for New Vegas.

Quote from: Call me Arty on September 08, 2018, 01:54:11 AM

Quote from: RawCode on September 08, 2018, 12:13:01 AM
We already seen how "definely not greedy" developers are making games:
A bunch of examples here

Are you trying to say that if the devs made DLC for Rimworld, then they'd go crazy with power? It's sold around a million copies, $30 apiece, with 30% going to Steam. That's already like, twenty-one million AmericaBucks. I'm sure they would've just stopped at B18 or added plate armor as DLC if they were that scummy. Besides, you're completely ignoring Lair of the Shadow Broker, Blood and Wine, Tiny Tina's Assault on Dragon Keep, and everything for New Vegas.

Ah New Vegas, lets discuss about "courier stash" DLC that just put number of items into player inventory for no ingame reason.

iam trying to say, that if devs make DLC for Rimword and put into it muffalo armor for 5 bucks, i won't be happy, no matter how i enjoyed game before this moment.

Quote from: RawCode on September 08, 2018, 04:37:19 AM
Ah New Vegas, lets discuss about "courier stash" DLC that just put number of items into player inventory for no ingame reason.

iam trying to say, that if devs make DLC for Rimword and put into it muffalo armor for 5 bucks, i won't be happy, no matter how i enjoyed game before this moment.

Move over everyone, this is a Fallout New Vegas thread now!

In all relevant seriousness though, I don't think the Rimworld Devs would do anything scummy, personally. The name, backstory, and pirate lord packs were blatantly overpriced, though they were admitted to be as such, and were just there to fund the game or to show your support for it. On the other hand (sorry to toot my own horn) the first post on page four of this thread are some examples of DLC I'd like to see for the game. I'd say that the people who are actually making the game would have a lot more room to build in than some of the modders who have already done impressive things. Sure, the general consensus is paid mods bad, but I could honestly see people paying money for something like Dubs Bad Hygiene (https://ludeon.com/forums/index.php?topic=29043.0). Why?

• It adds more management responsibilities to the game.
• The colonies on the Rimworld will be more reflective of potential real-world counterparts.
• It expands upon systems already in the game (comfort, cleanliness, water, heating, room customization).
• It adds more complexity and difficulty (I mean, Naked Brutality was widely demanded).

There are plenty of mods that do things fine and would make fine expansions given official polish and writing. Vegetable Garden (https://ludeon.com/forums/index.php?topic=12934.0) with produce that was designed to feed a colony on unfriendly terrain, and made into the traditional cuisine of the Rim? Megafauna (https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1055485938) expanded on science-gone-wrong like a Boomephant and space mysticism with other things in a Thrumbo's family tree? Any number of xenohumans (https://ludeon.com/forums/index.php?topic=41378.0) that - rather than being outright aliens - are made with the intention of/as a consequence of surviving on a hostile planet? These sorts of things could radically change the game for (ignorant non-coder here) what doesn't appear to be a back-breaking amount of work (at least, in comparison to new melee and caravan systems).

Quote from: Ser Kitteh on September 02, 2018, 12:08:58 AM
You could charge this game for 60 dollars and I'd still buy it. Not sure about potential customers however.

That being said, I think 40-50 USD sounds like the right amount. Unlike say, Fallout 4, there's no extra DLC to help the game get money post-launch.

I bought the game three times, once before Steam for myself. And when it was available on steam twice to give them to my brothers. I also think the game is easy worth €50-60.

But i'm not sure if i would buy it for the price before i could test it. so ~€40,- would be a realistic pricetag not to scare potential buyers.

Quote from: Tynan on September 07, 2018, 09:56:43 PM
Thanks for the discussion everyone. I honestly didn't expect people to take the time to write out such in-depth analyses of the market and how they see it. Lots to think about for me.

A few things I feel are just worth noting. Note that I'm not arguing in any particular direction here; I just think it's worth getting some info on the table.

• Inflation. Because of inflation, the $30 price from 2013 is equivalent to $32.50 in 2018.
• We've never had a sale and I'm not planning one. But of course some day the price will go down, or the game will go on sale. Even if it's not until ten years from now, it'll happen.
• Two Point Hospital costs $35, seems to have done okay.
• Crusader Kings 2 costs $40 (but they regularly put it deep on sale).
• RimWorld did cost $20 if you bought it during the Kickstarter in 2013.
• Because of the dynamics of the market, niche games will cost more per developer hour, and the games will tend to have less developer hours in them. A player in a niche market will tend to get a smaller number of developer hours per dollar since that dollar's value is copied to fewer people. It can be easier to understand if you imagine the extreme case of a niche of 1 person who wants a special game just for himself - he has to pay all the development cost alone, and that cost will have to be low. RW-like games exist on the spectrum between this and AAA games with huge target markets like CoD, DOOM, WoW, etc.

This is more in relation to the last point but honestly Tynan we are in a poor position to truly answer this. All we can tell you is what we personally might pay. In that regard, if development stopped dead at 1.0 30-45 USD would be entirely fair since rimworld is massively content rich for what was basically a 1 man game for so long.  If you, say, publically stated support for new content would continue for 2 years then a higher price would be expected or a fair market DLC value of 7-10 dollars per year/content drop.

There are merits to sales but they don't really work volume wise with indy titles compared to giant studios.

Quote from: Call me Arty on September 08, 2018, 01:43:13 AM

Quote from: Tynan on September 07, 2018, 09:56:43 PM
A few things I feel are just worth noting. Note that I'm not arguing in any particular direction here; I just think it's worth getting some info on the table.

<Snip>

• We've never had a sale and I'm not planning one. But of course some day the price will go down, or the game will go on sale. Even if it's not until ten years from now, it'll happen.
• Two Point Hospital costs $35, seems to have done okay.
• Crusader Kings 2 costs $40 (but they regularly put it deep on sale).
• RimWorld did cost $20 if you bought it during the Kickstarter in 2013.
<Snip>

I'm no market expert, but I feel that I can at least fairly debate these. $30 is an excellent price for Rimworld, and $20 is an amazing deal, but there's a difference between it and the other games listed. Two Point hospital is fresh, backed by Sega, and fits a niche. After a bit of research, I have found that there are not a lot of hospital games (https://www.ranker.com/list/best-medical-simulator-games/ranker-games), and the ones we have access to on Steam are either not great (https://store.steampowered.com/app/503370/Hospitalize/) or not the most serious (https://store.steampowered.com/app/233720/Surgeon_Simulator/). Similarly, there aren't many games that can compete with Crusader Kings II and what it does, the closest is another game by the same developers. It's got cult status and the aforementioned frequent sales that can bring it down to a quarter of its price. Rimworld doesn't occupy the niche of no-other-game-like-it, or at least, nothing-else-good-that's-like-it. Prison Architect, Factorio, and Dwarf Fortress are the obvious competitors for attention, with a few choice others such as Rise to Ruins, Banished, and Oxygen not Included being well-received and also hitting the same notes that make Rimworld and the aforementioned titles work.

I'm not here trying to shit on Rimworld, I love it, it's great. There's just a reason why Verdun did so well when Battlefield I hit the scene, or how Team Fortress is still played so much despite all the new hero shooters. I don't think an increase in price would do much good for it's sales, and might just make people more aware of alternatives. I'm not saying it'll bring sales to a standstill, but it will certainly get an article or comment saying "Didja know that Rise to Ruins is like Rimworld in a fantasy setting for a third of the price?"

I personally believe that DLC is still the way to go. If the intention of 1.0 is to finish Rimworld and move on to other projects, then it, of course, isn't. However, if there is still some intent to expand it further, then I think the game should still see work. There is so much potential left in the game and the Cryptosleep Revival Briefing, I'd happily support the DLC - and I'm certain that a sizeable amount of the one million sales would too. Again: Keep the momentum of it's current price going, and get support from those who already bought it.

Tynan i have been playing your game since alpha 4, easily my most played game to date, that say a slot considering i play EVERY kind of game, cities skylines, factorio, oxygen not included, bf1, COD, you name it.
IMO its of course worth $60, but i can see people browsing past it if its more than $30-35
Simply because of its graphics, not that they are bad, but because a 3d game looks more appealing to the eye.

I FULLY support dlc, ik all of us would glady pay for dlc if its REALLY a deep dlc. I believe the good price tag would help bring more and more people to play the game, find they love it, and go on to buy dlc.  Once the official launch comes around, make it STAND OUT. new trailer, etc.  Even tho its cheesy, look at Frostpunks trailers, they made it look more like a first person game, then its really...not, but it still conveyed the playstyle of the game with the narrative.  It made it look very appealing and amazing, which it is regardless of it being a top down game.  They still had trailers of its actual gameplay but they had that launch trailer explaining the story, something similer with Rimworld might be a great idea, keep the feel of the art style but make it like a story the way frostpunk did their launch trailer!

Without having read through the entire discussion, just a suggestion:

Up the base price slightly to 39.99. Do a release and regular sales (catch the holiday sales Steam does) with 25% or even 33% (comes out to 30 or ~26, respectively) from then on. Plan for a general price drop and/or sale boost (i.e. 50%) in the far future (i.e. years after release) - likely coinciding with a general slowdown of development.

With this, you cover all your bases. You do not lose out on income, do not piss off early adopters because of a sudden price drop, and a possible minimal price difference is easily worth the 3-4 extra bucks someone might have spent (I bought it for the full 30 via your page quite some time ago, for example, and would not feel miffed in the slightest if someone else grabbed it for an handful of dollars less now).

The way buyer psychology works means that having a slightly higher base price but doing small but regular sales is actually more likely to make someone buy a game at medium price (i.e. around 30) that would otherwise be too stingy. I think regularly dropping below 30 is pretty important in that regard for a medium sized indie game, even one as successful and well known as Rimworld.

The above suggestion gives you all of this and room to adjust.

setting price to 40 just to make sale (that will return price to original value) is shady marketing technique that likely to angry customers with IQ over 59.99.
39.99 is additional instance of that shady marketing, i feel treated like some kind idiot when see such price tags.
40 is 40, not 39.99 or 39.68.

if something works in local "walmart", does not means, that it will work everywhere just fine.

Quote from: RawCode on September 09, 2018, 04:16:25 AM
setting price to 40 just to make sale (that will return price to original value) is shady marketing technique that likely to angry customers with IQ over 59.99.
39.99 is additional instance of that shady marketing, i feel treated like some kind idiot when see such price tags.
40 is 40, not 39.99 or 39.68.

if something works in local "walmart", does not means, that it will work everywhere just fine.

I hate to devils advocate this but it works pretty much everywhere. The psychological effects of a .95 to a .99 at the end of a price point are well known and actually, disturbingly, work on the majority of the population. It's the same vein of behaviour that prompts the "ideal" sales height to be slightly under 5 feet. Most people are legitimately that lazy to let social instincts override common sense.

All that said though rimworld doesn't appeal to that market audience. It's a game that really requires you to think. Not thinking results in really damned short games.

there are no creditable research results about price tags.

and "ideal" sales revolve around setting and keeping price, increasing profits by decreasing quality or volume\weight of product over time.

unlike production of physical goods, that consumed on use, such techinque can't be used on software fully.

ofc you can "upgrade" base software and release paid fix, but customers are highly likely to notice this, and they won't be happy.
also customers may reject to update or downgrade.

Quote from: RawCode on September 09, 2018, 08:43:43 PMthere are no creditable research results about price tags.

Um....  Yeah, no:
https://www.google.com/search?q=why+do+price+tags+end+in+.99

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_pricing

Whether or not you agree with the underlying reasoning, the fact remains that pricing ANY good in this manner results in a small but significant boost in sales.  Your quibbles fall to empirical results *shrug*.

Quote from: RawCode on September 09, 2018, 08:43:43 PM
there are no creditable research results about price tags.

and "ideal" sales revolve around setting and keeping price, increasing profits by decreasing quality or volume\weight of product over time.

unlike production of physical goods, that consumed on use, such techinque can't be used on software fully.

ofc you can "upgrade" base software and release paid fix, but customers are highly likely to notice this, and they won't be happy.
also customers may reject to update or downgrade.

You neglected an entire portion of engineering called workflow. Process efficiencies and raw good costs are where you gain the most margin period dot end. Reducing product weight is not even fractional %s and done normally as a stopgap to price increases. The pricing metrics are measured, known, and widely used. In the 90s billions were spent studying this. To make matters worse the major spenders have not published their research. Walmart has never published its internal testing results in its "prop store" or its video evaluations at live stores. Yet we still have plenty of research backing up the data.

Is it crappy? Yes. Doesn't mean it's not happening or valid however.

Going over $40 would be dumb honestly. And really much more than $30 is asking a lot. Granted it does have many hours of play available, but the average gamer does not care if the graphics look like they do in this game and thus will just pass it up for another colony/survival game with 3d graphics.

QuoteI think people are misunderstanding something about playtime. Playtime is NOT a good indicator of a quality of a game. I'd rather play 8 hours of amazing gameplay than 30 hours of average gameplay.

That being said, the fact that people have spent so much time on Rimworld can be a good indicator of quality.

Not everyone agree's with that statement. I don't really since I play WoW :P, and just because a few people say "playtime does not equal price" repeatedly does not mean most people don't think that way as it's quite the opposite regardless of your personal opinion. Most gamers do actually think that way when making a purchase just from what I have read on forums(which is alot) and reviews.

Quotealways considered outright hostility towards DLC to be strange. Don't get me wrong, I'm not approving of Day 0 DLC. But no one's proposing Rimworld to include any. DLC utilized properly is today's equivalent of expansion packs, and people fucking loved expansion packs back in the day.

That is because "back in the day" expansions were actual expansions. They included an entire new campaign, and new units, new graphics/sounds, and hours of new content for usually about half the price of the game. DLC on the other hand nickle and dimes customers for new skins, new weapons, a new mode, and new maps, etc. I don't buy DLC unless it feels worth it, and is not something I use to get for free(IE new maps like CoD,  BF, etc does with dlc). It causes a lot of people in my generation to hate dlc that grew up with expansions and mods that know what is possible which is what you sort of go into following what I quoted. Most games any more do not sell expansions, but small dlc that adds up to cost more than an expansion would have for less content overall.

Quote from: TynanTwo Point Hospital costs $35, seems to have done okay.
Crusader Kings 2 costs $40 (but they regularly put it deep on sale).

Both of those games are very niche, and cater to a certain audience. Arty basically said the same. This game does as well, but i'd think by now most people that want this game already own it. Also as Arty pointed out there are quite a few other similar games on the market already. So you are going to be competing for the crowd that didn't necessarily want this game to begin with.

I still think your best bet is to increase it to $35, and release an actual expansion down the line for around $15-20. Or just move on to your next project, but who are we to decide that lol? We are after all random people on the internet.

Quote from: magicbush on September 10, 2018, 12:42:41 AM
I still think your best bet is to increase it to $35, and release an actual expansion down the line for around $15-20. Or just move on to your next project, but who are we to decide that lol? We are after all random people on the internet.

I think MysticalShrubbery summed it up pretty well here, and the bullet points of this thread seem to be:

• Rimworld is niche, and fits very comfortably into that niche.
• Veterans can agree that $40-$60 is a fair price for the content you get.
• Increasing the price beyond $30 could potentially alienate new buyers (most of the people who will buy the game likely already have).
• Those who already own the game would be willing to buy DLC for as much as it's worth (skins/pay2win bad, expansions good).

Back to my personal beliefs: $30 is a good deal, $40 is too much, and $35 might as well be base price (of $30) + "The change-some-aspect-of-the-game-in-a-meaningful-way expansion". This could be anything from boats, to a couple more non-baseline human pawns to control, to some way to sway a colony towards an acceptance of human flesh: a lot of things that have been long-requested, shown in-demand by the presence of mods to supply it, or a combination of the two. Hey, so many things have been added to Rimworld over the years for free, I'm sure the fanbase would've started paying for it a few updates ago.

Quote from: magicbush on September 10, 2018, 12:42:41 AM
I still think your best bet is to increase it to $35, and release an actual expansion down the line for around $15-20. Or just move on to your next project, but who are we to decide that lol? We are after all random people on the internet.

^ This. $35 is what you can reasonably ask for getting out of early access, $40 would be strechting it, more would be deemed greedy. That's from a player viewpoint, i get you may be considering minmaxing the return on personal investment to finance future projects.

You can put games like factorio and prison architect in the same field as Rimworld. 
Personally find those games more polished. 

Both are $30, tho PA has been on sale.  Big features are still being added to those games and don't have DLC.  Even PA seems to be experimenting with multiplayer now.  So I do question the price increase, especially if I want to take the comment to heart about no more major features being added to rimworld.

Too early to talk about dlc IMO but here we are.  I don't think it would be wise to expand on existing mechanics or include the many features that players suggest into a dlc. If I'm going to pay for it without rubbing me the wrong way it would most likely need to change the game/experience entirely, something similar to marsX mod.

5thHorseman, real goods and virtual goods aren't the same, there's an implied production cost per each sold good with real goods so the real goods demand should always increase the price, when the supply isn't sufficient, for example how it was with the gpu market half a year ago - due to the hype around the bitcoin/crypto mining the demand went up, but the gpu-producers were smart enough to know that it was a temporary hype, that wasn't worth investing more into production for, so the've just waited it out, which had lead to a physical lack of goods = increase in prices. None of this is possible with virtual goods, unless it's artificially orchestrated for profit.

I think that an increased price is fair. 

That being said, 30$ is the most i've paid for a game in a LONG LONG time.  I tend to get really early access games cheap, or pick up games after they've been out for a while on sale. 

If Rimworld cost 40-50$....I don't think I'd have bought it.  If it cost that much at 1.0, I don't think i WOULD buy it.  BUT! - and this is important - If i did buy it for that amount, I think it is worth it. 

Generally you can't play games before you buy them.  You can watch videos, read material...there might even be a demo, but it's still hard to tell if you'd like a game ahead of sitting down to actually play it yourself (not to mention the people who won't put in the research effort anyways...not everyone wants to work hard for their fun).  That being said, LOOKING at rimworld and the videos/reading material that exists, without having played the game, it was agonizingly hard to spend 30$ on it.  I'm pretty sure I wouldn't spend 40-50.  Luckily for me, I DID buy it, and it is WELL worth that money.  I'm just trying to say that Rimworld being worth 50$ doesn't mean someone is willing to drop 50$ and hope that the game will be worth it. 

It's a tough position without an easy answer.  The simplistic and cute graphics and controls that make rimworld work so well, pack so much content in, and enable such a complicated management/survival game to exist and be worth the money, are also the main things that would hinder impulse buys and first-impression purchases at a higher price-point.

***EDIT***
After reading some responses.  DLC seems a bad fit for this game.  Mods already cover such a huge HUGE variety of what you COULD do.  most every other possible suggestion tends to get bogged down with roughly equal good/bad feedback (see thirst needs, z-levels, etc) OR wouldn't really fit too well in the established lore of the game (no sequel with "colony on a spaceship" because everyone in interstellar travel is in a coffin because there is no FTL travel).  I'd much rather see a rimworld-inspired game using some of the same mechanics or assets, that is completely stand-alone, than a DLC that tries to squish a round-shaped new story/game experience into a square-shaped existing game.

Quote from: gendalf on September 10, 2018, 11:38:41 AM
5thHorseman, real goods and virtual goods aren't the same

I don't know what I said that made it sound like I thought they did, but I am aware of that, yes.

The important point I was making was there exists a price where Ludeon will make the most money and that is the price they should try for unless some other factor comes into play. That number is impossible to know but many companies have spent lots of money determining it for both real and virtual goods. Of course, most of that information is secret and doesn't apply generally anyway, but there ARE generalities and it DOES boil down to graphing out (profit per sale from a price)*(sales from a price)=(total profit) and picking the price where (total profit) is highest.

"Profit per sale" accounts for manufacturing costs of physical goods and paying the Steam Price for video games, however it's only one factor and sometimes not even a very important one. For all things sold to the public, the much more important factor is determining how high you can price the item before people (in general) stop buying it.

Quote from: Tynan on September 02, 2018, 12:02:08 AM
This thread is for discussing this blog post (https://ludeon.com/blog/?p=1148&preview=true).

Please add an multiplayer co-p mod, I believe a lot of people are willing to pay extra for it, like Stonehearth and Craft The World

Quote from: RawCode on September 09, 2018, 04:16:25 AM
setting price to 40 just to make sale (that will return price to original value) is shady marketing technique that likely to angry customers with IQ over 59.99.
39.99 is additional instance of that shady marketing, i feel treated like some kind idiot when see such price tags.
40 is 40, not 39.99 or 39.68.

if something works in local "walmart", does not means, that it will work everywhere just fine.

"I'll tell you what brilliance in advertising is: 99 cents. Somebody thought of that." -Roger Sterling

The only reason I've played more than 20 hours on this game is because of mods. I don't really enjoy it anymore without them. If it wasn't for the modding community, I think this game would have died a long time ago.

I think this game is worth $30 and that is based purely on production value and amount of solid content.

If you play the game on full speed, you can experience the majority that this game has to offer in a single play through in about 10-15 hours. Its a different story if you make the game intentionally more challenging and add mods. But playing vanilla Rimworld the first and 15th time is not really that much different.

I get tons more content from mods then the original game. I think its the only reason I occasionally go back to it.

I'm not going to speculate about the product value and make any analysis about the sweet spot for the price. But as an economist by trade I do have to commend you for not underselling your game Tynan. Too many ambitious early access games kill themselves simply by putting the price point too low during the alpha and beta period. Though I recognize Rimworld started as a kickstarter game where early access is considered a premium, not something inferior (as is often the case on steam EA).

And quite frankly, full release is likely not going to affect sales significantly, even if you were to maintain the same price; despite it being a growing group of people who refuse to buy a game in early access, they are still a minority. A game with an early access period will see most of its sales happen during that early access period, so there will be no big payday waiting for it in the future upon a full release. Take note that this is based on impressions and individual reports and not so much on hard sales data, as proper sales data on this is lacking (I would love to hear your experience with this after release though, considering Rimworld having a full release should not come off as controversial as it sometimes do for other early access games).

The best part of releasing a game however is that DLC will no longer be seen as controversial. *nudge nudge* Vehicles and religion are potential big themes that people might pay extra for. ;3