Menu

Show posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Show posts Menu

Messages - poika22

#1
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.
#2
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.
#3
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.
#4
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.
#5
General Discussion / Re: Introduce yourself!
September 07, 2018, 02:49:43 AM
Hi everybody.

I have 300 hours in this game. I'm still playing vanilla. I'm yet to look at a wiki, a guide, any youtube video or twitch stream. I also haven't made it to the spaceship or whatever the end goal might actually be, it's still a mystery to me. I play permadeath and always get wiped out eventually, though my current save is doing better than ever with 14 colonists.

So I probably won't be visiting the site, because there's still things for me to discover on my own that I don't want to read about. But hi anyway  ;):D
#6
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.
#7
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 and two million 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.
#8
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.