Game price?

[Kickball]

Looks like a sick game, how much will it cost? 10$ or 35$??

[Hypolite]

Since it's currently in pre-alpha, I'm not sure there's a fixed price point yet.

[Tynan]

Honestly, I don't know. I'm still thinking about pricing. Not $35 though.

[Ogaburan]

Make a poll after beta... ask how much ppl are willing to pay.
Make an avarage... and ask for double that!
MUAHAHAHAHAHA!

[The Ataraxist]

You should always charge what the market will bare.

This game will fund your next assuming you do it right, dont sell yourself short.

[xTAMERx]

make it like FTL

bid for a price + option for more support ^^

[Yarkista]

You should always charge what the market will bare.

This game will fund your next assuming you do it right, dont sell yourself short.

This a million times, don't short-change yourself man.

[Hypolite]

This game will fund your next assuming you do it right.

The problem with a kickstarted game is that the game has to fund itself before being able to fun the next one. In a more conventionally funded environment, investors put money up front into the making of a game. When the game is released, the studio has already been paid in full, so the price tag is divided between the investors' cut and the funding of the next game.

In a crowdfunded environment, a lot of the future potential customers a regular game would have targeted have already paid their fair share even before the game is out. And the amount paid by the backers are divided between the price of their reward (especially physical one that can eat up amount backed fast) and funding the current game. It is a double-edged sword : the studio gets money faster they don't own to anyone but themselves, but it is also money that won't be available for the next game, which will probably also need to be crowdfunded.

Just my 2 cents here, whatever the funding model, the follwing stands true :

dont sell yourself short.

But it is a very hard balance to achieve no matter what. Because it is very difficult to estimate how much the market will bare.

[Tynan]

But it is a very hard balance to achieve no matter what. Because it is very difficult to estimate how much the market will bare.

This is why I think the multiple pricing tiers are a good idea. It's a form of price discrimination. If someone is willing to pay more than the $20 base cost, for example, they can get the Prototype pack of game designs that eventually evolved into RimWorld (and they're surprisingly diverse, as you'll see). And so on up until the highest tiers.

[Hypolite]

If someone is willing to pay more than the $20 base cost, for example, they can get the Prototype pack of game designs that eventually evolved into RimWorld (and they're surprisingly diverse, as you'll see).

And now I want them

(But don't do anything before you've read my doubts about an early Kickstarter campaign)

[Yarkista]

But it is a very hard balance to achieve no matter what. Because it is very difficult to estimate how much the market will bare.

This is why I think the multiple pricing tiers are a good idea. It's a form of price discrimination. If someone is willing to pay more than the $20 base cost, for example, they can get the Prototype pack of game designs that eventually evolved into RimWorld (and they're surprisingly diverse, as you'll see). And so on up until the highest tiers.

Huh, are the games any good? Not trying to insult, just curious.

[Tynan]

They have some charm, but RimWorld is better. They're buggy and unfinished and unrefined. So no, I wouldn't play them just as games, but I think they're interesting if you're curious about how a game develops.

[Hypolite]

I most definitely am.

[Yarkista]

They have some charm, but RimWorld is better. They're buggy and unfinished and unrefined. So no, I wouldn't play them just as games, but I think they're interesting if you're curious about how a game develops.

Any more ideas on the pricing and extras of the higher backer tiers?

[oasis789]

I think there ought to be more thought into tier pricing. It's not just about the elasticities. More backers means more people spreading the word about the game, more momentum, there are psychological bandwagoning aspects to kickstarter. All things being equal getting 10 bucks from 10 people is better than 100 bucks from one, getting them on day 1 is better than on day 2. I wouldn't be too concerned about cannibalizing future sales, just look at the number of backers of the biggest campaigns and compare that to what their eventual sales numbers were. Miniscule fraction. Introversion IMO shot themselves in the foot with their higher pricing scheme for true believers, it's exact reverse opposite of what they oughta done. You want to reward your true believers who are also signing up for debugging and rebalancing and all that jazz.