Blog post: Early access price and final price

[fritzgryphon]

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.

[5thHorseman]

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.

[vzoxz0]

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.

[poika22]

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.

[Tynan]

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.

[RawCode]

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.

[Call me Arty]

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, and the ones we have access to on Steam are either not great or not the most serious. 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.

[Call me Arty]

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.

[RawCode]

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.

[Call me Arty]

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. 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 with produce that was designed to feed a colony on unfriendly terrain, and made into the traditional cuisine of the Rim? Megafauna expanded on science-gone-wrong like a Boomephant and space mysticism with other things in a Thrumbo's family tree? Any number of xenohumans 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).

[Kraehe]

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.

[Nafensoriel]

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.

[enterprise12]

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, and the ones we have access to on Steam are either not great or not the most serious. 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!

[Stormfox]

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.

[RawCode]

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.