Should Good Indie Games Be More Expensive? 150
spidweb writes "Indie gaming blog The Bottom Feeder has an article on why independent games should be more expensive. The enforced low prices on XBox Live, Amazon, and iTunes might feel good now, but they'll kill off the variety and depth gamers are hoping indie developers can provide. From the article: 'Every year, life is getting more and more expensive. Insurance. Rent. Food. And, at the same time, games are getting cheaper and cheaper, sometimes as cheap as a dollar, as we engage in a full speed race to the bottom. This is not going to help developers stay in business. This is not how a healthy industry is maintained.'"
Economies of Scale (Score:5, Insightful)
If your game is really good, then won't it sell more copies, making you more money?
Is there some hidden cost in producing more copies of a binary file?
Re:Economies of Scale (Score:5, Insightful)
10-15 is probably the good price range to maximize the number of copies sold. Lower won't make more under our current distribution methods.
Just like how software should be... (Score:4, Insightful)
'Every year, life is getting more and more expensive. Insurance. Rent. Food. And, at the same time, software is getting cheaper and cheaper, sometimes as cheap as a dollar, as we engage in a full speed race to the bottom. This is not going to help developers stay in business. This is not how a healthy industry is maintained.'"
I agree. The race to the bottom for software is not how a healthy industry is maintained. What will we do if software reaches a price point of zero?
There are no clear examples out there of how free [ubuntu.com] software [firefox.com] or applications [gmail.com] can stay in business. [safer-networking.org]
*rolls eyes*
Re:Just like how software should be... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Economies of Scale (Score:3, Insightful)
Being a good game does not equal good sales otherwise companies would make good games and not rubbish like baby and cooking sims on the DS.
But perhaps you're not bothered and eagerly await to but Baby-Momma on the DS.
(Sigh...) Again, it's supply and demand (Score:5, Insightful)
Supply and demand is an economic law. Arguing that prices should be higher than the market will bear, in an attempt to re-write that law, is foolish.
I recall a little "indie" game company that released, with little advertising, a mindless shoot-em-up by giving away much of the game and selling the full package cheaply. They made a good game, didn't charge much, and did well by it. 17 years later you can _still_ buy Wolfenstein 3D.
Re:More expensive? You mean LESS expensive (Score:3, Insightful)
Used is much worse for the developer than tail pricing. The developer will not benefit from a second-hand sale.
A small amount, or even just a better reputation for sales with their publisher, is probably better than the zero that a second-hand sale represents.
Re:Just like how software should be... (Score:3, Insightful)
You know what, I've spent the last week searching for free games that run under OS X and aren't half-assed screwups, crippleware or otherwise about as entertaining as a bodged vasectomy.
I should have just come on here and announced that there was no such thing.
On the other hand. . . . (Score:1, Insightful)
I was going to take issue with the original author on a couple of points here, but let's start with this:
"When I first founded Spiderweb Software, in 1994. . ."
Aaaaand I'm going to stop you right there. By 1994 the games industry had been around for well over a decade.
Going back a little further than 1994 (to 1984 in fact) the majority of the software available for home computers was sold either in specialist computer stores or via mail order.
A lot of this was created by "bedroom coders" (Indy publishers in other words). People were charging a couple of pounds at most for their titles and advertising them through the small-ads in computer magazines and newspapers.
They were usually able to earn enough money this way to make it worth while (in some cases enough to make a living at it).
As time went on a lot of these home-grown programmers were taken on by the large companies. Some indies (like Llamasoft) remained independent, others vanished into the corporate machine never to be seen again.
Shareware came on the scene much later on.
. . . .
Another bone of contention is setting an artificially high price for software. XBLA is especially guilty of this. Take a look through the Community Games catalogue.
Scary isn't it?
If this stuff was being given away for free you could imagine downloading it, but being charged money for a program that activates the force feedback on your joypad (for example). . .
This sort of thing devalues all the other software on there. After checking half a dozen demos (and finding out that they are essentially badly executed experiments that should NEVER have been released to the public) most people give up. This is a shame as it means that the good stuff that really deserves your custom vanishes under a sea of crap.
Does this mean that all software should be given away for free? Of course not. But let's face it: some of the shit out there you COULDN'T give away anyway!
Also (Score:3, Insightful)
Part of the justification of a game's cost both in real and notional terms is the amount of work that went in to it. One of the reasons that big name titles cost a lot is that it takes a lot of people to develop them. It is quite an expensive production, on par with making a movie. Look at the credits for a game like Mass Effect some time to see how many people worked on it (remembering also the people who wrote Unreal Engine 3 on which it's based). Then play it and you can see all the work that went in to various parts of the game, the writing, the voice acting, the art, the programming, etc.
Now, compare that to a game like World of Goo that two guys knocked out in their free time.
I chose both of these titles because I feel they are both excellent at what they are supposed to be. However they show the real difference in terms of scale of effort. I'm not saying World of Goo took no effort, it certianly involved no small amount of creativity and skill, but it didn't take the massive team, and thus incur the massive cost, that Mass Effect did.
As such, it makes some sense that World of Good was like $20 at launch whereas Mass Effect was $50.
Then there's the fact that I don't think anyone is really forcing low prices on indy games. I'm not saying there aren't specific examples, however overall you are free to sell your game online for whatever price you see fit. However, if you want to charge $50-60 same as the big name games do, well then don't be surprised if people demand the same level of assets.
Again back to my World of Goo vs Mass Effect thing I own World of Goo and it was worth the $20 I spent on it. I wouldn't have gotten it for $50 though. It's a neat puzzle game, but not worth that much.
Re:Economies of Scale (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, with iTunes you're already visiting a trusted site and they already have your credit card. It's just a matter of clicking on "Buy" and typing it your password. And getting people to click "Buy" for $10 is a lot harder than $1, assuming they've even found your app in the near-30,000 app marketplace. Thus, I think the iPhone/iTunes is a fundamentally different marketing model than putting up your own website and asking for credit card numbers yourself.
are new games too expensive? (Score:3, Insightful)
When I see "used" games for sale for $54, is it time to ask if they're charging too much for new games? Hell, yes. I don't pick them up until they're $20 or less.
Re: Economies of Scale (Score:3, Insightful)
What you describe are games which appeal directly to women and girls - 50% of your potential market.
[and don't think for one moment that there are no males playing "The Sims"]
Yes, they should. (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, they should be more.
I am a long-time fan of Jeff Minter. The other year, he released "Space Giraffe" for the XBox360. As a downloadable game for $5.
He did not, I believe, make back his development costs.
(Admittedly, it was a hard game to get into; I'm hoping he learnt from the reactions people who are not wired the same way he and I are, and that his next game will be more approachable.)
Me, I loved it. And when he ported it to the PC, I leapt at the chance to buy it again. Not because I wanted the extra levels he added, not because I wanted to play it on a PC - but because I wanted to finish paying Jeff for the fun I had. I literally felt guilty because $5 felt like I was ripping him off for the amount of fun his game gave me.
The race to the bottom, with the $1 games on iPhones, is one that nobody wins - developers abandon their indy dreams and get a job as a minor cog working on "Derivative Safe Game IV", users don't get more cool games. All we get are throwaway pieces of crap that extend brands, and first efforts by newbies living in their parents' basements.