World of Goo Creators Try Pick-Your-Price Experiment 216
2D Boy, the independent game studio behind World of Goo, recently celebrated the game's one-year anniversary by offering it at whatever price buyers cared to pay. They've now released some sales statistics about how people responded to the opportunity. The average price during the sale was $2.03; the game normally retails for $20. According to a survey of why people paid what they did, 22.4% said it was all they could afford at the time, and 12.4% said they already owned World of Goo and were buying it for a different platform. (Yes, there is a Linux version.) Over 57,000 people took advantage of the offer, which was enough for 2D Boy to term it "a huge success." Interestingly, they also saw a significant increase in sales through Steam, and a smaller increase through Wiiware. They've decided to extend the experiment until October 25th.
That's very nice, but (Score:1, Interesting)
This is a pretty cool experiment. But...
Why would I have to purchase the game multiple times to be able to play it on different platforms in the first place?
Also, I spoke with one of the World of Goo developers a few months back and he said they were working on a new game (not a sequel). Due to disappointing sales of World of Goo, it was pretty much certain this new game would get some form of DRM. He didn't know what kind of DRM but he wasn't happy about it. I hope this "huge success" means the DRM is off the table now, but for now, it means I won't be buying the new game.
My own experience (Score:4, Interesting)
one purchase - multiple platforms (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:That's very nice, but (Score:4, Interesting)
Either I'm reading things wrong or people are doing it because they feel they should support the developer. Their World of Goo page [2dboy.com] says:
In a way it is good and bad that you get it for all platforms. I want it for Linux, so it'd have been nice to specifically say "look, I'm supporting your port to Linux", but at the same time it is good to get it on whatever platforms you want without having to pay multiple times.
Now, I had this on my Christmas list. Do I tell my family so that they can get it cheap and do the developers out of some money when a lack of DRM and an innovative game should be welcomed, or do I just let the "pay what you want" period go by and give them the money they deserve?
Re:thanks (Score:5, Interesting)
I wonder if it would be improved by having an updating average price display showing the current average price, or if it would mean that the average would stay down low because seeing that other people are paying $2 or $1 makes it OK for anyone else to pay that low.
Re:I see it coming (Score:4, Interesting)
There's plenty of $0.01 payments, yeah, but also a considerable number of higher payments. They say 57,000 total sales at an average of $2.03, minus 13% of the total in PayPal fees, which equals a take of $100,000. They're a two-man company, so that's $50k per person, from a single week of sales. Sounds like a success to me.
Re:one purchase - multiple platforms (Score:2, Interesting)
Ubuntu Software Store... (Score:3, Interesting)
This is a game that should *definitely* be available in Ubuntu Software Store for next release.
Re:That's very nice, but (Score:2, Interesting)
Even though people mostly paid the $0.01, they still made a nice amount of money with a year old game
Re:thanks (Score:5, Interesting)
An option would be to provide the customer with 3 figures at the pay point: Retail price ($20); Recommended price (say $10); Average price so far ($X).
I can't speak for everyone, but I certainly don't like to be perceived as stingy -- so I wouldn't want to pay below the average if the average is much less than the recommended price. By showing the average the buyer gets the sense of being watched, even though that isn't really the case. Result: the buyer is more inclined to pay above average.
Assuming everyone behaves similarly to me, the average price is slowly pushed up towards the recommended price limit. As it gets closer, buyers will start paying less than the average, and it will reach an equilibrium -- I'm guessing in the range $6-$8.
The key, I think, is to provide a reasonable discounted recommended price so that people are less inclined to think a low average price is "ok".
same experiment (Score:4, Interesting)
I did the same experiment with some Unity3D tools/scripts [lemuria.org] of my own, offering them at four different prices with a suggestion as to what I think they equate to, but a very obvious statement that no matter which price you pay, the download will be the same.
Interestingly, the distribution is 6-2-1-1 over the prices, showing that people do not always pick the lowest price, even if they can. Like the World of Goo makers, I consider the experiment a success and may use the model in the future.
It even checks out economically. I made ~180 US$ this way. If I had offered the scripts for $20 (2nd price), even assuming that half of the $10 buyers would have bought it at that higher price, I would've made only $140.
Who bought this... (Score:2, Interesting)
*slowly raises hand*
Legal pirates made me a annoyed panda (Score:2, Interesting)
what bugs me is that 16,852 people paid $0.01 for the game. Which is nothing but legally pirating the game.
If you were doing it for an OS port of the game thats fine, but otherwise at least throw in a dollar.
The bandwidth and credit processing would cost them more then the cent provided.
At least they got the marketing, and my business, which is some good from the cheapskates
Thats my $2.00 cents.
Pricing Models (Score:4, Interesting)
There's all sorts of interesting pricing models an indie developer with zero retail distribution could try if they're controlling the sales.
I think an interesting experiment would be to auction say X copies a day, with the price being set at the lowest winning bid. Folks who MUST have the product on day one can pay more, those who wait can pay less. Obviously there are some challenges, but it's at least an interesting intellectual exercise.
It would be fascinating to see what folks would pay for, say, a week of exclusive access to WoW: Cataclysm. Sort of ruins the spirit of the game, but interesting nonetheless.
Re:My own experience (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:What about absolute sales? (Score:3, Interesting)
It wouldn't have made 56,000 sales in a week without this experiment, though, so comparing to what revenue a game could've made on 56,000 sales at a higher price point is kind of irrelevant. A better question might be: is $100,000 in a week (implying $5.2 million/year) rate of revenues a good one, or could they do better with another model?