Letting Customers Decide Pricing On Game DLC 156
An anonymous reader writes "How much should game developers be charging for DLC? It seems that one indie dev has decided to carry out a unique experiment. The latest expansion pack for Gratuitous Space Battles is priced at $5.99 — or is it? It turns out there is both a standard ($5.99) version and a discount version ($2.99). And the difference between them is... nothing. The buyers have been left to make their own decisions on whether or not they should pay full price, and send more money to the developer, or treat themselves to a deserved discount. The buy page even lists comparisons of national incomes, average salaries and even the price of sausages to help buyers make up their minds. Will this catch on? Will Microsoft start asking us whether or not we should get a discount and trust us to answer honestly?"
Customers are assholes (Score:1, Insightful)
Umm... (Score:2, Insightful)
It'll catch on just as much as Radiohead's experiment caught on.
Expansion packs I'll pay for (Score:3, Insightful)
Horse armor, or a quest that's obviously supposed to be in the game because you run into someone trying to give it to you, I will not.
If I then have to pirate the whole game just to get around the DLC DRM, I will.
Unique in its stupidity (Score:2, Insightful)
Preempting the altruistic "I'm funding future development" crowd with "I have bills to pay. I know he does to. Obviously $2.99 covers the cost, so his bills are paid. That $3 goes towards paying mine." More power to you if you have disposable income, you can spend it on his 100% markup if you choose, but you're a mug if you do.
Re:How is this unique? (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not unique, you see the people behind these types of schemes aren't doing it with the goal of groundbreaking news stories, they're doing it because generating a news story on sites like Slashdot, no matter how dull or inane simply by changing ever so slightly the method of selling means that they have increased their potential customer base by several orders of magnitude.
Indies aren't trying to do something groundbreaking here, they're cashing in on the fact that editors are sites like Slashdot are stupid enough to repeat the same tired old story and produce fuck loads of page hits and potential sales for them. The genius isn't the pricing mechanism itself, it's the pricing mechanism as an advert on the front page of some of the largest relevant news sites on the internet.
There are other similar tactics- write a blog post about how your game made x amount of sales because you ported to and gave away a free picture of a lolcat with it or whatever inane blog post indies are thinking up nowadays to get on the front page of sites like Slashdot. Realise that these people don't give a fuck about how interesting their blog post actually is, or how clever their pricing scheme is, they only need it to be just relevant enough for sites like Slashdot to post it and link to their site giving them massive amounts of traffic and sales as a result.
Start by not calling it DLC (Score:5, Insightful)
At least for me "DLC" reads as "Stuff we took out from the main release or would give out in a free update but now sell as extra to squeeze more money out of the customers", 'cause that's exactly what has been done by most publishers.
Call it "expansion pack" or "small expansion pack".
Next give some sort of no-monetary-value reward for people who pay the larger amount. Maybe easier access to the developer and the ability to suggest improvements for the next version.
That said, is the "expansion pack" even worth the small amount? For all we know the two amounts listed are "more money than it's worth" and "way much more money than it's worth" and this is all a poor-man's advertising gimmick. Certainly getting the game to Slashdot will bring more sales.
(Disclaimer: I have no idea if it's so or not. Maybe the use of the word "DLC" has put me in a overly-negative mind-set with regards to this and even the large amount is great value. Take my opinion with a pinch of salt).
Re:Unique in its stupidity (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that he expects to make money on his work should be no surprise. He's experimenting with different ways of doing it instead of trying the tried-and-tested-to-be-shit method of throwing your loyal paying fans under the DRM bus.
DLC is tricky (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm all for DLC, don't get me wrong; I love the fact that new areas and items can be implemented after a game is released. I understand that releasing new content after a game's initial release isn't free; it costs developers and publishers money, but people really need to look at how much some DLC packs cost. That being said, sometimes publishers and/or developers do some really cool things. DLC that is available for free on launch day? Totally awesome...there was stuff that they really wanted to get into the game, and obviously ran out of time before the discs had to be pressed; I really appreciate it on the rare occasion when it occurs.
But what's with DLC you have to pay for being released not even a week or two after a game is released? Couldn't you have just delayed the freakin' game for two weeks if it was that awesome?!? Seriously, publishers...if there is an amazing dungeon or a few great items that just absolutely HAVE to be in a game, give the developers the extra couple of weeks to implement them into the release version. Don't make us pay extra money because the game had to be released NOW NOW NOW, and there isn't time to include things that you should. Can you imagine if you had to pay for DLC to get the Spear in Secret of Mana, or if you had to pay for DLC to unlock secret ingredients in Secret of Evermore?
Developers/publishers walk a fine line with DLC. [livingwithanerd.com] They need to be careful.
Re:Unique in its stupidity (Score:3, Insightful)
When I buy something I don't care if what I pay is enough to cover the costs of the developer/supplier/maker/etc. I buy something because I think the price is fair compared to what I get in return. Maybe 3$ is enough for the developer to pay the rent, maybe 5$ or maybe 0.10$. I don't know, but OTOH, I don't care! If I want to buy this expansion pack, the question, for me, is "Is this pack worth 6$ or 3$, considering where I come from and what I earn?". Maybe for a middle-class guy from the US the answer will be 6$, while someone from India will go for 3$ (Yes, I know, if the guy from India has a computer and can spend money on computer games, he is not so poor. You get my point).
Micro Econ 101 Fail (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh come on. No shit $2.99 covers the cost. It's digital. The incremental cost to the developer to ship another unit for a piece of software is tiny, tiny, tiny. Most of the $2.99 goes to profit, R&D and fixed costs.
Now, he still needs to pay those developers who made the software, buy computers, rent office space, etc. I'm sure he's done the math and knows he can achieve that by selling X at $6 or 2X at $3. Of course, he could go open source, set the price at 0 and make it up on volume [/stupid slashdot joke]. In Econ 101 he would have read about the price curve that suggests that fewer people will buy at $6 but maybe not so much fewer that it isn't the better price for his business. For a businessman, the ideal scenerio is to charge everyone the most their willing to pay - price stratification. This is why you have coupons at the grocery store. People with little money and lots of time can clip coupons and pay less. People who have more money will not and will pay a higher price.
The play here is not that he's trying to sell the 2X number with some paying $3 and some paying $6. He wants to first make sure he is able to break even by selling something like .5 X @ $6 and X @ $3. The $6 price helps him break even the same way the $3 price does. Plus, after Econ 101, you learn the price curve is somewhat BS in the first place. Part of what he's doing is stating "We think the product is worth $6, but are offering a 50% discount to poor people and assholes (distinct groups)." Now, regardless of why I look at the $3 price, I am much less likely to think, "Is $3 too much for this expansion?" because it's already a half off discount and be more likely to purchase. He may actually sell more units at $3 than he would have without the $6 option.
These guys are just remarkably (for better or worse) upfront about the price stratification. He's also a freak'n brilliant marketer. Free publicity on Slashdot is a win.
All software pricing is arbitrary. Always. It's up to a vendor to ask for what they think the product is worth, offer discounts / sales / etc to those who think it's worth less, and for the consumer to either purchase or not. The vendor needs to deliver a product that delivers a fair enough value that consumers will purchase their products again / not leave angry messages on forums or app stores.
Re:How about gratuities? (Score:3, Insightful)
There is nothing more likely to get me to argue about a bill than "A X% gratuity has been included in your total price". Has it really? Bloody cheek, what makes you think I was going to give you one in the first place and/or that it would ever be a particular price?
I call it rude. It's like the porters who cough politely and wait for their money. The most they will get will be a small lozenge and a recommendation to see their doctor about that cough. Don't say a thing, though, and just walk right out of the room after lugging all my stuff up five flights of stairs and you *will* get yourself a nice tip.
People: stop "tipping" others who do a shit job. You're just encouraging people to do a shit job because they still get paid for it. Instead, tip the ones who do a good job TWICE as much and don't pay the lazy, rude, idiots anything past your legal obligation.
And, yes, the whole "pay what you want" thing is really just a tip-based scenario, so it's hardly ground-breaking. More important would be the results of such an exercise AFTER you done all those sales. I'd be interested in learning just how much good work is appreciated voluntarily, having bought such things myself.
Re:Umm... (Score:3, Insightful)
Thats because most DLC is stuff they didn't include in the original game because of laziness, time or greed.
Re:Unique in its stupidity (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not sure if you meant it as a joke or not, but there is a trend going on that if someone is doing something to "make a buck" then he is evil (use spooky voice for last word). Hey, I am now at work and here to "make a buck", does that make me evil? Companies exist to make a buck, that's their purpose. Making a buck, in and of itself, is not evil. It is only bad when the things you do in order to make a buck are bad. To paraphrase: "Evil is as evil does". /rant
Re:DLC is tricky (Score:3, Insightful)
No. That would mean changing the dates they need the factories pressing the discs, and changing distribution dates... There's a ton of logistics that go into getting a product from Gold to Sold. Change it by 2 weeks and you incur a LOT of extra expenses.
My point was meant to be theory rather than actuality, intended to focus on including features that you should have included from the beginning rather than released as paid DLC. If you can't include it in the disc because you ran out of time to include it in the original game, it should be released for free...which is something else I touched on in my post.
All that being said, I realize no one is going to delay a product by a couple of weeks for DLC-sized content. Again, it was used just to get a point across.
Just because it was made at the same time doesn't mean it was ever intended to be part of the same product.
That's the crux of the problem right there.
Re:No (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, run Linux.
(Please don't mod me funny. I'm serious - I've seen lots of people pirating Windows and Windows apps, I've seen lots of people running Linux for all sorts of reasons but I have never yet seen anyone run Linux because they can't pirate software. Because they don't want to pirate software (and perhaps can't afford to purchase legitimately), sure.)
Re:Unique in its stupidity (Score:3, Insightful)
I have bills to pay. I know he does to. Obviously $2.99 covers the cost, so his bills are paid.
It seems you make the assumption that just because I'm selling it, I'm making money on it. That's quite naive, obviously I'm looking to make money overall but any particular sale might not be and even if I do make a margin on all sales the lower margin may not be enough to cover my fixed costs. I'll ignore the actual losses like loss leaders, promotional offers, clearance sales and so on since they're not very relevant to software, as the marginal cost is so low.
But to return to games, just because all games end up in the bargain bin does not mean they could have broken even on bargain bin margins alone. They've simply exhausted the market at full retail price and is scraping the bottom of the barrel. A book might need both hardcover and pocket book sales to break even. A movie might need box office sales and DVD sales and TV sales and merchandise and so on to break even. There's of course smashing hits and total flops that'd earn/lose money regardless, but they're the exception on the rule.
Obviously $3 covers the cost of the copy. But if you only looked at that cost, a pirated one at $0 also didn't cost him anything but it hardly pays his bills. Does $3 pay his bills? Well obviously that depends on what his sales figures and what his bills are, maybe it does but also maybe it doesn't. Maybe he needs $6 sales too to have an acceptable pay. Of course it's highly unlikely your $3 makes a difference, but a thousand people thinking like that will.
Re:Umm... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Expansion packs I'll pay for (Score:3, Insightful)
If I then have to pirate the whole game just to get around the DLC DRM, I will.
Because the developers owe you entertainment?
Re:Unique in its stupidity (Score:3, Insightful)
the steam bit is unsurprising I buy random stuff on steam when it goes on the 75% off, and stuff I'm pretty sure I'll like when it is on 50% off.
That and the twice a year new game at full price covers my gaming completely - given how little time I have for gaming these days.
In fact I get more enjoyment from the random steam stuff since there's no regret when I only play the game for a few hours and then give up on it when it only cost $7.50. Whereas to this day I still manage to buy the occasional complete piece of crap full price new game (ufc 2010 - I'm looking at you...)
Re:Unique in its stupidity (Score:1, Insightful)
You do realise that good and evil are just human interpretations of events, from the speaker's point of view? And if you choose to view anything as either good or evil you are allowing yourself to polarise your thoughts, meaning you will inevitably come to a conclusion that is inaccurate.
You have to also bear in mind that your job is who you are, so to just dismiss it as how you just make a buck is short sighted, and enables corporations to do fucking awful things for cheap. Are the mercenaries who work for private security contractors in the middle east just making a buck, or are they also killers?
When you allow your thoughts to be polarised you are much easier to control by those who seek to control others. This is why the powerful so frequently present false dichotomies ("You're either with us, or against us", "we're so much cheaper than the competition", etc. - phrases like these sew the "one thing, or another" thought into people's heads).
Is this kind of thing done on purpose? Without a doubt in some circles, but more often than not it is probably just a result of ineptitude. I'm sure we've all had a manager who was out of their depth. Ever notice how they make decisions? They tend to try to boil decisions down to 2 things by simplifying anything they can, then pick the obvious choice. Are the likes of Bush malicious, or just stupid? Well, Bush was stupid and his regime (who wrote his speeches) were malicious, but together their techniques kept that group in full power for 8 years.
Before someone goes off on a right-wing rant, just because of the subjects and examples I have used in this post doesn't mean I am simply an anti-war Obama fan. To come to that conclusion would be using the very thought process I have bitched about - one thing, or the other. I know I know fuck all abut the world, but I do know that some people are authoritarians who will force you and I how to live if you let them. I tend to default to supporting the little guy, the outsiders, the 3rd party. And I try to always re-assess who I am supporting, because as soon as a group looks like it will get some power, the greedy will seek to hijack that group for their own ends. The fabled Slashdot group-think seems to see this only happening in governments, but it happens in all human groups, eg corporations, religions. I think we see governments singled out because a government of the people is the only thing that can stand between the people and the power excesses of other human groups. The rhetoric from non-government powerful groups will hence inevitably align to advocate removing power from the government, and hence from the people.
Re:Start by not calling it DLC (Score:3, Insightful)
Pop quiz: how much did he make in 2006, 2007 and 2009?
Multi-year development cycles result in feast-and-famine: it's an endemic problem in the industry. You've looked at peak earnings and assumed it was an average. Tsk, tsk: -1, Uninsightful.
Re:Customers are assholes (Score:3, Insightful)
You realize they charge you what they get charged by USPS/DHL/UPS/whoever, plus a little for packaging etc., right?
If they let people choose "pay what you feel is fair" for shipping, especially international shipping, 99% of customers would choose "free", and they'd have to compensate by raising product prices. I don't think that's the outcome you desire.
(I am of course not talking about the jerks on eBay or Amazon who sell things for dirt cheap and then charge absurd amounts for shipping, I'm talking specifically about companies like Thinkgeek.)
Re:Umm... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How is this unique? (Score:3, Insightful)
Thing is, GSB worked out at less than 10p/hour for me, and that's assuming I never play it again.
I plan to play it again.
Compare that to most free and open source space combat games that cost me precious time without entertaining me, and I'd rather give cash to the non-open but independent and well supported game that's fun to play.
(On the flipside I hate DLC and so he's not getting a sale from me on this race. But I'll buy the campaign expansion when that's ready..)
Re:Start by not calling it DLC (Score:2, Insightful)
Not anymore: the law was changed and since the beginning of this year a company secretary is not needed for small companies (revenue below £250,000 per-annum if I remember correctly).
Even before that, it was possible (and common) to just pay a small amount to the guys that handled company formation or to some accountants and they would then do the company Secretary bit.
I should know since I've had a one man company in the UK for at least 4 years now.
Re:Start by not calling it DLC (Score:3, Insightful)