You're a game designer and just put your first game up for sale.
Which of these two scenarios would be more preferable to you?
>>319727827
Are you retarded OP?
The former
5 people buy $20 games, then they tell friends who buy more
Second choice because that tells me I can convince jackasses to buy stupid shit.
You can sell more DLC to the first.
>>319727827
I don't think you thought this through very well OP.
>>319727827
is this for real?
5 people buying $20 game = 5x the potential for them to tell their friends to tell their friends and so on
the one person buying the game would have a hell of a time trying to tell his friends "ay this game is good pay 100 dollarydoos for it"
this is why undertale got so popular, it was a good game at a low price with no system reqs that was accessible to literally everybody aged 10 and up
>>319727827
>>319727827
If I make a good game then A, they'll most likely recommend it to their friends
If it's a buggy unplayable mess then B, gotta make those sheckels while I can
>>319727943
This post is right.
If you sold lemonade for $5 a cup, you'll get very few customers. Making it $0.25 a cup and you'll be rolling in quarters.
>>319727827
Neither scenario will happen.
No five friends are going to spend that much money on one thing. Even less at the same time.
You'll get one or two purchases at $20 or no sales at $110. You don't get five sales because your game is expensive but not good.
Wait, so do 5 people combine their funds to buy a single copy of a 20 dollar game or 5 seperate copies each?
>>319727827
Always the first option
The closest the second option comes to happening is mobile games looking to score "whales" as their business model.
Even then they need to have -many- other free users in order to attract whales and to give the whales something to squash with their Pay to Win power.
definitely the former if multiplayer is a key part of the game's appeal
>>319727827
>Being an indie
>Selling your first game for $110
>>319727827
>5 people buying games = 5 people potentially telling their friends about the game as opposed to one neet weeaboo stuck in his room all day
Word of Mouth is still a powerful tool anon
>>319727827
The latter didn't work too well for Battlefront, so A.
>>319727827
5 people buying my game, if any one of them enjoyed it they may say something to their friends about it and hopefully sell more.
>>319727827
First one means that 5 people bought and potentially enjoyed what I made, second means that one person did. Of course the first is preferable.
First one
More people would now my game and my company
After that I would make a $60 game
>>319728192
>Five people won't buy a video game for 20$
- /v/ Video Games
5 people
Remove 30% for store/steam thats $14 minus $1 to print materials
$13 x 5. = $65
1 game for 110
30% tax = $77 minus $1 for materials $76.
5 people buy a $110 game
>>319727943
It's something called Brand Awareness. They'll say "Hey, check this, they're selling X for $YY.YY!!" and that'll get more people interested in your shit.
/thread
>>319727827
If only 5 people or 1 person is buying your game full stop, I think you need to stop making games. Why wouldn't 5 people buy at $110 unless it was fucking awful.
>>319729750
Theoretical question, one nut.
/v/ is ignoring obvious assumptions for this thought experiment.
>>319727943
Correct. Giving up the $10 is worth it because you can spread the word about the game more easily.
>>319728192
You must not have friends anon
>>319727827
Obviously the second. Those 5 people probably bought in because it was cheap. You can't trust that they'll continue buying content. That $110 consumer is a dedicated fan with real disposable income.
You guys are retarded, 1 person who cares 110 bucks worth for this game will be way more devoted to it than 5 who only paid 20 and will try to spread the word way harder. It's like Battle Kid Fortress or Xenoblade Chronicles, half the appeal is how much of a pain in the ass it was to acquire.
You don't want 5 guys going "oh yeah that game was pretty good," you want one autist with 4 sock puppets starting threads on multiple forums going "This rare game is so difficult to acquire but it's a masterpiece of the genre!"
>>319730741
>There are people who honestly believe Xenoblade chronicles was anything more than mediocre
It was the most brilliant marketing campaign
>>319730634
good answer.
>>319727827
The one where I get it for free on kat.cr
>>319728146
Except a cup of lemonade will cost you most of that 25c to make.
How about not making a shit game where only 5 people buy it.
>>319729750
See this is what's wrong with game development today. If option one existed then games would do better. But instead we have option two and devs/pubs cry about not "selling enough".
>>319728101
well? answer his fucking question! do you chucklefucks want to get fired or something?
I thought OP's purpose was a question of morals.
Are you willing to give up money so more people can enjoy your game? I assume the increased price would be from additional value for a special edition version of the game, like an artbook or soundtrack included.
Sell it for $110 until people stop paying that much, then put it on sale for $20
>>319730634
Problem is: how can you expect to get more buyers in the future? No one who doesn't already know your series is going to waster $110 just to try your game. $20 on the other hand will get them in and if they love your game may be more than willing to pay $30 if the need to rise ever comes in. Selling just to see if some of your fanbase is retarded enough to accept it isn't a good move. Especially for the long term stability of the business.
>>319727827
I think the 1million lions would win. I mean the suns is hot but if a million lions mauled it at the same time it would probably burn out you know?
>>319727827
Former
That is 5 people who may be interested in merchandise, a sequel, will tell friends, etc.
>>319727827
I don't know OP. Why don't you ask the people who made this?
50 people buy a $15 game discounted to $5.
Steam sales, motherfucker. I want to be a cool game developer and get as many people to play my game as I can so that they convince other people to buy my game.
>>319731457
1 million lions
or 1 john cena?
>>319727827
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Buy
>>319728192
Forever alone l.
>>319731112
nigga frozen lemonade is like a buck for a can
and it makes GALLONS
>>319731526
Well the lions got the number advantage, but how can they kill what they can't see?
I think john cena would be the victor
The second one if it's a limited boxset and comes with goodies.
>>319731421
>no one will waste 20 dollars just to try your game
>what are sales
Pretty basic microeconomics, bro. You sell your game at 110, then when everyone willing to pay that much for it has bought it, you lower the price so more people will buy it, the best of both worlds.
Like how League of Legends reduces champ prices after a while. Players don't really pay a premium to play your product, they pay the premium to play it FIRST.
More likely it would work like this
>five people buy $20 game
>zero people buy $110 game
>>319727827
This doesn't make too much sense, OP. I'm gonna bring this down to
>Five @ $2
>One @ $10
The idea now is that I have to choose at which price to put my game up for sale. This probably depends on the amount of work I have put into the game and the value I believe that the player would believe the game to be worth. If I make the game $2, I might have not put too much time into it and the game may entertain most players for an hour or two at most. If I make the game $11, I might have put a fair amount of time into it and the player might be getting anywhere from 5-10 hours out of it.
I think what I'm trying to say is that this is a highly flawed question to put forth, OP. I get what you're tying to say: Developers should price their games cheaper and be happy when more people buy them allowing for word-of-mouth sales and thus possibly more returning customers for the next product. However, it doesn't take into account several factors and is rather narrow-minded; you just want /v/ to reaffirm your hypothesis without having to do any actual research.
>>319731945
>thought experiment has an unrealistic setup
that's not important.
>>319732035
>you just want /v/ to reaffirm your hypothesis without having to do any actual research.
That we're getting ripped off for most of the new release games these days?
If I'm confident in the quality of my game, I'd prefer to have a bunch of people buy it in order to increase my notability and spread word of mouth.
If I know my game is bad, I'd just prefer to make the more profitable single sale.
>>319727943
Correct answer. Word of mouth is a fucking powerful tool - it's the reason why people are given free tickets to the movies, free cds and free games to review.
Another way to think of it is creating a game with broad appeal that can afford to sell the game cheaper to the audience and break even vs. a niche game that has to charge a lot to their smaller but more devoted audience. In this frame of thought I would have to give it to the niche title. Games with broad appeal generally water down what makes them good and creates a cheap experience that is a waste of time for everyone involved. Niche titles focus on what makes that game great and takes it to new levels not seen before. It can innovate and teach us more about gaming and about ourselves while furthering the medium in ways that will eventually trickle down to wide-appeal titles and give the masses a new experience (although in a packaging that doesn't scare them away)
>>319732216
Ripped off? You do know that you could just not purchase the game, right? Or get it from Redbox? Or buy it used from GameStop and return it within a week for a refund? Or wait a month or two for it to go on sale for like 30% off? Or pirate it?
Complaining about the price of a video game is some of the whiniest shit. Game prices have not increased with inflation as much as people believe they have. When I was a kid, game prices were $60-$80, and that was 20 years ago. Stop whining.That being said, I rarely buy games on release day anymore and cannot remember the last time I purchased a game not on sale.
>>319731457
>Cinnamon Toast Crunch
>holding a box of Froot Loops
Retard.
>>319732650
That all sounds good on paper. But that's not entirely how it pans out most of the time. Instead you get games that play like worse counter parts to better games in a genre from most indies thinking their special so they charge "normal" or above retail.
>>319727827
One person buying a $110 game. Elasticity of Demand, nigga.
I'll take the one person because they're more dedicated, while the other 5 are lame cheap asses who are probably going to play for like an hour and refund the game anyways.
>>319732269
If you're confident in the quality of your game then you should be confident that people would be willing to buy it at any price with any knowledge of the game at all. Pricing your game cheaper implies a lack of confidence because you don't think consumers will be willing to try your title unless the barrier of entry is low.
A better game would only need one person to play it since you would have a 100% retention rate from everyone who heard about it.
>>319732035
But seriously though... imagine if you made a 20 hour game at $2. Imagine the praise and number of buys you would get JUST BECAUSE its the best $2 game ever. Imagine the standard you could set for future games, anon.
>>319731657
this is too short-sighted. You've failed to factor marketing costs, cost of materials(table, party cups, pitcher, ice), and labor costs. You'd be lucky if you got the cost down to under .33 cents a cup in this market.
>>319733020
>best $2 game ever
Cave Story was free and people put more than 20 hours into it. There are MMOs out there that are free that people have put hundreds of hours into.
Stop judging a game by how much it costs at release. Just fucking pirate it and shut up.
>>319732650
This is the only correct answer in the thread.
>>319732994
That's how companies become greedy and end up with shit reputations anon. I don't view prices that way. I'm not going to buy your shit just because you think it's worth $60.
That "economics class" view of worth doesn't fly with me. That doesn't scream confidence to me... that screams contemptuous self-righteousness and greed to me.
>>319732827
>play like worse counter parts to better games
if there are games that close to what you're making, then it definitely isn't worth charging 110 bucks for it. The assumption is that you get 5 customers at 20 or 1 at 110, those are the rules.
A niche title that appeals to 20% of the audience as a broad appeal title is a better game. Better for those who play it, better for gaming, better for humanity.
>>319732994
>If you're confident in the quality of your game then you should be confident that people would be willing to buy it at any price with any knowledge of the game at all.
That's ridiculous. Even if it was the greatest fucking game of all time and gave you blowjobs I wouldn't expect people to just buy it blind. The way to sell units is to get people to tell their friends "hey, this is the greatest fucking game of all time and gives you blowjobs."
desu when i see some indie game that's 20 dollars i think it's probably shit and move on, this isn't always true of course but look at steam greenlight
>>319732994
This is literally the most retarded thing I've ever heard.
>hey I'm really poor. But let me go buy this $100 game because my friend told me it was awesome.
versus
>eh, I can afford $20 for a game if it's that good.
There are probably a hundred other scenarios where you're retarded, but this is the first one that comes to mind.
Also, fuck you're retarded.
>>319727827
Top because you get more feedback and response. You have more people playing it, so more word of mouth. You have more people who could potentially be huge fans of the game, and therefore would definently be interested in picking up a sequel.
All you get with the second one is $110.
>>319732790
thats.. thats the joke
>>319733242
It takes money to make games whether you like it or not.
>>319733242
Veblen goods are a thing though.
>>319733321
If you saw some indie game from Greenlight that was $60 would that make you more inclined to buy it?
>>319733274
and someone who paid 20 dollars for a game isn't even 5% as likely to say that to his friends as the guy who was willing to pay 110.
>>319727827
5 people. 5 are more likely to spread the word than 1, plus more opportunities to get people with the horse armor money. And let's not forget the sequel.
>>319733263
Not always. But even so, why should it be more? I mean if they've already tried to sell it cheaper and just not enough people are willing to play it... then okay. You have little choice if you want to make the best you can make. But just outright assuming "my game needs to be $110 and sold to the 'true' gamers" is kind of bs.
Souls series did a great thing making more and more people realize that deep and challenging games can be enjoyable and enriching experiences as much as "easy, user-friendly" games.
>>319733335
>hey i'm really poor
not everyone is really poor, most people are friends with people within their same socioeconomic class. If person A can afford a 110 dollar game, odds are his friends aren't cheapskates either.
>>319733456
No that's why i said that isn't always true, but when a game is $60 it generally has better production value and support. Again generally speaking, there are a lot of $60 games that are shit but I can guarantee there are more $20 indie games that are shit than $60 games
>>319733431
Yes it does. But it doesn't automatically mean charge as much as you feel like because you feel like it's worth a lot. Be realistic. I'm tired of that catch-all argument "business gotta make profit so any charge, no matter how high is justifiable automatically as though it's the noblest of causes". That's bullshit.
>>319727827
Do these ratios hold at scale? Because if so you obviously want the second scenario.
>>319733523
Idiotic. Do you only recommend expensive bullshit to your friends? Personally I've recommended more dirt cheap games to people I know than full retail AAA titles.
>>319733839
I think people are too dumb to play this game.
>>319733809
Do you know how supply and demand works?
>>319733614
>Souls series did a great thing making more and more people realize that deep and challenging games can be enjoyable and enriching experiences as much as "easy, user-friendly" games.
And that was not a cheap-ass 15 dollar indie title. That was a full-fledged 60 dollar game because it was made with a real fucking budget and needed real fucking money to cover that budget. And the few people who played that full priced game became devoted as fuck to it and told others "yeah, it's a 60 dollar game that you've never tried before but this game IS THE SHIT"
Dark Souls would be the 110 dollar game in this thought experiment.
>>319733523
And those other people aren't nearly as likely to just trust their crazy friend and spend $110 on a game they don't know just because their friend suggests it compared to the $20 one.
Hell I hardly trust my friends taste enough to pay $30 out of the gate for things they say are good. I've been burned that way before.
If you're running a multiplayer game you're sure as hell gonna take the 5 sales. A thriving community makes more customers almost by itself, a ghost town will actively repel them.
>>319733809
we know it's worth that much because the thought experiment presents us with that assumption. we know someone will buy it at 110.
>>319733638
>I literally asspulled because I realized how retarded I am
Your lack of citations and handwavey "chances are" type of bullshit language means you should probably stop talking before other people realize how dumb you are.
>>319733998
Most people who bought it didn't buy it day one anon. The popularity was accrued over almost two years and three games. Many of those people also likely bought used meaning zero sales dollars for the company.
>>319733960
smith still can suck my dick for inverting the y and x axis and fucking everyone over that is beginning to learn economics.
>>319733839
Games that I'm willing to pay more for I hype up more. SpaceChem was worth way more to me than what I paid and I was proportionally more hyped up about it around friends. You know someone is 110 dollars of hype over your game in scenario 2, that's the only person that matters. and the 4 extra guys who would only buy it at 20 only barely care about the game and aren't worth your time.
One person buying a $110 game. More money up-front, more scope for discounting later.
>>319734128
Are you honestly saying you need a source to prove to you that rich people tend to be friends with rich people, poor people with poor people, and middle class with middle class?
>>319734257
Economic notation is notoriously fucked up.
>>319734083
Someone... yes. But that doesn't automatically either really or figuratively via any experiment mean that the game will accrue as much profit through 1 buyer simply because 1 buyer isn't going to spread nearly as much as 5 buyers will. And the steep price makes it far less likely to trust the 1 buyer vs. the 5 buyers presenting a far better deal and still liking the game equally.
To all the people saying 5x20 is better than 1x110, why not sell the game for $1? Or less.
>>319734428
Yes. I do. Because your confirmation bias and made-up asspulled statistics are literally convincing nobody besides yourself.
Go tinfoil somewhere else, and next time try not to be so embarrassing.
>>319734521
Because the gaming market isn't that big yet. If it becomes that big (300 million users for example) then that may be viable. But currently it isn't. The 5 for 20$ is perfectly sensible given the market size.
>>319727943
Alternative to this is that the game sucks dick, then you have five people telling others NOT to buy a game vs one quiet person telling others not to buy it.
>>319734320
Maybe the same guy who would buy it at $110 would hype it up the same regardless of its price. In fact he might even hype it more if he thinks it's worth $110 but is only being sold for $20. In addition to the quality, he'd also emphasize the value. Plus the other four people who bought it might spread the word to a smaller degree as well.
>>319734224
There would have been no room to go down in price for sales and used copies if they started at 20 dollars, getting 60 dollars from the first wave was essential to making back their budget.
>>319727827
Depends on how much making the game costed me.
>>319730279
But it doesn't mention anything about the costs to distribute the game. Assuming it's a physical game, it's probably at least $10. Taking $50 out of the devs pocket on multiple sales. Also the scenarios don't mention the possibility of future sales. If the game is dogshit, or he's just selling it to a few friends, those 5 copies could be all that's ever sold.
>>319734691
Do you mean viable for games that already cost more than a hundred million to make?
>>319734728
The games budget wasn't that large anon. They've said this themselves. Given that information it would have been perfectly plausible to sell lower. They only did it for easy money. They would have made their money back just as they did. I know why they do it, I just don't agree with it.
>>319734660
https://books.google.com/books?id=IX1XFrI6qgAC&pg=PA68&lpg=PA68&dq=people+generally+make+friends+within+the+same+socioeconomic+class&source=bl&ots=9FkOP1oZmt&sig=vsooF5jt8GEToQlLxuxxoncs7dM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiMo9iIm9PJAhXQsh4KHbtcB58Q6AEIOzAF#v=onepage&q=people%20generally%20make%20friends%20within%20the%20same%20socioeconomic%20class&f=false
not only do people tend to make friends within the same class, but different classes tend to find friends from different sources
you have been blown the fuck out
you ignorant retard.
>being this keked
The OP never said your game would keep selling.
The 110$ dollar guy is probably a dumbass, but economically speaking he is more likely to attract other people willing to pay 110$. Two people paying 110$ is more likely than five people successfully convincing six other people to buy your piece of shit game.
>>319734753
Not really, $110 is always better than $100.
are you kidding, by the time the 2nd guy buys it the 1st ones revealing how shitty the fucking game is. take the 110 and run, mate. dont put your odds on 5 whole people not noticing you didnt finish chapter 3
>>319727943
> 5 people buy $20 games, then they tell friends who buy more
But word of mouth doesn't spread infinitely. If each person can (ultimately) only spread your game to 99 other people, then it doesn't change the equation. It's 500 people at $20 versus 100 people at $110.
>>319734990
>>319734990
>addresses an example
>thinks he's won the argument
Congratulations, retard. You're still retarded.
There are literally still dozens of reasons why your original post is completely devoid of intelligence. You gonna shoot them all down, Captain Clown?
>>319734257
holy shit anon thank you so much, I thought I was going crazy with this shit because I switch to accounting after doing chem and had to take an eco course.
Like fuck you, I know what a graph is supposed to look like
>>319727827
first one. Because I'd probably be making a game so that people would play it, not to make lots of money.
>>319735324
>person willing to spend more is more interested in the game
>more likely to spread the word to his friends
>since they are his friends, they also probably have enough money to afford the game if they are convinced
>since you started at 110 dollars, you can easily lower the price if you aren't making more sales, eventually down to 20 dollars and still get the four schlubs you would have gotten from scenario A and still come out ahead in dollarydoos.
Please spell it out for me.
>>319735118
not only that, 5 copies out there means 5 SECOND hand copies. everytime it switches hands, thats money YOU lose. if just 1 guy sells it second hand, thats 20 bucks you lost. if theres only ONE copy, and the 110 man dosent sell it, guess where they gotta go to get a new copy: you. for 110 bucks.
its why gun companies love gun buybacks. if they can purchase their own guns back for 5 dollas, then thats 1 less gun on the second hand market. if someone wants that gun, they come to you. since you make like 100-300 bucks per gun sale, you could afford to buyback 20 to 60 second hand guns.
which means, for the cost of 300 bucks, now 60 brand new guns need to be bought, from you, for 100-300 profit. 60x100-300 is 6000 to 18000 buckeroonies. for 300 bucks, you just made a possible 17700. then with that 17700, you buy 3540 of your own guns back for 5 bucks each, crush the, and then to fill that market demand, they gotta buy 3540 brand new guns from YOU. making a profit of 354,000 to roughly 900,000 bucks.. which then you use to buy 180,000 of your guns back, meaning to replace this demand, people need to buy 180,000 guns from you, at a profit of 1.8 to 9 million bucks, which you use to purchase....
see where im going with this. if you KNOW theres demand for your guns, and you can cheaply destroy the supply, then the value of YOUR guns go up. and they have to get it from YOU.
>>319727827
It depends on how much capital I've put behind it. But I'm happy to make a compromise, say 2 people for 50, or even 3 for 30.
If I was a dev, I'd sell it for $20 but also upload a torrent so piratefags could play it too.
Pirates are gonna pirate it anyway, may as well help them out a little.
>>319727827
This is an incredibly complicated question, but $110 is really high so I'd say most simple explanations apply. More sales is going to turn into even more sales and the lower price is far more appealing.
>>319734984
>wasn't that large
you know for triple-A games that probably means like 10 million dollars?
Demon's Souls was only expected to sell around 75,000 copies. There is no way they could have expected to make back their budget at less than 60 dollars per sale.
>>319727827
it depends on: if the game is shitty or not, is there DLC to buy, does the $110 game come with like a collector's edition or something, is the game multiplayer, etc
>>319731215
We are investing in your business, Anon. You are the one who should answer the question.
>>319736323
>1 sale means 1 sale
>5 sales magically means 1000 sales!
you are all retarded.
>>319736529
5 sales for a similar amount of money means a 5x higher chance that they manage to earn you another.
>>319736529
>More people will buy something if it's more expensive.
No, you're the retarded one.
(Let's assume the game is good)
Everyone is forgetting something important, when the game goes on sale, for half off, you will still be making more money because more people would buy it because it's cheaper.
>>319736636
If your game is shit it also means there's a 5x chance they spread a bad rap about your game, its a double edged sword
>>319736803
>bad publicity
Anon.
>>319728472
But mobile games that manage to score whales are the most profitable things out there.
>>319736937
You've got that wrong.
Controversy is good publicity.
Bad publicity is harmful. See, star wars Battlefront.
>>319733960
>Do you know how supply and demand works?
Well you obviously don't since you think both supply and demand are straight lines which can be expressed as a function of only price and quantity. Pretty much all you learn in 100 level econ classes is how fucking retarded that is.
>>319736272
Sure devs do this. Personally I'd have to put eyepatches on characters on the pirated version.
>>319727827
If it's a good game, $20
If it's a bad game, $110
More people will buy good game, say it's good and spread the word.
If it's shit then they'll say it's shit but oh fuck they just spent $110 to learn for themselves that it's crap.
>>319736272
I'd do this but include trackers in the torrent so I can find where they live and rape them as punishment for their thievery.
