>>329873095
nothing. that's why I gave my gog executable to all my friends who I recommended it to. game's very fun, but doesn't have enough content. Even with the challenges, there still isn't all that much.

>>329873095
>what justifies this price tag?
innovation

I really like the graphics.
They aren't $25 graphics, though.

I heard the dev is an SJW. If that's true, he's a pretentious hipster and thinks his game is worth $25 because it's ""art""

They spent a long time making it. It's different and innovative. It's content complete.

>>329873767
but i saw in the credits "thanks to our backers"
was this a kikestarter project that STILL manages to be overpriced?

Its the most innovative shooter I've played in years.

>>329873767
They're welcome to charge whatever price they think "innovation" is worth, but I'm not paying $25 for a two-hour game.

I'm really looking forward to when it goes on sale.

>>329873849
how do you think AAA games get made? They are also backed with money before they are released and sold. You think people will work on something for free because it might have a chance of making money once it's finished?

>>329873095
Nothing, wait for a sale

It's worth 10-15 bucks tops

>>329873095
>what justifies this price tag?
People buying it does? I mean that's how the free market works, author sets whatever price they think they can get, and if it's too high then most people won't buy it, and they'll have to lower it to hit a better point on the price x volume income curve. Compared to other media though, a game that is pretty fun and hits at least 6-8 hours is probably "worth" $20-25 to a lot of people, that's ~$3-4/hr which compares favorably to many other forms of media entertainment like movies. If you find it less enjoyable then it's probably not worth it even if it's free though because it's a waste of time you could spend playing an excellent vidya instead.

I personally didn't like the look or find the description interesting so I didn't bother with that one at all, so I don't know if it hits those marks, but there's a way to think about it. Although /v/ in particular seem to have a lot of cheapskates or people with no jobs or something who get mad at games that are priced any higher then mobile shit.

>>329874071
>They are also backed with money before they are released and sold.
By people who expect to make a profit after they get their cut of sales.
Kickstarter backers don't see a penny back. It's not an investment and comparing it to one makes you look retarded.

Its worth $25 because its the most innovative shooter I've played in years.

>>329874172
They get the game cheaper and other goodies.

>>329874038
Well, that's fine isn't it? What are you even complaining about. Games get released at the most devs think they can get for them, because prices only ever go down after that. There will always be some people who just can't wait and pay a premium to play Day 1. Then there is a group that'll wait for basic sales, like 25-40% off. And then after a year or two start with the 75-90% sales and get the last of the long tale. That's how vidya general works nowadays, what are you even surprised about?

>>329874172
I can't even tell if people like you still spamming this stupid shit after all these years are trolling or genuinely retarded.

>>329874336
Which is not comparable to seeing a return on investment. You can't compare Kickstarter money to the money put up by publishers.

>>329874424
>I honestly believe there's no difference between Kickstarter funding and getting money from a real publisher

Played it, beat the story in under 2 hours, refunded on steam for full price. I'll pick it back up once it goes on sale or drops ridiculously on g2a

>>329873095
The work that went into it
/thread

>>329874346
I'm complaining because I want to play the game but I don't pirate
That means I have to wait six months to a year (or maybe more!) because the developer honestly believes that a 2-hour game with minimalist graphics is worth $25.

>>329874573
Publishers put up millions of dollars at a time to fund large game projects. With a crowdfunder you can donate as much as a cup of coffee and get the game you want. That's the entire point of /crowd/ funding.

>look up the kickstarter
>it made $250,000
>the $300,000 stretch goal was a level editor that would have made the game last 10x longer
>lmao why would we make that we didn't get the stretch goal OH WELL WE'LL STILL SELL IT FOR 25 DOLLARS

>>329874860
...yeah, that's how stretch goals work? Take a business class, please.

>>329874808
It sure sounds like you're agreeing with me that crowdfunding and publisher funding are completely different from each other.

>as much as a cup of coffee
If the game itself was going to cost that little after release, sure. Usually it's $10-$20, though.

>>329874983
Not the anon you're replying to, but I think his point is going completely over your head

>>329874950
The point he's making is that it shouldn't have been a "stretch goal" in the first place
If SUPERHOT had a level editor then it would be worth the 25$ price tag

>>329874983
>>329875069
Disregard my post, it turns out I'm the retard

>>329873095
God I hate this game.
Literally nothing good to see here.
I thought it would be so awesome to play, but it's literally just get hit with a bullet and repeat until you do something different.

>>329875110
It's worth the 25$ either way, without the stretch goal money they had no reason or obligation to give you something they didn't think they had the time or resources for. This is good business.

>>329874038

If you think this is the kind of game you're supposed to stop playing after completing the "story" you're looking at it wrong

>>329875162
this 100%

>>329875279
maybe if there was a level editor I'd still be playing

>>329874762
>I'm complaining because I want to play the game but I don't pirate
I don't either. But I shit, dunno what to tell you anon:
>That means I have to wait six months to a year (or maybe more!) because the developer honestly believes that a 2-hour game with minimalist graphics is worth $25.
Right but if you really cared about waiting 6-12 months (highly doubt it'll be more) then that's be worth a premium to you. If it's not worth $12 (what you'd save in a 50% off sale) to get it months earlier, then it's not worth being mad about either. If you're anything like most of us you've probably got a backlog a mile long or tons of older games that are now dirt cheap and still fantastic that you've yet to play, so just work on that.

And if the dev sees sales fall off a cliff they'll start on sales sooner rather then later, like during some of the spring or start-of-summer ones in a few months. But given that there probably ARE lots of people who will pay $25 they've be retarded to start the game at a lower price, because people still expect sales, so if they start at $15 or $10 they'd still have to drop it to $7.50 or $5 in 6-12 months. If you are just playing around then whatever, but once you actually try to make a job out of what you like one of the toughest lessons is to not undervalue yourself because then you'll starve. This is from bitter experience.

It really seems like a lot of these games pull a price out of nowhere. When you're deciding on a price for your game you should look at what else someone could get for that money and ask yourself if what you're offering is at least in the same ballpark.

>>329876012
>If it's not worth $12 (what you'd save in a 50% off sale) to get it months earlier, then it's not worth being mad about either.
Fair point.

Speaking of games that need to bomb so I can get them for under $20, I'm really hoping nobody buys No Man's Sky. It looks shallow but I know I'll enjoy it if I get it cheap.

>>329876367
I think $10 is the ideal price for a game from an unknown indie dev with no means to generate hype. I know I'm a lot more hesitant to buy a game at $15 compared to $10.
This game really benefited from hype, though. They've sold 120,000 copies on Steam alone so I guess they've priced it right.

>>329873606
just about all indie devs are. It's the social climate they're exposed to when they work in that "scene". It's also just the default stance of anybody who doesn't really follow these things; how could the feminists who are for equality be wrong?

I might pick it up when it has a decent steam sale (Like $5-10 bucks), but $25 bucks is way too much for such a short indie game.

>>329875260
>It's worth the 25$
Don't lie to me.

>>329875260
when they think of stretch goals, the tiers are usually arranged arbitrarily based on the amount people might want them, not how hard they are to produce (this is always unknown from the outset, which is why crowdfunding and its promises is always risky business). It can lock away content that would be easy to implement, so that instead of the product of the developers' best work, the game is whatever the developers feel customers deserve to have in the game.
The game is modeled after the price instead of the reverse.

>>329878279
>It's also just the default stance of anybody who doesn't really follow these things
Nah, there's definitely a difference between people who don't realize feminism is evil and SJWs. SJWs are all about virtue signaling and being "Right." That's why they're so insufferable.
The ones who make games also tend to be hipsters who want to jerk each other off over how great they are for being minimalist.

There's definitely a tendency towards this sort of thing in the indie scene, though. It's especially likely for anyone based in San Francisco. That place is truly a shithole.

>>329873095
>innovative game
>beautiful stylized graphics
>genius core mechanics
>doesn't overstay it's welcome, leaves you wanting more, has immense replay value

>25 dollars
why was it so cheap? that price cant even feed an african child for a month.

>>329873095
But its the most innovative shooter I've played in years!
You should check it out.

>>329874681
That's not how pricing works unless the one pricing is an idiot.
The initial pricetag is the maximum amount they think the average first day purchaser will be willing to shell out.