30$+ Price tag = No thanks

General chit-chat and minor questions about just about anything

Moderator: NBJeff

foxxtrot
level0
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 5:37 pm

Postby foxxtrot » Wed Sep 26, 2012 7:56 pm

$30 isn't out of line to me.

But if the retail price is less when the game launches, I'll be annoyed, since then it would literally be paying more for the privilege of Alpha testing, and I think that would be unreasonable.
majormauser
level0
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2012 4:05 pm

Postby majormauser » Wed Sep 26, 2012 8:04 pm

In the land of simple iPhone game prices people will complain. PA looks like a full and complex game well worth the asking price after running the Alpha. I'm still glad that I spent the money to own it and hope it helps PA's continued development.
Last edited by majormauser on Wed Sep 26, 2012 8:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Xocrates
level5
level5
Posts: 5262
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:34 pm

Postby Xocrates » Wed Sep 26, 2012 8:04 pm

DonGonzo wrote:I'm not overly fond of the paid beta/alpha business model, but it is far more forgivable from a studio that will a: actually fix problems found with the software and b: isn't a billion dollar multinational publisher/studio with thousands of employees. If you want to complain about paid betas, take your butt over to the EA forums.

What the hell has that to do with anything I said?
foxxtrot wrote:$30 isn't out of line to me.

But if the retail price is less when the game launches, I'll be annoyed, since then it would literally be paying more for the privilege of Alpha testing, and I think that would be unreasonable.

Which it very likely will be.

This is why I want IV to explain the model a bit better, because right now it's unreasonable.
Last edited by Xocrates on Wed Sep 26, 2012 9:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
crummett
level2
level2
Posts: 110
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2012 7:04 pm
Location: United Kingdom
Contact:

Postby crummett » Wed Sep 26, 2012 8:07 pm

Xocrates wrote:
Stardog wrote:
They're asking more than the likes of Minecraft or Torchlight 2 for people to test their game. Which quite frankly sounds like they misunderstood the point of these kind of alphas to begin with..


I don't get your point at all. you'll get the finished product as part of the price you pay now anyway. you aren't paying to test their game. you're paying for the game early which may contain bugs which you'll then report to help make the final game better.

you get the game early, the game looks great, it's only $30/£19. If that's breaking your bank then you should be spending time furthering your career, not playing video games ;-)
User avatar
Hessen
level3
level3
Posts: 291
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2012 7:47 pm
Location: Swindon, England

Postby Hessen » Wed Sep 26, 2012 8:11 pm

foxxtrot wrote:$30 isn't out of line to me.

But if the retail price is less when the game launches, I'll be annoyed, since then it would literally be paying more for the privilege of Alpha testing, and I think that would be unreasonable.


Pay more now and play early, or pay less later and play later.

That's pretty much how every computer game pricing model has ever worked, ever.
ian76g
level1
level1
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2012 6:57 pm

Postby ian76g » Wed Sep 26, 2012 8:21 pm

Hessen wrote:
foxxtrot wrote:$30 isn't out of line to me.

But if the retail price is less when the game launches, I'll be annoyed, since then it would literally be paying more for the privilege of Alpha testing, and I think that would be unreasonable.


Pay more now and play early, or pay less later and play later.

That's pretty much how every computer game pricing model has ever worked, ever.


except minecraft - they startet at 5 and went up to 20 :-)
crummett
level2
level2
Posts: 110
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2012 7:04 pm
Location: United Kingdom
Contact:

Postby crummett » Wed Sep 26, 2012 8:23 pm

developers have to price games in a way that they can make enough money to at least live/finish the game. if you want to play, you pay the price. if you dont, you dont
Stardog
level1
level1
Posts: 27
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2010 1:09 am

Postby Stardog » Wed Sep 26, 2012 8:52 pm

ian76g wrote:
Hessen wrote:
foxxtrot wrote:$30 isn't out of line to me.

But if the retail price is less when the game launches, I'll be annoyed, since then it would literally be paying more for the privilege of Alpha testing, and I think that would be unreasonable.


Pay more now and play early, or pay less later and play later.

That's pretty much how every computer game pricing model has ever worked, ever.


except minecraft - they startet at 5 and went up to 20 :-)

I think it was sold at a discount, at least when I bought it at 10 EUR. It was 50% off at that point.

But yeah, you should pay more to access an alpha.
InsaneLampshade
level0
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2012 9:18 pm
Location: London, UK

Postby InsaneLampshade » Wed Sep 26, 2012 9:34 pm

ian76g wrote:
Hessen wrote:
foxxtrot wrote:$30 isn't out of line to me.

But if the retail price is less when the game launches, I'll be annoyed, since then it would literally be paying more for the privilege of Alpha testing, and I think that would be unreasonable.


Pay more now and play early, or pay less later and play later.

That's pretty much how every computer game pricing model has ever worked, ever.


except minecraft - they startet at 5 and went up to 20 :-)


except minecraft ...and every game on kickstarter.


In fact I can't think of any game that's charged more for alpha/beta access than the price of the final release. Most games I know of either have a closed/limited free alpha/beta, or offer paid access at a cheaper or equal price to the final game.
Bakkone
level0
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed May 18, 2011 9:05 pm

Postby Bakkone » Wed Sep 26, 2012 10:25 pm

Im just really happy they picked up on my idea of having fans finance the game by paying for characters in-game.

Too bad I dont have 1000 bucks. Need to spend my money on a bigger apartment right now.

But regular alpha it is!
mik3k
level1
level1
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2012 11:39 pm

Postby mik3k » Wed Sep 26, 2012 11:44 pm

I will buy it later for full price because of who the devs are. I just don't want to pay $30 for the privilege of playing an alpha that admittedly is missing features and has bugs in the features that are included. If the price was $20 or less it would be instant buy (something in how my brain works says $20 is okay for nearly any game even if it is never finished). Too many other great games and DLCs out there right now.

I do wish they did it like Minecraft's alpha, beta, and then full release pricing. I ended up buying 5 copies for friends and family because it is such a great game. Terraria got me for 7 copies :)

Whatever you do - make a great game so I feel the need to buy multiple copies.

Edit - I understand a lot of work is going into this game. My problem as a gamer is I just spent $30 and bought Torchlight II and Resident Evil 5. Civ V is $30 on steam. I am not saying your game is worth less - I'm saying it is not a $30 game right now. On the other hand, I gladly preordered Borderlands 2 for $50 because I knew that I was going to get over a hundred hours of AAA gaming for that $50 and I have not been disappointed. It raises the bar on gaming to a new level.

Most people don't appreciate the time you put in to make a game. They just look at the game and decide if it is a good price for the gaming experience. Some people won't even buy AAA titles until they are 75% off after 6 months. As long as we understand each other - devs look at the work they do and how much money they think that work is worth. Gamers look at how much money they spend and what they get in return. Sadly, it's a buyers market right now.
Last edited by mik3k on Thu Sep 27, 2012 5:10 am, edited 2 times in total.
xnaught
level1
level1
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2012 6:36 pm

Postby xnaught » Thu Sep 27, 2012 12:21 am

I was too a little surprised with the price, I think I paid £13 for Minecraft which I feel is a great price range for a game in testing.

I understand they need to cover development costs etc but at $30 its less of an impulse buy, when I bought Minecraft I thought that buying a game in Alpha was stupid but for £13 I took the risk. If I had not owned IV games in the past and know what they can do I would not have taken the leap so quickly with PA

I think at this stage of the alpha it should have been set nearer the $10-$15 mark, and then move towards $30 as time goes along. I know people keep comparing this to minecraft but look what's happened to notch, the same could happen for IV if pricing was set at an impulse amount.

I think IV should reward early testers with a cheap version for now and up the price as the versions increase and bugs decrease.
Orbling
level0
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 1:49 pm
Location: London

Postby Orbling » Thu Sep 27, 2012 12:37 am

The whole pricing model reads very much like a Kickstarter project, lots of levels of investment, and that is what it is. Yes, you will get the full game eventually and access to all the stages along the way - but primarily it is a donation to fund the development, upfront payment so that they can afford to finish it.

The prices for the mid-tiers do seem a little high for what they are, I would have liked a physical product at a lower entry point. I have physical copies of all the Introversion titles, and the nice limited edition Multiwinia tin, but $100 for the physical pack is a bit steep - though I understand the need for it to be so high if it is short run. Hopefully there will be a DVD version at some point at a more regular price.

At the end of the day, IV makes brilliant games that focus on gameplay, everyone here probably loves some of their games and hopes they are able to continue - so they need the donations. I remember these guys back at uni, nice people, the best of geeks, so I say buy it in alpha, invest in them and hope for the best.
brindy
level1
level1
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 6:15 pm
Location: Scotland
Contact:

Postby brindy » Thu Sep 27, 2012 1:03 am

Orbling wrote:The whole pricing model reads very much like a Kickstarter project


Totally agree and I was going to say this! In lots of ways this is better than KickStarter because they don't have to wait for the cash AND the punters get the game straight away. No waiting to see if it gets funded or not. But essentially, that's the model and by doing it themselves they cut out two middlemen (KickStarter.com and Amazon Payments). This is the indie way and good on them!
dsiOne
level1
level1
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 2:32 am

Postby dsiOne » Thu Sep 27, 2012 2:33 am

$30 for early access!?

Sounds about right.
Last edited by dsiOne on Thu Sep 27, 2012 6:13 am, edited 1 time in total.

Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests