Price!

[Awaken]

Ok, I saw this randomly on steam, and I'm really interested, it looks like it could be a great game.

Introversion have made some great stuff, I've owned for years and played plenty of Uplink and Defcon (bought Darwinia but didn't really take to it). Only one reason I've not bought this, and I thought I'd drag it into the public realm!

£17.99 is a bit pricey for what it is. 30'000 people might disagree with me, but there might just be another 30'000 people that have already voted with their wallets, not to open them!

If it was £9.99, I probably would be playing the alpha right now instead of posting this. Of course I can afford £18, but the point is, it's not worth that much to me. And it's a shame I'll probably pick it up on an inevitable £5 sale at some point in a couple of years.

Just saying! I know lots of people are probably gonna disagree with me, and yes, developers deserve remuneration for all their hard work, but at the end of the day, 60'000 x £10 > 30'000 x £18, and it gives a lot more people a chance to enjoy it.

[Disc10]

You get the final product at the end of it though. Which in all likelihood, will not change in price.

What's the difference between pre-ordering the latest AAA blockbuster for £39.99 or whatever and pre-ordering this? 'Cause I betcha 99% of the people complaining about the price for this (or any other alpha funded game) wouldn't bat an eyelid at that.

[christopher1006]

The reason they have the minimum price set to about $30.00 is because even with the minimum price package they are giving alpha test builds and access to a bug tracker site. If you have 30,000 people who buy it this early because they want to help test bugs and then another 30,000 buy it because they were vaguely interested and want another game in their Steam library there'd be thousands of duplicate and useless bug reports, complaints, arguments, complaints, did I mention complaints? Because many people would buy this not really understanding what an Alpha is thanks to certain games out there that let people 'Alpha test' a basically feature complete build in order to gain publicity. Chances are the price will stay at $30.00 on release as the game will have enough content to make that quite reasonable. If that's too high then Steam is usually pretty good about having sales on games after some time.

[Awaken]

Alpha testing is usually something you get paid to do, not pay for the privilege, lol.

And the difference between pre-ordering the latest blockbuster for £40 (which I don't tend to do by the way), is that the whole point of the triple A blockbuster is that it cost an absolute fortune to make. Vast armies of animators, texture artists, 3D modellers, level designers & mappers, professional voice over artists, and live action performers for motion capture work need to be paid for. And then to recoup that massive investment, the publisher then splashes 3 or 4 times that cost all over again in marketing to make sure they get their ROI. And a paid for team of alpha testers

This doesn't. And that's not a bad thing, that's a great thing! Money doesn't necessarily make a game fun (and it can positively spoil many!), some of my most played games ever probably fit into the loo-roll budget of the latest CoD or something. But I think I'd like a bigger share of the savings for the customer. And if you're telling me I won't be buying this for under a tenner in a sale within 6 months of it launching, you're kidding yourself

[Great Magical Hat]

it's not worth that much to me.

Why do so many people feel the need to complain (well, we've not had many people on this forum lately (luckily) but there are other places where they are overflowing). That sentence above could just be the end of it. The developers have their reasons for setting the price at its current level and your completely random guesses as to how many people would buy the game if it were cheaper aren't really all that interesting. If it's not worth that much to you, you don't buy it. End of story.

[Awaken]

Oh, and I kickstarterd Carmageddon incidentally. For $15, not $30. I have no problem with the concept of crowd funding and paying for a game to be developed before it's actually released.

And in answer to the above, yeah, it doesn't really matter what I think, at the end of the day someone sets a price and consumers choose to pay it or not. I'm just voicing the unheard here, and expressing a bit of disappointment that it wasn't set more reasonably.

[Augwich]

I understand your frustration with the price (and thankfully, unlike most, you're actually reasonable about it! ), but personally I think their reasons are valid and, as has already been said, at the end of the day it doesn't really matter. The fact is, even with their "overpriced" game they've still sold a lot of copies and so it's been profitable to them. So if we're speaking strictly from an economical standpoint, why lower it? You may send a lot of people away, but the people who still buy it may make it worth it. That's not called being greedy. That's called good money sense. Granted, it may not be very nice/considerate, but then again, neither are most AAA developers (you really think that, with the amount of copies they sell, they need the prices as high as they are? They're looking to maximize their profits. Simple as that). Of course, the reasons for the high price tag are not just making money to fund the game, but also to get some valuable feedback (hopefully). The reason they're not paying us to alpha test is because we're consumers. We're not working for them. True alpha testing is much, much less about playing the game and then finding problems along the way, and much more actively seeking out those problems. I would hazard that very few of us here could be qualified as properly alpha testing the game (at least individually).

Also, I get that you're just trying to let us know about another opinion on the issue (which, I'll grant, is not as evident here), but the fact is, if you look anywhere beyond this forum the complaints about it are so overwhelming as to almost send people away.

[Disc10]

I'm just voicing the unheard here

Interesting definition of unheard you've get there.

[paktsardines]

I think it's very reasonable. I've certainly got far more value out of this than any other game I've paid more than $30 for over the past few years.

Your argument that blockbuster titles have to charge that much to recoup costs doesn't make sense. A big budget does not equal a better game. Why should a company that's managed to keep its costs lower AND make a better game not be entitled to equal reward?

[Great Magical Hat]

Interesting definition of unheard you've get there.

The unheard often refers to the people who don't get what they want. After all, there complaints aren't getting a response they like...

[MAdMaN]

And the difference between pre-ordering the latest blockbuster for £40 (which I don't tend to do by the way), is that the whole point of the triple A blockbuster is that it cost an absolute fortune to make.

What's a miniscule amount to a big company is a fortune to a small one.

[Awaken]

They've already made $2,811,190 according to their own site.

http://www.introversion.co.uk/prisonarchitect/

They've already recouped their past and future costs for this game several times over, and paid the bills for their next few projects too.

Not that small a company eh?

It's a free market, yes, they can charge what they want. I just want to stand up and shout "I am tangible proof you're losing potential customers!".

I just think it's a bit cheeky. A cheap indie game (which might well be bloody fantastic, that's not the point) shouldn't cost $30. What makes them deserve twice as much per copy as Carmageddon for example? Are you saying Stainless, another small UK games studio (go UK!), are not as worthy of a profit?

[Bamwich]

Of course I can afford £18, but the point is, it's not worth that much to me.

Yet it's worth enough for you to come here, register, and post.

The points you've brought up have been discussed at length, so what are you actually looking for with this thread? No one is going to give you a copy of the game.

[Disc10]

At the end of the day, this is nothing more than "I don't wanna pay this much for the game."
Okay, that's fine and totally your right to decide that. That's smart consumer behaviour! And you're not even using this as an excuse to pirate the game, props to you for that.

...But if dozens of posts to the same effect haven't changed their mind, why waste time bringing it up? They've deemed the final game to likely be worth £17.99. You're getting the final game when you buy the alpha. The alpha is actually nothing more than a bonus thank you for supporting them so early, a pre-order bonus.

If it were £17.99 for the alpha and alpha ALONE? Yea, you'd have a point and I certainly wouldn't have bought the game. But it's not. You're buying the FINAL game. I'm emphasising this because almost every single post complains the the price is too much for Alpha.

You're not buying the alpha. You're buying the final product. Alpha is a bonus.

To address the point you're making... well I'm struggling because it's a damned weird one.
The pricing of Carmageddon is not up to Introversion. It's up to Stainless. If Stainless wanted to charge that much that's within their right, but they didn't. I don't know what point you're trying to make beyond that.

[paktsardines]

A cheap indie game (which might well be bloody fantastic, that's not the point) shouldn't cost $30.

What makes this a 'cheap' indie game? What makes this an 'indie' game at all? Nothing. This is a major game by a not-so-major developer. The game is not worth less simply because EA, or some other evil corporation is not their publisher.

What makes them deserve twice as much per copy as Carmageddon for example?

They should be charging as much as they expect consumers would be willing to pay. The fact Introversion have numerous cult classic titles behind them already means customers are willing to pay more for Prison Architect than Carmageddon.
It's that simple.