Price!

General chit-chat and minor questions about just about anything

Moderator: NBJeff

Slynk
level1
level1
Posts: 60
Joined: Wed Jun 05, 2013 1:43 pm

Postby Slynk » Wed Jun 05, 2013 4:02 pm

MAdMaN wrote:
Slynk wrote:Most if not all of the money they made from their previous games was used up during the development of Subversion.


Point still stands that they could potentially make more money by charging less so it's rather irrelevant. If what other people are saying is true, they purposefully artificially limited how many units they sell by charging more so I doubt their issue right now is that they "need the money."
User avatar
Ric666
level3
level3
Posts: 484
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 10:12 am
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Postby Ric666 » Wed Jun 05, 2013 4:10 pm

What a product is worth is very subjective.

Personal views for the win!!

IV set it at what they felt was right. I agree with them.

Go back to the steam discussions page if you wanna moan about price.

We're here to improve the game, not argue with each other.
Slynk
level1
level1
Posts: 60
Joined: Wed Jun 05, 2013 1:43 pm

Postby Slynk » Wed Jun 05, 2013 4:20 pm

Ric666 wrote:What a product is worth is very subjective.

Personal views for the win!!

IV set it at what they felt was right. I agree with them.

Go back to the steam discussions page if you wanna moan about price.

We're here to improve the game, not argue with each other.


Who's moaning? It's hardly a matter of "oh I wish I could play the game but I can't afford it..." I could always pirate it. But I'd like to support developers, now that I have a stable job. When I was younger, I'd pirate everything because I was always broke (I worked two jobs so it wasn't a matter of laziness.) I post here hoping to receive a solid reason as to why they are charging so much. I'd love to be convinced to pay $30 for the title instead of pirating or simply not playing the game. Personally, I think taking fault with the price *is* helping the game. They are only hurting themselves. If I pirate it, I'm probably not going to buy it later even if the price drops. It's backwards to charge *more* during alpha/beta and then *less* during release. It punishes those who support the title early on. (Which is why I think people are wrong, and that the price is probably going up after release, not down.)
Great Magical Hat
level3
level3
Posts: 486
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2005 4:57 pm
Location: Netherlands

Postby Great Magical Hat » Wed Jun 05, 2013 4:50 pm

Slynk wrote:Sure there is, you can base your product's worth based on the current market. You look at how much work you've put into your product, say in billed hours, and compare it to the effort put into other products on the market. You base your price off of the market price for an "effort hour per dollar." I may have been wrong in my use of the word "worth" though, I'm not sure. That's the objective price of your product. I guarantee you while IV has put a *lot* of effort into this game, it's not more than other Indie developers or triple AAA teams.


You're painting yourself into a corner here. I don't know how many man-hours you think went into minecraft, but even if you estimate the average price the 10 million copies of their game were sold at $10, and the other costs they have had over the years at a total $10 million, the market price - according to your definition - would be over $1000 per man-hour unless you estimate the amount of man-hours over 9000.

Let's not start about AAA titles, since your idea of a fair price falls completely apart when you ask why the publisher gets even nearly as much money as it does.

Slynk wrote:I've been talking about this sort of thing for over a year with my team, which is probably more than you've done at all. You should *never* assume you know someone's story on the internet, it's just silly. :P


So? You've been working on this for over a year, IV for over decade, you've not yet had much success, IV has, you're aiming for acquisition, IV is not, etc.

I wasn't the one pitting my business smarts against yours, you were pitting yours against Introversion's...

Slynk wrote:"You will be missed... NOT"

<.< ... Poster critiques company --> Other poster takes it personally

Childish much?


While that was a joke, it does touch upon an important issue: you think the game isn't worth this price, so you don't buy it. Do we hear anyone complaining? Well, yes, you, but other other than that?

Slynk wrote:Point still stands that they could potentially make more money by charging less so it's rather irrelevant.


This is the first I hear you talking about them making more money, you were just talking about a fair price so far. That said, it doesn't really matter since they may have reasons other than maximizing profits and there's no reason to assume that your profit estimates are better than those by IV.

In fact they set their price at a height they thought was a fair one for the full game (well, that bit is speculation by me, but the part after this isn't) because they thought it would mean more serious testers, as well as a more manageable number of them (allowing them to incorporate feedback better).
User avatar
MAdMaN
level4
level4
Posts: 899
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2004 4:12 pm
Location: Manchester, England

Postby MAdMaN » Wed Jun 05, 2013 5:09 pm

Slynk wrote:You should *never* assume you know someone's story on the internet, it's just silly. :P


Slynk wrote:I guarantee you while IV has put a *lot* of effort into this game, it's not more than other Indie developers or triple AAA teams.
Slynk
level1
level1
Posts: 60
Joined: Wed Jun 05, 2013 1:43 pm

Postby Slynk » Wed Jun 05, 2013 5:13 pm

Great Magical Hat wrote: You're painting yourself into a corner here. I don't know how many man-hours you think went into minecraft, but even if you estimate the average price the 10 million copies of their game were sold at $10, and the other costs they have had over the years at a total $10 million, the market price - according to your definition - would be over $1000 per man-hour unless you estimate the amount of man-hours over 9000.

Let's not start about AAA titles, since your idea of a fair price falls completely apart when you ask why the publisher gets even nearly as much money as it does.


No, you put the price point at what the dev team takes in, that's all. So in this case the average tripple AAA studio pulls in $27 for every game they make and they put in an average of X hours per employee over the duration of development. It's team size indepentdent and objective. You can further refine the equation by defining an objective "successful game" rule that you use to calculate your price (number units sold or w/e.)

Great Magical Hat wrote:So? You've been working on this for over a year, IV for over decade, you've not yet had much success, IV has, you're aiming for acquisition, IV is not, etc.

I wasn't the one pitting my business smarts against yours, you were pitting yours against Introversion's...


Yes, because companies never go under due to self sabotaging business practices. *rolls eyes* THQ has been around since 1989 and went bankrupt recently. The fact that IV has been around for a decade is largely meaningless. This model of charging more for a pre-release and then less for the actual release isn't done often or ever that I know of. Why do you think that may be?

Great Magical Hat wrote:While that was a joke, it does touch upon an important issue: you think the game isn't worth this price, so you don't buy it. Do we hear anyone complaining? Well, yes, you, but other other than that?


Ummmmmm.... <--- Not the OP of this thread. I also read through other Price threads on this forum before posting on this one. So I assure you, other people are complaining.

Great Magical Hat wrote:This is the first I hear you talking about them making more money, you were just talking about a fair price so far. That said, it doesn't really matter since they may have reasons other than maximizing profits and there's no reason to assume that your profit estimates are better than those by IV.


That's fine, but as I said, I disagree with their reasons, morally. At least, according to what people have said is their reason which could all be false.

Great Magical Hat wrote:In fact they set their price at a height they thought was a fair one for the full game (well, that bit is speculation by me, but the part after this isn't) because they thought it would mean more serious testers, as well as a more manageable number of them (allowing them to incorporate feedback better).


Just sound's lazy. Our 13 employee team can support 10s of thousands of users every weekend on multiple platforms without outsourcing. You really think this was necessary?
Slynk
level1
level1
Posts: 60
Joined: Wed Jun 05, 2013 1:43 pm

Postby Slynk » Wed Jun 05, 2013 5:22 pm

MAdMaN wrote:
Slynk wrote:You should *never* assume you know someone's story on the internet, it's just silly. :P


Slynk wrote:I guarantee you while IV has put a *lot* of effort into this game, it's not more than other Indie developers or triple AAA teams.


Minecraft has been out for a few years and under development before it's initial release. It's hardly an assumption to say they don't work harder than other developers when the project is still in pre-release. I also don't consider a company to be a "someone." But fair enough.
Great Magical Hat
level3
level3
Posts: 486
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2005 4:57 pm
Location: Netherlands

Postby Great Magical Hat » Wed Jun 05, 2013 5:28 pm

Slynk wrote:No, you put the price point at what the dev team takes in, that's all. So in this case the average tripple AAA studio pulls in $27 for every game they make and they put in an average of X hours per employee over the duration of development. It's team size indepentdent and objective. You can further refine the equation by defining an objective "successful game" rule that you use to calculate your price (number units sold or w/e.)


So you're saying that software devs should ask a fair price while publishers can ask as much as they want?

Slynk wrote:Yes, because companies never go under due to self sabotaging business practices.


Sure, companies go under. That still doesn't mean that your "business" predictions are of more worth than those made by Introversion. If anything, they underestimated the demand, as they have claimed that they sold much much more than they expected, including the fact that they sold 4 copies of the highest tier on the first day, and then two more before they could put the restriction of a maximum of 5 on it.

Slynk wrote:Ummmmmm.... <--- Not the OP of this thread. I also read through other Price threads on this forum before posting on this one. So I assure you, other people are complaining.


My bad, I should have specified that I didn't mean you as in the person I just quoted, but you as in people who think the current price is too high.

Slynk wrote:I said, I disagree with their reasons, morally.


And we get back to: Good to know. We people who don't will enjoy the game, okey?

Great Magical Hat wrote:Just sound's lazy. Our 13 employee team can support 10s of thousands of users every weekend on multiple platforms without outsourcing. You really think this was necessary?


You didn't check your facts did you?
There's 2 employees and over 88 thousand copies sold already (possibly excluding steam sales).
shovat
level2
level2
Posts: 90
Joined: Tue May 28, 2013 10:14 pm

Postby shovat » Wed Jun 05, 2013 5:35 pm

Slynk wrote:
Great Magical Hat wrote:
Great Magical Hat wrote:In fact they set their price at a height they thought was a fair one for the full game (well, that bit is speculation by me, but the part after this isn't) because they thought it would mean more serious testers, as well as a more manageable number of them (allowing them to incorporate feedback better).


Just sound's lazy. Our 13 employee team can support 10s of thousands of users every weekend on multiple platforms without outsourcing. You really think this was necessary?


10,000/13 = 769.23. Round to 769

48 hours has 2,880 minutes, 2880/769=3.7 minutes per customer support for your 13 employees working 24/7 over the weekend with no breaks or sleep.

You either run one of those automated customer support sites which on average is terrible and is the driving reason when technical forums is full of people asking for help to to make something work because tech support is crap.

Or you're being significantly less than truthful with us.
Great Magical Hat
level3
level3
Posts: 486
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2005 4:57 pm
Location: Netherlands

Postby Great Magical Hat » Wed Jun 05, 2013 5:46 pm

shovat wrote:Or you're being significantly less than truthful with us.


I think he's talking about the total number of customers they have, including the ones that do not need help.
Slynk
level1
level1
Posts: 60
Joined: Wed Jun 05, 2013 1:43 pm

Postby Slynk » Wed Jun 05, 2013 6:30 pm

shovat wrote:10,000/13 = 769.23. Round to 769

48 hours has 2,880 minutes, 2880/769=3.7 minutes per customer support for your 13 employees working 24/7 over the weekend with no breaks or sleep.

You either run one of those automated customer support sites which on average is terrible and is the driving reason when technical forums is full of people asking for help to to make something work because tech support is crap.

Or you're being significantly less than truthful with us.


What Great Magical Hat said. And those are new, unique customers. The nature of the app is mostly a one-off application with a few returning customers. So that's 10,000 new people to support every weekend (and during the week, it's just used predominantly on the weekends.)
Mas Tnega
level5
level5
Posts: 7898
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2002 11:54 pm
Location: Edinburgh
Contact:

Postby Mas Tnega » Wed Jun 05, 2013 6:39 pm

How many actual customers does your team give support to, if you don't mind me asking?
Slynk
level1
level1
Posts: 60
Joined: Wed Jun 05, 2013 1:43 pm

Postby Slynk » Wed Jun 05, 2013 6:47 pm

Great Magical Hat wrote:So you're saying that software devs should ask a fair price while publishers can ask as much as they want?


No? IV isn't going through a publisher and my statement removed the publisher from the calculation when looking at other companies. What does the publisher have to do with this? I think publishers should ask for far less than they do but keep in mind, they usually pre-fund projects so some of that is paying back the publisher. It's an investment. But that's a whole different discussion.

Great Magical Hat wrote:Sure, companies go under. That still doesn't mean that your "business" predictions are of more worth than those made by Introversion. If anything, they underestimated the demand, as they have claimed that they sold much much more than they expected, including the fact that they sold 4 copies of the highest tier on the first day, and then two more before they could put the restriction of a maximum of 5 on it.


Yes, people will buy the more expensive copies. A new halo game could come out with a price tag of $200 and some will buy it, I assure you. Just because they *can* sell copies at $30 each doesn't mean they'll maximize their profit that way. Of course it's all guess work on my part but that's what business mostly is, guessing. They guessed that $30 would be the best price tag, I disagree. Not much else to say. I'm basing my opinion on the amount other companies made charging less as well as my year's worth of experience weighing different business models with my company. But it's still just an opinion; why are you wasting your time arguing with me when my opinion is subjective and can't be proven or disproven to begin with?


Great Magical Hat wrote:And we get back to: Good to know. We people who don't will enjoy the game, okey?


Again, why do you take this personally? As though me being disappointed with the price means I think *everyone* should be disappointed. That's just a weird jump. By all means, go and enjoy the game.

Great Magical Hat wrote:You didn't check your facts did you?
There's 2 employees and over 88 thousand copies sold already (possibly excluding steam sales).


10,000 unique customers to support every week > 88,000 when our product has been live for over a year. We recently hit our 1 million uploaded photo on our app. It's a lot of people to support.
Slynk
level1
level1
Posts: 60
Joined: Wed Jun 05, 2013 1:43 pm

Postby Slynk » Wed Jun 05, 2013 6:56 pm

Mas Tnega wrote:How many actual customers does your team give support to, if you don't mind me asking?


I don't have that number. I steer clear of the support email account. I deal with the emails that the biz/dev guys forward me for my platform. I get 10~ every week? But keep in mind, I only get forwarded questions they can't answer or signs of a new bug. It's also a highly volatile number. The other weekend our server hit its maximum load and no one could log in on any platform. Things like facebook deprecating things on their api can mess up facebook connect for us (as it has happened before.) Rackspace went down once and caused our photo upload system and website to stop working. It's hard to give an average when the difference between the highs and lows are so large.
Slynk
level1
level1
Posts: 60
Joined: Wed Jun 05, 2013 1:43 pm

Postby Slynk » Wed Jun 05, 2013 7:04 pm

Oh I forgot to mention we have an automatic crash report that forwards the crash dumps to our android support email. So while I don't have to respond to these emails, I do have to fix them. After a week I have anywhere from 2,000 to 30,000 emails to sift through. Supporting Android is a pain in the ass. Anyone reading this that wants to be a developer should steer clear of the support nightmare that is Android. Every other phone has a different bug, every OS version on the same phone has different bugs, and every custom rom has different bugs. >.<

Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests