Indie RPG pricing

[Awor Szurkrarz]

15-25 PLN for a typical indie cRPG.

40 PLN for something like AoD.

 

[PorkaMorka]

It probably depends on how much exposure you have. You can't sell high volume if nobody knows about your game.

Vogel's model seems reasonable. When he was only selling to a small group of dedicated enthusiasts, he kept prices high. When he got on Steam he lowered them somewhat, to appeal to the new mass of less dedicated gamers who learned about his game.

If you sell Swords and Sorcery for $5, everyone on the Codex will buy it. If you sell it for $20, 1/100th of the Codex will buy it.

But this is wrong. A lot of people won't buy it at 5$ because they don't care about blobbers or because they are graphic whores.

Maybe there are only 1000 people on the Codex who would buy Underworld at 5$, because this isn't really a blobber site and many people are graphic whores. Maybe 400 of them are dedicated blobber fanatics who would buy it even if it was priced at $20. If you sell to those guys at 5$ and never get volume sales due to low publicity, that's bad.

EDIT: I should clarify that those numbers aren't estimates, merely made up numbers for discussion.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

Maybe 4 of them are dedicated blobber fanatics who would buy it even if it was priced at $20.

Fixed.

 

[Konjad]

Depends on the game, of course. Some indies are worth no more than $1 (if you can say they are worth anything at all), others I would be happy to buy for a price of AAA title. I'd say most of the indie games should be priced at $5-$10, however there are still games like Age of Decadence, which is worth a lot more, and games like Wasteland Angel, which is worth no more than $2 imo.

 

[Metro]

As others have mentioned it all depends on content, features, mechanics, length, etc. That said, going over $20 would be a bad decision if a developer wants to attract a larger market. $15 seems to be a pretty good price. People can hem and haw and say 'My game is worth X,' but the reality is a game is worth what people are willing to pay for it. High volume > average unit price if you want to make money.

Moreover, if a developer isn't lowering the price of his game after a year or more (both the base price and multiple sales) he's just being a stubborn idiot. Period. That is the reality of digital distribution where there is little to no fixed cost of selling your product. Even AAA publishers do it. They haul in the Morgoths of the world with the DAY ONE PURCHASES and then usually cut the price in half after a few months because they know if someone was going to pay full price for their game they would have done so already. The people who think a game is worth X have already bought it at X -- now you need to sell it cheaper at Y.

 

[Vault Dweller]

My 2 cents:

We asked for $25, as you know. Why? I figured that since new mainstream RPGs go for $50-60, we'll ask for half of that, seeing that we're unwashed indies and all. It is a risky move in a sense that when people hear 'indie RPG', they tend to skip the RPG part and focus on the indie, comparing the price with that of other indie *games*, where the average price is $5-10.

Anyway, we went with an option "pay more if you want to" and got 475 pre-orders to-date. The average price is $32.30.

Now, maybe if we asked for $15, we would have sold twice or three times as many, but I'm not sure. You can't compare a game like KotC, that even half of the Codex thinks is too ugly and thus unplayable, to some action indie game you can buy on Steam for 5 bucks. Games like KotC aren't for everyone and lowering the price won't change that.

Speaking of Steam:

First "new release" indie game - Ravaged - "intense online multiplayer shooter like no other" - $24.99
First "best sellers" indie game - Chivalry: Medieval Warfare - "fast paced medieval FPS (Slasher with a multiplayer online focus)" - $24.99

Conclusion #1: $25 isn't overpriced
Conclusion #2: people sure like multiplayer shooters and slashers

 

[Infinitron]

Good thread.

I would say that "super-indies", those that manage to mimic AAA-like gameplay and graphics can start at 20-25, but they should also think about going down fairly quickly after that.

Other indies should be at 10-15, depending on how big and deep they are. The really small pixel art hipster games should be at 5-10.

Conclusion #1: people sure like multiplayer shooters and slashers
Conclusion #2: $25 isn't overpriced for a multiplayer shooter or slasher

Fixed.

 

[Metro]

Speaking of Steam:

First "new release" indie game - Ravaged - "intense online multiplayer shooter like no other" - $24.99
First "best sellers" indie game - Chivalry: Medieval Warfare - "fast paced medieval FPS (Slasher with a multiplayer online focus)" - $24.99

Conclusion #1: $25 isn't overpriced
Conclusion #2: people sure like multiplayer shooters and slashers

Those games are both more 'mainstream' than AoD, though. Maybe I'm wrong but I think the better comparison is to Vogel's games than flashy multi-player action games. But I guess we won't know until AoD gets Greenlit and the sales start coming in... maybe the average Steam buyer is more refined than I'm giving them credit for~

 

[felipepepe]

It was, but people are cheating. :D They're talking about indie RPGs in existence like frayed Knights, KOTC..., the last of which being this MM clone. Sorry this is turning into shameless self-promotion of my overpriced clunky game...

Don't worry, It's way more interesting to discuss this with someone going though this and perhaps help him than to just keep rambling theories and that's it.

felipepepe Advertising on facebook proved somewhat efficient. I looked up other things for further down the line.

Really? I saw that you have +1k likes on facebook, and it's probably due that, but I gotta say I'm a bit of a paranoid if those likes are real people, and how much of that will turn into sales...

Keeping my price tag might not solve my problem but slashing it, counting on that alone to get people talking about it more, is likely to make it worse. What you say about transaction fees is interesting. Working profit around a fixed percentage fee by doing what? Raising the price? Note that those percentages increase sharply for lower transactions.

I'm just saying that you have only "per-sale costs" essentially, is not like old physical games that are not on sale anymore because making then available would cost money on stuff like reprinting & right, so it's not worth it. Every sale you make giver you a bit of money. Consider this three plans I did, imagining that you pay 0,50 on transactions fees per game sold:

Only $20:
1k copies at $20 = $19.500,
TOTAL = $19.500
1k copies sold, $500 was paid in taxes (25 copies in taxes = 3% of sales).

$20 & $10:
300 copies at $20 = $5.850,
1500 copies at $10 = $14.250,
TOTAL = $20.100
1.8k copies sold, $900 was paid in taxes (82 copies in taxes = 5% of sales).

$20, $10 & $5:
100 copies at $20 = $1.950,
1000 copies at $10 = $9.500,
1900 copies at $5 = $8.550,
TOTAL = $20.000
3k copies sold, $1.500 was paid in taxes (198 copies in taxes = 7% of sales).

Selling at $5 is nonsense without Steam or a great renown, so let's just compare "Only $20" with "$20 & $10". Supposing you sold 300 copies at $20 until now, you'll need more 700 at $20, or 1.500 at $10.

On regular industries, cutting the price in half while keeping the costs would completly kill your profit margin, but in your case it means that you'll need to sell +57 copies to pay for the taxes, a meager +2% toll on your sales for cutting prices in half. That's what I meant in how digital cost are very low and easy to work with.

Yes, tis a tough nut to crack.

Indeed, you are trending on uncharted waters... the situation is very different from Vogel's past, because he is releasing games since 95, the world was completly different by then. On more recent times he already had a huge backlog and renown, and was probably still having a hard time until he joined Steam.

Your situation is closer to Basilisk games, that made Eschalon: Book 1 & 2... they are quite obscure, but seem to be doing well, managed to climb on Steam and are still selling their 2007 first game for $9,99 and the new one for $15...

 

[Vault Dweller]

Conclusion #1: people sure like multiplayer shooters and slashers
Conclusion #2: $25 isn't overpriced for a multiplayer shooter or slasher

Fixed.

Well, let's talk about it (your fix). What exactly does it mean? That $25 is fine for a multiplayer shooter but way too expensive for an RPG?

 

[7hm]

People charge low prices because that's what others charg and they don't have faith in their product. Companies leave money on the table all the time. AoD should be charging more too, as their pay more if you want indicates. Indie developers are indie developers and not particularly successful businessmen for a reason. Some exceptions do apply, but not many.

 

[Vault Dweller]

AoD should be charging more too, as their pay more if you want indicates.

There is a huge difference between paying more because you want to and paying more because you have to.

 

[Infinitron]

7hm, are you Jeff Vogel from three years ago travelling through time?

Well, let's talk about it (your fix). What exactly does it mean? That $25 is fine for a multiplayer shooter but way too expensive for an RPG?

Yes. Multiplayer shooters, and multiplayer games in general, market themselves in a very different way. HOLY SHIT BROS THIS GAME IS AWESOME YOU MUST BUY IT NOW SO WE CAN PLAY TOGETHER

 

[Metro]

Well, let's talk about it (your fix). What exactly does it mean? That $25 is fine for a multiplayer shooter but way too expensive for an RPG?

Wasn't posed at me but; to some people (who probably comprise the vast majority of the Steam user base) I would think the answer to that is: yes.

 

[Menckenstein]

$9.99 is a very attractive price point.

 

[Alex]

I will gladly pay $100 for a real good game. On the other hand, I avoid DLC, and games with DLC, and only buy those indie bundles for games I was going to buy anyway (which means they ended up losing money). People have a tendency to undervalue indie games nowadays, though.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Speaking of Steam:

First "new release" indie game - Ravaged - "intense online multiplayer shooter like no other" - $24.99
First "best sellers" indie game - Chivalry: Medieval Warfare - "fast paced medieval FPS (Slasher with a multiplayer online focus)" - $24.99

Conclusion #1: $25 isn't overpriced
Conclusion #2: people sure like multiplayer shooters and slashers

Those games are both more 'mainstream' than AoD, though. Maybe I'm wrong but I think the better comparison is to Vogel's games than flashy multi-player action games. But I guess we won't know until AoD gets Greenlit and the sales start coming in... maybe the average Steam buyer is more refined than I'm giving them credit for~

We're talking about indie games in general and whether or not the gaming public is willing to pay 25 bucks for something some guy(s) made. The shooter examples sort of prove that people are willing to pay that much even on Steam, a portal known for low prices. Besides, it's not like multiplayer shooters are a dying genre and people have no choice but to pay 25 bucks.

Obviously, *more* people are willing to play and pay for a multiplayer shooter than RPGs, but that's a different topic.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Wasn't posed at me but; to some people (who probably comprise the vast majority of the Steam user base) I would think the answer to that is: yes.

Why?

 

[Infinitron]

Vault Dweller logic:

Obsidian's success on Kickstarter only means that Obsidian can succeed on Kickstarter. It has no meaning for other developers or other genres.

Multiplayer shooters' success on Steam with a certain price means that Age of Decadence can succeed with the same price.

Problem, Codex?

 

[Vault Dweller]

7hm, are you Jeff Vogel from three years ago travelling through time?

Well, let's talk about it (your fix). What exactly does it mean? That $25 is fine for a multiplayer shooter but way too expensive for an RPG?

Yes. Multiplayer shooters, and multiplayer games in general, market themselves in a very different way. HOLY SHIT BROS THIS GAME IS AWESOME YOU MUST BUY IT NOW SO WE CAN PLAY TOGETHER

That explains the number of copies sold but not the price tag.

 

[Infinitron]

Yes. Multiplayer shooters, and multiplayer games in general, market themselves in a very different way. HOLY SHIT BROS THIS GAME IS AWESOME YOU MUST BUY IT NOW SO WE CAN PLAY TOGETHER

That explains the number of copies sold but not the price tag.

Think harder. Peer pressure makes people buy at a higher price than they would otherwise.

 

[7hm]

AoD should be charging more too, as their pay more if you want indicates.

There is a huge difference between paying more because you want to and paying more because you have to.

Fair enough. But what is lost by charging more?
This is especially true during presales as that is a truly captive market. Those are your best customers. Gifw them extras, but charge them more.

Re: Vogel. He ran an indie game development company for well over a decade. Anyone trying to do the same should listen to his advice.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Vault Dweller logic:

Obsidian success on Kickstarter only means that Obsidian can succeed on Kickstarter. It has no meaning for other developers or other genres.

We were talking about delivering the game and what it would mean for KS and other developers, not succeeding on KS (which, at this stage, requires no proof).

Multiplayer shooters succeeding on Steam with a certain price mean that Age of Decadence can succeed with the same price.

We weren't talking about success in this thread, but about what people are willing to pay for an indie game. My examples show that people are willing to pay $25. Your reply is "oh, but these are multiplayer shooters, who doesn't like those?", which isn't relevant to what the discussion is about.

 

[Infinitron]

We were talking about delivering the game and what it would mean for KS and other developers, not succeeding on KS (which, at this stage, requires no proof).

That is what I meant.

We weren't talking about success in this thread, but about what people are willing to pay for an indie game. My examples show that people are willing to pay $25. Your reply is "oh, but these are multiplayer shooters, who doesn't like those?", which isn't relevant to what the discussion is about.

See above.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Think harder. Peer pressure makes people buy at a higher price than they would otherwise.

If the title is popular. If everyone's playing it - sure. If it's an indie game, the same logic (presented earlier in this thread) should apply - $15 would attract more people and make it easier for other people to join.

 

[Metro]

Obviously, *more* people are willing to play and pay for a multiplayer shooter than RPGs, but that's a different topic.

I guess I didn't realize we shot off to a sub-topic. My comments are all in the context of pricing indie RPGs. As to the 'why,' (that $25 is okay for the shooters but not the RPGs) again, it's the audience. And I'm talking about the Steam audience as a whole not the subset that would be interested in a cRPG versus the herpaderps that buy any and all shooters available. Obviously to someone with a proclivity for old school RPGs $25 is more than reasonable but... again... it's a balancing act in terms of how many 'borderline' buyers you can attract at a given price point.

The people that buy these types of shooters usually have no problem with ponying up $60 for the latest iteration of Call of Duty/Battlefield/Whatever so $25 seems like a bargain to them. Never in their wildest dreams would they pay $60 for an RPG... or if they would... it certainly wouldn't be an 'RPG' in the way we conceive it, rather, something like Borderlands and not even remotely resembling an actual RPG like AoD. Of course, you can just write them off as potential buyers as they might not even buy it at $5 let alone $15 or $25.