Editorial Vogel Talks Game Sales, Part Two

[Edward_R_Murrow]

Tags: Geneforge 4; Jeff Vogel; Spiderweb Software

Jeff Vogel has put up the <a href="http://jeff-vogel.blogspot.com/2009/03/how-many-games-i-sell-part-two.html">continuation of his column</a> in which he discusses the financial aspect of his indie RPG business along with certain choices he makes and why. There's a good deal of interesting commentary and some answers people have been seeking for quite some time.<blockquote>A lot of people have commented that I should lower the game's price to $10. The idea that this would increase my profits is, I feel, purest nonsense. Bearing in mind that the percentage cost of credit card processing increases as the price goes down, and, to make the same profits from Geneforge 4, I would have had to triple my sales. Triple! As in, go from a conversation rate of about 1.5% to almost 5%. This is just not realistic.
<br>
[...]
<br>
I charge a fair price. I write big, good games (with 30-40 hours of gameplay, easy), and they easily provide enough fun to more than justify the $28. I will not be shamed into charging less, not when my dollars and cents bottom line is telling me that it's working.
<br>
[...]
<br>
And here's the sad truth. Suppose I spent a bunch of money, busted my hump, and wrote a game with graphics as good as, say, Eschalon. Then people who really care about graphics wouldn't look at my game and go, "Wow! He's really doing good now!" They'd go, "His graphics suck. They haven't improved at all." And then they'd go play Fallout 3.</blockquote>His explanations are detailed and interesting, and the response on his game's graphics should spark some discussion.
<br>
<br>
Spotted at: <A HREF="http://gamebanshee.com/">Gamebanshee</A>

 

[Zomg]

Yup. I think he should be even more tight-fisted and make his demos shorter, because I remember feeling like I was stuffed to the gills by the time I finished the GF2 demo. Buying the whole game would have been the waafer theen meent.

 

[Davaris]

Yup. I think he should be even more tight-fisted and make his demos shorter, because I remember feeling like I was stuffed to the gills by the time I finished the GF2 demo. Buying the whole game would have been the waafer theen meent.

This is part of his evil genius. Long demos to suck you in and when you are almost at the end of the game, he cuts you off and asks for money. If you don't pay, you will never know how it turns out. Cunning he is!

 

[udm]

And here's the sad truth. Suppose I spent a bunch of money, busted my hump, and wrote a game with graphics as good as, say, Eschalon. Then people who really care about graphics wouldn't look at my game and go, "Wow! He's really doing good now!" They'd go, "His graphics suck. They haven't improved at all." And then they'd go play Fallout 3.

True, so true. Anything 2D, and people with nary an interest in indie gaming would even glance at it

I like Jeff's perceptions though. He takes a stance without sounding like an asshole

 

[Sodomy]

Yup. I think he should be even more tight-fisted and make his demos shorter, because I remember feeling like I was stuffed to the gills by the time I finished the GF2 demo. Buying the whole game would have been the waafer theen meent.

This is part of his evil genius. Long demos to suck you in and when you are almost at the end of the game, he cuts you off and asks for money. If you don't pay, you will never know how it turns out. Cunning he is!

Actually, the GF2 demo is only about a quarter of the game, if even that.

That game is absolutely fucking massive.

 

[Karl]

The problem lies not in the graphics engine, but in the art.

 

[spacemoose]

tbh I prefer the old school exiles graphics

 

[Lemunde]

28 dollars does seem a bit excessive. His games are fun but not 28 dollars fun. I bought some of his other stuff a while back and it wasn't that expensive. 15 at most.

Edit: Holy crap! Did he raise the prices on all his games or do I just have a really bad memory? 25 bucks for Avernum 2!?

 

[Longshanks]

And here's the sad truth. Suppose I spent a bunch of money, busted my hump, and wrote a game with graphics as good as, say, Eschalon. Then people who really care about graphics wouldn't look at my game and go, "Wow! He's really doing good now!" They'd go, "His graphics suck. They haven't improved at all." And then they'd go play Fallout 3.

No doubt. But there are cheaper graphics whores who'd be happy enough to play Eschalon but draw the line at Vogel's games. The question is whether these whores are worth accomodating. I'm with Jeff on that, fuck 'em.

 

[Wyrmlord]

For god's sake guys, there is nothing wrong with Spiderweb graphics. Nothing.

The interface and the avatars, yes, but there is nothing wrong with the graphics. They are very good.

There are ugly ass 3D games from as far back 2004 or before which look worse.

 

[Elwro]

Avernum 2 always costed $25 and it's $25 well spent.

 

[Carlos' Bitch1]

Avernum 2 always costed $25 and it's $25 well spent.

I prefer the Exile Trilogy myself. Never bothered with Avernum 1,2 and 3, except for a dabble in the demo's. The only differences were cosmetic, and the party had gone from 6 to 4. Less spells, etc. Nothing extra apart from graphics.

 

[Andhaira]

He talks about remaking the geneforge games again. If he does it in the nethegate style, well and good. But if he pullls another avernum (remaking the exile games into avernum) it wont work out well.

Can't wait to see thee new engine and new game after avernum 6.

 

[Elwro]

@Blackadder: Yes, and this is normal for someone who played the original Exile Trilogy But I never played it and my introduction was Avernum 1. Was blown away by the demo and bought the trilogy. I finished it, but due to time shortage didn't buy the next parts.

 

[Andhaira]

Avernum 2 and exile 2 are the best of the bunch. A good story instead of random mowing down gobbies and orcs.

I hate the avernum 5 engine though; its the geneforge engine except it looks really ugly.

 

[doctor_kaz]

28 dollars is too much, because with production values like Spiderweb's, you are no longer competing with modern games. You are competing with games from fifteen years ago. For 28 dollars, I could probably buy the entire Baldurs Gate saga and both Fallouts. Maybe even Planescape: Torment on top of that, since those games are dirt cheap as hell right now.

 

[Kraszu]

28 dollars is too much, because with production values like Spiderweb's, you are no longer competing with modern games. You are competing with games from fifteen years ago. For 28 dollars, I could probably buy the entire Baldurs Gate saga and both Fallouts. Maybe even Planescape: Torment on top of that, since those games are dirt cheap as hell right now.

But if you are interested in spiderweb games, them most likely you already finished all those games that you had mentioned.

 

[Lemunde]

I probably splurged and payed the 25 for Avernum 2 back then because it was new and I had a decent income. Now I can't picture myself paying that much for a game that's that many years old. Hell Mass Effect is 20 dollars on steam and it hasn't been out much longer than a year.

 

[Zyrxil]

I prefer the Exile Trilogy myself. Never bothered with Avernum 1,2 and 3, except for a dabble in the demo's. The only differences were cosmetic, and the party had gone from 6 to 4. Less spells, etc. Nothing extra apart from graphics.

Yeah, Exile 1 was too primitive for me, but Exile 2 and 3 were great with secret doors, destroyable walls, and actual AoE spells that you could target on the ground, which you still can't do in Geneforge.

He talks about remaking the geneforge games again. If he does it in the nethegate style, well and good. But if he pullls another avernum (remaking the exile games into avernum) it wont work out well.

What do you mean Nethergate style? What did he do for the Nethergate remake?

 

[Wyrmlord]

28 dollars is too much, because with production values like Spiderweb's, you are no longer competing with modern games. You are competing with games from fifteen years ago. For 28 dollars, I could probably buy the entire Baldurs Gate saga and both Fallouts. Maybe even Planescape: Torment on top of that, since those games are dirt cheap as hell right now.

You are assuming that BG, FO, and Torment are perfect substitutes for Spiderweb games.

I don't think they are meant to be the same games as them. They don't fall in the same niche. Avernum is a party-based turn-based game, with fully customizable parties. It is based on a character creation system in which you balance out positive and negative traits of each character. It has multiple attack modes and options. It is based on combat.

BG offers a whole different set of things and Avernum offers a whole different set of things - for that, a little price differentiation is acceptable, especially if you really hunger for a game like Avernum and have already had your share of BG. So for that, someone might be more than willing to spend a bit more money.

Essentially, Spiderwb is not competing with anybody. It is producing its own kind of game, and can demand different prices for them based on their own merits.

Also Fallouts may be cheap, but they are not as easy to find. Ordering a Spiderweb game is done by such a simple procedure, and for that convenience of digital distribution, they can and should demand more money.

 

[obediah]

28 dollars is too much, because with production values like Spiderweb's, you are no longer competing with modern games. You are competing with games from fifteen years ago. For 28 dollars, I could probably buy the entire Baldurs Gate saga and both Fallouts. Maybe even Planescape: Torment on top of that, since those games are dirt cheap as hell right now.

Well if you guaranteed Jeff sales on par with any of those games, he'd be happy to sell it to you for $10 (barring insanity). I bet you could even hard ball him and buy 1,000,000 copies for $1 each. What a bargain!

Jeff is notorious for playing it safe, but my guess is that he is correct that his profits wouldn't skyrocket at a lower price. I doubt there are tens of thousands of people out there stuck at the registration point of the demo of an ugly ass rpg, with $10 on a credit card, but not $28.

If I was him, I'd play around more with sales and discounting older titles just to see if I could get a few bumps. But maybe he has done this, and in any case he has the hard sales numbers to base his decisions on.

I would make at least the first game of each series $5-10. He can't be selling more than 3-4 of those a month, so $60 a month seems like an acceptable gamble to bring in new customers or deal seakers. I think it's easy for us old timers to overestimate the value of shareware. It's not a popular concept these days, and people are so jaded with demos - that I think many people don't understand the utility.

 

[jagged-jimmy]

No doubt. But there are cheaper graphics whores who'd be happy enough to play Eschalon but draw the line at Vogel's games. The question is whether these whores are worth accomodating. I'm with Jeff on that, fuck 'em.

This. I draw the line there. Am i a bad person?

 

[Thrasher]

28 dollars is too much, because with production values like Spiderweb's, you are no longer competing with modern games. You are competing with games from fifteen years ago. For 28 dollars, I could probably buy the entire Baldurs Gate saga and both Fallouts. Maybe even Planescape: Torment on top of that, since those games are dirt cheap as hell right now.

You are assuming that BG, FO, and Torment are perfect substitutes for Spiderweb games.

I don't think they are meant to be the same games as them. They don't fall in the same niche. Avernum is a party-based turn-based game, with fully customizable parties. It is based on a character creation system in which you balance out positive and negative traits of each character. It has multiple attack modes and options. It is based on combat.

BG offers a whole different set of things and Avernum offers a whole different set of things - for that, a little price differentiation is acceptable, especially if you really hunger for a game like Avernum and have already had your share of BG. So for that, someone might be more than willing to spend a bit more money.

Essentially, Spiderwb is not competing with anybody. It is producing its own kind of game, and can demand different prices for them based on their own merits.

Also Fallouts may be cheap, but they are not as easy to find. Ordering a Spiderweb game is done by such a simple procedure, and for that convenience of digital distribution, they can and should demand more money.

This. And good luck finding Torment in a box cheap!

Mass effect is $17 already on Amazon. But who cares, it sucks. Avernum 5 did not suck, it rocked.

 

[doctor_kaz]

Well if you guaranteed Jeff sales on par with any of those games, he'd be happy to sell it to you for $10 (barring insanity). I bet you could even hard ball him and buy 1,000,000 copies for $1 each. What a bargain!

I agree with what you are saying. I just think that the business model in general is not a good one. Essentially one guy making a story-driven open world RPG and actually making a really good one is just not practical. Maybe if he could team up with just a few other folks he could make a more competitive game and move 50,000 units instead of a few thousand.

 

[obediah]

Well if you guaranteed Jeff sales on par with any of those games, he'd be happy to sell it to you for $10 (barring insanity). I bet you could even hard ball him and buy 1,000,000 copies for $1 each. What a bargain!

I agree with what you are saying. I just think that the business model in general is not a good one. Essentially one guy making a story-driven open world RPG and actually making a really good one is just not practical. Maybe if he could team up with just a few other folks he could make a more competitive game and move 50,000 units instead of a few thousand.

That is certainly possible.

Or maybe it wouldn't move anything, and he'd be stuck in debt and have to sell the IP to his current games to pay off his creditors.

Or maybe the project would fall apart because of creative differences, and he'd be broke, with no new spiderweb games in the pipeline.

Or maybe he'd end up in legal troubles with a collaborator or because of previous baggage from a collaborator.

Or maybe the game would sell gangbusters, but the next would result in any of the above problems.

My point is that the industry has seen every permutation from tiny conservative spiderweb, to tens or hundreds of millions being thrown at a very speculative blockbuster. History has shown it very difficult to succeed at any level.

Jeff does what he does well, and seems to be very happy with his current situation. Spiderweb is one of the oldest development houses out there and has as much chance of being around in 10 more years as any other. I can't fault him for not chasing other peoples' dreams.