Jonathan Blow, creator of "Braid" + "The Witness", discusses game pricing/big sales

[darkewaffle]

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2016/...creator-reports-5-million-first-week-revenue/

A few select quotes I like.

"Why isn't this [game] $15?" he told viewers. "This game is giant. It's got tons of stuff in it."

"I don't think it's good for people to undervalue their work, because then you teach the public that what you do isn't worth much,"

"It is very tempting to just put your game on sale for 75 percent off because you know that will be a big bump, and then to do that again and again, but eventually you teach people that your launch price was a fake price, because the game will inevitably be 75 percent off,"

I think it's important for developers to take pride and recognize the value of their own work. I know we all like to get something on sale or for less than the asking price. But I think there's a cost associated with taking that as far as the game-retail industry has because consumers can send (and are sending) a message that "cheaper is always better - we care more about paying less than than we care about getting more".

Personally I think even at full retail price most [good] games are still great values. If you look beyond the number on the sticker and consider not just how much you put in but also what you get out of it games are usually extremely cheap in terms of $ per hour of entertainment.

 

[ImpulsE69]

The problem isn't that they are devaluing themselves, it is that they are competing against much more now than ever and overvaluing themselves. Not just games, but movies, tv, the internet in general...etc.

No one knows what your product in entertainment is until they've tried it themselves. How many times in the past did you pay $60 for a game only to find out you didn't care for it? It's a gamble, and people have tons of options that are usually cheaper.

If you want to not put your item on sale, that is your choice, but don't complain if no one buys it no matter how good 'you' think it is.

 

[sweenish]

[...] because consumers can send (and are sending) a message that "cheaper is always better - we care more about paying less than than we care about getting more".

This was the only part of your post I have a minor (very minor) disagreement with.

Going to Steam and looking at bestselling games will almost always have the latest, full price AAA games on it, even if it's a pre-order. When they go on sale, naturally more people get the game as well, but under-valuing only seems to be a major issue for the indie studios.

The rest is a tangent.
They start with a lower price to get people into the "why not" purchases, and hope to build loyalty through quality of the game. Constant sales to bring in more cash, but those customers are trained to wait for sales. Then, if they actually create game that they feel is worth more than $20, they're in a bit of a pickle. So few indie games break that price barrier, when a few more could.

I'm glad to see some more small studios charging an appropriate (given the game) price and being rewarded.

That mentality needs to make its way to mobile. It's the only real way IAP-riddled freemium garbage will disappear or at least "do it right."

 

[Red Storm]

I agree with him to an extent, but not entirely. I gladly pay full price for games that I know I will enjoy and invest many hours into. The game's that make this list though are few and far between. If it wasn't for these 75% off sales, my Steam collection would probably have a handful of games at most, compared to the 100+ I have now.

 

[Homerboy]

I'll happily pay $60 for a game IF and ONLY IF I get to try it out before I drop my money on it.

WTF happened to demos? Those allowed people to try before we buy -- though maybe that was the problem. People were trying and realizing the game sucked so they never bought (at least not at the $60 price point)

I can't tell you the last full-price game I bought. Not worth the gamble of my $60. I will wait until it goes on sale, or just never buy it at all.

 

[magomago]

agreed with many of the comments. You don't just compete with other games, you compete with all forms of entertainment.

The cheap price is simply the threshold of entry for me - when its over 20 bucks, you are competing with other forms of entertainment for me. For most games, I'm only ever going to play it a 1 - 2 hours, so the price actually matters.

Unless it is something I know has strong backing, and has had great reviews I'm hesitant to jump in. The last 59.99 game I bought was Skyrim but I've put 80 hours into it, where 30 was just mod configuration lol.
The next one I'll probably buy is Dishonored 2, because I picked up Dishonored 1 for cheap without even knowing exactly what it is and fell in love with the gameplay.

And hoooonnnnessstly, I'm just not playing that many games these days, so even if I have a disposable income, I feel less bad about paying 5 dollars for something I won't play, than paying 20+ dollars for something that I simply won't play.

 

[magomago]

I'll happily pay $60 for a game IF and ONLY IF I get to try it out before I drop my money on it.

WTF happened to demos? Those allowed people to try before we buy -- though maybe that was the problem. People were trying and realizing the game sucked so they never bought (at least not at the $60 price point)

I can't tell you the last full-price game I bought. Not worth the gamble of my $60. I will wait until it goes on sale, or just never buy it at all.

Yeah and if I get fully functional demos with 1-2 hours of gameplay, I'd probably find that the vast majority of the time I won't buy the game However, I would 1% of the time pay 60 dollars and actually buy the game.

 

[Kaido]

They start with a lower price to get people into the "why not" purchases, and hope to build loyalty through quality of the game. Constant sales to bring in more cash, but those customers are trained to wait for sales. Then, if they actually create game that they feel is worth more than $20, they're in a bit of a pickle. So few indie games break that price barrier, when a few more could.

Seriously. Literally the only time I EVER shop on Steam is when there's a sale. Then I can buy like ten games for the price of the original one's asking price.

 

[Kaido]

What surprises me the most is how unwilling people are to pay for mobile games. I'll tell someone "you should try this game, it's only a dollar" and they do an "ugh" routine and almost always opt not to buy it. Yet they're willing to spend six bucks on a fancy cup of coffee in the morning

So many cool games out there like Thomas Was Alone, Monument Valley, etc. that are a faction of the price of a PS4 or Xbox One game. If the game is good, I don't mind paying for it because I know I'll get my money's worth. With Youtube reviews, I think the time of demos are pretty much long gone...I just watch some trailers or non-spoiler reviews to see if the game is worth buying, especially for the more expensive games. I think Thomas Was Alone was five bucks, which is a tad pricey for a mobile game, but it has wonderful narration & was fun to play through, so it was definitely worth the money.

 

[sweenish]

Side note: Thomas was Alone is currently $0.20 on Google Play, at least in the U.S.

 

[Subyman]

Reason people won't pay for mobile is because for every 1 good pay-for game there are 1000 mediocre free games. I've purchased a few mobile games, but I don't enjoy playing on a small screen. It isn't a platform I really care about so I only have two games I play when I'm in a waiting room or something. But even then I'd rather surf the net most of the time.

 

[Silverforce11]

It's too late, gamers are already programmed to expect massive sales.

 

[b-mac]

It's too late, gamers are already programmed to expect massive sales.

This. So this. This last winter sale I bought exactly one game because my backlog is so big from humble bundle/other sales. I have a hard time paying more than $10 or $15 for game because I know they will go on sale by the time I can play them. Also I buy most of my games on sites other than steam because I can often get a better deal.

 

[Fire&Blood]

Content is king. I have no problem paying full price nor with buying expansions or expansion sized DLC's. Typically I stay informed on games prior to release dates and form my opinion once relevant info is out (game length, gameplay details, multiplayer aspect if game goes online, modding policy, cheat/exploit issues) and decide at that point whether to commit.

For example, here are a few upcoming sequels of games I'm a fan of, Dishonored, Mafia and Hitman. I'm watching out for news, I could be swayed to pay full price but as release date arrives, I should have an informed opinion about the game and decide then.

Looking at Star Citizen or cosmetic in game items that go for small fortunes, people will pay for things they are passionate about. I don't expect every game to match CDPR's Witcher 3, at the same time I don't want another Preston or another Roman to stretch content. Give me a reasonable amount of content, I'll pay full price, treat DLC's like old school expansions and I'll gladly buy those too.

 

[maniacalpha1-1]

I don't expect to pay 75% off for a new game. In many cases, I'm just now buying games that I wishlisted 2-5 years ago. And I've still not played any of them, I just keep collecting.

As long as no one is suggesting that prices shouldn't crash 3-4 years later, no problem. I mean, I just keep collecting and not even playing, that's like free money for them, at least until that day I can binge-play them all (hah, that will be never).

 

[sweenish]

Steam's top seller is XCOM 2 ($60). Tomb Raider is third ($54), and The Division is fifth ($60). The Witness is sixth ($40). Naruto is 10th ($50).

Gamers are programmed just isn't all that true. You're programmed. That's fine to admit. But the generalization is false. Like I said.

 

[SMOGZINN]

I think it's important for developers to take pride and recognize the value of their own work.

Their work is worth what someone will pay for it. Nothing more.

They put their products on sale to increase revenue. It is stupid to care about the price of your game over the profit is makes.

Selling 1000 copies of a $10 game is better than selling 99 copies of a $100 game.

 

[Rakehellion]

I'll tell someone "you should try this game, it's only a dollar"

Not because it's a good game, but because it's only a dollar. That's the problem with the industry. If the best thing you have to say about your title is it's less bad than wasting your money on something else, then you're in the wrong business.

 

[xantub]

I'm one that almost never buys games at full price. Only exception are Paradox strategy games, and they are far and between (like a new game every 2 years). Other than that, I wait for sales. For indie games, I won't even consider it unless it's less than $10.

 

[motsm]

I don't really see the appeal of The Witness at $40 and I find it really bizarre that it's getting good reviews. From what I understand, it's just variations on the exact same puzzle, over and over. Why does this appeal to anyone outside of their phone?

 

[DigDog]

tbh, i don't have the strength of character to wait for a sale - when the game drops, i buy it. wasteland, fallout, skyrim, all day-1 purchases. because, you see, i rarely get hyped for a game, but when i do, i get hyped just as much as everyone else.

i also buy very few games; i'm basically off of single-player games, and the few MP games i pay for, it's better to be there from day one, because of levelling, experience, drops, etc.

Steam sales are good because you can afford to waste a little money to try a game that you would otherwise never have spent full price on; i would agree that having so many and so shortly after release, means most people get wise and buy the game when it's both cheaper AND patched out of early bugs.

But then again, most of the time when i spend money on a game, i wind up regretting it, as most games i have played in the last few years have only seen a few hours of play and then gotten uninstalled, because they don't meet my standards.

Take for example DOOM (4), soon to be released but, due to the existence of gameplay videos, already known to be slow and noobish; i wouldn't spend more than a couple bucks on it, and if at all, just to enjoy the confirmation of how bad it is and how i was right all along.

Steam's sales tactics are too aggressive. But it works, at least for Steam. Think of the reversed effect as well; people do get used to thinking "i buy only during sales", but when a sale comes around, they also wind up getting carried away and buying some crap from the 80s or 90s that's probably abandonware anyway.

It's digital media. There's barely any cost associated with selling it. Obviously the more sales you can make, the bigger the profit. And with volume sales, it's always easier to find someone slipped a full $20 or $50 purchase together with the $2 and 0.50c.

 

[Subyman]

I don't really see the appeal of The Witness at $40 and I find it really bizarre that it's getting good reviews. From what I understand, it's just variations on the exact same puzzle, over and over. Why does this appeal to anyone outside of their phone?

Then you completely do not understand the game. The game continues to build and get deeper and deeper both in puzzle mechanics and how you view the world.

 

[motsm]

Then you completely do not understand the game. The game continues to build and get deeper and deeper both in puzzle mechanics and how you view the world.

That sounds exactly like Jonathan Blow after Braid was released.

 

[SMOGZINN]

i would agree that having so many and so shortly after release, means most people get wise and buy the game when it's both cheaper AND patched out of early bugs.

This is the other side of the argument that Jonathan Blow is making. If the Steam sales are teaching us that games are worth less that he would like to think they should be, than crappy 'release now, patch later (if ever)' and the trend of making important gameplay into DLC are teaching us to wait to buy games until they are actually complete.