Pay what you want...

[oklabsoft]

I thought this might be an interesting topic of discussion: With sites like itch.io (which I happen to use) posting titles at an accelerated rate, it's not difficult to find a pant-load of games that have the 'pay what you want status'. I have tried both this approach, as well as charging fees (from nominal to slightly significant). For myself, I find the 'pay what you want' scheme to be less than lucrative. However, worse than spending a bunch of time to make a game and not raking in the chips is having very few even try/play it. My band mate warned us that taking gigs for little money was not fair to other bands/musicians because we were taking their gigs. I could definitely make an argument for a parallel here, but what does upholding principle get you in this environment? I guess I settled on the theory that if as many people as possible play the game, those that get some enjoyment/play time from it would come back and make a donation. We have no problem dropping a buck or two for coffee and even more for a pint. Back in the 80s we jammed quarters into arcade games with abandoned. We throw that extra change in our car and forget about it. But, at the same time the donations for free games seem pretty sparse from my experience. HEY! If you wanted money you should have charged up front, right? And then we come back to the beginning. How confusing. I'm sure I paid like $40 for my copy of Exodus: Ultima III for my Apple II back in the day; not to mention the Kickstarter campaigns where tens of thousands are donated for titles that still haven't shipped. What's going on here and what is your opinion? What are your 'pay what you want' habits and why? Ok, let's argue. Have fun!

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Charge up front at first then eventually put it up for pay what you want?

 

[Kutulu]

Pay what you want makes me angry, im not grateful for getting something cheap but angry for making me jump through the typical registration/buying/entering data hoops.

 

[Swigen]

 

[Mr. Magniloquent]

The market is flush with games, yet disposable income is not what it was in the 1980s and 1990s. Expectations and standards have also changed greatly, too. "Pay what you will" methods are a poor model, as the demographic likely to "lavish on the arts" is unlikely to play or even have awareness of your niche indy game. People pirate when either the game is "tangibly" inaccessible, or financially. Releasing it through every avenue possible diminishes the first issue. Price is trickier, and one that only you can answer. If I were to guess, the optimal price is the median hourly wage among your expected market demographic. That might not be enough to carry you, but again, only you can answer the financial question.

 

[lukaszek]

deterministic system > RNG

 

[Crispy]

- Go back to the traditional publisher/developer model and stop whining so much about never getting enough profit

 

[Tigranes]

- Go back to the traditional publisher/developer model and stop whining so much about never getting enough profit

where you never have any money, pay off debts to publisher by mortgaging your next project, they take amy profits, and you eventually close down, yes

 

[JarlFrank]

I thought this might be an interesting topic of discussion: With sites like itch.io (which I happen to use) posting titles at an accelerated rate, it's not difficult to find a pant-load of games that have the 'pay what you want status'. I have tried both this approach, as well as charging fees (from nominal to slightly significant). For myself, I find the 'pay what you want' scheme to be less than lucrative. However, worse than spending a bunch of time to make a game and not raking in the chips is having very few even try/play it. My band mate warned us that taking gigs for little money was not fair to other bands/musicians because we were taking their gigs. I could definitely make an argument for a parallel here, but what does upholding principle get you in this environment? I guess I settled on the theory that if as many people as possible play the game, those that get some enjoyment/play time from it would come back and make a donation. We have no problem dropping a buck or two for coffee and even more for a pint. Back in the 80s we jammed quarters into arcade games with abandoned. We throw that extra change in our car and forget about it. But, at the same time the donations for free games seem pretty sparse from my experience. HEY! If you wanted money you should have charged up front, right? And then we come back to the beginning. How confusing. I'm sure I paid like $40 for my copy of Exodus: Ultima III for my Apple II back in the day; not to mention the Kickstarter campaigns where tens of thousands are donated for titles that still haven't shipped. What's going on here and what is your opinion? What are your 'pay what you want' habits and why? Ok, let's argue. Have fun!

See, the thing about "pay what you want" is, usually you get the game for free because you don't have to pay for anything, and most people will just take it like that. A better way to make a decent buck is to release for 5 or 10 bucks, then people will think "Hmm if it costs money it's probably worth it."

 

[oklabsoft]

If you demand a fee for your game, and don't get many downloads, that could be ascribed to failure of your product... exposure... or failure to properly market. If you use 'pay what you want' and people download your game and don't pay, what is that? Maybe they thought it sucked. Maybe they played it and decided they didn't need to pay. I don't know. I don't want this to be about my product but the climate and marketing plans in general.

 

[Crispy]

Keep on whining but there's no denying that the best RPGs of all time came about when people with better business sense (and more drive) than their developers were forcing them to stay on track, to stay in focus, and agreed not to finance horrible games like PoE. In other words, the adults were in charge.

These are what us old timers like to refer to as the "good old days".

 

[Mustawd]

If you demand a fee for your game, and don't get many downloads, that could be ascribed to failure of your product

Yah well...your product might suck.

 

[oklabsoft]

I have now seen the word 'whining' twice. For the record, I was asking a question for the sake of discussion and understanding and did not intend to convey 'whining' in any manner.

 

[Crispy]

The whining comment was not necessarily directed at you.

 

[oklabsoft]

If you demand a fee for your game, and don't get many downloads, that could be ascribed to failure of your product

Yah well...your product might suck.

brilliant.

 

[FeelTheRads]

Keep on whining but there's no denying that the best RPGs of all time came about when people with better business sense (and more drive) than their developers were forcing them to stay on track, to stay in focus, and agreed not to finance horrible games like PoE. In other words, the adults were in charge.

These are what us old timers like to refer to as the "good old days".

There's quite a few great games that came out of "garage developers".

Yes generally, looking at how it worked out, it does seem like having publishers was better than going Kickstarter.

But what worked then will not work now. The publishers of today have a different target audience, so just going back to them won't bring back the "good old days". Likely nothing will. The occasional fluke, maybe from a garage developer, but otherwise? Nope.

 

[Crispy]

But what worked then will not work now. The publishers of today have a different target audience, so just going back to them won't bring back the "good old days". Likely nothing will. The occasional fluke, maybe from a garage developer, but otherwise? Nope.

Part of me agrees with this and part of me disagrees.

I think the audience is still there, but as a "target" audience? You have a point. Clasically-designed, even turn-based RPGs are obviously making a comeback, but there's no way they'd be profitable side-by-side with the latest console crazes or MOBAs or whatever.

It's a God-damned crying shame what the normie casuals have done to MY hobby.

 

[oklabsoft]

I think it's actually a good thing that making games and making them available to the masses is has become so accessible. The problem, I guess, is the spectrum of quality that is available and for the consumer sifting through it all to find the desired products. I still am very interested in the game consumer's thoughts/habits on 'pay what you want' versus set fee marketing and why. I suppose artists/music are experiencing the same trends.

 

[FeelTheRads]

But what worked then will not work now. The publishers of today have a different target audience, so just going back to them won't bring back the "good old days". Likely nothing will. The occasional fluke, maybe from a garage developer, but otherwise? Nope.

Part of me agrees with this and part of me disagrees.

I think the audience is still there, but as a "target" audience? You have a point. Clasically-designed, even turn-based RPGs are obviously making a comeback, but there's no way they'd be profitable side-by-side with the latest console crazes or MOBAs or whatever.

It's a God-damned crying shame what the normie casuals have done to MY hobby.

I didn't say there's no audience. Just that publishers are not interested in it, because it's too small. I've said it before, when talking about BG3, I don't think you can make a profit by making a big budget classic RPG. It has to be small. But why would they bother, if they can just make more money elsewhere? It also has to be a work of passion. And I'd say that will happen less and less since there's fewer and fewer games to fuel that passion in new people. Because I can't really see that comeback you're talking about.

 

[Maxwell's Demon]

If you demand a fee for your game, and don't get many downloads, that could be ascribed to failure of your product... exposure... or failure to properly market. If you use 'pay what you want' and people download your game and don't pay, what is that? Maybe they thought it sucked. Maybe they played it and decided they didn't need to pay. I don't know. I don't want this to be about my product but the climate and marketing plans in general.

Why not require people to complete a survey and upload playing data in order to continue playing without a fee?

 

[sser]

For 99% of games, pay what you want does not work if your objective is to get paid for the service or product you are providing*. Aggressively undercutting competition does work, but the returns on that isn't what it used to be with so many games in the market.


*The outlier would be if you have something that's good, but very new and outside genre or creative norms. Like Minecraft probably would have been fine with an early "pay what you want" type scheme, but only as a transition to ordinary pay schemes. A flat "pay what you want" forever isn't going to have better returns ever.

 

[Mustawd]

If you demand a fee for your game, and don't get many downloads, that could be ascribed to failure of your product

Yah well...your product might suck.

brilliant.

I know you’re being glib, but it’s a very true statement.

 

[oklabsoft]

If you demand a fee for your game, and don't get many downloads, that could be ascribed to failure of your product

Yah well...your product might suck.

brilliant.

I know you’re being glib, but it’s a very true statement.

Just kidding bro. It just seemed like restating what I said but I probably wasn't clear.

 

[oklabsoft]

Another interesting thought. I am out to dinner now and just gave the barkeep $2 for pouring my wife and me a drink.

 

[zwanzig_zwoelf]

Average consumer wants the best deal possible. If there a way to get something for free without resorting to piracy, they will get it without paying a single penny.

I think the best way to compare 'fixed price' and 'pay what you want' is by comparing bands that perform on stage (you have to pay to get inside) and street musicians (pay what you want, listen as much as you like).