Proof that you can't under price a good game

[Sentinel 08295]

I don't own the game, but I am a self appointed expert on game pricing. This comes from 40+ years of buying and playing video games. Anyone who has gamed for decades also has this talent. I have posted in numerous Steam game discussion boards when devs have over priced their game. I always tried to tell them that if you over price your game you will permanently hurt your sales numbers. However, I always said you cannot under price a game because there is so much demand for good games that the market will correct by giving you increased sales numbers. This is the same exact market force which drives under priced homes in the real estate market back above asking price - demand. We've all seen the game priced at $20-$35 in early access which is no where worth the value. Here we have a game that is $3 away from being free. For indie devs, a lower game price ALWAYS translates to more sales numbers and will ALWAYS lead to higher revenue over a given time period. Congrats on getting it right!

[Garou]

It's not just the price. The game loop and fun it generates keeps attracting people. I think it'd still sell a lot even price something like $9.99. Streamers' influence helped it too.

[Raelic]

Originally posted by reaper:

It's not just the price. The game loop and fun it generates keeps attracting people. I think it'd still sell a lot even price something like $9.99. Streamers' influence helped it too.

I wouldn't have got it back on launch at $10. I prob still wouldn't. $3 is good and enticing. It's still just a time waster. I mean no offense to the dev. The game is great and he does a great job with weekly updates.

I'm just saying I would not have made the leap at $10, especially at launch after watching SplatterCat's vid.

[Sentinel 08295]

Originally posted by reaper:

It's not just the price. The game loop and fun it generates keeps attracting people. I think it'd still sell a lot even price something like $9.99. Streamers' influence helped it too.

It would still sell "well" at $10 but not amazing like at the $3 price point and the the total revenue would be less. They nailed it perfectly for their own financial success.

[Brig Lig Smoke]

if beavis says it, then i believe it

[Donut Steel]

The moment Minecraft sold over 200 million copies, it became a fact that there is at least a certain number of people on Earth who will collectively buy 200 million copies of a game, spending some money to do so.

Set the entry-bar as low as $3, and you don't have to make something as fancy as Minecraft to put even a fraction(of a very large number) within reach. As many people will buy it as what it is really worth.

[seed oil consumer]

what if they charged $0.10, op

[seed oil consumer]

if they had charged 10 cents they would have easily sold OVER 300x more copies due to the low cost of entry. and this is more money even though they charged less. im very smart

[seed oil consumer]

my high school economics teacher just phoned me up spontaneously. he saw my posts here and he wants me to go back to my school as an inspirational speaker. im going to do it because i believe the children our are future. thank you steam forum

[Raelic]

Originally posted by RGB Gamer Keyboard:

my high school economics teacher just phoned me up spontaneously. he saw my posts here and he wants me to go back to my school as an inspirational speaker. im going to do it because i believe the children our are future. thank you steam forum

Come home son, your mom and I miss you.

[seed oil consumer]

i had some time before the speech in giving at my school to borrow the slidey bead things on the playground equipment to use as a giant improvised abacus and i can confirm both that charging less always generates more net sales (original thread thesis) AND, in a contradiction to define an age of economics, that there would be no difference in sales between charging $10 and $0.10 (hereby referred to as Ogggggggggggggggggg Indifference Theory). gentlemen. we are through the looking glass

[kavika]

Without parallel universes, with the only difference between them being the price of this game, we won't actually know.

Success of two different games can never quite be apples to apples because there's dozens of variables and time sensitive things in play.

That all said, here's my worthless opinion: I think vampire survivor left money on the table. I suspect it wouldn't have had more than a 20% impact on sales if they'd made the price $6.

I also haven't looked, but I'm sure there's dozens of threads already like this too :P

[Lemming Jesus]

At launch, the game was worth like 5 dollars. Now I'd say 10. If the dev keeps going this game will be great.

[Sentinel 08295]

All good points. The major take away being that a dev shouldn't charge what they think their game is worth but rather what the market will bear to hit the sweet spot. Better to miss to the low side than to the high side. Beavis has spoken. Now where are my nachos?

[Candarian]

u got it wrong
streamer made it public because its fun and cheap
with this grafic nobody would play it if it cost much
making it cheap was the best PR-stunt the devs could do

[Conga Lyne]

I'd be willing to pay probably about $5 for this game in it's current state since it's an early access title, i'd be paying for what I get.

When the game's finished? Who knows, but probably $10 or even $15 if it's really good and has a lot of run variation.

Would I pay $10 for it right now in it's current state? no. probably not, the low price tag is what made it an instant grab for me and the progression looping with interesting projectile effects is what kept me sucked in.


Maybe down the line when the game's finished there could be DLC or something, i'm sure people would buy it if the game continued to be treated well, but it isn't something to think about right now.
Rewards diminish results.