Personally, if I feel a game is overpriced, I wait for a sale, even if I really want to play it.

However, I'd like to point out two things (edit: uh, seven things ) that may help us better respond to price-related complaints:

1) What price is "overpriced" to me, at my wage level, or cost-of-living in my area, may be "fair" or even underpriced to someone else. Other industries plan for that - airlines offer different prices on different days of the week for people willing to put up with poorer timeslots to get a better price, stores offer coupons for people who want to jump through extra hoops to get a better price, and so on.

So price isn't a one-size-fits-all and hopefully if I remember that, it may help me come up with flexible pricing options (including sales, bundles, coupons, bulk-buying (i.e. x4 copies), collector editions, etc...) to offer multiple price options to different customers. Not just cheaper options like sales, but also luxury options like collector editors.

2) Developers need to make a living, and we developers know that. But sometimes we get into the fallacy that because it has cost us X to develop, that automatically means it's worth X to other people.

If I waste 5 years making my game (which I have!), that doesn't automatically mean my game is worth 5 years of developer time. It could be (and in my case, is) an indicator that I'm learning as I'm going, and so have wasted time in some areas due to my inexperience.

Or to put it another way, if a company spends $200,000 making a hammer, that doesn't make that hammer actually worth $200,000. The company still needs to recoup it's costs and turn a profit, but the amount of effort and labor and cost put into a product does not automatically increase its value. The quality of a product increases its value (along with supply and demand, and etc...), but not all effort leads to greater quality. I know for a fact alot of my effort has been wasted - or, to put it another way, alot of my effort has been invested in growing my skills and knowledge, but doesn't necessarily directly increase the end quality of my game.

Me saying, "I spent 5 years making this game *puts on cool sunglasses*" sounds really impressive, but is actually unrelated of the quality and worth of the game. It's a false argument. It is an explanation for why I need to recoup my costs, but it's absolutely not an argument for why my game is worth buying.

3) At the same time, saying "It offers 200 hours of gameplay!" can also be a fallacy. If a game artificially stretches out its gameplay, it may actually be worse for some customers. 10 hours of really good condensed gameplay make be worth more than 30 hours of filler gameplay. So we can't overuse the "but it has X content!" arguement. Take Farcry 2 for example - it had a really large open world. But the open world reused alot of content, and was rather repetitive, and had alot of basically empty space. Don't get me wrong, Farcry 2 was a good game that I enjoyed, but it wasn't pure meat - it was stretched out with hamburger helper. So Farcry 2 might say (at the time) "We have one of the largest game worlds ever!", but we can be deceiving ourselves as developers (not to mention our customers!) if we don't realize that our game worlds are stretched out, and think that all content is created equal. Not all content is created equal, and not every hour of gameplay is created equal.

4) Humans are worried about their wallet, and they are also worried about not getting "ripped off" - people are also obsessed with (the perception of) getting good deals. The Macy's debacle a year or two ago shows us that people would rather be lied to and pretend they are getting a good deal, than being given a fair and honest price.

With this being the human mind, it's very important to not take their price-related complaints personally. As artists, sometimes we put too much of our identity in our work, and any unjust criticism of our work we can accidentally take as personal insults without realizing it. When a customer says, "It's not worth that price", they really mean, "That's too high a price for my mental or financial state, I'd like it cheaper if I can get a better deal", but we take it personally as, "You developers are not worth feeding. Your work is crap. You're a failure. You shouldn't even be making games. Why are you pretending you're a professional?" and other lies we tell ourselves.

5) As a gamer, I don't know whether I'll actually like some games or not. Or maybe I think I'll like it, and then I play it, and it turns out I actually love it. I remember I bought Dungeon Defenders for (I think) $15. After playing the game cooperatively for over 200 hours, I can honestly say it's been worth at least $80 dollars to me even at my very very tight finances. But there is no way I would've ever paid that beforehand. There is no way I would've known or even guessed it would've been worth that much. Here's where DLC can come in handy - I did buy some Dungeon Defender DLC to get more content - I think it's the only game I've ever explicitly bought DLC for (rather than it being bundled with the base game). Not every game fits the DLC model though.

So we can't be too harsh on customers for not being able to magically know how much or how little they'll enjoy the game before they play it.

We ofcourse think they'll love it, but different people like different games, so just because we like our own creation, doesn't mean everyone else does, and since different people like it different amounts, doesn't it make sense that it's worth (to them) different amounts?

Further, people complaining of price probably:

A) haven't yet bought the game and so don't know if they'll like it - their "not worth it" complaints are based on guesses, so don't take them personally.

B) bought the game and didn't like it - a refund might genuinely be in order, and here you might actually condition your refund on them giving good feedback to you. "I'll be happy to refund you. To help me improve my games in the future, could you tell me what parts you liked and didn't like? If I implement your feedback in a future game, would you be willing to help me test it to give even better feedback? (which may lead to them becoming an alpha/beta tester for your next game, and getting mentally invested in it, purchasing the released product, and becoming a long-term fan)"

C) Or maybe they bought the game shortly before it went on sale, and now they are psychologically annoyed that they got "ripped off" because other people got a better deal then them.

6) If a customer says, "the game's not worth X", what he's actually doing (unbeknownst to himself) is giving an opening for me to expound upon why he might like the game. Telemarketers cold-ring customers and try to sell them things they don't want. If a gamer shows up on my internet-doorstep, it's because he already wants my game. I should use that as an opportunity to expound upon what makes my game greater than the other games he's look at. He may just be looking to give himself permission to spend the money, because he already wants my game, already is on my forum (or on my game's Steam sub-forum, or tweeting about my game on twitter), and himself opens a line of dialog with my community, and by extension, me.

The worst thing I could do is start bashing him and trying to guilt-trip him because I need to feed my family and he's a monster who doesn't appreciate the oh-so-holy art of game development.

Whenever I finally complete my game, if someone criticizes the price, I don't know what stupid thing I'll say. I tend to say alot of stupid stuff spur-of-the-moment that I regret later. But I hope I'll remember to take a deep breath and then either not reply, or reply in a friendly way. Who knows? Maybe I'll win a sale or a fan - if not the complainer directly, maybe a lurker who happens to read my response.

(This post is slightly rambly, sorry for the poor quality of the sentences)

In my opinion I think many decent games tend to be under-priced. That said, just went and purchased this game simply because it looks interesting and to be honest...my minor protest against those who forget a simple reality; "you have the right to choose not to buy a product for whatever reason you find valid, but you don't have the right to have your choice or suggestion or idea be acted upon by others (whether consumer or developer)".

Establishing a price point for a game is a bitch, but mostly it comes down to those who try to make a living (or those who hope to) from indie game development would like to earn enough money to keep the wolves from the door and a little more to get ahead in life and afford their next game-dev cycle.

Valve did some sneaky pricing experiments with counter-strike, where they raised and lowered it without any sale announcements/etc, and found it to be "elastic"

That's rather a interesting tidbit, even if it doesn't apply to all games.

Along a similar line, I read an article about "perceived value" a while ago, as well as a psychological experiment on a similar topic.

When something has too low of a price, it can decrease it's perceived value both to potential buyers and current owners/users. A higher price increases 'investement' (even when the actual investment is minor like $5 or $2 ) and people will attempt to find a value in something when it's priced higher. When it's a low price they will just give up and say "well it's crap because it was cheap."

There was a psychological study about wine and customer satisfaction based on pricing. Customers were given wine to taste. After enjoying their drink they were shown the price, brand, relevant info, etc. Of course all the wine was actually the same, just with different prices, names, etc. The participants that were shown a higher price gave higher satisfaction ratings. The satisfaction rating was consistant with price. The lowest price wine recieved the lowest rating, while the highest priced received the highest, despite the fact they were actually the exact same wine. I'm guessing social factors played a role "i knew it fine wine, because i've got more refined tastes", but it's amusing nonetheless.

I'm not sure if either of these apply to games though. Games have less social factors imo. Enjoyment is based more upon personal experience and preference, whereas items like food, clothing, cars, etc often have social factors, being status-symbols, etc.

Or don't respond at all. There's no rule saying a developer needs to reply to some cheapskate looking for a refund.

Required reading: the recent article about the guy who beat FireWatch, and then demanded a refund...

Mmmh.... that might be an option when you are a big company, people hate you anyway, and STILL throw money in your direction, because, you know, "Its GTA! How could I not buy GTA XX???".

If you are a smalltime dev, that just brought out his debut game and does not have many fans yet, a single person CAN make a difference. Because word of mouth is still very important to you. Maybe that person, and the his network of contacts in the end drive 100 sales your way? Maybe you would have lost 50% of these if you wouldn't have put up a good answer to this persons complaints?

There are stupid comments, and haters, and trolls online of course. All of them deserver a professional response, even if they get out of hand (if you get swamped with troll comments, delete them, but adress the topic in a closed thread or something).

No response is just as unprofessional IMO as a not well thought out response (like getting personal, or emotional).

Doesn't mean you need to kneel down before the troll and beg for forgiveness... just means you clear up all the questions that might be raised because of the trolls or haters comment, and that you show that you are ready and able to respond even to trolls.

Asking for individual feedback seems pointless to me. Yes, data from users is fine. But individual bits of anecdata from cheapskates is rarely going to be worth much. A developer is rarely short of ideas or feedback on how their game could be better, and there are better sources to obtain it from.

Well, you should never rely on user feedback alone. Going just with the data leads to the same bad results than only listening to users alone though.

The cheapskates has no point in 90% of cases. When you find out its another of these cases, respond with "good professional canned response with personalized names #1" and make sure to close the case quickly. In the other 10% of cases (number pulled out of my a**, but you get the point), you probably should listen.

Maybe there is an awesome new competitor you haven't heard about? Do you want to be made aware now when a single cheapskate complains... or get swamped with bad comments when the unwashed masses find out?

Maybe there is something wrong with your storepage and you didn't caught it with your own testing? You want to skip this chance to improve upon it?

Maybe your data is looking good, but omits some very important metrics. Maybe this one user can give you an idea on how to improve your metrics. You really want to shut him down before listening?

Just as there are unprofessional answers by devs, there are troll comments. If obvious troll is obvious, I'd respond with nice canned response #1 and quickly forget about it (and ban the user/delete his comments should he insist on trolling further). If a user has a valid complaint and is civil about it, you can only gain by listening (okay, you will lose some time)... you might gain some valuable insights, and if not you at least get the respect of a potential client.

Which, again, if you are a small time Indie, can make a world of difference in your struggles to get a RoI.

Along a similar line, I read an article about "perceived value" a while ago, as well as a psychological experiment on a similar topic.

When something has too low of a price, it can decrease it's perceived value both to potential buyers and current owners/users. A higher price increases 'investement' (even when the actual investment is minor like $5 or $2 ) and people will attempt to find a value in something when it's priced higher. When it's a low price they will just give up and say "well it's crap because it was cheap."

I think these studies go WAY back... heard about them in the 90's.

And I can believe it, actually. Kinda hard to be objective about something that you just spent 200 bucks on versus 50 bucks for the other comparable thing when THERE IS NO STANDARTIZED METHOD OF MEASURE. Like, trying to measure taste of wine, or the design of a piece of furniture, or art....

Games fall ALMOST into the same category. You can try to compare them based on length of their singleplayer campaign, depth of their story, the quality of their visuals.

Kinda hard to rate the quality of the whole expierience though. Is a two hour game expierience that is awesome worth more or less than a twenty hour expieirence that sucks? And to whom is it worth more or less?

For video games, I like to have around $0.10/hr or less for my cost. Anything more than that and I have a hard time justifying it.



I am willing to shell out $60 for a AAA game that I know I'll play for hundreds of hours and will enjoy thoroughly. For games I can sell back to GameStop and such where the cost after return is around $10 or $15, I'm comfortable with the cost knowing I'll play the game hard for a few months and then return for store credit. For Steam and Origin, looking over my play history most titles are around $0.10/hr. Some are higher, around $0.30/hr and others are lower around $0.05/hr.



When I first heard about Portal and how it was a 2-hour game, I was very reluctant to buy it. I didn't buy it at first. The cost per hour was more than I felt comfortable with on a game. Ultimately I did buy it, but only on a Steam sale where I felt the cost was worth the entertainment time.







When I look at smaller games, when I see a game that costs $1, I ask myself if I'll get ten hours of enjoyment out of it. When I see a game for $15, I'll balk because I don't know if I'll spend 150+ hours of enjoyment.



If I think I'll get several hundred hours of quality entertainment out of a game, I'll pay. If the game is very short with no replay value and no option to resell, I'll pass.

Wow.... you actually have time to play games for several hundred hours, or do you just want to keep yourself from spending on games to save money?

I have little time to play sadly. So if I get more than 4-5 hours of entertainment out of a game, that might already stretch to 2-3 weeks for me given my other hobbies, game development and better half demand THEIR share of my free time too. If I get 1-2 hours of very good entertainment for 3 weeks out of it, that is certainly worth 20 bucks to me... don't know about 60, but meh, if it is good enough to provoke an impulse buy from me, and proves that decision to not have been a bad one, who am I to complain?

Certainly, having a well paying day job and not too much other stuff to spend on other than electronic crack (computers and periphery) also helps being liberal with spending on games.

But I tend to prefer shorter games over longer, and I prefer games that do not go overboard with difficulty. I love to be immersed in a good game expierience, but I have no longer the time nor the nerve to spend 80 hours on a single game, or retry a level 100s of times. That was a thing when games where so short that they would be over in an hour without the insane difficulty... but the times I thought this to be fun are long gone.

For me, quality is more important than quanitity. If I am just as entertained as with a good movie, why would 10$/hr be a bad deal (going to the cinemas costs 20$ where I live -_-)?

What else costs 20 bucks or more

I think that's actually fair. Entertainment as a whole is a general business of how you choose to spend your time.

I actually choose to pay for games based off whether I believe I'll get good value out of it. I tend to think cinema tickets are overpriced, and games that I actually buy aren't.

To this day, I still try to follow the 1$ per 1h I intend on spending in a game, and quite honestly, it's working for me. It applies to nearly all forms of entertainment that I adhere to as a consumer. Please note that, in quantifying 1h of fun, I mean actual fun, not just playtime. If we're talking grinding, it shouldn't be part of the equation at all unless it's, well, fun.

I buy boardgames with this mindset, I purchase movie tickets with that in mind (knowing fully that I'm not getting the full mileage out of it and that I should definitely pick and choose which movies I go watch and catch up with good games I paid at lower prices and played the crap out of). I even do this when considering whether I should buy a DVD or not (how many times am I REALLY going to watch this? or will this just be a pretty dust carrier on my shelf?)

A lot of people in my area were devastated when they saw the price point for XCOM II a few weeks back, but I wasn't, because I knew that I would make my 1:1 on this, easily. I'm not even done and I'm over 50+ hours into this game (and I WILL make a Legendary playthrough afterwards).

When it comes to indie games, I expect the price point to be lower because my assessment of whether I'm going to meet that 1:1 is a bit more risky (as I have no preconceived notion of what the game will feel like), and having a lower price point helps with that, but it shouldn't lessen the game's value.

Of course only compare features... I wouldn't want to try to gauge quality.

But of course, in many cases, the real difference will be quality. How do you explain polish? The only tangible metric I can think of is how it translates into playing time for individuals. You might think you have a better game, but until you see players play more or less of it than another game, it will be hard to tell (and even then, you won't know for sure whether it's bad timing, poor marketing, bad design or just lack of polish and attention to detail).

Ask the commenter for more details: see exactly WHY he thinks your game is not worth it. If you have the balls, keep it public. But I personally don't think it would be too much to ask for a private conversation. See why the commenter thinks your game is not worth the asking price. Ask him if he actually bought and played it. If yes, he might have valuable input about your games quality and faults. If not, he might have valuable input about your games marketing and storefront.

Possibly. From my past experiences though, this has often led to a customer explaining how 'my game' was not the game they wanted, even though no effort on our part was made to advertise it as such. I would assume this stemmed from the customer's search for the holy grail and their inability to find it thus settling for something close enough which ultimately caused a number of frustrations (ultimately expressed in the form of overpriced, but not really the core issue).

I don't have much of a solution to address the issue per se. I think it falls down to how desperate you are to turn an unsatisfied customer whose likely to speak ill of you into a less unsatisfied customer whose less likely to speak ill of you, because I don't see it evolving much beyond that: they won't miraculously feel like the game was a bargain. At the core of this, they probably didn't like the game, and there are a number of reasons for this. Either, the game wasn't made for them, or, the game wasn't good enough (for them).

With the exception of developers that have extremely curious pricing strategies (I'll sell you this non-animated pixel art 4x4 square box game for 80$!!!) I believe most developers out there have a certain ethic when it comes to pricing and while we all want to make some money out of it, we're more concerned with paying the bills and covering the dev costs/team, etc. than making astronomical profits... and that's a key issue here that customers are likely not seeing. When they see the price, and the amount of units sold, they perceive this as profits, which is most definitely not the case. Few of this ever gets to anything beyond rent/food/life. (talking about indies here, mind you).

So, when the customer ultimately questions the pricing, he's also asking a very personal question too: Why does it cost you so much to live? Why should I pay for your food? and why did the game take so long to make?

While it is a valid statement to say the end-consumer shouldn't care about the dev's problems, it is equally valid that the dev shouldn't care about whether the pricing is equivalent to game x as this is all too subjective. The Dev's job is only to deliver quality that fits the parameters of the price he's asking for, and to insure that the price he is asking for will sell enough units and generate sufficient sales to cover for his expenses. This is an elastic pricing environment, but even that has its limits.

Put simply, you can't have it both ways: either you buy a game from the 'corporate world' which has standardized values and price points and are allowed to bitch and nag about the relative value, or you buy an indie product and have to live with the fact the pricing is determined by an unregulated, high-risk environment.

And that are my extremely long 2 cents on this.

I think that's actually fair. Entertainment as a whole is a general business of how you choose to spend your time.

I actually choose to pay for games based off whether I believe I'll get good value out of it. I tend to think cinema tickets are overpriced, and games that I actually buy aren't.

To this day, I still try to follow the 1$ per 1h I intend on spending in a game, and quite honestly, it's working for me. It applies to nearly all forms of entertainment that I adhere to as a consumer. Please note that, in quantifying 1h of fun, I mean actual fun, not just playtime. If we're talking grinding, it shouldn't be part of the equation at all unless it's, well, fun.

Well that is all well, but also highly subjective. For me 10$/hr for a really good game might be a good deal. There are enough cheapskates out there that will never pay a single $ for their software, choosing to invest all their gaming dollar in the leetest hardware they can get. So they can enjoy their cracked GTA V on their dual Titan-X SLI build.

Now, that is a rather extreme example (because clearly you don't care about the second guy as a "customer" :) )...

But the point is: who is saying that a game costing 20 bucks really is worth more than 4 beers? Maybe someone likes his beer more than his games. Who is to say that 20 hours of gameplay equal to two hours of blockbuster movie?

In the end, its pears and apples. Its a comparison system that works for some people, but will certainly sound stupid for others. Perceived value is so subjective, its hard to discuss value unless we are comparing apples to apples. Thus comparable games to yours.

When it comes to indie games, I expect the price point to be lower because my assessment of whether I'm going to meet that 1:1 is a bit more risky (as I have no preconceived notion of what the game will feel like), and having a lower price point helps with that, but it shouldn't lessen the game's value.

I think this is true for most people out there, hence why the normal span for Indie games on steam being around 5-15$... 20$ might be on the high side, as this price bracket is occupied normally by AA games from bigger studios and re-releases. You could argue that this game might actually be worth more than some AA re-releases of 20 year old RPG classics on PC... but again, one has a made a name for itself and has most probably a well known studio behind it, the other does not.

To be fair, I myself would be very interested in the game IF it turns out to be good. Good oldschool isometric mecha action with big levels and explosions do sound like something I would spend 20 bucks on, especially as the graphics actually looks rather enjoyable... I couldn't care less if the game is made by a big name in the industry or a newcomer.

But I will wait until the game is out of Early Access... not hyped enough about it to do some crowdfunding for them.

But of course, in many cases, the real difference will be quality. How do you explain polish? The only tangible metric I can think of is how it translates into playing time for individuals. You might think you have a better game, but until you see players play more or less of it than another game, it will be hard to tell (and even then, you won't know for sure whether it's bad timing, poor marketing, bad design or just lack of polish and attention to detail).

IF you are sure you have great quality, and want to do marketing with it, best thing is to let others spread to word. If you can, reach out to youtubers and lets players that might enjoy it, and let them gauge the quality of your game.

Failing that, you can try to impress people with a video or pics of your "quality features" (like the dev for this title did with the "whole level pics" to prove the size of the levels).

You can of course set your price higher because of your games quality.

But trying to ARGUE with your games quality is kinda hard to do, either your game (pics, vids, game) speaks for itself or you hope that you can turn people into believers.

Worse yet, trying to compare QUALITY among competitors is a bad idea if not done by a thrid party that has no involvment with any of the competitors in the space. If a youtuber is making a vid of your game and praises your games quality, great. If you do that yourself, well, its kinda awkward. You can do it in a mild manner to re-inforce the message of a video or image that proves your point ("huge levels" - Pic of huge level)... overdoing it will just make you look silly ("biggest level EVER!" - "besterestest game in the universe!").

That was why I included it under "Not such a good idea".

Possibly. From my past experiences though, this has often led to a customer explaining how 'my game' was not the game they wanted, even though no effort on our part was made to advertise it as such. I would assume this stemmed from the customer's search for the holy grail and their inability to find it thus settling for something close enough which ultimately caused a number of frustrations (ultimately expressed in the form of overpriced, but not really the core issue).

Yeah, I see that handling customer requests like that can be very tiring, especially when done on the side by a small team of devs.

I still think the best response is the professional one. Which is to apologize, try to muster all the understanding you can and maybe, if you have the energy left, try to make the customer see the game with new eyes. Or at let them get out the true reason for their frustration (might be valuable information... or not).

Some companys would go the extra mile to offer a refund. Which I think is kinda seldom in the space of games, and I am not sure is the right way to handle the problem (outside of the guaranteed refund like the new system by steam). But if you are a company interested in longterm fans and customers, its something to keep in mind.

So, when the customer ultimately questions the pricing, he's also asking a very personal question too: Why does it cost you so much to live? Why should I pay for your food? and why did the game take so long to make?

While it is a valid statement to say the end-consumer shouldn't care about the dev's problems, it is equally valid that the dev shouldn't care about whether the pricing is equivalent to game x as this is all too subjective. The Dev's job is only to deliver quality that fits the parameters of the price he's asking for, and to insure that the price he is asking for will sell enough units and generate sufficient sales to cover for his expenses. This is an elastic pricing environment, but even that has its limits.

True, everyone can make their price point where they think it is placed best. On the other hand, grossly overpricing a product seldom helps you much (See "I am rich" App on iPhone... that didn't work out well for the dev in the end). Looking at competing products, and their prices and offerings gives you the best ammunition you can have to counter the price bashing by customers.

If you offer equivalent value (hard to measure of course) for an equivalent price than what they would get elsewhere, you do not need to discuss price further.

If High End graphics cards with a GTX 980 ti level of performance cost around 700$ (at least here in overpriced-land), how could you call the AMD equivalent that is almost as fast overpriced at 650$? Its not as fast, so the 700$ for the nvidia offering is still valid. But its quite close, so the 650$ also are not totally off.

You can now bitch about how the high end cards are completly overpriced as a category when you can max out the frame rate in common resolutions with a 350$ card already.

You can bitch about the ultra high end (Titan X) costing nearly 1200$ for some % more power, and an impractical amount of VRAM.

You can value the advantages of one offering higher than the advantages of the other (AiO Watercooler and shorter card for AMD, PhysX on the GPU or CUDA for Nvidia).

You cannot say "This card is overpriced, while the other is TOTALLY WORTH IT!"... not without ignoring all the facts pointing to the cards having quite comparable power.

My big point was though: if you are in the range of comparable titles, the price discussion is moot. You can bitch about game prices in general. You can no longer single out your title. Your competitors price decisions are actually supporting your own now.