Fun with Pierre Begue, creator of Knights of the Chalice

[tuluse]

Not necessarily. I mean, if it's just a matter of waiting for a sale, why would you even pay full price? There really aren't that many people that care about supporting the developers. And even if they do, they figure, hey, they sell it for this price it must mean it's still profitable.

If someone has that attitude, why pay anything at all, why not just pirate it?

And again, no one is saying he needs to sell his game for $5.

 

[Alex]

People who've never heard about your game are more likely to buy it for 5 bucks once they hear about it on a major site, than they are to buy it for 30 bucks when they don't hear about it.

True, but this all brings us a step closer of only having indie games worth $5 in first place. Which is, I think, HHR's point.

Slow down.

Consider a 'good' AAA game costs $200,000,000 to make and market, and charges $50 a copy.
Now consider a 'good' indie game that costs $200,000 to make and market, and charges $5 a copy.

AAA game needs to sell 4,000,000 copies to break even.
Indie game needs to sell __40,000 copies to break even.

That's just 1% of the sales of its competitors. At 10% of the price.

$5 for an indie game seems a perfectly reasonable price to base an industry around, especially if that is a sale price, because most people will pay $10-15 for them.

Sure, that seems fair. But is $200,000 enough to make all kinds of worthwhile "indie" game? Are the real worthwhile ones assured to sell 40,000 copies? I mean, those figures probably work with what is prominently indie today, but would they work for any kind of indie game we could want? Myself, I would have liked to see indie games by now that looked like Master of Magic, or one of the Gold Box game, or maybe even a smaller scope Ultima. Would $200,000 be enough to make these kinds of game? Much less market them? I don't really know, to be honest, but I don't think so.

And therein lies the problem that, I believe, HHR was trying to point out. That sites like steam or GoG make people expect that games will fall into one of these lines, to either be a cheap indie or a $50 AAA. Of course, not all indie games are 5 dollars, but some indie games might need to be $70 or $100 to survive. I know a few strategy titles, at least, that went for that kind of price. If an indie game is going to cost this much, people might need to value individual indies a little more.

Of course, this argument fails, at least in part, by simply criticizing the opposite. The problem isn't so much that there are indies sold for $5, but that there is almost none sold for $100, nor an accompanying culture to support development of this kind of thing. That is, if an indie was to try to make a game worth $100, he would lack the kind of support and visibility necessary to do it. Taking away steam wouldn't make him any more visible. And, again of course, the solution to this problem is much more complicated.

Still, sorry for the long derail, given this has little to do with Mr. Begue.

 

[J1M]

AAA developers sell games for $120 all of the time via collector's editions. Kickstarter allows for a dozen different levels of collector's edition. The real question is why more indie companies don't do collector's edition products.

 

[FeelTheRads]

The real question is why more indie companies don't do collector's edition products.

The question is why someone basically with no money doesn't risk even more on his product by producing something even less likely to sell? Yeah, that's a real question indeed.

 

[sser]

Is BotS that bad?

Nobody's played it.

 

[felipepepe]

A indie game could sell at $100, but it needs to show that it's worth such price. KotC is awesome, but clearly not worth all that. But something like KotC 2, with ToEE graphics, an editor and mod support? Definitely.

 

[Infinitron]

The real question is why more indie companies don't do collector's edition products.

The question is why someone basically with no money doesn't risk even more on his product by producing something even less likely to sell? Yeah, that's a real question indeed.

A "collector's edition product" need not be some super-expensive physical product.

I think J1M's general idea, that indies need to become more capable at price discrimination, is a solid one.

Actually, Steam sales already function as a system for price discrimination, but the problem is that the price shift only goes in one direction - downwards.

 

[Rake]

People who've never heard about your game are more likely to buy it for 5 bucks once they hear about it on a major site, than they are to buy it for 30 bucks when they don't hear about it.

True, but this all brings us a step closer of only having indie games worth $5 in first place. Which is, I think, HHR's point.

Slow down.

Consider a 'good' AAA game costs $200,000,000 to make and market, and charges $50 a copy.
Now consider a 'good' indie game that costs $200,000 to make and market, and charges $5 a copy.

AAA game needs to sell 4,000,000 copies to break even.
Indie game needs to sell 40,000 copies to break even.

That's just 1% of the sales of its competitors. At 10% of the price.

$5 for an indie game seems a perfectly reasonable price to base an industry around, especially if that is a sale price, because most people will pay $10-15 for them.

Sure, that seems fair. But is $200,000 enough to make all kinds of worthwhile "indie" game? Are the real worthwhile ones assured to sell 40,000 copies? I mean, those figures probably work with what is prominently indie today, but would they work for any kind of indie game we could want? Myself, I would have liked to see indie games by now that looked like Master of Magic, or one of the Gold Box game, or maybe even a smaller scope Ultima. Would $200,000 be enough to make these kinds of game? Much less market them? I don't really know, to be honest, but I don't think so.

And therein lies the problem that, I believe, HHR was trying to point out. That sites like steam or GoG make people expect that games will fall into one of these lines, to either be a cheap indie or a $50 AAA. Of course, not all indie games are 5 dollars, but some indie games might need to be $70 or $100 to survive. I know a few strategy titles, at least, that went for that kind of price. If an indie game is going to cost this much, people might need to value individual indies a little more.

Of course, this argument fails, at least in part, by simply criticizing the opposite. The problem isn't so much that there are indies sold for $5, but that there is almost none sold for $100, nor an accompanying culture to support development of this kind of thing. That is, if an indie was to try to make a game worth $100, he would lack the kind of support and visibility necessary to do it. Taking away steam wouldn't make him any more visible. And, again of course, the solution to this problem is much more complicated.

Still, sorry for the long derail, given this has little to do with Mr. Begue.

But the industry culture don't support AAA titles that cost 100$. And i can't say i fault it. If you need to sell your game at 100$ to survive, i don't think you deserve to survive. That's my problem with the AAA games "4000000 sales the first month or we are not breaking even". And i don't want indies to start following the same model. You make your game and expenses according to your audience. VD said it well. If there isn't an audience for the games he wants to make, he 'll stop making games.

And if you charge 100$ for an indie game, automaticaly you don't compete with other indies anymore but with GTA V. How could an indie game win this comparison when the first (and only for the vast majority) thing people watch are the production values (AKA graphix)? You just limit your audience to those few that the product is realy 100% tailored to their tastes.

 

[Crooked Bee]

Actually, I wonder how exposure vs. price discrimination goes -- i.e. I'm pretty sure that VD's going to sell a fair number of copies on Steam for $25, for example, even though that isn't the most common price for indie RPGs. It's word of mouth that matters.

Incidentally, word of mouth is what KotC got in spades. I know for a fact that there's a lot of people willing to buy it as soon as it comes to a proper distribution platform, even at its current price.

 

[Castanova]

AAA games can charge $50+ because they are AAA games. You can walk into a brick-and-mortar store and buy one in a standard-issue XBOX/PS box. You can look at the company logos and see companies that you recognize. You can be nearly certain that the game will have professional-grade presentation (graphics, sound, etc.).

Indie games cannot typically charge $50+ because they are not AAA games. You ("you" as in the average gamer) cannot buy one at your local store in a standard issue box. You cannot look at the people who made the game and recognize them. You cannot be sure that anything about the game at all is professional-grade. Therefore, you would be very hard-pressed to spend big money on an indie title UNLESS there is some driving factor... something like rave reviews and big online support. These are things that a new indie developer will not have.

Indie developers correctly realize that their customers are by-and-large taking a risk by purchasing their game and therefore the price needs to be lower to compensate. Indie games, quite literally, are not WORTH $50, even if they end up being higher quality than a $50 AAA title. You have to bake in the risk discount.

 

[Haba]

And therein lies the problem that, I believe, HHR was trying to point out. That sites like steam or GoG make people expect that games will fall into one of these lines, to either be a cheap indie or a $50 AAA. Of course, not all indie games are 5 dollars, but some indie games might need to be $70 or $100 to survive. I know a few strategy titles, at least, that went for that kind of price. If an indie game is going to cost this much, people might need to value individual indies a little more.

Of course, this argument fails, at least in part, by simply criticizing the opposite. The problem isn't so much that there are indies sold for $5, but that there is almost none sold for $100, nor an accompanying culture to support development of this kind of thing. That is, if an indie was to try to make a game worth $100, he would lack the kind of support and visibility necessary to do it. Taking away steam wouldn't make him any more visible. And, again of course, the solution to this problem is much more complicated.

You can still price your game whatever way you want on Steam. Then again Steam might decide that there is no point in having your game on Steam, based on your business decisions. Makes perfect sense. Too much saturation (aka shit) on the marketplace, marketplace loses value.

Those strategy games had been pricing themselves on those absurd levels because they had no way of reaching the wider audience. Nothing wrong with that. But if you think that your game is so niche that you need to price it on absurd level, clearly it is not a game that belongs on mainstream marketplace in the first place. Having your game there hurts both the game and the marketplace itself.

Why the $100 game has no place on a digital consumer marketplace is a longer discussion that does not belong in this thread.

 

[FeelTheRads]

A indie game could sell at $100, but it needs to show that it's worth such price. KotC is awesome, but clearly not worth all that. But something like KotC 2, with ToEE graphics, an editor and mod support? Definitely.

By the way, where does this KotC 2 with ToEE graphics come from? How's he gonna be able to make this jump? Wasn't KotC 2 supposed to look more or less like a table-top game with tokens for characters and NPCs?

 

[Rake]

A indie game could sell at $100, but it needs to show that it's worth such price. KotC is awesome, but clearly not worth all that. But something like KotC 2, with ToEE graphics, an editor and mod support? Definitely.

By the way, where does this KotC 2 with ToEE graphics come from?

The eternal search for the ultimate RPG. He should also add PS:T story and writing and Fallout C&C on top of KotC combat and charge 500$

 

[FeelTheRads]

I'm asking because I think I saw this mentioned before (not as a "wish", but as something that's been confirmed) and I wonder if I missed something.

 

[Alex]

A indie game could sell at $100, but it needs to show that it's worth such price. KotC is awesome, but clearly not worth all that. But something like KotC 2, with ToEE graphics, an editor and mod support? Definitely.

By the way, where does this KotC 2 with ToEE graphics come from? How's he gonna be able to make this jump? Wasn't KotC 2 supposed to look more or less like a table-top game with tokens for characters and NPCs?

I think that was just an example.

Haba

The issue isn't whether you can set your price to $100, but whether having all your competitors set at $5 won't harm you for doing so.

Castanova

That may be how things are now, but I believe that if indie games are to ever become something like the games made in the 80s and 90s by small companies out of their garages, then we need to allow for indies that may well cost $60 or #70 or even $[link="[url]http://www.matrixgames.com/store/372/Gary.Grigsby%27s.War.in.the.East:.The.German-Soviet.War.1941-1945[/url]"]$80[/url].

Actually, I wonder how exposure vs. price discrimination goes -- i.e. I'm pretty sure that VD's going to sell a fair number of copies on Steam for $25, for example, even though that isn't the most common price for indie RPGs. It's word of mouth that matters.

Incidentally, word of mouth is what KotC got in spades. I know for a fact that there's a lot of people willing to buy it as soon as it comes to a proper distribution platform, even at its current price.

Wait, why don't they buy from his site then?

 

[Crooked Bee]

Wait, why don't they buy from his site then?

Are you serious about this?? Call that prejudice, but platform does matter a whole lot!

 

[Gord]

I'm certainly considering twice before buying some game with my credit card (since that's often pretty much the only possibility) from some small website.
One usually puts more trust into the bigger distributors.

 

[Haba]

The issue isn't whether you can set your price to $100, but whether having all your competitors set at $5 won't harm you for doing so.

Oh yes, but those niche developers operate outside of the marketplace. They have no real competition.

If you want to talk about the general indie scene, that's a different topic.

 

[Rake]

That may be how things are now, but I believe that if indie games are to ever become something like the games made in the 80s and 90s by small companies out of their garages

But the older games didn't cost 80$,did they? And with the current technology should be easier to make 80's level quality with fewer persons than back in the day.

 

[Castanova]

That may be how things are now, but I believe that if indie games are to ever become something like the games made in the 80s and 90s by small companies out of their garages, then we need to allow for indies that may well cost $60 or #70 or even $[link="[url][url]http://www.matrixgames.com/store/372/Gary.Grigsby%27s.War.in.the.East:.The.German-Soviet.War.1941-1945[/url][/url]"]$80[/url].

We already do allow indies to charge whatever they want. There just aren't enough people willing to pay that price for an indie game. You can't send out a world-wide announcement saying, "OK GUYS! Indie games are now worth more money! Get your wallets ready!" Indie games are worth $5-$25.. regardless of how good they are. That's just the way of the world and, honestly, it makes logical sense.

KotC is, to me, an example of the ideal situation. A guy who doesn't make games for a living creates a game in his spare time, doesn't seem to care about the revenue, and creates something that is better than most (all?) RPGs in the past decade. Whenever you have an indie who needs to earn enough money to live, you will have compromise in the game design. There is nothing stopping Pierre or anyone else like him from creating another game that harkens back to the RPGs of the early/mid 90s. Nothing except this insane expectation that all you have to do is decide to become a game developer and the world should support you doing so full-time.

 

[tuluse]

That may be how things are now, but I believe that if indie games are to ever become something like the games made in the 80s and 90s by small companies out of their garages, then we need to allow for indies that may well cost $60 or #70 or even $http://www.matrixgames.com/store/372/Gary.Grigsby's.War.in.the.East:.The.German-Soviet.War.1941-1945"]$80[/url].

The big kickstarters were averaging over $40 per person. Which seems reasonable to me. Indie cds, movies, and books don't cost more than their corporate rivals.

Wait, why don't they buy from his site then?

They don't trust his site.
They like steam's integrated features.
Using iron tower's payment system is a pain.

That's right off the top of my head, there are plenty of reasons to prefer one store over another.

 

[mindx2]

WELCOME TO PSYCHOLOGYDEX
>Doesn't analyze to your level

 

[Lhynn]

WELCOME TO PSYCHOLOGYDEX
>Doesn't analyze to your level

except it does.

 

[Mastermind]

An example I could name is the Amnesia developers, who were saying on their blog they were still at below poverty level wages, and that's with subsidies from the Swedish government.

I can't believe the delusion of some people here. One of the reasons the Japanese industry fares better as far as small and mid-sized games go which are continuously profitable is that people there are still ready to pay far more for their games. You only have to look at the news reports of many mobile game developers dropping out of the industry altogether. I'm sure when the glorious digital Steam revolution will have lowered prices even close to App Store levels things will have gotten better.

Isn't the cost of living in Sweden well above average? Being a video game developer is something you could potentially be doing from anywhere. You can make games from a mud hut in Timbuktu if you have electricity, a computer and an internet connection. Being a game developer is pretty much being an artist. If you're good you'll make money. Most aren't, so they starve. Occasionally you can be retarded like PB and starve even if you're good. I think this is as it should be.

 

[Gregz]

Pierre is like Tesla, he will die broke in the gutter. Fondly remembered, but well after his time...unless...perhaps...we send him a signed petition from the Codex?

It should be worded carefully, such that an idiot-savant/megalomaniac will not take offense upon reading it (beta test it on Cleve?). With the alpha version of this carefully crafted document, we may yet convince Pierre that 3rd party distribution is in everyone's best interest.

Let us create a thread, wherein our finest wordsmiths can construct a petition. Feedback could be submitted in the thread, and a 'best petition' could be voted upon by the most prestigious amongst us. Then, the collective might of the Codex (and perhaps also the collective faggotry of the Watch) could be used for good, slaying (or at least pacifying) the great dragon that is Pierre's ego, allowing us to play KoTC 2, for great justice, and all our base.

What say you Codex? Can it be done?