The Castle Doctrine Forums

Discuss the massively-multiplayer home defense game.

You are not logged in.

#1 Re: News » Why Rampant Sales are Bad for Players » 2014-01-16 01:06:41


Fair enough, Thanks for correcting me however, rereading my second point I see where I went wrong

What I mean to say is this, Mojang isn't planning on selling his game for $59.99 in the foreseeable future as part of this model.  I know it's an exaggeration, but hey.

Technically speaking, the model on your page isn't really an increasing price model either.   From what I see in that web page you linked me it's hey, I don't know if this game is going to be successful, but give me 10 bucks and see where it goes.  As a reward you get the full game, but my real price on the game is $25 but here's a discount for believing in me.  It's like a coupon (badge of cheapness as my economics teacher would say) rather than a planned tiered payment system.  But seeing it this way, I see Jason's point in rewarding the fans and how this is a good way to do it.

I also see this model as more fair than I originally thought, so kudos Jere for giving me a new perspective on it.  I'll take some time to think about it.  However, I still hold what I said to be true -- and that the only way you can successfully pull off that pricing structure is to put out a really successful game.


#2 Re: News » Why Rampant Sales are Bad for Players » 2014-01-15 15:52:58

Before I kinda trash the logic in your article, I did read it and I did like the thought and sentiment that exists within it.  I do wish there exists a better way to reward hardcore fans out there and I hear what you're saying, but increased prices won't work because it's the market demand that determines the value assigned to its given product, not any kind of ideal or entitlement.  Here is a few reasons why that model won't work and I'm just looking at demand:

1)  You are assuming that the title is successful.  And when I mean successful, I mean REALLY successful, not successful as in the game turned a modest to decent profit.  Successful in that it's redefining the way people play games.  You used minecraft as an example in your essay.  After minecraft came out, there were a bunch of games that spawned similar game mechanics i.e. terraria, and the games of similar, build things from nothing/survival games. 
2)  Minecraft did NOT initially have an increasing price model.  The way I see minecraft done, the guy kinda saw things as an experiment.  The way he developed the game seemed like a huge social/gameplay/technical experiment of hey look what I could do!  Then he hit upon a system that was really fun.  The reason the pricing was structured that way was because it got REALLY successful and MANY MANY more people wanted to play it.  He could get away with charging more money because the demand for the game increased. 
3)  People pay a premium to get things right away.  I'm sorry fans want things now because they can't wait.  Their demand for the game is high and therefore they pay a higher price for the game.  Other people's desires are not in line with these niche segment of your population and therefore unwilling to pay that premium.  However if the price was reduced, many more are willing to jump on that band wagon.

In closing, pricing is just rudimentary economics... I'm just discussing demand, let alone supply (not touching that with a 10 foot pole in regards to this situation).

If you want to reward your fans, I think the best way to do it is to give them exclusive content that is just for them.  It takes more effort on the developer end but, when it comes down to the money of things, how much of that time is equivalent to a discount?  I really see it as the only way to grant them any kind of special entitlement.  And make new players pay a premium for that exclusivity in dlc, bling, in-game benefits or whatnot.  I think that might be a better model.

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB 1.5.8