Question about game prices and perception of quality

[rogerdv]

A month ago I was talking with a friend from USA about my plans to develop games. When I said that I could develop a game for 15-20% of the cost of production in USA/Europe, and then sell it for just $20, he told me that I should not do so. "If I see two things, one costing $40 and the other costing $20, I automatically consider that the cheaper one has lower quality. You should not sell your game for less than other similar titles."
What do you think about this? Does game price influences your perception about its possible quality?

 

[ImpulsE69]

If that's how someone perceives games, I don't know what to say. I certainly don't. Pretty much if I see a game released at 59.99, I won't even bother looking at it unless it was something I was anticipating. The mentality your friend has expressed is really backwards, and if that's how the younger generations look at things, it's no wonder people get fleeced constantly. The inherent issue here is that many people really dislike indie games, and have this unholy love for being screwed over by AAA companies repeatedly. Obviously there is a difference between a pixel game and a full 3D high texture game, but just because the prices might be the same (or widely different) gives you no indication at all if the game is good. Pixel vs 3D (just as an example) is just a matter of personal taste, not quality.

This isn't 'car retail'. Price has absolutely nothing to do with quality or entertainment value in games IMO. Prices are 'fixed' for AAA games in most cases. Regardless of price, if people find your game to be good quality and a value, then word of mouth will help sell it no matter the price.

Your best option is to choose the price YOU think the game is worth, and then let the market determine what price people are willing to pay. It certainly won't take long for people to tell you if it is too expensive.

 

[BSim500]

What do you think about this? Does game price influences your perception about its possible quality?

It used to about +15 years ago, but those days of "$60 = AAA premium quality, $20 = cheap and nasty Indie" stereotyping are long gone. I would have paid $70-$80 for Deus Ex, Bioshock, Dragon Age Origins, and many other masterpieces I've replayed quite a few times and not felt ripped off. OTOH, 7hr long Crysis 3 and many modern overly-sequelled milked to death borefest franchises are not worth $30-$40 to me regardless of hype or sparkly bits.

Same for Indie titles - there have been $10-$20 Indie games I've regretted paying even $1 for. Conversely, I must have had hundreds of hours out of Don't Starve, This War of Mine, Banished, etc, and would have happily paid +50% more. It all depends on the game, and there's no real way of predicting its reception in advance until it's released and you can get a "feel" for it. What counts for me today is : originality, technical quality (few bugs on release), optimization, not having an "obvious console port" feel for the controls, and most importantly of all, just whether it's my kind of game or if it just "clicks" with me (another thing that can't be predicted in advance based on screenshots, etc).

 

[Craig234]

First, I think your friend is right on in his statement - to a point. There's quite a bit of truth to it.

I've found myself looking at a game, thinking 'this looks really good', then seeing a low price and feeling worse about the game as a result.

It's not exactly a rational reaction. But I think it's common and that many don't know they have it.

It also plays into the 'sale price' mentality, how critical sale pricing is generally. People love a sale, the feeling they got a big discount.

It's why pre-Steam people tended to buy fewer games they'd actually play (not entirely by any means but moreso) and with Steam sales, the experience of the 'steam backlog' is almost universal.

I'd say, price the game based on its value to customers, not the cost - you would have plenty of challenges already with marketing and other things to worry about.

Game makers are already struggling with this issue - cost of development versus pricing.

It's why game models have evolved, away from 'expensive to create short-use content' to replayability, 'free to play' models relying on 2% of 'whale' players to fund the game, etc.

Two great games have different experiences with this.

World of Tanks is a great game that got the model effective - and the creator is a billionare reportedly from it.

Spellweaver is also a great game, but have not figured out how to get income right yet, not because it isn't a great game - because of the competition and what people will pay for.

 

[gorobei]

price in general is irrelevant, so long as the gameplay is good then people will buy regardless of where you are priced relative to other games in the same genre.

for me the general visual esthetic influences my perception of quality. if you do something simple then the fundamentals of UI/UX and art assets cohesiveness needs to be polished. if you do something more ambitious then keep it readable. the first impression from a screenshot or short video needs to tell the buyer everything about the game(genre/mood/difficulty/backstory)

the place where relative pricing becomes an issue is on Steam. there are so many trash indy/demo/garbageware titles on the store that if you are priced the same and in the same genre it can be hard to filter out your 'good' game from the 'crap' on the steam market. if you have enough exposure or a good review from some streamer it shouldnt be too hard to find people to buy your game.

 

[magomago]

nope disagree entirely. I don't look at cost to determine anything other than "i'll buy it later on a steam sale".

However, in general, some newly released cheaper games are generally more like one trick ponies. Maybe not a fair characterization, but given I'm only really playing sandbox/open-ended world games now (Skyrim, WOW, Witcher, TOTAL WAR), that is what it sometimes feels like.

I will say either 20 or 40. Don't release at 30.

edit: But seriously, what gorobei said - make a really good game, and it will sell.

 

[local]

Price/quality ratio is nonexistent. Those of us who buy a lot of games, not just the latest CoD or Madden, generally know that it doesn't take a AAA budget and AAA price to make a good game.

At $20 I will insta-buy pretty much anything that I like the look of.
At $40 I will buy if it is something I have followed and know I want. (Most of my purchases of new titles is here)
At $60 it has to be something I really want now and am willing to pay a premium over waiting a few months.
Over $60 I will not buy.

Any number in between gets rounded up to the next category automatically but unless it is a discounted price I consider it odd.

 

[rogerdv]

Thanks a lot! I didnt expected so much (and so useful) responses. Guess I should work on the $20 or $40 price tags. And of course, keep polishing my story and gameplay.

 

[Stg-Flame]

I can't even think of the right words to describe how backwards your friend is with that mindset. I've put thousands of hours into Terraria and I bought that game for less than a dollar whereas I was rooked by upcoming AAA titles that have less than 20 hours in my library. If someone honestly thinks price equates to quality, then they are the exact reason why a developer can release day one DLC for $15 each - putting the total of the game over $100 usually - and not only get away with it, but spur the industry to continue with the nonsense.

Also, what game are you making?

 

[Craig234]

Flame it's not whether the game is 'worth' the price in the sense of how much you felt like it was a good buy later, it's whether it's priced so that people will think it's worth it to buy.

I don't think I'd have spent $20 on World of Tanks to buy it, but as it's free I tried it, then spent hundreds on it. A $40 list price has a pretty high bar to justify that nowadays.

 

[KentState]

Your first mistake was asking a bunch of value hunters on how to set pricing of your product. Of course everyone here will disagree with your friend. Heck, these people would tell Apple to charge 1/2 for their phones even when they are killing it selling at at a premium. You need to be looking at actual market trends and competition.

 

[Stg-Flame]

Flame it's not whether the game is 'worth' the price in the sense of how much you felt like it was a good buy later, it's whether it's priced so that people will think it's worth it to buy.

I don't think I'd have spent $20 on World of Tanks to buy it, but as it's free I tried it, then spent hundreds on it. A $40 list price has a pretty high bar to justify that nowadays.

You said it yourself that you immediately judge a game's quality if the price is on the low end and that is absolutely asinine.

Your first mistake was asking a bunch of value hunters on how to set pricing of your product. Of course everyone here will disagree with your friend. Heck, these people would tell Apple to charge 1/2 for their phones even when they are killing it selling at at a premium. You need to be looking at actual market trends and competition.

People are disagreeing because its silly to instantly think a game being sold for $15 will be bad. Not only that, but it's perpetuating the mindset that we need a $60 title with loads of $20 DLCs in order for the game to be good. Pricing does not correlate to quality. Then again, I've seen a lot of people say Morrowind can't be a good game because the graphics look bad, so you'll always have idiots tossing in their two-cents.

 

[Sheep221]

Games are not price sensitive because they are entertainment and entertainment will be paid for no matter what it will cost, so you can really sell your game for any price you want, if your game will be good it will be popular.
Good example of this are MMORPGs, WoW is still paid for monthly and expansions and activation keys for initial installation are quite expensive, yet other MMOs, including dozen which went from subscription model to Free-to-play model didn't move any players from wow. It's not the price, it's your game.

 

[Craig234]

You said it yourself that you immediately judge a game's quality if the price is on the low end and that is absolutely asinine.

That's not what I said, and I'd say the word asinine applies to the tone of your inability to discuss civilly.

 

[Craig234]

Games are not price sensitive because they are entertainment and entertainment will be paid for no matter what it will cost, so you can really sell your game for any price you want, if your game will be good it will be popular.
Good example of this are MMORPGs, WoW is still paid for monthly and expansions and activation keys for initial installation are quite expensive, yet other MMOs, including dozen which went from subscription model to Free-to-play model didn't move any players from wow. It's not the price, it's your game.

I disagree. Pretty much only WoW has been able to keep subscription, and the rest were forced not to, and they did remain viable by doing so - meaning they moved people from WoW - moving people from WoW doesn't mean WoW was shut down, it meant they could compete. And by the way, look how WoW's subscriptions have fallen. People do have some expectations on pricing that affect sales.

You can point to exceptions - games that did ok or didn't despite the pricing expectations - but they're the exception.

Generally if a game prices differently - mostly too high - it gets a lot of outraged response and people saying they won't buy because of it.

 

[Stg-Flame]

That's not what I said, and I'd say the word asinine applies to the tone of your inability to discuss civilly.

I've found myself looking at a game, thinking 'this looks really good', then seeing a low price and feeling worse about the game as a result.

This is called judging the quality by the price.

 

[Craig234]

This is called judging the quality by the price.

No, it's not. It's part of the judging of quality, not the whole story. Not interested in discussing you with the tone of your earlier post.

 

[bystander36]

There are a lot of people who purchase based on price, and expect the higher priced product is better.

The cool thing these days is Steam has a rating system to let you know how others felt about the game. I use that as a big judge now-a-days, but that is a new system that didn't exist in the past.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

There's three games I've put more time into than any other game in my life, Everquest, WoW, and Dwarf Fortress. Two are sub based, one is free. Not really sure how to mold that into a recommendation, but I've bought FAR more <$30 than >$30 games. Probably 10:1 ratio.

 

[shortylickens]

I think Ubi has gone out of their way to prove MSRP is not even slightly related to product quality.

 

[rstrohkirch]

Many many people associate quality partly on how much something costs. I'd be surprised if it didn't happen with games as well.

 

[Craig234]

Many many people associate quality partly on how much something costs. I'd be surprised if it didn't happen with games as well.

It's something that has some merit sometimes, and other times not so much. But lower price or free 'devalues' things to many people.

 

[mooncancook]

The word "quality" for game is too abstract. Let me put it this way, I never equate price with gameplay, but I do equate price with production value. With price it comes with expectation.

By production value I mean the quality of graphics, level of details, musics and sound effects, voice acting, bugs, etc. You should compare games with similar production value and set a similar price point. If you set it too high people can be turned off until it is discounted enough, or you may get more negative reviews like "good game but not worth the price". Finally gameplay is the most important, and I think most experienced gamers do not equate gameplay with price. Regardless of the price, I'll usually look at screenshots and review scores to see if the game looks interesting to me, then I read review and watch some gameplay videos to decide if I will buy it.

 

[bystander36]

The word "quality" for game is too abstract. Let me put it this way, I never equate price with gameplay, but I do equate price with production value. With price it comes with expectation.

By production value I mean the quality of graphics, level of details, musics and sound effects, voice acting, bugs, etc. You should compare games with similar production value and set a similar price point. If you set it too high people can be turned off until it is discounted enough, or you may get more negative reviews like "good game but not worth the price". Finally gameplay is the most important, and I think most experienced gamers do not equate gameplay with price. Regardless of the price, I'll usually look at screenshots and review scores to see if the game looks interesting to me, then I read review and watch some gameplay videos to decide if I will buy it.

I'd say there is a lot of truth to that. I definitely expect higher quality graphics, animation and voice acting with higher priced games and am more likely to go outside my preferred genres if those production values are good enough. With indie games, I pretty much only expect good gameplay and stick to those Steam user reviews to find out if they are worth buying.

 

[Oyeve]

Pacman for the Atari 2600 was ~50-70 bucks back in 1982. Thats like $180 in todays money and that was a shit game. Just sayin.