I definitely don't want to be just another of those free games. I just think that a F2P model works best for the way the game is played. I am definitely planning on having options that basically allow you to purchase the equivalent of everything available for cheaper than what it would be to get them via other methods. Basically, just as an example, a pack with say 5 of each piece for $1 per existing piece. So with 15 different pieces it would be $15 to get 5 of each (75 pieces), and as new pieces comes out the pack changes to include the new pieces.
I think it is a fair trade off to offer various options, just don't want to flood with choices. Essentially the options would be X of a single piece (individual), 1 of each of X number of pieces in a set (set), 1 of each of X random pieces (booster), and 5 of each piece (collection). Of course this is in-game... using credits as currency and you would purchase/earn currency as you normally would in similar games.
Opinions?
Aggro Tactics - A tactical strategy virtual board game built with Unity3D 4.0, designed around the concept of Threat/Aggro inspired by the mechanics of chess and a customizable party like in table top games.
I plan - for my 2D platformer - on opening first couple of levels and then charging a small amount for every world separately. I'll do the same for a bubble shooter that I'll be porting for OUYA too.
This is serious, guys. You don't want to get entangled in an antitrust investigation, do you? Stop talking about this and wait until you talk to a lawyer.
This is an interesting topic of discussion. It is really hard to determine what we think developers will charge for games and what gamers would we willing to spend. The price difference for console games vs. Android and iOS games is quite large.
I'm no expert, but there is no collaborative effort towards price fixing here. It is a discussion on what each individual is deciding to charge for their game based on their own product's value, supply/demand, competition, etc. There is no collaborative effort in setting a maximum, minimum, range, etc. It is legal to set your prices based on your own decisions as long as it wasn't agreed to meet certain restrictions prior... for example solidly deciding and agreeing as a group that we shouldn't price our games less than X amount would be illegal. But what we are doing is discussing our own plans and intentions, which is just providing material for market analysis. If people decide to match, raise, or lower their prices based on that information then that is of their own accord and is natural competition. This section of a document from the FTC about Antitrust Laws summed it up nicely for me:
Q: Our company monitors competitors’ ads, and we sometimes offer to match special discounts or sales incentives for consumers.Is this a problem?
A: No. Matching competitors’ pricing may be good business, and occurs often in highly competitive markets. Each company is free to set its own prices, and it may charge the same price as its competitors as long as the decision was not based on any agreement or coordination with a competitor.
Aggro Tactics - A tactical strategy virtual board game built with Unity3D 4.0, designed around the concept of Threat/Aggro inspired by the mechanics of chess and a customizable party like in table top games.
I hope its not a race to the bottom where everything is again 99 cents, where you have to sell 100k to make any money. Maybe $5 sounds good to me, and $10 for a quality game especially now that you get to demo the game. If you like it pay for it, if not no big deal.
Agreed. Having to match competition at such low prices makes me sad. Personally though, I love the idea of F2P with micros, because as a player I don't often find myself dedicated a lot of time to a game and as a result I don't get much out of it in comparison to what I paid for it. F2P with micro allows me to enjoy the game at its base level and then invest in more if I feel that it is worth it.
There are some games that I don't mind dropping a pretty penny upfront for the whole experience, but those games are few and far between in my eyes. I have to really want it to put forth the money. But when I do find a game that I like, I spend LOTS of time with it and I know that money invested in it will be worth it. Most games all I need is a few days to a week of gameplay to call it good. Which is why I'm happy that Hawken is F2P... I played it, had fun, but I'm over it. If I had paid upfront I would have had buyer's remorse and that experience would have left a bad taste in my mouth towards their future products.
Just a personal preference as a player, and my model is definitely inspired by my own experiences as I'm sure many others are.
Post edited by GodlyPerfection on
Aggro Tactics - A tactical strategy virtual board game built with Unity3D 4.0, designed around the concept of Threat/Aggro inspired by the mechanics of chess and a customizable party like in table top games.
I'm no expert, but there is no collaborative effort towards price fixing here. It is a discussion on what each individual is deciding to charge
That is what is against federal law in the US. Yes, you can set your price based on the price point you see on other products in the market. You can NOT discuss prices with competitiors *before the price is on the market*, for the exact reason that some people are talking about here - some people are talking about how prices shouldn't be lower than $xxx, or they don't want prices the same as on device x, that is almost the definition of price fixing - price fixing isn't just a formal agreement. The whole point of this discussion here is to find out what other people are charging so you have an idea what to charge so you aren't charging too little or too much, and that's price fixing.
It's a pity the law is so strict in the US, but if that's the case then it's probably best to end the discussion.
That said, none of this discussion will have any impact on the market; no one here is bound to maintain any price they've suggested (or even be honest about them), and all the suggestions I've seen are based on prices of existing goods on other platforms. We can talk all day about what we'd *like* prices to be, but ultimately the market will decide.
It makes me curious how MS has pulled off fixing prices on XBLA without getting into trouble.
I'm no expert, but there is no collaborative effort towards price fixing here. It is a discussion on what each individual is deciding to charge
That is what is against federal law in the US. Yes, you can set your price based on the price point you see on other products in the market. You can NOT discuss prices with competitiors *before the price is on the market*, for the exact reason that some people are talking about here - some people are talking about how prices shouldn't be lower than $xxx, or they don't want prices the same as on device x, that is almost the definition of price fixing - price fixing isn't just a formal agreement. The whole point of this discussion here is to find out what other people are charging so you have an idea what to charge so you aren't charging too little or too much, and that's price fixing.
But you pulled my quote out of context, there was more to that quote:
I'm no expert, but there is no collaborative effort towards price fixing here. It is a discussion on what each individual is deciding to charge for their game based on their own product's value, supply/demand, competition, etc.
That last bit is important. "For their game based on their own product's value, supply/demand, competition, etc." is what makes me feel the subject is ok. Because we are all acting as individuals, not as a collaborative effort. Because it is an individual decision ("local" in the case of people working together on the same product) to create the price point then there is no ill intent. From that factsheet I link "Price Fixing is An Agreement". There is no agreement happening here, just information passing. Essentially "I'm pricing my game at this, do what you will with the information."
Now I'm not saying that the discussion is hitting borderline, just that not every post is on the borderline. We can all state our wishes as a consumer and our own personal intents as a distributor, but as long as it stays localized with no collaboration, then I don't see anything really wrong. We just have to watch how we word things.
EDIT: This is an interesting discussion, and it is nice to chat with intellectual individuals. :) Also what are the thoughts on how situations like "what would you, the consumer, prefer to pay" or "how do you value my product product"? We are all consumers in addition to distributors. It is an interesting discussion to say the least. And I'm not trying to step on anyone's toes. Just bringing up my own point of view.
Post edited by GodlyPerfection on
Aggro Tactics - A tactical strategy virtual board game built with Unity3D 4.0, designed around the concept of Threat/Aggro inspired by the mechanics of chess and a customizable party like in table top games.
No one is fixing prices here. Most are just voicing their opinions and concerns which im sure everyone here is concerned about being on the same level as the android market where everything is 99 cents.
Since the market is very new and there isnt much information about it yet, most are just bouncing around their idea for pricing and see if it co-incides with a range others have thought about as well.. No one here wants to be the guy that charges 20 dollars for hangman on the ouya. when clearly the price should be 99 cents for that game...
Personally if the market goes the way of the android market, and all games are around 99 cents or so, i for one will be selling off my devkits and moving to something else. There wont be any profits to make it worth-while and im pretty sure most of the developers like myself are not going to waste their valuable spare time creating a game only to get nothing in return...
The issue is we're not just talking about literal "price fixing". Under US law, exchanging price information with competitors violates federal law if the exchange of information affects the prices individual competitors set. In other words, even if you guys don't intend to come up with a price fixing conspiracy, if any of this discussion has any impact on what price you choose then you could be breaking federal anti-trust law.
Here is the quote that I found: "This includes exchanging prices with either the intent to fix prices or if the exchange affects the prices individual competitors set. Proof that competitors have shared prices can be used as part of the evidence of an illegal price fixing agreement."
Isn't deciding what price you use exactly the point of this thread? If a competitor tells you what price they are going to use, and that information affects what price you end up choose, that's a federal anti-trust violation.
The issue is we're not just talking about literal "price fixing". Under US law, exchanging price information with competitors violates federal law if the exchange of information affects the prices individual competitors set. In other words, even if you guys don't intend to come up with a price fixing conspiracy, if any of this discussion has any impact on what price you choose then you could be breaking federal anti-trust law.
Here is the quote that I found: "This includes exchanging prices with either the intent to fix prices or if the exchange affects the prices individual competitors set. Proof that competitors have shared prices can be used as part of the evidence of an illegal price fixing agreement."
Isn't deciding what price you use exactly the point of this thread? If a competitor tells you what price they are going to use, and that information affects what price you end up choose, that's a federal anti-trust violation.
Let me first start by saying I don't intend to break any laws, and in my mind, I haven't. I'm merely trying to gauge what the OUYA market will look like upon launch, that's it.
The unique thing about video games or works of art in general is that they're NOT competing.
Picasso isn't compared to Warhol just like Call of Duty isn't compared to Civilization and Limbo isn't compared to Minecraft. They all fall into the same category sure, but on a comparative basis we they aren't competing.
If everyone to ever make a Platformer on the OUYA where to secretively come together and collectively charge 20$ per game then I'd say we would have an issue.
If I where asking specifically for people creating 2D city building games to gather round and exchange pricing ideas then we'd have a problem.
Is each individual app in the app store competing with one another? Is every product offered in Walmart competing with each other? Are individual books released in Barnes and Noble's competing with each other?
This discussion may be in violation of US law! (I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice).
From "The Small Business Start-Up-Kit - A Step-by-Step Legal Guide, 6th edition" published by Nolo. Excerpt from Page 94 - "On a cautionary note, be aware that antitrust laws forbid business competitors to fix, or even merely discuss, prices. For this reason, you won't find newsgroups or bulletin boards online where other businesses in a certain industry offer specific info on their pricing. Both online and off, pricing discussions among businesses in the same industry are not just taboo, they're illegal."
To even bring up legality in a FORUM post about a console that's supposed to be about OPENNESS and NEW IDEAS utterly disgusts me.
As A developer I know the power of an open and strong community, so please don't stymie my effort to start an open conversation about how you plan on pricing your game. There's no conspiracy here, i'm not talking secretively about anything, this is as open as it gets.
Wow, someone tries to keep people from violating federal law and getting huge fines and possibly even prisontime, and you complain about it? He was trying to *help* the community by warning folks that what might seem innocent here could result in very bad consequences, not trying to "stymie open conversation". Much of this thread is most definitely against the law in the US, and I feel like I'm taking a risk just posting in it, even if I'm not discussing prices. I mean, I've had the price for my game set in my head since long before this thread opened, but how do I prove that to a federal investigation?
As has been mentioned, there doesn't have to be an evil conspiracy or agreements or anything to break the law - if one person in an industry tells the price or range of prices he is planning to use in an upcoming sale to a competitor in the same industry, and that competitor decides on his own price based on that information, both people have broken the law, regardless if that was the intent. And even if you don't directly mention a specific amount, discussing relative values and stuff can be right on the edge.
I'm now a lawyer or anything, but I've read up on antitrust laws, and this thread is just dangerous for all involved.
Wow, someone tries to keep people from violating federal law and getting huge fines and possibly even prisontime, and you complain about it? He was trying to *help* the community by warning folks that what might seem innocent here could result in very bad consequences, not trying to "stymie open conversation". Much of this thread is most definitely against the law in the US, and I feel like I'm taking a risk just posting in it, even if I'm not discussing prices. I mean, I've had the price for my game set in my head since long before this thread opened, but how do I prove that to a federal investigation?
As has been mentioned, there doesn't have to be an evil conspiracy or agreements or anything to break the law - if one person in an industry tells the price or range of prices he is planning to use in an upcoming sale to a competitor in the same industry, and that competitor decides on his own price based on that information, both people have broken the law, regardless if that was the intent.
So If I take a look at the Andorid marketplace and decide that I should price my app at 1$ have I broken the law?
Wow, someone tries to keep people from violating federal law and getting huge fines and possibly even prisontime, and you complain about it? He was trying to *help* the community by warning folks that what might seem innocent here could result in very bad consequences, not trying to "stymie open conversation". Much of this thread is most definitely against the law in the US, and I feel like I'm taking a risk just posting in it, even if I'm not discussing prices. I mean, I've had the price for my game set in my head since long before this thread opened, but how do I prove that to a federal investigation?
As has been mentioned, there doesn't have to be an evil conspiracy or agreements or anything to break the law - if one person in an industry tells the price or range of prices he is planning to use in an upcoming sale to a competitor in the same industry, and that competitor decides on his own price based on that information, both people have broken the law, regardless if that was the intent.
So If I take a look at the Andorid marketplace and decide that I should price my app at 1$ have I broken the law?
What constitutes a discussion? If I look at sales data before I release an app have I broken the law, what if that app has completely different functionality from that app that I plan to release? What constitutes competition for that matter? In my mind we aren't even competing.
So If I take a look at the Andorid marketplace and decide that I should price my app at 1$ have I broken the law?
No, because those games are already on sale. The antitrust laws are about competitors sharing their prices that they *plan* on selling their goods for. Because in theory if one person told their competitor they were gonna sell their goods for $65, and the competitor *had* been planning on selling theirs for $40 but now saw that they could get away with a much higher price so they raised their own price to $60, then in the government's eyes the consumer has been harmed.
What constitutes competition for that matter? In my mind we aren't even competing.
The government views it as selling a product or performing a service in the same industry. So different styles don't matter, different genre's don't matter, even different target audiences don't matter, it's the fact that both are games sold in the gaming industry, and of course it's even more clear cut in this case because they are both being sold on the same game console to the same batch of consumers.
It's pretty clear that this discussion should be ended and we should let it sink to the bottom. There's no reason to argue about being silenced or anything else. It's rather evident based on the information provided that it is against anti-trust laws for competitors (ie: any developer here) to discuss how much they are planning on selling a future product for. Customers, however, can voice their opinion, but not developers. Right now, on this forum, it's safe to assume most are developers so we should just avoid the topic from here on.
@nick or @chamberlin If you guys are able to close a thread, now would be a good time to test it :)
The issue is we're not just talking about literal "price fixing". Under US law, exchanging price information with competitors violates federal law if the exchange of information affects the prices individual competitors set. In other words, even if you guys don't intend to come up with a price fixing conspiracy, if any of this discussion has any impact on what price you choose then you could be breaking federal anti-trust law.
Here is the quote that I found: "This includes exchanging prices with either the intent to fix prices or if the exchange affects the prices individual competitors set. Proof that competitors have shared prices can be used as part of the evidence of an illegal price fixing agreement."
Isn't deciding what price you use exactly the point of this thread? If a competitor tells you what price they are going to use, and that information affects what price you end up choose, that's a federal anti-trust violation.
I'll submit on that quote. ;) Just read the wiki page.
I feel a closing of the thread would definitely be the safest bet. Best of luck to all of you in the market. I still think there is quite a bit of borderline, but we are definitely walking it and it would be better to just avoid it.
Aggro Tactics - A tactical strategy virtual board game built with Unity3D 4.0, designed around the concept of Threat/Aggro inspired by the mechanics of chess and a customizable party like in table top games.
Although I'd like to continue the discussion, I can see both sides of this argument. I'd be perfectly alright with shutting this down. I'd delete it but I think that this should stay locked as a reminder to other developers to not start a topic about it.
But, on the positive side, at least i'll be able to help test this sites functionality in a small way. Feel free to lock it up whenever you want @nick or @chamberlin although I'd love to hear your opinions on the matter before you do.
I hope I'm not stepping on any toes with this; I am keeping it very general so as to avoid any concerns regarding price fixing.
It's important to keep in mind that the OUYA is an inexpensive multimedia device capable of doing a lot more than playing games. At $100 a pop, they are cheaper than many software licenses (e.g., Adobe CS6, MS Office), decently flexible, and have a good obsolescence path (if OUYA goes out of business, it should be possible to move to an Android tablet with minimal fuss).
There is a large market out there for educational resources, often for industrial employers. These employers may spend tens of thousands of dollars training each employee and, if they can save money or improve outcomes using software, they are quite willing to pay big bucks. These situations won't turn you into the next Jonathan Blow but they can result in a very comfortable living. The challenge is that these opportunities are often created when the right people get together; they aren't advertised. It's a matter of networking with the right people, which can be hard. My recommendation is to seek out the teachers through family, friends, co-workers, etc. because of they tend to be idealistic and in demand as corporate trainers.
In my case, I'm working on educational software that will be quite valuable to the intended audience. Given that most of my clients invest a lot into equipment and training, I'll be charging significantly more than most games because I'm saving them a lot of money. Tom Tom on the iPhone, for example, costs around $100 because, at that price, it's much cheaper than purchasing a standalone device.
In short, chasing corporate dollars in a niche market can be more lucrative than fighting for entertainment dollars in the over-saturated mass market.
Comments
I think it is a fair trade off to offer various options, just don't want to flood with choices. Essentially the options would be X of a single piece (individual), 1 of each of X number of pieces in a set (set), 1 of each of X random pieces (booster), and 5 of each piece (collection). Of course this is in-game... using credits as currency and you would purchase/earn currency as you normally would in similar games.
Opinions?
Founder of ReachingPerfection.com
We recently had a poll (that is still ongoing) where we asked "What would you pay for the average OUYA game".
The majority said between $4.00-$9.99.
I'm no expert, but there is no collaborative effort towards price fixing here. It is a discussion on what each individual is deciding to charge for their game based on their own product's value, supply/demand, competition, etc. There is no collaborative effort in setting a maximum, minimum, range, etc. It is legal to set your prices based on your own decisions as long as it wasn't agreed to meet certain restrictions prior... for example solidly deciding and agreeing as a group that we shouldn't price our games less than X amount would be illegal. But what we are doing is discussing our own plans and intentions, which is just providing material for market analysis. If people decide to match, raise, or lower their prices based on that information then that is of their own accord and is natural competition. This section of a document from the FTC about Antitrust Laws summed it up nicely for me: The document can be found here for those interested: http://ftc.gov/bc/antitrust/factsheets/antitrustlawsguide.pdf
Founder of ReachingPerfection.com
There are some games that I don't mind dropping a pretty penny upfront for the whole experience, but those games are few and far between in my eyes. I have to really want it to put forth the money. But when I do find a game that I like, I spend LOTS of time with it and I know that money invested in it will be worth it. Most games all I need is a few days to a week of gameplay to call it good. Which is why I'm happy that Hawken is F2P... I played it, had fun, but I'm over it. If I had paid upfront I would have had buyer's remorse and that experience would have left a bad taste in my mouth towards their future products.
Just a personal preference as a player, and my model is definitely inspired by my own experiences as I'm sure many others are.
Founder of ReachingPerfection.com
That said, none of this discussion will have any impact on the market; no one here is bound to maintain any price they've suggested (or even be honest about them), and all the suggestions I've seen are based on prices of existing goods on other platforms. We can talk all day about what we'd *like* prices to be, but ultimately the market will decide.
It makes me curious how MS has pulled off fixing prices on XBLA without getting into trouble.
Now I'm not saying that the discussion is hitting borderline, just that not every post is on the borderline. We can all state our wishes as a consumer and our own personal intents as a distributor, but as long as it stays localized with no collaboration, then I don't see anything really wrong. We just have to watch how we word things.
EDIT: This is an interesting discussion, and it is nice to chat with intellectual individuals. :) Also what are the thoughts on how situations like "what would you, the consumer, prefer to pay" or "how do you value my product product"? We are all consumers in addition to distributors. It is an interesting discussion to say the least. And I'm not trying to step on anyone's toes. Just bringing up my own point of view.
Founder of ReachingPerfection.com
Since the market is very new and there isnt much information about it yet, most are just bouncing around their idea for pricing and see if it co-incides with a range others have thought about as well.. No one here wants to be the guy that charges 20 dollars for hangman on the ouya. when clearly the price should be 99 cents for that game...
Personally if the market goes the way of the android market, and all games are around 99 cents or so, i for one will be selling off my devkits and moving to something else. There wont be any profits to make it worth-while and im pretty sure most of the developers like myself are not going to waste their valuable spare time creating a game only to get nothing in return...
Here is the quote that I found: "This includes exchanging prices with either the intent to fix prices or if the exchange affects the prices individual competitors set. Proof that competitors have shared prices can be used as part of the evidence of an illegal price fixing agreement."
Isn't deciding what price you use exactly the point of this thread? If a competitor tells you what price they are going to use, and that information affects what price you end up choose, that's a federal anti-trust violation.
The unique thing about video games or works of art in general is that they're NOT competing.
Picasso isn't compared to Warhol just like Call of Duty isn't compared to Civilization and Limbo isn't compared to Minecraft. They all fall into the same category sure, but on a comparative basis we they aren't competing.
If everyone to ever make a Platformer on the OUYA where to secretively come together and collectively charge 20$ per game then I'd say we would have an issue.
If I where asking specifically for people creating 2D city building games to gather round and exchange pricing ideas then we'd have a problem.
We don't have a problem...
So let the discussion continue.
As A developer I know the power of an open and strong community, so please don't stymie my effort to start an open conversation about how you plan on pricing your game. There's no conspiracy here, i'm not talking secretively about anything, this is as open as it gets.
As has been mentioned, there doesn't have to be an evil conspiracy or agreements or anything to break the law - if one person in an industry tells the price or range of prices he is planning to use in an upcoming sale to a competitor in the same industry, and that competitor decides on his own price based on that information, both people have broken the law, regardless if that was the intent. And even if you don't directly mention a specific amount, discussing relative values and stuff can be right on the edge.
I'm now a lawyer or anything, but I've read up on antitrust laws, and this thread is just dangerous for all involved.
@nick or @chamberlin If you guys are able to close a thread, now would be a good time to test it :)
I feel a closing of the thread would definitely be the safest bet. Best of luck to all of you in the market. I still think there is quite a bit of borderline, but we are definitely walking it and it would be better to just avoid it.
Your move @nick or @chamberlin. ;)
Founder of ReachingPerfection.com
But, on the positive side, at least i'll be able to help test this sites functionality in a small way. Feel free to lock it up whenever you want @nick or @chamberlin although I'd love to hear your opinions on the matter before you do.
It's important to keep in mind that the OUYA is an inexpensive multimedia device capable of doing a lot more than playing games. At $100 a pop, they are cheaper than many software licenses (e.g., Adobe CS6, MS Office), decently flexible, and have a good obsolescence path (if OUYA goes out of business, it should be possible to move to an Android tablet with minimal fuss).
There is a large market out there for educational resources, often for industrial employers. These employers may spend tens of thousands of dollars training each employee and, if they can save money or improve outcomes using software, they are quite willing to pay big bucks. These situations won't turn you into the next Jonathan Blow but they can result in a very comfortable living. The challenge is that these opportunities are often created when the right people get together; they aren't advertised. It's a matter of networking with the right people, which can be hard. My recommendation is to seek out the teachers through family, friends, co-workers, etc. because of they tend to be idealistic and in demand as corporate trainers.
In my case, I'm working on educational software that will be quite valuable to the intended audience. Given that most of my clients invest a lot into equipment and training, I'll be charging significantly more than most games because I'm saving them a lot of money. Tom Tom on the iPhone, for example, costs around $100 because, at that price, it's much cheaper than purchasing a standalone device.
In short, chasing corporate dollars in a niche market can be more lucrative than fighting for entertainment dollars in the over-saturated mass market.