• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Square Enix is the first publisher that raises its PC prices to 80 euros

kingfey

Banned
Steam charges the same 30% that platform holders charge though, right? So he’s right, PC games should cost the same as console versions.
There are storefronts that charge less like Epic, but Steam is by far the platforms where games sell the best. And the publishers tend to want to hold the price the same across storefronts for consistency (and it doesn’t hurt that they get to pocket the difference)
Consoles have discs, PC doesnt.

That is why both prices are different.
 

kingfey

Banned
I don't feel diddled, not even close. In purchasing power, games are cheaper now than 30 years ago. It's not like they can't keep the price at the same level forever. I have the ability to zoom out and see the price history, even by own experience. 10-20$ increase won't make a dent in my economy, not even noticable. If such a small amount of money is causing you issues, I'd start looking for a better job.

It also depends on your view of the game itself. I'm a huge FF fan, so I would by it at 150$ hands down. All about relative value for money.
Let me do some math,

My library is 600 games. 100 games day one at 70$ would cost me $7k. at 60$ day1, it would cost me $6k. So now that 10$ is $1k extra on my budget. I could buy extra 16 games, and have some money left with me, or buy a good expensive gaming pc with that money. or ps5 and xsx.
 
Last edited:

DaGwaphics

Member
aGKzAKkR_700w_0.jpg
Is this a choice? I thought this was a real life unwritten rule. :messenger_tongue:
 

Sleepwalker

Gold Member
I don't feel diddled, not even close. In purchasing power, games are cheaper now than 30 years ago. It's not like they can't keep the price at the same level forever. I have the ability to zoom out and see the price history, even by own experience. 10-20$ increase won't make a dent in my economy, not even noticable. If such a small amount of money is causing you issues, I'd start looking for a better job.

It also depends on your view of the game itself. I'm a huge FF fan, so I would by it at 150$ hands down. All about relative value for money.

I've done well enough at 30 that I don't need to work a single day for the rest of my life if I chose to. Nice to know that my post hit hard enough for you take such a silly jibe at a random stranger.

As for being a final fantasy fan, that's fair enough, I've spent irrational amounts on things I really like. Just don't enjoy or agree with the silly game prices, specially outside the US.
 
Last edited:

kingfey

Banned
But digital only console fanboys told me that less options are better and that nobody needs physical games anymore.
I can get game keys cheaper on digital. Only difference is Playstation, which is getting harder due to them blocking 3rd party sales

As long as that exist, digital sales will be cheaper.

Harder option is developers/publishers fighting 3rd party key sellers. Like what Sony did with their games.
 

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
LOL. I'm new to PC gaming the past year only buying indie games and DOS-based legacy games on Steam and GOG. So I'll never be considering full budget games and full price anyway.

But even I learned fast to wait for those awesome monthly deals. I've never bought one game at regular price yet and even for these dirt cheap games I've bought I wait for the 50% off deals so I average out paying like $5. Some games plummeted down to $2. LOL. The most I paid I think was $11 for a $15 game that I noticed never goes on 50-70% deals. So I bit at a 30% off sale as good enough.

No wonder PC gamers have such back logs. Me too. Some games I havent even played yet as I've scooped up tons of under $5 games and will get around them.

I'm going to try out One Deck Dungeon maybe later tonight. Was on deal -90% from $10 to $1 a few weeks ago. A $1 game. LOL. Youd never get that on console!
 
Last edited:

Rykan

Member
Steam charges the same 30% that platform holders charge though, right? So he’s right, PC games should cost the same as console versions.
There are storefronts that charge less like Epic, but Steam is by far the platforms where games sell the best. And the publishers tend to want to hold the price the same across storefronts for consistency (and it doesn’t hurt that they get to pocket the difference)
Thats just the price for the store to hold it, not the platform it is on. On consoles you pay two fees: The licensing fees to be on that platform and then you pay another fee for whichever store sells your product

But digital only console fanboys told me that less options are better and that nobody needs physical games anymore.

It literally has nothing to do with that lol. Producing discs is dirt cheap, we're talking cents here.
 
Last edited:

Devilich

Member
Given the yearly inflation of the money supply in almost any country in the world something like this was long overdue
 

Kagey K

Banned
That doesnt give them excuse to charge this amount of money. MS games day1 on pc charges 60$, so why are charging this amount of money for a 2 years old game?

What is worst, is that this game is digital on pc. They dont have to do disc version, and they pay 12% cut to epic, so they keep 88% of the sales. They are getting 61.6$ for every copy they sell.

This pure greed from them.
I can't remember and can't be bothered to Google....

Did they charge that next gen tax on PS5 owners as well?
 

Kagey K

Banned
Given the yearly inflation of the money supply in almost any country in the world something like this was long overdue
You can't really be serious.

Million dollar company is keeping millions of dollars for those who bought in soon enough.

The rest can pay for it, because fuck the poor.

They are going to pay the devs the same wage at 60 or 70, all you are doing is padding the pocket of the already rich.
 
Last edited:

Megatron

Member
Thats just the price for the store to hold it, not the platform it is on. On consoles you pay two fees: The licensing fees to be on that platform and then you pay another fee for whichever store sells your product



It literally has nothing to do with that lol. Producing discs is dirt cheap, we're talking cents here.
Hm. Good point. What about digital sales on psn or the Xbox store or wherever? do game companies have to pay two fees to the same company? what do the fees companies (publishers I guess?)pay for the store to sell and the platform add up to? Is it more than 30%?
 
Last edited:

Hydroxy

Member
LOL. I'm new to PC gaming the past year only buying indie games and DOS-based legacy games on Steam and GOG. So I'll never be considering full budget games and full price anyway.

But even I learned fast to wait for those awesome monthly deals. I've never bought one game at regular price yet and even for these dirt cheap games I've bought I wait for the 50% off deals so I average out paying like $5. Some games plummeted down to $2. LOL. The most I paid I think was $11 for a $15 game that I noticed never goes on 50-70% deals. So I bit at a 30% off sale as good enough.

No wonder PC gamers have such back logs. Me too. Some games I havent even played yet as I've scooped up tons of under $5 games and will get around them.

I'm going to try out One Deck Dungeon maybe later tonight. Was on deal -90% from $10 to $1 a few weeks ago. A $1 game. LOL. Youd never get that on console!
Same. I don't think I've ever paid more than $15 for a pc game. It does help that my country has regional pricing but that is slowly going away as most publishers have removed regional pricing.
 

Utherellus

Member
> 80 Euros on a last gen game PORT.

> Which is a remake in the first place.

> No regional pricing and same ridiculous price tag on Steam for Forspoken.


Torrent Deluxe Edition it is.
 

kingfey

Banned
Hm. Good point. What about digital sales on psn or the Xbox store or wherever? do game companies have to pay two fees to the same company? what do the fees companies (publishers I guess?)pay for the store to sell and the platform add up to? Is it more than 30%?
For digital its 30%. For physical, it's 20%-30% for stores, and 12% for platform royalty. They are losing 32%-42% of sales, compared to 30% from digital.

Other fees add up to the physical, while digital is only marketing and platform cut.
 

Needlecrash

Member
It’s a great game that cost a lot to make. I personally support higher prices for AAA games. Given inflation, it makes sense. I prefer games to be supported by sales rather than add-ons and micro transactions.
You can get the PS5 version for around $50 bucks or so. Not paying that money for that bullshit. And it has Denuvo? FUCK OUTTA HERE.
 
"We charge less from publishers so gamers can pay less"

reality: "we charge less from publishers so they can make more off you"

who could have seen that coming? NO ONE!
Apart from freebies there aren't any games cheaper on epic. It's like they know people will buy it on steam later so they don't want to have to deal with "raising the price" for a year long wait.
 

rofif

Banned
I know it is flawed thinking but 70 is absolutely fine for me but... only on console. I feel like I get something. A disc, a guarantee for a game to work and some level of quality assurance.
Ofc I realize that's bs. It's more like digital vs physical for me and pc don't have physical.

Anyway... 70usd is 90usd in Poland. good times....
 

TintoConCasera

I bought a sex doll, but I keep it inflated 100% of the time and use it like a regular wife
I don't feel diddled, not even close. In purchasing power, games are cheaper now than 30 years ago. It's not like they can't keep the price at the same level forever. I have the ability to zoom out and see the price history, even by own experience. 10-20$ increase won't make a dent in my economy, not even noticable. If such a small amount of money is causing you issues, I'd start looking for a better job.

It also depends on your view of the game itself. I'm a huge FF fan, so I would by it at 150$ hands down. All about relative value for money.
It's not about how much money you make, it's about some of us not liking to waste it.

Maybe you could grab some extra copies for us? Since you don't care spending +150$ on a fucking game. :^)

I don't like pirating but man there's going to be a long wait before this is reasonably priced.
I'll either wait for a sale or grab a key from some other store like cdkeys.

That said I'm willing to wait since the PS4 demo didn't do that much for me.
 
Last edited:

Lunarorbit

Member
Not ever going to buy games at $80. I can wait till they drop price. Plus my library system buys tons of games to loan so fuck that noise.

Edit: to the people saying games are cheaper now than ever before you are completely right. Nes games were $50 or $60 in the 80s and 90s. So it is cheaper to buy now but if I can get a game cheaper or for free in doing it with inflation ruining prices of everything
 
Last edited:

OZ9000

Banned
I don't feel diddled, not even close. In purchasing power, games are cheaper now than 30 years ago. It's not like they can't keep the price at the same level forever. I have the ability to zoom out and see the price history, even by own experience. 10-20$ increase won't make a dent in my economy, not even noticable. If such a small amount of money is causing you issues, I'd start looking for a better job.

It also depends on your view of the game itself. I'm a huge FF fan, so I would by it at 150$ hands down. All about relative value for money.
No, it's just because I'm a cheap arse gamer and don't wish to play more than £30 for a single title.

I cannot remember the last time I purchased a PC game for more than £20. And I won't ever change this.

The current pricing for games is fine (we've had steady price increases for MRSP; PC games used to cost £30, now they cost £50 on Steam) - and good games are profitable for developers. What Square Enix are doing at present is purely driven by greed.
 
Last edited:

yurinka

Member
Eventually all big publishers will do it, it happens in all markets and gaming is a rare case where development and marketing costs skyrocket every few years while prices kept the same or even decreased. So it's normal to raise the price.

If you think it's too expensive, simply wait for a price drop or discount.

Not ever going to buy games at $80. I can wait till they drop price. Plus my library system buys tons of games to loan so fuck that noise.
At least here in Europe some SNES and MD games were 90€ without counting inflation. So yes, they are cheaper than then.
 
Last edited:

Guilty_AI

Member
LOL. I'm new to PC gaming the past year only buying indie games and DOS-based legacy games on Steam and GOG. So I'll never be considering full budget games and full price anyway.

But even I learned fast to wait for those awesome monthly deals. I've never bought one game at regular price yet and even for these dirt cheap games I've bought I wait for the 50% off deals so I average out paying like $5. Some games plummeted down to $2. LOL. The most I paid I think was $11 for a $15 game that I noticed never goes on 50-70% deals. So I bit at a 30% off sale as good enough.

No wonder PC gamers have such back logs. Me too. Some games I havent even played yet as I've scooped up tons of under $5 games and will get around them.
Don't forget the freebies. God the freebies.
 

kingfey

Banned
Eventually all big publishers will do it, it happens in all markets and gaming is a rare case where development and marketing costs skyrocket every few years while prices kept the same or even decreased. So it's normal to raise the price.

If you think it's too expensive, simply wait for a price drop or discount.


At least here in Europe some SNES and MD games were 90€ without counting inflation. So yes, they are cheaper than then.
What will you do when they raise the price again? Do we say wait for sales again? Because that is how you get price gauge in gaming. People accepting these prices, and not going against these greedy publishers.

FYI, these money is going to shareholders, and the higher ups of the company. Most low workers who worked on these project, are done with their contracts and move to a new company. They don't see a pie of that money.
 

yurinka

Member
What will you do when they raise the price again? Do we say wait for sales again? Because that is how you get price gauge in gaming. People accepting these prices, and not going against these greedy publishers.

FYI, these money is going to shareholders, and the higher ups of the company. Most low workers who worked on these project, are done with their contracts and move to a new company. They don't see a pie of that money.
They have several options:
-To go GaaS and put tons of microtransactions, gatcha and so on in these games
-To stop making them bigger and bigger and go back to shorter and more linear AAA games
-To continue making them as they are, keeping making them bigger and to raise prices

If you don't like them, don't buy them. If you think they are too expensive, don't buy them and wait for a discount. Regarding the costs, what you say it's bullshit. AAA games employ thousands of highly qualified and experienced people during several years with generous salaries (I was one of them until I went indie), so they cost hundreds of millions to make and to market: they are in a super competitive environment, so they also invest a fuck ton of money on marketing. Out of thousands of games, only a handful of them become super successful, like GTA or CoD making rich their higher ups and shareholders. In other cases (more) they tank so cause them huge loses.
 
Last edited:

Kenpachii

Member
They have several options:
-To go GaaS and put tons of microtransactions, gatcha and so on in these games
-To stop making them bigger and bigger and go back to shorter and more linear AAA games
-To continue making them as they are, keeping making them bigger and to raise prices

If you don't like them, don't buy them. If you think they are too expensive, don't buy them and wait for a discount. Regarding the costs, what you say it's bullshit. AAA games employ thousands of highly qualified and experienced people during several years, so they cost hundreds of millions to make and to market: they are in a super competitive environment, so they also invest a fuck ton of money on marketing. Out of thousands of games, only a handful of them become super successful, like GTA or CoD making rich their higher ups and shareholders. In other cases (more) they tank so cause them huge loses.

Or make them cheaper and get more sales and make more money.

Price increase will result in more piracy and less people adopting the game. Its simple reality that has been proven over and over on PC.

If your hamburger shop is failing, u don't charge more money for your burgers because u need more money as u have less consumers.
 
Last edited:

kingfey

Banned
They have several options:
-To go GaaS and put tons of microtransactions, gatcha and so on in these games
-To stop making them bigger and bigger and go back to shorter and more linear AAA games
-To continue making them as they are, keeping making them bigger and to raise prices

If you don't like them, don't buy them. If you think they are too expensive, don't buy them and wait for a discount. Regarding the costs, what you say it's bullshit. AAA games employ thousands of highly qualified and experienced people during several years with generous salaries (I was one of them until I went indie), so they cost hundreds of millions to make and to market: they are in a super competitive environment, so they also invest a fuck ton of money on marketing. Out of thousands of games, only a handful of them become super successful, like GTA or CoD making rich their higher ups and shareholders. In other cases (more) they tank so cause them huge loses.
Than what does the digital market do then?

We aren't in physical market, where game prices were justified.

We are in age, were companies undershort their contents, release it as dlc. Release the game broken, and make us buy the broken content.

Gaming cost doesn't exceed the profit they are currently making. The reason why they are losing money, is because of the garbage contents they are releasing.

Look at what they did to marvel. They fucked it up badly, and expected us to pay 60$, for online service game, which had tons of shit issues.

If they really want to make money, release the game, in a state that is not broken.

As for gta, cod, and other gaint franchises, there is a reason why they are making alot of money. Cod has mtx, gta has online shark credit, fifa has the online mtx. That is why they make more money, than any other games.

SP games don't have mtx. So they need to make sure the game works, and it's not cash grab garbage.

Look at the ascent. Small game, made $5m in its 1st week. And it was 30$ game. Was on gamepass. Was exclusive to xbox console, and pc.

If small game like that can have success, then there is no excuse for big games to not put the effort on their games, instead of increasing the price.
 

Guilty_AI

Member
They have several options:
-To go GaaS and put tons of microtransactions, gatcha and so on in these games
-To stop making them bigger and bigger and go back to shorter and more linear AAA games
-To continue making them as they are, keeping making them bigger and to raise prices
You forgot:
-Reorganizing their internal structure so that they don't lose millions of dollars of their budget due to poor management and conflicting visions that keep making 180 degree turns in the middle of development.
-Cut back on development costs by reducing the number of bloat features like dynamic horseballs, or highly expensive hollywood actors.
-Make games that are less obsessed with graphical fidelity, allowing smaller time and budget costs on things such as level design, art, animation, as well as allowing developers to expand on other aspects of the game like player interaction and larger worlds with more depth to them.
 
Last edited:

yurinka

Member
You forgot:
-Reorganizing their internal structure so that they don't lose millions of dollars of their budget due to poor management and conflicting visions that keep making 180 degree turns in the middle of development.
-Cut back on development costs by reducing the number of bloat features like dynamic horseballs, or highly expensive hollywood actors.
To make games isn't like to work on a factory where everything always work in the same way so can be perfectly scheduled. What sounds good on paper doesn't alway work, games take too long to develop and the market is very different comparing how it was when a AAA was greenlighted vs when released 5 or 6 years laters. Iterations and frequent changes are what it's needed to polish stuff.

-Make games that are less obsessed with graphical fidelity, allowing smaller time and budget costs on things such as level design, art, animation, as well as allowing developers to expand on other aspects of the game like player interaction and larger worlds with more depth to them.
Visuals are the top 1 thing people use to decide if a game sucks or it's great, specially in marketing trailers or in digital store screenshots and videos. This is the reason of why they invest there a lot of money: because for many of them is their main selling point. Regarding how they distribute their resources, devs are specialized into different areas: a level designer frequently has no idea about coding or art, and an artist frequently has no idea about level design or coding. So the artist keeps all these years of development making art and the level designer spends all their time designing and tweaking levels.
 

Kenpachii

Member
To make games isn't like to work on a factory where everything always work in the same way so can be perfectly scheduled. What sounds good on paper doesn't alway work, games take too long to develop and the market is very different comparing how it was when a AAA was greenlighted vs when released 5 or 6 years laters. Iterations and frequent changes are what it's needed to polish stuff.


Visuals are the top 1 thing people use to decide if a game sucks or it's great, specially in marketing trailers or in digital store screenshots and videos. This is the reason of why they invest there a lot of money: because for many of them is their main selling point. Regarding how they distribute their resources, devs are specialized into different areas: a level designer frequently has no idea about coding or art, and an artist frequently has no idea about level design or coding. So the artist keeps all these years of development making art and the level designer spends all their time designing and tweaking levels.

200.gif


Example:



e406a5cadd851ef2ee6ada20df8ee1c9.png


500mb game by the way and made by 5 people.

Honestly. barely any graphical intensive games sell on PC besides select ones. 90% are all just servicable graphically. Gameplay is what's king and with that half the budget square enix spends on those games for cgi bullshit is just a waste of cash and something they decide themselves to blow money on. Nobody cares.

Also fun fact, one of the highest rated steam games all time, 100's of thousand of reviews. zero mention at game award show rofl.
 
Last edited:

yurinka

Member
200.gif


Example:



e406a5cadd851ef2ee6ada20df8ee1c9.png


500mb game by the way and made by 5 people.

Honestly. barely any graphical intensive games sell on PC besides select ones. 90% are all just servicable graphically. Gameplay is what's king and with that half the budget square enix spends on those games for cgi bullshit is just a waste of cash and something they decide themselves to blow money on. Nobody cares.

GTAV: 155 million copies made by around 5000 people listed on their game credits while ago (probably way more did work there since there + many people worked on it but didn't appear in the credit).

There are always exceptions for everything. But the AAA games on average sell some millions of copies, while indies on average sell a few thousand copies on Steam.
 

Guilty_AI

Member
To make games isn't like to work on a factory where everything always work in the same way so can be perfectly scheduled. What sounds good on paper doesn't alway work, games take too long to develop and the market is very different comparing how it was when a AAA was greenlighted vs when released 5 or 6 years laters. Iterations and frequent changes are what it's needed to polish stuff.
"Polish stuff" definitely shouldn't include adding and removing a feature in a game multiple times over because some shareholder thought it was cool or changed his mind. Or re-shooting all cutscenes in a game because they suddenly decided at the last minute they wanted wide-screen black bars.
This is pure and simple incompetence. And they want you to shoulder the cost for it.

Visuals are the top 1 thing people use to decide if a game sucks or it's great, specially in marketing trailers or in digital store screenshots and videos. This is the reason of why they invest there a lot of money: because for many of them is their main selling point.
Good visuals isn't the same thing as graphical fidelity. There are plenty of examples of games that look beautiful but are far from the top dog in terms of graphical prowess. Not to mention there are plenty of good examples of games that aren't king of graphics but still sold lots. They should start looking for them as examples on how they can sell a game without relying on having ultra blaster graphics.

Regarding how they distribute their resources, devs are specialized into different areas: a level designer frequently has no idea about coding or art, and an artist frequently has no idea about level design or coding. So the artist keeps all these years of development making art and the level designer spends all their time designing and tweaking levels.
Their work doesn't exist independently though. The work of all these people rely on each other, and if one takes longer for one reason or another, everyone else is affected. This can also result in longer development times, and crunch.
 

Guilty_AI

Member
GTAV: 155 million copies made by around 5000 people listed on their game credits while ago (probably way more did work there since there + many people worked on it but didn't appear in the credit).

There are always exceptions for everything. But the AAA games on average sell some millions of copies, while indies on average sell a few thousand copies on Steam.
You can't use one of the best selling games of all time with a highly popular online mode as example for the "average" AAA game mate.
Besides, there are many more examples or independent devs selling millions:
Terraria - 14 million units
Euro Truck Simulator 2 - 9 million units
Risk of Rain 2 - 4 million copies (on pc alone)
Hollow Knight - over 3 million copies
Deep Rock Galactic - over 3 million copies
and so so many many more
 

yurinka

Member
"Polish stuff" definitely shouldn't include adding and removing a feature in a game multiple times over because some shareholder thought it was cool or changed his mind.
Shareholders aren't game designers or creative directors, they have zero influence on how games are.

Or re-shooting all cutscenes in a game because they suddenly decided at the last minute they wanted wide-screen black bars.
This is pure and simple incompetence. And they want you to shoulder the cost for it.
To add black bars only require a couple of lines of code, and maybe to zoom out the cameras. No need to reshoot anything to do this.

Good visuals isn't the same thing as graphical fidelity. There are plenty of examples of games that look beautiful but are far from the top dog in terms of graphical prowess.
Yes, either if with a great art style or with high gaphical fidelity (ideally with both), what it's important is to have great visuals.

Not to mention there are plenty of good examples of games that aren't king of graphics but still sold lots. They should start looking for them as examples on how they can sell a game without relying on having ultra blaster graphics.
Yes, Tetris or Minecraft have been super successful with humble graphics because even if visuals are the most important thing for selling a game, visuals aren't everything, so some games sell a lot because other reasons. But huge selling games with shitty visuals (specially in the AAA segment) these are exceptions, most best selling games have high end visuals.

Their work doesn't exist independently though. The work of all these people rely on each other, and if one takes longer for one reason or another, everyone else is affected. This can also result in longer development times, and crunch.
Yes, game development is a team effort. But designers or programmers work with placeholder art until art is ready, they (we) don't need to wait until the art is done to do their (our) job. To be productive these teams have producers, who organize and sort their tasks and consider dependencies, so they never are waiting in their desks waiting for someone else to finish their job: they always have tasks to do that don't require someone else to have their job done.
 

yurinka

Member
You can't use one of the best selling games of all time with a highly popular online mode as example for the "average" AAA game mate.
Besides, there are many more examples or independent devs selling millions:
Terraria - 14 million units
Euro Truck Simulator 2 - 9 million units
Risk of Rain 2 - 4 million copies (on pc alone)
Hollow Knight - over 3 million copies
Deep Rock Galactic - over 3 million copies
and so so many many more
I included GTAV as a non-sensical example, because it's a very rare exception for AAA games like million seller games are inside indies (like Valheim).

The percentage of indies who sell over a million copies is tiny out of the thousands of new indies are released every year. On average indies sell a few thousand copies. While in AAA is the opposite: way less are released every year compared to indies, but most of them sell over a million copies or at least -when they tank- get close to 1M. On average AAA games sell a few million copies.

And well, I wouldn't call indie those supported by big publishers (which includes platform holders). Same goes with AA games made over a hundred or in some cases two hundred people (case of all the ones you mentioned with the exception of Terraria and Valheim).
 
Last edited:

kingfey

Banned
GTAV: 155 million copies made by around 5000 people listed on their game credits while ago (probably way more did work there since there + many people worked on it but didn't appear in the credit).

There are always exceptions for everything. But the AAA games on average sell some millions of copies, while indies on average sell a few thousand copies on Steam.
Game companies use contractors, which is cheap to pay for, compared to full time employees, which you have to pay full time benefits.

Problem with gaming like I said previously, is the day1, which kills most sales. If your game is broken on day1, you lose potential sales. This is the time, when most devs give up, after horrendous launch.

As for your indie, most of them are carbon copies. The ones that are successful are those who bring good gameplay.

<How much does it cost to make an indie game? You're looking at a range from about $50,000 to $750,000 to make an indie game. The lower $50k amount is the total cost for a solo developer, on average, to work for a year on a game (at least in our experience). As you add more people, the cost goes up.>

Most indie games cost between 5$ to 20$. At 1k copies, that is $5k-$20k. At 10k copies, that is 50k-$200k. At 100k copies, that is that is $500k to $2m. You take out Steam cut, and you get $350k-$1.4m profit.

The 5$ game is very cheap to make, while the 20$ is little bit expensive. If 20$ is $400k budget game, they will gain $1m profit, if they sell 100k, which isn't hard to do for 20$ game quality.

If they charge more money for their games, it will not sell alot, which will make them alot of sales.

For example, if 20$ game quality decided to sell it at 30$, it won't hit 100k. While the 20$ price will sell more than 100k, since its cheap.
 
Top Bottom