Just a bit too expensive


  • I would like to buy this game, and i know other people that want to, but it is just to expensive.
    Don't get me wrong: the game is awesome but at the moment it does not offer enough for 40$. I think the best price at the moment will be 15$->20$.
    A lower price will, most probably, double or even triple the number of players.
    If you don't agree with me please tell me why.


  • 28
    Posts
    9928
    Views
    Log in to reply


  • I think he's right. If this was 20 dollars the population would explode. It may not be the best thing though if the developers haven't gotten a stable product though.



  • If you read on ther kickstarter page once this game is out of alpha/beta and ready for steam release they did hint at the price been ~20bucks.



  • yes but i think this game will stay in beta for a while. i just have that feeling.



  • @ErikAlmighty If you read a few topics on this forum you would probobly see ther aiming for this summer.
    As for progress in development they submit code changes on a daily basis.



  • @ErikAlmighty if it is too expensive now during development / alpha then wait for beta and later when the price drops. Personally, I was more than happy to spend the 40 dollars to support the team, where typically I do not buy a game unless it's under 25 dollars.
    As another poster said, there are posts around the forum that seem to indicate a summer release. Wait for then!

    Public Server: [US EAST] Apex Pioneers | v5.4 | 24/7 | discord.gg/xZgeH6p



  • they have made somewhat of a fundamental logic flaw, historically alpha testers get into a game for either steep discount, for free, or even get paid as long as they submit good reports on bugs and such

    later at beta most games stay free or some have a very cheap buy in rate

    after release prices go up

    as for the higher tiers of pay atm the current rates are too extreme, even IF you count the 40$ per copy you basically end up paying a few Hundred bucks in order to get features which most alpha/beta players get for the cheap cost of a non-disclosure signature if not completely for free

    if they wanted to have far more people take an interest and give this game the chance and the testing it deserves they really need to re-evaluate. heck, the big standard these days is minecraft and i got in for 3$ in pre alpha, then it went to 6$ alpha, 8$ beta, 13$ release and only now is more than that



  • @infinitetech said:

    they have made somewhat of a fundamental logic flaw, historically alpha testers get into a game for either steep discount, for free, or even get paid as long as they submit good reports on bugs and such

    later at beta most games stay free or some have a very cheap buy in rate

    after release prices go up

    as for the higher tiers of pay atm the current rates are too extreme, even IF you count the 40$ per copy you basically end up paying a few Hundred bucks in order to get features which most alpha/beta players get for the cheap cost of a non-disclosure signature if not completely for free

    if they wanted to have far more people take an interest and give this game the chance and the testing it deserves they really need to re-evaluate. heck, the big standard these days is minecraft and i got in for 3$ in pre alpha, then it went to 6$ alpha, 8$ beta, 13$ release and only now is more than that

    I wouldn't say it's a logic flaw just because it bucks the pricing model for other popular early access games. It's not unprecedented either. Elite: Dangerous followed this model, for example, making alpha access quite expensive. Actually it seems to be pretty common for Kickstarter games.

    The high price is intended to keep the population low while still providing a decent revenue stream. They could probably make a lot more money by selling it at $20. For half the price, purchases may more than double or even triple.

    If you keep the population low, you don't have to spend so much resources on support. If you keep the price high, you get higher quality alpha testers. You're right, Minecraft is a success story, but I think the devs' model has a lot of good reasons behind it.



  • This post is deleted!


  • @Sr_Tregras Then wait for steam release.



  • See, it worked, they just don´t want People to buy the Game to just play it as a Game and then complain because of Bugs.



  • @Caduryn They did not want people to buy the game in alpha and stop playing the game cause of bugs and never touch it again so it would be better to let these people who cannot deal with bugs to wait for steam release where most of the bugs will be fixed and the price will be lowerd.
    The benefit of having a higher price during this early in alpha would be you would only get the people that truly believe in the game to help out testing and reporting of bugs.
    The downside is you get a bunch of people who cannot afford 40 bucks to buy the game a few months earlyer then the steam release where they did hint at a price tag at around 20bucks.

    So... if you cannot afford 40bucks to play an alpha version of the game or dont want to deal with this many bugs that are currently in the game... wait for steam release.
    It's so simple.
    However the is no pleasing some people.
    If the game instead would not be open alpha people would complain about it not been released... kind of jumping up and down in the backseat going "Are we there yet? Are we there yet? what's taking so long?".
    If the game would be let's say 5bucks ( let's go over cheap since we are dealing with people that do not think supporting indie devs is a good thing but they would probobly buy a AAA game for 60 bucks or more ) we would get alot of people buying the game... but... we would also get a large % of those people going "uuuugh... buggs..." and uninstall the game to NEVER touch it again not even when all those bugs are fixed with the main resoning "i tryed it during the alpha... i did not like it... it was too buggy".
    And it could be something realy silly like in 5.3 the block placement was realy wonky wich they fixed in 5.4 but if someone made ther mind up that they did not like the block placement they would NEVER bother to revisit the game or check "did they change this?" unless someone took a black magic marker and wrote it on ther screen.

    So... 40bucks too much... dont want to support indie devs so they can put more hours into the game before release... dont like bugs... wait for steam release.



  • Just gotta say. I liked it so much, I went up a Tier to give more support and buy a coffee or two for the dev team.

    Public Server: [US EAST] Apex Pioneers | v5.4 | 24/7 | discord.gg/xZgeH6p



  • I just bought the 4pack. 1 game is left.

    Support this awesome game!



  • yeah, i myself did buy it because with this game i myself very much support the goals and concept, however i think this is the only game i have ever bought for more than 20ish $ aside from pre-ordering the collectors version of spore... something i admit i was disappointed in due to the head director's intervention to stem overly evolution esk concepts in the game any more than they could (originally that game was going to be far far more realistic and in depth, however as time went on more and more red tape killed its potential). i would consider jumping up a tier, but a few hundred $ to do so is steep



  • @tbbw82 You don´t need to tell me because i already meant that in my Post. ^^



  • I personally think the price tag is fine. I've heard a lot of complaints about expensive games in alpha but I think you need that throttle on your player base during alpha. Making a game more accessible may create a bigger community and short term gain but it has a way of burning new games out before they finish and you spend more time fighting hackers and malcontents.

    TheMiningColony.com



  • Well... Elite Dangerous alpha was for 300$ so 40$ isn't that much.



  • @Foolish_Crok yikes! That's alot of cash.

    Public Server: [US EAST] Apex Pioneers | v5.4 | 24/7 | discord.gg/xZgeH6p



  • i bought the elite alpha for 200£ .. never seen any complaints about that on there forums ..



  • I don't have much money myself my mates helped out and pitched in for a 4 pack. That being said I 100% understand why their doing it. They don't want the game to have 100k players right now. They like I assume most devs a small trickle for now to fund their habits.


28
Posts
9928
Views
Log in to reply

Internal error.

Oops! Looks like something went wrong!