6 ms·

Well I just purchased it for $10 and I already own 2 of the games. And the other's I never would have considered buying if it wasn't for this bundle. And I'm p

Well I just purchased it for $10 and I already own 2 of the games. And the other's I never would have considered buying if it wasn't for this bundle. And I'm pleasantly surprised with gish so far; already checking out the developer's site to see what else that have on offer. Other people might be paying that average and are only interested in 1 or 2 of the games in the bundle. You can't just say a blanket "5 games or $1.72 is disgusting".

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
benologist 16y ago
It's disgusting in the sense that it's a horribly poor valuation of their work by consumers - each of those games is worth approximately half a latte. The sad part is it'll be celebrated as a victory because they'll gross a lot of money and it's "money they wouldn't otherwise have" ... unless they set their own price and reached a tiny fraction of the consumers that'll buy their games today.
- steveklabnik 16y ago
  It can't be a poor valuation of work, unless you subscribe to a labor theory of value. Our current economic system does not. Things are only worth what people will pay for them.
  - benologist 16y ago
    That's true, except the bit where there's plenty of evidence to support the theory that people are willing to pay more than a dollar and change for a game.
    - steveklabnik 16y ago
      But you don't know if these people would or not. Also, I've payed $50 for a game in the past, but I'm not sure that I would any more.
      - benologist 16y ago
        These people maybe not... but how does that matter? The 6,000 people that bought the pack are just a tiny portion of the gaming market.
- jRoden 16y ago
  Which they have done before now, and will continue to do after. You seem to assume that these are brand new games being rolled out with this pricing scheme - all of them are over a year old, some 3 or 4 years. Do you really believe that they would make the same amount by continuing to sell old indie games at their own prices and without a buzz-generating promotion?

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

benologist 16y ago

It's disgusting in the sense that it's a horribly poor valuation of their work by consumers - each of those games is worth approximately half a latte. The sad part is it'll be celebrated as a victory because they'll gross a lot of money and it's "money they wouldn't otherwise have" ... unless they set their own price and reached a tiny fraction of the consumers that'll buy their games today.

steveklabnik 16y ago
It can't be a poor valuation of work, unless you subscribe to a labor theory of value. Our current economic system does not. Things are only worth what people will pay for them.
- benologist 16y ago
  That's true, except the bit where there's plenty of evidence to support the theory that people are willing to pay more than a dollar and change for a game.
  - steveklabnik 16y ago
    But you don't know if these people would or not. Also, I've payed $50 for a game in the past, but I'm not sure that I would any more.
    - benologist 16y ago
      These people maybe not... but how does that matter? The 6,000 people that bought the pack are just a tiny portion of the gaming market.
jRoden 16y ago
Which they have done before now, and will continue to do after. You seem to assume that these are brand new games being rolled out with this pricing scheme - all of them are over a year old, some 3 or 4 years. Do you really believe that they would make the same amount by continuing to sell old indie games at their own prices and without a buzz-generating promotion?