3 ms·

This is a bit of a digression, and I might write a blog post about this, but I welcome comments, either way. It really seems we live in a kind of Twilight Zone

by dvt 2y ago

This is a bit of a digression, and I might write a blog post about this, but I welcome comments, either way. It really seems we live in a kind of Twilight Zone when it comes to indie software (both productive, as we see here, but also in entertainment) pricing. AAA software (say, stuff being churned out by companies like MS/Apple/Figma/Adobe/etc.) is so aggressively priced, so egregiously recurrent (I actually am not even sure how many hundreds of dollars+ I spend a year on software I probably don't even use, except for maybe a handful of times a year—like Word or PowerPoint). Similarly, games are routinely being sold for 70-80++ dollars. However, indie games (and as we see here, indie software) is held to this wild and insane standard. To me, even 100 bucks as a one-time-payment for productivity software (that is: something that literally helps you make more money) is kind of a no-brainer. And yet, there is so much pushback here. Even though we all probably pay for Google's garbage, for Apple's garbage, for space we don't use, and so on. It's kind of how people brutally skewer the $5 Steam indie game, but if the $80 game made by the AAA billion-dollar studio sucks, folks seem to be much more forgiving (looking at you, Diablo 4). I'm also working on some local-only software I plan on releasing some time this year, and pricing is something I'm very torn on. On one hand, it should be obvious that a one-time fee is the more consumer-friendly option. But something like $10 a month not only probably makes you more money, it also seems to be way more palatable by the general public.

cableshaft 2y ago
> It's kind of how people brutally skewer the $5 Steam indie game, but if the $80 game made by the AAA billion-dollar studio sucks, folks seem to be much more forgiving. ...yep. It gets really tiring. Expectations for even a $5 Steam indie game are really high. Needs to have achievements, leaderboards, steam cloud saves, works on Steam Deck, have online multiplayer, be localized in 8+ languages, accessibility options, controller mapping, have zero bugs, have every single game option you expect in a AAA game, work flawlessly on all platforms with zero bugs, and have 10+ hours of gameplay (but preferably 40+), or else you'll get buried alive in the reviews. There's a reason it's taken me like 10x longer to get my current game out compared to past games. It's trying to get somewhat close to all these sky-high expectations (also more responsibilities and less energy now that I'm older, though). I didn't have any of this crap in my old Flash games I used to make (except maybe zero bugs, but even that wasn't always true), and somehow those got played millions of times then. But expectations are much, much higher now. Granted I would like most of this stuff in the game myself too, it just takes a long time to get it all in there, especially as a solo dev.
- nadermx 2y ago
  For multiplayer and leaderboard are those things that already have pre packages you can equivalent of pip install?
xboxnolifes 2y ago
> It's kind of how people brutally skewer the $5 Steam indie game, but if the $80 game made by the AAA billion-dollar studio sucks, folks seem to be much more forgiving (looking at you, Diablo 4). While I know the point you're making, gamers certainly went up in arms over "the first AAAA game" priced at $70 instead of the standard $60 for AAA games, even before seeing it was a poor game. Additionally, the people who are typically complaining about the shortcomings of $20 indie games have given up complaining about $60 games' shortcomings. They expect them to suck and stopped paying attention to them, so the lack of comment is apathy toward AAA games and a desire for indie to succeed. They give passionate response, good and bad, because they care. The very low priced indie games (<$5) also fall into the same problem category of most low priced things above free. The exchange of money makes people demand much more from something than if free, and price sensitive consumers are much more picky than those who can more easily put out hundreds of dollars.
vunderba 2y ago
"But something like $10 a month not only probably makes you more money, it also seems to be way more palatable by the general public." I might be biased, but I think people are feeling pretty subscription fatigued at this point too, so I'm not confident you can win either way. Also, I will say that there is at least some reason for AAA games costing a disproportionately larger amount of money considering that they usually have hundreds of people on staff versus an indie dev company which might have a few people and often is just a solopreneur. The best you can hope for is something that makes a modest amount of money that doesn't require a tremendous amount of personal investment and risk.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
brailsafe 2y ago
> To me, even 100 bucks as a one-time-payment for productivity software (that is: something that literally helps you make more money) is kind of a no-brainer It's only a no-brainer if you've had the credit card at the ready because whichever problem you have is costing you enough in time and you have confidence that this purchase will be the one to finally make you more money. A new $5500 MacBook would improve my workflow a bit, but by what point would I break even on the purchase? A new iPad Pro might hypothetically let me draw a chart or two sometime in the next 10 years, but its value is where its value is for different people. But I also don't pre-order games and don't typically buy games over around $50, even then it's rare, but I know lots of people with thousands in pointless game buys.

by dvt 2y ago

cableshaft 2y ago

> It's kind of how people brutally skewer the $5 Steam indie game, but if the $80 game made by the AAA billion-dollar studio sucks, folks seem to be much more forgiving. ...yep. It gets really tiring. Expectations for even a $5 Steam indie game are really high. Needs to have achievements, leaderboards, steam cloud saves, works on Steam Deck, have online multiplayer, be localized in 8+ languages, accessibility options, controller mapping, have zero bugs, have every single game option you expect in a AAA game, work flawlessly on all platforms with zero bugs, and have 10+ hours of gameplay (but preferably 40+), or else you'll get buried alive in the reviews. There's a reason it's taken me like 10x longer to get my current game out compared to past games. It's trying to get somewhat close to all these sky-high expectations (also more responsibilities and less energy now that I'm older, though). I didn't have any of this crap in my old Flash games I used to make (except maybe zero bugs, but even that wasn't always true), and somehow those got played millions of times then. But expectations are much, much higher now. Granted I would like most of this stuff in the game myself too, it just takes a long time to get it all in there, especially as a solo dev.

nadermx 2y ago
For multiplayer and leaderboard are those things that already have pre packages you can equivalent of pip install?

xboxnolifes 2y ago

> It's kind of how people brutally skewer the $5 Steam indie game, but if the $80 game made by the AAA billion-dollar studio sucks, folks seem to be much more forgiving (looking at you, Diablo 4). While I know the point you're making, gamers certainly went up in arms over "the first AAAA game" priced at $70 instead of the standard $60 for AAA games, even before seeing it was a poor game. Additionally, the people who are typically complaining about the shortcomings of $20 indie games have given up complaining about $60 games' shortcomings. They expect them to suck and stopped paying attention to them, so the lack of comment is apathy toward AAA games and a desire for indie to succeed. They give passionate response, good and bad, because they care. The very low priced indie games (<$5) also fall into the same problem category of most low priced things above free. The exchange of money makes people demand much more from something than if free, and price sensitive consumers are much more picky than those who can more easily put out hundreds of dollars.

vunderba 2y ago

"But something like $10 a month not only probably makes you more money, it also seems to be way more palatable by the general public." I might be biased, but I think people are feeling pretty subscription fatigued at this point too, so I'm not confident you can win either way. Also, I will say that there is at least some reason for AAA games costing a disproportionately larger amount of money considering that they usually have hundreds of people on staff versus an indie dev company which might have a few people and often is just a solopreneur. The best you can hope for is something that makes a modest amount of money that doesn't require a tremendous amount of personal investment and risk.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

brailsafe 2y ago

> To me, even 100 bucks as a one-time-payment for productivity software (that is: something that literally helps you make more money) is kind of a no-brainer It's only a no-brainer if you've had the credit card at the ready because whichever problem you have is costing you enough in time and you have confidence that this purchase will be the one to finally make you more money. A new $5500 MacBook would improve my workflow a bit, but by what point would I break even on the purchase? A new iPad Pro might hypothetically let me draw a chart or two sometime in the next 10 years, but its value is where its value is for different people. But I also don't pre-order games and don't typically buy games over around $50, even then it's rare, but I know lots of people with thousands in pointless game buys.