Pricing a notgame?

[Michaël Samyn]

I don't know if it's the same everywhere, but here in Europe everything is becoming more expensive! Cigarettes, gas, bread, books, movies, museum visits, shoes, hair cuts, everything! I blame the Euro. And we're selling our games in measly Dollars. That currency of the poor.

[Henrik Flink]

i agree that we should not sell out and being too cheep but i also think we should avoid the way CD/DVD/AAA-games have gone. Which nowdays cost to much to be affordable for all sorts of people. So yea, maybe a price point between 50$ - 200$ totaly depending on the work. But i think its important to fill all different price catogeries so we could have allot of variety of what people are considering to buy.

[Michaël Samyn]

Ultimately, I think we need a new way to approach our audience. The old model of mass consumption, as extended by cheap digital downloads on Steam and the App Store, might not be the most suitable for us. It would be more appropriate if we could build a small but devoted audience willing to pay an amount high enough to support production on the scale of this "elite". In other words, high enough to keep both creators and spectators away from the mass market and its destructive logic.

I don't know about others here, but I actually feel rather uncomfortable when I realize that almost 100,000 people have purchased a game we made. That's just too many people. I could never talk to each in person. I'd feel much more comfortable selling our game at five times the price to a 5 times smaller audience. The problem is that the math doesn't seem to work like that: if you increase your price 5 times, you seem to reduce you audience by 10 times, or even more. It's easier to sell 100,000 copies of a 10 Dollar game then it is to sell 20,000 copies of a 50 Dollar game.

I hope this will change in the future. Because I believe that the quality of a piece created for a smaller audience can be much higher. And I'm perfectly willing to pay a higher price for higher quality.

[Booger]

My friend who first introduced me to notgames is currently working on a title with the notgames spirit and even though it's going to be freeware, he still wants people to take some effort obtaining it.  The problem with digital downloads is that there is no culture of scarcity (which we actually like since it makes things seem more precious!).

We were thinking about customizing builds so that each copy is personalized.  Or alternatively the limited runs concept mentioned by chineseroom... but how does one do this in a digital context?  Copies that self-destruct?

Sometimes I wonder why I ever entered the world of digital art.  Unlike traditional medium, you can't exactly sell one work to a rich patron for one million dollars, and that patron will consider it an investment with value increasing over time.  And unlike performance art, I can't capitalize on live appearances.  Digital art, especially games, require more interdisciplinary skills -- sometimes more expensive skills and tools -- and they're the most prone to never recouping their costs.

[Michaël Samyn]

Embrace the digital abundance! 

Don't give in to the scarcity logic or the art market tricks! It's fake when it comes to digital art. The preciousness and uniqueness lies not in the object but in the intimate experience of the player.

Also, there's no need to artificially make work scarce that already will only appeal to an elite audience. Cultivate the elitism, instead!

[Albin Bernhardsson]

I don't think invoking scarcity through monetary means is a good thing. If you have a limited but passionate audience that's willing to pay more, then that's good. But trying to limit your audience simply by putting a higher price point on the product is not a good thing. That limits the art to the priviledged few, the rich, rather than being something that can be enjoyed regardless of societal position.

Making niche art is good, making broad art but then stripping it down to a niche market isn't.

One of the main reasons I have approached the digital medium is because of the ability to reach a wide audience that isn't limited by geographical or monetary means. Ideally I'd release all my works for free (which is what I currently do), but that's not viable in the long term. I don't think imposing any effort on obtaining the product makes it any more unique or valuable. It is true that by making it easier to obtain, people who are not as interested might obtain it and reject it. But art is not judged by how many people it doesn't touch, it is judged by how many it touches, and how intensely it does so.

[Michaël Samyn]

Ideally I'd release all my works for free

I used to think that this was ideal too. But when you do that, you remove one of the most common and simple ways in which people can express appreciation for your work.

This really struck me the first time we started selling a game. Even though The Graveyard didn't need to return on investment, and the selling was a tongue-in-cheek part of its artistic concept, I felt a happy jolt every time we got an email message from Paypal saying somebody purchased the game. I had not expected that I would feel like that.

We have also received messages from many people saying that they want to pay more for our games.

So, in a way, offering your games for sale, is also a service towards your audience.