Spiderweb Software Game Prices

[Rannen]

I bought Avernum 4 from Big Fish games for around $8, played it through and liked it a bunch. When I searched around for more Avernum or Spiderweb Software Games, I of course found this site... and learned that these simple(though large) 2D games are running $25!

 

I just wanted to let the developers know that there are people like me who like the games, are interested in the games, but are unwilling to spend so much money on them. If anyone else agrees or disagrees with me, please feel free to add your voices to the thread.

[Niemand]

Most of us who hang around the forums here are pretty content with prices of order $25, I think. To be honest I've only purchased 3 of Spiderweb's games (A2, A3, BoA), but I felt that they were easily worth such prices, and when I decide I have the time to really spend on additional games I fully intended to buy them without concern about the price. Spiderweb is a small company, and they don't necessarily have vast amounts of sales. They need to earn enough from selling to the audience that they do have to stay in business.

 

Besides, $25 isn't really a whole lot of money. For someone who has a job, thats not more than about four hours of work, even at minimum wage. Given that I estimate I've derived a few hundred hours of enjoyment from the three games I've bought, it seems like a pretty good rate.

[Randomizer]

Jeff has blogged repeatedly about price points and what works for him. Most of us accept that the prices are about right. You can get them cheap at some game stores, but there may be problems getting updates, altering the scripts to include cheats, .... You aren't going to see the new games drop in price except for the annual October Sadness Sale.

[Micawber]

The price is less than a dvd box set (at least, over here) and entertains you for at least twice as long.

[Randomizer]

The price is about the same as an equivalent game in 1980 so in terms of inflated corrected dollars you are getting a bargain.

[Dantius]

Yeah, the price is about half a top-of-the-line newly released game for the 360 or the PS3, and some of the older games take at least 50 hours to play through, plus a replay value that's rare outside Bioware or Bethesda or a handful of other companies. So you're basically paying half as much for twice the product- which IIRC is what Jeff tries to price them as.

[Erebus the Black]

Originally Posted By: Rannen

I bought Avernum 4 from Big Fish games for around $8, played it through and liked it a bunch. When I searched around for more Avernum or Spiderweb Software Games, I of course found this site... and learned that these simple(though large) 2D games are running $25!

Isn't this grounds for a law suit? or has A4 become abandonware?

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: Erasmus

Originally Posted By: Rannen

I bought Avernum 4 from Big Fish games for around $8, played it through and liked it a bunch. When I searched around for more Avernum or Spiderweb Software Games, I of course found this site... and learned that these simple(though large) 2D games are running $25!

Isn't this grounds for a law suit? or has A4 become abandonware?

Jeff licenses other websites to sell his games at a discount in order to attract more customers. He gets a proportion of the proceeds from each sale.

Also, there's no such thing as abandonware.

[Erebus the Black]

Originally Posted By: Lilith

Also, there's no such thing as abandonware.

It's just a shorter way to say: "computer software which was moved to the public domain".
Zork 1-3 and Castle of the winds are some examples.
Probably some of the games from TSR (pre wizards of the coast) also fit this description.

[Tyranicus]

Originally Posted By: Erasmus

Originally Posted By: Lilith

Also, there's no such thing as abandonware.

It's just a shorter way to say: "computer software which was moved to the public domain".
Zork 1-3 and Castle of the winds are some examples.
Probably some of the games from TSR (pre wizards of the coast) also fit this description.

No computer game is old enough to have passed into public domain.

[Lilith]

There have been a few commercial software titles that were intentionally released into the public domain or given a licence permitting free redistribution, but what people normally mean when they say "abandonware" is software that you can't actually legally download but where the copyright owner isn't strictly enforcing their copyright for whatever reason.

[Rannen]

I might agree that $25 is a good price if this were the only show in town, but the issue is that competing games of equal or better quality are popping up with equal or lesser price. For example, Baldurs Gate 2 and Icewind Dale 2 have become available on Impulse for less than half the cost of a Spiderweb game. There's a fair sized list of such games that it currently just makes more sense to me to buy before any Spiderweb games, and by the time I run through it more will have sprung up!

 

That's why I feel a price reduction might be in order, though I can respect the fact that the limited audience drawn by hardcore statistical RPG games might not be enough to support the devs if the price were lowered.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: Rannen

I might agree that $25 is a good price if this were the only show in town, but the issue is that competing games of equal or better quality are popping up with equal or lesser price. For example, Baldurs Gate 2 and Icewind Dale 2 have become available on Impulse for less than half the cost of a Spiderweb game. There's a fair sized list of such games that it currently just makes more sense to me to buy before any Spiderweb games, and by the time I run through it more will have sprung up!

For what it's worth, Jeff has straight-up said the same thing in a blog entry. His core audience is people who have already played all the old classic RPGs and want a new game in the same genre.

[Dintiradan]

^ Sniped.

 

RE: 'Abandonware' games. What's the legal status of software whose company has gone under? Not just been bought up, but actually folded and disappeared?

[Micawber]

I'm not a lawyer, but the principle should be that the residual assets of a company when it's dissolved belong to the shareholders.

[Tyranicus]

Originally Posted By: Rannen

I might agree that $25 is a good price if this were the only show in town, but the issue is that competing games of equal or better quality are popping up with equal or lesser price. For example, Baldurs Gate 2 and Icewind Dale 2 have become available on Impulse for less than half the cost of a Spiderweb game. There's a fair sized list of such games that it currently just makes more sense to me to buy before any Spiderweb games, and by the time I run through it more will have sprung up!

That's why I feel a price reduction might be in order, though I can respect the fact that the limited audience drawn by hardcore statistical RPG games might not be enough to support the devs if the price were lowered.

Baldur's Gate 2 is 11 years old.

[Alorael at Large]

Yes. Someone has the rights, although it's not always clear who. In some cases companies will purchase them explicitly; in others they can be lost in the paperwork.

 

Abandonware is used with many meanings. Some use it for old games that they figure the company won't enforce copyright on anymore; that's very legally iffy, and in this era of re-releases it's probably only effective because it's too hard to shut all piracy down. Other times abandonware can be software whose creator has disappeared or that can no longer be acquired reasonably and legally. That's still not legal, but it is defensible, and more importantly it's unlikely that anyone will defend the copyright of a game that's not for sale.

 

And to Rannen, Here's Jeff's blog post about it:

Quote:

"I Can Buy Better Old Games At the Game Store For Far Less"

 

This is, honestly, a pretty hard charge to answer. When someone says, "Why should I get your game when I can get Baldur's Gate 2 for $10?" what I think is, "Dude, you haven't played Baldur's Gate 2 yet? Go get it! It's awesome! And you know something? In a few weeks, when you're done with it, I'll still be here."

 

I can't compete on price with old classic. Nobody can. To expect me (or anyone) to match price with a handful of old games is completely ridiculous. Can't happen.

 

But my games have an advantage. They're new. Go ahead and play the old classics, or at least the ones you haven't played already. Go play Fallout or Planescape: Torment. They're SWEET.

 

You'll be done soon enough. And, when you are, I'll still be here.

 

—Alorael, who is pretty sure old games aren't coming out faster than Jeff's games. Not reliably. See, the problem is there's a limited supply of excellent old games. And as Jeff says, when they're exhausted he'll still have games. In fact, you can quite reasonably play Jeff's games last and, if you have reasonable amounts of free time, aren't in a hurry, and have tastes that run towards RPGs, still get around to Spiderweb games.

[Rannen]

Well, the quoted blog makes a good point for those who generally stick to RPG games (especially the stat based classics). I guess my main problem is therefor that I'm not part of the target audience. I love RPGs, particularly stat heavy ones that let me tinker with my characters, but I'm also very fond of shooters, RTS, and TBS.

 

How much broader an audience might a lower price bring in? Beats me. I'll I know is that I'm out here.

[Nicothodes]

The problem is is that lowering the pricing on all his games is a risk, since his family's income is reliant on sales of Spiderweb games. If he lowered the prices, he'd have to worry about getting enough extra sales just to keep his income steady, which, if he lowered it to the around $10 mark you mentioned, would mean he'd have to more than double his customers. Very risky.

[keira]

Didn't Jeff make a blog post once that showed his profit margins and why his games cost what they do?

[Rannen]

The fact is that $25 is unusually expensive for a 2D indie game regardless of whatever mitigating circumstances may be present, and most people will look at said price and be unsure whether or not it's some kind of joke.

 

Perhaps a trial could be run with one of his older games? Take Avernum 1, reduce the price to $9.99, and get out as much cheap/free advertising as possible. I seriously doubt the sales of an older game like that are very impressive currently, so there shouldn't be a great deal of risk involved. If it does well, it could open up the possibility of squeezing more profit from each of his games in a similar manner.

[Student of Trinity]

Maybe. I dunno, myself. But Jeff has thought about pricing and marketing pretty carefully. It's his mortgage that's on the line. He also has more data than just a customer's general impression that games are and should be cheap; he knows how much he's actually making, from how many sales. And he's the guy who's been surviving in this business for a long time now.

 

To make more money after cutting his prices by a factor of 2.5, Jeff has to more than double his sales. He seems to think this is unlikely. Sure they'd go up, but not enough, he figures.

[Alorael at Large]

The entire Exile trilogy is available on a CD for $25, or less than $10 per game. The first Avernum trilogy is $45: $15 per game. Neither is likely to win many converts; they're old. They're even more retro than the current games, so they're not great advertising. They probably don't sell well, but I very much doubt they'd sell much better if the price dropped. They're for a small customer base.

 

—Alorael, whose bigger problem is the idea that $25 is expensive for a 2D indie game. Which indie games? It would be excessive to pay that for many so-called casual games, but Spiderweb games take about a year to produce and take many hours to play. It's not unreasonable, as shown by Jeff's ability to support himself. And if it is unreasonable in your view, well, you're under no obligation to buy. Wait until there's a sale, or wait for them to come out cheaper through third party redistribution.

[Rannen]

I'd be the first to admit that I don't necessarily know that a price reduction would boost profits, but I would add that even those in a better position with more of the facts than myself do not necessarily know that they won't. This is why I call for a bit of low risk experimentation.

 

Taking the lowest selling game out of 14 titles and reducing the price in a temporary month long sale ought to present very little risk, being that the move almost definitely cannot lower sales. Assuming the worst case, where all jeff's games are selling equally well and no gain is sales is forthcoming, he would be at the very most out ((1/14)*.6) of his total monthly income, or 4.3% for one month.

 

Note that this is for a total failure, in the worst case scenario. I concede that I don't know whether or not his finances are so grim that he can't risk this.

 

The potential gain, on the other hand, is incalculable. What if his profits increase by 10%? 20%? 100%? It would seem to me that the potential gain outweighs the risk, so long as he can afford to risk that 4.3% of one month's income on the venture.

[Student of Trinity]

Maybe. But as we say, Jeff knows the arguments, and has been thinking them through for several years. The basic concept that one might in principle boost income by cutting prices, through raising volume, is not an arcane secret. Every kid with a lemonade stand gets the idea pretty fast.

 

It's conceivable that Jeff is in effect deliberately losing himself a lot of money, just because he wants to feel that the product of his year of work is worth more than $10 a copy. If so, well, the freedom to lose money that way if you want to is one of the privileges you gain by owning your own business. It's his call.

 

You want irrational pricing? My daughter's DS version of Plants versus Zombies cost ten times what my iPhone version cost. Really. It's being sold as a major title in DS world. It seems to be exactly the same game, except that my resolution is a lot higher, but I don't get the two-player mode. Okay, the two-player mode is worth something. But nine times the price of the whole single-player game?

[ex post slarto]

A really old, really outdated game that has already been bought by the people most likely to buy SW games, and suddenly reducing its price, is completely different from setting the price of a new game at a lower price. It will not help you predict anything.

[Rannen]

It would predict the effect of lowering the price on his other older games, which is worth something. I would also take a success as a positive sign that doing another trial with a newer game might be worth a shot.

 

In the end, yes, it's Jeff's call. That being the case, I suppose it's back to Impulse and GoG for me... may I one day find SW games at a price I can agree with.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: Rannen

I'd be the first to admit that I don't necessarily know that a price reduction would boost profits, but I would add that even those in a better position with more of the facts than myself do not necessarily know that they won't. This is why I call for a bit of low risk experimentation.

Taking the lowest selling game out of 14 titles and reducing the price in a temporary month long sale ought to present very little risk, being that the move almost definitely cannot lower sales.

It's not as low-risk as you might think. Dramatically lowering the price of one product in your line can cause sales of your other products to drop off as customers wait and see whether you're going to lower their prices too.

[Randomizer]

Scott Adams, who draws Dilbert, released a free book only to find for his next book for money wasn't selling because his customers were waiting for the price to drop to free.

 

Lowering the prices will mean sales being deferred on new games in anticipation of a price drop. Just look at all the people here that have played a demo and don't have the money to buy the full game. They'll wait and keep Jeff from getting any sales.

[Alorael at Large]

Jeff seems happy with his sales figures, and he doesn't think there's money to be made by dropping prices. He's said things about his reasoning, but here's my analysis.

 

Jeff isn't going after the gaming mainstream; he's already going after a niche, or perhaps a statistical long tail. Better marketing could have high returns if his biggest problem is lack of exposure, but not if most potential players just can't stand games with old-fashioned graphics and generally low budgets. It's worth considering, and it's probably a large part of why he's gone for the App Store and things like Real Arcade.

 

But in his niche, and among people who have heard of him, how many people like Jeff's games but just can't see putting down the cash for them? (Keep in mind that $25 is almost literally pocket change. Skip a few cups of coffee or five sandwiches from cafes and you have the money.) If 50% of the potential customers are scared off by the price, dropping the price by 20% and bringing in that extra 50% is a great idea. If he has 80% of his potential customers, dropping 20% and getting to 100% only breaks even. If a 20% discount only gets him to 90% Spiderweb makes less money.

 

And that's the big issue, I think. I'd guess that among people willing to pay for Spiderweb games, the number who do so is already quite high. The potential earnings from those extra people are low, and the potential losses from that majority now paying less are high. It's a substantial business risk.

 

Should Jeff reduce the prices on old games? There's a better case, but as Randomizer notes, it could lose money as people wait for those lower prices. Since the games are already far from cutting-edge when they come out it seems unlikely that they really have a short shelf life. Eventually just about everyone who wants them has bought them... except for the marketing problem. My guess, again, is that Jeff makes more from people stumbling upon and buying his games than he'd get from those who'd eagerly jump on lower prices.

 

—Alorael, whose final analysis is that Jeff is risk-averse. It's common, and it's critical when you're risking your livelihood. He may not make maximal profits, but he also hasn't gone broke. More money is good, but less money could be catastrophic. Being careful with risks while feeding yourself, your wife, and your two young children is not a bad idea.

[Tyranicus]

Originally Posted By: Lilith

It's not as low-risk as you might think. Dramatically lowering the price of one product in your line can cause sales of your other products to drop off as customers wait and see whether you're going to lower their prices too.

This. I no longer buy games on Steam unless they are on sale because I know that they are constantly putting different games on sale.

[Lilith]

of course, the economics of Steam sales are a little different, because putting it on sale means that Steam will work hard to promote it during the sale period, and you usually will get a massive spike in sales as a result. the sweet spot for discounting in a Steam sale can be as much as 75% off even for relatively new titles

[Venom]

Yes, but Spiderweb games does not reach anywhere near as wide an audience as Steam does. Steam is more of a distributor than a producer, really. And yes, I do know that Valve makes games. But Steam sells games from all genres. They can afford the price reduction.

[Lilith]

you're not actually disagreeing with anything that i said

[Alorael at Large]

It's also not about what Steam can afford. It's what the people who make the games that Steam distributes can afford.

 

—Alorael, who assumes Spiderweb could afford to be cheaper if they got spotlighted by a Steam sale too. Steam doesn't want them, apparently.

[Venom]

Originally Posted By: Lilith

you're not actually disagreeing with anything that i said

You got that, did you? Just as you didn't disagree with anything Tyranicus said. Just adding info.

Originally Posted By: Alorael

It's also not about what Steam can afford. It's what the people who make the games that Steam distributes can afford.

Hmmm, perhaps I'm mistaken on how Steam works then. Does Steam merely host downloads like Gamersgate? They don't actually work like a distributor?

[ex post slarto]

Venom -- your post reads "Yes, but" which implies there is a point of disagreement. At least, that's how I read it.

[Alorael at Large]

Right, Steam is a distributor, so it makes money from selling games. It doesn't really matter which games, only that games sell and Steam takes its cut. Putting a game on sale is a developer decision (I hope!), because, as you say, Steam can afford to have one game lose money if others do well. In fact, Steam benefits from loss-leader sales because getting used to buying from Steam means you'll buy more from Steam in the future. The company depending on that game can't always afford a sale at a loss.

 

—Alorael, who isn't even sure Valve particularly cares if Steam doesn't do so well. The profit is nice for them, but it probably wouldn't be terrible for Valve if Steam just broke even and acted as a ready way to advertise.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: VLTIMA RATIO MODERATORVM

Putting a game on sale is a developer decision (I hope!)

Putting a game on sale does require developer consent, although Valve tries pretty hard to encourage developers to join in on sales, since it's usually in everyone's best interests.

[Alorael at Large]

It might be in Steam's interests to have free or nearly free games, but that's not in the developer's interests.

 

—Alorael, who imagines Valve is not, in fact, a predatory distributor. But they could be, and developers probably demand some insurance against it.

[Lilith]

Well, okay, yeah, sometimes developers do get burned by overly aggressive discounting. Those indie bundles where you got five games for $5? Each developer got $1 per sale, minus Steam's cut, so more like 70 cents. There were some regrets over that one.