Right now we have 200, 400, and 800 point games that we can release. Besides the file size limit imposed on 200 point games, what makes a game worth the points its sold at. I've noticed in several reviews of complaints that a game isn't worth 400 points and should be sold at 200 but I'm unsure of the criteria used to determine this (after all, IMO $5 is dirt cheap for a game even if it only offers a few hours of gameplay (an hour at an arcade would cost far more)).

For instance, if you buy a 400 point game, do you expect to get 10 hours of game play while you only would expect 5 hours from a 200 point game? If you spend 800 points, do you expect Live support or higher quality graphics? Can a game that is short but very fun be worth more than 200 points and should a game that is long automatically be worth more?

For those who already have games for sale on the service, why did you choose the pricepoint you went with and if you had it over, would you still choose the same one?

Kris Steele:

For instance, if you buy a 400 point game, do you expect to get 10 hours of game play while you only would expect 5 hours from a 200 point game? If you spend 800 points, do you expect Live support or higher quality graphics? Can a game that is short but very fun be worth more than 200 points and should a game that is long automatically be worth more?

Depends on the game.
Depends on the game.
Yes and not necessarily.

It's basically all about perception.

Jim Perry:

It's basically all about perception.

I agree.  One thing I've found is comparing price of community games to anything outside of the xbox is a losing battle.  Mostly because people have a perception of a downloadables value based on XBLA.  So, if your box art and/or production values have any amateurish look or feel about them then most people will perceive that as the 200 point zone before actually getting into gameplay.

Compare to that pirates game (age of... I forget). That's an 800 point downloadable game, and very well polished. If your game is half as good as that, you ought to sell it for 400 points. If not (and most games aren't), then it's 200 points for you.

Edit: Age of Booty, that's the game.

i think that's a really good, hard question, and i think it's totally subjective.  personally i think $60 for an AAA title is perfectly reasoonable, but others think it's outrageous. however, i know i'd like to sell my game as cheap as possible, because my goal is to have as many people play it as i can and get my name out there...it's more about exposure than profit.

of course, common sense is a factor too.  nobody will pay anything for a game that's broken or just isn't fun.  but, for $5, i'm not going to expect call of duty either.

as far as specifics, length doesn't mean much to me.  fun factor and polish are major selling points for me. replayability is too, which may or may not mean online play.

I'm an odd man out generally. For 200 points I only expect about a half hour or hour of solid gameplay. Anything beyond that is gravy. At 400 points or 800 points I'd need probably 2-4 hours of gameplay to feel really satisfied. But I always compare game prices to movies. It costs me $10 (800 points, basically) to go see a 2 hour movie. Therefore a $10 game really doesn't need much more than about 2-4 hours to feel like a worthwhile use of my money.

If I get a game or not depends on how badly I desire to play it. To avoid buyer's regret, I wait a while to see if the desire to play it stays with me over time (and read more reviews). I don't compare price to anything, although the higher the price, the more times I'll deliberate whether or not to buy it. I don't expect a certain number of hours of gameplay; some games literally go on too long, I just want to see the sights and learn how the story concludes, but the darn annoying gameplay gets in the way. Is a game that's twice as fun but half as long worse than an average-length average-fun game? Which one are you going to remember 5 years from now?

Mentil:

Is a game that's twice as fun but half as long worse than an average-length average-fun game? Which one are you going to remember 5 years from now?

The fun factor is infinitely more important than the length of game play for me. If I aren't getting a lot of fun from playing a game, I won't finish it. I have a couple of games that I've owned for a few years, that I have spent literally hundreds of immensly enjoyable hours playing, finishing the game many times over in various ways. I still play those two games more than most of my newer purchases, including newer versions of the same game. Yes the newer versions were less fun than the originals, although they had better graphics and more content, they just lost that intangible fun factor that is so hard to bottle.

Regarding price, also it's worth remembering that if you price something cheaply, people will perceive it is a cheap product, price it dearly and people will perceive it is a valuable or quality product, before they have even seen it. If you price something at 200, when it really should be 400, don't expect twice as many sales, you might even get less sales in total than if it was priced at 400.

Marg Ironhorn's Law of XNA: Sell at 200 if you can, 400 otherwise.

Hello All,
This is my first post, so I'd just like to say Hi from Circean Studios! I'm not new to XNA, or the forums, but I'm finally getting an account setup as progress on our first game is progressing smoothly...
There will be a time to show it to the community, but that's not now. For now, (and on the topic of the thread) I would like some of your feedback on what you guys would feel is appropriate pricing given the basic features of our game title:
-Classic 2D Platformer with Unique Visual style
-100% hand-drawn/sketched animated graphics & Animated Cutscenes
-6 Worlds, 10 Levels Each (so 60 levels)
-Over 50 unique songs in the soundtrack
-6 Unique Bosses
-5 Difficulty Levels
-Bonus Content (developer commentaries/behind the scenes, extra costumes, cheat abilites, 100% Level Completion Replay)

...Just to name a few.
YES, it is an ambitious project, and I'm sure a lot of people want to point that out here, but I've been making games for 15 years, and on platforms much harder than XNA, and so far, everythings going great. What I really want to know is what kind of pricing would be appropriate? I feel like if its set too low, more money could be made with each copy. And since its a really large scale/ambitous project, that makes me tend to feel that it would be viewed as worth more. I just think that if its too much, that's going to put people off.

So what do you think guys?

Harald Maassen:

Marg Ironhorn's Law of XNA: Sell at 200 if you can, 400 otherwise.

I totally agree!


@CirceanStudios
It depends of course on a lot of factors.
but for a XNA game the price should be 200 or 400 points, imho.
800 points will only sell when the game is really good/hyped, because the competition with other XBox Arcade titles with the same price is fairly hard.

But after reading your game idea, I think you will have to price it for 400 points due to the planned file size of your game, not taken in account if your game is good,original or innovative.

The reason why the movie comparison halters is that any movie you see in theaters is going to have higher production values than 99% of the XNA community games. Production values matter -- not because their presence makes a game better, but because their absence makes a game worse.

I've read in several community games reviews complaints that a game is good but not at this price point (as if $2.50 is all the different) which lead me to this question, as I find it hard to justify that a good game isn't worth that price (expecially when there are many craptacular AAA titles costing $60). I tend to view 200 and 400 point games pretty similarly, both dirt cheap (my cellphone charges me $5-$7 for some really basic games and even bargin bin used games are $20). For a game I enjoyed enough to want to finish the full version, I can pay either amount without batting an eye. 800 point games are a little different story though, mainly since those compare pricewise to many of the professionally developed games available on Live Arcade (several of which I have my eye on already) and I could double their price and get an older off the shelf game.

I can place most of the games I've played on the Community Games service into two categories... those I enjoy playing and would purchase reguardless of the price (200, 400, or 800 points) and those that I wouldn't purchase for any price (games or genres I don't enjoy and have no desire to play). As I mentioned earlier though, when it does get to 800 points, there is some competition so I have to justify that the game is better than others in order to make the purchase (though eventually I would like to make the purchase).

One very interesting thing talked about is that some people believe that all games should be priced as low as possible while others prefer to price them based upon their quality/fun factor/ect. I really wish we had some solid consumer data on this (I think I'll try and get some rough numbers from the "share your sales" thread). Pricing a game at 400 points for instance would make it more difficult to get on the Most Popular listing, which results in less exposure and less sales and less likelyhood of being on the Most Popular list. Yet the higher prices means you need less sales to recoup development costs and there is a sort of percieved quality improvement that comes with pricing your game a little higher too. If all you care about is getting the game into the most gamer hands though, cheap is the way to go.

For me it's on a case by case basis.

I'm not really going to buy a game for any amount if I don't see myself playing it a lot, or being drawn into it. I need some perception of value. There are a lot of games up there, where I don't even understand why anyone would really want to play them. I think only a handful of games are actually worth even paying attention to, let alone spending money on. So many of them have uninteresting designs, mixed with bad art, mixed with shallow gameplay.

You can really tell when you see a game where the creator had a passion to create something great, and put a lot of effort into the design, game play, and art/composition/presentation, of the title.  Things like Angry Barry, Easy Golf, Orbyx (which has a very uninteresting screenshot setup), and Duality ZF (despite the poor art, which I had a long convo with MDoucette about). Those are worth their weight in gold. There's others I forgot to mention too.

I don't see anyone trekking to the store to get a 20$ points card to spend 2.50 on a basic pong clone. You need to step back and view your work from someone else's shoes to see if they would get a good feeling about playing the game, and make it feel worth whatever you charge for it.

Kris Steele:

I really wish we had some solid consumer data on this (I think I'll try and get some rough numbers from the "share your sales" thread).

I don't think you're going to be able to get enough sample data to come up with any kind of decent trend analysis. It's a completely subjective issue anyway. Personally, I think there's maybe 1 or two games in XBLCG that I would pay 800 points for and I can count the number that I'd pay 400 for without taking off my shoes and socks. :)

Yeah, it's imperfect data but data at least. Other things factor in like marketting, IGN placement, concept, etc. The only fair way to determine this would be if you had sales data from two similar games in different price ranges. The similar games do somewhat exists, but many of those are in the lower 200 range and I doubt I can find comparable data for them. So yeah... it might be a waste of my time trying to figure this out.

Kris Steele:

So yeah... it might be a waste of my time trying to figure this out.

Unless you can craft a new game in a few months, the user ratings system and UI changes will make most of this moot. Supposedly the E3 demo showed the Most Popular list replaced with Most Downloaded and Highest Rated lists. I don't know which one users are more likely to browse, but I imagine Most Downloaded will be based on trial downloads, which will favor apps. All the app-haters will rate them low, so games should dominate the Highest Rated list. If people feel your program is overpriced, it may lose rating points, so that's something to consider even if you otherwise think you can beat the loss of volume. Conversely, a good value may increase its rating. It'd take Halo 3-levels of marketing hype to improve your rating substantially. User ratings are going to change everything. Luckily, the 800 point price should no longer be a death sentence (for games like Weapon of Choice).

There were some basic principles that we considered when pricing our game on CG.

• Maximising profit
• Maximising distribution
• CG consumer demographics (who actually comes to CG to purchase games) - ZMan gave us a great suggestion when our game was in playtest, which was to get involved with your demographic (target audience) on the xbox forums and find out what they wanted.
• and finally, the all the subjective "willingness to part with my hard earned cash" variables - this usually fluctuates depending on how often said consumer gets paid and therefore, is a moving target over any given day of the month.

Looking at these 4+ items we drew a venn diagram (basically some interceting circles), each representing one of the 3 price points and then made a simple decision based on how we perceived our game would be accepted by our CG demographic for our genre (see suggestion from the ZMan).

When all was said and done we selected 400 MSP as our initial offering.  Whilst our game is < 50MB we still have the option to price it again after 90 days to 200 MSP if it is poorly received. Plus we have some flexibility at this price point where we can include more content (to this release) if we get feedback stating such.

So in short, I think a ven diagram is a good place to start... but then again don't over analyze it.

cheers

jwatte:

The reason why the movie comparison halters is that any movie you see in theaters is going to have higher production values than 99% of the XNA community games. Production values matter -- not because their presence makes a game better, but because their absence makes a game worse.

Sure, but if a game provides me with two hours of entertainment, if it keeps me as entertained as a two hour summer blockbuster, then for $10 I feel rather justified in spending that money. But like I said, I'm somewhat of an odd man out with my comparing game prices to movie ticket prices. There are those who feel that even a $10 game owes them ten or twenty hours of entertaining gameplay.

I don't think you're the odd man out Nick. I actually think that the "Race to the bottom" mentality is a fallacy that developers have pushed themselves into to a degree, and does not necessarrily reflect the true market.

First of all, I think the people who say "this should have been 200 instead of X" are actually saying "this wasn't a very good game, but it's nicer to the developer to blame something more arbitrary than the game itself". The only exception I can say to this is mini-toys. Your massagers and toy planes have the value of a toy you'd get in a vending machine. They are well made but without a "campaign" of some kind don't push themselves past that "toy" price. It's just to amuse you, and not necessarily a deep experience. Also remember that these people are people who are posting on sites and msg boards about games. Just because they are the "hardcore" crowd doesn't mean they are the majority of users. Yes they are the people who are more likely to review your game, but they are a much more fickle breed than the average user when it comes to parting with their money (though when something is really good, they won't actually hesitate). They may spend more time researching games than playing them.

We've seen good, more expensive things sell. ezmuze seems to have done quite well for itself at the maximum price point. Make products that YOU feel are worth that higher price point and you'll get sales. Part of the reason the "200 point" argument comes around is because what you've put out is "a bit of fun". It wasn't the number of levels you had, it was the overall feel. It didn't have the feel of something substantial, no matter it's length. Maybe it means we should be spending more times on our games, as risky as that proposition sounds.

People are willing to pay for a GOOD, new experience. If you made a new, interesting mechanic it might make a good game, but if you implement it wrong it still won't be fun. If you make a strong game that is highly derivative, you've put a lot of effort into something that is comperable to games that people have already experienced, and may be hesitant to care about having the same experience again. Does anyone remember how people moaned about Braid's price point until it came out? If you make the next Braid you'll succeed, but don't expect gold from breakout. I think there's a reason you see Biology Battle on XBLCG and not XBLA. BB was considered very similar to geometry wars, and XBLA already has the original. Microsoft is very strategic with their portfolio of games, and they know that to get good sales they need that diversity. In the PC indie scene you can see successful developers like cliffski's Democracy and Kudos games. He charges full price for his product, because he's the only place around you can find those "kinds" of games/experiences. Look at Dangerous High School Girls in Trobule. Starting to see a pattern here?

That's just my 5 cents. Take from it what you wil...

I think it's a mistake for any community game to be over $5, no matter how good or how long it is.  Perception is perhaps the number one reason for this.  Maybe I'm just a cheapskate (I'll never pay more than $30 for a retail game), but if I see a community game priced at $10, I demo it just to see what the developer was thinking.  Not that their game is bad, but that they think it can honestly compete at that price.  I know there are a few successful exceptions (and I'm not ruling out that price myself), but at this point it seems a bit much.

I was playing that new XBLA FPS CellFactor today, and that's quite a package (with bots, MP, and of course Achievements) for $10.  Good looking game too.

Of course, since the average price of an original XBLA title seems to be increasing, maybe I'm not looking at the bigger picture.

Noogy:

I think it's a mistake for any community game to be over $5, no matter how good or how long it is.  Perception is perhaps the number one reason for this.  Maybe I'm just a cheapskate (I'll never pay more than $30 for a retail game), but if I see a community game priced at $10, I demo it just to see what the developer was thinking.  Not that their game is bad, but that they think it can honestly compete at that price.  I know there are a few successful exceptions (and I'm not ruling out that price myself), but at this point it seems a bit much.

I was playing that new XBLA FPS CellFactor today, and that's quite a package (with bots, MP, and of course Achievements) for $10.  Good looking game too.

Of course, since the average price of an original XBLA title seems to be increasing, maybe I'm not looking at the bigger picture.

I agree, I don't plan on pricing any game I work on, more than $5. But I'm unsure whether to price my game at $2.50 or $5.00. I want as many people to play my game as possible, but I also want it to be as good as possible. I'm making a 2D game so the higher the resolution the bigger it is. I'm currently targeting 720p, and I don't think when it's done it will fit under 50MB. But if instead I use 480p or tile it and make the graphics highly reptitive, it may fit and I'll be able to charge 2.50 instead. What do you guys think I should do?

BTW, I'm going to post this on the Gamespot and Xbox.com forums to get more feedback.

Mega Games:

But if instead I use 480p or tile it and make the graphics highly reptitive, it may fit and I'll be able to charge 2.50 instead. What do you guys think I should do?

I think that it is all about the game play... if you really need all the bells and whistles for the game to be fun then don't compromise. Take for instance that image 360 app/game it probably wouldn't do very well if the Visual quality was low since it's all about looking at pictures... Anyhow, get the feedback from the extended gamer community and see where your game/app fits...  besides after 90 days you can always change the price.

There is an article discussing this very thing as it applies to the app store, on Gamasutra. I Want My 99¢ Back. It seems to apply here as well. A Big gulp and a candy bar cost more than $2.50 but people seem to expect a lifetime of fun from a game, it's a still an object to them, not a consumable.

It doesn't seem to matter whether it's 5 dollars or half that. What I think matters is what most Xbox players would do with their (perhaps leftover) points. You could buy a theme or some picture packs, or a 200 MPS Community game. Some Game Add-ons and Movies are about the same price as a 400 MPS game. 800 MPS games cost as much as Halo or other map packs. But no matter how good the game is, the mass of our audience still lurks around for cheap fun games.

Since we don't have the best audience for Community games, I'm pricing all my games at 200 points.