Age of Decadence

[Gromnir]

Honestlty, I'm not really sure what Grommy is talking about.

 

But simply put, speaking only for myself, if one game developer has fewer resources than another, I'm more thn willing to cut them a break on some aspects of the game.

 

I still expect it to be a game that I enjoy, but if the presentation isn't up to the standards of a major studio that's fine. I don't expect it to be; I would still buy it if its good.

 

Why would someone hold World of Goo up to the same standards as Half-Life 2? That's ridiculous, you expect both of them to work and be fun, but that's about it.

 

you people is bass ackwards.

 

buy a car. probably you compare multiple cars in same/similar price range that fulfill certain requirements/needs. when has you Evar considered the working conditions in auto plant, or the resources a car maker has available to 'em. you want the "best" car for your money, and it not make a whole heck of a lot of difference that auto X were a start-up company and company Y were established. in point o' fact, you is probable more likely to give your car purchase dollar to the established co. with the good rep as 'posed to some new venture.

 

but games is different? if aod were a car, you would expect it to either be Better than similar competition, or sold at a reduced price, no? lack o' reputation decreases desirability and the car manufacturer gotta do something to sweeten deal. even so, you folks is doing backwards... 'cause developer gots less resources and experience you is willing to consider their work "good" even if it not measure up to the competition... which is complete nuts.

 

is disposable income, so you can do with it what you will, but Gromnir ain't gonna treat vinnie like a special olympics participant... deserves a hug just for running. iron tower is developing a commercial game, and if is priced similar to competition, then it should be judged same... on the merits and not based on sympathy.

 

iwd:how were crap. turns out that there were some serious resource limitations that contributed to iwd:how crappiness. did game sudden become better 'cause Gromnir discovered that bis didn't commit necessary resources? sure, we felt sympathy for the developers, but our gameplaying experience were not improved 'cause we knew that resources were inadequate. one o' the big complaints 'bout how were its cost... were near full-game price, but were short and terrible. short and terrible at half-price is one thing, but short and terrible at full price is ridiculous. 'course you folks wanna turn typical consumer reasoning upside down, so perhaps you were mystified by the complaints directed at how.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Gromnir]

Honestlty, I'm not really sure what Grommy is talking about.

 

But simply put, speaking only for myself, if one game developer has fewer resources than another, I'm more thn willing to cut them a break on some aspects of the game.

 

I still expect it to be a game that I enjoy, but if the presentation isn't up to the standards of a major studio that's fine. I don't expect it to be; I would still buy it if its good.

 

Would the game still be 'good' if I edited out the Iron Tower splash screen and dropped a Bioware or Bethesda one in there?

 

finally, somebody who is talking sense. am not certain how we got to point where it is considered odd that a similar priced games should be judged on merits rather than pathos.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited August 14, 2009 by Gromnir

[Wrath of Dagon]

I think everyone's missing the point, and it's not that expectations are lower. Indeed, why would I buy a game that I was expecting less from than most other games? The expectations are actually much higher, but these expectations are choices and consequences, different ways to play according to your build, and tactical and challenging combat. No one expects technically cutting edge graphics, because a) It's not a priority to people following this game b) There's no way to do it on a 0 budget, or even on a huge budget is forementioned priorities are also fulfilled.

[Purkake]

I'm confused.

 

I don't hold World of Goo and Half-Life 2 to the same standards, because one is a $10 game and the other is a $50 full-price game. Just as I don't expect a crappy cheap car to be as fast or pretty as a new expensive car, I do however expect both of them to work.

Edited August 14, 2009 by Purkake

[Gromnir]

"No one expects technically cutting edge graphics, because a) It's not a priority to people following this game"

 

fine... good. 'course some of the folks not concerned 'bout aod graphics has slammed graphics in other games with superior graphics. is fair? if graphics ain't important, then there should be some honesty from folks that they were a) talking out their arse when they complained 'bout other games, or b) they is cutting aod slack for no good reason. how on earth does obstacles faced by developer make game more or less enjoyable?

 

" b) There's no way to do it on a 0 budget, or even on a huge budget is forementioned priorities are also fulfilled."

 

am gonna call bs on this. lack o' budget ain't a worthy excuse. give Bob $1000 to develop a game. Bob charges typical pc crpg price. why on earth does Bob's Game get a different standard 'cause of his budget? Gromnir not Care 'bout Bob's budget or his difficulties... not when we is evaluating the quality o' the game.

 

Graphics don't matter? fine. is okay. 'course, there is people arguing that aodf graphics is great (HA!) or they has slammed other, better games for graphic shortcomings while giving aod a pass. is manifestly unfair.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Gromnir]

I'm confused.

 

I don't hold World of Goo and Half-Life 2 to the same standards, because one is a $10 game and the other is a $50 full-price game. Just as I don't expect a crappy cheap car to be as fast or pretty as a new expensive car, I do however expect both of them to work.

 

that makes sense. is aod gonna be $10 or 1/5 the cost of dragon age? am perfectly willing to give lower standard to aod if they is charging considerable reduced purchase price. is why we compared cars o' similar price... 'cause most pcrpgs is released with same or similar price, regardless of quality. will aod be different?

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Purkake]

I'm still totally confused.

 

What's wrong with holding different games up to different standards? I expect Diablo 3 to be super special awesome, but I don't expect a random hack and slash RPG from some unknown developer to be anywhere near as good.

 

You can see that the graphics on AoD are functional and there to show you where you character is, not really to offer you an immersive experience. You get that from the text descriptions etc. With a game like Half-Life I expect the graphics to be good enough to immerse me in the game.

 

EDIT: If they will actually expect to sell AoD for $50 they are out of their frelling minds.

Edited August 14, 2009 by Purkake

[Gromnir]

EDIT: If they will actually expect to sell AoD for $50 they are out of their frelling minds.

 

if vinnie charges $10, am doubting you see any complaints. sure, the graphics will still be fugly and the writing will be pedestrian, but what do you expect for $10, right?

 

'course, this is far different reasoning than we see 'bove, no? reduced price makes acceptable that graphics is fugly and writing is pedestrian. from such a perspective it ain't lack o' developer resources that makes okie dokie, but the pricing.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps keep in mind that last we heard, steam were a no-go for aod. gotta go traditional disk route? if so, some of aod pricing is fixed... am recalling developers telling us that for a typical game, actual development is less than half total budget. package and distribution alone is probable more than 1/2 budget... which is why small developers gotta partner up with publishers who gots resources necessary for such stuff. in absence o' digital-download you should expect a substantial price tag.

Edited August 14, 2009 by Gromnir

[Purkake]

EDIT: If they will actually expect to sell AoD for $50 they are out of their frelling minds.

 

if vinnie charges $10, am doubting you see any complaints. sure, the graphics will still be fugly and the writing will be pedestrian, but what do you expect for $10, right?

 

'course, this is far different reasoning than we see 'bove, no? reduced price makes acceptable that graphics is fugly and writing is pedestrian. from such a perspective it ain't lack o' developer resources that makes okie dokie, but the pricing.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

For $10 people other than the hardcore fans, who would buy it anyway, would be willing to try something that is different from most stuff on the market now.

 

Lack of developer resources makes the game cheap. If you want to sell a game built on a small budget, you ask less money for it. Just like fast food is cheap and eating in a restaurant is expensive.

 

EDIT: I'm not comparing fast food with AoD, it's just cheaper to make and thus costs less.

Edited August 14, 2009 by Purkake

[alanschu]

"So what you're saying is that if the Billionaire didn't pony up the money, and say, matched what the paupers donated, you'd be disappointed in the billionaire because you were, say, expecting a lot more from him?"

 

talk 'bout unclear on the concept.

I find the comment about clarity rather ironic. But anyways.

 

 

1) aod is NOT a charity. is not 'bout intentions or good will or warm fuzzy. aod is a Luxury Item... is a game being made for commercial reasons and being sold to people with disposable income. analogize to charity? HA! fine. vinnie and aod is analogous to a charity case... That at least makes some sense as to why vinnie and aod gets some sorta special break.

 

You're the only one talking warm fuzzy feelings here Gromnir, no one else. You can stay on strawman argument regarding charitable organizations all you want, but we're just talking expectations, it could have been a charity, it could have a host of other things. Failure to have an open mind about it is entirely your failing. The analogy wasn't to charity, but expectations. Funny that Crash Girl understood it perfectly, but you somehow think that I'm equating AoD with a charity or something. But yeah, I'm not clear. Even though other people got it. Strange.

 

Gromnir is on the board of a non-profit organization that provides free and low cost medical and counseling services. a $10 donation from Bill Gates goes just as far in paying our electric bill as does $10 from the guy standing on street corner waving his "Open House" banner in +100 degree heat. the usefulness o' the donation not change one bit relative to the donor's means. expectations got Zero to do with the end value o' the donation.

 

I know that, and you're the only one bringing up this argument. I can understand that you expect a game from Iron Tower Studios (or any other studio) to be held up equivalently. I bet lots of people do. Heck, I do. However, when you ask why people would feel this way, simply because you don't agree nor understand the answer, doesn't mean it's incorrect. People DO cheer for the underdogs. They WILL cheer for their friends, and hope for the best. Even if it makes no sense to actually do so. At times you seem to understand this, yet by the same account, you either fail to understand it or are just arguing against the irrationalities that come with being humanity for your own ****s and giggles.

 

I have no issues that you may not feel these ways, but to be confused and not understand why others might is quite frankly just being disconnected from humanity. It's really not that difficult of a concept.

 

it was a stoopid analogy... honest. am glad you is sticking with it.

 

No, you're just failing to get it. And I understand why.

 

 

You might not judge the billionaire any differently than the pauper if they both contribute the exact same amount of money, but that doesn't mean that other people won't. You're a smarter person than this Gromnir. Figuring out why really isn't that hard. Unless you're just being obtuse.

 

No one made any case that you should give the crap doctor a chance when you're deathly ill, or any nonsense like that. What people are saying is that if you take BioWare, and suddenly have them release games of the production values of Iron Tower Studios, people will get pissy. If you take Iron Tower Studios and they release a game of typical indie quality, no one really notices. If you take Iron Tower Studios and they release a game of quality of the BioWare games (especially with their lower budget), then people will be surprised. You can swap the labels and say BioWare is making AoD, and people will act differently. For the same reasons they will act differently towards the millionaire that only contributes the same amount to a charity as some pauper.

 

Does it make sense? No. Should it be that way? Probably not. But you're just looking at the end value, and removing the human aspect of it. It's going to be there and no amount of righteous chest thumping that you do to show people the error of their ways and that they should hold Iron Tower Studios to the same standards of AAA development houses is going to change that. And frankly, unless you're that disconnected from the rest of humanity, you already know why. Furthermore, people WILL rationalize their actions any way they can to prevent the cognitive dissonance that would come with it. They'll do so by saying "yeah but it's got this other stuff I'm really looking forward to" and other stuff like that. Just like they'll say "Oh well the billionaire could have given more to charity" or "the pauper gave a lot given how much he has to offer."

[Gromnir]

"You can stay on strawman argument"

 

clearly alan not going for irony, 'specially after your recent criticism o' Gromnir regarding irony... which perhaps makes more/less ironic.

 

*shrug*

 

didn't get any further.

 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Aristes]

I'm honestly unsure about all the points of the argument, and so this is kind of an aside in terms of AoD, which I'll probably buy.

 

The fact that you expect less from World of Goo means that World of Goo is an inferior product in some ways. That doesn't mean that overall you won't enjoy World of Goo, or even that you won't enjoy it more than Diablo 3. However, it does mean that your expectations are different. However, World of Goo is not the same category of game. Let's put AoD up against other games of the same genre. I've always hated the expression "compare apples with apples and oranges with oranges," but in this case it seems to fit. If you have a choice between Diablo 3 and some random hack and slash from an unknown developer, don't you choose Diablo 3? And, if you eventually get the random hack and slash from that unknown developer, don't you compare the two? I mean, you'll undoubtedly cut the random developer some slack, but the bottom line will still be a game that you find inferior and expected to be inferior.

 

To expect less from a game is in some way insulting to it. I wouldn't want my game billed as the one that's not as good as the competition, but good enough to buy. My understanding of AoD is that the designer has something to prove and that he intends to put everything he has into the project. For that, I applaud him. In fact, some things look intriguing and some things don't. The graphics are not stellar from what I've seen, but we need to see them in action. If they end up not being as good as other titles in the industry, we must own up to it and mark it down for that reason. Not because we're against the designer, but because we are for him and want to do him the courtesy of giving him an honest assessment. How insulting is it to say to the designer, "you did about as well as we expected, and we didn't expect all that much." There are other games that have inferior graphics but still manage to garner praise on other fronts. AoD might be that game, but if we're going to give honest praise, we must also give honest criticism.

 

I admire the guy for putting his money where his mouth is. I want this title to succeed. However, I think it should be evaluated as would any other title. Yeah, they can sell it for $10 and that will obviously put it in another category, but selling it for $10 is the equivalent of saying that it's a bargain basement title. Which also means that you're saying that you're not really competing with the big guys. That still deserves a lot of praise because, after all, you're still putting your money where your mouth is and releasing the game. You just aren't claiming or don't believe it will be as good of an experience a more corporate developer.

 

If the game is $10, I'll still buy it, but only because I've heard of it here. It's not that I'm too good to buy a $10 game. It's that I tend to value my time and space more than the other $40 of a regular title. I don't want to have disks and manuals cluttering up my space and I don't want to waste a few hours finding out that the game sucks. I do buy discounted games, but I generally don't look for them and usually only buy them if I know something about them already.

 

However, Wrath is approaching it much better. Don't say that the gas mileage sucks. Say that the car can can go from zero to 60 in under six seconds. If graphics aren't your selling point, hit the areas where you believe you excel.

[alanschu]

"You can stay on strawman argument"

 

clearly alan not going for irony, 'specially after your recent criticism o' Gromnir regarding irony... which perhaps makes more/less ironic.

 

*shrug*

 

didn't get any further.

 

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

tl;dr: You took a comment regarding charity and grossly misinterpreted it (while others on the board seem to have understood it just fine), and then didn't let it go.

 

Later on I explain why your perspective is correct from a utilitarian perspective, but ignores human nature.

 

I also make a comment about how people will make all sorts of excuses and rationalizations to protect themselves from cognitive dissonance. Like you just did.

 

Cheers Gromnir.

Edited August 14, 2009 by alanschu

[Purkake]

*wall of text*

 

 

There is nothing stopping the random hack and slash game from being as good or better than Diablo 3, I just don't expect it to be based on the developers previous work. Just like you don't expect a random dude on the street to be as good a writer than someone who is a critically acclaimed writer with multiple books on his resume.

 

We live in the real world where expectations are based on previous experiences not on someone's grand vision. Don't make AoD the exception here. I don't expect much from it because I'm not keeping up with all the news and interviews, to me Iron Tower is an unknown indie developer.

 

That doesn't mean I won't give it a chance, but don't expect me to get hyped up about a (from my perspective) total wildcard.

Edited August 14, 2009 by Purkake

[Gromnir]

we seen a few posts where you use the charity thing... didn't need yet another to clarify. just 'cause crash is working under same false assumptions not win you no points neither. aristes thinks games should be judged honestly and on the merits. purkake thinks vinnie is nuts if aod is full price. skuld questions why "good" is different depending on splash screen content.

 

*shrug*

 

charity had no place and resources available has no relevance. game is good or bad 'cause o' how it plays and not 'cause o' obstacles faced by developer.

 

does Gromnir hope that a small indie developer can compete with the big boys? yes. does we root for the underdog? yes. however, am gonna be no less demanding o' iron tower than any other developer... 'cause it not matter what name shows up on splash screen. graphics is not "good, under the circumstances."

 

bah. is a reason we had alan on ignore... sadly our script blocker blocked our alan block.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Aristes]

*wall of text*

 

 

There is nothing stopping the random hack and slash game from being as good or better than Diablo 3, I just don't expect it to be based on the developers previous work. Just like you don't expect a random dude on the street to be as good a writer than someone who is a critically acclaimed writer with multiple books on his resume.

 

We live in the real world where expectations are based on previous experiences not on someone's grand vision. Don't make AoD the exception here. I don't expect much from it because I'm not keeping up with all the news and interviews, to me Iron Tower is an unknown indie developer.

 

That doesn't mean I won't give it a chance, but don't expect me to get hyped up about a (from my perspective) total wildcard.

That's perfectly reasonable. Managing your expectations is the name of the game. I hope it's great, but I'll be up front about what it does and does not do right.

[Purkake]

That's perfectly reasonable. Managing your expectations is the name of the game. I hope it's great, but I'll be up front about what it does and does not do right.

 

And what are we arguing about then? I don't think anyone here would judge the game differently from any other game.

[Slowtrain]

I think everyone's missing the point, and it's not that expectations are lower.

 

That's a really good clarification and it leads me to amend my thoughts:

 

It's not that I have lowered expectations for one game overanother; rather it's that I have different expectations.

 

 

if I am paying money for a game, I expect to enjoy it. Regardless of what studio is developing the game. I'm not giving money to a studio for a game I don't think I'm going to enjoy.

 

But depending on what studio is developing the game, my expectations over what parts of the game I expect to enjoy are going to shift. If a game is being developed by an indie like Iron Tower, then I may very well lower my expectations for presentation in terms of cutscenes, voice overs, and graphics, but raise my expectations in terms of gameplay and choice and consequences or whatever.

 

In other words, my expectation swould shift to match what I perceive to be the potential strengths of the studio.

 

 

Again, if I spend money on a game my expecation is that I will enjoy my time with it, regardless, in some fashion.

Edited August 14, 2009 by CrashGirl

[alanschu]

we seen a few posts where you use the charity thing... didn't need yet another to clarify.

 

Clearly I did, because you still don't get it. Too busy focusing on the "charity" aspect and not the "expectation" aspect. I'll drop that example altogether as clearly it wasn't as clear to you as I thought it was.

 

 

As has been stated (by even you): If BioWare were to make a game with production values of AoD, they'd be criticized for it. Iron Tower Studios does not, because it matches expectation of indie style game. If Iron Tower Studios were to make a game on par with a BioWare game, they'd be championed for it because it'd be so unexpected.

 

 

does Gromnir hope that a small indie developer can compete with the big boys? yes. does we root for the underdog? yes. however, am gonna be no less demanding o' iron tower than any other developer... 'cause it not matter what name shows up on splash screen. graphics is not "good, under the circumstances."

 

Good for you Gromnir. You should do that. I plan on doing the same thing (in fact I doubt I'll buy Age of Decadence). But to be confused as to why OTHER people behave they way they do, when it's really not that surprising, even if it's irrational/illogical/whatever isn't really that surprising now, is it? After all, you were asking why other people do. You can hit them with all the reason and logic you want, but you're just ignoring the fact that they're human, and are going to exhibit the irrationalities human beings have.

 

The problem Gromnir, is you're expecting people to behave like you, and then act confused when they don't.

Edited August 14, 2009 by alanschu

[Gromnir]

"You can hit them with all the reason and logic you want, but you're just ignoring the fact that they're human, and are going to exhibit the irrationalities human beings have."

 

self-directed irony? your clarification is as follows: people is unfair and irrational. sorry, but that not change nothing if Gromnir's complaint is that folks is being unfair and irrational.

 

regardless, the charity analogy simply not work... multiple levels.

 

"And what are we arguing about then? I don't think anyone here would judge the game differently from any other game."

 

actually, is numerous folks who said just that... though there has been some clarification... and the "people is people" shtick got thrown into the mix too. you probable hate in books and movies when the explanation for character 'A' killing his wife, or embezzling $1 million, or developing a virus that is capable o' wiping out humanity is... people is irrational. kinda leaves you all empty when an author goes that route, no?

 

HA! Good Fun!

[alanschu]

people is unfair and irrational. sorry, but that not change nothing if Gromnir's complaint is that folks is being unfair and irrational

 

Perhaps not, if you enjoy wasting your time in a fruitless endeavour. That can be fun sometimes I must admit. Or is it just a chest thumping exercise of you taking your Shaw quote to heart? You plan on changing anybody's mind, or just doing your duty to help with world progress.

 

 

regardless, the charity analogy simply not work... multiple levels.

 

Of course not. Because you failed to understand what I was demonstrating with it. Of course, CrashGirl acknowledging it, and other people commenting explicitly about their expectations, you know, that thing I've been talking about. Just because you failed to understand it, and then had the arrogance to state that the people that did correct interpret it are wrong in their interpretations, doesn't make it so. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough, but I'm hardly the only person in the conversation that has issues with clarity in their text. Even if we don't like to admit it because when we write it, it makes perfect sense to us.

 

 

 

 

Anyways, moving on....

 

Expectations also play an important role from a different angle. People have the expectation that a game from BioWare won't deliver on the type of RPG like experience that they want. With no precedent outside of Iron Tower having roots with the Codex (who love a particular style of RPG), ITS has the "advantage" have garnering the support of those that feel they must look elsewhere to get the RPG that they are looking for. Because of the promises that ITS has stated for the type of game, people are going to overlook the faults of the game, in part due to the hope and expectation that ITS will deliver, in addition to the emotional investment in hoping the game is what they hope it will be.

 

Challenge people and they'll get defensive, and make rationalizations. A fair number of people see AoD as giving them the experience that they want. Had it come from BioWare though, sure, they'll be skeptical based on the impressions they have about previous and current BioWare games. I wouldn't at all be surprised if someone that is claiming to not care about AoD's graphics had no qualms trashing a different game that they didn't care about for its graphics. Even if they were better than AoD's.

Edited August 14, 2009 by alanschu

[Wrath of Dagon]

Btw, last I heard planned prices are $25 for download and $50+shipping for a box with a really nice colored manual. I suppose that could change depending on what distribution arrangements are made. You don't have to spend anything to find out if the game is worth it as there will be a demo. Also it doesn't make sense that indie games should be automatically cheaper because their budgets are less, since they also expect to sell a lot fewer games. I'm sure they've put as much time into the game per person as any mainstream developer.

[Purkake]

Btw, last I heard planned prices are $25 for download and $50+shipping for a box with a really nice colored manual. I suppose that could change depending on what distribution arrangements are made. You don't have to spend anything to find out if the game is worth it as there will be a demo. Also it doesn't make sense that indie games should be automatically cheaper because their budgets are less, since they also expect to sell a lot fewer games. I'm sure they've put as much time into the game per person as any mainstream developer.

 

That's how the market views value, it has nothing to do with the effort put into it.

 

STALKER too like 10 years to make and was sold for $50, as was the crappy Transformers movie license game that the developers churned out in ~6 months.

 

They can ask whatever they want for it, but that doesn't mean people are going to pay that.

 

EDIT: Yay demos!

Edited August 14, 2009 by Purkake

[alanschu]

The issue is that if you're going to pay $50 for a game from AoD, or $50 from a game from Obsidian, one of these things is a much surer bet to get a game that you enjoy.

 

 

ITS is certainly allowed to sell the game for whatever they wish. If they sell it for the same price as other, more mainstream games, then they'll have to understand that some people might not feel it's worth the money compared to other games. As the saying goes, nothing personal, just business.

 

2by3 Games is a small time developer that makes war games and sells them through Matrix Games. Their games are actually usually sold for HIGHER than mainstream games. Their most recent Admiral Edition of War in the Pacific is $100 IIRC. ($20 discount if you own War in the Pacific). I picked that game up, even though it cost a lot relative to other games, even though it's a hex based war game with mediocre graphics and "meh" production values. I bought it because I loved WitP and this was a huge improvement in it, and so far I've not been disappointed in my purchase. Like CrashGirl said, we buy our games because we expect some sort of enjoyment out of them, and in spite of the high price, I know that WitP will give me lots of enjoyment, for a long period of time to boot!

[Purkake]

The issue is that if you're going to pay $50 for a game from AoD, or $50 from a game from Obsidian, one of these things is a much surer bet to get a game that you enjoy.

 

 

ITS is certainly allowed to sell the game for whatever they wish. If they sell it for the same price as other, more mainstream games, then they'll have to understand that some people might not feel it's worth the money compared to other games. As the saying goes, nothing personal, just business.

 

2by3 Games is a small time developer that makes war games and sells them through Matrix Games. Their games are actually usually sold for HIGHER than mainstream games. Their most recent Admiral Edition of War in the Pacific is $100 IIRC. ($20 discount if you own War in the Pacific). I picked that game up, even though it cost a lot relative to other games, even though it's a hex based war game with mediocre graphics and "meh" production values. I bought it because I loved WitP and this was a huge improvement in it, and so far I've not been disappointed in my purchase. Like CrashGirl said, we buy our games because we expect some sort of enjoyment out of them, and in spite of the high price, I know that WitP will give me lots of enjoyment, for a long period of time to boot!

 

If you actually have a small and dedicated audience who primarily buys your games, it's a totally viable strategy. I was under the impression that they wanted this to be a somewhat mainstream indie game ala Mount & Blade.

 

The best idea is probably a cheap download version and a more expensive boxed collector's edition with lots of goodies you have to order from them.(no retail)