Pillars of Eternity 2 and crowdfunding on Kickstarter?

[Valmy]

 

I know that it's kool to hate on Bioware, but I think DA:I is the best they've done since Baldur's Gate. The kind of pseudo open-world style they use is fairly reminiscent of BG games, and while there is some filler... well... only at the same level as BG had.

And considering it (finally) introduced the tactical combat to console, it's by far the best console effort they've made.

 

I do not hate Bioware.  They just are not making games for people like me anymore and that's fine, they don't owe me anything.

 

DA:I does sound like it was excellent but had a bad ending which is a bummer.  But I was not aware combat had changed any since DA:O

[Lephys]

Yeah, there are definitely things I would change/improve in DA:I's design, but, overall, it's actually a very enjoyable game. I haven't beaten it yet, so I can't comment on the conclusion of the narrative or anything like that. But, I enjoyed ME3 despite its disappointing ending. I know, I know, it's one big story, and you're supposed to care a whole bunch about the ending. But, I dunno... I really just enjoyed playing ME3 the whole time, so it didn't bother me that such a small portion of it, quantity-wise, was disappointing, even if it was the conclusion.

 

Castlevania: Lords of Shadow 2 was the same way. The ending is pretty terrible. The main characters might as well have just high-fived, freeze-framed, and had credits roll after you beat the last boss. But, the game was still very fun to play through, and the rest of the story wasn't bad.

[Sonntam]

@Valmy

 

Do you have some ethics fetish? There is nothing about ethics in this conversation.

 

I don't think I need to explain to anyone else that the price of a product is directly tied to the development cost. So I will not bother to inform one ignorant.

 

Your case of developer pricing the game whatever they feel like is really paper thin. We all know how the games pricing looks like and indie Kickstarter games do not cost more than AAA titles. Obsidian overpriced PoE and that's a fact.

 

In a market, you price how much you think will net you the biggest profit. If lowering price lowers the profit, then you are underpricing yourself. If setting a higher price makes you lose profit, then you are overpricing.

 

The actual cost of making the game is relevant in profit calculation, but it is far from the most important thing when deciding on the price. Especially if similar games (Wasteland 2, Divinity: Original Sin) set a high price, undercutting would be very, very unwise. 

[Night Stalker]

Again, noone said anything about non-profit. I'm talking about overpricing the game. They dropped 0 money in it, they sell it at the same price a company sells their game while pouring tens of millions in it. Sorry, but to me this is unethical.

 

Even if Obsidian have not used a single cent on it (which I highly doubt), there is still the hidden (from us at least) opportunity cost of using their developers time on PoE instead of developing a "regular" game for a publisher. It may very well prove to be a good long-term investment, but in the short-term I think it has been less lucrative.

 

Personally I cannot get my head around the idea that a company producing luxery items like computer games should be called greedy or unethical because they put their price point above a persons expectations. In fact, for many of the hardcore grognard games prices are even higher, and don't get me started on the cost of professional software licences.

 

If the market is not willing to bear the cost, PoE will move fewer copies, and the price will either be reduced, or sales will continue to suffer.

[Kjaamor]

The words "ethics" and "ethical" keep cropping up in this discussion. I'm not sure they mean what you think they mean.

 

PoE's price looks about right to me, although I'd probably wait for a sale before I bought it.

 

 

 

I was just saying that the limits of "this is what we like, this is what we don't like" leads to similar lack of freedom as "this is what they like, this is what they don't like". Games are more than the sum of their parts, and when the niche fan group starts making demands of developers the same old ideas keep coming back without much consideration as to whether or not they benefit the game.

 

Except a publisher's marketing department:

 

a) has no idea what I want from a game.

b) has no right to tell me what I do or should want from a game.

 

Unfortunately, failure on the publishers' part to grasp such a simple concept:

 

a) killed the isometric party-based RPG genre (publishers arbitrarily and unilaterally decided those games wouldn't sell anymore).

b) dumbed down A.I., dialog, and storytelling to a bare minimum in all games because spoiled console kids don't like to use their brains when they game.

c) turned RPGs into shooters with swords instead of guns (cough cough Witcher and Dragon Age cough cough).

 

You know how much I am willing to pay for a Witcher game? USD $0.

 

But I forked out USD $250 for PoE and would do so again for PoE2 if given a chance.

 

 

Yes, but:

 

1. You have no idea what I want from a game

2. You have just as much right as a publisher's marketing department to tell me what I do or should want from a game.

 

While I'm here...

 

a) May have some truth to it, but the isometric genre was being criticised as looking dated, and for all BG2 sold well, Lionheart and many others did not. Ultimately those companies have to turn a profit and don't owe themselves to a camera angle.

b) Absolute hysterical nonsense.

c) I blame Mass Effect, personally.

[Rafkos]

 

 

PoE's price looks about right to me, although I'd probably wait for a sale before I bought it.

I think it's a Steam's fault, if you look at the pricing you'll see that in Europe you have the same price but in Euros, in England you have exact the same number but with changed symbol from euro to pounds, same with USA. Why do people that live in Poland or Czech Republic for example have to pay more than people in USA while their revenues are a lot smaller, that's simply not fair. It's better for them to buy this game in Russia or Ukraine because the cost is much lower, ofc there's always a risk of being banned by Valve for this. 

Edited March 5, 2015 by Rafkos

[PrimeJunta]

Again, noone said anything about non-profit. I'm talking about overpricing the game. They dropped 0 money in it, they sell it at the same price a company sells their game while pouring tens of millions in it. Sorry, but to me this is unethical.

 

This warms my blood-red Communist heart: Marx's theory of value is alive and well.

 

Regrettably full Communism has not been achieved yet, though, and while I admire your revolutionary fervor, it is unreasonable to expect that a capitalist corporation functioning in a market economy knowingly price their goods in a way that does not bring back maximum profits. That's a fast track to bankruptcy.

[dorkboy]

$40-60 retail price or $10-20 "minimum pledge"?

Hmm..decisions, decisions..

[Sedrefilos]

 

Again, noone said anything about non-profit. I'm talking about overpricing the game. They dropped 0 money in it, they sell it at the same price a company sells their game while pouring tens of millions in it. Sorry, but to me this is unethical.

 

This warms my blood-red Communist heart: Marx's theory of value is alive and well.

 

Regrettably full Communism has not been achieved yet, though, and while I admire your revolutionary fervor, it is unreasonable to expect that a capitalist corporation functioning in a market economy knowingly price their goods in a way that does not bring back maximum profits. That's a fast track to bankruptcy.

 

Even if Obsidian sold one copy for 1$ it'll be maximum profit for them, since the game costs 0$ to them.

I understand that a video game is a luxury - it's not a necessity for living - but a price is something that has to do with the cost of production. And this goes to all products. If a thing is expensive to produce, it'll be expensive to buy. If a thing costs nothing to produce... well at least you'd expect it to be cheaper than other stuff with higher production cost. Again. I'm talking about someone that puts their money in a product and has to first cover the expenses, then make a profit so to continue.

 

I make clothes for living. I don't put the same price to each t-shirt. I value the production cost of each single t-shirt, then I put a percentage on top - that's the profit I try to make. This is how things work in capitalism, if you want to be honest. You can be greedy of course and put the same max price to every product you make no matter what the cost of production is for you.

 

In our case, we have a game that cost 0$ for Obsidian to make it (money from their pocket I mean), yet they sell it the same price like a product that costs a company 10 million (of their own money) to make... ok some might not care, but I do - so it might be a deal breaker for me.

 

And about video games and market prices being standard as some people say, I guess they believe companies that sell their games for 10$ (because it took them few to produce) are the biggest idiots in the world since they could sell them for 50$ because, hey, this is the video game market so no blame on them...

 

Oh, and just because I find this game overpriced, I didn't say there are not other overpriced products in the market. We're only talking about PoE here.

Edited March 5, 2015 by Sedrefilos

[Sonntam]

 

 

Again, noone said anything about non-profit. I'm talking about overpricing the game. They dropped 0 money in it, they sell it at the same price a company sells their game while pouring tens of millions in it. Sorry, but to me this is unethical.

 

This warms my blood-red Communist heart: Marx's theory of value is alive and well.

 

Regrettably full Communism has not been achieved yet, though, and while I admire your revolutionary fervor, it is unreasonable to expect that a capitalist corporation functioning in a market economy knowingly price their goods in a way that does not bring back maximum profits. That's a fast track to bankruptcy.

 

Even if Obsidian sold one copy for 1$ it'll be maximum profit for them, since the game costs 0$ to them.

I understand that a video game is a luxury - it's not a necessity for living - but a price is something that has to do with the cost of production. And this goes to all products. If a thing is expensive to produce, it'll be expensive to buy. If a thing costs nothing to produce... well at least you'd expect it to be cheaper than other stuff with higher production cost. Again. I'm talking about someone that puts their money in a product and has to first cover the expenses, then make a profit so to continue.

 

I make clothes for living. I don't put the same price to each t-shirt. I value the production cost of each single t-shirt, then I put a percentage on top - that's the profit I try to make. This is how things work in capitalism, if you want to be honest. You can be greedy of course and put the same max price to every product you make no matter what the cost of production is for you.

 

In our case, we have a game that cost 0$ for Obsidian to make it (money from their pocket I mean), yet they sell it the same price like a product that costed a company 10 million (of their own money) to make... ok some might not care, but I do - so it might be a deal breaker for me.

 

And about video games and market prices being standard as some people say, I guess they believe companies that sell their games for 10$ (because it took them few to produce) are the biggest idiots in the world since they could sell them for 50$ because, hey, this is the video game market so no blame on them...

 

Oh, and just because I find this game overpriced, I didn't say there are not other overpriced products in the market. We're only talking about PoE here.

 

People already mentioned opportunity costs, did they not? Or does one need to explain again what opportunity costs are?

 

Obsidian said explicitly that they don't only want to succeed in making one game, ideally they want to break free the need for additional funding through Kickstarter or publisher. If Obsidian had enough profit from sales to make PoE 2 all by themselves without Kickstarter, that would be perfect for them. 

 

Being self-sustaining is very important in business. If you make a company that needs heavy investment every three years, but barely covers the initial costs, you may as well close it down. Same for Obsidian. If they just barely scrap by, but make no profit, what is the point of this company anyway? That is not secure work place, that is not lucrative and it would be very, very short-sighted to settle for that kind of business model.

[Sedrefilos]

 

 

 

Again, noone said anything about non-profit. I'm talking about overpricing the game. They dropped 0 money in it, they sell it at the same price a company sells their game while pouring tens of millions in it. Sorry, but to me this is unethical.

 

This warms my blood-red Communist heart: Marx's theory of value is alive and well.

 

Regrettably full Communism has not been achieved yet, though, and while I admire your revolutionary fervor, it is unreasonable to expect that a capitalist corporation functioning in a market economy knowingly price their goods in a way that does not bring back maximum profits. That's a fast track to bankruptcy.

 

Even if Obsidian sold one copy for 1$ it'll be maximum profit for them, since the game costs 0$ to them.

I understand that a video game is a luxury - it's not a necessity for living - but a price is something that has to do with the cost of production. And this goes to all products. If a thing is expensive to produce, it'll be expensive to buy. If a thing costs nothing to produce... well at least you'd expect it to be cheaper than other stuff with higher production cost. Again. I'm talking about someone that puts their money in a product and has to first cover the expenses, then make a profit so to continue.

 

I make clothes for living. I don't put the same price to each t-shirt. I value the production cost of each single t-shirt, then I put a percentage on top - that's the profit I try to make. This is how things work in capitalism, if you want to be honest. You can be greedy of course and put the same max price to every product you make no matter what the cost of production is for you.

 

In our case, we have a game that cost 0$ for Obsidian to make it (money from their pocket I mean), yet they sell it the same price like a product that costed a company 10 million (of their own money) to make... ok some might not care, but I do - so it might be a deal breaker for me.

 

And about video games and market prices being standard as some people say, I guess they believe companies that sell their games for 10$ (because it took them few to produce) are the biggest idiots in the world since they could sell them for 50$ because, hey, this is the video game market so no blame on them...

 

Oh, and just because I find this game overpriced, I didn't say there are not other overpriced products in the market. We're only talking about PoE here.

 

People already mentioned opportunity costs, did they not? Or does one need to explain again what opportunity costs are?

 

Obsidian said explicitly that they don't only want to succeed in making one game, ideally they want to break free the need for additional funding through Kickstarter or publisher. If Obsidian had enough profit from sales to make PoE 2 all by themselves without Kickstarter, that would be perfect for them. 

 

Being self-sustaining is very important in business. If you make a company that needs heavy investment every three years, but barely covers the initial costs, you may as well close it down. Same for Obsidian. If they just barely scrap by, but make no profit, what is the point of this company anyway? That is not secure work place, that is not lucrative and it would be very, very short-sighted to settle for that kind of business model.

 

Where am I saying anything about not making profit? I only said that he game is overpriced. I don't expect them not to make profit, but here they don't have to cover expenses for production that costs money from their pockets. Each single copy sold is pure profit for Obsidian. And that's ok. I just believe, since the game costs ZERO bucks to them, they could use this for selling it at a lower price (say 20$). They're not losing, they're still profiting. It'll only be more accessible to more people and more honest by them.

Heck, if the game sells a relatively low ammount, say, 300,000 copies (which I believe it'll easily do), that is 6 million PURE profit in their pockets. Way more than they gathered via kickstarter.

Kickstarter is supposed to be what it says; give a kick to get started. Then it should move by its own. If you need a second (or a third, or even more) kickstarter campaign to move on, this might mean a) well, the game didn't go that well, but I have some dedicated people who don't care and I rely on them to fund me or b) hah, I found my easy way of persuading geeks to pour their money in me so I can make games infinately and paying nothing for them.

Then sorry I don't want to participate in this. I backed several games so that the old-schoolish rpg games can come back and continue forward from now on on their own not to milk me by exploiting my geekyness.

 

One other thing about game prices. I wanted to buy DA:I, so I checked  at their origin store and saw it is sold for 60 euros; digital download. "Ok" , I said " I guess it's going to be a pirate copy for me". Then I checked at a retail store, here in my country, and they were selling it for 48 euros. Now, the company that makes the game sells it for 60 euros digital, yet a retail store at the other side of the world sells a physical copy (plus box, plus dvds, plus shipping, plus cost to buy from distributor) 12 euros cheaper. Now, should or shouldn't I think that EA steals me? That they could sell the same game, digitally downloadable for, say, 30 euros and still make good profit? And they still complain about piracy...

Edited March 5, 2015 by Sedrefilos

[Sonntam]

 

 

 

 

Again, noone said anything about non-profit. I'm talking about overpricing the game. They dropped 0 money in it, they sell it at the same price a company sells their game while pouring tens of millions in it. Sorry, but to me this is unethical.

 

This warms my blood-red Communist heart: Marx's theory of value is alive and well.

 

Regrettably full Communism has not been achieved yet, though, and while I admire your revolutionary fervor, it is unreasonable to expect that a capitalist corporation functioning in a market economy knowingly price their goods in a way that does not bring back maximum profits. That's a fast track to bankruptcy.

 

Even if Obsidian sold one copy for 1$ it'll be maximum profit for them, since the game costs 0$ to them.

I understand that a video game is a luxury - it's not a necessity for living - but a price is something that has to do with the cost of production. And this goes to all products. If a thing is expensive to produce, it'll be expensive to buy. If a thing costs nothing to produce... well at least you'd expect it to be cheaper than other stuff with higher production cost. Again. I'm talking about someone that puts their money in a product and has to first cover the expenses, then make a profit so to continue.

 

I make clothes for living. I don't put the same price to each t-shirt. I value the production cost of each single t-shirt, then I put a percentage on top - that's the profit I try to make. This is how things work in capitalism, if you want to be honest. You can be greedy of course and put the same max price to every product you make no matter what the cost of production is for you.

 

In our case, we have a game that cost 0$ for Obsidian to make it (money from their pocket I mean), yet they sell it the same price like a product that costed a company 10 million (of their own money) to make... ok some might not care, but I do - so it might be a deal breaker for me.

 

And about video games and market prices being standard as some people say, I guess they believe companies that sell their games for 10$ (because it took them few to produce) are the biggest idiots in the world since they could sell them for 50$ because, hey, this is the video game market so no blame on them...

 

Oh, and just because I find this game overpriced, I didn't say there are not other overpriced products in the market. We're only talking about PoE here.

 

People already mentioned opportunity costs, did they not? Or does one need to explain again what opportunity costs are?

 

Obsidian said explicitly that they don't only want to succeed in making one game, ideally they want to break free the need for additional funding through Kickstarter or publisher. If Obsidian had enough profit from sales to make PoE 2 all by themselves without Kickstarter, that would be perfect for them. 

 

Being self-sustaining is very important in business. If you make a company that needs heavy investment every three years, but barely covers the initial costs, you may as well close it down. Same for Obsidian. If they just barely scrap by, but make no profit, what is the point of this company anyway? That is not secure work place, that is not lucrative and it would be very, very short-sighted to settle for that kind of business model.

 

Where am I saying anything about not making profit? I only said that he game is overpriced. I don't expect them not to make profit, but here they don't have to cover expenses for production that costs money from their pockets. Each single copy sold is pure profit for Obsidian. And that's ok. I just believe, since the game costs ZERO bucks to them, they could use this for selling it at a lower price (say 20$). They're not losing, they're still profiting. It'll only be more accessible to more people and more honest by them.

 

Okay, let's refresh what opportunity costs are. When you are working for 5 dollars an hour, you have opportunity costs, because if you put those work hours into something else, you could make perhaps 15 dollars an hour. If Obsidian makes Pillars of Eternity, it means they also have to compare how much money they would make if they worked on a different (perhaps more lucrative) project.

 

Those opportunity costs are very important for businesses. If you ignore them, you make "invisible" profit losses. You say that Obsidian would still "win" even if they make no profit at all or very little profit. You really underestimate how much it matters for people losing out on other money incomes (like selling themselves to EA). Or maybe by making new games for publishers (who could give more money that Kickstarter ever could).

 

Equally, lower price does not equal profit maximization. You don't make a lower price because "oh well, I can afford it". You set a lower price if you think this will sell you far more copies than you would sell otherwise (and thus make more profit).

 

For now people are willing to pay a higher price. In half a year the game will be more accessible and cost less through sales. 

 

And... "honesty"? Really? Obsidian has extended development of the game, because they considered it not to be good enough yet. They have explicitly told us, that they just keep working till money runs out and now it has run out or will shortly. This is honest. But trying to push for lower prices, because you don't think their product is worth the money is insulting and dishonest, if you ask me.

Edited March 5, 2015 by Sonntam

[Sedrefilos]

 

 

 

 

 

Again, noone said anything about non-profit. I'm talking about overpricing the game. They dropped 0 money in it, they sell it at the same price a company sells their game while pouring tens of millions in it. Sorry, but to me this is unethical.

 

This warms my blood-red Communist heart: Marx's theory of value is alive and well.

 

Regrettably full Communism has not been achieved yet, though, and while I admire your revolutionary fervor, it is unreasonable to expect that a capitalist corporation functioning in a market economy knowingly price their goods in a way that does not bring back maximum profits. That's a fast track to bankruptcy.

 

Even if Obsidian sold one copy for 1$ it'll be maximum profit for them, since the game costs 0$ to them.

I understand that a video game is a luxury - it's not a necessity for living - but a price is something that has to do with the cost of production. And this goes to all products. If a thing is expensive to produce, it'll be expensive to buy. If a thing costs nothing to produce... well at least you'd expect it to be cheaper than other stuff with higher production cost. Again. I'm talking about someone that puts their money in a product and has to first cover the expenses, then make a profit so to continue.

 

I make clothes for living. I don't put the same price to each t-shirt. I value the production cost of each single t-shirt, then I put a percentage on top - that's the profit I try to make. This is how things work in capitalism, if you want to be honest. You can be greedy of course and put the same max price to every product you make no matter what the cost of production is for you.

 

In our case, we have a game that cost 0$ for Obsidian to make it (money from their pocket I mean), yet they sell it the same price like a product that costed a company 10 million (of their own money) to make... ok some might not care, but I do - so it might be a deal breaker for me.

 

And about video games and market prices being standard as some people say, I guess they believe companies that sell their games for 10$ (because it took them few to produce) are the biggest idiots in the world since they could sell them for 50$ because, hey, this is the video game market so no blame on them...

 

Oh, and just because I find this game overpriced, I didn't say there are not other overpriced products in the market. We're only talking about PoE here.

 

People already mentioned opportunity costs, did they not? Or does one need to explain again what opportunity costs are?

 

Obsidian said explicitly that they don't only want to succeed in making one game, ideally they want to break free the need for additional funding through Kickstarter or publisher. If Obsidian had enough profit from sales to make PoE 2 all by themselves without Kickstarter, that would be perfect for them. 

 

Being self-sustaining is very important in business. If you make a company that needs heavy investment every three years, but barely covers the initial costs, you may as well close it down. Same for Obsidian. If they just barely scrap by, but make no profit, what is the point of this company anyway? That is not secure work place, that is not lucrative and it would be very, very short-sighted to settle for that kind of business model.

 

Where am I saying anything about not making profit? I only said that he game is overpriced. I don't expect them not to make profit, but here they don't have to cover expenses for production that costs money from their pockets. Each single copy sold is pure profit for Obsidian. And that's ok. I just believe, since the game costs ZERO bucks to them, they could use this for selling it at a lower price (say 20$). They're not losing, they're still profiting. It'll only be more accessible to more people and more honest by them.

 

Okay, let's refresh what opportunity costs are. When you are working for 5 dollars an hour, you have opportunity costs, because if you put those work hours into something else, you could make perhaps 15 dollars an hour. If Obsidian makes Pillars of Eternity, it means they also have to compare how much money they would make if they worked on a different (perhaps more lucrative) project.

 

Those opportunity costs are very important for businesses. If you ignore them, you make "invisible" profit losses. You say that Obsidian would still "win" even if they make no profit at all or very little profit. You really underestimate how much it matters for people losing out on other money incomes (like selling themselves to EA). Or maybe by making new games for publishers (who could give more money that Kickstarter ever could).

 

Equally, lower price does not equal profit maximization. You don't make a lower price because "oh well, I can afford it". You set a lower price if you think this will sell you far more copies than you would sell otherwise (and thus make more profit).

 

For now people are willing to pay a higher price. In half a year the game will be more accessible and cost less through sales. 

 

And... "honesty"? Really? Obsidian has extended development of the game, because they considered it not to be good enough yet. They have explicitly told us, that they just keep working till money runs out and now it has run out or will shortly. This is honest. But trying to push for lower prices, because you don't think their product is worth the money is insulting and dishonest, if you ask me.

 

Well, they sold their product for 26 euros to me (when I backed it), a reasonable price. I don't see why they should sell it for 42 to other people.

If they sold it for that price (again, game costs 0$ to them), and, after I played it, I saw that they've done a remarkable work (which I believe they did - I just have to verify by playing it ) then I'd bleed the ears of my friends "hey, man, buy this game don't dwonload it. It's been made by black Island veterans blah blah blah" or maybe I'd buy a copy for someone if I could. That's how I'd do to help them further. But when they say "hey, we want to go back to the late 90's, give us money, help, there is no other way, publishers treat us bad" etc, I give them the money beforehand and then they treat me like a publisher would (publisher put lots of money, sells expensive games) then, sorry, I can't help any further.

Edited March 5, 2015 by Sedrefilos

[Sonntam]

 

 

 

 

 

Okay, let's refresh what opportunity costs are. When you are working for 5 dollars an hour, you have opportunity costs, because if you put those work hours into something else, you could make perhaps 15 dollars an hour. If Obsidian makes Pillars of Eternity, it means they also have to compare how much money they would make if they worked on a different (perhaps more lucrative) project.

 

Those opportunity costs are very important for businesses. If you ignore them, you make "invisible" profit losses. You say that Obsidian would still "win" even if they make no profit at all or very little profit. You really underestimate how much it matters for people losing out on other money incomes (like selling themselves to EA). Or maybe by making new games for publishers (who could give more money that Kickstarter ever could).

 

Equally, lower price does not equal profit maximization. You don't make a lower price because "oh well, I can afford it". You set a lower price if you think this will sell you far more copies than you would sell otherwise (and thus make more profit).

 

For now people are willing to pay a higher price. In half a year the game will be more accessible and cost less through sales. 

 

And... "honesty"? Really? Obsidian has extended development of the game, because they considered it not to be good enough yet. They have explicitly told us, that they just keep working till money runs out and now it has run out or will shortly. This is honest. But trying to push for lower prices, because you don't think their product is worth the money is insulting and dishonest, if you ask me.

 

Well, they sold their product for 26 euros to me (when I backed it), I don't see why they should sell it 42 to other people.

 

I really feel like I'm going through Economy Basics 101 here...

 

There is this thing called risk aversion. Kickstarter is inherrently risky. There are quite a few projects that were never delivered at all, others have been very shoddy. A consumer now knows that Pillars of Eternity exists, if the product is not delivered they will get their money back. Kickstarter backers could back hundreds of euros and in the end be left with nothing. There would be no legal action taken against the company.

 

Also when people are asked "do you want 10 euros now or 100 euros in 50 years" many will prefer the ten euros now. Who knows what will be in ten years! Maybe you will be dead, maybe you will lose your job, maybe you won't have a PC or won't be even interested in a game. This has to be discounted as well.

 

That is why on Kickstarter one could get a game for half the price we have now. 

[Luckmann]

I get the feeling that 50% of the people that do go for Kickstarter deals do it because it's a good deal, not because they realize that it's a risk investment. Admittedly, some projects are lower risk than others, but really, it's an investment. When you back on Kickstarter, you are an investor, not a customer, and you have a loose promise of a product down the line. That's it.

 

I didn't back on Kickstarter, but I'd never whine about the price now, just because others paid for the game, that the game is "paid for" by others. My gripe is in-game loot and DLC, which is something I've always hated, pre-orders, first-day DLC, red boots and whatnot. But that's really beside this issue.

Of course they should charge as if they're charging for a full, new game. It is! By this logic, most games are "paid for" by the time they reach the market, just because someone invested in them, usually a Publisher. In this case, the investors are the players, and their reward is the game (and whatever else was in the agreement).

It's a genius model, both for customers and for developers, because it gives the customers what they want (the game they collectively paid for) while the surplus goes into the company, allowing them to hire more people or the same people for longer times, to re-invest in development of more games, instead of a publisher that cries for a 600% return on investments.

If we can keep a wave like this up, where there's a surplus created for the development of future games, and repeat investments by a dedicated fanbase (customers/investors), it's nothing short of a dream scenario.

[Elerond]

So if I take 4 million dollars of bank loan that I pay back buy selling products that I produce with that four million dollars then I am using my own money? to make those products that I sell and it is OK to me ask any price of those products that I feel will is appropriate, even after I have paid loan back, do we all agree in this point?

 

If you agree with previous scenario then in next time I want produce new products I decide not to ask bank loan to fund the production but I ask directly my customers if they are willing to give me money beforehand, so that I can produce those products and to make offer more attractive to my customers I offer my product with cheaper price and some perks that they normally couldn't get, so do I in this scenario somehow cease to use my own money and lose my right to ask price that I feel to be appropriate for my products or even try make actual profit with those products after I have delivered products for my customers that gave me money in advance?

 

I think that you people actually mix risk and putting you own dime in project with each other, as in both scenarios I put my own dime to produce those goods for my customers, but in second scenario my risk is much lower as I already have customers for my goods, and risks comes from how well I have calculated production costs from them and those perks that I promised. But in both scenarios I ask money beforehand by promising something in return, in first case it is interest for loan and in second it is lower priced products and perks.

[dorkboy]

One thing is pricing yourself out of the market. But since they're not exactly small time indies making $5 platformers, I suspect they also have to consider not pricing their competitors out of the market. 

[PrimeJunta]

Even if Obsidian sold one copy for 1$ it'll be maximum profit for them, since the game costs 0$ to them.

Regrettably, no. Maximum profit is where the curve for

 

Revenue = Price per unit * Number of units

 

peaks.

 

I'm sure demand for P:E is somewhat elastic, but not all that much. Out of the seven billion people or so on the globe, most will not buy it even at $0.

 

I understand that a video game is a luxury - it's not a necessity for living - but a price is something that has to do with the cost of production. And this goes to all products. If a thing is expensive to produce, it'll be expensive to buy. If a thing costs nothing to produce... well at least you'd expect it to be cheaper than other stuff with higher production cost. Again. I'm talking about someone that puts their money in a product and has to first cover the expenses, then make a profit so to continue.

Yep, this is what Karl Marx argued. That the value of a good is determined by the labor used to produce it, and a capitalist survives by expropriating as much of the value his workers produce.

 

In a market economy, however, the price of a good is determined by supply and demand. If the capitalist is producing goods nobody wants at any price, their market value is zero, regardless of the labor that went into producing them. Conversely, if he is producing goods everybody wants for, say, $50, then that is the market value, even if it cost him 5 cents to produce them.

 

I make clothes for living. I don't put the same price to each t-shirt. I value the production cost of each single t-shirt, then I put a percentage on top - that's the profit I try to make. This is how things work in capitalism, if you want to be honest. You can be greedy of course and put the same max price to every product you make no matter what the cost of production is for you.

 

Thank you. I wish more people chose to price their goods in this way. The idea of "more is better" is destructive. Being able to do so, however, is a luxury. Obsidian works in an extremely volatile and competitive market. They've gone through some very rough times. Game studios are going bust or getting bought up all the time. Trying to squeeze maximum revenue out of every product they make isn't a luxury, it's a matter of survival.

 

In our case, we have a game that cost 0$ for Obsidian to make it (money from their pocket I mean), yet they sell it the same price like a product that costs a company 10 million (of their own money) to make... ok some might not care, but I do - so it might be a deal breaker for me.

 

And about video games and market prices being standard as some people say, I guess they believe companies that sell their games for 10$ (because it took them few to produce) are the biggest idiots in the world since they could sell them for 50$ because, hey, this is the video game market so no blame on them...

 

Oh, and just because I find this game overpriced, I didn't say there are not other overpriced products in the market. We're only talking about PoE here.

I find lots of games overpriced. That's why I wait for the price to fall before I buy them. I have a pretty big library of games on both GoG and Steam, and most of the I've bought for between 1 and 15 euros or so.

 

There might be a thriving publisher out there somewhere who prices their games on a cost-plus model, but if there is I haven't heard of it. The trouble is that you can never be sure how well a game is going to sell or even exactly how much it's going to cost to produce -- P:E went over schedule (and therefore over budget), and it's going better than (industry) average. Profits from the hits have to cover the losses from the busts, cost-overruns and what have you.

 

IMO the fundamental question is, how do you live as justly as you can in a system that's fundamentally unjust? There's no easy answer. There's a lot of stuff a corporation can do, and maximising profits through pricing strategy is pret-t-ty far down the "evil" list as far as I'm concerned. Without a profitable operation, they can't be loyal to their employees (pay them fair wages), or their customers (provide them with good products and good service), or the society in which they operate (pay taxes), or any of the other stakeholders.

 

If it turned out, say, that Obsidian is squeezing their employees dry with starvation wages, unpaid overtime, fire-and-rehire and so on, while the shareholders walk off with big fat dividend checks, then I'd be right with you on the barricades. But pricing a game to market? Nah. That's just the market economy mang.

[PrimeJunta]

Well, they sold their product for 26 euros to me (when I backed it), a reasonable price. I don't see why they should sell it for 42 to other people.

 

They did not sell us the game for 26 euros.

 

They sold us a promise of a game.

 

That, Sedrefilos, is quite different.

[Nonek]

Personally i'm fine with Obsidian Kickstarting their next game, I want more games from the people who brought me the real Fallouts, Torment, The Icewind Dales, Arcanum, ToEE, KotOR, NWN2, Alpha Protocol, Dungeon Siege 3 etcetera. I assume that Obsidian want to make games, thrive in their careers, stay at a studio which judging by almost every former employee is a nice place to work, and earn a reasonable wage for doing so. Thus our goals coincide.

 

As for price i'm fine with paying a few hundred dollars on Kickstarter, it's around the same price as the usual collectors edition, I get more than a normal retail collectors edition and pay a fair price for the amount of content I recieve. Compare an RPG with hundreds of hours of quality, interactive play time, and multiple playthrough potential to the latest $60 five hour cinematic QTE game, which offers no replayability. One objectively offers far more value for money than the other, as a hopefully good consumer I must support the one that benefits me, and reward the developer who caters to me as well.

Edited March 5, 2015 by Nonek

[Karkarov]

Lul this again.

 

Junta is going all marxist but this is really simple.  If the game makes enough money that Obsidian feels like they can self fund the sequel they will do that because the process is cleaner and they wont have to worry so much about doing all the extra crap that comes from being a kickstarter game.  This would be the ideal end honestly, but it is also the statistically most unlikely of all possible things to happen.  If the game sells well for them but not enough to self fund only they have options.  They could take these numbers to a publisher (like Paradox ) and note that the game did well and ask for some additional monies so they can go make their sequel.  That is sort of the normal way of making a game, god forbid, then they go from there.  Likewise they could go the Kickstarter route again (nothing really wrong with this) and we start this train all over just we tag a 2 on the end of it and it is no longer titled "Project".  One of those two results is the most likely way Eternity 2 gets made.

 

Then there is worst case scenario.  Eternity simply doesn't do super well and Obsidian decides it was a great try and they loved working on it... but it just doesn't make fiscal sense to make Eternity 2 and there is no sequel.  I would like to think this is really not that probable but in all honesty self funding is probably less likely to happen than this is.

 

PS: Karkypoo.... if it goes Kickstarter would you back in again?  Shocker: Yes, I would.

Edited March 5, 2015 by Karkarov

[Luckmann]

Lul this again.

 

Junta is going all marxist but this is really simple.  If the game makes enough money that Obsidian feels like they can self fund the sequel they will do that because the process is cleaner and they wont have to worry so much about doing all the extra crap that comes from being a kickstarter game.  This would be the ideal end honestly, but it is also the statistically most unlikely of all possible things to happen.  If the game sells well for them but not enough to self fund only they have options.  They could take these numbers to a publisher (like Paradox ) and note that the game did well and ask for some additional monies so they can go make their sequel.  That is sort of the normal way of making a game, god forbid, then they go from there.  Likewise they could go the Kickstarter route again (nothing really wrong with this) and we start this train all over just we tag a 2 on the end of it and it is no longer titled "Project".  One of those two results is the most likely way Eternity 2 gets made.

 

Then there is worst case scenario.  Eternity simply doesn't do super well and Obsidian decides it was a great try and they loved working on it... but it just doesn't make fiscal sense to make Eternity 2 and there is no sequel.  I would like to think this is really not that probable but in all honesty self funding is probably less likely to happen than this is.

 

PS: Karkypoo.... if it goes Kickstarter would you back in again?  Shocker: Yes, I would.

 

You know what I'd love?

• Pillars of Eternity does amazing on the open market.
• They use that to fund another game.
• They still go to Kickstarter for additional funding, saying that the game is going to happen either way, but that you can get a good deal on it, and anything else is just gravy for things they want to do or experiment with.

And then.. that game isn't Pillars of Eternity 2. Not a sequel. Same mechanics, same engine, evolutionary built upon, growing organically, iteration by iteration. New story, new locale, new settings. Maybe, just maybe the same world. But still not a sequel. Sequel implies continuity. What if we can have a new story, from a new perspective, each and every time?

 

I'd sorta love that.

[Osvir]

I'd throw my money at it.

Though, I hope that, in order:

1) Pillars of Eternity sells well and gains lots of revenue
2) The expansion sells well and gains lots of revenue
3) Obsidian can fund Pillars of Eternity 2 by themselves

4) Kickspansive* (Which totally should be a thing!) 

*What Larian Studios did with "Divinity: Original Sin" and what Harebrained Schemes did with "Shadowrun: Hong Kong", which basically is/was "This game is coming out and we have enough money for it, we have done all of the project management for it and we have a deadline and stuff but we'd love to add more to the game".

 

This way, if Obsidian wouldn't get enough funding from Kickstarter on their second go it wouldn't be the end of the sequel/IP.

What I hope for most, though, is that Pillars of Eternity 2 is more of an expansive sequel. Keep the old areas with new/updated (according to the story/narrative) content inside of them. In simpler terms: Making Pillars of Eternity even bigger.

- Pillars of Eternity 1=Pillars of Eternity 1 (Example: 100 areas)
- Pillars of Eternity 1+Pillars of Eternity 2=Pillars of Eternity 2 (Example: 200 areas+updated content)

- Pillars of Eternity 1+Pillars of Eternity 2+Pillars of Eternity 3=Pillars of Eternity 3 (Example: 300 areas+updated content)
etc.
 

^All of them in one = Pillars of Eternity (No need for any numbers)

 

Like BGT (Baldur's Gate Trilogy) or BGTutu, which both puts both titles into 1 title. Making it one game instead of 2 games.

That's what I hope they do with the "sequel". Instead of making a sequel, they'd more or less add more on top of the first.

Imagine if The Elder Scrolls would've been developed that way.... Morrowind+Oblivion+Skyrim, one game that just... expands and becomes larger with time (I really hope that Bethesda is developing a single player "The Elder Scrolls: Online" title. That'd be epic on so many levels).

In the same terms as above:
-Morrowind=Morrowind
-Morrowind+Oblivion=Oblivion
-Morrowind+Oblivion+Skyrim=Skyrim
etc.

Edited March 5, 2015 by Osvir

[Zwiebelchen]

Am I the only one who is perfectly fine with 40€ as long as the game provides me with more than 40 hours of gametime?

 

I usually apply the magic formula of 1 hour per 1€ for games I buy. Most AAA games don't even come close to that magic number. PoE, however, has lots of potential to give more. I don't care if the game was funded or not. Backers probably won't retail buy this, as they already have a copy as a backer reward, so why do you guys complain? 40€ is reasonable for a long singleplayer game with replay value, even if it isn't a multi-million dollar production.

 

If the revenue goes straight into the expansions, I'm more than happy to give you my money, now that I know for sure that I get a product in return (backers didn't have this security).

 

 

 

... I just hope we get improved animations in the first expansion. Damn do those anims look retarded. :>

Edited March 5, 2015 by Zwiebelchen

[Sonntam]

I think Obsidian fanboys forget in their defending of Obsidian right to price the game what they want the right of customers to have their opinion on the price.

I doubt that anything fanboys will say in defense of the price will change the opinio of the customers.

 

The topic is not about price of the game. 

 

And it really doesn't take a hardcore Obsidian fan to disagree that a game should be sold for 1 Euro.