Pillars of Eternity 2 and crowdfunding on Kickstarter?

[PrimeJunta]

Hehe.

 

If it's priced too high, it won't sell. The price will come down eventually anyway. Those who don't like the launch price can buy it later.

 

Of course, if it's priced unreasonably high, more people will feel justified in pirating it. I don't think the announced price point puts it very deep in that territory though; it's in line with what these things generally cost.

 

(To make it perfectly clear: in my opinion "it costs too much" does not constitute an ethical defense for "so I pirated it.")

[Lord of Riva]

Im Onboard is Sedrifilos notion in general, although we have to accept that this would be a very bad business idea in the our currenc economical system.

Whatever, regardless of Production price, i can look at PoE and say: "yes, i think its worth this amount of money!" and as long as this is the case i do not see a reason to complain.

 

 

EDIT: and Pirating is out of question in general for me, i do not need to play Video games, so there is hardly a reason to steal them. If im Hungry and need something to eat or starve, that may be a reason, not games.

Edited March 5, 2015 by Lord of Riva

[Luckmann]

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.

 

Thing is, customers have no "right" to have an "opinion" on the price. The "opinion" is whether or not the game sells, whether or not the customers buys it or not.

 

Generally speaking, if a game is overpriced, it sells less. So although the discussion at this point is purely academic, the question is thus, is PoE worth the price?

 

I'm tremendously poor and right now it's sadly out of my price range, I'm sad to say, but based on what I know of the game, I see no reason why it wouldn't do well at a regular pricing.

[Sonntam]

 

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.

topic might not be about pricing, but the current discussion in it is.

 

There are plenty of games that sell in this price range. however i didn't saw anyone to argue PoE should cost 1 Euro.

 

 

It was on 4th page, so you probably did not read the thread it very carefully. 

 

The point that was made was that Pillars of Eternity should not cost a lot, since the costs were covered by Kickstarter and thus making profit is a bonus and not a necessity. (Which is by the way the same logic I encountered in Steam threads where price of the game was excessively argued about.)

[Sedrefilos]

If someone believes it's ok to give 42 euros to buy the game, it's ok by me.

I gave 26, which I believe is a reasonable price.

But if I have the question "why, Obsidian, this game costs 42 euros since you didn't invenst your money in it?" then I'd want an answer from someone from Obsidian not their loyal defenders who have their own theories. If they want to answer, ofcourse.

Edited March 5, 2015 by Sedrefilos

[PrimeJunta]

@Sedrefilos I would expect the answer to be something along the lines of "because we believe that price point will maximize our profits." What do you think it is?

[Sedrefilos]

I think it is "because we can".

You know what it'd also be great in addition to the "we don't need publishers to tell us what and who to make our games, the people who love them will" kickstarter attitude? "Letting fans fund us helps us drop less or no money into our game. This helps us lower the price and make them accessible to more people" attitude.

At this point is "we don;t need you publishers, we have our fans to give us the money. And we're smarter than you because we can spend 0 money to make them and sell them at the same price as you do. And also we have our loyal fans defending us".

Edited March 5, 2015 by Sedrefilos

[Luckmann]

Is that so?

 

Well it happens that a few people in here have an opinion. What you gonna do about it if we have no right to do so Mr Fuhrer?

Just because you can have an opinion doesn't give you a right to have one. I can go out and stab someone in the face, and there's really nothing you can do about it, but no-one would consider that my right. The only right you have in this scenario is whether or not you buy the game now, later, or never. One could even argue that that isn't really a right either, although I think most civilized countries at least have a legal right to deny purchase.. so I mean.. there's that.

 

I'd probably argue that you have a moral right to be allowed to purchase now or later, and a legal right to the never. But really, now we're just entering the realm of the absurd, my point being that unless you're being wilfully obtuse, you understand what I meant. We really don't have a "right" to anything but bubkis. I'm very often (sometimes quite literally) on the "other side of the fence" in arguments like this, with very strong ideas of right or wrong from a moral standpoint and the letter of the law (if people choose to enforce it, it shouldn't be pick-and-choose), but in this case, I really must say something that's been thrown in my face more than once:

 

Vote with your wallet.

 

That's all it comes down to. Like I just said, I can't even afford the game, yet there is no chance in hell that it'd be reasonable - whether we're arguing economics or moral obligations - to expect, or to even propose, that Obsidian blatantly gives the game away to non-backers. No way, no how. Yes, the game is "paid for", but it's not like the surplus goes straight into the pockets of the developers and then they go home.

 

Yes, in theory, the owner(s) of the company (...how is Obsidian owned, anyway; it's privately owned, right? But is it multiple holders, or just Urquhart?) could give themselves exorbitant paychecks or simply skip ship and leave with all the money, but in all honesty, that's a complete fantasy scenario. We know that won't happen. The additional money will go into new products and hiring new people, or just making sure that they can keep employing the people they have right now.

 

While the Kickstarter model is great, it also comes with the caveat that when you're out of money, you're literally out of money. You get a product out, start cannibalizing the company (or it's savings), or you go bankrupt. It's not really about economics, it's not really about Obsidian's moral right to their own product, and it's certainly not about some legal mumbo-jumbo none of us actually gives a **** about. It's about Obsidian surviving, not even as a company, but as an entity, so that they can keep producing that sweet cocaine we all crave and want in our fast-and-fat luxurious jetset lives.

 

Or, y'know, quality RPG:s for shut-ins or whatever.

 

Edit: Jesus, I mean, c'mon, Obsidian had 135 employees in 2008. I'm not sure what it is now, but I know freakin' grocery stores with more effective manpower than that. There's probably icecream trucks that have wider financial margins than Obsidian has.

Edited March 5, 2015 by Luckmann

[PrimeJunta]

I think it is "because we can".

You know what it'd also be great in addition to the "we don't need publishers to tell us what and who to make our games, the people who love them will" kickstarter attitude? "Letting fans fund us helps us drop less or no money into our game. This helps us lower the price and make them accessible to more people" attitude.

At this point is "we don;t need you publishers, we have our fans to give us the money. And we're smarter than you because we can spend 0 money to make them and sell them at the same price as you do. And also we have our loyal fans defending us".

 

Did they actually pitch it that way? To my recollection, it was more like "We've tried to pitch this to publishers but they wouldn't bite, so we're pitching it to you; fund it and we'll make it, plus backers will get it for less than launch price."

 

FWIW I'd be happy to buy into another Obsidian Kickstarter. I like their stuff. The return on my "investment" is that the game gets made. And if it fails, hey, it happens; I'm not thrilled about that obviously but unless they actually grab the money and run I won't get mad or anything. (It's happened. These things are risky.)

[Luckmann]

Did they actually pitch it that way? To my recollection, it was more like "We've tried to pitch this to publishers but they wouldn't bite, so we're pitching it to you; fund it and we'll make it, plus backers will get it for less than launch price."

 

FWIW I'd be happy to buy into another Obsidian Kickstarter. I like their stuff. The return on my "investment" is that the game gets made. And if it fails, hey, it happens; I'm not thrilled about that obviously but unless they actually grab the money and run I won't get mad or anything. (It's happened. These things are risky.)

 

That's exactly how they pitched it. Now, it's possible to argue that the game has veered a bit from the original pitches, but the initial pitch was almost ad verbatim what you paraphrased.

 

 

Welcome back, PJ.

 

[Sedrefilos]

They didn't pitch it to anyone. They said "if we'd pitch it, they wouldn't care". And I believe this would be the case. They never said anything about the final price anyway; and I didn't backed them for that. The thing is, when the kickstarter mania broke out (I backed other games too), I thought it was a great idea to cut out useless publishers and help some compnaies make something that is not out there, give a boost to the genre and have great games come out in lower prices. The last one was met only by the Banner Saga guys. Everyone else sold the games at the publisher price (I can only excuse the Larian people because they self-funded 3/4 of the game). So, it's "we're against publishers involved, only partially; only to the part it has to do with us".

If this is the case, it is good to know. But I have to know by the companies themselves, not from their fans who only project their oppinion of how might the case be. And I believe the subject is not discussed at all. And this is because, imo, the majority of the people who buy games are people who have no finacial problems. So the price in not a problem. And companies can rely on that.

But here we have an opportunity to have great games, no external interference to the vision of the creators and a lower price for more people.

 

Edit: I love Obsidian work too. And Black Island and Troika. I wouldn't back them else. I believe they have the rightest (is this a word?) ideas about how pc rpgs should evolve. But this thing with the price... I don't know... The geekiness might overwhelm me if they kickstart a sequel and I might succumb, but I won't talk anyone I know into necessary buying a croudfunded project they made if they're sceptic about the price. I'll give them my own.

Edited March 5, 2015 by Sedrefilos

[PrimeJunta]

@Sedrefilos Actually the games market is very kind on people with limited means. You can get almost any game for 15 euros or less, and often for much less than that. All you have to do is wait. I can't think of many other markets where this is true actually -- even, say, cars, which depreciate pretty quickly, you'll have to wait a quite a while before price drops by half, and by then the car will not be as good as it was new because of mileage.

[Sedrefilos]

I can assure you this thing happens with my market, PrimeJunta, the clothes. A shirt might cost 14 euros (wholesale price) at the start of the season, during mid season it'll drop at 10 euros and at the end of the season it'll cost about 5 euros. The thing is, the shirt is not overpriced when it comes out. And I have a fixed price on it so the store cannot overprice it to the customers. And this happens with most fabrics. Tell me I'm an idiot for doing so.

 

Edit: my previous example about Dragon Age Inquisition prettry prooves how companies can sell a game from their own store at very lower price than they do now and still have good profit. But they don't, just because they know most people will buy it no matter the cost. Because they mostly work with the geek majority who is willing to spend that money for the new hot game just came out, and not with me or you who wait for the low prices. But this doesen't change the fact that they can sell it much cheaper with no risk and they don't do it. As if the game HAS to drop to low price or else...

Edited March 5, 2015 by Sedrefilos

[PrimeJunta]

I won't. If your motives for making shirts are something other than profit, more power to you.

 

Out of curiosity, how many people are working for you? Have you ever had to fire anyone because you can't afford to keep paying them?

 

What I am saying is that it is unreasonable to expect a for-profit corporation operating in a competitive market to price their goods below market price.

[Sedrefilos]

I am working for-profit, I just don't overprofit. More money comes by more people buying my clothes, not by me overpricing them.

btw, since you want to know, I live in Greece, a country suffering by a huge financial crisis since 2011. Everything is difficult at the time. Thankfully I didn't have to fire anyone; I just didn't hire more staff when others went on retirement (the company is 34 years old - belonging to my mother and uncle before me and my brother). I'm left with four emploees now and I mostly work with externals.

 

Edit: I though that lowering your price will attract more people into buying your product instead of a similar more expensive, thus making you more competitive, not the other way around.

Edited March 5, 2015 by Sedrefilos

[Lord of Riva]

I won't. If your motives for making shirts are something other than profit, more power to you.

 

Out of curiosity, how many people are working for you? Have you ever had to fire anyone because you can't afford to keep paying them?

 

What I am saying is that it is unreasonable to expect a for-profit corporation operating in a competitive market to price their goods below market price.

 

 

Well he is only proposing to cut the Publisher cut out of the price (since they do not have obligations to one), i still do not think its unreasonable.

 

so if you normally have 30% cut for the publisher on a 60$ game you could sell the game for 45 and make the same (or in my great calculation) even more money out of the game.

 

as said, i do not think the price is to high, but he is right that im willing to pay quite a bit of money for my hobby.

This is a fight with Windmills overall, as long as "we" the players are willing to pay as much (and the price for PoE is relatively small´, compared to AAA products) this wont change. And i still think the money spend is worth the product (or i hope it will be, there is no guarantee)

 

I kinda Agree that the Kickstarter System has a problem regarding legalities. We the crowd are basically the publishers (at least some kind of Investors), normal publishers have a safe system they can fall back on if the game turns out to be a scam or badly developed. And that is a Problem.

 

i actually tend to prefer the patreon Idea, where you can leave if you are not happy with the Progress.

 

A solution for that is certainly tricky, and i just tend to back projects i can be confident in.

[Sonntam]

I am working for-profit, I just don't overprofit. More money comes by more people buying my clothes, not by me overpricing them.

btw, since you want to know, I live in Greece, a country suffering by a huge financial crisis since 2011. Everything is difficult at the time. Thankfully I didn't have to fire anyone; I just didn't hire more staff when others went on retirement (the company is 34 years old - belonging to my mother and uncle before me and my brother). I'm left with four emploees now and I mostly work with externals.

 

Do you think Obsidian will make a nice vacation at the beach with the money they make? Or maybe buy a couple Ferrari? 

 

Obsidian's goal is becoming a self-sustaining business and not run for Kickstarter/publisher anytime they start a new project. There is nothing unreasonable about that. You don't have to hope the bank will give you a credit, the bank won't pass by your work place and demand you make the T-Shirts all in red, you won't have delivery times set out by the bank. That is what one does when one works with publishers, though.

 

When it comes to Kickstarter, there is always the question how much money you will get. If you don't get same success of 3 millions dollars, have fun. Who are you going to fire? Because you likely will have to downscale heavily. 

 

More money means more security. It means the business can flourish, no matter what crisis comes and how much external funding fluctuates.

[Sedrefilos]

That's more money I'm talking about. Only it'll come by more sales due to lower (reasonable) prices, not by high initial prices. If you find it ok to buy a crowdfunded game at the same price as publisher-involved, please do. But I believe my arguements are reasonable and even if I might buy some games because I have the money at the time and want to play it, or back it because I want to play it when it comes out (at least I'll get the reasonable price there) it doesen't mean

I find it ok and won't encourage others to do so. And of course I won't jump to defend the companies doing it as if It is my job.

Edited March 5, 2015 by Sedrefilos

[PrimeJunta]

I am working for-profit, I just don't overprofit. More money comes by more people buying my clothes, not by me overpricing them.

btw, since you want to know, I live in Greece, a country suffering by a huge financial crisis since 2011. Everything is difficult at the time. Thankfully I didn't have to fire anyone; I just didn't hire more staff when others went on retirement (the company is 34 years old - belonging to my mother and uncle before me and my brother). I'm left with four emploees now and I mostly work with externals.

 

Edit: I though that lowering your price will attract more people into buying your product instead of a similar more expensive, thus making you more competitive, not the other way around.

 

Things in Greece must suck right now. I hope the Germans come to their senses before it's too late. My sympathies.

 

Nevertheless, I get a feeling you're shifting your argument. Earlier I got the impression that you were arguing that Obsidian's pricing was morally wrong; now you seem to be arguing that it's a poor business decision. That's a different argument, and one I have no opinion on as I have zero experience pricing games.

 

That said: P:E is a niche game. I'm pretty sure it would not shift Skyrim-like units even if they set the price at one cent, or zero. The market for PC/Mac/Linux party-based isometric top-down RTwP RPG's is limited, and expanding it is uphill work. I have no idea how big it is -- a million consumers? two million? five million? -- but it's certainly smaller than the Call of Duty, World of Warcraft, Angry Birds, or Skyrim market... or the T-shirt market, for that matter. That means that setting the launch price too low is potentially more dangerous than setting it too high, as that'll saturate the market at a lower price than you could have had, whereas you can always lower the price later -- indeed, you're expected to do so.

[Sonntam]

That's more money I'm talking about. Only it'll come by more sales due to lower (reasonable) prices, not by high initial prices. If you find it ok to buy a crowdfunded game at the same price as publisher-involved, please do. But I believe my arguements are reasonable and even if I might buy some games because I have the money at the time and want to play it, or back it because I want to play it when it comes out (at least I'll get the reasonable price there) it doesen't mean I find it ok and won't encourage others to do so. And of course I won't jump to defend the companies doing it as if It is my job.

 

There is always a big question what a profit maximizing price is. With Obsidian being in gaming industry for so long, one would however expect them to know how to set prices. Considering that competitors in the genre set precisely the same prices, I would be surprised if Obsidian somehow shot themselves in the foot by following this example.

 

However if they mess up, then one can expect that the next game will cost less. Nothing else can really change the price at this point. We are rather close to release, after all.

[illathid]

@Sedrefilos

 

You keep saying Obsidian has put no money into making the game. Can you cite this claim for me? Given the number of people working on the project, I find it extremely unlikely that Obsidian hasn't put some of its own money into the budget to help cover the development costs of the game.

Edited March 5, 2015 by illathid

[Lord of Riva]

 

I am working for-profit, I just don't overprofit. More money comes by more people buying my clothes, not by me overpricing them.

btw, since you want to know, I live in Greece, a country suffering by a huge financial crisis since 2011. Everything is difficult at the time. Thankfully I didn't have to fire anyone; I just didn't hire more staff when others went on retirement (the company is 34 years old - belonging to my mother and uncle before me and my brother). I'm left with four emploees now and I mostly work with externals.

 

Edit: I though that lowering your price will attract more people into buying your product instead of a similar more expensive, thus making you more competitive, not the other way around.

 

Things in Greece must suck right now. I hope the Germans come to their senses before it's too late. My sympathies.

 

Nevertheless, I get a feeling you're shifting your argument. Earlier I got the impression that you were arguing that Obsidian's pricing was morally wrong; now you seem to be arguing that it's a poor business decision. That's a different argument, and one I have no opinion on as I have zero experience pricing games.

 

That said: P:E is a niche game. I'm pretty sure it would not shift Skyrim-like units even if they set the price at one cent, or zero. The market for PC/Mac/Linux party-based isometric top-down RTwP RPG's is limited, and expanding it is uphill work. I have no idea how big it is -- a million consumers? two million? five million? -- but it's certainly smaller than the Call of Duty, World of Warcraft, Angry Birds, or Skyrim market... or the T-shirt market, for that matter. That means that setting the launch price too low is potentially more dangerous than setting it too high, as that'll saturate the market at a lower price than you could have had, whereas you can always lower the price later -- indeed, you're expected to do so.

 

 

oh god, im german, i hate this **** going on, sorry in the name of germany, we are not all ****

 

@Sedrefilos

 

You keep saying Obsidian has put no money into making the game. Can you cite this claim for me? Given the number of people working on the project, I find it extremely unlikely that Obsidian hasn't put some of its own money into the budget to help cover the development costs of the game.

 

Thats not how it works, with the information we have its a logical conclusion that they didnt invest anything. If they did it would be necessary to back up your argument not his. Its nearly impossible to double check on his end, which is why he saked, more than once, that somneone official makes a statement (which probably wont happen, which is also kinda udnerstandable for a company, please dont misunderstand).

 

But i feel we are talking about some very basic, economical and moral, discussion. I do not think that following this line of argument would help solving the issue

[Elerond]

If you look pre-order prices bit more you will see that Obsidian probably will not even make that $25 per sold copy that they got from KS backers, as steam takes 30%, which leaves max $31,5 for Obsidian and Paradox to split and Paradox would need take less than 20% that Obsidian gets even that $25 (this calculation don't take into account taxes and etc. fees, which are probably higher than what they are for Kickstarter money).

 

Feargus said during KS campaign that Obsidian didn't pitch PoE to any Publisher, but they have in past pitched similar games to publishers and have got zero interest from them.

 

And if as general advice that is already mentioned here several times, if you think that game or any other product is too expensive/not worth of it price then just don't buy the product and if you are interested to have product still then just wait until price drops or buy used copy or second hand version, which we come in my commercial pitch, where I tell that I will sell couple PoE keys with price of 20-25 euros, when I get my keys, as I bought quite lot keys but some people in my friend circle aren't interest of them.

[PrimeJunta]

oh god, im german, i hate this **** going on, sorry in the name of germany, we are not all ****

 

I apologize. I should have said "die Bundeskanzlerin und ihre Regierung," not "the Germans." 

 

(Same applies to the Finnish gov't for that matter. They have their collective head just as far up their colon, only Finland is so small it hardly counts.)

[Sedrefilos]

 

I am working for-profit, I just don't overprofit. More money comes by more people buying my clothes, not by me overpricing them.

btw, since you want to know, I live in Greece, a country suffering by a huge financial crisis since 2011. Everything is difficult at the time. Thankfully I didn't have to fire anyone; I just didn't hire more staff when others went on retirement (the company is 34 years old - belonging to my mother and uncle before me and my brother). I'm left with four emploees now and I mostly work with externals.

 

Edit: I though that lowering your price will attract more people into buying your product instead of a similar more expensive, thus making you more competitive, not the other way around.

 

Things in Greece must suck right now. I hope the Germans come to their senses before it's too late. My sympathies.

 

Nevertheless, I get a feeling you're shifting your argument. Earlier I got the impression that you were arguing that Obsidian's pricing was morally wrong; now you seem to be arguing that it's a poor business decision. That's a different argument, and one I have no opinion on as I have zero experience pricing games.

 

That said: P:E is a niche game. I'm pretty sure it would not shift Skyrim-like units even if they set the price at one cent, or zero. The market for PC/Mac/Linux party-based isometric top-down RTwP RPG's is limited, and expanding it is uphill work. I have no idea how big it is -- a million consumers? two million? five million? -- but it's certainly smaller than the Call of Duty, World of Warcraft, Angry Birds, or Skyrim market... or the T-shirt market, for that matter. That means that setting the launch price too low is potentially more dangerous than setting it too high, as that'll saturate the market at a lower price than you could have had, whereas you can always lower the price later -- indeed, you're expected to do so.

 

This is capitalism. You have to make profit if you need to survive and expand. The more profit, the best for you. That said, you can also be a moral person and make profit at the same time. Or at least be a reasonable person. Yes, I still believe the 42 euros price is immoral (call it greed, call it exploitation of the market standard, whatever) and a lower 20ish price would be more acceptable if they have to capitalize on the game. Note that the morality argument comes from the fact that Obsidian has poured 0 of their money in it, so profit is guaranteed even if one copy is sold (only it won't be much of a profit ) and not for wanting to make profit in general. Of course I don't expect them to do this for the love of the genre only. But you can be selling and be moral at the same time. Say, "hey, the game is out, we've been paid for our work, now, if we're to continue working on pillars, we must make a new sum. Because we owe no money to noone for the production of the game, we can set a lower price. Please try it out and support us for more self-published material - our vision-focoused only ". Or just go for low price and say nothing. People will learn why they did so and will appriciate it.

For me, the most honest move by all croudfunded games would be offering the game for free (since they don't have to cover any expences) and then say "hey, you that played it. Price it and send the money; whatever you value it". But that's too utopic

 

About the game being niche. Ok, that's a choice they made  (I believe the game will sell over 500,000 copies easily, tbh). Niche games go with lower profit. This can't change the fact that the game is overpriced.

I know a lot of you think I'm being rediculous, by I just can wrap my head around selling a 0 cost money as much as a blockbuster one. Sorry.