GIve your indie game away

Yes. Give it away and then charge for updates, add-ons and zillion other things one can imagine. If EA can do it, indy programmer can do it, too...

http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9779311-7.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-5

Barney

very interesting, thanks!

In that case, the Indie future is probably doing the precise opposite. While big publishers ( and the casual Portals will surely follow ) think they can milk more money out of people this way, there will be a very healthy market in gamers who refuse to get bilked by these gimmicks.

Even Microsoft's long-term dream is for users to rent their operating system and office suite from them, as they've mentioned on several occasions.

Personally am not buying into those schemes -- Iprefer to pay once and be *done* with it, and I'm sure I'm not alone in that.

Even with the new 'subcription' system from Tell Tale adventures, used by Sam & Max I didn't want to deal with their episodal purchasing -- just wait an extra couple of months for the whole thing to be out on CD, and buy it at that point.

I agree that this is just an attempt to get more money and is another form of not really letting go of the product when someone pays money for it. In my book, when someone buys something, it is entirely their property. They shouldn't have to keep paying for it over and over again. Then again, maybe that's a form of sharing? I dunno. I just don't buy that `this is the future` - its only the future in the eyes of these people who think it's the right thing to do.

It seems to me you did not get it, guys. One does not pay for the original program and one does not pay for the usage of the program. You pay only if you are after updates or some add-ons. You have the product, you are using it. It's just that to get even more out of the product you have to pay. I don't see anything wrong in that approach.

Barney

Interesting.

I always wondered if a pay-per-chapter system would work, each one a mini game but big enough to get the player immersed and ending at a critical story point with say a €2 per chapter cost.

Unless they pull their socks up it will be a long term nightmare at their current rate of progress.

You think we didn't get it, and I think you didn't get it. They're not in it to be charitable, they're in it because it makes them more money. Initially they might achieve this by making a smaller amount of money from a larger amount of people but that's only going to happen once, then they've got nowhere else to go but taking more and more money from you.

Let's say Fifa Soccer 2008 ( not free ) sells 1 million copies at £30 each. £30 million gross.

Let's say they release Fifa Soccer 2009 for free, and charge only for updates and add-ons. 10 million people download it, and each one spends an average of £5. ( Figures are completely arbitrary. ) £50 million gross. Much lower cost per copy, but many, many more users.

Next year when they release Fifa 2010, they're not going to get many, many more users. They're not going to get 10x as many people as last year because there aren't 100 million interested people. They're going to get 10 million again, more or less. So to make more money, they're going to have to get everyone to pay more, and that will only happen by making more and more vital features paid add-ons.

The only difference is that they're doing it slowly, it's a long term strategy. They know people won't buy into it from the start, but they plan to make a slow steady progression so we don't notice.

If people fall for this ( and I think it's very likely they will ) it's only a matter of time before we're being asked to pay a penny per lap every time you drive around the track at virtual Monza, or being "given" Gran Turismo 7 free and being asked to pay 25 pence for each of the 350 cars you can drive.

Yep, by charging lots of small amounts, you don't really realize how much you are actually spending.

I have always thought that if you could come up with a way for websites to charge a minuscule amount of money (less than a penny), you could get rich. Because people will just tend to ignore little charges and accept it.

As another poster stated, they will only charge for patches and whatnot... And what keeps them from releasing a known buggy first version, just so they can charge for that patch?

They will end up nickle and diming the user and since it is just 25 cents, who cares, the average user will do it. But those little hcarges will add up to much more.

And, instead of working hard on an expansion that they can charge $20 for, they will just release a bunch of little upgrades for $2 each. In the end, you will end up paying much more for the same thing. And their development time and cost will be much less.

@Barnabius: I get it. "To Start = Free Play, To Continue= Fee Pay!" thats my business model for my FPSRPG as well. I was inspired after playing BattleOn's Dragon Fable RPG.

You start and play the game for free upto 40 Levels. However, to go beyond Level 40, enter secret areas, and buy more powerful weapons & items, its required that you possess a "Dragon Amulet".

The Dragon Amulet costs a one time fee of $19.95 and other packages upto $39.95 include "Dragon Coins", Extra Inventory Slots, and other items. I was literally lured into buying the Dragon Amulet as my character advanced during the free play.

BattleOn is constantly updating and expanding the game that unlocks new quest areas as you complete quest. The game is also tied to their forum so that you earn "Dragon Coins" with your posts to use on your characters in game.

I believe BattleOn has winning business model with fresh content updates and the added out-of-game features.

I strongly believe that you have to design the game play from the start around this business model not in rectrospect. In other words you don't release a game and then release separate expansion packs (aka patches). I also believe that this model may not be suitable for every genre of game which is where Cash Tournaments come into play (or should I say - pay. hehe)

Isnt this the way Indie games are now? I download it, I play it, and if I like it I pay somemoney and unlock the add-ons or higher levels?

In fact, isnt the whole thing just shareware updated to be corperate?

MMORPG charge a subscription for continued play. The question is why players would agree to paying a subscription. Many say its the multiplayer community and fresh game content. I would agree and I would say that these principles have worked their way into other Game genres to create new PC game business models. It wouldn't be long after that console games started using these business models as well.

FPS - so what you're saying is that the underlying point of the entire gameplay leading up to your buying the amulet was a covert sales pitch, convincing you beyond all doubt that you must have it and need it and want it, and you didn't realize it was a sales pitch because you thought it was just a game - so you just had to have it, bought it, etc.

So then this raises the question - should there be aspects of gameplay which attempt to `sell` to the user future freedoms and abilities that they are enticed to really want, regardless of whether that means they have to perform some incredible skill to achieve it, or the even more incredible skill of reaching into the back pocket?

Is what we're seeing, a commercialization of gameplay?

I think the idea of giving the game away and then charging for other content is good - I mean, maybe for different reasons, I would do it because what you're saying is that you as a publisher of content wish to be on the same level playing field as the player - so you both own the same `engine` and then you are free to add and sell content just as the user is ----- except, that in the examples you're giving, isn't it more a matter of a *closed* system where the game is given for free (as in free money not freedom) with the string attached that only the creator of the game can make more content for it?

For me that is falling short. A higher ideal would be to create a game which is somewhat open which can be modified and added to by anyone - you give it away for free so that anyone can add content, and then you along with other people add and sell content - perhaps in competition with others, and maybe even to the point where someone else could be producing far better content than you to the point where you can barely even sell any content - OR, if you believe in your product and ability then maybe you can come up with `official content` which users do buy. After all, being the official company gives it some clout compared to 3rd party.

Rather than this ideal, what seems to be happening is these companies are pretending that they're giving the user freedom - really it's only monetary freedom - later to use that vehicle to persuade and entice the user into spending money. I suppose it's one thing to use the gameplay as an advertisement for itself and to encourage the gamer to want to `buy more action`. But this is really just about the money and not about the freedom.

So, exactly how does someone go about writing gameplay which, subtly and secretly, is a sales pitch?

@ImaginaryHuman: No what I'm saying is that I was intrigued by the game after playing it for free, I enjoyed it so much that I wanted to pay for the upgrades. No convert sell pitch, the pitch was very direct and very open: "To continue, pay $19.95."

IMHO, their sales strategy wasnt that far different then playing a game demo for a couple of levels, then paying to get the full version.

Yeah. That's what he was saying too, just more eloquently.

I don't know. I think it's scary that big business is taking their sales tactics from pimps and drug dealers.

I'm sorry. I fail to see any correlation.

I think he means:
Like large corporations, pimps and drug dealers dont care who or how many they 'damage' in the process of making insane amounts of money (and both try to hide what they are up to). They all have their close knit associates who they work with secretly when it suits them, but with constant suspicion of each other, and stab each other in the back at the first opportunity. Both have (relatively) large financial resources available to deal with legal and security 'problems'.
After all organised crime and monopolies DO pay... A lot. (No, its not right, but its a sad truth)

Whats what I understood by it anyway :)

I actually thought he was refering to the fact that drug dealers will often give out freebies, then as soon as you are addicted ramp the price up and milk you for all you've got. So pretty much a spot on analogy in that respect. Can't say I know how pimps opperate so can't comment on that.

I knew the NHS was short staffed but this is outrageous.

8o)

I sometimes feel rather old when i'm reading about different distribution methods nowadays because they just don't work for me as a customer. If i badly want a game, i buy it. If not, then i don't buy it. As my time is limited i'm not interested in the rest anymore and there are so many unplayed games around or games which would be fun to replay them again that picking out a few gems is so easy that i don't need a maybe more attractive distribution method were you mostly end up paying more in the end. But i understand that these things work for quite a lot of people out there and i'm always amazed for what other people are willing to pay money for.

these rental update methods are only viable on the Higher price applications

Ie You Get a World Editor From MisterX and it free but you cant export to any gamecompatable models unless you rent Xport plug for World Editor

These Kind of situations can be a benefit to indie devs
Only Enable Extra for period of Nmonth

Rental $8 £4 ( no real conversion just a mock up) per 30 days or Xmeg of Content

If you wanted a top modelling ap it could cost in the region of
£1-2K $2-4k

Why Would an indy buy it, well if they are successful they will have the cash but otherwise they will look for other methods.

The rental Method opens its doors to the lower financial market ie Dev for 7 months free pay 30day or Xmeg fee and create content

ie Cost £4 $8 for Xmonths work

Or Pay £1k+ $2k+ one time and regain loss with each game/software release ( This is okay in Theory but fail often and you find yourself out of pocket )

The Rental Method can Cut the Cost for First time dev by huge amount giving a greater user base of the top apps

And as for larger corperations who will buy tools 12,24,36 months at a time will get discounts and extra support

Im all for this kind of the you will find Its a benefit to both seller/buyer

But this also leads to options for a company of upping prices of needed tools and would need governing by a private party