The $19.95 price point is unchallenged?

[Sega]

Check this out (http://www.igda.org/casual/quarterly/1_2/index.php?id=3). He claims that no one's challenged the 19.95 price point (though I know many of us have). According to the article, it's claimed that the quality of casual games has increased, and so should the price. This sounds like the Electronic Arts Xbox 360 price point of $60. They too claim that higher quality (i.e. production costs) demands higher prices.

There was also talk in this forum that when the big boys like EA get deep into casual games, that it'll drive the production costs up for us. If this article communicates the thinking of the bigger companies, I think that they'll be raising the price as they get knee deep into casual games, so that'll leave us again with our own market. Does anyone think this is a bad thing? Or do people here think we should all be going above the $19.95 price mark?

Also interesting is this:
Thus we tested a 30-min trial period at $19.95 and a 60 minute trial at $19.95 and the 30 min converted better, 1.3% versus .9%, respectively.
Although many of us have done our own tests in this area, it's interesting to see test results from such a large website. Then again, people know beforehand what they are getting into with Family Feud, so they don't require the game to capture them in the same way as original IP.

We've also talked about people's percieved value of a game based on price. This is what C.J Wolf of IWin.com has to say on the subject:
I don't think there is a direct correlation b/t price and people's perception that the higher price game must be better. Majority of purchases are impulse buys so if the game is satisfying when the trial runs out they make a purchase decision based on the entertainment value and not on the perception that a game must be better b/c of the higher price. I believe the demo eliminates this perception due to the fact that an end user can actually test a game before making their purchasing decision.
I agree with this. People generally don't buy the games without downloading and trying them out first, so seeing a $10 price tag probably wouldn't dissuade a potential buyer from purchasing. If you think it will dissuade people from downloading it altogether, then that's another issue...

[DFG]

For the most part I agree with him but he left out a prime factor - public perception. How would the public feel about your site if you only offered 5 minute trials and other sites offered longer?

IWin is coming at it from this position because they have produced good content and probably feel like that is their unique advantage, therefore they are pushing that line as hard as they can. More power to them, but as CJ noted, quite a few sites refused to agree to his pricing terms and IWin lost distribution exposure because of it.

[Tom Gilleland]

I think existing customers are used to paying an amount that they are used to paying! ;) So the $19.95 price will be around for awhile. Though with the expansion of broadband I think we are seeing new customers and they can be introduced to the $24.95 price point from day one. So it probably depends on if you are marketing to new or existing customers.

In retail the price of our products have been pushed down to the $10 point over the last couple years. Our publishers/distributors have sold lots of units, but in the retail channel our royalty rates pretty low. Even for our titles that make it into Walmart/Target and have sold over 100,000 units, we really don't make that much per title.

So, we are now sticking to the $19.95 -24.95 price range for all our titles. (With the exception of old clearance products.)

Tom

[soniCron]

For the most part I agree with him but he left out a prime factor - public perception. How would the public feel about your site if you only offered 5 minute trials and other sites offered longer? Frankly, these are impulse sales. The 30 minutes, 60 minutes, or 3 hours of trial are of no value inherently. You won't sell a product because it has a 30 minute trial, though you may sell it because it has 20 additional levels. Therefore, the actual time involved really should be dynamic, so it nails the impulse at its strongest moment. Surprisingly, not only will developers appreciate it, but the customers will as well. The impulse to buy it is a positive thing to the customer. ("I must have it!" is a positive reaction. "Maybe later," is a negative one, for both parties.)

[arcadetown]

30 minute demo on Family Feud is a no-brainer as the game isn't exactly long on legs. We're seeing some $29.95 games selling like Supreme with Cheese or Tribal Trouble. A more rich compelling game can get away with higher price.

Good statement about Real established the 60 min demo. Many in industry are ex Real exployees or closely associated thereof so naturally 60 min idea migrated all over.

[princec]

Our belief is that the $19.95 price point as not been tested or challenge since the inception of the downloadable games business 4 years ago4 years ago eh? That pretty much frames this article inside his own agenda then. In fact the interview is rather aloof in many respects; we all know that $19.95 is a reasonable common price point but we've all tried all sorts of different prices and so on. And no mention at all even of my genius autoconfigurator ;)

Cas :)

[cliffski]

gnagh. I'm increasingly sick of people confusing indie games with casual games. Its like me and sillysoft dont exist.

[soniCron]

gnagh. I'm increasingly sick of people confusing indie games with casual games. Its like me and sillysoft dont exist. Well, when it comes from the IGDA Casual Games Quarterly, you can pretty much assume they're talking about casual games. ;)

[JArt]

I personally think they have a good point in saying that there are too many generous game demo's available, which for alot of people are enough to cover their gaming needs and therefore removes their need to purchase games. This effects us all.

[Sharpfish]

Well after a few more answers here - I think this one can be chalked up with demp time question. There are standard guidelines to start from but don't feel locked into them. It all depends on your game (for pricing) and the other demo features (for demo times). You really just need to play through it and hit the sweet spot of "impulse buy" at the right moment. If you feature limit the demo also and just end it when it reaches that sweet spot, it won't matter if you give 10 minutes or 10 hours - everyone has reached that sweet spot and can play no more without BUYING the full version.

[Ricardo Vladimiro]

If you feature limit the demo also and just end it when it reaches that sweet spot, it won't matter if you give 10 minutes or 10 hours - everyone has reached that sweet spot and can play no more without BUYING the full version.

I could not agree more. Using my wife again as a prime example: she can make more than half game in most 60 minute demos. That means that she got her fun from it and can go to the next game that is eye-candy in a couple of days.

If she gets a game that is "blocked" in the right moment (the sweet spot you mentioned), she wants to buy it!

I bought a Boxing Manager game some months ago because I couldn't go further and explore it behond one hour and no save-game. This had a mix of both, a timer and a sweet spot. It took me 30 seconds to decide I would buy the game.

[Savant]

It took me 30 seconds to decide I would buy the game.
Changing the context of this quote somewhat, isn't the reality that users decide if they're going to buy a game in the first 10-20 seconds? It's like first impressions on a first date. You pretty much know whether you want to take this one home or not in the first 10 seconds.

If you don't like the game immediately, you're not going to spend time with it trying to get to know it and find it's hidden value. You're going to move on to the next game.

[Ricardo Vladimiro]

I usually give the game a chance... maybe it's professional courtesy. But I think what you say makes sense in the way that the player might decide to continue to play or not in the first couple of seconds. If it's appealing, the player will go forward until that "sweet spot".

And going back on topic:

If the demo can make the player go to that spot where he is enjoying himself, then the price tag can be only a matter of market. I can see a game like Bone or Democracy being sold above the $19.95 tag, but a puzzle/word/shooter et cetera having that price roof.

I guess it's again the indie/casual thing putting it's label on games and markets. But it's just my opinion.

[Hidden Sanctum]

I think some games should be charged above the $19.95 price point. Especially those that stand out as unique. I would almost go as far as to say that many of the clones might be better served a bit below the $19.95 price point.

[Anthony Flack]

I personally think they have a good point in saying that there are too many generous game demo's available, which for alot of people are enough to cover their gaming needs and therefore removes their need to purchase games. This effects us all.

People will always be able to find plenty of free or cheap ways to entertain themselves, including free games. That will never change. The trick is to get people to decide that they want to keep playing your game. Probably by making your game unique and enjoyable.

[DFG]

I don't get some of the reasoning behind the original article and some of the comments in this thread:

1) Demos are too generous at 1 hour, too much of the game is given away

2) Casual games are getting better so we should charge more

So if I can play a good deal of the game in 1 hour, how much value is the game really? Compare this to core PC titles. You get 20hours plus and usually some multiplayer features know equaling probably 40hours plus (a good RPG can hit 60 hours or more).

We want to charge the same amount as other PC games but Casual Games are made at a fraction of the cost, deliver way fewer hours, and on the whole (exceptions noted) deliver less entertainment value.

I know we are talking different demographics here, but if the price comparison is going to be made between the two segments, lets compare apples to apples on all measuring points.

[adamw]

I think this is a great conversation - and of course, it comes up every now and then. Our game isn't quite casual (or maybe not casual at all), but we've been thinking the $19.95 price point for what are (I think) completely different reasons. Granted, it is a decent profit margin for us (indie costs can be extremely low), so that was the first consideration.

But here's what we did: we did a small study of a decent sample of 'downloadable' games about a year ago. It was axiomatic: $19.95 was far and away the most common price (around 80% of the titles). To be part of the downloadable market, it's $19.95 or be different. We wanted to come into the 'download' market (being outside it before) so the price point was part of the direction we were taking. It's the image we want: 'hey, you're one of those $19.95 games. Must be easy to play!' It's like $19.95 is part of the brand.

Strange, eh?