Steamspy can have a just a few days lag at most so those numbers should be more or less accurate since the game is already on the market since October. Although, this "news" could generate an new spike sales, it won't make it a financially "break even".

As usual, the main problem with current indie studios is that "they put all their eggs in one basket". For comparison, My local "neighbour" studio also entered the indie market with Epistory around the same time and has the same range of owners (1.657) but only a fraction of their employees (28 people) are working on the title and they get their main cash from contract works (serious gaming, mobile F2P, etc.). Been around for 7 years. In the case of Brigador team, well, they're in for a lot of debts :(

You won't hear me saying anything bad about diversification, though Jeff Vogel seems to exemplify how the other tack can also work out.

As to the Steamspy stuff... yeah, that's sad. Especially because of the whole "Which is the actual games launch spike" thing, leading to expect the release from Early Access might not be anything special.

Anyway, for now it's theoretical sadness. What I saw is appealing, but I'll wait until "I'm home" to go to Steam and check Brigador better.

IMO devs should set prices at whatever they want. These sob stories don't do much good. IMO a reasonable reply would be:

Thanks for your price suggestion. We feel that the current price reflects the work we put into the game. Like many other games, there's a good chance that the price will drop over time, and that the game will be discounted during sales. So if $20 is too much for you, feel free to wait for them.

Didn't you mean it has to reflect the demand for the product? Because the statement above makes no sense to me either. :/ How would you determine the quality of a product, especially without considering costs, and even if you were able to put a price on the quality, it wouldn't make the business model viable if noone was interested in your quality product ...

Price doesn't have to reflect anything. The only question is what price will bring the most profit, and that mostly is a play with customer psychology.

The demand usually reflects the quality. If a game has fantastic reviews across the board, more people are likely to want to buy it. But you are of course correct, it is the demand that should determine the price. At any rate, the production cost should not figure into it in any way. Arguing that your product should cost more than people are willing to pay for it because you spent a long time making it is silly and pointless. The product is what it is, and it doesn't somehow magically become a better product regardless of what you say. The time you spent on it matters only to you, not to the customer.

Good point. I guess I was so confused by the perceived U-turn in Wishbone's argumentation that I didn't really reflect about that part myself ... ;)

Well, it's about finding the "sweet spot" price that maximises the Price * Sales calculation. Unfortunately, a lot of devs have little business sense, and too much emotional investment in their game, and so they feel a need to set the price quite a bit higher than the "sweet spot", because they invested so much time in making the game, and feel that pricing it lower would be somehow detrimental to the game.

Thanks for sharing.

To Brigador: They should ask for the $20. Everything below is just giving their work for away below value. It's worth it. And especially convincing is their argument that everyone who feels it's not worth that much can buy later during a sale. That is absolutely fair.

However it may be they won't sell the required 25.000 copies because ... even if the game is good, competition might be too strong and interest too low. I can only judge for myself but I would not buy it because I'm not interested in the genre.

The humour (things you can do in 5 years, things that are priced higher than $20) in the post is great and make me sympathizing with the dev, but unfortunately they make the wrong kind of games for me. But I voted on the wishlist here, so it may also come to GOG as token of support.

To Refund dilemma of Undercover Fish: OMG, OMG, OMG

This is probably a good example of how it shouldn't be. This guy is seriously on the wrong track and with this attitude an economy could not work. But I guess he (or she?) is still a kid and still has lots to learn.

"So this game was 18$. I purchased it because i enjoyed games like this. And I enjoyed this game. Alot. Like, way more than a healthy amount. But it was 2-3 hours. I feel like there could of been more, and im thinking of refunding. But here is my problem: I loved this game. It was a unique game with awesome narration and storytelling. I like the developers. I mean seriously, have you seen how active they are on theese forums? What other dev is that connected to their community? I want to support the developers, but there was so much more i could of got with my 18$. Should i refund, or hold on to it?"

I watched a Firewatch LP and I didn't like it very much (sadly, as the dialogues were quite good).
That said, it isn't surely a crap game: users that complete it shouldn't be allowed to ask for a complete refund. : (

It's not easy to find the revenue sweet spot without experimenting, and reactions to price changes can in themselves be a significant risk. Especially to rising prices ;)

Another approach taken, but even more reviled by consumers is differential pricing - kind of like airplane seats. Segment the market so that some pay X, other Y - instead of one sweet spot you cover a range. In a way discounts do this already...

But can you imagine a price based on % of income? Tell us your salary and we will charge you for the game accordingly. ;) I actually hear some traffic fines are now done like that in some EU countries....

Pricing, like everything, should serve the public good. Ideally, everyone is magically charged a magical amount so that good devs get to eat and make more games, hacks get to eat and go back to doing more productive and socially valuable work, the cutomers get to eat and have fun, and everyone is reasonably happy. Now this OBVIOUSLY isn't happening with games any time soon, because the magical infrastructure to make it work isn't there.

Fines, though? Fines is where it can and does work. Again, if the idea is to maximize the public good, people should be fined enough so that fewer people are killed but not so much that perps' and their dependents' lives get ruined. You're already dealing with the government so no breach of privacy occurs, and a traffic rule violation isn't a beneficial good or service which people should be free to acquire.

Not really disagreeing with you on the substance and the utopia, but you know I disagree on the above principle right? :)

I can be snarky and say Putin's public good and your public good are divergent enough to be meaningless. So who is the public that gets to define good?

Bottom line, I believe a conception of society privileging individual inalienable rights is better than any socialized goods approach. this implies seller has the pricing power, buyer takes it or leaves it. No real exceptions required...

Yeah, and my avatar is emerald green because I can define colors whichever way. Don't pretend to be daft (or a radical skeptic). Evidence-based public good: people are healthier, happier, and live longer.

I'm not pretending... I see you're basically referring to a form of philosophical utility rather then the more political public good. Ok, but I still disagree and the objection is actually the same one - utilitarianism and communism share some assumptions you know?

Let's park health and long lifes, although I could come up with obvious situations where those conflict with happiness.

Even considering only happiness, how does the perfect machine decide whether to privilege the happiness of A or B, in a situation where they are basically in a zero sum situation? You can postulate there will be a utilitarian happiness maximum, but that takes you into difficult territory if for example A likes something extremely high, and B dislikes the same even just slightly less - but it so happens the something in question has to do with the kind of rights I mentioned.

Bottom line - this stuff cannot be calculated even assuming perfect information and computation power. Is that what you consider being a radical skeptic?