[casual_games] Re: Price as Signal

[Luke Munn]

Though I don't have experience from the business end of things, I would 
actually go beyond this to say, as a game player, game length is only 
one aspect of perceived value and enjoyment. This issue was recently 
brought up on jayisgames.com, with some users complaining about the 
relatively short length of Samorost 2 for the cost. For myself and 
others, the experience was beautiful and rich, and I would gladly have 
this over a casual game I recently purchased and played with dozens of 
levels that just became tedious and repetitious. I think done well, a 
slightly higher price point creates a gamer that savours the experience.

Again, this needs to be balanced with business and market aspects, but 
in the art world, value has less to do with utilitarian concepts like 
materials used, cost to create, durability, functionality, etc. 
Photographs are sold for $1000 each. Scripts for performance work and 
concepts for concept art are sold separate from the work itself. One NY 
artist, Enright Brock, offers kidnapping services as experiental art to 
clients for $1,500 a time.

While you probably think this is straying far from the topic, I would 
say if game designers and players are going to talk about their work as 
pieces of art, then we need to start thinking like that. Of course, art 
ranges from high to low, and I'm not advocating selling casual games for 
$100 each. But shifting this perception would mean a deeper appreciation 
of the work and the value of it from both the designers and the players.


Hope I posted correctly, first reply post.

Cheers,
Luke Munn

> It has nothing to do with the cost of making the game. It has to do with
> the perceived value by the customer. If the customer believes they are
> getting $20 worth of value, then they'll pay $20. I'd argue that a game
> like Bejeweled or Zuma, which offers hundreds of hours of entertainment,
> is well worth $20 (100 hours = $0.20 / hour). A game that you play once,
> and then are done with, might offer much less value (20 hours at $50 =
> $2.50/hour). Your typical movie is even more expensive (2 hours at $10 =
> $5/hour).
> 
> One way to turn it around for the person asking the question is to
> compare it to movies. Kong was rumored to cost $200 million to make,
> whereas a film like the Blair Witch Project might cost only a few
> million, but they both cost $20 to buy on DVD or $10 to see in the
> theatre. They both offer similar entertainment. Why should the cost to
> manufacture have anything to do with the value provided?
> 
> ---------------------------
> James Gwertzman
> Director of Business Development
> PopCap Games, Inc.