Planetary Annihilation at 90$ on Steam

Recommended Videos

Crozekiel

New member
Jun 14, 2013
14
0
0
The Plunk said:
I can see that this price was a rather silly move PR-wise, even if it was justified.

On the other hand, why the hell are people complaining when the game is going to get both better and cheaper in the future? Have some bloody patience. [sub][small]BUT MUM! THEY GET TO PLAY IT AND I DON'T! IT'S NOT FAIR! WAAAA![/small][/sub]
I for one am more worried about the possible repercussions of a game showing up on steam for $90 from an indie developer. If it had been done in a more logical manner, and having the default option to be to pre-order the game for the $40 or whatever they plan to launch, then having the "founder's package" or whatever they are calling it as an optional extra, then I wouldn't have been bothered by it at all honestly. Despite that it is in early alpha, it is still a playable game that you can immediately download and play with a price tag of $90. It looks like a game that costs $90, not a game that costs $40 and you can pay $50 extra to get a few perks and access to alpha, and that is the problem. It is entirely a problem of perception, and what that could cause in the industry.
 

babinro

New member
Sep 24, 2010
2,518
0
0
Sir Pootis said:
I agree, especially for an unfinished game. They don't even have the excuse of it being the publisher's decision, being a self published game. I'd never pay $90 for any game, regardless of quality. It's just unreasonable.
I thought about games like that for a long time until Rock Band changed my mind. It might be easier to justify because of the peripherals but it's really no different than a subscription MMO or even the money people put into free to play games.

I'd hate to see $90.00 become the norm in North America but I wouldn't discount the game on price point alone.
 

Crozekiel

New member
Jun 14, 2013
14
0
0
Yea, but those free to play games or sub based games don't ask for it all up front either. $90 over the course of 6-9 months is much much more affordable than $90 all at once, which is why those games are accessible to the masses, but if the base price point for a game becomes $90, gaming would become a much more exclusive club for the super rich.
 

generals3

New member
Mar 25, 2009
1,198
0
0
Crozekiel said:
I for one am more worried about the possible repercussions of a game showing up on steam for $90 from an indie developer. If it had been done in a more logical manner, and having the default option to be to pre-order the game for the $40 or whatever they plan to launch, then having the "founder's package" or whatever they are calling it as an optional extra, then I wouldn't have been bothered by it at all honestly. Despite that it is in early alpha, it is still a playable game that you can immediately download and play with a price tag of $90. It looks like a game that costs $90, not a game that costs $40 and you can pay $50 extra to get a few perks and access to alpha, and that is the problem. It is entirely a problem of perception, and what that could cause in the industry.
Personally i'm more worried about the concept of asking extra money to alpha/beta test the game.
 

Madman123456

New member
Feb 11, 2011
590
0
0
High game price makes for better QA testing? Imagine what all the Bethesda games would be like...

*changes pants*
 

Weaver

Overcaffeinated
Apr 28, 2008
8,977
0
0
IMO Steam isn't kickstarter. The Early Access program was all about doing it the minecraft way; buy into a game early at a lower price with the understanding it's not finished. This is backwards. $90 it states on the game page is going to be less than the released product. Why would I want to buy into an unfinished game at $90 when I can get the finished game at $60?

Though, really, I don't care much. The game doesn't look like something I'd buy.
 

Orks da best

New member
Oct 12, 2011
689
0
0
once again the valve defense force comes out of the woodwork, had this been EA or another developer, publisher there be riots here...

and 90 bucks for a game, in a alpha stage, that's not a collector or otherwise special edition is a bit, if not high robbery.
I agree with what a guy said earlier, should be delivered with a model and free pizza.
 

generals3

New member
Mar 25, 2009
1,198
0
0
Assassin Xaero said:
In reply to everyone: then why dont they just not fucking buy the game and shut the fuck up. I am so fucking sick of all you fucking babies on the site who have to ***** about everything little fucking thing there is. Fuck this place.
Because if you disapprove of something the best way for things not to go the way you want it is to not complain. I won't buy it and i'm telling why i'm not. Aren't we allowed to voice negative opinions anymore?
 

KungFuJazzHands

New member
Mar 31, 2013
309
0
0
Crozekiel said:
Except that people putting money into Kickstarter know (or should know) that they are taking a risk putting in that money in the hopes that the product in question will be developed. They are purposely funding the development of the game, not purchasing it. There is a major difference between the two acts.
Exactly this. Steam is not a Kickstarter portal or a funding drive. People who funded the original Kickstarter project were knowingly paying into a risky venture, and as far as I can tell that has not changed with the Early Access version -- there is no guarantee that Planetary Annihilation will ever get finished (if you doubt this could ever happen, no need to look further than another Early Access game, Towns), and frankly demanding $90 from the average consumer for access to an alpha build is entirely unreasonable. The kind of precedent that could be set here for future Early Access games is dangerous.

---

Anyway, it's still not clear to me if those who contributed to the Kickstarter drive already had access to a playable version of the alpha prior to the game's release on Steam. Can anyone verify whether this is true or not?
 

Ed130 The Vanguard

(Insert witty quote here)
Sep 10, 2008
3,782
0
0
Orks da best said:
once again the valve defense force comes out of the woodwork, had this been EA or another developer, publisher there be riots here...
What? People are arguing about Uber and the ethics of keeping the price between Kickstarter backers vs Alpha buyers, not Valve.

I think you're projecting.

Personally I would have gone the Grim Dawn route and left Steam to do the updating and kept selling Alpha access via their own website rather than use the Early Access service.

Mainly because people didn't complain about the Alpha access price despite it remaining the same there for months.
 

Ed130 The Vanguard

(Insert witty quote here)
Sep 10, 2008
3,782
0
0
KungFuJazzHands said:
Crozekiel said:
Except that people putting money into Kickstarter know (or should know) that they are taking a risk putting in that money in the hopes that the product in question will be developed. They are purposely funding the development of the game, not purchasing it. There is a major difference between the two acts.
Exactly this. Steam is not a Kickstarter portal or a funding drive. People who funded the original Kickstarter project were knowingly paying into a risky venture, and as far as I can tell that has not changed with the Early Access version -- there is no guarantee that Planetary Annihilation will ever get finished (if you doubt this could ever happen, no need to look further than another Early Access game, Towns), and frankly demanding $90 from the average consumer for access to an alpha build is entirely unreasonable. The kind of precedent that could be set here for future Early Access games is dangerous.

---

Anyway, it's still not clear to me if those who contributed to the Kickstarter drive already had access to a playable version of the alpha prior to the game's release on Steam. Can anyone verify whether this is true or not?
Keys for Kickstarter backers started rolling out on the 6th of June and all 7000+ were sent out on the 10th.
 

KeyMaster45

Gone Gonzo
Jun 16, 2008
2,846
0
0
I left my two cents on the matter yesterday in their steam forum. After reading through the various arguments there yesterday and what's here today it remains unchanged.

I actually just ran across this game on the store's front page. I watched the trailer, thought the gameplay looked pretty cool, and was seriously considering buying into alpha access; then I saw the $90 price tag.

Unholy zombie Jesus, what on earth is wrong with you guys? The pattern is to typically charge MORE as your game gets closer to launch. You're actively punishing people for wanting to test your game. In fact, what you seem to be doing is charging people as if they've purchased the game twice and then tacking on $10. You are not doing us a favor by allowing us to pay to test your game, we are doing you the favor by having enough confidence in your potential product to make the early investment and put up with all the frustrating aspects of testing a game.

You decided on this price during your kickstarter campaign? Guys, I'm here to tell you that before a few minutes ago I had never heard of you, or your game. Telling me that you decided on this absurd price a year ago while crowdfunding its development means nothing to me. You guys are nobodies, sorry to burst your bubble but that's the truth, what about you, your company, and your game makes you think that we would be that desperate to test your new IP?

If the trailer is any indication then I think $40 is probably a pretty acceptable price point for the finished product. A whoping $90 just to test it though? I think I want whatever you guys are smoking because it must be some quality stuff to bring on that heavy of a delusion. As it stands I think $15 would be the max I'd be willing to invest in alpha; though I wouldn't be opposed to full price once you reach beta. What you can be darn sure I'm not willing to do is pay for an unproven game twice, plus another $10.

I can almost guarantee that your current early access model is going to result in you running out of money before the game is finished. Then you'll be up to your neck in debt and have a failed product worth approximately nothing.
 

Owyn_Merrilin

New member
May 22, 2010
7,370
0
0
generals3 said:
Crozekiel said:
I for one am more worried about the possible repercussions of a game showing up on steam for $90 from an indie developer. If it had been done in a more logical manner, and having the default option to be to pre-order the game for the $40 or whatever they plan to launch, then having the "founder's package" or whatever they are calling it as an optional extra, then I wouldn't have been bothered by it at all honestly. Despite that it is in early alpha, it is still a playable game that you can immediately download and play with a price tag of $90. It looks like a game that costs $90, not a game that costs $40 and you can pay $50 extra to get a few perks and access to alpha, and that is the problem. It is entirely a problem of perception, and what that could cause in the industry.
Personally i'm more worried about the concept of asking extra money to alpha/beta test the game.
Seriously. People used to get paid to do that. Then the publishers figured out they'd do it for free. And now some companies are actually charging for the privilege. I understand it to an extent with kickstarter backing, since you're not paying for the right to do alpha/beta testing so much as investing in a product and being shown that the dev didn't just run off with your money. But charging on Steam? I don't know, there's just something weird about it.

Also, $90 is just ridiculous. If you actually backed this thing at that level, congratulations. You had $90 to spend on a videogame that wasn't even finished yet. You no longer have any right to complain about anything ever again, because clearly you're loaded[footnote]I was not entirely being serious here, but come on. You paid $90 for an unfinished indie game. Congratulations, you're rich.[/footnote].
 

Crozekiel

New member
Jun 14, 2013
14
0
0
Owyn_Merrilin said:
Seriously. People used to get paid to do that. Then the publishers figured out they'd do it for free. And now some companies are actually charging for the privilege. I understand it to an extent with kickstarter backing, since you're not paying for the right to do alpha/beta testing so much as investing in a product and being shown that the dev didn't just run off with your money. But charging on Steam? I don't know, there's just something weird about it.

Also, $90 is just ridiculous. If you actually backed this thing at that level, congratulations. You had $90 to spend on a videogame that wasn't even finished yet. You no longer have any right to complain about anything ever again, because clearly you're loaded (I was not entirely being serious here, but come on. You paid $90 for an unfinished indie game. Congratulations, you're rich.)
Yes. This. Exactly this. Asking for an exorbitant price on kickstarter is saying "hey, we need lots of money to get this game off the ground, please help us out, cause we think it will be awesome." Then, continuing to ask the same exorbitant price after your kickstarter goal was smashed to bits (nearly tripled) suddenly changes that message to "we tricked others into paying this price, and so should you!"
 

zumbledum

New member
Nov 13, 2011
673
0
0
many years ago me and my friends used to love playing TA and the core contingency, it was one of the few games around that could push my system! and i had 2 12MB v2's in sli!

So when i saw Planetary Annihilation appearing on early access i was tumescent with joy! and as the price plan was free to join the alpha test i thought cool ill test that send my feedback np guys , then release day got here and the price leaped up to well what it is and my jaw hit the floor!

so if i understand it , if you helped kick start it and donated a minimum of 90 dollars you get the game and the only advantage is you get to do their QA? see i just wouldn't of had the balls to be that rude but not only did they get away with it from what i can tell they got about 3 times there goal?

i think im in the wrong business fools be giving money away over here!
 

Sir Pootis

New member
Aug 4, 2012
240
0
0
babinro said:
Sir Pootis said:
I agree, especially for an unfinished game. They don't even have the excuse of it being the publisher's decision, being a self published game. I'd never pay $90 for any game, regardless of quality. It's just unreasonable.
I thought about games like that for a long time until Rock Band changed my mind. It might be easier to justify because of the peripherals but it's really no different than a subscription MMO or even the money people put into free to play games.

I'd hate to see $90.00 become the norm in North America but I wouldn't discount the game on price point alone.
It's different if you're including peripherals with the price point, but for a stand alone title, $90 is way to much.
 

Dryk

New member
Dec 4, 2011
981
0
0
This is an understable if dumb move, that's all I really have to say about it.

KeyMaster45 said:
Guys, I'm here to tell you that before a few minutes ago I had never heard of you, or your game. Telling me that you decided on this absurd price a year ago while crowdfunding its development means nothing to me. You guys are nobodies, sorry to burst your bubble but that's the truth, what about you, your company, and your game makes you think that we would be that desperate to test your new IP?
You may have never heard of them, but they are far from nobodies. Also I think you're assuming too much by saying that they hope you're desperate enough to pay them $90 to test their game.
 

Madman123456

New member
Feb 11, 2011
590
0
0
I'd buy some bethesda games for 90$ and sink many hours in it. Got over a thousand in fallout 3 and fallout new vegas each and in retrospect, i could've paid quite a bit more money for that.



In those giant games there is always going to be some restraints. This or that room for this and that important figure in the game is going to be a bit small.
The "Mages council" in "Oblivion" is laughably small and pretty much everything isn't very roomy. Some of the Castles in the cities throughout cyrodiil are big enough to not immediately remind to that they are too small for their use.

When a company makes a big huge gameworld to explore there are going to be some restraints. Saints Row has cities on islands, buildings modeled after real world places are going to be a bit smaller, like the pentagon in Fallout 3 for example.

But those gameworlds are very large, well, the cities in saints row aren't exactly the biggest places but there is still more stuff in there then in any rail shooter for example.

If Bethesda told me that their next game is going to cost more and they're going to use that money to make the gameworld more detailed with more stuff in it that i get to explore with less restraints and exactly four invisible walls at the edges of the gameworld i would book the next flight to Washington and give them my money personally.
 

J Tyran

New member
Dec 15, 2011
2,407
0
0
I can understand that the people the help fund the kickstarter would feel cheated if the early access price was cheaper but its still excessive, you buy an early access game to help support the developer in return for getting a sneak peak at the game. Overcharging for that is just plain greedy.

In fact it concerns me.

Open betas for games where bad enough, to cut down on QA costs and help promote games devs started the open beta concept off. Essentially getting beta testers cheaply, then early access started where you could pay for the "privilege" of beta testing (along with the pre order and get beta access thing too). Now developers want to actually charge us more than the release cost of the game for doing their beta testing for them?

Does no one else get the whiff of utter bullshit here? Its not even the likes of Crapcom or EA pulling this either, even they have never charged twice the release price for

When people used to say we soon really will be paying for unfinished games after a buggy game was released it was always a joke, I don't think anyone would ever have guessed that they would try and charge twice the release price too.

No I am not bitching either, neither do I feel "entitled" to play this or however else someone tries to deconstruct my argument. I simply would not pay, oh and I will chuckle at the fools that do pay for this. There really is one born every minute.