Planetary Annihilation costs 90$ (right now)

[aelreth]

Yet I can find the game for $40. Though you will have to wait 6 months. $60 for beta access & 90 or more for alpha access.

They are utilizing the steam as their distributor.

From what Neutrino has said, PA will be patched into it's final form.

What they are doing was already discussed with their backers, 75% support what is going on right now.

 

[Amir Kondori]

Frankly I think the people who are complaining vocally about the OPTION to pay $90 for alpha access are complete and utter morons.

They don't have to buy the access. The access was a reward for Kickstarter backers and I commend these guys for not screwing over the backers by offering alpha access cheaper to avoid the backlash, since they already have the Kickstarter money and could have easily done that.

This game has a normal release date like any other game. I don't understand how it hurts anyone to wait for the normal release and pay the normal price, which I believe is $20.

Of course simps always be sipping that hatorade.

 

[Amir Kondori]

It is essential. Because the pricing only makes sense if alpha/beta testing a game is somehow something people should pay for. If you agree with me than you should be appalled by Uber's pricing like me.

No one is being forced to buy it, so why should anyone be appalled? Because you think the price for early access is too high? Then don't buy in. I'm not going to buy in, I have no interest in early access. The regular game, when released, will be $20. Is that a rip off?

Gamers can really suck as customers sometimes, here we are given a really interesting choice, the choice to get involved really early in development and help shape the direction the game goes in, and yet people complain and try get that choice removed.

Terrible.

 

[Epona222]

They seem to have got confused about the difference between Kickstarter and Steam.
Just because people are prepared to pay £70 to back a project, does not mean people want to pay £70 on Steam for an unfinished game. I think they've made a mistake here - I understand why they might have thought it was OK, but it's a PR error nonetheless.

 

[RandV80]

Glad to see there's a lot more sensibility on here (mostly). I was just looking at the Steam forums a little while ago and can't believe the stupidty and sense of entitlement that the majority posting seem to have, they're an embarrassment to the Master Race!

What I'm reading from it is even though the developers have a clear plan and reason for what they're doing, and even though it's pretty obvious if you don't like it or think it's too expensive you can no buy it or wait, it seems like it's just a whole bunch of people coming out of the wood works saying "take this game down because the price hurts my feeling!"

 

[Crozekiel]

It will be $40 at release actually.

Also, the above images are what the steam page looks like after you start clicking "read more" links... So I like how your "look at how transparent they are" "proof" isn't even transparent. (at least, that is not how the store page for the game looks in the actual steam client, i dunno, maybe the website is different).

It vary much buries the lede. It does not make clear that you are paying more than double the retail cost of the game for what is essentially a special edition that comes with alpha access. Lots of games come with pre-orders and even special edition pre-orders that come with extra perks, sometimes those perks are access to beta (or alpha occasionally), but they are not marketed as "here is a game for $90, but oh yea, if you do some digging, you can get it for $40 six months from now", they are marketed transparently as "here you can pre-order this game for $40, or if you can't wait the six months, get the super special edition for $90 and get into alpha today!" Notice the purchase box doesn't even say "purchase galactic edition" which is what they are selling and would at least hint that its a special edition that is above retail cost for the game... In fact, no where on the steam page AT ALL does it list the retail price, it has the current price, the beta price if you click to read more of their news feed, and then a month for retail release with no price. Yup, super transparent.

Also, not being forced to buy something doesn't eliminate the right to not like or agree with the price of the item. No one is forced to buy virtually anything... Does that mean no one can ever complain about the price of anything? I may not be forced to buy this game, but I am forced to buy games in general (in as much as I am forced to buy anything else, as it is a major hobby of mine) and a developer starting a trend of charging $90 for a game (and not clearly for a special edition) is a scary thought. I mean, console games went up by $10 in price with the launch of ps3 and 360 because the console makers needed to offset the cost of the consoles themselves, and that entire ordeal led to nearly all the big developers selling all games at $60 to start even on PC, where they didn't have extra costs to offset. This is a young industry that changes fast, and poorly advertised new business models like this one can lead to devastating changes rather abruptly.

Not to mention the bad PR this game is currently getting for showing up on the front page of steam like this:

 

[RandV80]

Also, not being forced to buy something doesn't eliminate the right to not like or agree with the price of the item. No one is forced to buy virtually anything... Does that mean no one can ever complain about the price of anything? I may not be forced to buy this game, but I am forced to buy games in general (in as much as I am forced to buy anything else, as it is a major hobby of mine) and a developer starting a trend of charging $90 for a game (and not clearly for a special edition) is a scary thought. I mean, console games went up by $10 in price with the launch of ps3 and 360 because the console makers needed to offset the cost of the consoles themselves, and that entire ordeal led to nearly all the big developers selling all games at $60 to start even on PC, where they didn't have extra costs to offset. This is a young industry that changes fast, and poorly advertised new business models like this one can lead to devastating changes rather abruptly.

A $90 price tag when new bigger budget games typically go for $50 on Steam is an outlier, it's not going to set a trend. Minecraft would have never gotten anywhere if Notch sold beta access for $100, and other developers know this. The only time you'd want to use a high price tag on early access is if you want to keep the beta group small. Or if you're trying to self publish a proven franchise like the Annihilation series (anyone else out there that actually like TA: Kingdoms?) you're not going to want to sell Beta access to the game at a reduced price because most of your established customer base will snatch it up.

No on complains when publishers put out pricy collector editions, and personally I don't see this as much different. Regardless though I wouldn't mind seeing some experimentation with 'premium' priced games. A good developer will know what their market is and how much they expect to sell sets how much they can spend on development. Bringing this to an example the audience for the Total War and Civilization series probably pretty much the same. So would this audience pay $100 for Civilization:Total War? I know I would.

 

[generals3]

It is essential. Because the pricing only makes sense if alpha/beta testing a game is somehow something people should pay for. If you agree with me than you should be appalled by Uber's pricing like me.

No one is being forced to buy it, so why should anyone be appalled? Because you think the price for early access is too high? Then don't buy in. I'm not going to buy in, I have no interest in early access. The regular game, when released, will be $20. Is that a rip off?

Gamers can really suck as customers sometimes, here we are given a really interesting choice, the choice to get involved really early in development and help shape the direction the game goes in, and yet people complain and try get that choice removed.

Terrible.

Funny how i addressed what you just said in the post you quoted:

"And we don't feel entitled to whatever we want. We do however feel like it is our right to tell Uber their pricing is absurd and that they won't have our ???. Telling sellers we don't like their prices is the only thing we costumers have. Are we supposed to be mindless sheep who bend over and spread our ass cheeks?"

I guess you like to bend over?

 

[Amir Kondori]

I guess you like to bend over?

First of all, I reported your post. Implying I like anal sex is not ok forum conduct. Second of all my position is that the people complaining about the price for early access, not the full game mind you which will be much cheaper, are frankly foolish and complaining over nothing relevant. Its not just that people are complaining either, they are calling for the game to be pulled off of Steam!

But in any case I don't want to respond to you further b/c you obviously are more inclined to make personal attacks than discuss the topic at hand.

 

[GoaThief]

It will be $40 at release actually.

Also, the above images arthe steam page looks like after you start clicking "read more" links... like how your "look at how transparent they are" "proof" isn't even transparent. ]

One thing I am not is a liar, anyone can check the web page and it's all there exactly as I have shown. Perhaps you should see for yourself before making baseless accusations.

Really not interested in discussing anything else with anyone who is too stubborn/lazy in the face of truth.

 

[Candidus]

Relationships require a massive amount of commitment in the form of money, trust, and time. Playing video games do not carry anywhere the same amount of risk. When you suggest to someone who has experienced a failed relationship that resulted in trust issues that their problems are anywhere comparable to not getting a good sequel to some RTS, they will be understandably pissed off.

...

I didn't say they were comparable. In fact I explicitly said that "the scale and profundity of the cases may be very different".

Just because X type of betrayal isn't comparable to Y is a TOTAL bloody irrelevance to whether or not the word can be used to describe the reversal of trends taken in Supcom2 against a loyal fanbase, for the sake of what turned out to be a totally imaginary greater number of casual gamers just waiting to snap up a simplified Forged Alliance. I say it can.

Let's go all out, shall we.

I didn't want to dignify his attempt to derail with a like-for-like comment, but I've been cheated on. Making comparisons between that incident and any other use of the word "betrayal" might be something I'd do too... if I couldn't move the hell on. And in that event, I think anybody would be well within their rights to tell me to get a grip.

 

[Prosis]

It's very stupid to charge people $90 for a game. But its their game, they can charge what they like. Supply and Demand. If people are willing to pay it, then they'll charge for it.

Sure, it'd be worth getting upset about if a large portion of video games increased to $70. But for an indie developer making their own game, which will be reduced in price later on, I really don't have an issue with it.

 

[aSmo]

Whatever your personal perspective on the price tag, use of steam to crowdfund/moneygrab/whatever-you-think-ubers-motivations-are, and whether or not they are being transparent about it, it's still a Bad Move on their part. It's easy to understand how the average consumer would be confused by all this, and I'll hazard a guess that alot of people don't read the fine print. I won't comment on my personal beliefs, but rather shift focus to the point I'm trying to make:

The very fact that this debate exists is Bad for the fledgeling community that PA is. I personally *loved* TA, so much that I looked past the initial 'Wow that's expensive' price tag to see what the deal was. I quickly got lost in thousands of posts so polar, divisive and generally negative that I quickly got turned off from the whole thing. The simple fact is that a community of people who clearly give a shit about the game can do nothing but argue about the controversial approach Uber took. Noone is excited about the game, only the controversy. Noone is talking about the game, only the controversy. Whatever Uber said or didn't say, any public interest in the game is currently manifesting in internet bickering. It's totally toxic, and from a social or community point of view, the dynamic is eroding a foundation that should be in the early stages of being built.