On June 01 2013 10:05 Simberto wrote: No. I am arguing that the price point is not 1$, it is "pay what you want, minimum 1$". I'll keep this short because that was my main point, and people don't seem to understand it. I am pretty sure that they wouldn't break even on most bundles if everyone paid exactly 1$, with 20% going to charity because they are too lazy to even look at that thingy. I am not involved in that industry, so i don't really know how expensive bandwidth and server capacity are, so if someone has good information on that i'd be willing to reconsider my opinion, but so far i don't really believe that 0.80$/sale, minus bank fees, taxes etc...would be able to pay for both the distribution costs and the people working on the humble bundle website stuff itself.
However, the average is usually around 5+$, which changes the situation. They know that some people will only pay the absolute minimum, and use that in their calculations, and apparently the business model works. That won't stop me from believing that you are an asshole if you buy the bundle for 1$ (or 0.01$ before they changed the minimum)
I am really confused about the inability of people to understand the difference between 1$ pricepoint and "pay what you want, minimum 1$"
Do you tip people at McDonalds? Apparently by your standards, if you don't, you are an asshole. Your expectation is that people should act at a level above and beyond what is required (or they're assholes).
As for saying it's not profitable, you don't have any evidence to support that claim and you are not an authority on the matter. You also failed to imagine the indirect benefits of having a low minimum price point, which include greater exposure (which leads to more sales in general), and immediate hype trains (this thread?).
Selling things for $1 while splitting it three ways or more would hardly be very profitable. The amount of money they get from the WHOLE bundles aren't even that amazing...
How much money someone makes, how they make it, and if they make enough is none of your business.
If you're not working in a company's marketing department, you should try not to actively influence how other people spend their money, let alone how much they spend. That is probably the worst kind of consumer behavior, and sadly it's extremely widespread in gaming (even more so in esports for that matter). Actively trying to guilt trip people who haven't "spent enough" and generating an atmosphere where you need to spend an "acceptable" amount of money is, in my opinion, as douchey as it can get.
Think about it - someone has created this debate out of thin air in this very thread, just to make one of the posters from a few pages ago feel uncomfortable about spending a few bucks on the current bundle. Having to argue this point at all is extremely annoying to me. but seeing people bullied for how much money they spent (or didn't spend) is even more so.
It is very much not. I really like the indie bundles. Their model is very pro-consumer, since it gives you what you want for whatever price you think it is worth. I can't really think of a more consumer friendly business model. However, it is also based on consumer goodwill. The only way they can continue this is if they stay profitable, and generate enough revenue for the developers to consider their model. And for this to work it needs people who pay more then the minimum amount of money. Thus, as someone who likes the business model exactly because it is very consumer friendly, it is in my best interest to pay more then the minimum.
This gets sabotaged by people who are simply incapable of understanding the difference between a sale for 1$ and a pay what you want sale. We are not talking about giant nameless corporations here. Both the humble bundle guys and the indie devs are a few ordinary people who usually don't really make gigantic amounts of money.
But in general, i agree with you. Gaming is not a charity, you should buy games if you want to play them, not to support someone or anything like that. It is just that a pay what you want model is based on paying what you think the games are worth, and not necessarily the minimum amount, and people seem to not understand the difference. If you really, honestly believe that all the games in a humble bundle combined are worth only 1$ to you, then fine, go ahead. But in that case i am really confused how you even managed to play games before the humble bundles, because you don't get that kind of value for your money anywhere else.
Finally, noone can stop you. We are on the internet. Everything here is just talk. So just don't brag about how smart you are to only pay the minimum price, and you are fine.
On June 06 2013 13:42 zulu_nation8 wrote: So is Alan Wake worth getting?
One of the best Pc ports to have ever come from any developer, it has a FOV slider and it's a 3rd person game. At the sale or humble price it was well worth getting, still is at a regular price but there is still a bunch of copies floating around the trade market.
Yeah, haven't heard much about Alan Wake at all, then saw it was on Steam for $4. Checked a few reviews and many people are saying it was one of their favorites of 2012. I mean...for $4...why the hell not. >.<
On June 01 2013 10:05 Simberto wrote: No. I am arguing that the price point is not 1$, it is "pay what you want, minimum 1$". I'll keep this short because that was my main point, and people don't seem to understand it. I am pretty sure that they wouldn't break even on most bundles if everyone paid exactly 1$, with 20% going to charity because they are too lazy to even look at that thingy. I am not involved in that industry, so i don't really know how expensive bandwidth and server capacity are, so if someone has good information on that i'd be willing to reconsider my opinion, but so far i don't really believe that 0.80$/sale, minus bank fees, taxes etc...would be able to pay for both the distribution costs and the people working on the humble bundle website stuff itself.
However, the average is usually around 5+$, which changes the situation. They know that some people will only pay the absolute minimum, and use that in their calculations, and apparently the business model works. That won't stop me from believing that you are an asshole if you buy the bundle for 1$ (or 0.01$ before they changed the minimum)
I am really confused about the inability of people to understand the difference between 1$ pricepoint and "pay what you want, minimum 1$"
Do you tip people at McDonalds? Apparently by your standards, if you don't, you are an asshole. Your expectation is that people should act at a level above and beyond what is required (or they're assholes).
As for saying it's not profitable, you don't have any evidence to support that claim and you are not an authority on the matter. You also failed to imagine the indirect benefits of having a low minimum price point, which include greater exposure (which leads to more sales in general), and immediate hype trains (this thread?).
Selling things for $1 while splitting it three ways or more would hardly be very profitable. The amount of money they get from the WHOLE bundles aren't even that amazing...
How much money someone makes, how they make it, and if they make enough is none of your business.
If you're not working in a company's marketing department, you should try not to actively influence how other people spend their money, let alone how much they spend. That is probably the worst kind of consumer behavior, and sadly it's extremely widespread in gaming (even more so in esports for that matter). Actively trying to guilt trip people who haven't "spent enough" and generating an atmosphere where you need to spend an "acceptable" amount of money is, in my opinion, as douchey as it can get.
Think about it - someone has created this debate out of thin air in this very thread, just to make one of the posters from a few pages ago feel uncomfortable about spending a few bucks on the current bundle. Having to argue this point at all is extremely annoying to me. but seeing people bullied for how much money they spent (or didn't spend) is even more so.
It is very much not. I really like the indie bundles. Their model is very pro-consumer, since it gives you what you want for whatever price you think it is worth. I can't really think of a more consumer friendly business model. However, it is also based on consumer goodwill. The only way they can continue this is if they stay profitable, and generate enough revenue for the developers to consider their model. And for this to work it needs people who pay more then the minimum amount of money. Thus, as someone who likes the business model exactly because it is very consumer friendly, it is in my best interest to pay more then the minimum.
This gets sabotaged by people who are simply incapable of understanding the difference between a sale for 1$ and a pay what you want sale. We are not talking about giant nameless corporations here. Both the humble bundle guys and the indie devs are a few ordinary people who usually don't really make gigantic amounts of money.
But in general, i agree with you. Gaming is not a charity, you should buy games if you want to play them, not to support someone or anything like that. It is just that a pay what you want model is based on paying what you think the games are worth, and not necessarily the minimum amount, and people seem to not understand the difference. If you really, honestly believe that all the games in a humble bundle combined are worth only 1$ to you, then fine, go ahead. But in that case i am really confused how you even managed to play games before the humble bundles, because you don't get that kind of value for your money anywhere else.
Finally, noone can stop you. We are on the internet. Everything here is just talk. So just don't brag about how smart you are to only pay the minimum price, and you are fine.
oh well, the average price is almost always pushed in the very start by very high amounts like a couple people spending 1000$ on the bundle. So all the money they lose by people spending only 1$ is made back because some people(sometimes the devs themselve) manipulate the average pricing so people have to pay more to get all the games. The whole pay 1$ thing is just there to lure people actually checking the bundle out, they hope that people buy above average. Usually the best or newest games are in the above average category and all the other stuff is usally either really old or not selling at all anymore or wasn't very popular in the first place, there are some exceptions but that is how it usually is. So even if you only pay 1$ it is at least a win for the devs that wouldn't make any money from the product.
New midweek deals on steam Saints Row The Third and Civ 5 both 75% making their respective full packages $12.49, Saints row includes all the DLC while Civ 5 only lacks the most recent Brave New World that has not been released yet.
I can recommend Saints row if you want a fun and ridiculous sandbox game that does not take itself seriously at all, base game is 9.99 so I would recommend getting the full package.
Also new Humble weekly featuring the Serious Sam Series I think it includes almost every game on the Sam franchise, not sure if the DLC for BFE is included though.
Edit: BFE is the deluxe edition and contains Serious sam classic first and second encounter
Saints Row 3 and Civ 5 are both awesome games well worth full price even, so 12.50 is pretty ridiculous. If you do end up playing SR3 I highly recommend playing through it with the zombie voice actor for your character, hilarious. If you coop it with a friend you will enjoy even more.
Surprised this isn't here yet, although you need an us address to buy it. (Has been discussed on this thread how to do it) You get some real good value (that also activates on steam) for a very small price!
i dont like witcher 2 that much, they made the combat system like an action rpg, but the hitboxes dont fit the visuals, so most of the time you end up rolling around or using the shield magic instead of doing real combat. It also doesnt help that gerald tends to do piruettes and shit as a simple attack.
The world and quests are nice though, im gonna play trough it once the devs release their combat update the next months.
Witcher 1 is kinda point and click combat, but it fits the game and the world is really well portrayed, i really like it even if it goes a bit crazy in the end.
EPT
