Planetary Annihilation at 90$ on Steam

[Keith K]

$90 is the tier on Kickstarter that allowed alpha access. Why should random stragglers on Steam get a better deal than the people who allowed the game to be made in the first place? They shouldn't.

You don't want access, then move along. The final game will be much cheaper. Or you can skip it entirely.

 

[generals3]

Wouldn't be fair for the people who paid $90 o

Why not? Unless i'm mistaking a kickstarter is about donating for a project you want to see happen. The bonuses you get are just that, bonuses. Is it fair that someone who donated 500k $ for the construction of a building also gets his name on a plate like the guy who donated 1 mill $?

It is perfectly fine to grant early access for a lower price. As long as they give the pledgers what they were told they'd get.

$90 is the tier on Kickstarter that allowed alpha access. Why should random stragglers on Steam get a better deal than the people who allowed the game to be made in the first place? They shouldn't.

Because those who invested 90$ did so knowing what they'd get. They obviously wanted to throw their money at epic. It is perfectly fine for people to not think asking 90$ for early access is a good pricing.

 

[The Artificially Prolonged]

$90 was the reward tier that allowed backers on kickstarter to get alpha access. So what I'm imagining the devs are doing is offering the same access to those who missed the kickstarter but at the same price so the price for access to the alpha is fair all round.

$90 is the price they set for alpha access on Kickstarter. If that's too much for you, then you can just wait - nobody's forcing you to pay that much. And, as others have said, it would be unfair to those who backed it at $90+ on Kickstarter to let those who joined in at a later point get the same reward for less money.

Beat me to it. Essentially this.

 

[Keith K]

Wouldn't be fair for the people who paid $90 o

Why not? Unless i'm mistaking a kickstarter is about donating for a project you want to see happen. The bonuses you get are just that, bonuses. Is it fair that someone who donated 500k $ for the construction of a building also gets his name on a plate like the guy who donated 1 mill $?

It is perfectly fine to grant early access for a lower price. As long as they give the pledgers what they were told they'd get.

It's also perfectly fine for them not to.

 

[generals3]

It's also perfectly fine for them not to.

That's your opinion. I obviously disagree. The idea of paying up to alpha/beta test is ludicrous imho. Soon we're going to pay pharmaceutical companies to test their drugs?

 

[Keith K]

It's also perfectly fine for them not to.

That's your opinion. I obviously disagree. The idea of paying up to alpha/beta test is ludicrous imho. Soon we're going to pay pharmaceutical companies to test their drugs?

If that's a reasonable parallel to you, I don't feel the need to debate it.

 

[generals3]

It's also perfectly fine for them not to.

That's your opinion. I obviously disagree. The idea of paying up to alpha/beta test is ludicrous imho. Soon we're going to pay pharmaceutical companies to test their drugs?

If that's a reasonable parallel to you, I don't feel the need to debate it.

Not a parallel, a reductio ad absurdo. You know, if we keep pushing this trend that's where we'll get. I'm sorry but beta and alpha testers usually have to work, yes those bugs don't report themselves and playing a buggy version isn't all that fun. Actually i'm going to say that asking people to pay extra to test is probably the best way to get the worst testers out there because they obviously don't realize alpha and beta tests aren't all about the fun. (because who would pay extra money to work)

 

[Assassin Xaero]

Wouldn't be fair for the people who paid $90 o

Why not? Unless i'm mistaking a kickstarter is about donating for a project you want to see happen. The bonuses you get are just that, bonuses. Is it fair that someone who donated 500k $ for the construction of a building also gets his name on a plate like the guy who donated 1 mill $?

It is perfectly fine to grant early access for a lower price. As long as they give the pledgers what they were told they'd get.

$90 is the tier on Kickstarter that allowed alpha access. Why should random stragglers on Steam get a better deal than the people who allowed the game to be made in the first place? They shouldn't.

Because those who invested 90$ did so knowing what they'd get. They obviously wanted to throw their money at epic. It is perfectly fine for people to not think asking 90$ for early access is a good pricing.

I'm beginning to think this is another case of "people will ***** about anything". If they would have made it cheaper, it would have been unfair for the people on Kickstarter, if they didn't, now people are saying that they should get it cheaper... for... I don't know.

They aren't paying to beta test, they are paying for early access. I know from experience that the vast majority of people who want to test levels I made for a game before they were out just said "yeah, it was good" and that was all they gave for feedback.

 

[Crozekiel]

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.

 

[generals3]

I'm beginning to think this is another case of "people will ***** about anything". If they would have made it cheaper, it would have been unfair for the people on Kickstarter, if they didn't, now people are saying that they should get it cheaper... for... I don't know.

Why would it have been unfair for the people on kickstarter? They gave a donation to get a game developed and got some little bonuses for it. They're basically extremely cheap investors. They got what they paid for. The people who purchase the game now pay money to buy the game, not to be charitable and get a game developed. There is a huge difference.

It's a shame though, i'm an RTS fan and the game looked interesting but i won't condone such pricing policies and will thus not buy the game. (yes i'm one of those few people who put their euros where their mouth is)

 

[Foolery]

Wow. It's a bit much. For an early access game. I don't really understand the reasoning behind that price. The funding on kickstarter was met. $900,000 goal, and $2,229,344 was received. I could buy a decent number of other games for 90 bucks.

The reason for the price is because people who paid $90 during the kickstarter get to access to the game at this point. Had they made it less then they would essentially be screwing over the people who were their early supporters. They are basically extending their kickstarter campaign with this price point. From what I understand, it will get down to about $40 when it actually releases.

Oh, okay. Well, that makes more sense. I agree it wouldn't be right to set a lower price on steam at this point. Best way to go would be to just get the alpha from the kickstarter instead of steam. There's also a pre-order page on their website.

40 bucks for the Combat edition.
60 for the Warfare edition.
90 for the Galactic edition and early access.
200 for the Cosmic edition and early access.

https://store.uberent.com/Store/PreOrder?titleId=4

 

[Assassin Xaero]

I'm beginning to think this is another case of "people will ***** about anything". If they would have made it cheaper, it would have been unfair for the people on Kickstarter, if they didn't, now people are saying that they should get it cheaper... for... I don't know.

Why would it have been unfair for the people on kickstarter? They gave a donation to get a game developed and got some little bonuses for it. They're basically extremely cheap investors. They got what they paid for. The people who purchase the game now pay money to buy the game, not to be charitable and get a game developed. There is a huge difference.

They paid $90 to get access to the alpha/beta before the game was out. Now if it is on Steam for $50 and you get the same access, it would be unfair. The game is still in alpha, it isn't out yet. If people on Steam want to get it in the alpha phase, they pay the same price as they would on Kickstarter, which is completely fair.

 

[Fractral]

Wouldn't be fair for the people who paid $90 o

Why not? Unless i'm mistaking a kickstarter is about donating for a project you want to see happen. The bonuses you get are just that, bonuses. Is it fair that someone who donated 500k $ for the construction of a building also gets his name on a plate like the guy who donated 1 mill $?

It is perfectly fine to grant early access for a lower price. As long as they give the pledgers what they were told they'd get.

$90 is the tier on Kickstarter that allowed alpha access. Why should random stragglers on Steam get a better deal than the people who allowed the game to be made in the first place? They shouldn't.

Because those who invested 90$ did so knowing what they'd get. They obviously wanted to throw their money at epic. It is perfectly fine for people to not think asking 90$ for early access is a good pricing.

I'm beginning to think this is another case of "people will ***** about anything". If they would have made it cheaper, it would have been unfair for the people on Kickstarter, if they didn't, now people are saying that they should get it cheaper... for... I don't know.


They aren't paying to beta test, they are paying for early access. I know from experience that the vast majority of people who want to test levels I made for a game before they were out just said "yeah, it was good" and that was all they gave for feedback.

They're not saying that they deserve to get it cheaper, merely that selling an unfinished game for $90 is a dumb idea. In the same way, the people who backed it on kickstarter don't have a moral right to get the game cheaper, or at least at the same price as those who didn't back early. It would only be unfair to them if they were told that they were paying for extra access and that everyone else would have to pay as much, and then the game was sold for cheaper despite this- and even then I'd not be so sure.
In the end though, as all of this never happened in the first place, it's merely a convenient 'what if' scenario, nobody is being ripped off without knowing it, and the question is ultimately pointless.

 

[generals3]

They paid $90 to get access to the alpha/beta before the game was out. Now if it is on Steam for $50 and you get the same access, it would be unfair. The game is still in alpha, it isn't out yet. If people on Steam want to get it in the alpha phase, they pay the same price as they would on Kickstarter, which is completely fair.

But what people paid on kickstarter is totally irrelevant because it's not the same thing at all. When you pay up in kickstarter you're acting like donator meanwhile if you purchase the game you're a buyer. Why should a buyer have to pay the same amount of money to get certain advantages as a donator? They both paid money in different stages and for different reasons.

 

[Crozekiel]

Why would it have been unfair for the people on kickstarter? They gave a donation to get a game developed and got some little bonuses for it. They're basically extremely cheap investors. They got what they paid for. The people who purchase the game now pay money to buy the game, not to be charitable and get a game developed. There is a huge difference.

They paid $90 to get access to the alpha/beta before the game was out. Now if it is on Steam for $50 and you get the same access, it would be unfair. The game is still in alpha, it isn't out yet. If people on Steam want to get it in the alpha phase, they pay the same price as they would on Kickstarter, which is completely fair.[/quote]

You keep approaching this like Kickstarter is a store. It isn't. Its a virtual corner where people can ask for money. Nobody purchases ANYTHING on kickstarter. There is absolutely no guarantee of anything when you pledge to kickstarter. It is a place for one person to GIVE money to someone in the hopes they do something great with it. The fact that they give you a bunch of extras is just them being nice. The fact that you get EXCLUSIVE extras for being a kickstarter backer that you CANNOT get through steam, and might still be upset that you paid more is asinine in itself, not to mention that you weren't purchasing a game through kickstarter, you were sending a game developer money and HOPING they would make a game you want to play.

 

[XMark]

*shrug* It's their game, they can charge $900 if they want to. We'll just decide whether to buy it or not accordingly.

Looks like a cool game. I'll be sure to pick it up once it goes down to a reasonable price.

 

[Crozekiel]

Also, the idea that "I paid this much for a thing, so everyone else should have to also." is entitled ridiculousness... At any point with normal consumer transactions, you can purchase a thing not knowing about an upcoming sale, and then someone else has just purchased the same thing for considerably less within a month of you. You can't make a purchase based on what other people will pay in the future, and you can't complain if someone else got it cheaper. You make decisions to purchase based on what you get for the money and if you feel its worth it. If you decided it was, then someone else gets it cheaper a month later, you can't really blame anyone but yourself.

Again though, that is with normal consumer transactions, which kickstarter is not...

 

[Crozekiel]

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]

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]

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.