How much would you pay for PS?

[Cronky]

Alright people here is the big question...

How much would you realistically pay for Project Stealth?

I'm putting emphasis on realistically, as I know everyone wants to give the PS team a million billion dollars for their ongoing creation, but who really has that? I also know at least a few people have said that they would pay 60+ dollars for it, but how well do you think PS would sell if it initially had that price? So think harder than that hypothetical "I would give them the world just to play" mentality and ask yourself how much you would actually pay for PS.

Related side question, what do you think a fair price tag would be for PS?

[frvge]

As a side note: if you want, you can list the amount in a post. If you are uncomfortable doing so in public but you still want to have us notice, you can PM me.

[VaNilla]

I would pay £30 as a hardcore fan of SvM, but realistically I don't think it would sell for more than £15. There's so much competition in the market; games like TF2 are free to play, CS:GO wont sell for more than £20, there's no way Project Stealth could compete in that price bracket. And most 'indie' games don't sell for any more than £10.

I think people would be most comfortable paying £10 for the game. The market for hardcore stealth games is pretty small, and the only other game that's been released with SvM is Splinter Cell, so most people don't know a lot about it. It's a risky purchase for anyone who's unfamiliar with the genre. You will need great marketing and a great price to sell this game.

I would start emailing sites like IGN and Kotaku with information about the game. I would make a weekly series of videos explaining the SvM genre, all leading up to the final release of the game. I would start with the basic rules of the game. Then I would move onto equipment, teamwork, and so on. Once the final video was released, I would make a countdown on the Project Stealth website, leading up to a Launch Trailer and the release of the game on Steam.

[LoChang]

Thought I realize it's ground-up work, I'd consider paying what I'd comparably pay for a deep expansion pack for a AAA game. Anywhere from $20-$40.

[Spekkio]

I just read an interesting article on wired.com about video game pricing [summary:  console games are too expensive in lieu of free to $3 mobile products]. If PS cost money, the initial pricing is going to have to be about $5 with a free trial option to get people hooked. Anything more than that and the 5 people who pay over 20 for the game will be left scratching their heads wondering how they can get a game. PS isnt competing in the AAA market, you guyzs juat don't have the resources for that. Also, the traditional pricing scheme of games revolves around people getting bored enough in time for your sequel, which as far as I can tell isn't your goal. Your best hope for cashing in is ad revenue on the free version. If the game catches on, the revenue would also give you a steady stream of money to provide updates to keep people hooked to make more ad money to provide more updates etc etc.

I paid 10 for Deathspank, an indy Adventure game. Do you really think an indy stealth game is worth 3-4 times that amount?

Sorry for typos on mobile phone.

[Farley4Fan]

Other -

Will wait for beta to decide donation amount.  You guys either get 46 cents or my entire trust fund.  Make it gewd.

[SheikTheGeek]

Honestly, I know I wouldnt pay any more than 30-40 US dollars for any game that would mostly be played for 1/2 of its total content, In this case its multiplayer aspects (no offense), as apposed to its single player story.  A great example was Halo  ODST (which released at 40 dollars since it was not a full single player game experience).

Just my opinion though. 

/FlameShield

[NeoSuperior]

nothing. Because, if I understand right, this game should bring players in who are interested. But there are not many stealth-based asymetric multiplayer games. I doubt many people would play it, if people have to pay for it. HOWEVER of course you could just change your opinion later, if the number of people is higher than expected (like for example in minecraft).

my speculation:


if it costs >10 € or $, number of players after a year:   20

if it costs around 10 € or $, number of players after a year:   100

if it costs nothing, number of players after a year:   250+


well this is only my opinion and i would PROBABLY pay for it with 10€ MAX, but that would in my opinion destroy any possibility for building up a bigger fanbase.

[DreadStunLock]

@Frvge,

How are you going to pay for the servers without any income out of the game?

Because I remember we spoke about this, and you said that it is NOT going to be possible to use JUST Tunngle or Hamachi to create Lan games and play them, since you need to have a somesort of a global/main server of somekind?

Or something alike.

The reason I ask, is because I am not playing a game that uses servers that are being paid for out of a single developers job. It's immoral to me.

[knooger]

I would pay everything even up to 40-50$ ( for me it's 3.2PLN x $ - so kinda expensive, more expensive than retail newest games ) if game will be  a success and worth playing it. But...

this game is aiming into rice dot of gaming market. We can't hope for milions of players or success like Minecraft - in my opinion amount of luck needed to grow up so big fanbase is as big as winning on Lottery. :)

If you would want us to pay since first release then you should be sure about your products. IMO, without some kind of hook at the beginning there is no chance for this game to get bigger than CT/PT multiplayer, because people will be simply not interesed in playing this.

@ Dreadstunlock
He will probably provide us just a mastersever which will work like a lobby (like HTTP link, you press and got redirected to proper website) for servers created on client's PC or Dedicated  ( I wonder which companies will offer this in future )

[DreadStunLock]

As long as it will cost the developers no cash spent weekly/monthly/yearly, hosting a server for 3 more people including yourself, is not that much of a requirement.

[AgentX_003]

actually there is a huge market now for this kind of game esp. due to the fact people from xbox/ps2 are dying to
play a game like this because of the overall shutdown of original xbox live games/discontinuation of service on the ps2 , that including Splintercell chaostheory/ but also due to the overall enhancements PS is bringing to the table.

I know alot of people who would buy this.

[knooger]

Agent a lot means how many for you ?
5-10-100-200? Because for now even many of CT players have no hope for this game. I doubt they would risk buying this.

You are just too positive :D

[AgentX_003]

Agent a lot means how many for you ?
5-10-100-200? Because for now even many of CT players have no hope for this game. I doubt they would risk buying this.

You are just too positive :D

alot means like 60 dollars or so even 80 Ive heard some say.As long as PS doesn't lose focus of the original task at hand of providing an overall better playing experience with server support in mind, then everything should be fine.

[Cronky]

I like all the discussion going on here. A lot of good points have been brought up.

@Spekkio

I tried to find the article on wired.com that you were talking about and the closest I got was an article on Free-to-Play games and how they can make more money than a one time payment.

That, or an article on the difference between "Pay to Play" vs what they call "Freemium" games.

If you could link the actual article you read then I think that would be good reading material for a lot of people on here. As just reading those two articles above gave some insight, and possible strategies that PS could take, if they were willing. It seems like the idea that you said in terms of how they should release PS would fall more towards the first article. Perhaps a Free-to-Play "trial" of the game would be available. The trial version wouldn't limit the player on gadgets, but maybe maps, or skins, or adjustable colors. Not sure if it would be right, but you could also limit people on system specs, I would think.

Perhaps not the best way to gain fanship, but imagine it was much like how Valve did TF2. You get the game for free, and the minimum for "buying" the game is whatever costs the least at the Mann Co. store. After your first (and potentially only) purchase you get full rein of the game and wont have to worry about paying more unless you want to. PS could limit free players (or trial users) to maybe 1 map, but give them all the gadgets and options within the game to play that map to the full extent. After a one time payment of something reasonable they would get access to the rest of the maps and options for other cosmetic, or perhaps functional, details.

@Knooger

I agree on if there is a payment up-front then there needs to be a strong way to get people to play. Stone touched on some good points saying that a kind of media blowout would help the cause a lot. Though just that is probably not enough.

I like the idea mentioned by Spekkio that I replied to above also. Having the game Free, though perhaps limited in some aspect that would require payment, could give an broad base of potential players without demanding them to pay up front for something they might be unsure of.

@Agent

How many is "a lot" though? Also is that a realistic number that they'd pay (60+ dollars)? I mean, I love video games. I love video games that I am almost assured to be exactly what I want. But none of that mean I would pay upwards to 80 dollars on one video game. Plus even if I pay that much doesn't mean that everyone will.

The question at hand is: How much would you pay for PS? If there was a flat fee that everyone had to pay, what would be your point of no purchase? Again, realistically.