What I'm thinking of is take a casual game, say a 2d space shooter, and the initial release would be a basic but fully playable game and subsequent releases would add new features to the game for a cost (say 10$ for the initial game and 5$ for each new feature). An additional feature might be the ability to board a ship and have combat within the ship to capture it. The additional features would not change the basic appearance of the game but would add new gameplay to it. Part of the reason I'm considering this idea is being a lone indie developer, I don't really have the capability to code a slick AAA game. Feature expansions would allow me to release a very basic game that is still complete and fun and then expand the game further as I have time to develop expansions. Would there be any problems with this type of sales model or would this be a good idea to pursue?

Sure. But focus on the basic game being fun. The biggest challenege to indy games, IMO, is that most of them aren't worth a dollar on the first release. [smile]

There is plenty of evidence that micro-expansions/micro-transactions work really well in the market place (Guild Wars, Battleforge & others). But, again, it all hinges on whether or not the first release is worth playing.

-me

Even developers releasing AAA titles try to take advantage of incremental feature release so from a business perspective it's a good idea. That's basically what DLC is. Look at Halo 3, COD4, GTA 4, Guitar Hero, etc.

Obviously I don't know what your game concept is and it might be great, but you may find it difficult to sell DLC-type content or future features at $5-10 for an indie game.

As someone who worked on DLC content for Halo 3 the cries of upset fans who thought $10 for three additional maps was way too much remains in recent memory. However, this seems to be a small but vocal minority and you will always have gamers who expect developers to create bonus content for free.

I guess I would view any of your incremental feature releases as bonus content, because if these upgrades or add-ons are required to have a full game experience you may dissapoint your target audience. I also would limit your add-ons to a collective sum no greater than the cost of the original game.

I'm willing to pay $10-20 for a good indie game and would probably be willing to purchase bonus content at a rate of $2-5 if I knew that I could acquire said content in whole for less than the initial $10-20 value. If I buy a game for $10 then discover that there are four incremental feature releases for $5 each I'm going to be pretty annoyed. At this point I feel like I'm paying for a subscription to an MMO because my cost to maintain full access to all of the game's content exceeds its base price.

I would say that if your game requires the internet, like most MMOG (massively multiplayer online game), then you will find that they have to pay for their internet connection that overcharge them in addition to but add-ons. Most of the games overcharge the players, so the major problem you will have is "what is the correct pricing of the game?". Once you find a reasonable pricing for the inital game, and the add-ons, then you will find that people will be willing to pay for incremental feature realeases. It is true like Palidine says that most individually developed games are worth less than even $1, but the most important thing is the result and not the effort you put into the game. Most game companies are able to stay around is by overpricing their games because we all know that bootlegging occurs frequently with their games, and they have to pay their employees. The true value of a game is the content of it, but companies have to take their expenses into account, so they maintain their overpricing.

People are willing to buy if you are willing to sell at market value.

Offtopic: Most of the services in society are overpriced, but we cannot do anything because there are people that need the get paid and there is a minimum wage law that forces the price to stay high. If people's work are not worth minimum wage, then the service is also worth lesser than it is, but the law keeps the wage up, so the service prices stay up.

DLC are definitely rip-offs. Their price/cost and price/content ratios are nothing like the main game.
It's just easy money by abusing the hardcore fans.

Now if those ratios stay the same, I see no problem.

Two words: Horse Armor.

If your game isn't the definitive, most astounding piece of work your studio can put together when it comes to release day, don't bother releasing it at all.

Don't charge consumers for half-arsed efforts, and make them pay money to improve it. If it's the most intense, feature rich title you can deliver, people will pay for it. This DLC thing annoys me. If downloadable extras were free, it shows the studio is intent on providing long-term value for the consumer's initial payment for the game.

Valve had it right - provide games as a SERVICE, not as a PRODUCT. People will flock, word will be spread, new consumers will toll up by the hour. Don't treat your existing customers like a "cash cow".

Quote:

Original post by Drethon Would there be any problems with this type of sales model or would this be a good idea to pursue?

Yes, I think there would be problems. I have no problem with the business model, except that I don't think it's a very practical one. People get bored of games, and forget about them. They especially get bored of "basic but fully playable" games quite quickly. Yet to make money from your additional content, you both need to have sold the customer a copy of your original game, made them enjoy it enough to want more content, and need to have kept their attention so that when the content becomes available they will opt to buy it. How likely is all that?

You don't need to make a 'slick AAA' game. Instead I would suggest concentrating on getting all your features in from the start, and try to save time on the art and other essentially cosmetic content. I would also seriously reconsider the worth of any feature that can be tacked onto the game post-launch. If you didn't need it in the original game, it's not really a part of the gameplay.

I can see the issue of releasing addons to an existing game which require the purchase of the original. What about releasing multiple complete games that can be integrated together.

Going back to my original example, say the first release is a space shooter game and the second is a game about combat inside a spaceship. Both games can be purchased separately but if you buy both they can be integrated together so once you disable the other ship you can board and capture it. The first game would cost say $10 but if you own one and buy the other it would only cost an additional $5 since both are built on the same engine.

Is this viable or does it suffer from some of the same issues?

Quote:

Original post by Drethon say the first release is a space shooter game and the second is a game about combat inside a spaceship. Both games can be purchased separately but if you buy both they can be integrated together so once you disable the other ship you can board and capture it.

That's something different altogether - and I love the sound of it. If the combined Game 1 + Game 2 creates Game 3, you're onto a very interesting experiment.

So long as Game 1 and Game 2 are fantastic games in their own right, this sounds very interesting.

Sonic and Knuckles, anyone? I would love for this kind of stuff to reemerge.