Factorio Forums

with all the drastic developments and changes that we have witnessed this increase is more than justified. The game has been taken to a whole new level from what I thought was just an indie-game to an A-title.

The only thing that I'm curious of is who is still going to buy the game after being so long available in early access. Fans of the genre must for sure already have discovered it by now and already purchased it.

Well, there's a continous production of new people on this planet. Not fully automated, but pretty steady and reliable I expect newly manufactured people to enjoy the game for quite a few decades from now.

Meh, I have name in the game edition because it is the only way! Supporting team that makes my crack? I spent way too much time in this game and I don't even play steam version to not worry about hours spent in game.

NoQ wrote:Well, there's a continous production of new people on this planet. Not fully automated, but pretty steady and reliable I expect newly manufactured people to enjoy the game for quite a few decades from now.

In addition to this, I'm guessing that some people might wait until 1.0 to buy it (as silly as that sounds, and if we ever get to 1.0).

I've been curious about something, and this seems like the perfect place to ask it.

Most games I see on the market retail for $x.99 in stead of the next highest dollar amount. (I'm working with US dollars here.)

So a game priced like Factorio at the 20 dollar range would be sold at $19.99.
Factorio, on the other hand, just goes straight for the $20 mark. (And soon, it seems, the $30 mark.)

I remember hearing once that stores do this because its a psychological trick to make you think the game is cheaper (we see the 19, and ignore the 0.99, and our brain says, "its $19, not $20").

So I was curious as to why the devs don't do this relatively common practice? Is it because they don't want to do the psychological trick i mentioned above? Or maybe just simplicity of not using 0.99?
Whatever the reason, I'm curious.

molerat wrote:I've been curious about something, and this seems like the perfect place to ask it.

Most games I see on the market retail for $x.99 in stead of the next highest dollar amount. (I'm working with US dollars here.)

So a game priced like Factorio at the 20 dollar range would be sold at $19.99.
Factorio, on the other hand, just goes straight for the $20 mark. (And soon, it seems, the $30 mark.)

I remember hearing once that stores do this because its a psychological trick to make you think the game is cheaper (we see the 19, and ignore the 0.99, and our brain says, "its $19, not $20").

So I was curious as to why the devs don't do this relatively common practice? Is it because they don't want to do the psychological trick i mentioned above? Or maybe just simplicity of not using 0.99?
Whatever the reason, I'm curious.

I believe it's because they don't want to use that trick. They want to be honest ad say it's $20 not some (insignificant) amount less than that.

Posted on March 30th. Hm. Two days too early :P?

ratchetfreak wrote:

molerat wrote:I've been curious about something, and this seems like the perfect place to ask it.

Most games I see on the market retail for $x.99 in stead of the next highest dollar amount. (I'm working with US dollars here.)

So a game priced like Factorio at the 20 dollar range would be sold at $19.99.
Factorio, on the other hand, just goes straight for the $20 mark. (And soon, it seems, the $30 mark.)

I remember hearing once that stores do this because its a psychological trick to make you think the game is cheaper (we see the 19, and ignore the 0.99, and our brain says, "its $19, not $20").

So I was curious as to why the devs don't do this relatively common practice? Is it because they don't want to do the psychological trick i mentioned above? Or maybe just simplicity of not using 0.99?
Whatever the reason, I'm curious.

I believe it's because they don't want to use that trick. They want to be honest ad say it's $20 not some (insignificant) amount less than that.

They talked about it in the FFF when they first started moving towards steam: https://factorio.com/blog/post/fff-124

Colossus wrote:

ratchetfreak wrote:

molerat wrote:I've been curious about something, and this seems like the perfect place to ask it.

Most games I see on the market retail for $x.99 in stead of the next highest dollar amount. (I'm working with US dollars here.)

So a game priced like Factorio at the 20 dollar range would be sold at $19.99.
Factorio, on the other hand, just goes straight for the $20 mark. (And soon, it seems, the $30 mark.)

I remember hearing once that stores do this because its a psychological trick to make you think the game is cheaper (we see the 19, and ignore the 0.99, and our brain says, "its $19, not $20").

So I was curious as to why the devs don't do this relatively common practice? Is it because they don't want to do the psychological trick i mentioned above? Or maybe just simplicity of not using 0.99?
Whatever the reason, I'm curious.

I believe it's because they don't want to use that trick. They want to be honest ad say it's $20 not some (insignificant) amount less than that.

They talked about it in the FFF when they first started moving towards steam: https://factorio.com/blog/post/fff-124

I think the audience of Factorio is not quite the target for this psychological "trick" (which I don't even think works… or does anyone here have a reference to an actual study?)

Also, some people mentioned that round price without trickery was one of things that prompted them to look at the game.

Jürgen Erhard wrote:(which I don't even think works… or does anyone here have a reference to an actual study?)

Hmm. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_pricing has no citation in either direction

I'm 100% OK with the price, but the announcement is weirdly "sterile" when compared to Friday facts.

I hope the devs were not afraid of backlash. The Internet can be a ravenous best sometimes...

It is too early to tell, but so far the response is positive.

This new price is not a wise move, as price hikes are never appreciated by anybody, neither will the increase secure the funds needed to sustain continuous development as not enough new gamers will jump on the bandwagon. This has to do with the possible further customer segment which is very specialized and limited - to say the least. To bet on newcomers will certainly not result in the expected commercial benefit - if any.

I propose a subscription model with a unchanged price covering 12 months gaming starting with version 0.17.00 and securing subscribers all further updates.
With a grace period for existing users (payed games) of 3 months.
Current user after 3 months unwilling to join in will remain and stay with version 16.xx but will not be able to enjoy the benefits of further updates.

Subscribers unwilling to renew after 12 months will stay the same - with the version active at the time when their subscription ended - also unlimited.

This would secure cash flow, providing further funds needed for development and is absolutely transparent - certainly this would make a few users unhappy but the move has all the logic and commercial arguments on its side.

For the sake of WUBE - pls reconsider

subscriptions are a hideous milking cow that will scare gamers away, rather then bond them to the game. Since the devs don't care a bout the .99 marketing scam and there's also a non-steam version, this will never happen. They're old-school and honest towards their public, which is a big part of the charm this team has together with their accessibility

dasiro wrote:subscriptions are a hideous milking cow that will scare gamers away, rather then bond them to the game. Since the devs don't care a bout the .99 marketing scam and there's also a non-steam version, this will never happen. They're old-school and honest towards their public, which is a big part of the charm this team has together with their accessibility

+1

eradicator wrote:

dasiro wrote:subscriptions are a hideous milking cow that will scare gamers away, rather then bond them to the game. Since the devs don't care a bout the .99 marketing scam and there's also a non-steam version, this will never happen. They're old-school and honest towards their public, which is a big part of the charm this team has together with their accessibility

+1

+1, there is no way to enforce subscription without invasive DRM.

the .99 works on older generation. My mom always says, "wow 19 dollars, better get two" but the younger/new generation, see way past that, and start rounding up to $25. Maybe its an educated thing, i'm not a philosopher, but i do speak from experience.

brunzenstein wrote: I propose a subscription model with a unchanged price covering 12 months gaming starting with version 0.17.00 and securing subscribers all further updates.
...

This is satire, right?

fiery_salmon wrote:

eradicator wrote:

dasiro wrote:subscriptions are a hideous milking cow that will scare gamers away, rather then bond them to the game. Since the devs don't care a bout the .99 marketing scam and there's also a non-steam version, this will never happen. They're old-school and honest towards their public, which is a big part of the charm this team has together with their accessibility

+1

+1, there is no way to enforce subscription without invasive DRM.

+1

brunzenstein wrote:This new price is not a wise move, as price hikes are never appreciated by anybody, neither will the increase secure the funds needed to sustain continuous development as not enough new gamers will jump on the bandwagon. This has to do with the possible further customer segment which is very specialized and limited - to say the least. To bet on newcomers will certainly not result in the expected commercial benefit - if any.

I propose a subscription model with a unchanged price covering 12 months gaming starting with version 0.17.00 and securing subscribers all further updates.
With a grace period for existing users (payed games) of 3 months.
Current user after 3 months unwilling to join in will remain and stay with version 16.xx but will not be able to enjoy the benefits of further updates.

Subscribers unwilling to renew after 12 months will stay the same - with the version active at the time when their subscription ended - also unlimited.

This would secure cash flow, providing further funds needed for development and is absolutely transparent - certainly this would make a few users unhappy but the move has all the logic and commercial arguments on its side.

For the sake of WUBE - pls reconsider

Thankfully, they say that they will never do that at https://factorio.com/buy - "You will be entitled to ALL the game updates in the future as well."

Also, they might want to update the FAQ - it currently says that "the price may go up with 1.0 release"

meganothing wrote:

brunzenstein wrote: I propose a subscription model with a unchanged price covering 12 months gaming starting with version 0.17.00 and securing subscribers all further updates.
...

This is satire, right?

I think this is early April Fools