The Frozenbyte Bundle Hasn't Breached $1M USD

[allquixotic]

Here's another thought that could maybe help encourage people not to be cheap asses:

Take all the payments, on all the platforms, and average them to generate one overall average for the HIB. Then, offer some kind of exclusive incentive for those who pay more than the average was at the time that they check out (even if "more" is 1 penny). You can do this by letting them set their price then click "Checkout", and if they try to checkout with a value less than $CURRENT_AVG + 0.01, give them the sales pitch that if they checkout with $CURRENT_AVG + 0.01 or more, they'll get the benefit. Feasible incentives might include:

* Exclusive in-game items or bonus content
* Access to entire games that are not available without raising the average
* Early access to games that will be made available to "ordinary" HIB purchasers at a significantly later date
* A personalized message from one of the developers of one of the games

Other ideas that may increase revenue without harming the open concept of the HIB:

• Have a cute, interactable, animated character on the webpage (Flash or HTML5) who reacts to your typing in the donation field with encouragement if you lowball or jubilation if you go higher, and also make comments each time you increase/decrease allocation to the different groups involved (Wolfire, the developers, and the charities). Character should be taken from one of the games.
• Tiered benefits structure, like you see on PBS stations in the U.S.. The rock bottom benefit package would be: access to the "heart" of the games offering (i.e. 60 - 75% of the games), and the price range would go from like 1 penny to $5 USD. The next step up would give you access to all the games, but the ones still in beta would be unavailable to you until the beta is finished / the HIB fundraiser is over.
• Lay out a plan for unlocking content, releasing source code, and liberating the assets based on the total amount of revenue during the fundraiser. For example: at the $1M mark you could throw in a bonus starting item or quest for all players of the game. At $1.5M you could release the source to one of the games. At $2M you could throw in a bonus starting item for a different game, and make the first game's assets free (as in freedom) under the GFDL or Creative Commons or so. At $2.5M you could release source for the second game and introduce an in-game bonus for yet a third game. And continue this structure until you have potentially provided people the chance to unlock bonuses, release source, and liberate assets for all the games (provided that the total revenue reaches a certain amount). Doesn't have to be a simple linear scale either, the higher echelons can spread out a little bit.

[Qaridarium]

Well that is what you have to expect with a "your own price" model. People pay for "what they feel it is worth to them". It is a perceived value and if a person feels that they should only pay 1 cent then that's the the price. If you disagree with them that is different issue. I'm sure many of them only entered in 1 cent because "nothing" wasn't an option.

hey here you are right ;-) "your own price" really means a download button without payment for some people.

and hey i don't think the 0,01cent downloaders are the problem.

i think the problem is there are only 3 real games and only frozenbyte games.

if they pull out the 2 other non complete games and pull in some non frozenbyte games and then do it right with rigth and good games then the people thats for sure pay more than that!

then they can finish the other 2 little games and start the next bundle.

i pay 13,37dollar and can NOT play any game with my Favourite driver:radeon then i spend 1337€(not the cheap dollar) to marek to help the driver development.

they realy should support opensource driver development and yes sure intel driver to...

thats the other point intel do have the biggest market share and the frozenbyte games do not run on intel chips...

checkbox: don't sell unready games, support driver dev's,don't make an bundle with only games from 1 company.

[deanjo]

hey here you are right ;-) "your own price" really means a download button without payment for some people.

Hey now take it easy, I think that is twice you have agreed with me in a week now. SLOW DOWN!!!

and hey i don't think the 0,01cent downloaders are the problem.

They aren't the problem, seeing such comments reminds me of the big publishers saying every pirated copy of their software means a lost sale which is absurd. When there is little to zero risk people will try anything. To me it says that people are curious but not willing to risk a lot on something they are unsure of. Think of it no different then going to a supermarket and trying a free sample of something you would not ordinarily buy for $10 to try out. Those who liked the free sample however may in the future buy that product or other related product at full price.

[Kano]

If every game would be just 10$ there would be no huge interest in breaking copy protections i guess. Often new games are 200-300% overpriced when they come out, 1-2 y later the price is usually ok (at least when a new version supersedes the older one). Would somebody really buy the 3 games from the bundle for 50$? With a few execptions the answer ist most likely no. Something between 5-10$ may be the limit for those users who are not that rich to play always the latest games legally. New games with steam (or other online) activation are basically impossible to resell, so what to do with em when you don't like em anymore? You often have too pay too much for those stupid restrictions - and if you don't need online function pirates have got even the better game experience (without any registration) than ppl who bought it. That's definitely the wrong way...

[Larian]

They aren't the problem, seeing such comments reminds me of the big publishers saying every pirated copy of their software means a lost sale which is absurd. When there is little to zero risk people will try anything. To me it says that people are curious but not willing to risk a lot on something they are unsure of. Think of it no different then going to a supermarket and trying a free sample of something you would not ordinarily buy for $10 to try out. Those who liked the free sample however may in the future buy that product or other related product at full price.

I think this is spot-on, but is there a problem to begin with? I'm sure SOMEbody paid a penny for the bundle - maybe even a lot of somebodies - but the way I score things, this bundle did incredibly well. The Windows camp were the usual skinflints, Mac was largely uninterested, and Linux pulled over 25% of total revenue.

Frozenbyte appears rather pleased with the overall outcome.

[Larian]

If every game would be just 10$ there would be no huge interest in breaking copy protections i guess. Often new games are 200-300% overpriced when they come out, 1-2 y later the price is usually ok (at least when a new version supersedes the older one). Would somebody really buy the 3 games from the bundle for 50$? With a few execptions the answer ist most likely no. Something between 5-10$ may be the limit for those users who are not that rich to play always the latest games legally. New games with steam (or other online) activation are basically impossible to resell, so what to do with em when you don't like em anymore? You often have too pay too much for those stupid restrictions - and if you don't need online function pirates have got even the better game experience (without any registration) than ppl who bought it. That's definitely the wrong way...

The prices of AAA titles will always be rather high due to the need to recoup costs and pay off the loans the studio has to take out to develop them. Banks have a rock for a heart and regardless of how poorly your title sells, the payments are still due. DRM is a bean-counter's way of trying to make ends meet. Often studios have spent phenomenal amounts of cash to develop software locks and copy protection which is usually broken inside of a week. It's a waste of resources in my opinion, but it helps them make their development money back and keep the lenders happy.

If I had to guess, I would say that nobody really expects DRM to remain unspoiled for longer than a month. And I'm even less certain how much it contributes to opening week sales when most of the money is made. This is why you see titles drop in price after a while. It moves old stock and they can afford to let these residual sales rake in gravy after they've squared with the lenders.

[elanthis]

If every game would be just 10$ there would be no huge interest in breaking copy protections i guess. Often new games are 200-300% overpriced when they come out, 1-2 y later the price is usually ok (at least when a new version supersedes the older one). Would somebody really buy the 3 games from the bundle for 50$?

The games also don't cost $50 normally. Trine is $20 on Steam right now, and I believe Shadowgrounds were similarly priced when new.

Which is another part of this equation people keep forgetting. Two of these games are old games already released commercially that plenty of people have already bought and played long before the first Humble Bundle ever came around. Sales will be a bit lower.

The sales figures aren't that important, though. What matters is the profit made. A "small" Humble Bundle that makes almost $1m is a lot of money for a small indie company, on top of what they already made and will continue to make from the games.

Don't forget there's the non-PC platforms too. Trine is on the PS3, and Trine 2 is also scheduled to be on XBLA. That's a huuuuge market that no Humble Bundle will account for.

Something between 5-10$ may be the limit for those users who are not that rich to play always the latest games legally.

Then they don't get to play them at all, period. Games are not a god-given right or a necessity for life. They're a luxury item, they cost money, and you either pay the asking price or go away. I want an Aston Martin but I can't afford it; too damn bad for me.

New games with steam (or other online) activation are basically impossible to resell, so what to do with em when you don't like em anymore?

Stop playing them. Where the hell does this idea that the game owes you money after you already got hours of entertainment out of it come from? You paid to be able to play it. You played it. You got your money's worth out of it. The end.

Yes, old physical copies were resellable. Which sucked for the people who pour 1, 2, or even 4-6 years of their lives into the game. Nobody makes any money off of used games except the asswipes at GameStop and similar companies. If you want a cheaper copy, suck it up and just wait for the game to get cheaper, and then buy it new at the lower price. Steam is great for this, most games go on ridiculous sales every now and again, you can get some amazing AAA games for $5-$10 easy if you just bide your time and wait for it.

If you're arguing that a reasonable asking price is too much for a game with 8-12 hours of entertainment that you might not like at all, that's why we invented these things called reviews. You read them before buying a game to find out if it's any good or not. It's pretty amazing, actually. I've never bought a game I didn't like pretty much since the invention of gaming web sites. Intelligent people who know about the Internet tend not to buy _anything_ without reading a review. They're pretty handy. Stops you from gettting a bad haircut, a bad vehicle repair experience, a bad toaster, etc.

If I had to guess, I would say that nobody really expects DRM to remain unspoiled for longer than a month.

People continuously fail to understand what DRM is for. It's there to stop _casual_ copying. Which it does quite effectively. It stops Joe Numbnuts from ZIPing up his copy of FooBar and emailing it to Bob Beergut.

The "professional" pirates are unstoppable. The asswipes who are determined to get years and years of other peoples' work for free are unstoppable. They're not who DRM attempts to thwart.

And I'm even less certain how much it contributes to opening week sales when most of the money is made. This is why you see titles drop in price after a while. It moves old stock and they can afford to let these residual sales rake in gravy after they've squared with the lenders.

I'm not sure if that's what you meant to imply or not, but DRM has absolutely nothing at all to do with why game prices drop. Nor does bank loan risk management play into it much.

People are willing to pay more to get in on a new thing. When a game is new, people are willing to pay $60 for it. 6 months later, they're more likely to spend their $60 on whatever else is new then. As the game ages, its "worth" in terms of "what the average consumer is willing to spend on it" decreases. That's why the prices drop; nothing more.

Some games keep their prices for longer, too, based on popularity. Some games hit the sub $40 within a few weeks (the shitty games) while other games are sold at damn near that price for months and months (the jaw-dropping amazing and/or super popular games).

Copyrighted goods don't follow the usual supply and demand curves. Instead, they follow a "how hot the item is" curve.

[Raven3x7]

The prices of AAA titles will always be rather high due to the need to recoup costs and pay off the loans the studio has to take out to develop them. Banks have a rock for a heart and regardless of how poorly your title sells, the payments are still due. DRM is a bean-counter's way of trying to make ends meet. Often studios have spent phenomenal amounts of cash to develop software locks and copy protection which is usually broken inside of a week. It's a waste of resources in my opinion, but it helps them make their development money back and keep the lenders happy.

You're contradicting yourself

If I had to guess, I would say that nobody really expects DRM to remain unspoiled for longer than a month. And I'm even less certain how much it contributes to opening week sales when most of the money is made. This is why you see titles drop in price after a while. It moves old stock and they can afford to let these residual sales rake in gravy after they've squared with the lenders.

That's mostly true for the console market.PC Games can sell for a very long time at higher prices, in particular when a game has an active modding community(e.g. Oblivion).

[Qaridarium]

Hey now take it easy, I think that is twice you have agreed with me in a week now. SLOW DOWN!!!



They aren't the problem, seeing such comments reminds me of the big publishers saying every pirated copy of their software means a lost sale which is absurd. When there is little to zero risk people will try anything. To me it says that people are curious but not willing to risk a lot on something they are unsure of. Think of it no different then going to a supermarket and trying a free sample of something you would not ordinarily buy for $10 to try out. Those who liked the free sample however may in the future buy that product or other related product at full price.

ooo noooo i must say it again.. you are right...

starcraft1 is an example if you make a good game they will buy starcraft2 and you make billions of dollars out of it...

and starcraft1 is cracket in the web for free complete hacket playable over the internet and starcraft2 is hacket to and so one and so one.

hacket/cracket/warenz don'T stop you making money of an good product.