Humble Indie "Frozenbyte" Bundle 3 Slows Down

[DeiF]

Making a program multiplatform from day one is not as difficult as porting a program made exclusively for one platform.
Specially if such a game uses well known multiplatform engines (which because they are already multiplatform, they don't need to be ported).

For example, if some vendor produces a Windows game based exclusively on Unigine they have no excuse to make a Linux version. And if they make it I will not accept to be charged more than other platforms, because the cost of doing so is almost negligible.

If they charge more is because of poor planing or just because they see an opportunity to charge more.

[Remco]

There's a certain cost to develop a Linux port even though artwork and other resources can be shared across target OSes. If it turns out that the Linux-specific costs can only be covered by paying a relatively higher per-copy price for the Linux version, what *would* you expect to happen ?

- vendors don't produce a Linux port because they would lose money (no games)
- vendors produce a Linux port and lose money on it (no future)
- vendors charge more for the Linux port to make it worth doing ("an insult")

Are there other options I missed ? Which option would you expect to see ?

Don't produce Linux games if you lose money on it and don't want to lose money on it. Some games are ported because it's cool (Id games), some games are ported because it makes money (World of Goo). Some games are developed on multiple platforms from the start (Wolfire games).

[bridgman]

I won't buy a game in such scenario then.
I hope producers get this: Linux users reward freedom of choice.
Being forced to pay more than a Windows copy would be viewed as an insult.

There's a certain cost to develop a Linux port even though artwork and other resources can be shared across target OSes. If it turns out that the Linux-specific costs can only be covered by paying a relatively higher per-copy price for the Linux version, what *would* you expect to happen ?

- vendors don't produce a Linux port because they would lose money (no games)
- vendors produce a Linux port and lose money on it (no future)
- vendors charge more for the Linux port to make it worth doing ("an insult")

Are there other options I missed ? Which option would you expect to see ?

[DeiF]

This could be bad for Linux gamers in the long run though... we're showing that we'll pay more for games. I could see a windows game being released for $30, and for Linux getting charged $40 for the same game. With some excuse that it costs them more to develop it for the Linux OS.

I won't buy a game in such scenario then.
I hope producers get this: Linux users reward freedom of choice.
Being forced to pay more than a Windows copy would be viewed as an insult.

[Remco]

For those who haven't bought the bundle yet: Trine is worth it. The Jack Claw license is a damn shame, but Trine more than makes up for it!

I also have an idea of how to get the average purchase price up: hook it up to something like Facebook (optionally, of course) so that everybody can see who is buying the bundle, and for how much. The mechanism of a social network will spread the word and will pressure people to spend more money.

[skeetre]

According to my rough calculations about 10% of sales are from linux users, and those 10% correspond to 25% of the total revenue. The 13.5% Mac sales correspond to 17% of the total revenue, and finally the 76.5% Windows sales correspond to only 58% of the total revenue.

This could be bad for Linux gamers in the long run though... we're showing that we'll pay more for games. I could see a windows game being released for $30, and for Linux getting charged $40 for the same game. With some excuse that it costs them more to develop it for the Linux OS.

[Kakarott]

I just bought the bundle (paying above the linux average of course) and I decided to watch the sales values for a while to see what people are paying. As PsynoKhi0 said earlier in this thread, the first bundle made $1,2M from 138,813 sales. This bundle is currently at 159,000 sales, but only $800,000, so this indicates that there are lots of people paying way below average. And in fact during the short period of time I watched the numbers change, about 50% of the sales were below $2. I saw a few $1, $0.1 and even $0.01. That's really sad. Maybe next time there should be a minimum value. Something like $1. I don't think there's anything of real value lost if the people paying $0.01 decide that $1 is too expensive for them next time.

The first and second time where also with the ability to just donate 0.01$. Most people maybe gave more because some of the games where just coming out for e.g. Linux and it was more of a fresh way.
This 3rd bundle has Shadowgrounds and Shadowgrounds: Survivor in it which are out for Linux long time. Splot is not released and Jack Claw is just a prototype. Only real boost would be Trine for the Linux folks. Because of it being fresh for it. And seeing Shadowgrounds: Survivor just as a part of Shadowgrounds makes it "just" 3 games in this bundle. Trine worked already good on Linux with wine and was on sell many times on Steam. I got that already and some more may also have gotten the games. So way buy again for more money?
But considering more people having bought this bundle then the other shows, at least myself, that people are interested in these kind of bundles but weren't happy with what was inside.

I paid much more then average Linux and I'm really happy with the games and especially with the guys and support from Frozenbyte.

[devius]

According to my rough calculations about 10% of sales are from linux users, and those 10% correspond to 25% of the total revenue. The 13.5% Mac sales correspond to 17% of the total revenue, and finally the 76.5% Windows sales correspond to only 58% of the total revenue.
If I see one more game developer saying that linux users aren't willing to pay for software, I'll make sure I never buy anything that he produces...

[skeetre]

I agree! I saw the same thing when I made my purchase. I thought about paying about $1 to download them and try them out. Then if I liked them I could go back and donate more. But I went ahead and paid $10 I think... not quite the avg linux price, but better than the avg windows/mac price. The only game I think I will end playing though is Trine. I tried the shadowgrounds games and just don't care for them.

But yeah, even if some of those people wanted to pay .1 or .01 to see if it's even worth paying for... if the minimum is $1, I think most would still pay that just to see if they like the game.

[devius]

I just bought the bundle (paying above the linux average of course) and I decided to watch the sales values for a while to see what people are paying. As PsynoKhi0 said earlier in this thread, the first bundle made $1,2M from 138,813 sales. This bundle is currently at 159,000 sales, but only $800,000, so this indicates that there are lots of people paying way below average. And in fact during the short period of time I watched the numbers change, about 50% of the sales were below $2. I saw a few $1, $0.1 and even $0.01. That's really sad. Maybe next time there should be a minimum value. Something like $1. I don't think there's anything of real value lost if the people paying $0.01 decide that $1 is too expensive for them next time.