On Braid and Pricing

By: Derek Yu

On: August 8th, 2008


The latest Penny Arcade strip is about Braid! As far as I know, this is the first indie game they’ve mentioned directly in a comic, which is pretty cool. I personally enjoy PA so I’m glad to see them promote indie games through Greenhouse, PAX, and now the strip itself.

In the post accompanying the strip, Tycho/Jerry sums up the whole pricing thing for me pretty nicely:

I wrung four and a half hours out of the finished product, coming into contact with genuinely huge concepts that hum with stradavarian fullness. You’re mad about five dollars? What? Shove your five dollars up your stupid ass.

Well, okay, maybe not that last part. At least not until rear ends start vending Cactus Coolers or bus tickets. What a waste, otherwise!

But in all seriousness, the pricing issue is another compelling problem for developers, especially an indie who can set his or her own price. It’s especially compelling because it’s become obvious that for some people (perhaps most people?), the price somehow enters into the equation that determines a game’s inherent worth. A game that costs more than it should cost becomes a worse game. Should that be the case? Should that idea be reflected in game reviews? I suppose it depends on whether the goal of the review is to help you make a purchasing decision or whether the goal is to evaluate the merits of a video game.

In Aquaria’s case, Alec and I priced the game at $30, $10 above what I guess is the “norm” is for downloadable PC indie games is, because that’s what we felt it was worth. We considered a lot of factors, from the quality of the game, to the effort we put into it, to plain ol’ numbers like how many hours of gameplay and how many assets we created. A lot of people felt it was worth what we charged, and a lot of people didn’t, which is fine. But some people took the pricing personally before they even played the game, which I’ll never truly understand.

I think the problem is that no one knows how much a game should cost, or how we should value games. Is a good, short game better than a mediocre, long game? What are pretty graphics worth to good gameplay? What about indie versus mainstream? Like with almost EVERYTHING about games, it’s just not as clear-cut as with other types of media. The industry is too young, and it’s just plain different, too.

But to quote Tycho once more:

You read a lot (in incandescent threads devoted to the topic) about how ten dollars is the “sweet spot” for Live Arcade titles, and that may be the case, but we should entertain the idea that its creator wasn’t trying to make an “Xbox Live Arcade Game.” Perhaps he was trying to make a good game, the best game he could, and Microsoft’s Broadening Initiative For Digital Content was the last thing on his mind.

In the end, I don’t think it makes sense to compare games to anything other than what you think is a good game. $15 is more than most XBLA games. It’s also about how much a 2-hour movie or an ironic t-shirt costs. I guess the question is… so what? What do you guys and gals think?

TIGdb: Entries for Aquaria, Braid

See Jonathan Blow’s explanation of Braid’s pricing after the jump:

(Video posted at 1up.com.)

  • Drood

    Putting it down to people being “cheap” is idiotically simplistic. It varies from game to game.

    Take Greydog games, like WMMA, Total Extreme Wrestling etc… They go for $30 or higher. I personally don’t consider them worth even a third of that. The interface is archaic and clunky. Well, there’s a lot of issues, but that’s for another time.

    On the other side I paid $10 for Audiosurf. I would have gladly paid $30. In fact I was shocked it was ONLY $10!

    It has nothing to do with cheapness, and everything to do with relative worth to the individual. People just throw out the “people are cheap” nonsense because they’re unable or unwilling to form a coherent, deeper opinion. No, much easier to just throw out petty insults and make yourself look unintelligent.

  • Drood

    Victo: “15$ is half the price of an album.”

    Clearly you’re shopping in the WRONG PLACES. I can get any album I want for $5 less than that. And I mean REAL album. CD, packaging etc…

  • Patrick

    You’re all missing the point: Braid should’ve been released for free and made its money selling virtual hats!

  • Pip

    Impressive turn of phrase, comment 5.

  • v-rus

    15 bucks for a good game?
    HELL NO!!
    I’m goin out to buy Halo Wars for 50 dollars!

    I dont think xbox live is the right venue for indie games. I mean, just the fact that it’s called an arcade gives the impression that all the games on there are short little, throw-aways. People just buy games on there for shits & giggles. If they want a ‘real’ game, they’ll just buy Halo 3. That kinda mindset’s a real bitch.

  • nullerator

    According to the scores at Gamerankings, Braid is judged to be one of the ten best games on the Xbox 360. It’s beating titles such as Rock Band, Mass Effect, Geometry Wars 2 and Forza 2.

    According to some people here, it’s not worth $15.

  • Reagan

    Won’t be buying Braid for 1200 points when Castle Crashers is just around the corner and Bionic Commando is here next week for 800 points.

    Braid didn’t impress me.

  • nupraptor

    someone mentioned this earlier, you can get Castlevania: SotN for 800 or the new Bionic Commando: Rearmed coming next week, or Castle Crashers. I’ll save my points for those, and yes I already picked up Castlevania and it’s great! I didn’t like the platforming in Braid. The graphics were colorful but I wouldn’t say they were spectacular. Aside from that I’d rather play Sonic or Mario.

  • http://doomlaser.com Mark Johns

    I really think the pricing fervor is one of those thing that will die down after a few weeks, and currently it’s kind of masking the significance of everything else about the game.

    This is a project done by two guys that is getting some of the most positive critical reaction by gamers and the game press that I can remember. This only bodes well for the medium, and the potential for one or two man games to get the kind of exposure acceptance as a commercially produced title on a large scale.

  • BeamSplashX

    Well said, Mark Johns, well said.

    I hope everybody heard what Mark Johns said. He is right, in all seriousness.

  • Zi-Xiao

    I can’t believe this is even an issue. I assume that most people here enjoy the freedoms provided by a society driven by a(n) (apparently) market economy. One of the rules in that market is consumers vote with their dollars. Think it’s not worth $15 bucks Stfu and don’t buy it. Think it’s worth $15 bucks? Stfu and pay for it! That’s how trade works!

    Judging by the fact that there is even a discussion around this issue, it seems there are apparently people out there who think its both worth $15 bucks and not worth $15 bucks. To these people I say “grow the fuck up” and “be greatful the fact that the game was completed and is here for you to play”

  • Shih Tzu

    I wish more people would stuff $5 up their ass. We could turn it into a treasure hunt!

  • Tatsu

    I’m surprised no one’s mentioned this yet…

    The decision of price – especially when it comes to anything in the entertainment industry – is “what they think they can get away with.” For example: Patapon was full price in Japan but a budget priced game in the US, as the publishers did not think people would understand it as well, so they did this to lower the entry barrier. Psychologically, people will expect a game to be crap if it’s too cheap, and this can negatively affect sales as well.

    The simple fact that this controversy exists at all proves that a poor judgment was made on how much they could get away with for a modern 2d platformer on a console system, despite how good it is and despite how much work and love went into it. Price has everything to do with expectations, platform and marketing and nothing to do with quality.

    (This also explains why there are so many horrible, yet fully-priced licensed games.)

  • Derek

    It’s also just been announced that Bionic Commando: Rearmed will be $10 on consoles and $15 on PC. (Thanks, RPS!)

  • MisterX

    Damn it, so I’m gonna have to pay 5 Dollars more for BC:R! 5 Dollars!

    Hehe sorry, I couldn’t resist. But I’m actually looking forward to that, likely my first purchase via Steam.

  • Koholint

    I still feel like most of the people that haven’t bought this don’t understand it at all. That’s the only reason I can think of that anyone would complain about the price. And really, guys, with all the hype Castle Crashers is getting, it is NOT going to be 800 points. The only reason SOTN is as cheap as it is is because its a game that’s already been released on two generations of consoles, and many of the people who want to play it already own it. Braid was the first madly hyped game on XBLA, so Microsoft took advantage of that and made it more expensive.

    My point: Anyone who thinks the game is overpriced, watch some more trailers, read up on the subject, and see if you still think it’s too expensive. Anyone who’s played it can tell you that it’s well worth the money.

  • Koholint

    Sorry for the double post, but consider this: if Braid was a DS game and it was $15, everyone and their grandmothers would be running out to buy it.

    As someone on GameFAQs said: “I wouldn’t complain about the price of the Mona Lisa just because there isn’t much to look at.”
    (Yeah, that’s an exaggeration, but it gets the point across.)

  • Dusty Spur

    Well, I bought the $15 Braid on impulse after playing the demo once, and I’m still on the fence about buying the… what, $10(?) Geometry Wars 2 after playing the demo at least 5 times. I think $15 is a bargain for Braid.

  • Flamebait

    I don’t know (or particularly care, since I don’t own a 360) whether Braid’s worth the money.

    But I just wanted to say that the duration of enjoyable play time is [i]one[/i] perfectly valid metric for evaluating the monetary value of a game. Games vary in both second-to-second enjoyment and sustainability of such a degree of enjoyment that the time investment of playing it is worthwile. Consider Manhunt, a simple field game (started in Canada I believe) I played as a kid in the UK. One individual starts as the hunter, and tagged (or tackled in my favourite variant) players become hunters themselves. The winner is the last non-hunter player remaining. It was invariably great fun. Although the enjoyment was often low-level because of the large degree of stealth involved, each game seemed worthwile regardless of length, and I played it numerous times without becoming bored. There was an inexhaustable amount of possibility despite the simple mechanics.

    Compare that to snowball fights. They’re usually pretty exhilirating, but the possibilities dry up pretty quick; I can’t imagine playing a single match for more than a few minutes. Neither can I imagine having them multiple times in a single winter. I guess some people prefer to play many games even if each never please for long, and others would rather cling to a precious few that always stay [i]somewhat[/i] fresh. Which is “better”?

  • Flamebait

    Also, italics tags. I have to add that alot of people presented some pretty poor arguments here.

    *Helm*, not all gamers who consider replay value important or even paramount like “escapist-sub-hollywood-movie-style- vicarious-living videogames”.
    *Dodomaster*, an arbitrary comparison does not help to prove the value of Braid. The opinions “somewhat overpriced” and “ridiculously overpriced” are both negative (same goes to ZeppMan217 and Keops, and similar to others).
    *Zaphos*, one can value time and also value replayability. People don’t always find long pieces boring at any time in any medium. An epic game is not as you imply necessarily repetitive (although you could argue that the audience is demanding repetitive games). And, people who value replayability are not necessarily “bored children”.
    *Victo*, an indie game with “a minimum of effort and originality” is not necessarily worth anything (even time). What if the mechanics are original but the gameplay is horribly broken, or there are numerous serious bugs? Not everyone who considers some indie games to be of poor value would rather pay a large sum for a generic FPS.
    nullerator, high scores from critics do not necessarily determine monetary value (I’d say they almost never do).
    *Koholint*, it’s doubtful that EVERYONE who’s played it considers it worth $15.

  • fred

    @Flamebait: We played that game, lions and antelopes we called it. It got banned on account of a few broken bones. Good times.

    I bought Braid before trying the demo. Ive played through world 3 and 4, and I am enjoying it. Its like a cross between super mario and proffesor Layton. The problem with replay value and puzzle games is that the fun in the game is figuring stuff out on your own. Once you figure it out, its not fun anymore. Its limiting in terms of traditionally marketable replayability, but it sure as hell gets talking. So it could be argued that the extent of the game goes beyond the actual game, kinda like portal did. Naval gazing aside, its a fun game and worth 15$.

    If you are a poor student gamer, what are you doing purchasing new games anyways. Don’t you gotta study?

  • Teddy

    Bionic Commando: Rearmed next week! YES! 800 pts! Sorry Braid, I’m saving those points for Bionic Commando! Yeah!

  • Kongming

    Flamebait, that comparison doesn’t work. Snowball fighting isn’t a game; there’s no real rules, no way to “win”.

  • Matt

    “The simple fact that this controversy exists at all proves that a poor judgment was made on how much they could get away with”

    No, it does not. Maybe the controversy has helped sales. Maybe it has decreased sales, but by less than 1/3.

  • Hooker with a Penis

    I agree 100& with Paul Eres – I just can’t see how there’s supposedly so much replay value in SoTN. Now don’t get me wrong, it was still a fun game to play, AT FIRST.
    If that’s the kind of “replay value” that we’re looking for, should FFVII be priced “over 9000 dullahs & your mutha”, becouse the massive amounts of random encounters and raising up your stats by looking for them, hours and hours of text on the screen, the battle animations you can’t skip, and the game takes a quite a bit of time to complete anyway.. Hey wait did I have fun when I played that game? god!? fuck, no!
    To me 15$ isn’t bad at all compared to that – NO, I don’t want to play a game that lasts forever.
    And to compare prizes most FPS games are more expensive and last as little during singleplayer-campaing or in end drag and become over-repeatitive. They have the multiplayer though so I forgive them for now… Except for you HALO.. ..BAD HALO! BACK TO THE CORNER!

  • Helm

    Flamebait: I never said it was all of them.

    People trying to calculate game time for a videogame like Braid, perhaps you might consider this aspect as well: Do you also calculate the price/merit ratio for a book in terms of how much time it took for you to read it? You can read The Great Gatsby in 6 hours or something, yet the concepts presented in it will stay with you for a considerably longer time, you will ponder the implications and generally you will be a richer person intellectually and emotionally for having read it. Does that come into effect when considering how much money one would have to pay for it? I feel richer for having played Braid, yet not for having played Symphony of the Night, though I enjoyed the latter as a platformer, sure.

  • http://www.0xdeadc0de.org/ Eclipse

    OH PLEASE guys, if you don’t want to spend 15$ it’s ok, but FUCK DAMN IT don’t try to say stuff like “it’s too short for 15$” because a game value is not on how much walking beetween an interesting point and another they throw on a level… there are plenty of crappy long games out there, spend 30$ on one of these and be happy

  • Hooker with a Penis

    Excellent point, Helm! Double that!

  • Cas

    Four damned fun hours for $15 represents good value for money. If you spend less than four hours playing a single game you are either a god or have the attention span of a gnat and deserve only to watch mindless daytime television for the rest of your miserable unfulfilled lives.

  • Pacian

    The Great Gatsby is a bad example. It’s a short work that’s out of copyright. If you pay more than a few dollars, you’re getting ripped off. Not because it’s not a good book, but because whoever published it doesn’t have to pay much to get it printed in terms of paper and royalties. And it’s not like Fitzgerald will see any of that money.

  • Helm

    Perhaps it’s a bad example but isn’t that missing my point somewhat?

  • nullerator

    That’s somewhat of an understatement.

  • Flamebait

    “Braid… seems to me to not be at all about replayability, and some people seem to put that very strongly in their equation of how much a game should cost. I think that’s what we’re used at, as we were brought up by escapist-sub-hollywood-movie-style- vicarious-living videogames where the point is “for how long can I get away from reality with it before tedium sets in””.

    The obvious way to interpret those words is that the motive behind considering replay value important is to achieve the greatest duration of escapism possible. What exactly is “escapism” anyway? In SimFarm players manage a farm, is that “sub-hollywood-movie-style”? In fact, *any* game where the mechanics are based on a more or less unadulterated real world could be considered “escapist”, and you can’t even begin to argue that all such games are bad in themselves or for the medium. Consider that players are only engaged by realistic games because they represent a part of reality unexplored by these individuals, or allow experimentation that’s immoral, impractical, and that carries grave consequences in real life; they’re fundamentally based partly in “escapism” as they avoid the mundaneity of day-to-day life. I know you never explicitly stated anything contrary to what I’m arguing, but you *did* make the associations “replayability->escapism; escapism->bad”.

    To answer your question, I can’t say for certain because I stopped reading heavily several years ago. But I don’t think I’d purchase a book, partly on account of the highly limited time of enjoyment I would get out of the deal. Even when I did read it was books people gave me, books I borrowed, books from the library, books at other people’s houses… Anyway, I’ve found that aside from entertainment, books provide ideas that make up the author’s belief system, which they try to instil in the reader. I find absolutely nothing wrong with that; an important aspect of our species has been the exchange of complex ideas since the beginning. But to *pay* to listen to someone on a soapbox seems pretty ridiculous to me. I’d play Braid for the entertainment and ideas, but only pay for the former.

    *Kongming*: plenty of electronic games don’t have victory conditions either. Are they not actually “games”? And there are unwritten and unspoken rules in snowball fights: players throw only snowballs, not heavier objects; and often it’s played in teams. Besides, you could replace “snowball fights” with any real-world game, the argument wouldn’t change.

    *Eclipse*: not all highly replayable games achieve it by such cheap means. And not everyone is arguing that “Braid would’ve been better value if it was longer”, did it occur to you that some people just think “Braid is too short for the money”? There’s a huge difference.

  • Paul Eres

    I suspect the kind of people who complain about the price and the game length are not the kind of people who read books.

  • Sigvatr

    I spend $15 a day on cigarettes alone.

  • ellipsis

    I’m fucking poor and I bought it. I’m sick of hearing these stories on it’s pricing. First of all, cool if you’re just trying to promote it by hiding it in a story about pricing, but it’s already sold 10,000+. Second, if you want to play it, buy it, if you don’t, don’t. I tried the demo, wanted more, bought it, and felt only a little bit ripped off by the 1.5 hours longer I put into it. It’s a good game, sure, so if you’re not poor you probably won’t feel ripped off.

  • Koholint

    If you got all of the puzzle pieces in an hour and a half, that’s incredible.

  • http://www.sinisterdesign.net Craig Stern

    I don’t think it’s at all unreasonable to charge $15 for a good indie game. Developers should be free to charge whatever they like, and $15 certainly isn’t going to break the bank for most people.

    The bigger problem, I think, is with the “buy then play” model itself. Flash (formerly Macromedia, now Adobe) has made it easy for gamers uninterested in cutting-edge 3D graphics, pixel shaders, etc. to play some pretty fantastic games in their browser at absolutely no cost to them. If I want to play a fabulous platformer, Fancy Pants Adventures is at my fingertips for the attractive price of $0. If I want a puzzle game based around time manipulation, Chronotron is also available at zero cost. I haven’t played Braid, so I don’t know how much it really surpasses these games, but you get the idea: it’s competing with well-made games that are absolutely free.

    Speaking personally, I’ve made far more money off of unobtrusive ads displayed on my website where people can play my games for free than I have from people actually plopping down money and deliberately ordering my games. I’m not saying this will hold true for all developers, but nonetheless, I can’t help but wonder whether XBLA is really the right venue for games of this sort to begin with.

  • This is a well known pricing phenomenon. People use ‘expected’ prices for commodity disposable media (like movies, music and most single player games). At some point historically the price is set, either by an industry consortium, a service provider or heaven forbid, the free market. At this point, the consumer feels like the producers have made a promise to them. “X value for Y dollars”. Each game they purchase that follows this pattern reinforces the value promise.

    When a product is priced higher than the average, consumers feel betrayed. It is like you’ve been paying $10 for a hit of heroin and then your dealer raises the price to $15. Such greedy behavior is naturally seen as outrageous by some buyers. It is an emotional, not logical reaction and you can’t argue with it.

    Now, this all puts content producers in a bind since it gives them zero pricing power. They can only have one price and they can’t easily adjust higher or lower.

    When you only have a single price, you lose a lot of money. If you price a game at 15 dollars, you lose everyone who would have paid up to 14 dollars for the game. You also lose the the additional money from the people who would have paid more than 15 dollars.

    So the mere fact that you have to set a single price point is screwing you out of cash.

    Most consumer products don’t carry a single price. Instead they have price tiers. Take spark plugs. You can buy the el cheapo spark plugs, the ‘standard’ spark plugs, or the ‘advanced’ spark plugs. The first one is cheap, the second one averages cost, and the last one is surprisingly expensive. Consumers will self select which tier they want to buy into. The result is that you capture more dollars overall. You get the cheapskate’s cash, you get the average joe’s cash and you get the rich man’s cash.

    Tiered pricing has some interesting side effects. It turns out that most people judge prices relative to one another, not by some objective scale. If they see those three sparkplugs, they’ll have a natural aversion to the extreme ends of the pricing scale. So most people will end up purchasing the one in the middle.

    One of the problems with being a 1200 point game on a system where most comparison products are 800, is that you are at the extreme end. They need some 2400 point bundles to make Braid look reasonable.

    What does this all mean for something like games?
    – You could release multiple price points, a basic version, a standard version and an advanced version. Give them different prices. You’ll make more money than if you just had a single price product.
    – Price the middle tier higher than the expected price. For example, basic = 19.95, standard = 24.95, and advanced = = 34.95. A surprising number of people will spring for the 24.95 version.
    – Experiment with pricing. You are goddamn indies and you have the power to set the right price for your game. Just because the giant mega portals have a once size fits all pricing policy, doesn’t mean that you can’t try something different on your website. Why be pricing sheep?

    So who is doing this right now? I know of at least one group of highly profitable independent 3rd party game developers that have already broken out of the standardized pricing trap set by portals and game services. Any guesses who they might be?

    Think Puzzle Pirates. They are run free-to-play MMOs funded by microtransactions. Think about it.
    – Complete power to set prices. You want a $10,000 wedding package? Done.
    – Pricing tiers. There are thousands of prices on virtual goods. People can pay as little as they want or as much as they want.

    It’s that ‘other’ billion dollar game industry that is growing at rates that make the console and PC retail market look like a bunch of US automakers.

    take care

  • Victo

    There is not such thing as a ripoff in the indie market. You pay to support the developer, not to have some flashy features designed especially to suit as many people’s tastes possible in order to sell more. I could pay 15$ for a lunch that’d take me a huge maximum of 5 minutes to eat. I might not feel completely full afterwards, does that mean my lunch was a ripoff?

  • Victo

    If the game had been longer, it might have become repetitive. No indie game deserves to be like PSU single-player.

  • Hmm…

    Still haven’t been convinced by anything anybody has said. I played through the Trial again just trying to get some sort of buzz that some people are feeling but it’s not there. Personally I’m just going to wait for Bionic Commando and Castle Crashers. I already know I’ll enjoy BC:R. It’s unfortunate that some people do feel the need to try and guilt others into buying a game though. I don’t know if it’s a lack of faith or a defensive nature for dishing out the extra money for a game, almost as if they have to justify why they spent the money so they don’t have to feel guilty. I’m sure some people genuinely enjoy the game, others are bickering too much about it though and taking it personal which tells me they aren’t confident in their decision.

    Ah well, at least it’s a decent month for XBLA games. BC and Castle Crashers look fucking awesome!

  • Matt

    “Still haven’t been convinced by anything anybody has said. I played through the Trial again just trying to get some sort of buzz that some people are feeling but it’s not there.”

    I don’t think anyone’s trying to say that if you don’t like it, you should spend $15 on it. If you don’t like a game, you shouldn’t play it even if it’s free. :)

  • Oddwalz

    “Still haven’t been convinced by anything anybody has said.”

    It doesn’t seem like you’re here to be convinced.

    You’re also using a set of very tried platform games as your points of reference, with SOTN clearly the poster child for your comparison in gameplay value.

    All of these XBLA games you mention are ports of old games that sold for $60 bucks when they were released. They are also (SOTN in particular) pretty standard rehashes of existing game types that don’t offer much to distinguish themselves. They are all superbly polished, and long of course.

    They can be sold now for this price largely because porting these old titles to support the Xbox is actually relatively cheap compared to building a new game from scratch.

    Braid was built from scratch, and it offers something very new to play with in the puzzle/platform genre.

    I enjoy a nice polished rehash like anyone else, but I’ll pay for novelty.

  • Kvalsternacka

    Comments: tl;dr. Doubt most of them even are remotely interesting.

    The game looks awesome. Makes me wish I had a 360. It’s also quite hilarious that people start pissing everywhere over 15 bucks. Fifteen god damned bucks… man…

  • Hooker with a Penis

    “It’s unfortunate that some people do feel the need to try and guilt others into buying a game though.”

    “others are bickering too much about it though and taking it personal which tells me they aren’t confident in their decision.”


    uh..first of all I haven’t seen a single comment here that in my honest opionion should send anyone over a guilt-trip. And not really that much “forcing down the throat” has been executed either.
    Are you sure it’s not you who isn’t that confident if this seems like bickering to you?
    You wouldn’t pay 15$ for braid, fine. I wouldn’t pay 10$ for SOTN but tastes differ, right?

  • Kongming

    Flamebait, no, those are not, technically speaking, games. There’s a reason we call that kind of software sandbox games. You may want to avail yourself of a dictionary and some game theory books; rules and victory conditions are not exactly contested as qualifiers for “game” status.

    Also, given all the times I’ve had massive chunks of ice thrown at me in a snowball fight or been attacked by my erstwhile teammates, I wouldn’t say snowball fights have any unspoken rules. Even if they *did*, it still doesn’t change the fact that there’s no way to win. It’s like splashing somebody at the swimming pool.

    “Besides, you could replace “snowball fights” with any real-world game, the argument wouldn’t change.”
    I’m not going to make your argument for you. How could I, when I think it’s wrong? You’ll have to come up with an actual game to use as an example on your own. Good luck with that, because I don’t think you’ll be able to.

  • Jean-Sebastien

    If 10$ is the “sweet spot” for an average XBLA game, 15$-20$ is what I would expect to pay for a quality downloadable title, and then 30$ would be way too much.

    I still think that Aquaria was overpriced. Not because it wasn’t worth the 30$, but because it wasn’t worth more than titles like Braid or PA:OTRSPOD. There is no justification for that price other than what the creators felt was the right price, which is a weird argument.

    You guys compare it to a movie, but I didn’t see The Dark Knight priced at 10$ more than the other movie at the theater, even if it was clearly superior. And I’m sorry, but I wouldn’t buy an ironic shirt for 10$ more than a comparable one, even if it had the best joke in the universe on it.

  • Kongming

    Uhh… Aquaria’s not an XBLA game.

  • Jean-Sebastien

    PS : It feels like the Penny Arcade guys are using Braid as a transport to stick it to people who said the same about their game. Good to see that the maker of Aquaria aren’t doing the same!