Does anyone actually pay $20 for ROMs?

[juansolo]

I suspect this brings us to the inevitability that the value of an item is what someone is prepared to pay for it. So if a ROM is $20 and it sells, then it is worth $20. If it wasn't, people wouldn't buy it and the seller would have the choice of not making any money or reducing the price. So in answer to the OP question of 'does anyone actually buy $20 ROMS' the answer simply is yes.

 

Then it comes to what a seller is willing to sell things for when, ultimately it might not be about making money. But it is instead about selling your work at what you believe is a reasonable amount for it. Again, that is entirely the creator's perogative. We can bitch and moan about it as much as we like, but that's the reality.

 

FWIW I used to make custom guitar effects pedals because I enjoyed making them and the hobby was entirely self funding based on sales. Ultimately people wanted them for the same sort of costs for mass produced MIC effects. So when the hobby was no longer self funding, I withdrew completely from that sector. I repair and restore vintage electronics now. Again, I don't do it because I make any money out of it, because frankly I don't. I do it because I enjoy it and the people I do it for seem genuinely appreciative of it. Creatives who feel exploited will re-direct their energy elsewhere or just not bother. That's certainly my own mentality and I suspect it's the same for others. Not everything is just about the money...

Edited July 14, 2023 by juansolo

[BobAtari]

1 hour ago, Andrew Davie said:

 

I do not live in the USA.  And in my country, artworks on-sold come with legal requirement to pay a percentage of sale to original artist.

I consider my work... art. Whether you do or not.   Regardless, we all understand you are not willing to support what some developers consider reasonable recompense for their work. That point is clear enough.

That is a really quite remarkably dishonest misrepresentation of anything I've said.

[+Gemintronic]

Just now, BobAtari said:

That is a really quite remarkably dishonest misrepresentation of anything I've said.

 

I wouldn't trust his opinion either.  He says Wen Hop but never WHY.

[+Andrew Davie]

1 hour ago, BobAtari said:

That is a really quite remarkably dishonest misrepresentation of anything I've said.

I have read your original post - as it is currently edited - and I can understand your view on my comment. It was poorly worded and I do apologise.
I have removed the part I suspect you found objectionable.  I am finding this thread has become personal - it started badly and has deteriorated since then. I'm not going to be a part of its continuation.

 

[BobAtari]

26 minutes ago, Andrew Davie said:

I have read your original post - as it is currently edited - and I can understand your view on my comment. It was poorly worded and I do apologise.
I have removed the part I suspect you found objectionable.  I am finding this thread has become personal - it started badly and has deteriorated since then. I'm not going to be a part of its continuation.

 

I only edited my initial post once, within a couple of minutes of posting it. Otherwise, noted.

[Austin]

I'm of the mindset that people are allowed to charge whatever they see fit, for whatever reasons, but whether people are going to actually pay that depends on a variety of factors. For me, I enjoy some homebrew and appreciate what the developers are doing, but my time and resources are limited and so I am not heavily invested in the scene. I'm less about hoarding these days or supporting just because I can, and so I will likely never spend $20 on a homebrew for the 2600. $5 however and I can toss the ROM on a flash cart for that rainy day that happens once or twice a year where I get the urge to binge the console? Sure, I might bite (and probably more frequently, no doubt). Much more than that and I have to start reconsidering how much fun I'm actually going to get out of my purchase. I can spend the same on a platform like Steam and get something in return that's much more engaging for me. On the flip side, there are obviously many die-hards here that solely live on these '70s and '80s 8-bit platforms, and the $20 may feel more reasonable to them as that's where their primary interests lay. That's fair.

[Cebus Capucinis]

To genuinely answer the question of the thread:

 

I'm perfectly happy paying $20 for ROMs, and have done so in the past. But I think it goes to exactly what members are saying here. I, personally, value, in a free market economy, the work and effort that goes into making a game that I believe that such creator should be compensated accordingly, so for me, the value of my $20 isn't above the value of the ability to play the game.

 

I'm in a high percentile of the earners in my country, and thus have substantially more disposable income than others. So that's one factor - the $20 isn't as 'valuable' to me as it would be to others who have significantly less disposable income.

 

In addition, as others have shown, they do not value the ability to play a digital game at $20 - for whatever reasons. They are unwilling to participate in the free market at that price point. That does not logically or, by necessity, follow that they somehow inherently insult or value programmers very little (as some have cheekily implied) - there are many valid reasons others may not value the item at that price point, whether because they have a higher value proposition of the $20 (as discussed above) or because they have a lower value proposition for the game.

 

Candidly, it's the power of the free market, and creators bear the responsibility of finding the price point that makes them feel satisfied with what they've produced. Selling 1 item at $5,000 (while historically never that high, think about that seasons cartridge I think it was Ian Bogost (sorry for misspelling!) did?) or selling 250 at $10 certainly won't result in the same net amount brought in, but as multiple people have said, it's more about satisfaction than money.

 

Overall, I think $20 is probably a bit too high for the general buying public, and something closer to $10 is probably more likely to attract more buyers right now. Again, while I'm happy to pay $20, I recognize I'm not representative of the average consumer.

 

Now that my schoolmarmish Economics 101 lesson is over for everyone who already knew this and rolled their eyes halfway through, let's have some fun - I just got a giant object pulled out of a sensitive area and my outlook has increased significantly because of it!

[doug0909]

I concur that a good ROM which took substantial work is worth $20, for the reasons mentioned by others.

 

But somewhat off topic, I have an opinion about getting ROMs from itch and other sites which people might not concur with. 

 

I download homebrew ROMs from a variety of sites, I just like trying new things. Often I can't even recall where I got something. Unless I really know what something is, I usually don't pay up front if I don't have to. Frankly, often I wouldn't have paid after finding out. Lots of low quality games out there... Which doesn't mean they weren't unique or interesting or fun for a few minutes. They're just not things I feel funny about not paying for... 

 

However, there's also a lot of high quality stuff out there, which I absolutely feel guilty about downloading for free after playing. Sometimes I'll remember to go back to the site and give a donation. Sometimes I don't remember. 

 

I would actually appreciate a follow up "did you enjoy" email from itch and similar sites, a few days or weeks after the download, regarding giving a donation after I realize how great a game is...

 

I know, I'll get criticized here for not always remembering to go back to the site on my own and leave a well deserved donation... 

Edited July 14, 2023 by doug0909

[+Karl G]

11 hours ago, MrTrust said:

"Reading the room" should not be a license for the Room to actually act like c****.  There's nothing wrong with, or disrespectful about the guy's post aside from the one dumb remark.  It's an interesting and provocative question.  Yes, he should at least do a pro forma mea culpa for the one remark, but then again, what difference would it make?

What's frustrating is that other than the dickish comment at the end, it is an interesting and well thought-out post. A simple apology for making a remark that landed differently than he intended would have done a lot of good, I think, and would have prevented the topic from getting further derailed too much. While not perfect, this is a pretty nice community, especially compared to other gaming communities, so I think the standards of civility are a bit higher.

[Cebus Capucinis]

I get the frustration of creators surrounding scalping. I think the hobby in general is frustrated with those who do that, for varying reasons. But the unfortunate reality of the situation is:

 

1) Scalpers have the ability to take their purchases and attempt to resell for highly inflated rates; and

2) Of a representative sample of people who buy a homebrew, some percentage will be scalpers.

 

Nothing will change those facts. Thus, #3 is that creators must find a solution to prevent scalping (if they're inclined to do so or care about such thing). Whether that be refuse to sell to known scalpers, flood the market with regularly priced items, or find some other innovative means to prevent scalpers from reselling at 15-25x the price, the onus is on the creator to do that, because nobody else is going to step in. Scalpers certainly aren't going to regulate themselves, and third parties frequently have no skin in the game (or, like the marketplaces, are indirectly profiting from the scalping, and are thus incentivized to keep it going).

 

It's not a great reality for those who dislike seeing their work get scalped, for sure, but it IS the reality we live in, and solutions must operate within that reality.

[+Gemintronic]

2 minutes ago, Cebus Capucinis said:

It's not a great reality for those who dislike seeing their work get scalped, for sure, but it IS the reality we live in, and solutions must operate within that reality.

 

I don't remember the particular game I made, BUT I do remember seeing a listing on eBay for it being $250 dollars.  What struck me was that could have easily paid for another run.  So, the game became flippable because I couldn't pay for a second run upfront and earned someone enough for that 2nd run I couldn't afford.

[CapitanClassic]

This is reminiscent to the way the NES Classic and SNES Classic products unfolded in the 2016-2017 Christmas season.

 

Nintendo didn’t realize how hot the NES Classic was going to be for the 2016 Christmas season. The systems quickly sold out at $60 and were being resold at twice the price or more on eBay or other resale sites.

 

Nintendo learned its lesson the next year. They released the SNES the next year for $80, and announced that significantly more would be produced. (But didn’t commit to additional shipments in 2018+). It instantly sold out, and Nintendo almost immediately announced additional shipments. Any scalpers intending to resale a scarce resource were out of luck. (And Nintendo also announced more NES Classics in 2018+) 

 

Optimally, every homebrew developer would like to collect the highest price for their game from every buyer. If one person would pay $1000 for a ROM, and 10 would pay $100, and 100 would pay $20, and 1000 would pay $1, and 100,000 would pay $0.01, it would be best if you could sell it at that price to each of those buyers. The problem only comes when people make comparisons to what they paid compared to other people. All those prices, ($1000 to $0.01) are fair, since both parties are willing to exchange at those prices and everyone is better off.

[Jag_Mag]

Paying $20 for a rom isn't unreasonable for the amount of work it takes a dev.

[MrTrust]

4 hours ago, Andrew Davie said:

Since I can't delete this message, I have edited to withdraw my response to the above.

I'm gonna bow out of this discussion as I've said my piece.  If you want me to see a response please PM me. 

 

Well, since you deleted it, I'm going to assume it wasn't very friendly.  That's fine, Andrew; you can say whatever you want to me.  This is the internet; I'm not going to go cry about somebody being "mean" to me on a message board.

 

What irritates me is that the guy asked a simple question.  He stipulated up front he wasn't interested in whether the price was fair or not, and that he wasn't disputing whether a ROM was worth $20 or not.  Within like 3 posts, it was one response after another after another lecturing him about how there's noting wrong with the authors charging that much, that's is a fair and reasonable price, and regaling him and all of us with yet another 11th grade Econ lecture, as if to even ask the question if anyone actually does buy them at that price means you must be completely ignorant of basic market forces and have some entitled, malicious disposition toward the creators.

Did I say you were entitled?  Did I say you don't deserve to be paid for your work?  Did I say you were trying to do anything dishonest or unethical?  Did I say $20 was an unreasonable price for a ROM?  Did I say I would categorically reject it as a price point?  No.  I explicitly clarified the opposite on every count over and over.  So, I don't know what offense you took at what I said, and I don't really care.  If you have something to say to me, feel free to say it here, in PM, by semaphore, or however you have to do it.  I don't see any point in the two of us having a personal argument, though; I don't have anything against you and I'm not mad at you.

 

1 hour ago, Karl G said:

What's frustrating is that other than the dickish comment at the end, it is an interesting and well thought-out post. A simple apology for making a remark that landed differently than he intended would have done a lot of good

 

I agree.  He should have done that, and his intransigence about it is on the douche-y side, and I said as much twice.  But there's also a thing called "letting it go," which the community absolutely refuses to do on anything ever.

 

Yes, the community is nice in many ways.  You took the time to help me troubleshoot my game program and fix my bad subroutine call.  I appreciated that then, and I still do.  I appreciate everyone who makes hardware and software for the Atari systems, and I tried to explain to Bob that making certain contributions to the community should earn you a little privilege, like not being told to "shove it."  I've said I don't know how many times in this thread I would like to think of ways to get more money moving from the players to the programmers.

 

But the community is often extremely rude to newcomers.  No, they don't use rude words like "suck a butt," but they act very smug and condescending over trivial stuff all the time.  Somebody starts a thread on a Topic That Has Been Discussed?  Prepare for the passive-aggressive smug bomb.  Somebody necrobumps a 10 year-old thread?  Same thing.  Did someone deny The Crash of '84?  Uh-oh.  Make too many threads?  You're a problem; it's cluttering up the forums.  Don't make new threads for every conversational tangent?  You're a problem; you're digressing this 5 page long thread about a three-paragraph press release.  Then, if the user doesn't just back down and shut up, we get this over-the-top moralizing about what a big meanie he is, how pip pip Sonny Jim this behavior just would not do in the real world, and there's some big histrionic display of OFFENSE before announcing their departure from the thread.

 

I guarantee there are plenty of people reading this who do not think BobAtari is an asshole, or that would not be willing to pay $20 for a ROM and who do think it's too much, but who will not say so because they don't want to deal with the drama.  The Room never seems to have learned the lesson that, just because nobody's confronting you, it doesn't mean they all agree with you.

 

1 hour ago, doug0909 said:

I would actually appreciate a follow up "did you enjoy" email from itch and similar sites, a few days or weeks after the download, regarding giving a donation after I realize how great a game is...

 

I know, I'll get criticized here for not always remembering to go back to the site on my own and leave a well deserved donation... 

 

To wit.  This guy has a perfectly reasonable and constructive idea about ways to get more money going to creators, he didn't steal anything or do anything wrong, and yet he expects he's going to get criticized anyway.  Everyone's supposed to "read the room," The Room evidently never has to do any introspection about the atmosphere they create with any of their behavior, and that's my main criticism.  Not just of this thread, but it happens a lot

 

@johnnywc says this thread is good market research.  It definitely could have been, but if you're going to basically be called a fucking monster because you wouldn't buy a product at a particular price, you can bet the farm that you're oversampling people who are willing to pay that much.

[BobAtari]

49 minutes ago, Jag_Mag said:

Paying $20 for a rom isn't unreasonable for the amount of work it takes a dev.

But here's the thing: that's not why people buy stuff.

 

When you buy a jug of milk from the local store, you're not calculating how much work the farmer put into raising that cow to the point where it produced milk, or how hard everyone else who helped get it from the cow to your refrigerator worked, and whether they deserve to be rewarded for it. You're weighing up how much it costs versus how much you want to drink it, compared to a Coke or a bottle of water or whatever, and whether you can get it cheaper in another store.

 

So there are two questions: "How much pleasure will I get out of this and is it worth the price?", and "Is there any better way I could get an enjoyable thirst-quenching beverage, such as a cheaper one or a better-tasting one?"

 

In the modern world you can get a LOT of videogame for $20 - that'll buy you an absolute ton of stuff on Steam, or in the App Store, or in used Xbox 360 games, or whatever. So is buying an Atari 2600 ROM the best use of your $20? It's nothing to do with how hard the dev worked. We know they all work hard, but we don't buy every game that goes on sale. We pick and choose according to our taste and our budgets and our own judgement of value. I wanted to know how many people made that judgement in favour of a $20 Atari ROM and I'm not sure I'm much the wiser. I've mostly just heard the same old arguments again.

Edited July 14, 2023 by BobAtari

[BobAtari]

29 minutes ago, MrTrust said:

To wit.  This guy has a perfectly reasonable and constructive idea about ways to get more money going to creators, he didn't steal anything or do anything wrong, and yet he expects he's going to get criticized anyway.  Everyone's supposed to "read the room," The Room evidently never has to do any introspection about the atmosphere they create with any of their behavior, and that's my main criticism.

Preach, brother.

[Jag_Mag]

You're making fair points,I don't disagree with anything you've said.

[+5-11under]

52 minutes ago, BobAtari said:

 I wanted to know how many people made that judgement in favour of a $20 Atari ROM and I'm not sure I'm much the wiser. I've mostly just heard the same old arguments again.

I think you've got at least some answers to your question.

I haven't collected the results, but it looks like a number definitely are buying $20 ROMs. Most, it seems, though, prefer the $5 to $10 range, and of course some will only "buy" if it's free, or nearly free.

 

Personally, I don't play games too much, compared to many here, so I haven't seen a case where spending $20 on a ROM would be of value to me.

[+johnnywc]

1 hour ago, MrTrust said:

@johnnywc says this thread is good market research.  It definitely could have been, but if you're going to basically be called a fucking monster because you wouldn't buy a product at a particular price, you can bet the farm that you're oversampling people who are willing to pay that much.

Regarding the market research quip, I wasn't being serious - just trying to lighten the tension.   With that said, there are a few helpful suggestions that I did take away from this discussion, and for that I say thanks!  

[Cebus Capucinis]

2 hours ago, BobAtari said:

When you buy a jug of milk from the local store, you're not calculating how much work the farmer put into raising that cow to the point where it produced milk, or how hard everyone else who helped get it from the cow to your refrigerator worked, and whether they deserve to be rewarded for it. You're weighing up how much it costs versus how much you want to drink it, compared to a Coke or a bottle of water or whatever, and whether you can get it cheaper in another store.

 

So there are two questions: "How much pleasure will I get out of this and is it worth the price?", and "Is there any better way I could get an enjoyable thirst-quenching beverage, such as a cheaper one or a better-tasting one?"

Not to get on a tangent but I think this is the crux of where people's disconnect happened. I agree with all of this, but one thing I'd say as clarification: all of those things we aren't calculating when we decide to buy are already, allegedly, pre-calculated by the seller in the very act of setting the price.

 

The onus for making these calculations and decisions isn't on us, as purchasers - it's on the creators/sellers to set the price, and the number of people who are making exactly the decision Bob is bringing up will provide feedback as to whether that calculation was in alignment with reality or not. If not, the creator/seller should adjust the price to reach the intended outcome.

 

As buyers, it's not our place to prognosticate as to what the "intended outcome" is, whether it's get rich or just have fun or throw caution to the wind and make a buck or two while enjoying a passion project. I think it's a little disingenuous to get bothered when a consumer simply makes the call the consumer should be making every time as if the consumer hasn't mind read and determined what the creator/seller's "intended outcome" is. Our jobs as buyers is to just look at the price and vote with our wallets based upon a value proposition. And for the record, yes, some buyers will incorporate "how much can I sell this for down the road and profit from it" as part of that value proposition (i.e., scalpers). Whether that's offensive because it goes outside the expected norm of transactions and that "intended outcome" is beside the point - it's still the exact same value proposition, just with an added factor, i.e. how much FUTURE utility will this product give me.

 

Buyers aren't to be mind readers and make complex assessments. Those assessments, complex or simple though they may be, are the responsibilities of those who set the initial price to begin with.

 

I think there's ultimately crossed streams between creators, who are incredibly passionate about what they make, and buyers, who typically are quite dispassionate about value proposition in purchases (or at least less passionate than the creator). Unfortunately, buyers aren't going to get more passionate overall - and at least those that do will show it by equating a higher value proposition and.... paying more.

[Thomas Jentzsch]

On 7/11/2023 at 4:36 PM, Andrew Davie said:

My next game is going on sale for 1 cent.  For the first copy.  I'll double the price every copy after that. Second person gets a copy for 2 cents. The third for 4 cents. It will be interesting to see how many copies I sell.

Definitely less than 20.

[Thomas Jentzsch]

On 7/12/2023 at 8:06 AM, Andrew Davie said:

Why should I sell something to a collector for (say) $50 who then tries to flip it for $500? 

Isn't that kind of business the core of capitalism?

[RevEng]

33 minutes ago, Thomas Jentzsch said:

Isn't that kind of business the core of capitalism?

In financial terms it's called arbitrage. You make money by buying in one market where product is demand is lower, and selling in a market where demand is higher. The usual solution (not that it's strictly a problem) would be for Andrew to sell to the high demand market himself, at the same high prices.

[JetSetIlly]

1 hour ago, Thomas Jentzsch said:

Isn't that kind of business the core of capitalism?

The thing is, Andrew's right because Australia has a law that allows for Resale Royalties on artworks. It's not clear to me if video games are covered but they do seem to be because the Australian scheme specifically lists "digital works". However, it might be dependent on how it was sold and what they buyer thought they were buying.

 

(It's worth noting that the law specifically covers the creation of a limited number of copies, the production of which was "overseen" by the original artist. I'm not sure what "overseen" means here)

 

Other countries have Resale Royalty laws. The only one I'm familiar with is the UK but that doesn't list "digital works" in the list of covered works. And then there's the question of reciprocity between nations that have Resale Royalty laws.

 

So on the surface it seems like a simple application of the first sale doctrine but it really isn't. If Andrew considers his creation an artwork then he may well be due royalties. But honestly, I'm not really qualified to know.

Edited July 14, 2023 by JetSetIlly

[JetSetIlly]

I should also add that the resale value has to be significant (>$1000) and not be a private transaction.

Edited July 14, 2023 by JetSetIlly