Eurogamer: Is Hollow Knight Silksong's 'cheap' price a problem for other indie games?

R

Reizo Ryuu

Gold Member
Disclaimer, I don't visit or read Eurogamer, but my LinkedIn is mostly only games industry and someone posted this insane take which then someone replied to with the Eurogamer article:

Nothing on the game itself, but I do have feelings on short-notice-dropping the most anticipated indie - perhaps of all time thus far - and pricing it well under its market worth - both of which likely contribute to burying other indies for some time and is already affecting their bottom lines in marketing and business pivots.

This comment isn't really pro-consumer, I understand, but more pro-indie dev. No one company owes any other company anything, true, and no this isn't the first time it's happened in the indie space, but the seemingly head-in-the-sand mentality from a massively privileged position gives me a bit of ick in the current state of things in the industry.
Click to expand...

Article:
Here's a complaint I never thought I'd hear: Hollow Knight Silksong is too cheap. Team Cherry announced the $19.99/€19.99/¥2300 price alongside Silksong's 4th September release date (that's today!) only a couple of weeks ago. No other regional pricing was announced, such as how much it'll cost in the UK, but I expect we're looking at £19.99 because that's how these things usually settle here [EDIT: Silksong's price is now confirmed as £16.75 on Steam]. That price makes Silksong more expensive than Hollow Knight, which cost around £11-13 across various platforms, but not much more expensive, and it's nowhere near the £50-70 price associated with triple-A games. So, what's the problem? Apparently it's too little - too cheap. Scores of comments on Bluesky and X, in reaction to Silksong's date and price announcement, say as much. "Actually underpriced," said one user on Bluesky. "You guys are nuts for this at $20," said another. And, "You're going to spawn a week of discourse with that price announcement, you know that?" said another. Oops, ignore that last one.


But underneath the giddy excitement there is a more serious discussion happening. Comments from worried indie developers show there is concern about the knock-on effects a price like this could have.
Click to expand...
"Silksong honestly should cost 40 bucks and I'm not even joking," posted developer RJ Lake, who worked as a composer on I Am Your Beast and is directing rhythm adventure Unbeatable. "I won't go as far as to say it's bad but it will have effects, and not all of those effects are good."
Click to expand...
RJ believes Silksong's price will distort players' views about what a €20/$20 indie game can and perhaps should offer. Which other indie teams can afford to take several years to make a game, after all? Similarly, if they did take that long, which teams could afford to ask only $20/€20 upon release? Would it cover all that work? Not everyone has the diamond-encrusted safety net that Hollow Knight provides.
Click to expand...
Theoretical concerns turned into real concerns not long after, when an indie developer who had been planning to charge $20 for their game took to X to ask people what they should charge now - now that Silksong was doing the same. "I can't afford to give it away for free," they - BastiArtGames, developer of Lone Fungus - said.
Click to expand...
But the question remains: is Silksong too cheap? Perhaps a keener question to ask is how much the people I speak to would charge for it, were it their game. Van Lith's colleague Alisa Jefimova, a market analyst and expert in pricing, would charge €25, she tells me, to give room for a launch discount. Not that they need the attention of a discount, she adds. "It's gonna be popular no matter what," she says.

"They definitely could have gone $25," No More Robots' Mike Rose agrees, "but this way they are essentially cementing Silksong as being a gigantic success before it even launches, by making it a steal. So I don't think Team Cherry is wrong to go $20. If I had been pricing it personally, I would have been on the fence between $20 and $25. But given the state of the industry right now, it's very possible I would have also fallen on $20."
Click to expand...
 
This is literally the same as the Gamepass devalues games argument. This is what you all have sounded like this entire time.

images


Promoting price collusion, advocating for raising prices, attacking anyone who wants to try and offer a good deal. That's been a nonstop thing here for years. Should Silksong be $40 to fight against devaluing? Don't forget, it's also on Gamepass. Imagine all the damage this will cause because you got a $20 game. This is what valuing developers means; it means you pay up while they complain about other people's products that they have no say over at all.

Why is this suddenly "insane" now? This is what the dominant discourse has been on GAF for literally years, in literally every single thread mentioning GP, literally every single time.
 
Last edited:
I mean there's plenty of sales of actual AAA games, oldish games but real AAA games, that are cheap. You don't have to play random asset flip Metroidvanias if you don't want to spend too much.

That's not even including F2P and GAAS.
 
So the same big publications that advocate for corpos selling games at 80$ are also mad at the little indie game selling tons for cheap?

Color me surprised.
 
I'm surprised they launched at $20 instead of $30 or $40 given the cycle, but I think it's great to have a variety of price points and offerings in the marketplace.

The Indie space is making large publishers have to justify their increased cost of games to consumers. I don't think every game should be $70 or $80 either.

I also think it's okay if a small few games* launch at higher price point like $90 because eventually they will go on sale down to $60 and $30 no matter the wait. Unless you're Nintendo and that damnable price lock that they've had since the Switch launch on their own IP.

*Your extraordinary IP like GTA6 for example
 
Last edited:
infinity ward producer ratiod the poster in the comments while nobody could come up with a "solution" to this "problem":
I...don't get this take at all.

What on earth are you asking for here? A higher release price? A larger marketing storm? Surely these are just ways to take up MORE space in the airwaves, and hog the player's wallets even more.

Silksong is the absolute dream: a few creatives work on a passion project, until they're satisfied with it, and then let it loose to a faithful fan base, at an affordable price. No marketing stunts. No pre-order baiting. Just honest, passion-driven game-making.

We should be celebrating this success - not cursing it. It just smacks of envy.
Click to expand...
 
Lmao, first Baldur's Gate 3 was too good now Silksong is too cheap?
Lmao I can only hope more games do this. If the industry crashes they have only themselves to blame.
I know it'll never happen but fucking hell it would be a dream if T2 and Rockstar priced GTA VI at 50$, the whole industry would collapse, Ubisoft would immediately go broke and I would celebrate like never before.
 
Just like how Elden Ring has a bad UX or how BG3 is too good or how hollow knight is too cheap.

It goes to show you when the best games release everybody else gets a little jealous.
 
Punished Miku said:
This is literally the same as the Gamepass devalues games argument. This is what you all have sounded like this entire time.

images


Promoting price collusion, advocating for raising prices, attacking anyone who wants to try and offer a good deal. That's been a nonstop thing here for years. Should Silksong be $40 to fight against devaluing? Don't forget, it's also on Gamepass. Imagine all the damage this will cause because you got a $20 game. This is what valuing developers means; it means you pay up while they complain about other people's products that they have no say over at all.

Why is this suddenly "insane" now? This is what the dominant discourse has been on GAF for literally years, in literally every single thread mentioning GP, literally every single time.
Click to expand...
Not the same thing at all.
No matter the price, buying something is completely different to renting something via subscription.
 
That is stupid. If you feel your game is worth a higher price, charge a higher price, if not, don't. That's it. Silksong is a special situation, pricing isn't going to play such a gigantic role with other indies as it did with it because the high demand was already there for several years. People were excited to buy it no matter the price, them doing $20 just made the decision very easy for some potential buyers.
 
This just shows how greedy other indie and publishers in general are. Do no blame silksong devs for being fair and honest. It's an indie game. Greedy fucks.

I hope other indie and publishers start losing money when gamers stand up for all these expensive for nothing garbage games that can't even run properly even months sometimes after release and yet ask a high price for their garbage.
 
No it doesn't devalue more expensive titles if the dev/publisher feels their game is worth that cost. Other indie devs only charge $20 for their games too. Silksong is just a popular one. Any of the devs thinking this need not to worry, just make the game and charge what you believe it's worth and what you believe will make the profit. Worrying about the cost of Silksong does more damage than the cost.
 
This doesn't make sense to me. Team Cherry is an indie dev targeting a mainstream audience. What indie devs charge more than $20 and anticipates a lot of sales? If you're an indie studio charging more than that, then the scope of your game is probably closer to AA, or you're charging more because you anticipate much lower sales to begin with because you target audience is niche.
 
They made it. They are skilled. They are allowed to price it whatever they want.

People are bothered that someone is doing charity. How dare they.
 
I realize these articles are just their churning machine of pumping out pretentious takes on a hot topic for engagement but yea, maybe others do, but I don't function like this at all.

Indie game prices are all over the place, I never buy one and expect the next one to be the same. Sometimes it's $30, sometimes $15, sometimes $40. Again, maybe others have this generalized expectation but it doesn't even cross my mind.
 
BattleScar said:
Not the same thing at all.
Click to expand...
nah, it's extremely similar actually. Keep going with this whole thinking thing.

What do you think they are arguing is bad about a $20 game in this instance? What do you think it will do to other games?

Renting or owning makes no difference except to the game actually on GP. This is about how totally unrelated developers will criticize someone else's rental. Why would that matter at all that it's a rental? It doesn't. They're arguing that it's too competitive to sell their game, so they're trying to pressure people into price collusion. It's literally the same argument.
 
Last edited:
GudOlRub said:
Lmao, first Baldur's Gate 3 was too good now Silksong is too cheap?
Lmao I can only hope more games do this. If the industry crashes they have only themselves to blame.
I know it'll never happen but fucking hell it would be a dream if T2 and Rockstar priced GTA VI at 50$, the whole industry would collapse, Ubisoft would immediately go broke and I would celebrate like never before.
Click to expand...
Dont forget that ER doesnt have yellow paint.
 
To answer the question of whether Hollow Knight's price is harmful to other indies.
The answer is NO.

Because not everyone likes the same fucking games. And even for developers making metroidvanias. If yours is any good, people will buy and enjoy it, so charge what you think you can for it. Even if its shorter or not as good as Silksong. Because people aren't so fucking ruthless and logic-orientated to make decisions on supposedly objective measures. If you have an interesting art style, some interesting mechanics, some interesting fucking story, then someone will like it. Maybe not as many people as Hollow Knight, but if you're an indie and your target is 15 million copies sold and $300 million in revenue, you need to pull your head out your ass.
 
Uhm... hello? Hollow Knight released for what, $15? And it still offered 3-4x the content of the average indie of its time. The very same things were being said in 2017. People's memory is getting shorter and shorter.

The real problem is the price (and, well, the very existence) of these and thousands of others:

NRanJ5Z8Q2opqwDl.jpg


Not to mention, collections of 30+ year old ROMS releasing for more than even Nintendo used to ask for their VC titles in the Wii era.
 
I tend to only buy games when they're discounted at $20 or less. Most games aren't worth more than that and I hardly ever play something more than once.
 
The game was made by 3-4 people and is expected to sell millions. They have solved their economic issues generationally. The price is more than right.

Instead of seeing them as a problem, see them as an example.
Make great games and sell them cheap instead of selling garbage at 30-40 and begging/hoping for gamepass money.
 
Fuck the legacy media and the other mediocre devs who complain about pro-consumer decisions.

Prices cannot be compared like this. The price of a product is determined exclusively by what customers are willing to pay for it, not because of budget, not because of "the market". Team Cherry can set the price as low as they want, the same as Rockstar may do the opposite with GTA 6.

The Gamepass analogy is wrong. Apples and oranges.

Besides, Team Cherry knows that many people will pay AGAIN for a physical edition, so lowering the price is a bait for double-dip.
 
NeoIkaruGAF said:
The real problem is the price (and, well, the very existence) of these and thousands of others:
Not to mention, collections of 30+ year old ROMS releasing for more than even Nintendo used to ask for their VC titles in the Wii era.
Click to expand...
Go a step further, because their screeching will get louder as their pain increases.

The real problem is that they will get outcompeted on quality and price. Consequently, some projects will fail and should fail, and then they may have to retire or look elsewhere for work. And all of that is fine.

The alternative is "value developers" and price collusion and jack up prices to support all of these people with zero consequences.
 
Industry big mad that Team Cherry makes them look bad.

Single digit dev team makes great game that took 8 years for $20 or less depending on regional pricing.

400+ dev team makes mediocre to average games that took 8 years for $70 or more depending on base, deluxe, super deluxe, mtx/paid dlc and borked regional pricing.
 
If you're worried about charging $20 for your indie game because people will have high expectations from a $20 game after Silksong, then you need to take a long hard look at the game you're thinking of charging $20 for.
 
Nothing on the game itself, but I do have feelings on short-notice-dropping the most anticipated indie - perhaps of all time thus far - and pricing it well under its market worth- both of which likely contribute to burying other indies for some time and is already affecting their bottom lines in marketing and business pivots
Click to expand...

Welcome to the real world. It's a competitive market, not a charity.
 
This only hurts games that are overpriced, prices rises all the time but salaries stays the same, about time that developers think about us, the customers, so kudos to Team Cherry, Expedition 33 or Baldurs Gate 3 to name the most recents ones, a big THANK YOU to them
 
Last edited:
This is embarassing

If your indie game cant be sold for $20, maybe your game isnt indie

We have "indie" devs nowadays with hundreds or employees. No shit you cant charge $20 for a game.

Indies should be passion projects made by 3 guys like this game was, or Stardew Valley.
 
Punished Miku said:
nah, it's extremely similar actually. Keep going with this whole thinking thing.

What do you think they are arguing is bad about a $20 game in this instance? What do you think it will do to other games?

Renting or owning makes no difference except to the game actually on GP. This is about how totally unrelated developers will criticize someone else's rental. Why would that matter at all that it's a rental? It doesn't. They're arguing that it's too competitive to sell their game, so they're trying to pressure people into price collusion. It's literally the same argument.
Click to expand...
Not really.
At the very least its not my argument.

A high quality game being cheap, doesn't devalue games. Because different games provide people with different things, and not everyone will enjoy playing Hollow Knight or Silksong.
What it does, is apply a downward pressure on prices and raise the quality standard at the same time. People will expect more for less for their purchases.

Gamepass doesn't do this. It just obfuscates the cost of video games entirely. If a game on gamepass is shit, you don't care, because you didn't pay for it. But you would care if you did pay $20 for it.
Whether that's good for the industry or not? Well that's for you to decide.
 
BattleScar said:
A high quality game being cheap, doesn't devalue games. [...] What it does, is apply a downward pressure on prices and raise the quality standard at the same time. People will expect more for less for their purchases.
Click to expand...
That's their entire argument, that it does. You're basically describing "devaluing" from what I can tell.
BattleScar said:
Gamepass doesn't do this. It just obfuscates the cost of video games entirely. If a game on gamepass is shit, you don't care, because you didn't pay for it. But you would care if you did pay $20 for it.
Click to expand...
Ignore all of that. What are critics arguing this does to other games NOT on GP? This is basically what I'm talking about, so if that's not your argument then it didn't really apply to you.
 
Punished Miku said:
This is literally the same as the Gamepass devalues games argument. This is what you all have sounded like this entire time.

images


Promoting price collusion, advocating for raising prices, attacking anyone who wants to try and offer a good deal. That's been a nonstop thing here for years. Should Silksong be $40 to fight against devaluing? Don't forget, it's also on Gamepass. Imagine all the damage this will cause because you got a $20 game. This is what valuing developers means; it means you pay up while they complain about other people's products that they have no say over at all.

Why is this suddenly "insane" now? This is what the dominant discourse has been on GAF for literally years, in literally every single thread mentioning GP, literally every single time.
Click to expand...

This is NOTHING like that conversation at all!!! Literally not even close. Stop defending Microsoft by proxy. This article writer is insane for advocating for higher prices on a game. I agree there, but this is NOTHING like Gamepass.
 
Also it would seem smarter to price your shit slightly lower at that impulse buy threshold to ultimately turn around more copies. Not sure if that works in practice but I would think it does?
 
mckmas8808 said:
This is NOTHING like that conversation at all!!! Literally not even close. Stop defending Microsoft by proxy. This article writer is insane for advocating for higher prices on a game. I agree there, but this is NOTHING like Gamepass.
Click to expand...
Posting all caps isn't an argument. You're not even attempting to list reasoning or thought.

I'm not defending MS by proxy. I'm defending them directly because I'm not a hypocrite and I'm fine with competition leading to failure, low prices for consumers, and challenging the cultlike mantra of "valuing developers." It's a scam, and if you can acknowledge it in one area but not the other than you're a hypocrite.
 
Quality is subjective and not easy to measure. We all know the game is great, but there's no reason for it to cost more than any other indie, considering there is no better tech or more manpower employed in its development. Objectively, its price is what should be.

If its quality is far superior than most games, the message for the other devs should be DO BETTER GAMES so you don't get exposed by a 2D platformer of less than 3 gigabytes.
 
I keep saying this, but selling more copies cheaper triggers network effects and trending algorithms.
If you have a good game, every copy sold becomes marketing driving additional sales.

In the indie space the current thinking is to set a higher price so wishlisters will grab them later when they get discounted. I believe that's flawed thinking.
 
Last edited:
Not too long ago, $20 would have been pretty expensive in the indie space. For all the bemoaning about $80 AAA games, we've largely ignored what's been happening in the indie space.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Hollow Knight Silksong | Reviews Threads
Analysis Review 
0
31
Draugoth replied
Hollow Knight Silksong is 100 on OpenCritic [Update] Now 94
2
94
205
CrimsonTide replied
  • Featured
Hollow Knight: Silksong |OT| It’s SHAW-time!!!!
19 20 21 22 23
1K
1K
SScorpio replied
Silksong's release delaying other games.
News 
46
367
Holammer replied
Hollow Knight Silksong Special ANnouncement Set for August 21
News  2 3
130
440
John Bilbo replied
Top Bottom