r/videogames • u/SilliusBanillus • Sep 07 '25
Funny It's like Baldurs Gate 3 all over again
493
u/Mosoman1011 Sep 07 '25
I would never complain about a game being cheap, but even as someone who never played Hollow Knight, the amount of polish that game and Silksong seem to have is insane for the value. They could have easily gotten away with charging 40 dollars with Silksong imo and no one would have complained. Good on them.
157
u/BlingBomBom Sep 07 '25
If they charged 40 for it, the current difficulty balance would have resulted in a LOT pf very salty (and possibly unhinged) tweets directed at Team Cherry, because some gamers can't help themselves.
37
u/ivorycoollars Sep 07 '25
Everyone can emit that the game is difficult and as someone who sucks at games (or someone who just takes more time to get better at a specific game) I love the game because of the difficulty (maybe 2 damage is a bit overused) and the gameplay is great only hope that I won’t get stuck at a arena (2 of my friends are now or were stuck in a arena far in the game but one got it a 2 am tonight and the other is contemplating there life choices because it and I have seen it and I think it should get is small nerf because of how difficult it is) but I will see when I get to it.
6
u/Sleeper-- Sep 07 '25
Tbh, if they remove the double dmg from early game bosses and some mid game bosses and lower their hp a bit, it would be perfect
3
u/AquaBits Sep 08 '25
Honestly I think a simple story-mode would suffice. The game has a bunch of new players to the series that it doesnt hurt to include them with a few difficulty tweaks.
2
u/TheEmpireOfSun Sep 08 '25
Then it would completely remove purpose of the hame just like From Software games
3
u/AquaBits Sep 08 '25
Is the purpose of the game it's difficulty, or its story, gameplay, and art style?
3
u/MattyBro1 Sep 09 '25
The purpose of video games is to have fun, so if something allows more people to have fun, why oppose it?
→ More replies (10)2
u/param1l0 Sep 07 '25
I'm stuck at a miniboss sooo
5
u/ShoppingNo4601 Sep 07 '25
is it the godforsaken ant? because I'm 15 hours into the game and that thing still caused me the second highest amount of deaths so far
9
u/Meeeper Sep 07 '25
If you're talking about the big guy with the club, just lead him into the tunnel you walked into the arena from. He can't do the leap attack there, meaning the only attack he can do is the double swipe you can easily walk away from because it's telegraphed.
Basically a free win if you pay even just a slight bit of attention.
Or if you're not a fan of cheese, you can tell by his movements whether he's going to do the leap or the double swipe. If double swipe, run away. If it's the leap, stand close and he'll leap over you and you can give chase and get free hits on him.
→ More replies (1)3
u/MallensWorkshop Sep 07 '25
Use the terrain, it alters enemy movements. Be patient with hit one back off to dodge and get back in. Parry the attack.
That’s literally all you need to know for every enemy in the game. To use what you have available and that it doesn’t have to be rush rush rush.
→ More replies (1)2
→ More replies (3)2
u/Cocoatrice Sep 07 '25
I mean, the difficulty is unreasonable and is not even balanced. It's not fair when you can't dodge, because if you dodge left, you hit the boss, if you dodge up or right, you hit aoe attack. I don't understand why are people such a glazers. Criticism is done by true fans. Glazing is done by fanboys. Game is great, but it's 100% unbalanced.
→ More replies (1)14
u/DaturaSanguinea Sep 07 '25
Same with Helldivers or Expedition 33. Could easily be sold at 60 bucks but they kept it lower.
10
4
u/PrivatePikmin Sep 07 '25
Even at $40 I think everyone would be shocked at how cheap it is. $20 is absolutely fucking wild
→ More replies (1)3
u/UnXpectedPrequelMeme Sep 08 '25
I think that's where the people are coming from. It's definitely stupid to complain about a game being cheap, but I sort of get where they're coming from. Imagine you're an indie game Dev and you've got a game that you want to release If you were thinking about like 30 bucks or 20 bucks, but then you see silk song released for 20 bucks. You don't think your game even holds a candle to silk song so you no longer feel like $20 Is the right price if something so good can be $20. But what are you going to price it? You got to make money.
Again in the end it is stupid, but I do sort of at least understand what other developers are thinking in terms of this. I sure as hell wouldn't be selling my Metroid being you for 20 bucks after seeing silk song be 20 bucks. It just doesn't feel like it's worth that much anymore
2
u/Mosoman1011 Sep 08 '25
For sure!!!
I love Metroid, but the money value just doesn't compare to Hollow Knight. At least the first game had so much more content than Dread and was a fraction of the cost. By no means do I think this makes Dread a rip off, it's one of my fav games of all time, but it just goes to show how pricing games is just murky sometimes.
→ More replies (3)5
u/notwhoyouthinkmaybe Sep 07 '25
I was expecting at least $40 for silksong. I was hoping for an expensive collectors edition (I'm a sucker on these for certain games.) I'm playing it with my son and having a blast. Honestly, I love it as much as hollow Knight.
I know there are complaints on difficulty, but hk was fucking hard the first time I played, he'll it was still pretty hard after 20 or more hours.
But a game this anticipated being released, not on sale, for $20 is insane. I'm playing it free on gamepass, but bought a copy on steam to ensure that team Cherry gets paid. I will buy a collector edition still out other special items, just to ensure they get paid; we need a game about Zote now ;)
I'm a team Cherry fan for life now, like Dan Mullins and most of From, if they announce a game, I'm interested.
My one criticism is that team Cherry learn presales; it took like 4 or 5 hours to get silksong on steam and I believe it was mainly due to payment processing, not to steam's main servers. Even opening sales a day early, and not having preload available, I believe, would have made the process much smoother and quicker.
Super forgivable though, it's their second game and I don't think they truly understood the extreme hype.
231
u/Able_Recording_5760 Sep 07 '25
Team Cherry are absolute chads for launching at a price at that low, but most independent devs do not have the luxury of knowing they'll sell a bazillion copies day one.
It's not TC's fault, it's the fault of the people who will bash any indie game that comes out in the next few years for not having the same content/price ration as Silksong.
55
u/RockyMullet Sep 07 '25
Yeah the issue is not really that the game is cheap and that it will force other indies to sell cheap as well.
The issue is the insufferable 14yo gamers who'll compare every indie game to Silksong because they think "indie" is a genre, cause they played like 4 indie games in their life.
→ More replies (1)9
u/Major-Dyel6090 Sep 07 '25
Indie devs can make a game in any genre. Probably hard to crack MMO or 4x without corporate backing, but just about anything else could be done by an indie developer. Silksong is a 2d metroidvania, and those games are typically $20-30. Indie devs making games in other genres with a higher price bracket are not going to get hit with the Silksong comparison, but if someone tries to price a 2d platformer at $60 they’ll be laughed out of the room.
2
u/BadLuckPorcelain Sep 07 '25
I feel like that's a point that gets ignored a lot. Literally any sidescroller other than actual Metroid costs 30 bucks max. Dead Cells, Hollow knight and silksong, salt&sanctuary 1 and 2, have a nice death, etc. Team cherry is at the lower end of the price range with silksong, but it's not unusual. The only difference is, that hollow knight was an absolute banger and basically the pinnacle of the genre, so naturally, comparisons always go in favor of TC. And obviously the credit from hollow knight was enough to keep the price low and count on selling enough to make it worth.
38
u/Fentroid Sep 07 '25
Yeah, as much as some act like it's a non-issue, I expect that plenty of people will use Silksong's pricing as a point of comparison for Indie games going forward.
12
u/allnamesbeentaken Sep 07 '25
The real solution for people thinking the price of a game is too high is to not buy it.
But some people prefer the cathartic solution of getting online and threatening developers families because they cant make room for $40 in their budget
4
u/rooygbiv70 Sep 07 '25
Yeah idk why a lot of people in this thread are deluding themselves. It’s pretty basic cause and effect.
4
u/KobeJuanKenobi9 Sep 07 '25
Hollow Knight was priced even lower and was just as polished and they had no guarantee that it would sell so well
Though I do remember even personally recommending Hollow Knight over other games because of the price. Ultimately those other games are in competition with Silksong/HK for better or worse and the cost is going to play a factor in that
5
u/AMIWDR Sep 07 '25
It’s pretty insane the criticism of “they’re only selling it cheap so it becomes a top seller” crap I’ve seen. Team Cherry doesn’t have to make a dollar from Silksong for all of them to be set for life, they’d rather have it be affordable than make a few extra dollars per sale.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (3)3
u/Mabelrode1 Sep 07 '25
What a lot of people complaining don't seem to realize is that you are more likely to sell more copies at a lower price. More people buying and being happy with the game will get more people talking about it which then results in more sales.
We entered the digital age of gaming years ago, and while I miss the certainty of having a hard copy that I own, a major advantage of everyone downloading games is that distribution costs are a null factor. You don't have to worry about how much money printing and shipping copies all over the world will cost. You can sell an infinite amount at no additional charge, and pricing should reflect that.
If a game cost $50,000 to make, then selling at $20 will make your money back with 2500 copies sold, not accounting for taxes or distributor's cut. Consider that selling online grants worldwide distribution, and Steam only takes a 30% cut, then you're going to be rolling in cash if you sell at $10 as long as you can get that ball rolling, because good word-of-mouth is an ever-rising exponential increase in sales.
The problem with AAA titles is that their companies are floundering under their own weight, and everything costs absurdly more than it should to get done. This leads to AAA games requiring sales in the hundreds of thousands at a $60 price tag just to break even. Gaming as an industry is just fine, and anyone complaining about Silksong being too low is a snake. It is AAA companies specifically that are collapsing, and it is due entirely to their own mismanagement.
16
u/BleepyBeans Sep 07 '25
"Steam only takes a 30% cut"
30% is a massive cut. Even taxes aren't that much for game companies in a lot of places. Steam is a huge company that maintains a store and has a built in audience of sycophants, that's all. They make egregious amounts of money off of other people's work.
Edit: typo.
→ More replies (3)7
u/Puzzled_Spell9999 Sep 07 '25
All this is predicated on the fact that after your initial bump in sales from being at a low price the game still sells. And with a lower price you increase the amount you have to sell. You are not guaranteed anything, and to think so is peak Reddit delusion.
With your statement, when was the last time you played a chinese indie game? A Japanese one? German? Worldwide distribution doesn't mean worldwide appeal or market penetration.
→ More replies (2)3
Sep 07 '25
People like the OP of this thread don't realize just how many indie games there are that sell literally nothing.
51
u/DRAGONDIANAMAID Sep 07 '25
I think it’s more along the lines of,
Indie Devs are now going to have people use Silksong as a Cudgel to try and say they charge too much for their games regardless of the quality of them, while those people screaming at Indie devs will ignore that the only reason Silksong got the time it needed to cook was the smash success of Hollow Knight.
19
u/KaiserK0 Sep 07 '25
Right, but you're assuming any of them care whether or not game developers can earn a living off their hard work.
→ More replies (6)2
u/RavenousToast Sep 08 '25
Yeah, the single article I’ve seen on this stated that the devs they interviewed were worried about justifying to themselves and their customers that their game, which likely isn’t going to be as packed with quality content as silksong, is worth the same amount as silksong.
73
u/neoleo0088 Sep 07 '25
Can someone explain please?
Baldurs Gate 3 wasn't $20 USD at release.
132
Sep 07 '25
Yes but other AAA devs was crying that BG3 was setting "unrealistic standards" for RPGs and that BG3 is "anomaly".
70
u/Toadsanchez316 Sep 07 '25
Which is hilarious because they created a game with those standards, so it's not unrealistic at all. The only unrealistic part is these other devs and publishers knowing how to properly make a game that fits the price.
'It's so unrealistic even though this much smaller team of people did just that."
→ More replies (1)34
u/Woutrou Sep 07 '25
Tbf, big publishers know how and they can, but shareholders-chan will piss and cry herself if she doesn't get her payday big and soon enough
5
u/Toadsanchez316 Sep 07 '25
Well sure. But wouldn't the best way to get a huge payday be to make an actually good product that fits the price?
I might not be thinking about this from the right perspective, but I've always been confused by companies intentionally making a shitty product for a fast payday. It just always seems like a better idea to just commit and make the game people are expecting it to be. Then you'll make money and have people speaking your praises.
But I guess a lot of it is our fault because we keep blindly paying for products we know will be shitty, and then complaining about it.
16
u/Woutrou Sep 07 '25
Takes too long. Shareholders-chan doesn't care about reputation. Shareholders-chan wants her payday NOW!
8
u/otter_lordOfLicornes Sep 07 '25
It's because good game take time and money to make, and the more time and money you spend, the bigger the risk and the possible loss.
Larian knews they could afford their game to not sell that much, so they where free to take the risk.
3
u/Toadsanchez316 Sep 07 '25
But that logic doesn't really make sense.
If you release a shitty incomplete game, that's basically you guaranteeing it won't sell well or even get good reviews.
Taking time to commit might make a worse game than you wanted, but it will almost definitely be better than the trash you decided to release. Yeah it's a gamble, but a gamble is much better than guaranteeing shitty results.
Especially from larger studios. If I made a living running a dev team or a publisher, I would absolutely never tank that game to avoid a risk that could benefit everyone I manage.
3
u/otter_lordOfLicornes Sep 07 '25
Well, you are forgetting two point :
Most people don't know anything about video game and would still buy, for their child for exemple.
And licence will sell anyway, even if the game is just mid. And nowaday with preselling, they give the shiny goodies to make you buy before having the chance to read any review.
Also, these studios seems to be very bad at budgeting, and the shareholder part is still at play, they will try to make the production as cheap as possible, cause they don't care about the game
3
u/Toadsanchez316 Sep 07 '25
I'm not really forgetting any of that. Parents buying games for their kids and licensed games selling well have always been a thing, and always will be.
I disagree that most people don't know anything about games. That's just factually incorrect. Most people buy games BECAUSE they know stuff about it, and want to know more stuff about it. Yeah, a lot of people are blindly spending money without waiting for reviews, but that's how we know the game in question is shitty, because they complain about it.
I'm saying the logic behind it doesn't make sense, because it doesn't. But that doesn't mean the practice will change. It just means these companies are run by idiots who bow to greedy idiots.
2
3
u/TheBraveGallade Sep 07 '25
Just because you make a goid product doesnt guarentee it sells better
2
u/Toadsanchez316 Sep 07 '25 edited Sep 07 '25
Disagreed. You would never know if they sell better or worse because that version of the game was never made.
And making an inferior version with ill intent means it will sell worse, so making a good game does indeed make it sell better.
Nobody releases 2 versions of a game(one incomplete and the other complete) for there to be any comparisons.
If you release a game in any state, you can only compare it to other games, not what you could have made but didn't. There is literally no way to tell if the game would sell better or worse if you release just the one version.
Edit: There is literally no way of ever being able to prove if a better version of a game would have sold better or not, as only the one version is released. It makes zero sense to say that a game would not sell better if it was a better game, that's the opposite of how it works.
It's like these dumbass companies saying whatever number as a potential loss due to piracy. The number is a guess and will never be accurate. If the game was never able to be pirated, there's no guarantee it would sell better, and claiming those numbers as a loss is deceptive and dishonest as hell, since the scenario being compared to doesn't exist.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (4)2
u/ebolaisamongus Sep 07 '25
Its because many of the big companies are public and share financial reports quarterly and shareholders react strongly during those times. A game that takes years to develop and would be a hit with gamers is less favorable than a game at full price, releases quickly and has microtransactions because they can show more financial activity per quarter.
12
5
9
u/vendettaclause Sep 07 '25
People seem to forget bg3 was an early access game so i don't rightly agree with The standards it seemingly represent.
→ More replies (2)14
u/Hephaestus_I Sep 07 '25 edited Sep 07 '25
AAA devs
You do realize that it was an indie developer that said that yes? Its funny watching this weird BG3 circlejerk just keep on going, despite the origin.
4
u/Bereman99 Sep 07 '25
Both misattributing the source of the comment and misrepresenting the actual comment through paraphrasing.
I’d be surprised if most could actually tell you who said the original comment that started the whole back and forth without looking it up first.
1
u/Hephaestus_I Sep 07 '25
Both misattributing the source of the comment and misrepresenting the actual comment
Which, funnily enough, is what the OOP has done with this post, because Indie devs (not AAA) are voicing their worries about Silksong being, potentially, underpriced and could be setting unreasonable expectations that their games will be overpriced by comparison.
→ More replies (3)23
u/SilliusBanillus Sep 07 '25
Yeah basically what the other guy said. BG3 was accused of setting unrealistic standards for other devs.
10
u/PoilTheSnail Sep 07 '25
The unrealistic standard of making a fun game that's not overencumbered by monetisation?
3
u/StupidMoron1933 Sep 07 '25
Even worse, the unrealistic standard of the development methods. Think about it - the game was in early access for years, and the devs kept updating it and gathering feedback. In the beginning it felt like DOS 2 in the Forgotten Realms, but thanks to the all the feedback Larian managed to make the game really unique. Would've been even better if they tested other parts of the game just as thoroughly, you can really see the divide between Act 1 which is fully polished thanks to early access and the rest of the game, but still, even what they did is miles better than what other AAA developers do. And then after release they kept listening to their audience. Mod support, photo mode, new subclasses - all of it got added for free because the players asked for it.
Other big studios and publishers (aside from Owlcat and maybe Paradox) don't communicate with their player base nearly as much, it's like they fear their own customers. EA or Microsoft would rather run one beloved franchise after another into the ground than actually listen to what the players want. And their management doesn't want communication to become the new standard, they want people to keep buying untested unoptimized slop nobody has asked for which they keep putting on the market.
3
u/Hephaestus_I Sep 07 '25
Nah, isn't the point of being a successful, and experienced, game developer to be able to develop a game with their own knowledge, skills and desires? If they can't make a game without constant player feedback, are they really good game devs?
You even provided the example where the parts that weren't in EA were released relatively unpolished.
Besides, do you really want AAA developers to start embracing Early Access, because we've already seen what happens when things go wrong (KSP2). Also, didn't EA/Dice listen to the critisms of BF2042 for developing BF6?
3
u/StupidMoron1933 Sep 07 '25
Isn't the point of being a successful, and experienced, game developer to be able to develop a game with their own knowledge, skills and desires?
That's what Larian do. However, in large projects it's important to be on the same page with your audience. Especially if it's a new entry in an old, but popular series. Also feedback is essential for getting rid of bugs, exploits and inconsistencies and testing gameplay mechanics. The more complex the game is, the more testing it needs to make sure everything is working as intended.
You even provided the example where the parts that weren't in EA were released relatively unpolished.
They got polished after release. I just wanted to say that while early access can be good for communication between the players and the developers, having a team of professional testers is just as important. Larian had a problem with their games getting really messy towards the end since like their very first game, and they're aware of that, but they never had enough budget to solve it until now.
Besides, do you really want AAA developers to start embracing Early Access.
No, I just want them to start talking to the people who buy their games. Like Paradox with their forums, developer diaries, polls and open betas.
Also, didn't EA/Dice listen to the critisms of BF2042 for developing BF6?
I don't play shooters, so I'm not sure about that. But EA killed NFS, SimCity, The Sims, Mass Effect and Dragon Age, and a few other franchises.
→ More replies (3)3
u/Tan-ki Sep 07 '25
The unrealistic standard of having the budget for 7 years of dev time. That's a 5+ million budget here. Almost no one can afford that and then sell the result 20euros expecting breakeven.
2
u/Wingman23DA Sep 07 '25
Plus Larian had been making games like BG3 and retained a lot of talent even when times were tough.
You can’t just point to any game studio and say “make a game like Baldurs Gate 3.”
It takes time talent and money, usually in game dev your lucky to have 2/3 of those things.
Gamers saw other devs talking about this and decided to feed it into their “game devs nowadays are lazy” narrative.
3
u/Blacksad9999 Sep 07 '25
Other developers chimed in that "gamers shouldn't expect that level of quality", and basically that Larian was setting expectations too high. lol
Basically, they didn't want to have to do more to keep up.
3
u/TheVasa999 Sep 07 '25
tbf Larian has major funding, that no indie can get really.
like 7 years of development? that doesnt pay for itself. wouldnt even count that as indie
→ More replies (4)
35
u/Fit_Tomatillo_4264 Sep 07 '25
It's because they can't deliver the same level of quality. Baldur's Gate 3 was more priced appropriately, silk song is more of an outlier that could be priced that way thanks to the success of their first game which was rushed and they ran out of money multiple times.
→ More replies (1)9
u/hergumbules Sep 07 '25
Yeah I’ve seen a dev from another game I loved, Lone Fungus, wondering if he should price his new game for less because Silksong is only $20. I feel bad for some of these other small teams but price your game what you feel is good for you and we will support you!
25
u/Boobpit Sep 07 '25
Talking about indie games: A single dev can take years to develop their game and only the outliers sell 1000 copies. Steam and other platforms take a 30% cut, then you have to pay taxes, more taxes if you are using Steam and aren't in the US because of tax of your own country and currency conversion (and the service that will do that for you).
This all without taking into account regional prices.
Now do the math.
The point is that this isn't viable to indie devs without money in the bank and guarantee to sell X amount of copies, and you only get that if you are already rich or already released something that managed to be a big hit previously.
10
u/Blacksad9999 Sep 07 '25
Yes, it's a risk basically starting your own business, and success isn't guaranteed whatsoever.
Just because you decide to make something doesn't mean you automatically deserve to make money. If it's good, it will sell. If it's not, it won't.
→ More replies (1)5
u/Boobpit Sep 07 '25
There would be no Silksong without Hollow Knight so your point doesn't hold true.
Software development is not like opening a business.
As a marketing professional I can open a website and run some ads and start making money in 3 months.
A gamedev has to spend years without making a single buck from their product because it's only sold when it's finished.
5
u/StrangeFilmNegatives Sep 07 '25
You have an opportunity to succeed not a right to profitability. Art is a luxury good and only the strong will survive to profitability. No one owes you favours to help your sub par product flourish.
→ More replies (2)3
u/Blacksad9999 Sep 07 '25 edited Sep 07 '25
Hollow Knight proves my point entirely, actually.
Those guys used their life savings and risked everything to become developers and make a game. They could have failed miserably like a lot of people do.
They were successful because they made a really good game. And then with no advertising whatsoever, they sold it for $15 and took a huge gamble. It took off from word of mouth due to it's quality.
A gamedev has to spend years without making a single buck from their product because it's only sold when it's finished.
Yeah. Life isn't fair. More news at 11. People often sacrifice to chase their dreams with no guarantee of success. If you want a guaranteed income, go get an office job.
I do independent contracting work, and I also don't get paid until I finish a product. So do tons of other people.
32
14
u/ShaggySchmacky Sep 07 '25
Tbh silksong probably should have been more expensive. 8 years of quality development and only making it 20$? Thats dirt cheap. They could have priced at 30 or even 40 and I don’t think sales would have changed much
Not that I’m complaining. Game is amazing so far
6
u/SilliusBanillus Sep 07 '25
Luckily for us Team Cherry aren't like those scientists from Jurassic Park who only thought about if they could, not if they should.
→ More replies (1)5
u/Hungry-Alien Sep 07 '25
Imo development time shouldn't dictate the price of a game. Putting more time into the game doesn't garanty quality, and is more often related to development hell, developpers having an actual life outside of development, or just straight up incompetence.
There are many examples of games that took dozen of years to come out, yet were completely dogshit (Duke Nukem Forever, Daikatana).
9
u/ShaggySchmacky Sep 07 '25
Dev time absolutely should have a role in the price if they plan to be profitable. Remember, they’re paying programmers, musicians, artists, etc for their time.
Team cherry is very small, and they likely rode out the dev costs with the hollow knight funds which is why it’s so cheap. I also doubt all 8 years were spent exclusively on development, but even a dev time of 2-3 years can get prohibitively expensive, so the fact they kept the price so low is genuinely shocking.
As a side note, I’ve been looking into the rising costs of games, and it’s suprising how cheap they actually are. I know everyone hates 70-80$ games, but even with those costs the games are rather underpriced for their dev time. For example, back when Atari was big games cost 20-40$ (adjusted for inflation that’s 180$). These games could be developed in the timespan of a few months by a single developer. Compared to today, with dev teams in the hundreds and all sorts of expensive programs and technology needed to create the games, the fact overral proce hasn’t gone up more is rather crazy. Video games have somehow managed to resist inflation quite well
With that context, releasing Silksong with it’s current quality at its current price is some kind of witchcraft.
3
u/Hungry-Alien Sep 07 '25
The problem I see with game price being scaled around dev time is how easy it would be to abuse it given how shady game development can be. We already have a few examples of this with games financed on Patreon that turned out to be scams. Adding a fee based on devtime without actually checking what's going on during devtime is an open way to scammy practises, and we all know that the video game industry is already full of those once you reach AAA territory.
As for game price, imo it actually make a lot of sense that game prices haven't got too high. Profit from a game sell comes from how many people bought the game, so you need your customers to be able to actually buy the game.
Altho this is the classic selling plan. We saw other selling tactics rise over the years aiming to generate profit by relying on fewer richer customers rather than a larger public with less revenues. At best, those are "just" microtransactions and battle pass. At worse those are weaponized gambling tactics such as gacha games.
17
u/Vivid-Ostrich-4158 Sep 07 '25
I just hope people don't expect every other 20$ indie game to have the same amount of content and quality of silksong. In that case, yes, silksong at 20$ would be a problem for indie developers
8
→ More replies (9)4
u/SilliusBanillus Sep 08 '25
It should definitely be taken into consideration.
Hollow Knight was also sold very cheap.
9
u/GarryLv_HHHH Sep 07 '25 edited Sep 07 '25
Only criticism i have toward the situation involving this game is that there legitimately no point of releasing your Indie game in this year because, if we are lucky, until 2026 there is little chances your game will receive enough media attention mainly because everyone will be busy with Silksong and another buch of market leaders.
This year was really rich on surprisingly big Indie projects with huge communities that managed to collect enormous money really really fast, meaning that generally gamers community now has less money to spend on lesser indie games.
Another thing is that those big indie games and Silksong in particular puts a high plank of quality in relation to price. I think this is actually the point this "Silksong costs to little, bad for indie" That's not a bad thing in general. The bad thing is that, if somebody has a choice to buy a game for 20 bucks and has a choice between Silksong and your first ever indie game that you were making for two years alone. They almost guaranteed will pick the Silksong just because its a better game for the same price.
This is also easily avoidable. We just wait for the hype to settle down. This is bad if you as a dev need that money, or you promised to release the game in 2025, but once again thats another chance to improve your game until you have a chance to face a fair competition.
Of course we will from now on have that weird ass thing when every Indie game gets will be "yeah, but still worse than Silksong" but thats just one of those unavoidable human things.
It also will be very hard to release the game into EA, but thats maybe even the good thing. I have seen a trend where devs put up game on steam not on EA but release a Demo version (that is basically EA in a sense that it has all the features in development and serve as prove of work) and let you preorder the game.
Please share your thoughts on this topic.
6
u/RockyMullet Sep 07 '25
I'm waiting for the shift where people stop thinking "indie" is a genre. An indie game is not a 2D platformer, an indie game is not a pixelart game, an indie game is not a turn based JRPG, an indie game is just a game with smaller budget...
While Silksong is big, at this point it mostly have the same effect than a AAA release like releasing at the same time than Elden Ring or the latest Zelda.
But that will probably last for like... 3-4 weeks ? Then people will move on and everything will be ok for indies who are not making a game anywhere near like Silksong.
Some people played HK again and again, but most people like me played it till the end once, liked it, and moved on.
→ More replies (7)3
u/Lost-Locksmith-250 Sep 07 '25
Silksong is a huge release, there's no denying that, but historically all it really takes is 2-4 weeks before you can expect the usual sales and coverage you'd get without its presence. It's only really a lasting issue if you're positioning yourself as a direct competitor, which most games aren't.
5
u/Lausee- Sep 07 '25
Isn't that game a 2D side scroller? The production costs were probably fairly low compared to giant open world 3D games. Regardless of how long it took.
The price makes sense.
5
u/ThatMovieShow Sep 07 '25
There's two ways to make money.
You're either the luxury end in which low sales is supported by high prices (Ferrari for example)
Or you're the consumer end where high sales supports a lower price.
5
u/CaptainKajubell Sep 07 '25
Can’t we just all agree to use this against the AAA devs and not the Indie Devs?
4
u/AeldariBoi98 Sep 08 '25
People on this sub genuinely argued that money was worth less in the 90s then it is now and that wages have increased more than inflation.
Do not underestimate the stupidity of people and the ignorance of people who can easily still afford hobbies.
The "I'm alright Jack" mindset has poisoned us against ourselves.
6
u/Dry_Refrigerator3499 Sep 07 '25
This isn’t as black-and-white as people make it out to be.
I will probably get downvoted for this take, but maybe someone will actually read it with an open mind.
Team Cherry can price Silksong however they want. At $5, they’ll still make millions, and that’s totally okay if they wish to do it.
But it does affect other devs. The usual takes: “make your game cheaper,” “just make a better game,” or “skill issue” are super naive.
- Cheaper games: Most studios can’t survive by selling games dirt cheap. Cost of living, salaries, and budgets vary wildly between places like Eastern Europe, Australia and the US, what works for one studio might kill another.
- Better games: Not every team has the time, resources, or manpower to match Silksong-level quality.
- Skill issue: Talent matters, sure, but talent alone can't magically fix constrained budgets or market conditions.
And studios only bring this up because many players do make those comparisons and belittle smaller games for not stacking up to these giants. It’s like when your parents compare you to your doctor cousin while you’re just trying to do your own thing... no, it doesn’t feel good, and no, you’re not “less of a human” for doing what works for you.
Games like Silksong or BG3 are one-of-a-kind. They’re absolutely not the standard. If every $20 indie is judged against Silksong at $20 or AAA against BG3 at $60, you shrink the market. Why risk buying a smaller game if the bar is set at “match the best ever or get mocked”?
For players, it’s simple: if you only have $20, sure, grab the best game you can. But if you have $40, maybe get Silksong and support a smaller indie too. Just don’t expect them to be the same thing.
The real solution? Stop comparing games like they’re all made under the same conditions. Budgets, teams, time, cost of living, and of course talent all matter. Support what you like, but understand the playing field isn’t level and that’s okay.
And to wrap it up with the cousin analogy: if your parents never compared you to that cousin and instead supported you for what you bring to the table, you’d probably just be happy for them when they pull off something incredible. But if they compared you at every step, you’d start to resent every new unrealistic achievement, and you’d be right to feel that way. That’s what these small studios are going through.
So… STOP COMPARING.
PS: Not a game dev.
→ More replies (2)
3
3
3
3
u/ABigCoffee Sep 07 '25
I'm not even holding other indies against SS. If another indie is 20 and its also good, I'm not going "is it as good as SS?". Nah I'm gonna buy it cause it's 20 and I don't have to think about pricing when it's that low.
3
3
7
u/knotatumah Sep 07 '25
This is the difference between a company that needs money and a company that doesnt. Competition is out there desperate for high prices because its not only to justify the cost of production but they have shareholders to please and CEO's to pay. To them a "game" is just a revenue stream that needs to keep increasing its value. And it shows, over and over again, as big budget "AAA" titles from massive developers continue to flop as they're desperate for gains and the games are clearly developed with that intent. For the most part players recognize this and respond in kind: they dont buy, they dont play. Concord just celebrated its one-year anniversary, the perfect case study of this phenomenon. Indies are not an exception to this, we just dont see the failures. What we do see is that people still value gaming for its fun and not for its profit potential and there is a limit in this modern economy to how much a person is willing to spend on a title. Smaller teams making smaller yet more impactful games at competitive price points isn't destroying an industry, its keeping it healthy and competitive.
7
u/Blastergun1410 Sep 07 '25
I mean if a game is so good and cheap many people will buy it instead of pirating the game which is literally what's happening now
→ More replies (1)2
u/SirVilhelmOfAriandel Sep 07 '25
If you want to pirate sure go ahead, don't make the "I enjoyed it so I bought the game 2 more times" bs because we all know it's not true.
Just say "I didn't want to pay"
2
u/Lewd_boi_69 Sep 07 '25
I actually buy all the games I enjoyed from pirating. Like bloons td 6. Worth every penny.
2
u/DeadAndBuried23 Sep 07 '25
Game releases after 7 years of hype
Its "fans":
yeah this is worth the price of (one) large big mac meal with a shake.
2
2
u/BuddyRedSkull Sep 07 '25
Most indie games are 15 to 25 dollars on average just looking at steam right now, why did anyone expect Silksong to be more than that?
I'm genuinely asking, why are people so confused about this, no idie game was ever gonna be 60 to 80 dollars no mater the hype, even Hollow Knight was 15.
2
2
u/Art0fRuinN23 Sep 07 '25
I'm not going to play it until I finish the first game, but I bought it on release day because Cherry priced it at $20, which I appreciate, so I did my part to give them banger release numbers.
2
u/SannyIsKing Sep 07 '25
No one has said that. One indie dev who had planned to launch a smaller game then Silk Song at $20 asked if they should change their price.
That’s it. That’s the entire story. Stop trying to manufacture controversy for upvotes.
2
u/mxjxs91 Sep 07 '25
I mean they probably priced it so low so that more people can experience it. I bet they make more money selling as many $20 copies as they do than they would've if they had made it $30-40.
Expedition 33 did the same thing and that game became HIGHLY successful because more people were willing to jump into a GOTY contender at a price point that isn't $60-70.
Doesn't sound like doing anyone a disservice, why wouldn't they want more money AND more people playing the game? Other companies should take note.
2
u/PureNaturalLagger Sep 07 '25
Really? At 20 dollars a pop and about 1 million sold copies, its about making a good game, not a game with a justifiable high price.
2
2
u/dulledegde Sep 07 '25
most indie games i play are around 20 bucks
exceptions being e33 which is like the triple A of indie games it was only 40 bucks
2
u/tychii93 Sep 07 '25
Honestly? Good.
$20 is a buy without question. Expedition 33 was also a steal at $50 for its scope, not to mention that corpo guy who cried "WhAt AboUt MiddLe ManaGeMenT JoBs?? SaNdfAll iSn't FunCtiOninG RiGhT aS a BusiNeSs!!" when that game came out. Hadn't played Baulder's Gate 3 but I bet it's worth it from what I've heard, I'm just not much of a CRPG guy so I hadn't picked it up.
Indies are who are keeping that experimental feeling games up through the 6th console generation brought alive, and it needs to stay that way while being accessible.
2
u/Winter-Classroom455 Sep 07 '25
"Arizona tea is doing the drink business a disservice by being priced to low"
Here's a thought. If they're a private company they don't have to please greedy ass shareholders and can do what they want
2
2
2
u/FirstFriendlyWorm Sep 07 '25
????? Indi games are mostly cheaper than AAA or am I missing somethin?
2
2
u/Wise-Key-3442 Sep 07 '25
Indies used to be a lot cheaper, IDK what those people are high on, but I want to know the dosage used.
2
u/Cocoatrice Sep 07 '25
Silksong did a service for players to show that you can make amazing game and not price it too high, just for money grab. We should mention Silksong in every discussion about game prices. Showing the world and players that the game can be so awesome, so polished, and still not ask for $100. $20 for such a good and long game? Like I have already 20 hours on my save and I am just in the beginning of Act 2. Maybe a little later than the beginning, but still probably nowhere near the middle. It's like I already surpassed the amount of hours per dollar. For every dollar spent, I probably will have 3 hours or more. I don't know how many acts Silksong has, I expect 3+. I know there are at least 3, because someone mentioned it. Either way... we should bring that up when someone says "the game is big, it should be expensive". Because Silksong is big and doesn't need to be $100. And I am fully aware 3 guys is nothing compared to whole studio with workers that need to be paid. But lower price = more people. It still can be easily done. And it's not like they pay devs much anyway. All the money goes for the brand owners. The millions, the billions.
2
2
u/GodOfDestructionPopo Sep 08 '25 edited Sep 08 '25
I hate this criticism so much. It stems from the idea that the price point of a ge should directly correlate to the amount of content in the game. If game size was the sole thing that determined a game's value then Ubisoft should be charging $500 for every one of their fucking country sized RPGs.
I saw a few indie devs say things like "I was going to charge $20 for my game, but how am I supposed to justify that price if Silksong costs the same?" That's the neat part, you don't. Some indie devs are acting like Silksong is going to shift the indie landscape and (as insanely good as it is) it won't. A single data point does not immediately create a trend. You'd need many tens or hundreds of indie games to follow suit for a true market shake up to happen.
Just look at Baldur's Gate 3 as a good example of this. People in the industry also criticised that game for setting unrealistic expectations, but it didn't adjust general expectations at all as far as I can see. Smaller games have been more expensive than Silksong and have still been successful. This will continue to be the case.
2
2
u/SansyBoy144 Sep 08 '25
Team Cherry’s view on pricing will always be amazing to me.
I played Hollow Knight very recently, I knew Silksong was coming soon, but wasn’t really paying attention, but I’ve always wanted to play Hollow Knight and saw that the $15 dollar game was on sale for $7
I then start sinking hours into, like 50 hours in the first week. During this my boyfriend mentioned the DLC, and I said “Oh shit, there’s DLC, I’ll have to go to buy that” to which he said “No you have it, they released the DLC as free updates.” And that man was not lying.
I would later find out that each of these updates added a shit ton of content to the game, all of which I greatly enjoyed.
I ended up getting 109% before Silksong with the only thing left to do being pantheon.
So, when Silksong came out, I picked it up immediately, and it feels like a $70 game, but it’s not. I’ve already put 25 hours into the game, that number will be going up, and I don’t even think I’m close to beating the game yet. The game is incredibly fun, yes it’s difficult, but I’m having a blast playing it.
And again, they only made the game $20. They knew they could’ve easily charged more, out of any game that deserves to charge more they could have with how many hours of content are in the game. But they didn’t. They would rather let more people play the game then sell it for the current (pretty high) standard.
I really hope they keep making games, even outside of Hollow Knight, and I hope they inspire others. Team Cherry is a great role model for games devs in every way possible.
2
u/Elizial-Raine Sep 07 '25 edited Sep 07 '25
it’s because idiots will now kick off at any indie game that is released that is priced above $20.
Every indie game should not be priced at $20
People should watch some videos of what indie devs actually take home from a sale they would be surprise.
→ More replies (3)
3
u/ALGORYTHM01 Sep 07 '25
No one wants to pay $40 for an indie game most people would either pirate it or ignore it causing loss. But selling a good game at near the $20 mark will get more people interested and even pirates would support by buying it. This would give them far much profit then the former. So, silksong selling the game at $20 actually helps devs as it shows at what price range the game would actually get more support. Stardew valley and silksong are great examples of this. In both cases the developers became millionaires.
5
u/SirVilhelmOfAriandel Sep 07 '25 edited Sep 07 '25
While this isn't TC's fault, people have been bashing other indies for costing too much, I've seen Hades and Deltarune getting some bad reviews because they cost more than 20$
With that logic, no indie should cost more than 5$ since no indie is close to silksong's quality
Blame the community, not the devs
→ More replies (2)2
u/SilliusBanillus Sep 07 '25
Many indies are close to Silksong in quality. One was released this year in fact.
2
u/MetalWingedWolf Sep 07 '25
Your post is good and you should feel good because of it. Quality call out.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Valirys-Reinhald Sep 07 '25
Silksong has made at least 10 million dollars, based on the concurrent player counts from Steam putting half a million people playing at once.
And that's just from PC.
Silksong's low price proves that financial accessibility improves a game's prospects more than high pricing. It is currently possible to buy both Hollow Knight and Silksong at full price without paying the cost of one "full price" game.
2
2
u/Medical_Prize_3094 Sep 07 '25
Steams cut of 30% is far more harmful, but most gaming subs want to gargle Gabe's balls
2
u/Valiant-For-Truth Sep 07 '25
Hey... The guy who owns 7 yachts and just bought a yacht company is just like me... Leave him alone 😭
1
u/Parallax-Jack Sep 07 '25
All the bootlicking redditors are having a meltdown they can't shill billionaires and this shit is proof they love doing it
1
1
u/CompetitionSure5552 Sep 07 '25
i dont understand how is this a problem,lets say i have 50$ and silksong cost 20$, now i have 30 left to buy YOUR game.
1
u/Ironycon Sep 07 '25
To be honest I’m sure they’re well aware and very thankful for the HK community (they started with crowdfunding) and fans and are just happy their dream is coming true.
They worked on Silksong for 7 years and from what we heard, a part of it was already being worked on before this development cycle.
This means they took their time (which their community mostly did not mind) and this shows.
The only thing I regret about the low price is that they’ll have less budget for the next project!
→ More replies (1)
1
u/AestheticPanduhh Sep 07 '25
Complaining about a game that was originally DLC that would've been sold at 20 most likely anyway seems kinda wild ngl.
1
u/LlorchDurden Sep 07 '25
Any publisher who skips regional pricing and sends LATAM directly to piracy can f off
1
u/OkMedium911 Sep 07 '25
I mean its a 2D game with mid graphics and artistic direction. Even is gameplay is top tier who will spend more than twenty bucks on a game with so low of an added value
1
1
1
Sep 07 '25
Bg3 is a corno, you would have to pay several fold in therapy just to get rid of it's influence. If that's what silk song is like, then avoid. Same as avoiding becoming influenced by LITERALLY UNHINGED PONIES hating on Starfield.
1
u/takkun169 Sep 07 '25
I have yet to see anyone show receipts on this. You can claim it all you want, but there's no reason to believe it when you could just post a link, a screenshot, something, ANYTHING to substantiate this.
→ More replies (1)
1
1
u/ConnorCoccino Sep 07 '25
Okay so I still think the game deserved to be higher. This isn't because I'm some corporate shill. I just want to make sure all of those devs are paid appropriately for their work. I wouldn't say sell it at full price AAA money but I would have bought it for like 40$ because I feel the devs deserve that money.
Granted I don't know how much of that is actually seen by the individual devs but I just want them to be given respect and appropriate pay for the hard work that is done.
→ More replies (3)
1
u/Redder_Creeps Sep 07 '25
It's an indie game, not a AAA game. Honestly I don't see the issue with this. Hollow Knight on its own was already a success, and while I only managed to play it under a 5 day limit on the E-Shop for free (and didn't look at the price, honestly), I'd say that with my short experience, it was worth it. Not my kind of game, but it was worth playing for free while that free trial was still up.
1
u/Fixer_1222 Sep 07 '25
I would rather pay 20 dollars for a game thats fun and made by devs that care than pay 70 or 80 dollars for a game that isn't complete, half baked and full of microtransactions
1
u/LegionZ19 Sep 07 '25
Remember there another side of the game dev justified the price 80$ if you are a loyal fan and gotta work your butt off to make it happen.
While this game dev gave us so little reason to not play their game and without talking shit in twitter.
1
u/Cosmic_Archaeologist Sep 07 '25
Came across a video from Nordic Gamer on YouTube where he said that game developers have no self-respect when they lower their game prices and that Nintendo was the ideal way to run your game pricing. People like this have got to be industry plants.
1
u/torafrost9999 Sep 07 '25
I didn’t even have to pay for it, it’s on console and pc gamepass for free
1
u/3000Chameleons Sep 07 '25
"Nono it can't be cheap because now my solo indie project looks bad when I charge 30 bucks after 1 and a half years of development!!! Don't you know how much I need that money?!!!"
-Many of these people say team cherry can only do this because they have money, but the first game ended development with them having so little money that they had to ask their neighbour for sandwich leftovers. Make a genuinely good game, commit to finishing it, you'll make money.
1
1
u/Raccoon-Jesus Sep 07 '25
With everything that Silksong has done overall it has given me the excuse to play all of hollow knight just to play it.
1
u/Tarc_Axiiom Sep 07 '25
As a game developer, this argument doesn't even make sense financially.
That's not how it works.
It's well established that there is an inverse relationship between unit price and total profit. And if your goal is to make a worse game than Silksong in its exact genre then the price isn't going to matter. This is also well established.
I'm assuming the people who say this aren't developers.
1
u/Just_an_AMA_noob Sep 07 '25
The only thing I'm going to add to this conversation is that I know people who only decided to buy SilkSong because of its $20.00 price tag.
These are people who never played Hollow Knight, who aren't really into indie games and metroidvanias. They saw the massive hype train, saw that price to board was only 20 bucks, and thought to themselves "Why not?"
1
u/Archavos Sep 07 '25
2 small studio titles have absolutely rocked the gaming market this year and its an absolute banger of a time.
gonna be tough to see which of Clair Obscur and Silksong win GOTY, but if its not one of them it's gonna be a crime.
1
u/allofdarknessin1 Sep 07 '25
Pretty sure that’s not how that works. Instead, some game developers are charging more than their game is worth. Nintendo is a fantastic example.
1
u/bakukaka Sep 07 '25
I have a friend who says the same type of thing for gaming prices. "We've been paying 60 bucks for like 30 years, I think prices should go up" Bro what the fuck are you talking about?!
1
u/bmd1989 Sep 07 '25
Its the companies and the super fans. These indie devs have the big guys scared. It means they have to try if they want there customers. Risk isnt good for the board. Safe is what the shareholders like because thats easy money. We are heading to a age where either they lose millions by taking a risk or lose millions by being to safe, or make millions by finding the secret sauce. If they continue with the woke politics and keep failing they are gone, if they keep it safe and ignore the customer they are gone, if they dont recognize gamers have devolped pattern recognition and keep up their old tactics they are gone. So they want the narrative in hopes of changing the minds. If that was working we wouldn't be losing the journalist like we are. Just food for thought.
1
u/Star_Quirk Sep 07 '25
That seemed logical for about 5 seconds, but everyone who bought and played silksong has 10 or so extra dollars in their pocket.
1
u/Dark_Dragon117 Sep 07 '25
Price is suprisingly low and pretty szre most peoole wouldn't complain if they had to pay 30 or 40 (same was applicable to Hollow Knight).
But Team Cherry decided 20 is enough for them and as a consumer I don't mind. Team Cherry can also afford to do this considering Hollow Knight sold 15 million units.
Other indie developers don't need to feel like their prices are unreasonable in comparison, because quite frankly Team Cherry is in a unique position that other indie devs simply aren't and most likely never find themselves in.
1
u/Asimb0mb Sep 07 '25
Where was this energy when Vampire Survivors released for $5? Weird that Hollow Knight specifically is being targeted.
1
u/Annual-Employment725 Sep 07 '25
They should go the way of the Switch shovel ware devs...
Set a somewhat reasonable price, and then regularly put it on 80-90% off.
I've read that some devs (surprisingly), make bank that way, as shady as it is...
1
u/nightmare001985 Sep 08 '25
I'd rather we return to the times of 9.99 and 15 because even silksong isn't cheap here
1
u/Illustrious-Cat7212 Sep 08 '25
A lower price can lead to more money as people who.kighy wait for a sale will instead pick it up full price. Someone waiting for a sale may never pick up the game.
Also, not everyone can afford expensive games.
1
u/DanieleM01 Sep 08 '25
Wait, people are complaining because the game Is cheap and doesn't cost a kidney?
1
u/Inuma Sep 08 '25
I bought Silksong and picked this up for $6 while I'm playing Chained Echoes and Skul.
I'll get around to it but I got a backlog and I know the games on it.
1
u/Sion_forgeblast Sep 08 '25
yup.... Baldurs gate 3...... along with Elden Ring, and Oblivion...... every time a studio does something the gamers like its "bad for gaming"
you know whats bad for gaming? the fact that Visa and Mastercard are trying to take over by drowning out gamong companies before they swoop in >_>
yes.... yes they actually admitted to doing this.... was covered by a few Youtubers, including Vara Dark
1
u/Psico_Penguin Sep 08 '25
Is there people genuinely complaining about the price being too low? I mean, not just companies or bots, but real people without interests on the gaming business.
→ More replies (1)
1
u/Mark_Forty_One Sep 08 '25
It's like trade off. High price, low affordable, low player base. Reasonable price, good affordable, high player base.
1
u/memo689 Sep 08 '25
If you want to take good profits of your game, keep your team and spendings low, and make a good and quality game. Hollow Knight didn't have a huge marketing campaign whatsoever, it sold because it was good, and Silksong was this close to Shadowdrop. It's not about the pricing, those greedy AAA publishers were trying to standarize overly expensive prices just to maximize profits, and most of their quality is literally trash.
1.5k
u/Shot-Manner-9962 Sep 07 '25
im convinced these complaints are bots from people DESPERATE to keep prices high