Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Cards Against Humanity: Results of "pay what you want"

cardsagainsthumanity.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 168 posts

Re: Cards Against Humanity: Results of "pay what you want"

#121

Post by zanny »

MicahWedemeyer wrote: post #31

It seems like one takeaway is that a significant portion of people will just pay the default as stated, even if given a choice. I think people just have a hard time deciding what something is actually worth, so they'll take whatever advice is given. So, when pricing your products, if you're wondering if you should charge more, the default answer should be "Yes"

Does this happen with the Humble Indie Bundles? The default price is $25. I wonder if they could release some payment statistics if that was an abnormally highly paid rate.

Re: Cards Against Humanity: Results of "pay what you want"

#122

Post by trhtrsh »

xxpor wrote: post #60
IheartApplesDix wrote: post #53

Why did they not donate to Wayback Machine instead? Wikimedia is doing just fine and their fund raising is mostly for advertising and marketing. The site is at zero risk of running out of operating funds. Personally, I'd rather see money go to historic records than revisionist, popular encyclopedia. Source: http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Plan/Movement_P... Last financial report: http://wikimediafoundati…

Pray tell, how is Wikipedia revisionist?

"Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that _anyone can edit_."

Re: Cards Against Humanity: Results of "pay what you want"

#123

Post by mattmaroon »

d3ad1ysp0rk wrote: post #108
mattmaroon wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would almost have to. $70k is not even one man year's worth of effort from someone skilled at any one of those things individually.

Why are you considering a year's salary for a holiday pack/site? It's hard to imagine 2,080 hours (40x52) went into the entire thing.

"We did all of the web design, video production, motion design, and copy writing ourselves". Doesn't seem that hard to me. And we're talking less than a year's salary for someone skilled at any of those things, let alone all.

Re: Cards Against Humanity: Results of "pay what you want"

#125

Post by Gormo »

jacalata wrote: post #105
clone1018 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're doing something you really love, money is just a side effect.

Loving what you do never bought groceries. So the actual answer has to be 'I have enough money from other sources to live on'.

Perhaps they draw fixed salaries from the business as a whole, and since they'd intended to donate the proceeds of this particular project to charity anyway, they didn't see any point in allocating any portion of their sunk fixed costs to it. Note that they didn't include rent, electricity, etc. either.

Re: Cards Against Humanity: Results of "pay what you want"

#127

Post by sesqu »

daeken wrote: post #84
dvirsky wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I meant is, aren't you limiting yourself to an audience who already chose to go out of their way to save a couple of bucks? they may not represent "ordinary" people and how they value apps.

Sure, but it's odd that the people trying to save money on apps would pay anything at all. I don't think I have enough data or a large enough sample size to say with confidence either way.

Not that odd. Isn't the whole point of the pay-whay-you-want model that some people don't want to pay the default price?

I quite often decide against offers because I feel they are marked up 20%-200% over what I perceive them to be worth, but have occasionally bought an extra copy later on (occasionally as a gift) if I've come to feel that I got a great deal originally. Other people pay grossly over the perceived worth if they want to support the seller for one reason or another.

Re: Cards Against Humanity: Results of "pay what you want"

#128

Post by sesqu »

grogenaut wrote: post #110

It'd be awesome to post the names of all of the freeloaders or just choose some random ones and put them on cards in an expansion pack to server as a warning to other "freeloaders".

If you want to go that route, just don't offer your product for $0.

Re: Cards Against Humanity: Results of "pay what you want"

#129

Post by AYBABTME »

Confusion wrote: post #85
daeken wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, a couple months back I released a WebGL Enabler for iOS with a pay-what-you-want model: http://demoseen.com/webglenabler/ I keep meaning to write a blog post about the results, but ~99.5% of people paid $0. Of the people who paid, probably around 50% paid the $1.99 I had as default, but what's really interesting to me is the way people priced it if they changed the value. I got a number of payments for amounts li…

I can imagine more people might have paid if you made the default $3.99. $1.99 is practically zero, so people may consider it less of a difference.

I also feel this way. For some reasons, I think my natural, quick feeling toward that would be that paying 1.99$ 'seems' more of an annoyance than paying 0$, and since it's not enough to be deemed worth the annoyance, I can picture myself putting 0$ instead of 1.99$.

For the same products, I feel I wouldn't change the price if it was listed at {3,4,5}.99$, I don't really know why. 1.99$ feels too close to an transaction fee, or some kind of things like that that feels like the money will be lost in The System. While paying >3.99$ seems to have more consistence, more purpose, since my intuition tells me that more of the value will end up in the proper pockets.

That's a very subjective take on this, but I support your idea that more people might have paid if the default would have been 3.99$.

Re: Cards Against Humanity: Results of "pay what you want"

#130

Post by peterwwillis »

pjlegato wrote: post #109
trafficone wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're missing the point of the game. Being given freedom doesn't exclude someone from the consequences. For example: life is "punch whom you want" and you're still a jerk for punching someone.

Life is most definitely not "punch who you want"; that's illegal and will get you thrown in jail. There's a specific rule against that in most places. In certain designated areas of life, such as during a boxing match, the rules are different: if you're in a boxing match, you can indeed punch someone, and you won't get thrown in jail or suffer any other sanction (other than being punched back). A boxer who punches hi…

If I made a whole bunch of awesome potato skins for a party and said "It is suggested you only take up to two potato skins", and you take 10, you are a jerk. Or at an open bar, if you don't tip the bartenders you are a jerk. Or if there's a potluck and it's suggested everyone brings something, and you bring nothing. Jerk.

"The rules" don't define whether you are a jerk or not. How you behave in the situation, does. They said up front that it cost them $3 to give you the cards. If you paid $0, you knowingly gave them the shaft. That's jerky.

Post reply on HN