Kickstarter and subsequent pre-orders had shown that there was massive demand for the game, with several thousand of people willing to buy our game for $10 or $12, sight unseen. They didn't know Six to Start, didn't know Naomi Alderman, they just thought the concept was cool and that we could execute it. Under those circumstances, it would have been crazy to charge it at a low price. I became more convinced of this over the winter, when I tried out the alpha builds. Even at such an early stage, I remember thinking that we'd made exactly the game I imagined it to be when we started, and I would not have any problem paying $7.99 for it. Could we have made more if we charged less? Maybe -- it's impossible to know. But we're happy with where we are at $7.99. It's earned us enough money to continue releasing updates and new features for our very loyal fanbase, and we feel that upholding our promise to our Kickstarter backers was crucial. When we release other games in future, and if we ever run another Kickstarter campaign, we want people to know that we've got their backs. That's not the mention the extra support costs that come with a bigger player base. That's Fine For You ... You could say that being able to charge $7.99 is a one-off, only applicable to health games*. But that's not the case: there are other interesting health games out there. And there are