Prices

[pad152]

Ok, I take back everything I said, seeing Matrix Games is selling HTTR for $60, which is crazy! When you can still buy new copies selling than $20 elsewhere! [:-]

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: Doggie

Filthy capitalists.

Don't you guys know you should be working for the betterment of mankind instead of lining your pockets?  Rutkins needs to sell his porche and start riding the subway with the rest of the proletariat. 

You remember, of course, when Grigsby sold his Ferrari.

[tc237]

.

[Gem35]

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

ORIGINAL: Doggie

Filthy capitalists.

Don't you guys know you should be working for the betterment of mankind instead of lining your pockets?  Rutkins needs to sell his porche and start riding the subway with the rest of the proletariat. 

You remember, of course, when Grigsby sold his Ferrari.

[:D]
[:D][:D]

[GaryChildress]

We probably pay high prices in part because there are fewer people who buy the type of games Matrix produces. If this were Firaxis or EA or some other popular producer then I would wonder why they couldn't charge a little less for their games seeing how they probably sell in greater bulk.

Furthermore, if these games could be sold for less then, according to the rules of capitalism, I would think that some company out there would create and sell games like these for cheaper, undercutting Matrix.

[Perturabo]

ORIGINAL: tc237

Russian Campaign : $14 ($32)
Third Reich : $16 ($36)

I seem to remember buying TRC for $20 and 3R for $35, but that would have been around 89-91.

I'm not concerned about higher PC game prices, for the reasons Erik mentions. It is a niche market.
I have adapted by really limiting my purchases, waiting a few months for reviews and patches.
A few years ago I was buying most new games immediately, now I buy 1-2 new games a year, maybe.

Speaking of reviews...
I'm not really concerned about prices of strategy games, because if they were mainstream and funded by an industry giant, I would have to complain about having to throw my money away to upgrade PC every two years to have some new pointless graphic gadgets.
One thing that I'm concerned about is having to pay the said price for something that is more like a modded 8 year old game with minor engine tweaks and no new features (ekhem... CoI[8|]).
Another is having to pay the said price for something that doesn't have a demo.

[GaryChildress]

ORIGINAL: Perturabo

One thing that I'm concerned about is having to pay the said price for something that is more like a modded 8 year old game with minor engine tweaks and no new features (ekhem... CoI[8|]).
Another is having to pay the said price for something that doesn't have a demo.

That is certainly true. It has become popular in the gaming industry to re-release games with little or no new features in them. This can be for several reasons. Some old games simply won't work on the latest Windows platforms and require an update. CoI is a case in point for that. I have CC III and if it will work on my XP I won't buy COI and the admin for the forums even suggested to me that CoI was only for those who can't get CC III to work on their OS. He didn't try to pawn it off as something new and unexplored.

EDIT: To even buy the copyrights of an old game from the owner and then package and sell it again costs the producer money. Another reason to sell old games without improvements is that there are people out there who have not yet discovered the game and there would be no way of discovering the old game if someone didn't offer a new version of it for sale.

I also see a lot of boxed anthologies out there now as well. 2K games has offered Civ III in a "Complete" eddition which added little if any new aspects to Civ III. In fact 2K didn't even fix several persistent bugs which still haunt Civ III. 2K also simply packaged a lot of user created products with Civ III Complete which are equally available for free download at Civ Fanatics. EA games has its C&C pack out there. Nothing new in any of those games, just a way to package them to make some money. It is an unfortunate reality that businesses are in business to make money. If Matrix doesn't come up with ways to legitimately sell products then there is no more Matrix.

If Matrix is rolling in surplus money at the moment then I suspect that entrepreneurs and investors out there would be wearing holes in their check books trying to create more strategy wargame companies.

[Perturabo]

The difference is that most of developers sell re-releases much cheaper than new games. That's how I could afford games when I was a kid. I waited until they got old and cheap.

[GaryChildress]

ORIGINAL: Perturabo

The difference is that most of developers sell re-releases much cheaper than new games. That's how I could afford games when I was a kid. I waited until they got old and cheap.

Most developers are also dealing with larger markets. Civ III appeals to a huge market. C&C appeals to a huge market. Grognard games just don't have the same following as a game any 6 year old can pick up and understand almost instantly.

I used to buy a lot of Indie albums when I was in college. They also often costed a LOT more than many of the more popular albums. I once bought an Album by Nick Cave and The Birthday Party for over $20. I could have easily spent the money on the (then) equivalent of a Britney Spears album for less than half the cost. Do I think Nick Cave is getting too much for his album? No. That's part of the cost of having a small venue.

[Perturabo]

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

Most developers are also dealing with larger markets. Civ III appeals to a huge market. C&C appeals to a huge market. Grognard games just don't have the same following as a game any 6 year old can pick up and understand almost instantly.

And creating a version with no major improvements puts off a lot of those few that would be interested in buying it. I remember the reaction of Polish CC community to CoI. It was even worse than reaction of Fallout fans to FINO3[:D].

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

I used to buy a lot of Indie albums when I was in college. They also often costed a LOT more than many of the more popular albums. I once bought an Album by Nick Cave and The Birthday Party for over $20. I could have easily spent the money on the (then) equivalent of a Britney Spears album for less than half the cost. Do I think Nick Cave is getting too much for his album? No. That's part of the cost of having a small venue.

You're missing the point. Some indie or even freeware games get enough/a lot of/hideous amounts of improvements, while some (like CC) get only some minor tweaks. And for some reason the latter cost the same amount of money as new games that get big upgrades.

[GaryChildress]

ORIGINAL: Perturabo


And creating a version with no major improvements puts off a lot of those few that would be interested in buying it. I remember the reaction of Polish CC community to CoI. It was even worse than reaction of Fallout fans to FINO3[:D].

You're missing the point. Some indie or even freeware games get enough/a lot of/hideous amounts of improvements, while some (like CC) get only some minor tweaks. And for some reason the latter cost the same amount of money as new games that get big upgrades.

Why should the Polish be more put off at CoI than with Civ III? Nothing new was added to either. CoI and Civ III are for those who either don't have it already or who can't get the game to work on their newer OS. The fact that one is more expensive than the other should be no more shocking than a Nick Cave album being more than a Britney Spears album.

In simliar terms if they want a rehashed Avolon Hill style board game they are going to pay a lot more than for a game of checkers. It takes 10 minutes of thought to come up with a game of checkers. How much thought and effort does it require to come up with War in the Pacific, getting accurate stats for thousands of land units, pilot names, ship weapons systems (my god the count is staggering. You should see the WITP database!), graphics for probably over 500 different ship classes?

EDIT: Basically you're complaining that apples aren't the same price as oranges. Two different things based upon different market factors.

[Perturabo]

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

Why should the Polish be more put off at CoI than with Civ III?

It's not just Polish. Some people who were working hard on their mods for free got pretty pissed off with CoI (and people who played mods in general). Or CCMT while we are talking about it.
Take a look at CCS and you'll see what I mean.

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

The fact that one is more expensive than the other should be no more shocking than a Nick Cave album being more than a Britney Spears album.

You are talking about something entirely different.
Here we have a situation where there are two different people on the same niche market.
One creates a new product and then creates significant updates to it. Another one takes an old product, makes a mod for it and some small tweaks and even manages to break some features and then demands the same money.

[GaryChildress]

ORIGINAL: Perturabo

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

Why should the Polish be more put off at CoI than with Civ III?

It's not just Polish. Some people who were working hard on their mods for free got pretty pissed off with CoI (and people who played mods in general). Or CCMT while we are talking about it.

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

The fact that one is more expensive than the other should be no more shocking than a Nick Cave album being more than a Britney Spears album.

You are talking about something entirely different.
Here we have a situation where there are two different people on the same niche market.One creates a new product and then creates significant updates to it. Another one takes an old product, makes a mod for it and some small tweaks and even manages to break some features and then demands the same money.

What two games are you comparing? CoI and what?

[GaryChildress]

ORIGINAL: Perturabo

Take a look at CCS and you'll see what I mean.

I saw one argument over CoI. It seemed rather stupid. Which arguments are you referring to? Which argument should I read?

[Perturabo]

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

ORIGINAL: Perturabo

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

Why should the Polish be more put off at CoI than with Civ III?

It's not just Polish. Some people who were working hard on their mods for free got pretty pissed off with CoI (and people who played mods in general). Or CCMT while we are talking about it.

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

The fact that one is more expensive than the other should be no more shocking than a Nick Cave album being more than a Britney Spears album.

You are talking about something entirely different.
Here we have a situation where there are two different people on the same niche market.One creates a new product and then creates significant updates to it. Another one takes an old product, makes a mod for it and some small tweaks and even manages to break some features and then demands the same money.

What two games are you comparing? CoI and what?

Hmm...
CoI & almost any new Matrix game that wasn't made by a bunch of modders and a single programmer?
Actually, any new Matrix game would have more features than CoI or CCMT.

Well, maybe SPMBT? Or Firefight?

[Perturabo]

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

ORIGINAL: Perturabo

Take a look at CCS and you'll see what I mean.

I saw one argument over CoI. It seemed rather stupid. Which arguments are you referring to? Which argument should I read?

here.

Also, while we are talking about CC - CCMT:
07.11.17
Users complain that weapons are too lethal.
08.04.02
Users complain on abnormal lethality of combat.
08.04.27
User finds out what's wrong with CCMT weapons. It's 08.07.11 and it still isn't fixed.

Also, CCMT not only has weapons stats out of space, but also is a WWII tech-level game that doesn't model missiles, different armour types, top-attack missiles, helicopters, etc.

[sterckxe]

ORIGINAL: pasternakski
.. Very few have made a success of pandering to us wargamers, who are notoriously short of disposable cash.

See, this is what I don't get : wargamers are mostly somewhat educated middle-aged men. If you're in the business of selling entertainment products and this is your target audience, you should do well as they're the #1 disposable income group. Yet, pc wargamers, unlike their boardgame or miniatures cousins, are notorious cheapskates.

ORIGINAL: pasternakski
I have studied the rise and fall of companies like SPI and Avalon Hill, and two things are clear: when you try to mainstream yourself, you never win.

Hm. Respectfully disagree here.

Avalon Hill used to publish a list of their top-sellers each year and also a cumulative all-time best sellers list. So we're back in 1985 - it's almost the end of the AH era - which game do you think heads the list of their all-time best sellers ? Is it Squad Leader ? Is it Diplomacy ? Is it
Third Reich ?

Nope, it's "Outdoor Survival" , followed by "Facts in Five" on the number 2 spot. In fact 8 out of the top 20 games are not wargames at all. An accountant looking at this would conclude that their hit rate with non-wargames was higher than their wargame hit rate, that the mainstream non-wargames were in fact financing the wargames.

SPI is a differet beast alltogether - in my book they killed themselves by overproduction, releasing a great number of look-alike, play-alike games while gamers wanted something new. TSR jumped on the emerging fantasy market, made a boatload of cash and bought SPI.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[GaryChildress]

ORIGINAL: Perturabo

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

ORIGINAL: Perturabo


It's not just Polish. Some people who were working hard on their mods for free got pretty pissed off with CoI (and people who played mods in general). Or CCMT while we are talking about it.


You are talking about something entirely different.
Here we have a situation where there are two different people on the same niche market.One creates a new product and then creates significant updates to it. Another one takes an old product, makes a mod for it and some small tweaks and even manages to break some features and then demands the same money.

What two games are you comparing? CoI and what?

Hmm...
CoI & almost any new Matrix game that wasn't made by a bunch of modders and a single programmer?
Actually, any new Matrix game would have more features than CoI or CCMT.

Well, maybe SPMBT? Or Firefight?

Well. You appear to be right and I am wrong. Matrix must have overcharged for CoI because new games can be made and sold for the same price as refurbishing an older game.

[JudgeDredd]

Well, in 1993 when I started PC gaming, mainstream games were sold for £34.99 brand new. Now, they rarely hit £29.99 and sometimes release as low as £24.99. Other games are lower, but that's due to quality more than anything.
 
I was surprised, in fact, to see CoD4 sitting in Game the other day for £34.99 as I haven't seen a PC game above £29.99 for some years now....quite some years.

[MadmanRick]

The one thing I haven't heard mentioned here, in the terms of pricing is this:

War In The Pacific cost me $69.99 (iirc) new, not only is that game still on my hard drive, but it is still the most played game on my computer and it was released what 4 years ago! Talk about bang for the buck. Much better than when I spent $49.99 buying Silent Hunter 4, played 3 maybe 4 times and then sold it used on eBay for $10!

90% of the games I've bought from Matrix, remain staples of my gaming pleasure. The only 2 games by Matrix that I've put out to pasture are Uncommon Valor (which WITP replaced for me) and Close Combat Modern Tactics (the lack of a campaign really and truly limited replay value for me). The rest such as WITP, WPO, Guns Of August, HCE, COI, and others not only remain on my hard drive, but they are still played to varying degrees. Once again, I think I can name on the fingers of one hand, how many games by other manufacturers that I can say that about. So for me in any discussion of price you would have to include some measure to rate price versus hours of playing time (for example WITP is in the hundreds of hours). Otherwise you are looking at half the equation.