Impression

[Kameleonic]

I bought & played CC3 when it came out, loved it, played it over & over.

This one - it's exactly the same game. You say there are tweaks? Maybe there are, but they are so small that repackaging and selling the game under the guise of being updated and modernised is kind of false to me. Yes I amn sure you changed something, but seriously, it is like playing almost an identical clone of CC3 - so $40? I really wasted my money.

My advice - play CC3, re-install it people, it is the same game.

I'm playing it cause I really enjoy it, but I do not enjoy being white-lied to like this is some different and modernised version when you simply mean, can be played on XP and has a couple of tweaks.

[Llyranor]

The developer release notes are in plain view on these forums. I'm not sure not reading them equals being lied to.

[general billy]

Yeah its pretty much the same, but we all knew that, but there are addition stuff, like new maps, sounds and higher display resolutions. But I dont know why they called it a new name, 'Close of Iron'. I actually thought it was going to be a whole new game when I first saw that name discussed on matrixgames. It should have been called 'The Russian Front' like the original. I guess it was an marketing issue.

[Adam Parker]

I actually appreciate Kameleonic's post. Summarizes features and benefits which is what I care about.

[Monkeys Brain]

ORIGINAL: Kameleonic

I bought & played CC3 when it came out, loved it, played it over & over.

This one - it's exactly the same game. You say there are tweaks? Maybe there are, but they are so small that repackaging and selling the game under the guise of being updated and modernised is kind of false to me. Yes I amn sure you changed something, but seriously, it is like playing almost an identical clone of CC3 - so $40? I really wasted my money.

My advice - play CC3, re-install it people, it is the same game.

I'm playing it cause I really enjoy it, but I do not enjoy being white-lied to like this is some different and modernised version when you simply mean, can be played on XP and has a couple of tweaks.

I also think that you are right. No way that I am going to shell 40$ for this.

Europa Universalis III cost 40 $ a brand new game with a new engine.

I am not going to feed Matrix games and their bad habit of charging that much for remakes of (great) strategy games. They are fishing on nostalgia.

It would be OK that price is 20-30 $ (top), and anyway they could easily then sell more than 10000. This way they will say 2000. So with a lesser price they could have in fact make more money.

Selling old remakes like brand new retail ones is really safe bet.
And Matrix have no risk, all risk anyway goes to developer and they just take 50 % of profit in the end.

The customer wants a VALUE for it's money. We cannot ignore fact that let's say Gears of War devoured let's say 10 million $ in production. Yes in retail it cost 50 $. Yes, I know what you will say to me I've heard that million times about wargames being niche etc... I am talking about production value of the product. I am not talking about the actual money put into production of CC: COI and that is now another topic. I am talking about actual VALUE of the product customer is paying for. Hello, this is not value of 40$ here.

What I see here is really a bad tendention... If everytging in the end - ends to be covered from gamers pocket then we are screwed then. We have Xbox360, DS, PS2, Wii, PS3 etc... etc... and then so many PC games and if everything's gonna inflate it's price, that is not good.

I will pass on this game.

[Andrew Williams]

Then you are missing out.

back to H2H action and all the fun that goes with it.

[Monkeys Brain]

ORIGINAL: schrecken

Then you are missing out.

back to H2H action and all the fun that goes with it.

Yes, I wanted to buy CC: COI but now I wouldn't. There is plenty of games already. It's the matter of principles.

[Hertston]

ORIGINAL: Monkeys Brain

It would be OK that price is 20-30 $ (top), and anyway they could easily then sell more than 10000. This way they will say 2000. So with a lesser price they could have in fact make more money.

If your figures are right which, being plucked of of a hat, seems unlikely. Matrix will have priced to generate he most profit (they are in busines) and I suggest their call is likely to be better than yours. If not necessarily right, of course.

Both you and Kameleonic also seem to be assuming the vast majority CoI buyers have, or at least have played, CC3. I very much doubt that is true, especially in the long term. CoI is worth far more than $30 for a "new" game. As to those who (like me) do have CC3, it was made perfectly clear what we were getting on the forums - although I grant CC3 specifically should have been mentioned in the catalogue blurb. Everyone here knew CoI was a CC3 re-release. I wasn't initially going to bother but changed my mind somewhere and am certainly not regretting the purchase. The improvements and additions are significant.

[Monkeys Brain]

ORIGINAL: Hertston

ORIGINAL: Monkeys Brain

It would be OK that price is 20-30 $ (top), and anyway they could easily then sell more than 10000. This way they will say 2000. So with a lesser price they could have in fact make more money.

If your figures are right which, being plucked of of a hat, seems unlikely. Matrix will have priced to generate he most profit (they are in busines) and I suggest their call is likely to be better than yours. If not necessarily right, of course.

Both you and Kameleonic also seem to be assuming the vast majority CoI buyers have, or at least have played, CC3. I very much doubt that is true, especially in the long term. CoI is worth far more than $30 for a "new" game. As to those who (like me) do have CC3, it was made perfectly clear what we were getting on the forums - although I grant CC3 specifically should have been mentioned in the catalogue blurb. Everyone here knew CoI was a CC3 re-release. I wasn't initially going to bother but changed my mind somewhere and am certainly not regretting the purchase. The improvements and additions are significant.

maybe my sales prediction are off the mark but I am big fan of CC but not feeling better to be ripped off my hard earned money, thank you.

CC: COI is in fact CC3 for dummies (in example getting working on xp and much elegantly, still not worth 40$). I can get my fix of playing CC3 with mods already.

Do you see anywhere close sales number of Matrix games? They only show around when some poor developer speak about them. In fact they will not get sales higher by uping price but contrary by lowering it.

Battlefield 2142 sold only 200000 for PC in 2006. btw. there is good list oif top 100 selling games in usa. btw, we don't have any sales data on wargames because that is all a business secret. Fine but then I don't want to listen to "poor wargames market" until data is hidden so any analyzing is useless - publishers can feed only data that suits them.

And sorry even if game is worth 40$ I am not paying the money I pay for brand new games. See you in a few year when Matrix goes on the bottom of the ocean with this strategy.

[Monkeys Brain]

And another thing that is Matrix doing wrong:

every wargamer has that much dollars in his pocket for buying games. And I mean all games. Some like me likes Romance of the Three kingdoms and I am getting XI for PS2.

So, when you charge 40 $ for remakes you also are making not loyal competition to your premium developers who are making new games (COTA, Panther games, SSG, WIT guys, Crown of Glory guys etc...).

So developers will end up with less money in their pocket and that's why all those weeping about sales. But, if remakes were 20$ I am sure that sales would end up being better and much more wargamers would buy 3 x 20 $ than 3 x 50 $. And sales of other games would go up.

[z1812]

Hi All,

A few things to bear in mind.

1. For those who have not played Close Combat this is a new game. New players will probably, with a few exceptions, enjoy it as much as others did when it was originally released.

2. This game is produced by a dedicated group who have long supported close combat and through some difficult times. So please when you say, " I don't need this game I can play CC3 with mods", remember that most of the people who have maintained those mods, and have helped to keep Close Combat alive, are the same ones who have worked to make CoI available. I believe some respect is in order.

3. Anyone one can exercise their right to vote with dollars.

4. My vote will be to buy the game as an expression of support for the people who have kept Close Combat enjoyable for me during the past number of years. I know for sure that the resources they realize from sales of this game will not only be put towards the next title but may indicate to them if they should even bother. Think about that.

Regards John

[Marc von Martial]

Monkeys Brain, one question to you. Have you worked in the game business, either development or publishing, or do you have any experience at all with it beside playing games? I assume not, your assumptions clearly show this.

If you really think COI is the same as the original CC3 then I really have to question your experience with CC3 too. I think you make up your mind from the sheer look of it. The releases notes were and still are available for everybody to look at. And it was stated a lot of times that COI is not CC6.

Sales numbers are just that, numbers. When you do business you do not care about sales numbers, you care about the "plus" that is there in the end.

Funny also that the rereleases we do are based on demand by gamers here. Yes, you heard right, people were asking for it. In fact our customers ask to rerelease even more classics.

So I really fail to see were we are "fishing on nostalgia" when in fact our customers demand these rereleases, which always ad new content to the original game. Not onlay that, they ad a wider compatibility, new support and new updates.

Nobody forces anybody at gunpoint here to buy a rerelease, but there are many that do want to buy them and many that do buy them. If you do not want to fine. Your right as a customer. And nobody is angry about it.

[Hertston]

ORIGINAL: Monkeys Brain

So developers will end up with less money in their pocket and that's why all those weeping about sales. But, if remakes were 20$ I am sure that sales would end up being better and much more wargamers would buy 3 x 20 $ than 3 x 50 $. And sales of other games would go up.

Who exactly is "weeping about sales"?

It is both a balancing act, and a matter of demographics, in determining pricing policy. Sure, if the re-releases were cheaper more people would buy them, but the question is "how many more"? Enough to make up for the reduced profit on each? I don't know, neither do you, but I suspect Matrix have a better idea than either of us. If they have it wrong, its a much more significant problem to them than us. Either way, sales will always be much smaller than games in more popular genres.

Personally, I suspect the chances of any 'saved' money being spent on other Matrix titles are relatively small, certainly that would go any significant way to increasing overall profit. With many, given the nature of the genre, people really want a title or don't want it all. Demographics is another factor; I'm certainly not claiming this as a universal but in general, much like the flightsim folks, wargamers do have more disposable cash than (again in general) the RTS and FPS crowds who are generally rather younger.

[Monkeys Brain]

Hm, hold your horses, I said my opinion which is logical to me. To you it may sound not logical and I don't have anything against you or your opinion.
I just said that pricing remake at 40$ is not logical to me and I stay with that.

Would you rather wanted that I buy your game or Paradox Interactive Europa Universalis 3? That is the bottom line, my friend.

You can back up that as Matrix discretion right and I agree you can charge the game 100$ if you want. My discretion right is to judge by my own conscience what I will do.

Sales numbers are not just numbers. And until they are not clearly made public why they are discussed how they are low etc... Clearly all sorts of manipulation can be here. Here is article for you:

http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?optio ... imitstart=

Now you can see top 100 selling games in USA.

They are made public.


Monkeys Brain (small monkey brain

[Monkeys Brain]

ORIGINAL: Hertston

ORIGINAL: Monkeys Brain

So developers will end up with less money in their pocket and that's why all those weeping about sales. But, if remakes were 20$ I am sure that sales would end up being better and much more wargamers would buy 3 x 20 $ than 3 x 50 $. And sales of other games would go up.

Who exactly is "weeping about sales"?

It is both a balancing act, and a matter of demographics, in determining pricing policy. Sure, if the re-releases were cheaper more people would buy them, but the question is "how many more"? Enough to make up for the reduced profit on each? I don't know, neither do you, but I suspect Matrix have a better idea than either of us. If they have it wrong, its a much more significant problem to them than us. Either way, sales will always be much smaller than games in more popular genres.

Personally, I suspect the chances of any 'saved' money being spent on other Matrix titles are relatively small, certainly that would go any significant way to increasing overall profit. With many, given the nature of the genre, people really want a title or don't want it all. Demographics is another factor; I'm certainly not claiming this as a universal but in general, much like the flightsim folks, wargamers do have more disposable cash than (again in general) the RTS and FPS crowds who are generally rather younger.

I can agree to a certain degree with you but that don't mean that this matter is closed for discussion and I am glad that is open (until they ban me hehe).

Yes, people want the title and will get it. That is sort of philosophy present here.

But, I just see matters in a different way. It doesn't nececary means that I am right. I could be wrong but opinion will not kill anyone.

[Erik Rutins]

Are you aware of what copies of CC3 were selling for on E-Bay before this release? WAY over $40 and without the updates and improvements that COI includes.

It's up to each gamer to decide if the price is worth it for them. However, slamming us for this is ridiculous. We recieved requests for years to re-release CC. We managed to work out a deal with the owners of the CC rights as well as the developers who had kept updating it for the Marines to get a new release together.

We made public the info on that release, including the full developer's notes on the changes. We made no attempt to claim this was a brand new CC, but rather that it was an updated, improved CC3 with a brand new campaign, multiplayer support and various improvements. We and CSO delivered on what we promised.

Kameleonic, you certainly have a right to your opinion, but have you actually read through the release notes and realized how much was done for this release? Have you tried the multiplayer options, the new campaign and noticed any of the other changes? It seems to easy to say "there's nothing new here" when there's plenty of evidence to the contrary.

Regards,

- Erik

[Erik Rutins]

Also, as has been pointed out, a lot of the folks involved in this release have provided free mods and scenarios to the CC community for years. On top of that CSO has great plans for CC's future, providing this release pans out. Ultimately, you have a chance to vote on whether you'd like to see anything happen with future CC releases or not.

[Monkeys Brain]

Nobody is slamming Matrix as per se.

I am just discussing a logical thing that remakes cost the same as full blown new releases. I like CC: CoI and was ready to buy it but must stick with my principles
man without principles is not man.
Who wants to buy it - buy it, I am not telling anyone to not buy it.

So let me get straight one thing - if you think that majority of your customers would be happy with this, no problem. It is more finding a time to play for wargamer and not so money for some.

In the end i was just arguing remake price vs. price of new games. that's all. I have my opinion and if others are OK with this, fine.

Lot's of wargamers have this or that amount of money that they want to spend on wargamers. Only small percent is really rich enought to buy ALL releases no matter what. I know that you have those also. But you cannot predict sales based only to those customers. In the end you as a publisher will draw a line and know is this good or not.
But even if whole universe go upside down that doesn't still make sense that EU 3 with new engine cost same like remake of CC3. Sorry, that line I would not cross.

[Erik Rutins]

It's precisely because wargaming is a niche community that those interested in resurrecting one of its classics have to be asked to pay slightly more than the $20 or $30 you expected. More mainstream releases that go into retail can set lower prices due to higher volume. In a niche market, lowering prices below a certain point generally simply results in lower profits, which results in no further development.

[Monkeys Brain]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

It's precisely because wargaming is a niche community that those interested in resurrecting one of its classics have to be asked to pay slightly more than the $20 or $30 you expected. More mainstream releases that go into retail can set lower prices due to higher volume. In a niche market, lowering prices below a certain point generally simply results in lower profits, which results in no further development.

That is from your POV. Publisher's point of view. You cannot be at loss because you let's say publish 30 games and take let's say 50% of gross sale and give 50% (if, I don't know) to developer. So it is much safer position than that of developer.

And I think if game flops and don't bring expected sales - even so , you will be at loss but more developer because you will still have a lot more games to cover you up. Isn't so?

So if game flops - developer is in trouble be it game at 20 $ or 40 $.

And lastly that is just your speculation that we customers must pay slightly more for remakes. You didn't tried at all to offer it at 20 $ and see will increase of sales pay off.

No, you opted the other way, there is 2000 certain fools who will pay 40 $ so why don't even enlarge that base. Hat's off.