Price?

[Adam Parker]

PS: The other factor in value, is desirablity. How much does a person really want this game?

I really want petrol to move my car. Though in reading these threads and watching its videos here - and I'm really interested in the Bulge Campaign enough to take out my credit card and visit the Matrix store, I haven't yet bought the game.

Some of the screen shots I've seen are so covered with company sized units to make it look like a swarm, that I still need to ask myself, is this really the type of game I want to play after first seeing it theorized a couple of years ago? I could never get into HPS's mega-unit scenarios. But as the videos state, this game is about macro-management. Hmmm lots to ponder for me and asking myself what needs can I forego to apply my scarce resources?

What about you Maj Burns? Is this the game you've dreamed of?

[MajFrankBurns]

What about you Maj Burns? Is this the game you've dreamed of?

I don't know because it's too expensive for me to find out. [:)] Watching a movie doesn't do it for me in determining if I will like a game or not. I have to have hands on experience as for me value for the price is how much I actually get to interact with the program as well as how much it entertains.

[beatoangelico]

I was lurking here for a while, now after this news I really had to register and say something...

and yes, this is gonna be a bitter "you just lost a costumer" post.

If the price would have been in the 50-55 € range, I would probably bought it. I say "probably" because I would have waited for the demo, the reviews and the user comments, then decided if to pull the trigger or not. 55 € is a lot more than I usually spend on games, but it's reasonable and I would have made an exception.

But at 75 € there's no way I'm gonna buy it. NO WAY.
I have too many good games that already I don't have time to play and more will come for sure. 75 € is simply too much for a single game.


But the sad thing is that this engine, from what I've seen and read (never bought the previous games, just played the RDOA demo, read anything I could read about the series and saw the recent presentation video) is most probably one the few that could attract someone outside the core wargaming audience (someone like me). No hexes, real time, strategy without micromanagement, realism, AI, you know what.

But with this pricing decision Matrix and Panther decided that no, this game is only for the hardcore fans of the
series. It's probably not even for the "traditional" grognards, since I think a lot of them want the same hexes, IGOUGO turn based system, loads of micromanagement that they are accustomed with.
How can you recommend to someone in a non-wargaming forum to buy a game like this for 75 €?


I've seen Dave's post and his opinion that any significant increases in sales volume is unrealist. He's probably right, I can't think otherwise. Still, I don't get it. If even the most untraditional engine won't even attempt to bring in the people like me, than I can't help but think that wargaming is slowly digging its own hole.

I've also seen his claim about that "on average most players will get over 400 hours of entertainment". I think that sums up what's wrong with this story: Dave thinks that its audience is comprised mostly by extremely dedicated, even fanatical players. You can track down the sales, but you can't track down the playing time. That's the point I think: by going well over the 50€/50$ limit you annihilate all the "casual" sales, which, even if we only consider the wargaming niche, are IMHO much more common that Panther and Matrix think.

The model for this game is the highest possible quality and realism in every respect, from research on maps, scenarios and units to the performance of the AI and the general playability, stability, polish and documentation of the game. I don't think I've worked with any developers that put a higher emphasis on quality than Panther does and frankly the time it takes to do that also has a cost. I've seen many comments on other games that wished for better scenarios, better AI, better testing or better documentation or just generally higher quality. All of that is here, I don't think you will find a single rough edge, but the additional $20-$30 over many other game prices is what that costs in order for this to be a viable ongoing business plan for this series.

I want to ask...is this polish really necessary, if the tradeoff is the one we are seeing? I'm not sure. Yes, clearly it's good to have a stable, polished and "complete" game at release. But wargames don't age nearly as fast as mainstream games: six months later the game is exactly the same, and in these six months a "standard" wargame gets patched and the main issues solved.
And what if a lot of guys are gonna wait 6 months anyway for the "holidays sale" since the price right now is too high?
Wasn't just a better deal for everyone if the game would have come out with a "reasonable" polish and amount of content/features at a "reasonable" price?

I'm also gonna say that a lot of people, inclusing me, are rightfully bashing Paradox for their "release first, make playable/interesting later" business model in the last years; but the route Matrix seems to take is the polar opposite of Paradox's one, in a bad way. They are two extremes and both IMHO are flawed and shortsighted.

And sorry, but the "Ferrari" comparison is just ridicolous.

2. The price on COTA did increase by $10, I believe that was over a year ago? That was done to help support the ongoing development of BFTB. If you look at the release dates of HTTR, COTA and then BFTB you will see how many years it takes for Panther to develop each one.

wow...I don't know if I'm more shocked by BFTB price or this. I don't know what to say, other that if I had an interest in buying COTA instead of BFTB now that interest was nearly erased.

We also hope that with the full editor suite, BFTB will have more post-release content available than the previous titles too.

And how driving away customers with these prices is gonna help in this regard? No matter how good the editor may be, you need to sell copies to have mods.


Sorry for the wall of text.

[MajFrankBurns]

Lovely first post beatoangelico. Welcome to the forums. [:)]

[tgb]

I don't understand why Empire in Arms, which took longer to develop, iirc, and probably appeals to an even smaller niche, was able to be priced at $59 on release, and this can't. And this is NOT an appeal to raise EiA's price.[;)]

[Erik Rutins]

One interesting point from your comments is that the price would have been 53 Euros, even at this same US Dollar price, if we go back to December of 2009 before the Euro started to really slide against the dollar. That tells me that the currency conversion shock is indeed responsible for some of this feedback from Euro and UK customers.

I would also note again that this is not our new overall pricing strategy as a publisher, this is just the pricing for this particular game.

[jmlima]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins
...
I would also note again that this is not our new overall pricing strategy as a publisher, this is just the pricing for this particular game.

I know Erik, I told I would not discuss it again, BUT, the fact that you need to keep repeating this mantra, justifying this price, tells me that , for some reason Matrix also do not think this price is fair , or right.

[bink]

ORIGINAL: Sarkus



None of which has anything to do with the pricing of a PC game. Or did you not notice that New Zealand developed Distant Worlds managed to be offered for far less then what is being asked for here? Or Australian developed AtD? If you want to compete in the US market or European market or wherever, you offer your product at a price that is comparable with other items you are competing with. The relative financial situations have nothing to do with it. $60 is about as high as you can go for a PC or video game in the US and not get a big negative reaction. I'm sure Matrix knows that and so does Panther. They've made a choice here. I personally disagree and won't be buying the game and I'm not alone in that. But ultimately, whatever happens, it will be Matrix and Panther that will bear the burden of the decision, not me.

I agree - I was just replying to Joe98's misunderstanding of the currency moves. I pointed out that if a business wants constant home currency revenue, it should hedge it's currency exposure,

[bink]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Well, I could add to this by reminding everybody that one of the most popular games Matrix has ever published (at least in terms of forum traffic) is WitP, and that cost $80 as well. Pay the money or not, but don't whine about it.

WitP came with a printed manual! Bulge does not.

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: bink
WitP came with a printed manual! Bulge does not.

Just to be clear on this comparison, the download version of WITP AE does not come with a printed manual and costs the same as the download version of BFTB.

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Yes, it has just been released! We completed the final QA a bit sooner than expected. The price is accurate and I'm sure it's a bit of a surprise as it's higher than the current COTA price by $20. However, with the time each of these releases takes development-wise and the attention to detail required for this level of historical realism, we see these as more on the same level with a title like War in the Pacific ...

Replayability is a big factor, and WitP players have previously posted that the hours of gameplay they got more than compensated for the price.

I'd rather pay nearly twice for a game I know i'm going to enjoy for endless hours, but I understand not everyone is going to feel the same way.

[bink]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

ORIGINAL: bink
WitP came with a printed manual! Bulge does not.

Just to be clear on this comparison, the download version of WITP AE does not come with a printed manual and costs the same as the download version of BFTB.

I don't see your point - both games are priced identically, and both cost an extra $10 for the physical copy ($89.99), but WitP comes with a color printed manual, whereas Bulge does not.

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: beatoangelico

... I'm also gonna say that a lot of people, inclusing me, are rightfully bashing Paradox for their "release first, make playable/interesting later" business model in the last years; but the route Matrix seems to take is the polar opposite of Paradox's one, in a bad way. They are two extremes and both IMHO are flawed and shortsighted.

IMO, Matrix is being more up-front, whereas Paradox's distribution of "beta" games as a finished product is only realized after you buy it and the "fix" is usually another purchase, i.e, Victoria and Victoria: Revolutons.

Great post, however.

[Tomus]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

One interesting point from your comments is that the price would have been 53 Euros, even at this same US Dollar price, if we go back to December of 2009 before the Euro started to really slide against the dollar. That tells me that the currency conversion shock is indeed responsible for some of this feedback from Euro and UK customers.

I would also note again that this is not our new overall pricing strategy as a publisher, this is just the pricing for this particular game.

I will get the game regardless as I love the engine but I feel ripped off and that some of the "buy it and see" punts I have taken with Matrix Games in the past I won't do for the future.

[vj531]

ORIGINAL: MajFrankBurns

ORIGINAL: sharper

Some might say its "reassuringly expensive"

PS. We sold many many copies of War In Russia on Apple II and Atari 800 way back in the dark ages at my old store in the UK Strategic Plus for £79.99. big game, big price. Save up! and have fun, will last for years! Cheep as chips in real terms.

One thing I'd like to bring up here is back then there weren't 1000's of computer strategy/ wargames out there and our budgets allowed us to pick up and buy just about anything released. Today there are 1000's of pc strategy and wargames and we can be a lot more selective and thrifty about our purchases. So, you used a bad analagy for this one this time.

I've been looking for wargames of this ilk over the years and I doubt I can think of more than 40 over the past 20 years. Yes there have been a good many games who purport to be wargames/simulations but they are definitely not in the same class as Panthers' products.

You want the best, it costs. For some it will be too much for others it will be ok. For me I will buy this next week and play it till I've had me fill which will be at least 400 hours, as I said as cheap as chips.

[axisandallies]

ORIGINAL: sharper

ORIGINAL: MajFrankBurns

ORIGINAL: sharper

Some might say its "reassuringly expensive"

PS. We sold many many copies of War In Russia on Apple II and Atari 800 way back in the dark ages at my old store in the UK Strategic Plus for £79.99. big game, big price. Save up! and have fun, will last for years! Cheep as chips in real terms.

One thing I'd like to bring up here is back then there weren't 1000's of computer strategy/ wargames out there and our budgets allowed us to pick up and buy just about anything released. Today there are 1000's of pc strategy and wargames and we can be a lot more selective and thrifty about our purchases. So, you used a bad analagy for this one this time.

I've been looking for wargames of this ilk over the years and I doubt I can think of more than 40 over the past 20 years. Yes there have been a good many games who purport to be wargames/simulations but they are definitely not in the same class as Panthers' products.

You want the best, it costs. For some it will be too much for others it will be ok. For me I will buy this next week and play it till I've had me fill which will be at least 400 hours, as I said as cheap as chips.

Panther Games the best? I don't think so, best at what? Sales? No. The problem I see is this. They claim to have the best AI, but have no demo for this game. They make a game that has been done to death, how many times can you fight the battle of the Bulge? You have to sell better than that. I've worked in retail my whole life it's a give and take business. $80 is to much for this game, for what you get out of it. If it was all about the Western front, then maybe, but for one battle at the end of the war in which the Germans had no chance at all to win seems a bit much. Also I see this game is already having issues with CTD's.

[Fulton]

Thank you for taking the time to explain your thinking.

If all this is correct then it seems to me that this product is being marketed incorrectly. It needs to be spun as a top down battlefield simulator ENGINE capable of recerating any battle we desire.

That said --- IF this is correct...

What concerns and confuses me is 400 hours of enjoyment. If it is open moddable, why not limitless enjoyment?

The two are incongruent.

[vj531]

ORIGINAL: axisandallies

Panther Games the best? I don't think so, best at what? Sales? No. The problem I see is this. They claim to have the best AI, but have no demo for this game. They make a game that has been done to death, how many times can you fight the battle of the Bulge? You have to sell better than that. I've worked in retail my whole life it's a give and take business. $80 is to much for this game, for what you get out of it. If it was all about the Western front, then maybe, but for one battle at the end of the war in which the Germans had no chance at all to win seems a bit much.

[:D] whatever!

[vj531]

ORIGINAL: Fulton

Thank you for taking the time to explain your thinking.

If all this is correct then it seems to me that this product is being marketed incorrectly. It needs to be spun as a top down battlefield simulator ENGINE capable of recerating any battle we desire.

That said --- IF this is correct...

What concerns and confuses me is 400 hours of enjoyment. If it is open moddable, why not limitless enjoyment?

The two are incongruent.

Who are you referring to?

[tgb]

I would still like to know why, if the determining factors were length of development time and size of the market, this is selling for $20 more than EiA, which took just as long if not longer to develop and appeals to a market just as small if not smaller.