Command Ops: Battles From The Bulge takes the highly acclaimed Airborne Assault engine back to the West Front for the crucial engagements during the Ardennes Offensive. Test your command skills in the fiery crucible of Airborne Assault’s “pausable continuous time” uber-realistic game engine. It's up to you to develop the strategy, issue the orders, set the pace, and try to win the laurels of victory in the cold, shadowy Ardennes.
Command Ops: Highway to the Reich brings us to the setting of one of the most epic and controversial battles of World War II: Operation Market-Garden, covering every major engagement along Hell’s Highway, from the surprise capture of Joe’s Bridge by the Irish Guards a week before the offensive to the final battles on “The Island” south of Arnhem.
But I do realise that I will never satisfy some people's desires when it comes to pricing.
People used to complain about the prices I had to charge for the auto parts I sold when I owned a business.
But, they didn't have to feed, clothe, house, heat, and transport my family; see that my employees could do the same for themselves and their families; and cover the costs of store space, inventory, equipment, heating, electricity and phone service before I even considered an obscure thing called "profit" at the end of the year.
Their choice, particularly if they walked up because their car wasn't working, was to either pay the extra dollar they complained about being charged, or walk down the street to the next store to save that buck.
Most stayed and paid.
Those that walked got plenty of exercise to learn the cheaper price offered them more exercise in another six months because the quality shrinks to make the item cheaper.
Exactly, how many times I paid more because I wanted to pay less. Quality is often more statisfaying than quantity and it often lasts longer. People have to see it that CO2 will be avaible in two years and for a fair price with the possibility to pay only for scenarios that they like. In addition battles packs already bought with CO1 will be free. Those who want to try the new features sooner will have the possibility to do it. It's an inovative way of product development.
Well, I don't think people should be jumping on 'thewood1' (or anyone) for making a comment about pricing. The thread invites comments and the 'constructive only' thing is moot, since I'm sure thewood1 was sure it was constructive (and I'm sure he doesn't want to buy an hour of game development, he wants to buy a game...). Dave apologised, note. I'm sure if Wodin were let loose he'd have a lot more than that to say about it, and others who are keeping quiet because whenever the price thing comes up tempers seem to flare because there is often a tendency to ridicule those who don't want to pay that much. There are many different comparisons possible but at the end of the day some people can afford what's suggested, some can't. $2 a scenario seems small to me - as does $4,000 a scenario, which is what they would get if 2,000 people bought it (and I doubt, judging by activity in here, there are 2,000 people queing to buy). That would add up to what? Maybe, with say 40 scenarios and a few more pricey game engine updates - 250,000 max, I would think. Over two years. So, if 2,000 people buy the game Dave would get to live off it, maybe. But I would guess it's more like a thousand buyers, if that (I'd love to know...). None of which changes the fact that some poeple may find $2 a scenario expensive, even if invited to compare it with the price of (a) a bottle of beer, (b) a packet of fags, (c) a monthly cable subscription, (d) a meal out at McDonalds, etc. I wouldn't want to judge other people's finances. It's a market as many are keen to point out. Might be better, for the game, in that case, to explain to someone making a genuine query why $2 a scenario isn't bad value.
It isn't such bad value, thewood1 - in my opinion - because there aren't many people playing this game, by comparison to many other games out there (and for reasons completely unrelated to price), and in order for it to continue to exist the developers have to charge something like that, as you see above, where other developers who have games that more (and probably younger, let's face it) people are playing could charge less and survive. If you think that a couple of beers, or a meal out, or any such relatively common trivial thing would cost a lot more and be gone in minutes, then maybe that's ok, given how much time it takes to put the things together, and how many hours pleasure you get get out of a single scenario, played carefully, always assuming you're really into the game. Personally, since I realy rate this game and do want it to continue, I'm very glad that you, like me, have spent $150 plus so far.
My comment wasn't intendent directly to thewood1. And from its perspective I understand it may look expensive. IMHO, the split of COTA must be seen as a part of a new "business model". It may work or not, customers will tell. As I see it we have plenty of choices now. From a very fair price to a very expensive package. Even if I could afford the whole thing, I probably wouldn't have the time to play all this. [:)]
If this price structure is successful and allows Dave to continue his commitment to this excellent product then I'm in.
I worked in the industry in a previous life, so believe me when I say we are all very lucky that Dave and co are still willing to put the hours in, and it is certainly not for the money.
I'm keeping my mouth shut on any aspect of pricing on the CO forum.[:D]
Maybe not about the old games issue in General discussion..but here I wont utter a word again. I just feel bad in the end anyway when I do as everyone seems to jump down on me and think I'm trying to cause trouble..so as I said my mouth is stapled shut.
It would be very good to get more North African scenarios in the Mediterranean pack... I think that there are several of those North African scenarios developed by the users for COTA...
Funny enough I don't mind being seen as a pain by Iain and Slitherine etc..but I don't like Dave seeing me that way..it does bother me...thats why here I will keep my mouth shut tight (well my finger sin control anyway). Dave and Panther do a superb job and if I had the money I'd buy all the upgrades etc etc..just finances dictate it can't really be done which actually bothers me as I'd like to keep Panther going.
So as I said I really don't like having a bad rep with Panther (simovitch posted something which kind of made me realise I wasn't exactly seen as the best member here something about not me not being on the beta team due to some indiscretion awhile back).
I think Panther do a superb job and am extremely thankful they are around.
As for Mr Woods comment..well this is one of the threads I restrained myself;)
ORIGINAL: phoenix
Very wise, Jason. [:)] Don't stick your head above the parapet.
All I have to say is if you don't want feedback on an announcement, make it a real announcement and lock it. The only other option is to delete posts you don't like.
As to pricing; my main concern is the significant increase in pricing on Matrix games. Even Matrix admits they are in a niche market. Making the barrier to entry higher and higher with no demo slowly tightens the noose on the market. Only someone tightly tied to Matrix will spend the time to research a game and then take a $70 risk. Every time you release a data pack, you might catch the interest of a semi-casual wargamer. But it must be quite a shock to realize they need to drop $100 to play Market Garden on this engine. What you should do is drop the engine price each time you release a datapack. Once someone has committed to the engine, you have a much better chance of selling data packs. But instead of trying to draw more people in to spread the development cost burden, the easy way is being taken by raising the price as the community shrinks. One business model is positioning for growth, the other is positioning for a slow spiral down. That is a business model I have seen and been involved in dozens of times and it will not succeed in the long run, no matter how special wargamers tink they are.
And what happens on these forums is that higher barrier to entry for a three year old engine slowly pushes any balancing feedback out of the forum and strangles diverse opinions as only people truly dedicated to the game stay on. Its the same issue BFC had with CMSF in the end. Now you end up with a mob mentality that seems to be drawing in the developer as well. Again, very similar to BFC.
But obviously, no one here is looking for a diverse opinion in this little (and it appears to be little) club. So my rant is most likely moot. I hope that this meets the threshold for constructive feedback.
All I have to say is if you don't want feedback on an announcement, make it a real announcement and lock it. The only other option is to delete posts you don't like.
As to pricing; my main concern is the significant increase in pricing on Matrix games. Even Matrix admits they are in a niche market. Making the barrier to entry higher and higher with no demo slowly tightens the noose on the market. Only someone tightly tied to Matrix will spend the time to research a game and then take a $70 risk. Every time you release a data pack, you might catch the interest of a semi-casual wargamer. But it must be quite a shock to realize they need to drop $100 to play Market Garden on this engine. What you should do is drop the engine price each time you release a datapack. Once someone has committed to the engine, you have a much better chance of selling data packs. But instead of trying to draw more people in to spread the development cost burden, the easy way is being taken by raising the price as the community shrinks. One business model is positioning for growth, the other is positioning for a slow spiral down. That is a business model I have seen and been involved in dozens of times and it will not succeed in the long run, no matter how special wargamers tink they are.
And what happens on these forums is that higher barrier to entry for a three year old engine slowly pushes any balancing feedback out of the forum and strangles diverse opinions as only people truly dedicated to the game stay on. Its the same issue BFC had with CMSF in the end. Now you end up with a mob mentality that seems to be drawing in the developer as well. Again, very similar to BFC.
But obviously, no one here is looking for a diverse opinion in this little (and it appears to be little) club. So my rant is most likely moot. I hope that this meets the threshold for constructive feedback.
Your "rant" is important to the people who want to market their products to customers such as you.
To others, who never ask anyway, it doesn't matter.
That's because I am one of those on the edge of this little market. I consider myself a pretty serious wargamer. But I am also pretty selective where I spend my time and money. It's people like me that not only get a little turned off on the entry point to the game, but also to the cloistered and hermetically sealed environment that games like this generate in their fan base and forums. I would think that at a minimum, Matrix would like to catch edge people like. Frankly if I hadn't already spent a wad on this engine, I would be much more inclined to invest a little more.
Now seeing where its going, I'll still noodle around with it, but will invest my money elsewhere where I can maybe get more time for the money...Actung Panzer comes to mind. Now there is a great example; I spent $6 on the engine and over $70 since then. I also plan on eventually buying the two new campaigns...another $40. I was only somewhat interested until I saw the sale for the engine for $6 and thought, "what the hell". I did exactly the same thing with Rise of Flight. Only partially interested until I got the engine and a few planes for $10. I have easily spent $120 over the last year since then. That is the model of companies wanting to grow, not just hold on by their fingernails and continue stroking a few diehard fans.
All I have to say is if you don't want feedback on an announcement, make it a real announcement and lock it. The only other option is to delete posts you don't like.
As to pricing; my main concern is the significant increase in pricing on Matrix games. Even Matrix admits they are in a niche market. Making the barrier to entry higher and higher with no demo slowly tightens the noose on the market. Only someone tightly tied to Matrix will spend the time to research a game and then take a $70 risk. Every time you release a data pack, you might catch the interest of a semi-casual wargamer. But it must be quite a shock to realize they need to drop $100 to play Market Garden on this engine. What you should do is drop the engine price each time you release a datapack. Once someone has committed to the engine, you have a much better chance of selling data packs. But instead of trying to draw more people in to spread the development cost burden, the easy way is being taken by raising the price as the community shrinks. One business model is positioning for growth, the other is positioning for a slow spiral down. That is a business model I have seen and been involved in dozens of times and it will not succeed in the long run, no matter how special wargamers tink they are.
And what happens on these forums is that higher barrier to entry for a three year old engine slowly pushes any balancing feedback out of the forum and strangles diverse opinions as only people truly dedicated to the game stay on. Its the same issue BFC had with CMSF in the end. Now you end up with a mob mentality that seems to be drawing in the developer as well. Again, very similar to BFC.
But obviously, no one here is looking for a diverse opinion in this little (and it appears to be little) club. So my rant is most likely moot. I hope that this meets the threshold for constructive feedback.
thewood1,
Thank you for responding. Rest assured I am looking for diverse opinion.
I too share your concerns at the ever increasing price of products and the effect that it will eventually have on the market size. In fact the new model we are trying to put together is endeavouring to lower the cost of entry for new customer. By decoupling the engine from the data new customers can get into the system for the price of an engine upgrade ($30) and the price of one data pack ($30). When you buy an engine pack you get the latest version of the engine with all previous features from all previous upgrades rolled into it.
This new approach also means that existing customers can add to their experience as and when they choose. They can get enhanced features for the cost of $30 or they can get additional data for the cost of $30. Some data packs will require the latest engine upgrade. But even then the price for what would otherwise have been a new game is $60. Remember that previously we sold BFTB for $80.
I support what phoenix wisely said in his earlier post. I want to encourage everyone to have their say here and to be able to do so without being ridiculed. Arguments can be challenged but each person is entitled to their own subjective assessments about what they see as value for money given their circumstances.
I also support Jim's comments about the fact that we have to charge a price that will enable us to survive in business. It's always a difficult balancing act.
So thewood1 what pricing policy would you recommend?
Just like with those games...depends on the data pack. 10 scenarios, probably not. I would easily drop $15 on a map/scenario pack. Maybe even $20. But don't go the BFC route... Don't create DLC so large and cumbersome that it takes a year to get out and shocks people with the cost. Create smaller scenario sets with only the units need to play those scenarios and get them out fast; at most monthly. Release features in feature packs that do things like "Enhanced AI", Enhanced UI", Campaign, "Enhanced scenario builder", "Enhanced order system". Offer a Pro bundle or themed scenarios in penny packs, offer a starter kit, Offer new nations, Offer higher resolution.
But two huge caveats here...is your engine built to support the above and is Matrix's distribution system capable of supporting it.
First off, data packs would invariably contain maps and scenarios and in many they would contain estabs as well.
I agree with not creating DLC that is too large. That's why my original concept was for between 10 and 12 scenarios (which would include say 3 or 4 maps).
Our engine can handle this but the distribution system needs to be looked into.
And what happens on these forums is that higher barrier to entry for a three year old engine slowly pushes any balancing feedback out of the forum and strangles diverse opinions as only people truly dedicated to the game stay on. Its the same issue BFC had with CMSF in the end. Now you end up with a mob mentality that seems to be drawing in the developer as well. Again, very similar to BFC.
Whilst I am broadly in sympathy with the thrust of your argument I am mildly amused that you feel you have to insult the participants of this forum ('mob mentality': drawing in the developer' etc.) in order to make your point: especially as you rapidly took umbrage at the 'rolling eyes'. I am, though, unclear why the fact that is a 'three year old game' has any bearing on your case. Whilst I agree that most three year old games could be categorised as 'abandonware' this can hardly be considered the case for this series.
Your point over the pricing policy, especially for new purchasers, is well made although again I am unclear why you personally view a 'sunk cost' as a reason not to purchase upgrades. I understand the argument that you don't purchase upgrades, because - for instance - you don't like the game for whatever reason, there are better 'bang for the buck' games out there, or you have no interest in, say, the Eastern Front, but 'sunk cost' is hardly a rational reason....
