On the Fence

[BillRunacre]

Amazon USA don't have it at the moment as they sold out of the first delivery, but if you are in the UK, Amazon UK have it in stock:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Strategic-Comm ... +in+europe

[nickaepi]

I will try and be patient but I'll probably just end up downloading it. Maybe you have an inside scoop of any digital sales coming up for this title..Mr. Bill Runacre, game designer guy? *Hint* Hint* [;)][&o]

[Dmondragon75]

I assume my post will be misunderstood, but...
In order to have quality games as SC3, why are ppl so worried if game costs 10/20 dollars more or less. FFS You will pay 20 mins with the hooker in red Amst Red District 70 USD. Gamers are buying a product they ll probably enjoy for years and also helping programmers and developers to put even better games in the future. Gaming community is 90% like this, always moaning about price of the game. For example, lots of strategy lovers are moaning about costs of Grigsby War in the east/west price. I m just wondering do ppl think about time and work invested in this game by Mr. Gary and the fact they have very accurate strategic simulation? I m buying lots of games on Steam which I don't play, just to show appreciation for the ppl with good ideas and give them opportunity to put even better games on the market, fact that they live from the money they make from gaming shouldn't be irrelevant

[Kursk1943]

Thumbs up for Dmondragon75!

[Dmondragon75]

Deus vult mate [&o]

[nickaepi]

ORIGINAL: Dmondragon75

I assume my post will be misunderstood, but...
In order to have quality games as SC3, why are ppl so worried if game costs 10/20 dollars more or less. FFS You will pay 20 mins with the hooker in red Amst Red District 70 USD. Gamers are buying a product they ll probably enjoy for years and also helping programmers and developers to put even better games in the future. Gaming community is 90% like this, always moaning about price of the game. For example, lots of strategy lovers are moaning about costs of Grigsby War in the east/west price. I m just wondering do ppl think about time and work invested in this game by Mr. Gary and the fact they have very accurate strategic simulation? I m buying lots of games on Steam which I don't play, just to show appreciation for the ppl with good ideas and give them opportunity to put even better games on the market, fact that they live from the money they make from gaming shouldn't be irrelevant

I did not misunderstand your post and I assume you weren't directing this necessarily towards me. If you were, that's fine. I have absolutely NO problem paying full price for a game. I was just joking around in my previous post. I don't get to be on a lot of forums when a game Designer replies directly to your posts. I just thought it was cool that he is actively replying in a forum.

I don't think there is an issue letting other forum members know, specifically on this thread, that they can save some money, while FULLY supporting a developer. If Matrix has SC3 available on Amazon, for full-price and the consumer can get a 50 dollar credit towards their purchase, I think that actually promotes sales of the product and therefore promotes more awareness of these great games.

SC3 has 1, single review on Amazon and you can't even buy it right now because it's not in stock (and hasn't been for a while). What if a bunch of people on here are "on the fence" about a game (which is what this Thread is titled by the OP, "On the Fence"), I think a consumer will feel less "risk" when the price is lower, especially for someone that may not already be familiar with the Dev's other projects.

The thread isn't titled "why so expensive?" or "is it worth it?". It's titled "on the fence".

A consumer can potentially buy this game, spending less money up front, maybe use that for another one of the same Dev's products (or a Russian hooker and they're still getting the same "profit" they would have anyway if I didn't use my Amazon credit. I typically buy my games in bunches, even if I am not able to play them all right away so good chance I buy another SC title at checkout.

Again, the more positive reviews on a site like Amazon, the more exposure the game can get.

Why do you think these games get put on Steam and other digital platforms? More exposure, visibility & additional platforms to sell their titles.

Why are people so picky about pricing you ask? Because we have soooo many options on how to buy a game these days. I'm 40 and I grew up with having to wait for my mom to drive me to the nearest mall and hope the game I wanted was in stock and I couldn't wait to get home and start reading the manual.

Now I can just google search and most games are listed on 50 different download websites. It's human nature we are going to pick the one that is the lowest price. We have been spoiled by Steam sales, Flash sales, etc.

TL;DR. I am confident SCIII is well worth 40 bucks, especially after seeing the feedback on multiple forums and reviews. Probably worth way more than 40 to people that have extensive game play time. Again, I just think the general gaming population has been spoiled in the digital age. I am guilty of that.

[OxfordGuy3]

I'd happily pay double for a game like this if it was as finely-tuned as CEAW-GS and had non-cheat-able MP...

[sPzAbt653]

I would have gladly payed more than double for this game, and consider my purchase of CEaW to have been a waste of money. To each his own, lol.

[OxfordGuy3]

ORIGINAL: oxford_guy

I'd happily pay double for a game like this if it was as finely-tuned as CEAW-GS and had non-cheat-able MP...

BTW This wasn't meant as a dig, more just wishful thinking - I think the 1.0 release of SC3 shows great promise, but the game needs some finessing. Should be really great after a few patches, if the devs (and community) continue to support the game.

[sPzAbt653]

I didn't think it was a dig, I just thought that describing CEaW as 'finely-tuned' was a bit off. CEaW has some features I would have liked to see in SC3 [Oil, Manpower, Convoy System], but SC3 has more features that are not in CEaW [more than two attacks on a unit, movement and combat, EDITOR!!]. Add in that CEaW is multi-player only, and support is nil, and I give it a big fat zero on the personal expense scale. [To be slightly fair, CEaW was still being developed as of my last contact in May 2016, but they are pretty close minded and stubborn, and are only interested in multi-player].

[n0kn0k]

ORIGINAL: oxford_guy

if the devs (and community) continue to support the game.

That's not an "if" i'm sure. Looking at the support for the past 10 years we'll be fine.

[OxfordGuy3]

ORIGINAL: n0kn0k

ORIGINAL: oxford_guy

if the devs (and community) continue to support the game.

That's not an "if" i'm sure. Looking at the support for the past 10 years we'll be fine.

Great, glad to hear it!

[Ironclad]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

I didn't think it was a dig, I just thought that describing CEaW as 'finely-tuned' was a bit off. CEaW has some features I would have liked to see in SC3 [Oil, Manpower, Convoy System], but SC3 has more features that are not in CEaW [more than two attacks on a unit, movement and combat, EDITOR!!]. Add in that CEaW is multi-player only, and support is nil, and I give it a big fat zero on the personal expense scale. [To be slightly fair, CEaW was still being developed as of my last contact in May 2016, but they are pretty close minded and stubborn, and are only interested in multi-player].

For many years I was a keen supporter of CEAW-Grand Strategy because I loved the game and thought it was the best non-mega WW2 grand strategy game around for multiplayer. I have now switched to SC3 because of its great qualities and because CEAW-GS screen resolution is frozen in time and for copyright reasons cannnot be updated so is less attractive for me these days.

Its fair to point out that the Grand Strategy expansion that converted a good game into a great one is entirely the work of unpaid enthusiasts who have done a fantastic job for the player community. Matrix has continued to support their efforts to its credit and everytime CEAW-GS is updated, always with a mass of improvements, the update is free (as has the GS expansion been from the start) to all who paid for the original version of the game. The expansion has always been produced primarily for multiplayer use and although it can provide a decent game in single player its inevitable that the latter will not have the same attraction given that the AI has never received an equivalent update.

[colberki]

CEAW is great game. The best for multi player. I have supported SC series, in part for appreciation of Matrix supporting our CEAW community.

[OxfordGuy3]

ORIGINAL: Ironclad

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

I didn't think it was a dig, I just thought that describing CEaW as 'finely-tuned' was a bit off. CEaW has some features I would have liked to see in SC3 [Oil, Manpower, Convoy System], but SC3 has more features that are not in CEaW [more than two attacks on a unit, movement and combat, EDITOR!!]. Add in that CEaW is multi-player only, and support is nil, and I give it a big fat zero on the personal expense scale. [To be slightly fair, CEaW was still being developed as of my last contact in May 2016, but they are pretty close minded and stubborn, and are only interested in multi-player].

For many years I was a keen supporter of CEAW-Grand Strategy because I loved the game and thought it was the best non-mega WW2 grand strategy game around for multiplayer. I have now switched to SC3 because of its great qualities and because CEAW-GS screen resolution is frozen in time and for copyright reasons cannnot be updated so is less attractive for me these days.

I haven't played CEAW-GS for at least 18 months, as got distracted by EU4, but had some great multiplayer games of CEAW, I've been tempted to get back into it for MP play, following the 4.0 GS release, but am having problems getting it working properly on my external monitor (I use a laptop computer, but prefer a larger screen for gaming), and the limited resolution of the game is quite tiresome. The gameplay (of 3.1 GS anyway, but I presume 4.0 is even better) was great, though. SC3 does some things better (especially supply, and of course the AI and graphics), though I preferred the naval system in CEAW, especially how it handles submarines, and found the scale (less hexes) a bit more manageable. Also little things, like being able to rotate units in an entrenched hex without loosing ALL entrenchment, which you can't do in SC3 currently, which is a bit silly.

I suspect, though, that SC3 will be my go-to WW2 grand strategy game going forward, though, especially if it's going to improve after a few patches.

[colberki]

Adding Oil, Manpower and a Convoy system to SC would be great.[:'(]

Meanwhile I continue playing SC3 and CEAW. [:D]

[Meteor2]

DC:B is a very good game, but not comparable.
Scale and approach is totally different, but I recommend both games.
DC:B includes unique elements, which takes it to another level.
Have a closer look at the forum over there!

[OxfordGuy3]

ORIGINAL: colberki

Adding Oil, Manpower and a Convoy system to SC would be great.[:'(]

Meanwhile I continue playing SC3 and CEAW. [:D]

Whilst I like the CEAW convoy system, I don't think it's essential, but the naval side of things could do with some improvement, especially how subs are handled, currently they don't really behave like subs should e.g. they can't ambush units whilst submerged (except DDs!) Oil and Manpower would be nice and would make it much more realistic for the axis

[Dmondragon75]

Oh sry mate, I wasnt reffering to anyone in particular. Just sharing my thoughts that by paying full price for product, we help product to be improved in the future by supporting good ideas.
I must admitt, I also luv buying games which are on discounts, I m only human after all

[Toby42]

ORIGINAL: colberki

Adding Oil, Manpower and a Convoy system to SC would be great.[:'(]

Meanwhile I continue playing SC3 and CEAW. [:D]

If you make the game more complicated you will lose players? I think that manpower is handled by having "Hard" builds as an option.