I too want Matrix to take in goobs of money . . .
so long as it isn't mind. (that is the other part of free enterprise)
Personally, I am not a big fan of the "buy their game so they stay in business" charity that seems to be the mindset of many gamers. Yes, I support Matrix and want others to do so, and yes, I will probably buy Pacific War. However, any price above $50 is likely to make me step back and think a moment, and I do know that if they charge $70 for this game, there will probably be another one of their games (such as Squad Assault) I will be forced not to by.
For example, two people have $90 to spend. If EYSA is $40 and WitP is $50, they will both spend the full $90, and get two games each. There intake will be $180, and, assuming they made a profit of $20 on each game, will have a total profit of $80. Plus, both games will be selling copies. On the other hand, if they sell EYSA for $50 and WiTP $70, buyer A will spend the $70 for WitP, Buyer B (a tank junky) spends $50 for EYSA, but neither can buy the second game. In this case, despite making more profit per game, Matrix will only have taken in $120 and (assuming the same cost to make both games) $70 profit. Granted this is a overly simplistic scenario with numbers simply drawn from mid air, but I think slightly lower prices (competitive, or nearly so, with mainstream games) will in the long run be better for buyers, for Matrix games, and the genre as a whole.
Is $69.99(US) too much for a game??
Moderators: Joel Billings, wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami
-
Mike Scholl
- Posts: 6187
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 1:17 am
- Location: Kansas City, MO
Boy are you CHEAP! WITP will contain several scenarios
as large or larger than UV---plus the whole war. Don't know what you paid for UV, but WITP would be a bargan at three times that much. The 2by3 team will have spent over a year on it. If the final "test" results show me that they've "gotten it right", $100 would still be a
fair price.
as large or larger than UV---plus the whole war. Don't know what you paid for UV, but WITP would be a bargan at three times that much. The 2by3 team will have spent over a year on it. If the final "test" results show me that they've "gotten it right", $100 would still be a
fair price.
Demo
Hi, The reviews at Amazon.com say the game is unplayable. It gets high marks for cockpit graphics and low marks for playability. It's supposed to release in Nov 2003 at 39.99. It's not my cup of tea so I can't say one way or the other the value of this product. It's not something I would buy at any price but then I don't play flight simulators. I don't know it's lineage (whether the entire engine was made from scratch or a prior game has been upgraded)
In the end the buyer has to decide what he wants and what price he is willing to pay. WITP is the same price as Pac War and Pac War came out in 91 or 92.
As for hours spent playing any one game I would have to say that UV has claimed that spot with me. I can't think of anygame that after I had owned it for 18 months was still something I played everyday. I still play UV everyday.
SPWaW is a game I still play alot when I have an online opponent but I sheldom play it solo or PBEM (I can't fight tactical battles 1-2 turns a day I lose track of what is happening)
Look for the Screaming Eagles Mega Campaign in November.
In the end the buyer has to decide what he wants and what price he is willing to pay. WITP is the same price as Pac War and Pac War came out in 91 or 92.
As for hours spent playing any one game I would have to say that UV has claimed that spot with me. I can't think of anygame that after I had owned it for 18 months was still something I played everyday. I still play UV everyday.
SPWaW is a game I still play alot when I have an online opponent but I sheldom play it solo or PBEM (I can't fight tactical battles 1-2 turns a day I lose track of what is happening)
Look for the Screaming Eagles Mega Campaign in November.
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
LockOn...
Hi all,
you can find my name in manuals for Flanker v1.x, Flanker v2.x and now LockOn.
It's true that LockOn is long into production and that DEMO is slow on some
systems but (there is always but)...
The LockOn graphics engine is the most sophisticated one ever (no other sim
ever had such stunning visual beauty).
It's not just cockpit (as Mogami writes) - all LockOn world is populated with
100000 of objects...
Unfortunately this has its own price - only very fast machines can run it OK
and even today's fastest can't run it at full glory (at 1600x1200 for
example).
IMHO this is not something bad - it only shows that LockOn is not limited for
today but for future as well (and with constant improvements in CPU and gfx
cards this is no empty talk).
Also, since LockOn is really the only proper new jet sim now in development
(and soon to be released), I strongly think that this effort should be warmly
welcomed!
Leo "Apollo11"
I have been involved with Flanker (now LockOn) projects almost since 1995 andMogami wrote:Hi, The reviews at Amazon.com say the game is unplayable. It gets high marks for cockpit graphics and low marks for playability. It's supposed to release in Nov 2003 at 39.99. It's not my cup of tea so I can't say one way or the other the value of this product. It's not something I would buy at any price but then I don't play flight simulators. I don't know it's lineage (whether the entire engine was made from scratch or a prior game has been upgraded)
you can find my name in manuals for Flanker v1.x, Flanker v2.x and now LockOn.
It's true that LockOn is long into production and that DEMO is slow on some
systems but (there is always but)...
The LockOn graphics engine is the most sophisticated one ever (no other sim
ever had such stunning visual beauty).
It's not just cockpit (as Mogami writes) - all LockOn world is populated with
100000 of objects...
Unfortunately this has its own price - only very fast machines can run it OK
and even today's fastest can't run it at full glory (at 1600x1200 for
example).
IMHO this is not something bad - it only shows that LockOn is not limited for
today but for future as well (and with constant improvements in CPU and gfx
cards this is no empty talk).
Also, since LockOn is really the only proper new jet sim now in development
(and soon to be released), I strongly think that this effort should be warmly
welcomed!
Leo "Apollo11"
Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!
A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE
-
Mike Scholl
- Posts: 6187
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 1:17 am
- Location: Kansas City, MO
Sounds as if LOCK ON will do what it does very well, and be a treat for those who want to do that specific thing. WITP is striving to do a whole lot of things well and in syncronization. In LOCK ON you have a detailed model of one single way to "expend ordinance"---but no reqire-
ment to make it, ship it, or service your A/C. You are
comparing an apple with a watermellon. If that's what you want, then stay with your flight sim. If you want to deal with how, where, and why you are flying today, then WITP (at whatever price) is worth buying.
ment to make it, ship it, or service your A/C. You are
comparing an apple with a watermellon. If that's what you want, then stay with your flight sim. If you want to deal with how, where, and why you are flying today, then WITP (at whatever price) is worth buying.
Lockon
Hi, Leo I was not dumping on the project. I've never seen it. I was only going by the review someone who played the demo wrote. I'm sure it's a fine game.
At 39.99 it is 30 bucks less then WITP's price.
I don't know what that means because I don't know the average price for flight simulators. I could only point out that WITP is going for the same price PacWar sold for 12 years ago.
At 39.99 it is 30 bucks less then WITP's price.
I don't know what that means because I don't know the average price for flight simulators. I could only point out that WITP is going for the same price PacWar sold for 12 years ago.
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
I'm curious about a few games upcoming.
WitP is one of them. I've read a lot about it and will probably buy it. Probably. If I want the game, I just buy it. Price is not really a factor. I don't really buy too many games, just normally 3 or 4 each year.
I'm still going over the mega campaigns for SPWAW. I've only bought one of those. I like it so far. Pretty good entertainment value. I might get the others. Don't know yet.
I'm also interested in World in Flames -- not sure about the name but it's the Australian company game. I'd like to take a look at how they do the AI in that one. I might like playing that one if it has a good AI. Who knows.
I played WWII online when it first came out. It was interesting but fairly limited and fairly buggy and laggy even though I had a top end system. I don't play that one any more.
I have a birthday and then I have Christmas and I have Fathers day. I get a new game for each of those and then usually play those three games all year. This year, I've asked for Korsun Pocket for Christmas based on some great reviews out there in some of the game magazines.
I don't normally buy games when they first come out. I normally wait until they've been patched once or twice before I'm willing to pay the tab -- but not always.
WitP is one of them. I've read a lot about it and will probably buy it. Probably. If I want the game, I just buy it. Price is not really a factor. I don't really buy too many games, just normally 3 or 4 each year.
I'm still going over the mega campaigns for SPWAW. I've only bought one of those. I like it so far. Pretty good entertainment value. I might get the others. Don't know yet.
I'm also interested in World in Flames -- not sure about the name but it's the Australian company game. I'd like to take a look at how they do the AI in that one. I might like playing that one if it has a good AI. Who knows.
I played WWII online when it first came out. It was interesting but fairly limited and fairly buggy and laggy even though I had a top end system. I don't play that one any more.
I have a birthday and then I have Christmas and I have Fathers day. I get a new game for each of those and then usually play those three games all year. This year, I've asked for Korsun Pocket for Christmas based on some great reviews out there in some of the game magazines.
I don't normally buy games when they first come out. I normally wait until they've been patched once or twice before I'm willing to pay the tab -- but not always.
-
Hornblower
- Posts: 1361
- Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 1:02 am
- Location: New York'er relocated to Chicago
I don't think $69.99 is too much to ask, given the massive scale that WiTP looks to be, based on the comments of the testers. I spent $49.99 on UV, and for the last 18 months its been the only computer game I've played. Personally I think it was $49.99 very well spent. More so when I think of the amount of game time I get out of it. If it wasn't for UV I would have had to watch all those reality shows with the wife- ICk...... 
Put that way, WitP will save mankind!!Hornblower wrote:.................... If it wasn't for UV I would have had to watch all those reality shows with the wife- ICk......
Quote from Snigbert -
"If you mess with the historical accuracy, you're going to have ahistorical outcomes."
"I'll say it again for Sonny's sake: If you mess with historical accuracy, you're going to have
ahistorical outcomes. "
"If you mess with the historical accuracy, you're going to have ahistorical outcomes."
"I'll say it again for Sonny's sake: If you mess with historical accuracy, you're going to have
ahistorical outcomes. "
RIO
Return on Investment is what we use to determine if a training simulator for the navy is worth the price to build, install, run, and maintain. To figure out the ROI of WitP take the price of the game and divide it by the number of hours you think you will be playing to see what you will pay per hour of entertainment. Then compare this to the price you pay for other forms of entertainment.
I think when you do the math you will see that it is a bargin.
I think when you do the math you will see that it is a bargin.
Former War in the Pacific Test Team Manager and Beta Tester for War in the East.
Most US games now have a starting price of $49.95, and then sell expansion packs (AKA, add the missing freatures, fix the bugs) for $29.95. That is a total of ($49.95 + $29.95 = $79.90). If someone doesn't like the $69.95 price, Matrix could always sell the game for $49.95 and then sell an expansion pack (new scenarios + editor) for $29.95.
-
emorbius44
- Posts: 97
- Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 7:48 pm
[QUOTE=Penguin]According to Amazon.com, the release price for War in the Pacific will be 69.99. Does anyone feel any price resistance at that level?? Or will it be worth it for the intended scope of the game? Is that going to be the new price level for games overall?? I am cringing at the thought of $100 for games down the line... Very hard to hide in the grocery budget...lol >>>>
$69.99 is not too high at all. Consider the following:
1. I started computer games with Carrier Force back in 1983. That was an SSI game and listed for $60. Consider 20 years of inflation and what $60 would be in 2003 dollars.
2. Back in those days games were much simpler and usually designed by one or two people (Grigsby, Keating, Landrey and Krogel, etc) and they could grind out three or four games a year. Now it takes several people to do one game and usually a couple of years or more to do that.
3. The wargame market really hasn't expanded that much over the last 20 years and alot of games that used to be available in a malls or retail stores are no longer available. i.e. unit sales are not really compensating for declining revenue per game and increased development cost per game.
Games can't be made if it's not economically feasable to do it. These guys have to make a living and frankly for $70 you're going to get months if not years of game play out of it. They earn and deserve every penny they get.
Bob
$69.99 is not too high at all. Consider the following:
1. I started computer games with Carrier Force back in 1983. That was an SSI game and listed for $60. Consider 20 years of inflation and what $60 would be in 2003 dollars.
2. Back in those days games were much simpler and usually designed by one or two people (Grigsby, Keating, Landrey and Krogel, etc) and they could grind out three or four games a year. Now it takes several people to do one game and usually a couple of years or more to do that.
3. The wargame market really hasn't expanded that much over the last 20 years and alot of games that used to be available in a malls or retail stores are no longer available. i.e. unit sales are not really compensating for declining revenue per game and increased development cost per game.
Games can't be made if it's not economically feasable to do it. These guys have to make a living and frankly for $70 you're going to get months if not years of game play out of it. They earn and deserve every penny they get.
Bob
-
pasternakski
- Posts: 5567
- Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2002 7:42 pm
RE: RE:
Seventy bucks is okay with me.
Actually, I'm just posting to find out what my posts look like now.
Actually, I'm just posting to find out what my posts look like now.
Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.
RE: RE:
Hi guys,
Are we missing about a month of posts or am I going nuts?
(these new smilkeys are great!)
Are we missing about a month of posts or am I going nuts?
(these new smilkeys are great!)
In the End, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.
- Martin Luther King Jr. (1929-1968)
- Martin Luther King Jr. (1929-1968)
RE: RE:
ORIGINAL: stubby331
Hi guys,
Are we missing about a month of posts or am I going nuts?
While not qualified to comment on your sanity, or lack there of, it does seem a good chunk of the forum history was lost due to a hacker attack on the Matrix boards. Remove the b*astard's b*lls, I say!
Later,
FC3(SW) Batch
USS Iowa
FC3(SW) Batch
USS Iowa
RE: RE:
I just finally got back to reading recent posts after the hacker episode... and I have been thinking about Penguin's initial comment/question about price sensitivity and responses to that... got me to thinking about trying to nail down in my own mind about exactly why I do not feel any qualms about forking over the seventy bucks eventually for WITP...
Part of it is, as Kid said, a decent feeling about "return on investment," but there's more to it than that.... made me think about the old term "replayability" left over from the days of board wargaming... but it's even more than that, too... over the years, since Tactics II and Gettysburg and on into the SPI era, I have always gravitated toward the larger, even monster-sized games. I suspect there are lots of other folks like that, too... seems to me that the reason for that is that we share, at some gut level, a desire and an appreciation for complexity, almost for its own sake... the warfare simulation is the vehicle that delivers it for us, and that appeal is large, of course, but the intellectual challenge of managing (sometimes successfully) a large, strategic-scale enterprise is really the thing, isn't it?
Through all my years of wargaming, whenever I had the chance to give a preference (remember those "What would you like to see in future games?" cards in the wargame box?) I always said I wanted a strategic-scale Pacific war game with all of the possible moving parts to manage... it's the intellectual, almost academic nature of the big, demanding beast that appeals to me... which is why Pacific War was and still is so appealing and why UV has been consuming... UV was a great teaser, but in my rich fantasy world while "in the game" I can't help but wonder what's going on west of Port Moresby and north of Truk...
So, that's why the $ 70.00 is just fine... it's not just a game, not even just a simulation we aspire to... it's the challenge of long-term competence in warfare management and it doesn't happen or not happen overnight.... it takes months and maybe much more... bring it on!
Burkowski
Part of it is, as Kid said, a decent feeling about "return on investment," but there's more to it than that.... made me think about the old term "replayability" left over from the days of board wargaming... but it's even more than that, too... over the years, since Tactics II and Gettysburg and on into the SPI era, I have always gravitated toward the larger, even monster-sized games. I suspect there are lots of other folks like that, too... seems to me that the reason for that is that we share, at some gut level, a desire and an appreciation for complexity, almost for its own sake... the warfare simulation is the vehicle that delivers it for us, and that appeal is large, of course, but the intellectual challenge of managing (sometimes successfully) a large, strategic-scale enterprise is really the thing, isn't it?
Through all my years of wargaming, whenever I had the chance to give a preference (remember those "What would you like to see in future games?" cards in the wargame box?) I always said I wanted a strategic-scale Pacific war game with all of the possible moving parts to manage... it's the intellectual, almost academic nature of the big, demanding beast that appeals to me... which is why Pacific War was and still is so appealing and why UV has been consuming... UV was a great teaser, but in my rich fantasy world while "in the game" I can't help but wonder what's going on west of Port Moresby and north of Truk...
So, that's why the $ 70.00 is just fine... it's not just a game, not even just a simulation we aspire to... it's the challenge of long-term competence in warfare management and it doesn't happen or not happen overnight.... it takes months and maybe much more... bring it on!
Burkowski