Price?

[htuna]

ORIGINAL: Hertston

ORIGINAL: DanO

Anyway, I'm rambling, but one last thing: for me the consideration of the price was is *this* game worth the price they're asking for. It didn't take me long to say "Yes".

I think there has only been one poster who has suggested that game isn't worth the price; and as he hasn't played any of the earlier games and doesn't really know what he's talking about he can be safely ignored.

However, even if something is 'worth' a particular price it doesn't mean people can or will pay it. In some cases they simply don't have the money at all. In others they can't justify it ahead of other things, particularly when they have families. I'm sure far more people think a Ferrari is 'worth' the money than who actually own one as well. Everybody's threshold is different. 'Worth' can only be considered in the context of 'worth it to me', and that depends on more things than the number of hours you might spend playing it, or otherwise. Those hundreds of hours can be spent playing other games, just as a Fiat Punto will get you to the shops just as well as that Ferrari (and have more room for the shopping!)

Enjoy it. Come Christmas 2011 or whatever, I'm sure I will be too. Hopefully WitE will fill a large part of the gap; I was/am expecting a 'bumper' price for that and have budgeted accordingly.

You also forgot principle... I will never pay 80 bucks for a game.. I heard it was good, looked forward to checking out.. but the price just puts up a big brick wall.. Then I go look at the older version (because of the raving) and that is over 50 as well... I know they're trying to make a profit.. but all the people they scare away with the high price tag, is probably killing their chances of actually make a greater profit, by all the potential buyers. I know the niche is small.. but there were a lot of people interested in this game because of the pre-release buzz. Maybe that's why they did the high price, figured the buzz was so good, people would just buy it.. but you miss out on a lot of excited people and a lot of casual people as potential buyers. Then keeping the price high 'forever' like the previous title, you miss out on even more profit.. just doesn't make marketing sense...

[Perturabo]

ORIGINAL: beatoangelico

I would suggest Steve Jobs would disagree with you...

this one is like the previous Ferrari comparison...totally out of place. A Ferrari and (to some extent) the Apple products are status symbols. I think we can agree that wargames are definitely not status symbols.

Err...
No. Buying original games is a status symbol. If they are collector editions that is. Buyers of original games can feel smug because others have to do with pirated versions[:)].

Anyway, GAHAHAHAHAHA![:D]
The amount of butthurt in this thread is hilarious.
So, basically, western people won't buy what is probably one of the best wargames ever made because they would have to flip burgers for 11hours to buy it instead of 7 hours. Oh God, it's 4 hours of burger-flipping more, it's unbearable!

Well, guess what? In real world gamers have to work 3+ times more for every new game they buy. Of course I don't because I buy things that follow the local work market prices first, which means that games usually get epically outcompeted by various other goods and services.
But on the other hand if average new games would be 40-50PLN (40-50$ in work), paying 80PLN for a higher quality game would be no problem for me.

[Hexagon]

cmurphy625 you miss one point, in the first sale (end of 2011) the game is going to cost a little more than now COTA, here is the key, now you pay extra money and you never see the game at the same price as COTA now (and never with COTA sale price), is like sold the game with a plus that prevents that the game cost less than COTA non sale price.

I see that all people who dont buy it now is going to buy in the first "sale" for a price a little high than non sale price of COTA, something like ADTP2.

If i dont buy the game is for the price (have the money, find interesting the game but i have a limit for a single PC game 45-50 euros), here we say that "give the hand and take the arm" and for me pay this price is open the door to see future price increases because do you see prices going down in Panther games??? they go UP!!! and better dont talk about down the price in future releases because i never see it in wargames [:-]

[Perturabo]

Quality of their new games goes up too, doesn't it? Would it be wrong to pay more to a more experienced worker that does his work better than less experienced one?

[thewood1]

As I have said in an earlier post, I was lokking for to this game because I had borrowed COTA from a friend and decided I would wait for the most recent version of the engine to buy it.  I was and am somewhat shocked at the price for a game that covers only one battle with 27 scenarios.  $80 might have been worth it if they had included all the scenarios from the previous titles.  In fact, at $80, I fully expected them to do this. 
 
Instead, Matrix has charged $80, and raised the price on the older game that I was interested in.  I probably have almost $1000 worth of Matrix games form over the last 7 or 8 years.  The combined high price for the bulge and raising the price on COTA makes me feel like Matrix is really trying to stick it to loyal customers. 
 
I don't mind paying a higher price for a game.  But it better have siginifcantly more content than any game at $50.  BFC is heading in the same direction, but with a modular philosphy to get more money out of its work.  I am not finacially happy about that but can understand and live with that.  But one thing they didn't do was go back and raise prices on previous titles.  It seems to me that Matrix is saying, "Oh you don't like the $80 game, well don't look to get out of it cheap by buying the older game".
 
I mean, basically, Matrix has raised the price from COTA to the bulge by $30.  I see no huge level of new content, other than the OOB editor.  If you think that is worth $30, it should have been sold seperately.  There should have been a standard edition, and a pro edition that included the editors and all the scenarios from the previous versions.  Instead, you have priced both BFTB and COTA to exclude any one who wants to try out the system.
 
And anyone who comes in says to stop whining; if we don't push back, this is going to be the norm.  In the last two years, Matrix has released two games at around $80.  I compare this to Steel Beasts at $120.  Its the best game out there for what it does.  I would love to have it, but can't justify the cost for what I would get out of it.  That's also why the community is so small for SB.  I see the same thing happening to BFTB.

[Hexagon]

And i can reply that i dont see a new engine, see the same engine with improvements and for example dont see HPS prices increased and if you have the base of the game dont understand very well why have an increase as you have totally full new engine... have the game 3D???.

Dont understand me bad, i dont talk about quality i talk about price and buyers point of view (yes, i am a buyer not the red cross), you can have the better wargame and say "it cost X" but if most of your potential buyers says "for me cost x/2" you are missing something and even people who buy the game say that price is high, they can and want pay it but the fact that game price is high is here.

[PirateJock]

As a 'new' recruit [;)] I've lost the thread of this thread but I do reckon it would make a good case study on (i) laws of supply and demand, (ii) customers' perceptions on what value for money means and (iii) the philanthropic nature of the game playing public - though whether we are a good sample population is up for debate.

[Yogi the Great]

This game is $69.99 on NWS for the CD version - so you have a chance to save $20 anyway.

[Perturabo]

ORIGINAL: Hexagon

have the game 3D???.

Which is relevant to?

ORIGINAL: Hexagon

Dont understand me bad, i dont talk about quality i talk about price and buyers point of view (yes, i am a buyer not the red cross), you can have the better wargame and say "it cost X" but if most of your potential buyers says "for me cost x/2" you are missing something and even people who buy the game say that price is high, they can and want pay it but the fact that game price is high is here.

True. I think that the main problem here is that 80$ is a price good for a person that specifically wants a game like Command Ops: Battles From The Bulge. In such case there simply isn't much (if any) competition.

It seems that a lot of people simply can do without it because they are content with less technologically advanced games or simply the game doesn't have a strong enough appeal to them to draw in for a long time, though.
If these people are a majority of buyers of previous AA games, then there's an obvious problem.

[Hexagon]

Perturabo, i refer with 3D that the engine, is the same as in previous versions, is more complete but basically is the same, dont include a 3D vision of battlefield for example, something that explain the increase in the price this is my point.

Well, for me isnt a problem dont have the game, i have another games (one is recent and find it exciting hehehe) and have my play time cover but i feel that this increase on prices isnt a puntual situation and this is something that i dont find good for wargamers, with the past of time games dont reduce their prices in matrixgames (go higher) and with this progresion next panther game could cost 100 or more dollars.

[hondo1375]

ORIGINAL: PirateJock

As a 'new' recruit [;)] I've lost the thread of this thread but I do reckon it would make a good case study on (i) laws of supply and demand, (ii) customers' perceptions on what value for money means and (iii) the philanthropic nature of the game playing public - though whether we are a good sample population is up for debate.

Also, an excellent case study on price elasticity of demand for niche wargames, especially with the data from HTTR and COTA (before and after the price rise) sales for comparison.

[OttoVonBlotto]

Too much for me, I was a casual player of Highway I enjoyed it but never spent more than 100 hours on it as I concentrate my limited game time on other PBEM games I tend to buy only 3 or 4 games a year normally from matrix, but not this one at that price sorry.

[CriticalMass]

I think you are VERY wrong about Apple products being "status symbols", well maybe to a few fans who would queue up for an iShit if they were told there was one. The reason Apple got it's name is beccause of build quality and innovation: that's is how they were able to charge premium prices, which has now become expected.

[thewood1]

Yeah, at $50, I look at it the same as with a bunch of Matrix games I bought and lost interest in quickly.  Can any one say StarShatter?  For $50, I would have bought it without a thought.  For $80, I have to know I am going to play it as much as I play CM, TOAW, or IL2.

[GBS]

I paid $50 I think for TOW2 and played for 30 minutes and have not fired it up since. Talk about a waste. Just since yesterday I already less $ per minute than that one by a long shot.

[IronManBeta]

Most other hobbies are very expensive indeed - try downhill skiing some time or being a hockey dad.  Wargaming is incredibly cheap overall and the $89 Cdn or whatever I just spent on it is pocket change.  That is what I spend on lunches in a week.  From my perspective my shortage is the lack of quality time to really get into this game.  I don't doubt I will be rearranging my time priorities for the next few months so that I can do justice to a masterpiece like this.

Just my $0.02 worth

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: GoodGuy

The alarming part (for Panther) is that the majority of them seem to have registered to express that the price tag took them by surprise.

Yeah, it looks like we're gonna lose some buyers here.

A lot of folks who are devotees of the games would likely pay even MORE than is being asked.

But, I'm afraid a lot of new guys will simply spend their money on something else. [:(]

[boatrigm]

I actually bought both HTTR and COTA after playing the Red Devil demo. I'm still having a blast playing them. I just have a tough time with the price. Long term I will just wait and see what happens. I have other games on my list from HPS and I just feel they are a better price vs play time for me.

With BFTB I don't want to create scenarios so the editor is a waste of money to me.

I think a Developer version with editor for $79.99 and a Player version with no editor for $59.99 would be perfect!

Anyone from Panther or Matrix listening????

Just my 2 cents.

[bink]

ORIGINAL: Joe 98

There is no USD $20.00 increase.

Rather, in 2006, if Panther wanted AUD $100 from US customers he must charge USD $60.00

In 2010, if Panther wants AUD $100 from US customers he must charge USD $80.00
-

2010 USD 80
2006 USD 60

80 - 60 --> USD 20 increase.

[bink]

For the record, what is Matrix's position on the pricing of Battles From The Bulge? Does it have anything to do with AUD revenue for the developer?