Price?

[Mark Weston]

I've been looking forward to BftB for a long time, and this price was a major shock. Before release I had always assumed that I'd buy it automatically as soon as it was out. Now it's off my immediate agenda. Maybe I'll come back to it in six months or a year, maybe it's a permanently lost sale. I'm pretty frustrated and I think Matrix and Panther are making a bad choice.

Look, like nearly everyone who is complaining about the price, I'm well aware that if I really made the effort I could find the money from somewhere. But that actually isn't the point. For me, and I'm sure for most people, any purchase expensive enough that you have to think about needs to pass the "am I being ripped off?" test. Right now, BftB fails. It's priced well above the average for PC games, and well above the average for earlier games in the same series. And it's not even a new game, it's a refinement of an existing engine. It's hard to shake the feeling that Matrix and/or Panther have decided that their market is a small hard-core group of wargamers who need their fix and don't care how much it costs. Well possibly you're right about us collectively, but you're wrong about me.

Another problem I have is that to me, the only way to enjoy these games long term is against another player. Panther's achievement has been to create an AI that does a competent and convincing job as a battalion or brigade HQ, but only because we give it narrowly focused and short-term objectives. The overall operational AI is well short of providing human-equivalent opposition (and I don't mean any insult or even criticism of Panther by saying that, I don't think anyone has managed to create a human-equivalent opponent for any wargame; it's a non-trivial problem!) My point being, to enjoy this game long-term I need to convince friends to buy it too. Now I'm quite happy to go into my regular spiel about this series being the future of wargaming, attempting levels of realism and providing a gaming experience that nothing else gets near. But at some point my spiel will have to mention that the game costs £70, and at that point I'm sure I'll be laughed out of the room.

And finally, I can't help responding to the justification of the price by "the fifty man years of work" put into the series as a whole. The thing is, I've already paid for Red Devils, HTTR and COTA. By purchasing BftB am I supposed to be paying for them twice?

[Steely Glint]

ORIGINAL: Mark Weston

Look, like nearly everyone who is complaining about the price, I'm well aware that if I really made the effort I could find the money from somewhere. But that actually isn't the point. For me, and I'm sure for most people, and purchase expensive enough that you have to think about needs to pass the "am I being ripped off" test. Right now, BftB fails. It's priced will above the average for PC games, and well above the average for earlier games in the same series. And it's not even a new game, it's a refinement of an existing engine. It's hard to shake the feeling that Matrix and/or Panther have decided that their market is a small hard-core group of wargamers who need their fix and don't care how much it costs. Well possibly you're right about us collectively, but you're wrong about me.

They're wrong about more wargamers than just you, Mark.

[Sheytan]

Great post!

ORIGINAL: Mark Weston

I've been looking forward to BftB for a long time, and this price was a major shock. Before release I had always assumed that I'd buy it automatically as soon as it was out. Now it's off my immediate agenda. Maybe I'll come back to it in six months or a year, maybe it's a permanently lost sale. I'm pretty frustrated and I think Matrix and Panther are making a bad choice.

Look, like nearly everyone who is complaining about the price, I'm well aware that if I really made the effort I could find the money from somewhere. But that actually isn't the point. For me, and I'm sure for most people, and purchase expensive enough that you have to think about needs to pass the "am I being ripped off" test. Right now, BftB fails. It's priced will above the average for PC games, and well above the average for earlier games in the same series. And it's not even a new game, it's a refinement of an existing engine. It's hard to shake the feeling that Matrix and/or Panther have decided that their market is a small hard-core group of wargamers who need their fix and don't care how much it costs. Well possibly you're right about us collectively, but you're wrong about me.

Another problem I have is that to me, the only way to enjoy these games long term is against another player. Panther's achievement has been to create an AI that does a competent and convincing job as a battalion or brigade HQ, but only because we give it narrowly focused and short-term objectives. The overall operational AI is well short of providing human-equivalent opposition (and I don't mean any insult or even criticism of Panther by saying that, I don't think anyone has managed to create a human-equivalent opponent for any wargame; it's a non-trivial problem!) My point being, to enjoy this game long-term I need to convince friends to buy it too. Now I'm quite happy to go into my regular spiel about this series being the future of wargaming, attempting levels of realism and providing a gaming experience that nothing else gets near. But at some point my spiel will have to mention that the game costs £70, and at that point I'm sure I'll be laughed out of the room.

And finally, I can't help responding to the justification of the price by "the fifty man years of work" put into the series as a whole.. The thing is, I've already paid for Red Devils, HTTR and COTA. By purchasing BftB am I supposed to be paying for them twice?

[goodwoodrw]

Wow over 15500 views on this topic in few days, perhaps it adds weight to the old adage, "any publicity is good publicity" [:D]
Ron

[jomni]

ORIGINAL: Mark Weston

Another problem I have is that to me, the only way to enjoy these games long term is against another player.

I prefer turn based multiplayer so we can take our time.
Real time is a problem as you both have to sit in the session at the same time and no time acceleration(?). And I'm from Asia so it's hard to find players willing to play at the same time.

[Arjuna]

In multiplayer, you can acelerate the time the game runs at just the same as you can in single player mode.

[Larac]

Another point not stated is the Price was kept under wraps until release.

No Doubt done because of the reaction that would occur.

A major price change after adding 10 to the older games to pay for this, seems to be a bit much for many folks.

Good Luck with it one day I may look at it again.

But I fear this is the tip of a slope that will be painful to all.

Please do look at Steams model, no extras for keeping data access that you do anyway, (even when paid for it does not work), and how much money can be made by right price.

But I think your digging a hole, the next game will be what 150 or 200?

Lee

[Fred98]

ORIGINAL: Larac

But I think your digging a hole, the next game will be what 150 or 200?

No, because as I have said umpteen times on these forums, I have a suspician that the price is based the the FX rate against the AUD and the AUD is strong at the moment.

When War in the East is released, the good news for all, is that the developer is an American making it cheaper for everybody!

-

[wworld7]

ORIGINAL: Joe 98


When War in the East is released, the good news for all, is that the developer is an American making it cheaper for everybody!

I think both of your assumptions are incorrect. It would be very suprising if WITE is cheaper than this, though I would be pleased if it winds up so. I expect WITE and MWIF to be close to the same price for each, and have no realistic hope of it being cheaper than BftB.

[wodin]

ORIGINAL: flipperwasirish

ORIGINAL: Joe 98


When War in the East is released, the good news for all, is that the developer is an American making it cheaper for everybody!

I think both of your assumptions are incorrect. It would be very suprising if WITE is cheaper than this, though I would be pleased if it winds up so. I expect WITE and MWIF to be close to the same price for each, and have no realistic hope of it being cheaper than BftB.

I agree. If you think WitE is going to be cheaper your going to get a shock I reckon.

[wodin]

Just like to say that Elemental a game by stardock is being advertised (for the collectors edition) $79.99. This has me thinking that quality non console ports pc games are going to go up in price. The shrinking PC market may have something to do with it...I have a feeling that not only wargames but all PC games will be a niche market. The only cheap games I imagine will be online browser games.

Also something I forgot about was that new console games can cost £59.99. A price I balk at and made me happy I owend a PC, especially considering £59.99 for the latest FPS\Racing\Beat em up was and is a joke to me....(though I do want Red Dead)...how many FPS\Racing\Beat em ups do you need at £59.99 anyway. PC games have usually so much more to them and if it means buying less games, forgoing those not top of my list then so be it as I really don't want to see quality PC games die a death.

[Foolio]

At the end of the the day this is a PC game, so it will be measured again other PC games. In that respect it is way overpriced, especially when you compare it how Steam operates. I mean you don't even get a permanent on-line copy.
 
Talking from a purely business point of view, if you were actively trying to discourage first time buyers, this is exactly how you would do it. There seems to be no long term plan, other than rinse the fans.
 
 

[Motomouse]

Still too expensive for me [:-]

After reinstalling COTA I bought it anyway [8D] . Dont know yet how to justify it at the next local budget war

It is definitly worth the cost: Scenarios, features, tutorials ... [:)]
I also played the HPS Bulge game and I really enjoy to revisit the battle via the Panther game. Very interesting!
But still too expensive for me. (So my signature is here to stay). Let´s see if I survive the budget war

Regards
Motomouse

P.S. I prefer to shell out my money in tasty chunks, not in one big heap!

[daft]

ORIGINAL: Motomouse

Let´s see if I survive the budget war

Regards
Motomouse

P.S. I prefer to shell out my money in tasty chunks, not in one big heap!

You won't. The Bulge was a playground compared to The battle of the Budget. It really isn't pretty. I'm a seasoned veteran of several and lucky to be alive. In a statistical sense, I should have died about a dozen times already.

[wworld7]

ORIGINAL: Foolio

At the end of the the day this is a PC game, so it will be measured again other PC games. In that respect it is way overpriced, especially when you compare it how Steam operates. I mean you don't even get a permanent on-line copy.

Talking from a purely business point of view, if you were actively trying to discourage first time buyers, this is exactly how you would do it. There seems to be no long term plan, other than rinse the fans.

It seems that you overlook the many and varied titles Matrix offers at entry level prices. The wargame business has changed over the last thirty-five years, it is no longer realistic to take a top-of-the-line title and price it in the entry level category. I've been wargamming for over 40 years and while it would be nice to return to the days of $8.00 games...those days are gone along with 25 cent cokes and 75 cent packs of smokes....

[Foolio]

I'm comparing PC games, which is what BftB is. New PC games cost around £40 not around £70, therefore BftB is expensive compared to all other games except wargames, apparently.

The simple fact is that the pricing of BtfB is going to scare off anyone who isn't a regular wargamer, has money to burn or likes taking a risk.

Wargaming is a niche market at best, and if Matrix were just aiming to keep their existing AA player-base constant and rinse as much money as possible from it then that's up to them. But I reckon they are going to struggle to expand upon that core player-base with this price model.

To me, it's like having a football ground 50% full at £70 a ticket. When they could have it 100% full at £40. Rather than pricing the game to appeal to a wider market and get more fans, they price it to milk as much as possible out of the existing punters.

[wodin]

Actually though it says different you can download the game as often as you want...I redownloaded Battles in Italy the other day and I ordered it when it first came out a few years ago now...

[Heva]

Long time lurker being forced to go against his nature here over this price issue, i too have been eargerly waiting for this game, and having purchased all the series so far the price increase is the only problem for me so i wont be purchasing, possably ever. this seems to be no way to thank PG's loyal customers who bought the early games on faith and stuck with the series for what, almost ten years?
 
However, the main reason im posting is down to all the flak i see flying about, i gotta say i realy understand why alot of people would be angry at the price increase, i also understand that anyone who actualy bought the game at this massively inflated price will feel the need to (sometimes vigorously) defend the large amount of money paid out, after all i dont care what planet your on $100 dollars is a lot of money (any comments refuting this will just prove how ignorant of real life anybody is)
 
So to all those who might be fortunate enough to be ignorant and all those who merely feel the need to defend an expensive purchase try to be aware of why your voicing your opinion and cut all of us who cant afford it (wether due to principle or not being able to afford it) some slack.

[SlickWilhelm]

I loved COTA and am a huge Panther Games fan. For me the deal breaker was the battle chosen, not so much the price, although I did get a bit of sticker shock when I first saw the price. 

I could justify the price for this game if it were recreating one of a hundred different battles(El Alamein or the battle of France, anyone?) in WWII. But $79.99 for yet another Bulge wargame? Sorry, I'm going to have to give this one a pass, or at least wait til modders make some different battles from some less well-traveled era.

[Hertston]

ORIGINAL: Slick Wilhelm
I loved COTA and am a huge Panther Games fan. For me the deal breaker was the battle chosen, not so much the price, although I did get a bit of sticker shock when I first saw the price. 

I could justify the price for this game if it were recreating one of a hundred different battles(El Alamein or the battle of France, anyone?) in WWII. But $79.99 for yet another Bulge wargame? Sorry, I'm going to have to give this one a pass, or at least wait til modders make some different battles from some less well-traveled era.

That was always a no-win scenario. I'd far rather have seen other subject matter as well, but the trouble is that the less well-travelled eras and theatres don't sell. Look at CotA; the subject matter was perfectly suited to the game engine and produced some fascinating gaming but if we are honest how much better would it have sold 'if it had had Americans in it'? Even some possibilities that do ('Patton's Charge' was floated way back in the RDoA days) just don't have the same sexiness as the Bulge or Normandy to many, even if we have been there umpteen times before. The good news, though, is that we've never done the Bulge like this, and it really is a totally different experience.