Price of this game.

[Rasputitsa]

I don't see where this discussion is going, the producer decides how much they wish to charge for a product, the customer decides if they want to buy it. End of story.

I paid £84 GBP for WIR in 1986, and I'll pay for WitE when it's issued, because I want more of the same quality of game in the future. [:)]

[aciddrinker]

same crying was about War In The Pacific: Admirals Edition, as life showed people paying 70$ for game becouse is worth of price.

[Capt Cliff]

Considering what Matrix's new Bulge game is going for, $90 US, I can see this puppy going for $120 US. If that's so then please tell me now so I don't waste anymore time watching this forum. I won't buy the Bulge game for $90 and I won't buy this game for $120. Remember we are in a recession and these games are a pure luxury.

[Zemke]

I AGREE, and even a $100 is not that much money for the quality of game we are talking about, particularly when considering we were paying $40 and $50 in the 80s.

What really gets me is when I pay anything over $50 and the game is a dog, like Combat Mission: Shock Force, which in fairness to BFC, they have done their best to fix the issues, but it disappeared from my hard drive about six months after buying it, hoping I would like it.

I trust 2by2 and Gary to do this right.

[Berkut]

The thing about software is that almost all of the costs associated with it is upfront and/or fixed. There is almost no marginal costs in selling another piece of software.

It isn't like a car, for example, where the car itself costs the builder money to create, and NOT selling the car is preferable to selling it at a loss.

This makes pricing, at least theoretically, very simple. The total net revenue equals

Price of game x number of buyers. Whatever maximizes that number is the right price. Of course, the more you charge, the fewer will buy.

So arguments about what the game is "worth" is largely meaningless - it won't be priced based on some idea that it is worth X or Y dollars. It will be priced where ever it must be to maximize total revenue. And I think (I certainly hope at least) that Matrix has a good idea where the right spot is - they've sold a lot of games using this mechanism, and are liekly to have pretty solid data about where the sweet spot is...

However - the price of a game is not fixed - it goes down over time, at least in most cases. So part of their decision is the knowledge that the consumer, if they are patient, can "wait out" a high price. It will show up on sale somewhere, eventually. So that factors in as well - a too high price may simply delay purchases until it drops.

[Theng]

I paid 430 DM in 1986 for WIR. I worked for 6 weeks, 40h per weeek, as a 16 year old to be able to afford the game. It was worth it.

[joeblack1862]

ORIGINAL: Berkut

So arguments about what the game is "worth" is largely meaningless - it won't be priced based on some idea that it is worth X or Y dollars. It will be priced where ever it must be to maximize total revenue.

Totally agree. "Worth" is a personal matter. Each individual will decide whether to buy or not to buy based on there own desires and circumstances.

For me, I have no idea whether I will consider this game is worth the price because it does not yet have one.

I also do not know if it will be a game I want to play; some games I have not purchased simply because I know I do not have the time needed to play them.

[wworld7]

ORIGINAL: Berkut

The thing about software is that almost all of the costs associated with it is upfront and/or fixed. There is almost no marginal costs in selling another piece of software.

It isn't like a car, for example, where the car itself costs the builder money to create, and NOT selling the car is preferable to selling it at a loss.

This makes pricing, at least theoretically, very simple. The total net revenue equals

Price of game x number of buyers. Whatever maximizes that number is the right price. Of course, the more you charge, the fewer will buy.

So arguments about what the game is "worth" is largely meaningless - it won't be priced based on some idea that it is worth X or Y dollars. It will be priced where ever it must be to maximize total revenue. And I think (I certainly hope at least) that Matrix has a good idea where the right spot is - they've sold a lot of games using this mechanism, and are liekly to have pretty solid data about where the sweet spot is...

However - the price of a game is not fixed - it goes down over time, at least in most cases. So part of their decision is the knowledge that the consumer, if they are patient, can "wait out" a high price. It will show up on sale somewhere, eventually. So that factors in as well - a too high price may simply delay purchases until it drops.

Most of what you write is valid for the 1st printing of a software package, even though you leave out significant non-fixed costs like advertising, post release software work, storage etc. If a 2nd or 3rd printing is needed these costs are rarely factored in on the 1st run. Also, depending upon how the contract is written profit margins can go way up or way down per unit. There are many variables in the software industry, in the end value is up to each person to decide. For me, I would pay $1,000 for a 100% accurate port to PC of AH's Stalingrad, D-Day, Afrika Korp or 3R, but they will never happen.

[wodin]

ORIGINAL: Zemke_4

I AGREE, and even a $100 is not that much money for the quality of game we are talking about, particularly when considering we were paying $40 and $50 in the 80s.

What really gets me is when I pay anything over $50 and the game is a dog, like Combat Mission: Shock Force, which in fairness to BFC, they have done their best to fix the issues, but it disappeared from my hard drive about six months after buying it, hoping I would like it.

I trust 2by2 and Gary to do this right.

I stayed well clear of CMSF until a year or so ago when I watched some user made video competition winner. It looked like something I'd enjoy..so I bought it...I was taken by suprise how much I enjoyed it and how well it played (I haven't experienced anything that detracts from the gameplay) considering how poor it was when first released. I then bought the Marine module and recently bought the British module and I have to say it has become a classic game for me. I'm not even keen on the setting but (especially the brit module) it has sucked me in. I've played a few brit scenarios so far and they have ranged from very good to superb...edge of the seat stuff.

To say I'm gobsmacked at how good the game is now is an understatement.

I never thought I'd say this but I'm even looking forward to the NATO module, as the Brit module in particular has totally altered the game and how you have to take on the Syrians.

Roll on CM Normandy aswell.

BTW WitE is another purchase for me but it will have to be an Xmas pressie I think.

[pompack]

ORIGINAL: wodin

ORIGINAL: Zemke_4

I AGREE, and even a $100 is not that much money for the quality of game we are talking about, particularly when considering we were paying $40 and $50 in the 80s.

What really gets me is when I pay anything over $50 and the game is a dog, like Combat Mission: Shock Force, which in fairness to BFC, they have done their best to fix the issues, but it disappeared from my hard drive about six months after buying it, hoping I would like it.

I trust 2by2 and Gary to do this right.

I stayed well clear of CMSF until a year or so ago when I watched some user made video competition winner. It looked like something I'd enjoy..so I bought it...I was taken by suprise how much I enjoyed it and how well it played (I haven't experienced anything that detracts from the gameplay) considering how poor it was when first released. I then bought the Marine module and recently bought the British module and I have to say it has become a classic game for me. I'm not even keen on the setting but (especially the brit module) it has sucked me in. I've played a few brit scenarios so far and they have ranged from very good to superb...edge of the seat stuff.

To say I'm gobsmacked at how good the game is now is an understatement.

I never thought I'd say this but I'm even looking forward to the NATO module, as the Brit module in particular has totally altered the game and how you have to take on the Syrians.

Roll on CM Normandy aswell.

BTW WitE is another purchase for me but it will have to be an Xmas pressie I think.

Hopefully it will be finished by then [;)]

[Rasputitsa]

[/quote]

There are many variables in the software industry, in the end value is up to each person to decide. For me, I would pay $1,000 for a 100% accurate port to PC of AH's Stalingrad, D-Day, Afrika Korp or 3R, but they will never happen.


[/quote]

I have '3R for PC' (direct copy of the board game transfered to PC) up and running on all my computers, including a laptop running Vista, many old games will still play using the DOSbox emulator, or something similar. Most of this is available on free download, so you can hang on to your $1000. [:)]

[wworld7]

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa

There are many variables in the software industry, in the end value is up to each person to decide. For me, I would pay $1,000 for a 100% accurate port to PC of AH's Stalingrad, D-Day, Afrika Korp or 3R, but they will never happen.

I have '3R for PC' (direct copy of the board game transfered to PC) up and running on all my computers, including a laptop running Vista, many old games will still play using the DOSbox emulator, or something similar. Most of this is available on free download, so you can hang on to your $1000. [:)]

I was a Beta tester on AH's 3R for the PC and when the code was locked it fell far short of what I desired. It was far from a 100% accurate port. That said, it did get some things right, just not enough for me. With another 12 months of developement time it may have been very good. Alas the budget didn't allow for this, so it was pushed out the door...a little early...and then funding for patch work dried up. A very sad day for people who liked 3RPC. [&:][&:][&:]

[british exil]

Was reading a magazine about expensive watches, real expensive ones the Rolex being among the cheaper ones. And I read a quote which made me think about the games Matrix is bringing out.

"It is not enough to expect a man to pay for the best, you must also give him what he pays for." Alfred Dunhill


I think this quotation really brings out what we expect for our "few" cents we have/are willing to spend on WitE and maybe a few others.


Mat

[Capt Cliff]

It would be nice if we could get a ballpark figure from Matrix. Like say WitP'ish price or even $80 +/- $10.

[billyjj]

You can expect a lot more of these "premium" games to start popping up now that 80 dollars has been accepted as the new price for games. I don't understand why everyone is in support of paying more for games on this forum, I guess maybe I'm not as serious a gamer... I mean people saying they would pay 100 dollars are you freaking serious????? for a video game that should be 40 bucks max?

[billyjj]

ORIGINAL: Berkut

The thing about software is that almost all of the costs associated with it is upfront and/or fixed. There is almost no marginal costs in selling another piece of software.

It isn't like a car, for example, where the car itself costs the builder money to create, and NOT selling the car is preferable to selling it at a loss.

This makes pricing, at least theoretically, very simple. The total net revenue equals

Price of game x number of buyers. Whatever maximizes that number is the right price. Of course, the more you charge, the fewer will buy.

So arguments about what the game is "worth" is largely meaningless - it won't be priced based on some idea that it is worth X or Y dollars. It will be priced where ever it must be to maximize total revenue. And I think (I certainly hope at least) that Matrix has a good idea where the right spot is - they've sold a lot of games using this mechanism, and are liekly to have pretty solid data about where the sweet spot is...

However - the price of a game is not fixed - it goes down over time, at least in most cases. So part of their decision is the knowledge that the consumer, if they are patient, can "wait out" a high price. It will show up on sale somewhere, eventually. So that factors in as well - a too high price may simply delay purchases until it drops.

This is pretty much true, but I could add that it may not delay the purchases it might just kill the sale all together, because by the time the "sale" comes the excitement has warn off. Release is the best time to sell something because you got peoples excitement level at its highest... They have realized that a lot of people here are willing to pay double and they are majorly hyping these games to build ether, I will be curious in a few months what happens in the BftB thread when the initial excitement has worn off and they realize its just like any other game.

[SGHunt]

I don't know about BftB (I returned the original Red Devils game to the shop - I just couldn't get caught up in the excitement, even though I could see the quality of the build, the AI etc).     

But this game does seem to be something really very special.   Fantastic detail and real attention to the history, the strategic constraints etc yet a really simple interface.   Easy to learn, really difficult to master, like chess.

Most of all, from what we see from the two AAR's to date, is that the game play is really exciting.    The options (and outcomes) for operational and tactical decisions seem to be enormous.   Just look at the discussions here.   It does seem to warrant a premium of some kind (though not too much of a premium [;)]), mainly because of the re-playability.  

[pvthudson01]

It wouldnt mind getting it if we could know the documentation wouldnt suck

[Neal_MLC]

I have been watching this game for sometime now, reading the AARs, and complaining that its not released yet just like everybody else. The one thing I am not going to complain about is the expected proce of $80-$100.  This is like complaing that the cost of a Mercedez-Benz is too high.  When you buy and MB you expect quality and you get it.  This game will have quality built into it and I expect that, because if it doesn't I won't buy another.  Joel and the gang know this. Not only are they developers, they are businessmen and women who understand the market. They have not arbitrarily assigned a price to this game but through experience and business savvy know what price the market (wargamers) will support. My advice to potential buyers is that if you want a $40 game go somewhere else.  If you want quality then be willing to pay the price and remember... you get what you pay for.
 
 
Is this thing in Beta yet??

[V22 Osprey]

I have no issue with the price, it looks like a great game it's just like what Neal_MLC said, we can only expect quality in this game....However, I do have to also agree with billyjj.....you guys saying "I would pay a million dollars for WitE" is only letting the devs and matrix know it's ok to jack up the prices. I may have no problem paying $80 for WitE, but that doesn't I WANT to. Plus the price leaves our fellow wargamers who unfortunately do not have $80 bucks lying around to spend on a game are left in cold. I think that selling thousands of copies at $60 is better selling only a few hundred at $80. Plus, the community as whole benefit as we would have way more players and you wouldn't have to wait days to find an opponent.

I had no issues paying $80 for WitP AE but let me tell you I had to pull teeth to get it....