Yippeeeeeeeee

[waclaw]

Comparing two whole products, which share only superficial things in common, is not very useful. Because in the end a person doesn't decide to buy CM because of any one feature, but the combination of all of them. A combination that no other game has. At least as far as I know. The only two games I can think to compare against aren't really all that similar. One didn't even compare that well to CMBO, the other has some good points but most CM players don't think too much of it. It's also more restrictive from a gameplay standpoint and costs about the same (last time I checked).

On the other hand, it's *VERY* easy to compare different FPS or RTS games against each other because the are almost completely identical to each other. Gameplay is nearly identical, features are nearly identical, graphics are nearly identical, etc. Even the ones that cost $50,000,000 to make don't seem that different to me than the ones which cost $25,000,000 to make.

I'm always eager to hear about other relevant games to compare against. Though it doesn't really matter. We're not getting rich from making CM so if people tell us to make the games cheaper they will get less game. So far, even after 15 years, our customers have told us the exact opposite.

Steve

I understand, but every game we buy because of the combination of different characteristics - but perhaps more accurately compared to the CM series of strategy games than for games such as "First-person shooter"?

but compared with other games in the segment, you can see how the game is good or poor - that's why we see the uniqueness of the CM series from other startegii. and that is why we buy it;)

[umlaut]

Considering the playtime I get out of the CM series, they are quite cheap IMHO. In fact the CM series is about the only thing I devote my precious little gaming time to.

CM is great value for money and is in a league of it's own!

My words exactly.

(For some reason this reminds me of an interview with a danish rock singer who had taken up chicken farming as a sort of secondary business. When asked, he had to admit it wasn´t really profitable at all:

"But considering the amount of time I spend on it, the deficit per hour isn´t that large.")

[Waffen_PL]

So if we are talking about money and prices few thoughts: If we are compering games it's imo better to compare games that are addressed to specific players or community - wargaming and history in this case. In this case. CM prices are high and specially if someone want to have at least one full game(modules cost like most regular games). There is very little competition in this genre so probably best to compare is Achtung Panzer/Graviteam tactics.Otherwise better then comparing with something like Call of Duty is to compare whit different genres but addressed to historical/wargaming/simulation market(i don't know how to describe it, hope it's clear) so this could be for example games like AGEOD games, Paradox games(they are selling modules too but it's far cheaper to complete one game) some simulations like Steel Fury, Silent Hunter or Sturmovik and maybe games like Total War can fit this too. Maybe Civilization

We're not getting rich from making CM so if people tell us to make the games cheaper they will get less game. So far, even after 15 years, our customers have told us the exact opposite.

I disagree. I still think that this is bad move. Yes I see that you have plenty of customers who eventually would buy MG module even there was only a bridge and the mill ;P but I see many old CM players that has stopped playing CM. But whenever someone is trying to point the reasons of this you called them socialistic mind that wants something for free lol. This is not the point. There is no problem that you are selling modules/upgrades. The problem imo is even not the prices for game or module itself. The problem is all of that together. For many(of course you will not find them here ) this game is divided in to too many small pieces(but whith quite high prices) thus making this game very pricey. Right now it wasn't so bad because every module actually add something new and different(however there are some important thins that still need to be fixed while you are publishing new modules and games) but we have first problem imo with MG module. The biggest problem Imo will be cutting eastern front into as I remember 4 separate(but similar if not almost the same) games with their own 2,3,4 modules. This is to big fragmentation(and the prices are not coaxing and are not so competitive as some people are trying to prove ) for many potential customers, more than you could supposed by viewing this forum.

IMO you are making same bad thing as matrix publisher. Because they are selling niche games on difficult market they treat them like some kind of luxury gods. And they are killing those games. They are closing this market to some fans who will buy games they like regardless of their price but at the same time they are throwing away many potential customers and thus making this comunity closed. And I still think that this market has some potential. There are all over the world many people more or less interested in history, military, WWII etc. This proofs why from time to time there are such succeses like Silent Hunter, Total War or Sturmovik There are many potential customers which even don't know about such games(they brought up with games like CoD or Company of Heroeos) and if they know they are not encountered by the wargamers "elitism"

[Seedorf81]

Could it be that age has something to do with the "money-view"?

I mean, I still remember one of the first war games for PC I ever saw (1987?):

A straight line across the monochrome (with eerie green or orange glow) screen represented the surface of the sea. On it a very simple little "warship" that would move from left to right and vice versa by use of the left/right keyboard arrows.

Below the "surface of the sea" randomly appeared a sketchy made U-boat at different depths and that traveled in the oppositional way of the "warship".

Upon touching the spacebar a little depth charge (the digit "o") fell off the stern off the '"warship", and if you were smart enough to drop that on to the sub, you scored a point.

That was it, and we played it for times on end during our breaks.

Because of that memory I realize how unimaginable beautiful and very advanced the current CM games are, COMPARED TO WHAT WE HAD NOT SO LONG AGO! But of course, if I was about twenty years old now, my reference framework would be a whole lot different and I would probably expect much more, much faster, much cheaper.

Maybe a little poll?

I'm an old fart, in a few days 51, and I think we don't pay to much.

Please state age and money-view in replies, so we can discover if we, the old people, are getting senile :confused: and are paying too much!

[PanzerMike]

41, live and kickin', and yes if you look at how much bang for the buck CM provides compared to wargames in the olden days....

I would pay double the price for... ow wait, BFC reads these forums too. Nothing to see here folks, move on.

[Waffen_PL]

It wasn't me to start talking about money. But saying that this game is cheap because i found other game that cost 60 dollars and has pack with 4 maps for 15$ is bad comparison

And yes i don't doubt that you here don't think it's too much. I know that from the beginning. Everyone knows that. I said that. But you are not all. And claiming that only few asswholes irrationally complain about this or that just because you are relating only to this forum is not true.

There are to ways. BF can do like Matrix Games. Dug in with their loyal iron fans who would buy their beloved games anyway but close it for new ones. Or try to attract new players too. But making 4 identical sliced Eastern Front Games for 60 dollars with 4 modules for 35 dollars and x upgrades for 10 dollars where for example one upgrade will add flamthrowers second will add gun camo and third would add better hunt order is not good way.

[poesel]

Maybe a little poll?

There was one a few months ago. IIRC the average was around 42.

[Seedorf81]

There was one a few months ago. IIRC the average was around 42.

yeah, age-poll, but that wasn't money-related..

[Waffen_PL]

I had many friends and people that were playing CMx1. Most of them give up CMx2. You don't have to agree with me, you don't have agree with them. But right now you are simply ignoring these opinions just like it was only few morons who want game for free. From my experience Combat Mission has lost significant amount of players, but yes i don't have any info how it is selling it's just my experience. BF can ignore them or make some compromises. You all can ignore them and say that they have no rational argument but then don't you ever cry why there are so few new players and community is hermetic if you don't want to hear their answers

[ASL Veteran]

It wasn't me to start talking about money. But saying that this game is cheap because i found other game that cost 60 dollars and has pack with 4 maps for 15$ is bad comparison

And yes i don't doubt that you here don't think it's too much. I know that from the beginning. Everyone knows that. I said that. But you are not all. And claiming that only few asswholes irrationally complain about this or that just because you are relating only to this forum is not true.

There are to ways. BF can do like Matrix Games. Dug in with their loyal iron fans who would buy their beloved games anyway but close it for new ones. Or try to attract new players too. But making 4 identical sliced Eastern Front Games for 60 dollars with 4 modules for 35 dollars and x upgrades for 10 dollars where for example one upgrade will add flamthrowers second will add gun camo and third would add better hunt order is not good way.

Your only job as the customer is to decide whether or not you obtain value from your purchase. If you don't think that you will gain an appropriate amount of value from your purchase then you don't make it. If you are a working professional then you can afford the price - it's not a function of whether or not you can afford it. It's a function of the perception that you have of the value that you gain from purchasing the product vs the price that you pay for it. If the developer is able to remain profitable with the current pricing structure then the market is telling the developer that their product is appropriately priced. It would only make sense to alter the price if they can project a higher gross income from sales by doing so. One more purchase probably isn't going to be enough I'm afraid. Whether or not you feel you gain a level of value out of the product that you are comfortable with is entirely up to you.

[Aragorn2002]

It wasn't me to start talking about money. But saying that this game is cheap because i found other game that cost 60 dollars and has pack with 4 maps for 15$ is bad comparison

And yes i don't doubt that you here don't think it's too much. I know that from the beginning. Everyone knows that. I said that. But you are not all. And claiming that only few asswholes irrationally complain about this or that just because you are relating only to this forum is not true.

There are to ways. BF can do like Matrix Games. Dug in with their loyal iron fans who would buy their beloved games anyway but close it for new ones. Or try to attract new players too. But making 4 identical sliced Eastern Front Games for 60 dollars with 4 modules for 35 dollars and x upgrades for 10 dollars where for example one upgrade will add flamthrowers second will add gun camo and third would add better hunt order is not good way.

Personally I'm fed up with all this talk about money. I'm glad this company is taking the trouble of making quality games and I'm more than willing to pay for it. They don't rip us off, they don't even think about ripping us off, it is just a matter of good business. I very much doubt the community would be much larger if the price was lower. There's enough cheap rubbish around, so pick your choice or pay up and suffer in silence.

And let's make no mistake about it, if BF doesn't finish all these games, no one will. Paying them for quality games and ensure they will continue to make them seems like a small problem to me.

[BLSTK]

Bang on, Aragorn. Some people want apples. Others want oranges. Either way, ya gotta pay.

[sfhand]

...

The biggest problem Imo will be cutting eastern front into as I remember 4 separate(but similar if not almost the same) games with their own 2,3,4 modules...

You may want to read this:

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1456940&postcount=508

...

Eastern Front is too massive to do anything but chop it up into major yearly components. The current plan is to have these divided up into 4 Families (as described above), but we're going to play that by ear. It may prove better to have this be an exception and consist of one Base, 3-7 Modules (as defined above), and oodles of Packs. Currently I'm leaning towards the latter, but until you hear otherwise it's still the original 4 Family concept with modified Module/Pack strategy. We have time to figure this out as Bagration (the first EF game) is well along and yet which way we go doesn't really matter at this point.

Steve

So, the biggest problem for you might not even happen...

[Aragorn2002]

The more they 'chop it up', the more it will contain, won't it? Which is a good thing. In fact I wouldn't mind having a Family for each month, as long as they fill them up with everything we want!

[Seedorf81]

Beelzeboss,

You can't seriously expect Battlefront to squeeze four years of Eastern Front war (A multitude of battlegrounds with near endless differences in size, landscape, weapons and uniforms, weather and what not) in one single game, can you?

[Heirloom_Tomato]

I am 33 and have zero problem with the price. I have played these games since 2000 and have never thought BFC was charging too much money. I have bought a lot of games over the last 13 years. Some I bought as soon as they were released and paid $50-$60 a game. Others I waited a few months until the price dropped and then pick the game up. Most of those games I played for a month or two and then lost interest. I still play CMBO, CMBB or CMAK at least once a month. These are the only games older than 5 years still on my hard drive today. I play CMBN and CMFI at least once a day every day since I bought the games and I have only scratched the surface of what the game has to offer. The PBEM play is limitless with this series.

I will happily pay the $35 for MG as soon as it is available. The extra content is totally worth the money. I see no problem with how BFC has setup their pricing structure and hope they continue to make fantastic games for many years to come.

[Battlefront.com]

CM prices are high and specially if someone want to have at least one full game(modules cost like most regular games). There is very little competition in this genre so probably best to compare is Achtung Panzer/Graviteam tactics.

We have very little competition because there is very little money to be made from making these sorts of games. Which gets me to this point...

But whenever someone is trying to point the reasons of this you called them socialistic mind that wants something for free lol. This is not the point.

No, this is actually the ONLY point

The problem is all of that together. For many(of course you will not find them here ) this game is divided in to too many small pieces(but whith quite high prices) thus making this game very pricey.

The prices are "high" because our costs are high and our customer base limited. Sure, if we were selling to millions of people we could afford to make the prices lower because we'd be rich. But this is not the case with wargaming. Which is why I say there are two options:

1. We can lower the prices by reducing the content and quality of what is in each game. You pay less, but you get less.

2. We can keep things the same and if you don't like it you can buy something else.

Obviously if there are enough people taking Option #2 then we are going to be forced to lower our prices, which means we will be forced to lower the content/quality.

There is no Option #3 where we lower our prices but keep the content/quality the same. Not to mention Option #4 where we increase the content/quality but also decrease the price.

This is to big fragmentation(and the prices are not coaxing and are not so competitive as some people are trying to prove ) for many potential customers, more than you could supposed by viewing this forum.

I have the luxury of looking at sales numbers, which mean more than looking at this Forum

But here is where your argument runs into problems. We "Fragment" the games because we don't think anybody wants to pay $125 for a single game at one time that takes 3 years to make. So we break it up into pieces and people can choose to buy some or all of the content. This gives players more options to spend less money and to enjoy at least part of the game now instead of nothing.

And I still think that this market has some potential. There are all over the world many people more or less interested in history, military, WWII etc. This proofs why from time to time there are such succeses like Silent Hunter, Total War or Sturmovik There are many potential customers which even don't know about such games(they brought up with games like CoD or Company of Heroeos) and if they know they are not encountered by the wargamers "elitism"

I have been making wargames for 20 years. This "wider audience" does not exist for non-first person type games. It never has, as the guys who were making wargames since the 1970s told me when I first got started.

There is a truth in wargaming that I have seen. The wargames that try to please everybody wind up pleasing nobody. And that is the end of the game company that tried.

This is not to say we couldn't make a different type of wargame that appeals to a wider audience. For sure we can. But it wouldn't be Combat Mission as you know it. It would be closer to Company of Heroes, only better gameplay and a few $10s of millions less artwork and marketing. And without the $10s of millions in artwork and marketing we aren't likely to interest the larger market in the first place. And if we did spend that kind of money then we'd need to make sure we got our investment back, which means keeping the prices high.

While I don't call people "Socialists" for having no understanding of how game development works, I do think that people who don't understand the fundamentals of economics shouldn't be trying to tell us how to run our business.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Beelzeboss,

You can't seriously expect Battlefront to squeeze four years of Eastern Front war (A multitude of battlegrounds with near endless differences in size, landscape, weapons and uniforms, weather and what not) in one single game, can you?

And charge $35 for it

The argument for us trying to hit a "wider audience" with an Eastern Front theme is, actually, laughable. We have a hard enough time selling Eastern Front games to people who like wargames. Trying to sell an Eastern Front game to someone who doesn't already like wargames is probably as hard as selling snow to an Eskimo. Not something we're interested in trying to do!

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Personally I'm fed up with all this talk about money. I'm glad this company is taking the trouble of making quality games and I'm more than willing to pay for it. They don't rip us off, they don't even think about ripping us off, it is just a matter of good business. I very much doubt the community would be much larger if the price was lower. There's enough cheap rubbish around, so pick your choice or pay up and suffer in silence.

Thanks and I largely agree, with one exception. Remember that our audience is world wide. Yes, the vast majority live and work in countries that have fairly good standards of living. But even within those there's a large amount of unemployment that lasts for years. Then there are all the other countries that have lower standards of living and that means their money doesn't go very far for our products.

With that in mind I do understand people wanting our products to cost less because because they don't have a lot of money to spend. This is very understandable. The problem with this is it has nothing to do with our costs or our pricing. Which means we will lose some customers because they can not afford our products. I'm sorry to know this happens, but it is outside of our control.

Steve

[Lt Belenko]

Steve,

Just keep doing what you're doing at current prices. You're doing a great job. A grumbling wargamer is a happy wargamer. Ignore the naysayers.

- - - - - -

Per your earlier post, I concur you should make EF one game with 5-7 modules and oodles** of Packs. Us technology semi-literate folks would prefer to launch one game and play all the various time periods (41 to 45) without needing to re-launch.

**Numerically speaking how much is an oodle anyway?

[PanzerMike]

I aint grumbling, yet I am a happy wargamer. Now let's all shut up and give Steve our money :-)

[iMolestCats]

Per your earlier post, I concur you should make EF one game with 5-7 modules and oodles** of Packs. Us technology semi-literate folks would prefer to launch one game and play all the various time periods (41 to 45) without needing to re-launch.

**Numerically speaking how much is an oodle anyway?

I completely agree with that. 4 different base games with a few modules each? Please don't do this to us .

Last time i checked an oodle was $15, but the price may have gone up.

[Fizou]

IMO BFC should keep doing what they are doing. I like the new model that gives us gamers the option to keep older titles "new" with upgrades and to add new content with modules. The pricing is not to step its closer to cheap IMO (the dollar being weak right now might have a bit to do with that).

[Pak40]

There is no problem that you are selling modules/upgrades. The problem imo is even not the prices for game or module itself. The problem is all of that together. For many(of course you will not find them here ) this game is divided in to too many small pieces(but whith quite high prices) thus making this game very pricey. Right now it wasn't so bad because every module actually add something new and different(however there are some important thins that still need to be fixed while you are publishing new modules and games) but we have first problem imo with MG module.

I really don't see how this is any different from major game publishers that are going for max audiences. Example, Civilization franchise: With every new version they have at least two add-on expansions both costing $35. This is no different than CMBN. Almost every popular game that is mass marketed now has expansions/modules or whatever you want to call it.

The biggest problem Imo will be cutting eastern front into as I remember 4 separate(but similar if not almost the same) games with their own 2,3,4 modules. This is to big fragmentation(and the prices are not coaxing and are not so competitive as some people are trying to prove )

I remember the last tactical level wargame that covered the entire Eastern Front": Close Combat III. It was a fragmented mess of a campaign and made little sense. It would have been a much more cohesive product if they focused on a major battle or time period. Instead they tried to cram everything into one product and ended up pleasing very few of their customers after the very popular CCII:ABtF

IMO you are making same bad thing as matrix publisher. Because they are selling niche games on difficult market they treat them like some kind of luxury gods. And they are killing those games. They are closing this market to some fans who will buy games they like regardless of their price but at the same time they are throwing away many potential customers and thus making this comunity closed.

I'm not sure which Matrix Games you're talking about. The one that has grown in size every year and keeps adding many high quality games (and customers) every time I go to their site?

And I still think that this market has some potential. There are all over the world many people more or less interested in history, military, WWII etc. This proofs why from time to time there are such succeses like Silent Hunter, Total War or Sturmovik There are many potential customers which even don't know about such games(they brought up with games like CoD or Company of Heroeos) and if they know they are not encountered by the wargamers "elitism"

And do you really think that eliminating the moduled approach is going to suddenly make them aware of games like CMBN?

[daft]

And charge $35 for it

The argument for us trying to hit a "wider audience" with an Eastern Front theme is, actually, laughable. We have a hard enough time selling Eastern Front games to people who like wargames. Trying to sell an Eastern Front game to someone who doesn't already like wargames is probably as hard as selling snow to an Eskimo. Not something we're interested in trying to do!

Steve

Really? I can see how Italy would be a hard sell, but the Eastern front? Is this an US thing as in no US troops on the Eastern front, hence lower interest in that theater? Just look at all the possible scenarios and campaigns available for that part of the war and I would imagine there would be sufficient interest from a very large group of people. Live and learn I guess.