A new players questions

[ASL Veteran]

In fairness to the pricing policy the 'game' isn't CMBN, the CW module, the MG module and the 2.0 and 3.0 (when it is released) upgrades. The 'game' is the CMBN base game so you aren't paying $100 for the game. You only have to buy the base game and that's your game. The rest of the stuff is additional to the game. I think that Galactic Civilization 3 was charging $99 on Steam for us to have the opportunity to purchase a Beta version of the game. I was thinking about getting the next version of Galactic Civilization, but $100 for a beta version was too much for me and I've passed on it so far. That game doesn't even have additional modules so you can't even break up the price if you choose to do so. I'm not sure what CMBN by itself is currently going for - what is it maybe $40 or something? There is your game - CMBN. If you wait a few weeks it might even come to pass that the 2.0 upgrade will be rolled into the price of CMBN after the 3.0 upgrade comes out. I don't know that for certain, but I've seen hints that it might be on the table so you never know.

[Pelican Pal]

The only possible alternative is for BF to make less money. Unless someone thinks they are just rolling in dough and cavorting around like a bunch of adolescent dot com billionaires, then the suggestion is they should make do with less. This is their income, it has to cover their salary, health care and retirement beyond simply the costs to produce the game, maintain the website and all the rest of the costs to run a business.

The only alternative is not to make less money. Like that isn't how business works. Would BFC make more money if they sold each game for $150 and each module for $75? Cause that is what you are saying.

Right now I've spent $75 on CM and I've gotten CMBN and CMRT. I am not going to spend another $150 dollars for CMFI and the CMBN modules. Now I might spend $75 for all of those items. In that case BFC didn't lose $150, They made $75. Which is the basis of price points. Not all of their customers will buy everything they are able to. So while at the current price 10 people might be buying at a lower price 25 people will. Per item this is less but in total it is more income.

And yes it is a truth that CM is an amazing value. Ask anyone of us that have been playing this product for years while other games have long collected dust in a corner or been discarded and that includes games that cost more. You say $10 will get you that game that will provide all of the above and 100s of hours of entertainment. Name one and then let's venture out into a true comparison. What $10 game am I going to be playing day in and day out for the next 10 years. If you truly think you know of such a game, I suggest you save your money and go buy it instead.

Okay, Red Orchestra 2 and I'll throw the original in just to meet your time requirement. RO1 has literally been free on multiple occasions. While RO2 and the expansion for that game has been under $10 multiple times. Now combined I've played those two games 7 years and I have a logged (cause Steam tracks time played) 410 hours in RO2. They even release free content fairly regularly.

Oh yeah, last question- is that/will that $10 game company still be here in 15 years? If you are really interested in understanding what the game cost buys you, you need to look at the whole picture.

Tripwire Interactive (the developers of Red Orchestra 1/2 and Rising Storm the Pacific expansion for RO2) were founded in 2005. Unfortunately the year is only 2014. So they have only been in business for just short of a decade. However, they seem to be doing quite well. In fact they are preparing to release more games as we speak.

Another pretty stellar example is Paradox Interactive.

Anyway the point is charging more money for a game does not equal a higher income. If I only have $40 to spend I won't be buying your $50 product while I will buy a $40 dollar product. And while CM is pretty unique (the only real competitor being Graviteam tactics. Although I think I also remember another game called Panzer Command or something?)

Now BFC has survived this long on their current pricing model and as far as I am concerned they can continue doing so. However, it is not the only way to market these games. It is one of many options. Any number of these options could cause BFC to make more or less money than they are currently. It depends on some pretty in depth market research stuff to make the right decision. We don't have that info and BFC might not even have it. I totally understand that they do not want to rock the boat. They have a system that works, but it isn't the only system that can.

[sburke]

Well you have some potentially valid points. I say potentially simply because I haven't the data to evaluate. On the other hand those same views have been expressed here before and BF's comments are essentially "we feel we have been around as long as we have because we do have some understanding of who our customer base is and where the line is between too high and too low".

edit - I would be wary of using a first person shooter as a comparable reference to a tactical simulation- but I didn't put any type restriction on the question - so my bad. I'd expect the sheer audience difference creates a different set of capabilities for tripwire marketing. Just thinking aloud there, I really have no idea.

That is pretty much my approximate summary, probably BF would like to express it differently or sumfink. You can search and find a fair amount I'd expect. The point is a change in their direction would imply risk. Their current model works, another may not so as you said why rock the boat?

Asking them to do so is asking them to take a risk of failure of their business because you have evaluated the product as being beyond what you think you should pay for it. Or something like that, I am not trying to put words in your mouth, just trying to make the point that your interest and concern is for you as an individual buying a product, their concern is the viability of their livelihood. My concern is to see a company continue to grow and produce a game that for me is unlike any other. For that I am willing to pay.

[ASL Veteran]

Anyway the point is charging more money for a game does not equal a higher income. If I only have $40 to spend I won't be buying your $50 product while I will buy a $40 dollar product. And while CM is pretty unique (the only real competitor being Graviteam tactics. Although I think I also remember another game called Panzer Command or something?)

That is true, but you have to understand that charging less money for a game also does not necessarily equal a higher income too. A very simple demonstration of this would be if a game company sells 10 games at the $100 price point the Gross Income would be $1000. If the company decides to lower the price point to $50 then 10 games gives the company $500 Gross Income. The company has obviously lost money by lowering the price point if no additional sales results from that. In order for the company to break even by lowering the price point to $50 the company would have to sell 20 units instead of 10. If the company only sells 15 units at the $50 price point then the company has only made $750 and now they are losing money.

The same could be said going the other way too. If you raise the price from $100 to $150 then 10 sales will give the company a Gross Income of $1500, but if we assume that only 5 customers will make the purchase at that price then the company will only make $750 and once again lose money. However, if 7 customers make the purchase at $150 then the company has made a Gross Income of $1050 so the company has made more money by raising the price and losing a few customers than it would have by leaving the price point at $100 and retaining all 10 of their customers.

If you are on this forum currently engaged in a debate about the price of the game then you obviously see value in it. You just aren't sure if the value equals the price that is being asked for it. Only you can decide whether that is the case or not because ultimately the decision to make the purchase is yours. The only certainty in this debate is that it is extremely unlikely that BFC is going to be changing the price any time soon and even if the price does change it still might not be enough of a change to make the decision any easier for you to make. So while this discussion about BFC's pricing strategy might be a fascinating exercise it isn't going to alter the equation any with regard to your decision to purchase or not because the BFC side of the equation is essentially 'fixed' while your side of the equation is the only 'variable'.

[Pelican Pal]

I'm fine with BFC charging whatever they charge. It is their product to sell. I'll put money into it until it is too expensive for me and I am also fine with that. I totally understand that they have a system that works and I do not begrudge them that system.

I've said that repeatedly.

What I am arguing against is this dogmatic argument that BFC must charge a premium for their games. That they must charge $10 for updates, that CM is so niche that this is the only option. That if they charged less money they wouldn't be in business.

I'm arguing against comments like this:

That being said we are going to get what we pay for. These constant requests or suggestions that BF needs to find a way to reduce price deny that reality. If we aren't willing to pay for this then it simply is not going to happen.

I'm not begrudging BFC their marketing choice, but what I am saying is that it is not the only one. Furthermore, I don't see why people need to go around justifying the marketing strategy.

ASL Veteran, yea I get that. What you can charge is dependent upon your target audience, their income, the number of them. Personally I think that CM has a bigger audience than we realize or at least a bigger potential audience than we realize.

Personally I think CM could do well on Steam. It looks good enough and with a decent in game tutorial it could do pretty well. Test the waters with CMBN + modules at some point.

sburke, if RO doesn't count then look at Paradox Interactive. They've been around since 1995 selling grand strategy games of all things. Not two months ago they were selling most of their games for $15 or less on Steam.

Womble, I always wish they took the Company of Heroes route, and allowed users who owned content use it against those who did not. If I bought Commonwealth let me play with those formations against my opponent who just has teh base game.

[Doug Williams]

Well, as for me, I have faith, based on my years of purchasing and playing the CM series, that BFC will continue to put out products that I enjoy at prices that I will pay.

For the benefit of PP, I will attempt to explain what I mean.

It makes little difference to me, within reason, what a particular computer game costs me to buy, as long as I receive value for the dollars I spend. Value for a computer game equals how much time I spend playing it VS how much money I spend on it.

Let's take CMBN, for example. I preordered CMBN on the day the preorder was first offered, and did the same thing with the CW module, the MG module, and the 2.0 upgrade. I really don't remember, and don't feel like looking up, the total amount of money I have given BFC for CMBN, but let's just say it's around $150, for the sake of argument.

The release date for CMBN was May, 2011 (from Wikipedia). CMBN has never left my hard drive, from initial release until today, and I have played it (meaning at least done one PBEM turn), I would estimate, probably 3 days out of 4 that have passed since May, 2011.

I would call that a pretty good return on my $150 entertainment investment.

OTOH, and again just an example, I purchased Elder Scrolls Skyrim upon release for (can't remember for sure) around $50, played it a couple of weeks, didn't like it, and deleted it. I'm out $50....total entertainment value: not very much.

Or, to use an example of a game that I actually did enjoy, I purchased X-Com Enemy Unknown upon release for (can't remember) $40(ish), played it all the way through a couple of times, and was done with it in a month or so. Great game, once or twice, IMO. Done and gone now.

Now let's take an MMO. I started playing Everquest back in December, 2001. Played it for about three years, very seriously. Hardly a day went by that I didn't log on and play for a while. What did that cost me? Well, initial purchase of the base game: $40(ish). Monthly subscription for three years: $15 a month. Buying expansions: $30(ish) each, every six months to a year.

So, those of you who know basic math may understand that, while the CM series may be somewhat daunting when you see the initial purchase prices, once you begin to understand the play value you get from these games, you will grok how inexpensive they are, in the long run.

Or not.

[Vergeltungswaffe]

Perfectly said, Doug.

[chohan85]

makes sense to me doug...and thanks all for guiding me...

[chohan85]

another stupid question.

can i download it on 2 different PCs? (one work and one home)..reason is that till end of august i am pretty much free during work hours so i can play it here.

and when i get home i can play some then as well..so can i install it on 2 different PCs? or is it restricted to do?

(i will mostly be playing SP/scenarios at work)

[Doug Williams]

Yes, you can install on two different PCs.