The Vehicle Pack is out!

[postfux123]

You forgot that you have to multiply by the number of purchases over the coming weeks.

You are aware you cant make a living on 66cents and you need to make a profit to have an incentive to go on providing support and enhancement to the game?

If cost/ pricing is a big issue I recommend thinking about the price of a cup of tea vs a Long Island Iced Tea in relation to the content provided. Pricing is a miracle even when you are putting a bag of dried herbs in hot water.

As far as I am concerned these guys may bath in riches as long as they provide content for a game I spend hours on and that costs me a fracture of my monthly TV/ Internet bill.

[poesel]

Well, there's already 4-5 scenarios available for download (for FREE) that make use of the vehicle pack.

So what's the problem here?

That you don't get to pay extra for some scenarios and get them for free instead?

Hmm, how to put that right?

My intention was to write a proposal to make things better (my subjective view of course) no to complain (although that is very close to complaining).

If you buy a thing you want to use it (most of the time). Car, house, burger - you name it. Buy the car, drive around. Buy the burger, eat it.

Now with the vehicle pack its different. I buy it and get an additional icon (I'm exaggerating). Where are my new funny vehicles? See other threads for people trying to hunt them down in the TOE.

Same with scenarios. Sure they will come but you have to find them. Which is somewhat difficult for someone if he does not follow this forum.

What I'm trying to say is that from a user experience it is a bad thing to sell something which a user can't easily use at least a bit after he bought it. That is disappointing.

The pack should have included a list of the vehicles and where and when to find them in which formation. BFC has that list obviously. Why not include it?

The pack should have had one or two demo scenarios with the new vehicles. Demo = small and maybe unbalanced. Just a showcase 15 minute battle on a tiny map. No need for a battalion sized historical scenario. That would have made me happy.

The pack should have listed the new features. This is a point where BFC has been notoriously bad IMHO. We can now play with non-VP owners. That's cool - advertise it and don't hide it in some forum post.

The pack could have had a link to a page with a collection of links to scenarios with vp content. 'Here we collect those links for the next 3 months for your convenience. Please be patient, new content will arrive soon.' Not too much work and something very useful.

[Destraex1]

You are aware you cant make a living on 66cents and you need to make a profit to have an incentive to go on providing support and enhancement to the game?

If cost/ pricing is a big issue I recommend thinking about the price of a cup of tea vs a Long Island Iced Tea in relation to the content provided. Pricing is a miracle even when you are putting a bag of dried herbs in hot water.

As far as I am concerned these guys may bath in riches as long as they provide content for a game I spend hours on and that costs me a fracture of my monthly TV/ Internet bill.

I have no qualms with the price or content of the pack.

I just wanted to point out that you cannot calculate a devs hourly rate on one customer purchase like the geeent above seemed to be doing. When all is said and done it may end up at $1000 an hour once customers have multiplied that $20.

At this stage I will also point out that community missions are s game of hide sand seek. You have to be an active part of the community to get them. For all thee foresight aboutt multiplayer compatability. You want people to mess around to make ssure both have the same mission, unless i am missing something.

You need people who want disk only editions to use the internet to download missions.

You forever make any reinstall of the game require another hunt to get the missions again.

Some default missions would have prevented all this. I mean how did these vehicles get tested? On a range?

[waclaw]

Sure, and in the base game you get a gazillion times more than that at only 20$ more.

You can't compare them like that.

The base games are 55 bucks.

The modules are 35 bucks.

The packs are 20 bucks.

The patches are 10 bucks.

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

20 bucks is not that much money.

Could you get an entire new game for that?

Sure.

But then you could argue that the base game should only be 20 bucks since you can buy another game for that.

And then the modules would have to be 5 bucks.

And the packs and patches completely free.

And BFC would be bankrupt and we wouldn't have any more games.

20 bucks is what THEY think it is worth for the effort made to make it.

Don't agree?

Then don't buy.

But stop trying to convince the world that it's too much money because it really isn't.

20 bucks is not alot of money and 27 units is actually quite alot of units.

Hell, I'm unemployed with no benefits (in other words, I get nothing from the government) and I still think it's worth 20 bucks.

Just sit down and think about how many hours you have to work to earn 20 bucks.

Then contemplate how many hours of fun you could get out of this pack.

You'll notice that 20 bucks isn't much for the amount of fun you can have with the pack.

Unless, of course, there are no units that interest you in the pack, but in that case you don't get to judge how valuable the pack is since it has no value to you in the first place.

First, absolutely no you are wrong, every previous game, the modules have content appropriate to its price - here you have over 20 vehicles for 20 bucks that you can just "lick and watch"

Second, if you can afford to do everything for him everything is cheap - so the argument that it is cheap because it is cheap, it is ... invalid

thirdly, the product should be compared with other products in this segment - that is, to other digital entertainment (not pizza, tickets to the theater or condoms, etc.) - at that price I can have a new one, or a few old games.

Fourth, the price for me is not a problem, although the dollar in my country is three times greater purchasing power (purchase the packs for 60 bucks?) problem is the content - too small for the price.

One more thing, just not interested in how much work has gone into this content - whether that someone is interested in my country, some people have to work on the $ 20 whole day? - Everyone has their problems, etc., BF does not need my favor, and I do not need special treatment, because I live in a poorer country.

[womble]

First, absolutely no you are wrong, every previous game, the modules have content appropriate to its price - here you have over 20 vehicles for 20 bucks that you can just "lick and watch"

The relative costs have been explained. You're just not listening.

One more time: BFC sell more units of the base game than they do of modules. They sell more modules than they do of packs. Just for the sake of argument, if a module takes half the expenditure of treasure to create that a new game does, it won't sell for half the price of a new game, because fewer people are going to pay for the effort expended. If a pack takes half the effort of a module it won't cost half the price of a module because fewer people will buy it and so the cost has to be spread around amongst fewer people, meaning each person who buys it has to pay more.

Trying to make some sort of feature-based linear comparison of relative price is an approach which will lead only to tears before bedtime. Becuase it's not based in any sort of actual reality. Neither economic nor on a "fair assessment" of the work involved, since you literally have no idea of how hard it was to make these things work properly. It might be that just getting the Crab to flail and the Croc to bend in the middle took almost as much work as figuring out command lines did for Engine v3. And in the end, all that matters is whether BFC have guessed right about the demand. If $20 means they don't sell enough to cover their costs, you can be pretty sure they wouldn't have at $10 either, since they'd have to sell twice as many, plus enough extra to cover the shortfall at $10 a unit. BFC are the ones that know the market. They know how many of each base game they've sold, how many of each of the modules and upgrades and how many of those were bought by parsimonious tightwads like myself at the best bundle price some time after initial release.

It is logically fallacious to assert that the pack is absolutely too expensive, since you don't have enough data to know, and these things are all relative anyway.

It is equally fallacious to attempt to compare pack, module and base game prices for similar reasons, plus economic ones.

So all you're left with is "I don't think it's worth the money, for my case." If you're not just trolling, that's a perfectly valid opinion that is respected at least by BFC, and the rest of the hounds on here matter not a jot. Keep making false comparisons, though, and you deserve the virtual tarring and feathering.

[c3k]

I have no qualms with the price or content of the pack.

I just wanted to point out that you cannot calculate a devs hourly rate on one customer purchase like the geeent above seemed to be doing. When all is said and done it may end up at $1000 an hour once customers have multiplied that $20.

At this stage I will also point out that community missions are s game of hide sand seek. You have to be an active part of the community to get them. For all thee foresight aboutt multiplayer compatability. You want people to mess around to make ssure both have the same mission, unless i am missing something.

You need people who want disk only editions to use the internet to download missions.

You forever make any reinstall of the game require another hunt to get the missions again.

Some default missions would have prevented all this. I mean how did these vehicles get tested? On a range?

LOL... My point was NOT to try to balance an economic equation.

It does not matter how many packs get sold. -I- will never see a penny. No beta tester will.

My point was to show how much labor you are being offered in exchange for your labor. You give up 2 hours of your labor (at a $10/hr rate of unskilled labor - NOT that YOUR labor is unskilled, I'm just using that as a standard of exchange for unskilled labor) and you get HUNDREDS (if not thousands) of man-hours of skilled labor in return. (If you make more than $10/hr, then the bargain is even more lopsided.) (Yes, "skilled": in the sense that it would be hard to come up with a group equally as knowledgeable about this stuff. Not impossible, but the beta's are certainly not offering "unskilled" labor.)

The labor exchange, when broken into equivalency, means you're getting a bargain. But it all hinges on whether you WANT that bargain, not whether it is worth $20. It is "worth" FAR more, unless you think beta "skilled" labor should be "worth" fractions of a penny per hour. "You theh! Work harder for me for pennies! No... For HALF a penny." Bwa-hah-hah.

An anology? Sure. A brain surgeon, top in the world, knocks on your door. He says, "I will perform a hippocampus reduction on you for just $10."

You say, "It is not worth $10."

You would be wrong. It would be "worth" thousands, if not tens of thousands. Just call a hospital and ask what they'd charge for it.

You then say, "Sure, but you're going to do thousands of those $10 surgeries and make a profit!"

You would be missing the point. This is an exchange between you and the surgeon. It does not matter if anyone else gets the surgery or if the surgeon profits or loses.

You then say, "But I don't WANT my hippocampus reduced!"

Ahhh, NOW we've arrived at the heart of the matter.

[Ales Dvorak]

The patches are 10 bucks.

Upgrade is 10 bucks, patches are free.

I don't play CM for living, it's my hobby. And if I think pack/upgrade/module etc. is expensive, I must admit myself that I choose an expensive hobby.

[Sailor Malan2]

All this debate about cost/value is meaningless. Very few things have universal value in the world. Food is one. Shelter/warmth. Sex (no, I am not getting into a debate about vice - it is just the human being has an almost universal drive to procreate, and hence most humans value sex). Van Gogh 'Sunflower' paintings cost a lot of money. Food is relatively little money.

If there were a planet wide disaster, a Van Gogh would be worthless. Food on the other hand would be very valuable. In fact in labour terms, food might tend towards the longterm maximum it can be - a day's worth of nutrition cannot sustain a cost of above about a day's worth of labour (actually less, because you cant work flat out all day every day). Any more than that and you can't earn enough to stay alive and people starve. The population reduces and due to less demand, food value falls.

Thus what is the vehicle pack worth? What is a fair price? In a free market, it is worth what people are willing to pay for it. Anyone know why formal c16th gardens went out of fashion in the C17th century amongst the very rich, and Capabilty Brown 'natural' parklands became the 'must have' by the end of the C18th? Because labour became too expensive so more and more rich people couldn't afford them. Keeping up with new fashions being what it is, everybody wants the latest thing and exploits the 'get out' ('natural parklands' cost capital to create but have much less running cost). So the value of a formal garden fell from 'very desirable' to 'very old fashioned, so that no one has one these days'. The cost of a formal garden actually rose, but the value disappeared, therefore so did they.

What has this to do with VP? The value of a thing is what you are willing to pay. The cost is only relevant to BF (in that they need to make a profit). Thus buy what you are willing to pay for, and don't what you aren't. Buy alternative (cheaper/better) products, but there is no point trying to argue what a price 'should' be. Unless you can find the 'haggle' button on the shop screen? And haggling just means that the advertised/first price is higher to start! If haggling resulted in the price really dropping much (on average), the supplier goes bust and will be replaced by someone who actually understands business!

Why don't we discuss perpetual motion machines instead?

[waclaw]

The relative costs have been explained. You're just not listening.

One more time: BFC sell more units of the base game than they do of modules. They sell more modules than they do of packs. Just for the sake of argument, if a module takes half the expenditure of treasure to create that a new game does, it won't sell for half the price of a new game, because fewer people are going to pay for the effort expended. If a pack takes half the effort of a module it won't cost half the price of a module because fewer people will buy it and so the cost has to be spread around amongst fewer people, meaning each person who buys it has to pay more.

Trying to make some sort of feature-based linear comparison of relative price is an approach which will lead only to tears before bedtime. Becuase it's not based in any sort of actual reality. Neither economic nor on a "fair assessment" of the work involved, since you literally have no idea of how hard it was to make these things work properly. It might be that just getting the Crab to flail and the Croc to bend in the middle took almost as much work as figuring out command lines did for Engine v3. And in the end, all that matters is whether BFC have guessed right about the demand. If $20 means they don't sell enough to cover their costs, you can be pretty sure they wouldn't have at $10 either, since they'd have to sell twice as many, plus enough extra to cover the shortfall at $10 a unit. BFC are the ones that know the market. They know how many of each base game they've sold, how many of each of the modules and upgrades and how many of those were bought by parsimonious tightwads like myself at the best bundle price some time after initial release.

It is logically fallacious to assert that the pack is absolutely too expensive, since you don't have enough data to know, and these things are all relative anyway.

It is equally fallacious to attempt to compare pack, module and base game prices for similar reasons, plus economic ones.

So all you're left with is "I don't think it's worth the money, for my case." If you're not just trolling, that's a perfectly valid opinion that is respected at least by BFC, and the rest of the hounds on here matter not a jot. Keep making false comparisons, though, and you deserve the virtual tarring and feathering.

I am interested in only two things: price and content - not interested why the product is so expensive - it's not my problem - when it comes to my company's client is not telling him how difficult for us to make our products - customers are only interested in the price and quality / content - because compared to other products BF (no matter what they are called, module, packs, upgrades, etc.), the price of packs is not relevant to the content - or vice versa

[Erwin]

I love BF and what they are doing. But, I have to agree with waclaw. Ultimately, it's about value for money.

I always support BF products with my wallet. But, it's starting to be more because I feel I "owe" them a lot for the amazing CM1 series which they practically gave away to us.

Going forward, my hope is that BF focuses more on making the game system "mechanics/interface" more intuitive/more efficient to play and also on providing more "play content" - primarily good long campaigns which add the challenges of ammo and force preservation - which the volunteer market is no longer providing.

[MikeyD]

Arguing that BFC should give away their product for less than the cost of production is as good as arguing that CMBN should follow the CM:Afghanistan route and not upgrade or expand their product at all. You've known for years that BFC was planning to release a vehicle expansion pack. You cheered it at the time and demanded certain vehicles be included. Well, this is what a vehicle pack with fancy special-purpose vehicles looks like. Except it has about 7-8 more vehicles in it than they had originally planned to provide.

[AlexUK]

A really interesting discussion! I too recall so many people asking for flame weapons, well now we have them. BFC must make profits (or at least break even) to survive. they must therefore set a price based on expected demand. They expect lower demand than for the base game (not everyone wants the new units), therefore they set the price accordingly (expectation of games sold x price per game=revenue) to match costs actually incurred. As the assumption is that the demand is fairly inelastic (i.e. only a certain amount of players will want the units, so if the price is lowered they are not going to get many more people buying, and will therefore end up in a loss making position), they have to set the price relatively high to breakeven on costs. It seems fairly straightforward to me, and reasonable (particularly with the amount of free time all the beta testers have put in, from love of the game and a desire to keep it going, as c3K has pointed out).

The talk of pure supply/demand is also a bit problematic here, as it is not as if another company will come along and fill the BFC shaped void that will form if they go under - I don't think there is a replacement in the market place, so it is in everyone's interest who loves the game to keep supporting them.

From my point of view, BFC have taken a risk in order to satisfy the wish of some players for flame units (i.e. responding to priorities per the forum), as they are trying to deliver what people want. I do therefore find it difficult that there are so many complaints once they have delivered what many people have been asking for for so long. I can imagine it can be pretty demoralising at times!

I am happy to continue to support a company that has given me so many hours of enjoyment, and want to encourage them to continue developing CMBN into the future.

PS are the bug fixes from 3.0 fixed in the new pack so I can upgrade? Is it worth waiting till the new bugs are fixed too?

PPS - from an enjoyably point of view, I also would love at least a couple of scenarios with a future vehicle pack (and compensate with fewer units).

PPPS - Commandos, pretty please?

[postfux123]

[quote=Destraex1;1562217

Some default missions would have prevented all this. I mean how did these vehicles get tested? On a range?

[Erwin]

No problem with BF charging more $ for their product. Have been saying that for years. What I am saying is that the shortage these days is well-made campaigns, not units or better graphics.

Would be happy to pay BF for more really good campaigns (that feature the new units in packs).

I don't mind playing the $50. My suggestion re the Vehicle Packs is that BF releases perhaps fewer units in a Pack, but includes at least a couple of (purpose-made) scenarios to show off the features of the new units in play.

Hopefully, the interface and efficiency/ergonomic issues re being able to play the larger CM2 scenarios faster by reducing unnecessary clicks etc will be addressed in time.

[sburke]

This discussion would be funnier and more interesting if it wasn't so damned stupid. If you don't think there is enough value in the pack, don't buy it. It really is that simple. The price is the price period. If it doesn't sell enough at $20 there won't be another and you'll never have to complain again.

Ken, I'll send ya a penny. No tester should be working for free. I'd send more but this bunch of scrooge like couch potato tight wads would complain you are overpaid.

Now excuse me, gonna go play with the editor myself and make me some more content to play with because, yes that is right, I CAN MAKE MY OWN!

[waclaw]

"If you don't think there is enough value in the pack, don't buy it" - you do not need anyone to explain it, it sounds like the words of Marie Antoinette - S'ils n'ont pas de pain, qu'ils mangent de la brioche! - Let them eat cake! This is not an argument in the discussion.

[Oddball_E8]

First, absolutely no you are wrong, every previous game, the modules have content appropriate to its price - here you have over 20 vehicles for 20 bucks that you can just "lick and watch"

Second, if you can afford to do everything for him everything is cheap - so the argument that it is cheap because it is cheap, it is ... invalid

thirdly, the product should be compared with other products in this segment - that is, to other digital entertainment (not pizza, tickets to the theater or condoms, etc.) - at that price I can have a new one, or a few old games.

Fourth, the price for me is not a problem, although the dollar in my country is three times greater purchasing power (purchase the packs for 60 bucks?) problem is the content - too small for the price.

One more thing, just not interested in how much work has gone into this content - whether that someone is interested in my country, some people have to work on the $ 20 whole day? - Everyone has their problems, etc., BF does not need my favor, and I do not need special treatment, because I live in a poorer country.

Well then fine...

Let's compare digital products to digital products.

Here's a pack of 6 ship skins for 1 ship in Elite Dangerous... it's 12.50£

And here's the Elite Dangerous game. it's 40£ and it will include hundreds of ships that you can travel through the entire milky way with over 100 billion star systems, each with their own planets and stations. Each with their own sort of government and tons of resources.

Now... that's only for 40£

That's a ton more content than what's in a CM game.

So should they start giving the games away for free?

Or should we just realize that a pack with 27 units takes time and effort to make and that time and effort must be paid somehow, and 20 bucks is not alot of money.

And don't talk to me about the value of money.

Have you ever been starving?

I have.

Have you ever lived without any income?

I have.

I know the value of money.

And 20 bucks is not alot of money.

Hell, I could make that much money if I just went out and started begging in the streets.

[Oddball_E8]

"If you don't think there is enough value in the pack, don't buy it" - you do not need anyone to explain it, it sounds like the words of Marie Antoinette - S'ils n'ont pas de pain, qu'ils mangent de la brioche! - Let them eat cake! This is not an argument in the discussion.

Actually, it's the entire argument.

You are saying it's too expensive for its content.

Then don't buy it.

You can't demand that they lower the price just because YOU don't think it's worth it.

If that worked, I'd be able to buy ferraris and porces for the same price as a volvo.

[AlexUK]

Well then fine...

Let's compare digital products to digital products.

Here's a pack of 6 ship skins for 1 ship in Elite Dangerous... it's 12.50£

And here's the Elite Dangerous game. it's 40£ and it will include hundreds of ships that you can travel through the entire milky way with over 100 billion star systems, each with their own planets and stations. Each with their own sort of government and tons of resources.

Now... that's only for 40£

That's a ton more content than what's in a CM game.

So should they start giving the games away for free?

Or should we just realize that a pack with 27 units takes time and effort to make and that time and effort must be paid somehow, and 20 bucks is not alot of money.

And don't talk to me about the value of money.

Have you ever been starving?

I have.

Have you ever lived without any income?

I have.

I know the value of money.

And 20 bucks is not alot of money.

Hell, I could make that much money if I just went out and started begging in the streets.

That's quite a post!!

[Darknight (DC)]

I don't mind playing the $50. My suggestion re the Vehicle Packs is that BF releases perhaps fewer units in a Pack, but includes at least a couple of (purpose-made) scenarios to show off the features of the new units in play.

I've been watching the discussion here and it occurred to me that it should be considered that there wouldn't be many in the community working on new scenarios for CMBN if the new vehicles aren't taken into consideration. Without the newer vehicles, why would I create a scenario featuring them? We have to have the vehicle pack first before we create new stuff....then things will begin to trickle out featuring said units.

Chicken vs egg stuff here.

[sburke]

"If you don't think there is enough value in the pack, don't buy it" - you do not need anyone to explain it, it sounds like the words of Marie Antoinette - S'ils n'ont pas de pain, qu'ils mangent de la brioche! - Let them eat cake! This is not an argument in the discussion.

Don't you think that is a bit over dramatic to compare whether you purchase a pack for the game to Marie Antoinette disregarding the starving population of Paris?

This is simply a consumer discussion, of a game/hobby. In all consumer discussions the question is simply value and whether or not to purchase. You can try to make it into something else, but it ends up proving a slightly different point.

[Mord]

Would be happy to pay BF for more really good campaigns (that feature the new units in packs).

And then we will have endless posts from Togi and Waclaw about how the scenarios are overpriced because they don't include the vehicles. It's and endless vicious cycle that will only make them happy if BFC gave everything away for free or went out of business.

Mord.

[MikeyD]

It should also be pointed out that Marie Antoinette had never actually said that, it was just a piece of fictive propaganda meant to work the rabble into a murderous frenzy. If you don't want the product why bother to come here and whine? Do you also go to the L.L.Bean website and whine about the price of shirts you have no intention of buying? Steve has said elsewhere that they're working on a big game change that will allow people without packs and modules to still play against people with packs and modules. Problem solved.

[postfux123]

"If you don't think there is enough value in the pack, don't buy it" - you do not need anyone to explain it, it sounds like the words of Marie Antoinette - S'ils n'ont pas de pain, qu'ils mangent de la brioche! - Let them eat cake! This is not an argument in the discussion.

In revolutionary France people did starve because something they needed (bread) was too expensive.

In this formum people are complaining because something they obvioulsy dont really want is too expensive.

Chances are the BF team can keep their heads on their shoulders.

[Doug Williams]

IMO, this thread has devolved into arguments about $20. Does anyone who is reading this thread, and who plays CM, really give a **** about spending $20 on CM? If $20 really means that much to you, then I respectfully suggest that you turn your attentions and skills towards earning more money.

My issue with the Vehicle Pack is the fact that installing it will screw up my ongoing PBEM games. Yes, yes, I know about dual installs, and I don't want to go down that road. BFC needs to find a better way to insure compatibility between versions.