This might be jumping the gun, slightly....

[V B]

I was wondering, since the CM engine has been established and the next few installments are going to use the same basic engine. I was wondering what the price range would be for the next few versions. I am not a rich guy by any means. Even though I put a preorder down for CM some time ago I was wondering if I would have to pay 40+ for the next few installments. Love the game, love the design, can't wait until you folks ship it out.

[Maximus]

Well considering that each subsequent version will take an additional year or more to complete, I wouldn't worry about that too much.

------------------

"While stands the Collosseum, Rome shall stand.

When falls the Collosseum, Rome shall fall.

And when Rome falls -- the World."

**Byron**

[Seanachai]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by V B:

I was wondering, since the CM engine has been established and the next few installments are going to use the same basic engine. I was wondering what the price range would be for the next few versions. I am not a rich guy by any means. Even though I put a preorder down for CM some time ago I was wondering if I would have to pay 40+ for the next few installments. Love the game, love the design, can't wait until you folks ship it out. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I'd have to say that even though the engine is done, the amount of time that would have to be spent to produce accurate follow-ups would still be massive, and not necessarily result in price cuts. I mean, sure, a lot of work has been done on the 'engine', and modeling of German units and vehicles. But the whole Russian army, quite probably East front 'ethnic' armies (Rumanians, Bulgarians, etc.), and conditions unique to the East front would have to be researched and modeled, tested, tweaked, etc.

I think the best that customers could expect is a 'time' saving, in that future versions wouldn't take 2+ years to release, but would come down to us quicker. But for the next 2 fronts contemplated (East and Mediterranean, from what I've read here), there are significant differences from the West, even for the Germans, in terms of unit organization and equipment, terrain, and combat conditions. Personally, I like a bargain, I'm not rich, and would prefer to pay the least amount possible for my fun (like most people). But consider this: what kind of return would you want from a year's worth of 'sequel' coding? Coding, researching, reading & answering posts, testing? Running a small company? Many people see an effort like BTS's as two guys like Steve & Charles sitting around drinking Jolt and play-testing code they rapped out that afternoon. But the coding, alone, has probably been an hours-a-day proposition, with damn little time for anything else. And that doesn't take into account record keeping, accounting, administrating, manufacturing, shipping, etc., etc. I'm sure that many of these 'peripheral' activities are carried out by hirelings or subcontractors, but these people still have to be paid, and met with, etc. When you get right down to it, the whole thing isn't a matter of hammering together a birdhouse in your basement and selling it from a folding table at your community craft fair.

Besides the time these guys have put in on creating this thing and making it a good product, they also have to have made a fairly significant monetary investment in the whole project. And until about now (let's hope they've got the product in hand, and are running our credit cards through!), they haven't made a frigging dime on this product. So, any money they've spent on webservice, accountants and lawyers (try starting or maintaining a business without either one, even if you only have them on tap and kept anything billable to the absolute minimum), equipment, research material, subcontractors, etc. has been all on spec, out of their own pocket.

I hope these guys get a great response to this game, and support for the following games. I wish I had not only their abilities to create this, but their guts in trying to do so. America's vaunted as the Land of the Enterpreneur, but most eveyone of us in this country (and in much of the rest of the world), buy everything we use from massive economic organizations that we can often safely assume could sell their product to us at a greatly reduced price if the whim, let alone the need, ever struck them.

I hope these guys make some good money off this product. I'd love to see future games (and I seriously don't see the future of this game as being cranking out 'scenarios' or 'expansion packs', but new games with their own unique character). And I'd like to see them cheaper, make no mistake, because I work hard for my money, too. But the prices they're charging seem reasonable, and in line with the quality of the product, let alone what other producers are charging. I actually feel a kind of satisfaction in knowing that a couple of guys I've exchanged messages with, and who've acknowledged my existence, however peripherally, might make some real money (if the gods smile), by producing something I've enjoyed and could share with others. The line between 'shareware' and 'commercialware' is becoming increasingly blurred nowadays. In my opinion, Combat Mission qualifies as shareware, because it's a product created by people, as opposed to a corporation, not merely responsive to its customers, but personally responsive, with a version available for evaluation, without millions being spent on advertising, marketing, and strong-arm distribution tactics.

Come to think of it, I'd like to see these guys make a million dollars each, and take their wives/girlfriends to luxury hotels near original battlesites on write-off 'business/research trips', and spend every night drinking the finest French champagne and Scottish Ale. And for my investment in the process, I'd like them to send a nice postcard filled with drunken gibberish to research/consultant people like the Fionn.

(now if the above doesn't win me a discount on CM2, then nothing will–nor should it!)

------------------

After witnessing exceptional bravery from his Celtic mercenaries, Alexander the Great called them to him and asked if there was anything they feared. They told him nothing, except that the sky might fall on their heads.

[This message has been edited by Seanachai (edited 05-29-2000).]

[G4A]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Seanachai:

The line between 'shareware' and 'commercialware' is becoming increasingly blurred nowadays. In my opinion, Combat Mission qualifies as shareware

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

CM hardly qualifies as shareware, since you have to send money to get a copy. The demo, however, is the best piece of Freeware I've seen in a long time.

Another question for BTS about CM2 and following versions:

Is there any chance that we may see them in stores, if CM sells really well?

[Mark IV]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Combat Mission qualifies as shareware, because it's a product created by people, as opposed to a corporation<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

CM does NOT qualify as shareware. This implies that it is OK to copy (pirate), and also implies indirectly that it is of lesser quality (the term has been used sneeringly in other fora to slam games as lower-quality). CM is competitively priced with "shelf" games and worth every penny.

Without getting overly political, corporations are MADE of "people", who often care as deeply about their products and customers as BTS does. It is not OK to rip them off, either, regardless of what you think about them.

[G4A]

Quality has nothing to do with it! The only thing that separates Shareware from Commercial Software is the kind of distribution. With Shareware, you can download a fully functional copy and pay if you keep it, Commercial Software must be paid for before you can try it.

There's plenty of Shareware and Freeware that's as good as any commercial program.

[Mark IV]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by G4A:

Quality has nothing to do with it! ...

There's plenty of Shareware and Freeware that's as good as any commercial program.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed. I refer only to the implications. As I said, "shareware" has been used in a sneering, pejorative sense about games for outright purchase, and whether it is precisely correct is beside the point. CM is not shareware in any sense.

[SuperTed]

I'd like to get this thread back to VB's original topic, if nobody minds. I think VB was making the point that he (sorry if I assumed incorrectly) hopes that the next few installments of CM would not cost as much as the original.

If the boys at BTS were asking $100 for their game, I believe most everybody who has played the demos would gladly shell out the money. I know I would. Think about it; even at $100, this game would be an incredible value. Even before you fork over a single penny, you have an opportunity to play the Gold Demo, which is essentially like playing the full version. I think it goes without saying (but I'm going to say it anyway) that everybody on this board has ordered or will order CM. I also believe that once CM starts arriving in households around the world, other wargames in those households will get a little lonely.

For me, that will be about twelve games whose average cost is about $25, totaling about $300. Now, if I actually did spend $100 for CM and played it for the vast majority of my wargaming time, it would be money well-spent compared to the $300 I spent on the other games.

If you you apply the same logic to the upcoming installments of CM, $100 would be a fair price for each of them as well. Let's assume that one installment is released each year for the next three years and they each sell for $100. You would be spending less than $10 per month on a product that is proven to be of top-notch quality. That sure beats buying two or three games from a local retailer for that same $100 only to find that after a month the game is no longer interesting. Even if your annual wargame budget is only $100, it would be money well-spent if all you bought was CM.

VB, I don't mean for this post to be a flame; I just saw a soapbox sitting there and I thought I would hop on it for a couple minutes.

SuperTed

[G4A]

Everyone would pay $100 for CM?? Absolutely no way. I'm sorry Ted, but that was the dumbest thing I've read this year.

The fact that people can feel this kind of near-religious "loyalty" to a PRODUCT shows just how f**ucked-up society has become.

[Neutral Party]

Well let's see.

1. Just got a new presario 1800 laptop for $2500 paid for by work (thank god). Thought about Sony but was concerned that the crappy 2.5 MB graphics wouldn't allow me to play CM.

2. Just splashed out 85 bucks for a voodoo 3 2000 (so I can get transparent smoke on CM).

It would therefore appear that the main criteria for my recent computer hardware purchasing is:

1. can I play CM on it.

2. will CM look better with it

Given these sad and pathetic circumstances, I must conclude that I would have no alternative than to pay a ridiculous amount of money for CM. This is a simple matter of logical necessity. If I did not behave in this manner it is very likely that a self-perpetuating logical paradox would be created. This macroscopic quantum conundrum would then go on to negate the entire space-time continuum by giving rise to an avalanche of semi-nude quarks.

So when I buy Combat Mission I am doing nothing less than saving the Universe and that, my friends, makes me feel good.

Joe

[SuperTed]

Hey G4A,

Thanks for the reply, but I would like to make two points in response.

1) I don't think I made myself very clear in my original post and for that I apologize. The point I was trying to make is that I have a rough idea of how much money and time I am willing to spend on wargaming. Let's assume that I budget $200 this year for wargaming and spend $100 on CM. Let's also assume that I spend 500 hours playing wargames this year and 400 of those are spent playing CM. That means that 50% of my financial investment has provided 80% of my game-playing enjoyment. Now, I am not an accountant, but IMHO that appears to be a pretty good investment.

2) I have absolutely no problem with your right to disagree with me, and would gladly defend that right, but I do not appreciate the tone of your reply. I found it to be way out-of-line and quite insulting. I don't know where you get off assuming that I (or anyone else, for that matter) have a "...near-religious "loyalty" to a PRODUCT..." I was only trying to make the point that I believe that CM will provide a good return for a $50 investment. Now, I realize that I may not have expressed my thoughts very well in my original post, but that does not give you the right to assume a holier-than-thou attitude.

Thank you. Good day.

Ted (not feeling real Super right now)

[L.Tankersley]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by G4A:

Everyone would pay $100 for CM?? Absolutely no way. I'm sorry Ted, but that was the dumbest thing I've read this year.

The fact that people can feel this kind of near-religious "loyalty" to a PRODUCT shows just how f**ucked-up society has become.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't that that's the issue at all. One measure of the value of a thing is what someone else will give for that thing. To some people, $100 is a lot of money. To others, it's just a nice evening out. In idle moments when I'm thinking about the return on my entertainment dollar, I compare games to other things I could spend money on. Movies are one example. Depending on where you are, going to see a movie will run you somewhere in the neighborhood of $3-$5 an hour. By this reasoning, if a game gives you as much entertainment as a movie and can sustain your interest for 20 hours, at a price of $100 it's just as cost-effective as a movie. (How much you enjoy movies is your own problem.) Or from a different perspective, if a game costs twice as much as other games, but you anticipate enjoying it twice as much, shouldn't it be worth the extra money? People are quick enough to claim that a game they don't like should cost less than the industry average; by extension shouldn't they be willing to pay _more_ for a game that they like a lot?

[Hmm, as I'm about to submit this I see SuperTed also responded with more or less the same argument.]

------------------

Leland J. Tankersley

[SuperTed]

Hey Leland,

Thanks for the post. You effectively expressed a significant part of what I have been trying to say.

AverageTed (feeling better...)

[G4A]

I'm sorry if that sounded offensive. I never intended to offend anyone or assume a holier-than-thou attitude. Sorry. I have a cold, a bad headache, and a fever right now, so I really have no idea what I'm typing. I'm actually hearing voices. Is that bad?

I just think sycophancy and unquestioning loyalty are irrational, immoral, and dangerous to society. No apologies for that.

There is no absolute scale of cost-effectiveness that applies to everyone.

Sorry if this is a bit incoherent, but, as I said, I'm hallucinating. Whooo look at that! I'll go to bed now. Sorry.

[SuperTed]

Hey G4A,

Apology accepted.

Get well so that we can debate on fair terms.

SuperTed

ps. I would still be curious to hear other people's thoughts on what they think CM will be "worth."

[Mark IV]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SuperTed:

I would still be curious to hear other people's thoughts on what they think CM will be "worth."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is worth $45 USD + s&h. Only a fool would voluntarily offer more. I would feel guilty offering less. A deal's a deal.

For the record, there is a difference between sycophancy and obsequiousness. Sycophancy is a badge of honor here, except for the designated Troublemakers, who in turn give Sycophants raison d'etre.

Obsequiousness, on the other hand, is merely objectionable.

I hope that is clear now.

[L.Tankersley]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by G4A:

I have a cold, a bad headache, and a fever right now, so I really have no idea what I'm typing.

I just think sycophancy and unquestioning loyalty are irrational, immoral, and dangerous to society. No apologies for that.

There is no absolute scale of cost-effectiveness that applies to everyone.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've got a cold, but I'll have to spot you the headache, fever and hallucinations. I'll go along with you that blind loyalty is irrational, but I don't see the moral issue. As far as danger to society goes .... I think there are bigger problems for us to worry about.

No question that value is subjective, particularly in the area of entertainment. I think what Ted was trying to say was that, in his subjective view based on what he knows about CM, he doesn't expect that he would feel ripped-off if he paid $100 for the final product.

I'm sure that if BTS decided to charge more money, they would lose a lot of orders, but I think a lot of those lost sales would be knee-jerk "no game could possibly be worth that much money" reactions no more rational than the "I will pay any price for CM" attitude that others evince.

Now get back in bed!

------------------

Leland J. Tankersley

[armorbuff]

I have to say I agree in principle with

G4A however I dont think its right to call

CM shareware. To me the suggestion that

CM should go for $100 a copy smacks of Shillmanship. Using Teds rationale If I have

at least 10 games I play a lot,(and I do) they should cost $20 each then. Theres 2 ways of looking at it. Dont get me wrong, I like what I see in CM, its going to be a great game. But to call it an "incredible value at $100" is going to far. There are other very good wargames out there competing for the gaming $$.

[Lee]

Yeah, but there are no other wargames on this scale and topic that can

even remotely compete with CM on a realism level (or graphics, or interface,

for that matter).

Considering the kind of junk that usually sells for $50 on store shelves,

a very strong argument could be made that CM is, in fact, worth $100

considering the *exceptional* quality that we are getting. CM isn't your

typical game, it isn't even your typical good game, it's easily in the

top 1% of all-time best games ever made. A game that good is worth

more than most games.

[This message has been edited by Lee (edited 05-30-2000).]

[Seanachai]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mark IV:

Without getting overly political, corporations are MADE of "people", who often care as deeply about their products and customers as BTS does. It is not OK to rip them off, either, regardless of what you think about them.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Excuse me? Where in my post did I advocate ripping off corporations? Or imply that I thought that behaviour was alright? And why would you think that something being 'shareware' makes it permissible to pirate it? And I've bought plenty of 'shelf' software that wasn't worth the price of setting a match to it, with no response from the retailer or the manufacturer beyond a shrug and a $mile. I've found a lot of shareware that was superior to commercialware, and I'm not responsible for the opinions of waterheads you've encountered on other boards. Your entire post seems intent on misrepresenting what I'd said originally, and taking exception with it for no particular reason. I think you owe me an apology, buddy.

------------------

After witnessing exceptional bravery from his Celtic mercenaries, Alexander the Great called them to him and asked if there was anything they feared. They told him nothing, except that the sky might fall on their heads.

[RudeLover]

Ya know, I'll pay an extra buck or two a CD to buy them at a cool indie record store, rather than Tower. Why? Because I have often talked to the owner of the store, who's not getting rich, but runs a record store because they just really love music and would rather do something they love than get rich. I'd like that person to be able to stay in business. That's partly because they recommend CDs to me, and stock the stuff I like, etc., but also partly because I want it to be possible for someone like that to stay in business in the face of a homogenized retail world.

Similar arguments apply to bookstore, coffee shops. And beer, for heaven's sake. Sierra Nevada, Abita, or Alaskan vs. MGD, Bud, or Coors? I'll pay the extra. (Especially now that I've finished grad school and have a real job, and so it's economically possible to do all of the above.)

I'd like to see these guys at BTS make enough money that they have the choice to continue to do what they clearly love to do, especially since I figure I'll get a zillion hours of enjoyment out of it. What's the appropriate price tag for that? $45 seems like a steal.

[Tom Callmeyer]

Never saw any other game sequel sell for less than the original. Great Naval Battles, Steel Panthers, and especially the Talonsoft BattleGround series, which uses the exact same game engine for all the Civil War games (not sure about the Nappy stuff, but I think they are also based on the same game engine). What are there, something like 10 of these Battleground games? I have three of them myself, and am gald to have them.) Sooooo if the game is worth it, it's worth it, and I'll pay a fair price for it. If the game is a dog, not worth $10 from the discount bin. If you want it cheap, buy it 9 months after it comes out and a few (probably very few for CM) copies hit the used game market.

[SuperTed]

Hey armorbuff,

I believe that I have not made my point clear. Let's use your example and see if that helps. For simplicity's sake, let's assume you have ten games and they each cost you $30. Let's also assume the amount of time you play each of these games is roughly equal (10% each). In this case, the math is very staightforward. Since each of the games have the same cost and occupy the same amount of your time, they are all of the same value to you.

Now, I must apologize to anybody who has studied logic, but I would like to simplify things for the sake of argument. Namely, it is commonly understood that in order to test the logic of an argument, one must assume extreme premises. If these premises lead to the original conclusion, then the logic is sound.

So, to take your example to an extreme, let's assume you have only one wargame and you spend all of your wargaming time playing it. That game would be infinitely valuable to you because it would embody your entire wargaming experience. To take your example to the opposite extreme, let's assume you have every wargame ever made. To simplify things, let's further assume that the total number of wargames you would have would be 1000. If you play each of these 1000 games an equal amount of time, each individual game would be of little value to you because it represents a tiny fraction of your wargaming experience.

To get back to my example of paying $100 for CM, I feel I need to clarify something. The dollar and time amounts I chose in my original post can be assumed to be arbitrary. The question I am asking is not one of only money, however. It also involves the amount of enjoyment (we'll assume enjoyment=time spent) derived from that which was purchased.

I think it is safe to assume that everybody has a limited budget when buying wargames. I think it is also safe to assume that everybody spends most, if not all (or more), of that budget trying to find products that they will enjoy (i.e. spend time playing). Taking those two assumptions into consideration, let's return to my original budget of $200. If I purchase four games with that money and subsequently stop playing all of them within a month, I would say that my purchase was of very low value to me. If, on the other hand, I purchase one game with that money and it occupies all of my playing time for a year, I would say that my purchase was of very high value to me. When you change the amount of money spent, the reasoning remains the same.

So, you see my willingness to spend $100 on CM is based on simple math. Let's assume that I intend to spend $200 on wargames and 500 hours playing them this year. If I purchase Century of Warfare (CoW) for $50, Europe in Flames (EiF) for $50, and Combat Mission (CM)for $100, I shall have spent my $200. After tracking the amount of time I have spent playing each game, let's assume I have played CoW for 50 hours, EiF for 50 hours, and CM for 400 hours. Since I have enjoyed CM for 80% of my wargaming time budget and spent only 50% of my wargaming money budget on it, I would say that is a very good value to me.

I hope this helps.

SuperTed

[armorbuff]

"Yeah, but there are no other wargames on this scale and topic that can

even remotely compete with CM on a realism level (or graphics, or interface,

for that matter)"

Well thats your opinion but using the same logic, one can say that CM cant compete

with certain other games for the same reasons. Its comparing apples and oranges.

CM excels at what it is trying to portray.

And other games excel at what they are simulating. To compare CM to Panzer Elite

(PE hereafter) is unfair. PE is a WW2 tank simulator, and its very good.

And you cant compare it with the Steel Panthers series (SP). SP has a certain board game feel, so whats wrong with that. ASL is a board game after all. And a lot of great detail. And the scenarios outcome is often comparable to its historical counterpart.

To me thats a true test of "realism". And I have personally found this series fun to play. So what we have is a variety. And to me thats a GOOD thing. I share everyones enthusiasm for CM. I am just trying to temper it with some objectivity.

[armorbuff]

Ted, I follow you, I understand and your point is well taken. I appreciate that CM at $100 a pop represents a real value to you. Unfortunately, for most of us, an affordable and fair price for it is in the $40

to $50 range, and I am grateful to BTS that

it is being offered for around $45