CMSF for $7.67 ?

[Battlefront.com]

M1A1TC,

Does the price reflect the amount of content?

No. Retailers don't operate that way. Obviously if customers undervalue the amount of content in a product, they won't buy it. However, I think that is extremely unlikely in this case. We have more content in CM:SF than most games of any type. Compared to CMx1 it has less, of course, but then again CMx1 was ridiculously packed with stuff.

Perhaps since CMBB covers so much it also keeps selling stronger

We get the sales reports quarterly... I can assure you that this isn't the case

I wonder if CMSF would be selling at higher price point if it contained Marines from the beginning?

I doubt it. The pricing is based on sales volume and sales speed (velocity), plus outside market effects. For example, Martin pointing out why the price of CMBB is so high in those places... we won't let them sell it for less, regardless of volume. We have no such influence over retail.

Or put it another way, if a product sells 1000 units a month and the retail establishment wants to focus on products that sell 5000 a month, it's going to slash the price quickly whether it's 1000, 1500, or probably even 2000.

On top of that, the retailer wants their sales in the shortest space of time. It would rather have a product that sold 6,000 in one month for 3 months then is tossed out than to have a product that sells 2,000 per month for 12 months. Yup, even though total sales of the "steady" product adds up to 24,000 sales for the year, they would rather have the one that sells 18,000 in 1/4 the time.

This has always, and I mean ALWAYS, been the problem with "deep thinking" games and retail. Be they wargmes, puzzle games, strategy games, you name it. If they have a choice between a flash in the pan game and something like that... they'll take the flash in the pan game every time. Well, unless they specialize in the opposite types of games. But that's a niche reseller and they are outside the norm. Which is what Battlefront started out as... a niche reseller.

Or perhaps if BFC could have spent more time on development before release (like this whole time)

Maybe a tiny bit, but the economics of retail would only be delays for a bit, not effectively countermanded.

The bottomline is that retail doesn't care about the games they sell or the companies that make them. They don't really care about customers either. All they care about is pushing through the most amount of product they possibly can, as quickly as they can. Well, that and getting bloodmoney payments out of retail publishers.

They make a LOT of money from are commonly called Spifs, end caps, and co-op marketing opportunities. They all amount to the same thing... big companies being able to buy favoritism. Just like most of the songs you hear on the radio are there because the radio stations were literally PAID to play those songs, not because they are necessarily popular.

Gee... now why was it that we swore off retail?

Steve

[Childress]

Just like most of the songs you hear on the radio are there because the radio stations were literally PAID to play those songs, not because they are necessarily popular.

This is what goes on in the major supermarket chains, as well. (I know- I'm in the business) It's called slotting. So we pass the cost on to the consumers. If only they knew....

[Paul AU]

I only came across Combat Mission (CMBB) by accident, in a retail outlet. I just took a chance on it being remotely 'turn-based', and it was probably the best/luckiest game-buy of my life. Much later I bought two back-ups copies for cheap. Farmed one out to friends who also hadn't heard of it.

If I have a point, it's that without Retail, lotta people would never have discovered the truly amazing game.

I've seen CMSF on retail shelves only once here (AU), and the next time I looked, it was gone, never to be seen since.

[Clavicula_Nox]

Yeah, I first saw CMBO in a retail store many years ago when it had first come out. Retail has it's uses, but I wouldn't advocate catering to their self-interest.

[Battlefront.com]

Yup, retail does have its uses. However, we tried something different this time (simultaneous release with us and retail) and I don't think that is the way to go in the future. Retail can do good things, but we've found it tends to do better for us when they get "old" product.

Childress,

This is what goes on in the major supermarket chains, as well. (I know- I'm in the business) It's called slotting. So we pass the cost on to the consumers. If only they knew....

I bet a bunch of people reading my comments about radio stations are thinking "what? The songs I hear on the radio are there because someone paid for them to be played? I never knew". For those who never really understood how it was that crap could sell like gold... there's your answer. Quality has very little to do with what sells well in retail when you get right down to it. If it was all about quality, then retailers wouldn't accept bribes to pimp products based on the highest bidder for that shelf space.

Steve

[orwell]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Yup, retail does have its uses. However, we tried something different this time (simultaneous release with us and retail) and I don't think that is the way to go in the future. Retail can do good things, but we've found it tends to do better for us when they get "old" product.

Steve

Like releasing CM:SF digitally, then months/years later getting a contract with retailers to sell it in stores?

[M1A1TC]

Steve

Thanks for the explanation.

Why is is branded under ValuSoft on Amazon?

[pad152]

Retail games these days have the shelf life of day old white bread!

[Dirtweasle]

Yea, I have a sort of second-hand acquaintance with some folks that tried getting a product into grocery stores... geesh what a racket.

[Battlefront.com]

M1A1TC,

Why is is branded under ValuSoft on Amazon?

Because Paradox uses different distributors in different territories. Which is one reason why control is so difficult for us. We have one agreement with one company, which in turn has agreements with a dozen or so, which in turn sell to thousands of places. There are too many different entities involved with their own selfish motivations at work. And not much we can do about it.

You guys may remember a UK company selling CM:SF WAY below everybody else even before the game shipped. We checked and they paid the same amount as every other reseller did, but instead of selling it for a profit they sold it at cost. It boggles the mind how they can make money selling things at cost, but we found out they do that a LOT.

Steve

[Dragon67]

//We checked and they paid the same amount as every other reseller did, but instead of selling it for a profit they sold it at cost. It boggles the mind how they can make money selling things at cost, but we found out they do that a LOT.//

If you have investors and are coming out with a periodic report on revenue, then you concentrate on revenue and turn over of merchandise. This not only includes selling at cost, but also returning to suppliers at a fraction of what you invested in it.

In the end no investor/shareholder is ever going to see what you bought and what you flipped it for- they are going to only see what you spent and what you brought in.

Hope that helps.

[Childress]

Originally posted by Dirtweasle:

Yea, I have a sort of second-hand acquaintance with some folks that tried getting a product into grocery stores... geesh what a racket.

Lol, if people knew what goes behind the closed doors of their local megamarket they'd be at the gates with flaming pitchforks. This applies only to the major chains and it's basically legal (so far) graft. Pimping, as Steve called it, is a good description. There were hearings on Slotting Fees in Congress a few years ago. They got nowhere. Most vendors were afraid to testify because of retaliation. A few appeared before the committee in black hoods, their voices electronically altered. The major dailies didn't deign to cover the hearings.

Funny thing with so many politicians moaning about the plight of the 'poor'. Eliminating these fees, which raise food costs, would be a giant step in that direction. Not to mention the biofuels scam. But they fear to offend that powers that be, or their contributors. Also, the chains reportedly derive most of their net profit from 'em.

[Battlefront.com]

Dragon67,

If you have investors and are coming out with a periodic report on revenue, then you concentrate on revenue and turn over of merchandise. This not only includes selling at cost, but also returning to suppliers at a fraction of what you invested in it.

In the end no investor/shareholder is ever going to see what you bought and what you flipped it for- they are going to only see what you spent and what you brought in.

Absolutely! These sorts of games are played all the time in business. And not only in front of investors, but also by salesmen to their bosses. Games are just a means of making money, nothing more and nothing less. As long a there is an endless supply of new titles coming up, they don't care what happens to the ones they already have. Except for the niche sellers, and of course they are few in number because that's what a niches are all about

Childress,

There were hearings on Slotting Fees in Congress a few years ago. They got nowhere.

I remember that, now that you mention it.

Funny thing with so many politicians moaning about the plight of the 'poor'. Eliminating these fees, which raise food costs, would be a giant step in that direction. Not to mention the biofuels scam. But they fear to offend that powers that be, or their contributors. Also, the chains reportedly derive most of their net profit from 'em.

Add to this healthcare, insurance, and pretty much everything else. The amount of money that the consumers spend on overhead, sales, and marketing expenses is huge. Something like 20% of every Dollar spent on healthcare goes to the booth babes at trade shows (I know, I used to set up their booths!), gloss magazine ads, TV infomercials, the free junk you see all over your doctor's office, etc. In countries that have state run healthcare only 10% or so is spent. When you're talking about billion of Dollars... that's a lot of money.

Childress' point about these practices being legal is correct, as far as I know. But it is generally skirting anti-racketeering laws IMHO. It definitely drives up costs, though the consumers are tricked into thinking it doesn't. Fortunately, we have more flexibility in that we can say "no" and still survive. The Internet is an equalizing force, that's for sure.

But I digress

Steve

[C'Rogers]

Dragon67,

You missed it the first time around I think. We had the discussion when it first got mentioned 6+ months ago. Steve said about the same, someone explained it, but I think his reply then was (paraphrased) 'of course I know what they are trying to do, I am in the computer industry, I mean I don't know how they can actually expect it to work).

But yay for discussing loss leaders again. Variety is what breaths such life into the product (product = forum).

Oh, as for screwing over the customer. I work in the casino industry. People pay us to screw them over.

[Childress]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

But it is generally skirting anti-racketeering laws IMHO. It definitely drives up costs, though the consumers are tricked into thinking it doesn't. Fortunately, we have more flexibility in that we can say "no" and still survive.

The effect of slotting,'free fills', and the like is to deter small, innovative companies from gaining a foothold in the marketplace and to concentrate power in the hands of established producers who can afford to pony up the bribes. This has been going on for the past 15 years or so, encouraged by market consolidation in retail among 'The Big 3', and continues to flourish in the absence of media curiosity. You may have noticed the shrinking variety and higher prices, during this period. Size, it seems, begets corruption whether it's the corporate or statist kind.

Unfortunately, the internet isn't much help here. For the moment.

[Battlefront.com]

Yup, that's exactly what we experienced 1st hand in the games biz. Consolidation at both the retail and producing end meant that the little guy had zero chance of getting into retail his own. And I mean none. Well, unless he bought his way in, and that would only work the first time if the product didn't sell like gangbusters. The retailer is happy to take your money for x, y, and z bribe, but the second they don't think the product is selling, they chuck it. Sometimes even when they are legally obligated to keep it on the shelf. When I worked for Sierra they sent people around to the stores to double check. It was not uncommon to find them not living up to their obligations.

The main damage to the consumer is that most developers have ONE SHOT to make it. If they don't have everything lined up in an optimal way, including a partner that is truly up to the task, and their product doesn't meet expectations (note I did not say anything about popularity or success), they're done as a team. There is very little chance of coming around a second time to learn from one's mistakes, which may include the choice of publishing partner.

The Internet isn't really a viable alternative for the resource intensive games either, at least not yet. For someone to afford a $10,000,000 - $50,000,000 budget they can't rely upon merit or chance. They must be able to stack the deck in their favor because otherwise their chances of a 3:1 to 5:1 payback (which is what they look for) are tiny.

As for the food prices, I saw a Senator hold up a box of Corn Flakes and a single cornflake. He said that the grower gets about $0.05 for the raw product in the entire box, yet the box now costs around $5. His point was... how much of the recent increase in the cost of that box of cornflakes was due to higher cost of farming? Like the oil companies, the Big 3 appear to have no problem with maintaining their profits despite other factors. When that happens it's pretty clear that competition has been largely snuffed out.

Steve

[Clavicula_Nox]

When I worked for Sierra

I'm a big Police/Kings/Space Quest fan. I never got into Gabriel Knight, but I wanted to.

[Battlefront.com]

I worked on Leisuresuit Larry. Just kidding I worked for a whole owned subsidiary; Impressions. When Sierra decided that wargaming and even strategy gaming weren't all that interesting, they killed off the division even though it was continually profitable year after year. Why? Because Sierra probably wanted to focus on fewer products because it maximized it's ability to assure success of those titles. In other words, fewer titles meant more bribe money to spend on the few that remained.

BTW, it's probably the same reason they killed of their other two sim companies; Dynamix (sub and plane sims) and Papyrus (car racing sims). Notice a common theme here?

Anybody that thinks consolidation of this magnitude doesn't harm consumer choice and price isn't paying attention

Steve

[Clavicula_Nox]

Man, I know Impressions. I still have Civil War Generals 2 installed on my computer and I had the first one when it was first released. I also remember that side-scroller..Hunter/Hunted, I think? Dynamix's Red Baron and Red Baron 2 were the only flight sims I ever enjoyed apart from Microprose: F-117 game.

Btw, their consolidation scheme failed miserably. King's Quest Mask of Eternity? Please. Police Quest: SWAT? Give me a break. I dunno, back when I was young, Sierra and Lucasarts were my favorite developer/publisher groups, it's been sad to see them go.

*edit*

I'm 22 years old and bemoan the state of PC gaming today.

[StellarRat]

Well, there are a couple of BIG companies that have put out some "deep" games, IMO. I think CIV could be a "deep" game and maybe NWN2, but for the most part I have to agree with Steve. Fortunately, we have Battlefront, Shrapnel and a couple other players still in the game, otherwise, we'd be screwed. Sometimes I long again for the golden years when Microprose and the others were putting out "good" games. I can't imagine X-COM, Railroad Tycoon, Harpoon never coming to light because they weren't "BIG" games.

[Battlefront.com]

I still have Civil War Generals 2

That was my baby I worked on that sucker all the way until the day I decided I needed a change of scenery. Even stayed an extra couple of months to finish it. Oh, the stories I could tell about that one! Like the day I had to try and persuade the founder of Sierra that it shouldn't be realtime. Fortunately, I won that round!

Actually, that is on topic here. Ken Williams, the aforementioned founder, stated flat out that he would rather have one game that sold 600,000 instead of six games that sold 100,000. Since we made the sorts of games that tended to sell in the low hundreds of thousands (Lords of the Realm 2 being a big exception), what he was basically saying is that we were a burden. I argued that this was great if you only made one game and it sold 600,000 instead of 100,000. Many eggs in different baskets vs. one huge egg in one basket sort of argument. Why was he in favor of the big risk option? Because of the stuff I just mentioned above... when it hits it hits big and if all your resources can focus on it, then the chances are that it will hit big even if it wouldn't if left to its own merits as a game.

For a while Impressions managed to successfully buck the trend because the big titles Sierra itself churned out wound up bombing and it was the wee-little products that we made which kept them from going bankrupt. Or in the case of Lords 2, flooded them with a lot of unexpected revenue since they had much lower expectations for it than what in fact happened. Sadly, ultimately Impressions was nuked. Most of them reconstituted under a new roof at Tilted Mill. Great people and products, but facing the same sorts of problems we've been discussing here.

Steve

[Clavicula_Nox]

NWN 2 isn't bad at all. There weren't too many things I found wrong with it, I suppose. XCOM was THE game back in the day, too bad they killed it off with a flight sim and that ridiculous Enforcer.

[Battlefront.com]

StellarRat,

Well, there are a couple of BIG companies that have put out some "deep" games

Yup! Even in a mass market, money driven industry there will always be a few exceptions to the rules. But they are just that, the exceptions. Those of us who were playing computer wargames when Clavicula_Nox was still trundling around in his diapers (the humor of this thought is neutralized by the horror I can say that ) know that "deep games" were on a par with the action ones. At least on the home computers of the day. Unfortunately the masses are all about quick fixes and twitches. So the more mass market the industry has become, the more us "deep games" have been pushed out. We're almost irrelevant from the industry's perspective.

Steve

[Clavicula_Nox]

Those of us who were playing computer wargames when Clavicula_Nox was still trundling around in his diapers

The thing is, even though I was trundling in diapers, I was gaming. I've been computer gaming since I was 6 months old.

So, if the market is so stacked against you guys, how do you breakout? Can you breakout? Should you breakout?

[Other Means]

God, Red Baron. Why doesn't someone make a good WWI flight sim? 50 planes swirling round in a massive dogfight...balloon raids...Zeppelin raids...one on one with the wily Red Baron...

Talk to someone Steve, it could be great.