RE: You've lost a lot of sales due to the high price. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Close Combat Series >> Close Combat - Cross of Iron



Message

Oleg Mastruko -> RE: You've lost a lot of sales due to the high price. (3/11/2007 10:19:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hertston
So basically it just comes down to whether you are a 'fan' or not whether you lob off 30% or not?


I rarely bring the score down because of personal negative bias. I bring the score UP when I have positive bias, though. Readers know that. I tell them in no uncertain words "look people I hate/love this game, and I'll tell you why I love it/hate it and if you happen to disagree screw you". What's the fun of being reviewer in a big magazine in a small country if you can't speak up your mind and write long love letters to games you enjoy, and hate letters to everything by HPS? [:D]

Reviewers have to be biased - there's no such thing as "objective game review" (a GAME ffs!), and that's OK. Whoever says otherwise is just being dishonest and pretentious, or worse.



Monkeys Brain -> RE: You've lost a lot of sales due to the high price. (3/11/2007 10:43:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: David Heath

Hi Guys

Look I do not mind these debates but I want the tone to be a little nicer.

Hi Mario / Monkey Brain (Love your handle) You simple post the same issues over and over and over and over and over... get the point. You done this on other forums and I do not want that to start here. Post it once give it out of your system and drop it.

Hi Oleg - I Don't alway agree with you but you normally conduct yourself in a good manner. I understand you do not like have we are re-releasing some of our games but that is the way we are doing it.

So everyone please take a step back and lets not turn this into a bigger issue then it needs to be.




OK agreed [:)]



genozaur -> RE: You've lost a lot of sales due to the high price. (3/19/2007 7:24:18 AM)

The price for CoI is NOT high, even taking into account that this is a re-release of CCIII.
And you know why? Because this game (CCIII\CoI) is a very well-balanced entertainment product with historically CLOSE simulation at the company\batallion level of real war battles during the most extraordinary campaign of the WWII (as compared to the today's prices for gas, movies, hockey, bottled water, and iced tea).
I, senior Lt of the Soviet Army, wonder if a lot of gamers could repeat my deed (CCIII version, historically accurate settings) and defeat the Nazi war machine in the very first battle of the campaign.




Zap -> RE: You've lost a lot of sales due to the high price. (3/20/2007 10:58:27 PM)

I bought it last night with the physical shipment as well. I liked the game years ago but I did not have this one. So I'm a happy camper. Price? what price, all I see is hours of game enjoyment!



m5000.2006 -> RE: You've lost a lot of sales due to the high price. (3/22/2007 2:02:11 AM)

i paid 53 EUR (tax and shipping including) and i don't think it's that high

i do own CC2, CC3, CC4 and CC5

although, CoI is a kind of remake of CC3, it isn't just A remake - it's been patched, improved graphically, and most importantly, it will be supported with at least patches, CC3's been dead for years as far as support is concerned...

besides, the whole proces of mod installation is now part of the game, which makes it more professional, easier and more convenient

support of CSO is also a factor

and of course, hopefully, my money will be used to publish more CC titles... [sm=Cool-049.gif]



civdiv -> RE: You've lost a lot of sales due to the high price. (3/24/2007 8:20:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LitFuel
I'm still trying to figure out why you even bothered posting, you obviously have no love for the CC series. [8|]


I just wandered in here to see if the new version of CC had been released. I see it has and I see I won't be buying it. And what a completely insulting reply! I own every CC game in the series as well as a lot of the mods. Currently I have one CC game loaded on this system, and two older CCs complete with oodles of mods loaded on an older system. And I won't pay $39.99 or $49.99 for this current game. $20 or $25 maybe, but even $25 seems too high. And that doesn't mean that I have no love for the CC series. 'Demonstrate your love of the CC series by giving us money.' $40-50 is for fully developed games, not for slightly modded re-releases. I don't care about 'new features', not at that price. You release a game that is what, 80-90% of the same code as a eight year old game and has the cost of a game you developed from start to finish?!?! You guys have been smoking crack.

civdiv



LitFuel -> RE: You've lost a lot of sales due to the high price. (3/24/2007 8:36:09 PM)

See ya!!!...you don't get it and you never will. The same tired oh it's old code response...please, give me a break...if it's good gaming it's still good gaming no matter the age... and I find it insulting that you would knock the people who did work on it. You will probably be around for CC6 and then have no memory of how it got to that point...it's one thing to decide to not to buy it( I have no problem with that) but another to come in and blast it for no good reason other then to hear yourself being grumpy and complain about the price. That's the insult to people who do enjoy and support it. The fact you still have the games loaded and obviously take mods from a site that supports it is rather ironic I think.



civdiv -> RE: You've lost a lot of sales due to the high price. (3/24/2007 9:36:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hertston

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

CC3 91% (3 pgs.); CC4 82%; CC5 90% (2 pgs.), EYSA 64%, CoI 65%

Whoa! A pattern emerges again.... [:D]



Only one of inconsistency. How can any reviewer that would score CC3 26% higher than a game that everybody (except, seemingly you) acknowledges is superior to the original release expect to have any credibility at all? Even the 'age' argument doesn't cut it - the only thing that is relevant there is graphics and they couldn't have changed those significantly further (i.e to a modern 3D engine or such) without it no longer being Close Combat.





That is one of the dumbest comments I have ever seen on these foums, and that is saying a bit. Yeah, a game that is equivelent to a game that came out 8 years ago should get the same score as the old game got. Sure, right, whatever.

civdiv



Hertston -> RE: You've lost a lot of sales due to the high price. (3/24/2007 10:01:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: civdiv

That is one of the dumbest comments I have ever seen on these foums, and that is saying a bit. Yeah, a game that is equivelent to a game that came out 8 years ago should get the same score as the old game got. Sure, right, whatever.



Let's just say I'll take your comment on board with all the respect it deserves. [8|]

Perhaps you might like to explain why a game should be automatically be scored down to that degree because of age (and CoI is an improved version, remember). Perhaps you can point out all the of the games released in that time that are so much more entertaining to play, or do the same job so much better? I seem to have missed them.



civdiv -> RE: You've lost a lot of sales due to the high price. (3/24/2007 10:04:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LitFuel

See ya!!!...you don't get it and you never will. The same tired oh it's old code response...please, give me a break...if it's good gaming it's still good gaming no matter the age... and I find it insulting that you would knock the people who did work on it. You will probably be around for CC6 and then have no memory of how it got to that point...it's one thing to decide to not to buy it( I have no problem with that) but another to come in and blast it for no good reason other then to hear yourself being grumpy and complain about the price. That's the insult to people who do enjoy and support it. The fact you still have the games loaded and obviously take mods from a site that supports it is rather ironic I think.


No, the point is your ludicrous opinion that not buying this game means we don't care about the CC series. That is insulting and just plain dumb. If you were to admit that you said something dumb I wouldn't be so angry. But as you have now replied you obviously believe that crappola you just spouted. Feel free to correct me on that.

Your point about the code argument being 'old' is likewise complete BS. If 80-90% of the code is being re-used, why is the price that of an in-house development? If the price-point is to subsidize CC6, then again, I will choose not to buy the game. And the claims that $40-50 is less than a regular new release is just plain a lie. Probably 95% of the games you see on the shelf at Best Buy or Circuit City start at $49.99 or less. Given, there are in-house 'niche' games from small independant game houses (Like Matrix) that produce games like WiTP, and I have no problem with the $60-70 price. Those are not games that are going to be old after 20 hours playing or next year when the new and improved version 1.1 comes out as a new release. Games like WiTP will be playable in 5 years or even in 10. But using backwards logic to try and lump CoI in with games like that is completely disingenuous.

Bottom-line, you spend 10% of the time it would take to develop a game that is already 8 years old but then charge full price. I think the price has more to do with Matrix thinking the strong but weakening CC community needs its 'fix' rather than an honest reflection of the cost involved to mod the game.

And yes, I will be around if and when CC6 gets released. And if it turns out to be CC5.1 I won't buy it either, at least at the current price-point.

civdiv



civdiv -> RE: You've lost a lot of sales due to the high price. (3/24/2007 10:20:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hertston

quote:

ORIGINAL: civdiv

That is one of the dumbest comments I have ever seen on these foums, and that is saying a bit. Yeah, a game that is equivelent to a game that came out 8 years ago should get the same score as the old game got. Sure, right, whatever.



Let's just say I'll take your comment on board with all the respect it deserves. [8|]

Perhaps you might like to explain why a game should be automatically be scored down to that degree because of age (and CoI is an improved version, remember). Perhaps you can point out all the of the games released in that time that are so much more entertaining to play, or do the same job so much better? I seem to have missed them.



Because it's old ground that has already been covered and does not take advantage of the improvements in user interfaces, computing power, graphics power, monitors, etc? And this isn't a different game, it's a re-release. If someone copied CC but came up with a new game engine but the results were visually and in terms of game play, pretty much identical, do you think it would garner a good review?

If someone 'invented' Civilization I right now, do you think it would do well? CC was a revolutionary when it first came out. CCIII was arguably the best game in the series. But that was before games like the Battlefront series, CoH, Blitzkreig, Band of Brothers, etc, raised the bar. Yes, none fit right into the niche that the CC series invented, but all moved the genre forward.

And the market itself tells you that you are wrong. If companies were just releasing Civilization, Halo, Halflife, CMBO, etc, even you can admit they would go out of business. There were Civilization II and III and IV, Halo 2, Halflife 2, CMBB/CMAK (and now CMSF). Eash was a evalutionary improvement on the old release (Arguably some are revolutionary). CoI is not an evolutionary improvement to CC, it's a compilation of a bunch of user developed mods with a few tweaks with the same old tired game engine.

civdiv



m5000.2006 -> RE: You've lost a lot of sales due to the high price. (3/25/2007 12:29:05 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: civdiv
[...]CoI is not an evolutionary improvement to CC, it's a compilation of a bunch of user developed mods with a few tweaks with the same old tired game engine.

civdiv



maybe one of the reasons why they didn't want to change the engine or make too radical changes was to keep the game copmpatible with the old mods and maps

now, mods need to be altered for CoI, but i hear these are not substantial changes, and correct me if i'm wrong, maps can stay the same as the old CCIII's

i suppose that if they had changed the engine and had turned it into something like, say, Blitzkrieg II, then all the mods and maps would be totally useless...




civdiv -> RE: You've lost a lot of sales due to the high price. (3/25/2007 2:27:28 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: m5000.2006


quote:

ORIGINAL: civdiv
[...]CoI is not an evolutionary improvement to CC, it's a compilation of a bunch of user developed mods with a few tweaks with the same old tired game engine.

civdiv



maybe one of the reasons why they didn't want to change the engine or make too radical changes was to keep the game copmpatible with the old mods and maps

now, mods need to be altered for CoI, but i hear these are not substantial changes, and correct me if i'm wrong, maps can stay the same as the old CCIII's

i suppose that if they had changed the engine and had turned it into something like, say, Blitzkrieg II, then all the mods and maps would be totally useless...




The issue isn't why they didn't update the game engine, the issue is why are we paying full price for an 8 year old re-release.

Look, just in this topic are like 6 people who said they wouldn't pay for the game at this price, but would if it were $25-30 or so. So add in the lurkers who are reading the exchanges but don't chime in and the number of them that won't buy it based in part on this discussion. Then add in all of those who don't read the forums but simply won't pay full price for the game. How many is that, and after what, 5 weeks? I mean, based on the number of posters on each side of this discussion, discounting admins and developers, I'd say you lost 30-40% of buyers.

civdiv



Andrew Williams -> RE: You've lost a lot of sales due to the high price. (3/25/2007 2:56:12 AM)

25-30 is no good if it takes 31 to produce.

all hypothetical figures, of course.



Hertston -> RE: You've lost a lot of sales due to the high price. (3/25/2007 3:06:23 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: civdiv

Because it's old ground that has already been covered and does not take advantage of the improvements in user interfaces, computing power, graphics power, monitors, etc?


CoI does regarding monitors, but that apart you are just repeating yourself. Why does it have to take advantage of them in order to avoid a 25% deduction before they are even booted up? CC does what it does; it's hard to see how the overhead graphics could be much improved and there simply is nothing wrong with the UI. I could name games that do all those things that are absolute crap. I could also name games that do none of them, and were well worth the 80% plus they scored from professional reviewers. It could do with an AI boost.. but so could every other wargame I've played over those 8 years.


quote:

And this isn't a different game, it's a re-release. If someone copied CC but came up with a new game engine but the results were visually and in terms of game play, pretty much identical, do you think it would garner a good review?


Yup. But they haven't. When they do your point might have some merit.


quote:

And the market itself tells you that you are wrong. If companies were just releasing Civilization, Halo, Halflife, CMBO, etc, even you can admit they would go out of business. There were Civilization II and III and IV, Halo 2, Halflife 2, CMBB/CMAK (and now CMSF). Eash was a evalutionary improvement on the old release (Arguably some are revolutionary). CoI is not an evolutionary improvement to CC, it's a compilation of a bunch of user developed mods with a few tweaks with the same old tired game engine.


You are generalising based on a totally different market. The demand for 'classic' CC to be made available again was unique, and that is what was provided. 'New' CC is on the way - hopefully.


quote:

Look, just in this topic are like 6 people who said they wouldn't pay for the game at this price, but would if it were $25-30 or so. So add in the lurkers who are reading the exchanges but don't chime in and the number of them that won't buy it based in part on this discussion. Then add in all of those who don't read the forums but simply won't pay full price for the game. How many is that, and after what, 5 weeks? I mean, based on the number of posters on each side of this discussion, discounting admins and developers, I'd say you lost 30-40% of buyers.


By my calculations, a 35 or 40% loss would still put them ahead. Probably a little more, allowing for overhead allocation on each sale. And, of course, as is always the case how many of those people would actually have bought it if it had been a whopping $10 cheaper?

'We' are paying what is actually $10 less than 'full price' because that is the price Matrix believe will maximise their own profit, and allow the maximum amount to be invested in continued development of CC. It's that simple. Maybe a cheaper price would yield more revenue, maybe not, but nobody has provided a remotely convincing case that they know the market better than Matrix. If it's too expensive, there is no obligation for people to buy it.





Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: You've lost a lot of sales due to the high price. (3/25/2007 3:38:10 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: civdiv

The issue isn't why they didn't update the game engine, the issue is why are we paying full price for an 8 year old re-release.


"We" aren't, although I and a lot of others folks did.

There's no way that the residual sales that would be generated by bargain-bin pricing would have generated enough revenue for it to have been worth the publisher's while to f**k with. Likewise, giving the game away would have done nothing to help capitalize the developers for future projects. The alternative for CC fans is to simply allow the game(s) to die as the supply of CC3 available on Ebay dries up, and those already in gamers hands slowly but surely succumb to wear and age. Is that what you want, or is it simply free or price-compromised gaming software, stuff that's valueless by virtue of its over-availability?

I purchased both the download and CD versions of CoI. I've paid a lot more for a lot less. It's a good investment in a game that can endure, if it's allowed to do so, your profoundest concerns, notwithstanding.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)




old man of the sea -> RE: You've lost a lot of sales due to the high price. (3/25/2007 4:54:09 AM)

This thread is still kicking?

Should I drink another bottle of mead and post again?

E




Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: You've lost a lot of sales due to the high price. (3/25/2007 5:04:44 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: old man of the sea

This thread is still kicking?

Should I drink another bottle of mead and post again?

E




I've followed this for while now, also.

It reminds me of a line from a Theodore Roethke poem, I Knew A Women:

She moves in circles, and those circles move.

AFAIK, there are no female contributors.

Have one on me, Eric.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)



Oleg Mastruko -> RE: You've lost a lot of sales due to the high price. (3/25/2007 5:05:14 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: old man of the sea
This thread is still kicking?

Should I drink another bottle of mead and post again?


Please do. I somehow missed your last mead-induced post until it was too late - pity, though, as I did feel the belated impulse to drift into a "why Dalmatia should be independent country" tirade. Now this place and time seem good enough as any [:D]



Andrew Williams -> RE: You've lost a lot of sales due to the high price. (3/25/2007 5:49:41 AM)

Yes, the dogs need somewhere to run free.



Shaun Wallace -> RE: You've lost a lot of sales due to the high price. (3/25/2007 9:17:09 PM)

quote:

I just wandered in here to see if the new version of CC had been released. I see it has and I see I won't be buying it. And what a completely insulting reply! I own every CC game in the series as well as a lot of the mods. Currently I have one CC game loaded on this system, and two older CCs complete with oodles of mods loaded on an older system. And I won't pay $39.99 or $49.99 for this current game. $20 or $25 maybe, but even $25 seems too high. And that doesn't mean that I have no love for the CC series. 'Demonstrate your love of the CC series by giving us money.' $40-50 is for fully developed games, not for slightly modded re-releases. I don't care about 'new features', not at that price. You release a game that is what, 80-90% of the same code as a eight year old game and has the cost of a game you developed from start to finish?!?! You guys have been smoking crack. civdiv


quote:

oodles of mods


Hi CD, seems like you enjoy CC as much as the rest of us. Where did you get the mods you play from? Who has kept all these files online for you for so many years. CSO has been going as a download site for at least 10 years, CC Series net and many others around for a long time as well. How do you think that happened? You think someone gave the webspace and bandwidth? The point of the CSO site has been to have a central repository (same as CC Series) for all the maps, mods, tools, howtos, files, faq's and all the rest that goes with it. The very fact that sites like CSO has kept going and that modders have kept modding is because that "old" engine that you still enjoy is both being used and still being modded. Simtek was formed to make use of the code for the military and to use commercially. A large part of the input and impetus within Simtek has come from that modding community that has given you "oodles of mods" to enjoy for so long. many of the same people are also involved in other projects and CC6. I was involved with Eric in both GIC and EYSA and think that top down is pefect for Close Combat. Even with a new engine CC will still look and feel very similar. a large 3D world is very hard to control on a tactical level without the overview CC gives. When we move forward and onto a new engine there are certain things that have to be kept for it to actually work as CC. CC is not simply another RTS its a different genre out there on its own. Its a Real Time Tactial game/simulation.

quote:

You guys have been smoking crack.


You seem to be very angry for some reason and to take all of this very personally. Simply don't buy it. I can see why the circular comment was brought up ;) Which end of the telescope are you actually using there mate...

Sulla



civdiv -> RE: You've lost a lot of sales due to the high price. (3/25/2007 10:37:02 PM)

Shaun,
The circular comment is due to the fact that defenders of the price tag keep going back to why the engine hasn't been changed. Our argument is we think the cost of the game is too expensive given that the game engine is essentially unchanged. The other argument (From the pro-CoI side) is that the game should rest on its own merits and be regarded as a new game (and reviewed as such) despite having an 8 year old engine under the hood.

This is a re-release of an old game, but it is priced as if it is an entirely new game, that is the crux of most people's criticism. You guys keep defending by going into the 'if it ain't broke than don't fix it' or 'the UI is just fine' or 'it needs to stay compatible with the mods' line of defense. It is you (you in general, not directed specifically at anyone) who keep the argument circular because you refuse to provide any reason a game that uses a slightly tweeked engine and a bunch of public domain mods should be priced as a new game. That is the crux of the criticism.

In regards to keeping the CC line alive, I am all for that. But by stating that buying an overpriced game is supporting the CC world is pure propaganda. What, if we paid $30 for the game we wouldn't be supporting the CC world? What, modders who built cool stuff for CC years ago and freely put them in the public domain now want to be paid for their efforts? I remember years ago (Since late-2003, I know the timeframe as that is when I bought my old laptop that still has a heavily modded CC 3 and 5 installed on it.) I contributed (IIRC; $50) to a site that hosted a slew of mods. Not sure if it was CSO, I just checked and unless the site has been completely rebuilt graphically in the last 3 years or so, I don't recognize it. I routinely contribute money to websites or for utilities I use. I've donated to DL Accelerator, Gamespy (Years ago), The Wargamer, Roger Wilco, and several other websites devoted to games I enjoy or have enjoyed. That's off the top of my head, I'm sure there are other instances.

Prince,
Quit with the 'bargain-bin' buzz word bologny, $30 is not a bargain bin price.

To All,
I'm tired of the argument. It's clear that a lot of CC lovers are upset over this issue. Thus far you (again, general you) have done nothing to convince us that we are wrong.

civdiv



vonB -> RE: You've lost a lot of sales due to the high price. (3/25/2007 11:02:04 PM)

quote:

It's clear that a lot of CC lovers are upset over this issue.
How many is a lot?  From what I can see, it is a very small minority, albeit vocal. 

'Bargain' is a relative concept.  I think it's a bargain. Someone else doesn't.  Who's right? 



Shaun Wallace -> RE: You've lost a lot of sales due to the high price. (3/25/2007 11:11:54 PM)

quote:

To All,
I'm tired of the argument. It's clear that a lot of CC lovers are upset over this issue. Thus far you (again, general you) have done nothing to convince us that we are wrong.


I'm tired of the argument. It's - Me too ;) Alot is as far as I see it, the same as VonB sees it, a very vocal minority.

Sulla



civdiv -> RE: You've lost a lot of sales due to the high price. (3/25/2007 11:45:10 PM)

Well, I just went all the way through this topic and added up the responses. I did not count developers or employees of Matrix or Simtek (That I could identify) or admins. The results;

8 said the price was too high, and with one exception said they would not buy the game.

16 said the price was alright, but MAYBE half of them stated they had actually bought the game.

A third is a lot, I would think, from the perspective of a commercial enterprise.

Taking into account that there are probably people affiliated with Simtek or Matrix, or people with some midicum of interest in the commercial success of the game that I could not identify, I would say that the price point has alienated more than a third of consumers. Obviously this is not a very scientific poll, and the data set is small, but it certainly indicates a trend.

Is it a minority? Sure, 49% is a minority.

vonB, go to your local game store and count how many $30 games are in the bargain bin. Honestly, how many would YOU expect to find? I'm a psychic as I know you would expect to find zero. So quit with the disingenuous argument.

civdiv



Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: You've lost a lot of sales due to the high price. (3/26/2007 12:03:48 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: civdiv

Thus far you (again, general you) have done nothing to convince us that we are wrong.


Precisely, who is the "us" to whom you are referring, you and monkey brain?

Representatives from both the developer and publisher have come here and very patiently explained to the angry little horde that is "us" the rationale behind the pricing scheme. Simply put, to have charged less on a print run so small would have meant no profit to either party, get it? Your willingness to ignore the salient nature of this truth is really sort of mind-numbing. What else would you have Matrix and Simtek do in their attempt to allay your concerns, provide an accountant to educate "us" as to the slings and arrows of business logic?

Mercifully, the ALL of you that is "us" don't amount to any great loss, sales wise, which is after all the thread topic. Given that the folks that support the price as is outnumbers "us" by ten or fifteen to one, it really appears as though you've suffered a total, ignominious defeat in your quest to have CoI priced lower than a decent bottle of scotch. What an honor, really, for all of "us."

PoE



Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: You've lost a lot of sales due to the high price. (3/26/2007 12:06:26 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: civdiv

8 said the price was too high, and with one exception said they would not buy the game.

civdiv


Name 'em.

And while you're at it, kindly check out message #20 in which the thread's originator, jpinard, changed his stance on the issue after Shaun Wallace detailed the history and economics of CoI.

PoE



Shaun Wallace -> RE: You've lost a lot of sales due to the high price. (3/26/2007 12:17:15 AM)

quote:

I'm tired of the argument.


What part of this DID you mean [;)] I really am tired of the same ground over and over...

Sulla



Hertston -> RE: You've lost a lot of sales due to the high price. (3/26/2007 12:25:54 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

And while you're at it, kindly check out message #20 in which the thread's originator, jpinard, changed his stance on the issue after Shaun Wallace detailed the history and economics of CoI.



Yup. I made it four, excluding yourself, civdiv. Of those, one changed his mind, one had issues not so much with the price as with the sales tax that Matrix/Digital River have to add to Euro sales, and a third just couldn't decide which game to buy. That leaves two, including you.



civdiv -> RE: You've lost a lot of sales due to the high price. (3/26/2007 12:40:06 AM)

quote:

Precisely, who is the "us" to whom you are referring, you and monkey brain?


The eight of 'us' that said the price was too high, namely;

me
jpinard
canuck
oleg
Moneky Brain
toast
goodguy
ezz

You really didn't need me to provide that info, now did you?

quote:

Representatives from both the developer and publisher have come here and very patiently explained to the angry little horde that is "us" the rationale behind the pricing scheme. Simply put, to have charged less on a print run so small would have meant no profit to either party, get it? Your willingness to ignore the salient nature of this truth is really sort of mind-numbing. What else would you have Matrix and Simtek do in their attempt to allay your concerns, provide an accountant to educate "us" as to the slings and arrows of business logic?


So, taking a completed game and incorporating some minor tweeking and the addition of some mods costs the same as developing a game from scratch, right? By that metric recreating an eight year old game from scratch would probably cost around $500 a copy, right? They haven't touched this issue yet except in nebulous statements like 'hard working team of developers...', 'can you put troops in a boat and go sailing....', 'but we provided mods to the community for free for years....', 'we need to pay for CSO's bandwidth...'.

quote:

Mercifully, the ALL of you that is "us" don't amount to any great loss, sales wise, which is after all the thread topic. Given that the folks that support the price as is outnumbers "us" by ten or fifteen to one, it really appears as though you've suffered a total, ignominious defeat in your quest to have CoI priced lower than a decent bottle of scotch. What an honor, really, for all of "us."


That must be 'new math'. Yes, your fictional army dealt me an ignominous defeat, uncle already!

Simtek, thanks for helping to keep the CC community alive. I hope CC6 comes out and is a success, but I'm not playing till that happens.

civdiv



Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3.203125