|
SamuraiProgrmmr -> RE: Today is the day - Finally (11/25/2007 6:24:19 PM)
|
(Please take this in the spirit of open discussion - I'm not really refuting your point, just offering another set of considerations)
Point taken about those who may or may not buy it because of the price. I am not sure I agree (see below), but you may be right.
I remember a new copy of the tabletop game (when it was available in game stores) being $35. Surely the 'computerization' of the product is worth another $25.
Furthermore, When EIA (tabletop) was $35, you could buy Star Fleet Battles for $20.
Ultimately, the price has to be set according to several criteria.
1)
(Cost of Production + Expected Profit (production, wholesale, and retail) ) / Expected Sales
2)
More, if the public will pay.
Price setting for intellectual property is a very interesting problem.
Thinking about what the public will pay...
Lets consider Civilization 4 --- one game - two expansion packs. I don't remember what price it came out at for sure, but I think it was 39.99. The expansions were 29.99 each (IIRC). That adds up to almost $100. (Don't forget that was after Civ, CivNet, Civ2, Civ3, Civ3 Expansion)
Lets consider Starfleet Command - I think they had 4 products before it was over. The total was easily over $100.
What is the likelyhood of an expansion pack for a game like this? If you expand it, is it still Empires in Arms?
I guess you could add more map sections and have the same game mechanics for the New World, etc. Maybe it is a candidate for an expansion pack.
In my mind, the real question is Will people who have not played games like this buy it -- even if it is $20.00?
I have no idea what the sales figures were for EIA (tabletop). I would expect the computer version sales to be comparable... give or take 20%.
And yes, if the price were $10.00 less, I would happily pay it instead. If it were $10.00 more, I would pay it as well, but for different reasons than your typical purchaser. I want to encourage more of the same.
Specifically, I would like to see more turn based faithful reproductions of complex board games with PBEM / Direct Connect / and strong AIs. You see, I have plans for my retirement. I want to play all of the games I never had time to play during Real Life (TM).
I am sad for what has 'almost' been. Here is a prime example.
Starfleet Command was supposed to be a real-time reproduction of StarFleet Battles. I was hoping for turn-based but was intrigued by how they adjusted to real time. (I think they did many things correctly.) Then the designers decided that the battles progressed too slowly and decided to monkey with damage allocation to make the game more exciting. This changed all kinds of dynamics that had been carefully balanced over 3 releases since 1974. I was a playtester for the original (For those who will check, I am listed in the readme but not in the manual because Real Life (TM) got in the way). I knew it had missed the mark in my opinion. But I bought it anyway. Why? Because it was a step in the right direction.
One of my goals is to do what Marshall has done. Take an old favorite and put it on the computer. Maybe someday. Until then, I have to hope that the game producers will do it for me. The only influence I have with them is my wallet. (It is, after all, a capitalist world.)
So, I will gladly pay what some others may see as a little too much. I am investing in the future.
(Is Matrix Games publicly held?--- If so, what is the stock symbol.. I might buy a share or two [:)] )
Again, I am not necessarily refuting your point. You may be exactly correct.
Dean
|
|
|
|
