• the post-release, short-term pricing discount
  
• the promise of increasing modding activity and many more short-duration scenarios (hence to me playable; complexity is not the issue; it's the time investment)
  
• the many fixes in AE to flaws in the first game that contributed to my not buying WitP in the first instance
  
• changed life circumstances over the past five years that make it now less "risky" to buy the new game (and, alas, the old game too)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: SuluSea

quote:

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

I'm sorry my specifics were wrong, you made the general statement that you would pay $200 for a computer game as I saw it. Instead, you stated you would pay $200 for AE; not a whole lot of difference there, as it's like I said, little more than an empty boast

I didn't make a "general statement" that I "would pay $200 for a computer game" that's a fact.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Charles_22
. So what this means is that you were so satisfied with WITP, despite not forking out $200 (and I detailed how you could do that - which you didn't) that you would indeed fork out $200 for AE? Understood, and somewhat more plausible, but do understand, whether you did this or not yourself, the context was that we were having people who had not bought either game and you, and others, were trying to use the argument that if you were willing to spend so much on a game, that they should feel that much more certain that they are not taking a gamble to buy it. Sorry SuleSea, I'm not taking a shot at you, as much as I'm tired of the boasting that goes on when trying to convince others of why they should buy the product; as it's total baloney (as I alluded in those posts a few months back). You guys like the product, and Las Vegas is full of people who like to throw money around foolishly, but don't equate money you allegedly willing to spend as a lure for somebody else.

The opinions of the members that are happy with their purchase and post positive comments on their game of choice are just as valid as the members that like to piss and moan about Matrix policies, prices and products. Obviously you suffer from issues that cut much deeper than the price of a wargame. I don't think I'm the only member of this board that notes the hypocrisy in complaining about Matrix prices while using their bandwidth to do it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panjack

quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob
Apparently, you do not understand that many of us on this forum have high posting numbers...

Sigh...

quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob
Your single suggestion seems presumptive...Your legal advice is not needed.

Why the apparent hostility?

I'm not criticizing Matrix Games and will likely buy AE when it comes out. I'm merely saying it would be wise for them to double-check the legal implications of their proposed pricing scheme. I'm pretty sure they are in the clear, but if they're not it's a real problem for them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: flipperwasirish

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panjack

Matrix Games would be wise to check with a good lawyer about their pricing scheme.

I'm not a lawyer...and I'm 99% certain they have nothing to worry about...but on the surface they will be engaged in a "tying scheme" (requiring that X, which the buyer doesn't want, be bought in order to buy Y, which the consumer does want). Companies that have engaged in tying schemes have sometimes found themselves in court having to defend their actions as not violating the law.

Certainly another method of pricing could be used that leads to about the same result (without raising the specter of possible allegations of illegal activity).

Go to law school and you will learn it is without a doubt legal.

quote:

3. The seller must have sufficient economic power with respect to the tying product to appreciably restrain free competition in the market for the tied product.

quote:

4. The tying arrangement must affect a "not insubstantial" amount of commerce.

quote:

ORIGINAL: berto

Likely to buy into WitP/AE, but probably not forum post. [:(]

Now, excuse me as I crawl back into that foxhole I foolishly came out of... [sm=00000506.gif]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

A knowledgeable IT professional on our team calculated that if everybody on the team had been paid salary at the going rate (corrected for the part-time status of all of us), and we went on to sell copies of the game, the price would have to be $2,200 a pop to break even.

Just trying to insert a bit of perspective.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rroberson

Like many others, while I don't agree with your standpoint on this I do appreciate you discussing it with us.
As far as AE....you guys had me at hello 2 years ago...sad but true I am an addict.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rroberson


As far as AE....you guys had me at hello 2 years ago...sad but true I am an addict.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panjack

Matrix Games would be wise to check with a good lawyer about their pricing scheme.

I'm not a lawyer...and I'm 99% certain they have nothing to worry about...but on the surface they will be engaged in a "tying scheme" (requiring that X, which the buyer doesn't want, be bought in order to buy Y, which the consumer does want). Companies that have engaged in tying schemes have sometimes found themselves in court having to defend their actions as not violating the law.

Certainly another method of pricing could be used that leads to about the same result (without raising the specter of possible allegations of illegal activity).

quote:

ORIGINAL: mjk428

I expected AE to be $30-$40 since it's still using the same old engine and IMO it is just a mega-mod. For instance: Still having to play at low resolutions, even though 1920X1200 is common now, screams "MOD" to me. That's not a shot at the developers who I'm sure did amazing things with what they had to work with.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

quote:

ORIGINAL: mjk428

I expected AE to be $30-$40 since it's still using the same old engine and IMO it is just a mega-mod. For instance: Still having to play at low resolutions, even though 1920X1200 is common now, screams "MOD" to me. That's not a shot at the developers who I'm sure did amazing things with what they had to work with.

What do you mean by "mod"? I mean, when I or someone tinkers with the data and graphics of an existing scenario or campaign in a game using the editor that is usually referred to as a "mod". But going in and tinkering with hard code and stuff like that, isn't that something more than just a "mod"? [&:]

quote:

Also to put things in perspective War Plan Orange is $45-55 and it is no where near as complex a reworking of the game as AE. How can anyone expect AE to be cheaper than WPO considering the amount of resources that went into it. Granted WPO is a standalone game and doesn't require WITP to run. I don't happen to agree with making it a "requirement" to have WITP to play AE either but that is Matrix's prerogative. I say if someone wants to jump in head first and try to play AE only to find out they can't handle the complexity, let them and let them get stuck with the game.

quote:

New Expansion for War in the Pacific with More Detail, More History, More Features!

http://www.matrixgames.com/news.asp?nid=468

quote:

ORIGINAL: mjk428

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

quote:

ORIGINAL: mjk428

I expected AE to be $30-$40 since it's still using the same old engine and IMO it is just a mega-mod. For instance: Still having to play at low resolutions, even though 1920X1200 is common now, screams "MOD" to me. That's not a shot at the developers who I'm sure did amazing things with what they had to work with.

What do you mean by "mod"? I mean, when I or someone tinkers with the data and graphics of an existing scenario or campaign in a game using the editor that is usually referred to as a "mod". But going in and tinkering with hard code and stuff like that, isn't that something more than just a "mod"? [&:]

"mega-mod"

A "mod" is a modification of an original program - even if modified beyond all recognition. AFAIK, AE uses WitP as its base engine. There's nothing derogatory meant in my use of the term. However, there are certain pre-conceived notions that come with "mods" vs "new" games. One of which is that if AE was really new it would sensibly take advantage of current display resolutions.

Matrix has put themselves in a box by on the one hand saying that AE stands on its own two feet and on the other requiring the previous game be installed to run the "new" game. They have every right to do as they see fit but they seem to be blazing a brand new trail with this particular business strategy.

quote:

Also to put things in perspective War Plan Orange is $45-55 and it is no where near as complex a reworking of the game as AE. How can anyone expect AE to be cheaper than WPO considering the amount of resources that went into it. Granted WPO is a standalone game and doesn't require WITP to run. I don't happen to agree with making it a "requirement" to have WITP to play AE either but that is Matrix's prerogative. I say if someone wants to jump in head first and try to play AE only to find out they can't handle the complexity, let them and let them get stuck with the game.

The bolded pretty much answers your question but also:

quote:

New Expansion for War in the Pacific with More Detail, More History, More Features!

http://www.matrixgames.com/news.asp?nid=468

I don't expect "Expansions" to cost almost as much as the original.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress
I think it is one thing to have expected the price to be cheaper but to continue to expect the price to be cheaper (given what we know about the development of the game) just doesn't seem to make much sense to me. If you're simply saying you once expected the price to be cheaper then I probably did too. But if you still expect the price to be cheaper I don't see why, given the idiosyncrasies of the game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mjk428

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress
I think it is one thing to have expected the price to be cheaper but to continue to expect the price to be cheaper (given what we know about the development of the game) just doesn't seem to make much sense to me. If you're simply saying you once expected the price to be cheaper then I probably did too. But if you still expect the price to be cheaper I don't see why, given the idiosyncrasies of the game.

[:)]

Of course I don't still expect it to be priced around $40. I now expect it to be $60.

The tipoff in my original post should have been the use of the past tense "expected".

[:D]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

quote:

ORIGINAL: kafka
Would you recommend AE to those too who exclusively play against the AI?

If you enjoy WITP and like to play against the AI, I would _definitely_ recommend AE. The AI in WITP gets fairly stagnant after a while, mainly acting on the defensive. The AI in AE is much better than the WITP AI. It is still not as good as a human opponent, but it will give you a major wake up call if you're used to the WITP AI. And it will not stagnate, it's active through the whole war.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Ok, this is getting ridiculous. Aside from the fact that, if you define this broadly enough, the entire software industry and every "upgrade" or "expansion pack" ever sold would be illegal, I had to read down only a few lines to find out why this would not apply.

quote:

3. The seller must have sufficient economic power with respect to the tying product to appreciably restrain free competition in the market for the tied product.

quote:

Yeah, right. Please explain how were are restraining free competition for War in the Pacific?

Since you asked, because you own the copyright. Nobody else can sell WITP. You have 100% power. Tying does not have to apply only to two products made by the same firm. It can apply when Firm A refuses to sell its product to customer Z unless Z also buys Firm B's product. If Firm B sells boat-loads of that product with or without A's tying, then there's no problem.

quote:

4. The tying arrangement must affect a "not insubstantial" amount of commerce.

quote:

By normal market definitions, we do not qualify (unfortunately, I'd rather be "not insubstantial").

As I understand case law, the test is not absolute size, or size vis a vis a market leader like MS. It's simply that the economic impact is not de minimus. This is a legal term of art that has no hard and fast definition. It's situational.

quote:

What we're doing is really no different than any game company saying "if you want this expansion, you need to own this game" except that we're a niche company with a niche product.

No, the diffeence is you engineered the product to NOT be an expansion. You added code to force the install check; you've said here that AE does not share code with WITP. A "normal" expansion won't run without its parent. AE would. That doesn't help your case.

quote:

For some reason, when we do it, people get up in arms. Seriously, I'd rather that we just drop this part of the discussion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BASB

Sometimes in sport, the pre entertainment is almost as good as the the big game. This thread is no different. If AE is as entertaining as this thread, Matrix is on a winner [:D][:D]