RE: Pricing Suggestion (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion



Message

histgamer -> RE: Pricing Suggestion (10/2/2013 12:24:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alchenar


quote:

ORIGINAL: flanyboy

This is actually a great topic. I've been wanting to make a YouTube video about what makes a Wargame a Wargame and how is it different from a Strategy Game or as you suggested is it a subset. I'll probably get around to it in the next few days.

Also was Take Command 2 on steam? I know it was on Gamersgate but I don't remember seeing it on Steam. I could be mistaken here. Scourge of War Gettysburg was also on GG for awhile too.

With that said I'll respond to you but I really can't right now as I need to head to my Math class. [:D] After classes perhaps.


See this is an important question because there's the suggestion floating around that Wargames are somehow a unique and special genre with a unique and special customer base and I just don't think that's true. I think that there are specific wargames with very limited appeal, but that's because of questionable design choices rather than anything inherent to the genre.

If a wargame is just 'a strategy game that's set in a specific historical war or battle' then there's no reason why they shouldn't be accessible at all.


I'm not sure I agree with you're questionable design choices theory even if it's a subset of strategy. Not all strategy game players like all types of strategy games. Mega detail wargames like WITP likely would have a limited appeal no matter how well designed and I don't see the problem with that. Not every product is targeted at the widest possible audience. Targeting a smaller audience doesn't necessarily mean you have a poor product, but that also doesn't mean that other similar products can't appeal to a wider audience.

Gary knows he's not targeting the vast majority of people with his games, why is that a questionable decision? Why isn't him just designing a game for a specific subset of players who value that type of product a wise choice? If he's intentionally doing it that way and not doing so because he's failing to meet his real goal is it really questionable if that's what he or other designers like him intended?

Note: I'm not disagreeing that Strategy and Wargames might be interlinked but rather your suggestion that products targeted to limited audiences are somehow flawed or unwise. I don't see the problem as long as you are aware of the market you're targeting.



Joel Levin -> RE: Pricing Suggestion (10/2/2013 1:35:06 PM)

this will probably seem like blasphemy to some here but i just can't see the difference between wargames and strategy games. There are a few posts here trying to explain but i just can't see it. It's all strategy games as far as im concerned. There are two types of strategy games, rts and tbs. That's it.. Atleast in my world. :p it's all about tactics and resource handling.. Wether it be manpower, units or oil and steel it's all about the winning strategy regardless of the setting and the era.



dogancan -> RE: Pricing Suggestion (10/2/2013 2:18:48 PM)

just wanna say that i am also among many who were hoping to purchase "command" on day one but decided to wait for a sale after that price tag. I did the same for the initial command ops game but it was excluded from the first christmas sale after its launch date. and at some point, i simply lose interest with that game. my 2cents.



helm123456789 -> RE: Pricing Suggestion (10/2/2013 2:56:38 PM)

I'm in the same camp as dogancan. Not really interested in Command as I can't see past the radar looking presentation. Keeping with the harpoon look isn't a bad thing but not my cup of tea.

But there have been other Matrix titles that had a premium price that I said maybe when some spare cash is at hand. Seems though that some other title comes out with a lower price point that takes those funds. WitE is a perfect example. Was thinking of saving the cash then bought HOI on sale with expansions instead.



f4migcap -> RE: Pricing Suggestion (10/2/2013 9:02:50 PM)

wow...this thread's still alive at 27 pages [&:] come on...we can make it to 30 [:D]



warspite1 -> RE: Pricing Suggestion (10/2/2013 9:06:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alchenar


quote:

ORIGINAL: flanyboy

This is actually a great topic. I've been wanting to make a YouTube video about what makes a Wargame a Wargame and how is it different from a Strategy Game or as you suggested is it a subset. I'll probably get around to it in the next few days.

Also was Take Command 2 on steam? I know it was on Gamersgate but I don't remember seeing it on Steam. I could be mistaken here. Scourge of War Gettysburg was also on GG for awhile too.

With that said I'll respond to you but I really can't right now as I need to head to my Math class. [:D] After classes perhaps.


See this is an important question because there's the suggestion floating around that Wargames are somehow a unique and special genre with a unique and special customer base and I just don't think that's true. I think that there are specific wargames with very limited appeal, but that's because of questionable design choices rather than anything inherent to the genre.

If a wargame is just 'a strategy game that's set in a specific historical war or battle' then there's no reason why they shouldn't be accessible at all.
warspite1

Think about how many grown up people you know that are really interested in playing games. No I don't mean golf, football, squash etc, I mean board or computer games (and not Wii with the kids either). Then think how many people know the slightest bit about, and have a passion for, military history. Then think about how many of those fall into both camps. Just my personal opinion, but I think to suggest that wargaming can ever be anything other than a niche market is quite simply fanciful.



Orm -> RE: Pricing Suggestion (10/2/2013 9:10:13 PM)

This get me thinking about how many people who like to hit a ball.

And they even created rules on how to hit the ball and such.



Alchenar -> RE: Pricing Suggestion (10/2/2013 11:03:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alchenar


quote:

ORIGINAL: flanyboy

This is actually a great topic. I've been wanting to make a YouTube video about what makes a Wargame a Wargame and how is it different from a Strategy Game or as you suggested is it a subset. I'll probably get around to it in the next few days.

Also was Take Command 2 on steam? I know it was on Gamersgate but I don't remember seeing it on Steam. I could be mistaken here. Scourge of War Gettysburg was also on GG for awhile too.

With that said I'll respond to you but I really can't right now as I need to head to my Math class. [:D] After classes perhaps.


See this is an important question because there's the suggestion floating around that Wargames are somehow a unique and special genre with a unique and special customer base and I just don't think that's true. I think that there are specific wargames with very limited appeal, but that's because of questionable design choices rather than anything inherent to the genre.

If a wargame is just 'a strategy game that's set in a specific historical war or battle' then there's no reason why they shouldn't be accessible at all.
warspite1

Think about how many grown up people you know that are really interested in playing games. No I don't mean golf, football, squash etc, I mean board or computer games (and not Wii with the kids either). Then think how many people know the slightest bit about, and have a passion for, military history. Then think about how many of those fall into both camps. Just my personal opinion, but I think to suggest that wargaming can ever be anything other than a niche market is quite simply fanciful.



Oh balls, Total War is the most successful strategy franchise in existence. Followed by Company of Heroes. Games get placed in historical periods precisely because they're interesting.

Military history is not the thing that makes wargames a niche market.

Hell, Total War games aren't wargames, but they are bloody close. They're all about a strategic game layered across a tactical game and getting players to think about the interactions between the two.


e: don't try and argue from anecdote with me, let's have some definitions!



histgamer -> RE: Pricing Suggestion (10/2/2013 11:30:17 PM)

Total War that's your example of something to emulate? Don't get me wrong I enjoy the game and have played many of them but the combat resolution on that game is really a click fest and hardly tactical even. It turns into mob engagements, SOW is far superior in combat resolution, the different is it lacks a campaign, isn't as pretty and the UI isn't as pretty (Though RTW2's UI is really poor imho) but it's a better game for resolving battles imho.

Total War's strength is the campaign engine, resolving battles on a 3D battlefield is an amazing thing but the game couldn't (in my opinion) stand on the battle engine, it's by far the weakest aspect of the game again imho. That's also probably why it isn't a wargame, though I don't have a thought out definition yet.

You still never really answered my question though, why should all wargames strive to be something they don't want to be? What's wrong with WITP only targeting a small customer base, how is that a questionable design choice if there are customers who want that type of game vs a Total War style campaign?



Alchenar -> RE: Pricing Suggestion (10/2/2013 11:59:26 PM)

Sorry, you are skipping around and that's making progress difficult. You are also putting words in my mouth for some reason. You claimed that wargames aren't popular and are different because people don't like military history. That's just wrong, some of the most popular strategy games are deeply rooted in history, military or otherwise.

Define a wargame. Then we can start talking about ways in which mainstream games are close to or far away from wargame design.



TheGrayMouser -> RE: Pricing Suggestion (10/3/2013 12:43:59 AM)

That the rub. Its like the Supreme Court ruling on Porn: you cant "define it", but you know it when you see it.



aaatoysandmore -> RE: Pricing Suggestion (10/3/2013 2:22:45 AM)

Wargames are generally categorized as historical, . Historical games by far form the largest group. These games are based upon real events and attempt to represent a reasonable approximation of the actual forces, terrain, and other material factors faced by the actual participants.

Hypothetical wargames are games grounded in historical fact but concern battles or conflicts that did not (or have yet to) actually happen.

Highly stylized conflict games such as chess are not generally considered wargames,

A wargame (also war game) is a strategy game that deals with military operations of various types, real or fictional. Wargaming is the hobby dedicated to the play of such games, which can also be called conflict simulations, (this is why I said they are a sub-set of strategy games, but true wargames are individualized by the above as they are not just pure strategy games like Civilization or Risk or Axis and Allies. As those are stategy games just set in a particular era or time. Axis and Allies around WWII because of the figurines, Risk is just a generic model but I have seen some games with napoleonic figurines, civilization is an event of evolution therefore it fits into no particular time frame or army units but it has representation of army units for the wars effect of the game. Paradox games by nature have figurines for the time frame but they are not realistic historical corps, divisions, brigades or what have you they just reprecent a force of fighing units of the times. Notice a hypothetical wargame even has units that are part of an historical fact that's why Civilization, Risk, Axis and Allies and Paradox games are not wargames they are nowhere near historical representations even if they are pretty to play with. lol



TheGrayMouser -> RE: Pricing Suggestion (10/3/2013 3:28:54 AM)

I am a little confused by your definition:

"A wargame (also war game) is a strategy game that deals with military operations of various types, real or fictional."
(BTW, pretty much ALL games even many ist person shooters are "strategy" games by pure definition... "strategic level" has many more meanings though...

Axis and Allies by that definition is a wargame as its dealing with pure military operations and production of military goods ( ie you cant , as the Axis player make "peace" with any allied power, the game is limited to war alone...) Of course its combat is very abstract too.

I think you are indicating its the level of detail that makes something a wargame? (which I don't necasarily disagree with)



warspite1 -> RE: Pricing Suggestion (10/3/2013 4:16:55 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alchenar

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alchenar


quote:

ORIGINAL: flanyboy

This is actually a great topic. I've been wanting to make a YouTube video about what makes a Wargame a Wargame and how is it different from a Strategy Game or as you suggested is it a subset. I'll probably get around to it in the next few days.

Also was Take Command 2 on steam? I know it was on Gamersgate but I don't remember seeing it on Steam. I could be mistaken here. Scourge of War Gettysburg was also on GG for awhile too.

With that said I'll respond to you but I really can't right now as I need to head to my Math class. [:D] After classes perhaps.


See this is an important question because there's the suggestion floating around that Wargames are somehow a unique and special genre with a unique and special customer base and I just don't think that's true. I think that there are specific wargames with very limited appeal, but that's because of questionable design choices rather than anything inherent to the genre.

If a wargame is just 'a strategy game that's set in a specific historical war or battle' then there's no reason why they shouldn't be accessible at all.
warspite1

Think about how many grown up people you know that are really interested in playing games. No I don't mean golf, football, squash etc, I mean board or computer games (and not Wii with the kids either). Then think how many people know the slightest bit about, and have a passion for, military history. Then think about how many of those fall into both camps. Just my personal opinion, but I think to suggest that wargaming can ever be anything other than a niche market is quite simply fanciful.



Oh balls, Total War is the most successful strategy franchise in existence. Followed by Company of Heroes. Games get placed in historical periods precisely because they're interesting.

Military history is not the thing that makes wargames a niche market.

Hell, Total War games aren't wargames, but they are bloody close. They're all about a strategic game layered across a tactical game and getting players to think about the interactions between the two.


e: don't try and argue from anecdote with me, let's have some definitions!
warspite1

quote:

balls
Well argued [8|]

quote:

don't try and argue from anecdote with me
Thanks for telling me what I can and can't say [8|]

quote:

Total War is the most successful strategy franchise in existence. Followed by Company of Heroes.
So what? what has that got to do with confirming or refuting what I said? There are games based around war/ war history that have attempted to appeal to a larger market such as those you quote. Even so, their appeal is limited.

You have quoted no figures and nor have I because I have none. I am commenting from perception and what I know, from what I see in everyday life.

But proper wargames - for example World In Flames, War In the Pacific - will never appeal to more than a tiny section of the public. Look at ADG's 1,000 projects. How long have they been trying to drum up just 1,000 orders for those games?



Aurelian -> RE: Pricing Suggestion (10/3/2013 5:06:25 AM)

Warspite1, to use his words:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alchenar
. Honour has been satisfied. You get to declare victory and walk off into the sunset now.


BTW, outside of sales tax, I paid as much retail as if I got it through Steam for TW Rome II.



Johan -> RE: Pricing Suggestion (10/3/2013 7:38:24 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian
So what? Why didn't anyone else acquired them? Ageod went to Paradox. Why isn't it still there? I'd guess because it was a bad fit. According to Paradox, there isn't a market for turn based games, IIRC. So why did they even buy them?


There is a market for turnbased games, that was not the reason.

If PoN had been done on an good engine & with some decent interfaces, it should have sold 100k easily. Now it didn't.



Aurelian -> RE: Pricing Suggestion (10/3/2013 7:49:00 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Johan

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian
So what? Why didn't anyone else acquired them? Ageod went to Paradox. Why isn't it still there? I'd guess because it was a bad fit. According to Paradox, there isn't a market for turn based games, IIRC. So why did they even buy them?


There is a market for turnbased games, that was not the reason.

If PoN had been done on an good engine & with some decent interfaces, it should have sold 100k easily. Now it didn't.


Given this statement: "PBEM and turnbased games are simply not something we'll ever invest money in. It is too niche and unprofitable to justify professional development." http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?611767-Paradox-Interactive-amp-Paradox-France&s=4c835ebb1b80d4ae1acda7761a5f9c33

It would not of mattered.

And yes, I have EU 1-3 and HOI 1-3.



nate25 -> RE: Pricing Suggestion (10/3/2013 8:05:17 AM)

Good God, are we still on about this? [8|]

It's either worth it or it's not, to each individual gamer. I personally plan to purchase at this price.

I understand budget might be an issue for some, and I respect that. Or, re-prioritize how you spend your "mad money" for a few weeks.

I took a chance on WitP-AE out of this company's stable for 80 clams. And I can't tell you how many hours of total immersion I've got since what, 2009?

The price is what it is. Matrix has provided a product over the years with a pretty damn good track record, IMHO.

Move on.



aaatoysandmore -> RE: Pricing Suggestion (10/3/2013 11:54:43 AM)

quote:

Axis and Allies by that definition is a wargame as its dealing with pure military operations and production of military goods


Nope it's not historical or based on historical oob's it just looks like WWII representations like chess pieces look like all kinds of things, but, it has no historical battles or historical leaders, or historical supply or anything really to do with WWII, it's just the artificial looks of it. There's no history to read about moving your troops or any military doctrine to have to or need to go by. So you may be correct, a real wargame is by definition the details of it. Axis & Allies will never be nothing more than a strategy game in the image of a war. It's missing too many elements to be a pure wargame.

Also wargame is commonly used by wargamers and war games are used by the military. They seem to separate the two words whereas gamers make it one word. That's all I could find on the difference in usage of the word. So when you see definition of war game it's not the same as wargame.



aaatoysandmore -> RE: Pricing Suggestion (10/3/2013 12:03:57 PM)

quote:

And yes, I have EU 1-3 and HOI 1-3.


I do too, but, I never play them. I just have them on a shelf. I got them from Steam on some bargain bin sale for like $4.99 or $7.99 The only Paradox game I ever play is CKII. I played a lillte EU: Rome, but, haven't loaded it back up to play in years. I really don't care for the HOI's system or the Victoria's or the EU's. It's not the kind of game or wargame if you can call them that, that I want to play. I like turn based. I'm surprised I liked CKII but I play it for the dynasty building sim game moreso than the wargame of it, as the ai is just a pushover and I can take over the whole map if I want to in no time. In fact I play it to where when I have 25 provinces I give it to the ai player and I start over as count somewhere, that's more fun than playing a risklike game I can't lose. It's fun to watch the ai destroy what I build up over the years.



Aurelian -> RE: Pricing Suggestion (10/3/2013 10:50:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: aaatoysandmore

quote:

And yes, I have EU 1-3 and HOI 1-3.


I do too, but, I never play them. I just have them on a shelf. I got them from Steam on some bargain bin sale for like $4.99 or $7.99 The only Paradox game I ever play is CKII. I played a lillte EU: Rome, but, haven't loaded it back up to play in years. I really don't care for the HOI's system or the Victoria's or the EU's. It's not the kind of game or wargame if you can call them that, that I want to play. I like turn based. I'm surprised I liked CKII but I play it for the dynasty building sim game moreso than the wargame of it, as the ai is just a pushover and I can take over the whole map if I want to in no time. In fact I play it to where when I have 25 provinces I give it to the ai player and I start over as count somewhere, that's more fun than playing a risklike game I can't lose. It's fun to watch the ai destroy what I build up over the years.


I had the misfortune to get involved in a multiplayer HOI 2. It was a freaking disaster. Too many arguments over the turn speed. Then on the second try, some guy wanted to free Palestine. So he ran the game for awhile. When he let us in, the game just feel apart. Brain dead Britain, France attacks Germany in 1937.....

Give me PBEM every time. And none of this Albania conquers Europe stuff.



wodin -> RE: Pricing Suggestion (10/3/2013 11:14:40 PM)

You can have a strategy game with no war of fighting whatsoever. Could be a business empire type game.

A strategy game is a game that usually is at a higher scale than a tactical or operational game. I.E You have Grand Strategy games like HOI or WitPAE or Strategic Command series. A Strategy wargame normally has resources and finances etc to manage aswell as combat. Operational and esp tactical games concentrate on the fighting with no governmental aspects i.e Decisive Campaigns or Steel Panthers.

Strategy is normally your long term plan in a Grand Strat game..where as tactics are your pl;ans for a tactical game.





quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Levin

this will probably seem like blasphemy to some here but i just can't see the difference between wargames and strategy games. There are a few posts here trying to explain but i just can't see it. It's all strategy games as far as im concerned. There are two types of strategy games, rts and tbs. That's it.. Atleast in my world. :p it's all about tactics and resource handling.. Wether it be manpower, units or oil and steel it's all about the winning strategy regardless of the setting and the era.



dutchman55555 -> RE: Pricing Suggestion (10/5/2013 2:44:26 AM)

I see that Tim Stone's review was less than glowing, and price did come into expectations of what the customer should be receiving, versus what he's actually getting.



parusski -> RE: Pricing Suggestion (10/5/2013 3:00:49 AM)

I have arrived. After waiting through 27 pages of this drivel I will settle the issue. ALL games should be managed through exchanges. The prices of all games should be income based and the exchanges should be run by the US government.

See, easy solution. Now everyone go back to gaming...or posting.



Boomer78 -> RE: Pricing Suggestion (10/5/2013 3:04:36 AM)

Just wait until hyperinflation kicks in! You'll see a great deal for a game going for only $399.99. Of course by that time they'll jack the minimum wage up to $75/hour, just to make the little urban peons think they've got a bargain. And onwards and upwards we go.



dutchman55555 -> RE: Pricing Suggestion (10/5/2013 4:18:32 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Boomer78

Just wait until hyperinflation kicks in! You'll see a great deal for a game going for only $399.99.

Or as Matrix calls it, Next Tuesday.



parusski -> RE: Pricing Suggestion (10/5/2013 4:20:56 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Boomer78

Just wait until hyperinflation kicks in! You'll see a great deal for a game going for only $399.99. Of course by that time they'll jack the minimum wage up to $75/hour, just to make the little urban peons think they've got a bargain. And onwards and upwards we go.


Yes, that will all occur.

But we have a problem with any pricing model in dealing with the dirty Dutch. Josh remain silent.



aaatoysandmore -> RE: Pricing Suggestion (10/5/2013 9:24:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: parusski

I have arrived. After waiting through 27 pages of this drivel I will settle the issue. ALL games should be managed through exchanges. The prices of all games should be income based and the exchanges should be run by the US government.

See, easy solution. Now everyone go back to gaming...or posting.



All these pricing threads ever amount to is "what I think" opinion threads. Waste of time to even post in them really, but, there's nothing else to do. Matrixgames or really no other site is going to care what we say on pricing. You ever see them immediately change some price of their newest games or even their oldest? You're all just blowing smoke into the wind or spitting in it. lol Best talk about something worthwhile like the upcoming Field of Glory II if it will be as bad as the first or will it be improved for solo play?



Mad Russian -> RE: Pricing Suggestion (10/6/2013 11:03:34 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: gradenko_2000


Hearts of Iron 3 is a deep and complex strategy that does cover the Eastern Front, and is Paradox's best-selling game, but that's just an anomaly, I guess.



Hearts of Iron 3 is a game so overpriced that it's unbelievable. I bought Hearts of Iron 1 and it was a piece of junk. They took all our complaints and put them into Hearts of Iron 2 which was better but still no good. Finally they got to Hearts of Iron 3. If you paid to be a Beta Tester for Paradox along that journey that game is tremendously overpriced.

Good Hunting.

MR



aaatoysandmore -> RE: Pricing Suggestion (10/6/2013 11:51:11 AM)

I didn't even buy HOI III and all the DLC when it was cheaper than dirt like $3.99, I think it and the expansions were something like $7.99 combined because Semper Fi was in there and they thought the cow jumped over the moon with that expansion and the patch they tried to charge everyone for by putting it in Semper Fi. Making History the 2nd one was a better game, better ai, and more fun to play. It's even turn based.



Page: <<   < prev  24 25 26 [27] 28   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.548828