Is $69.99(US) too much for a game?? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945



Message

Penguin -> Is $69.99(US) too much for a game?? (10/17/2003 2:55:24 AM)

According to Amazon.com, the release price for War in the Pacific will be 69.99. Does anyone feel any price resistance at that level?? Or will it be worth it for the intended scope of the game? Is that going to be the new price level for games overall?? I am cringing at the thought of $100 for games down the line... Very hard to hide in the grocery budget...lol

I hardly ever buy a "version I" game; the "version II or III" generally have the bugs worked out and show that the early versions were competently executed and well-received in the marketplace. Usually I wait to buy till the $49 game goes down to $29. By then the major patches are out, and the initial hype has died down and people are more realistic about it. I broke that pattern with Master of Orion 3, because of all the hype and paid 49.99, plus 19.99 for the strat guide. Now it is 19.99 and 9.99, respectively, a mere 6 months later. I coulda bought a whole 'nother game to play, if I had waited six months. :( And many reviewers decided that Galactic Civs was probably the better game anyway. Making your customers feel stupid is not a healthy long term outlook for any industry...



madflava13 -> (10/17/2003 3:00:57 AM)

I don't think it's too much... A couple of reasons why:
1. As you mentioned, the massive scope of this game, plus the inclusion of several UV sized games as well (as scenarios) makes the price worth it.
2. Matrix/2by3 aren't expecting to sell 7 million copies, so where the Sims can be priced more cheaply, WiTP cannot.
3. The size of the companies involved means that a higher price needs to be set. Where EA games can take a risk of a loss because of the diversity of their products, Matrix/2by3 cannot.
4. I've been waiting for PacWar's successor for years now, so basically any price is worth it for me.

Just my two cents...



2ndACR -> (10/17/2003 7:44:35 AM)

For WITP heck yes. For any other game no. Matrix/ 2by3 have proven that they do try to get it right and fully support their games. Unlike some other companies out their.

Sorry I meant to say that I will pay whatever they charge for WITP. But not any other game.



Sonny -> (10/17/2003 7:50:37 PM)

$69.99?? A bargain. I thought it was going to sell for $79.99.

They could charge $100 and I would buy it (hope they don't read this and jack up the price). On a $/hr basis UV has given me more for my money than almost any other game. I suspect WitP will return a similar value (even if I only play one campaign game!).

If you want a Med. game then they need the $upport.

They support their games so -

Gotta support the guys who produce the games you love.



Reg -> (10/21/2003 3:55:01 PM)

[QUOTE=Penguin]I hardly ever buy a "version I" game; the "version II or III" generally have the bugs worked out and show that the early versions were competently executed and well-received in the marketplace. Usually I wait to buy till the $49 game goes down to $29. By then the major patches are out, and the initial hype has died down and people are more realistic about it. [/QUOTE]Just a question. Where are all these patches going to come from if no one buys the first edition??? I will pay the money for what promises to be a good product in as I feel it will encourage more development in an area of my interest. What I do object to is paying exorbitant sums to the currency exchange bankers!! (insert less than complentary description here). Why??? Because I end up paying $$$$ and none of the extra goes to the guys who actually do the work in producing the product!!!!



Zakhal -> (10/22/2003 8:05:34 AM)

Well it was just few months after i had got my first pc, a brand new 486 when i saw this two page full review of the game in our local magazine. After reading it as a 14 year old i was totally sold. I had studied ww2 (europe) before but only read one book about pacific war. All i can say i saved my money and bought the game. After six years nothing compared. There was *no* *any* *other* *game* with the same scale. And i was still playing.

Now its bin TEN YEARS and you ask whether i "might" pay $70 for the ONLY true "sequel" of this game? WELL YES I MIGHT ;)

(i have played boardgames too)



Hornblower -> (11/4/2003 9:56:37 PM)

I don't think $69.99 is too much to ask, given the massive scale that WiTP looks to be, based on the comments of the testers. I spent $49.99 on UV, and for the last 18 months its been the only computer game I've played. Personally I think it was $49.99 very well spent. More so when I think of the amount of game time I get out of it. If it wasn't for UV I would have had to watch all those reality shows with the wife- ICk...... :(



siRkid -> RIO (11/12/2003 12:53:34 AM)

Return on Investment is what we use to determine if a training simulator for the navy is worth the price to build, install, run, and maintain. To figure out the ROI of WitP take the price of the game and divide it by the number of hours you think you will be playing to see what you will pay per hour of entertainment. Then compare this to the price you pay for other forms of entertainment.

I think when you do the math you will see that it is a bargin. :D



emorbius44 -> (11/16/2003 2:26:48 AM)

[QUOTE=Penguin]According to Amazon.com, the release price for War in the Pacific will be 69.99. Does anyone feel any price resistance at that level?? Or will it be worth it for the intended scope of the game? Is that going to be the new price level for games overall?? I am cringing at the thought of $100 for games down the line... Very hard to hide in the grocery budget...lol >>>>


$69.99 is not too high at all. Consider the following:

1. I started computer games with Carrier Force back in 1983. That was an SSI game and listed for $60. Consider 20 years of inflation and what $60 would be in 2003 dollars.
2. Back in those days games were much simpler and usually designed by one or two people (Grigsby, Keating, Landrey and Krogel, etc) and they could grind out three or four games a year. Now it takes several people to do one game and usually a couple of years or more to do that.
3. The wargame market really hasn't expanded that much over the last 20 years and alot of games that used to be available in a malls or retail stores are no longer available. i.e. unit sales are not really compensating for declining revenue per game and increased development cost per game.

Games can't be made if it's not economically feasable to do it. These guys have to make a living and frankly for $70 you're going to get months if not years of game play out of it. They earn and deserve every penny they get.

Bob



Rocco -> RE: (2/6/2004 4:47:47 AM)

After enjoying UV as much as I have and still am, I don't fear paying 70 bucks. I will gladly lay it down.

Rocco



pasternakski -> RE: RE: (2/6/2004 5:09:14 AM)

Seventy bucks is okay with me.

Actually, I'm just posting to find out what my posts look like now.



Nomad -> RE: RE: (2/6/2004 5:29:11 AM)

Ditto Pasternakski. [;)]



stubby331 -> RE: RE: (2/6/2004 8:15:08 AM)

Hi guys,
Are we missing about a month of posts or am I going nuts? [sm=duel.gif]

(these new smilkeys are great!)



mbatch729 -> RE: RE: (2/6/2004 3:07:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: stubby331

Hi guys,
Are we missing about a month of posts or am I going nuts?


While not qualified to comment on your sanity, or lack there of, it does seem a good chunk of the forum history was lost due to a hacker attack on the Matrix boards. Remove the b*astard's b*lls, I say!



Burkowski -> RE: RE: (2/6/2004 5:51:46 PM)

I just finally got back to reading recent posts after the hacker episode... and I have been thinking about Penguin's initial comment/question about price sensitivity and responses to that... got me to thinking about trying to nail down in my own mind about exactly why I do not feel any qualms about forking over the seventy bucks eventually for WITP...

Part of it is, as Kid said, a decent feeling about "return on investment," but there's more to it than that.... made me think about the old term "replayability" left over from the days of board wargaming... but it's even more than that, too... over the years, since Tactics II and Gettysburg and on into the SPI era, I have always gravitated toward the larger, even monster-sized games. I suspect there are lots of other folks like that, too... seems to me that the reason for that is that we share, at some gut level, a desire and an appreciation for complexity, almost for its own sake... the warfare simulation is the vehicle that delivers it for us, and that appeal is large, of course, but the intellectual challenge of managing (sometimes successfully) a large, strategic-scale enterprise is really the thing, isn't it?

Through all my years of wargaming, whenever I had the chance to give a preference (remember those "What would you like to see in future games?" cards in the wargame box?) I always said I wanted a strategic-scale Pacific war game with all of the possible moving parts to manage... it's the intellectual, almost academic nature of the big, demanding beast that appeals to me... which is why Pacific War was and still is so appealing and why UV has been consuming... UV was a great teaser, but in my rich fantasy world while "in the game" I can't help but wonder what's going on west of Port Moresby and north of Truk...

So, that's why the $ 70.00 is just fine... it's not just a game, not even just a simulation we aspire to... it's the challenge of long-term competence in warfare management and it doesn't happen or not happen overnight.... it takes months and maybe much more... bring it on!

Burkowski



Sonny -> RE: RE: (2/6/2004 9:56:36 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Burkowski

.......................

but it's even more than that, too... over the years, since Tactics II and Gettysburg and on into the SPI era, I have always gravitated toward the larger, even monster-sized games. I suspect there are lots of other folks like that, too................

Burkowski


You can certainly count me in that group. We used to make tons of cardboard counters for the Gettysburg game trying to get the feeling of a huge game with control of the smallest units. Unfortunately we used the same board and all we got was a slugfest with counters stacked everywhere.[:D]



MikeH1952 -> RE: RE: (2/6/2004 10:03:54 PM)

$70 is OK by me, especially with the £ at £1,80 plus [:D]
I cant wait to get the game, hope its out this summer [sm=00000436.gif]
These new smileys are a lot of fun. It's a shame that all my posts seem to have disappeared!



whiteoak -> RE: Is $69.99(US) too much for a game?? (2/7/2004 2:42:11 PM)

I ran across my receipt for Gary Grigsby's 'Pacific War' (one of my all-time favorite games...which I still play occassionally) which I bought at Babbage's on December 25, 1992...for $64.99. So I don't think $70 is too much in 2004 considering how much more you get for your money in today's games.



stevel40831 -> RE: Is $69.99(US) too much for a game?? (2/7/2004 3:45:03 PM)

I can spend that much at the local bar in one night and have nothing to show for it but a hangover and a fake phone number! This would be money well spent.

Steve



Cmdrcain -> RE: Is $69.99(US) too much for a game?? (2/8/2004 12:08:43 AM)

$70 makes me cring, basically because those on linited budgets have only so much spare cash.

However its not unsimiliar to other nich games like a baseball one I play which new buyers pay a similar amount, through for updated versions pay a lower upgrade price.

$70 through might mean going a bit hungry unless budget and save the cost over a few months , its easy to plunk down $70 if have a well paying job, but for those on pensions, retiremebt incomes and limited income it hits hard.

I too wait around for many games to drop to the $20-$10 level, where they come out in just a jewel case..

If it goes out at $70 I'll have to consider other needs first.. rent, Food, other costs of living.

Might also at that price wait to see how it is with others who buy and try it..

My Top limit usually for a game is $40, over that mark it impacts other needs.

Companys need make a profit but I do question if the prices especially for mass marketed games are realistic, too high a price and a good game can flop if its priced too high that buyers resist buying..

[:-]



Cmdrcain -> RE: Is $69.99(US) too much for a game?? (2/8/2004 12:21:24 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: whiteoak

I ran across my receipt for Gary Grigsby's 'Pacific War' (one of my all-time favorite games...which I still play occassionally) which I bought at Babbage's on December 25, 1992...for $64.99. So I don't think $70 is too much in 2004 considering how much more you get for your money in today's games.



I got Pac war for around $40-50 back then, via I believe mailordered discounted seller, Babbages? Would be like a Dept store? So Paid full retail

Also don't forget back then computers STILL were relatevely new and the BASE of computer users was still small, now the Base of users is HUGE and so the customer market is much larger then back then, its not as simple as pulling out an old receipt and comparing prices.. also Money was worth more so Pac war actually was high priced for those times if paid full retail.

For me $70 will be pushing it if a game comes out at $80-100 forget it.



Damien Thorn -> RE: Is $69.99(US) too much for a game?? (2/9/2004 10:39:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: whiteoak

I ran across my receipt for Gary Grigsby's 'Pacific War' (one of my all-time favorite games...which I still play occassionally) which I bought at Babbage's on December 25, 1992...for $64.99. So I don't think $70 is too much in 2004 considering how much more you get for your money in today's games.


Babbage's is open on Christmas Day?



foliveti -> RE: Is $69.99(US) too much for a game?? (2/9/2004 11:20:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Damien Thorn

quote:

ORIGINAL: whiteoak

I ran across my receipt for Gary Grigsby's 'Pacific War' (one of my all-time favorite games...which I still play occassionally) which I bought at Babbage's on December 25, 1992...for $64.99. So I don't think $70 is too much in 2004 considering how much more you get for your money in today's games.


Babbage's is open on Christmas Day?

That must be why he paid $25 more than I did for the special Christmas service.



Sonny -> RE: Is $69.99(US) too much for a game?? (2/9/2004 11:44:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cmdrcain

$70 makes me cring, basically because those on linited budgets have only so much spare cash.

However its not unsimiliar to other nich games like a baseball one I play which new buyers pay a similar amount, through for updated versions pay a lower upgrade price.

$70 through might mean going a bit hungry unless budget and save the cost over a few months , its easy to plunk down $70 if have a well paying job, but for those on pensions, retiremebt incomes and limited income it hits hard.

I too wait around for many games to drop to the $20-$10 level, where they come out in just a jewel case..

If it goes out at $70 I'll have to consider other needs first.. rent, Food, other costs of living.

Might also at that price wait to see how it is with others who buy and try it..

My Top limit usually for a game is $40, over that mark it impacts other needs.

Companys need make a profit but I do question if the prices especially for mass marketed games are realistic, too high a price and a good game can flop if its priced too high that buyers resist buying..

[:-]


What baseball game is it you play?



denisonh -> RE: Is $69.99(US) too much for a game?? (2/10/2004 12:24:22 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cmdrcain

[snip]

Companys need make a profit but I do question if the prices especially for mass marketed games are realistic, too high a price and a good game can flop if its priced too high that buyers resist buying..

[:-]
[snip]


I would not neccessarily call War in the Pacific "mass marketed".

And average that out over the lifetime of the software. I have paid $40 for software that spent less than a month on the harddrive.

Uncommon Valor was purchased over 18 months ago, and I have 4 PBEMs games on going, and it averages out to a bargain for time played versus money spent. That is commonly referred to as value.

If anything at all like UV, WitP has tremendous potential to be a good "value" even at $70.



Zeta16 -> RE: Is $69.99(US) too much for a game?? (2/10/2004 1:58:07 AM)

Just think of this everyone complains about gas price going up 10 cents, which for each fill up is some were between 1 and 2 dollars more. But then people will go out and buy name brands at stores while the generic food is just as good. People this is not a high amount for a game. People will pay 30 dollars to get their haircut, while you can get it done for 10 dollars just as good. The games that cost 40 dollars are not like this game. Yes most computer games do not cost very much, but most of these games are mass produced. WiTP is not for the mainstream market, thus the cost to break even. Also I will go on record that they do not break even on the game.



soeren -> RE: Is $69.99(US) too much for a game?? (2/11/2004 9:50:31 AM)

Just following this forum for the last year was worth that much money. It's entertaining, interesting and you learn something new every day, may it be about history, game design or software developement. A daily newspaper for a year costs more and ( with todays newspapers ) is much less interesting.

Soeren



Harald1050 -> RE: Is $69.99(US) too much for a game?? (2/11/2004 6:00:05 PM)

Servus!

Completely agree with Soeren.
I also agree with the others that you have to pay 45 to 50 Euros for almost every game that is currently released. 70 USD are some 55 Euros recently. I don't know what the prize in Euros will be then, but the game is a very ambitious project, and you have to pay the one that work on that game and much more.
If you don't like these kind of games you won't even spend 30 Euros to buy, i guess. I also would not pay 30 Euros or even less for an 3D-RPG, cause i am not interested in playing such games.
We, who like playing UV, Korsun Pocket, etc., know the good work of the Matrix-people and therefore - if you liked e.g. UV - you will like WITP and pay that prize.

Gruß
Harald



crsutton -> RE: Is $69.99(US) too much for a game?? (2/11/2004 10:06:07 PM)

Last weekend I lost $260 bucks on a pair of kings. Spent $100 bucks on a bag of groceries and paid $30 to fill up my gas tank! If I get as much entertainment out of WITP as I did from UV, $69 seems like a pretty good deal. [&o]



Crowsfan -> RE: Is $69.99(US) too much for a game?? (2/13/2004 6:27:10 AM)

agree with all... the $50 I spent on UV was well worth the enjoyment and entertainment I received. So another $20 for the whole Pacific? No Brainer!



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.8125