<!--quoteo(post=1960845:date=Aug 11 2012, 01:43 AM:name=Squeal_Like_A_Pig)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Squeal_Like_A_Pig @ Aug 11 2012, 01:43 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1960845"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As you can see from the above quote of Flayra's from another post, no one is saying the game is done yet with those tweets regarding balance. But, when we get the win / loss ratio much more in line like it is now, it is a big step forward, and really helps us identify the elements which have a large impact on balance (you'd be surprised at how many things can be changed and tweaked without seeing a change in the win/loss stats).
--Cory<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> But if it can't be used for balancing (and it can't*), why consider it an inherently good thing to have a 50/50 winrate? A build where we have 50/50 but half of those are skulk rushes and the other half is marines winning all longer games, is not a fun build, so there's nothing interesting about the number itself...
<!--sizeo:1--><span style="font-size:8pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo-->* for instance you might rebalance things such that skulk rushes are less effective; this would harm the 50/50 winrate but improve the game overall, yet if you consider the winrate some sort of guide you might think you should undo that balance change<!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec-->
NolSinklerOn the ClorfJoin Date: 2004-02-15Member: 26560Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1962203:date=Aug 13 2012, 10:12 AM:name=Align)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Align @ Aug 13 2012, 10:12 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1962203"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->But if it can't be used for balancing (and it can't*), why consider it an inherently good thing to have a 50/50 winrate? A build where we have 50/50 but half of those are skulk rushes and the other half is marines winning all longer games, is not a fun build, so there's nothing interesting about the number itself...
<!--sizeo:1--><span style="font-size:8pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo-->* for instance you might rebalance things such that skulk rushes are less effective; this would harm the 50/50 winrate but improve the game overall, yet if you consider the winrate some sort of guide you might think you should undo that balance change<!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec--><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
With a 50/50 winrate, they can tweak balance as such: they rebalance so that skulk rushes are less effective, which reduces alien winrate to say 40%, so then they have to tweak something somewhere else to restore the 50/50 balance.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Hmm - @NS2 is 3x as expensive as CS:GO. Is F2P dragging everything down? Is it a race to the bottom?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> FYI Nuclear Dawn is also $15 now. Hasn't been out a year, and it launched at $25.
schkorpioI can mspaintJoin Date: 2003-05-23Member: 16635Members
edited August 2012
<!--quoteo(post=1962363:date=Aug 14 2012, 07:49 AM:name=TychoCelchuuu)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TychoCelchuuu @ Aug 14 2012, 07:49 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1962363"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->CS:GO is cheap because it's the third time they've sold basically the same game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
yes exactly, its just a facelift to cs:s, which was a facelift cs. I think they understand that people wouldnt pay full price for a game they have been playing for 15 years.
<!--quoteo(post=1962366:date=Aug 13 2012, 03:06 PM:name=schkorpio)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (schkorpio @ Aug 13 2012, 03:06 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1962366"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->yes exactly, its just a facelift to cs:s, which was a facelift cs. I think they understand that people wouldnt pay full price for a game they have been playing for 15 years.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
CS has a huge existing market in developing countries, on older machines in internet cafes. That said, I think valve understands economics pretty well. It would not be the stupidest thing in the world for a smaller developer to take pricing cues from valve.
ScardyBobScardyBobJoin Date: 2009-11-25Member: 69528Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow
This is an interesting tidbit from Valve related to <a href="http://www.bit-tech.net/news/gaming/2009/02/20/valve-steam-is-making-us-rich/1" target="_blank">Steam game prices</a>. The key seems to be a slightly on the high end regular price, with regular sales and multi-pack discounts (i.e. buy 4 copies of NS2 and get 10% off).
Doesn't matter the reason why CS:GO is cheap it's still competition...
There are lots of good games quiet cheap for instance Planet Side 2 is free to play, LOL, DOTA etc GW2 is around $50 I think so you really need to justify the $35 price tag.
schkorpioI can mspaintJoin Date: 2003-05-23Member: 16635Members
<!--quoteo(post=1962443:date=Aug 14 2012, 10:50 AM:name=kabab)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (kabab @ Aug 14 2012, 10:50 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1962443"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Doesn't matter the reason why CS:GO is cheap it's still competition...
There are lots of good games quiet cheap for instance Planet Side 2 is free to play, LOL, DOTA etc GW2 is around $50 I think so you really need to justify the $35 price tag.
Best way to justify a price point is quality!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I must think differently to most gamers. To me I don't care about the price so much. I'd rather always pay $100 for a game if its a perfect game. And I'd rather not play a free game if isn't good. These days there are just sooooo many games you could never play them all, so only the good ones are worth the time (regardless of money).
I guess younger people are time rich and money poor - older people must be the opposite? :)
<!--quoteo(post=1962449:date=Aug 13 2012, 06:02 PM:name=schkorpio)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (schkorpio @ Aug 13 2012, 06:02 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1962449"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I must think differently to most gamers. To me I don't care about the price so much. I'd rather always pay $100 for a game if its a perfect game. And I'd rather not play a free game if isn't good. These days there are just sooooo many games you could never play them all, so only the good ones are worth the time (regardless of money).
I guess younger people are time rich and money poor - older people must be the opposite? :)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's nice I guess. I'm the same way, but also recognize that this game needs or deserves a good amount of sales to be a resounding success. The current price tag is a lot to ask for, and they need to push the quality if they're to ask for it.
For comparison, CS:GO isn't the only MP focused game with a lower price tag. War of the Roses was hinted to launch at about 30 dollars. That is a brand new multiplayer focused game with a proprietary engine. Even then, it also apparently has singleplayer on top of it. Though, they will have the advantage of being funded by Paradox...so it may not be a fair comparison but the point is that game still exist and most people won't care. Granted, I'm not sure if War of the Roses has mod tools, but it does have SP which somewhat makes up for it.
I'll echo the sentiment 25-30 dollars for this game would probably be a lot more attractive to your average consumer...unless you can convince them otherwise. Do that with quality...polish, polish, polish. Paradox isn't known for bug free games, so make sure you don't have many and as much balance as possible. Not that you need to be told...don't mean to come off condescending if I am.
<!--quoteo(post=1962466:date=Aug 13 2012, 06:50 PM:name=schkorpio)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (schkorpio @ Aug 13 2012, 06:50 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1962466"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->is the new fancy pants physics system coming in 217? is the exo coming in 217?
Darwin, be praised! :D<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--coloro:#808080--><span style="color:#808080"><!--/coloro-->>Hmm - @NS2 is 3x as expensive as CS:GO. Is F2P dragging everything down? Is it a race to the bottom?<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> <ul><li>Borderlands 2 is $70 and is 6th in the top sellers list. Football Manager 2012 is $40 and there's a new one of those <i>every year</i>. The <i>expansion</i> to Civ 5 is $50.</li><li>FTP has already developed a reputation for pay to win.</li><li>CS:GO is competing with CS:Source, not NS2.</li><li>CS has a tiny amount of content and very little innovation, especially compared to NS2.</li><li>CS:GO will more than likely ship 10s of millions of units, so they don't need to worry about recovering expenses.</li></ul> The sheer volume of games available these days means there are more games to play than there is time. The competition is for which game deserves a player's attention, it's not so much about the budget. If NS2 was overpriced by any measure, I'd be yelling at you to reduce it. So keep making the best game you can and don't worry about the price.
<!--quoteo(post=1962363:date=Aug 14 2012, 07:49 AM:name=TychoCelchuuu)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TychoCelchuuu @ Aug 14 2012, 07:49 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1962363"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->CS:GO is cheap because it's the third time they've sold basically the same game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That plus the fact that Valve can afford to make less on each copy sold as it's on their own platform, thereby negating what would have been their cut in the sales and introducing the potential for bringing more people to their marketplace.
<!--quoteo(post=1962363:date=Aug 13 2012, 09:49 PM:name=TychoCelchuuu)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TychoCelchuuu @ Aug 13 2012, 09:49 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1962363"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->CS:GO is cheap because it's the third time they've sold basically the same game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> isnt it the forth? I mean CS1.6 - CSCZ - CSS and now CSGO , but yeah they will make alot of money off of it + the console copies.
<!--quoteo(post=1962551:date=Aug 14 2012, 01:10 AM:name=Arkanti)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Arkanti @ Aug 14 2012, 01:10 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1962551"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That plus the fact that Valve can afford to make less on each copy sold as it's on their own platform, thereby negating what would have been their cut in the sales and introducing the potential for bringing more people to their marketplace.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not to mention the sheer mass of copies they will sell.
Many people seem to dislike it when games drop in price soon after release. But when I pay the current price I do it because it's worth it and when the mass of people got the game for this highest price it's legit to lower the price to get the second wave of people interested in it.
If the goal is to make a lot of money, follow the Counter-Strike/Minecraft/Farmville method and make sure the game runs on hardware that is at least 6 years old. Then, you can pretty much charge any amount of money and you will become a bajillionarie because your potential audience is so large.
Honestly I feel like $35 is pushing it for an online-only FPS. $30 or $25 would feel like a much more attractive price point, especially for people who never played NS before.
If sales on Steam have taught us anything, it's that you massively make up for low prices with volume of sales. If we are going to keep a $35 base price, it would behoove UWE to have frequent discount sales for it on Steam.
<!--coloro:#808080--><span style="color:#808080"><!--/coloro-->>Holy moley we got a lot of tweets about price. Consensus: many more people would buy if cheaper, unsure if total rev. would be > or <.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> Guh, please don't change the price in the short term... if there really are hoards of potential customers just waiting for a lower price, please wait until the community can cope with another influx... server slots are already fairly saturated here in Oz. :/
If you ask a potential customer about price, he will ALWAYS want you to lower it ;) And he will nearly always assure you he will buy your product when you lower its price if he is somewhat interested in it.
By the way, when I glance at the actual market and successful games, I would say the good price for NS2 would be 20 bucks. But I'm not an analyst it's all about my feelings. The successful indie games which ship at 30 bucks or more are not so many.
You may think lowering the price would be fair because the game will not be totally finished at its release, and then I would agree with you. You can not sell a game at its full price to a final customer (I mean a customer who does not want to beta test) if it is not completely finished and polished.
<!--quoteo(post=1963020:date=Aug 15 2012, 12:00 AM:name=Ryne)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ryne @ Aug 15 2012, 12:00 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1963020"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Tweeting about potentially lowering the price is probably a bad thing....anyone who is on the fence is going to wait for a price drop now.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I agree!
schkorpioI can mspaintJoin Date: 2003-05-23Member: 16635Members
i'm not worried, because I would have easily paid double for ns2(i figured I was making up for all of the fun times I had in ns1 for free), but if you drop the price now a lot people that pre-ordered years ago for full price might feel a bit cheated.
i think it would make sense to have a pre-order special before launch, when you make a lot of hype etc. and also include some 4 player bundles etc.
Comments
--Cory<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But if it can't be used for balancing (and it can't*), why consider it an inherently good thing to have a 50/50 winrate? A build where we have 50/50 but half of those are skulk rushes and the other half is marines winning all longer games, is not a fun build, so there's nothing interesting about the number itself...
<!--sizeo:1--><span style="font-size:8pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo-->* for instance you might rebalance things such that skulk rushes are less effective; this would harm the 50/50 winrate but improve the game overall, yet if you consider the winrate some sort of guide you might think you should undo that balance change<!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec-->
<!--sizeo:1--><span style="font-size:8pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo-->* for instance you might rebalance things such that skulk rushes are less effective; this would harm the 50/50 winrate but improve the game overall, yet if you consider the winrate some sort of guide you might think you should undo that balance change<!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec--><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
With a 50/50 winrate, they can tweak balance as such: they rebalance so that skulk rushes are less effective, which reduces alien winrate to say 40%, so then they have to tweak something somewhere else to restore the 50/50 balance.
and if you do have 50/50 as a start, how can it be a bad thing???
FYI Nuclear Dawn is also $15 now. Hasn't been out a year, and it launched at $25.
yes exactly, its just a facelift to cs:s, which was a facelift cs. I think they understand that people wouldnt pay full price for a game they have been playing for 15 years.
THe gfx arent even very good.
CS has a huge existing market in developing countries, on older machines in internet cafes. That said, I think valve understands economics pretty well. It would not be the stupidest thing in the world for a smaller developer to take pricing cues from valve.
There are lots of good games quiet cheap for instance Planet Side 2 is free to play, LOL, DOTA etc GW2 is around $50 I think so you really need to justify the $35 price tag.
Best way to justify a price point is quality!
There are lots of good games quiet cheap for instance Planet Side 2 is free to play, LOL, DOTA etc GW2 is around $50 I think so you really need to justify the $35 price tag.
Best way to justify a price point is quality!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I must think differently to most gamers. To me I don't care about the price so much. I'd rather always pay $100 for a game if its a perfect game. And I'd rather not play a free game if isn't good. These days there are just sooooo many games you could never play them all, so only the good ones are worth the time (regardless of money).
I guess younger people are time rich and money poor - older people must be the opposite? :)
Its hardly anything new to CS except a few weapons and a graphics and its the 3rd time they are selling it.
I guess younger people are time rich and money poor - older people must be the opposite? :)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's nice I guess. I'm the same way, but also recognize that this game needs or deserves a good amount of sales to be a resounding success. The current price tag is a lot to ask for, and they need to push the quality if they're to ask for it.
For comparison, CS:GO isn't the only MP focused game with a lower price tag. War of the Roses was hinted to launch at about 30 dollars. That is a brand new multiplayer focused game with a proprietary engine. Even then, it also apparently has singleplayer on top of it. Though, they will have the advantage of being funded by Paradox...so it may not be a fair comparison but the point is that game still exist and most people won't care. Granted, I'm not sure if War of the Roses has mod tools, but it does have SP which somewhat makes up for it.
I'll echo the sentiment 25-30 dollars for this game would probably be a lot more attractive to your average consumer...unless you can convince them otherwise. Do that with quality...polish, polish, polish. Paradox isn't known for bug free games, so make sure you don't have many and as much balance as possible. Not that you need to be told...don't mean to come off condescending if I am.
is the exo coming in 217?
Darwin, be praised! :D
is the exo coming in 217?
Darwin, be praised! :D<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Quick, find virgins to sacrifice!
<ul><li>Borderlands 2 is $70 and is 6th in the top sellers list. Football Manager 2012 is $40 and there's a new one of those <i>every year</i>. The <i>expansion</i> to Civ 5 is $50.</li><li>FTP has already developed a reputation for pay to win.</li><li>CS:GO is competing with CS:Source, not NS2.</li><li>CS has a tiny amount of content and very little innovation, especially compared to NS2.</li><li>CS:GO will more than likely ship 10s of millions of units, so they don't need to worry about recovering expenses.</li></ul>
The sheer volume of games available these days means there are more games to play than there is time. The competition is for which game deserves a player's attention, it's not so much about the budget. If NS2 was overpriced by any measure, I'd be yelling at you to reduce it. So keep making the best game you can and don't worry about the price.
That plus the fact that Valve can afford to make less on each copy sold as it's on their own platform, thereby negating what would have been their cut in the sales and introducing the potential for bringing more people to their marketplace.
isnt it the forth? I mean CS1.6 - CSCZ - CSS and now CSGO , but yeah they will make alot of money off of it + the console copies.
Not to mention the sheer mass of copies they will sell.
Many people seem to dislike it when games drop in price soon after release. But when I pay the current price I do it because it's worth it and when the mass of people got the game for this highest price it's legit to lower the price to get the second wave of people interested in it.
If sales on Steam have taught us anything, it's that you massively make up for low prices with volume of sales. If we are going to keep a $35 base price, it would behoove UWE to have frequent discount sales for it on Steam.
Guh, please don't change the price in the short term... if there really are hoards of potential customers just waiting for a lower price, please wait until the community can cope with another influx... server slots are already fairly saturated here in Oz. :/
By the way, when I glance at the actual market and successful games, I would say the good price for NS2 would be 20 bucks. But I'm not an analyst it's all about my feelings. The successful indie games which ship at 30 bucks or more are not so many.
You may think lowering the price would be fair because the game will not be totally finished at its release, and then I would agree with you. You can not sell a game at its full price to a final customer (I mean a customer who does not want to beta test) if it is not completely finished and polished.
IMO the price is at the right point. Maybe a few free weekends would help, let people try out the game before dropping the money
I agree!
i think it would make sense to have a pre-order special before launch, when you make a lot of hype etc. and also include some 4 player bundles etc.
(Put on yer blue paint)
hold... Hold... HOLD!!!!!!!!!!