Dominions II - Low Budget and Overpriced? I think not.

[Saber Cherry]

There has been a lot of complaining about the "high price" of Dominions, which is "overpriced" for a "low budget" game. And feel free to complain - perhaps there is a valid point behind it that has not yet been stated. But maybe it has been stated, and I don't understand it because it is based on a superficial and illogical perception of economics and reality.

To people who say Dominions 2 is overpriced for a low-budget game...

What do you mean by low budget? Less than $100 million? Less than $1 million? Less than $10,000? How do you quantify a budget for something done without a budget? The Pyramids of Egypt were low budget, because money had not been invented. The Mona Lisa was low budget. Beethoven's 5th Symphony was low budget. War and Peace was low budget. So? They're all priceless to vast numbers of people.

Why does spending millions of dollars on a game justify a higher price? Final Fantasy 3 (6) and Chrono Trigger were cheaper to produce than Final Fantasy 7, 8, 9, and FFX, and better. Should I pay more for an inferior game because the producer decided to blow vast sums of money on irrelevant video clips, instead of basing the game on gameplay?

What is important is whether the enjoyment is worth the money. Would you shun a good, inexpensively produced movie like "El Mariachi" or "Greek Wedding" in favor of the multimillion dollar pieces of trash "Gigli", "Battlefield Earth", or "FF: Spirits Within", simply because the latter cost more to make? Do you base your music-buying decisions on how much the producers are paying themselves (the majority of music production costs)? For the same selling price, would you rather buy a book written by a corporation (or organization) rather than by an individual, because it cost more to produce?

The development costs of Dominions are not known, can never be calculated, and are irrelevant to the price of the game. The primary factor in the price of Dominions is the per-unit production and distribution price, which is much higher than the per-unit price for major corporate game releases, due to efficiencies of scale... and while those numbers are not public, they can only support a higher, not lower, selling price. And the only factor relevant to whether or not a person purchases Dominions for a given price is the enjoyment received per dollar spent, relative to other uses of that money.

So. Can anyone tell me why they continually bring up the "low budget" status of Dominions as a relevant factor to its pricing? I'd love to hear a coherent, rational explanation. Dollar figures on what you imagine Dominions II’s budget to be, and what it should have been to justify its sales price, would be also be interesting… though ultimately worthless without a known link between the “budget” and sales price.

-Cherry

[Teraswaerto]

I agree with you 100%. The Last game I bought before Dom II was Max Payne II. Guess with which I'm happier to have spent 50 € on?

[ December 24, 2003, 07:39: Message edited by: Teraswaerto ]

[UNIVAC]

Im sorry but you cant mix satisfaction ratio with economical issues.If you want to be objective and speak only in economic terms, satisfaction has nothing to do.
Saber, if you want a rational and coherent answer, try to figure out why you pay the same, for two games like Dominions 2 and Max Payne 2.Try to figure out people involved in both projects, marketing, equipment, ....You like or not, production cost is directly linked to the price.And you are wrong in one thing, you can calculate the production cost of EVERYTHING http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

With this im not saying that i support the point of view you are attacking, because i dont.But i think your speech is subjective.

[Karacan]

The term "low budget" is a descriptive term, mostly. Flashy eyecatchers, impressive opening videos, fullscale 3d battles with tons of animations, animated world and tons of earrending soundeffects are noticeably missing from Dominions II.

The graphics are functional, the soundtrack is pleasing the first couple of games (though the very few tracks always repeating themselves get tiresome rather quick) and well, at least there's flashy spell effects in combat.

We're not talking about replay value, fun, clever gamedesign or anything, just about the Flashiness, whose absence causes Dom II to be labeled by most people (including me) as "low budget".

I admit the price made me gulp as well. My decision to purchase the game was more of a fanboyish attidue: When I played Dom I, I knew instantly that if Dom II ever made it, it'd be mine. If I hadn't have tons of experience of the deep gaming experience of Dominions I, I strongly doubt that the Dom II demo (with that lousy 40 turn limit, which turned me off additionally) would have even started to convince me to shell out a lot of cash.

A lot of cash? Yes. When I describe Dominions to others, I tend to use the term "the Nethack of strategy gaming". Nethack, which I still play - a great low budget game of immense depth and replayability, which did not cost a lot of money.

Anyway, the point is that I purchased the game because I loved Dominions I, not because I think it's not overprized.

[apoger]

I think people are using the term "low budget" as a synonym for "poor production values". Perhaps not the best use of language, but I understand the intent.

When people pay "full" price for things they expect all the amenities, such as good documentation, good tutorials, and a clean/intuitive interface.


Price versus perceived value is very important. The "low budget" commentary is the way the the players are expressing their dissatisfaction with their perceived purchase. Nobody really cares how much money has been spent on game production. What they care about is game fun/functionality versus their time/money.

[SurvivalistMerc]

I think the real question with computer games is: Are you satisfied with what you got for what you paid? With respect to Dominions, I am satisfied.

I did suffer a bit from sticker shock when I saw the price they were asking. But games like this might be hard to price. I have no idea whether they've even sold enough copies to meet their production costs. Because this game isn't in stores...only over the internet. And I want the game to be at least somewhat profitable to illwinter/shrapnel because...if it's not...we won't have other games like this. So I've resolved not to complain too much about the bad documentation or lackluster (but serviceable) graphics until I know the game has at least made a reasonable profit.

To me, what is most important in a game I'm paying over $40.00 for is replay value. I hear a lot of folks wanting a random map generator...but for me there is already a random map generator built into the map. The provinces aren't exactly the same every game. Because the most improtant thing...to me...the magic sites...differs with every game. It may be that income and population are constant...and the rivers and mountains certanly are. Of course, unless you make your own maps you never know where you are going to start.

The demo was critical to my choice to purchase the game. I had never played Dom 1, and if I had not heard about Dom 2 on another game board...I would have missed out.

This may be silly of me...but I'm hoping that if the game is a huge financial success the company will improve the documentation and the graphics, add some more sound tracks, and offer it to customers as a "patch" (more medieval music in the form of a downloadable mp3 "patch" would be totally wonderful, and it can't be all that expensive to hire performers since the intellectual property rights to authentic medieval pieces have long since expired). I know a number of folks who wouldn't like this "niche" game because those people are more into graphics than into rich, strategic, complex, multifaceted gameplay. I still think that is their loss.

[Whismerhill]

I totally agree with karakan
the fact that I bought the game is for supporting them and allowing illwinter to create one day a dominions 3 http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
because cracking the demo to play without any limits is easy as hell ;-)

ho, and speaking of "is the game my money worth?"
for me dominions 1 was not but dominions 2 is

keep up the good job illwinter (and give us that long awaited patch http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif )

[Gandalf Parker]

I think generally that the "low budget / high budget" thing is that when something obviously wasnt done like one of the big budget things, then it could be priced less than the big budget thing. Some feel that it was big-budget priced unfairly.

But worth is a seperate subject. Thats how you decide the fairness of the pricing. Dom1 lived on my machine while at least 2 dozen games of far more price came and went. Therefor I feel it was a good purchase.

Dom2 I highly expect will live on my machine for longer than any game of equal cost. Therefor I will not consider that to have been a waste of money.

[PvK]

If you measure "big budget" in terms of the amount of effort put in by the developers compared to their cash resources, I bet Doms II is very "big budget".

If you measure the amount of production value in gameplay as opposed to eye candy fluff, then Doms II is enormously "big budget".

Doms II is worth hundreds or thousands compared to most megacorp crapware games, in terms of gameplay, uniqueness, replay value, fun, multi-player challenge, etc., IF it is your kind of game. So, as usual, try the demo, and if it looks like a great game to you, you're right, so buy it. If, on the other hand, it doesn't look like something that would be worth the price to you, then don't buy it - it's not your cup o' tea, but whining about it being "low budget" or "not worth it" is just pointless, and misleading to players who would appreciate it, so don't.

PvK

[ceremony]

Originally posted by SurvivalistMerc:
add some more sound tracks, and offer it to customers as a "patch" (more medieval music in the form of a downloadable mp3 "patch" would be totally wonderful, and it can't be all that expensive to hire performers since the intellectual property rights to authentic medieval pieces have long since expired).<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Why not just buy the CD of medieval music available from the group that did the music for Dom2? That's what I did.

http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/falsobordone

[UNIVAC]

Originally posted by ceremony:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Originally posted by SurvivalistMerc:
add some more sound tracks, and offer it to customers as a "patch" (more medieval music in the form of a downloadable mp3 "patch" would be totally wonderful, and it can't be all that expensive to hire performers since the intellectual property rights to authentic medieval pieces have long since expired).<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Why not just buy the CD of medieval music available from the group that did the music for Dom2? That's what I did.

http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/falsobordone </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Or try Hedningarna or Dead Can Dance...similar formations http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[Karacan]

Hmm, I forgot to add two points:

Is it worth the price? Yes, for me, it is. Although I had to think about it.

Why is it worth the price? And this is the point: Not only because of a good game design that offers a lot of fun, but mainly because I supported with my money a cool low budget http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif company with great ideas about games and excellent ideas how to make them work (have a look at any other shareware fantasy strategy stuff to know that this is apparently not an easy feat).

I am still left with the (subjective) impression that Dom II is not a shareware game, not for this price. And as a non-shareware game, the critics are more unforgiving for polish and shine, too.

[SurvivalistMerc]

You will laugh at me...I don't buy many music CDs. I had no idea this was commercially available. And actually I don't recall hearing Medieval music until the Dom 2 background music, which I totally loved for the first 3 days and then (due solely to lack of variety) it got old.

Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[Lord Hammer]

One important point IMHO is how many games we've bought for $50 without blinking an eye because so and so made them or it's "title" 2 or 3. I consider myself a professional gamer and have bought/played just about every turn-based fantasy or wargame ever made and was blown away with all Dominions 2 has to offer. AOW2:SM has all the eye candy, more races...sites etc. and after playing all the previous iterations of it i still felt there was nothing really new, a rigidly structured campaign where you were forced to master the "race de jour". Hundreds of turns later after finishing the game once or twice i felt no desire to do it all over again, i can't change my starting race or opponents and every map was the same...yeah, so i got better at "getting it over with" http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif ...big deal! That is just one of the "popular" games of that type. I have been playing Dom2 since the release only as the different Undead armies against 6 or 7 ai races so far one or two at a time and EVERY game has been radically different plus i still have 10 ai opponents/races to go against. Then i will pick another race to play as...well, do the math: i have only scratched the surface http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif of this deep game...a small percentage of gaming goodness. Replay value is not a strong enough word for Dominions 2...it's a handful of games all in one package. If we were able to buy this game "by the race" for $10 each that would be a steal,right? So in my eyes i'm getting $170 worth of game for $50 http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif . The ironic thing is i happened upon the demo quite by accident, a Holiday buying guide from a gamers website, i shudder at the thought of not having found Dominions 2...call it Divine intervention or just good luck but i call it the best game experience to happen to me in all my jaded years as a gamer http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif . Now i am spoiled and the bar has been raised!

[olaf73]

Low budget=low price

At least that is the way it usually works for video/computer games. So that is why people (myself included) bring it up when discussing Dominions 2.

olaf

[Keir Maxwell]

Originally posted by Lord Hammer:
I have been playing Dom2 since the release only as the different Undead armies against 6 or 7 ai races so far one or two at a time and EVERY game has been radically different plus i still have 10 ai opponents/races to go against. Then i will pick another race to play as...well, do the math: i have only scratched the surface http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif of this deep game...a small percentage of gaming goodness. Replay value is not a strong enough word for Dominions 2...it's a handful of games all in one package.
. . .
i shudder at the thought of not having found Dominions 2 <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Well put. In terms of a someone new to Dominions I think you have said it all - Dominions 2 is an incredible buy because of the amount you get.

I think some people who upgraded from Dom1 to Dom2 are not so happy as they already had a great game and hoped that Dom2 was going to be slick with it.

I'm very happy because I have a new Dom to play with and there is so much about it I love. For me only games of the ilk of Neverwinter Nights, Stars! and Ultima Online can really be compared to Dominions in terms of value for money. Dominons2 is suberb value for money for me.

cheers

Keir

[Gandalf Parker]

Originally posted by olaf73:
Low budget=low price
At least that is the way it usually works for video/computer games. So that is why people (myself included) bring it up when discussing Dominions 2.<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Understandable but I think its usually that low budget means it COULD be low priced. Dom1 was. And we all continually bombarded the devs with requests to bring the game (graphics, music, interface) more in line with the mainstream games.

Dom2 seems to be an effort at moving in that direction. OK some of its not there yet but its the chicken-vs-egg thing. They will need to make some real money BEFORE being able to move this little hobby project into a more central thing in their lives (or hire others). If I remember correctly they both have families and jobs. Picture THAT conversation. "But the players said..."

Anyway Im still happy to have sent in my support for Dominions. And I do feel I got my money worth.

[ December 25, 2003, 13:34: Message edited by: Gandalf Parker ]

[Sammual]

For the Last month there have been 3 days where I did not play Dom2 for at LEAST 3 hours. On weekends I put in at least 4 hours. In terms of 'bang for the buck' only Everquest has Dom2 beat (Give me another month and ask if Dom2 beat EQ in bang for the buck yet).

Sammual

[Endoperez]

Originally posted by olaf73:
Low budget=low price

At least that is the way it usually works for video/computer games. So that is why people (myself included) bring it up when discussing Dominions 2.

olaf <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">No, I have to correct you.
Low Budget => Low Quality => Low Price
That is the norm, that is how it usually works. Luckily, as Illwinter are an exception and made Dom2 with low budget (in money, not in work), this low budget game is of very high quality and, because of that, actually worth more than a bad big budget game.
It's still your choice, though: do you want to support the publishers and sellers of decent games to publish and sell those games, or Illwinter and Shrapnel to make and sell great games? You should also notice that games in the bargain bins only bring money for the shops and publishers... That's why Shrapnel doesn't let Dom2 to go down there.

[sfsuphysics]

Originally posted by Saber Cherry:
<snip rants>
So. Can anyone tell me why they continually bring up the "low budget" status of Dominions as a relevant factor to its pricing? I'd love to hear a coherent, rational explanation. -Cherry <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">(back from an Xmas flu that hurt)

I think the reason why so many will bring up 'low budget' is because the first thought that comes to mind when playing this probably is something like "did I have a copy of dos5.0 to run this?" Seriously, it looks like you'd have to fiddle with high-mem for days to get it to run type of game (read: wrong decade). Now before anyone gets their panties in a twist about eye candy, you have to admit that a certain amount of eye candy is required for sanity purposes. Now I loathe FPS games and most console games so dont stick me into that boat that I know some of you were itching to type away. This game to me seems like a medieval Version of Risk is all. Sure its decently fun, granted I dont think its as fun as a majority here think, but getting opinions about the game from here is slightly biased (usually). Maybe because the game is incompletish? No editing possible? Well thats a feature a lot of these types of games require, not 'wait for the patch' type responses.

I dunno, maybe its because of the multi-platform aspect of it that the graphics look the way they do, you need the code to work for multiple platforms you usually lose on custom platform techniques, similar to how I had much higher expectations for Moo3. This is not to say that Dom2 is a 'low budget' game, it just looks like it was made in the 80's (or maybe early 90's), this you can not argue (unless you're on a solaris machine then this is top of the line graphics for a game). Most game stuff you can't see, and even though I have no idea how hard it is to program a good challenging AI or whatever, it doesn't look too much indepth either.

Anyways that's my 2 cents.
Happy New Year to all http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[Wendigo]

Originally posted by sfsuphysics:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Saber Cherry:
[qb] <snip rants>
This game to me seems like a medieval Version of Risk is all. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">You are comparing chess with tic-tac-toe, both games are played on a province based map where you move armies, and that's were the resemblance ends, same as the semblance between tic-tac-toe & chess goes no further than the type of board.

[ December 30, 2003, 07:19: Message edited by: Wendigo ]

[Saxon]

Looking at this from a different view might be interesting. Most folks are arguing from their own individual view point, which is normal. However, what if we look at it from a theoretical economics view point? This means looking at how most people in the market view it and why some people are willing to pay more.

First, everyone values things differently. As such, a dress might have a huge value to my girlfriend, but next to zero for me. She will be willing to pay more than I am for the same item. Now, if it is her birthday tomorrow, the value of that dress might change for me, perhaps making it worth even more to me than it is to her. In short, every item has a price for every individual, it is relative.

In the case of Dom II, many of the people posting think they got a great deal at $50. Of course they do! Those of us on the Boards think the game is great, otherwise we would not be investing so much effort in typing and reading all this material. We are not a good sample of the larger world. You do not see my Mom on here, she thinks the game is worthless!

Moving to the market, is Dom II well priced? Roughly speaking, the market price is the average price of what the sellers are willing to take and what the buyers are willing to give. If it is priced too high by the seller, only those who really want the object will buy it. If it is priced too low, lots of people will by it, as they get something they want, but do not want to pay much for. Now, marketing, consumer knowledge and all sorts of other things come into play in the real world, but I will leave that out of this simple model.

Is the price right? We do not know the sales figures, nor do we know if there are a lot of people who would like the game, but are only willing to pay $40. We also do not know all the costs that go into producing the product. Shrapnel probably knows and they also have experience. Would a price cut really increase sales? In theory yes, but in reality, maybe not.

My guess is that sales are pretty low, they are targeting the “niche market”, those of us who really want this sort of game and are willing to pay. We would like to get it for less, but we will pay the premium. As an aside, for niche markets, lowering the price does not automatically mean more sales. There are only so many people interested in the niche, so selling the game at $1 does not equal mass market sales.

We can think of Dom II in terms of my odd old aunt who loves buying hand-woven rugs. They are more expensive than machine made rugs, they are not as well made and they do not look very nice, but she likes them. Dom II is like a craft product, a hand made product. It is not as flashy as Warcraft III and it does not have the sales of Quake III, but it does have something special. Something special like Space Empires IV, another hand crafted game.

So, it is probably over priced in pure market terms, but they are not aiming for the pure computer game market. They are over at the specialty and “craft fair” games, where the price would be higher. Only the people seeing the sales figures know if the price is right from that point of view, but it probably pretty close. Mainstream games often sell at $40 and $50 and we should expect a niche game to be a bit higher. As the quality (graphics mainly) is lower, we knock some off and come up with about $50.

From my point of view, it was money very well spent. As such, I shall stop pontificating!

[UNIVAC]

Originally posted by Wendigo:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Originally posted by sfsuphysics:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Saber Cherry:
[qb] <snip rants>
This game to me seems like a medieval Version of Risk is all. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">You are comparing chess with tic-tac-toe, both games are played on a province based map where you move armies, and that's were the resemblance ends, same as the semblance between tic-tac-toe & chess goes no further than the type of board. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Well, board game, strategy, conquest, turn-based,...the basics are the same, not the complexity, of course.But thats not the important part of what sfsuphysics was saying http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[Saarud]

I really like the fact that Dominions 2 is a low budget product. If more would be invested into the game they would have to make Dominions 2 appeal to a larger mass which undoubtly would lead to a dumb down of the gameplay, otherwise the great mass wouldn't enjoy the game.

Now to survive as a small developer company and continue to develop great deep strategy games on a small niche market they might have to charge abit more than otherwise for their products.

I for one would churn up more money for this great product as I think the developers for sure have earned it but mostly because I want them to continue to make strategy games.

Ok then again I would happily pay much money for a game with ascII graphic as long as the gameplay is good. But that might just be me. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[Unknown_Enemy]

nice graphics, good music and other eyescandy are a real bonus that I like to enjoy.

However, they are not enought to motivate a decision to buy, which will be solely based on gameplay. That seems a commun trait with wargamers.

[Lord Hammer]

Originally posted by Unknown_Enemy:
nice graphics, good music and other eyescandy are a real bonus that I like to enjoy.

However, they are not enought to motivate a decision to buy, which will be solely based on gameplay. That seems a commun trait with wargamers. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Well, it's good to know you'll be buying it then, enjoy! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif From one wargamer to another...it's a slippery slope Dom2 is http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif .

[olaf73]

I'd wager that if the game was $10-15 cheaper, had good comprehensive docs and in game tutorial it would sell twice as many copies.

olaf

[DarkStar]

If the game was $10-15 cheaper, had good comprehensive docs and in game tutorial, I wouldn't have given it a second thought, and would have placed my order the moment I finished the demo.

For me the fact I played the demo before the walkthru was done, and was lost and confused playing most of the time really put a bad taste in my mouth. That with the really bad UI design, was too much for me to take, for the $50 price tag.

I'm sure I'll end up getting it at some point...

[PhilD]

Originally posted by olaf73:
I'd wager that if the game was $10-15 cheaper, had good comprehensive docs and in game tutorial it would sell twice as many copies.

olaf <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Honestly, I don't think so. At $35, it would still be more expensive than some new games, so wouldn't be perceived as "not a big deal"; and the target audience (people who like complex, rich games with more emphasis on content than state-of-the-art look) probably isn't so much looking at the price tag.

It might sell a few more copies, but I'm confident the total sales volume would be less; since producing copies isn't free, that would mean even less profit (or even a loss) for Shrapnel.

[UNIVAC]

I agree with Darkstar

[Gandalf Parker]

Well it was cheaper (at least Dom1 was). I dont think UI and tutorial would be enough difference to reflect the sales differences.

Dom2 went with a publisher, which means it goes with publisher pricing.

Maybe if Dom2 sells enough we will see the things you want with Dom3. Hmmm no that one may go to shelf-ware which means it will go with shelf-ware pricing.

[onomastikon]

Well I just ordered the game, but it took a while to make the decision because of the price, but mostly because of the price *for what you are getting*. I know nothing of its budget, but one can certainly tell that it is a "cheap" game (or appears to be so) in at least this sense: (it appears that) all design work went into game balance, none went into sound, graphics, interface, support or manual. The designers get credos for intelligence and creativity, but nothing for investment, or "dedication" (in a sense I will mention in a moment).
Balance can be done by smart gamers testing, the rest requires artists, programmers, voice editors, speakers, modelers, etc.

The graphics are abominable. Together with the sound (which I must turn off, especially if I ever "view battle" (I cannot stand the Commodore 64 squeak of serpents in battle)), this makes the excellent gameplay much less enjoyable. This also gives the impression that the team had little "dedication" to its target group. By dedication, consider games where (it appears that) a lot of "love" has gone into the game. Think of Deus Ex I (the attention to detail) or Warcraft III (the cute voices, excellent graphics, extreme customer support (battle.net).) The designers obviously love the concept, but it appears they did not want to invest in a finished product for a larger target group. And that is why the price seems so high.

So for the price, Dominions II *appears* to be either very low-budgeted or shoddy.

Don't get me wrong: it is a good game and well thought-out, but I would not have released it for this price. I purchased it because I am an idealist, but I bet most people arent.

[ January 09, 2004, 06:59: Message edited by: onomastikon ]

[PvK]

Deus Ex? Warcraft? Those games had art budgets measured in hundreds of thousands (or millions) of dollars! The people who did the art were professional game artists. None of the folks at Illwinter are professional game artists, nor did they have a megacorporate (or perhaps any) budget.

PvK

[liga]

I think taht the problem is that for making good the details (graphics, sounds, interface, ...) yuou really need a team of programmer ... Blizzard has a huge team of people working on each game (they are looking for sculptist to realize the models of the units in the game! ... understand what it means?) ...

Little company needs to focus on the main things of a game (idea, mechanics, AI) and obviusly they lack in graphics and sounds aand similar ...

I think that to reduce the price is possible if you change not the nubber of copies you sold but the order of magnitude of the copy sold ...

So what I pretend by a game of little company is just that is funny, work good, playable and have a minum level of graphics (that was the reason why I never been able to play dom1) ... about the price I want is it not more than othe games ... of course in the moment the game start to sell well probably the designer could start to have enough money to conider making game a job and could try to hire someone to have a better graphic and music in the next realese ...

good play
Liga

[Leif_-]

I'd just like to point out that in other areas of the entertainment industry, there's no correlation between budget and the final price of a product. You pay as much for a DVD of Evil Dead or El Mariachi as for Waterworld or ID4. Why should computer games be any different?

[Graeme Dice]

Originally posted by onomastikon:
The graphics are abominable.<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Not really. They tell you what's going on, and that's all that's needed. They could be labelled rectangles and it wouldn't make much difference to the gameplay.

This also gives the impression that the team had little "dedication" to its target group. By dedication, consider games where (it appears that) a lot of "love" has gone into the game.<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">You seem to have no understanding whatsoever of what is difficult to do in a computer program, or what is time consuming. Creating a complex set of interacting game elements is every bit as difficult as creating lots of art.

Think of Deus Ex I (the attention to detail) or Warcraft III (the cute voices, excellent graphics, extreme customer support (battle.net).)<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">So where are the two programmers going to get the money to do this, and why should they waste their time on mostly irrelevant eye candy? There's really no need for graphics to be any better than those in the original Civilization for a strategy game, and much effort is wasted by companies in making them better.

The designers obviously love the concept, but it appears they did not want to invest in a finished product for a larger target group. And that is why the price seems so high.<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I think you need to get a reality check. Deus Ex and Warcraft III had million dollar budgets.

[Gandalf Parker]

Just in case you are interested in what might be reality to some of this let me make some comments here....

The graphics are abominable. Together with the sound (which I must turn off, especially if I ever "view battle" (I cannot stand the Commodore 64 squeak of serpents in battle)), this makes the excellent gameplay much less enjoyable.<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">While the things you say might not be untrue, who are you comparing it to? Are you comparing to windows games on the store shelves? Are any of them other games being offered here at Shrapnels site? Are any of them games that run on so many widely different operating systems? Again I say it doesnt make what you said untrue but it is a touch of reality here.

This also gives the impression that the team had little "dedication" to its target group. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Hmmm I think there would be a disagreement on who you think their target group is if you think graphics and sound rated high.

By dedication, consider games where (it appears that) a lot of "love" has gone into the game. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">??? These are two guys who have real jobs with real familys. I think I would love to hear their Mrs comment on things like how much budget and time and love was put into this project of their husbands. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Think of Deus Ex I (the attention to detail) or Warcraft III (the cute voices, excellent graphics, extreme customer support (battle.net).) <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Wow. These are games where alot of "love" went into them? I'm not doubting that but they seem like games where alot of money went into them. Its like you are compairing jet planes to the Wright brothers. No offense to Illwinter but I think the territory you are referring to is more like Dominions 9. If you look at the products produced by those companys before they had full-time programmers and artists and writers and web people etc etc etc then things might be alittle more fair.

The designers obviously love the concept, but it appears they did not want to invest in a finished product for a larger target group. And that is why the price seems so high.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">That I can agree with. But I would have to say that they may have wanted this but at least part of the blame for this would have to lie with me and other Users of Dom1. If you look back to the conversations in newsGroups such as comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic you might see that pushing Dom toward a publisher and wider distribution was a common Users comment. And as with many things in Dom2, they did exactly as we requested with all the Pros and Cons involved.

[ January 09, 2004, 15:56: Message edited by: Gandalf Parker ]

[johan osterman]

Originally posted by onomastikon:
The designers obviously love the concept, but it appears they did not want to invest in a finished product for a larger target group. And that is why the price seems so high.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Eh, no one at illwinter have had any significant amounts of money for they 6 or so years dom1/dom2 has been in the works. No one has invested anything but time and effort in dom2 ( apart from the small compensation paid to falsobordonne), this is not due to lack of 'love' or 'dedication' to the target group, but due to that nobody has had any money to invest. If you are willing to invest a few hundreds of thousands of dollars no one at illwinter would object.

[Gandalf Parker]

Originally posted by johan osterman:
If you are willing to invest a few hundreds of thousands of dollars no one at illwinter would object. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">LOL good response. http://www.techno-mage.com/~gandalf/smile/clap.gif

[onomastikon]

Excuse me, please dont misinterpret me. I love this game. Yes, I was comparing it with high-budget projects. That was the title of the thread! Please dont be offended. Someone said they found it bizarre that people refered to the game as having a low budget; that simply doesnt seem bizarre to me. No need to get angry because it does not have that budget. Still a great game!

[Sammual]

Originally posted by PhilD:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Originally posted by olaf73:
I'd wager that if the game was $10-15 cheaper, had good comprehensive docs and in game tutorial it would sell twice as many copies.

olaf <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Honestly, I don't think so. At $35, it would still be more expensive than some new games, so wouldn't be perceived as "not a big deal"; and the target audience (people who like complex, rich games with more emphasis on content than state-of-the-art look) probably isn't so much looking at the price tag.

It might sell a few more copies, but I'm confident the total sales volume would be less; since producing copies isn't free, that would mean even less profit (or even a loss) for Shrapnel. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I disagree. Better documentation and -$10 on the price would sell a lot more copies. The word of mouth advertising this game is getting is growing daily and is the only reason I don't think the better docs and -$10 would not double sales.

Sammual

[johan osterman]

What got me peeved was the following.

Originally posted by onomastikon:
...
This also gives the impression that the team had little "dedication" to its target group. By dedication, consider games where (it appears that) a lot of "love" has gone into the game. Think of Deus Ex I (the attention to detail) or Warcraft III (the cute voices, excellent graphics, extreme customer support (battle.net).) The designers obviously love the concept, but it appears they did not want to invest in a finished product for a larger target group.
...
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">You seem to be under the impression that Kristoffer and JK did not want to invest money in the game, that it was a matter of choice. You also claim that it appears that the developers have little dedication to the target group. Perhaps it is the language barrier but the above statements come across as sounding as illwinters lack of funds was a choice made from some sort of disregard to the players, which is patently absurd. Dom2 is low budget in the sense that it did not have a budget. Before the money from the sales start to show JK and Kristoffer are unpaid. Neither Kristoffer or JK would mind if some Blizzard exec suddenly dropped down the chimney and delivered a bug full of money at their feets, shouting "go hire an enormous staff of 3d artists and qualified programmers". Essentially dom2 is made by the same budget you would have if you sat down and wrote your own game, not having shiploads of money is not a lifestyle choice made by the developers.

[Gandalf Parker]

Originally posted by Sammual:
I disagree. Better documentation and -$10 on the price would sell a lot more copies. The word of mouth advertising this game is getting is growing daily and is the only reason I don't think the better docs and -$10 would not double sales.<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I know that seems logical but its not true. I think it should be that way also but game publishers dont agree (thats publishers, not developers). I know the next easy thing to think is that its done just out of greed but thats not true. OK well maybe it is true but its different saying they are doing something stupid out of greed, vs saying they are doing it based on statistics and profit margins.

[Sammual]

Originally posted by Gandalf Parker:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Originally posted by Sammual:
I disagree. Better documentation and -$10 on the price would sell a lot more copies. The word of mouth advertising this game is getting is growing daily and is the only reason I don't think the better docs and -$10 would not double sales.<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I know that seems logical but its not true. I think it should be that way also but game publishers dont agree (thats publishers, not developers). I know the next easy thing to think is that its done just out of greed but thats not true. OK well maybe it is true but its different saying they are doing something stupid out of greed, vs saying they are doing it based on statistics and profit margins. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Greed / Stupidity never enter into it.

Simple economics.

The computer game industry is currently set up around certain price points. The consumers buy any game that in their perception is worth this price point.

The price points are set by Wal-Mart (No joke, they are the 600 lbs. Gorilla and everyone follows their lead) and to a lesser extent the publishers.

The pricepoint on Dominions 2 was set by Shrapnel to be as high as it was because of the following;

1) Small expectation of demand (Almost everything else relates back to this). Shrapnel did not think they would sell this many copies of Dominions2. To make this deal worth their time they had to raise the pricepoint to where they were reasonably sure (Pricepoint X Expected Volume) - Costs = Desired Profit Margin.
Cost per Unit drop as Volume goes up (Manual Printing, CD Burning, and tech support get cheaper by unit. Advertising, PR are fixed costs and more volume makes the cost per unit for them drop quick). If Shrapnel had known this game was going sell this well then they would have put in larger orders for CD's and Manuals and they could have set the price point lower.


2) Large Manual - Small print run costs on a manual like this are expensive. Look up "Print on Demand" publishing and check out the costs for 1,000, 10,000, and 50,000 items then check out the "Offset Printing" costs for 10,000, 50,000, and 100,000 items. They could have saved a lot of money and lowered the pricepoint by putting the Items and Spells on the CD as PDF files. I am guessing that they choose not to because A) WARGAMERS like to have charts and lists in hand to look things up. B) More incentive for people to buy the game rather than pirate it.


3) New Developer Relationship.
Artists of any type do NOT get a very good deal the first time with a Publisher unless they have a GOOD track record. Publishers loose money off of most artists and most new artists generate the least amount of money for them. So the publishers stack the deck in their favor for the first contract. It's not greed, it is just good business.

OK, enough with that sidetrack. Now back to "perception of value".
Wargammers put gameplay above all else. Documentation is up there.
Ease of use is not all that important.
Eye candy is not all that important.

My argument is that by increasing the documentation and ease of use (Thru a tutorial / Walkthru) and reducing the pricepoint by ~$10 your pricepoint meets more people's "perception of value".

To have a game like this become a hit with a larger audience you have to look at the "perception of value" the general gamer has.

Eye candy is close to the top. Parents / Friends / Family make a lot of the purchases for this group and this is all they can judge thinks on.

Ease of use is very important. If they can't figure it out quick then it gets set aside or returned (Short attention span, refuses to deal with a large learning curve).

Gameplay is not all that important. If the game keeps them occupied for a week it is good enough. Anything more is good but not required.

Documentation is almost meaningless. DVD boxes with 12 page manuals that have 8 pages of tech info.

---- Crap I am late --- I have to go.
Sammual

[onomastikon]

Look sorry if I upset you. That they had no budget is clear, it is my point. I fail to see why people want to say it seems as if they had a big budget. Kudos to the developers -- but please dont say the game looks like it didnt have a low budget or there were large investments in it. I blame no one for their lack of funds. But it is clear that there werent much of them. Please dont take this the wrong way. If I offend I apologize. Is that enough?

[ceremony]

Originally posted by onomastikon:
I blame no one for their lack of funds.<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">It seems like this sentence: "it appears they did not want to invest in a finished product for a larger target group" blames the developers- that they didn't want to invest, as though they had the money, but said, nah, just screw it. Claiming they had no dedication sounds like placing blame, too. I'm not surprised they got miffed.

[Gandalf Parker]

Be nice people. We ARE going to get folks who will be surprised by this forum.
We might get people who are used to forums that are a younger playing base.
We might get people who are used to forums where "talking ****" is expected.
We might get people who are used to forums where slamming the devs and publishers is considered standard.
We have already gotten some who felt that asking for things like warez and CD-keys was no big deal.

The fact they this forum has active presences by the developers, and the publishers, will be a shock. The fact that its full of people who really LIKE the game and will fly into its defense will be a surprise. Lets be gentle in our instruction of new people. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[Sammual]

Originally posted by ceremony:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Originally posted by onomastikon:
I blame no one for their lack of funds.<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">It seems like this sentence: "it appears they did not want to invest in a finished product for a larger target group" blames the developers- that they didn't want to invest, as though they had the money, but said, nah, just screw it. Claiming they had no dedication sounds like placing blame, too. I'm not surprised they got miffed. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">onomastikon's first language is not English. It sounds likw what we read and what he ment are two different things.

Sammual

[ceremony]

Originally posted by Sammual:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Originally posted by ceremony:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Originally posted by onomastikon:
I blame no one for their lack of funds.<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">It seems like this sentence: "it appears they did not want to invest in a finished product for a larger target group" blames the developers- that they didn't want to invest, as though they had the money, but said, nah, just screw it. Claiming they had no dedication sounds like placing blame, too. I'm not surprised they got miffed. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">onomastikon's first language is not English. It sounds likw what we read and what he ment are two different things.

Sammual </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Fair enough.

[UNIVAC]

Originally posted by PvK:
Deus Ex? Warcraft? Those games had art budgets measured in hundreds of thousands (or millions) of dollars! The people who did the art were professional game artists. None of the folks at Illwinter are professional game artists, nor did they have a megacorporate (or perhaps any) budget.

PvK <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana"> The house that WarCraft, StarCraft, and Diablo built got their start in the early 1990s as Silicon & Synapse, a developer of small games, all of which were highly underrated. Prior to the release of Warcraft, Blizzard was a third-party developer creating entertainment software for a variety of platforms including DOS, Macintosh, Sega Genesis and Super Nintendo. Some of the company's best-known titles include Rock 'n Roll Racing, The Lost Vikings, Blackthorne and The Death and Return of Superman. Most of its early classics for the PC were published by Interplay.

Text extracted from home of the underdogs.Blizzard started like a small company programming games for other companies.They started with low budget games.So when we are talking about warcraft 1, dont think about today's Blizzard, think about early 90's Blizzard. Low budget and small team is a poor argument for bad multimedia (gui, graphics, sound). If you cant do it better, look for someone that can help you. I can understand all the work this can suppose, and i consider the fact that the devs have "real" jobs and family...so do i.And if i was in his place, i would try to find some help. This project grows every day, with new user requirements and whislists...IMHO the devs team shold grow, with people like them, free time devs, Dom lovers that could help with actual flaws http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif


forums where slamming the devs and publishers is considered standard <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">-Slam devs and publishers is a bad thing
-Being critic with devs/publishers WORK is free speech, and can contribute to improve future performance

[Unwise]

Just a data point:

I think I am typical of the new crop of Dom2 players. Having never heard of Dominions or Shrapnel games, I read the glowing review in CGW this month... and still wouldn't have bought it, not with Civ3: Conquests still warm in my hard drive. I read the cool three-page battle report in the back of that same magazine and that convinced me to download the demo.

I played the hell out of the demo for a couple days and decided that I would buy the game. Sure, the graphics and sound were terrible, but the game-play more than makes up for it, I figured. So after searching the major on-line retailers to no avail, I finally went to Shrapnel's site and followed the link to the purchase page. Then I nearly choked.

$50 for game with nowhere near the production values as its contemporaries? Ok, it's got top-notch game-play that will no doubt keep me entertained for hours, but so does Civ3 ($40), BF1942 ($30 for the basic game) or KOTOR ($50). Forget it, I said, and shut off the browser in disgust. If I were still young and poor, I probably would have tried to find a "warez" Version somewhere, but I'm too old and rich for that nowadays - it's not as if I couldn't afford the game, it was the principle of the purchase.

I dithered over the decision for a few more days - effectively exhausting the demo - and eventually sucked it up and bought the game. My gaming buddies are still in the "that's CANADIAN dollars, right?" sticker-shock phase. If the game were priced at $40, it'd be a no-brainer for them, but there is something about paying half a C-note that gives people pause.

Anyway, one man's opinion. I paid for it, so how smart can I be?

[PvK]

Originally posted by UNIVAC:
... Blizzard started like a small company programming games for other companies.They started with low budget games.So when we are talking about warcraft 1, dont think about today's Blizzard, think about early 90's Blizzard. Low budget and small team is a poor argument for bad multimedia (gui, graphics, sound). If you cant do it better, look for someone that can help you.<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">When I wrote "Warcraft", I was responding to your "Warcraft III":

Originally posted by onomastikon:
... Think of Deus Ex I (the attention to detail) or Warcraft III (the cute voices, excellent graphics, extreme customer support (battle.net).) ... <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Warcraft III is definitely an expensive project. (And incidentally, its value to me is less than 1/10th that of Dominions 1 - in fact, I have no desire to play Warcraft III at all, because of the yawn-inspiring formulaic and artificial game "design".)

As for Warcraft I, yeah it had a smaller budget than Warcraft III, but I'm sure it also had a reasonable actual amount of money spent developing it, and graphically, I'd say it's rather less appealing than Dominions II. Meanwhile, Warcraft's gameplay is just typical RTS fare (perhaps well-done RTS fare, but personally, bleh to simplistic fakey RTS).

However, I don't have any problem with the Dominions II graphics myself, as my imagination is way better than any computer graphics anyway. The only downside I experience is that it is depressing seeing some others feel the game isn't valuable because it doesn't have better superficial artwork.

Furthermore, notice that it is a lot easier to make pretty graphics for a game with a piddly number of unit types. Even the games with million-dollar art budgets tend to have to limit the number of kinds of character and objects you can meet, because it's very expensive to make each one super-detailed. I'd rather keep the hundreds and hundreds of unit types, with easily-made graphics, than have really pretty graphics of only a few dozen unit types.

I'm sure that if/when Illwinter continues, they'll continue to improve the visuals and so on. The modding tools due out with the first public patch should let Users start helping with modified graphics, if they want to. Meanwhile, I'm quite happy that Illwinter are still more interested in providing the best gameplay rather than trying to improve the graphics.

PvK

[ January 11, 2004, 03:08: Message edited by: PvK ]

[MythicalMino]

Personally, I don't think it is over-priced. Graphics to me is just....something to look at. Many of the graphically superior games that I have played (and wasted my money on) didn't Last 1 week on my pc.

This game, and Space Empires 4 will be on my pc probably till I grow too old to think and just simply fall over and die. Gameplay to me is more important than graphics. I have not had any trouble with Dom2 playing on my pc either, which i cannot say for many other games.

Civ3 costs only 40 bucks, BUT, that is for civ3 and it's first "expansion"....to get what Civ3 should have been at the beginning, you are going to be shelling out another 30 bucks for the Conquest Expansion. Battlefield 1942, i just never liked that one. I do like those types of games (playing Call of Duty like crazy). Call of Duty, I payed 45 dollars for....but even that, i think Dom2 is the better game (if you can compare the two). Warcraft....eh, been there, done that...time to move on. Knights of the Old Republic, i hate rpg's....so....10 dollars would be too high really.

I pre-ordered Dom2, and I have yet to regret it. I pre-ordered Civ3....regretted that until they finally put out the Conquest expansion.

[Fyron]

If you do not have money to invest in decent artwork, keep it crisp and simple. Don't use disturbing backgrounds and such in some of the various game screens. IMO the basic color scheme and pattern of the Dom 2 GUI is actually worse than that of Dom 1... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

The only thing worse than flashy graphics is poorly done flashy graphics. At least they provide an option to disable those ridiculous fade effects when various windows pop up and go away... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

I pre-ordered Civ3....regretted that until they finally put out the Conquest expansion. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I still regret it... no way in hell I am paying them anything for the other 2/3 of the game I paid 50 dollars for in the first place. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif

[ January 11, 2004, 08:52: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[UNIVAC]

Originally posted by PvK:


As for Warcraft I, yeah it had a smaller budget than Warcraft III, but I'm sure it also had a reasonable actual amount of money spent developing it, and graphically
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Or maybe a pro graphic artist, not a programmer http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif



Originally posted by PvK:

The only downside I experience is that it is depressing seeing some others feel the game isn't valuable because it doesn't have better superficial artwork.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">In gameplay terms, this game is a master piece, but it has hard flaws in other areas.There's a lot of people that looks at games as a whole, not only a part of it.

As an example you have Space Empires IV, low budget game, very small dev team (1 person?), fantastic gameplay, more than correct graphics, and super modable, so if you dont like graphics or units, you can change it to your taste.IMHO illwinter should follow the path of MM, never forgetting gameplay, but improving less important but necessary aspects of the game...and moddability!!

[PvK]

Originally posted by UNIVAC:
...
In gameplay terms, this game is a master piece, but it has hard flaws in other areas.There's a lot of people that looks at games as a whole, not only a part of it.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Sure. Different things are important to different people, and different people have different tastes and standards. Practcally every game ends up with some people who love it and some people who hate it, and most somewhere in between.

As an example you have Space Empires IV, low budget game, very small dev team (1 person?), fantastic gameplay, more than correct graphics, and super modable, so if you dont like graphics or units, you can change it to your taste.IMHO illwinter should follow the path of MM, never forgetting gameplay, but improving less important but necessary aspects of the game...and moddability!! <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Sure. They have been. Modding is coming in the next patch, and Doms2 shows an attempt to improve graphics and interface. For academic example, look at the graphics of Space Empires I, II and III. With Space Empires IV, a new artist was brought in. I'd say it's a matter of personal taste whether SE4 or Doms 2 has "better" graphics. Again, I think the Doms 2 graphics are rather good considering the huge numbers of unit types, spells, items, etc. with unique graphics. Effort per item is multiplied by the number of items to get the total amount of work required.

As you say, hopefully once the mod tools are released, some talented fans will sit down and churn out massive amounts of improved images for everything. Meanwhile, I have no problem with the existing images. Sometimes a more abstract representation lends itself better to imagination than a more vivid, detailed or specific one.

PvK

[Graeme Dice]

Originally posted by PvK:
Again, I think the Doms 2 graphics are rather good considering the huge numbers of unit types, spells, items, etc. with unique graphics. Effort per item is multiplied by the number of items to get the total amount of work required.<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I was quite surprised actually when my cousin came in to my room during a battle replay and commented on how good the effects were.

[Unknown_Enemy]

Originally posted by Lord Hammer:
From one wargamer to another...it's a slippery slope Dom2 is http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif . <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Indeed.
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[Campy]

Low budget is not an issue with me. If a developer can make a great game at low cost and therefore make more profit, fine with me. As for "low production values" (or lower than some other games), then that is somewhat of an issue to me, but is not as important as good gameplay. Doubtless, the interface and graphics do have an impact on this games ability to reach a broader market, but are not critical to me.

However, I have never paid this much for any game! KOTOR was under $43 including sales tax at a B&M store (on sale of course). I think the most I have spent was about $47 (including sales tax, but on sale) for MS Flight Simulator 2004 in a metal case. With most games, if you keep your eyes open for sales and buy at the right time, you can save some money. With Dom2, there don't seem to be any alternatives. I am very intrigued by the apparent depth of Dominions, but I am having a hard time seeing that it is worth more than any other game I own or could buy.

[pole_shift]

If you enjoy the game what the hell is 10$ more or less. You can easily spend 20$ on night out at the movies. 1 Night. A few hours.

Campy,

Has any game you ever played been worth more than you paid for it? Say for example a game that you couldn't stop playing, or that gave you more fun than you ever thought it would?

A game is only worth what you price your enjoyment at. Gambling is a Version of this and gambling to some costs more than you'd ever want to imagine. Yet people have fun doing it.

This game is more than worth it's $50.00 pricetag. If you are the type of player who is intrigued (or let alone even made it to this forum from any other review/guide/internet gossip ) then you should take it for what it is and not what others opinions of it might be.

The genre that this game is apart of is generally bargin bin. The reason is not because they are all lackluster, unimaginative, lowbrow, unfriendly or bad graphically. But because this entire genre does not appeal to the greater market. Those who play and enjoy these types of game are *accustomed* to paying less for them because of that reason. I don't feel any developer should get less money in order to meet a storefront or company chain's profit margin. The same type of people who are accustomed to paying $10.00 for a fun TBS game are accustomed to paying $200.00+ for minitature armies, outlandish amounts of money for historically accurate armors and helms, wads of money for Collectable Card games, and so on. It's a matter of perspective and becoming comfortable, not about what the game is worth.

If you are interested, liked the Demo, enjoyed what it had to offered and want more, you'll get your money's worth.

[Graeme Dice]

Originally posted by Zen:
Has any game you ever played been worth more than you paid for it? Say for example a game that you couldn't stop playing, or that gave you more fun than you ever thought it would?<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">There's a few games that I would classify as falling into the Category of my alltime favourites. These are games that I can remember playing for hours on end, for days or weeks, and that I would still check out from time to time. This is around a dozen out of the well over 150 that I own in CD format, not counting the really old ones from my DOS days.

A quick rundown of those games would be:
Betrayal at Krondor - One of my favourite RPGs ever produced.(The instrumental track from Old Deuteronomy from Cats is a perfect soundtrack for some parts of this game.)

Star Control II - A serious contender for the best game I have ever played. The only complaint I can make about it now is that the ship combat AI is predictable once you've played against it a few thousand times. I special ordered it, and paid $80 CDN for this game when I was only 12, but never regretted it.

VGA Planets 3.X - This game ate up huge amounts of my time a decade ago.

Baldur's Gate II - Any game that will make me play it not once, but at least twice through a hundred hours is going to be right up there on the list.

Pirates! - The Amiga Version is one of the greatest classic games of all times.

Dominions 2 - The sheer amount of stuff you can do with this game, combined with my need to optimize everything about playing each race has put it in one of the top contender spots for a time sink.

There are a number of other games that approach these ones in terms of their greatness, but not that many.

[Gandalf Parker]

You can compare Dom2 to alot of games and it will seem that you "arent getting all you paid for" But it will come down to this. If Dom2 Lasts on your machine longer than any other game of close price, then it was worth the money. Dom1 Lasted 3 years on my machine (basically it stayed till Dom2). And I dont see anything that says Dom2 wont Last till Dom3 http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[Saber Cherry]

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
A quick rundown of those games would be:
Betrayal at Krondor - One of my favourite RPGs ever produced.(The instrumental track from Old Deuteronomy from Cats is a perfect soundtrack for some parts of this game.)

Star Control II - A serious contender for the best game I have ever played. The only complaint I can make about it now is that the ship combat AI is predictable once you've played against it a few thousand times. I special ordered it, and paid $80 CDN for this game when I was only 12, but never regretted it.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I played Starcon II and thought it was incredible (my #2 computer game of all time, after System Shock). And I played Wizardry 8 and thought it was quite good... but other than Quest for Glory I, II, and maybe IV, those were the only computer RPGs I ever liked much. And I've played a lot. Do you recommend Betrayal at Krondor, today? I mean... can it stand up to modern competition? ...is it like Civilization 1, "Fun when it came out, but outdated now" or like XCOM, "Fun when it came out, and is still its genre's reigning champion"?

And by the way, if you really like good games, you should check out Xenogears. It is the best game I've ever played (I think - certainly amongst RPGs), and it's hard to imagine it being beaten anytime soon. Console RPG, though, so much more linear than you may be used to.

-Cherry

P.S. As for the linear part: I view that as a good design decision, that let them build a strong plot and allowed for a well-developed narrative.

[ January 24, 2004, 05:47: Message edited by: Saber Cherry ]

[ceremony]

Originally posted by pole_shift:
If you enjoy the game what the hell is 10$ more or less. You can easily spend 20$ on night out at the movies. 1 Night. A few hours. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Exactly. You can easily spend $100 just going out to dinner. The idea that a game costs $7 more than some other game and thus isn't worth buying seems kind of strange.

[ January 24, 2004, 05:55: Message edited by: ceremony ]

[Graeme Dice]

Originally posted by Saber Cherry:
Do you recommend Betrayal at Krondor, today? I mean... can it stand up to modern competition? ...is it like Civilization 1, "Fun when it came out, but outdated now" or like XCOM, "Fun when it came out, and is still its genre's reigning champion"?<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I think that BaK can probably stand up fairly well to modern competition, and it might still be available for free from Sierra, so you can always try it out.

[Karacan]

BaK still is freely (and legally) avaiable out there.

It stands out not exactly due to technology or elegance of implementation (while I still think the combat system very clever and well done, apart from the fact that it gets too easy once you got mass freezing spells - or too hard, once your opponents do -, there's a lot of things I really hate about it... chests and traps mostly), but primarily due to the great storytelling.

It's much more of an interactive story with a lot of interesting things happening to various interesting characters you control. Unfortunately, it's bloody hard to get to run, and if you do, there's a high chance that it'll crash at the end of the chapter where you venture into the Elven Hold...

Definitely a "you could still play it today" game, though.

[PvK]

Dominions II is very definitely well worth $50, or more, if it's the sort of game you'd enjoy. It's unique and wonderful and has years of fresh gameplay for players who appreciate it. For volume and quality of gameplay, I can think of very few other games that offer as much as Dominions, and none that offer more (though that's of course subjective, and based on my own tastes).

This is from a gamer who's extensively played well over a thousand games, since the first ones, though that also means my tastes are rather rare, snobby, gameplay-oriented and glitz-apathetic.

They don't get much better than this, except when the next patches come out for the best games. If you think you can do better saving $15 and getting some other corporate drivel, either you're very wrong, or your tastes are simply a lot different than mine, which is fair and true in many cases. So, play the demo - if it seems really fun, unique, and well-done, then I'm confident that if you buy it, you'll probably still be hooked months or years later.

PvK