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

<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

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

What got me peeved was the following.

<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.

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

<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.

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

<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

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

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?

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

<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.

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

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

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

<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

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

<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.

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

<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


<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