Price of £25 ridiculous!!!

[cricketboy29]

Im sure the developers know what they're doing, but what I don't get is if your selling through a distributor, wouldnt that raise the price up?, and if your selling directly over the internet, wouldnt that lower the price, since you cutting out the middleman?

 

[James]

Agree with you, whatever it is, it is a bit strange.

 

[Glenn Stiemens]

Isn't this essentially charging for patches, which is pretty average if its the case. I thought Oli was trying to make this game like the cricket version of CM/FM, who allow full data editing, free patches and updates.

This is certainly not the case - the retail version will also get bug fixes if necessary. Please don't confuse bug fixes with updates to the game. The digital download version will give you free access to updates as well as bug fixes, the retail version will not hence the difference in price.

 

[cpr]

Hmmm, seeking some pro's and cons on this one.

Comparing the game to Football Manager, as they seem to be very similar takes on different sports.

FM is possibily the game with the most constant creators input into it. You get a fair number of patches, some updates in with them, alot of creator/customer liason etc etc etc, which is what makes the game as good as it is (look at the failings of Championship Manager 5, basically the old CM, but without the skill and relations the developers brought. Possibly the only game on earth where the team behind it are more important than the game itself)

I'm guessing the makers of Cricket Coach want to achieve the same level of customer relations as seen with FM. They'll want to make sure the squads are upto date for the 1st ball of the season. They'll want to make sure any rising stars who emerge this year can be factored into the game (remember how pants James Anderson was in icc2002?)

To do this will cost money. SIGames, the company behind FM, are owned by Sega, thus have salaries to take home. They can take time out of developing the new FM game to sort an update/bug fix, without it affecting what they take home. I'm guessing both Glenn and Oli are relying on Cricket Coach's sales as their prime income untill they get more games rolling out. The game needs to earn enough for them to justify continualy working on it. If we want them to keep on updating it for us, then were gonna have to sustain them working on it.

However, on the other side, games like FM will see an official data update once in a blue moon. Sure, bug fixes will come out quite regularly (think its had 3 in 5 months), but official data isnt as common. Now Football has quite a lot of transfers going on most of the time, cricket doesnt nearly have as many, so can data updates be as consistant?
Likewise, many FM players use fan made updates, which are free. Now cricket coach wont nearly have the fanbase that FM has built up over its 13 years, so there wont be as many fans working on the game, but will fan updates render the need for official ones obsolete?

I personally think that £25 is right for the time being. Given its a first game, no one knows its impact, and the creators are striving to offer us what so few game makers do: the chance to interact and help improve the game, the price is justifyable. However if it does become a sucess, and fan made data renders the need to pay for updates obsolete, then i think the price should drop for any future games (which to be fair, if the game becomes big enough to do that, price wont be too big an issue)

 

[sammy22]

Some good and interesting points made by everyone there. To be honest I am more unsure than ever now as to which version I want/would prefer.

However I am edging towards the cd version, not least because £9.99 is alot cheaper than £24.99, and you will still be entitled to "bug updates". Add to that the permenancy of having the game on cd, and the fact that like someone pointed out updates in a cricket manager game will need to be be much rarer than in football (not the same level of transfer and movements to keep up with) sees me edging towards the cd version.

In addition there is also the possiblity that fans will produce updates anyway, which will probably be just as good as the official updates which may be available.

Edit - If the price difference was a bit closer e.g £20 compared to £17 then it may be different, but currently the price difference is bordering on a ratio of 2.5 :1

 

[marc71178]

This is certainly not the case - the retail version will also get bug fixes if necessary. Please don't confuse bug fixes with updates to the game. The digital download version will give you free access to updates as well as bug fixes, the retail version will not hence the difference in price.

Out of interest, how many updates etc. are planned?

 

[cpr]

Good question, and what sort of things would be in an update? Would it just be data updated (which can be easily done by fans), or mebbie one or two minor tweaks to add more to the game whilst awaiting a new release. For example, Football Manager uses stuff like more media interaction, more transfer options, recent rule changes implemented etc as small things to keep people interested, then new versions come with the big stuff like new match engines/new leagues.

Ah, so many questions. Which is good. Means you've certainly caught our attention

 

[Timewell]

I think it's a bit harsh on the developers of the game to be comparing it to Football Manager!!! SI, now a team of professional developers, have spent the best part of about 15 years on the game whilst this has been developed by one undergrad and one grad in their spare time. Don't you think it is a bit harsh to be putting such pressure on Oli and Glenn to live up to such high standards?

To those who are moaning about the price, I'd look at what 'cpr' said at the bottom of page 3. Plus, if you think about the pricing then the difference in price makes sense. Most of the amount spent on the digital download will go to the developers, whilst with the CD version, I'd assume most of the money would go into the pockets of the publishers etc. I could well be wrong on this matter, I'm just guessing!

 

[Emcee]

I was glad to pay the 25 to begin with but I think its a bit out of hand to have two prices which differ by so much. Seeing as though we are only two days from release (hopefully!!) why can't anyone give us any more details on what said updates will contain and also will fans be able to make data updates or will this go the route of ICC where data was locked so that they could just charge for a data update every season?

 

[CricketGames.com]

I personally think it is Focus who have seriously dropped the ball here. Back at the beginning of this thread I wrote a detailed reply stating I thought £25 was a fair price to pay considering everything. Whilst not everyone agrees it may not have been such an issue if the retail version hadn't been announced later at £9.99.

I actually think Focus are pricing the game too low! No I have not gone mad I actually think it might hurt retail sales and not just because of the large price difference between retail and download versions.

Focus are known as a budget retailer and this is all fine and well. But budget prices have side effects. These are my reasons I think Focus got it wrong. These are all *my opinion* only and I'm sure many will disagree.

1) Cricket Cocah will be perceived as a lower quality game regardless of it's actual quality. There are (many) people who assume a budget price for a *new release* means sub standard game priced accordingly. Cricket Coach though is a more niche game with only 1 real competitor and that game is priced at £19.99 and based on a 5 year old previous version. Whilst we have not yet seen the match engine the game certainly looks very good and is being compared with a master of the sports management genre (we will see if it matches that billing but comparisons can't hurt).

2) Budget games get no real marketing and are just stuck on a revolving stand along with 50+ other title. It will be very hard for Cricket Coach to stand out. It will only really get sales from people looking for a cheaper game in the first place. The vast majority of people will be unaware of the game and may never see it. If it was placed in the new releases section as higher priced games are then it will get noticed and would get additional sales.

3) The previous release of Cricket Coach (although far removed in looks and hopefully gameplay) was a higher priced release and I have good reason to believe MVCCM actually outsold ICC 2002 which was out at the same time.

4) Focus actually do seem to be treating this as more than another of there numerous titles. They are getting a name endorsement (we don't know who yet) so why not charge higher and market it accordingly.

5) Similar in some regards to (1) magazines and non specialist gaming web sites will see a low budget new release and allocate it a paragraph or 2 rather than full page review thus less impact from media marketing. This is vital as sites like this represent only a tiny minority of the potential market. On-line communities typically only represent 5% of a games player base.

My gut feeling is that a retail price of £19.99 would have been far better. This would also help download sales as the price differential would be far lower. This is the same price as the aged competitor plus would not suffer the same perceptions of being a poor game based on price alone.

Daniel.

 

[sammy22]

cricketgames.com, You talk alot of sense and I agree totally with what you are saying. However from a customer point of view all your comments simply confirm that £9.99 is a bargain for the game, and offers much better value for money.

Whilst you are right that a low figure may effect the "commerical aspects" of the game for people who already know about the game then £9.99 for the game on cd offers real value for money.

Whilst there is little doubt that £25 is a fair price considering all the hard work the producers have put in I would think many will prefer to pay £9.99 to not only get the same game (very similar at the very least) but also the copy will be on a convenient cd to be stored away and used when needed.

I am unsure as to what Glenn and Oli's role is with regard to focus. Surely as it is basically there game they should have a say in how it is released, and for how much for. The problem is I don't think the downloadable version will be able to compete on a number of levels mainly
1.The price of £9.99 compared to £24.99 is a considerable difference
2.The fact that many people, even in this day and age would prefer a game on cd, particuarly one which is released and looks professional
3.Many people (youngsters may also like to purchase the game) won't have debit/credit cards to purchase the game via the internet. However if they do find details of the game and can't purchase it online (for the previous stated reasons) they will be aware that they can purchase the game in the shops for £10.
4.Although this may be a surprise to some people there are still many people who are scared of shopping/paying over the internet. People prefer what they know and so there will be a number of potential customers (quite a few I would say) who simply won't purchase the game over the internet due to there concerns about payment.

Just a few thoughts really, but I think that these factors are steering people towards the cd version as opposed to the internet downloadable alternative.

 

[CricketGames.com]

Sammy22,

I am not trying to get people to buy the download version over the retail version. I am saying that Focus have missed an opportunity in my opinion.

Agreed some people won't buy over the internet or can't as have no card. Yes some people prefer a physical product but those aren't the points I was trying to make. For a lot of these people the CD-ROM is perfect but the price isn't the big issue. These people would probably still buy the CD-ROM version if it was £29.99.

Yes to people who *know* about the game (but this site represents a very small part of the potential market of people wanting a cricket management game) £9.99 will be a bargain. The vast majority will never see or hear about the game and that to me is a *huge* issue.

I would have liked Focus to maximise sales and revenue for the developers. Unfortunately it does not look like this will be the case for the reasons I gave before and don't intend to repeat.

I'm afraid you have a very naive view of the games market. The developers have next to no say in publishing deals. The publisher can and will dictate total terms especially how much the game costs. It is a sad fact that publishers know they have the upper hand and particularly for a new product from unknown developers very few probably even considered the game and just dismissed it immediately. I have worked in the games industry since 1994 and unfortunately know just how much control and power publishers have. If Focus had decided to market the title properly and price it at a higher price the devloplers and obviously them would *I believe* get more money. The fact is though Focus have 10s if not 100s of titles in their catalogue so if quite a few fail they don't care as long as a few sell well.

It is a sad fact that for every 100 people that buy the downloadable game on-line over 2,000 will have to buy the retail version for the developers to earn the same amount of money. Yet probably 90% volume of sales will come from the CD-ROM version and that would still be the case even if the CD-ROM version was £29.99. This is probably why there was no change of price for the downloaded version even once the retail price was announced. The number of orders on-line would change very little so I stand by them maximising earning potential.

As for advantages of buying the downloaded version despite the higher price. I can think of a few.

- The biggest advantage I see is that you get the game a whole month (if not longer) before it comes to retail. For countries like Australia outside the UK the wait is likely to be considerably longer. Some countries like USA won't get a retail release.

- You will also get far better personal customer support as if you buy from Focus they will have to provide customer support and I can guarantee it won't be a patch on what Oli & Glenn will do to help people if they have problems.

- You can feel all fluffy inside for helping two young developers. Okay that sounds lame but for some people including me it is the personal touch that counts.

Daniel.

 

[Blaze]

I am more than happy to pay $75 (NZ) if the gameplay is decent (unlike MVCM)

 

[Blaze]

I am more than happy to pay $75 (NZ) if the gameplay is decent (unlike MVCM)

Ok after playing it I would pay a maximum of $15 (5 pounds)

The price they are asking for is outrageous considering the quality of the game.


Edit - There is actually some really good stuff in the game and you can tell that a lot of effort has been put into it, but it just isn't anywhere near ready for release to the public.

And the gameplay is terrible, feels nothing like cricket.

 

[Wicom]

I think everyone has missed the point spectacularly here.

This game is quite clearly nowhere near being ready for release, and if you're going to charge £25 for something thats not really good enough.

 

[Hoggy31]

I'd be happy to pay to $60-70 once the game gets decent

 

[crickhowell]

I think everyone has missed the point spectacularly here.

This game is quite clearly nowhere near being ready for release, and if you're going to charge £25 for something thats not really good enough.

Most of those were posted before the game was released mate.

 

[Wicom]

don't see how that detracts from my point "mate".

 

[barmyarmy]

don't see how that detracts from my point "mate".

It completely undermines your point. The discussion is as to whether £25 is a fair price for what people thought would be a relatively bug-free ready-for-release game.
Therefore by accusing people of 'missing the point spectacularly' you're displaying 20/20 hindsight and your 'point' loses all relevance.

 

[Wicom]

nah