Future Price options for ARMA games...

[Maio 293]

It's just 15 people. Who wants to bet they are upper middle class or upper class.

Or were drunk when they voted

[purepassion 22]

it is the Arma 3 crew! They are unhappy with their payment and desperately try to get more money! :p

:D

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Based on Marketing I think ArmA should probably be considered a "boutique" product. That's because it is neither attractive to the greater mass nor is it a low budget production. By pure Marketing logic this would justify a higher price. This pricing practice might not yet be common in the gaming industry but I wouldnt know any reason that would speak against it.

Many younger players look at the game with a certain amount of respect, it may come along with rather low graphics but it remains the benchmark for military strategy and realism. Some people here might not like to hear it but in many forums I find players to decarte themselves with "extensive ArmA experience" and the related strategical knowhow. So this game is special.

BIS should build on this USP and use the price to differentiate itself from all mainstream products. This would also force gaming journalists to stop comparing it to Battlefield, Operation Flashpoint (Codemasters) and other military shooters.

This silly comparison has often lead to wrong conclusions in the past and I think not only I would like to see an end of this.

ArmA is a unique sandbox game, providing tools and mod interfaces others are not willing to invest into. In this context I would find it only fair and logical to rise prices. This however would also mean that BIS has to stop trying to go mainstream and listen only to their precious paying customers. If I pay more for a luxurious good then I also expect more tailor made content.

Edited October 23, 2011 by Albert Schweitzer

[Rocklobster 10]

I personally think that it should be at most $50, coming from a competitive perspective when stacked up against BF3 or COD etc. If you're going in to buy a modern FPS, and are unfamiliar with the ARMA franchise, then what are the chances you are going to buy ARMA 3 over either MW3 or BF3, especially if it costs MORE than the other titles? Very, very small is what I would imagine. Especially for people who aren't in the US. Here in Australia if the US RRP was $100 then the asking price for it would be at least $140

I can't imagine who in the world would want it to cost $100. To me, that would just be asking for the game to be pirated. Just because it costs double doesn't mean that you get double the profit - everyone knows that. I doubt the people who voted for that thought that through.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Although I'd happily pay more because I think they deserve it, that is also only because I'm getting extended gameplay from it. But that extended gameplay comes from user made content, typically mods and multiplayer missions, rather than official content (ready to play content).

For someone who figures "ok, what the hell, let's try this thing" and doesn't like it, of which I assume there are many, too high price may backfire, where they may not try the next game due bad experiences. "This game is special". So are most games to those who love them.

You missed three things though:

1) The game have pretty good patching going on especially considering the public beta patch approach, where the patches (except for some notable exceptions :p) are very stable and compatible, with full mod support.

2) What other game developer asked their community for input when deciding on Steam or not? I'm still in shock :p Makes me feel very humble and honored. Is it also common to remove (disc required) copy protection? Don't play a lot of games, so...

3) We have devs who are very much in contact with the community on the forum and on the tracker. It doesn't feel like a friday afternoon lottery where the "winner" gets to answer some random community question :p That earns a lot of respect.

Unfortunately respect doesn't pay the bills. Mass sales does. But the way to mass sales is a treacherous one. Satisfying more customers needs company expansion which needs more sales - bad circle right there. More accessibility in terms of reduced complexity tends to "dumb down" games, reducing the "niche feel", making old school fans leave or at least feel left out. Which in turn may result in less mods, in a game where modding (combined with dev support and updates) is the main thing keeping the game alive for so long.

What I'm trying to say is that pricing isn't all that matters. But done wrong, it can be everything. Which is why they need to thread carefully, as new consumers are also needed - most of us would have bought it at nearly any price, right?

[metalcraze 290]

Some who are familiar with Marketing probably know that ArmA should be considered a "boutique" product. That's because it is neither attractive to the greater mass nor is it a low budget production. By pure Marketing logic this would justify a higher price.

A higher price will easily cut sales even more.

I so want to buy Steel Beasts Pro PE, but that $125 price tag is just way too much, especially in this region.

Edited October 23, 2011 by metalcraze

[Maio 293]

I don't see ArmA as a butique product. I see it as any other product, BIS simply used an envelopment marketing strategy for it's post OFP products due do it's limited resources compared to other big publishers, while for OFP CWC they used a leap frog marketing strategy that worked perfectly at the time due to a more mature and open minded gaming comunity.

Envelopment marketing strategy. It is used when you want to liberate market share avoiding a direct confrontation with your competitor that has bigger resources . It's also used to expand niche markets. ArmA and TOH are dooing this.

Leapfrog marketing strategy A strategy that involves development of new technology and business models, basicaly not bothering to match the oponents product strategy. BIS did this with OFP back in 2001.

Most publishers these days use head on frontal attacks due to big marketing budgets. Look at the BF3 marketing strategy :)

My 2 cents

[BobcatBob 10]

A higher price will easily cut sales even more.

I so want to buy Steel Beasts Pro PE, but that $125 price tag is just way too much, especially in this region.

Although as a (albiet maybe small from your POV) counter-argument I would say that my personal beleif (contrary to all the options I put on the poll) would be a $10 increase (some PC exclusive games like Starcraft 2 did this and their fanbase cared enough about the game to NOT care about the small price increase, (that is, after all, equal with 99.99% of all console games launch prices) as it was still WILDLY succesful, and to most people (even those who are not at all financially affluent) $10 more for something they love and hold at a high value is nothing.

Or, for newbies, a game that is rumored/appears to have a higher value than most other games they have played and payed for (assuming they at least GOOGLE or read the back of the game box) and looks fairly interesting to them, you cannot say that they will think "Hey im thinking of getting this game soon, it looks like it could be really cool, *looks at $60 price tag* no way in hell am I buying this thing, too fucking expensive!" at worst he would just wait several months for a price drop to around $50 or less, which may even be a good thing since maybe less bugs will be around to put him off of the game. Common sense would indicate that most people visiting a game store (unless they have a specifc intention otherwise, like a cheap trade in on their mind) have the intention of spending AT LEAST $50-$60 so why not shoot for the upper end of the margin?)

And FYI $20 increase is as high as I would go. For I know $70 is starting to push it and it might MAYBE risk SOME one's willingness to CONSIDER buying the game.

$30 or more though and I have no doubt that it WILL put off some people, and would NOT be worth it in the end, so I do agree with your idea, just not as much as you do.

Edited October 23, 2011 by BobcatBob

[Pulverizer 1]

Starcraft, COD or Battlefield are so amazingly marketable titles, and with such huge marketing budgets that you cannot make any meaningful comparison to a title like Arma 3 really.

I would guess that only a fraction of BIS revenue comes from the existing fanbase who would be willing to pay a premium price. Thus I would use a lowered price (29 or 39eur) to get most money off the masses, and exploit the rabid fanbase to the fullest with 60-80eur special edition and a bunch of 10eur DLC packs.

[MavericK96 0]

Like others have said, while *we* would potentially pay more for the product, *we* are not really the target consumer base. BIS knows that we will buy the product because of our love for ArmA and our loyalty. With a game/brand that has long been considered a niche title, BIS is going to want to target the "average" (more or less) gamer. The only way to do that is to price competitively.

I think the game should be $50. At $60 I would likely still buy, but it's probably the ONLY game I would pay $60 for. Any higher and I'd likely wait for a sale. My loyalty and wallet only go so deep... :cool:

[toxim 0]

You should also remember, that sadly there is also the problem of increased piracy if price and quality don't match.

[daman3 19]

You should also remember, that sadly there is also the problem of increased piracy if price and quality don't match.

Not true, top titles get pirated probably as much, if not more, just look at Modern Warfare and the rest.

[metalcraze 290]

Although as a (albiet maybe small from your POV) counter-argument I would say that my personal beleif (contrary to all the options I put on the poll) would be a $10 increase (some PC exclusive games like Starcraft 2 did this and their fanbase cared enough about the game to NOT care about the small price increase, (that is, after all, equal with 99.99% of all console games launch prices) as it was still WILDLY succesful, and to most people (even those who are not at all financially affluent) $10 more for something they love and hold at a high value is nothing.

Actually it is. SC2 is just an overhyped mediocrity positioned as "the only competitive RTS today" so devs can do whatever they please with Ca- I mean Battle.net audience.

There's absolutely no reason to increase price. Higher prices also make people second guess whether it's wise to buy this game or spend money on some cheaper game.

Not true, top titles get pirated probably as much, if not more, just look at Modern Warfare and the rest.

Piracy hurting something is a myth that devs and publishers use to make excuses about their game being shit and selling like one and/or to include raping DRM which hurts nobody but customers (since pirates get no DRM)

People who pirate stuff aren't going to buy it regardless (and increasing price certainly won't make them) and there's nothing anyone can do. It was like that for many decades now. Live and make games that will interest people enough to buy them.

Edited October 24, 2011 by metalcraze

[volkov956 0]

ADD a donate button to the Main Page and let Fans who want to spend extra do so theyre own way...

[purepassion 22]

YES! +1

Anyone willing and able to pay 100€, $, £ can do so and other people won't be scared off by a high price so the sales wont cutt off.

[NoRailgunner 0]

What stops you from buying more BIS games?

Why don't you convince more people to buy BIS games?

:rolleyes:

Cross fingers that fanboys here are not turning into something like those from FPDR forums...

[Pulverizer 1]

All I'm getting is that they want to keep their little clique free of the poor and smelly average gamers.

Lower price = higher income is how it works on the PC nowadays. Everybody wins, except the irrelevant middlemen.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

VBS takes care of that :p

[dunedain 48]

Oh god OP went full retard on that one ... :j:

[madrussian 347]

I have no problem paying $60 USD or even $100+ for Arma3. But if they go above $50 in a semi-niche market like this they will lose money overall, as many who may be curious simply won't buy it. Less money = less game (inc sequels). So I voted $50, and will buy my two copies as usual.

[wipman 1]

Hi, i'll pay 60$ for it, but i'll have to see actual ingame videos and know exactly what the ArmA3 offers, the ArmA2 v1.04 was a bit dissapointing... and the OA was one if not the biggest dissapointment as game that i'd bought in the last decade or so, lasted installed on my computer less than a week and i don't want to pay again for something that i don't gonna play/use. 60 or 65$ for a game of the supposed quality of the ArmA3 will be perfect, 86 or 94$ for an special edition could be good too IMO, depending on what comes on the box. Let's C ya

[J-Guid 10]

I do not want lazy to pay for someone's mistakes, which they do not want to fix!!!

[Cripsis 10]

I think a $1000 dollar increase would be appropriate. I'll buy 4 copies and put one in my ginormous superyacht, one in my luxurious private jet, one in my Ferrari and keep one at my mansion for when I sit in my plush leather armchair playing on my supercomputer.

I would have recommended a $2000 dollar increase but I'm currently saving for a 'K computer' for playing ARMA 3. Check out the specs -

XqOCai2jDu8&feature=related

[-Coulum- 35]

To bad the k computer would probably still lag when zooming into vegetation.

I would be willing to pay 200 dollars for arma 3 since It is basically the only video game that interests me. But I doubt the average guy, who knows nothing of arma, is going to spend more than 30 bucks.

Actually, when you include the price of the computer I plan to by just for arma 3, I plan on spending quite a bit of money on this game - so it better be damn good.

[MD500Enthusiast 10]

most people that play arma are working adults with a little bit of extra cash. people don't just pass up games that they really want because it's expensive, otherwise nobody will buy fsx. when i bought fsx it was close to 100 bucks plus i bought the accelleration pack, and that's a lot of money for me at the time. you want to know why people are willing to shell out 100 bucks? because they want the damn product.

the people who were just wanting to try the game and not wanting to pay a lot of money? well there's arm2, that'll give them an idea. if they don't like arma2 then they won't buy arma3 anyways regardless the price and if they love it then they'll buy it even if it's 100 bucks. why do you think nvidia can sell their products at such high prices? because people want the best product.

are you telling me all the people that love bf3 cod4 would suddenly start buying arma2 if those said games were selling for a 100 bucks? hell no, they'd buy it regardly because they love those games. if it's a child with no money they'd beg, nag, annoy and throw temper tantrums until their parents aquiesce. if it's an adult they'd just be pissed but soon would forget because they're enjoying the game so much and they'd pay just as much when the next installment arrives.

a lot of us gamers treat our games not merely as game but it's certain type of addiction, if arma series give them the high they want they'll fork out the money just like drug addicts buy drugs at ridiculous prices. i'm not saying bis is a drug dealer btw =).

i am not for raising the prices through the roof but if it's 40 more bucks so they can hire more people to do all the things we put into a wish list on these forums then i'm all for it. the game doesn't make itself and the people who spend all that time into this game needs the resources to be able to do so and still have money to pay rent.

i think they've already been more than generous with this community in that they make a game with something that no other game has and yet they charge slightly less. they also provide patch after patch year after year and interact with the us in the forums all the time and listens to our feedback to evolve the game, no other game maker does that. imagine us as sports fans and BiS is our team, we want them to succeed and we should give them our support.

Edited November 7, 2011 by MD500Enthusiast