AI War Steam sale - 50-85% off!

[Vinraith]

atm I have to say that my money is going there because right now LoTS at $10 is just not a good deal at all.

Personally I've bought it three times at that price point because, IMO, it's so comically, ludicrously low for the amount of content and the sheer mass of enjoyment I'll be getting (and indeed have already gotten) out of the game.

If everyone out there were like you, and unwilling to pay $10 even for a game of LotS content and quality, I humbly suggest there'd be nothing but shovelware left within a few years. You're welcome to do with your money as you please, of course, but I suggest you use it to support those projects and developers that you value (whatever they may be). All hording cheap games from Steam sales and the like does is bury you in crap you'll never play.

[Wingflier]

I agree with vinraith. Just a few short months ago supreme commander 2 was released. Because Starcraft 2 was in the beta phase and because of all the hype with blizzard games, Supcom 2 didn't receive the attention it deserved, and in no time at all went from the original $50 to only $15 now on steam (remember this is BEFORE deals, so with a deal they're practically giving the game away).

To think that any real-time rts fan would pay anything less for the game is akin to blasphemy. I'm personally thrilled that I had the opportunity to buy the game at full price, to support the company for the great job they did and continue to do.

I've got to be honest with you guys, I've now bought every expansion for AI War, and am coming to the realization that I may never play them. There is such a ridiculous amount of content in the original game alone that it's going to take forever to sift through. But I don't regret it, I feel like I've already cheated Arcen by paying anything less than $50 for the original game, as much as I enjoy it and it gets played.

[keith.lamothe]

I've got to be honest with you guys, I've now bought every expansion for AI War, and am coming to the realization that I may never play them. There is such a ridiculous amount of content in the original game alone that it's going to take forever to sift through.

There is quite a bit in there   Partly due to this, with LotS (and somewhat with CoN) we've been trying to expand the game in other directions rather than just piling on more and more bonus ship types, AI types, map types, etc.  Those are great, and we've kept adding them too, but we've been putting quite a bit of effort into stuff like CoN's Hybrids (that can provide a very different sort of opponent) and LotS's Fallen-Spire campaign (which is quite a different experience in general) and so forth.

On that note I'd suggest you try each of these scenarios at least once:
1) Play with the Advanced Hybrids Plot enabled on both AI players (CoN).
2) Play with both the Spirecraft-Hard and Broken-Golems-Hard minor factions enabled (TZR/LotS).
3) Play with the Fallen-Spire minor faction enabled (LotS).

And of course we're working on other games to provide totally different experiences.  I know I personally am just not always in the mood for a grand space RTS/4X/whateverthethingreallyis, so it's nice to just have something else

But I don't regret it, I feel like I've already cheated Arcen by paying anything less than $50 for the original game, as much as I enjoy it and it gets played.

We don't feel cheated at all   If we had a serious problem with selling product X at price Y, we just wouldn't do it

Even if the price was $50, we would rely on volume rather than unit price to be able to support our future development.  In other words, the price a player pays is way less important than that they actually enjoy the game and spread the word.  We're very grateful that so many of you are willing to help us by buying our games (indeed, multiple copies sometimes) and with word-of-mouth promotion.

[Red Spot]

I agree with vinraith. Just a few short months ago supreme commander 2 was released. Because Starcraft 2 was in the beta phase and because of all the hype with blizzard games, Supcom 2 didn't receive the attention it deserved, and in no time at all went from the original $50 to only $15 now on steam (remember this is BEFORE deals, so with a deal they're practically giving the game away).

They did that to themselves, I dont feel sorry for them. Even better with the release of the DLC for SC2 I have told myself not to buy any more gaspowered games and have even become very sceptical towards Chris Taylor (though that has to do with other titles).
Anyway, when you are trying to get a game on the market while you are already starting to get your marketing to aim at marketing the next game you are asking for lacking sales.

atm I have to say that my money is going there because right now LoTS at $10 is just not a good deal at all.

Personally I've bought it three times at that price point because, IMO, it's so comically, ludicrously low for the amount of content and the sheer mass of enjoyment I'll be getting (and indeed have already gotten) out of the game.

If everyone out there were like you, and unwilling to pay $10 even for a game of LotS content and quality, I humbly suggest there'd be nothing but shovelware left within a few years. You're welcome to do with your money as you please, of course, but I suggest you use it to support those projects and developers that you value (whatever they may be). All hording cheap games from Steam sales and the like does is bury you in crap you'll never play.

A big difference between spending € 10,- on a DLC or on a new game is that a DLC is basicly paying to play the same game. In general I rather buy new games than DLC's. However when I like a game I eventually buy all DLC's, but I wont buy them just to buy them. I'm all for supporting a company that creates a product you like(games or not), but I wont do so by trowing money at it, you have investors and banks for that.

[Spikey00]

As a long time MOBA (Multiplayer Online Battle Arena) fan who played DotA for 6 years, I was very impressed with League of Legends when I first started playing it.  I saw a game that had huge potential, and that the company said they could really make something out of.  I chose to ignore the fact that their entire marketing scheme was DLC-based, since the game was "free".  Well, it took me about 6 months to realize that the game wasn't going anywhere.  Just like any DLC game, the company is simply milking money out of the players instead of actually attempting to improve the game.  I eventually went to Heroes of Newerth, a pay up-front type game that unlocks all the relevant content as soon as you buy it.

Aha!  So you were the Wingflier who created that topic on the boards some time ago. 
*Genuflects*

Heh, unfortunately, I see many other problems besides LoL's "freemium" system; however, obviously their approach to the game is the reason why they have to release a champion every two weeks.

To think that any real-time rts fan would pay anything less for the game is akin to blasphemy.

I didn't like the approach that they took SupCom 2; personal preference and love of the franchise would be the reason why I have voided to purchase it.

I've got to be honest with you guys, I've now bought every expansion for AI War, and am coming to the realization that I may never play them. There is such a ridiculous amount of content in the original game alone that it's going to take forever to sift through. But I don't regret it, I feel like I've already cheated Arcen by paying anything less than $50 for the original game, as much as I enjoy it and it gets played.

AI War is really modular in design with its expansions--they present additional content without really modifying how the base game is played.  You shouldn't hesitate to experience all the new content. 

[Wingflier]

They did that to themselves, I dont feel sorry for them. Even better with the release of the DLC for SC2 I have told myself not to buy any more gaspowered games and have even become very sceptical towards Chris Taylor (though that has to do with other titles).
Anyway, when you are trying to get a game on the market while you are already starting to get your marketing to aim at marketing the next game you are asking for lacking sales.

How did Gas Powered Games do that to themselves?  I don't doubt you, but I also don't understand what you're trying to say.

The gameplay of SupCom 2 is superb, and they continue to support it even with probably subpar sales for what they were expecting.  I don't see a game that deserved to be ignored like that, I see a game that became PC Gamer UK's Co-Op game of the year. http://www.pcgamer.com/2010/12/25/pc-gamer-uks-co-op-game-of-the-year/

Supreme Commander 2 fixed absolutely every problem with the first game, while creating an exciting new formula that's never been done in a ground-based RTS before (at least that I know of), and really going back to the roots of the Total Annihilation gameplay.  I would say that SC2 is Chris Taylor's first major accomplishment since his original game.

As far as the DLC goes, sure, you can raise your nose at it just because it's "called" a DLC, but it contains about as much content as the average expansion, so I have no problem supporting or paying for it.

8 new maps, 12 new units, a ton of new research, as well as improved AI support and a revamped economy system around the time the DLC was released.  I'd say that's a hell of a deal for $10.  Who cares what it's called?

[Echo35]

AI War is really modular in design with its expansions--they present additional content without really modifying how the base game is played.  You shouldn't hesitate to experience all the new content.  

That's exactly why I own all the expansions. It's not like some other game where there is a linear campaign and you have to get through one before the other, it's modular, and you can play with bits and pieces of each.

[Red Spot]

@Wingflier

Let me put it like this
-I think they screwed themselves over the way they are marketing their games in general
-SC2 has some issues that do only happen to a fairly small group, but are consitant, and those people are ignored the best they can.
-The DLC is basicly making you pay to upgrade SC2 to become how SC1 was, they are just giving you back stuff from SC1. If mod-support was added, people would have made SC1-mods months ago. (Making me believe the whole reason mod-support is not incoperated is so they have an easier time getting their own rip-off DLC on the market. If they are really so supportive towards their fans they should have made 1/2 the DLC part of a mandatory update so you actually get all tweaks and fixed in the base-game and I am not forced to pay more money to get my game 'completed'. At which point I likelly would have bought the DLC.)

It may very well be a bit of frustration talking here, but I pretty much had it with gaspowered and their 'support'.
(I like SC1 and FA, and when it does run I like a game of SC2, but I simply cant play MP cause I likelly would screw up other peoples games by dropping out every so often at fairly random intervals, and MP is the reason I bought the game. <- the thing that made it the game of the year is the thing I cant do.)

[keith.lamothe]

That does bring up one reason that seems to support the only-buy-really-cheap-games habit, at least for me: I have no guarantee they'll actually be stable.  Even with demos, there are sometimes crash/freeze/save-corruption/etc issues that don't show up until in the real game and turn out to be simply crippling to actual enjoyment of the product and the developers/publishers may or may not be in a position to remedy the problem.  If I've only paid $3 for the game, it's not that big a deal to me.  If I paid $30 it feels a bit harsher.

I get used to AI War where basically it doesn't crash unless I've recently made some heinous coding error (which happens, uh, somewhat often) and it gets fixed pretty quick.  So when I go and buy, for instance, Dark Star One and am excited by the sound of the gameplay and finally get all of it downloaded and installed and then discover I can't get it to even _start_ no matter how much fiddling I do with compatibility mode and whatnot... well, I'm glad that I got it for some absurdly low price   Of course, that particular example was probably more my fault for not doing the forums research (maybe there was even a demo, honestly I didn't even check).  Which brings up another thing: I don't even have time to investigate such things with the rate at which sales are presented

[Wingflier]

-I think they screwed themselves over the way they are marketing their games in general

Eh, yeah I agree there marketing sucks.  I've always been a huge fan of Chris Taylor games (well, not a fan, just hoping one day that he would deliver again like he did in '97), and I didn't even know about Supreme Commander 2 until a week before it was released because of some pre-order deals on Steam o_O.  When I checked their website, I was amazed to see that there was almost no information at all, a week before the game was hitting the shelves!

Of course, a couple weeks after everything had been released, they updated it and all; but I suppose I shouldn't have been too surprised about the subpar sales.

Even still, competing in the RTS market is hard, you can probably ask Arcen.  You have such a small percentage of the gamer playerbase that will buy it for that reason.  When you are Blizzard, fanboys will buy your games for any reason, regardless if it's their type of game, play it for a week and never touch it again.  I think it was mostly just unfortunate that it had to come out at such a bad time.

If mod-support was added, people would have made SC1-mods months ago. (Making me believe the whole reason mod-support is not incoperated is so they have an easier time getting their own rip-off DLC on the market. If they are really so supportive towards their fans they should have made 1/2 the DLC part of a mandatory update so you actually get all tweaks and fixed in the base-game and I am not forced to pay more money to get my game 'completed'. At which point I likelly would have bought the DLC.)

I'm not sure where you got your information, but the economy changes and tweaks were part of the base game update, they just happened around the time of the DLC.  Also, I don't think those changes were made to "steer" the game more in the direction of SC1; I honestly just think it was a better decision overall, and that the original economy model needed some work.  Even with the changes, the game hardly even resembles SC1, so I find it hard to believe that's what they were trying to do.

Mod support would be nice, but there are tons of games on the market today that don't have that.

SC2 has some issues that do only happen to a fairly small group, but are consitant, and those people are ignored the best they can.

I'm sorry about that.  You say your connection gets dropped all the time? Seems like an odd problem if a large group of people are experiencing it, it surprises me that GPG wouldn't be more inclined to fix it.

[LintMan]

Thanks for the sale notice.  I've got all the AI War stuff, but I finally picked up Tidalis.

About "DLC", I sometimes see it as a scourge of the gaming industry as well, but at the same time, if it is done right, I like it.  For example, I'd consider the AI War expansions to be DLC, and those are great.  Arcen's expansions have always been loaded with stuff, so I had no problem paying full price for LoTS when it was announced.

When there's a game I like, I'm usually happy to buy more content for it if the price is right for the value it delivers.  That's true whether it's an "expansion pack" bought on a store shelf, or "DLC" bought and downloaded online. 

The problem is that some developers (or likely their corporate masters) began to envision this as an untapped revenue stream they could maximize.  So we get $5 horse armor, and $2 outfits and $10 furniture sets for The Sims 3.   The take that further, and content from the original game release can be stripped off into Day 1 DLC, so you get $7 Warden's Keep for Dragon Age with maybe 1.5 hours of gameplay and a character in the game that nags you to buy it.  The value really isn't there for most gamers, but unfortunately some will buy it.  And it's easier for developers to produce a steady stream of $2 - $7 item packs and mini add-ons for that crowd than it is to deliver a real expansion with real value for gamers.

It's a sad trend that makes me grateful for the rise of the indie gaming industry.

About Supreme Commander 2: I really loved TA, and liked SC1, but was extremely disappointed with SC2.  I didn't really care for the new "dumbed down" er "streamlined" economy, but worse was the tiny campaign.  In SC1, there was only a few maps per side, but they with them expanding, it made for the equivalent of a 2-3 missions in other RTS campaigns.  In SC2, it seemed like about the same number of maps, but without the expanding missions, so the game felt 2-3 times shorter.  So I played it, felt kinda ripped off, and didn't pay much attention after that.   What did the patch change and the DLC do?

[Dyers_Eve]

That is one possible conclusion, but from what I've seen it's much more that people are way, way more likely to buy something when they have a limited-time opportunity to do so at a reduced price.  Simply lowering the list price would not yield the same kind of increase.

In fact, this particular phenomenon encourages _higher_ list prices, so you can hit those "50% off" and "75% off" and whatnot marks without having the actual effective price be like "12 cents"

Well you have all the data points so you can calculate the elasticity of s/d and see the best price. If you don't think it is worth it that's good enough for me. I still recommend making a gold edition with all expansion packs included with a slight discount. The problem you get is that ok I like this budget game and want to buy it but after you add in all the expansion packs it isn't really a budget game anymore.

You are of course free to value-ate things as you see fit, but I 100% disagree that LotS is not worth $10.  It's worth more than that, actually.  The Fallen Spire stuff alone is basically worth that, if you have any interest at all in a radically different game scenario (story-campaign elements, city building elements, escalating the conflict from guerilla strikes to all-out war, massive modular capital ships, and an alternate victory condition if you follow it that far).  And the other stuff added by LotS (Spirecraft, the Spire bonus ships, etc) adds quite a lot to the game too.

Let me put it this way, how many fresh scenarios would an expansion pack have to make possible for it to be worth it?  Or are you just not interested enough in the game itself to be willing to pay $10 for any number of full-game-stuffed-with-ships-and-encounters-I've-never-seen-before experiences?

You'd have to give me an expansion pack that exceeded all of your previous work AI+2exp and more to make it worth the $10. I fully understand that the fanboys and creators don't like me saying it is not a good deal, but I am looking at it objectively and during the heavily discounted holiday market, the market you state that you make most of your money. I like playing AI war but I am using cold logic and budgeting here. LoTS = $10. AI War + 2exp = $10. LoTS is not finished so I am getting a beta version and while some people like playing beta versions (I download all the beta patches) you can be playing a game with broken mechanics and/or get stuck. AI war = good deal. LoTS? Mmmmmmmm.

Certainly I think $10 for LoTS is a better deal than my $45 purchase of Civ V, but I don't think a beta version of an expansion pack for an indie game is worth more than say L4D2 ($6.8 ) Supreme Commander 2 ($7.5) Mass Effect 2 ($8). Again to be clear, AI war is a good deal right now but I'm just talking about LoTS.

You say that people like discounts and you get the most of your sales during heavy discount periods. I say that LoTS is not discounted, not finished and more expensive than current AAA full games with tons of good reviews/awards. Mainly I think that releasing a game in Jan/Feb is a pretty bad idea but I guess you gotta do it when you are an indie creator because you don't have the luxury of time to wait.

The microtransaction model feels unethical to us.

Ha! I trapped you! The expansion pack is the grandfather of microtransactions, a small price for more scenarios/game options. Also I'd rather have more AI war and Arcen games with microtransctions than no more Arcen games if those were my only two options. I dream of someone like Arcen games making a SMAC 2 or MoO4 and if that means Arcen selling coffee mugs and wristbands then so be it. I also feel that a lot of times people pay microtransactions because they like to support the game they play and that way they can spend more money on a game they really like. For all the people saying that they would pay much more for AI war well with microtransactions they could. I don't like microtransactions but there is a wrong way to do it and a right way to do it.

Tl;DR Wah wah I want to pay less for LoTS because everything else is discounted.

[Spikey00]

My initial impression on SC2 was a disappointment (ruined by imbalances, the campaign, the AI, the overall feel of the game), and still is, even after all the patches and fixes.  I just don't have the same amount of fun that I did with SC1/FA, and it felt too much like the 'modern rts' that I didn't expect from the SC franchise.  

[Vinraith]

but I don't think a beta version of an expansion pack for an indie game is worth more than say L4D2 ($6.8 ) Supreme Commander 2 ($7.5) Mass Effect 2 ($8).

I can only speak for myself, but for me L4D2 was good for about 5 hour's entertainment (and kind of sucked, really), ME2 was good for about 30 (and was a good time). AI War, so far, has been good for 330, and unlike those other games I'm still playing it. To each their own, of course, but for me LotS is trivially worth far, far more than the asking price. From a "return on investment" perspective AI War is up there with games like Morrowind, the Baldur's Gate series, Sword of the Stars, and Europa Universalis 2 among the greatest of all time for me. Maybe it's not for you, and that's fine. All I'd say is that it's in anyone's own best interest to spend more than $5 on games they really love, or games like them won't continue being made.

[LintMan]

Well you have all the data points so you can calculate the elasticity of s/d and see the best price. If you don't think it is worth it that's good enough for me. I still recommend making a gold edition with all expansion packs included with a slight discount. The problem you get is that ok I like this budget game and want to buy it but after you add in all the expansion packs it isn't really a budget game anymore.

Well, it's a {game plus a bunch of expansions} (one of which expansion's cost is purely donated to charity), still for less than the cost of just a big publisher game at release.  How is that not "budget"? 

Beyond all that, the expansions also allow for the continued development and support of the base AI War game.  The base AI War game now at 4.0 is a far cry better than it was at original release.   I daresay that nothing close to this level of support would have been possible without the expansions.

You'd have to give me an expansion pack that exceeded all of your previous work AI+2exp and more to make it worth the $10. I fully understand that the fanboys and creators don't like me saying it is not a good deal, but I am looking at it objectively and during the heavily discounted holiday market, the market you state that you make most of your money. I like playing AI war but I am using cold logic and budgeting here. LoTS = $10. AI War + 2exp = $10. LoTS is not finished so I am getting a beta version and while some people like playing beta versions (I download all the beta patches) you can be playing a game with broken mechanics and/or get stuck. AI war = good deal. LoTS? Mmmmmmmm.

Certainly I think $10 for LoTS is a better deal than my $45 purchase of Civ V, but I don't think a beta version of an expansion pack for an indie game is worth more than say L4D2 ($6.8 ) Supreme Commander 2 ($7.5) Mass Effect 2 ($8). Again to be clear, AI war is a good deal right now but I'm just talking about LoTS.

Why are you stressing that LoTS is a beta?  You do know that you get the release version when the beta is over, right?     I somehow doubt that you are would say that when it's released you'd be willing to pay more for it...

I will also point out that you're comparing something so new it's still pre-release to older games now entering their bargain stage, during a major once-a-year blowout sale.  Next week, all those other games will be more expensive, but LoTS will still be $10.  Will it be worth it then?

Of course, if you're willing to wait for Steam's 2011 blowout sale, you'll probably get LoTS for less.  Does that make it worth less NOW?  Of course not.  I haven't seen a game yet that doesn't get cheaper as it gets older.  You can always eventually get a better deal by waiting.  (See gog.com).  But it's pretty unfair to expect bargain bin sale prices for something that's not even out of beta.

Waiting saves you a couple bucks.  Buying it now gives you a chance to play the expansion immediately, give your input on its development, and helps support a struggling indie game developer.  Your call, but it wasn't a tough decision for me, anyway.

The microtransaction model feels unethical to us.

Ha! I trapped you! The expansion pack is the grandfather of microtransactions, a small price for more scenarios/game options. Also I'd rather have more AI war and Arcen games with microtransctions than no more Arcen games if those were my only two options. I dream of someone like Arcen games making a SMAC 2 or MoO4 and if that means Arcen selling coffee mugs and wristbands then so be it. I also feel that a lot of times people pay microtransactions because they like to support the game they play and that way they can spend more money on a game they really like. For all the people saying that they would pay much more for AI war well with microtransactions they could. I don't like microtransactions but there is a wrong way to do it and a right way to do it.

So you'd rather pay $.50 to $5.00 for, say, a single fleet ship or starship line or a new map style?  That's what microtransactions do for games.  How is that better than $10 for LoTS with hundreds of new ships, a campaign, etc, etc?  I'm not sure what your point or your "trap" here were.