CHIVALRY: Medieval Warfare is a first-person medieval online combat game that seeks to deliver the intensity of epic hollywood medieval block busters to the hands of a gamer. CHIVALRY hurls the player into a fictional medieval world where the Agathian Knights are battling against the newly formed Mason Order for control of the lands of Agatha.

  • View media
  • View media
  • View media
  • View media
  • View media
  • View media
Media RSS Feed Report media Release Date Trailer
Post comment Comments
Mkilbride
Mkilbride Sep 21 2012, 10:40pm says:

What the hell is this processing ********?

I want to know when to Pre-order for 19.99$.

Wait, 29.99$?

Don't make the same mistake as Red Orchestra 2 did, please! Don't!

+6 votes     reply to comment
Mkilbride
Mkilbride Sep 21 2012, 10:52pm says:

This is your first Indie title! You can't go charging 30$

First indie game should always be in the 20$ and under range.

Natural Selection 2 is making this mistake as well, look at it! 34.99$

Look @ RO1, sold excellently, @ 14.99$, but RO2 was 39.99$ and sold like crap. When it went on sale for 19$, it sold more copies than release by 2x!

Go for quantity! The lower the price, the more people that will "Eh", buy your game because of it, the more people that can spread the word, the more sales you'll get, sell more, at a lower price point, and more profit in the end, as well as more publicity.

This kind of price just isn't right...

You want your first title to sell a lot of copies, at a low price point, simple marketing here. So your name, your style of developing is known, so that your next game can be sold for a higher price point, as it's more in demand.

War of the Roses is coming out and it's like 20$ on Steam right now. (If you own M&B), not the same gameplay of course, but the same game-type and setting.

You need to be competitive, with aggressive pricing. I just don't think it will sell that that price.

You think because it's MP only, 30$ is fair, to the normal 59.99$, because it's half a game...but it's also an Indie game, even if this had a full SP, you couldn't charge 59.99$ or 49.99$ for it.

Not being offensive, just realistic.

+17 votes     reply to comment
Zephon
Zephon Sep 22 2012, 3:21am replied:

Just because they are "Indie", doesn't mean they should sell themselves under the worth of work they have done so far, so we can save some bucks and praise them for it. Because what you are not mentioning in your rant at all, is the game itself, with gameplay, mechanics, graphics, the target player group and the fun it could bring. These ingredients form the price, not an imaginary "Indie" pricetag.

Of course you can blame them for the Trial or Demo they don't plan to release for you, so you can test the game before buying it, but demanding that "Indie" should always be free or cheap isn't realistic. It has much more dependencies, running an "Independent" (and that is what it means, in case you forgot) studio.

+3 votes     reply to comment
Mkilbride
Mkilbride Sep 22 2012, 3:54am replied:

Not demanding they be cheap, or free.

I'm saying they have to be realistic.

I know they have costs to cover; I want them to do well, I've followed the mod since it was first released and played it alot.

I was super excited at a possible 14.99$ or 19.99 price-tag.

At 29.99$, not so much. I have no doubt it'll be very fun.

But at that price point it simply won't sell.

And their fanbase? Responding to Darklord. Sorry. AoC has a fanbase, no doubt, not a larger one. NS had one as well, years ago, it is a fraction.

Both dev teams need to realize, sure, it's not fair...but there are expectations with Indie devs.

UW went crazy and I don't really care if they go belly up. They decided to make a complete AAA Engine, with little to no budget, even though they had a Source version they could have finished, then with NS3, they could have done an engine, with proper funding.

They've missed release dates several times. Their costs are far greater than C:MW's team as well.And yes, they now manage a 24.99$ price.

It's close, but the 19.99$ price tag has made many games a success.

Killing Floor was one of them. IT was hailed as a 20$ wonder, that people who didn't want to shell out for L4D1/2 could enjoy.

However, let us look if KF had decided to go 30-40$, nearly L4D's price, do you think it would have sold nearly as well? Not at all...would it have been a worse game? No, just not a good enough game for the money.

+3 votes     reply to comment
Mkilbride
Mkilbride Sep 22 2012, 3:55am replied:

Every game has a right price point. I can't see 29.99$ selling alot of copies.

10$ difference, but I've seen so many people who go "Eh, it's only 20$, I just won't eat out one night of the week"

That 10$ brings down a magical barrier. I'm trying to convince them for their sakes as well.

Would you rather they sell 10,000 copies @ 29.99$

Or 20,000 copies @ 19.99$. Double exposure, more profit. basic business economics here. 100,000$ more, and twice as many people talking about it.

It's all about the pricing. It can make a huge difference; just look at Steam sales and the results Valve have gotten.

+4 votes     reply to comment
Zephon
Zephon Sep 24 2012, 6:06am replied:

I can see that this barrier can make a difference, especially in todays DLC influenced industry. And that the economics are a point to be considered. But as you wrote earlier: 30$ isn't the price of a complete commercial title. In this case I find it reasonably, that a potentially high quality game can raise the bar around 10$. And you shouldn't forget, that they gave every backer at their Kickstarter project the game for 25$

Also, there is the currency that, in Dollars, isn't as much in Europe as it is in the US or other parts of the World. For me, 30 Dollars are near at 22 € and a more than reasonable price for an Indie game in my country. Because they sell worldwide, they have to adjust this number accordingly. So perhaps 30$ isn't a decision or a question made by the game they sell, but where they want to sell it. 20$ would be almost less than 10 Pounds or Euro and they absolutely would sell themselves under value.

Then there is the updating policy. Every additional content will probably be added "for free". Nothing groundbreaking really, but it is something that can make a difference as well, speaking of DLCs and other purchasable content in nowadays games.

+1 vote     reply to comment
Xendrid
Xendrid Sep 22 2012, 10:01pm replied:

Do you even realize the significance in a custom built engine? You have 100% control over it. You know exactly how it was made and how to get the best out of it. You can make the changes you need to make a better game. Then you can even sell the engine if you want to. If they were to use the Source engine (and be glad they didn't), they would essentially have to make Source into an engine that will support the type of game they want to make. Will they even be able to include a feature they want in their game with Source? They won't know until they try. To lay down money for a license on something that might not work for them at all is ludicrous. They had the ability to make an engine and they did. How is that hurting them?

You don't know what you are talking about, yet I see a giant wall of text.

On topic with Chivalry, the price is reasonable. Their $50 instant access thing is a little blunt, but probably just for the extremely hardcore fans who want to support the developers even more. With AAA developers under a publisher they hope for high sales immediately. For indie developers they want a steady income and enough excess to expand the company and make their next game. This game will go down in Steam sales like any other game and it will sell well during those times. It might not sell like a AAA title, but to expect an indie game to do that is hoping.

+1 vote     reply to comment
Ilsamir_Lord
Ilsamir_Lord Sep 22 2012, 9:14pm replied:

Is the price one that the community will pay, that's the only question. Whether the community would pay $100 or $10, that's what the price should be.

This is where marketing really counts. If the community sees that the game is worth the asking price, then they'll pay it.

+1 vote     reply to comment
Darklord42
Darklord42 Sep 22 2012, 1:08am says:

You forget In neither cases, UW or team chivalry, are these games their first attempt. It's their second game the first being FREE for both studios. Both have a fanbase from the respective first game that would gladly pay slightly more to support the teams in future endeavors. Besides UW lowered the price for NS2 to $24.99 for the main game.

0 votes     reply to comment
luiz0regis
luiz0regis Sep 22 2012, 1:20am says:

30 bucks really? 50 for insta acess only must be a joke...

+4 votes     reply to comment
Edrahil
Edrahil Sep 22 2012, 11:13am says:

If you can't afford 30$, then don't buy it goddamnit.

+1 vote     reply to comment
Kisaraji
Kisaraji Sep 22 2012, 1:57pm replied:

That's the problem, people won't buy it because if the price, this is why they are discussing it on the first place. Want to get a game with a few players?

+1 vote     reply to comment
Edrahil
Edrahil Sep 22 2012, 3:18pm replied:

Are you saying 30 dollars is too much? That's f**king ridiculous. Five people have worked on this game for years, and you won't even pay 30 bucks

+3 votes     reply to comment
Mkilbride
Mkilbride Sep 22 2012, 7:07pm replied:

Sorry.

I can afford it. I'm a Federal Employee.

And I will end up buying it, most likely, at launch price.

However; what I am looking at is wanting a larger playerbase, and successful sales of their game, to make them a better company.

And 5 people, that might've been impressive years ago.

But NS2, is selling for 24.99$ now. 5$ Cheaper.

It was made by a team of 3 developers(more now, with their growth, up to 6-7), of course the years, and they had to make their own Engine from scratch, and they have much larger costs because of it. In the millions. They also let anyone who pre-ordered in the beta, not charged 20$ for beta access, the normal price of an Indie game.

This uses the UDK; though they plan to get a license, eventually, I'm told, their costs still should have been low, not insignificant, but not high enough to justify a higher price than NS2, no doubt.

A UDK license is 100$. Building your own Engine can cost millions.

It's also important to let a lot of people test your game before going public. TO make changes, balance changes, and game changes in general. NS2 did this; over the years of beta, it has changed significantly, warping to what people want, rather than what developers think people want.

In the end, this game is supposed to make them money, but they seem to be ignoring some very basic business sense.

Natural Selection 2 was 34.99$, but upon years of my hounding, they've dropped it to 24.99$, I doubt it was because of me, but more like they finally evaluated the gaming community and saw what they were willing to pay.

+1 vote     reply to comment
Mkilbride
Mkilbride Sep 22 2012, 7:09pm replied:

Tripwire Interactive did not do this with Red Orchestra 2. As well as having a ultra-short beta, they released at a high price point of 39.99$. It went on sale for 32$ shortly, but no one bought it.

The majority of sales, of active players, got it from a Key selling website for 23$, as did I.

Then, when they released the GOTY Edition for 19.99$, they sold a ton of copies, and continue to have a steady flow of revenue and new players.

Price matters. People are simple minded in the end, and seeing a 10$ difference makes them go "Hmm, I'll try it, it's only 20$"

Rather than "It's only 30$", never seen anyone say that, but seen the 20$ comment several times with friends who want to purchase a game.

Look at Torchlight 2. Huge dev team, years of work, and it's a Triple AAA title. Releasing for 20$.

PReviously developers @ 59.99$, got 14$ per sale, after all the cuts taken.

But Digital sales, you can get 100% of the profits. So a 20$ game can make MORE than 60$ game. The Torchlight II devs just did an article explaining this.

So I see no reason why 29.99$ should be the price point.

Only if they want a small, niche community, and a product that may barely sell enough to cover it's costs. Then again, it doesn't have that high of a cost in the first place, so I may be wrong about that.

+3 votes     reply to comment
fragfest2012
fragfest2012 Sep 22 2012, 3:33pm says:

Honestly, if I were them, I would have sold it for $20-25, but I respect their choice. I think NS2 is too much (should be like $20-25), but they choose their price point, that is a power of the developer. So, stop complaining and, if you can't afford it, don't buy it.

PS: I can't afford it either, which is disappointing, but I am not going to whine about it.

+2 votes     reply to comment
Zipper120
Zipper120 Sep 25 2012, 9:18am says:

I think that $30 is decent price, it's still 50% cheaper than classic AAA games...

+1 vote     reply to comment
Post a Comment
click to sign in

You are not logged in, your comment will be anonymous unless you join the community today (totally free - or sign in with your social account on the right) which we encourage all contributors to do.

2000 characters limit; HTML formatting and smileys are not supported - text only

Description

Chivalry: Medieval Warfare gets a release date on steam and opens up Pre-orders on official website: www.ChivalrytheGame.com

Video Details
Type
Entertainment
Date
Sep 21st, 2012
Length
01:53
Filename
Chivalry_Medieval_Warefare_Release_Date_Slomo_Trailer_1.mp4
Options
URL
Embed
Share
Report Abuse
Report media
Add Media
Members only