if it has just as much content as some of the more expansive mods, then i'd easily agree with you. unfortunately we don't know what level of content it has, as the amount of hours it should take is hardly a good indicator of its quality. if they really show what their new and improved IE can do then i'd double whatever amount i'd pay for the content otherwise, just to support the team and their mission.
Regardless of the quantity or quality of content, I have to agree with wubble. It's pretty much industry standard for expansions to be half to maybe just a little more than half of the base game. It's really rare for an expansion to be the same price as that of the base game.
The only time I've seen expansions the same price as the base game is in MMOs. For single player games such as Baldur's Gate, I've never seen an expansion cost the same amount as the base game.
I'm looking at XCOM Enemy Unknown/Enemy Within on Steam and the base game and expansion cost the same.
There's typically a distinction between "Expansion" and "Stand-Alone Expansion", the latter referring to an expansion that adds story content that exists separately from the original game; the former adds story content to the original game.
So Throne of Bhaal is a Stand-Alone Expansion; Tales of the Sword Coast is an Expansion. (Okay, both are expansions, but you get what I mean).
Stand-Alone Expansions tend to cost a bit more than regular expansions, because - like @bengoshi pointed out - they're almost like new games unto themselves. A Stand-Alone Expansion might cost the same as its parent product at the time of the expansion's release, though that's usually because the parent product's price has been reduced by that point.
It may be worth pointing out that Baldur's Gate was $40 when it was released back in 1998, and now costs $20 with the Enhanced Edition. Throne of Bhaal, when it was released, was also $40 (or close to it; it's been a few years. )
So--without saying what I think would be appropriate--I wouldn't say that $20 is an outrageous sum in comparison to its parent product, given that the parent product's price is already reduced inherently.
Comparing a price of expansion of an old old game to new game isn't a right comparison, so saying the new expansion should cost half of what the game cost now is just isn't fair in my opinion, they are working hard and putting a lot of hours and money into it, and it not small expansion. one should compare it with the original price of the game and see if it ok for him / her, although I think one should buy or not buying the game not on base of comparison of the base game to the expansion but on few other points: 1.if one want the game or not 2.if one will play it or not 3.if the price that it come out with is affordable
I'm sure there are more points that I'm missing but I think those are the main once, each to his own and Blessed be
I've still got the boxes to show that I paid $28.77 for Age of Mythology and $28.77 for The Titans (its expansion). That was from Wal-Mart over a decade ago
So, SoD won't be a simple expansion for BGEE, it will rather be an expansion for BG1 as a story.
Sure. And what's the BG1 price on GoG?
Today's price of BG1 is one thing. But SoD is being made in today's world, with today's prices for everything: working hours (salaries), supplies, rental prices.
Yes but BG1 wasn't a Beamdog effort and investment.
I am just bemused by all the guys already justifying a price for a game add-on they haven't played yet. Up to the point to think (all irony excluded) that the Beamdog offerings manager should envision creating a donation page (not a crowdfunding thing) to take benefit from the extra enthusiasm. The only clue leading me to think the add-on is something substantial is somewhat hidden in the specs: a 2.17 GB storage requirement. This is no small thing at the BG scale. Beyond that, it is just a crystal ball divination.
The price is not one of my primary criteria. I could not buy BGEE at release time because it was not able to run on a simple Intel graphics engine (and apparently it contained many other bugs). Later I bought both BGEE and BG2EE before the BG2EE release. That was really to support Beamdog because playing the EE versions was not an emerency case. I really enjoyed the new engine though. However I just cannot ignore a basic comparison between BG(2)EE, Wasteland 2 and PoE. PoE and in an even more spectacular way Wasteland 2 were able to fix most of the reported bugs within a very short timeframe (weeks). BG(2)EE is now in a reasonably stable state but it took a long time. As a matter of fact I intend to take my time too, despite my true enthusiasm for a new product in the IE/BG landscape.
Well, I think noone would tell you a bad word for that. All those concerns are understandable.
If you ask me where my enthusiasm comes from, I'd simply answer that I hope and believe.
I'm sure that working with the 16-year old engine is actually harder than with the new Unity engine used in Wasteland 2 and PoE. I think the process you've come through while updating the Tactics mod can show that it's far from being easy.
Andrew Foley has once told that with SoD they have a chance to rebuild a few bridges that were burned while BGEE and BG2EE were released. I really expect them to.
They don't have a much-demanding publishing parner now (as it was the case with Atari).
They've managed to find and to bring back vanilla voice-actors, several of whom have been not in business actually for several years.
They're putting original Bioware ideas about those "circumstances much darker" into realization.
They now have the biggest amount of staff working on QA if compared to the situation with the EEs.
They're trying to get as many talented people as it's possible. Think: Chris Avellone agreed to help them in some manner. If more such talented people were available, they'll try to get them as well, of this I'm sure.
And most importantly, now the question of whether Beamdog really can begin working on BG Next is in the air. So many expectations... I don't think they don't understand it. And this is why I'm sure they're really trying their best, putting everything there's in them, into SoD.
They're trying to get as many talented people as it's possible.
They should employ you. I won't create a petition because they don't seem to appreciate them . However they should think about it... You're good at promoting their products apart from the "big events".
PoE and in an even more spectacular way Wasteland 2 were able to fix most of the reported bugs within a very short timeframe (weeks). BG(2)EE is now in a reasonably stable state but it took a long time. As a matter of fact I intend to take my time too, despite my true enthusiasm for a new product in the IE/BG landscape.
I can't speak for Wasteland 2, but Pillars of Eternity's patch history isn't as pristine as you portray. /experience
Up to the point to think (all irony excluded) that the Beamdog offerings manager should envision creating a donation page (not a crowdfunding thing) to take benefit from the extra enthusiasm.
Somehow I think as far as contracts are concerned donations=crowdfunding. Many companies don't except donations for various legal reasons. If there isn't already a donations button they probably can't do it.
There's typically a distinction between "Expansion" and "Stand-Alone Expansion", the latter referring to an expansion that adds story content that exists separately from the original game; the former adds story content to the original game.
That's not quite what those terms mean.
A standalone expansion can be installed and played without the base game - something like "Dragonfall" for Shadowrun Returns, or "Chaos Rising" for Warhammer 40K. There's a case to be made for a higher price here, because you're packaging the engine along with the new content.
That justification doesn't quite hold for the more traditional approach like "Dragon Age: Awakening" (or, yes, SoD), because you have to purchase the base game as a precondition.
If by saying PoE has a better patch history, you mean frequent patches that intoduced almost as many new bugs as it fixed old ones, but focused mainly on tinkering with the rules so you don't know what is a good build from one week to the next, you would be right.
I think comparing it to BGEE and BG2EE isn't quite fair as the assets for those games were largely already there.
And IIRC I think I spent $29.99 or so for TotSC when it was new, back in the day. Heck, even earlier than that I remember (quite crappy, tbh) new computer games would easily cost $60 or more, and they would fit on one or two 3.5" floppy disks...
Up to 20 EUR, but only because I like the game so much and Beamdog is a young company with an interesting business model and very helpful forum support.
If it were, say, a NWN expansion, I'd pay around 10 EUR.
I voted $10 because of the general rule that expansions cost half as much as the base game that they require.
That being said, if we compare SoD to IWD:EE, a lot more work has gone into SoD than IWD:EE. I would bet that SoD will cost far more to make than IWD:EE.
SoD has many voice actors, many new areas, new AI, new engine features, new scripting, new monsters even. If you think about the effort that has gone into it, $20 is actually a fair price.
However, would it sell well at $20? Difficult question because of the assumption that expansions cannot cost as much as the full game, as I said. Had they made it a completely stand alone game that doesn't require BG1 and made it 40 hours in length, they could have charged $20. As an expansion, they would find it difficult to convince people who were not fans of BG back in the day to pay $20 for an expansion.
Yes, they should thoroughly think about what price to set, because if the majority will find the price a bit more than it should be, here will come the first negative about the product, and it'll stick.
I voted $10 because of the general rule that expansions cost half as much as the base game that they require.
That being said, if we compare SoD to IWD:EE, a lot more work has gone into SoD than IWD:EE. I would bet that SoD will cost far more to make than IWD:EE.
SoD has many voice actors, many new areas, new AI, new engine features, new scripting, new monsters even. If you think about the effort that has gone into it, $20 is actually a fair price.
However, would it sell well at $20? Difficult question because of the assumption that expansions cannot cost as much as the full game, as I said. Had they made it a completely stand alone game that doesn't require BG1 and made it 40 hours in length, they could have charged $20. As an expansion, they would find it difficult to convince people who were not fans of BG back in the day to pay $20 for an expansion.
I think even fans of BG will find it hard to pay 20$ for an expansion on such an old engine, and new players will not buy it for that price. I hope they don't try to sell it for 20$, it will be a hard sell. Maybe if they give bundle of Bg1EE+SoD for 25$.
Comments
So Throne of Bhaal is a Stand-Alone Expansion; Tales of the Sword Coast is an Expansion. (Okay, both are expansions, but you get what I mean).
Stand-Alone Expansions tend to cost a bit more than regular expansions, because - like @bengoshi pointed out - they're almost like new games unto themselves. A Stand-Alone Expansion might cost the same as its parent product at the time of the expansion's release, though that's usually because the parent product's price has been reduced by that point.
It may be worth pointing out that Baldur's Gate was $40 when it was released back in 1998, and now costs $20 with the Enhanced Edition. Throne of Bhaal, when it was released, was also $40 (or close to it; it's been a few years.
So--without saying what I think would be appropriate--I wouldn't say that $20 is an outrageous sum in comparison to its parent product, given that the parent product's price is already reduced inherently.
one should compare it with the original price of the game and see if it ok for him / her, although I think one should buy or not buying the game not on base of comparison of the base game to the expansion but on few other points:
1.if one want the game or not
2.if one will play it or not
3.if the price that it come out with is affordable
I'm sure there are more points that I'm missing but I think those are the main once, each to his own and
Blessed be
I am just bemused by all the guys already justifying a price for a game add-on they haven't played yet.
Up to the point to think (all irony excluded) that the Beamdog offerings manager should envision creating a donation page (not a crowdfunding thing) to take benefit from the extra enthusiasm.
The only clue leading me to think the add-on is something substantial is somewhat hidden in the specs: a 2.17 GB storage requirement. This is no small thing at the BG scale. Beyond that, it is just a crystal ball divination.
The price is not one of my primary criteria. I could not buy BGEE at release time because it was not able to run on a simple Intel graphics engine (and apparently it contained many other bugs). Later I bought both BGEE and BG2EE before the BG2EE release. That was really to support Beamdog because playing the EE versions was not an emerency case. I really enjoyed the new engine though.
However I just cannot ignore a basic comparison between BG(2)EE, Wasteland 2 and PoE.
PoE and in an even more spectacular way Wasteland 2 were able to fix most of the reported bugs within a very short timeframe (weeks). BG(2)EE is now in a reasonably stable state but it took a long time.
As a matter of fact I intend to take my time too, despite my true enthusiasm for a new product in the IE/BG landscape.
If you ask me where my enthusiasm comes from, I'd simply answer that I hope and believe.
I'm sure that working with the 16-year old engine is actually harder than with the new Unity engine used in Wasteland 2 and PoE. I think the process you've come through while updating the Tactics mod can show that it's far from being easy.
Andrew Foley has once told that with SoD they have a chance to rebuild a few bridges that were burned while BGEE and BG2EE were released. I really expect them to.
They don't have a much-demanding publishing parner now (as it was the case with Atari).
They've managed to find and to bring back vanilla voice-actors, several of whom have been not in business actually for several years.
They're putting original Bioware ideas about those "circumstances much darker" into realization.
They now have the biggest amount of staff working on QA if compared to the situation with the EEs.
They're trying to get as many talented people as it's possible. Think: Chris Avellone agreed to help them in some manner. If more such talented people were available, they'll try to get them as well, of this I'm sure.
And most importantly, now the question of whether Beamdog really can begin working on BG Next is in the air. So many expectations... I don't think they don't understand it. And this is why I'm sure they're really trying their best, putting everything there's in them, into SoD.
A standalone expansion can be installed and played without the base game - something like "Dragonfall" for Shadowrun Returns, or "Chaos Rising" for Warhammer 40K. There's a case to be made for a higher price here, because you're packaging the engine along with the new content.
That justification doesn't quite hold for the more traditional approach like "Dragon Age: Awakening" (or, yes, SoD), because you have to purchase the base game as a precondition. I mean... are we still comparing it to support for BG2:EE? Because PoE wins hands-down there.
My experience of pillars was bugfree from the start anyway.
And IIRC I think I spent $29.99 or so for TotSC when it was new, back in the day. Heck, even earlier than that I remember (quite crappy, tbh) new computer games would easily cost $60 or more, and they would fit on one or two 3.5" floppy disks...
If it were, say, a NWN expansion, I'd pay around 10 EUR.
That being said, if we compare SoD to IWD:EE, a lot more work has gone into SoD than IWD:EE. I would bet that SoD will cost far more to make than IWD:EE.
SoD has many voice actors, many new areas, new AI, new engine features, new scripting, new monsters even. If you think about the effort that has gone into it, $20 is actually a fair price.
However, would it sell well at $20? Difficult question because of the assumption that expansions cannot cost as much as the full game, as I said. Had they made it a completely stand alone game that doesn't require BG1 and made it 40 hours in length, they could have charged $20. As an expansion, they would find it difficult to convince people who were not fans of BG back in the day to pay $20 for an expansion.