Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
They need to work a lot on this one, before I'm willing to buy.
Long answer; the company are totally set in their idea that the game is a "Triple A" title and that it is up to that standard. They have argued it is competitively priced against comparable products. They also like to throw in that they intend to support the game with "free updates" after launch... because patching and updating a game is new territory right.
There have been a lot of critical responses to the game highlighting a wide array of issues and even those putting forward compelling arguments relating to the pricing. We have no way or truly knowing how much of this is down to the dev team and how much is down to the publisher but either way the simple answer is to vote with your wallet.
Personally I don't think the quality is that of a Triple A title nor do I think it will reach that standard post launch. I've also compared the price to various strategy games on the market and I cannot see how this can be compared to strategy games in that price bracket, let alone some of those from more experienced teams at significantly lower pricing.
The general consensus seems to be that most people would pay in the region of £25 - £30 // $30 USD but most people view the current price as an entry barrier. This is only made worse when you consider the dev team have never produced a strategy game before and their primary experience lies with the development of point and click adventure games.
The final issue, at least relating to the price, is that this game will likely live or die depending on the uptake by the multiplayer community. There are arguments that the single player component will be where the game really shines but, at least from my experience, very few strategy games survive just off of their single player. Those which do tend to be a 4X (so similar) format, not a standard campaign format.
I wish the dev's the best of luck, I think the IP has a lot of potential but I don't think this will be achieved by the current team. I have provided an extensive post with plenty of feedback previously but I suspect that it fell on deaf ears or got lost in the crowd.
I mean you will get both campiagn, skirmish, mp. All that for 50 usd.
50 bucks is the price for a triple A game. Iron Harvest is far from being such a game.
But it's a matter of taste and wallet.
For one 50 bucks is not much of a deal but for others it may be a lot to pay. One finds this game worth any penny, other won't give even 20 bucks.
I myself find it pretty expensive for what it offers and would not give more than the half of the asked price.
If you start to run down the list of games from the strategy genre it is not competitively priced, especially when you consider that this is the dev teams first attempt at a strategy.
Citing that a "campaign, skirmish and mp" are good value for 50 usd is a pretty low bar as you are failing to consider quality or duration.
The problem is we can buy Company of Heroes 2 for the same amount of content at half the price. When you consider this doesn't look or play better than a RTS with similar gameplay, released many years ago, it looks very expensive by comparison.
This is just my opinion from a short time with the demo, and then reinstalling CoH 2 to compare.
If they want us to pay triple A price, it should feel like Company of Heroes 3 at this point. A true modern RTS.
I'd also like to highlight that these titles are taken straight from the section tagged "Strategy" so while some of the comparisons will not be one to one they are still a part of the genre which Iron Harvest will be classified as. All prices are in GBP.
For reference the BASIC edition of Iron Harvest is priced at £46.99
Triple A
Smaller Studios/Indie (Prices based on release prices according to "isthereanydeal.com"
I could continue these lists for quite some length but at some point these lists must stop. I've tried to select games which are "recent" although I am using the term loosely. I also concede that some titles are produced by the same studios, however, I felt it important to highlight differences in pricing even between a studios own games.
I know there will be some arguments against this putting forward the argument that it is unfair as many of these are not direct comparisons but the developer has already made it clear that they are attempting to compete with "Triple A" releases. Were all the releases listed perfect at release? No, that would be a silly assertion to make but many of those listed far surpassed the state shown by the Iron Harvest demo. Even many of those from the "Smaller Studios" list are superior in quality to the demo.
I appreciate that it is a demo but the purpose of a demo is to display what can be expected at release.
The big point I'm trying to make is that the current pricing of Iron Harvest exceeds that of many Triple A titles from the same genre and this game, whether or not people want to admit it, is coming from a studio with no history in the strategy genre. This is the problem people have with the price. If the studio was more established and the demo had shown off something to be genuinely hyped about then I'm sure the price wouldn't be as heavily contended but this isn't the position we're in.
Anyway, if you took the time to read the above then I'd just like to thank you for doing so.