From: Cornwall, UK
Because it's old ground that has already been covered and does not take advantage of the improvements in user interfaces, computing power, graphics power, monitors, etc?
CoI does regarding monitors, but that apart you are just repeating yourself. Why does it have to take advantage of them in order to avoid a 25% deduction before they are even booted up? CC does what it does; it's hard to see how the overhead graphics could be much improved and there simply is nothing wrong with the UI. I could name games that do all those things that are absolute crap. I could also name games that do none of them, and were well worth the 80% plus they scored from professional reviewers. It could do with an AI boost.. but so could every other wargame I've played over those 8 years.
And this isn't a different game, it's a re-release. If someone copied CC but came up with a new game engine but the results were visually and in terms of game play, pretty much identical, do you think it would garner a good review?
Yup. But they haven't. When they do your point might have some merit.
And the market itself tells you that you are wrong. If companies were just releasing Civilization, Halo, Halflife, CMBO, etc, even you can admit they would go out of business. There were Civilization II and III and IV, Halo 2, Halflife 2, CMBB/CMAK (and now CMSF). Eash was a evalutionary improvement on the old release (Arguably some are revolutionary). CoI is not an evolutionary improvement to CC, it's a compilation of a bunch of user developed mods with a few tweaks with the same old tired game engine.
You are generalising based on a totally different market. The demand for 'classic' CC to be made available again was unique, and that is what was provided. 'New' CC is on the way - hopefully.
Look, just in this topic are like 6 people who said they wouldn't pay for the game at this price, but would if it were $25-30 or so. So add in the lurkers who are reading the exchanges but don't chime in and the number of them that won't buy it based in part on this discussion. Then add in all of those who don't read the forums but simply won't pay full price for the game. How many is that, and after what, 5 weeks? I mean, based on the number of posters on each side of this discussion, discounting admins and developers, I'd say you lost 30-40% of buyers.
By my calculations, a 35 or 40% loss would still put them ahead. Probably a little more, allowing for overhead allocation on each sale. And, of course, as is always the case how many of those people would actually have bought it if it had been a whopping $10 cheaper?
'We' are paying what is actually $10 less than 'full price' because that is the price Matrix believe will maximise their own profit, and allow the maximum amount to be invested in continued development of CC. It's that simple. Maybe a cheaper price would yield more revenue, maybe not, but nobody has provided a remotely convincing case that they know the market better than Matrix. If it's too expensive, there is no obligation for people to buy it.