SEIV Only A Nitch Game

Atrocities · #1 March 24th, 2004, 11:01 AM

Why is SEIV such a nitch game after four years of success?

We all know Space Empires IV and have grown to love the game like no other over its four and half year run. Its success is evident by the number of new players we see here every day and with its victory over MOO3 and GalCiv, Space Empires IV has propelled itself into the top slot for 4x gaming.

Still even with this title SEIV is only a nitch game with a very very very small market share and small group of slowly growing fans.

Why is SEIV only a nitch game after four years of utter dominance in the 4x market? Well it can only be because it is such a nitch game that even with the great word of mouth by its fans, us, the growth of the game has is still stagnate.

What can be done to boost awaness of this great game is a valid question in my book. I guess the only things that can be done is to continue getting the word out and perhaps pester a game magazine or gaming site into doing a follow up on the success of this game.

SEIV is a nitch game that should not be one. It should be a main stream game by now because of all the great success it has enjoyed over the compition. In my book SEIV is one of the great 4x games ever made and even if no one else will acknowledge this, I know it in my heart.

So if you can email gaming sites, and game magazines about this game and continue to post here and in other forums about the wonders of SEIV.

Thanks for reading.

PvK · #2 March 24th, 2004, 11:19 AM

Remember the answers to those threads you started with titles similar to "are people really THAT stupid?"

PvK

Timstone · #3 March 24th, 2004, 11:29 AM

Hey? Why are you so obsessed by increaing the marketshare of SE IV?? I can see the obvious good results for MM, BUT there are dark sides to succes. Why aren't you happy with the succes MM has with it's current titles? With succes (and a larger community) comes decadencs, longer waits, less fansupport and takeovers with nasty consequences.
I for one am quite happy with the fact that MM can release games and the small gaming community. I know it sounds like I don't want MM to become rich from their fabulous games, but that's not how I mean it.
Oh, I'm not trying to attack you. This is just my point of view.

[ March 24, 2004, 09:29: Message edited by: Timstone ]

Atrocities · #4 March 24th, 2004, 11:52 AM

Good point Timstone. Very valid and very true.

I just like the game and would like to see it gain a larger market share. It amazes me that a one man game shop could make a better game than a large corp with years of development and big bucks behind it.

MOO3 was just horrible.
GalCiv is a great game but not as fun as SEIV and IT has far more market share than SEIV. I should head on over to the GalCiv forum and post a bit about the wonders of SEIV.

Naw, that would be rude and I would not do that. Well not in a direct way.

Timstone · #5 March 24th, 2004, 12:04 PM

Glad you agree with me. It's better to have on my side than to have as an opponent.

It's just said that good games like MOO and Diablo take years and years to develop and even then they can turn out to be absolutely horrendous games (like MOO3, but certainly nor Diablo 2 (that game just took far tooooo long top develop)).

Now we're at it, can I ask something about SE V?
Have had word about the game? Things like Which engine they are going to use? If they haven't decided yet, I suggest the Black Sun engine from Nexus. That is an absolutely gorgeous game. But I do not know if it supports Turn Based action. Now I think of it, will it be Turn Based? I certainly hope so.

Oh and a funny little occurence yesterday. Ask a few gamers if they have ever heard of Turn Based games. 9 out of 10 will say they have never heard of it. Excelent games like Age of Wonder are an obscure and little known genre. Too bad, but maybe for the best. Why? See my first message in this thread or in the other thread Atrocities started (the one where Tim Brooks also responded).

David E. Gervais · #6 March 24th, 2004, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Atrocities:
MOO3 was just horrible.
GalCiv is a great game but not as fun as SEIV and IT has far more market share than SEIV.

It's simple AT, Market share is all about 'Visibility' as in seen and heard and not about finding something through obscure net searches or the occasional word-of-mouth.

Walk into any computer store, chances are you'll see a copy of Moo3 and GalCiv. Pick up a magazine and there is a good chace you'll see an ad for one of these. do a net search for '4X Games' and you will find about a dozen references to moo3/GalCiv for every 1 se4. and if you include other 4x results of the search, it's about a 20-25 to 1 ratio. (Something strange, of the links I found to se4, none were to MM's site and most were to 3rd party fan sites and a few to Shrapnel.)

I keep hearing,.. "Advertizing is expensive", "Retail doesn't pay enough" But these statements are skewered when compared to Net-only sales and marketing.

What is better,. Selling 15,000 copies and making $10-$15 profit per game or selling 25, 50, or 100 thousand copies at $5 profit per game? (what if the 'Less-profit' theory of retail is hogwash, a developer can easilly make the same $10-$15 per game profit as Online sales.)

My problem with the whole Net vs Retail sales thing is that I cannot for the life of me see why the two need to be mutually exclusive. Most Publishers who have Games in the retail outlets also have the ability to order their products Online.

Even if Shrapnel took just one of their games an made it available through retial, they would see a greater influx of traffic at their site. Heck they could even insert ads in their 'retail-game' and promote their 'Other' games through the sales of one. From what I heard in Tim's post, it would cost about the same to launch a game through retail as it would to place an ad in a gamming magazine. Anyone want to bet which $15,000 investment would gain the widest exposure?

One more thing, I really HATE people that think Making-less is the same as loosing. It is so not true. Sure $5 proffit is less than say $15 profit, but that's not 'Loosing money' It's just making less, but wait, if just one game is a 'Hit' in the retail market (100,000+ copies sold) then would 'they' still say they are loosing money?

anyway, nuf said. Grrrrr

[ March 24, 2004, 11:03: Message edited by: David E. Gervais ]

Unknown_Enemy · #7 March 24th, 2004, 01:33 PM

ALL THAT ARE LIE !!!
MOO3 WAS A GREAT GAME !

err...I mean it was a great PBW game dedicated to refugees from *****BEEEPP****.

Captain Kwok · #8 March 24th, 2004, 05:34 PM

Hey, if we can continue to support Aaron financially to make great games, then I have no problem with being part of a niche group without all the craziness associated with more popular games.

Ragnarok-X · #9 March 24th, 2004, 05:41 PM

Keep in mind this game was not buyable in a normal shop like MoO 3 und GalCiv was. In addition this game is going warez since the release, i remember it was downloaded thousands of times through networks like sharereactor. And it didnt even had ONE copy protection.

spoon · #10 March 24th, 2004, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Atrocities:
Why is SEIV such a nitch game after four years of success?

It's a niche game because turn-based strategy titles are a niche market. There just aren't enough people out there right now that are willing to play this kind of game. Think about how much time you have to invest to just learn the rules for SE4.

Now, being in a niche market doesn't mean the game is bad (it's in my top ten!), but it does mean you have a limited audience, and a very tight budget. MOO3 tried (albeit unsuccessfully) to make a game that appealed to the less hard-core by reducing the micromanagement you normally find in a 4x game.

It may well be impossible at this point in time to make a good 4x game that has mass-market appeal. Which is why I hope SE5 is more of an evolution of SE4, rather than a drastic change to the formula...