Has anyone noticed that shops don't actually have a running cost based on what they sell?

[FinalMantasyX]

Running Cost- 300 dollars

Staff Wage- 150 dollars

Total: 450 dollars

Sales: 245 dollars

Profit: -205 dollars

Doesn't this imply that everything the shop sells counts as "Running Cost", which is a STATIC number that doesn't change? So a Loony Bloons costs 300 dollars a month to run whether it sells 1 ballon or 50,000?

Even Sim Theme Park on the PS1 factored the cost of every item sold into its running costs.

Here you can see that the profit in this game from 1999 is counted as a factor of [number of goods sold x sale price of goods - cost of goods]. Basic economics.

But in Planet Coaster it appears to be [number of goods sold x sale price - static number that doesn't change - staff wage] which looks more complex because it has more factors, but in reality is startlingly more simple because the actual cost of goods fluctuates depending on the number sold and is a static total every month regardless.

You sell 5 balloons? Each balloon cost you 60 dollars to sell, because running costs = 300 dollars. You sell 600 balloons? Each balloon cost you 50 cents to sell, because running costs = 300 dollars.

It can't really be this simple can it?

I can understand a static running cost to simulate electricity and upkeep and whatever, but to not even begin to factor in the cost of goods? Games in 1999 could do this, come on. Games in 1999 that didn't market themselves as the most sophisticated management ever.

 

[breezerHOG1]

in Planet Coaster it appears to [...] looks more complex because it has more factors, but in reality is startlingly more simple

this is true for much of the game, how many times do we need to see "gain X amount of guests" as an objective? How much does cheese or ketchup really matter? spending time on your scenery is not as effective as placing a bunch of the same object in a pile.

on the flip side, paths and terrain can be startlingly overly-complicated despite being the most basic functions. everything is backwards

 

[FinalMantasyX]

How much does cheese or ketchup really matter?

The Sim Theme Park screenshot reveals, too, how simple PC is in this regard. In Sim Theme Park (which was available on the PS1, I feel needs mentioning yet again), you could adjust factors like the amount of ice or salt, and it affected quality directly.

All factors went into satisfaction with the product and with the price.

In Planet Coaster there is no cost of goods whatsoever, it doesn't increase by adding extras (so adding extras is just a checkbox you have to click to make your store better without actually changing a single thing about it!!!!!!) because it doesn't exist, and every store has the same cost month to month regardless of whether it overperforms or underperforms!

 

[breezerHOG1]

yea I have posted about this a few times before

https://forums.planetcoaster.com/showthread.php/19421-Foood-and-Drink-Extras

 

[Kickflip]

Just now discovering this, eh?

It's a design choice so that the shops are more profitable once they reach a threshold and allows for the player to decide on a pricing strategy. Fewer sales with higher prices or selling more items cheaper, either strategy is viable with this method because you're not worrying about the per unit margins.

 

[FinalMantasyX]

I want to worry about the per unit margins. [cry][cry]

I am just discovering this and it's blowing my mind that a game from 17...wait, 18! 18 years ago! had more meaningful management in this regard.

 

[breezerHOG1]

Fewer sales with higher prices or selling more items cheaper, either strategy is viable with this method because you're not worrying about the per unit margins.

When I played RCT, I never cared to set the food options. I might raise the prices up slightly but I never looked at shops as money makers, there just meant to fill the guests needs. I also liked how in RCT you could set the toppings to optional. But I dont see how there is much strategy to undercharging in this game, I mean once you hit a certain price guests stop buying, theres a sweet spot for every price to make the best profits but shops are not where Im going to spend my time tweaking things

 

[seeker7]

It's probably utilities and maintenance. [big grin]

 

[FinalMantasyX]

It's probably utilities and maintenance. [big grin]

That's fine, and I noted that I understand that would be a nice addition- a static cost each month for utilities and maintenance.

But NOT at the cost of the cost of goods being a factor.

 

[Kickflip]

I want to worry about the per unit margins. [cry][cry]

I am just discovering this and it's blowing my mind that a game from 17...wait, 18! 18 years ago! had more meaningful management in this regard.

This is just more flexible and not far off from reality when you do real purchasing.

Just think of it as every month the shop orders enough supplies to serve every possible customer that comes to the window and at the end of the month the inventory goes bad and needs to be replaced (even the sci-fi radios and crystal balls, toxic plastic).

So you can try to sell them cheap and make it up in volume limited by the speed of your staff and guest traffic or charge more but have potential lost sales.

 

[breezerHOG1]

now your going to get people asking for stock settings [ugh]

 

[FinalMantasyX]

Just think of it as every month the shop orders enough supplies to serve every possible customer that comes to the window and at the end of the month the inventory goes bad and needs to be replaced (even the sci-fi radios and crystal balls, toxic plastic).

Ok, and the months where you sell a ton, what? The supplier sends you free stuff as thanks for selling so much of it?

It is completely illogical, if you're going to fudge this kind of statistic you can't do it this way. This is lazy game design. There's no other explanation for it.

There's no problem with an actual cost/sale system if it's actually balanced, but my guess is that they didn't want to bother to spend the time to balance that, and so they went with this. It;s a ❤︎❤︎❤︎❤︎ of a lot easier to balance "300 dollars a month" than it is to baance "however many things you sell times a cost per thing a month". Not that they did a particularly good job of balancing things to begin with.

The proper way to fudge this is to simply make it like in Sim Theme Park- If you sell 10, you bought 10 and made profit from 10. If you sell 50,000, you bought 50,000, and made profit from 50,000. Even though that's impossible in real life, as stock has to be present before you sell it, it's a ❤︎❤︎❤︎❤︎ of a lot better than "every month costs the same no matter what".

 

[AUS_Twisted]

This is so trivial, I mean seriously. What else is next...

 

[breezerHOG1]

@FMX - I admit this seems like lazy programming, or the devs were thinking it would be easier to not complicate things, but this is a minor detail not a game breaker. There are other ways to improve the game without worrying about this one little thing.

 

[Kickflip]

Ok, and the months where you sell a ton, what? The supplier sends you free stuff as thanks for selling so much of it?

It is completely illogical, if you're going to fudge this kind of statistic you can't do it this way. This is lazy game design. There's no other explanation for it.

There's no problem with an actual cost/sale system if it's actually balanced, but my guess is that they didn't want to bother to spend the time to balance that, and so they went with this. It;s a ❤︎❤︎❤︎❤︎ of a lot easier to balance "300 dollars a month" than it is to baance "however many things you sell times a cost per thing a month". Not that they did a particularly good job of balancing things to begin with.

The proper way to fudge this is to simply make it like in Sim Theme Park- If you sell 10, you bought 10 and made profit from 10. If you sell 50,000, you bought 50,000, and made profit from 50,000. Even though that's impossible in real life, as stock has to be present before you sell it, it's a ❤︎❤︎❤︎❤︎ of a lot better than "every month costs the same no matter what".

You're buying enough to cover the month even when you sell a ton. You just waste a lot every month that you don't sell. But it's fine because you made enough to cover the bulk purchases frozen meat patties and boxes of soda syrup.

The per unit purchasing is actually less realistic and forces the player to worry about unit margins. Just worry about selling enough to cover the bulk purchase of goods.

 

[FinalMantasyX]

The per unit purchasing is actually less realistic and forces the player to worry about unit margins.

How in the ❤︎❤︎❤︎❤︎ is that a bad thing?

All it does is set a minimum number of sales a month required to keep a profit over other running costs like staff.

How on earth is knowing how much it costs to sell something and that cost mattering a bad thing?

The way it is now, once you sell a certain amount of things, every single one sold is PURE PROFIT. This certainly has to have an impact on the game's "you have too much money at all time" problem, for one thing. If every single item sold had a minimal profit, instead of eventually every single item sold being 15 dollars profit, the game's balance would benefit, not suffer!

You're buying enough to cover the month even when you sell a ton.

So when 1,200 people buy burgers from me with every topping applied as heavily as possible, it still only costs me however many hundred dollars? There's a limit where your "Just think of it like something that isn't happening is happening" stuff stops working, and it's VERY low, because these are really low running costs.

If all you're here to do is say "Just pretend that X or Y is happening", take it elsewhere, because you're taking a simplified game mechanic that is objectively less in depth than an 18 year old PS1 game and justifying it with "Just pretend! Just play mental gymnastics pretend and it's all fine!"

As well, this system TRIVIALIZES the extras system, sow hat's you're excuse for that? What do I have to pretend to make the extras system make sense? All this means is that the extras system checkboxes might as well say "Check this box to make people happier" because that's literally all it does if more extras doesn't mean more running costs.

I was promised the next evolution in coaster game management simulation gameplay evolved that matters, and I don't believe "This shop costs this much to run every month whether you sell 2 things or 4,000 things" falls in line with that expectation and is exceptionally simplistic. Sim Theme Park on the PS1 has more in depth shop management than "The Next Evolution" and "Simulation Evolved" and "Management Matters" planet coaster, and that is ridiculous.

This is just another thing to add to the big list of unrealized mechanics that prove the developers of this game did not want to spend any time on management or game balance, and that makes it an issue. They're never going to change this, they're never going to fix this.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

Adding extras does increase running costs though. But not much.
Some extras do have an effect, like salt, vinegar, and chili sauce make people thirsty.

Ice, on the other hand lowers running costs. I have not checked to see if it makes the drink less quenching though.

 

[Kickflip]

How in the ❤︎❤︎❤︎❤︎ is that a bad thing?

All it does is set a minimum number of sales a month required to keep a profit over other running costs like staff.

How on earth is knowing how much it costs to sell something and that cost mattering a bad thing?

The way it is now, once you sell a certain amount of things, every single one sold is PURE PROFIT. This certainly has to have an impact on the game's "you have too much money at all time" problem, for one thing. If every single item sold had a minimal profit, instead of eventually every single item sold being 15 dollars profit, the game's balance would benefit, not suffer!



So when 1,200 people buy burgers from me with every topping applied as heavily as possible, it still only costs me however many hundred dollars? There's a limit where your "Just think of it like something that isn't happening is happening" stuff stops working, and it's VERY low, because these are really low running costs.

If all you're here to do is say "Just pretend that X or Y is happening", take it elsewhere, because you're taking a simplified game mechanic that is objectively less in depth than an 18 year old PS1 game and justifying it with "Just pretend! Just play mental gymnastics pretend and it's all fine!"

As well, this system TRIVIALIZES the extras system, sow hat's you're excuse for that? What do I have to pretend to make the extras system make sense? All this means is that the extras system checkboxes might as well say "Check this box to make people happier" because that's literally all it does if more extras doesn't mean more running costs.

I was promised the next evolution in coaster game management simulation gameplay evolved that matters, and I don't believe "This shop costs this much to run every month whether you sell 2 things or 4,000 things" falls in line with that expectation and is exceptionally simplistic. Sim Theme Park on the PS1 has more in depth shop management than "The Next Evolution" and "Simulation Evolved" and "Management Matters" planet coaster, and that is ridiculous.

This is just another thing to add to the big list of unrealized mechanics that prove the developers of this game did not want to spend any time on management or game balance, and that makes it an issue. They're never going to change this, they're never going to fix this.

This system allows two different strategies because it emulates bulk purchasing. Per unit costing is less realistic and makes a cheap volume strategy more difficult if not impossible.

Extras do increase material cost except for ice which lowers it. It even increases it based on the little, some, lots selection you make.

And every unit prior to break even is at 0 profit. You can rake in more profits on shops that sell enough units and you lose more on shops that don't sell enough.

Pure unit pricing is something you do when you want to make sure items are initially profitable and then step two is doing your volume analysis which this does so yes, it's literally the next level of managerial accounting that they pushed you.

And my busiest shops with level 5 staff that have a queue of 3 groups in line at all times only sell 200 units per period. So the cost represents enough to cover 250-300 units with some product mix calculations behind the scenes then the stock goes bad and you get the same quantity the next period.

 

[AUS_Twisted]

There's constructive criticism and there's whinging for the sake of it, this thread is the later.

What do you want a small shops retail simulator? your argument is pretty unrealistic anyway.

 

[Costarring]

There's constructive criticism and there's whinging for the sake of it, this thread is the later.

What do you want a small shops retail simulator? your argument is pretty unrealistic anyway.

It is constructive criticism after the high profile announcements of "Management is at the heart of the game" & "Simulation evolved" etc. and the requests for better management after release.
I feel deflated by the management side of the game as well (though I am not as vocal as BJ and FMX)

I didn't pre-order untill those announcements (~open beta) and then I got disappointed after all.
The worst part is no reflection from Frontier, even after many requests.

We got some UI improvements, but that is NOT deeper management