Business Model

[V22 Osprey]

Scott_War, this isn't an RTS.

The only thing that BftB and the standard RTS(Command and Conquer, StarCraft, etc)have in common is:
Real-Time
World War II

I'm not taking sides in this whole argument, but BftB isn't really an RTS. It's a Real-Time wargame, a simulation. There's a HUGE difference. Again I'm not saying whether it's worth it or not, but there is difference in the type of games they are.

[Scott_WAR]

Oh, silly me,.... here I thought war games were usually strategy games,...therefore turn based strategy or real time strategy. Which is this again? It certainly isnt a turn based strategy game is it? You can put high heels on a pig, but its still a pig, it will just be a lot more fun to watch it walk.

[Knavery]

ORIGINAL: Scott_WAR
WitP is a game that is worth extra money, its a unique game, that you arent going to find anywhere else. BftB is just another RTS game among countless other RTS games.

I wouldn't pay 20 bucks for WitP, because I'd shoot myself in the head after 20 minutes of playing it. But that's just me.

Regarding Matrix Games pricing model and support... First let me say that after a lot of thought, I truly believe they have the best customer support out there. It might be due to their small size (company that is), or the fact that they really care about their customers. Either way, Matrix representatives and game developers alike respond to our issues, concerns, and inquiries. And with the market they're in, that won't likely change as Matrix is not likely going to grow into a Blizzard anytime soon.

There are a couple things I believe Matrix could improve on. First, they need to drop the price on their games after they've been out for a couple of years. A once a year sale price of $29.00-$39.00 on a game that's been out for five years isn't market smart. But a permanent price of say $30.00-$35.00 would open up more doors. And that's still extremely high-priced for a game that old. I know there's a very delicate balance in making money off of older titles, but lowering the price point will expand Matrix Games market to more casual gamers--not just the forum crowd that eats up everything released here.

The second thing that could be improved upon is Matrix Games signing some kind of QA agreement with the developers it deals with. Now, I've seen this more often than not lately. Some of these titles coming out are loaded with bugs. It's been totally up to the forum community to track and report them--some of them so obvious it makes me wonder if they were even tested. What's worse are the excuses of why things are the way they are. It doesn't matter what the reasons are, because it still looks bad. If someone at my place of employment doesn't adequately QA data that I'm ultimately responsible for, guess who gets the blame? That's right... me, and rightly so. It may not have been my direct responsibility to undergo QA, but it was my responsibility to ensure it was done properly.

These are just my observations, but in the end, Matrix Games is still a damn fine company.

[axisandallies]

ORIGINAL: Jeffrey H.

ORIGINAL: cmurphy625

ORIGINAL: t001001001

The developer should've stayed out the price argument...his curt "we're happy with sales and the price will not be falling" statement was an "in yer face" comment and just made me dig my heals in


He's explaining to you that retailers generally do not discount products that are already selling well.

I'm with Judge on this one.. I was on the fence, even though I had not yet paid 80 for a game yet.. but the reviews were so good.. but the 'smug' way that comment was made.. That shut the door for me.. I don't even think of buying now.. maybe two years from now if it's reasonable during the Xmas sale.. but now.. no interest

Well, it never bothered me. I happen to like the guy, (what little I know about him) and I honestly appreciate that he spends time in here in the GD forum now and then to see what's being discussed. I feel he got a rough handling from some of the forum dwellers and I wish I could apologize for the behaviors. I can't of course but I wish I could.

If the game does not present itself as a good value to you, don't buy it. Whining about the pricing, (or the dev's comments about pricing) as if it's some sort of personal attack just looks pathetic to me.

So your saying that no one else can have an opinion other than your own, and if they differ from yours or your friends they are whining? You should not apolagize for anyone except yourself. To be honest he i.e Erik should have stayed out of the pricing debate, and yes he did come off rude. When you have to defend your actions over and over again and explain why you did something, then yes there is a problem......

[Perturabo]

ORIGINAL: Scott_WAR

Oh, silly me,.... here I thought war games were usually strategy games,...therefore turn based strategy or real time strategy. Which is this again? It certainly isnt a turn based strategy game is it? You can put high heels on a pig, but its still a pig, it will just be a lot more fun to watch it walk.

Because RTS games are very specific genre. They are games that combine base building, resource management, unit production and combat on the same map. They aren't wargames. Not any more any more than Chess or Rock Paper Scissors are.

Real time wargames, continuous time wargames and phase based wargames have existed long before the cancer of RTS has appeared.

Anyway, so where are all these continuous time wargames with command and control that you were talking about?

EDIT:
Never mind, 6/10, would rage again. Feigning innocence was a good move.

[V22 Osprey]

ORIGINAL: Scott_WAR

Oh, silly me,.... here I thought war games were usually strategy games,...therefore turn based strategy or real time strategy. Which is this again? It certainly isnt a turn based strategy game is it? You can put high heels on a pig, but its still a pig, it will just be a lot more fun to watch it walk.

You are basically saying Battles From the Bulge is in the same class as Company of Heroes, Command and Conquer, and Star Craft. Can someone please explain to me how in any way possible these are same type of games?

Anyway, I'm not going to argue. Yes they both real time with strategic elements, but they are apples and oranges beyond that.

[diablo1]

apples and oranges at the end of the day are both still fruit so same food catagory.

[jomni]

Counter argument: BFTB is "real time strategy" game because it runs in real-time (that can be paused accellerated) and you need to strategize to win.

"[RTS] They are games that combine base building, resource management, unit production and combat on the same map. They aren't wargames."
EU, HOI, are strategy games or war games? What about Total War?
Storm over the Pacific, WITP has all of the elements above (except for real time).
World in Conflict has no base building... is it RTS?

Do we consider something as a wargame because we think it's more historically accurate and realistic than the common strategy games?
So do you call Company of Heroes a wargame?  Achtung Panzer?  Men of War? Theater of War?

What is the distinct characteristic for one to be a strategy game and a wargame?

Or should we go to the level of control? Strategic has resource economic management, Operational controls bigger units with less control on combat, Tactical goes down to squad / individual level units where you direct fire and combat. Based on this, BFTB is RTO (Real Time Operational). EU is RTS (real time strategy). Close Combat and Combat Mission Shock Force is RTT (Real Time Tactical). We haven't even figured out if they are wargames or not.

If you look at the Wargamer website... a lot of news articles and discussion in the forums are not about grognard wargames!

I think we have a bias for calling strategy games that has no mass market appeal and only grognards would love as Wargames. And we don't want to associate these games with what the mass market plays because we grognards are of a higher class.

[jomni]

ORIGINAL: Perturabo
Anyway, could you point me to countless games similar to what Panther Games make?

Not countless but I can name a few.

Shrapnel ProSim Games (closest competitor)
HPS Point of Attack 2 (Turn-based)
Flashpoint Germany (Turn-based)

Different era but same command and control concept:
Take Command

[sterckxe]

ORIGINAL: jomni
Shrapnel ProSim Games (closest competitor)

Got them - like them, but when it comes to the AI they're not even in the same league.

ORIGINAL: jomni
HPS Point of Attack 2 (Turn-based)

An unplayable bugfest even after all these years.

ORIGINAL: jomni
Flashpoint Germany (Turn-based)

Huh ????

ORIGINAL: jomni
Different era but same command and control concept:
Take Command

Totally scripted AI, but cleverly done so it's not immediatly noticeable (but does after a while). Gives a good game though and yes, it's the same command & control concept

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[V22 Osprey]

The definition of a wargame is and will always be subjective, but we can all agree that StarCraft, Company of Heroes, and Command and Conquer aren't wargames.

My definition of Wargame is: A Simulation of War using realistic battlefield conditions and situations. Things like supply, Command and Control, Line of Sight, realistic armor model, morale, and fatigue. A Wargame can be anywhere from commanding squad to command an entire country. It can be Hypothetical or Historical as long as all previous conditions are met. But Overall, it's a simulation and representation of actual war.

I think we use "Wargame" to differentiate our small niche of more hardcore strategy games from those unrealistic action games with a strategy theme genre the media created.

About War in the Pacific and Storm over the Pacific, yes they have base building and unit production, but look at your position. It is realistic to be worry about about building the right bases and production when you are a commander at that high of scale. It is UNREALISTIC when you a Company Commander having rifleman magically appear from little green tent with a star on it.(*cough* Company of Heroes *Cough*)

[vonRocko]

ORIGINAL: V22 Osprey



Anyway, I'm not going to argue.

For someone who isn't going to argue, you make some good arguements.[:D]

[Knavery]

Wow... Yet another thread derailed. Do all of you guys have A.D.D or something? Every topic I click on around here seems to be derailed a couple pages in. What's up with that?

[diablo1]

ORIGINAL: Knavery

Wow... Yet another thread derailed. Do all of you guys have A.D.D or something? Every topic I click on around here seems to be derailed a couple pages in. What's up with that?

I know what you mean Knavery but these ones aren't as bad as those who derail threads with their history books or history lessons about some subject we aren't even talking about.

[Widell]

Flashpoint Germany is not even a fruit by the apples and oranges comparison. It's a very nice game for a beer and pretzel session, and very, very good for introducing people new to this type of gaming (won't even touch the subject of RTS, Turn Base, What Not, so I bundle all "our" games in the same bundle for the sake of this argumentation). BftB, COTA and HTTR are just so completely different in all aspects compared to Flashpoint. Still. All of them are good games, depending on what you feel like playing the moment...

[jomni]

Gameplay-wise. Both FPG and BFTB are both operational in nature and encourages pre-planning, coordination, SOP settings. If you play Russians, you have to give orders expecting not to change them for several turns ahead due to the command limitations. FPG though is not realtime and does not have command and control features.

FPG is more like a simpler and more stable version of POA2.  But POA2 can be compared to BFTB because it's a full combat simulation with command and control, communications bandwidth, friendly fog of war, resolves each bullet / shot. Not real time but we-go like FPG.  Very buggy due to the detailed calculations.

Hey lets get back to talking business models.

[Scott_WAR]

One problem I REALLY have with the excuse for the price being so high was that it took a long time to make the game. Well, Im sorry the developer was slow, or took his time, or whatever was wrong with him he couldnt make the game as fast as every other game maker out there and still charge normal price. Even if its one guy doing all of it by himself it doesnt matter. I shouldnt have to pay extra becasue you are too limited in budget or too cheap to hire help.

In most industries you get a deadline,....not meeting that deadline means you get paid LESS not more. In fact raising the price because the developer taking longer than usual is an incentive for the developer to drag his feet..

[joeblack1862]

ORIGINAL: diablo1

apples and oranges at the end of the day are both still fruit so same food catagory.

Good shot.

[Jeffrey H.]

Since the subject of developer incentives has been raised, it's my opinion and concern that all this complaining about price will completely disincentivize developers.

From those developers that I have met, they are not wealthy individuals. In fact I believe only a very few of them can claim to be making a decent living off being a game developer from games sales directly. If they can find better things to do with their 'spare' time, they probably will.

Many years ago the big budget games moved out of our section, (the stuff that Matrix publishes) of the hobby and I doubt they will ever return. We are left with dedicated individuals who are doing what they like or what interests them rather than what enriches them.

So, when people make such a fuss over the price of the products, as if somehow they were personally targeted, I'm sure the thoughts run through developers heads about this hobby simply isn't worth their time, lives and effort.

[Scott_WAR]

Well a lot of gamers arent wealthy. Charging them an extra $30 isnt the answer.