Pricing

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: dutchman55555

ORIGINAL: Iain McNeil

nobody has the right to sell the games any more except us. We own them exclusively now. We are the only place it can be legitimately bought. All other sellers have been contacted and asked to remove the games from sale. If we allow others to sell it will be at the same price as us.

and

I'm sure once you look at the big picture you'll understand the logic and why sensible prices are needed to ensure ongoing development. After all there is a reason that Paradox split from Ageod - their business model just didn't work and was losing money every month. If you want these type of games you need to expect to pay a reasonable price. That's just common sense.

Thanks for you understanding while we move to rationalize the pricing and remove the games from sale on other sites. In the next couple of months everything will be completely unified and we hope to have the games removed from sale everywhere else.

The above is a monopoly.

No it is not a monopoly. They do not own the market. They do not control the market. They are not stopping NWS from making their games. Or Paradox, or Decision Games, (yes they have a few computer games.) Or anyone else for that matter.

Since they *own* Pride of Nations, they get to determine who gets to sell it. You do know that they haven't been in brick and mortar retail stores for quite awhile? (I bought UV at EB long before it became Gamestop. I bought BoB II Wings of Victory from Circuit City before they went under. That one was *before* MG got it.)

Never heard anyone complaining that they can't buy WiTP-AE from Walmart for example.

[dutchman55555]

ORIGINAL: Fascist Dog

I bought 'Rise of Prussia' last weekend at the full price directly from the company and will probably pick up 'Revolution Under Siege' at some point in the next couple of months too.

I snagged RoP for $3.99 on Steam a few months ago. This was after it had been available there for 2 years. When it becomes available on Matrix, what price will it be at? After two years on Matrix what price will it be? After 5? 10?

Again, assuring us that the only legal place we can purchase AGEOD games (and not new, upgraded, refreshed versions, but the same ones available for a few dollars a few months ago) is here says only one thing...the monopoly is alive and kicking.

I agree with others here...Matrix has made "it's a niche hobby that we have to charge an arm and a leg for" into a self-fulfilling prophecy. Again, from the looks of it here (and on the Internetz in general, given my FB feed and my perusal of Tim Stone's article at RPS) there are a lot of people who have walked away from Matrix simply because paying premium prices for last generation's games isn't in their blood. Sure, there will be those who choose to drink the Kool-Aid, but even John Tiller has woken up and smelled the coffee and now charges $40 for his games (when for a decade he stuck to the $60 model). Matrix is a private company, it obviously has the right to choose the model that it has, but catering to a shrinking number of customers (attrition through death and disgust) by making old games more expensive will only guarantee that within a few years all they will be selling are iPad games. And perhaps they're fine with that, but it will surely come as shock and surprise to purveyors of the finest Triple Awesome Grape (tm).

[dutchman55555]

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

Since they *own* Pride of Nations, they get to determine who gets to sell it.

In this case they get to determine that no one sells Pride of Nations but Matrixgames.com. Hence my correct observation that it is a monopoly.

And that's fine. But they don't then get to imply that it's a service they're doing for their shrinking customer base, nor can they (successfully) pretend that their business model isn't dooming sales of the product.

If I have the only lemonade stand on the block and I charge $10 a cup, I have (for me) a fine business model. Now if I go around the block arranging it so no other lemonade stands can open up, I can't claim it's to serve my customers better or that "(shrug) That's just the way business works." Nor should I be surprised when my neighbourhood loses its taste for citrus beverages.

Again, about a third of my online game purchases are at full price (desire, curiosity, or goodwill from getting great deals in the past), but not a single one of my Matrix purchases has been at full price. Monopolies aren't for/to the benefit of the consumer, so why should the consumer cut a monopoly any slack?

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: dutchman55555

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

Since they *own* Pride of Nations, they get to determine who gets to sell it.

In this case they get to determine that no one sells Pride of Nations but Matrixgames.com. Hence my correct observation that it is a monopoly.

You are not correct, it is not a monopoly. To be a monopoly, they must control the market. Standard Oil was a monopoly.

They do not keep other producers of wargames from entering the market. They are not the only company selling in the market. They are not manipulating the quantity in order to get the price they want.

[kvob]

Thought I may as well throw in my 2 cents worth.
If it means survival for the company, then I don't mind a higher price. I can live with that.

On the question of lag...yes, it is a bit slow but it's still faster than sitting across a table and waiting for your opponent to finish his turn in a boardgame of something like ASL or 3rd Reich. It's just a question of perspective.

The problem I have with the game is that it is so damn complicated. I fire it up with the intention of playing a grand campaign and immediately break into a sweat when I see the challenge before me. It's like standing at the edge of a cliff with the intention of bungee jumping...and then reality smacks you in the face and you chicken out.

One day, I will get the hang of it but it may be a while yet.[:D]

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: kvob

Thought I may as well throw in my 2 cents worth.
If it means survival for the company, then I don't mind a higher price. I can live with that.

On the question of lag...yes, it is a bit slow but it's still faster than sitting across a table and waiting for your opponent to finish his turn in a boardgame of something like ASL or 3rd Reich. It's just a question of perspective.

I got a lot of reading done while waiting for my opponent to finish SPI's War in the East. I do the same with PoN, or watch TV/clean my firearms/do some dusting/etc. Nothing says you have to sit there and stare at the screen while waiting.

[DBeves]

ORIGINAL: dutchman55555

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

Since they *own* Pride of Nations, they get to determine who gets to sell it.

In this case they get to determine that no one sells Pride of Nations but Matrixgames.com. Hence my correct observation that it is a monopoly.

And that's fine. But they don't then get to imply that it's a service they're doing for their shrinking customer base, nor can they (successfully) pretend that their business model isn't dooming sales of the product.

If I have the only lemonade stand on the block and I charge $10 a cup, I have (for me) a fine business model. Now if I go around the block arranging it so no other lemonade stands can open up, I can't claim it's to serve my customers better or that "(shrug) That's just the way business works." Nor should I be surprised when my neighbourhood loses its taste for citrus beverages.

Again, about a third of my online game purchases are at full price (desire, curiosity, or goodwill from getting great deals in the past), but not a single one of my Matrix purchases has been at full price. Monopolies aren't for/to the benefit of the consumer, so why should the consumer cut a monopoly any slack?

You seriously need to look up the definition of a monopoly then. Merely repeating what you said doesnt make it true.

So you know ... monopoly is control of an entire market (whether you like it or not - that is the4 economic definition of the word) - not a single product in that market. Matrix monopolises PON in the same way ferrari monopolises ferarris or Bosch monopolises stereos.

To suggest that a company that owns and makes a product doesnt have the right to then determine the price it gets sold at or where it gets sold is just about the dumbest thing thats been said in the whole argument yet. Virtually every industry in existence does that ... what makes this one game so special apart from your desperate attempt to make a point ?

[DBeves]

ORIGINAL: J P Falcon

ORIGINAL: vonRocko

ORIGINAL: tocaff

The AI is a learning tool in these games and PBEM is the real test.

The mantra of all lazy programmers![:)]

+1 x 1,000,000! This is a tired and lame excuse used to justify many IOS games with an AI too!

You have presumably then programmed a game AI in the past. What is it they are doing wrong ?

[tocaff]

The AI can't match the capabilities of a human, at least not yet.

[Twotribes]

ORIGINAL: dutchman55555

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

Since they *own* Pride of Nations, they get to determine who gets to sell it.

In this case they get to determine that no one sells Pride of Nations but Matrixgames.com. Hence my correct observation that it is a monopoly.

And that's fine. But they don't then get to imply that it's a service they're doing for their shrinking customer base, nor can they (successfully) pretend that their business model isn't dooming sales of the product.

If I have the only lemonade stand on the block and I charge $10 a cup, I have (for me) a fine business model. Now if I go around the block arranging it so no other lemonade stands can open up, I can't claim it's to serve my customers better or that "(shrug) That's just the way business works." Nor should I be surprised when my neighbourhood loses its taste for citrus beverages.

Again, about a third of my online game purchases are at full price (desire, curiosity, or goodwill from getting great deals in the past), but not a single one of my Matrix purchases has been at full price. Monopolies aren't for/to the benefit of the consumer, so why should the consumer cut a monopoly any slack?

Another person that already owns the game complaining about a business decision that has no bearing on them.

[dutchman55555]

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

ORIGINAL: dutchman55555

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

Since they *own* Pride of Nations, they get to determine who gets to sell it.

In this case they get to determine that no one sells Pride of Nations but Matrixgames.com. Hence my correct observation that it is a monopoly.

You are not correct, it is not a monopoly. To be a monopoly, they must control the market. Standard Oil was a monopoly.

They do not keep other producers of wargames from entering the market. They are not the only company selling in the market. They are not manipulating the quantity in order to get the price they want.

The sale of Pride of Nations, at least as a digital download, is indeed a monopoly (as I have asserted all along). You cannot (indeed this is a Materineod point of pride) purchase it from anyone but them. They control the supply and indeed the price, and profit from it. Were this not the case there would be no grief with the situation, as it could be purchased for different prices from different retailers. And, once again, there is no example of a monopoly that I can think of where the consumer benefits.

[dutchman55555]

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

ORIGINAL: dutchman55555

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

Since they *own* Pride of Nations, they get to determine who gets to sell it.

In this case they get to determine that no one sells Pride of Nations but Matrixgames.com. Hence my correct observation that it is a monopoly.

And that's fine. But they don't then get to imply that it's a service they're doing for their shrinking customer base, nor can they (successfully) pretend that their business model isn't dooming sales of the product.

If I have the only lemonade stand on the block and I charge $10 a cup, I have (for me) a fine business model. Now if I go around the block arranging it so no other lemonade stands can open up, I can't claim it's to serve my customers better or that "(shrug) That's just the way business works." Nor should I be surprised when my neighbourhood loses its taste for citrus beverages.

Again, about a third of my online game purchases are at full price (desire, curiosity, or goodwill from getting great deals in the past), but not a single one of my Matrix purchases has been at full price. Monopolies aren't for/to the benefit of the consumer, so why should the consumer cut a monopoly any slack?

Another person that already owns the game complaining about a business decision that has no bearing on them.

And someone who doesn't own the game, indeed states that he has never played it, supporting a business decision that will see the hobby that he loves disappear.

(Just out of interest, when did I purchase Pride of Nations, how much did I pay for it, and where is it on my hard drive? I can't seem to find it. Perhaps the 300+ Steam and GG games are obscuring it, but with less than 10 Matrix purchases you think it would be easy to find.)

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: dutchman55555

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

ORIGINAL: dutchman55555




In this case they get to determine that no one sells Pride of Nations but Matrixgames.com. Hence my correct observation that it is a monopoly.

You are not correct, it is not a monopoly. To be a monopoly, they must control the market. Standard Oil was a monopoly.

They do not keep other producers of wargames from entering the market. They are not the only company selling in the market. They are not manipulating the quantity in order to get the price they want.

The sale of Pride of Nations, at least as a digital download, is indeed a monopoly (as I have asserted all along). You cannot (indeed this is a Materineod point of pride) purchase it from anyone but them. They control the supply and indeed the price, and profit from it. Were this not the case there would be no grief with the situation, as it could be purchased for different prices from different retailers. And, once again, there is no example of a monopoly that I can think of where the consumer benefits.

You can repeat it ad infinitum, but it doesn't change the fact that not only are you wrong, but have no understanding on what a monopoly is.

[Twotribes]

ORIGINAL: dutchman55555

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

ORIGINAL: dutchman55555




In this case they get to determine that no one sells Pride of Nations but Matrixgames.com. Hence my correct observation that it is a monopoly.

You are not correct, it is not a monopoly. To be a monopoly, they must control the market. Standard Oil was a monopoly.

They do not keep other producers of wargames from entering the market. They are not the only company selling in the market. They are not manipulating the quantity in order to get the price they want.

The sale of Pride of Nations, at least as a digital download, is indeed a monopoly (as I have asserted all along). You cannot (indeed this is a Materineod point of pride) purchase it from anyone but them. They control the supply and indeed the price, and profit from it. Were this not the case there would be no grief with the situation, as it could be purchased for different prices from different retailers. And, once again, there is no example of a monopoly that I can think of where the consumer benefits.

So Ford has a monopoly on new Mustangs? A monopoly applies to an entire type of business. According to YOUR definition any game company that rightly maintains control of their products and sets the price is exercising a Monopoly and that is NOT how it works. In fact US law specifically gives the manufacturer of a licensed and patented product the right to set the price and control that one specific item in the Market place. In the case of drugs there is a time limit that once met generics can be made, in other cases there is no exception.

[Twotribes]

ORIGINAL: dutchman55555

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

ORIGINAL: dutchman55555




In this case they get to determine that no one sells Pride of Nations but Matrixgames.com. Hence my correct observation that it is a monopoly.

And that's fine. But they don't then get to imply that it's a service they're doing for their shrinking customer base, nor can they (successfully) pretend that their business model isn't dooming sales of the product.

If I have the only lemonade stand on the block and I charge $10 a cup, I have (for me) a fine business model. Now if I go around the block arranging it so no other lemonade stands can open up, I can't claim it's to serve my customers better or that "(shrug) That's just the way business works." Nor should I be surprised when my neighbourhood loses its taste for citrus beverages.

Again, about a third of my online game purchases are at full price (desire, curiosity, or goodwill from getting great deals in the past), but not a single one of my Matrix purchases has been at full price. Monopolies aren't for/to the benefit of the consumer, so why should the consumer cut a monopoly any slack?

Another person that already owns the game complaining about a business decision that has no bearing on them.

And someone who doesn't own the game, indeed states that he has never played it, supporting a business decision that will see the hobby that he loves disappear.

(Just out of interest, when did I purchase Pride of Nations, how much did I pay for it, and where is it on my hard drive? I can't seem to find it. Perhaps the 300+ Steam and GG games are obscuring it, but with less than 10 Matrix purchases you think it would be easy to find.)

If games makers do not recoup the cost of providing the games they will go out of business. the danger of that is not allowing a Company to set its prices but rather forcing it to allow anyone that wants to sell it at any price brand new. Go ahead you keep saying it is a monopoly, provide with link the accepted english definition of Monopoly in regards business.

[rodney727]

Thank you two tribes for pointing this out. They simply overpaid for the rights. They want their money back to invest in new games (not this one tho). They look really silly right now. If they admit they paid x amount and at 24.99 if they sale 1000 units at that price then yes we will make our money back. The bottom line is again If they did any research at all they would have sold this game at 9.99 and we would not have any conversation about this. While every company as supporters such as yourself that are "yes" men there are others who see what the truth really is.

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

ORIGINAL: dutchman55555

ORIGINAL: Twotribes



Another person that already owns the game complaining about a business decision that has no bearing on them.

And someone who doesn't own the game, indeed states that he has never played it, supporting a business decision that will see the hobby that he loves disappear.

(Just out of interest, when did I purchase Pride of Nations, how much did I pay for it, and where is it on my hard drive? I can't seem to find it. Perhaps the 300+ Steam and GG games are obscuring it, but with less than 10 Matrix purchases you think it would be easy to find.)

If games makers do not recoup the cost of providing the games they will go out of business. the danger of that is not allowing a Company to set its prices but rather forcing it to allow anyone that wants to sell it at any price brand new. Go ahead you keep saying it is a monopoly, provide with link the accepted english definition of Monopoly in regards business.

[rodney727]

Also I will end this argument right now if you can tell me one computer game that is over three years old that is being re-released at a 30% increase in price with no major update or dcl added to it.

[dutchman55555]

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

ORIGINAL: dutchman55555

ORIGINAL: Aurelian




You are not correct, it is not a monopoly. To be a monopoly, they must control the market. Standard Oil was a monopoly.

They do not keep other producers of wargames from entering the market. They are not the only company selling in the market. They are not manipulating the quantity in order to get the price they want.

The sale of Pride of Nations, at least as a digital download, is indeed a monopoly (as I have asserted all along). You cannot (indeed this is a Materineod point of pride) purchase it from anyone but them. They control the supply and indeed the price, and profit from it. Were this not the case there would be no grief with the situation, as it could be purchased for different prices from different retailers. And, once again, there is no example of a monopoly that I can think of where the consumer benefits.

You can repeat it ad infinitum, but it doesn't change the fact that not only are you wrong, but have no understanding on what a monopoly is.

Cannot post the link, but they are all under "Monopoly versus competitive markets" in the Wikipedia article on monopoly.

"Marginal revenue and price: In a perfectly competitive market, price equals marginal cost. In a monopolistic market, however, price is set above marginal cost."

"Product differentiation: There is zero product differentiation in a perfectly competitive market. Every product is perfectly homogeneous and a perfect substitute for any other. With a monopoly, there is great to absolute product differentiation in the sense that there is no available substitute for a monopolized good. The monopolist is the sole supplier of the good in question. A customer either buys from the monopolizing entity on its terms or does without."

"Number of competitors: PC markets are populated by an infinite number of buyers and sellers. Monopoly involves a single seller."

"Excess Profits: Excess or positive profits are profit more than the normal expected return on investment. A PC company can make excess profits in the short term but excess profits attract competitors, which can enter the market freely and decrease prices, eventually reducing excess profits to zero. A monopoly can preserve excess profits because barriers to entry prevent competitors from entering the market."

"P-Max quantity, price and profit: If a monopolist obtains control of a formerly perfectly competitive industry, the monopolist would increase prices, reduce production, and realise positive economic profits."

Their exclusive sale of PoN is, as I have asserted all along, a monopoly. Again. monopolies are to the benefit of the distributor, and the detriment of the consumer.

[Challerain]

ORIGINAL: rogo727

Thank you two tribes for pointing this out. They simply overpaid for the rights. They want their money back to invest in new games (not this one tho). They look really silly right now. If they admit they paid x amount and at 24.99 if they sale 1000 units at that price then yes we will make our money back. The bottom line is again If they did any research at all they would have sold this game at 9.99 and we would not have any conversation about this. While every company as supporters such as yourself that are "yes" men there are others who see what the truth really is.

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

ORIGINAL: dutchman55555




And someone who doesn't own the game, indeed states that he has never played it, supporting a business decision that will see the hobby that he loves disappear.

(Just out of interest, when did I purchase Pride of Nations, how much did I pay for it, and where is it on my hard drive? I can't seem to find it. Perhaps the 300+ Steam and GG games are obscuring it, but with less than 10 Matrix purchases you think it would be easy to find.)

If games makers do not recoup the cost of providing the games they will go out of business. the danger of that is not allowing a Company to set its prices but rather forcing it to allow anyone that wants to sell it at any price brand new. Go ahead you keep saying it is a monopoly, provide with link the accepted english definition of Monopoly in regards business.

What you are doing is stating a bunch of opinions as facts. In your opinion they payed too much. In your opinion they didn't do any research. In your opinion they priced it too high and have no customer service skills or marketing skills. You know what? You may be right. Or you may not. But you certainly have the right to say it. Just like I can disagree with you without being a "yes man". In fact, I just don't give a rats ass. It's their company and they can do what they want and what they feel is best for THEIR company.

And as to your second post, didn't Ian say it was already going for 24.99 on the AEGOD site?

[Vasquez]

ORIGINAL: rogo727

Also I will end this argument right now if you can tell me one computer game that is over three years old that is being re-released at a 30% increase in price with no major update or dcl added to it.

I dont want to be pendantic (like others here). But why are some people always claiming that PoN is 3+ years old? Maybe Iam just bad at math. But wasnt PoN released in June 2011? What do we have now? April 2013 last time I checked. That makes PoN 1 3/4 years old or not?