ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins
ORIGINAL: mekjak
When Valve first started experimenting with sales, one of their games that had its price slashed by 75% saw a revenue spike of something like 400% - that's revenue, not # of units sold. Pretty much the entire PC games industry has followed suit, and even console publishers are doing similar things. It's clear that Matrix/Slitherine feel strongly about staying the course, more or less, but I think the rest of the games industry have moved far ahead.
A couple of things to add, as this thread continues to increase. First, for folks who have already expressed their opinion on pricing - we have heard you, as JD also said here: fb.asp?m=3418024
I see a lot of new names in this thread, but also names that pop up in every price thread that has ever appeared, whether specific to a release or relating to all our prices, ever. For the latter group, I'd respectfully suggest that you're beating a dead horse.
We've tried many different price levels and discounts over the 14 years that we've been in business. Our data is not based on one price point. We're also very much aware of Steam's pricing strategy and also that it does not actually work for all games. It has received a lot of publicity and I realize that as only a few companies have released sales numbers, there's a limited amount of information out there as far as what works and what doesn't for pricing. It's worth considering though that we may also be considering the data mentioned here and factoring it into our decisions. Our job is to do the best we can for our developers and we would price Command at $.50 if we felt that would maximize their return.
While a lot of posts here assume that we are closed-minded, it's not that - it's that we base these decisions on data rather than philosophy and the data supports the price points we have chosen. If the data changes - either our data or sufficient data from external sources for similar games (and there aren't that many similar games), we'll change our pricing as well. This is not an ideological battle for us, but rather a matter of making the right business decision so that these kinds of games can continue to be made. When Matrix Games was founded, the future of these games was far from secure and releases were few and far between. I would argue that we've played a large role in the massive increase in the choices within this market over the last decade and that has benefited both developers and customers.
Regards,
- Erik
While I'm sure you have indeed done your homework, I believe I can safely say that the reason why so many continue to loudly disagree with you about this is that your responses (or at least, the responses of certain members of your team who may not necessarily represent the entire team, of course) indicate a few blind spots in your collection of data and your analysis. In particular, there doesn't seem to have been much research done on games in other small niches, apparently due to the belief that wargames are so unique and so different that any comparison with anything that isn't a wargame is a complete waste of time (I am a bit curious here - what games that AREN'T wargames have you considered in your research about what works and what doesn't work?) In effect, it seems that the data is glaringly incomplete in important sectors, sectors which are lightly waved aside as having absolutely no relevance - despite the fact that very good arguments can be, and have been made pointing to their relevance.
Then, too, there is the fact that your years of long experience are constantly bought up to show that "We know what we are doing, and we don't need to change." Not a terrible argument precisely, and certainly that experience is far from entirely valueless, but at the same time one can't help but think that centuries of experience with line-of-battle ships didn't help the Prince of Wales very much, nor help traditional weavers stay in business when the cotton mills started going up. Again, that experience is certainly valuable, but in this day and age it's by no means going to be a panacea by which you can convince all dissenters to keep mum.
This is what's pointed to when accusations are made by frustrated people of "close-mindedness." To be honest, if you'd simply sat back and said "We've done the research and we don't think it's right" and left it at that and never said anything more, you probably wouldn't have quite as much surliness - they may disagree, but they've got nothing to match against but one word against another. But members of your team past and present HAVE responded, and their rationales appear to have significant holes in them - holes which have not been explained in any satisfactory manner and which have generally been dismissed out of hand. You do not, of course, owe your community any explanation - indeed, you are not particularly obligated even to comment on any pricing disputes that come up. Having made the comments you have, however, I'm afraid you're going to have to be resigned to a certain amount of griping until the holes in question have been patched up to the satisfaction of most (not all, naturally!)
On a side note, in response to that last note of yours - you have every right to be justifiably proud of keeping the wargaming flame going during a time when it guttered and dimmed. On the other hand, however, adventure games are a genre that literally DIED in the recent past, and were assumed to be incapable of ever rising again, with much ink spilled to explain why. They are now back and prouder than ever, with no one company being responsible for their protection or their resuscitation. Matrix Games has managed something significant by keeping wargaming alive, but it does seem provably incorrect to say that without Matrix Games, wargaming would be dead now and forever. Had Matrix Games gone down along with all other wargaming companies back in the day, who is to say that market forces would not have led them to a glorious resurgence in the market today?
