Pricing Suggestion

[wodin]

It's unlikely CM:MANO will attract new blood, and it could have attracted ALOT of new blood. Though the developers and publishers really don't seem to care about that at all. SHame.

Also how come this thread got moved out of the Command forum?

DSwargamer?? A woman? Really?

[aaatoysandmore]

at the risk of sounding like a wom.....stup.... and dumb.....what is CM:Mano?: Wodin?

[Talon_XBMCX]

ORIGINAL: wodin

It's unlikely CM:MANO will attract new blood, and it could have attracted ALOT of new blood. Though the developers and publishers really don't seem to care about that at all. SHame.

Also how come this thread got moved out of the Command forum?

DSwargamer?? A woman? Really?

It got moved because it became about pricing strategies and business instead of the game. Eric moved it around page 22 I think.

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Aurelian I think we’ve been here before… [:D]

The same old arguments just go round and round in circles. The one about “it’s a fact that if you reduce prices you get more customers” sums up the pointlessness of the thread. If life was that simple why doesn’t every company do that? Hey great, no retailer ever goes out of business!! Right…….

Matrix is a private company, no doubt with investors, shareholders (maybe the bank) all of whom they have to keep happy. They are NOT a charity. They also live in the free world and we have a free market. This means they have to balance price with consumer demand, competition, the size of the market place etc.

If they get it wrong there may be no Matrix in future, if they get it right, they will hopefully be around for some time yet. But it’s the right of the people who invest their cash and hold the risk to set the price. Our investment is limited to what we pay for games. If we don’t like it, then we shouldn't invest.

As for the Beta tester point, come on! We’ve all been around long enough to know the reality. Clearly enough people buy product day 1 for the practice to continue. If we didn’t then maybe it would stop and you wouldn’t have issues like Rome II or Empires in Arms or … just about every game I know (how many do not need patches exactly?). But that’s our (the consumers) choice and enough of us continue to buy day 1. If we become unpaid Beta Testers as a result, well, buyer beware!

Warspite1, yes we have

And they bring nothing to back up their "facts".

To quote Ian from another thread:

1) Follow a business plan based on 13 years of running a successful company and over 20 years in the games industry.
2) Follow a business plan based on what a journalist and our fans (none of whom to my knowledge have ever made a game or run computer game publisher) suggest because we don't have the guts to follow our beliefs.

I know which option I will be choosing

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: wodin

It's unlikely CM:MANO will attract new blood, and it could have attracted ALOT of new blood. Though the developers and publishers really don't seem to care about that at all. SHame.

And you have all the data to back that up, right?

[Alchenar]

ORIGINAL: Aurelian
Warspite1, yes we have

And they bring nothing to back up their "facts".

To quote Ian from another thread:

1) Follow a business plan based on 13 years of running a successful company and over 20 years in the games industry.
2) Follow a business plan based on what a journalist and our fans (none of whom to my knowledge have ever made a game or run computer game publisher) suggest because we don't have the guts to follow our beliefs.

I know which option I will be choosing

It's just as fair to say that if your business plan hasn't changed substantially in the last 13 years then you are horribly behind the times. Especially given that the difference between now and 13 years ago is the availability of cheap, widely accessible digital distribution.

A business plan that with a few anomalous exceptions the entire industry has abandoned in favour of something that appears to be far more successful.

Sure, we're both just making assertions in the dark, but it seems the more suspect assertion is that the wargames genre is somehow fundamentally different to other niche and non-niche genres and that's what I'd like to see elaborated on.

[Hotschi]

ORIGINAL: Alchenar

It's just as fair to say that if your business plan hasn't changed substantially in the last 13 years then you are horribly behind the times. Especially given that the difference between now and 13 years ago is the availability of cheap, widely accessible digital distribution.

Hmm, why change a business plan when it works?

A company puts a prize tag on a product; as (potential) customer, one has two choices; to buy, or not to buy. That simple. And I think this is called "free market economy". Or "capitalism".

[Perturabo]

I bought BftB because of the demo.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Alchenar

ORIGINAL: Aurelian
Warspite1, yes we have

And they bring nothing to back up their "facts".

To quote Ian from another thread:

1) Follow a business plan based on 13 years of running a successful company and over 20 years in the games industry.
2) Follow a business plan based on what a journalist and our fans (none of whom to my knowledge have ever made a game or run computer game publisher) suggest because we don't have the guts to follow our beliefs.

I know which option I will be choosing

It's just as fair to say that if your business plan hasn't changed substantially in the last 13 years then you are horribly behind the times. Especially given that the difference between now and 13 years ago is the availability of cheap, widely accessible digital distribution.

A business plan that with a few anomalous exceptions the entire industry has abandoned in favour of something that appears to be far more successful.

warspite1

Because something is old does NOT always mean it is necessarily obsolete or "horribly behind the times" - maybe it still works?

On what basis do you say Matrix are not as successful? Why does it appear otherwise? Successful on what basis?

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: Hotschi

ORIGINAL: Alchenar

It's just as fair to say that if your business plan hasn't changed substantially in the last 13 years then you are horribly behind the times. Especially given that the difference between now and 13 years ago is the availability of cheap, widely accessible digital distribution.

Hmm, why change a business plan when it works?

A company puts a prize tag on a product; as (potential) customer, one has two choices; to buy, or not to buy. That simple. And I think this is called "free market economy". Or "capitalism".

He isn't aware, but it did change. Haven't seen physical copies in any of the stores I used to buy computer wargames in.

Downloading from here is also cheap and widely accessible.

[Xornox]

ORIGINAL: Hotschi

Hmm, why change a business plan when it works?

A company puts a prize tag on a product; as (potential) customer, one has two choices; to buy, or not to buy. That simple. And I think this is called "free market economy". Or "capitalism".

And that is what we are doing and that is the subject of the discussion.

They lost a good customer. That is the fact. I purchased earlier almost all games they relesed. None nowadays... The pricing is only reason. Probably there are too few of us, but at least they should now know that some of us are leaving. I accepted high prices for WITE, Command Ops and WITP AE, but they were high quality products, I was able to read reviews and test cheaper corresponding products. In this case, the high price is ridiculous. The game is new, it is buggy, the quality is low (graphics and UI). At the minimum they should have been released first a cheap version and extend it later. That way it is possible at least test the product at reasonable costs before purchasing.

[Alchenar]

I think the graphics and UI for CANO actually look about 5 years ahead of most of the pack.

Unfortunately that just means a standard appropriate for 2000 rather than a standard appropriate for 1995. This is just another thing the genre suffers from by not keeping up with what the rest of the video game industry is up to - it isn't just that there isn't the development budget isn't able to match mainstream games, it's that choices in UI implementation are made that simply don't match up to what everyone recognises as best practice.

[dutchman55555]

ORIGINAL: Xornox

They lost a good customer. That is the fact. I purchased earlier almost all games they relesed. None nowadays... The pricing is only reason.

At least a dozen people in this discussion have passed on purchasing solely due to price. Most have not even been malevolent, wishing the developers the best of luck.

The ones to watch out for are the ones who can easily afford the price, like yourself, but who will not pay it. That should be setting off alarm bells in Matrix meetings. I'll bet you it isn't, though.

[Talon_XBMCX]

I pass on a Lexus, BMW, and Mercedes due to the price. Nope ... no alarm bells ....

Bet if they lowered their prices they would corner the market.

[Alchenar]

ORIGINAL: Panman

I pass on a Lexus, BMW, and Mercedes due to the price. Nope ... no alarm bells ....

Bet if they lowered their prices they would corner the market.

This just isn't really analagous for... well every reason really. Nothing about the car analogy even remotely makes sense. You aren't even talking about an entertainment product.

[Vyshka]

ORIGINAL: aaatoysandmore

So, get your wallets out and pay up remember what happened to Avalon Hill and SPI. (and don't go blaming it on pricing it was you not buying enough of their products. )

I'd say the stupid lawsuit over Civilization had a lot more to do with the demise of Avalon Hill than anything else. SPI had some really poor business practices as well that set them up for failure.

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: Panman

I pass on a Lexus, BMW, and Mercedes due to the price. Nope ... no alarm bells ....

Bet if they lowered their prices they would corner the market.

Possibly. http://www.dw.de/bmw-best-selling-luxur ... a-16510066 from last year.

[Talon_XBMCX]

ORIGINAL: Alchenar

ORIGINAL: Panman

I pass on a Lexus, BMW, and Mercedes due to the price. Nope ... no alarm bells ....

Bet if they lowered their prices they would corner the market.

This just isn't really analagous for... well every reason really. Nothing about the car analogy even remotely makes sense. You aren't even talking about an entertainment product.

Really? The way people are carrying on with this you'd think it was more than an entertainment product.

OK ... just to make it analogous ... I spent more on dinner with my wife last night than this title costs. It wasn't what I would consider a high end restaurant and they didn't provide a demo.

Just because you don't think the price point is correct for the value of this title, doesn't mean that others don't (hence the luxury car reference). The marketplace will dictate what people are willing to pay. What good is there in expounding the fact that it doesn't fit your value/price point? Do you think the luxury car dealers care about my preferences? Are those cars really that much higher quality? A matter of opinion and personal preference. More people think they have that value. I don't think they are right or wrong ... I don't think the luxury car dealers are either ... it's just not at my price/value point. Seems to be simple economics.

Could they sell more for cheaper? Sure. Enough to make up the loss? Hard to say. Why should I care? If it gives value to me, and I feel it is a fair price for that value, then the price is right for me. YMMV

[dutchman55555]

ORIGINAL: Panman

Just because you don't think the price point is correct for the value of this title, doesn't mean that others don't (hence the luxury car reference). The marketplace will dictate what people are willing to pay. What good is there in expounding the fact that it doesn't fit your value/price point?

Actually the marketplace does not dictate what people are willing to pay. The marketplace should dictate what companies can charge. And only if they're focused on their customers.

Luxury cars have a specific market, primarily those who have money to burn, appreciate a product made with extra care and quality, and wish to flaunt status (I call it the Upper Class Twit factor). Even then such companies have to be focused on price, for if they raise it beyond their target market's income, they're in deep trouble. You can bet if they find a model isn't selling because the target market considers it too pricey that price will drop immediately.

So yeah, the Lexus analogy isn't a terrible one. As I've said earlier, Matrix only has a minimum cap on their prices, the sky's the limit in the other direction...as long as people are willing to pay it.

A better analogy might be the supercar market. Shipping out a few dozen units each year at £1 000 000 each. All you need is a few dozen people capable of purchasing them.

But that certainly doesn't do anything for bringing in new blood, or encouraging any but wealthy True Believers to stay. And that, when translated to our hobby, is seriously troubling.

And should that expected extra care and quality slip, or become absent, they will quickly find loyal customers turning on them and refusing to buy. I've seen several people, obviously long-term loyal fans, state exactly such a refusal here. So now it's not only the loss of potential new customers, but True Believers who have found their Kool-Aid to be quite sour-tasting.

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: Panman

ORIGINAL: Alchenar

ORIGINAL: Panman

I pass on a Lexus, BMW, and Mercedes due to the price. Nope ... no alarm bells ....

Bet if they lowered their prices they would corner the market.

This just isn't really analagous for... well every reason really. Nothing about the car analogy even remotely makes sense. You aren't even talking about an entertainment product.

Really? The way people are carrying on with this you'd think it was more than an entertainment product.

Exactly!! That all this is when push comes to shove. You don't need it to live. It's a game

ORIGINAL: Panman
OK ... just to make it analogous ... I spent more on dinner with my wife last night than this title costs. It wasn't what I would consider a high end restaurant and they didn't provide a demo.

And if you want the same experience again, you have to pay again. With this game, you can play it over and over. The cost of ownership drops.

ORIGINAL: Panman

Just because you don't think the price point is correct for the value of this title, doesn't mean that others don't (hence the luxury car reference). The marketplace will dictate what people are willing to pay. What good is there in expounding the fact that it doesn't fit your value/price point? Do you think the luxury car dealers care about my preferences? Are those cars really that much higher quality? A matter of opinion and personal preference. More people think they have that value. I don't think they are right or wrong ... I don't think the luxury car dealers are either ... it's just not at my price/value point. Seems to be simple economics.

Could they sell more for cheaper? Sure. Enough to make up the loss? Hard to say. Why should I care? If it gives value to me, and I feel it is a fair price for that value, then the price is right for me. YMMV

That pretty much covers it.