Pricing Suggestion

[gradenko2k]

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 disingenuous to assert that these pricing discussions and suggestions are coming off the backs of "random people who have never run a business before" rather than, say, Valve Corporation, which has been more successful than Matrix Games by several orders of magnitude.

[histgamer]

The thing is Steam gets what 30-40% of every sale or something similar to how the Apple App store works. So that's a pretty darn big loss of revenue to need to make up. Plus if they sell on steam they probably would need to lower prices which requires even bigger volumes of sales to make up for the losses there. It just is very likely not a good strategy if they need to double or triple their sales to make the same as they do without steam before even breaking even. Those are estimates obviously I don't have the figures but 30% is pretty standard for stores like that (Amazon App Store, Apple App Store) and I think we all can agree they wont sell anymore copies or not many more at present price points in a low price environment like Steam so they'd need to discount as well.

ORIGINAL: Alchenar

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.

True, but even if we drop the price argument completely there's things like 'you need a demo', 'get some free advertising by getting some mainstream reviews', 'use the massive customer base that Steam opens up for you' which would not be substantial costs but which would probably be successful to some degree. But instead we just get an insistence that even that effort would be wasted.

The thing is that if a company refuses to let me demo a product and also hides their product from the industry journalists, that sets off pretty big alarm bells in my head that something is very wrong under the covers and they want to hide it until it's too late for me to back out of a purchase.

If you trust Matrix absolutely then their pricing strategy is fine. I have a demand for wargames and the supply is very limited. But if you get burned just once with a game that turns out to be far more expensive than it's entertainment value justified then it becomes very difficult to be a returning customer. And that's a problem.

[gradenko2k]

ORIGINAL: flanyboy
The thing is Steam gets what 30-40% of every sale or something similar to how the Apple App store works. So that's a pretty darn big loss of revenue to need to make up. Plus if they sell on steam they probably would need to lower prices which requires even bigger volumes of sales to make up for the losses there.

That's only if you believe that wargaming is such a closed-off niche genre that you can't ever win over any new players and have to instead resort to gouging the "true believers" for as much as possible.

And that particular assertion itself isn't supported by successful non-Matrix strategy games and successful similarly-niche sub-genres.

[histgamer]

I never said it was not possible but I can see a businesses hesitancy to embrace something that would likely require them to increase sales by between 100%-200% (or more) depending on the title and price drop.

There are definitely some developers doing very very well on Steam but it's not everyone. It's probably more like the mobile app stores where you have 1% of developers striking it rich and the other 99% chasing that one big hit that goes viral.

I'm not saying Matrix is right but I can understand their hesitancy that's all. Steam or bargain pricing is hardly a sure thing for Matrix.

ORIGINAL: gradenko_2000

ORIGINAL: flanyboy
The thing is Steam gets what 30-40% of every sale or something similar to how the Apple App store works. So that's a pretty darn big loss of revenue to need to make up. Plus if they sell on steam they probably would need to lower prices which requires even bigger volumes of sales to make up for the losses there.

That's only if you believe that wargaming is such a closed-off niche genre that you can't ever win over any new players and have to instead resort to gouging the "true believers" for as much as possible.

And that particular assertion itself isn't supported by successful non-Matrix strategy games and successful similarly-niche sub-genres.

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: gradenko_2000

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 disingenuous to assert that these pricing discussions and suggestions are coming off the backs of "random people who have never run a business before" rather than, say, Valve Corporation, which has been more successful than Matrix Games by several orders of magnitude.

Really? Valve puts out games such as WiTP-AE, WiTE, and CMANO?.

If so, since when? If not, then why bring them up? No point in it.

These type of threads are started by people who have not run a computer game business. It doesn't matter what the price is, they will complain, as stated in a different thread.

I'll say it again. They have presented *nothing* to back their position. They have not presented anything that shows this company is on the wrong track.

Make the claim that they're losing sales, let's see the numbers.

Make the claim that they will make more money by cutting the price, let's see the numbers.

Show me what the profit margin is on an $80 game. Then show me how many more they have to sell to make the same amount.

Better yet, show the company that make a game as rich and detailed and complex as Command, for a much lower price. Oh, it must cover the same time frame too.

Some guy makes a claim that this price isn't going to bring in "new blood". Well, it isn't supposed to. That's why there are free games here. That's what there are lower complexity games for this "new blood" to dip their toe in.

[dutchman55555]

Well today I learned something new.

If I'm unhappy with the political leadership in my country, I'm not allowed to comment on it unless I've run for office.

If I'm unhappy with the advertising on television, I have to keep my trap shut unless I've run a marketing company.

If I'm dissatisfied with the treatment my hospital gives, I can't pipe up unless I've gone to medical school.

Otherwise I'm just a "complainer".

Wow, who would've thunk it?

[histgamer]

Complain all you want. I am not saying Matrix is right, I just think people have a far to rosey picture of what would happen if they lowered prices.

I'm not saying it wouldn't bring in new customers it would, I question how many. I think there are very valid concerns that Matrix has with lowering prices and getting involved in the race to the bottom and I don't think their games scale particularly well to a price war.

They COULD be very successful lowering prices, but I also think it could fail miserably and if done poorly enough could even end the company. The slow but steady approach may not be the popular one, it might not even be the right LONG TERM one but lowering the prices is hardly a guarantee of success either.

ORIGINAL: dutchman55555

Well today I learned something new.

If I'm unhappy with the political leadership in my country, I'm not allowed to comment on it unless I've run for office.

If I'm unhappy with the advertising on television, I have to keep my trap shut unless I've run a marketing company.

If I'm dissatisfied with the treatment my hospital gives, I can't pipe up unless I've gone to medical school.

Otherwise I'm just a "complainer".

Wow, who would've thunk it?

[Talon_XBMCX]

ORIGINAL: dutchman55555

Well today I learned something new.

If I'm unhappy with the political leadership in my country, I'm not allowed to comment on it unless I've run for office.

You have to at least vote ... then you can complain

ORIGINAL: dutchman55555
If I'm unhappy with the advertising on television, I have to keep my trap shut unless I've run a marketing company.

Or not support any of their products. You can complain, but if you continue to purchase from said company, how much validity is in your complaint?

ORIGINAL: dutchman55555
If I'm dissatisfied with the treatment my hospital gives, I can't pipe up unless I've gone to medical school.

Actually, at least in the US, reimbursement rates are being tied to patient satisfaction (or very soon will be). You better believe that they want to make you happy. And there is always malpractice.

ORIGINAL: dutchman55555

Otherwise I'm just a "complainer".

Wow, who would've thunk it?

Labels are never good. I prefer to think that you (and others) just have a different value/price point for this product than Matrix does. There isn't anything wrong with that ... we all have our value/price points for the things we purchase. There are titles here that don't match my value/price point. I wish they all did ... but just because I think that I know best it doesn't mean that they have to think the same.

Back to economics again ... Aint free markets grand!

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Hi Guys! I'm late to the conversation telling Matrix how to run their business. What'd I miss? [:)]

Nothing.

Well, it sure fueled another two pages worth of posts in a flash. Care to summarize for those that don't wish to wade through banalities for 60+ posts?

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Hi Guys! I'm late to the conversation telling Matrix how to run their business. What'd I miss? [:)]

Nothing.

Well, it sure fueled another two pages worth of posts in a flash. Care to summarize for those that don't wish to wade through banalities for 60+ posts?

They don't like the price. And think the company doesn't know what it's doing.

[gradenko2k]

ORIGINAL: Aurelian
Really? Valve puts out games such as WiTP-AE, WiTE, and CMANO?.

If so, since when? If not, then why bring them up? No point in it.

These type of threads are started by people who have not run a computer game business. It doesn't matter what the price is, they will complain, as stated in a different thread.

I'll say it again. They have presented *nothing* to back their position. They have not presented anything that shows this company is on the wrong track.

Make the claim that they're losing sales, let's see the numbers.

Make the claim that they will make more money by cutting the price, let's see the numbers.

Show me what the profit margin is on an $80 game. Then show me how many more they have to sell to make the same amount.

Better yet, show the company that make a game as rich and detailed and complex as Command, for a much lower price. Oh, it must cover the same time frame too.

Some guy makes a claim that this price isn't going to bring in "new blood". Well, it isn't supposed to. That's why there are free games here. That's what there are lower complexity games for this "new blood" to dip their toe in.

I could cite Naval War Arctic Circle with a base price of 19.99 USD and having been dropped as low as 4.99 USD through the course of sales, or Fleet Command with a base price of 19.99 USD and having dropped as low as 1.99 USD during certain sales, but I'm sure you'd just move the goalposts further to some kind of arbitrary reasoning as to why those don't count.

Which circles back to the idea that it doesn't count because it's not War in the East, or it's not War in the Pacific, because wargaming as a genre is some kind of unique, special snowflake that will somehow spell doom for a company that tries to pull off the same kind of bell-curve sale economics that have worked on so many other games.

IL-2 Sturmovik is deep and complex, but it isn't a strategy game about the Eastern Front, therefore putting WITE on a 75% sale every once a while isn't going to generate more revenue than just keeping the price high.

X: Beyond the Frontier/X2: The Threat/X3: Albion Prelude has a very niche appeal, but it isn't a strategy game about the Eastern Front, therefore putting WITE on a 75% sale means the developers won't be able to afford to continue the series

Train Simulator 2012/2013/2014 has a ton of expensive DLC behind it, but it isn't a strategy game about the Eastern Front, therefore putting the main client on a 90% sale every once a while isn't ever going to win any new customers

Hearts of Iron 3 is a deep and complex strategy that does cover the Eastern Front, and is Paradox's best-selling game, but that's just an anomaly, I guess.

In the meantime, Matrix is selling Unity of Command for 10 dollars more than Steam or Gamersgate or even directly from the developer is. What, pray tell, is the justification for this 10 dollar mark-up? Is UOC suddenly more deep and complex when bought from Matrix?

[Rtwfreak]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Hi Guys! I'm late to the conversation telling Matrix how to run their business. What'd I miss? [:)]

Nothing.

Well, it sure fueled another two pages worth of posts in a flash. Care to summarize for those that don't wish to wade through banalities for 60+ posts?

Basically a He said, She said, We said thread about pricing. You know these never mount to a hill of beans like all other discussions we have. This place is just a sounding board to throw away or waste our free time and sometimes give a little feedback Matrixgames and Slitherine might read or take into consideration from time to time nothing more though. Just a time waster like all other forums on the net.

[histgamer]

Grade here's a problem, maybe there is info I'm not privy to but we have no clue what Arctic Circle or Fleet Command made financially do we? If you do that's fine please show me I'm curious. However, are we assuming the games were very profitable just because they were heavily discounted? If they sell 2,000 copies for $5 each, or $250 copies for $29.99 despite our desire for the $5 price the $29.99 is the right decision for a business. Now you might have an argument if you can prove that the $5 price will get you more sales elsewhere but that likely may not be the case if the only way to get their sale is a steep discount that loses more revenue than it gains.

Also I really liked Fleet Command but I'm not sure how relevant that example is given the game was released worldwide in retail stores when the retail market still existed.

[histgamer]

Also I think another valid concern would be that if Matrix started limited deep discounts they would undercut their entire catalog and while some games might bring in more revenue, other games might lose revenue. Not all games become blockbusters and not all Matrix Games would translate well to the mainstream even if some do. Their fear likely is that if you sell some games dramatically cheaper than others you'll drive those who don't do well in the system away and it will hurt the company on the whole even if a couple of titles do really well. Their segment of developers isn't large enough that it would be wise to risk alienating half their base if the deep discounts don't work.

Furthermore the Unity of Command while annoying could have something to do with whatever their distribution deal is. For all we know due to the ability to sell a much higher volume Steam was able to negotiate a deal that allows them to sell the game for a higher cut of the game and in order for Unity to agree to sell with Matrix they were able to get Matrix to agree to a lower cut thus Matrix sells it at a higher price to make selling the game here financially wise. (Different cellphone companies sell the same phone for different prices often, for that same reason. I know my company has to pay more per device than bigger ones and thus we charge more for the phone despite it being the same thing as what other companies sell)

[Rtwfreak]

The minute Matrixgames starts to give deep discounts it when they will start on the spiral out of business because the smart shopper will start to wait on the bargain bin prices on the majority of products.

Example: 99% of the games I buy on Steam and Gamersgate I get for a major discount and usually for less than $10. I have libraries on both of games like Rome TW, Medieval Total War II, Empire TW, Napoleon TW, and about 50 others that I paid little to nothing for and waited for because I couldn't have bought them all at full price when brand new or I'd be in the poor house. I'd say the majority of consumers out there are like me. Can only ever afford a few games a year at regular price. At $5 a game I can play up to a 100 but at $50 a game you figure it out how many I can play. About 10 a year vs 100 which one do you think I will choose?

It's all about patience anymore in the gaming industry, anyone who is willing to wait can get and play a lot of games for the cheap prices. Those who gotta be first will pay to be the beta testers for the games.

If Matrixgames drops their prices to Steam or Gamersgate prices at discount I don't care how old they are then sales will plummet in the future. I already wait for their games to go to less than $20 before I buy because they have these Christmas sales and now these weekly sales. I will no longer pay full price for any Matrixgames product because of this and I'm sure there are many others out there like me.

Noooo they best not ever reduce their game library to $5 or $10 games or that is all they will ever get from the majority of consumers. It's just common nature for the common folk to save money, it's common nature for the 2% or wealthy folk to blow it or spend it on a whim. That's economics of today's consumer.

[histgamer]

RTW I mostly agree with you though I do buy some games full price particularly when they are indies I want to support. Maybe that makes me a sucker or stupid but games like SOW I feel like they deserve my support and I want more games like them so I buy them.

[Alchenar]

ORIGINAL: gradenko_2000
In the meantime, Matrix is selling Unity of Command for 10 dollars more than Steam or Gamersgate or even directly from the developer is. What, pray tell, is the justification for this 10 dollar mark-up? Is UOC suddenly more deep and complex when bought from Matrix?

I'm pretty sure the answer is 'Matrix have so much contempt for you as a customer that they don't think you'll spend 30 seconds searching for a better deal. And by keeping this community insular and isolated from the mainstream they're probably right.'

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Rtwfreak

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: Aurelian




Nothing.

Well, it sure fueled another two pages worth of posts in a flash. Care to summarize for those that don't wish to wade through banalities for 60+ posts?

Basically a He said, She said, We said thread about pricing. You know these never mount to a hill of beans like all other discussions we have. This place is just a sounding board to throw away or waste our free time and sometimes give a little feedback Matrixgames and Slitherine might read or take into consideration from time to time nothing more though. Just a time waster like all other forums on the net.

Roger that. [8D]

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: Aurelian




Nothing.

Well, it sure fueled another two pages worth of posts in a flash. Care to summarize for those that don't wish to wade through banalities for 60+ posts?

They don't like the price. And think the company doesn't know what it's doing.

Thanks. Sounds like things are well in hand. [8D]

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: gradenko_2000

ORIGINAL: Aurelian
Really? Valve puts out games such as WiTP-AE, WiTE, and CMANO?.

If so, since when? If not, then why bring them up? No point in it.

These type of threads are started by people who have not run a computer game business. It doesn't matter what the price is, they will complain, as stated in a different thread.

I'll say it again. They have presented *nothing* to back their position. They have not presented anything that shows this company is on the wrong track.

Make the claim that they're losing sales, let's see the numbers.

Make the claim that they will make more money by cutting the price, let's see the numbers.

Show me what the profit margin is on an $80 game. Then show me how many more they have to sell to make the same amount.

Better yet, show the company that make a game as rich and detailed and complex as Command, for a much lower price. Oh, it must cover the same time frame too.



Some guy makes a claim that this price isn't going to bring in "new blood". Well, it isn't supposed to. That's why there are free games here. That's what there are lower complexity games for this "new blood" to dip their toe in.

I could cite Naval War Arctic Circle with a base price of 19.99 USD and having been dropped as low as 4.99 USD through the course of sales, or Fleet Command with a base price of 19.99 USD and having dropped as low as 1.99 USD during certain sales, but I'm sure you'd just move the goalposts further to some kind of arbitrary reasoning as to why those don't count.

Which circles back to the idea that it doesn't count because it's not War in the East, or it's not War in the Pacific, because wargaming as a genre is some kind of unique, special snowflake that will somehow spell doom for a company that tries to pull off the same kind of bell-curve sale economics that have worked on so many other games.

IL-2 Sturmovik is deep and complex, but it isn't a strategy game about the Eastern Front, therefore putting WITE on a 75% sale every once a while isn't going to generate more revenue than just keeping the price high.

X: Beyond the Frontier/X2: The Threat/X3: Albion Prelude has a very niche appeal, but it isn't a strategy game about the Eastern Front, therefore putting WITE on a 75% sale means the developers won't be able to afford to continue the series

Train Simulator 2012/2013/2014 has a ton of expensive DLC behind it, but it isn't a strategy game about the Eastern Front, therefore putting the main client on a 90% sale every once a while isn't ever going to win any new customers

Hearts of Iron 3 is a deep and complex strategy that does cover the Eastern Front, and is Paradox's best-selling game, but that's just an anomaly, I guess.

In the meantime, Matrix is selling Unity of Command for 10 dollars more than Steam or Gamersgate or even directly from the developer is. What, pray tell, is the justification for this 10 dollar mark-up? Is UOC suddenly more deep and complex when bought from Matrix?

Artic Circle: As of January 23, 2013, support for the game has been abandoned by Paradox and Turbo Tape Games, who released a statement saying: "Naval War: Arctic Circle has reached the end of its development, and patches or DLC for the title will no longer be produced under the Paradox Interactive brand. Yep, I have to buy that one right away.

And still, it doesn't cover what CMANO covers. So you missed your own goal posta.

Fleet Command: A game form 1999. Set in the 1990s. Rereleased a couple of times. Once again, you missed.

Il2: An old game far past support. (I have all of them btw. Including CoD, not all that great is that one.) Again, you miss, it is not anywhere near CMANO.

Train Simulator: Really? The only thing in common between the two is that they're software? Another miss.

Steam and Gamersgate: How much money did they spend developing anything? BTW, Unity of Command? Really? What part of "Better yet, show the company that make a game as rich and detailed and complex as Command, for a much lower price. Oh, it must cover the same time frame too." does that fall under?

What part of that has *any* of your choices fall under?

Moving goalposts? You're haven't even got past your own 20 yard line.

You haven't presented *any* data that even comes close to what I asked for over and over.