Pricing Suggestion

[Alchenar]

You keep changing 'rich and detailed and complex, oh and same time frame' so that unless he can come up with a game that is literally CMANO with a different name you can reject it.

DCS:World and various modules is a game that's easily as rich and detailed and complex and covers weapon systems over the same time frame as CMANO. It is perhaps less broad in some areas, but more detailed than others, given it's rendering realistic air combat in full 3d, which CMANO does not. You can also turn it into a strategy game and include ground combatants (that CMANO does not) with Combined Arms.

Eagle Dynamics charge full AAA prices for all of their modules (and they've broken Flaming Cliffs down so that the individual planes are cheaper but the collection more expensive). And yet they've still gone to Steam and they still participate enthusiastically in sales.

[histgamer]

No point in arguing with a sound factual argument like that.

I state a valid and common reason pricing is different in many products and you respond by completely dismissing that with a personal opinion and no justification other than what you Think and no facts.

ORIGINAL: 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.'

[Alchenar]

ORIGINAL: flanyboy

No point in arguing with a sound factual argument like that.

I state a valid and common reason pricing is different in many products and you respond by completely dismissing that with a personal opinion and no justification other than what you Think and no facts.

I wasn't addressing you but you seem to be upset so here we go:

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.

What you are suggesting here is that the people making good wargames should effectively 'take one for the team' and agree to run cover for the people making bad wargames.

This isn't just unfair and hurts the chances of the people making good wargames being successful, it means more bad wargames.


e: also I'm not going to defend Arctic Circle. It was a bad game and flopped. It shouldn't be in this discussion.

[histgamer]

That's not what I was saying at all. I'm saying that matrix has variety in the games it sells. WITP is a good game IMHO but you'd never convince 90+% of steam users to play it no matter the price. Panzer Corps or Battle Academy would more likely appeal to a wider base and do we at bargain prices. Matrix could risk compromising their catalog by having two different marketing tactics. If they had a catalog of 200 games they could do that but as a smaller producer they likely are not large enough to effectively market and target two totally different customer sets.

[Alchenar]

ORIGINAL: flanyboy

That's not what I was saying at all. I'm saying that matrix has variety in the games it sells. WITP is a good game IMHO but you'd never convince 90+% of steam users to play it no matter the price. Panzer Corps or Battle Academy would more likely appeal to a wider base and do we at bargain prices. Matrix could risk compromising their catalog by having two different marketing tactics. If they had a catalog of 200 games they could do that but as a smaller producer they likely are not large enough to effectively market and target two totally different customer sets.

Steam has 50 million users. You need to stop and think about that for a moment because it's a staggering number. Forget the 10% you picked out of a hat, if you only attract the attention of 0.01% of the userbase then that's still 5000 potential sales. That's why virtually everyone except Matrix (and EA, for their own reasons) agrees that getting yourself onto Steam is a game-changing experience in terms of your business.

People have been demanding numbers throughout the thread so I'll steal some of Grandenko's thunder by stealing two articles he sourced (hopefully he'll forgive me because I'm organising another Decisive Campaigns game he's in) and posting them before he can:

Here's an interesting article about Dustforce: http://hitboxteam.com/dustforce-sales-figures

And here's one about about Defender's Quest:
Part 1: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/1 ... umbers.php
Part 2: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/1 ... mbers_.php

(If you want to be incredibly lazy, as I've noticed of some, then the two big conclusions that come from the data and which Matrix have rejected are:

Other Stats

Steam provides the most detailed stats of any of our platforms, so let's look at some interesting data from there.

37.6 percent
Steam demo-to-sale conversion rate

This stat means that over 1/3 of all people who have ever played the Steam demo go on to buy the full game. This speaks well of not only our demo, but also the Steam platform itself. Installing and playing a demo on Steam is often just as easy as playing a browser demo on the web -- the player clicks one button, waits for the game to download, and then she's ready to play.

and

Final Takeaways

Making good games is hard. Selling good games is even harder. So many factors are outside of your control, and even if you do everything right success may still elude you.

I used to believe that if I worked really hard and made something great, an audience would magically find me and we'd make a lot of money. Reality is quite different.

Sales basically comes down to a simple formula:

Eyeballs * Conversion_Rate = Sales

You can't directly control the ebb and flow of the fickle eyeballs of the internet. You can, however, control how many you capture when they show up.

So make your pitch. Tell them what you're about. Give them a free sample. Repeat nice things others have said, and if you're so inclined, tell them if it's okay for their kids. Learn all about what Tadhg Kelly calls the Marketing Story. Be human, be humble, be open, and if fortune is on your side, good things can happen.

And when you're done, come back and share your data with the world! It's scary out there, and the more information we share, the easier it is for the next developers to chart their path.

No they are not literally CANO in all-but-name. But they are indy games with niche appeal and the lessons the developers in those articles talk about probably are at least partially applicable to the wargames genre which consists of lots of small indy developers making something with niche appeal.

[gradenko2k]

The key takeaways from those two articles are:

1. Release day sales are still a big chunk of revenue: the "people will never buy full price again because they'll all wait for a sale" effect is exaggerated. This is especially true if you offer pre-order (10-15%) sales, yet another thing that Matrix doesn't bother doing.

2. Total revenue always goes up during a sale, even if price-per-unit goes down.

3. Demos are arguably a hit-or-miss thing because you're taking away dev time from just building the whole game period, but they are a viable alternative to selling a game so cheap that a person is willing to jump into it blind ... except for the fact that Matrix does neither - WITE / WITP / CMANO and most of their catalogue is expensive to consider buying if you don't already know that you're going to like a game, yet at the same time only Command Ops has a demo.

ORIGINAL: Aurelian
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.

Are you really going to argue "discontinuation of support" as a point FOR Matrix? You can still buy Naval War and you can still buy IL-2. Matrix just pulls the plug on their older games and refuses to sell them, period.

I mean, wouldn't it be great if the original Highway to the Reich could still be bought for 10 or even 15 dollars as a sort of "crippled" version of the Command Ops engine, to rope people into getting the latest title?

Wouldn't it be nice if War Plan Orange was marketed as a sort of introductory-level version of War in the Pacific to challenge the player towards theaterwide operations before throwing in carriers and strategic bombing and massed amphibious landings, instead of being so expensive that you might as well shell out for WITP:AE right then and there on the off-change that it clicks?

And wouldn't it be just swell if the actual introductory level wargame was actually priced like an introductory level wargame instead of having a 10 dollar mark-up in exchange for worse download service and worse DRM?

[dutchman55555]

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?

Nope.

I'm pretty sure they'd say, with a straight face, that you'd value a copy of UofC less if bought for a price lower than Matrix has it.

Seriously.

[dutchman55555]

ORIGINAL: flanyboy

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?

To extend the premise further, we will have no idea how well Command does financially.

The True Believers demand proof that the discount model works, all the time refusing to admit that they themselves cannot say that it works worse than the model Matrix has in place. They just take a cautious sip of their Kool Aid and declare the Matrix model superior, completely data-free.

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: gradenko_2000

The key takeaways from those two articles are:

1. Release day sales are still a big chunk of revenue: the "people will never buy full price again because they'll all wait for a sale" effect is exaggerated. This is especially true if you offer pre-order (10-15%) sales, yet another thing that Matrix doesn't bother doing.

2. Total revenue always goes up during a sale, even if price-per-unit goes down.

3. Demos are arguably a hit-or-miss thing because you're taking away dev time from just building the whole game period, but they are a viable alternative to selling a game so cheap that a person is willing to jump into it blind ... except for the fact that Matrix does neither - WITE / WITP / CMANO and most of their catalogue is expensive to consider buying if you don't already know that you're going to like a game, yet at the same time only Command Ops has a demo.

ORIGINAL: Aurelian
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.

Are you really going to argue "discontinuation of support" as a point FOR Matrix? You can still buy Naval War and you can still buy IL-2. Matrix just pulls the plug on their older games and refuses to sell them, period.

Not my fault you bring up games that are no longer supported. Or have reached the end of their development cycle.

Or do not cover what CMANO covers.

Let's try again.

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. edit: and that means, the same type of game. I didn't think I'd have to specify that considering where this tread started. Oh well.

I don't want to hear about a train simulator, (even though I'm a fan of trains and model railroads. Spent months playing RRT). Nor about games that are no longer supported or developed further.

See, the goal posts haven't been moved, you just can't get close enough to split the uprights. To do that, you have to provide the hard numbers.

[dutchman55555]

ORIGINAL: 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.

Seems to me there are a number of "smart shoppers" who are giving their games a pass all together, and voicing it here, with the current model Matrix uses.

There's no black or white, one model or the other, situation here. Steam has hundreds of games that start off full price ($40-$60), and remain that way for 6, 12, 18 months before there's a significant discount (33% or more). If the only shopper that Steam catered to was the deep discounter, patient waiter type, then these prices would be lower on release, or discounted within weeks. Obviously they're making money on full price sales, but once that "gotta have it" momentum is gone, and you want to sustain sales, discounting is one path to take.

I don't think anyone here is demanding Matrix become a clone of Steam. But Steam works, and works well...surely there are lessons to take from Valve.

Unless you want to see $90 become considered to be a normal, and later a bargain price here. The current Matrix model shows only the capacity for price rises on recent games. Even the discount codes for semi-recent games that loyal customers used to receive in their monthly newsletters have disappeared.

[aaatoysandmore]

ORIGINAL: dutchman55555

ORIGINAL: 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.

Seems to me there are a number of "smart shoppers" who are giving their games a pass all together, and voicing it here, with the current model Matrix uses.

There's no black or white, one model or the other, situation here. Steam has hundreds of games that start off full price ($40-$60), and remain that way for 6, 12, 18 months before there's a significant discount (33% or more). If the only shopper that Steam catered to was the deep discounter, patient waiter type, then these prices would be lower on release, or discounted within weeks. Obviously they're making money on full price sales, but once that "gotta have it" momentum is gone, and you want to sustain sales, discounting is one path to take.

I don't think anyone here is demanding Matrix become a clone of Steam. But Steam works, and works well...surely there are lessons to take from Valve.

Unless you want to see $90 become considered to be a normal, and later a bargain price here. The current Matrix model shows only the capacity for price rises on recent games. Even the discount codes for semi-recent games that loyal customers used to receive in their monthly newsletters have disappeared.

Did you not see the price of Sid Meier's Ace Patrol when released? $9.99 and a $1.00 off to $8.99 almost immediately and then in a day or two it was down to $4.99 on Green Man Gaming. So yes some mainstream games are starting off less than these $40-$60 prices. Let's look at Magic the Gathering 2014 also $9.99 at release (I'm waiting on a bargain price on that one myself lol) The fact of the matter is Steam works the way it does business and apparently Matrix is working the way it does business.

I owned a Hardware store in my life and I didn't stay in business giving stuff away. Of course I had some sales but you can bet my power tools remained pretty high. Not everybody is a smart shopper as well. You will just have an influx of them coming here if Matrix lowered their prices like Steam. A smart shopper isn't good for a business on the contrary they want everything 'cheap' and a good business minded person knows this. They also want quality too and the best for cheap. They are basically just cheapskapes (like some of our smart shoppers around here lol)

Steam caters to "all" types of shoppers, they are like your big discount stores like Home Depot, Lowes, Walmarts, Targets. You're wanting Matrix to be like them but Matrix is more like your ACE hardware store, Albertsons, and Krogers maybe. They just don't get the traffic of Home Depot, Lowes, Walmarts, Targets, for one they don't have the parking spaces and for another they don't want it.

You have to also understand the more consumers you have the more problems you have with them. It takes people to handle that much of a headache once again Matrix doesn't have that kind of employee base as a Walmart or Home Depot, etc. etc. So once again you are basically looking at everything with eyes wide shut. There's a lot more to pricing than meets the consumers eye than just the amount of the product. Everything in the equation costs money. Big businesses can afford it. Little niche stores like Matrix cannot. They need more support from us. So get out your wallet and fork it over. lol

[dutchman55555]

ORIGINAL: aaatoysandmore

Did you not see the price of Sid Meier's Ace Patrol when released? $9.99 and a $1.00 off to $8.99 almost immediately and then in a day or two it was down to $4.99 on Green Man Gaming. So yes some mainstream games are starting off less than these $40-$60 prices.

SMAP was first released, and did very well, on the iPad. Anything earned from a PC conversion is icing. Having said that, it doesn't offer anything near the content or complexity your usual $40-$60 game does.

ORIGINAL: aaatoysandmore

I owned a Hardware store in my life and I didn't stay in business giving stuff away. Of course I had some sales but you can bet my power tools remained pretty high. Not everybody is a smart shopper as well. You will just have an influx of them coming here if Matrix lowered their prices like Steam. A smart shopper isn't good for a business on the contrary they want everything 'cheap' and a good business minded person knows this. They also want quality too and the best for cheap. They are basically just cheapskapes (like some of our smart shoppers around here lol)

So (and trust me I'm not being facetious) Matrix caters to, and desires, no one but the stupid as customers?

ORIGINAL: aaatoysandmore

Steam caters to "all" types of shoppers, they are like your big discount stores like Home Depot, Lowes, Walmarts, Targets. You're wanting Matrix to be like them but Matrix is more like your ACE hardware store, Albertsons, and Krogers maybe. They just don't get the traffic of Home Depot, Lowes, Walmarts, Targets, for one they don't have the parking spaces and for another they don't want it.

So (and I'm not being deliberately obtuse) a business that opens itself to "all" shoppers stands to make less profit than a business that caters to 0.001% of them?

ORIGINAL: aaatoysandmore

You have to also understand the more consumers you have the more problems you have with them. It takes people to handle that much of a headache once again Matrix doesn't have that kind of employee base as a Walmart or Home Depot, etc. etc. So once again you are basically looking at everything with eyes wide shut. There's a lot more to pricing than meets the consumers eye than just the amount of the product. Everything in the equation costs money. Big businesses can afford it. Little niche stores like Matrix cannot. They need more support from us. So get out your wallet and fork it over. lol

So (and once again I'm serious here), Matrix could not expand slowly and gradually, gaining a larger customer base (and thus more money for staff, infrastructure and more expansion), and becoming healthier and thus furthering the hobby we all love?

It must, absolutely must, follow the path it has chosen, which is regularly increasing the prices of their products, shrinking (certainly not expanding) the number of people in our hobby, which then leads to even higher future prices and a quite possible slip in quality as budgets are snipped?

We have people here praising capitalism as Matrix looks at the very foundation of it and says "No, uh uh, we're fine with people walking away from our higher prices".

They address discussions like the high price of their games, lack of discounts on very old product, the refusal to issue demo versions, and the release of products often resembling Beta versions with "We know what we are doing, we will not be swayed, you are wasting your breath", and you summarize with they need our support?

They sure don't sound like they want it.

[RockKahn]

Why are you so worried about Matrix not making mega profits? I hope they do well, but I'm not going to let their profit margin consume me.

I don't think beating Matrix's business plan up on a forum is going to get you anywhere. It would probably be more professional if you'd write them a letter outlining your plan. If they're interested, you'll hear back. If not, it's time to move on. Maybe start your own game publishing company. If your ideas are sound, you'll do well.

[dutchman55555]

ORIGINAL: RockKahn

Why are you so worried about Matrix not making mega profits? I hope they do well, but I'm not going to let their profit margin consume me.

There's no mega in my worries, sir. I don't expect, or hope, that Matrix will become the EA of the PC wargaming world. My fear, however, is that it will become the THQ of PC wargaming.

[aaatoysandmore]

ORIGINAL: dutchman55555

ORIGINAL: RockKahn

Why are you so worried about Matrix not making mega profits? I hope they do well, but I'm not going to let their profit margin consume me.

There's no mega in my worries, sir. I don't expect, or hope, that Matrix will become the EA of the PC wargaming world. My fear, however, is that it will become the THQ of PC wargaming.

The only thing man needs to fear is fear itself. A great man once said that you would do well to listen to it. I'm sure Matrixgames and Slitherine are not listening to you. lol

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: RockKahn

Why are you so worried about Matrix not making mega profits? I hope they do well, but I'm not going to let their profit margin consume me.

I don't think beating Matrix's business plan up on a forum is going to get you anywhere. It would probably be more professional if you'd write them a letter outlining your plan. If they're interested, you'll hear back. If not, it's time to move on. Maybe start your own game publishing company. If your ideas are sound, you'll do well.

This bears repeating. (Not aimed at you )

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.

***************************

It's real easy to criticize the pros from the safety of the stands or the TV.

Put on the pads, get into the mud and muck, and prove you know what you're talking about.

[histgamer]

Can we also dispell the myth that just because steam has 50 million customers every game sold there is way more successful than elsewhere?

Steam is great but it's 50 million person customer base is smaller than the install bases on either the PS3 and Xbox360 (combined they have over 140 Million) and yet the console customer base wouldn't be a fit at all for Matrix.

Many PC game companies go out of buisness even today in the mega discount high sales world. There are many success' on steam but there are also failures which don't get nearly as much press. Simply proposing lower you're prices and you're golden is a myth. It works for some, it doesn't work for some. The question is would it work for Matrix. The problem here is it's not possible for anyone to prove it will work for matrix.

I think it's telling that Ageod tried to get their games on Steam and Steam refused to carry them. Clearly at the time anyway Steam didn't think their 50 million person customer base would want to play those types of games. Steam Declines Ageod

If Steam didn't think the games would succeed then why are we so sure they would succeed now?

Note: I'm not saying it's impossible I'm just saying people are so convinced racing to the bottom is the only way to survive, and it's not a forgone conclusion that they are right.

[Challerain]

Didn't they also try and get Panzer Corps on Steam Greenlight and it failed?

[histgamer]

ORIGINAL: Challerain

Didn't they also try and get Panzer Corps on Steam Greenlight and it failed?

That's what they said. According to Iain I think something like 50% of the votes for the game were against it being included. Of course the tone of this thread is people wouldn't believe that but it's not like we have anything else to go on.

[2ndACR]

Good grief this thread is still alive?

Dang folks get it right, if you don't like the price don't buy it. If you don't like Matrix, well there is the door.

Matrix has been around long enough now that they know what they are doing, and it is their business. I see the same threads in every game forum here upon a release. If they price at 19.95 folks ask "why so much". I have not bought a non Matrix game since I joined way back when. I generally bite my tongue on the price issues, but think I am on page 2-3 with a "geez Erik, getting up there" comment.

I keep buying Matrix for the simple fact that I have yet to buy a game that was not supported long after release. Way longer than 90% of the other companies out there support their games. I have yet to be burned by Matrix on any game. I got burned horribly by Atari (prob no need to name that horrible release), I am not a CA fan in any way, I will not touch Steam to save my life. So I don't go to those locations and dang sure don't sit on their forum griping about them.

Basically, everyone quit wearing out your keyboard over the issue, it is not going to change anything.