I hope Matrix doesnt make us use STEAM to buy games in the future

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: flanyboy

I don't think the idea is new but consumers consciousness about it is different and the life cycle is becoming so short on a lot of these products that it will hurt the developer more. If a product goes on sale 30 days after release you're going to lose out on a lot vs 6 months that short life cycle is becoming more and more acute, Tomb Raider went on sale less than 60 days after release if my memory serves me right. What I think Steam has done more so however is create a storefront where something you like is always on sale so fewer people will be willing to pay full price when they can find something else they enjoy on sale for 90% off and just tell themselves they will wait for that product to be on sale. They are not specifically waiting for one game but rather just the next sale. That mindset can hurt. I know numerous people who will not buy a single game unless it's on sale and these people use to buy games full price all the time. Better for the consumer and publisher but not a trend the industry wants to see.

I don't disagree with everything you say, but I see it as a function of vastly more supply than in the old days. (Again, same as the movie industry.) Sellers are reacting to the realities of the market, which is BOTH supply and demand.

Also, the games themselves have changed. When I bought a game in 1990 it came on one or two 3-in discs and I could count on getting a month or two, maybe, out of it. Many games I was done with in a weekend. I bought Skyrim in the Steam summer sale last July, with all three DLCs, for $29.95. I have over 400 hours in the game so far and I have played perhaps 15% of the content. OTOH, I paid full price for AE and I have thousands of hours with it since 2009. On the third hand, I bought the whole Half-Life franchise in the Summer Sale and I have yet to even launch one of the games. So it varies.

FWIW, last week in the Autumn sale Skyrim without the DLCs was on sale for $7.50. Should I be upset? No. I got to play it from July to now, plus the DLCs. I like having different choices at various times in the product's life cycle.

I'm sure publishers would love for it to be 1990 again, but with modern games. They'd love to have six months or a year at full price. But that's not the market now. I don't blame consumers a bit for using leverage they have. It's what markets do. Then they adjust.

[wodin]

A privately owned company is just that owned privately with no share holders etc.

J D owns the business I think.

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: dutchman55555

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Right so if its that clear cut and that simple why would Matrix - who have stockholders and financiers with a keen interest on the bottom line - not simply go down that route?

Untrue. Matrix is a privately-held company. No stock to hold.

As for financiers I have no idea if they need to raise capital beyond their walls. Given how small...I'm sorry, I meant to say niche...they've kept their market, I doubt they could get venture capital if they needed it. I suspect all projects (since I've seen here and there that they are apparently on shoestring budgets) are financed in-house except for the usual loans any small business will incur.

warspite1

Eh?

dutchman55555 come on. So you are saying that a privately owned company does not have share/stockholders? How does that work?

Matrix will be owned by stock/shareholders - the fact they are not a public company does not alter that fact.

[mekjak]

ORIGINAL: Boomer78

Again, shall I mention EA, Walmart, or Microsoft?

You could, but none of those are Valve so I'm not sure how that's relevant. I take it you think Valve will eventually turn into an evil conglomerate and singlehandedly destroy everything we know and love? Maybe, but if we're going to engage in wild hypotheticals I can say that when I become president I will enact a law prohibiting Valve from doing so. Problem solved!

Seriously though, my contention with your argument is not that you are criticizing Steam, but that you are using an extreme doom-laden hypothetical vision of the future as proof somehow that Steam sucks.

Also, I'm pretty sure no developer has ever been literally forced to go Steam only. It makes a fair bit of sense for Paradox to move in that direction since nearly all of their revenue and player base comes from that source. As for competitors - there are a whole bunch of them. They don't come close to Steam, but places like GOG that have managed to carve out a niche for themselves have done really well.

The reason people like Steam is because of its convenience and feature set. It's DRM that manages to add value instead of taking it away (for starters, you don't have to email Steam support to get new download links). It's not because Valve is holding a gun to anyone's head.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: wodin

A privately owned company is just that owned privately with no share holders etc.

J D owns the business I think.

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: dutchman55555



Untrue. Matrix is a privately-held company. No stock to hold.

As for financiers I have no idea if they need to raise capital beyond their walls. Given how small...I'm sorry, I meant to say niche...they've kept their market, I doubt they could get venture capital if they needed it. I suspect all projects (since I've seen here and there that they are apparently on shoestring budgets) are financed in-house except for the usual loans any small business will incur.

warspite1

Eh?

dutchman55555 come on. So you are saying that a privately owned company does not have share/stockholders? How does that work?

Matrix will be owned by stock/shareholders - the fact they are not a public company does not alter that fact.

warspite1

So how is that ownership evidenced? Er by owning shares/stock (call it what you will) in the company - or is it different in the US? Or are the owners (share/stockholders) of Matrix a registered charity?

[histgamer]

wodin a shareholder is merely an owner. Typically business' issue stock to their owners are a way of representing ownership. My father started a business in 2000 and as the CEO and President he had something like 1 million shares whereas the principle owner had about 5 million shares. Those shares are not publicly traded but none the less companies represent ownership through stock. It might be easier to say JD owns 85% of the business while joe show owns 15% but most business' have shareholders even if it's only a technicality of how they represent their ownership.

ORIGINAL: wodin

A privately owned company is just that owned privately with no share holders etc.

J D owns the business I think.

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: dutchman55555



Untrue. Matrix is a privately-held company. No stock to hold.

As for financiers I have no idea if they need to raise capital beyond their walls. Given how small...I'm sorry, I meant to say niche...they've kept their market, I doubt they could get venture capital if they needed it. I suspect all projects (since I've seen here and there that they are apparently on shoestring budgets) are financed in-house except for the usual loans any small business will incur.

warspite1

Eh?

dutchman55555 come on. So you are saying that a privately owned company does not have share/stockholders? How does that work?

Matrix will be owned by stock/shareholders - the fact they are not a public company does not alter that fact.

[gradenko2k]

ORIGINAL: Boomer78

Again, shall I mention EA, Walmart, or Microsoft? Those companies are filthy rich, excellent at marketing, and in the past have created some wonderful products. They are also consistently at the top of the worst companies lists. I believe EA currently owns that title. Success in business doesn't negate bad decisions, poor future sales, or even bankruptcy. In fact, it's because of the arrogance of successful businesses that competitors rise up and take the top position. That's sort of how the cycle of business works.

Steam though, like so many other big players, doesn't like competition, and now uses its abundant resources to force developers to ONLY distribute on Steam. That's my biggest problem with them. Paradox has been releasing Steam and non-Steam versions of games for several years now, but as of EU4 they will be Steam only from now. That harkens back to the PC vs Mac debate of the mid-late 90s. Mac was constantly developing some of the best hardware on the market, but because of the wide spread use of Windows, there just weren't hardly any devs making games for Mac. Thankfully that has leveled off a bit over the years, and now we're onto the DRM platform debate.

If you consider these anti-Steam points to be contentious or frustrating, just sit back and enjoy the smug feeling in knowing that your beloved game distributor is now over 80% of the market and will probably absorb all others within the next few years. This isn't a debate worth really having any more. The battle's been decided. People... well, most people, like Steam.

Just remember that the future is a constantly changing thing, and someday when Steam goes belly up or changes course, and you find yourself with 90 gigs of Steam shovel-ware on your computer, you'll know that at least you bet on a winner. Because, after all, winning is everything? Isn't it?

It bears mentioning that EA keeps getting put on worst company lists because their Steam analogue, Origin, is a cheap cash-in that performs poorly, does not integrate well with their games, does not offer sales and discounts as often and as targeted as Steam's, and is basically a worse platform than Steam while forcing people to use a completely separate platform just for the hell of it.

It's frankly laughable for Valve to be compared with the likes of Walmart and EA when the latter are guilty of the bad business practices that the former routinely avoids: Yes, you have to play through Steam's client, but you wouldn't have 7 million people choosing to do it that way if it wasn't a hell of a lot more convenient to do so.

As for your calling-out of Paradox: Steam didn't do anything to "force" them switch over to Steamworks. They made separate Steam and non-Steam versions of their games, and then they decided to switch exclusively to Steamworks because keeping the 2 versions separate was costing them more money and effort than it was winning over Steam-disliking people.

Less than 10% of their Crusader Kings 2 playerbase was still using the non-Steam version, and people kept getting caught in "GOTCHAS" where they'd buy some DLC only to find that it's a Steam version and not compatible with their non-Steam base game, or vice-versa (EU4 was particularly bad at this with the CK2 converter)

Valve hardly forced them to do anything - this is an example of the company listening to the customer's wallets.

[histgamer]

I just hope GamersGate sticks around. I use GG far more than Steam and find it far more convenient. With Paradox shifting over to Steam I'm worried that even though they spun it off they will shutter GamersGate at some point. It's my understanding while they don't control the day to day operations they have a majority ownership yet one that doesn't allow them to dictate business policy sort of non controlling but near full ownership. I believe it's referred to as a Limited Partnership in the business world.

[Boomer78]

ORIGINAL: gradenko_2000

ORIGINAL: Boomer78

Again, shall I mention EA, Walmart, or Microsoft? Those companies are filthy rich, excellent at marketing, and in the past have created some wonderful products. They are also consistently at the top of the worst companies lists. I believe EA currently owns that title. Success in business doesn't negate bad decisions, poor future sales, or even bankruptcy. In fact, it's because of the arrogance of successful businesses that competitors rise up and take the top position. That's sort of how the cycle of business works.

Steam though, like so many other big players, doesn't like competition, and now uses its abundant resources to force developers to ONLY distribute on Steam. That's my biggest problem with them. Paradox has been releasing Steam and non-Steam versions of games for several years now, but as of EU4 they will be Steam only from now. That harkens back to the PC vs Mac debate of the mid-late 90s. Mac was constantly developing some of the best hardware on the market, but because of the wide spread use of Windows, there just weren't hardly any devs making games for Mac. Thankfully that has leveled off a bit over the years, and now we're onto the DRM platform debate.

If you consider these anti-Steam points to be contentious or frustrating, just sit back and enjoy the smug feeling in knowing that your beloved game distributor is now over 80% of the market and will probably absorb all others within the next few years. This isn't a debate worth really having any more. The battle's been decided. People... well, most people, like Steam.

Just remember that the future is a constantly changing thing, and someday when Steam goes belly up or changes course, and you find yourself with 90 gigs of Steam shovel-ware on your computer, you'll know that at least you bet on a winner. Because, after all, winning is everything? Isn't it?

It bears mentioning that EA keeps getting put on worst company lists because their Steam analogue, Origin, is a cheap cash-in that performs poorly, does not integrate well with their games, does not offer sales and discounts as often and as targeted as Steam's, and is basically a worse platform than Steam while forcing people to use a completely separate platform just for the hell of it.

It's frankly laughable for Valve to be compared with the likes of Walmart and EA when the latter are guilty of the bad business practices that the former routinely avoids: Yes, you have to play through Steam's client, but you wouldn't have 7 million people choosing to do it that way if it wasn't a hell of a lot more convenient to do so.

As for your calling-out of Paradox: Steam didn't do anything to "force" them switch over to Steamworks. They made separate Steam and non-Steam versions of their games, and then they decided to switch exclusively to Steamworks because keeping the 2 versions separate was costing them more money and effort than it was winning over Steam-disliking people.

Less than 10% of their Crusader Kings 2 playerbase was still using the non-Steam version, and people kept getting caught in "GOTCHAS" where they'd buy some DLC only to find that it's a Steam version and not compatible with their non-Steam base game, or vice-versa (EU4 was particularly bad at this with the CK2 converter)

Valve hardly forced them to do anything - this is an example of the company listening to the customer's wallets.

Convenience. Steam fans just love that word. Man, arguing with you guys about this is getting really old, and I've been making and have been hearing the same points over and over again for at least 5 or 6 years. Time and time again Steam users highlight the positives of Steam as a way to counter the criticisms and concerns that many people have about it. A good deed doesn't outweigh the bad. If there never was any concerns over technology, we'd have all gone the cyborg implant route long ago. Fears of monopoly, network instability, privacy issues, future install compatibility, price wars/gouging, hacking, all of these are legitimate concerns that people have about Steam, and all these years later hardly any of them have been addressed at all. But remember... convenience. Name of the game.

And as to the 10% of Crusader Kings 2 being sold on GG, well, I'm one of those 10%. I can only try and put my money where my mouth is and try and support outlets like Matrix and GOG, sites that work in open competition with Steam.

[gradenko2k]

I love how pointing out why Steam might be sometimes preferable to GOG, GamersGate and Matrix makes me a "Steam fan" despite owning 128 titles from GOG, 295 titles from GamersGate and 12 titles from Matrix.

Steam is more convenient to use than Origin. GOG is more convenient to use than Origin. GamersGate is more convenient to use than Origin. Hell, if it wasn't for the fact that you still have to download patches and input serial keys manually Matrix would be better than Origin. That's why EA (and Walmart) get listed as terrible companies and Valve doesn't.

Your assertion that Steam is also going to eventually take over all of these other companies isn't supported by facts either: GamersGate sells Steam activation codes for SteamWorks games, same with Amazon, same with GreenManGaming, same with a half-dozen other publishers. And you know what? Valve doesn't take a cut from any of those sales. How is that any indication that the company is some sort of malevolent force bent on monopolizing the market? The wide-spread adoption of the Steam platform didn't happen because Valve forced themselves upon the industry, it happened because the industry chose Valve. Nobody forced Slitherine to put up Panzer Corps on Greenlight.

[aaatoysandmore]

ORIGINAL: Boomer78

ORIGINAL: gradenko_2000

ORIGINAL: Boomer78

Again, shall I mention EA, Walmart, or Microsoft? Those companies are filthy rich, excellent at marketing, and in the past have created some wonderful products. They are also consistently at the top of the worst companies lists. I believe EA currently owns that title. Success in business doesn't negate bad decisions, poor future sales, or even bankruptcy. In fact, it's because of the arrogance of successful businesses that competitors rise up and take the top position. That's sort of how the cycle of business works.

Steam though, like so many other big players, doesn't like competition, and now uses its abundant resources to force developers to ONLY distribute on Steam. That's my biggest problem with them. Paradox has been releasing Steam and non-Steam versions of games for several years now, but as of EU4 they will be Steam only from now. That harkens back to the PC vs Mac debate of the mid-late 90s. Mac was constantly developing some of the best hardware on the market, but because of the wide spread use of Windows, there just weren't hardly any devs making games for Mac. Thankfully that has leveled off a bit over the years, and now we're onto the DRM platform debate.

If you consider these anti-Steam points to be contentious or frustrating, just sit back and enjoy the smug feeling in knowing that your beloved game distributor is now over 80% of the market and will probably absorb all others within the next few years. This isn't a debate worth really having any more. The battle's been decided. People... well, most people, like Steam.

Just remember that the future is a constantly changing thing, and someday when Steam goes belly up or changes course, and you find yourself with 90 gigs of Steam shovel-ware on your computer, you'll know that at least you bet on a winner. Because, after all, winning is everything? Isn't it?

It bears mentioning that EA keeps getting put on worst company lists because their Steam analogue, Origin, is a cheap cash-in that performs poorly, does not integrate well with their games, does not offer sales and discounts as often and as targeted as Steam's, and is basically a worse platform than Steam while forcing people to use a completely separate platform just for the hell of it.

It's frankly laughable for Valve to be compared with the likes of Walmart and EA when the latter are guilty of the bad business practices that the former routinely avoids: Yes, you have to play through Steam's client, but you wouldn't have 7 million people choosing to do it that way if it wasn't a hell of a lot more convenient to do so.

As for your calling-out of Paradox: Steam didn't do anything to "force" them switch over to Steamworks. They made separate Steam and non-Steam versions of their games, and then they decided to switch exclusively to Steamworks because keeping the 2 versions separate was costing them more money and effort than it was winning over Steam-disliking people.

Less than 10% of their Crusader Kings 2 playerbase was still using the non-Steam version, and people kept getting caught in "GOTCHAS" where they'd buy some DLC only to find that it's a Steam version and not compatible with their non-Steam base game, or vice-versa (EU4 was particularly bad at this with the CK2 converter)

Valve hardly forced them to do anything - this is an example of the company listening to the customer's wallets.

Convenience. Steam fans just love that word. Man, arguing with you guys about this is getting really old, and I've been making and have been hearing the same points over and over again for at least 5 or 6 years. Time and time again Steam users highlight the positives of Steam as a way to counter the criticisms and concerns that many people have about it. A good deed doesn't outweigh the bad. If there never was any concerns over technology, we'd have all gone the cyborg implant route long ago. Fears of monopoly, network instability, privacy issues, future install compatibility, price wars/gouging, hacking, all of these are legitimate concerns that people have about Steam, and all these years later hardly any of them have been addressed at all. But remember... convenience. Name of the game.

And as to the 10% of Crusader Kings 2 being sold on GG, well, I'm one of those 10%. I can only try and put my money where my mouth is and try and support outlets like Matrix and GOG, sites that work in open competition with Steam.

Yeah I'm with you as much as possible I try to buy from outside sources other than steam as well. It's just hard to beat some of steams prices though and that's the only reason I use it is for the low low prices on many games that I just didn't feel were worth $60. Like now I'm waiting on Rome 2 total war to drop in price to below $20 anyways and $10 even better. Most of the stuff I buy from steam are discount sale items. I'd never buy a game I paid full price for there. Even if it was the only place to get it and I wanted it real bad. I have my principles and I'm sticking to them.

I also don't like steams moderation with some games. If you voice your opinion (and I give strong opinions when I don't like a game) about not liking the game sometimes your thread and you get squelched. That doesn't happen here and I likes it. The biggest fear I have with steam and really just about any company that I don't own the game and they basically store it for me is the company going bankrupt or out of business and poof your games are gone. Nothing to show for all those years as without the steam client your games are toast. I suppose if that harddrive lasts forever that those games are on you're ok, but, even in offline mode I'm not so sure steam doesn't do some sneak browsing themsselves in stealth mode.

I just don't like anything that is "required" to make a game run (Net 4.0 Matrixgames). I got so many Net update files on my drive and Microsoft C++ redistributable files it's ridiculous. All dated in different years and all different versions. Why do we need all this crap.....didn't need them several years ago and games worked and ran just fine. I had one of them one time nearly 3gb's worth of just data, that's ridiculous....I deleted it. Everything still works so I guess it wasn't needed afterall. More spy on our computer stuff more than likely they just disquise as something we need to run our games.

[flibby]

Steam represents the best way to get new players involved in wargaming. Currently Wargaming judging by this forum wont last 5 years like this. Like it or not, we need some fresh blood and a new generation that sit on Steam.

[Alchenar]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
I don't disagree with everything you say, but I see it as a function of vastly more supply than in the old days. (Again, same as the movie industry.) Sellers are reacting to the realities of the market, which is BOTH supply and demand.

Also, the games themselves have changed. When I bought a game in 1990 it came on one or two 3-in discs and I could count on getting a month or two, maybe, out of it. Many games I was done with in a weekend. I bought Skyrim in the Steam summer sale last July, with all three DLCs, for $29.95. I have over 400 hours in the game so far and I have played perhaps 15% of the content. OTOH, I paid full price for AE and I have thousands of hours with it since 2009. On the third hand, I bought the whole Half-Life franchise in the Summer Sale and I have yet to even launch one of the games. So it varies.

FWIW, last week in the Autumn sale Skyrim without the DLCs was on sale for $7.50. Should I be upset? No. I got to play it from July to now, plus the DLCs. I like having different choices at various times in the product's life cycle.

I'm sure publishers would love for it to be 1990 again, but with modern games. They'd love to have six months or a year at full price. But that's not the market now. I don't blame consumers a bit for using leverage they have. It's what markets do. Then they adjust.

Yeah, the idea that price drops are a 'slap in the face' to customers is really quite odd. Obviously everyone prefers to get the cheaper price, but by definition people pay what they are willing to pay. Someone who buys a game at full price on release day obviously values the game more than someone who sees it but decided to wait until they see it 50% off - these aren't the same customer: one of them really wants to play the game now, the other is kinda interested but just not enough.

[Tomn]

ORIGINAL: Boomer78
Convenience. Steam fans just love that word. Man, arguing with you guys about this is getting really old, and I've been making and have been hearing the same points over and over again for at least 5 or 6 years. Time and time again Steam users highlight the positives of Steam as a way to counter the criticisms and concerns that many people have about it. A good deed doesn't outweigh the bad. If there never was any concerns over technology, we'd have all gone the cyborg implant route long ago. Fears of monopoly, network instability, privacy issues, future install compatibility, price wars/gouging, hacking, all of these are legitimate concerns that people have about Steam, and all these years later hardly any of them have been addressed at all. But remember... convenience. Name of the game.

And as to the 10% of Crusader Kings 2 being sold on GG, well, I'm one of those 10%. I can only try and put my money where my mouth is and try and support outlets like Matrix and GOG, sites that work in open competition with Steam.

Are there problems with Steam? Yes. Are the potentially more problems with Steam in the future? Yes. Are there concerns that something might go wrong well down the road that could cause a boatload of headaches? Yes. Do these concerns exist regardless of how much is good with Steam? Yes.

But does any of that matter to the consumer and the developer? No. Why? Because the benefits are too damn good at present. I'm sure I don't need to explain why it's good for the consumer, since you seem to have heard it all before. But it's also a benefit to developers - with most of the market share in one place, getting out to Steam also means getting the most eyeballs on target with one single, fairly inexpensive stroke. Sure, you could argue that once enough developers have signed on to saturate the market this benefit could be diminished, but the situation is still going to be far better than life before Steam, and it's not entirely clear how any of the competitors available actually mitigate that effect.

You're left, in effect, in the position of someone in the 1940's arguing against the use of petroleum on the grounds that it is polluting and that it is a limited resource. Perhaps so, but there's no way you or anyone could stop it being used because it is just too damn useful. In the far future, when the problems are beginning to rear their ugly heads, you might be better able to turn heads, and more structured competition and better alternatives could certainly arise once demand begins to grow, but now? You may as well command the tides to stop flowing and curse the moon for driving them on regardless. Steam is too big and too useful to be stopped by anything short of market forces.

[Curtis Lemay]

Boy this gets old. Can we get someone to come in and rail against the illuminati, just for a change of pace?

[Greybriar]

ORIGINAL: Iain McNeil

We are not moving to Steam....

That's the best news I've had today!

[dutchman55555]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: dutchman55555

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Right so if its that clear cut and that simple why would Matrix - who have stockholders and financiers with a keen interest on the bottom line - not simply go down that route?

Untrue. Matrix is a privately-held company. No stock to hold.

As for financiers I have no idea if they need to raise capital beyond their walls. Given how small...I'm sorry, I meant to say niche...they've kept their market, I doubt they could get venture capital if they needed it. I suspect all projects (since I've seen here and there that they are apparently on shoestring budgets) are financed in-house except for the usual loans any small business will incur.

warspite1

Eh?

dutchman55555 come on. So you are saying that a privately owned company does not have share/stockholders? How does that work?

Matrix will be owned by stock/shareholders - the fact they are not a public company does not alter that fact.

You are correct, there are shareholders...but they are all internal, there is no public trading of them. Shares indicate control of the company, and have no fiduciary significance beyond that. Your argument was focused on stockholders and investors having a "keen interest on the bottom line". There are none, beyond owners.

[dutchman55555]

ORIGINAL: gradenko_2000

It bears mentioning that EA keeps getting put on worst company lists because their Steam analogue, Origin, is a cheap cash-in that performs poorly, does not integrate well with their games, does not offer sales and discounts as often and as targeted as Steam's, and is basically a worse platform than Steam while forcing people to use a completely separate platform just for the hell of it.

It also bears mentioning that EA has not released a new game on Steam in several years because of the direct competition of Origin. And a rising portion of PC gamers are avoiding Origin altogether. (I refuse to even install it on my system.)

ORIGINAL: gradenko_2000

Less than 10% of their Crusader Kings 2 playerbase was still using the non-Steam version, and people kept getting caught in "GOTCHAS" where they'd buy some DLC only to find that it's a Steam version and not compatible with their non-Steam base game, or vice-versa (EU4 was particularly bad at this with the CK2 converter)

And there was an instance with a patch for Unity of Command last year where I could (and did) get it on Steam but not Matrix. I e-mailed the developers and said they too were puzzled why Matrix hadn't yet released it, but until they did no one could play the Red Turn DLC. With my Steam version the patch was automatic, I had to wait several weeks for the Matrix version so I didn't bother, and didn't buy the DLC for my Matrix version either.

And yes, you read that correctly. I bought the Matrix version, liked the game so much that when it was on sale for a deep discount I also bought it on Steam. Now I own it forever without having to e-mail Customer Support for a new download link, all updates are automatic, and I personally find the Steam interface handy and easy to use.

[dutchman55555]

ORIGINAL: Boomer78

And as to the 10% of Crusader Kings 2 being sold on GG, well, I'm one of those 10%. I can only try and put my money where my mouth is and try and support outlets like Matrix and GOG, sites that work in open competition with Steam.

I think that was his point...your hatred of Steam isn't enough to sway Paradox away from it.

Steam has a superior system which is customer-friendly, pro-game development, and works ever so well. Your hypothetical criticisms of what could happen aren't enough to outshadow that. I used to be exclusively GOG. Their lack of current titles lead me to GG, and Steam. You can even find an interview where the head of GG criticizes the Steam model, but Gamers Gate issues Steam codes, and did at the time he gave that interview.

The future is here, son.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: dutchman55555

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: dutchman55555



Untrue. Matrix is a privately-held company. No stock to hold.

As for financiers I have no idea if they need to raise capital beyond their walls. Given how small...I'm sorry, I meant to say niche...they've kept their market, I doubt they could get venture capital if they needed it. I suspect all projects (since I've seen here and there that they are apparently on shoestring budgets) are financed in-house except for the usual loans any small business will incur.

warspite1

Eh?

dutchman55555 come on. So you are saying that a privately owned company does not have share/stockholders? How does that work?

Matrix will be owned by stock/shareholders - the fact they are not a public company does not alter that fact.

You are correct, there are shareholders...but they are all internal, there is no public trading of them. Shares indicate control of the company, and have no fiduciary significance beyond that. Your argument was focused on stockholders and investors having a "keen interest on the bottom line". There are none, beyond owners.

warspite1

Please do not tell me what my argument was focussed on. Whether a stockholder is one person or a number of people, unless we are talking some kind of charity or non-profit making organisation, the bottom line is absolutely vital to all companies to grow, expand, invest etc etc. A keen interest in the bottom line is the preserve of all owners for the viability and future well-being of their company.

YOU have presumed (for some reason I know not) that these concerns are only applicable to public companies. I have no understanding of why you would think that or wodin would suggest private companies do not have shareholders - but in either case, there is a total disconnect with the real world here.

Are you seriously suggesting that because Matrix is not a public company, its profitability or otherwise is of absolutely no interest to the shareholders and any bank providing funding - whether by way of working capital or whatever else?

[dutchman55555]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: gradenko_2000

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Just one question.

Why is it that so many people state so confidently that if the price of something drops, then thousands of people will rush to buy what previously they wouldn't - and that the company selling automatically makes more profits??

On what basis is this fact or even probable?

If life was that simple then why would any company ever go out of business? Got a product? Not selling? No problem, just slash the price and all will be well.....

Now, obviously we do not know how many copies of WITP-AE have ever been sold, but if a game as niche as Football Manager just falls shy of 100k players, what does that say about how many potential buyers there are of Matrix's catalogue, if the prices were low enough that people felt they could take it even if they ended up not liking the game?

warspite1

I find that remark absolutely astonishing. Football Manager is being compared to the likes of WITP-AE in terms of niche status, in terms of actual (and potential) market size? I have no access to sales data for either - none whatsoever - but despite this I can, confidently, without any fear of contradiction, categorically state that that statement is just about as wrong as its humanly possible to be.

Fair enough. Replace "Football Manager" with "Train Simulator 2014".

2,276 players on Steam today (it's on the Top 100 Games Played list) for a title which one can easily argue is more "niche" than PC wargaming. And that's just people playing it today. The mind boggles how many people have it in their purchased games library.