Conquest of the Agean?

[Arjuna]

Thanks for the feedback guys. I appreciate your views. It's always hard to bring one self to pay more. There's no doubt about that. But equally there is no doubt that unless we can get a certain return to cover costs we're not going to be in business and there will be no new product. That is the bottom line.

For a retail marketing strategy you can keep prices low because the volume is there. In online marketing, the volume is less and so to make the same amount of money you have to increase the price or cut costs. Now I can unashamedly say that I cannot pay us any less and we already run on the smell of an oily rag. So increase the price it has to be.

As to value for money. Well ultimately that is a subjective assessment. I like to think that we have delivered excellent value for money and will continue to do so. If we had endeavoured to recoup our total investment to date on HTTR we would have to sell it at somewhere around $200 per unit. But we didn't do that. Our aim has been to recoup that over the life of a number of titles. That is not to say that we do not continue to develop and enhance the product. As I have stated our policy previously, we will add one BIG feature per title and as many other minor ones as we have time to fit in. The BIG feature for COTA is the Campaign feature and as Marc said don't underestimate how much work is going into this feature.

It's time everyone realised that to develop a class piece of software, costs a lot of money and that this investment must be paid for by the customers. Otherwise, there will be no more investors and no more product for you. We need your support here. Ultimately it is up to you. You have the right and power to buy or not to buy as you see fit. However, please be aware that we too have the right and power to say we will not develop this product and we will not risk our hard earned money unless we can get a reasonable return. Just as you can say well this product over here is not as good but it's a lot cheaper so I'll get it instead. So too we can choose to say this venture here, while not as interesting is much easier and gives a better return.

Now we would like to continue in this business. We believe we have a lot to offer. But we can only do so while we retain your support and get a reasonable return.

[Tzar007]

As I said in another post, I personally believe it comes down to the wargaming market economics. Being myself in the video game industry, I have no problem understanding Matrix and Panther's reasoning. I know the numbers behind this.

People who are unsure about the legitimacy of the price going from 45$ to 60$ have valid points, but it indeed all comes down to either there is a reasonable return on investment, or either there is not and development is killed.

Personally speaking, I am not going to fiddle about a difference of 15$ (I don't really care about ordering the game on CD so let's say I save the 10$ here). It's not that I don't value my hard-earned money myself, but I believe in this game, I believe in this engine and I will gladly pay the 15$ to get new features and a whole new sets of campaigns and scenarios, and I will certainly be glad to see this engine continue to improve.

Divide this 60$ or 70$ over the number of hours you will play, and you should notice it's a damn good investment that is not that expensive per hour. I know it was and still is with HTTR [:D]

[Real and Simulated Wars]

Money well spent will be. No doubt.
Is not only the hours you spend playing. Is also the time you spend at your job thinking about that pesky batallion of armor that disrupted your last night's attack. Do you guys have any idea how much dollars worth of loss in productivity HTTR has caused?
Cheers,

[W Thorne_MatrixForum]

ORIGINAL: Chelco

Money well spent will be. No doubt.
Is not only the hours you spend playing. Is also the time you spend at your job thinking about that pesky batallion of armor that disrupted your last night's attack. Do you guys have any idea how much dollars worth of loss in productivity HTTR has caused?
Cheers,

lol Chelco. While playing the longer scenarios in HTTR when I finished for the night I would take a screenshot of my progress and email it to my work email. Then the next day at work I would plan my strategy for that night.

The new campaigns will add even more.

[SeaMonkey]

Just for the record, Dave, Paul, Steve: I'm buying CotA. Cost is insignificant, this is a quality product, and I will give Panther my support. Also I'm in for BftB.

[pamak1970]

hello everybody.

i am interested in this game.
Still i have some reservations about the campaign mode.
Although i saw the new features of this game, i noticed that there is not simulation of supply.
In a simulation of single battles that take place for a limited time ,this might not be a problem.
On the other hand i beleive that a campaign mode will desperately need this feature or else realism will suffer.
Another question has to do with the map coverage of the area of the operations.
Do we have any information regarding the map coverage of Greece ?
I was wondering for example about the level of flexibility to set a defensive line in areas other than the historical ones.
Any way i beleive that the game has great potentials.

[CriticalMass]

ORIGINAL: pamak1970

hello everybody.

i am interested in this game.
Still i have some reservations about the campaign mode.
Although i saw the new features of this game, i noticed that there is not simulation of supply.
In a simulation of single battles that take place for a limited time ,this might not be a problem.
On the other hand i beleive that a campaign mode will desperately need this feature or else realism will suffer.
Another question has to do with the map coverage of the area of the operations.
Do we have any information regarding the map coverage of Greece ?
I was wondering for example about the level of flexibility to set a defensive line in areas other than the historical ones.
Any way i beleive that the game has great potentials.

good point, what's happened to the supply code Dave was so "excited" about...I hope we will be pleasantly surprised

TANX
Andrew

[Hartford688]

Arjuna

Good post. Sounds fair. Writing gaming software never sounded a great get-rich-quick scheme. I had a bleat earlier about the manual...but bottom line is, the games are great value for money considering how much time we spend playing them (vs most other entertainment like a DVD etc) plus peanuts compared to the cost of the hardware... Cannot say the difference will stop me buying if it looks good. Dare say that really holds true of many of the people reading these boards. I guess the one concern for Panther/Matrix is that raising the price rather raises the barrier to entry for new customers. In lieu of demos getting rapturous reviews will be even more critical.

Plus, I have always reckoned these games all look so clever. I am always amazed at what detail and effort has gone into what appears on my screen. Many thanks.

Realize I sound above like a big wussy fanboy - but after spending all day at work being a miserable hard nosed sob - I like to give credit where credit is due.

[Jane Doe]

My position is that i'm ok to buy THI game at 60USD as it is an almost unknown, un"gamed" campaign. I understand that the research for COTA is probably more difficult thatn games on normandy, ardennes or M-G. But i expect the price to fall back to 50 for the next couple of games (BotB-Normandy) as they will probably have a much broader consumer pool anyway.
So you can count me in for COTA, but i will be much more reluctant to pay 60USD for yet another game on the Ardennes or on Normandy.

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: Jane Doe

My position is that i'm ok to buy THI game at 60USD as it is an almost unknown, un"gamed" campaign. I understand that the research for COTA is probably more difficult thatn games on normandy, ardennes or M-G. But i expect the price to fall back to 50 for the next couple of games (BotB-Normandy) as they will probably have a much broader consumer pool anyway.
So you can count me in for COTA, but i will be much more reluctant to pay 60USD for yet another game on the Ardennes or on Normandy.

This is interesting and honest point of view.

Actually I would be among those supporting the 60 USD price, *IF* this would be the argument behind it. "We're giving you campaign that is VERY rarely modelled in a wargame and is not commercially appealing, so we expect you to pay significantly higher price for it. But, when we go 'back' to regular programming, Normandy, MG, Africa, East front etc. we'll go back to lower/standard price."

With this logic, I'd be accepting almost any price up to 100 USD for campaigns that are rarely (if ever) modelled in a quality PC wargame. But then for regular campaigns I'd expect regular prices [:D].

Oleg

[SeaMonkey]

But, when we go 'back' to regular programming, Normandy, MG, Africa, East front etc. we'll go back to lower/standard price."

Oleg, let's hope we're never going back. Campaign should be available from now on, albeit maybe as an add on.

And Dave......how about that supply model?.......Ok with me to add another sawbuck.

Oh yeah...I might add that the logical progression in WW2 events dictate the next game be in the desert.

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: SeaMonkey

But, when we go 'back' to regular programming, Normandy, MG, Africa, East front etc. we'll go back to lower/standard price."

Oleg, let's hope we're never going back. Campaign should be available from now on, albeit maybe as an add on.

I don't know, I guess this is matter of personal opinion.

How much would you pay for campaign feature? Me - 5 USD above regular price perhaps, maybe even less. I'd also say that additions like this are somewhat expected evolution of the game engine and should not be made into big fuss (unless, of course, we talk about HPS Simulations games [:D][:D])

How much would you pay to see rarely modelled theatre of war in your favorite wargame engine? 20 USD above regular price for sure. Perhaps even more, depending on theatre and treatment. But only as "one time bonus" so to say. Higher price should not be there to stay for the next games in series.

And yes - how much would I pay for supply model? [:D] 10 bucks above regular price, but this is also an addition that is to be expected without such a big fuss about it (and without rising price, though *I* personally would pay).

To summarise: I consider campaign the least important new feature for this system (though I am well aware that this is only my personal opinion, in which I am part of the minority). In any case small steps forward such as campaign feature and supply system are natural evolution of any wargaming system.

Where will we be if every new "featurette" is fussed about like second coming and price rised for 10 bucks? Will "Airborne Assault 10: Napoleon Paratroopers in Abysinia" cost 150 USD then? I mean, I'd pay just for the sake of perversity in this particular case, but I would not morally support such decision. [8D]

O.

[SeaMonkey]

That's it Oleg, I can see you have talked yourself into the purchase[;)]. And I must say, "A very good decision it was". Keep attending those classes, ... ahhh that's the school of GM "good decision making"[:D] You are destined to be a personal success story.[8D]

[EricGuitarJames]

ORIGINAL: SeaMonkey


Oh yeah...I might add that the logical progression in WW2 events dictate the next game be in the desert.

Well, since Panther seem to be going backwards (timewise anyhow[;)]) I guess the next game will have to be 'France 1940'[:D]

[Arjuna]

Hey nice try guys. Who says we have to keep going back in time? Anyone for "modern"? [;)]

[SeaMonkey]

Nice try Dave, but the boys at Battlegoat have that one covered, ever heard of SR 2010?

And EJG, if we keep the time increments the same, what are we talking here, the ocupation of the Rhineland or Austria....that'll be a good contest.

In that case I'll go for "modern".[:D]

Come to think of it, "modern" is probably not much of a challenge either, who could stand up to the US armed forces.

So I guess its back to the desert[8D]........damn flys, damn sand, damn Rommel.[;)]

[Golf33]

ORIGINAL: SeaMonkey

Come to think of it, "modern" is probably not much of a challenge either, who could stand up to the US armed forces.

Depends on how modern you want - the VC/NVA didn't do too bad a job of 'standing up to the US armed forces'.

Besides, there's lots of other wars to look at, all the Arab-Israeli conflicts, Korea, some stuff over in Africa like the border conflicts around South Africa, Falklands perhaps?

No promises of course, I have my dreams like anyone else [;)]

Regards
33

[Marc von Martial]

Come to think of it, "modern" is probably not much of a challenge either, who could stand up to the US armed forces.

I don´t think that the defense against the red steamroller in a mid 80s NATO vs. WP scenario would be a piece of cake [;)]

[Panzermann]

ORIGINAL: Marc Schwanebeck

I don´t think that the defense against the red steamroller in a mid 80s NATO vs. WP scenario would be a piece of cake [;)]

That's a scenario I am very interested in, being an old GDP guy (Hauptmann der Reserve, West German tank troops). Any plans?

Do you need a technical advisor? Beta-tester? Don't hesitate to contact me!

Just imagine a German Leopard2 tank battalion counterattacking in Northern Germany or Fulda-Gap in a HTTR style game. /me faints

Cheers,

Panzermann

[Marc von Martial]

ORIGINAL: Panzermann

ORIGINAL: Marc Schwanebeck

I don´t think that the defense against the red steamroller in a mid 80s NATO vs. WP scenario would be a piece of cake [;)]

That's a scenario I am very interested in, being an old GDP guy (Hauptmann der Reserve, West German tank troops). Any plans?

Do you need a technical advisor? Beta-tester? Don't hesitate to contact me!

Just imagine a German Leopard2 tank battalion counterattacking in Northern Germany or Fulda-Gap in a HTTR style game. /me faints

Cheers,

Panzermann

Kaliber statt Spoiler [:D]

War bei der RakArt