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

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: dutchman55555

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: gradenko_2000

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.

warspite1

No problem admitting its niche - yes totally agree, but why MORE niche that something like WITP-AE? That I struggle to believe.

[OttoVonBlotto]

Frankly I wouldn't even contemplate buying a game that was exclusive to steam or any other system that works in the way it does. For example I played all the other titles in the elder scrolls series, since Daggerfall and by the times Morrowind and Oblivion came out I was so much a fan I upgraded my pc each time to be able play the latest release but I wouldn't touch skyrim because of it's steam activation only policy.


Do Bethesda softworks care that they didn't sell the game to be because of it's steam only policy? I seriously doubt it.
Would I buy the game now if it didn't need a steam account? I would pay full price for it, not the discount price it's now going for on steam.
Am I missing out? maybe but I couldn't care less. I'm still not buying it because of it's steam only.

Will all the endless debate about it change anyone's mind whatsoever about the merits or disadvantage of steam? maybe not in the slightest but for me there will always be another cool game to play that's not on steam.[8D]

[Boomer78]

ORIGINAL: 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.

I've accepted defeat for myself. Doesn't mean the peasants aren't still going to keep laughing at the Emperor's new 'clothes' once in a while. Ask yourself that one important question, is it a future you are building for yourself, or is it one someone else has prepared for you?

But yeah, a lot of it is hypothetical. But rational concerns and idea discussion is how we hopefully avoid problems or at least solve them when they appear. Not really a mindset many people have.

Now, if you will all excuse me, I'm off to churn some butter and help Elijah build a barn out back.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: gradenko_2000

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.

There's also the not trivial issue of antitrust law and the FTC. Valve is incorporated in the US and is subject to US laws. I'm not sure how it is internally organized in legal terms since it is a distributor (Steam), a game developer (Valve), and a software developer (Source) all in one. But clearly it is not a monopoly or close to it right now. Different industries have different antitrust triggers before the feds come calling. In the industries I worked in it was about a 60 share; go beyond that and you'd have some 'splainin' to do.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: 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.

As a first-generation gamer (probably about 50,000 computer gamers total worldwide when I started playing in 1977 on university mini-mainframes) it amuses me to see the young blast away claiming that two years is "too long!" to wait for prices to reach rock bottom. I try to remember being 16 YO and that two years was forever. Now, two years? I can do two years like it's lunch. When you're 55 there's no bragging rights to having the latest and greatest. My friends are completely unimpressed that I beat COD on Extreme, or whatever. They're taking pictures of their grandchildren.

As for Steam pricing, in a bizarre way it's the sales which, for me, alleviate a lot of the downstream risk of them going poof! and disappearing. If I had thousands of dollars resting on their platform I'd worry. But I buy on sale and I have mere hundreds. In the same way I have thousands of dollars of games on 5-in floppies in storage bins in my basement, the discs probably demagnetized by now, if I someday can't play today's games it's not a big deal. I have Microprose's M1 Tank Platoon original in box, with manuals and keyboard overlays, plus discs. I also have a good 5-in floppy drive double bagged in anti-static plastic, in case I ever want to cobble up a 5-in DOS system and fire up those old classics. BUT I NEVER WILL. I might play an emulator to remind myself how horrible the graphics and sound were, but then I'll go back to Skyrim and walk around looking at the mountains. You can't go back, and you can't freeze the present.

Someday Steam will be gone, or evolve into something new. If some games get left behind it's the nature of the hobby. For now being able to get a game in ten minutes and be playing it in the time it would have taken me to put on enough clothes to survive the -15 F. weather outside for a drive to BestBuy is a pretty sweet deal. I don't miss the old days that much.

[aaatoysandmore]

ORIGINAL: 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.

wargaming has lasted a long time without steam and can last another long time without them still. Wargamers never die they just have children. As long as they continue to pick up the torch there will be wargames made for them. I've been at this nearly 60 years and I ain't seen it slow down yet. Even with all the crap talk that wargaming is dying. lol Smoke blowers who wish it would like you but it won't. Steam is a pile of garbage always was always will be. Anything that "requires" you do do this or do that is a garbage company. IN the end they will lose more than they gain. Even rome went down eventually. Just because they got too greedy and other things of course. History repeats itself and Steam is on that path of rome. [:D]

[aaatoysandmore]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: 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.

As a first-generation gamer (probably about 50,000 computer gamers total worldwide when I started playing in 1977 on university mini-mainframes) it amuses me to see the young blast away claiming that two years is "too long!" to wait for prices to reach rock bottom. I try to remember being 16 YO and that two years was forever. Now, two years? I can do two years like it's lunch. When you're 55 there's no bragging rights to having the latest and greatest. My friends are completely unimpressed that I beat COD on Extreme, or whatever. They're taking pictures of their grandchildren.

As for Steam pricing, in a bizarre way it's the sales which, for me, alleviate a lot of the downstream risk of them going poof! and disappearing. If I had thousands of dollars resting on their platform I'd worry. But I buy on sale and I have mere hundreds. In the same way I have thousands of dollars of games on 5-in floppies in storage bins in my basement, the discs probably demagnetized by now, if I someday can't play today's games it's not a big deal. I have Microprose's M1 Tank Platoon original in box, with manuals and keyboard overlays, plus discs. I also have a good 5-in floppy drive double bagged in anti-static plastic, in case I ever want to cobble up a 5-in DOS system and fire up those old classics. BUT I NEVER WILL. I might play an emulator to remind myself how horrible the graphics and sound were, but then I'll go back to Skyrim and walk around looking at the mountains. You can't go back, and you can't freeze the present.

Someday Steam will be gone, or evolve into something new. If some games get left behind it's the nature of the hobby. For now being able to get a game in ten minutes and be playing it in the time it would have taken me to put on enough clothes to survive the -15 F. weather outside for a drive to BestBuy is a pretty sweet deal. I don't miss the old days that much.

But that was one of the funs of gaming back then, getting out in the 15 degree weather and rushing down to Software etc. or Babbages and getting the next best greatest (we thought) game on the market. I used to love browsing the computer section and looking at all the colorful boxes of magic. Now gaming has become drab and boring. You don't even get what you used to anymore in those boxes. No laminated maps, no printed manuals, no history written to read. Just a download. An the ai's today, I am just appauled at how lousy they are today. I still remember Warlords that had one of the best most challenging ai's of the times. I played and played and played it till I figured it out. Today's games ai's I can figure out the first game and that's playing on Vh/VH or hardest or impossible levels. The only present day game that has maintained it's level of ai performance is Civilization. I still can't beat "all" of the ai players on its highest difficulty I doubt anyone can it's just not possible the way they research and then exchange with each other so fast. They won't give me nuthin. lol I like that actually. At least one game holds its own today against a human.

I recently found an emulator for the C-64 and a site that has practically every c-64 game I own and that was great. Now I can go back and play some of those great fun games again when developers made games out of the love for it and not the profit. Lord British, Dave Landrey, even Sid Meier back then made games of quality, not crap for his daughter like he does today. Just a few names of some of the greats..less not forget to mention Norm Koger and Gary Grigsby as they are amoung the few who are still around. What's Norm Koger made in a long time though? after TAOW III?

But, many of you are right. Each one of us individually isn't going to change the market either way or the other no matter who's opinion. What will happen will happen. Time is ever moving on. Good things will come and bad things. It's just the bad things we should worry about and be prepared for is all. Mark my words it will happen someday just like it did to Rome. Nothing lasts forever. If the right amount of money comes along they won't give squat about your opinions or your feelings or what you want. [:)]

[gradenko2k]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
As a first-generation gamer (probably about 50,000 computer gamers total worldwide when I started playing in 1977 on university mini-mainframes) it amuses me to see the young blast away claiming that two years is "too long!" to wait for prices to reach rock bottom. I try to remember being 16 YO and that two years was forever. Now, two years? I can do two years like it's lunch. When you're 55 there's no bragging rights to having the latest and greatest. My friends are completely unimpressed that I beat COD on Extreme, or whatever. They're taking pictures of their grandchildren.

I think Alchenar's post was reacting more to what was said in the Scourge of War thread where supposedly putting a game on sale too soon is "slap in the face to the hardcore fans". It was an odd statement at best, contradictory at worst because a "hardcore fan" would have already bought the game so seeing it get put on sale shouldn't have mattered one way or the other, and a "regular fan" that maybe hadn't bought the game yet but was interested certainly wouldn't complain that he was able to buy a game for cheaper.

EDIT: Which is not to say that they should be putting a less-than-year-old game on sale. There are good reasons for doing that, but couching it in less than purely economic terms just sounds elitist.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: gradenko_2000

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
As a first-generation gamer (probably about 50,000 computer gamers total worldwide when I started playing in 1977 on university mini-mainframes) it amuses me to see the young blast away claiming that two years is "too long!" to wait for prices to reach rock bottom. I try to remember being 16 YO and that two years was forever. Now, two years? I can do two years like it's lunch. When you're 55 there's no bragging rights to having the latest and greatest. My friends are completely unimpressed that I beat COD on Extreme, or whatever. They're taking pictures of their grandchildren.

I think Alchenar's post was reacting more to what was said in the Scourge of War thread where supposedly putting a game on sale too soon is "slap in the face to the hardcore fans". It was an odd statement at best, contradictory at worst because a "hardcore fan" would have already bought the game so seeing it get put on sale shouldn't have mattered one way or the other, and a "regular fan" that maybe hadn't bought the game yet but was interested certainly wouldn't complain that he was able to buy a game for cheaper.

EDIT: Which is not to say that they should be putting a less-than-year-old game on sale. There are good reasons for doing that, but couching it in less than purely economic terms just sounds elitist.

I'm not sure whom you're addressing in the EDIT portion, but I agree it's done for economic reasons. Cutting the price while the launch marketing is still a bit fresh is good business. Same as first-run movies giving one more round of ads on the third weekend to pick up that part of the audience before the movie is out of theaters and on to the next tier of DVDs and Netflix. The time span this needs to be done in has shortened over the decades since there's so much more noise in the games market than there was. You can't wait a year. A year now is like dog's years in 1990.

As an aside, I launched StarCraft II (the first ep) last night and there was an in-game notice, downloaded from Blizzard's servers and not seen by non-owners I think, that both games in the franchise had been on a one week sale that ended December 2. That NEVER used to happen with Blizzard. Ten years after StarCraft launched it was still selling in brick and mortar retail for over $20. Ten years. Now they're discounting within six months. It was a really good discount too. And I missed it. [:)]

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: aaatoysandmore

But that was one of the funs of gaming back then, getting out in the 15 degree weather and rushing down to Software etc. or Babbages and getting the next best greatest (we thought) game on the market. I used to love browsing the computer section and looking at all the colorful boxes of magic. Now gaming has become drab and boring. You don't even get what you used to anymore in those boxes. No laminated maps, no printed manuals, no history written to read. Just a download. An the ai's today, I am just appauled at how lousy they are today. I still remember Warlords that had one of the best most challenging ai's of the times. I played and played and played it till I figured it out. Today's games ai's I can figure out the first game and that's playing on Vh/VH or hardest or impossible levels. The only present day game that has maintained it's level of ai performance is Civilization. I still can't beat "all" of the ai players on its highest difficulty I doubt anyone can it's just not possible the way they research and then exchange with each other so fast. They won't give me nuthin. lol I like that actually. At least one game holds its own today against a human.

I recently found an emulator for the C-64 and a site that has practically every c-64 game I own and that was great. Now I can go back and play some of those great fun games again when developers made games out of the love for it and not the profit. Lord British, Dave Landrey, even Sid Meier back then made games of quality, not crap for his daughter like he does today. Just a few names of some of the greats..less not forget to mention Norm Koger and Gary Grigsby as they are amoung the few who are still around. What's Norm Koger made in a long time though? after TAOW III?

But, many of you are right. Each one of us individually isn't going to change the market either way or the other no matter who's opinion. What will happen will happen. Time is ever moving on. Good things will come and bad things. It's just the bad things we should worry about and be prepared for is all. Mark my words it will happen someday just like it did to Rome. Nothing lasts forever. If the right amount of money comes along they won't give squat about your opinions or your feelings or what you want. [:)]

To each his own. It was "fun" in that it was more fun than shopping for groceries. But it was gas, it was time, and the stock didn't change that fast. I used to stop at a Walden Software (a spin off of a spin off!) in Darien, Ct on my way home from work. Very clean, very modern. Maybe 150 titles at a time. You could pick up the box, heft, shake it to see how heavy the manual might be, etc. Usually didn't know much about it unless there had been a preview in Computer Gaming World. (Subscribed for years. The Christmas edition was like a phone book. But that's all we had.) I usually bought something when I stopped. $40-$50. Over $100 adjusted for inflation now. Then I went home and spent Saturdays wrestling with QEMM trying to find 16k more extended memory, or writing custom autoexec.bat or config.sys files. I figured three hours homework for every game before it was running and stable with sound (Ad Lib sound card!) Kids today have no idea.

Compared to the alternatives PC games were amazing. But now? Looking back at them compared to a game like Skyrim? They were garbage. The AI only looked good because it cheated like a thief, but we didn't know that then.

And devs in it for love? HA. Lord British built himself a CASTLE! Then didn't he buy a ride into space or something? I interviewed for a job at Microprose in 1989. "Wild Bill" Stealey, the co-founder with Sid. USAF Academy grad and Wharton MBA. His Mercedes was gray and had USAF Academy plates. I remember it vividly. Sitting in the lobby waiting to see him a developer came out of the back. It might have been Sid. Yellow aloha shirt, barefoot, yeah. Looked like he hadn't slept in a week. But the offices were marble, glass, ferns--very posh. Not a hovel. And not for a minute did I believe anybody there wasn't trying to get rich(er.)

[aaatoysandmore]

ORIGINAL: gradenko_2000

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
As a first-generation gamer (probably about 50,000 computer gamers total worldwide when I started playing in 1977 on university mini-mainframes) it amuses me to see the young blast away claiming that two years is "too long!" to wait for prices to reach rock bottom. I try to remember being 16 YO and that two years was forever. Now, two years? I can do two years like it's lunch. When you're 55 there's no bragging rights to having the latest and greatest. My friends are completely unimpressed that I beat COD on Extreme, or whatever. They're taking pictures of their grandchildren.

I think Alchenar's post was reacting more to what was said in the Scourge of War thread where supposedly putting a game on sale too soon is "slap in the face to the hardcore fans". It was an odd statement at best, contradictory at worst because a "hardcore fan" would have already bought the game so seeing it get put on sale shouldn't have mattered one way or the other, and a "regular fan" that maybe hadn't bought the game yet but was interested certainly wouldn't complain that he was able to buy a game for cheaper.

EDIT: Which is not to say that they should be putting a less-than-year-old game on sale. There are good reasons for doing that, but couching it in less than purely economic terms just sounds elitist.

I wonder how slapped in the face they felt then when the origional Victoria by Paradox went onsale for .99 cents not a month after release? lol Ahhh how I remember the .99 cent games it was like just only yesterday.....oh wait!

More recently it was the HOI III bomb. lol it didn't get as low as .99 cents I don't believe but they were practically giving it away to anybody that would buy it for $3.99 very shortly after release.

And even Battlefront had one of those moments with Shock Force with the new CMx2 engine. It was soooo bad that it was $4.99 in no time at all. Sell it for anything, get rid of the bomb, they found out. lol It seemed everywhere I looked there was a sale on Shock Force maybe even as low as $3.99....sometimes games deserve to be reduced in price immediately after release, damn the impatient buyers. Rome 2 and that new Ebisoft game Rebirth I think it is.They need to be about $7.99 or less now. [:)]

[dutchman55555]

ORIGINAL: gradenko_2000

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
As a first-generation gamer (probably about 50,000 computer gamers total worldwide when I started playing in 1977 on university mini-mainframes) it amuses me to see the young blast away claiming that two years is "too long!" to wait for prices to reach rock bottom. I try to remember being 16 YO and that two years was forever. Now, two years? I can do two years like it's lunch. When you're 55 there's no bragging rights to having the latest and greatest. My friends are completely unimpressed that I beat COD on Extreme, or whatever. They're taking pictures of their grandchildren.

I think Alchenar's post was reacting more to what was said in the Scourge of War thread where supposedly putting a game on sale too soon is "slap in the face to the hardcore fans". It was an odd statement at best, contradictory at worst because a "hardcore fan" would have already bought the game so seeing it get put on sale shouldn't have mattered one way or the other, and a "regular fan" that maybe hadn't bought the game yet but was interested certainly wouldn't complain that he was able to buy a game for cheaper.

EDIT: Which is not to say that they should be putting a less-than-year-old game on sale. There are good reasons for doing that, but couching it in less than purely economic terms just sounds elitist.

If I want a game at full price (and I do, more often than you'd think), I buy it. I deliberate beforehand, weigh pros and cons, and if I still want to buy it, I do.

Two examples of this deliberation:

XCOM EW. I had pre-ordered XCOM EU on Steam last year, even got a copy of Civ 5 to give away as a gift. EW was DLC, and $30 DLC at that. But I had received enough enjoyment from EU, and was excited enough about the buzz for EW, that I did end up buying it at the last moment. It had a 10% price discount for pre-order, and I literally bought it with 4 hours left to go.

Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm. A lot of good buzz among people I follow on the Internet, some very decent reviews, and...the price of a AAA title. And as solid a game as it is, it ain't AAA. I nearly, nearly purchased it, and at the last moment realized if I did I would be reinforcing Matrix's policy of high price tag for par to sub-par products. And encouraging them to raise prices again, and again, and again. So no purchase was made, and by the time it is reduced to an acceptable price I will have forgotten it.

The lesson: I'll buy a product the first day if I want it enough. A demo and/or a small pre-order discount also doesn't hurt. If the urge isn't there, I'll wait for a decent sale price. No face slaps involved.

[histgamer]

ORIGINAL: 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.

I really don't think a company that's struggling as much as you like to indicate would be opening up a brand new branch in Milan. They have expanded quiet a bit in the last year or two, they wouldn't be doing that if they were about to croke. Well that's not entirely true, they could do that if they were taking on lots of loans or had big external backers but that doesn't seem likely given how conservatively the business' focus tends to be based on what JD usually says here.

[Max 86]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

When you're 55 there's no bragging rights to having the latest and greatest. My friends are completely unimpressed that I beat COD on Extreme, or whatever. They're taking pictures of their grandchildren.....

I don't miss the old days that much.

[:D] +1 That cracked me up. Too true, Winkle, too true. [:D]

As for the old days, screw 'em. Gunny Sergeant Highway taught us that you have to adapt and evolve to survive and overcome. [:D]

Steam appears here to stay for the foreseeable future so whats the point of all this arguing ? If you like it use it, if not, stay unevolved. [;)]....just kidding of course! If you don't like it then continue your freedom of non-choice. Its really no big deal.

Now, when Obama makes you choose steam so the fed'ral gubmint can track your gaming hours, then that is another issue. Say NO to Obamagaming! [:D]

[Perturabo]

ORIGINAL: dutchman55555

Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm. A lot of good buzz among people I follow on the Internet, some very decent reviews, and...the price of a AAA title. And as solid a game as it is, it ain't AAA. I nearly, nearly purchased it, and at the last moment realized if I did I would be reinforcing Matrix's policy of high price tag for par to sub-par products. And encouraging them to raise prices again, and again, and again. So no purchase was made, and by the time it is reduced to an acceptable price I will have forgotten it.

I hope that by a AAA title you mean something like Command Ops, not Call of Duty 15 or Assassin's Creed 10?

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.

We're living in insane times. Nowadays creating a poor quality gaming DRM platform counts as worse and more important than extreme exploitation and endangering of human life and obscene destruction of environment.

[dutchman55555]

ORIGINAL: Perturabo

ORIGINAL: dutchman55555

Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm. A lot of good buzz among people I follow on the Internet, some very decent reviews, and...the price of a AAA title. And as solid a game as it is, it ain't AAA. I nearly, nearly purchased it, and at the last moment realized if I did I would be reinforcing Matrix's policy of high price tag for par to sub-par products. And encouraging them to raise prices again, and again, and again. So no purchase was made, and by the time it is reduced to an acceptable price I will have forgotten it.

I hope that by a AAA title you mean something like Command Ops, not Call of Duty 15 or Assassin's Creed 10?

I meant the latter. This company, and this hobby, does not live in a bubble. Expecting me to pay as much (or more) for average to below average quality as I would for a high quality, AAA title is an insult to my intelligence.

[aaatoysandmore]

LOL Assassin's Creed a AAA title lmfao. It's hardly a AAA title in the wargames dept. Might be for kiddyland or candyland games but not wargames.

[Perturabo]

ORIGINAL: dutchman55555

ORIGINAL: Perturabo

ORIGINAL: dutchman55555

Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm. A lot of good buzz among people I follow on the Internet, some very decent reviews, and...the price of a AAA title. And as solid a game as it is, it ain't AAA. I nearly, nearly purchased it, and at the last moment realized if I did I would be reinforcing Matrix's policy of high price tag for par to sub-par products. And encouraging them to raise prices again, and again, and again. So no purchase was made, and by the time it is reduced to an acceptable price I will have forgotten it.

I hope that by a AAA title you mean something like Command Ops, not Call of Duty 15 or Assassin's Creed 10?

I meant the latter. This company, and this hobby, does not live in a bubble. Expecting me to pay as much (or more) for average to below average quality as I would for a high quality, AAA title is an insult to my intelligence.

What "quality"? You mean uncanny valley graphics funded by millions of customers that also happen to demand dumbed-down cinematic gameplay to accompany these graphics? Call of Duty still uses primitive hitscan shooting mechanics instead of ballistics. 90s have called they want their FMV shooters back.
Tell me more about the sophisticated mechanics of these "quality" games and the AI that is capable of playing with these mechanics and the amount of historical research that went into making these games.

I'd rather pay 10 minimum hourly wages for a game like Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm, than spend 10 hours playing Call of Duty for free, because the gameplay of the latter is an insult to my intelligence.

[dutchman55555]

ORIGINAL: aaatoysandmore

LOL Assassin's Creed a AAA title lmfao. It's hardly a AAA title in the wargames dept. Might be for kiddyland or candyland games but not wargames.

We're talking game purchases. Say we have a game that focuses on quantum mechanics and not wargames, but draws the customer away. It is relevant because the customer looks at both in their purchase decision. I said the hobby and Matrix do not live in a bubble. The same applies to Matrix's customers...well, most of Matrix's customers.

I personally am not a fan of either AC or COD, but I recognize the amount of man hours, work, and quality programming that goes into such a product. I also recognize (as in I have seen mentioned in these forums) that a heckuva lot of Matrix's customer base do play such games.

As for "kiddyland or candyland games", shall we take a close look at what Matrix has released for the iOS?

ORIGINAL: Perturabo

I'd rather pay 10 minimum hourly wages for a game like Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm, than spend 10 hours playing Call of Duty for free, because the gameplay of the latter is an insult to my intelligence.

And that's your prerogative.

But if you want to say that the larger game industry has no effect on Matrix and its products, that AAA titles can be ignored, then you're dead wrong.

It is the equivalent of every auto manufacturer offering manual transmission at no extra charge, except for Matrix Motors. And when questioned on it Matrix Motors just says that customers wouldn't value their products if the car was cheaper in price, and Matrix Motors customers leap up and said "How can you compare this car to other cars? This one is from Matrix Motors!", as if that was explanation enough.

[Perturabo]

ORIGINAL: dutchman55555

We're talking game purchases. Say we have a game that focuses on quantum mechanics and not wargames, but draws the customer away. It is relevant because the customer looks at both in their purchase decision. I said the hobby and Matrix do not live in a bubble. The same applies to Matrix's customers...well, most of Matrix's customers.

I personally am not a fan of either AC or COD, but I recognize the amount of man hours, work, and quality programming that goes into such a product. I also recognize (as in I have seen mentioned in these forums) that a heckuva lot of Matrix's customer base do play such games.

And no quality programming and research goes into complex wargames, right? Also, pricing of AAA games isn't related to their quality. You get expensive graphics not because you paid 50+$ but because millions of other people paid 50+$ too.
It has its cost, though. The cost is that you're not getting complex game mechanics, realism, etc. because they decrease the accessibility of the game.
When you pay 50+$ for a wargame, you get a game that isn't burdened by the poor taste of the lowest common denominator that the AAA companies have to pander to to amass their huge budgets. A game that is catered to taste of much smaller audience.

ORIGINAL: dutchman55555

But if you want to say that the larger game industry has no effect on Matrix and its products, that AAA titles can be ignored, then you're dead wrong.

It is the equivalent of every auto manufacturer offering manual transmission at no extra charge, except for Matrix Motors. And when questioned on it Matrix Motors just says that customers wouldn't value their products if the car was cheaper in price, and Matrix Motors customers leap up and said "How can you compare this car to other cars? This one is from Matrix Motors!", as if that was explanation enough.

You're getting lost in your similes.

Also, what larger industry? Show me the AAA company that offers a realistic complex wargame (something on level of Command Ops: Battle of the Bulge) with AAA graphics for 50$.