Change publishers

[Cauldyth]

Yay!

[Ralzakark]

Goodbye.

[Icemania]

Great ... normal friendly forum discussion can resume.

Gregorovitch55, I've played 7 of the games you mentioned on Steam. Every 2 years or so, I play far too much Football Manager, when I have an urge to expand my team, explore the market and exterminate the opposition.

[Gregorovitch55]

Presumably by exploiting their weaknesses [:)]

[Icemania]

ORIGINAL: Shark7
In closing, I will say there can be a happy medium. I want to continue purchasing from Matrix where I don't have the hassle of spyware on my PC just to play a game. So long as they continue to offer that service, I don't care if they offer it in other formats...it can only bring in more players.

Agreed. Galactic Civilisations is a relevant example.

[Icemania]

ORIGINAL: Gregorovitch55
Presumably by exploiting their weaknesses [:)]

[Icemania]

ORIGINAL: Icemania

As many of you might be aware Horizon has recently been launched, and as always, Space Sector has a quality review.

What I find interesting is that IGN and GameSpot have reviews while Polygon has news and PC Gamer has a preview.

In contrast, I cannot find anything material regarding Distant Worlds (beyond basic information and user reviews), particularly for Shadows or Universe on gaming sites such as these, that provide exposure to the 4X gaming audience.

For those that consider Distant Worlds marketing to be reasonable or good ... on what basis do you make this assertion?

Note: I am not making any comments about the quality of these sites, this is not my point.

To provide a broader picture it's worth looking at a review aggregation site such as Game Rankings.

Galactic Civilisations 2: 47 reviews

Sins of a Solar Empire: 46 reviews

Endless Space: 23 reviews

Stardrive: 16 reviews

Sword of the Stars 2: 8 reviews

Armada 2526: 5 reviews

Horizon: 3 reviews (recently released)

and

Distant Worlds Legends: 0 reviews

[Kayoz]

ORIGINAL: Icemania
To provide a broader picture it's worth looking at a review aggregation site such as Game Rankings.

You can't just drop it, can you?

OK, fine - let's cut through some of the BS here - what credibility does gamerankings really have?

If you're seriously giving credibility to a company that fires reviewers for negative game reviews - then by all means do so. Personally I give more credibility to Fox News than anything controlled by Gamespot.

Of note - the moderators are capable of locking threads and taking actions when necessary. They don't need your constant crying and moaning to tell them how to do their jobs.

[Kayoz]

Since it seems that Gregor and Icemania won't let this thread quietly die, a quick note on Gregor's last (with the term used loosely) meaningful post:

ORIGINAL: Gregorovitch55
"Straw Man Argument"
<snip irrelevant drivel>

Look at the data.
Does it support your assertion?

Does the demographic of ARMA2 and 3 sales, as well as Football Manager really, in your mind, overlap significantly with DW? That is, after all, what you're saying.

The evidence that you presented does not support your own assertions. If it says anything at all - it's that you don't know anything about market demographics.

[DevildogFF]

GO AWAY, KAYOZ.

[Icemania]

ORIGINAL: Kayoz

ORIGINAL: Icemania
To provide a broader picture it's worth looking at a review aggregation site such as Game Rankings.

You can't just drop it, can you?

OK, fine - let's cut through some of the BS here - what credibility does gamerankings really have?

If you're seriously giving credibility to a company that fires reviewers for negative game reviews - then by all means do so. Personally I give more credibility to Fox News than anything controlled by Gamespot.

Of note - the moderators are capable of locking threads and taking actions when necessary. They don't need your constant crying and moaning to tell them how to do their jobs.

This is a forum and I'm not going to let an illogical bully stop me posting.

Your response has zero relevance. It's an aggregation site. The point I am making is obvious. If you don't like it, check a similar site that you do trust, and counter-argue with evidence rather than insults for a change. I've checked another one and while the numbers differ the theme is exactly the same.

As I've pointed out before it's not like your change in position on marketing has ever had any evidence behind it.

[Icemania]

Well said DevildogFF

[Cauldyth]

ORIGINAL: Kayoz
I'm done with this thread.

Liar.

[Osito]

Icemania, I don't think there's any argument that DW has had much less exposure than the other games you listed, at least in terms of reviews, and probably in terms of forum discussions. If you measure 'well-marketed' in those terms, then almost by definition you come to the view that the game has been poorly marketed.

However, Kayoz must be right that we don't know the whole story, because it is (self evident) that we don't have all the facts and figures available to Matrix. For example, let's say Matrix has a business plan for DW and all the goals set out in that business plan have been achieved. In those circumstances, can you say the marketing is inadequate? I'd say that in those circumstances, the marketing has been adequate to meet the business goals, ergo the marketing was effective. Now we might have a debate about whether the business plan was ambitious enough, but that's a different question.

Osito

[Icemania]

ORIGINAL: Osito

Icemania, I don't think there's any argument that DW has had much less exposure than the other games you listed, at least in terms of reviews, and probably in terms of forum discussions. If you measure 'well-marketed' in those terms, then almost by definition you come to the view that the game has been poorly marketed.

However, Kayoz must be right that we don't know the whole story, because it is (self evident) that we don't have all the facts and figures available to Matrix. For example, let's say Matrix has a business plan for DW and all the goals set out in that business plan have been achieved. In those circumstances, can you say the marketing is inadequate? I'd say that in those circumstances, the marketing has been adequate to meet the business goals, ergo the marketing was effective. Now we might have a debate about whether the business plan was ambitious enough, but that's a different question.

Osito

Thanks for posting in a friendly manner.

As I've said before of course we don't know the whole story.

Consider a game where the base product is poor. Let's say the game was marketed really well. If the business goals are not met is it fair to blame the marketing?

Now consider a game where the base product is good. Let's say the game was poorly marketed. Is it reasonable to assume that just because the business goals were met that the marketing was "reasonable" or "good"?

Achieving potential is and must be part of the equation for any evaluation of performance. As someone who has enjoyed this game immensely, and hopes we will see a big and bold DW2 and a larger community, not to mention potential in a product vastly improved from the original, it is certainly very much part of the way I look at this.

Also I'd suggested reading Tcby's earlier post again.

[Osito]

ORIGINAL: Icemania

Now consider a game where the base product is good. Let's say the game was poorly marketed. Is it reasonable to assume that just because the business goals were met that the marketing was "reasonable" or "good"?

Yes, I think it is. The point I'm getting at is that the marketing may have been designed specifically to meet the business objectives. If it succeeded in doing that, I don't think it was poor.

ORIGINAL: Icemania

As someone who has enjoyed this game immensely, and hopes we will see a big and bold DW2 and a larger community, not to mention potential in a product vastly improved from the original, it is certainly very much part of the way I look at this.

No question that I'd like to see a big and bold DW2 with a larger community.

Osito

[Icemania]

ORIGINAL: Osito
Icemania, I don't think there's any argument that DW has had much less exposure than the other games you listed, at least in terms of reviews, and probably in terms of forum discussions. If you measure 'well-marketed' in those terms, then almost by definition you come to the view that the game has been poorly marketed.

Just to supplement this is where marketing effectiveness comes in as another component of marketing performance. It's all good and well to raise awareness/exposure but that then needs to lead to sales. However, you have to create the awareness first ...

[Icemania]

ORIGINAL: Osito

ORIGINAL: Icemania

Now consider a game where the base product is good. Let's say the game was poorly marketed. Is it reasonable to assume that just because the business goals were met that the marketing was "reasonable" or "good"?

Yes, I think it is. The point I'm getting at is that the marketing may have been designed specifically to meet the business objectives. If it succeeded in doing that, I don't think it was poor.

And then the question is ... is a minimal marketing design now appropriate? I would say no, Distant Worlds is a marketing outlier against similar products, and the product is vastly improved.

Edit: It is also quite normal to re-evaluate the suitability of a design at key milestones.

[Kayoz]

ORIGINAL: Icemania
... your change in position on marketing has ever had any evidence behind it.

You still don't understand "burden of proof", do you? You've raised the negative allegations against Matrix marketing; it's for you to provide proof.

Thus far, you haven't provided one iota of proof. Your allegations can be safely ignored.

[Kayoz]

ORIGINAL: Icemania
Achieving potential is and must be part of the equation for any evaluation of performance.

You don't have any figures to put into your equation. You lack the most basic element of any equation - FACTS.

You have none. All you have is supposition and ignorant, uneducated, uninformed guesses.

Now will you give it a rest, or go and find some FACTS?