CotA or HttR

[Arjuna]

As with COTA, there will be a download version and you will also have the option to get the physical package sent to you.

[killroyishere]

BFTB is going to be over $70[8|] plus for the direct download? I was thinking about buying this one, but, I can buy two games for that price like Men at War ($29.99) and something else that is $30-$40 from HPS. Don't forget we like to eat also.[:-]

Just saying that raising prices in a recession is a bad move.

I agree when more and more people are unemployed rasing prices isn't going to help your business or bottom line. You'll lose the sales of the unemployed anyway, but, you could also price yourself right out of any income or profit from those that could afford to pay and were looking for a better deal or at least the same price.

[wworld7]

ORIGINAL: RangerX3X

Matrix selling them for $59.99 and $69.99 years after release has absolutely nothing to do with the Australian dollar.

Also, it is the PC game market. This isn't the X-Box market where it hangs at full price for a year or more. PC games (including wargames that are played on PC's) drop in price so retailers can offload their inventory.

Since Matrix is holding the games, they have no incentive to drop the price. They would rather sit on their warehoused copies and sell maybe two a year at $69.99 instead of 200 a year at $14.99, and alienate their potential customers.

I think you are wrong when you say Matrix alienates potential customers. Those that want a particular game will purchase it. Prices do not always drop in the software industry. Expecting them to fall for the reasons you imply is a faulty plan on your part. You may be disappointed your marketing logic is incorrect but I believe it is a reach to say that people are alienated.

[RangerX3X]

My marketing logic is spot on chap, sorry if you are so misguided.

PC games sold at retailers such as Best Buy, Game Stop, Wal-Market, Taget, etc. have their prices slashed in order to move the inventory off the shelves. The price starts out at $49.99 or whatever and drops to as low as $9.99 and sometimes $4.99. If you don't believe me, then you don't get out much do you.

This creates an expectation among mainstream PC gamers that if they wait just a few months, they can pick up that hot "new" game for $10 or $20 off retail. I just bought Ghost Recon 2 for $9.99 and got the same game those who paid $49.99 for it, as well as all of the patches by the time I installed it. So by being patient, I saved a boat load of cash and headaches.

So when these mainstream PC gamers come across a wargame like HTTR that has been out for almost six years and it is selling for $59.99 with no demo to speak of, they pass.

That is alienating potential customers. If you think it is not, you have your head in the sand.

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: RangerX3X
That is alienating potential customers. If you think it is not, you have your head in the sand.

If someone doesn't want to pay full price, he can wait for Matrix to put them on sale. [:)]

The politburo isn't, as yet, involving itself in setting prices for computer wargames.

IMHO, the games are already priced too low.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

[bink]

The issue of entertainment software prices dropping over time are pretty much basic economics.  It is not just retailers that drop prices to get rid of inventory (do they have the option of returning the unsold product to the distributor?), but publishers effectively drop prices by adding extra content (e.g. "Gold Edition") or justifying lower prices through minimalist packaging (e.g. going from a box to a CD case - you can still buy Combat Flight Simulator 3, but it is $9.99 instead of the $49.99 or so that it initially cost).
 
Entertainment software loses purchase appeal over time, partly because the technology becomes less competitive with newer products, partly because of network effects.  Just take a look at activity on Matrix forums for new games - there is a lot of activity, but after about a year, there tends to be little activity for some titles.
 
e.g. Carriers At War - activity on 2 topics since 12/31/08; Conquest of the Aegean 8 topics - look back 2 years and there was activity on 40 topics in the comparable period.  (I am approximating by looking at last post dates - this underestimates historical activity, since topics that were active during the prior period are not counted if they had subsequent activity).  My point is that it is clear that interest in a game wanes over time.
 
The inverse relationship between price and product demand is well accepted.  There are also network effects - peers to play with and talk to, etc.
 
Given the relationship between price and demand, it makes sense for Matrix (and developers) to cut prices (or stimulate demand by adding content - e.g. scenarios, editors, etc) over time to maintain interest and access new potential customers.  An alternative is to more agressively promote the product, but again this is not something Matrix does.
 
I thought that games like Steel Panthers and Panzer General were very popular at the time (does anyone have additional information on sales numbers?).  That would go against the theory that wargaming has to be a niche business.

[RangerX3X]

Well whether Matrix wants to drop the price and can't due to a boiler plate business model or they simply have no desire to is pretty much irrelevant as the (hopefully) unintended consequence is that at that price point with no demo (BOTB exception) this will remain a hobby or niche market only.

I said it before and it bears true in any economy: Would you rather sell 2 copies at $59.99 for HTTR or 200 copies at $14.99?

Of course there is no way to project future sales on a price drop for a game that is almost six years old, but I can virtually guarantee you more units would be sold at $14.99 then ever could at $59.99.

[GoodGuy]

ORIGINAL: flipperwasirish

I think you are wrong when you say Matrix alienates potential customers. Those that want a particular game will purchase it. Prices do not always drop in the software industry.

Well, he's right, for the most part, although the software industry, especially the Games industry, works a bit differently than he suspects.
The rough layout would be:
Usually, on release of a potential blockbuster, big publishers try to get as many sales as possible (pulling a fully fledged marketing campaign, ads, commercial etc. blehbleh) with what I call the "start-price". After a certain time frame, or once the title left the top 20 lists, the publisher adjusts the price, the title becomes somewhat cheaper. At the point where the demand hits a certain lower limit, a title drops around 20-40%, in an attempt to revive sales and to empty their own inventory and the retailers' inventories. Months or years later, the publisher then starts the "secondary use" campaign, means the re-release for around 20 bucks, often under a label that promotes (low-)budget titles, ie. Ubisofts budget series (i don't recall the title) or like Sony's "Nice Price" series. The tertiary use would be to give the license/title to 3rd party publishers who compile "best of" or budget compilations, resulting in the biggest price drop after the initial release.

Examples (recent top 10 titles - March 24):

• World of Warcraft - $20 (Average)
• Sims 2 Double Deluxe - $20 (Average)
• Command and Conquer: Red Alert 3 - $25

Exceptions can be found at let's say Electronic Arts (the market leader nowadays) and other major companies: An example would be the "Battlefield" series, where Electronic Arts kept up the price of "Battlefield 2" regardless of demand/sales figures for around 2-3 years, to maximize profit (as they suspected BF2 to be/remain a blockbuster, and they were right), before they granted the first massive price cut. In addition, they sold the "booster packs" which added content (10-20 bucks per pack) for BF2, which never reached sales figures of the BF2 stock version, but still created a good revenue. They tried the same with Battlefield 2142, but ceased creating additional booster packs for this installment, as the sales figures of the first pack were too low. BF2 can be obtained for $9.95 at EA's website, now.

EA alienated customers with that kind of greedy price and marketing policy, numerous bugs and the low quality customer support did their share to drive them off. Ubisoft's recent policy seems to be that they focus on console games, as there are less pirated copies, retail prices are higher and it's easier to code a game for a console with a fixed set of hardware. PC titles experience less and less attention from these major companies, they usually acquire a Unreal-3 engine license, put in either the Havoc or PhysiX engine for ragdoll effects/physics, and neglect quality assurance, while installing copy-protection software (ie. StarForce, SecuroRom) that gags and spies on the users' PCs. Most major publishers will go that road.

Anyway, back to Matrix. Many Matrix customers may wonder why they have to "bleed" for Matrix' insufficient marketing efforts. Matrix could at least up their efforts to gain some additional sales, which may result in either more stable prices or lower prices.

Yes, most if not all Matrix Games are niche-games. But if Wargamers have to glue non-wargamers to their chairs in order to present their beloved games, means they have to forcefully expose them to a Matrix Game, before these people eventually become converts, they can tell that their beloved games must be kind of unattractive (visually, be it GUI or ingame gfx). In fact, in most cases, the quality of the mechanics or or historical accuracy of a Matrix game won't be the reason, but the outdated gfx (by today's standards) or the unawareness of the existence of Matrix titles. It's an endless cycle Matrix should try to leave:

• More attractive look & feel or more innovations
• -> Modern gfx or more sophisticated code
• --> more money for development
• ----> requires higher sales figures
• -----> requires better marketing

Since the wargame scene is rather a confined community, better marketing might be the first step to get out of that cycle. [:)]
[/quote]

[GoodGuy]

ORIGINAL: bink

I thought that games like Steel Panthers and Panzer General were very popular at the time (does anyone have additional information on sales numbers?).  That would go against the theory that wargaming has to be a niche business.

I'd say you're right regarding these 2 series, and wargaming doesn't have to be a total niche business, indeed. I got both of their initial installments around umm... 1994 or 95, and they were widely successful and could be picked up at any retail store at the time. So, wargames could very well hit the mainstream back then, as the competition (other genres, 3D games etc.) wasn't as tough ... but you have to keep in mind that there were less games on the market ... less choice, so people kinda had to stumble over them in the store [:)].

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: bink
That would go against the theory that wargaming has to be a niche business.

"There is no commercial market for wargames." -Doug Whatley, President and CEO of Breakaway Games.

The comment is significant because DW put a lot of talent back to work when outfits like Talonsoft and Microprose folded. The last that I heard, he had them working on projects for the DoD. I think that he'd rather be developing wargames, but he no longer sees that as an economically viable option.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

[GoodGuy]

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

"There is no commercial market for wargames." -Doug Whatley, President and CEO of Breakaway Games.

I disagree, and he is wrong.

He should have said:

• "There is no commercial market for wargames that target wargamers exclusively, so their developers will keep suffering of limited or non-existent sales/budgets"

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: GoodGuy

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

"There is no commercial market for wargames." -Doug Whatley, President and CEO of Breakaway Games.

I disagree, and he is wrong.

He should have said:

• "There is no commercial market for wargames that target wargamers exclusively, so their developers will keep suffering of limited or non-existent sales/budgets"

GoodGuy, [:)]

Could you take a moment, and share with us what your idea of a "development house" might be, the number of people that it might employ, the division of labor, salaries, and so on?

[GoodGuy]

Sure [:)].
What type of dev house? Mainstream? Wargaming? Office applications? [:D].

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: GoodGuy

Sure [:)].
What type of dev house? Mainstream? Wargaming? Office applications? [:D].

How about the one that put out Steel Panthers?

[GoodGuy]

Ok, let's see, SSI was founded by J. Billings in 1979, and basically started with him and 2 additional programmers (IIRC all students), where they kept being unsure whether they should proceed with studies or foster their company project.

But by 1984 they already had modern offices in Silicon valley, and collected a portfolio of around 100 titles until 2009. They had luck, as in 1980 Apple needed content for their new machines, so they started out to create wargames for the Apple platforms.

Soooo.... by 1995 (release of Steel Panthers), they had fully fledged programming, art, QA and marketing divisions, since late 80s, most likely. [:)]

EDIT: SSI used to employ outside programmers for quite some titles, and "outsourced" titles (ie. to Matrix), so I don't know what the size of the company would be nowadays, but it's probably just a brand name, as it became part of Ubisoft. Ubisoft, just like Vivendi Universal (who acquired Sierra/Dynamix), acquired quite a few companies, to a) get the copyrights for successful titles and then b) to dissolve them after their last titles had been finished. [:)]

[Killjoy12]

That's easy - assuming you can sell 200 @14.99. What if they've researched the marketplace and feel that it's only 5?

ORIGINAL: RangerX3X

I said it before and it bears true in any economy: Would you rather sell 2 copies at $59.99 for HTTR or 200 copies at $14.99?

[RangerX3X]

ORIGINAL: Killjoy12

That's easy - assuming you can sell 200 @14.99. What if they've researched the marketplace and feel that it's only 5?

ORIGINAL: RangerX3X

I said it before and it bears true in any economy: Would you rather sell 2 copies at $59.99 for HTTR or 200 copies at $14.99?

As I said in the post you selectively quoted from there is no way to project future sales via a price drop. And 5 units is an arbitrary number to come in under selling two at full price, as I am sure you are aware in your counterargument. [:)]

[GoodGuy]

ORIGINAL: Killjoy12

That's easy - assuming you can sell 200 @14.99. What if they've researched the marketplace and feel that it's only 5?

How do you research demand for games that won't attract non-wargamers at first glance, due to shortcomings in the graphics department?
With the currently non-existent marketing efforts, it's hard to estimate the actual demand. If Demo versions, "hiding" on the Matrix website, or even worse - only on the devs website, display the only marketing effort (that's how it is right now), then you won't expand the customer base. Quite contrary, you can find Demo versions of mainstream titles on emule, as Torrent-file, and on a myriad of online-game magazines (non-profit + profit) and fan-sites, let alone thousands of blogs and network sites.

I've never seen a HTTR- or ROA-Demo (was there one?) on the web. I saw HTTR on my neighbor's PC and bought it later on. I then stumbled across 1 (one) online-review after numerous google sessions (the review on gamespot, a fair review).

Sorry, but it's not only about the actual demand, but it's about stimulating the demand too, even if the product can't compete with the industry standard, visually.
There's potential, and it's not being used by Matrix, sorry.
They remain operational and might be happy with their share, while the devs keep struggling.

Most people might know that the publisher (be it the music industry, game software industry, or let's say book publishers) gets the biggest share of the turnover. They bring forward the argument that they provide access to sales channels, marketing efforts, legal assistance and lobby work. In my books, Matrix never boosted marketing efforts. One could argue that fully fledged marketing will require a big budget not accessible to Matrix, but I outlined that there are inexpensive ways to advertise Matrix titles (actively spreading Demos, liasing with "local" online stores to get away from the direct order thing, liasing with gaming networks, etc.).
Establishing a european office (even if it's just a one-man part-time thing), with a minimum amount of stocks, might be another step, so people wouldn't have to wait for the physical shipment versions of their beloved games for "ages", and import taxes would not apply.

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: GoodGuy

Ok, let's see, SSI was founded by J. Billings in 1979, and basically started with him and 2 additional programmers (IIRC all students), where they kept being unsure whether they should proceed with studies or foster their company project.

But by 1984 they already had modern offices in Silicon valley, and collected a portfolio of around 100 titles until 2009. They had luck, as in 1980 Apple needed content for their new machines, so they started out to create wargames for the Apple platforms.

Soooo.... by 1995 (release of Steel Panthers), they had fully fledged programming, art, QA and marketing divisions, since late 80s, most likely. [:)]

EDIT: SSI used to employ outside programmers for quite some titles, and "outsourced" titles (ie. to Matrix), so I don't know what the size of the company would be nowadays. [:)]

Then you realize that outfits like SSI were full-fledged corporations, with a full-time staff which was provided a whole host of benefits. As you mentioned, they had multiple programmers. The art staff worked collaboratively on games, rather than being assigned one by themselves, so that "specialists" emerged, for sprites and such. In addition to some titles having multiple designers, there were paid researchers, producers, marketing personnel, and as you also mentioned, paid QA staff.

Obviously, things have changed significantly. The "norm" in "the business," is a structure such that one or two people own the company (and share the profit). Just about everyone else that's involved is either a contract worker or a volunteer.

I have a friend who's done the lion's-share of art in a number of games. On more than one occasion, he's been offered a share of the profits as compensation. In effect, he's being offered a limited partnership in the project. However, he insists on being paid up front for his work because he knows that unit-volumes are so low on wargames that his "piece of the pie" simply won't be worth his time. BTW, the last time that we communicated, he was working part-time at a cell-phone store to pay for some medical bills that were run up during his wife's last pregnancy.

In that kind of environment, you're not going to see games like Steel Panthers emerge from contemporary wargame developers. Given the paucity of sales associated with this type of product, it's simply not gonna happen. The resources simply aren't there. We all want a merry xmas, but if's and buts aren't candy and nuts, and demanding that it be otherwise, will bear no such fruit. I acknowledge that in many instances we're getting less for more, but as long as sales languish and unit-costs remain so high, that's the way its gonna be.

And there's no light at the end of the tunnel. [:(]

[Llyranor]

Most of us know of the value these games represent, and Panther Games is one of only two game companies for whom I will blindly purchase at full price without a second thought. I do think that slowly decreasing the price of the game will push more people into trying out the games, though I guess that's what the yearly Matrix sales are for.

The BFTB demo will go a long way promoting this game; you can only do so much with just text and pictures. I'll certainly do my part trying to promote the game in various places where there would probably be interest in these games - but people just don't know they exist.