Pricing Suggestion

[Xornox]

ORIGINAL: flanyboy
If you're playing GTA V you're paying $60 for a game so that's not exactly a cheap game either. Just saying...

True, actually I was not buying GTA V as well because of the high price, but my wife wanted it and bought it. Development of GTA V has also cost couple of hundred millions. It's quality is just in completely another level. I also saw tens of reviews praising the game - it was not blind purchase.

ORIGINAL: flanyboy
Yea the price here will probably cause me to hold out but I can respect the decision, I may not buy the game but as with any product it's the developers choice what they need to charge to recoup costs. Who are we to DEMAND someone who made a product lower the price? It's totally their call and we have no justification in demanding a lower price. We can let them know we'd buy it if it was cheaper but we have no right to expect them to price it as we want, it's a business and it's 100% fair for them to do what they feel they need to do. I'm sure I'll buy it someday on a holiday sale and you'll get my money someday.

I do not demand anything. I just try to inform the company that there would be much more people buying the product if the price would be in normal level (I would have bought it for 40-50 dollars). I want that developers get their well-earned compensation (I am developer as well) and I want Matrix be successful company. In many cases, lower price means just much more money and happier customers which will buy products in the future also.

[delenda]

Hi All,

I've been following Command/RP for many years and couldn't wait for yesterday. Even though it was my wife's birthday, I managed to sneak in a quick hour

After debating with myself for hours, I finally bought the game - the price made it a difficult decision. I was willing to go up to £50, no questions asked and being content with trading that much money for something that I've been looking forward to for so long.

I admit that an hour isn't a long time but my first impressions are that £65 is a ridiculously high price. The UX isn't as polished as it should be - and I don't doubt for a second the completeness and veracity of the game DB - it feels like someone has tacked on a .NET interface.

You've completely priced out a large group of your customer base. I'd be shocked if there weren't any dodgy copies floating around within a week that the majority of your potential customers will use instead. Your 'niche genre' customers are being punished the most.

I'm going to play more over the next few days but C:MANO has a lot of work to do to convince me that it was worth the massive expenditure.

Thanks,

Andrew

[Hexagon]

Steam and Iron is other unique game, nobody is working in other game like this and game cost 35$ and if you want a campaign add-on you pay 20& extra, total 55$ a fair price enough to made then continue working in the serie (RJW on the way and plans for a WW2 game).

I have a lot of games from matrix and i planed buy 4 games in this release period (i plan invest 150 euros or a little more) but at this moment i discard 2 and look like i am going to discard the other 2 with this prices.

Maybe SC is here because battlefront DRM made they lose sales... and they dont have specially low prices, lower than matrix??? yes but DRM made diference irrelevant, this made me put here another example of company fail, do you know Eagle Storm naval games??? they star with high prices and draconian DRM later they decide create their own Steam clone waste a lot of resources but dont fix the game... now practicall every 3-4 months they launch discounts between 50-70% but look like nobody buy even whit attractive prices because they kill the potencial cliente base.

We are not going to change prices??? yes and no is hard say it when are more than 1 guy on this but in my case i dont plan pay for overpriced games specially when in the extra money i pay for them have serious doubts that goes to the company that made the game.

OOOO something i need say, games like CMANO has 50% of their value (even more) in the comunity, 38 scens is a good number but the value of the game depends a lot of how many scens can create guys that have it and this very important value of the game is 0 cost for sellers and i doubt they pay something to guys that expand the game value.

EDIT: GTA... a stupid question, how many money waste to sell CMANO??? i dont see a marketing strategy for it, no TV spots around the world, no interviews in game webs etc etc, when we talk about "generalist" games we need reduce from their final price 2 things, taxes (they include taxes on game price, you dont see xx$ + taxes) and the money used in marketing... wargames dont have marketing, dont include taxes on their prices but are at or over these games prices.

Yea, i am a whiner, a whiner that move from invest 150 euros in Matrix games to invest 0

[Dimitris]

ORIGINAL: Hexagon
OOOO something i need say, games like CMANO has 50% of their value (even more) in the comunity, 38 scens is a good number but the value of the game depends a lot of how many scens can create guys that have it and this very important value of the game is 0 cost for sellers and i doubt they pay something to guys that expand the game value.

I am not going to say anything about the price but I wanted to reply to this.

Making a game, particularly a complex game/sim like this one, friendly to modding & community content is most definitely not a free action. You have to structure the code accordingly, you have to add a truckload of checks for data inputs you have absolutely no control over, you have to compensate for the performance penalties of loading external content (almost always less efficient than packing said content internally during development) and in general you have to worry about a million extra things that you wouldn't be concerned with in a closed system.

Then there is the extra development to cater to community needs. A user (beta tester or customer) tells you he's making e.g. an awesome new scenario but he needs functionality-X to make it work. So you sit down and do your best to adjust your existing codebase to the new requirement. Write the code, make it work, make it work _fast_, make it work _reliably_, make it suffer problems gracefully, make it play nice with the existing code, quite often re-architect a part of the solution to avoid duplication and conflicts.... the list goes on. Then of course test it, get everyone to agree it works as desired (and revise it if it doesn't), then commit it and move on to the next.

Opening a game to community content, and adding functionality/features at the community's request, is often (almost always maybe) a good idea, and most of the time it pays back for the initial investment of the extra work I described, but at the end of the day it's still an investment, which means an upfront cost. Sometimes a big one. Definitely never free.

Thanks!

[CoffeeMug]

It's a pity to see so much hate and so many tears about a price difference of 20 to 30 USD ...

You will have hundreds of hours out of this game. Compare that to your cookie cutter style GTAx or CoDx games or whatever.

Avoid the starbucks about 10 times and you are good.

[stringue]

I was interested in this game for a while as I have a casual interest in modern military technology. I found the price completely shocking I am sorry so I will not be purchasing this game at this price point, it is probably a waste of time me registering and posting this as it doesn't change anything but £65!!!! that is very expensive versus other games out there.

I agreed with another earlier poster who compared the pricing of this game to GTA V, they were promptly swatted down by an admin who said there could be no comparison. For me personally a game is a game, each gives hopefully a great deal of entertainment over a period of time and I pay for that entertainment whether it be the sandbox environment of Skyrim, unit management in the recent Xcom, interacting with virtual systems in MS Flight series or pitting various modern surface combatants against each other etc etc. Many modern games have a great deal of coding complexity and game complexity and a great deal of development time and "man hours" invested, but of the games I have played this is very expensive, and I cannot see how I could justify its features offered against its price, compared to other games.

I feel that you have a captive audience of people that love this particular genre and as they unfortunately have no(?) alternative games within the genre, that you can elevate the price knowing that they will pay over the odds for their fix, which is a shame because people outside the genre with a passing interest won't.

(I am not knocking the game it looks good, but the pricing point £65 sheesh!)

[thewood1]

Did I miss something...where was the swatting?

[delenda]

ORIGINAL: CoffeeMug

It's a pity to see so much hate and so many tears about a price difference of 20 to 30 USD ...

You will have hundreds of hours out of this game. Compare that to your cookie cutter style GTAx or CoDx games or whatever.

Avoid the starbucks about 10 times and you are good.

I assure you - there's no hate on my part.

I've had 100s of hours out of FSX, DCS A10, ARMA, BF2, GTA4 etc individually. Nothing in that list cost £65.

I might get 100s of hours out of CMANO, then again, I might not. Either way, you can't use that argument to justify the price point.

I'm mindful of this thread turning in to a complain-fest but I'd hope that the take-away from this is that clearly people are unhappy with the pricing and instead of 'deal with it' responses, it'd be nice to see that the publishers are taking note of the potential loss of sales & the number of unhappy customers.

Besides, if I avoid Starbucks, I won't be able to do my job as well [:D]

Thanks,

Andrew

[Joseph_Nevsky]

At the moment, I will not be able to buy at that price, although I´d like to have it in my wargames collection. Anyway, wait for the time of the sales... [:)]
All the good luck to the developers!!

[Dimitris]

Thanks guys! No hard feelings either way. We'll be here.

[thewood1]

ORIGINAL: stringue


I feel that you have a captive audience of people that love this particular genre and as they unfortunately have no(?) alternative games within the genre, that you can elevate the price knowing that they will pay over the odds for their fix, which is a shame because people outside the genre with a passing interest won't.

You do realize this is how businesses work, right? Charge what the market will bear. Now if it ends up being a ghost town here in three weeks, the market has spoken. I have only seen one buyer say they were disappointed.

Maybe in a month you'll see some heavy discounting if less than 100 people buy. The real question is if they lowered the price to $60, would enough people buy it to make up for the loss of $20 on every sale they would make at $80. Sounds like Matrix did the analysis and came up with the answer. If 100 people would have bought it at $80, that's $8k. That means they would have to sell 33 more units if it was priced at $60. If they sell 1000, that is 333 more sales to make. I doubt there is that scale of differentiation. You also have to take into account the extra support needed to handle 333 more sales at the lower price. So the reality is that Matrix has to sell 30% to 50% more units to make the same profit.

Does anyone think they should subsidize the industry? My main issue is if we consider Command an entry-level game for wargaming. Is Matrix passing up that potential market. Just knowing the naval wargaming market a little, I doubt that would be a successful strategy. The documentation and online support would be expensive. In fact, pricing at $80 keeps a lot of the needy new players out. There is sometimes something to be said for pricing at the high end of a market. That is under the assumption you can make your profit of the hardcores.

[thewood1]

I also think its interesting the number of games that have moved to Matrix. BFC has lost several developers to Matrix. That tends to say that developers are happier with Matrix model than others.

[Hexagon]

But in the end who made the game is not Matrix... in games that we can buy here NOT all beneficts go for developer and when a game is abandoned with no patches (i have a pair of them) all is a question of the developer.

Matrix is an intermediary and when to sell a product you have one of them you know that part of the final price is for it, maybe the extra money that made you pass of the product.

If guys go to Matrix is maybe because other big distributor enter in the crazy world of DRMs, i buy CM2 and it was the first and last title i buy from battlefront and i follow a lot the SC WW1.

Is a waste of time talk about this, this is a niche and logic is out, in "real world" this kind of politics move companies to suicide... and even in the niche market are companies near to it but here you have something more than high prices.

[Alejo1968]

ORIGINAL: thewood1

ORIGINAL: dutchman55555

ORIGINAL: thewood1

So you never answered my question...is the $95 for CMBN inaccessible?

So $65 plus the $10 upgrade is $75...only $5 cheaper than Command. So either you aren't going to buy anymore CMBN modules, or you will end up spending more than on Command. Even if MG discounts to $25 in a year, that is still more than Command will ever be totaled up.

I am totally confused by your logic. Even after 4 years if they discount to CMSF levels, your most likely still talking $65-$70. Not only that, BFC charged for an upgrade, something some people are fired up that it might be a possibility with Command.

You're confused that I continue to buy additional parts of an ever-expanding series (when they reach a price point I find acceptable), as opposed to a single purchase product with a price I find awe-inspiring?

There is a philosophy, held by many even within the Matrix community, that the higher Matrix prices things, the more sales they lose, and the more people they scare away from the hobby. And pricing a new release at $90 absolutely guarantees that anyone who is entertaining the idea of entering the PC wargaming hobby will take a pass. And left with the impression that the hobby is that expensive, they will most likely walk away for good.

So what if COmmand came out in three pieces scattered over three years. Better. You prefer waiting 2-3 years to complete the game like CMBN?

Your point doesnt make any sense. i purchased CM and it was a complete product from the beggining, and at 55 dollars, now cheaper. The fact it didnt model all 44 45 western front battles dindnt affect its quality, and scope. It was intended and named for the period it presented in their scenarios. It had a full and fantastic mission editor, which gave it en enormous replayiability. It really appears you never had the game, and if you did, you clearly where looking for something else.
And in fact, Command doesnt model ww2, which could be also named modern (if they consider modern Korea, why not the pacific in 1945 too?), and not for that reason is an incomplete product.
Your statement is pointless.

[thewood1]

My point was that Command is a very broad sandbox game with editor. It comes with two time periods. BFC would have sold this multiple times. at a higher total cost and over two years. Command sold basically two games in one, at once. Would it have been better for the price to be $55 for Cold War, and then 9 months later sell "modern" for $35? That is the BFC model. Now I hope they come out with WW2 for $35, I'll buy it.

I am not complaining about BFC's model...just comparing it. I actually like BFC's model. I just wish they wouldn't take 9 months for the addons.

[Alejo1968]

ORIGINAL: thewood1

SO I doublechecked...in US $ to be consistent.

Original CMBN - $55, Original CW module - $35, Upgrade to 2.0 - $10, MG module - $35 = $145 if bought within three to six months of release

Bundles - As much as you can bundle right now $95...in today's US $

CMBN was discounted specifically when the 2.0 update came out.

So again, I'll point out one more time. Command - $80 US, CMBN full up with bundles today - $95 US, Bought on each product release $145 US

CMBN total at release $145 > CMBN today bundles - $95 > Command on release $80

Doesn't matter what currency you use, CMBN bought as each module released is almost twice as much as Command. I am going to go over to the BFC forum and see if I see where you complained about pricing there.

CMBN does have MP so maybe that justified the extra $65 on release.

edit...btw, it took BFC almost 10 years to lower the prices on CMBO. It took them almost 4 years to discount CMSF.

You would be right if we do not see, CMNA ELITE, ADMIRALS EDITION, PLAN RED, and who aknows what more iterations. Of course Im guessing, but you cannot say this will not happen, specially with matrix games, that has done that many times with similar products.
I think you will pay a lot more than 80 my young padawan...

[thewood1]

I think its been done with two products, one of them community-drive(WITP AE). The other Harpoon, which was a damned mess from the start.

Again, do you agree with the logic on the pricing, separating out your future predictions of re-releasing Command?

If they had released Cold War at $55, and then charged $35 in nine months?

Also note that BFC made you buy CM all over again, even if you bought all the CM1s...not even a discount. I think it was the right thing to do, but still had the same title. Even Wargame European Escalation did this. It is about to happen to Achtung Panzer as well with its new release. I agree with all of them.

[Alejo1968]

ORIGINAL: thewood1

I think its been done with two products, one of them community-drive(WITP AE). The other Harpoon, which was a damned mess from the start.

Again, do you agree with the logic on the pricing, separating out your future predictions of re-releasing Command?

If they had released Cold War at $55, and then charged $35 in nine months?

Know what? Maybe at a lower price I could have got into... Seriously... Right now I have other priorities, as I said before... World in Flames in november, (ironically) CM Market Garden in october, and got Rise of Flight a couple of weeks ago.
Cant afford 80 plus tax, plus more taxes here ( I mean local strange taxes like I have in my country).
Just thinking aloud... May be the other model would have put me into... May be

[thewood1]

SO there is the real point isn't it. Matrix releases it at $60 and maybe, maybe you'd consider buying it. Suddenly it is not as clear cut. So instead of us waiting an extra nine months, or Cold War being released nine months ago at $60 and we now pay $35 for modern, we get both for $80 now. So are you waiting on the discount for MG or are you buying day 1? You know it will be $35 and I assume you bought all the other CMBN stuff...so you must be out at least $95, and maybe as much as $145. Where is the post to BFC about the cost of playing CMBN?

[Alchenar]

ORIGINAL: thewood1
You do realize this is how businesses work, right? Charge what the market will bear. Now if it ends up being a ghost town here in three weeks, the market has spoken. I have only seen one buyer say they were disappointed.

You know this forum is effectively a ghost town at the best of times, right?

In terms of markets I think the proof of the pudding is that despite being a 'premium' game and shopfront product, google produces precisely one review on the front page of a search and it's USNI news. The game doesn't even have a metacritic page. There's been precisely fuck-all attempt to actually market this game outside of this site and wargamer.com. The fact is that before we even start to talk about quality or price, Matrix haven't even done the bare minimum due diligence to try to bring attention to the game to a wider audience.

e: and how on earth are you still not grasping the concept of Opportunity Cost?