Pricing Suggestion

[Xornox]

ORIGINAL: PipFromSlitherine

I'm not sure I agree. The underlying complexity is high, yes - but then so is the driving model in Gran Tourismo. Indeed, Dirt probably has a highly accurate physics and automotive model, but the game itself is very far from being aimed at a niche market.

In racing games you just take the wheel and drive. In Kerbal you have to understand orbital mechanics, how to ascend to the orbit, how to accelerate the rocket to change the orbit, how to get inside gravity well of the another planet, how to decelerate to the orbit, how to descend to the planet. And you should be able to return to the original planet as well...

And all that must be done by using the rocket which you have designed.

I can tell you that it is not comparable to driving games. It is not easy at the beginning even if you know basics of physics. Actually I have not been able to descend to another planet because it is quite difficult...

[Nemo84]

ORIGINAL: wombat778


Gah! I had a long and detailed point by point response typed up, all of which disappeared when my browser died. Since I can't bear to type it all out again, I'll just say I disagree on a bunch of your DCS points. In the end though, none of it probably matters. Matrix has a business model and they seem to be sticking to it. As customers, its our job to decide whether we want to pay to play. Me, I'm off to go play Command some more...[;)]

Yeah, the forums are really acting up tonight. Shame, I enjoy a good debate and would have loved countering every point in that reply [:D]

You go off to enjoy Command and I'll go off on my no doubt doomed crusade to try and make Command accessible to more people. [;)]

[dutchman55555]

ORIGINAL: thewood1

Maybe in a month you'll see some heavy discounting if less than 100 people buy.

I don't think you'll see anything influence the current leadership from their path. Having the philosophy "We won't reduce the prices on our games because then our customers wouldn't value our products" pretty much determines that.

That doesn't mean that this must only be a venue for powerless complaint. It just means that if you're not going to buy a game because it's £65/$90 CAD/$80 USD you can (and should) make that statement here, and discuss why. Discussing the possibility of a sale/discount is wasted effort....there won't be one.

And I do find it interesting that Iain's (tongue in cheek) response is that no one who bought the game is here complaining about the price. Ironically I've seen at least three purchasers here doing exactly that.

[Terminus]

But maybe not more than once, hmmm?

[NefariousKoel]

ORIGINAL: wombat778

ORIGINAL: Xornox
Actually it is one of the best rocket simulations available currently (at least I do not know better). I learnt basics of orbital flying with it.

Do not let looks to deceive you. The simulation may be excellent although little yellow minions are flying devices. Actually those characters does not do anything in the simulation. They are just living "cargo" for rockets. Kerbal is excellent example how you can combine serious and light content and gain wide audience for the game. Kerbal is played from 10 years old kids to 40-50 years old guys like me.

Good to know, thanks. Still, I think the chances of me buying it went to basically zero when I saw those characters. In contrast, the marketing for Command appealed to me immediately. Just goes to show that different marketing strategies work for different kinds of people...

KSP is an excellent sim. While they gave it a flippant set of Kermit-like aliens to burn up on the launch pad or re-entry, it also makes it less sad when you do so.

Don't be fooled by the little green aliens, it's an impressive sim that has a surprisingly large and dedicated fanbase for the complexity.

[JDM]

I have to Comment on Jim Burns posting, he is about as near the mark as any I have read on this thread. So expanding on this, here are some thoughts you may find interesting, or possibly not Firstly we try and read as many of the postings as we can. We absolutely listen to these and are influenced by some, but we then must balance this with our past experience and take careful account of our statistical data which as you may guess is comprehensive. We then consult and advise our developer partner in respect of the potential of his game, also taking into account the time taken to bring the game to market and his expected return to arrive at the best price for his game. This will factor how long the game has to feed him till his next release and then together we set a price. It has to be right or the developer will not be encouraged to do it again, or won't be able to afford too.

In this particular case it has taken many years to bring this highly sophisticated and very special game to the market, but it is not a mass market product and comparing it to games like GTA is not something we think wise, or remotely relevant to the price, or this business.

After all this we take an informed decision on pricing. It's not easy and we often debate this at length before we finally decide. The biggest problem is you will never know for certain if you have gotten it right or wrong, but its a decision we have to take without the benefit of all your advice and rest assured we do take it very seriously.

Another factor you may think relevant: No one on this planet has more experience or knowledge of market size, sales data, purchasing habits, demographics, tastes and budgets in this very special and unique sector of the games industry than we do and the truth is we get this decision right far more than we get it wrong. The proof of the pudding is in the eating and you may think that the fact that we have tripled our number of employees over the past 3 years and our turnover has grown exponentially over the same period and will again this year, is a significant indicator that we do know what we are doing.

Why is this important to you? Many of whom are our very loyal audience and arguably the most important asset this business has. We listen to your feed back and as a result we are making significant changes particularly to the UI in our games and making more and better games in this genre than ever before. We are providing a far higher level of support to our developers, often financial and we are taking these games across multiple platforms, growing our audience base at a faster rate than at any time in our history. Just as well many of you tell us, as few others are investing in this niche sector.

So the point of my thread is to confirm that we do listen and we do give very careful consideration to pricing and the many other factors I have mentioned. Its a very complex mix of hard data and ultimately intuition which we simply cannot afford to get wrong, because if we do this unique sector of the strategy games market, that we all love so dearly may well be the loser.

[dutchman55555]

ORIGINAL: Tomn

Are we supposed to imagine, then, that games depicting war (one of the single most popular subjects in the world for all of humanity, let alone gamers!) in a realistic fashion are a SMALLER niche than realistic games about the space program or truck driving?

This gets at the meat of things. I love ETS2 (Euro Truck Simulator 2 for the uninitiated), by now it has sold hundreds of thousands of copies. It's a hardcore simulation, as are its even more successful cousins the Rail Sims, and the orphaned step-children Agricultural Simulators.

These are not GTA clones. There are no Marios, or Zeldas (Links, I know, I know). They faced the same challenged PC wargaming had/has, and have been financial blockbusters in the industry compared to PC wargaming.

Do we really feel confident in the direction that Matrix/Slitherine is steering the hobby? Do we see it growing, do we see more and more joining? No, we see the argument that we need to value their products, spo that's why the price is high. We see the argument that we're niche, and niche can't do well in a broad market with all those annoying discounts and sales all the time.

If this was just the future of Matrix/Slitherine I think they'd be justified in everything they've done. I can't say I'm so generous when you factor in the future of the hobby we love.

And since I've seen Iain mention twice about locking the thread, best get your feelings out soon...

[dutchman55555]

ORIGINAL: wombat778

ORIGINAL: Tomn
I point to Kerbal Space Program, a game that is literally about rocket science.

While not addressing the rest of your points, I just want to note that Kerbal Space Program may not be the best example. I am always looking for good simulations so I went to the website for it to check it out. What I find is a game involving cute yellow characters that look more than a little like the minions from Despicable Me. The features listed for the game include "Take your Kerbal crew out of the ship and do Extra Vehicular Activities" and you can download a "Kerbalizer" to "create your own custom Kerbal....Dress it up...Give it hairstyles." Not sure I would really compare this to Command...

Get your Kerbals to the Mun and back...if you still declare it to not be an in-depth simulation (you literally have to understand college-level Physics to succeed) then I'll accept that. I'll think you're crazy, but I'll accept it.

[JDM]

I think there is some misunderstanding in the meaning of Niche, so just to clear up this point, when we say niche we mean an interest group which is a subset of the overall video games market that a specific product is focused on, often aimed at satisfying a specific audience. Generally our games attract many different such sub sets. Some perceptions in this thread seem to be that that in fact niche means small, it does not, at least in our experience.

[dutchman55555]

ORIGINAL: PipFromSlitherine


I'm not sure I agree. The underlying complexity is high, yes - but then so is the driving model in Gran Tourismo. Indeed, Dirt probably has a highly accurate physics and automotive model, but the game itself is very far from being aimed at a niche market.

Thank you. Thank you.

The admission that PC wargaming need not necessarily be a niche market, but that Matrix/Slitherine's model makes it one...complete agreement. Very revealing.

[Alejo1968]

ORIGINAL: wombat778

ORIGINAL: Tomn
I point to Kerbal Space Program, a game that is literally about rocket science.

While not addressing the rest of your points, I just want to note that Kerbal Space Program may not be the best example. I am always looking for good simulations so I went to the website for it to check it out. What I find is a game involving cute yellow characters that look more than a little like the minions from Despicable Me. The features listed for the game include "Take your Kerbal crew out of the ship and do Extra Vehicular Activities" and you can download a "Kerbalizer" to "create your own custom Kerbal....Dress it up...Give it hairstyles." Not sure I would really compare this to Command...

You dont know what you are talking about. There is a lot more than that in KSP, you are not being fair with that comment.
In fact... Who are you?, a CIC Officer of the USA Navy, having training with a military software? No, you are not. You are just a guy sitting in front of a pc having fun with zeros and ones. Sorry for being harsh, but please, do not criticize something because it doesnt look like that you consider "serious".
Placing kerbal as an example just states that there can be profit with better pricing in niche titles (I mean, those not directed to the masses).

[dutchman55555]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

But maybe not more than once, hmmm?

Forgive me if I misunderstand your point, but if you think I'm here solely or even primarily to complain about the price, then you have absolutely no understanding of my arguments. If that's the case it might be for the best if you don't respond to any more of them.

[dutchman55555]

ORIGINAL: JDM

In this particular case it has taken many years to bring this highly sophisticated and very special game to the market, but it is not a mass market product and comparing it to games like GTA is not something we think wise, or remotely relevant to the price, or this business.

How about comparisons made to other simulators like ARMA, DCS, ETS2, or rail sims?

It strikes me that this is not a case of a game too complex for a larger audience, but more a case of a company with a business model that they are sticking to, with self-fulfilling prophecies spurring them on to inevitable results.

[wombat778]

ORIGINAL: dutchman55555
Get your Kerbals to the Mun and back...if you still declare it to not be an in-depth simulation (you literally have to understand college-level Physics to succeed) then I'll accept that. I'll think you're crazy, but I'll accept it.

I'm sure it is, but from my perspective that makes it a shame. While others seem to be pointing at Kerbal as an example of "combin[ing] serious and light content and gain[ing] wide audience for the game," it sounds to me like a taking a good simulation and ruining it with a lot of junk. So Kerbal lost me as an audience by going that route, though I assume they picked up many times more members of the "wide audience" than they lost. Similarly, I bet by adding pretty graphics, cute cartoons of ships, goofy animations, ability to paint your torps, and fancy futuristic weapons Matrix could sell many more copies of Command. But then it would have completely lost its appeal to me and I simply wouldn't buy it. So for purely selfish reasons, I really hope that Matrix avoids going down that road.

[WYBaugh]

[Tomn]

ORIGINAL: dutchman55555
If this was just the future of Matrix/Slitherine I think they'd be justified in everything they've done. I can't say I'm so generous when you factor in the future of the hobby we love.

To be fair to Matrix, the new economy doesn't just mean that wargames are a profitable venture now - it also means that established publishers are no longer the one and only gateway to distribution. If you truly believe that Matrix isn't healthy for the wargaming hobby, keep an eye out on Kickstarter for any good wargames willing to trust to lower selling prices and major distribution channels, and then spend the famous grognard tax backing it to the hilt.

If Matrix is right, the wargame will fail and Matrix can continue on as ever it has, secure in the knowledge that they are right and the protectors of the wargaming hobby. If Matrix is wrong, then the success of the wargame could bring in more people willing to expand into what is effectively an unexploited market, providing Matrix with a competitive spur to bring them out of their comfort zone. Either way, it seems to me that if you truly believe that Matrix's pricing policy is misguided and bad for the industry, investing in a good Kickstarter (or encouraging a good dev to try Kickstarter!) seems like it would only lead to a healthier, more competitive industry.

[JDM]

HiDutchman, I. Have no idea about stats or performance of any of these games, but if you can share this with me I would be happy to run an analysis

[Tomn]

ORIGINAL: wombat778

ORIGINAL: dutchman55555
Get your Kerbals to the Mun and back...if you still declare it to not be an in-depth simulation (you literally have to understand college-level Physics to succeed) then I'll accept that. I'll think you're crazy, but I'll accept it.

I'm sure it is, but from my perspective that makes it a shame. While others seem to be pointing at Kerbal as an example of "combin[ing] serious and light content and gain[ing] wide audience for the game," it sounds to me like a taking a good simulation and ruining it with a lot of junk. So Kerbal lost me as an audience by going that route, though I assume they picked up many times more members of the "wide audience" than they lost. Similarly, I bet by adding pretty graphics, cute cartoons of ships, goofy animations, ability to paint your torps, and fancy futuristic weapons Matrix could sell many more copies of Command. But then it would have completely lost its appeal to me and I simply wouldn't buy it. So for purely selfish reasons, I really hope that Matrix avoids going down that road.

As it happens, Kerbal Space Program does something else that a number of people in this thread have asked for - it has a demo. Completely and entirely for free, you can check it out to see if you will in fact be able to push past the Kerbals to get at the Space Program beneath. You don't have to guess at whether the simulation is really any good or whether the Kerbals ruin the simulationist bent of the game - you can find out for yourself! Give it a go, and come back when you've got a more informed opinion on what Kerbal Space Program is like!

(P.S. Kerbal Space Program does not have fancy futuristic weapons and most of the animations involve rockets and space stations - and the rockets that ARE made often have a rather marked similarity to actual rockets because the same physics are in play.)

[NavalNewZ]

.

[wombat778]

ORIGINAL: Abbeville_01
You dont know what you are talking about. There is a lot more than that in KSP, you are not being fair with that comment.

Nowhere in my post did I say or imply that there was not "a lot more than that in KSP." I merely copied and pasted text directly from their website. The fact that those items are included makes it unappealing to me. That it has "more than that" is irrelevant.

ORIGINAL: Abbeville_01
In fact... Who are you?, a CIC Officer of the USA Navy, having training with a military software? No, you are not. You are just a guy sitting in front of a pc having fun with zeros and ones.

That is true, I am not training with military software, and yes I am just a guy in front of a pc. Never pretended to be anything else (I was a programmer for several years on Falcon 4 BMS...probably spent about 3,000 hours working on that all told...so if you use or have used a BMS version of Falcon 4 you are using my work).

Regardless, I'm not sure what that has to do with anything, and it seems to me that you are being personally insulting for no good reason. I do know what kind of simulations appeal to me and which ones don't and, sorry to say, KSP doesn't. I'll choose to spend my money as I see fit thanks.

ORIGINAL: Abbeville_01
Sorry for being harsh, but please, do not criticize something because it doesnt look like that you consider "serious".

Please point to where in my post I criticized KSP. I did not do that at all. KSP sounds great, just not for me. I merely pointed to the reasons why it does not appeal to me, nothing more.