Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: wodin

I must admit having to pay for the AI looks to me like a kick in the teeth to those who bought the game early and pre AI..really they should be given it free in a patch..just up the price of WIF once the AI comes along.

I'm not even buying it pre AI but I think this is wrong. Really not looking after your most loyal and faithful customer.

I'm not sure about your logic here. If everyone paid full price without the AIO, what would be my motivation for writing the AIO? More future sales I guess. But no additional revenue for the AIO from anyone who purchased the initial release of the game.

As I estimate my pay for my effort, it already comes in well under minimum wage. This is for doing work in a profession where the median salary is $75,000 a year. Forgive me if I am bit insensitive to advice to give the results of my labor away for free ("... given it free in a patch ...").

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

February 1, 2009 Status Report for Matrix Games’ MWIF Forum

AI Opponent
I decided that one way to reduced my task list for creating the AIO is to limit the number of different scenarios that it can play when the game is first released. I’ll do 4 of the 11 scenarios for first release and then add the other 7 as patches in subsequent months. What this removes from my task list is figuring out alternative setups for thousands of units in the 7 scenarios that start late in the war. Each of those scenarios has hundreds, if not thousands, of units on the map at the start of the game. If the AIO always uses the same setup, it becomes too predictable and easy to defeat. But to do a respectable job of designing alternative setups for thousands of units will take time and effort.

The 4 scenarios that will be ready for first release are the ones that will be played the most: the two introductory scenarios (Barbarossa and Guadalcanal) and the Global War scenario (which is virtually the only scenario ever played in over the board games). The fourth scenario is Fascist Tide, which is the European half of the Global War scenario, so it can use the same setups.

The bolded section definately implies that at least for 4 scenerios AT RELEASE was to have an AI since in a previous report you stated that Netplay, PBEM, and solo (against an AI) were the three methods that WiF was going to be able to do at some point. PBEM has been eliminated. Now you are saying that we will have to pay an additional cost for an AI? Are you serious?

I was REALLY exicted to see this game have a release date since I have been following it for a while now. However, I definately will not be buying this at release (or anytime soome with or without an AI) if this is the path you and Matrix are now taking. I have no problem paying for the full game WITH an AI that is part of a FREE patch. But I have NO interest in paying for a game twice. Whomever thought this STUPID way to sell should be sent back to school to figure out marketing. Because in case you could not tell, you have royally pissed off a long time Matrix customer and supporter with this stupidity.

I cannot wait until people find out the game is realeased for X amount, but without an AI. Then if you want an AI at some future point (1 year, 2 years, etc.), later you have to pay more if you want an AI? Do you honestly think this is going to fly? You just lost one buyer. I wonder how may more you will lose?

It took too long to get everything ready.[:(] You are quoting a post from over 4 and half years ago (when I was young and naive).

Rather than have everyone pay full price now (i.e., as if the AIO and PBEM were included) for the initial release, a reduced price was decided upon.

As I understand it, customers who have already purchased MWIF (i.e., the initial release) will get full credit for that purchase price against the price of the second release - which includes the AIO. PBEM may or may not be part of the second release. I will try my best to make that happen, but time rules over all.

I totally get that things change as time passes and decisions made then may not be accurate any longer. The issue is it is hard enough to sell an item once versus trying to get the same people to buy it again based on something that many feel should be in the initial release of the game to start with.

You make a good point on where is your financial incentive to make an AI for the game if no increased revenue steam is associated with it. The problem is that I personally feel (others may or may not feel the same) that by going down this path you are forcing us to buy a 'pig in a poke' (Google it if you do not know what that means [:)])

I realize that you, ADG, your new partners want something to show for all this time and effort. I do not blame any of you for wanting that. However, I feel (and again this is just me speaking here) that et el is NOT putting your supporters and customers first by going down this path.

So we have the following choices as customers under the current plan
1. Buy a copy of the game at release for X dollars for a game without an AI.
2. At some indetermined point in the furture which is still undefined, the game will be re-released?, Version 2.0? for Y dollars. Anyone who bought it for X dollars will still need to pay Y-X dollars for the 'new' version with an AI. An AI that many people here feel very strongly that should be part of the initial release.
3. New purchases will then from this point forward will now cost Y dollars

Considering the time it took the get the game ready to release WITHOUT an AI, why should ANYONE here buy this at the initial release when no one can say with authority when the AI version even will be ready? Even if you say the AI will be ready in a year, why should we belive that versus what you stated in 2009? After all you state very clearly that things changed since 2009 so there is nothing to prevent things from happening that delay the AI even after you provide a date for it to be ready.So if you say a year or less, it could take 2 becasue 'things change'. If the AI takes longer that planned where is our (the customers) revenue stream for any delays?

So as customers Matrix et el wants us to buy a game without an AI, pay extra for whenever an AI is ready, at some point in the furture whose date of completiion may or may not change. This sure makes me exicted about getting this on release, NOT.

What SHOULD occur (if everyone is worried about revenue streams post a non-AI release) is just suck things up until an AI is ready. Even if it takes another year to get it done. This way everyone involved still has an incentive to get the game working AS IT SHOULD from the very start. Instead of the absoultely BS way things are set up now.

Another way (which again makes a lot more sense from a customer point of view so I know it will not be considered) to help with a revenue stream is to charge Y cost for the game with an AI and provide the AI free as a patch. However, the parties involved only get the revenus stream from the X cost without an AI, The difference is set aside and does not get paid out until the AI is done. To me this is the way it should work. Not pushing off development, revenue stream, etc. issues onto the people, i.e. customers, supporting the companies involved.

It is just sad to see the direction this has taken so close to release. I wish you luck with this approch, but I will definately not be along for the ride.

In the long run, I predict little demand for a pure PBEM. I mean unless you like wargaming in real time on the calendar. The each-side decision points are just so, so much more numerous compared to say an Avalon Hill classic. And if PBEM isn't in the initial release, the new players of the game will learn this quickly. Connectivity of all sorts is so simple, fast, 24/7, and easy these days that I have to wonder who would sit through endless emails of "4 Cruisers enter the North Sea - do you intercept?" followed by "4 Cruisers enter the Faeroes Gap - do you intercept?" or even advance declaring those decisions. Imagine pre-designating FTR intercept hexes across the entire global map for the USA during an Axis impulse in 1944 (for maybe a half-dozen points in the Axis impulse where Allied FTRs might have to fly). Much easier to play against people on roughly the same schedule of occasional free time via connected machines with side-channel Skype, IM chat, cell texts, or what have you. Email could be used to catch up the game on each player's machine when lots of offline decisions can be made, such as placing reinforcements (technically subject to the sequence of play, which is easily forgotten) moving land units, production, etc.

But a pure, all decisions by email game of World in Flames just doesn't seem too desirable to me, unless there is some sort of 'override' to allow the other player to tell your units to do something, in a gentlemen's game as it is played sometimes with Cyberboard currently.

The AI questions have been sorted out here on a more than annual basis. A lot of new people will be stopping by and just now be learning the answers. Some sort of short version of it all should be easily accessible somewhere.

ORIGINAL: Numdydar
So we have the following choices as customers under the current plan
1. Buy a copy of the game at release for X dollars for a game without an AI.
2. At some indetermined point in the furture which is still undefined, the game will be re-released?, Version 2.0? for Y dollars. Anyone who bought it for X dollars will still need to pay Y-X dollars for the 'new' version with an AI. An AI that many people here feel very strongly that should be part of the initial release.
3. New purchases will then from this point forward will now cost Y dollars

Considering the time it took the get the game ready to release WITHOUT an AI, why should ANYONE here buy this at the initial release when no one can say with authority when the AI version even will be ready? Even if you say the AI will be ready in a year, why should we belive that versus what you stated in 2009? After all you state very clearly that things changed since 2009 so there is nothing to prevent things from happening that delay the AI even after you provide a date for it to be ready.So if you say a year or less, it could take 2 becasue 'things change'. If the AI takes longer that planned where is our (the customers) revenue stream for any delays?

What SHOULD occur (if everyone is worried about revenue streams post a non-AI release) is just suck things up until an AI is ready. Even if it takes another year to get it done. This way everyone involved still has an incentive to get the game working AS IT SHOULD from the very start. Instead of the absoultely BS way things are set up now.

Why should all those who are willing to buy the game now without an AI be made to suffer so you can have your way?

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

So we have the following choices as customers under the current plan
1. Buy a copy of the game at release for X dollars for a game without an AI.
2. At some indetermined point in the furture which is still undefined, the game will be re-released?, Version 2.0? for Y dollars. Anyone who bought it for X dollars will still need to pay Y-X dollars for the 'new' version with an AI. An AI that many people here feel very strongly that should be part of the initial release.
3. New purchases will then from this point forward will now cost Y dollars

I understand your views, but disagree.

Prospective customers are being offered a choice, which is the initial release with solitaire, head-to-head, and via Net Play over the internet. As I have been following the forum, the demand for that product has been strongly voiced by many potential customers. They want an immediate release rather than wait for the A.I., which explains Matrix's decision. The game's contents and future development plans are fully disclosed to the customer. The A.I. is not part of the initial release and the game's price is based on the attributes of the game, which is lower then the future price will be when the A.I. opponent is complete. The game will be available for those who choose to enjoy it, while others are welcome to wait for the A.I.

Now it is their choice, buy now or wait. Is that not being responsive to the customer by letting them make the choice?

-Rob

So MWiF hasn't yet been released and no-one has paid any money in advance and the manufacturers are being completely honest about what you get and don't get in MWiF (Initial) and MWiF(AI) versions yet some people are throwing tantrums. I really don't see what all of the fuss is about. [&:][&:][&:] If you don't like what's on sale then just don't buy it. It might be worth a courteous note to Matrix to tell them why they lost the sale but that's about it.

How far would you get with your attitude if you tried the same tactics at WalMart ..."I expected this product (which I haven't yet bought) to have more features and to be available sooner."
You'd be escorted out of the store.

What's the point of ranting at the developer who's been busting his guts for years at far less than the minimum wage to get the product out the door? What do you think your rant will achieve apart from giving Steve a bad feeling about the MWiF community?

<a virtual hug for Steve>

This is a vast project and Steve has been as honest as he can about its progress. I'm not alone in having followed the computer conversion of WiF since the late 90s and there have been many ups and downs in that time. The reality is that MWiF will be released without an AI very soon.

It would have been great to have an AI on initial release but it isn't going to happen. When Steve took this project on, he promised a Matrix World in Flames. He is about to deliver on that. If he says there will be an AI and PBEM later, considering that there has been heaps of work on the AI already, I believe him.

I have plenty of catching up on the rules, tactics and strategy to do anyway. I've actually dusted off my copy of the old CWiF beta and I'd forgotten how interesting and fun it is to play solitaire. I look forward to learning from human opponents and I'm sure there will be plenty of people keen to grow the MWiF community by helping beginners like myself.

As has been mentioned, if people won't buy without an AI, no-one is forcing them. There are plenty of other wargaming options until an AI is available.

I also agree with brian brian about PBEM but definitely nice to have as an option, as he described.

Cheers, Neilster

I have been starving of playing WiF for a full 16 years therefore...
With or without an AI, MWiF is a no brainer [:D]

Too bad for the kill-joys [:@]

My issue is not that the game is being released without an AI. I have stated several times in this forum how much I enjoyed Decision Games War in Europe which does not have one and never will have an AI. So I do not care at all about an AI at release or not. My issue is the pricing structure of the game at release.

To use GreyShaft's example, I buy a DVD player at Walmart where the label clearly staes that the player will not play Bu Ray movies. However, for an extra cost at some point in the future (which is unknown) I can 'upgrade' the DVD player to be able to play Bu-Ray movies. And maybe have digital sound too (PBEM) if we can swing it. If no one but me sees an issue with that, then fine.

However, I DO have a major issue with this. Especially since I know of no other game that has been tried to be sold to anyone like this. Especially since every game that Matrix will release for the rest of this year (and probably next year, and the year after that, etc.) ALL will be released with AIs. Will Civil War II have one, yes. How about Naval War, yes. All for ONE SINGLE PRICE. How many of these NEW games would you want to buy and then have to pay extra for an AI? How do you think this game is going to fly with independent reviewers with this pricing model?

Let's recap a bit.
Is it our fault (Matrix's customers) that the game took so long to develop? No
Is it our fault that finances have finally reared its head to force the game to be released under this stupid pricing structure? No.

So why should we support a pricing model that is counter to every game that Matrix will release just because of issues with development, etc. that the customers had nothing to do with.

Also, why should we (the customers agin) buy a game with a vague promise of an AI being delivered at some point? I would make the assumption that there may never be an AI for a whole varity of reasons that are outside of both us (the customers), Matrix's, and Steve's control. After all, Steve himself has have to backtrack on things already due to items outsdie of everyone's control. It just happens and this has NOTHONG to do with Steve as a person either.

What really surprises me is that many people complain about DLCs and feel a good portion of some of these should have been part of the core game versus having to pay extra to get the additional content. Like extra civilizations for Civ, differnet units for total War, etc. yet no one seems to have an issue with paying extra for an AI? Why not strat releasing ALL games without AIs and just offer them as optional DLCs? I mean the AIs are preety stupid and no one really needs it anyway. Right?

I do not have ANY problem, paying one price for a complete game, which includes an AI at some point in time. Nor do I have an issue buying a game for one price that will never have an AI. I do have an issue paying one price for a game that will not be released with an AI, but the AI will be provided at an extra cost at some point in the near or far future. I'm sorry but if I buy a DVD player (game) I will want the expected features, like playing Bu Ray (AI at release or in the future for free) when I buy it. Not provided for extra cost in the future.

Fortunately there are PLENTY of games from Matrix and others (Like Stratigic Command 3) that shockingly enough, WILL have an AI on release. Of course if Matrix releases WiF for a LOT less than I expect them to without the AI, then I could change my mind. The price point does matter [:)]. But if they expect me to pay $40+ on a game without an AI, then why should I when I can already pay that for games with an AI? Just because it is WiF? While that may work for some here, it definately will not work for me.

Well, considering that :
1- ADG has been selling the board game for years at a price largely in excess of $100 with all the extensions included in MWiF (up to $499 for the Super Deluxe package)
2- The board game doesn't come with an AI either

I would assume $40 is a very good bargain! (though I expect the actual price to be much higher)

If you are not interested in this deal, then move on and let those who truly are joyfully spend their money [:D]

My favorite Laffy Taffy joke, which is one so harsh I don't think it should be printed on candy for children:

Q: What is the hardest kind of tea to swallow?













A: Reality

Numdydar:

For the TL;DR version: We can either choose to pay now for AI/PBEM features, or pay later. We can desire not to pay for them, but I can't see that working out: Matrix has to recoup the development costs for these features and make some extra money. Given that, I don't see why paying later is such a bad thing, or how it constitutes a "stupid" pricing structure.

=====
Long version:

I see where you're coming from, and over a short enough time frame I would tend to agree. It would be easier as a customer to pay a single price for the released game and get the AI/PBEM features without a separate transaction.

However, if there is a longer delay (say, 6+ months) between the release of the game and the release of AI/PBEM features, with the attendant risks that something will happen to cause further postponements (or even cancellations) - say, more health problems or the game sells so badly that Matrix nixes further development, it surely seems to me a better option not to have to pay for the unreleased features yet.

I don't really see how grousing about DLC for high-volume games such as Civ or Dragon Age relates to MWiF - indeed IMO it's just grousing about having to pay for stuff one would have to pay for anyway if it was in the base game (only, instead of having the option to pay for it or not, you'd have to pay for it in terms of both increased sticker price and delayed release date - which for various business reasons a publisher might not want to mess with).

I might add that arguably this conversation has only come up because AIs are effectively an industry standard feature, and an AI has long been discussed as a core feature of MWiF. If the AI had always been considered "expansion pack content" this cost structure wouldn't be an issue (instead, the designation of AI as "expansion" content would be).

MWiF has always struck me as a game that has been expected to have a very low volume of sales, relative to similar strategic-level PC wargames. Otherwise it seems difficult to understand the development process (a single developer working for a pittance for the better part of a decade). As such, I do not think a non-standard approach to the AI release is that unreasonable.

The two versions of the games are very different so comapring them is not a valid argument. However, even bord game conversions to computer based ones have AIs in them for a single cost. No upgrades required [:)] Eclispe, Titan, Ticket to Ride, plus many more board games all have been converted to the computer and all have AIs as part of the intical cost.

So if you are going to compare the board game and say it does not have an AI so why should we care if the computer versuion does not you should understand that it is not the lack of an AI that is my issue. I will repeate, I was willing to buy WiF at release WITHOUT an AI.

I am NOT willing to buy WiF at release (unless the price point is a LOT less than where I think it will be) knowing that a) I will have to pay more at some point for an AI and b) No one has any idea (or at least not willing to say anything yet) of WHEN the AI Will be ready?

As I said before, if you (and others) are willing to buy something under those conditions, then go for it. However, I would much prefer to just pay the entire cost once as I (as a customer) have a right for compensation if Matrix does not deliver on their promise of an AI since that is the terms I bought their product under.

If you buy the product under the current terms, customers have NO recourse (other than to bitch and complain here) if an AI never appears. Under this pricing model you are buying the product As Is and (to Matrix's credit) the product clearly states that they is NO AI in the game. So if people are buying the game (to support Steve, the game, etc.) and are hoping an AI will be developed, they have no recourse if an AI is never developed. For whatever reason. So you now have paid X dollars for a game you were expected (and planning) on having an AI and now you have found out that there will never be one. Or it will take 2-3 more years to develop one. If this is the way you want to buy a game, then feel free to do so.

Personally, I want to pay MORE for the game at release with the promise of a free AI at some point as that gives the entire customer base leverage for Matrix to actually deliver in a timely manner the product that a lot of us want. Given the history of WiF development timeline, I would think a timely AI delivery would be something that many here would want. Otherwise all we are buying currently is a game without an AI. Unfortunately, that is NOT something I am intersted in. Promises, all made in the best intentions, good faith, and all of that, just do not cut it for me. Business can face many issues where these promises made to the customer base (like Steve's notes above from 2009 clearly show) need to be changed/dropped/etc. So I am not willing to shell my money out for the promise of what I really want to buy without the manufacturer (Matrix) having some 'skin in the game'. In risk management terms, Matrix has pushed all the risk of having an AI or not to the customers versus keeping it where it really belongs, with them.

Than don't buy it at this moment and wait until the AI release is there. Why all the fuzz about this? I don't understand.

Every consumer has his reasons for buying something or not...

ORIGINAL: brian brian

In the long run, I predict little demand for a pure PBEM. I mean unless you like wargaming in real time on the calendar. The each-side decision points are just so, so much more numerous compared to say an Avalon Hill classic. And if PBEM isn't in the initial release, the new players of the game will learn this quickly. Connectivity of all sorts is so simple, fast, 24/7, and easy these days that I have to wonder who would sit through endless emails of "4 Cruisers enter the North Sea - do you intercept?" followed by "4 Cruisers enter the Faeroes Gap - do you intercept?" or even advance declaring those decisions. Imagine pre-designating FTR intercept hexes across the entire global map for the USA during an Axis impulse in 1944 (for maybe a half-dozen points in the Axis impulse where Allied FTRs might have to fly). Much easier to play against people on roughly the same schedule of occasional free time via connected machines with side-channel Skype, IM chat, cell texts, or what have you. Email could be used to catch up the game on each player's machine when lots of offline decisions can be made, such as placing reinforcements (technically subject to the sequence of play, which is easily forgotten) moving land units, production, etc.

But a pure, all decisions by email game of World in Flames just doesn't seem too desirable to me, unless there is some sort of 'override' to allow the other player to tell your units to do something, in a gentlemen's game as it is played sometimes with Cyberboard currently.

The AI questions have been sorted out here on a more than annual basis. A lot of new people will be stopping by and just now be learning the answers. Some sort of short version of it all should be easily accessible somewhere.

What I want to do, and this was suggested to me by several people in the forum, is to enable PBEM games to switch over to NetPlay games from time to time (at the players' choice). So when one side is moving all their land units, or during production, the exchange of decisions is via email. When things get hot and heavy (e.g., naval movement, air-to-air combat), the players go to NetPlay mode.

I haven't thought out the technical details of this yet, but it seems feasible at first glance. I think it might be "a good thing to do".

That is true. But which of the below would you prefer?

a) your boss tells you that sometime in the next year you will get a raise if you work hard. You work hard and when review time comes, your boss says, sorry business needs have changed so i cannot give you a rasie now. maybe next year if you continue to work hard.

or

b) we need you to work hard this year but cannot promise anything about a raise as we do not know how the company will be doing a year from now. You work hard, the end of the year comes and you know that they is not likely to be any raise so you are not expecting one. If you get one great, if you do not, then you are not upset because you knew going in that it was likely you would not get one.

So Matrix can say

a) We are releasing WiF without an AI (which they have clearly said so so far so good). We (Matrix/Steve) have every intention of providing an AI for the game at some point (and this is the critical part they have NOT said) but due to cirmstances, there may never be an AI developed for the game.

or

b) We are releasing WiF without an AI (which they have clearly said so so far so good). We (Matrix/Steve) WILL develop an AI for the game at some point and it will cost extra for when we DO develop the AI.

Option a is much clearer and allows everyone to understand EXACTLY what they will be buying at release. A game without an AI and a good faith promise that one will be developed at some point in the future. While option b is much less clear and allows a buyer to be mislead into thinking that no matter what an AI will be made for the game.

So that is the big deal. People need to understand exactly what they are buying, whether it is a game, DVD player, car, etc. This way if something happens and an AI is never developed regardless of the promisses made, people cannot complain about what they really did buy.

Despite being announced by Matrix as a project supported with professional resources, it's been clear for the better part of a decade that development was in fact a hobbyist effort. Is it really surprising, at this late date, that the marketing/sales/distribution are likewise amateur hour?

ORIGINAL: CrusssDaddy

Despite being announced by Matrix as a project supported with professional resources, it's been clear for the better part of a decade that development was in fact a hobbyist effort. Is it really surprising, at this late date, that the marketing/sales/distribution are likewise amateur hour?

warspite1

Oh goody....I wondered when this moron would make his ridiculous presence felt...[8|]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: CrusssDaddy

Despite being announced by Matrix as a project supported with professional resources, it's been clear for the better part of a decade that development was in fact a hobbyist effort. Is it really surprising, at this late date, that the marketing/sales/distribution are likewise amateur hour?

warspite1

Oh goody....I wondered when this moron would make his ridiculous presence felt...[8|]

He makes an accurate and valid point and all you do is make a personal attack.

ORIGINAL: mjk428

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: CrusssDaddy

Despite being announced by Matrix as a project supported with professional resources, it's been clear for the better part of a decade that development was in fact a hobbyist effort. Is it really surprising, at this late date, that the marketing/sales/distribution are likewise amateur hour?

warspite1

Oh goody....I wondered when this moron would make his ridiculous presence felt...[8|]

He makes an accurate and valid point and all you do is make a personal attack.

warspite1

Nope - not even close (as you well know).....