This is an entertaining thread, but in the end its not going to change anything. The only thing that will make Matrix change is competition in the same space and there isn't much out there so they are going to do what they do and that's fine by me. In all honesty looking at my hard disk most of the past games I bought are no longer installed and the ones I still have on haven't been opened in ages.
Life goes on.
Pricing Suggestion
Moderator: maddog986
RE: Pricing Suggestion
I'm not upset, but you were in a few posts saying they were making this game for certain players to the exclusion of other groups of players and wasn't sure what sort of player I was supposed to be. Oh well, it doesn't really matter does it? They've made the game they've made at the price they've made it at. Time will tell if it was the right decision or not.
RE: Pricing Suggestion
ORIGINAL: Rob322
I'm not upset, but you were in a few posts saying they were making this game for certain players to the exclusion of other groups of players and wasn't sure what sort of player I was supposed to be. Oh well, it doesn't really matter does it? They've made the game they've made at the price they've made it at. Time will tell if it was the right decision or not.
No I said Matrix is selling/targeting certain players ie hardcore War gaming fans. Although in my rely to you did say "you" so sorry if that upset you. I think I actually thought you were Jryan my bad.
RE: Pricing Suggestion
People speak with their wallets, those of us that wanted this game have done so...if it is too much then get something else...in a years time we will still be here...[:D]
Edit: I just remembered many griped about harpoon's price also. I guess this is normal.
And one final thought for the night, what if Matrix has a big hit on their hands? It would be nice for the Modern Naval Warfare Genre. Personally, I don't expect to see this on Wal-Mart/Best Buy shelves but you never know....
Edit: I just remembered many griped about harpoon's price also. I guess this is normal.
And one final thought for the night, what if Matrix has a big hit on their hands? It would be nice for the Modern Naval Warfare Genre. Personally, I don't expect to see this on Wal-Mart/Best Buy shelves but you never know....
But By Grace Go I.......
RE: Pricing Suggestion
ORIGINAL: mekjak
Erik and others from Matrix/Slitherine have said that their data shows that their pricing strategy is the best for them, but since they don't disclose numbers we just have to take their word for it. They are at least taking minor steps with the weekly sales.
Personally, I don't think wargames are that niche that they won't benefit from something similar to the business model/pricing revolution that has taken place in the rest of the games industry. I mean, equally niche sims regularly appear on the Steam top seller list, and given Steam's user base of millions that means tons of business. Matrix/Slitherine also have plenty of noob-friendly games like Battle Academy, the Commander grand strategy series, etc. that would definitely have a wide appeal to that kind of audience.
When Valve first started experimenting with sales, one of their games that had its price slashed by 75% saw a revenue spike of something like 400% - that's revenue, not # of units sold. Pretty much the entire PC games industry has followed suit, and even console publishers are doing similar things. It's clear that Matrix/Slitherine feel strongly about staying the course, more or less, but I think the rest of the games industry have moved far ahead.
FWIW they are not the only ones who question the viability of Steam. I was listening to a podcast with the marketing director from GOG.com a few days back and they were debating the merits of steam and the LONG TERM viability of such a sales model. It works now but the more games that Steam publishes the less sales will help individual games on the whole, and the more it will look like the Android or Apple app stores.
The real concern they had though was the devaluing of the games industry and what such rapid deep discounts will do to the quality of the product 5-10 years down the line.
RE: Pricing Suggestion
ORIGINAL: flanyboy
The real concern they had though was the devaluing of the games industry and what such rapid deep discounts will do to the quality of the product 5-10 years down the line.
Steam sales prices are so low that many people are buying games just thinking that they may play them in future. I would purchase perhaps 2 or 3 high price main stream games in a year. However, because of Steam sales, I buy much more and total amount of money I give to the industry is higher than standard price of 2 or 3 games.
Especially some indie game companies are getting huge amount of money by keeping their prices low (Minecraft, Kerbal, etc...).
Of course, when there are huge amount of companies trying to get into the market, some will lose also but I think that the low pricing strategy is overall a good approach in the PC game market.
Matrix has some easy level war games which would produce huge amount of money for them with low prices and good marketing+sales channels. In the long term they would gain new customers which would eventually buy also more complex products. It is sad that they have chosen completely opposite approach - making it very hard for newcomers to start this hobby.
RE: Pricing Suggestion
Xornox tons of money going into digital sites like Steam and Gamersgate are great for the distributors and publishers, they may not benefit the developers in the long run.
Right now it's working but I doubt the industry will remain strong in the long term as the market swells and indies began to get lost in the muck. It's ironic that the ease and success that many have had as a result of self publishing may well doom the self publishing market as it wont be long till 99% of self publishers fail to make any serious inroads in the market and they will need the assistance of Publishers to get noticed.
That's already starting to happen in the mobile market. Proof? 60% of the Apps in the Apple App Store have never been downloaded, NOT EVEN ONCE. Sure you'll have success stories but a developer will not be able to survive on 500-1,000 sales at $1, $2 or even $5. They might be able to survive at least part time if that sale price is $20, $30, or $40 and that's Matrix's whole argument. That dropping prices wouldn't dramatically increase sales. They may well be wrong today, but as the market becomes more and more saturated I think that slow but steady approach may benefit them more than the many companies that rush to devalue their games.
I could well be wrong, and I'm not 100% sure that I agree with what I am saying but if the marketing director of the 2nd largest digital distribution site (GOG) is pointing out risks to the current strategy being embraced by the majority of the industry I think perhaps our discussions shouldn't be so lopsided on the DISCOUNTS GOOD side.
Right now it's working but I doubt the industry will remain strong in the long term as the market swells and indies began to get lost in the muck. It's ironic that the ease and success that many have had as a result of self publishing may well doom the self publishing market as it wont be long till 99% of self publishers fail to make any serious inroads in the market and they will need the assistance of Publishers to get noticed.
That's already starting to happen in the mobile market. Proof? 60% of the Apps in the Apple App Store have never been downloaded, NOT EVEN ONCE. Sure you'll have success stories but a developer will not be able to survive on 500-1,000 sales at $1, $2 or even $5. They might be able to survive at least part time if that sale price is $20, $30, or $40 and that's Matrix's whole argument. That dropping prices wouldn't dramatically increase sales. They may well be wrong today, but as the market becomes more and more saturated I think that slow but steady approach may benefit them more than the many companies that rush to devalue their games.
I could well be wrong, and I'm not 100% sure that I agree with what I am saying but if the marketing director of the 2nd largest digital distribution site (GOG) is pointing out risks to the current strategy being embraced by the majority of the industry I think perhaps our discussions shouldn't be so lopsided on the DISCOUNTS GOOD side.
-
IainMcNeil
- Posts: 2784
- Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2004 10:01 am
- Location: London
- Contact:
RE: Pricing Suggestion
ORIGINAL: flanyboy
Xornox tons of money going into digital sites like Steam and Gamersgate are great for the distributors and publishers, they may not benefit the developers in the long run.
This is an important point here. Steam are a distributor. They don't care about the success or failure of any game - only market share and overall revenue. What is good for Steam is not necessarily good for any one developer. I know some developers who have done ok out of it and others who have really suffered and only sold games when at 80%+ discounts.
Iain McNeil
Director
Matrix Games
Director
Matrix Games
-
IainMcNeil
- Posts: 2784
- Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2004 10:01 am
- Location: London
- Contact:
RE: Pricing Suggestion
On the comparisons with other games I'm surprised by the choice of games as they are not indicative of Command at all.
Lets look at a Truck Simulation. I don't care how dull it might sound and how niche you personally think it is lets think about how you play and control it. There is accelerate, brake, change gear and steer. Ok you may have a few more advanced options but to be honest all you need to do to at least get a basic level of entertainment out of it is hit accelerate while steering. My 2 year old girl can do that. I'm not saying she would be good but she can make something happen and see it crash which my 5 year old boy would love.
Lets look at Kerbal. The game basically has you bolt together some components. You don't need to know what you are doing. You can just load it up, click a few buttons and launch in to space. Anyone can do it. You might fail but you get to build a rocket and launch it and see all that visually.
On a flight simulator, ok its more complex. But the fundamental thing is you only have a very limited number of ways to interact with it. Or at least for the basic function like take off and steering. You adjust the thrust, flaps etc and you can take off and steer with a joystick. You might crash but you get something to happen. You try again and get a bit better.
Lets look at Command... are you seriously suggesting that you could put anyone in front of Command and have them be able to get something to happen without a significant amount of thought and effort on their part. I don't mean win a game. I mean actually make something happen like launch some aircraft and have them fire missiles at the enemy. Most people would sit and stare at the screen without the slightest idea how to get anything at all to happen and if it did they'b be unlikely to understand what had happened. That's because it is a wargame. You have to accept we are in a niche the vast majority of people do not understand at all. Even wargames as simple as Panzer Corps are looked at with confusion by the wider market.
As approachable as the Command UI is, it is in a completely different ball park to these more casual games that anyone can pick up and play. If you can't see the difference that's fine but we do. We understand the business more than anyone in the world. If someone actually comes up with relevant real data that proves us wrong we'll be happy to listen. If there is a way to make more money for the devs of course we would do it. Sales number and prices on these games are unrelated to Command.
PS Sales are great so far. It seems the vast vast majority of people are buying and playing rather than commenting.
Lets look at a Truck Simulation. I don't care how dull it might sound and how niche you personally think it is lets think about how you play and control it. There is accelerate, brake, change gear and steer. Ok you may have a few more advanced options but to be honest all you need to do to at least get a basic level of entertainment out of it is hit accelerate while steering. My 2 year old girl can do that. I'm not saying she would be good but she can make something happen and see it crash which my 5 year old boy would love.
Lets look at Kerbal. The game basically has you bolt together some components. You don't need to know what you are doing. You can just load it up, click a few buttons and launch in to space. Anyone can do it. You might fail but you get to build a rocket and launch it and see all that visually.
On a flight simulator, ok its more complex. But the fundamental thing is you only have a very limited number of ways to interact with it. Or at least for the basic function like take off and steering. You adjust the thrust, flaps etc and you can take off and steer with a joystick. You might crash but you get something to happen. You try again and get a bit better.
Lets look at Command... are you seriously suggesting that you could put anyone in front of Command and have them be able to get something to happen without a significant amount of thought and effort on their part. I don't mean win a game. I mean actually make something happen like launch some aircraft and have them fire missiles at the enemy. Most people would sit and stare at the screen without the slightest idea how to get anything at all to happen and if it did they'b be unlikely to understand what had happened. That's because it is a wargame. You have to accept we are in a niche the vast majority of people do not understand at all. Even wargames as simple as Panzer Corps are looked at with confusion by the wider market.
As approachable as the Command UI is, it is in a completely different ball park to these more casual games that anyone can pick up and play. If you can't see the difference that's fine but we do. We understand the business more than anyone in the world. If someone actually comes up with relevant real data that proves us wrong we'll be happy to listen. If there is a way to make more money for the devs of course we would do it. Sales number and prices on these games are unrelated to Command.
PS Sales are great so far. It seems the vast vast majority of people are buying and playing rather than commenting.
Iain McNeil
Director
Matrix Games
Director
Matrix Games
RE: Pricing Suggestion
This thing is under priced. This isn't a game it's a hobby.
RE: Pricing Suggestion
I agree with your point about ETS2 - the mechanics are simple. I assume that the OP was talking about how much of a niche market driving a truck around Europe is.
As for flight sims, if you think that's true, I challenge you to get inside a cold A-10 on the ramp, get it started and then take it for a spin.
With Command, you can fire it up and launch units within 5 minutes. I'm not saying it's not an in-depth game because it clearly is but the assertions that a) it takes hardcore knowledge to get something going and b) the interface is approachable are wrong.
As for flight sims, if you think that's true, I challenge you to get inside a cold A-10 on the ramp, get it started and then take it for a spin.
With Command, you can fire it up and launch units within 5 minutes. I'm not saying it's not an in-depth game because it clearly is but the assertions that a) it takes hardcore knowledge to get something going and b) the interface is approachable are wrong.
-
IainMcNeil
- Posts: 2784
- Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2004 10:01 am
- Location: London
- Contact:
RE: Pricing Suggestion
You may be able to launch missiles in 5 mins but I doubt most people would 
Iain McNeil
Director
Matrix Games
Director
Matrix Games
RE: Pricing Suggestion
Comon Iain, I agree with a lot of what you've said but even inside flight sims there are varying degrees of "hardcore". There's the 99% and then there are games like Falcon 4.0, and Battle of Britain 2 which if the settings kiddie gloves are turned off are every bit as "hardcore" as any Matrix games... well heh... Battle of Britain 2 is a matrix game but oh well.
RE: Pricing Suggestion
Flattery will get you everywhere [:D]
RE: Pricing Suggestion
As I predicted. Every example people give just gets dismissed out of hand because they are not nearly identical to this special unique little snowflake.
It also includes scheduling rest periods, navigation, business management decisions, .... It may not be as complex as Command, but its complexity matches or exceeds the vast majority of titles Matrix offers. Yet according to you every single one of your titles is somehow different. Your 2 year old girl could also move a bunch of counters around in WitE. She'll not be actually playing the game, but apparently according to you just being able to interact with it at that age dismisses it as anything deep or complex.
So basically making games accessible to newcomers is now considered something bad? That's just one more way of artificially making a genre "niche" and unpopular.
Again, accessibility. I'll also point out that the start-up procedure for DCS A-10 requires 20 min of flipping switches and requires a large checklist, but apparently that's not deep or complex enough.
Achieving something like a shot down plane in Command takes no more planning or thought than achieving something in DCS, Truck Simulator or Kerbal Space Program. Wargames are not this special unique genre that's the only one where people actually have to think. Half the complexity in Matrix titles isn't even the gameplay but instead it's figuring out the often arcane obtrusive UI.
The amount of doublethink going on in the company is impressive, though. "The wargaming industry is doing well and we are expanding steadily and increasing sales constantly. There are not enough untapped gamers to justify lowering the price" is your best one.
People have been given relevant real data throughout this thread. As your post evidences, everything that doesn't agree with your preconceived theory just gets dismissed or ignored. One could also argue that Matrix has a very vested commercial interest in keeping wargames a tiny but expensive niche, as that makes you the only publisher for every new title. Should the wargaming genre suddenly pick up, new publishers would rise, self-publishing would rise and you guys would lose your near-monopoly. Similar to what was said about Steam earlier: what is good for the wargaming genre might not necessarily be good for Matrix Games.
Until you can put actual numbers on this, so it can be compared to the sales of similar-complexity games like DCS, it's a useless argument.
ORIGINAL: Iain McNeil
Lets look at a Truck Simulation. I don't care how dull it might sound and how niche you personally think it is lets think about how you play and control it. There is accelerate, brake, change gear and steer. Ok you may have a few more advanced options but to be honest all you need to do to at least get a basic level of entertainment out of it is hit accelerate while steering. My 2 year old girl can do that. I'm not saying she would be good but she can make something happen and see it crash which my 5 year old boy would love.
It also includes scheduling rest periods, navigation, business management decisions, .... It may not be as complex as Command, but its complexity matches or exceeds the vast majority of titles Matrix offers. Yet according to you every single one of your titles is somehow different. Your 2 year old girl could also move a bunch of counters around in WitE. She'll not be actually playing the game, but apparently according to you just being able to interact with it at that age dismisses it as anything deep or complex.
ORIGINAL: Iain McNeil
Lets look at Kerbal. The game basically has you bolt together some components. You don't need to know what you are doing. You can just load it up, click a few buttons and launch in to space. Anyone can do it. You might fail but you get to build a rocket and launch it and see all that visually.
So basically making games accessible to newcomers is now considered something bad? That's just one more way of artificially making a genre "niche" and unpopular.
ORIGINAL: Iain McNeil
On a flight simulator, ok its more complex. But the fundamental thing is you only have a very limited number of ways to interact with it. Or at least for the basic function like take off and steering. You adjust the thrust, flaps etc and you can take off and steer with a joystick. You might crash but you get something to happen. You try again and get a bit better.
Again, accessibility. I'll also point out that the start-up procedure for DCS A-10 requires 20 min of flipping switches and requires a large checklist, but apparently that's not deep or complex enough.
ORIGINAL: Iain McNeil
Lets look at Command... are you seriously suggesting that you could put anyone in front of Command and have them be able to get something to happen without a significant amount of thought and effort on their part. I don't mean win a game. I mean actually make something happen like launch some aircraft and have them fire missiles at the enemy. Most people would sit and stare at the screen without the slightest idea how to get anything at all to happen and if it did they'b be unlikely to understand what had happened. That's because it is a wargame. You have to accept we are in a niche the vast majority of people do not understand at all. Even wargames as simple as Panzer Corps are looked at with confusion by the wider market.
Achieving something like a shot down plane in Command takes no more planning or thought than achieving something in DCS, Truck Simulator or Kerbal Space Program. Wargames are not this special unique genre that's the only one where people actually have to think. Half the complexity in Matrix titles isn't even the gameplay but instead it's figuring out the often arcane obtrusive UI.
The amount of doublethink going on in the company is impressive, though. "The wargaming industry is doing well and we are expanding steadily and increasing sales constantly. There are not enough untapped gamers to justify lowering the price" is your best one.
ORIGINAL: Iain McNeil
If someone actually comes up with relevant real data that proves us wrong we'll be happy to listen. If there is a way to make more money for the devs of course we would do it. Sales number and prices on these games are unrelated to Command.
People have been given relevant real data throughout this thread. As your post evidences, everything that doesn't agree with your preconceived theory just gets dismissed or ignored. One could also argue that Matrix has a very vested commercial interest in keeping wargames a tiny but expensive niche, as that makes you the only publisher for every new title. Should the wargaming genre suddenly pick up, new publishers would rise, self-publishing would rise and you guys would lose your near-monopoly. Similar to what was said about Steam earlier: what is good for the wargaming genre might not necessarily be good for Matrix Games.
ORIGINAL: Iain McNeil
PS Sales are great so far. It seems the vast vast majority of people are buying and playing rather than commenting.
Until you can put actual numbers on this, so it can be compared to the sales of similar-complexity games like DCS, it's a useless argument.
RE: Pricing Suggestion
ORIGINAL: delenda
With Command, you can fire it up and launch units within 5 minutes. I'm not saying it's not an in-depth game because it clearly is but the assertions that a) it takes hardcore knowledge to get something going and b) the interface is approachable are wrong.
Hey-heeeey I think you will absolutely LOVE Command as it has painfully long (read: realistic) turn around times, which results in realistic aircraft availability and sortie rates. Further refinements to the current model are planned. If you have any comments/suggestions/ideas please post up, we add all good feedback to our 'design comments'!
Aircraft that are ready at game start in Command have already been warmed up and prepped with stores. When they return from the first mission it will (naturally) take some hours before they fly again. The actual time depends on aircraft type, loadout type, country of origin, etc.
So please give the sim a spin.
Not sure I quite got b), though.
Developer "Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations" project!
RE: Pricing Suggestion
ORIGINAL: Iain McNeil
As approachable as the Command UI is, it is in a completely different ball park to these more casual games that anyone can pick up and play. If you can't see the difference that's fine but we do. We understand the business more than anyone in the world. If someone actually comes up with relevant real data that proves us wrong we'll be happy to listen. If there is a way to make more money for the devs of course we would do it. Sales number and prices on these games are unrelated to Command.
I'm no Matrix shill, but Iain is making a good point here. I think we can all agree that Matrix is trying to make as much money as possible "for the devs" over the lifetime of this game. If they believed they could make more by selling it for $40 at release, why wouldn't they? What's stopping them? Nothing except the fact that they don't believe they can. Based on tons of data built up over 14 or so years that let's them understand the different market segments for wargames, the demand, the price elasticity and so forth.
Also, their day job, for 14 years, as distributors, is to understand just these kinds of things. Who that has posted here can claim to know the business better? You've got to imagine walking into a business board meeting presenting to a CEO - you need lots of data to support a contention, not a couple of anecdotes, some (possibly dis)analogies, and a few numbers published by Steam.
In the end you have to believe either Matrix doesn't know their job or are greedy. They certainly may be mistaken about how they have assessed the market for this game, but Iain has even accepted that, and is willing to listen to any "real" data to the contrary. (The other argument, that is not being made here, is that Matrix and the devs should make less profit from this game by offering it at a lower price so the people that find it too expense can afford to buy it. Since no one is making that argument, I won't pursue it here, although I expect there aren't too many hardcore wargaming millionaires around.)
Don't get me wrong, I certainly have sympathy with the posters here that are priced out of this game, and I myself am waiting a couple of weeks to see how the game is before laying down that much cash, I just think the arguments that claim to know Matrix's business better than Matrix need a lot more data to be convincing that is being offered here.
First wargame: Jedko's 1st edition "The Russian Campaign". First computer wargame: don't remember the name, but it was on punch cards.
RE: Pricing Suggestion
Oh and while we're discussing aircraft sortie rates, check this one out:
http://harpoonhq.com/waypoint/waypoint_2003_03.zip
http://harpoonhq.com/waypoint/waypoint_2003_03.zip
Developer "Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations" project!
RE: Pricing Suggestion
ORIGINAL: emsoy
ORIGINAL: delenda
With Command, you can fire it up and launch units within 5 minutes. I'm not saying it's not an in-depth game because it clearly is but the assertions that a) it takes hardcore knowledge to get something going and b) the interface is approachable are wrong.
Hey-heeeey I think you will absolutely LOVE Command as it has painfully long (read: realistic) turn around times, which results in realistic aircraft availability and sortie rates. Further refinements to the current model are planned. If you have any comments/suggestions/ideas please post up, we add all good feedback to our 'design comments'!
Aircraft that are ready at game start in Command have already been warmed up and prepped with stores. When they return from the first mission it will (naturally) take some hours before they fly again. The actual time depends on aircraft type, loadout type, country of origin, etc.
So please give the sim a spin.
Not sure I quite got b), though.
Sorry, I meant no disrespect! I have bought and am playing Command! I spent all of my evening last night trying to get it working with Wine on OSX/Linux too (which, from what people have said, would result in more sales for you guys!).
I've yet to make a fully informed decision on the UI, more hours of Command should get me there but I'm not yet sure as to why people are saying the UI is approachable. Items are often in obscure places, (IMHO) it doesn't look that great and basic windows form elements do not necessarily mean approachable. Has the MS UX Guide been consulted/used? People that I've shown youtube vids/screenies too haven't been impressed with the UI and one of the main vocalists is a professional UX guy.
I feel like I'm being too negative - it's really not my intention and I really do want CMANO to succeed!
Also, I had to jump in to point out that dismissing flight sims as "get in and push joystick" is disingenuous. [:)]