CotA or HttR

[GoodGuy]

ORIGINAL: Llyranor

I'll certainly do my part trying to promote the game in various places where there would probably be interest in these games - but people just don't know they exist.

That, in fact, is not your job, but Matrix' job. And I can't spot proper marketing anywhere on the horizon. Do you?

[Llyranor]

Well, no. There'll be ads popping up around wargamer.com or armchairgeneral near the game release, though, as usual. That seems to be the extent of Matrix advertising, though.

[Killjoy12]

Correct - 5 was arbitrary. As was the 200 you mentioned.

ORIGINAL: RangerX3X

ORIGINAL: Killjoy12

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

ORIGINAL: RangerX3X

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

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

[GoodGuy]

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

Obviously, things have changed significantly. The "norm" in "the business," is a structure such that one or two people own the company (and share the profit).

As you figured, i'm aware of norms in the business back then, and I'm also well aware of the situation nowadays. You, respectively the "business", should ask why they ended up vegetating like illegal asian backyard food kitchens in china town.

When processing power started to increase somewhere around 1996, and with the introduction of the first 3dfx-card (Voodoo Monster 3D), companies picked up the new technology all over the place, and either started to convert games that were currently underway or started to code new games that incorporated the new technology right away.
Companies who created flight sims, sub sims, tank sims and the like, felt that they had to jump on the bandwagon in order to secure future sales - they were excited in light of the new possibilities to display military history, anyways.

Oddly enough, even turn-based 3D-games like the CM series (correct me if I'm wrong... I think you know quite a bit about CM [:)], I never played CM and i am not familiar with release dates) didn't have up-to-date GFX as late as 2003, 1 year after the release of Medal of Honor: Allied Assault, which marked the industry milestone back then, and CM experts could surely tell me how long gfx + engine (which can be seen on screenshots from around 2003) were being used.

When looking at screenshots of CM ShockForce I can see beautiful & extremely detailed tank models, decently rendered troopers wearing camo etc., so I get the impression that it took parts of "the business" 12 years to adapt to industry standards. The vast majority of "the business" kept sticking to ancient visual content, though. I know that it's hard to come up with good solutions for 2D games, but even those games can be stuffed with modern graphics.

Let's face it, the wargame developers missed to jump on the bandwagon in mid-late 90s, be it 3D or 2D. People complaining about graphics in the Matrix forum or on battlefront often compare 3D wargames to Company of Heros, in order to support their argument that a similar approach made by wargame devs (with more realism and less arcade action) could still attract the mainstream market, are being widely attacked by die-hard fans of turn-based games, usually - stating that low sales figures, small dev teams and tight budgets hamper such efforts, and that it's just a pipedream.

But I tend to think that wargames don't have to lag behind 10-15 years. I could imagine a gathering of developers who would share ressources, too.

This could be:

• Manpower
• Help with coding/QA
• Licensing or development of sophisticated game engines (2D or 3D) which can be used by every participating dev team
• Physics module for 3D games computing penetration values with historical accuracy
• Sharing of databases (force pools, OOBs, pictures and weapon data)

I just don't think anyone in "the business" has ever thought about stuff like that, besides choosing Matrix as sales channel. In fact, Matrix or the devs should come up with such ideas, not the customers. That's the sad part.

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: GoodGuy

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

Obviously, things have changed significantly. The "norm" in "the business," is a structure such that one or two people own the company (and share the profit).

As you figured, i'm aware of norms in the business back then, and I'm also well aware of the situation nowadays. You, respectively the "business", should ask why they ended up vegetating like illegal asian backyard food kitchens in china town.

When processing power started to increase somewhere around 1996, and with the introduction of the first 3dfx-card (Voodoo Monster 3D), companies picked up the new technology all over the place, and either started to convert games that were currently underway or started to code new games that incorporated the new technology right away.
Companies who created flight sims, sub sims, tank sims and the like, felt that they had to jump on the bandwagon in order to secure future sales - they were excited in light of the new possibilities to display military history, anyways.

Oddly enough, even turn-based 3D-games like the CM series (correct me if I'm wrong... I think you know quite a bit about CM [:)], I never played CM and i am not familiar with release dates) didn't have up-to-date GFX as late as 2003, 1 year after the release of Medal of Honor: Allied Assault, which marked the industry milestone back then, and CM experts could surely tell me how long gfx + engine (which can be seen on screenshots from around 2003) were being used.

When looking at screenshots of CM ShockForce I can see beautiful & extremely detailed tank models, decently rendered troopers wearing camo etc., so I get the impression that it took parts of "the business" 12 years to adapt to industry standards. The vast majority of "the business" kept sticking to ancient visual content, though. I know that it's hard to come up with good solutions for 2D games, but even those games can be stuffed with modern graphics.

Let's face it, the wargame developers missed to jump on the bandwagon in mid-late 90s, be it 3D or 2D. People complaining about graphics in the Matrix forum or on battlefront often compare 3D wargames to Company of Heros, in order to support their argument that a similar approach made by wargame devs (with more realism and less arcade action) could still attract the mainstream market, are being widely attacked by die-hard fans of turn-based games, usually - stating that low sales figures, small dev teams and tight budgets hamper such efforts, and that it's just a pipedream.

But I tend to think that wargames don't have to lag behind 10-15 years. I could imagine a gathering of developers who would share ressources, too.

This could be:

• Manpower
• Help with coding/QA
• Licensing or development of sophisticated game engines (2D or 3D) which can be used by every participating dev team
• Physics module for 3D games computing penetration values with historical accuracy
• Sharing of databases (force pools, OOBs, pictures and weapon data)

I just don't think anyone in "the business" has ever thought about stuff like that, besides choosing Matrix as sales channel. In fact, Matrix or the devs should come up with such ideas, not the customers. That's the sad part.

Are we veering off subject with this 3D discussion?

If you find 2D graphics in games like CotA or HttR to be undesirable, and that's an important consideration in your choice of whether to buy or beget, why would you pay even $5 or $10 for one of them? There are plenty of titles with more lavish graphics that it seems you'd find more suitable. [:)]

[Arjuna]

I keep hearing all this "conventional wisdom" about pricing policy but what the proponents fail to realise is that wargames are not part of the conventional main stream market and never will be. Yes you enjoy both wargames and main stream products but you need to accept that you are in a very small minority as most are not attracted to wargames. There are heaps of reasons for this - too many to go into here. This is an extremely niche market place.
 
Could more be done to attract main stream gamers. Well yes but those who have to pay for this effort must assess the likely return on effort. We and Matrix have both been down that track and the results were not pretty. If someone else wants to risk their hard earned dollars in this endeavour then step forward, wallet in hand - but be prepared to kiss that money goodbye.
 
One of the tried and true principles of pricing is that if demand drops so should the price. Well let me tell you that demand for HTTR and COTA is steady. It's not mega bucks but sales per month of both titles have largely been the same for years now. So I see little reason to lower the price. We do this once each year during the Xmas sale period and yes sales increase for the first part of that sales period then drop back to their normal rate. So all we are doing is securing a few extra customers who have been holding off. The fact that they drop off indicates to me at least that lowring the price permanently will only result in us getting less revenue for the same number of sales.
 
Now I think I've said enough on this issue. So I am going to leave this discussion now and focus on getting the next Wargame of the Year finished. [:)]

[GoodGuy]

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

Are we veering off subject with this 3D discussion?

If you find 2D graphics in games like CotA or HttR to be undesirable, and that's an important consideration in your choice of whether to buy or beget, why would you pay even $5 or $10 for one of them? There are plenty of titles with more lavish graphics that it seems you'd find more suitable. [:)]

Do you really have to quote my whole essay when you reply with 2 sentences? [;)]

No, I'm not trying to veer off, nor am I avoiding the subject. You're wrong. HTTR's/COTA's graphical solution is probably the best possible solution. It doesn't contain bells and whistles, but it doesn't harm the user's eyes either. It's right down to the point, clear, concise. New users may have difficulties to read the terrain, the height profiles, though. A 3D-breakdown showing elevations (from the side) would help, but it's not a must, imho. 2D totally works in COTA, the GUI is VERY intuitive. I wouldn't call it DOS-look. Obviously, you haven't read many of my postings, you wouldn't think that I'm a 3D-fetishist otherwise. [:)]

My essay tried to explain why these games transformed into niche-games. Even 2D-games can incorporate modern graphics and a GUI that pleases wargamers, casual wargamers and non-wargamers alike.

[GoodGuy]

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

Could more be done to attract main stream gamers. Well yes but those who have to pay for this effort must assess the likely return on effort.

There are inexpensive ways of promoting a product. You under-estimate the function of community networks. Also, filesharing networks can harm the industry, but they can be used by the industry as well, ie. to spread demos.

We and Matrix have both been down that track and the results were not pretty.

Well after being screwed once one should never attempt to improve sales/promotion ever again? Hmm.. mkaaaaay.
If you think Matrix pulls all marketing tools available, well ... it's your show.

Well let me tell you that demand for HTTR and COTA is steady. It's not mega bucks but sales per month of both titles have largely been the same for years now. So I see little reason to lower the price.

Well, personally, I am fine with current prices for new Matrix titles, I just wouldn't support higher prices. Low prices come with higher sales, and that's guess what.... a question of marketing, among other things. [:D]

So I am going to leave this discussion now and focus on getting the next Wargame of the Year finished. [:)]

Good luck. I don't see why it shouldn't get this award, though ... unless all maps are b/w or something. [:D]

[GoodGuy]

If I ever win a lottery jackpot, I'll buy Panther Games and I'll keep Dave and Paul on the payroll, and then I'll make them convert the Panther engine into a 2D/3D hybrid, based on DX graphics. *evil grin*.
Don't worry, the user will be able to switch between 2D and 3D. harhar

[Arjuna]

God to GoodGuy:: "Help me out here and buy a lottery ticket!" [;)]

[RangerX3X]

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

Well let me tell you that demand for HTTR and COTA is steady. It's not mega bucks but sales per month of both titles have largely been the same for years now. So I see little reason to lower the price. We do this once each year during the Xmas sale period and yes sales increase for the first part of that sales period then drop back to their normal rate. So all we are doing is securing a few extra customers who have been holding off. The fact that they drop off indicates to me at least that lowring the price permanently will only result in us getting less revenue for the same number of sales.

Now I think I've said enough on this issue. So I am going to leave this discussion now and focus on getting the next Wargame of the Year finished. [:)]

Thanks for blowing a major hole in my argument. I had no idea HTTR sales were "steady". I'll STFU now. Seriously.

[bink]

One of the tried and true principles of pricing is that if demand drops so should the price. Well let me tell you that demand for HTTR and COTA is steady. It's not mega bucks but sales per month of both titles have largely been the same for years now. So I see little reason to lower the price. We do this once each year during the Xmas sale period and yes sales increase for the first part of that sales period then drop back to their normal rate. So all we are doing is securing a few extra customers who have been holding off. The fact that they drop off indicates to me at least that lowring the price permanently will only result in us getting less revenue for the same number of sales.

But what percentage are the current steady state sales of sales during the initial launch period - say first 3 months (substitute another time period if you feel it is appropriate).

If monthly sales now are 80% of the average of the first 3 months of sales, then demand is relatively constant. If sales now are 10% of the initial period, then there is scope to stimulate them with reduced pricing.

Frankly, with so much improvement having occured (as I understand it) between HTTR and the new Bulge game, surely there would be scope to experiment and offer HTTR as a cheap download to catch "casual" wargamers?

[sapper_astro]

Guys, seriously, nobody is going to rock up and buy these games unless they love them to bits.

The main idea that should be done is putting out the demo. Apart from that, nobody is going to touch it, even if it has entry level, rotten looking, 3D graphics. Advertising and coverage throughout the wargame community, and Panther/SSG et al checking out local games that stock wargames is a great idea.

For more on the subject, check out Jeff Vogel's blog on his game pricing. He has been running his own show since the early 90's with indy, 2D RPG's, and has tried it all. He also would have a lot more customers than a hardcore wargame would provide.

Others have also tried this route before. They let the price drop, and while there are more sales, there certainly are not enough to make up the shortfall because most of the customer base are the rusted on types and the occasional kid or two that get into the wargame arena. These pie in the sky economic models will not work for smalltime independant wargaming, sorry.

Arjuna, two questions:

1) Have you contacted Tin Soldier, Napoleons bookshop, insert other small military and strategy bookshops/gaming shops around Aus? http://www.napoleonsbookshop.com/
another http://www.napoleons.com.au/ another one http://www.tinsoldier.com/

Perhaps the gaming clubs might be interested? http://www.wargamerau.com/forum/index.php?showforum=150

You guys can find the rest.

2) Will campaigns ever be included in your games? This is the only single thing I miss with them. It would make the game complete. I suppose the feasability of this is somewhat iffy?

[Arjuna]

sapper_astro,
 
Re Contacting Specialty stores in Australia. No I haven't done this. Matrix are responsible for general marketing. Our role is with development, customer support via the forums and marketing to the military. You can't spread yourself too thin. I learnt that lesson when we used to do our own publishing back in the 80's and early 90s. In the end something suffers. Then it was development and it cost me big time. I lost my house. But I will draw Matrix's attention to these outlets.
 
Re Campaigns. We put a good deal of effort into getting a campaign system up and running back in 2003/4. We had to abandon this work when we realised we had to have mixed mode movement for COTA. The lesson I learnt from that experience was that you must ensure the basic or foundation features are there first before you address the higher or "chrome" type features. So we won't be doing a campaign feature till we have things like cross-river assaults, minefields, realistic mounted/dismounted infantry, off-map fire support, sequential tasking, triggers and planning graphics, DX graphics for the Battlemap, industry standard GIS data structures ( which will provide unlimited contour elevations and the ability to import/export map data from public sources ). IMO these are the priorities. Then we can look to doing campaigns. Though by that stage it will have to compete with multiple commands/team play. As you can see we still have a lot to do. [:)]

[Llyranor]

By all means, yes, get the basics all set up first. I'll be supporting you guys all the way!

I'll also put on my broken record and say how much I'd love co-op teamplay! All in good time!

[sapper_astro]

Thanks for the heads up Arjuna,

Jesus I love this game system. I have the played COA to death, played mods, made mods and constantly think up wishlists. If only I was a multi millionaire, I would finance you to forge ahead with the essentials so you could get to the chrome phase quicker.

Anyway, real life calls. Very much looking forward to this game, even if it does not cover one of my ideal, more obscure theatres of WW2. Or WW1.