Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: JRyan
Heck the DB is worth $25 all by itself. You don't have to have all the books laid out to get the information. Its right there.

You’re not kidding, the database is simply awesome. I just wish it was hyperlinked so when I saw a certain loadout I could click the weapon and jump to a page for the weapon. That and a small text blurb and pic describing every weapon and platform would make the DB worth $200.00 all by itself.

The people crying for a cheaper game simply have no concept of what this game has under the hood, thus they don’t understand its value.

Jim

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

The people crying for a cheaper game simply have no concept of what this game has under the hood, thus they don’t understand its value.

Jim

You could be right.
Solution: have this game reviewed by several (independant) websites, release a demo and make the manual available for download before purchase.
in other words: make sure a potential customer can assess the value before investing the value.

ORIGINAL: hondo1375

I respect your passion Nemo84, and your concern for the hobby, but I'm not sure I follow your argument here. So long as there are no significant barriers to entering the market, keeping prices high is about the worst way of maintaining a monopoly position. It makes the market attractive for others to enter, and provides a price umbrella for them. Especially, if as you say, there is a big untapped wargaming market to be addressed at lower price points. Someone could just come in and set up shop, undercut Matrix by 30%, get lots of new customers, and still bring in lots of revenue. The best way for Matrix to keep out competition would in fact be to discount, as that means it would be hard for someone inexperienced in the business, without a reputation with developers, to set a price point in the market that could make everyone some money.

This would be true for a traditional industry, where distributors shoulder huge overhead costs and can use said existing infrastructure to outcompete newcomers. However, digital distribution and the internet changed all that. Servers and bandwith aren't expensive, PR requires no existing connections and can thus easily be done by yourself as so many indies demonstrate and word of mouth is incredibly fast and efficient. A game that can manage to fund itself to completion (an achievable feat with modern crowdfunding) no longer needs a distributor, and is often worse off when taking one anyway. Thus Matrix simply can not undercut a self-published title, and offers very little advantages for running off with 30+% of profits. As evidence, look at Unity of Command. Matrix did not secure sole distribution rights and as a result has the highest asking price of all distributors ($30, VAT included). The lowest price ($6, VAT included), can be obtained directly from the developers themselves, despite being a tiny studio.

What Matrix in my opinion is attempting is keeping the entry cost for competitors high by tightly controlling both supply and demand. The wargaming genre, which was one of the major players in the 80's and 90's, has been reduced to a tiny group of die hard fans. Said die hard fans by definition will pay almost any price you ask, though as this thread demonstrates even that has limits. The high prices however scare off the vast majority of potential customers, keeping demand low enough to be manageable by Matrix, a very small company. Likewise, that low amount of sales and tiny customer base promote Matrix' PR that wargaming is a tiny niche and that developers need them to survive. This pushes more developers towards Matrix, who tries its very best to secure sole distribution rights, allowing them to control supply as well. And when you control both, no one can challenge your monopoly despite ridiculous high prices. New distributors would have trouble finding interested developers because Matrix seems like a safer bet, existing titles are likely contractually forbidden from seeking multiple distributors and until a new competitor manages to expand the market, which will take time, they are directly competing with Matrix, a well-established player, over a tiny customer base. It's not a fool-proof business strategy, but it's a very smart one for them to follow. But like Iain said about Steam earlier: what's in the best interests of Matrix Games might not necessarily be in the best interests of the wargaming genre.

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.

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.

What a load of bollocks, Iain. Seriously.

I bought the thing in the end, but what sold me was the USNI News review of Command, not ridiculous arguments and comparisons like that.

There's a message in that review for everyone,

Like any good wargame, “Command” will have value not only as entertainment, but as a training tool and even a platform for testing new concepts and ideas. The game’s ability to save and replay games for future viewing could be useful in constructing after-action reports of game-based training exercises or in testing new operational concepts. The flexibility and versatility of the platform, along with the database and the global map, make almost every scenario imaginable capable of being played out.

for Matrix/Slitherene to take note of before dismissing more 'casual' gamers,

“Command: Modern Naval/Air Operations” is a game with broad appeal for everyone from casual gamers to government users looking to model unclassified, informal simulations.

And for those who haven't forked out yet,

It likely will be the main choice for hard modern warfare simulators for years to come

ORIGINAL: Fleming

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Slitherine doesn't even share its sales numbers with its development teams. When we made WitP: AE, all we got was the money agreed upon. Fine by me.

Slitherine doesn't even share its sales numbers with its development teams. When we made WitP: AE, all we got was the money agreed upon. Fine by me.

Serious? [X(]
So you're saying you were paid a fixed amount that had no relation to sales figures?

So basically if Matrix sold 1 copy or 1.000.000 copies, you would have been paid the same amount?
That can't be right.

And also very strange as Matrix is telling us in this thread that they have to keep prices high, so they can make sure the devs get a fair renumeration for their work.
While according to your statement, the income Matrix generated, has no relation to the payment you receive.
Can somebody clarify this?

I was not planning to get involved in this discussion, but this is very strange (and unfair to the devs; Imagine they score a huge hit with a game and got paid a fixed amount based on a wrong market-forecast)
.
Baseline: of this discussion.
They set the price like they want
We buy if the price is ok with us.

Personnaly: 90 euro for a game (which seems to have performance issues) without a demo and no (independant) reviews?
No way.

All the best to the devs btw

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. We got a percentage of the profits, but nobody told us the number of copies that had walked out the door.

ORIGINAL: sfbaytf

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.

It's a fair point. Instead of more competition there's less as Matrix purchases one developer after another.

It's always been Matrix strategy, but it's been on super mega ultra EA level steroids the last several years. And the less venues there are, the less alternatives to a $90 game there are.

But we wouldn't want to be appreciating Matrix's games less if they were a far lower price, would we?

ORIGINAL: Terminus

ORIGINAL: Fleming

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Slitherine doesn't even share its sales numbers with its development teams. When we made WitP: AE, all we got was the money agreed upon. Fine by me.

Slitherine doesn't even share its sales numbers with its development teams. When we made WitP: AE, all we got was the money agreed upon. Fine by me.

Serious? [X(]
So you're saying you were paid a fixed amount that had no relation to sales figures?

So basically if Matrix sold 1 copy or 1.000.000 copies, you would have been paid the same amount?
That can't be right.

And also very strange as Matrix is telling us in this thread that they have to keep prices high, so they can make sure the devs get a fair renumeration for their work.
While according to your statement, the income Matrix generated, has no relation to the payment you receive.
Can somebody clarify this?

I was not planning to get involved in this discussion, but this is very strange (and unfair to the devs; Imagine they score a huge hit with a game and got paid a fixed amount based on a wrong market-forecast)
.
Baseline: of this discussion.
They set the price like they want
We buy if the price is ok with us.

Personnaly: 90 euro for a game (which seems to have performance issues) without a demo and no (independant) reviews?
No way.

All the best to the devs btw

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. We got a percentage of the profits, but nobody told us the number of copies that had walked out the door.

Ok I see. That's what I thought.

So you agreed upon a percentage of the profits and then received an amount of money
(hint: you could deduce your sales from those 2 figures [:D])

Yes, but I didn't want to, and Slitherine didn't tell us. If they don't tell their devs, they're sure as shit not going to tell their customers, passive aggressive whining or not.

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns
You’re not kidding, the database is simply awesome. I just wish it was hyperlinked so when I saw a certain loadout I could click the weapon and jump to a page for the weapon. That and a small text blurb and pic describing every weapon and platform would make the DB worth $200.00 all by itself.

This (dedicated weapon page and better hot-linking) has also been requested elsewhere, and we've bumped it on our priorities totem (it was already there but lower). So expect to see it in one of our forthcoming updates.

Thanks!

Sales figures are the most closely-held confidential information of ANY small- to medium-sized enterprise, regardless of industry. People like Activision or Rockstar can brag about how much money they make in their first few days of sales because they're AAA publishers, but smaller publishers like Slitherine have to keep their cards close to their chests. That's just how the world works. Read an economics book.

ORIGINAL: Blighty56

I love the games its just a shame that in this global financial crisis, where people are trying to save money where they can. its priced this high.

Exactly! We have no purchasing power because of the politicians screwing up the financial systems.

Power to the people!

ORIGINAL: dutchman55555

ORIGINAL: sfbaytf

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.

It's a fair point. Instead of more competition there's less as Matrix purchases one developer after another.

It's always been Matrix strategy, but it's been on super mega ultra EA level steroids the last several years. And the less venues there are, the less alternatives to a $90 game there are.

But we wouldn't want to be appreciating Matrix's games less if they were a far lower price, would we?

Sure I would buy this if it were in the $50 price range. The 2 or 3 titles I have that I paid more than $50 have much higher production values and are as complex under the hood as this title.

In the end because of a lack of competition you're going to have to make a decision. Pay up and take what is served up to you or say no. Simple as that. Don't expect it to get better. With a shrinking fan base the next title will probably be twice as much.

For me I have enought to keep me happy. I have multiple games with people from many parts of the world going on with something as complex, presented in a very good way. Another module is due to be released soon. As a single player game its also an excellent product.

I have a full time job and other hobbies and activities to keep me occupied. When it comes to computer simulations I have a certain expectation when it comes to the very high priced product. A database alone isn't enough. I expect production values to be up to par, not someting that is clearly a decade behind. There are a few titles that meet this criteria. They get my hard earned dollar.

If Command was what it currently is, but was also a modern and up to date presentation I would pay $150-200. Its not so I have to make the choice to pay $100 for what I see as an updated version of something I already have and I 'm going to pass.

ORIGINAL: mekjak
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.

A couple of things to add, as this thread continues to increase. First, for folks who have already expressed their opinion on pricing - we have heard you, as JD also said here: fb.asp?m=3418024

I see a lot of new names in this thread, but also names that pop up in every price thread that has ever appeared, whether specific to a release or relating to all our prices, ever. For the latter group, I'd respectfully suggest that you're beating a dead horse.

We've tried many different price levels and discounts over the 14 years that we've been in business. Our data is not based on one price point. We're also very much aware of Steam's pricing strategy and also that it does not actually work for all games. It has received a lot of publicity and I realize that as only a few companies have released sales numbers, there's a limited amount of information out there as far as what works and what doesn't for pricing. It's worth considering though that we may also be considering the data mentioned here and factoring it into our decisions. Our job is to do the best we can for our developers and we would price Command at $.50 if we felt that would maximize their return.

While a lot of posts here assume that we are closed-minded, it's not that - it's that we base these decisions on data rather than philosophy and the data supports the price points we have chosen. If the data changes - either our data or sufficient data from external sources for similar games (and there aren't that many similar games), we'll change our pricing as well. This is not an ideological battle for us, but rather a matter of making the right business decision so that these kinds of games can continue to be made. When Matrix Games was founded, the future of these games was far from secure and releases were few and far between. I would argue that we've played a large role in the massive increase in the choices within this market over the last decade and that has benefited both developers and customers.

Regards,

- Erik

ORIGINAL: RockKahn

ORIGINAL: Blighty56

I love the games its just a shame that in this global financial crisis, where people are trying to save money where they can. its priced this high.

Exactly! We have no purchasing power because of the politicians screwing up the financial systems.

You may not, but I do.

And the price of a game has nothing to do with "saving money." Save money by not buying it regardless of price.

ORIGINAL: Xornox
Of course, Steam is competitor of Matrix games... They are trying to hide war games to their own world and sell them with high price - same time the world changes around them and eventually only few people will pay 100$ per game when Steam sells same or higher quality for even 5-10 dollars.

Steam is a distributor, not a competitor. That's like saying Retail is a competitor, or Gamers Gate or Good Old Games is a competitor. Yes, they sell games and our customers also spend their money there, but they are competitors only in the most generous interpretation of the word. What they really are is alternative release channels, some with their own pricing policies and which each take their own cut. It's not much different from how distributors and retail have always been, just now they are online.

We started this business in a world where there were no online digital download options. We were the first game company to offer digital downloads in an online store, because we realized that this model worked better for our customers and developers than releasing every game into the retail channel, which had a pricing and business model that was a complete mismatch for most wargames. We continue to watch and evaluate every option for ourselves and our developers, but we are not willing to go with the crowd if all our data and business sense says that it's the wrong decision.

Regards,

- Erik

ORIGINAL: Nemo84
Quite frankly, your attitude is downright short-sighted and insulting. If you don't have anything useful to add to the discussion, outside of ad-hominems, the wise thing to do would be to stay out of it.

A bit less bashing of us and the other customers would be appreciated. You've been jumping to conclusions all over the place and making assumptions about us and our hidden motivations to harm the wargame market. Our goals are the opposite, but as you don't agree with our chosen strategies, you seem to assume that means that we are actually somehow sinister. We're being up front with you and I would think this 15 page discussion (at this time) is proof enough that we are not stifling or smothering the discussion

Regards,

- Erik

Given that this game is so new, I realize this is a long-shot, but is there any chance of Command being included in the holiday sale????? [;)]

No? Oh well, had to ask [8D]

ORIGINAL: hondo1375
I respect your passion Nemo84, and your concern for the hobby, but I'm not sure I follow your argument here. So long as there are no significant barriers to entering the market, keeping prices high is about the worst way of maintaining a monopoly position. It makes the market attractive for others to enter, and provides a price umbrella for them. Especially, if as you say, there is a big untapped wargaming market to be addressed at lower price points. Someone could just come in and set up shop, undercut Matrix by 30%, get lots of new customers, and still bring in lots of revenue. The best way for Matrix to keep out competition would in fact be to discount, as that means it would be hard for someone inexperienced in the business, without a reputation with developers, to set a price point in the market that could make everyone some money.

+ 1

Regards,

- Erik

ORIGINAL: Iain McNeil
We'll have to agree to disagree. I don't accept the points but don't want to spend any more time discussing it so I'll have to withdraw from this thread. 1 release a week doesn't happen by itself!

Unfortunately I'll have to follow as well. I think we've all put in our two cents and it's also time to focus on releasing games and customer support for me. Please keep things civil here folks and the thread will remain open, otherwise if things go off the rails we'll have to lock it.

Regards,

- Erik

ORIGINAL: Terminus
Slitherine doesn't even share its sales numbers with its development teams. When we made WitP: AE, all we got was the money agreed upon. Fine by me.

That's not true actually - the AE team is a complex arrangement and you are not the main team contact, so it may well be that you have not seen the unit sales report, but we do provide it to the team. We provide full sales data (units and dollars) to all our developers monthly and I'm guessing that report goes to Joe.

Regards,

- Erik