Pricing Suggestion

[Terminus]

I stand corrected. I still don't care, because we made a mutual agreement, and we both lived up to it.

[smudge56]

Lol. I was trying say I wish they took into account that money is tight for everyone around the world. Oh hum. Still havent decided if I'm going to buy it yet still reading people views first.

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: Fleming
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.

That's not correct at all, each development team receives a report monthly that covers all unit and dollar sales in detail. That's all I can say, but I think Terminus' impression is unique to the communications or internal arrangement within the team he worked on.

Regards,

- Erik

[smudge56]

Perhaps when I said save money I should have think about justifying forking out that amount of money. Plus also expaining it to the wife. [:)]

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: Nemo84
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.

There are much greater costs than you may realize Nemo and many, many developers have tried to navigate these waters on their own and found that it's next to impossible to succeed independently. You can see this across all genres - the traditional publisher role which we fill is still a valuable one, which adds value from the start of development all the way through to after release.

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.

This is an interesting theory and also completely wrong. First of all, wargaming declined during a time when the existing publishers and developers were following the exact same mass market strategies as the rest of the industry. Within our company, wargaming has grown since we started. We've tried all kinds of strategies and release channels and base our decisions on what we feel will best serve our developers in terms of returns and best serve the market in terms of more wargames being made.

It's also quite contradictory to claim first that there is a low cost of entry where anyone can now self-publish and succeed and at the same time say that we are somehow able to control both supply and demand in the entire global market for wargames, despite being a small company. This is basically a conspiracy theory and from where I'm sitting, it is completely opposite to our actual goals, actions and effects.

Regards,

- Erik

[gexmex]

ORIGINAL: Blighty56

Perhaps when I said save money I should have think about justifying forking out that amount of money. Plus also expaining it to the wife. [:)]

I think appeasing our "superior officer" is a main concern for a lot of us, haha. We may be able to see the value in the end, but she most certainly will not! OTOH 80 bucks is only half the price of a nice purse or handbag, so we could always come back with that [:D]

[Pii]

ORIGINAL: Kipper

This thing is under priced. This isn't a game it's a hobby.

Its a game if you can't die. I also never knew a hobby had a certain price point.

[Terminus]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

ORIGINAL: Fleming
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.

That's not correct at all, each development team receives a report monthly that covers all unit and dollar sales in detail. That's all I can say, but I think Terminus' impression is unique to the communications or internal arrangement within the team he worked on.

Regards,

- Erik

AE was a unique development process, AFAIK.

[Pii]

ORIGINAL: JRyan

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....

Not if Matrix has anything to do with it but I do recall Harpoon being on Best Buys shelve because that is were I bought it. So what make this game so special it wouldn't sell there like its cousin did years ago?

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: Pii

ORIGINAL: JRyan

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....

Not if Matrix has anything to do with it but I do recall Harpoon being on Best Buys shelve because that is were I bought it. So what make this game so special it wouldn't sell there like its cousin did years ago?

Probably because shelf space costs money. And games such as this just won't make enough in brick and mortar stores.

Yes, the store would get a piece of the action too. MG makes more money using its current model. Don't know how much more

The last game from Matrix I bought off the shelf was Uncommon Valor. Haven't seen any wargame in store shelves since.

[Pii]

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.

So? Maybe their game sucked and wasn't worth the full price. One thing Steam has and I use EVERYTIME I'm thinking of buying is a link to a forum where members can let you know if a game is good or bad. That isn't good for developers that make bad games. But discount it enough and even a bad game can and will sell. Which is kind of the point of this thread. Not that Command is bad but lower prices does sell games even bad one.

[Pii]

So please give the sim a spin.

Please produce a demo or lower the price and I will in 2 seconds flat. Until then no thanks

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: Pii

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.

So? Maybe their game sucked and wasn't worth the full price. One thing Steam has and I use EVERYTIME I'm thinking of buying is a link to a forum where members can let you know if a game is good or bad. That isn't good for developers that make bad games. But discount it enough and even a bad game can and will sell. Which is kind of the point of this thread. Not that Command is bad but lower prices does sell games even bad one.

So who wastes money on a bad game? Would you buy say, the Amiga version of SSI's Gettysburg? Pay $50 or $10, won't change the fact that the 2nd day scenario is unplayable.

What about Braveheart? That was a freakin bad game I paid full price for. Buying it for say 1/3 the price isn't going to change that.

[kaburke61]

(For Pii and the gang complaining (didn't quote - sorry))

My God, then just LEAVE....point has been taken (and taken.....and taken.....and taken).

If what you're trying to accomplish is something similar to the "Peng challenge thread"...congrats!

[smudge56]

ORIGINAL: gexmex

ORIGINAL: Blighty56

Perhaps when I said save money I should have think about justifying forking out that amount of money. Plus also expaining it to the wife. [:)]

I think appeasing our "superior officer" is a main concern for a lot of us, haha. We may be able to see the value in the end, but she most certainly will not! OTOH 80 bucks is only half the price of a nice purse or handbag, so we could always come back with that [:D]

Unfortunately mine doesn't have an interest in bags or purses lol.

[Rob322]

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

ORIGINAL: Pii

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.

So? Maybe their game sucked and wasn't worth the full price. One thing Steam has and I use EVERYTIME I'm thinking of buying is a link to a forum where members can let you know if a game is good or bad. That isn't good for developers that make bad games. But discount it enough and even a bad game can and will sell. Which is kind of the point of this thread. Not that Command is bad but lower prices does sell games even bad one.

So who wastes money on a bad game? Would you buy say, the Amiga version of SSI's Gettysburg? Pay $50 or $10, won't change the fact that the 2nd day scenario is unplayable.

What about Braveheart? That was a freakin bad game I paid full price for. Buying it for say 1/3 the price isn't going to change that.

I agree. I wouldn't buy a $20 game from EA because I've found their customer/product support to be terrible. OTOH I paid at least $80 for WITP AE and over the last four years I've seen a steady stream of patches and upgrades for free with responsive developers. Price to me is a factor but one of several, quality of product and quality of support for the product are equally important to me.

[Pii]

And does anyone have any hard proof that says Panzer Corps could be selling huge amounts on Steam?

Yes I have all the data unfortunately you aren't entitled to it. See how easy that is?

[BradOrbital]

Just a quick note, I'm not commenting on price but I see a line was crossed here regarding other products/simulations. I think those making comments about the flight simulations and the Kerbal space product need to understand more on the simulation market. FSX has a commercial product that is marketed by Lockheed Martin. Kerbal, while with little Minions pulling amusing faces, is not just a click and go-lucky game but also requires study, thought and understanding - I don't play that game (I use other aerospace simulators/I'm in the defence sector) but I have fellow colleagues in the space sector that play with it and it has more depth to it than what has being claimed here by people that should understand a market.

Command is a fantastic sim and I wish Mike and the team well with it and look forward to it growing in scenarios and platforms.

However some marketing comments were made that clearly lacks understanding of other simulations and were just plain dirty and lack intel. Not the right way to market something unless you on the home shopping tv channel.

My 2 cents.

Once again, congrats on the game to the Warfaresims team!

[Pii]

It happens every time there is a big release and if it didn't work we wouldn't still be here

That doesn't mean it couldn't work better.

[smudge56]

ORIGINAL: bradinggs

Just a quick note, I'm not commenting on price but I see a line was crossed here regarding other products/simulations. I think those making comments about the flight simulations and the Kerbal space product need to understand more on the simulation market. FSX has a commercial product that is marketed by Lockheed Martin. Kerbal, while with little Minions pulling amusing faces, is not just a click and go-lucky game but also requires study, thought and understanding - I don't play that game (I use other aerospace simulators/I'm in the defence sector) but I have fellow colleagues in the space sector that play with it and it has more depth to it than what has being claimed here by people that should understand a market.

Command is a fantastic sim and I wish Mike and the team well with it and look forward to it growing in scenarios and platforms.

However some marketing comments were made that clearly lacks understanding of other simulations and were just plain dirty and lack intel. Not the right way to market something unless you on the home shopping tv channel.

My 2 cents.

Once again, congrats on the game to the Warfaresims team!

Your correct kerbal is very complex and realistic. The little kerbals just add some fun and humour to a serious simulation.