Change publishers

[crusader2010]

Yes the game is expensive, but for every (crudely) expensive product there is a very cheap (i.e. free) way to play it [;)] people just need to stop thinking too much and use it! That's how you make a publisher reconsider its prices [:D]

[Kayoz]

I'm bored, so let's look at YOUR numbers in a little detail:

ORIGINAL: Gregorovitch55
67,377 Sid Meier's Civilization V - 4x strategy game
60,147 Football Manager 2014 - sports sim
13,604 Arma 3 - first-person shooter
12,713 Football Manager 2013 - sports sim
7,433 Europa Universalis IV - grand strategy historical
5,538 Arma 2: Operation Arrowhead - first person shooter
5,347 Crusader Kings II - grand strategy historical
5,106 Kerbal Space Program - not sure where to classify this - but it sure isn't DW
4,629 Age of Empires II: HD Edition - real-time strategy
4,845 Football Manager 2012 - sports sim

Given that DW is a 4x grand strategy game, I think we can safely eliminate the items in red. If it's not even a strategy game in the loosest definition, it can't be considered.

Total: 186,739
Genre eliminates: 97,108

6 down, 4 left.

You've lost over half of your numbers just on cursory elimination of games not even within DW's genre. Of the remaining, I think only Civ is close to DW - it's a real 4x game, while I'd debate that of the remaining, two are the same tedious spreadsheet game (EU and CK are just the same engine with different skins) and a click-fest C&C clone (AoE).

So, you're left with about 1/3 the numbers that you started with. That's ONE example of the TEN you started with.

Well done. A more illustrative example of Mark Twain's quote is hard to come by.

1 left standing out of 10. If this were bowling, I'd say I'm having a good night.

[Rising-Sun]

I agreed, i wouldnt pay much either. Already wasted enough money on Matrix and wont spend anymore regardless. My highest was "War in the Pacific: Admiral Edition", wasnt too impress with it, since AI cheats. Anyway few other games i bought, no demo turned out shits and i was really upset over it.

So new game like War in Flames for 99$ while 25% off being still development and no AI. I looked into, dont like the way it setup and still look classic.

All i can say is keep looking other places and maybe you will find something you like to mess with. But before you do, MAKE SURE you do some research before buying it!

[Kayoz]

ORIGINAL: RisingSun
"War in the Pacific: Admiral Edition", wasnt too impress with it, since AI cheats.

Every AI cheats. Every. Single. One.

If you have problems with WitP - why don't you post your complaints in that forum? This hardly seem the place for such a discussion.

ORIGINAL: RisingSun
War in Flames... still development and no AI.

You mean "World in Flames"?

You investigated it, you decided that it's not for you. I don't see the problem here.

ORIGINAL: RisingSun
All i can say is keep looking other places and maybe you will find something you like to mess with. But before you do, MAKE SURE you do some research before buying it!

Caveat emptor. Yes, that should be embraced by every consumer.

[Rising-Sun]

ORIGINAL: Kayoz

ORIGINAL: RisingSun
"War in the Pacific: Admiral Edition", wasnt too impress with it, since AI cheats.

Every AI cheats. Every. Single. One.

If you have problems with WitP - why don't you post your complaints in that forum? This hardly seem the place for such a discussion.

ORIGINAL: RisingSun
War in Flames... still development and no AI.

You mean "World in Flames"?

You investigated it, you decided that it's not for you. I don't see the problem here.

ORIGINAL: RisingSun
All i can say is keep looking other places and maybe you will find something you like to mess with. But before you do, MAKE SURE you do some research before buying it!

Caveat emptor. Yes, that should be embraced by every consumer.

I have contact the moderator in private about WiTP:AE, only way to enjoy the game is find the right players to stick with it. So it would be almost impossible to do, since alot of players arent dependable. He told me it was the only ways he/they can do it, infact can be improved though, but he/they didnt want me to expose the infos. So i had to keep that under the lids.

Yes i mean World in Flames, since it doesnt have AIs and doesnt look that great and still look classic. I dont want to step on someone toes and start a war. There some will like and will not like certain things when it come to wargaming. I like realistic stuffs!

I would say i bought many softwares since mid/late 80's and over 90% of them are trash lol. huge waste of money too And not itsnt easy to find what you are looking for, its like a gamble.

I have to say Distant Worlds is pretty good 4x strategy game, depending on your setups. I have put alot of hours into it! Been playing Geo-Political (Master of the World) 3, its kinda kool and funny simulation game.

[DrApostle]

My recommendation to Code Force, the developer of this game, is to not use Matrix Games to distribute their next game.

1. Take the money from Universe and use it to develop the next new iteration of DW, no matter the name.
2. Use Kickstarter if you need to raise more money. You will get it. You don't have to be tied to a distribution channel which benefits the publisher (Matrix) more than the developer (Code Force).
3. Use Greenlight and Early Access on Steam.
4. Watch yourself make more money in 1 single Steam sale than an entire year with Matrix.

BAM!

Who cares if the business plan makes sense from a publisher's perspective? It doesn't make sense from a customer's perspective nor a developer like Code Force's perspective.

[Icemania]

The Matrix Games approach to Distant Worlds would make a fantastic case study on how not to do marketing. Matrix certainly appear to have been very helpful in working with Code Force and probably would not have the great game we have now without this. However, with the experience that Code Force have gained along the Distant Worlds journey, you have to wonder how much value Matrix would add going forward ...

[Kayoz]

ORIGINAL: Icemania
However, with the experience that Code Force have gained along the Distant Worlds journey, you have to wonder how much value Matrix would add going forward ...

ORIGINAL: DrApostle
1. Take the money from Universe and use it to develop the next new iteration of DW, no matter the name.

I just want to interject here on how this sounds...

You're suggesting that Elliot, who has had support and funding to develop his dream, now that he's achieved some measure of success - turn his back on what was probably the only publisher willing to embrace his vision. You're suggesting that he break his ties with his most active supporter in any way that matters and go his own way.

I'm not a moral philosopher, but this suggestion sounds downright amoral. Prima facie, it seems to be suggesting a completely selfish and disloyal action on Elliot's part.

Furthermore, perhaps I'm reading too much into the Matrix-CodeForce relationship, but it seems to be one that works. Whatever they each bring to the table, it's the (and I do hate this word) synergy that made DW a reality. I think it would be a very risky venture to gamble that one side has all the elements of success and can make the most out of DW (or whatever its successor is called). If it ain't broke, don't fix it. It's a combination that works and rewards both participants.

I might point out the successful development done under Microprose. If any of you are old enough to remember, you'll have fond recollections of that dear old publishing house. You'll also remember how the gems of its catalogue got turned into pieces of dung when they were bought out by Hasboro.

X-Com - effectively killed till resurrected by Sid
Civilization - orphaned and carried forward by Sid/Firaxis
Falcon 3 - dead
MoO (Masters of Orion) - dead

That's just off the top of my head. Anyone familiar with Microprose can probably think of a dozen more titles.

If the publisher-developer relationship were as simple as DrApostle and Icemania suggest, then we should have seen all the developers who witnessed the last twitches of the bloodless carcass that Hasboro left, go on to continue producing gems of games to entertain today's generation. But is that what we saw?

Oh, I'm probably being overly simplistic in my view here. But what is being suggested seems morally bankrupt and absurdly risky.

*edit*
I don't think the "Steam is the land of milk and honey" argument is worth discussing further and I pointedly avoided this rotting, flagellated horse carcass on purpose. If someone has some real information to bring to the discussion, then I'd be happy to engage them in debate. But all I've seen - and this thread is nothing new - are the same tired old arguments, marched out once again to be machine-gunned down by the Maxim gun of critical analysis.

[Bingeling]

Well said, Kayoz.

The mighty Code Force is also knows as Elliot. Matrix is much more than a publisher that just distributes the creations of Code Force.

I wonder what happens when Universe is out. What is the price? Will there be other changes to marketing and distribution? Will sales explode? Time will show.

[Kayoz]

ORIGINAL: Bingeling
Well said

Thanks, I was worried that I was the only one to find the suggestions to be worrisome. I let the comments lie to see if anyone else would call them out - but alas, nobody did. So I sharpened my machete and waded in.

ORIGINAL: Bingeling
I wonder what happens when Universe is out. What is the price?

What I hope to see is it released as
1. an expansion ($25-35 range) for those who already have DW and all expansions
and
2. A complete installable game in its own right ($60-75 range)
or
3. 2 and 1 combined, so there's a discount for existing DW+expansion owners. But a single, complete install package.

It would probably be a pain for Matrix to manage two install packages and two potentially different file sets - but we're sure to find out soon enough.

ORIGINAL: Bingeling
Will there be other changes to marketing and distribution? Will sales explode? Time will show.

Personally, I don't expect DW: Universe to be the franchise's breakout title. I think DW's engine is too poorly optimized, the graphics too dated and the whole development environment of C# unwieldy for games. If Elliot and Erik take the lessons from DW and make it's successor with a decent engine designed for real games - then that would be a good next step. And perhaps making the leap to multiplayer once that's all sorted. With a snappy engine and appealing graphics, it's market appeal should be sufficient to break out - potentially with the DW successor - and near certainly with a multiplayer version.

I specifically state that DW's successor should be single-player. The networking, match-making and balance issues of multiplayer are non-trivial in the extreme. I'd be worried if Erik were to announce a DW multiplayer - or egads - MMO any time soon.

Just my 2p.

[Bingeling]

ORIGINAL: Kayoz

ORIGINAL: Bingeling
Well said

Thanks, I was worried that I was the only one to find the suggestions to be worrisome. I let the comments lie to see if anyone else would call them out - but alas, nobody did. So I sharpened my machete and waded in.

You are a much superior forum warrior to me .
Probably a tad more controversial too, though.

I hope the full package price will at the low end of your 60-75$ estimate, or even a tad below. I fear that it will be at the upper end.

[Cauldyth]

ORIGINAL: Kayoz
What I hope to see is it released as
1. an expansion ($25-35 range) for those who already have DW and all expansions
and
2. A complete installable game in its own right ($60-75 range)
or
3. 2 and 1 combined, so there's a discount for existing DW+expansion owners. But a single, complete install package.

In one of the interviews (Space Sector maybe?) Erik described how it will be released, and it's #3. Universe will be sold as a standalone game which contains all previous content plus the new stuff. Existing DW customers will be able to buy it at a discount.

Pricing wasn't mentioned yet.

[Icemania]

ORIGINAL: Kayoz
Oh, I'm probably being overly simplistic in my view here.

Exactly.

If Code Force was to break an agreement mid-stream then I would agree with you completely.

However, if that agreement is focused on Distant Worlds 1, with no agreement in place for Distant Worlds 2, it's completely absurd to suggest Code Force should feel morally obliged to sole source a business relationship for Distant Worlds 2.

It's normal practice to reconsider the pro's and con's of business relationships from time to time, normally at contractually pre-defined intervals/milestones, there is nothing remotely amoral about it.

Further, in any responsible business, blindly going "sole source" requires significant justification. If Matrix were Marketing as well as they appear to have helped Code Force with Development, then such justification could be considered solid. Alas it is clear this is not the case.

[Kayoz]

ORIGINAL: Icemania
If Code Force was to break an agreement mid-stream then I would agree with you completely.

Neither you nor I know any of the details of the agreement between CodeForce and Matrix. I note that you're making speculation as to what their contractual obligations are - while I have not.

You seem to be of the opinion that contracts and emotions (trust, loyalty) are entirely independent and need to be viewed separately. So, in your opinion, CodeForce should examine it's contract for where it can wriggle out of any obligation to Matrix.

I heartily disagree with you in this.

I contend that one does not enter into a contract with an entity/individual one doesn't have a degree of trust/loyalty. It's not purely a dispassionate business analysis, but a working relationship with the contract as the stick to keep each other in line.

While you seem to think that business contracts are straightforward dispassionate exercises in number crunching, it seems scholars disagree:

The role of trust and contract in the supply of business advice

The Impact of Psychological Contracts Upon Trust and Commitment within Supplier-Buyer Relationships: A Social Exchange View

I don't pretend to be the oracle of business theory - but your viewpoint seems inconsistent with current theory. I'll let others debate business theories - but be aware that your position is far from "accepted norm".

ORIGINAL: Icemania
...if that agreement is focused on Distant Worlds 1...

Again, neither you nor I know the details of the CodeForce-Matrix contract. Nor is it any of our business. You're making speculation and throwing around suggestions based on complete ignorance - on a subject which is none of your business.

Not to mention the fiddly bits of contracts, such as who owns the code and any restrictions on game development which might very well be in the contract. Any serious legal contract is unlikely to be near as cut-and-dried as you suggest.

ORIGINAL: Icemania
If Matrix were Marketing as well as they appear to have helped Code Force with Development, then such justification could be considered solid. Alas it is clear this is not the case.

Clear? It's incredibly murky from my perspective.

Neither you nor I know anything about DW's market demographics. I assume that we both like it - but how many similar customers are there out there and what would it cost to reach any portion of them? I don't know. I don't have any numbers. And neither do you. The only thing "clear" here is that you're speculating on matters you're entirely ignorant of.

And even if you have "reasonable" numbers to work with and can make educated guesses as to DW's demographic appeal - you're still left with the question of Matrix sales and marketing numbers, before you can evaluate whether or not they're bollocksing it up. Do you have access to those figures? Do you have an estimate - and I'm willing to accept a ±10% error - on either number? What's that I hear? Silence?

If you have some numbers and a basis for estimates - then by all means present your analysis. I'd love to see how your estimates compare to my own WAG numbers.

But you haven't presented a single number. You've given empty criticism with nothing to base it on other than you don't personally like how Matrix is marketing DW.

[Cauldyth]

ORIGINAL: Cauldyth
In one of the interviews (Space Sector maybe?) Erik described how it will be released, and it's #3. Universe will be sold as a standalone game which contains all previous content plus the new stuff. Existing DW customers will be able to buy it at a discount.

Pricing wasn't mentioned yet.

Found it, it was Space Sector: http://www.spacesector.com/blog/2014/01 ... p-up-pack/

The quote isn't directly from Matrix themselves, but I interpret as being in-the-know:

Also, this fourth expansion will be standalone, meaning that it will be a “wrap up” release of the entire Distant Worlds series in one package, with owners of the game getting a discount.

[Kayoz]

Thanks for the info. It will be interesting to see how this affects the DW user base. Hopefully it'll bring in more users, and perhaps more critically, modders.

[Rising-Sun]

Kayoz, i wouldnt say Master of Orion (MoO) is dead, there another group have been making another one and been around for some time. They call themselves FreeOrion...

http://www.freeorion.org/index.php/Main_Page

Kinda slow development, due to software knowledges and debugging. Look interesting, but they still got some work to do to complete it.

[Osito]

ORIGINAL: RisingSun

Kayoz, i wouldnt say Master of Orion (MoO) is dead, there another group have been making another one and been around for some time. They call themselves FreeOrion...

http://www.freeorion.org/index.php/Main_Page

Kinda slow development, due to software knowledges and debugging. Look interesting, but they still got some work to do to complete it.

Having played freeorion a month or so ago, I'd be inclined to say Kayoz's assessment is spot on.

In any event, I'm not sure the relative health of MOO, per se, has much bearing on his point.

[Icemania]

Of course we don’t know the details Kayoz, and despite what you seem to think, we are both engaging in speculation. From my point of view, you are speculating that they have a long-term agreement that covers Distant Worlds 2. Neither of us know.

Regarding trust in contracts, on the main, I agree. Indeed in a past roles I have been a whistle-blower for actions by others that breached our Code of Conduct and have also invested vast amounts of effort to lead relationship building for many different Contracts. As an example, for a future agreement, if Code Force did not give Matrix (and vice versa) a fair and reasonable opportunity to be selected, or along the way they did not follow the intent of the original agreement despite what was actually written, I would agree with you.

However, again, it is normal practice to engage in a competitive selective process, unless there is a strong sole source justification. It is normal practice to define the period up-front where there may be a renegotiation or competitive selection. There is no breach of trust, as all parties all fully aware of what will take place in the years ahead.

During a competitive selection the established relationship will have weight (i.e. as you say a known quantity, less risk) but so too will past performance. In additions others need to be given a fair and reasonable opportunity … is it fair that others are essentially locked out from future agreements?

Let’s get back to the heart of my speculative argument. My contention is based on the premise that Matrix marketing performance is poor. What I am suggesting is that Matrix performance in Marketing probably does not justify a sole source arrangement for Distant Worlds 2. Marketing is a key component of how the overall performance of Matrix should be evaluated. It is not fair and reasonable for Code Force to feel obliged to blindly commit to a future agreement when others may provide a superior Marketing service, if a time to re-evaluate was agreed up-front?

Again, as you say, we are both engaged in idle speculation, but you are giving your own position far too much merit. There is nothing in your analysis that provides a credible sole source justification, or are you seriously going to suggest Matrix are good at Marketing?

[Kayoz]

ORIGINAL: Icemania
From my point of view, you are speculating that they have a long-term agreement that covers Distant Worlds 2.

Bull.

I never suggested that I have that knowledge. The most I ever did was shoot down your speculations on what their contract might be. Any speculation I made was to illustrate that your contractual divination can very easily be wrong.

If I did make any guesses on what their contract might be that wasn't illustrative to show the fallacy in your argument, then point to the post where I wrote such. Otherwise, I call it a lie.

ORIGINAL: Icemania
...it is normal practice to engage in a competitive selective process...

This isn't buying widgets. It's far closer to the relationship between an author and a book publisher than it is to Company-X supplying Company-Y with widgets. You have a very similar business relationship and yet you oddly refuse to use it. Hrm... why's that? Perhaps... because you know full well that if you look at a similar contractual relationship, your examples don't work?

ORIGINAL: Icemania
My contention is based on the premise that Matrix marketing performance is poor.

We addressed this - and I asked you to present some quantification to support your assertion. You have failed to supply a single number and are once again making wild speculations.

If you have some basis to your complaint about Matrix marketing - then by all means present it. But do so with something more substantial than wild speculation and your personal feelings on the matter.

ORIGINAL: Icemania
Again, as you say, we are both engaged in idle speculation, but you are giving your own position far too much merit.

If I'm giving myself too much credit for assuming that Erik is motivated by profit and that he has sufficient business experience to be able to make a reasonable business decision ... then go right ahead and challenge my assertions as I have done yours.

ORIGINAL: Icemania
...are you seriously going to suggest Matrix are good at Marketing?

Point of order: I never suggested Matrix bods are "good" at marketing. I've only suggested that their performance should be considered reasonable in the absence of proof otherwise. Reasonable != good.

Didn't I make that clear? I don't have access to the data to even guess at Matrix's relative performance. I don't have the information necessary to say if they're doing a "good" or "bad" job. And neither do you.

I have asserted that Matrix has managed to carve out a niche for itself - this suggests that the Matrix directors have some reasonable business acumen. Also, I asserted that Erik is motivated by profit and can be expected to make decisions which will benefit him. Well, that's the core of my argument. If you have disagreement with either of those assertions, then by all means shoot down my assertions by pointing out the flaws in my logic.