Matrix Games Forums

That's you, I have returned several in 20 years. So that is no excuse or even reasoning to support direct sales. You'll have to do better than that.

I don't believe it was used as a reason to support direct sales, but rather to counter the argument used by you against direct sales. There is a difference.

Ebay is like a garage sale. Are you now saying garage sales shouldn't be allowed?

Odd, I didn't get that from his post at all. It seems we are having a breakdown in comprehension or possibly a desire to distort presented positions. I believe his point was clearly made that direct sales are a good way to support the business while ebay sales do not directly support the business.

It has nothing to do with support or non-support of any business. The business has already made it's money from this product from the origional owner.

When shelf space is getting reduced, wargaming companies folding, then it has very much to do with the business. You opine about the good old days of quantity and quality of wargames yet do little to support that very thing you desire, buy the products so that the money goes to game makers.

Yes, the business made it's money from the original owner, but instead of making money off of 2 original owners, you and the other guy, they are only getting money from 1 of you. You are being entertained by their product as well as the orginal owner and they will only see money from one of you.

First of all after seeing the profits they make off of direct sales, they are not passing that increase down to the customer. If they make a full $40-$60 for each sale of the game vs $3 to $4 like has been shown in another post, then they need to pass along the savings to the customer as well, not charge $59.95 plus shipping and handling. LOL

Yeah, because as we all know, PC wargame programming companies are already doing so well financially in the first place.

I would argue that if wargame companies take this route, as hps has done, then they might actually remain profitable and more importantly to me as a customer, remain in the business of making the products I can enjoy.

That's as bad as it was, except this time they sink all the money into their pockets and the consumer still gets the ultimate shaft. Especially if the game suks. The consumer is out $59.95 plus shipping and handling and has a coaster to show for it.

This is why game reviews and word of mouth from fellow gamers you trust is important. Instead of impulse buying, do a bit of research before forking over the money and chances are much much greater that the consumer won't have a coaster to show for it.

With ebay I have opportunities for refunds, with direct sales I do not. I'm going to go with what supports the consumer instead of what supports the pockets of others.

You of course have the freedom to spend your money legally as you please. But do not discount the consequences, intended or un-intended of those actions.

I never saw it as cheating, I saw it as an extended "handicap".

Semantics. It bends the rules in it's favor. Programmers often did this without even notifying the gamer exactly how the game would cheat in the AI's favor.

If anything it was a quality feature in that it made a experience player and even better player, once they learned how to overcome the extended handicap.

Well I can honestly say, that the AI in games rarely has made me a better player. I didn't improve my tactical/strategic abilities in games against an AI. It took play against humans for that to happen. A cheating AI only taught me how to work the system against itself which often wasn't based on sound decisions that would work against a human, but rather a flaw in how the AI processed it's priorities in attack and defense.

These games today, use extended handicaps as well much along the same lines, but, they aren't even as hard as they were in the 80's and early 90's.

I find on average that games of today are no harder nor easier than the games of the 80's and early 90's.

I have read recently that some game is due to come out with an AI that LEARNS, I've got to find where I read that and what game it was again. I really want to see an AI that finally LEARNS from what the player does against it. If this works, it will hopefully change AI's for the better.

I've seen games touting this for god knows how long. Seems like more hype than reality given the processing restrictions of pc's.

Name me some games that touted the AI Learns. It's pretty easy to say you've seen, but, I would like to see their names? please

Plus it also depends on WHAT games you played in the early 80's and early 90's. You might have played them all, I chose a select few, but, most commonly had all the wargames from SSI and SSG and some lesser unknowns. Two very strong AI's that come to mind from that period were "War of the Lance" by Dave Landrey and "Centurion Defender of Rome", author forgotten. Both of these games on expert settings will provide the hardcorest of grogs a challenge of challenge. In "War of the Lance" you play against the clock along with overwhelming odds. In Defender of Rome, you play against overwhelming odds and a real time tactical AI that comes in hordes against you on the battlefield, although the strategic campaign is turn based. I've seen nothing in the last five years that match or even come close to the AI's/handicaps in these two games. Even on normal settings where there is no handicap, they both provide a very hard experience and winning or losing is always in the balance at any point in them both. SSI's Civil War Series provided some of the best play value I ever got out of computer wargames. Though the AI wasn't exceptionally brilliant, it was strong enough to make me concentrate moreso than I've seen in recent games. Of course on the highest settings giving it more men per unit, defintely made it harder to accomplish the objective in the required amount of time. Battles of Napolean did this as well another fine product by Dave Landrey.

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

Name me some games that touted the AI Learns. It's pretty easy to say you've seen, but, I would like to see their names? please

Battlecruiser and it's series of games, napoleon in russia, and a few others that I'd have to dig around in the basement to find.

Two very strong AI's that come to mind from that period were "War of the Lance" by Dave Landrey and "Centurion Defender of Rome", author forgotten. Both of these games on expert settings will provide the hardcorest of grogs a challenge of challenge. In "War of the Lance" you play against the clock along with overwhelming odds. In Defender of Rome, you play against overwhelming odds and a real time tactical AI that comes in hordes against you on the battlefield, although the strategic campaign is turn based.

See, to me, that has nothing to do with AI and everything to do with odds management on your side. It doesn't say that the AI did the unexpected and hit you in places you couldn't forsee, or that it re-inforced a falling flank effectively or anything like that. It says, we are going to throw tons of units your way or max out their orders of battle. That reminds me of space invaders. It wasn't that the space invaders were smarter as they fell out of the sky, but that there were more and more of them and they came at you faster.

It still makes it an AI and it still makes it a challenging AI, now you are wanting to get into "specifics" of an AI, instead of decent AI vs non-decent AI. It's not so much how the AI plays, as how challenging it is as "I" play against it. If you want to get into comparisons, 10 hardcore players could play the same AI and 9 out of 10 might defeat it and one not, on the other hand 10 hardcore players play the same AI and 9 out of 10 lose to it and 1 wins. Which AI do you think most hardcore players would prefer to play against? Questioning the level of intelligence of the AI vs the level of CHALLENGE of the AI is the issue here. The level of intelligence has not improved since the 80's and early 90's. The level of CHALLENGE has "decreased" since the 80's and early 90's.

It still makes it an AI and it still makes it a challenging AI, now you are wanting to get into "specifics" of an AI, instead of decent AI vs non-decent AI. It's not so much how the AI plays, as how challenging it is as "I" play against it

No, I don't think I went into specifics. AI is the ability of the computer generated opponent to make decisions based upon certain criteria. This isn't the same as stacking the rules of the game against you by either giving the computer a pass at certain rules or increasing the numbers/strength of the opponent.

Which AI do you think most hardcore players would prefer to play against?

You're comparing apples and oranges. An AI that is challenging is one thing. A game that cheats is another.

Questioning the level of intelligence of the AI vs the level of CHALLENGE of the AI is the issue here. The level of intelligence has not improved since the 80's and early 90's. The level of CHALLENGE has "decreased" since the 80's and early 90's.

Again, I think you're confusing AI from cheating or specifically given advantages. If you prefer more cheats for the AI opponent to utilize to its favor that's fine we have no disagreement.

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

How many games do you return because they are faulty? I've returned one game in 20 years!

That's you, I have returned several in 20 years. So that is no excuse or even reasoning to support direct sales. You'll have to do better than that.

Ebay is like a garage sale. Are you now saying garage sales shouldn't be allowed? LOL People sell things they no longer want or feel is valuable to them. Other people buy them. There is a big business in garage sales, flea markets and now ebay. It has nothing to do with support or non-support of any business. The business has already made it's money from this product from the origional owner. Lol you sound like a business deserves a feedback of dollars everytime one of it's products are sold in a garage sale.

What I'm saying is, if I have to buy direct, I might as well buy it on ebay for that added security and satisfaction I get by using ebay over direct sales. I might as well shop garage sales for the item, because I am NOT going to support direct sales. First of all after seeing the profits they make off of direct sales, they are not passing that increase down to the customer. If they make a full $40-$60 for each sale of the game vs $3 to $4 like has been shown in another post, then they need to pass along the savings to the customer as well, not charge $59.95 plus shipping and handling. LOL That's as bad as it was, except this time they sink all the money into their pockets and the consumer still gets the ultimate shaft. Especially if the game suks. The consumer is out $59.95 plus shipping and handling and has a coaster to show for it. With ebay I have opportunities for refunds, with direct sales I do not. I'm going to go with what supports the consumer instead of what supports the pockets of others.

I'm not saying garage sales or ebay should be banned. I am saying that people who prefer to buy remaindered, e-bay'd or download underdog games as their primary source of games software do not add any additional value into the games developers. Which makes their opinions on game developments somewhat irrelevant to the developers themselves as their buying habits will not dictate whether of not Matrix, Paradox and HPS to name but a few will make another game.

Essentially you are living off the scraps of the top table - without people who buy full price games your way of doing business could not exist. If everyone followed your example there would be no wargame industry.

As to the price of games - how much should you pay for a game? If you are still playing the game 4 years later surely thats worth more money than one you shelve after a few weeks? The retail price has little to do with the games value and all to do with the economics of trading for the companies concerned.

Example - GalCiv. Good game but I didn't get into it. Cost me $30. Civilisation III - Good game, ended up paying $110 for the three packs but would have paid $150+ given all the time I've been playing it. Which one was better value? To me, Civ III.

In any case - take the latest Paradox game Crusader Kings. If I preorder from Sweden the cost is €38.50. If I buy it in the UK retail it would cost me €45. So I do save. And they get effectively 5-10 purchases compared to if I bought it from a shop.

My point is Ravinhood - you can post all the opinions you like about why the games companies should do this or that. But until you start putting the cash on the table for the developers they won't listen.

Your point makes no nevermind, first of all they have no idea who posts or emails them for changes in their games or how they sell them. Whether they bought the game direct or through retail or through ebay. Your point is useless gibberwalkie.

Also I do maintain the rights even buying the game off of ebay, because the seller reliquishes those rights when he sells the game to me. He is reliquishing the support for the game to me also. It's the same principle as buying from a retail outlet. They buy X number of games, they bought the support, they pass that support to me when I buy the game, there is no difference from an ebay seller than there is a retail seller, they are both passing the game rights and support to the buyers.

If you need an even more pictureque example here it is:

Ebayer buys 10 games Direct from Matrix
He sells them on Ebay to other ebayers
Matrix has lost nothing in support. The origional Ebayer doesn't need 10 games, he's in it for the sales. But, he provides and added bonus of a REFUND to the other ebayers where Matrix does not.

He will save money and make his money on MASS purchases of the game from Matrix, he will only get one shipping charge and it's less in bulk than buying one game at a time.

When he sells the games to other ebayers (me) I will obtain the rights and support for buying that game, he relinquishes when he sells it to me.

Now as far as garage sale items or garage sale ebay items. If a person no longer finds the game valuable to them or no longer wishes to maintian support for the company he bought it from, he sells it. He passes all rights in that sale to the buyer. He does not get full price for the game, but, he has used it, thus he has obtained his money's worth and passed it along to someone else, relinquishing all rights and support to said game. This is in the back of most every manual on how to relinquish ones rights to the game. No company tells you you don't have the right to relinqish your rights to the game, you can sell it as you please, just as long as you don't maintain a copy of it yourself as you sell it.

Man if you can't see that picture clearly then you are just blind to your own thoughts and opinions.

Bull

LOL you lose the debate, one word replies are constituion for acknowledement that the competitor has defeated you and made you "speechless" lol.

More Bull

Knock it off ravin...........if you can't keep on point and without the personal jibes you will be enjoying a vacation from this site.

ORIGINAL: ravinhood
But, it's not what you or I think or have opinions about, it's what the MASSES have the opinion about. It's not complex to you, but, obviously it is to the buying MASSES cause it didn't sell.

The masses? If mass marketing was all that was important then we would all be buying FPS and Britney Spears. What exactly is important about "the masses" for companies making niche games? I'm sure neither Battlefront nor Matrix are looking at "the masses" for inspiration either.

It was a flop, it failed miserably, just admit that. It failed miserably. You won't ever see another game like it out of Paradox, Johan said so.

We'll see what Crusader Kings turns out like then. What I find peculiar is your delight [8|]

The problem with most forums and you know this as well as I, they are biased company loving, game loving fanatics for the most part. To goto a forum for information about the game is about the worst thing anyone can do for an "accurate" quality review about the game. I've been on enough of them to see this, time and time again. And you better not be against the game or the company, or you will be flamed and or banished from the forum.

Most game fora are biased and populated by people who like the game. It's absolutely untrue that criticism is not tolerated. There are some intolerant folks there, but they are most definately in the minority. Why would you think that a forum dedicated to a game and populated by people who like it should be unbiased? I made a very critical post last night, was neither flamed nor banned, your statement is simply not true.

Explain why Civilization is so popular? My explanation is, it's simple, it's relatively fast and it doesn't have complex popup window after window after window to setup an economy.

So should Civ be the pinicle of complexity and the way all games are made?

The Total War engine is popular all of a sudden. Won Two Strategy Game of the Year awards, how many games of Paradox's have won Strategy Game of the Year awards? Goto Gamerankings.com and use the detailed game rankings calculator and look where Paradox games are.....HOI came in 196th out of 200. Vicky of course didn't even make the charts. People use these boards, I know I do. EUII and EU was up there in the rankings though, around 40th+

Again, I'd have to say so what? I would imagine Battlefield 1942 sold more than IL2, should all flight sims be dumbed down to a WSAD/Mouse interface?

I don't recall if it was you or someone else that didn't care for EYSA. But, you see, the MASSES seem to like it. So once again you are outnumbered on both sides of your fence.

You appear to be fascinated by what other people think. My liking/disliking a game has nothing to do with what some mythic group of people known as "the masses" might think, but then again, it takes all sorts doesn't it.

You're more of a niche market gamer. Your market is small and not much out there for you. LES the Sarge is the same way, his market of computer gaming is even smaller (heh no offense Les) but, that's his choice and your choice. Same with me, I have choices as well, and it doesn't include Paradox games atm.

Yes my market is small, but has more than enough new games to keep me busy. Regardless of what Paradox do in the future, there will be other companies which continue to make complex and challenging games.

Dinsdale I read your "Any Plans to Finish this Game" thread in the Victoria forums. I still have not purchased the game and I dont think I will. I know you guys are talking AI and marketing etc, but dont replys like this tick you off?

you are perfectly free to not want to buy CK for some time because of this but, IMHO, that isn't going to be particularily productive, for anyone involved.

Scythe

It's like they want you or us (the consumer) to support their half assed work. "Yea, our work is shoddy and we break more than we fix, but if you stop supporting us we wont be able to bring you more 2nd rate products in the future".

Vicky is a good game - we will get it improved further but we don't have a right to get it improved.

Argg!

So I guess a plea for a little more positivity in requests and fewer ultimatums is what I'm suggesting.

Double argg! If thats the attitude of the Victoria community Im glad I didnt buy it. It smells like the World War II Online problem--Keep silent about the games problems and we can sucker more people into buying the game. I guess the idea being to generate cash so the developers can work faster on fixing broken products.

ORIGINAL: Tactics

Dinsdale I read your "Any Plans to Finish this Game" thread in the Victoria forums. I still have not purchased the game and I dont think I will. I know you guys are talking AI and marketing etc, but dont replys like this tick you off?

you are perfectly free to not want to buy CK for some time because of this but, IMHO, that isn't going to be particularily productive, for anyone involved.

Scythe

It's like they want you or us (the consumer) to support their half assed work. "Yea, our work is shoddy and we break more than we fix, but if you stop supporting us we wont be able to bring you more 2nd rate products in the future".

Vicky is a good game - we will get it improved further but we don't have a right to get it improved.

Argg!

So I guess a plea for a little more positivity in requests and fewer ultimatums is what I'm suggesting.

Double argg! If thats the attitude of the Victoria community Im glad I didnt buy it. It smells like the World War II Online problem--Keep silent about the games problems and we can sucker more people into buying the game. I guess the idea being to generate cash so the developers can work faster on fixing broken products.

Do everyone in these forums decide that Paradox games are bad without buying them?

Take a look at some of the more intemperate comments on this forum about games that aren't even released yet!

If you look at the Paradox forum (as you have) and look at that thread (as you have) and that post (as you have) you will see that I posted a long list of things that people may not agree with as design issues. Which you declined to quote. Somewhat selective quoting to prove a point? And if you go on you will see that there is a healthy mod and variants forum.

Now I would like to think that everyone gives a chance to all the new strategy games on the market. I know I do. I respect Dinsdale's opinion and right to critisise. He's played the game and knows the pros and cons. I'd like the developers to enhance the game more but it ain't going to happen until after the CK release.

I mean - I could throw mud at Grigsby's new release as an overblown version of Axis and Allies. I won't becuase I'm hoping for much more and until I have played it will give it the benefit of the doubt. I could point out the interminable delays many of the Matrix Games go though before release - but I won't becuase I'm prepared to wait for a good game. And most of them are good games. As I would suggest are the Paradox EU/HoI/Vicky series.

What I despair of is people who diss the game on hearsay.

Getting back to your original post. The idea of going back to a simpler type of game and looking for better returns from products, either through higher sales or online sales is hardly unique to Paradox. Particularly since Matrix has recently announced GGWAW and its new online sales policy.

All the companies have the same issues - higher and higher demands by us players in terms of detail and historical accuracy and higher costs to market the product. Sound familiar. If we don't cut ALL these designers some slack and support them then we will see the same thing happen to the mainstream wargame houses as happened to the board wargames houses - they'll go bust.

So when I ask for positivity I ask for positivity for ALL the games in genre. Look for the 75% thats right in the game rather than the 25% you didn't like. I dind't like GalCiv but i could appreciate the effort. Just annoys me when people start slagging games - any game - off for no good reason.

What I despair of is people who diss the game on hearsay.

Hearsay? I did some research and found the result to be a game that was lacking, what's wrong with that? I should run out and buy a game for no other reason that to support a company and a game that you think has potential? Im sorry, I dont have a gold mine, my financial resources are limited. I cant afford to buy a game that is released and then takes years to be completed.

The opinions of other gamers like me is, IMO the best way to gauge a game before buying it. Name me another source more reliable and honest and I'll gladly use it. Until then ya, I'll avoid a game or as you say "diss it".

Do everyone in these forums decide that Paradox games are bad without buying them?

If you read the first line in my original post you'd know I purchased and played HOI. That was a Paradox game, wasnt it?

I find this to be a "fascinating thread".

The latest remarks being interesting to me in one particular way.

The phrase "heresy"

If a reviewer says avoid something, is that good enough?

If a like minded person says avoid something, is that good enough?

If a forum mate says avoid something, is that good enough?

If a friend say, nah you won't like it, is that good enough?

Generally speaking, is the opinions of people you know, or the views of people you can relate to, not adequate?

Or are you the sort to stupid to accept that only you can really know the truth of a matter?

Me, I can't afford to be that category of person. Finances in my case are incredibly finite.
So I have to stand with the skeptics, to take a pass on a game if it hasn't got a sterling reputation.
The market has plenty of games, and there are more than a few that have more than enough people glowing about it. And if those people tend to mirror my own normal expectations, why should I assume I can't value their views.

I can't afford the arrogance that only I can be a proper judge, that I must absolutely buy a game first before I can make a reasoned opinion.

Everyone that has participated on this thread is already well aware of which games are good and which games are not. The views of rabid fans won't alter any of that.

Yeah, Les, I find this to be a "fascinating" thread, too. So fascinating that I never posted on it.

I have only one thing to say. My dough is my dough, and I'll buy what I want with it.

Period.

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1

I find this to be a "fascinating thread".

The latest remarks being interesting to me in one particular way.

The phrase "heresy"

If a reviewer says avoid something, is that good enough?

If a like minded person says avoid something, is that good enough?

If a forum mate says avoid something, is that good enough?

If a friend say, nah you won't like it, is that good enough?

Generally speaking, is the opinions of people you know, or the views of people you can relate to, not adequate?

Or are you the sort to stupid to accept that only you can really know the truth of a matter?

Me, I can't afford to be that category of person. Finances in my case are incredibly finite.
So I have to stand with the skeptics, to take a pass on a game if it hasn't got a sterling reputation.
The market has plenty of games, and there are more than a few that have more than enough people glowing about it. And if those people tend to mirror my own normal expectations, why should I assume I can't value their views.

I can't afford the arrogance that only I can be a proper judge, that I must absolutely buy a game first before I can make a reasoned opinion.

Everyone that has participated on this thread is already well aware of which games are good and which games are not. The views of rabid fans won't alter any of that.

Actually Les the word was hearsay not heresy. But don't let the English language get in the way of a good slagging[:D]