Pricing Suggestion

[bretg80]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

ORIGINAL: bretg80

Swept under the carpet. No problem. The message is out there.

And the message is WAAAAH! WAAAAH! WAAAAH!

I've dealt with Terminus before... and this is no surprise coming from him. But let's get one thing clear, I can afford to buy any game on this site. I choose not to buy an expensive game because I'm tired of paying full price for not-ready-for-prime-time releases. I was a big proponent of Command Ops and was a cheerleader and then bought the game at full price and was totally embarrassed by the lack of support and the bugs.

And I gave Dave at Panther a piece of my mind as a result along with many others. The cool thing about Dave is he listened to what we had to say and I believe his next go at a new product will be much better. So, does Matrix and Sliterine listen, NO. And so we have this thread that appears to still be very alive even after the move off the main board where it belongs.

I have WitP and WitPAE and paid full price for games that are not bad, but are not the great pieces of software the fanboys make them out to be. I even wrote CombatReporter for WitPAE to help improve the game because it is so difficult to find information. There are several other addons that have been created as well.

My point here is that premium titles are extremely rare and I highly doubt that CMANO is a premium title given the comments I've already seen on the boards. Some of the comments about CMANO recently are that the UI is cluttered and it is difficult to find information. How many more add-ons do we need before the game is usable?

So where is the justification for this price?

Oh, and I really was done commenting on this issue until you moved this to the General board and Terminus made the stupid comment. Now I have plenty more to say [:@]

[mjk428]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

I dont see AUD$100 as being too expensive for a finished, quality game.

It is too much for a Beta+ offering which "is still being worked on"

Which category does this fit?

I don't regret the purchase (yet) but it's definitely rough around the edges. Beta+ is a fair characterization IMO. The Devs and fanboys will heartily disagree.

I'm confident enough that the rough spots will be patched up that I'm spending today making my own scenarios. The devs are responding to the complaints and they seem like good & capable folks. There's a lot to like about what they've done. The database being the most impressive. However, the clunky unintuitive interface, sluggish performance on high-end rigs, and suicidal pilots, make the game hard for me to love as it stands. Today it's worth $40. In short order I expect it will be worth $60. For those of us that can't resist the subject matter it's worth an extra $20.

[dutchman55555]

ORIGINAL: Fleming

Both views are perfectly reasonable and legitimate from an economic viewpoint. You will find experts who will say Matrix is right and you will have experts that will 'proof' the low prices is the way to go.

Actually, not for Matrix. No expert would dare analyze the situation because there is no hard data. Matrix has no shareholders, just owners. There is no prospectus, no annual report.

So anyone who claims the Matrix model is the winning one cannot (literally) be factually correct, as there are no facts to back their argument. Just as they can't demand that people worried about the future of the hobby "show them the proof"...that's in Matrix's hands, and we all know that's never, ever going to happen.

We're expected to accept platitudes about strong sales, and meeting expectations. The True Believers drink the Kool-Aid, and can't understand why we decline their cups.

Again, if this was just about the future of Matrix it would matter not. But a business model that appears to be primarily "Fewer customers so we now need to charge more to make the same money; whoops, now there's even fewer customers so we now need to charge even more to make the same money; oh boy, now there's even fewer customers so we now need to charge even more to make the same money..." seems to be in a dangerous spiral.

Eventually it will be only the True Believers, and as they die off, or move on, or are priced out of the market then there is a very real chance the hobby will die, especially with Matrix buying up and closing off every PC wargame studio they can get their hands on.

[histgamer]

Dutch matrix doesn't control what happens to the wargaming genre. If I want to make a game and I have the talent I can do so and self publish or publish with someone else. Even if Matrix drives their titles into the ground and ashes as long as some people want to play games like these they will continue to get made, just elsewhere. The thing that most people don't' realize, is my impression of many game developers who are indie developers is these guys largely do it part time. Unless they hit it big the vast majority of game devs (definitely on mobile anyway) are part time developers who do this for fun. I could be wrong there but that's my impression. So it's not like if suddenly they don't sell 10,000 copies at $50 they will go broke, I mean I'm sure that's the case for some developers but many make games as a labor of love, sure lack of compensation could cause them to do something else but I doubt any of them have an illusion that they are going to get rich.

[dutchman55555]

ORIGINAL: bretg80

But let's get one thing clear, I can afford to buy any game on this site. I choose not to buy an expensive game because I'm tired of paying full price for not-ready-for-prime-time releases. I was a big proponent of Command Ops and was a cheerleader and then bought the game at full price and was totally embarrassed by the lack of support and the bugs.

You've pretty much distilled the conclusion I've come to.

I can afford Matrix prices, but I'm given so many reasons not to buy that pretty much every game I've bought here is many years in age, and as a result is at a price point (9/10 times due to a sale) that I can justify them. In the same way that True Believers show blind obedience, my scepticism lingers at every game description, at every review that is "Well it's nice overall, but a), b) and c) prevent it from being truly remarkable", or mention of a glitch that I would hope would be fixed after 5 years but which I sometimes learn (to my horror) hasn't been.

In fact I'm pretty sure the only games I bought at full price were Unity of Command and Time of Fury. I truly regret the latter purchase. I had to make the decision based on 6 screen shots and the typical review of many Matrix games, There are a few annoying issues that hint toward a slightly premature release but these seem to be known and the developers are working hard to fix them, and shouldn't stop anyone interested in the game from buying it.

Every other game was purchased at a sale price. And because of this it means the games were 4-6 years old before I had a kick at them.

And that's my conundrum. Do I drop $90 on a game that might be so buggy, so half-baked that I stroke out from the anger of being sold such a thing? Or do I wait for 4-6 years for a "reasonable" price drop to $60 or $70? Or do I pass entirely?

It truly disappoints me to admit I'm slowly and surely being nudged to the final category with pretty much every Matrix product released.

[histgamer]

To be fair not EVERY game is priced incredibly high. The SOW games are pretty reasonable ($29.99) for the stand alones, especially if you get the bundle which is $20 cheaper than the combined price of all the titles, CW2 is what? $39.99 at release for digital and while the Panzer Corps games are lighter they are also reasonably priced imho.

[dutchman55555]

ORIGINAL: flanyboy

Dutch matrix doesn't control what happens to the wargaming genre. If I want to make a game and I have the talent I can do so and self publish or publish with someone else.

Except that more and more studios/developers are being acquired by Matrix. Outright bought.

And every time this happens another company finds its distribution cut to only Matrix/Slitherine and their own websites (sometimes not even that).

Do they control the genre? No. But every time someone hears about a game, and comes to Matrix only to find it priced beyond what they are willing to pay, they are being nudged away not only from Matrix but also the hobby. Enough nudges and that's it, one more customer (and hobby supporter) gone.

Look, I'll date myself and say I was around for the SPI/AH days of board wargaming. AH was always more expensive than SPI, but were (often) quality products. SPI games were flawed, but cheaper. But even though AH games were more expensive, they didn't price themselves out of the market, and they were good.

Matrix can't be SPI quality with AH prices. And that seems to be a situation that is repeating itself more and more. And if they continue to follow the EA model, gobbling up competitors and squeezing out work before it is ready, or simply a bare bones sequel to a previously successful product, then they will in effect become the genre, and you'll find that while you can make products, the market may become so sparse (due to supporters walking away, and newbies being scared off) that you will be doing it at a loss. I've got a friend like that, in his 50s and working minimum wage jobs so he can put on the occasional theatre production...always at a loss, and always coming out of his pocket. I'm thinking Matrix won't buy into that particular business model.

[histgamer]

I suppose. I guess the next however many years will tell the story Dutch. Hopefully you're wrong.

[dutchman55555]

ORIGINAL: flanyboy

I suppose. I guess the next however many years will tell the story Dutch. Hopefully you're wrong.

I hope I'm wrong, also.

At present all I have to allay my fears are platitudes from Matrix, and angry, petulant stares from the Kool-Aid drinkers.

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: dutchman55555

ORIGINAL: flanyboy

Dutch matrix doesn't control what happens to the wargaming genre. If I want to make a game and I have the talent I can do so and self publish or publish with someone else.

Except that more and more studios/developers are being acquired by Matrix. Outright bought.

And every time this happens another company finds its distribution cut to only Matrix/Slitherine and their own websites (sometimes not even that).

So what? Why didn't anyone else acquired them? Ageod went to Paradox. Why isn't it still there? I'd guess because it was a bad fit. According to Paradox, there isn't a market for turn based games, IIRC. So why did they even buy them?

And so what if another company finds it distribution cut? Did Ageod benefit from the massive discounts that Paradox ran?

I hate to break it to you, but in all likelihood, these studio/developers that you have a problem with them being bought, (I'd like to introduce you to a concept called capitalism.), would of gone under.

Maybe, no, scratch that, it has escaped you that thanks to Matrix, these companies have a home. A place to thrive.

If that comes at a price that is not acceptable to you, well, I cam live with that

[Hertston]

ORIGINAL: dutchman55555

Except that more and more studios/developers are being acquired by Matrix. Outright bought.

Like who? The only actual acquisition,ironically, seems to have been that of Matrix itself.

[warspite1]

Aurelian I think we’ve been here before… [:D]

The same old arguments just go round and round in circles. The one about “it’s a fact that if you reduce prices you get more customers” sums up the pointlessness of the thread. If life was that simple why doesn’t every company do that? Hey great, no retailer ever goes out of business!! Right…….

Matrix is a private company, no doubt with investors, shareholders (maybe the bank) all of whom they have to keep happy. They are NOT a charity. They also live in the free world and we have a free market. This means they have to balance price with consumer demand, competition, the size of the market place etc.

If they get it wrong there may be no Matrix in future, if they get it right, they will hopefully be around for some time yet. But it’s the right of the people who invest their cash and hold the risk to set the price. Our investment is limited to what we pay for games. If we don’t like it, then we shouldn't invest.

As for the Beta tester point, come on! We’ve all been around long enough to know the reality. Clearly enough people buy product day 1 for the practice to continue. If we didn’t then maybe it would stop and you wouldn’t have issues like Rome II or Empires in Arms or … just about every game I know (how many do not need patches exactly?). But that’s our (the consumers) choice and enough of us continue to buy day 1. If we become unpaid Beta Testers as a result, well, buyer beware!

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: Hertston

ORIGINAL: dutchman55555

Except that more and more studios/developers are being acquired by Matrix. Outright bought.

Like who? The only actual acquisition,ironically, seems to have been that of Matrix itself.

Here's a list of their partners: http://www.slitherine.com/company

[Challerain]

Those are just companies they work with. I think Slitherine acquired Matrix and then Slitherine/Matrix acquired AGEOD. The others are developers that signed on with the company. At least this is my take.

[histgamer]

ORIGINAL: Challerain

Those are just companies they work with. I think Slitherine acquired Matrix and then Slitherine/Matrix acquired AGEOD. The others are developers that signed on with the company. At least this is my take.

I believe you're right. They DEFINITELY don't own the History Channel or they are doing way better than we thought, and we also need to start demanding a return to actual Historical shows and none of this reality trucking lumberjack garbage.

[Alchenar]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Aurelian I think we’ve been here before… [:D]

The same old arguments just go round and round in circles. The one about “it’s a fact that if you reduce prices you get more customers” sums up the pointlessness of the thread. If life was that simple why doesn’t every company do that? Hey great, no retailer ever goes out of business!! Right…….

Matrix is a private company, no doubt with investors, shareholders (maybe the bank) all of whom they have to keep happy. They are NOT a charity. They also live in the free world and we have a free market. This means they have to balance price with consumer demand, competition, the size of the market place etc.

If they get it wrong there may be no Matrix in future, if they get it right, they will hopefully be around for some time yet. But it’s the right of the people who invest their cash and hold the risk to set the price. Our investment is limited to what we pay for games. If we don’t like it, then we shouldn't invest.

True, but even if we drop the price argument completely there's things like 'you need a demo', 'get some free advertising by getting some mainstream reviews', 'use the massive customer base that Steam opens up for you' which would not be substantial costs but which would probably be successful to some degree. But instead we just get an insistence that even that effort would be wasted.

The thing is that if a company refuses to let me demo a product and also hides their product from the industry journalists, that sets off pretty big alarm bells in my head that something is very wrong under the covers and they want to hide it until it's too late for me to back out of a purchase.

If you trust Matrix absolutely then their pricing strategy is fine. I have a demand for wargames and the supply is very limited. But if you get burned just once with a game that turns out to be far more expensive than it's entertainment value justified then it becomes very difficult to be a returning customer. And that's a problem.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Alchenar

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Aurelian I think we’ve been here before… [:D]

The same old arguments just go round and round in circles. The one about “it’s a fact that if you reduce prices you get more customers” sums up the pointlessness of the thread. If life was that simple why doesn’t every company do that? Hey great, no retailer ever goes out of business!! Right…….

Matrix is a private company, no doubt with investors, shareholders (maybe the bank) all of whom they have to keep happy. They are NOT a charity. They also live in the free world and we have a free market. This means they have to balance price with consumer demand, competition, the size of the market place etc.

If they get it wrong there may be no Matrix in future, if they get it right, they will hopefully be around for some time yet. But it’s the right of the people who invest their cash and hold the risk to set the price. Our investment is limited to what we pay for games. If we don’t like it, then we shouldn't invest.

True, but even if we drop the price argument completely there's things like 'you need a demo', 'get some free advertising by getting some mainstream reviews', 'use the massive customer base that Steam opens up for you' which would not be substantial costs but which would probably be successful to some degree. But instead we just get an insistence that even that effort would be wasted.

The thing is that if a company refuses to let me demo a product and also hides their product from the industry journalists, that sets off pretty big alarm bells in my head that something is very wrong under the covers and they want to hide it until it's too late for me to back out of a purchase.

If you trust Matrix absolutely then their pricing strategy is fine. I have a demand for wargames and the supply is very limited. But if you get burned just once with a game that turns out to be far more expensive than it's entertainment value justified then it becomes very difficult to be a returning customer. And that's a problem.

warspite1

But that's where our choice as consumers comes into the equation. If we are not happy with price and/or demo and/or quality then we can choose to walk. If enough people do that then Matrix, like any company, has to react - or die.

I don't say I trust Matrix absolutely. I neither trust nor distrust them - they are a company that (thankfully) provides me with an opportunity to wargame, but I take each game now as it comes - I would not buy or not buy just because it's from Matrix. Instead I will look at the comments on the forum and make my decision. No doubt sometimes I will ignore my own advice and just go straight for it on day one. But if I do and it's a bad decision, then I have only myself to blame.

I have had good and bad experiences with their product. I got burned with Empires in Arms, but I blame myself. If I had waited a bit longer I would have known the extent of the issues and not purchased - but I did not wait.

I personally think the forums are just as good as a demo. Provided the forum rules are abided by, Matrix allows people to say what they want about a game - good and bad. This feedback is from fellow forumites that many of us know and trust - I would prefer to hear what they have to say than some reviewer who I have never heard of.

[parusski]

I hear there are plans for a program similar to "Obama Phones", it will be called "Obama games". Everyone will get free games.[;)]

[Alchenar]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

I personally think the forums are just as good as a demo. Provided the forum rules are abided by, Matrix allows people to say what they want about a game - good and bad. This feedback is from fellow forumites that many of us know and trust - I would prefer to hear what they have to say than some reviewer who I have never heard of.

But if you look at the COMMAND forum, the biggest issue right now is a mystery performance problem for people with more than capable rigs.

That's a pretty massive problem; not only is it questionable whether the game will 'click' for me, there's a big question mark over whether it'll play nicely with my hardware. I need a demo. It's that simple. I might drop money on a punt if it looks good enough and everyone agrees it's great. I can't when there's an appreciable risk that it might not even work properly.

[aaatoysandmore]

ORIGINAL: flanyboy

To be fair not EVERY game is priced incredibly high. The SOW games are pretty reasonable ($29.99) for the stand alones, especially if you get the bundle which is $20 cheaper than the combined price of all the titles, CW2 is what? $39.99 at release for digital and while the Panzer Corps games are lighter they are also reasonably priced imho.

To you maybe, but not to everyone and you are just a general consumer like the rest of us. I'd like to see all releases be $19.99 but I'm sure someone would even have issue with that especially if they are bargain bin hunters. Look at all the games Matrixgames has given away for free and some of you still want more. They even gave you Steel Panthers W@W and you only want to give them a small amount back. That's just a laugh. I look at it that pricing is what it is, it's their baby and their right to price the way they see fit. Now of course it's our right to complain about it but I can assure you that you aren't going to make their pricing decisions for them. Erik once told us that only 2% of gamers actually use their forums for discussions so how much influence do you think you really have? It's like DSLwargamer she really thinks she has influence about no ai in computer games. It's almost a riot of laughter to think one small voice has such a large impact. If I were Erik I'd be laughing my a.ss off with her antics. lol

So, get your wallets out and pay up remember what happened to Avalon Hill and SPI. (and don't go blaming it on pricing it was you not buying enough of their products. )