Matrix Games Forums

I'll just start uploading and narrating some interesting after action reports and see where that takes me. [8D]

ORIGINAL: bryanhbell


Yeah, it's pretty easy for us customers to be armchair quarterbacking Matrix Games' business decisions, but it's another thing entirely to be on the field executing the actual plays. I think for the most part we get that and know we're only expressing our desires as players of Distant Worlds. Anyway, we all essentially want to see the same thing: widespread success for Distant Worlds! [:)]

Name one publisher that does not have their games on steam apart from Matrix? It is pretty clear nobody in the games industry seems to agree with this policy.

ORIGINAL: ASHBERY76
Name one publisher that does not have their games on steam apart from Matrix? It is pretty clear nobody in the games industry seems to agree with this policy.

Here's a couple:

Disney Interactive Studios
Blizzard Entertainment

ORIGINAL: bryanhbell
Granted, opinions supported by facts and figures are more likely to be accepted, and deservedly so.

I'm not sure how a discussion without any facts has any value. You might as well discuss the merits of pink over yellow as to which is the "better" colour. As it has no value, I don't see why it's space on the forum database is merited.

Perhaps it's your goal that is different - as you indicate from your statement - your goal is to have your argument accepted. Me, I'm less interested in proselytizing my point of view and far more interested in finding out new things. You want to spread your opinion, I want to learn.

So I guess that's why we have differing opinions on the value of a discussion similar to the blind men around the elephant - except that in your case, the men are put into sensory deprivation tanks and asked their opinion about what's in the building down the block.

ORIGINAL: Kayoz
I'm not sure how a discussion without any facts has any value. You might as well discuss the merits of pink over yellow as to which is the "better" colour. As it has no value, I don't see why it's space on the forum database is merited.

1) Digital distribution is beneficial for small developers = fact
2) Steam is the largest digital distributor of games = fact
3) Steam has millions of users = fact
4) Niche games have succeeded huge on steam = fact
5) Space 4x games have succeeded major on steam = fact
6) Matrix is small on digital distribution = fact
7) People are having trouble "finding" DW = fact

Also forecasting economic success and giving opinions about economic decisions are based on some facts, but their outcome is up to debate and can never be fact.

8) DW would be huge success on steam = probability is higher than 50% with high deviation around the expected value.

Are you saying that discussing issue number 8 is meaningless? Because facts we do have in basis of the discussion.

ORIGINAL: Velihopea
1) Digital distribution is beneficial for small developers = fact

No, that is supposition. You have nothing to compare it against. No data, no FACTS to support that statement; it's supposition.

ORIGINAL: Velihopea
2) Steam is the largest digital distributor of games = fact
3) Steam has millions of users = fact

Cite your source for #2. Is there actually an independent publication which makes that statement? I believe Farmville alone had over 80 million as of 2010, which would make Facebook a larger distributor of games. How many games are played each and every day through Facebook, compared to Steam? The accuracy of #2 is entirely dependent on your definition of "distribution" and "game". Cite your source.

But there's a more important issue here - increased sales does not equal increased profit.
Since Erik didn't sign a contract with Steam, the only logical reason is that Steam distribution is not beneficial to Matrix and Code Force.

ORIGINAL: Velihopea
4) Niche games have succeeded huge on steam = fact
5) Space 4x games have succeeded major on steam = fact

Cite your source.
Huge? Major? With such well defined parameters for "success", I'm paralyzed with the sheer number of sarcastic responses I could insert here. My apologies - use your imagination.

ORIGINAL: Velihopea
6) Matrix is small on digital distribution = fact

Cite your source. You have numbers on Matrix sales figures?
Small compared to WHAT? As for the statement "small on digital distribution", I assume you're asserting that Matrix distributes more games physically than digitally (small digitally, large physical)? Your statement sounds patently absurd.

ORIGINAL: Velihopea
7) People are having trouble "finding" DW = fact

How is this relevant to maximizing the profits of Matrix and Code Force? Granted, it would be appealing to have DW marketing reach a wider audience, but Erik has quite specifically stated that Matrix is not a "mass market appeal" company.

ORIGINAL: Velihopea
8) DW would be huge success on steam = probability is higher than 50% with high deviation around the expected value.

Cite your source. You've performed a business case study for Matrix? You've examined the proposed contract between Matrix and Steam?

You're specifying probability of increased profitability gain of (at least) 50% What's your source? As far as I know, the division of profits from Steam sales is confidential, and nobody releases any precise figures. You might as well say that your dangly bits will increased in size by 50% by using a (limited time offer) hand pump system.

Cite the source for #8. Please keep in mind that your rectal sphincter is not a "reliable source".

Like I said - no facts. All of the above is supposition and conjecture. You have stated NOTHING that would even meet the lowest standards of evidence in Wikipedia. And you have the gall to call these wild and unsubstantiated statements, "facts"?

Velihopea, I don't think further attempts to discuss this topic with Kayoz will be particularly fruitful. My advice is to leave it alone.

ORIGINAL: bryanhbell

Velihopea, I don't think further attempts to discuss this topic with Kayoz will be particularly fruitful. My advice is to leave it alone.

If he actually brings any "facts" that don't originate from his rectum, we can have a lively discussion.

However, all but one of his above statements (I have not disputed #3) - or "facts" or so he claims - I have challenged.

All I have asked, thus far, is that he provide proof to their reliability. What, for example, is the basis of his claim that it's more than 50% likely that DW would be a "huge success on Steam"? Why 50? Why not 70, or 80 or 90%? Or am I correct in assuming that his "50%" figure first saw the light of day as it emerged from between his butt cheeks?

Do I ask for too much? Well, by your standards, Bryan, that seems to be the case. See deprivation tank statement above. Apparently you think that discussion of issues we know nothing about and have no facts, is somehow not a complete waste of time.

Let's have a discussion about the weather conditions at a randomly selected location - which neither of us is told. Facts, in your opinion, aren't a requirement for a discussion.

Kayoz: You do understand you are nitpicking? Digging up all the possible sources would take time that I will not be using my time on. I just say that those facts have been presented on relevant forums and if you don't believe me then I understand what you are calling me.

1) Many independent niche developers have stated this; Paradox for one.
2) Facebook is hardly a possible vendor for DW, so you are just arguing to win an argument on irrelevant detail.
3) Absolute fact
4-5) Paradox and Amplitude have revealed sales figures (not exact) on steam
6) So you are really trying to say that MAtrix is anywhere as big as steam on digital distribution? If exact figures are not available (as they seldom are), use your common sense, man. When it's raining a lot outside, I can say "It's raining a lot outside" as a fact. You could nitpick that I cannot possibly have the exact number of raindrops calculated. But that doesn't mean that it's sunshine out there for god's sake.
7) Check point #4

8) Again. Nobody will have exact figures to calculate #8. It's always a quess based on underlying facts (or close estimates of real figures). Nobody would do any business at all, if all the facts you require would have to be available.

For example projected income from steam: PRICE * PERCENTAGE_TO_STEAM * VOLUME_OF_SALES

You can only questimate VOLUME_OF_SALES here, which is the most determining factor.

"Since Erik didn't sign a contract with Steam, the only logical reason is that Steam distribution is not beneficial to Matrix and Code Force."
No. You don't understand business at all if you say so. Other logical explanation is that Developer of DW has questimated the VOLUME_OF_SALES figure here so that they have decided that income from Steam are not worthwhile (does not exceed costs). And my point is: Steam volume of sales can be large for DW to be huge success (based on facts given above)

So I have more facts (or close estimates of true values if you start again nitpicking) than you will ever have. You just lack all the facts or even estimates of true values and by irrelevant argumentation try to make this sound some purely opinion based discussion. Which it is not.

ORIGINAL: bryanhbell
Velihopea, I don't think further attempts to discuss this topic with Kayoz will be particularly fruitful. My advice is to leave it alone.

True. Kayoz clearly has his mind set and he will do his best to nullify these discussions. Usually with these types of discussions where argumentation always shifts to the irrelevant details it's always an endless road. No one can give 100% proof with relevant links to every detail. And when one fails to do so, for lack of time or sources, the "digger" will self-declare his case won. It's either 0 or 1. And the rounding goes so that 0,9 is rounded to 0.

Kicks back, puts feet up and grabs the popcorn [:D]

Darkspire

ORIGINAL: Velihopea
You do understand you are nitpicking? Digging up all the possible sources would take time that I will not be using my time on.

OK, let's start with one - what's the basis of your 50% figure in #8? You -DO- have a source for that, right? We can start with that, and see how the discussion proceeds.

One source isn't too much to demand, now is it?

ORIGINAL: Velihopea
I just say that those facts have been presented on relevant forums and if you don't believe me then I understand what you are calling me.

I honestly don't have any idea where you get your so-called "facts". If they're from the forums, then they're not in any threads I've seen.

ORIGINAL: Velihopea
1) Many independent niche developers have stated this; Paradox for one.

One anecdotal statement of success isn't sufficient for such a broad statement. Success, as Erik has stated, is "maximizing profitability". Paradox has made no statements on profitability with regards to Steam - only revenue. I suggest you read up on basic accounting as to the difference between the two.

ORIGINAL: Velihopea
2) Facebook is hardly a possible vendor for DW, so you are just arguing to win an argument on irrelevant detail.

"Distributor" was the term you used, not "vendor". Don't try to change your terms. I challenged you to provide a statement for your claim that Steam is the single largest digital distributor. You have not provided a citation; instead you're trying to twist your wording from "distributor" to "vendor" - and STILL not providing a single citation.

ORIGINAL: Velihopea
3) Absolute fact

Wasn't challenged.

ORIGINAL: Velihopea
4-5) Paradox and Amplitude have revealed sales figures (not exact) on steam

As I have stated repeatedly, increased sales does not equal increased profit. They have made statements about increased sales. They have not made any claims as to increased profitability. Nor have they actually stated that there is increased cash coming into their accounts.

Any business measures success by profitability, not revenue.

ORIGINAL: Velihopea
6) So you are really trying to say that MAtrix is anywhere as big as steam on digital distribution?

You didn't compare Matrix to Steam. You only claimed, "Matrix is small on digital distribution" - which once again, you're trying to twist the wording of.

ORIGINAL: Velihopea
7) Check point #4

See above, increased sales versus increased profits.

ORIGINAL: Velihopea
8) Again. Nobody will have exact figures to calculate #8. (snip)

Thank you. You've affirmed that your 50% figure is a complete wild arse guess that was birthed in your rectum.

Actually, someone does indeed have the exact figures to make that calculation - Erik.

ORIGINAL: Velihopea
"Since Erik didn't sign a contract with Steam, the only logical reason is that Steam distribution is not beneficial to Matrix and Code Force."
No. You don't understand business at all if you say so. Other logical explanation is that Developer of DW has questimated the VOLUME_OF_SALES figure here so that they have decided that income from Steam are not worthwhile (does not exceed costs). And my point is: Steam volume of sales can be large for DW to be huge success (based on facts given above)

Please explain your position, since it seems that - in contradiction to all business practice - increased volume of sales without increase of profit, is a "success". I believe you have a different business model than Erik, if you value sales volume over profit.

*edit* - I really don't get your dispute here. I'm not clear on what you're contesting with my statement of a Steam deal being of "benefit to" Matrix and Code Force. You seem to be stating that increasing the sales of DW is of benefit to Matrix and Code Force, even if it results in lowered profits. Huh?!?

ORIGINAL: Velihopea
So I have more facts (or close estimates of true values if you start again nitpicking)

No, you've presented unsubstantiated statements and self-admitted WAGs. You haven't provided one single fact.

*edit-2*
Please read up on the difference between "revenue", "sales" and "profit" before posting any further response. It seems, based on your posts thus far, you don't understand the difference.

You are welcome Darkspire. But take only a small portion of popcorn because I'm not intending to go on this for long. No matter the foul language with which Kayoz "hooks" people.

"8)DW would be huge success on steam = probability is higher than 50% with high deviation around the expected value."

"Thank you. You've affirmed that your 50% figure is a complete wild arse guess that was birthed in your rectum. Actually, someone does indeed have the exact figures to make that calculation - Erik."

I try to make this clear: No one can have exact figures on point 8. No one, not even Erik. But that doesn't mean that no one is selling their games on Steam.

"OK, let's start with one - what's the basis of your 50% figure in #8? You -DO- have a source for that, right? We can start with that, and see how the discussion proceeds.One source isn't too much to demand, now is it?"

This one is available through simple reading and understanding of what was written. So there you go.

"I believe you have a different business model than Erik, if you value sales volume over profit."
I also used the terms income and costs. But again you are just nitpicking on terms and disregarding the point (or just plain missing the point).

* Edit: I'm working on accounting and have studied business/economics.

ORIGINAL: Velihopea
No matter the foul language with which Kayoz "hooks" people.

Excuse me? What "foul language" do you refer to? Quote.

ORIGINAL: Velihopea
I try to make this clear: No one can have exact figures on point 8. No one, not even Erik. But that doesn't mean that no one is selling their games on Steam.

OK, let's amend that - you're pulling your figures entirely out of your rectum, whereas Erik can make educated guesses. Indeed he does not have exact figures - but they're several orders of magnitude more accurate than your "out of your arse" guesses.

I made no claims as to why or why not companies sell via Steam. I only state that the benefit of selling on Steam to Matrix/Code Force is something that only Matrix/Code Force knows. You, on the other hand, have no basis for any statement on the benefits of that relationship.

ORIGINAL: Velihopea
"OK, let's start with one - what's the basis of your 50% figure in #8? You -DO- have a source for that, right? We can start with that, and see how the discussion proceeds.One source isn't too much to demand, now is it?"

This one is available through simple reading and understanding of what was written. So there you go.

Aah - of course. Your statement of increasing sales without increasing profit is a "success". Brilliant. Absolute business genius.

ORIGINAL: Velihopea
* Edit: I'm working on accounting and have studied business/economics.

I wish you the best of luck. Given your statements above, you'll need it.

ORIGINAL: Kayoz
Excuse me? What "foul language" do you refer to? Quote.

No comment on that and no links provided.

OK, let's amend that - you're pulling your figures entirely out of your rectum, whereas Erik can make educated guesses. Indeed he does not have exact figures - but they're several orders of magnitude more accurate than your "out of your arse" guesses.

I wish you the best of luck. Given your statements above, you'll need it.

Ah, good. Now we are getting somewhere - these closure of this argument.

Also I'm happy that you DID understand some of the point: Erik can make educated quesses, because he knows the terms price (ehich they can set) and steam_percentage. But NOT the most determining factor which IS "volume of sales". And this factor is the point of this thread. It cannot be given as a fact, but it can be predicted by a set of indicators.

ORIGINAL: Velihopea

ORIGINAL: Kayoz
Excuse me? What "foul language" do you refer to? Quote.

No comment on that and no links provided.

ie: a lie

ORIGINAL: Velihopea

Also I'm happy that you DID understand some of the point: Erik can make educated quesses, because he knows the terms price (ehich they can set) and steam_percentage. But NOT the most determining factor which IS "volume of sales". And this factor is the point of this thread. It cannot be given as a fact, but it can be predicted by a set of indicators.

No, you have missed the point. I have stated - and you contested - that maximizing profit is Matrix's objective; not maximizing sales, as you contend.

Furthermore, you have misunderstood the meaning of "sales", "profit", "revenue", "distributor" and "vendor", which suggests that your studies in business/economics and accounting are as trustworthy as a Greek bond.

ORIGINAL: Kayoz
not maximizing sales, as you contend.
Furthermore...Greek bond

Good closure. But not true.

ORIGINAL: Velihopea

ORIGINAL: Kayoz
not maximizing sales, as you contend.
Furthermore...Greek bond

Good closure. But not true.

Actually, that's exactly what you said. You posted this in response to my statements that Matrix declined to enter into a contract with Steam due to the profitability of the proposed relationship:

ORIGINAL: Velihopea
...Developer of DW has questimated the VOLUME_OF_SALES figure here so that they have decided that income from Steam are not worthwhile (does not exceed costs). And my point is: Steam volume of sales can be large for DW to be huge success (based on facts given above)

You quite specifically contested my statement that profit > sales.
Your position - sales > profit

Unless you were agreeing with me - which makes no sense then, for you to challenge my position by... supporting it...? So I assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that you were reading the post, as opposed to inserting your head into the cavity where you found your "50%" claim.

But you have failed to substantiate any of your claims - so I don't really expect you to defend your position. For example, I asked you to explain the source of your "50%" claim - and to put it colorfully - you acknowledged that it owed it's origins to your rummaging about your rectum. All of your statements have been consistent with that, so no surprises with your difficulty with basic business terms.

Get your dictionary out - you can't understand the difference between "distributor" and "vendor", nor "profit" and "sales" or "revenue". It's very difficult to discuss any topic with a person that fails to comprehend the language of the discussion. If you wish to have any meaningful discussion on the forum, you would be well advised to keep your dictionary handy.

The argument was dying down in number of words written, quite linearly, but then you failed me Kayoz by going on blah'ing on for a great length.

Sales is a factor of profits so your playfull "<>" games are again misunderstanding from your part. Nitpickers are interested on correct use of terms. In that u always exel and are a master of this forum.

Now to the one point I have failed in this argument and intent to succeed by next line:
See you in next "steam" thread Kayoz!

Velihopea,

I'm working on accounting and have studied business/economics. ?!

Have you studied what happens when monopolies are created?

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/vi ... in-Germany

In August, Valve made a fairly substantial change to its terms of service that did away with the right of Steam users to partake in class-action lawsuits against it. That in itself wasn't necessarily a big deal - who would ever sue those good guys at Valve, right? - but more troubling was the response to people who weren't entirely comfortable with the new provisions and didn't want to put their names to the updated TOS.

A NeoGAF user who contacted Valve to inquire about declining the new subscriber agreement was told that he was free to do so, but that if he did, his account would be permanently deactivated and any games and other content he had purchased on Steam would be lost. He would not receive any kind of refund for his lost games, and once deactivated, the account could never again be reactivated.

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/02 ... eam-games/

"All this could have a big impact on the ‘ownership’ question. Would gamers care about ‘owning’ a game if they had very reliable, maybe cloud-based gaming controlled by rules that they understand? Would a publisher? If a publisher gives a gamer a right to return or exchange a digital game via a fair system that the publisher controls, would it really matter to gamers that they can’t sell the game through any other means?”

You do not own the game but only own a subscription to use the game.
Refunds are not monetary based but are only offered as store credit forcing you to the same subscription terms.

http://www.destructoid.com/is-valve-bui ... 6313.phtml
http://www.investopedia.com/university/ ... omics6.asp
http://catalog.flatworldknowledge.com/b ... g-ch10_s04

Please ask yourself these questions before declaring profit as king.

Where is steam based? Why?
Do you own the game or a subscription to the game?
Can your rights to the game be cancelled or modified at any time?
Can you get a refund in a hard currency instead of store credit? If not why?
Could the terms to access your games be changed at any time?

This is good for competition right?

If you allow for a purely capitalistic society, without any type of regulation at all, you will get one monopoly that will eat all of the smaller fish and own everything, and then you'll have zero capitalism, zero competition - it would just be one giant company.
Serj Tankian