I hope Matrix doesnt make us use STEAM to buy games in the future

[dutchman55555]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

50,000 units easy in the Summer Sale. Maybe 100,000.

Brilliant copy.

100,000 @ $20 each.

Has Matrix ever had a $2 million day before?

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: dutchman55555

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

50,000 units easy in the Summer Sale. Maybe 100,000.

Brilliant copy.

100,000 @ $20 each.

Has Matrix ever had a $2 million day before?

Year you say? [:)]

[Alchenar]

ORIGINAL: Fintilgin

ORIGINAL: Iain McNeil

We are not moving to Steam. Some games will release on Steam and then people can buy from there with their DRM if they prefer or from us without DRM if they want that.

I look forward to it being a great success and you guys gritting your teeth, easing up the foot dragging, and 'some' becoming 'most' or 'the vast majority'.

Then, perhaps battlefront.com will move Combat Mission to Steam, make truckloads of money, and together, hand-in-hand, the wargaming community can move forward into the bright future of the 21st Century. [:D]

Battlefront are a weird anomaly in that they don't ever do sales, but they also don't price with a 'wargame premium'. They do a demo for every Combat Mission line they run. They're also putting out content at a rate that puts everyone else in the wargaming genre to shame. They seem happy where they are and while they'd probably do better if they dipped their toe into Steam, so long as I get my demo and don't have to pay over the top rates I'm happy if they are happy.

It probably isn't a coincidence that what's probably the closest game to Combat Mission on Matrix (Scourge of War) is similarly priced and also has a demo.



e: WitE wouldn't see 50,000 units in a steam sale, not even at that price. That's ridiculous. But assuming a really modest 1000 sales that's still a lot of money in a day for a game that's three years old and probably flattening out on sales.

[dutchman55555]

ORIGINAL: Alchenar

ORIGINAL: Fintilgin

ORIGINAL: Iain McNeil

We are not moving to Steam. Some games will release on Steam and then people can buy from there with their DRM if they prefer or from us without DRM if they want that.

I look forward to it being a great success and you guys gritting your teeth, easing up the foot dragging, and 'some' becoming 'most' or 'the vast majority'.

Then, perhaps battlefront.com will move Combat Mission to Steam, make truckloads of money, and together, hand-in-hand, the wargaming community can move forward into the bright future of the 21st Century. [:D]

Battlefront are a weird anomaly in that they don't ever do sales, but they also don't price with a 'wargame premium'. They do a demo for every Combat Mission line they run. They're also putting out content at a rate that puts everyone else in the wargaming genre to shame. They seem happy where they are and while they'd probably do better if they dipped their toe into Steam, so long as I get my demo and don't have to pay over the top rates I'm happy if they are happy.

It probably isn't a coincidence that what's probably the closest game to Combat Mission on Matrix (Scourge of War) is similarly priced and also has a demo.



e: WitE wouldn't see 50,000 units in a steam sale, not even at that price. That's ridiculous. But assuming a really modest 1000 sales that's still a lot of money in a day for a game that's three years old and probably flattening out on sales.

6 million customers...50,000 is a grand 0.83% of the customer base in a sales-buying frenzy. Still, you could be correct.

What I love most about Battlefront (aside from their games, of course) is that pretty much everything they sell eventually has a price-drop or is bundle-discounted. And it doesn't take 4-7 years.

[Fintilgin]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

Ad copy: "WITP-AE is the biggest, meanest, hairiest wargame ever designed. You probably aren't smart enough to understand it. You probably can't play it, tough guy. You'd probably run away crying like a little girl. But if you're man enough to try it, for today only in the Steam Summer Sale you can challenge yourself to the duel for only $19.95. WITP-AE has never been available for this price before and we pledge it will never be offered for less than it is today.

So what's it gonna be, big man? Four more Whoppers with fries, or the hardest game you've ever seen? Do you feel lucky, punk? Well? Do ya?"

50,000 units easy in the Summer Sale. Maybe 100,000.

Just make sure the Steam page video is something like this Crusader Kings 2 trailer and Iain will be able to buy himself a yacht.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zDr4DuGSAY

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Fintilgin

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

Ad copy: "WITP-AE is the biggest, meanest, hairiest wargame ever designed. You probably aren't smart enough to understand it. You probably can't play it, tough guy. You'd probably run away crying like a little girl. But if you're man enough to try it, for today only in the Steam Summer Sale you can challenge yourself to the duel for only $19.95. WITP-AE has never been available for this price before and we pledge it will never be offered for less than it is today.

So what's it gonna be, big man? Four more Whoppers with fries, or the hardest game you've ever seen? Do you feel lucky, punk? Well? Do ya?"

50,000 units easy in the Summer Sale. Maybe 100,000.

Just make sure the Steam page video is something like this Crusader Kings 2 trailer and Iain will be able to buy himself a yacht.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zDr4DuGSAY

Or, just buy some rights and modify this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Xjr2hnOHiM

[histgamer]

That's also a double edged sword because you can definitely train consumers to not pay full price for a product but rather wait for a sale and thus lose out on revenue from people who otherwise would have paid full price. In fact that is what Steam is doing, right now it's beneficial to gaming studios for the most part because it's bringing so many new customers into the fold and that's offsetting lost revenues but there is a risk that in the long term the race to the bottom in pricing could have negative impacts for the developers of the games more so than the publishers.

ORIGINAL: Fintilgin

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Just one question.

Why is it that so many people state so confidently that if the price of something drops, then thousands of people will rush to buy what previously they wouldn't - and that the company selling automatically makes more profits??

On what basis is this fact or even probable?

If life was that simple then why would any company ever go out of business? Got a product? Not selling? No problem, just slash the price and all will be well.....

Because that's what plenty of people have said Steam sales have done for them? You know Steam doesn't force those discounts on publishers, right? They have control over how steep the discount is. If it wasn't working for the publishers and people making the games they wouldn't keep doing it!

I've read articles too that say sales of a title are often higher after the sale is over and the game goes back to its regular price then it was before the sale (presumably from word of mouth).

Right now these games are kinda 'hidden away'. If you aren't already a fan of wargames you're not that likely to find your way here. What do you think will happen if you take some of the high quality titles Matrix has and put them in front of an audience of seven million people at a price designed to encourage people to take a chance on them?

Matrix won't lose money, that's for sure, and you can potentially bring in tons of new people to the hobby, which will pay vast long term dividends for the hobby as a whole.

[dutchman55555]

ORIGINAL: flanyboy

That's also a double edged sword because you can definitely train consumers to not pay full price for a product but rather wait for a sale and thus lose out on revenue from people who otherwise would have paid full price. In fact that is what Steam is doing, right now it's beneficial to gaming studios for the most part because it's bringing so many new customers into the fold and that's offsetting lost revenues but there is a risk that in the long term the race to the bottom in pricing could have negative impacts for the developers of the games more so than the publishers.

There's sense in what you're saying...if you're an AAA developer. Rockstar, for example, spent $265 million to create GTA V. That requires a lot of full-price sales to make back. And in the console market they can get that.

In the PC market, especially indie or small developers, it doesn't matter if you make one $20 or two $10 sales...just as long as you make them. If you can double (or more) your sales by halving the price, then there is no lost revenue, and no harm. (Yes Alchenar, I know.) The argument is that Matrix doesn't lose sales at their high prices...I'm not opening that again, just saying that Steam may show Matrix there is another way.

[Boomer78]

ORIGINAL: Fintilgin

ORIGINAL: Iain McNeil

We are not moving to Steam. Some games will release on Steam and then people can buy from there with their DRM if they prefer or from us without DRM if they want that.

I look forward to it being a great success and you guys gritting your teeth, easing up the foot dragging, and 'some' becoming 'most' or 'the vast majority'.

Then, perhaps battlefront.com will move Combat Mission to Steam, make truckloads of money, and together, hand-in-hand, the wargaming community can move forward into the bright future of the 21st Century. [:D]

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/12/06/valve-experimenting-with-tongue-bottom-controllers/#more-179005

Ahem... yes, because as well know, flying into the wonderful 21st century means dedicated ass-2-mouth game controllers.

Thank you, Valve. You prove my point with your silly Tron-bot Steampunk devices far more than I can with rhetoric alone.

[mekjak]

The race to the bottom isn't really happening in the PC market. If anything more people are buying games at full price than ever. Increased exposure from sales also means more people developing loyalties to certain games/developers and continuing to make purchases from them. Paradox is a good example of this.

I am really puzzled as to why Matrix and a bunch of people on the forums think of Steam as the devil incarnate. Iain seems almost regretful that Panzer Corps got greenlit. I have to wonder what their reaction will be if Panzer Corps does well on that platform (which is practically guaranteed due to the sheer volume of users). Maybe even participating in Steam sales? That would probably be crossing a line. Wargames are too sacred for that, I guess.

[Tomn]

I think it's worth pointing out that waiting for a good Steam discount for the SPECIFIC game you want is not actually a very good strategy. There's a lot of discounts, sure, but they tend to bounce around through the entire Steam library a lot, and it can take a very long and unpredictable time before the one specific game you want comes up on one of those 50%/75% off discounts. In fact, the most reliable way to get a discount on a particular Steam game without actually sitting and waiting forever? Buy it early - there's usually an early adopter discount of 10-15%. What the deep discounts are good for is bringing attention to older games or games that would normally have slipped under your radar, not snapping up favored games at rock-bottom prices.

I'd guess that's probably why the article listed in Gradenko's list above (http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/1745 ... _games.php) mentions that the "race to the bottom" effect doesn't seem to come into play on Steam. Unlike the iOS store, where all prices are permanent, Steam maintains reasonable base prices, only occasionally launching deep discounts after any particular game has been on the market for a while, and then picking them out apparently semi-randomly so that anyone planning to save on a specific purchase can't just mark a date on his calendar for the drop that will convince him to buy.

ORIGINAL: flanyboy

That's also a double edged sword because you can definitely train consumers to not pay full price for a product but rather wait for a sale and thus lose out on revenue from people who otherwise would have paid full price. In fact that is what Steam is doing, right now it's beneficial to gaming studios for the most part because it's bringing so many new customers into the fold and that's offsetting lost revenues but there is a risk that in the long term the race to the bottom in pricing could have negative impacts for the developers of the games more so than the publishers.

ORIGINAL: Fintilgin

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Just one question.

Why is it that so many people state so confidently that if the price of something drops, then thousands of people will rush to buy what previously they wouldn't - and that the company selling automatically makes more profits??

On what basis is this fact or even probable?

If life was that simple then why would any company ever go out of business? Got a product? Not selling? No problem, just slash the price and all will be well.....

Because that's what plenty of people have said Steam sales have done for them? You know Steam doesn't force those discounts on publishers, right? They have control over how steep the discount is. If it wasn't working for the publishers and people making the games they wouldn't keep doing it!

I've read articles too that say sales of a title are often higher after the sale is over and the game goes back to its regular price then it was before the sale (presumably from word of mouth).

Right now these games are kinda 'hidden away'. If you aren't already a fan of wargames you're not that likely to find your way here. What do you think will happen if you take some of the high quality titles Matrix has and put them in front of an audience of seven million people at a price designed to encourage people to take a chance on them?

Matrix won't lose money, that's for sure, and you can potentially bring in tons of new people to the hobby, which will pay vast long term dividends for the hobby as a whole.

[Fintilgin]

ORIGINAL: Boomer78

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/12/06/valve-experimenting-with-tongue-bottom-controllers/#more-179005

Ahem... yes, because as well know, flying into the wonderful 21st century means dedicated ass-2-mouth game controllers.

Thank you, Valve. You prove my point with your silly Tron-bot Steampunk devices far more than I can with rhetoric alone.

Ah yes, the existence some experimental controllers made by a technician at Valve (which might, as the article mentions, potentially be useful for disabled gamers), single handedly dismantles Steam's empire of lies. If Matrix games are sold on Steam we will soon have to launch air raids by wiggling our bums.

No need to actually engage the arguments made in the thread, just shout 'tongue controller' and run off into the night!

[8|]

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: flanyboy

That's also a double edged sword because you can definitely train consumers to not pay full price for a product but rather wait for a sale and thus lose out on revenue from people who otherwise would have paid full price. In fact that is what Steam is doing, right now it's beneficial to gaming studios for the most part because it's bringing so many new customers into the fold and that's offsetting lost revenues but there is a risk that in the long term the race to the bottom in pricing could have negative impacts for the developers of the games more so than the publishers.

The idea has been around in marketing textbooks and in practice for at least the entire post-war period and maybe before. It's usually called "skimming" in US marketing circles, but "price tiering" is more gentile. You price fully for the first time slice and skim off those in the demand curve who value time more than money. When you think you've captured all or enough of them (based on a number of factors, primarily competition), you lower to the next tier and reap those buyers. And so on.

I've never seen a Steam contract, but I doubt developers hand over pricing decisions to them. They do, from what I've read here and there, hand over the power to place the product in the sale physically on the lay-out on the site as well as perhaps the duration of the offer price in the sale (daily, 8-hour, etc.) It's probable these decisions are also open to being paid for and secured by the devs/publishers. But it's highly unlikely Steam has the authority to set a sale price unilaterally. If they do it's only because the devs/publishers allow it.

What I HAVE seen by participating in the game industry as a customer since 1982 is that many/most titles have a shorter cycle time than they used to. Shorter I'm sure than the devs would like. There is vastly more product out there than there was in 1990. (Same thing has happened with movies; one weekend and then "NEXT BATTER!") So AAA titles like Fallout: New Vegas only stay fully priced for maybe 90 days now whereas in the past it might have been six months. or more. Some franchises, like the Blizzard stable, have channel power sufficient to hold pricing for years, or forever essentially. But those are very rare. GTA V did something like a billion dollars gross in the first month worldwide, but it will be on sale by the end of its first year most likely.

Tiering is used because it works. It most fully drives investment capital in terms of revenue maximization. Matrix/Slith does not subscribe to this rule of business. They survive, but they are not prospering IMO. The world changes and wargamers are not insulated in only the wargame space.

[mekjak]

Thank you, Valve. You prove my point with your silly Tron-bot Steampunk devices far more than I can with rhetoric alone.

That's funny, I thought Valve proved their point by experimentation and research, becoming rich as hell, and owning the most widely used digital distribution service that developers are desperate to get on to. But what do I know, I haven't bought enough $100 games from Matrix.

Whatever Steam's flaws may be, and there are many, it has helped PC gaming a lot, and spurred a revolution in indie development. Wargamers seem to be inherently opposed to change, but this attitude gets way too ridiculous at times.

[histgamer]

I don't think the idea is new but consumers consciousness about it is different and the life cycle is becoming so short on a lot of these products that it will hurt the developer more. If a product goes on sale 30 days after release you're going to lose out on a lot vs 6 months that short life cycle is becoming more and more acute, Tomb Raider went on sale less than 60 days after release if my memory serves me right. What I think Steam has done more so however is create a storefront where something you like is always on sale so fewer people will be willing to pay full price when they can find something else they enjoy on sale for 90% off and just tell themselves they will wait for that product to be on sale. They are not specifically waiting for one game but rather just the next sale. That mindset can hurt. I know numerous people who will not buy a single game unless it's on sale and these people use to buy games full price all the time. Better for the consumer and publisher but not a trend the industry wants to see.

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: flanyboy

That's also a double edged sword because you can definitely train consumers to not pay full price for a product but rather wait for a sale and thus lose out on revenue from people who otherwise would have paid full price. In fact that is what Steam is doing, right now it's beneficial to gaming studios for the most part because it's bringing so many new customers into the fold and that's offsetting lost revenues but there is a risk that in the long term the race to the bottom in pricing could have negative impacts for the developers of the games more so than the publishers.

The idea has been around in marketing textbooks and in practice for at least the entire post-war period and maybe before. It's usually called "skimming" in US marketing circles, but "price tiering" is more gentile. You price fully for the first time slice and skim off those in the demand curve who value time more than money. When you think you've captured all or enough of them (based on a number of factors, primarily competition), you lower to the next tier and reap those buyers. And so on.

I've never seen a Steam contract, but I doubt developers hand over pricing decisions to them. They do, from what I've read here and there, hand over the power to place the product in the sale physically on the lay-out on the site as well as perhaps the duration of the offer price in the sale (daily, 8-hour, etc.) It's probable these decisions are also open to being paid for and secured by the devs/publishers. But it's highly unlikely Steam has the authority to set a sale price unilaterally. If they do it's only because the devs/publishers allow it.

What I HAVE seen by participating in the game industry as a customer since 1982 is that many/most titles have a shorter cycle time than they used to. Shorter I'm sure than the devs would like. There is vastly more product out there than there was in 1990. (Same thing has happened with movies; one weekend and then "NEXT BATTER!") So AAA titles like Fallout: New Vegas only stay fully priced for maybe 90 days now whereas in the past it might have been six months. or more. Some franchises, like the Blizzard stable, have channel power sufficient to hold pricing for years, or forever essentially. But those are very rare. GTA V did something like a billion dollars gross in the first month worldwide, but it will be on sale by the end of its first year most likely.

Tiering is used because it works. It most fully drives investment capital in terms of revenue maximization. Matrix/Slith does not subscribe to this rule of business. They survive, but they are not prospering IMO. The world changes and wargamers are not insulated in only the wargame space.

[mekjak]

Have you taken a look at any of the sales data published by developers, flanyboy? There were a whole bunch of links posted to these a page back or so. Typically sales are large on day 1 and drop to almost nothing shortly after release (for indies at least). When these games are put on sale, revenue spikes dramatically, up to many times the amount generated on release day. You're actually losing a ton when you keep games at full price for months on end, because pretty much everyone who would have bought the game at full price has already bought it. How does this harm developers in any way?

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: gradenko_2000

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Just one question.

Why is it that so many people state so confidently that if the price of something drops, then thousands of people will rush to buy what previously they wouldn't - and that the company selling automatically makes more profits??

On what basis is this fact or even probable?

If life was that simple then why would any company ever go out of business? Got a product? Not selling? No problem, just slash the price and all will be well.....

Now, obviously we do not know how many copies of WITP-AE have ever been sold, but if a game as niche as Football Manager just falls shy of 100k players, what does that say about how many potential buyers there are of Matrix's catalogue, if the prices were low enough that people felt they could take it even if they ended up not liking the game?

[/quote]warspite1

I find that remark absolutely astonishing. Football Manager is being compared to the likes of WITP-AE in terms of niche status, in terms of actual (and potential) market size? I have no access to sales data for either - none whatsoever - but despite this I can, confidently, without any fear of contradiction, categorically state that that statement is just about as wrong as its humanly possible to be.

Edit: Grammar and spelling

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: dutchman55555

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Right so if its that clear cut and that simple why would Matrix - who have stockholders and financiers with a keen interest on the bottom line - not simply go down that route?

Untrue. Matrix is a privately-held company. No stock to hold.

As for financiers I have no idea if they need to raise capital beyond their walls. Given how small...I'm sorry, I meant to say niche...they've kept their market, I doubt they could get venture capital if they needed it. I suspect all projects (since I've seen here and there that they are apparently on shoestring budgets) are financed in-house except for the usual loans any small business will incur.

warspite1

Eh?

dutchman55555 come on. So you are saying that a privately owned company does not have share/stockholders? How does that work?

Matrix will be owned by stock/shareholders - the fact they are not a public company does not alter that fact.

[geozero]

I used to be a STEAM hater. Not anymore. Maybe I drank the coolaid. Anyway, it's not all that big of a deal and you can turn it off if you do not want it running in the background. A few mouse clicks... no biggie.

[Boomer78]

ORIGINAL: mekjak

Thank you, Valve. You prove my point with your silly Tron-bot Steampunk devices far more than I can with rhetoric alone.

That's funny, I thought Valve proved their point by experimentation and research, becoming rich as hell, and owning the most widely used digital distribution service that developers are desperate to get on to. But what do I know, I haven't bought enough $100 games from Matrix.

Whatever Steam's flaws may be, and there are many, it has helped PC gaming a lot, and spurred a revolution in indie development. Wargamers seem to be inherently opposed to change, but this attitude gets way too ridiculous at times.

Again, shall I mention EA, Walmart, or Microsoft? Those companies are filthy rich, excellent at marketing, and in the past have created some wonderful products. They are also consistently at the top of the worst companies lists. I believe EA currently owns that title. Success in business doesn't negate bad decisions, poor future sales, or even bankruptcy. In fact, it's because of the arrogance of successful businesses that competitors rise up and take the top position. That's sort of how the cycle of business works.

Steam though, like so many other big players, doesn't like competition, and now uses its abundant resources to force developers to ONLY distribute on Steam. That's my biggest problem with them. Paradox has been releasing Steam and non-Steam versions of games for several years now, but as of EU4 they will be Steam only from now. That harkens back to the PC vs Mac debate of the mid-late 90s. Mac was constantly developing some of the best hardware on the market, but because of the wide spread use of Windows, there just weren't hardly any devs making games for Mac. Thankfully that has leveled off a bit over the years, and now we're onto the DRM platform debate.

If you consider these anti-Steam points to be contentious or frustrating, just sit back and enjoy the smug feeling in knowing that your beloved game distributor is now over 80% of the market and will probably absorb all others within the next few years. This isn't a debate worth really having any more. The battle's been decided. People... well, most people, like Steam.

Just remember that the future is a constantly changing thing, and someday when Steam goes belly up or changes course, and you find yourself with 90 gigs of Steam shovel-ware on your computer, you'll know that at least you bet on a winner. Because, after all, winning is everything? Isn't it?