Matrix Games Forums

Reading up on the system that these games have makes me interested in buying and I don't think I can wait for BftB to come out. Basically I am curious as to which one people find more enjoyable? HttR seems to have the more interesting (for me) theater while CotA (I think) has better AI and the more advanced combat system. One thing that I am not sure though is the scenarios in the two games. Which ones do people find more enjoyable? For example reading the AAR in CotA it seems like there are a lot of delay and exit point missions, while HttR has a lot more missions where an airborne force must hold out for relief.

Oh and the reason I am posting this in a BftB forum is that I I figured here I might get a less biased opion as opposed to going to the CotA or the HttR forums.

You will find heavily biased opinions in all 3 places.

I'll speak for everyone and suggest you get both [:D]

I prefer COTA because of the gameplay improvements.

Arjuna (the big cheese) has stated an interest in making a HTTR expansion for BFTB

We won't be porting scenarios over from HTTR - too many changes for that to work. However, we have already begun work on redesigning them from scratch, using converted maps and the new HTTR estabs, that will be included in BFTB. We have five scenarios underway already. We hope to increase that number and release them as an expansion pack. I don't know how much we'll charge or what it will comprise exactly at this stage. Stay tuned.

Therefore, if you should get one game now, make it COTA (which already has big gameplay/interface improvements over HTTR). And then, get BFTB and eventually its HTTR xpac.

Im my opinion, CotA has more interesting and varied scenarios than HttR. You can fight as the Greeks defending against Italian invaders or German paratroops landing on Crete, in mountain passes or on costal plains. Both games suffer slightly from one side being almost invariably on the offensive, but there are hypothetical scenarios and local counter-attacks which help with this.
 
The key point may be Llyranor's - you may get a revised HttR later anyway, so I would recommend CotA as a starting point.

HTTR is $59.99 for the physical shipment of the disc. I found it online for $14.95 and picked it brand new from a game distributor. The game is almost six years old and Matrix is selling it for full price on their website.

COTA is selling for $69.99 and unfortunately I cannot find that game online anywhere but Matrix (this game is almost three years old).

One reason why there are not a lot of people picking these games up is Matrix is selling them for top dollar when they are three and six years old already respectively.

Sorry chaps, that just does not work in the PC market no matter what your business model tells you.

ORIGINAL: RangerX3X
Sorry chaps, that just does not work in the PC market no matter what your business model tells you.

This is not the PC games market, this is the wargaming market, be it cardboard or silicon based.

Panther's business model is based on the Austrailian Dollar which unfortunately crashed against both the Euro and USD in early 3rd quarter 2008. That's why prices are up for COTA and holding for HTTR. You can't blame Arjuna for being an aussie, the guy works practically non-stop on developing this series for what amounts to pennies per hour.

However I don't see the problem with waiting to buy cheaper copies from other legitimate online distributors; I bought HTTR over 3 years ago for $20 or something like that.

ORIGINAL: simovitch


This is not the PC games market, this is the wargaming market, be it cardboard or silicon based.

Unless you are referring only to Panther Games products, I don't agree (if you are, then I can't comment) - these games were typically found in stores that sell other PC games. In the few wargaming stores I come across and explore, I have not seen PC based wargames.

For example, Matrix sells Close Combat based games, and these were originally marketed and sold as computer wargames. Even Microsoft was involved. I have bought different types of PC wargames in computer/software stores. I have not seen them sold in wargaming stores (not that I come across many). FWIW, my last relevant purchase was HPS Soviet-Afghan War, which I found in the PC games section of a generalist electronics retailer. They don't sell any other wargames.

Matrix selling them for $59.99 and $69.99 years after release has absolutely nothing to do with the Australian dollar.

Also, it is the PC game market. This isn't the X-Box market where it hangs at full price for a year or more. PC games (including wargames that are played on PC's) drop in price so retailers can offload their inventory.

Since Matrix is holding the games, they have no incentive to drop the price. They would rather sit on their warehoused copies and sell maybe two a year at $69.99 instead of 200 a year at $14.99, and alienate their potential customers.

It can be argued that Matrix is not maximizing revenue by not reducing prices over time.

Given that games have a very low marginal cost, then by not reducing prices over time to gain new customers (which assign a lower utility to the product than the price), Matrix will inevitably face declining sales, which are then seen as a reason to not invest in the product.

I cannot think of any PC game which has maintained sales without continued investment and innovation. Even boardgames are subject to this. Consider how the Squad Leader series evolved and had several expansion packs released.

I get the feeling that Matrix Games is run as a hobby, not a business.

I'm not a business major but not selling computer wargames in wargaming stores, although for the most part true, is to me just bad business on the wargame store owner's part - because the target customer is very similar and unique.

To me, it makes a lot more sense to sell Close Combat or fill-in-the-blank PC wargame in a store geared for wargamers than to limit it's shelf exposure to a store geared for arcade style games or RTS, etc. I am probably baised here because my wargaming tastes transcend both cardboard and PC.

Simovitch,

I agree. I would add that it is bad business on Matrix's part in not selling in more computer/retail stores.

bink

Can I just say one thing re "retail" channel. Perhaps most do not realise that PC titles of any genre are by and large not stocked in your main stream retail chain stores any more. At best they will stock the top ten or so sellers ( and these are AAA FPS, RTS type games ). The only way to get niche PC products into these chains is to buy shelf space or accept payment terms that are frankly "unacceptable". We went down this route for HTTR in 2004 and got right royally screwed. We waited nine months before we saw a dime. Matrix have tried since then with more "main stream" appeal products and alas these have not faired well either. So please accept the fact that this market channel is no longer a viable option. Sure it might end up with product being discounted and a few happy customers, but that will be at a huge financial cost to both the publisher and developer. Could it have been managed better? Maybe, maybe not. But I for one won't be venturing there again without something major changing with the arrangements and I don't see the major retail chains doing that.
 
As for independent stores, well yes there probably is scope there. Matrix already do market through a number of these. I'm not sure how extensive this is at the moment but you could always email Matrix with contact details for such stores near you.
 
I appreciate that everyone wants good value for money, especially in the current economic times. I believe that the products we offer are excellent value for money. Sure other mainstream products reduce their price over time, but then they have a different market and different business models. While HTTR has remained at the same price for some time, the return we get from it has reduced with the effects of the exchange rates. When we increased the price of COTA to accomodate the exchange rate we deliberately did not increase the price of HTTR. That, in effect, was a price reduction. You need to appreciate that this is just another consequence of the fall in value of the US dollar. It's likely to get worse.
 
For BFTB we will be increasing our price again. I know that many won't like it. After all no-one wants to pay more. But we are paid in US dollars and these are buying less and less over here in Australia. We need to pay bills like everyone else and we like to eat as well.
 
What I can say on a positive note is that once BFTB is released we will be focussing on delivering a number of expansion packs. I do not want to disclose the details yet as things are still in a state of flux. But these will add a wealth of affordable data content.

The cost of these games divided by the amount of pleasure and time spent playing them easily makes them the cheapest of all my hobbies; so if you want to talk about a great return on investment in this economy - this is it. That being said I did pay Matrix retail price for COTA but bought HTTR at NWS for less than what is currently listed on the site. But whatever, it's a quality product that's just as fun to play now as when it was released, and delivers exactly what it promises...

In response to the original post: Buy both. I prefer western front because of familiarity with the units involved and the missions, but enjoy the logistic enhancements from COTA too; either one will teach the system for the upcoming BFTB and both are well worth the money.

I certainly hope there will be a modestly priced download. I'm very afraid at seeing the $69.99 COTA and being told that prices will rise. I'm in the game industry myself. In a recession you hold prices steady and accept the lower margins on core products to keep the customers happy and the cash flowing. You can't sell expansions to people who don't buy the core product. And expansions are where the real profit margins are to be found.
 
I'm not talking about value of the product. We know that will be good. Just saying that raising prices in a recession is a bad move.
 
 

loyalcitizen,
 
If we were being paid in A$, then we could probably hold the price. If we were living in the US and buying our groceries in US$ then I could probably survive and hold the price. But lowering prices when we are being paid in US$, that are devaluing each week and buying less groceries each week, is not sustainable. It is not as though we are all of a sudden going to sell significantly more. The wargame market has been shrinking each year now for over a decade. That is a fact of life.
 
Look it's a mugs game. I have said that before. It is only sustained by those of us who are willing to work more for the love of it than any profit. But there is only a finite strain that can be borne by us wargame developers. We invariably take the majority of risks. We have done so for years now and our capacity to bear more risk is extremely limited. Lowering prices while the US$ devalues on the hope of increased sales in a shrinking niche market is a big risk. So the choices really are to find some benefactor whose prepared to subsidise the development effort and keep prices at their present US$ amounts or to charge more or to get out of the business alltogether. Well I don't see too many benefactors stepping forward. I would hope that most of you would rather us not go out of business alltogether. I for one would prefer to keep on developing wargames. So you see there isn't much of an alternative.
 
PS. Benefactors are always welcome! [;)]

Like many here, I've been buying wargames for, um, a long time (I think my first was AH's Luftwaffe in 1972 or something; I'm sure others here go back even farther than that). I started buying computer wargames with the early SSI stuff; I think my first comptuer wargame was sometime around 1984, though it might have been earlier. Board or computer, though, wargames have almost always been expensive compared to similar products, though an exception might be made for the heyday of SPI games in the 70s when you could get a new one for eight bucks or thereabouts. But generally, wargames being a niche product have always been sold at "hobbiest" prices, not mass-market prices.

This has only become truer over the years. Boardgames now are very expensive, $50, $60, or more not being uncommong. Computer games have also gone up in price, both absolutely and relatively, as the market has certainly not grown much if at all and probably has declined relatve to the overall computer game marketplace. But then again, this isn't that dissimilar to other specialized hobbies, like model building for instance.

It is no fun to be faced with game prices that are significantly higher than other entertainment products, but face it, we're part of a fan culture that demands exceedingly high standards of research and design, because of our knowledge of and love of history, and also wants if not state of the art then at least the modern interfaces, usability, performance, and features of more mainstreat computer games. In other words, we want games that are at least in shouting distance of contemporary non-wargames in terms of interface, graphics, controls, and usability, but without providing the mass market that is necessary to provide the volume sales which, in turn, are necessary to fund such features--which of course have to be paired with top-notch research, design, and historicla fidelity.

So we can't just say, "other games do it, why not wargames?" becaue it's a different market segment and in effect a different business model. The problem, though, is that many of us also play other types of games, and we can't help but compare apples and oranges. After all, no matter how good the game is in terms of its niche, it still gets compared, if only subconsciously, with games that have better resolution support, better UIs, better look and feel. We have to sometimes take a step back and focus on the enjoyment we get, and not obsess on the economics.

We can't have our cake and eat it too. My solution is to buy fewer games, and expect more out of them. Panther tends to deliver on that promise, so yeah, it'll suck to spend what Matrix will ask, but I'll do it, and probably get more fun out of that expenditure than I would have out of the same money spent elsewhere.

Sadly, not all developers really turn out the same quality product, and those decisions are harder.

[font="times new roman"]I am a typical American video gamer into first-person shooters like COD4, sports games like Madden and RTS games like Company of Heroes, as well as a whole host of others. I would never fork out $59.99 for a game with moving squares when I could have graphic beasts such as F.E.A.R. and Crysis to fight in.[/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"]Then one day I stumbled across a demo on File Planet for Red Devils Over Arnhem and gave it a shot and was very impressed with how such a bland looking demo made me think more than any combat scenario fleshed out in Operation Flashpoint.[/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"]I bought Highway to the Reich simply because I found it on the cheap ($14.95) at an online retailer (who is now selling the game for $49.99 again). I would take the step to C.O.T.A. if I had $70 to throw out there but I don’t, but that point has already been argued in the above posts.[/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"]The point I am trying to make is that with no demos to speak of (except for RDOA which the full game apparently is not available anymore anyway) asking people to pay top dollar for games that are three and six years old respectively will not bring in any casually interested gamer, only the hardcore. And with no demos for the new products, there is no way to justify $70 on a three year old game if you have no idea what you are getting into.[/font]

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

For BFTB we will be increasing our price again. I know that many won't like it. After all no-one wants to pay more. But we are paid in US dollars and these are buying less and less over here in Australia. We need to pay bills like everyone else and we like to eat as well.

Well, get paid in EUROs [:D]

That's a question of proper negotiations with the publisher. I, for one, wouldn't pick an unstable (or weak) currency for international payments/revenue plans.

OOOOK. Pricing (from the European point of view [:)] ):
Well, let's see... as a European customer, Digital River will charge my CC with an additional amount, with what they call "local VAT (tax)".
This would be 19% of the retail price for Germany, France 19.6 %, Denmark 25%, 19% Netherlands, for example. It seems like Digital River didn't do their math (research) right, the official German sales tax amounts to 19% for around 3 years now, so I wonder where this money ends up at German tax authorities or in their own pockets? I can't imagine that German authorities would accept 16% instead of 19%.

Anyway, Matrix/Digital River lists the digital download version of COTA at 44.99 EURO, which would convert to 59.42099 US Dollars, that's an internal bank exchange rate -> 31st March 2009, CC companies may provide worse rates (for their customers). In case Digital River would charge my CC in Euros, I wouldn't have to pay some additional 2% for using my CC in a foreign country, in theory. Whatsoever, on top of that, Digital River will add the VAT fee mentioned above, in DR's books currently 16% :

• COTA (digital download):
  44.9900 EUR
  + 7.1984 EUR VAT (16% tax)
  -----------------------
  = 52.1884 EUR = 68.92835 US Dollars
• COTA Physical shipment:
  51.9900 EUR COTA
  + 8.3184 EUR VAT
  + 4,7200 EUR Shipping & handling
  -------------------------
  = 65.0284 EUR = 85.88691 US Dollars.

Let's just compare this to a new mainstream title from AMAZON Germany, let's say Tom Clancy's "Hawx": 43.95 EUR (58.047 USD) with FREE handling and shipping, VAT included.
German retail chains offer this game for around 39-47 Euros, German online stores (where some cooperate with Amazon) from 31-49 Euros, shipping excluded. Now, if I compare this same mainstream title on AMAZON USA to COTA's price tag for the US market, I'll see an even higher price difference, as AMAZON.com lists Hawx at $46.99, while the physical shipment version of COTA costs $69.99 .

It was a very good deal for Europeans to buy stuff in the US (Ie. at Amazon) in January 2008 (when 1 Euro converted to 1.50 US Dollar), but if the Dollar is somewhat stronger (as right now), it's a rather bad deal if the equivalent of 1 Euro drops below $ 1.35.

We all know that Matrix can't compete with sellers who offer either free shipping or extremely low prices (like the 31 Euros = $40 mentioned above), but I'd like to second (partially) what TheWombat said, that Matrix customers could see the price difference as paying for additional/accurate research, historical accuracy, etc. and that Matrix uses to deliver value in these fields. Well, this goes for COTA (although one could debate the number of available missions and those infamous unaccessable estabs), but I wouldn't generalize this regarding other Matrix Games:

Especially in the GUI department, many Matrix games still have DOS-looks or rather outdated interfaces. So, non-wargamers will say that a game with ancient graphics, despite all the research and historically accuracy that might be included, may not justify such a price tag shown in my little computation above. Comparing the average prices of mainstream titles in Europe, COTA's physical shipment version would be around 10-15 Euros above a mainstream title, which doesn't sound too bad at first glance, but really adds up if there are 2 or 3 Matrix Games on the wishlist.

In fact, quite some Matrix games are rather remakes than new developments, games which ran through a process of redesigning and updating the GUI, occasionally coupled with minor/medium upgrades to the force pools, game-mechanics improvements, adding of new maps or refinements of scenario designs, especially with MATRIX' recent policy to acquire licenses of game classics.
Many of these games feature either a myriad of new options or new maps and generally improved game mechanics, but fancy GUIs and updated content often won't make up for the shortcomings caused by either the outdated engine or by hardcoded parts of the engine which can't be accessed by the coders - transforming the developers into ordinary modders who have to come up with workarounds and bug-fixes.

Example: Close Combat Wacht am Rhein (good game and dedicated devs (!), but devs and customers struggle with hardcoded limitations :p)

With other Matrix Games ppl could say that, although some of their engines had been re-built from scratch, they just imitate functions and mechanics of ancient versions of the games (from the 1980s or 90s), where new GUIs and other such goodies can't make up for the lack of content.

Example:Carriers at War (with an appalling low amount of content).

The question here is whether the customer gets enough value for his hard-earned money or not.

Another question is, whether Matrix chose the right path (the current policy where old classics, or older games in general, seem to be squeezed like lemons (like we say) - until nothing {no sales} comes out of them anymore) or if Matrix should focus on recruiting new talent, new developers .... in other words: totally new games. Matrix is in danger of sliding out of business if they don't reduce their current way of self-fertilization, and current developers may just choose to distribute their games on their own or found something like GOD (gathering of developers) to publish their games, at one or another point.

In addition, quite some customers may turn away eventually after releases like Carrier at War, or the 20th sequel of World at war.
After Matrix' cooperation with US retail stores didn't seem to work out, they should liaise with "local" online stores, as these stores are able to easily expose customers to recent Matrix titles, without having to keep a massive stock of Matrix Games in their warehouses, just by featuring one or another title on their front pages, offering a DD-version or physical shipment. People who never became aware of the existence of Matrix (none of my friends know Matrix Games) would at least be exposed to a selection of Matrix titles that way. I start to wonder whether Matrix really did their homework and if they really pulled out all the stops in the marketing department. From my POV : It doesn't look like it.

Games like COTA/BFTB, which I refer to as "niche-niche" games, games which display a niche (real-time) within a niche-market (wargaming), have to stand out, by offering a halfway moddable force-pool (currently not available) and decent scenario/map design tools which are easy to operate (available)... ergo: by creating a big base of community mappers/designers and a load of custom scenarios, as the current price won't attract casual gamers/non-wargamers at first glance. Also, a price tag way over $70 for the physical shipm. version of BFTB may even keep wargamers from buying the game. Anyway, like Ranger pointed out, a DEMO version of the game is a MUST.

My 2 cents.

We will be releasing a demo version for BFTB. So people will be able to try before they buy.

Good to hear there will be a demo to bring in some fresh blood.
The game at surface level has never impressed my friends until I've had them over to play.

On the topic of price, naturally you have to do what you have to do.
I've bought all the previous Panther Games, so perhaps my loyalty will outweigh my sticker shock.

So is there going to be a download version or no ??