The Good Health of the Wargaming Niche

[Erik Rutins]

Yes, we started out with remakes of Steel Panthers, then War in Russia and Pacific War, all of which were made available for free. We negotiated the rights to those and for Steel Panthers also made the code available to other teams (hence WinSPWW2). We then created Mega-Campaigns for Steel Panthers which as a separate program that interfaced with SPWAW we did sell. But none of the SP updates would have been possible without our efforts to get access to the code and then make it available to the community. That's how we started - we may have come a long way since then, but our heart is still in the same place.

Regards,

- Erik

[Erik Rutins]

One other point worth mentioning. I've seen as a tangent to this discussion that wargaming is not niche. I agree that the general concepts of wargaming correspond to strategy gaming and can be made accessible enough to appeal to a wider market. Examples of this are Total War and to a degree Europa Universalis or Crusader Kings. All of these are games rich in history but with large development budgets that are aimed at what the larger market wants. They still have limited reach compared to many other types of games, but it's fair to say they are an example of how wargames can at least be "more mainstream". As a player, I enjoy those games as well.

However, they don't scratch all my wargaming itches. As a hypothetical argument, we could stop publishing as many games per year or working with and helping as many developers as we do. Instead we could add to our internal development team and focus on one or two key games per year and make those as close to AAA quality as possible in terms of graphics and interface and design. That is a viable strategy as shown by other companies, but it does not serve the hard core wargaming market.

While we do have accessible games and games with more mainstream interface and design, and we do have internal development that strives to keep us ahead of the curve and ever expanding to new platforms so that we can also help guide our developers, we focus most of our efforts on supporting the small independent developers in the wargaming world. We believe the titles these developers create are unique and not available from any other publisher. Most of these teams consist of 1-3 members with limited resources. The titles they create are very much niche oriented and of necessity they focus most of their development time on giving hard-core wargamers what they want rather than focusing on the needs of the mainstream. We offer these teams more creative freedom than they'd find in most places, combined with our experienced advice and support (from a publisher with people that actually know and love wargaming) as well as a marketplace and community that reaches more hard-core wargamers than any other. These games would not be picked up by even a Paradox, not to mention one of the more mainstream publishers. For the most part, they'd never see the light of day or realize their potential in terms of development or sales.

Our goal and we've been mostly successful so far, is to make sure these games and developers can succeed and continue to be made, rather than ignored in favor of only the development teams and game ideas that are more suitable to mainstream gaming. We are far from perfect, but while there are many paths that we could take and many strategies we could choose, the one we've chosen is the one that we believe results in the best health and variety for wargamers and our developers. We are wargamers ourselves and it is our internal mission to keep evaluating and keep experimenting. We also want wargaming to succeed as much as any of you do, but the choices we've made where we have disagreements with some of the proposals here are not the result of closed minds but rather the result of the real data and past experiments we see from the inside.

Regards,

- Erik

[histgamer]

I don't think I would argue wargaming isn't niche but I think what many people are pointing out is that while it's still niche there are many other people who fit the niche but never hear about the games because there existence isn't known by many people outside of the already existing customer base. That's where things like social media, youtube and twitch come in. Not necessarily growing the total number of people falling inside the niche but rather increasing your saturation of people aware of matrix within the niche, something that I think could definitely be improved.

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: flanyboy
I don't think I would argue wargaming isn't niche but I think what many people are pointing out is that while it's still niche there are many other people who fit the niche but never hear about the games because there existence isn't known by many people outside of the already existing customer base. That's where things like social media, youtube and twitch come in. Not necessarily growing the total number of people falling inside the niche but rather increasing your saturation of people aware of matrix within the niche, something that I think could definitely be improved.

I completely agree with that and that we have spent and will continue to spend a lot of time, money and effort trying to reach every wargamer we possibly can. I know we can do even better in this area, but it has been a long-term effort and remains one of our highest priorities as a publisher to keep growing the part of the community that knows about us and our games.

Regards,

- Erik

[histgamer]

I have an interesting question to those of you who play more board games than me. Do board-game companies cut prices by 70% or more after the game has been out a few years? Something tells me they don't though I could be wrong. I think we expect prices to plummet after a few years because software in general does, but that's often due to rapidly evolving technology and also follow on games that mean unless you do so sales are crippled. Many of these games don't fit that mold however, and from a marketing and sales standpoint probably have more in common with the board games market today than other software companies. Both war-gaming and board games are certainly pretty niche now adays.

[junk2drive]

flanboy boardgames are physical and only so many are made. Digital download property is infinite in supply. Out of print boardgames can fetch high prices and I suppose there are collectable computer games on CDs.

[histgamer]

I do indeed understand the differences on that side of things but a key reason most pc games depreciate so much is the concept of a limited shelf life.

That's to say they are obsolete technologically speaking pretty darn quick and so the idea is you need to sell as many copies as you possibly can in a short period of time. After all Digital Download or not Tomb Raider on PC on GG released for nearly the same price as a physical copy for PS3 in store, the price gets cut quicker with a digitial copy thats true but the concept still exists that tomorrow the game will be old and something new will be out so they need to sell as many copies as they can in a short period of time because within 12 months something newer will be out. That same mind set really doesn't apply to most of the wargames that Matrix sells nor does it apply to board games. Often the genre that Matrix fits means it might only get a refresh every 5 or more years. So the sales life of a wargame is far longer than the sales life of a AAA or even a indie title covering a more mainstream genre.

Square Enix would figure they have 6-8 months to sell X number of copies of Tomb Raider for x$.
Matrix can probably plan to have 50-80 months to sell x number of copies of WiTP AE for x$.

Hence why other games discount way faster, in many ways, they have to.

ORIGINAL: junk2drive

flanboy boardgames are physical and only so many are made. Digital download property is infinite in supply. Out of print boardgames can fetch high prices and I suppose there are collectable computer games on CDs.

[Erik Rutins]

That's basically on target Flanyboy. It's worth noting that popular boardgames are also reprinted so they often do not go out of print. It's also true that the physical cost of goods for a computer game is lower, but the development cost is much higher than that of a boardgame and needs to be recouped. Discounting can absolutely be driven by obsolescence, whether hardware/software compatibility issues or just that a new game comes along that is in every way better. The latter does not happen often for computer wargames. When it does, they do become obsolete just like other games. The other factor as discussed in many places in this thread is the desire to reach more gamers. Discounting can do that, but only if you have the type of game that a much larger group of gamers is actually interested in. If your game is mainstream in terms of subject matter, gameplay and accessibility, discounting in a market where it will be seen by that a larger group of gamers has a lot of upside. If your game does not meet those criteria, discounting is a great way to minimize your revenue.

Regards,

- Erik

[republicofpepsi]

ORIGINAL: Iain McNeil
So how about this for an idea, as Tim seems keen to help us. We host a promotion, sale of the week and run it in conjunction with RPS.

That would be a win win! I am often frustrated when trying to explain to my friends how great a game the Distant Worlds series is. They've never heard of Distant Worlds or Matrix and so are hesitant. With all the buzz around indie space games as of late, it would be a great time for some in-depth RPS coverage of the latest Distant Worlds release along with a sale (as has happened with each previous expansion).

[Ranger33]

I just wanted to take a moment to praise Matrix on their Facebook stuff. Having something new pop up almost every day, even if it's just some screenshots, is really nice and keeps me feeling up-to-date and interested in what you guys have in the pipeline. The "Through the keyhole" things are great. Players are always interested in developer interviews and such. I think Paradox does one better with their developer diaries, regularly putting out a few paragraphs and some screens showcasing something in one of their upcoming titles. It's never anything overly extensive, but it gives the plebs something to talk about.

What would really be cool, for me anyway, would be a nice video series for each upcoming title, and I don't mean the sort of promotional videos consisting of logos, media snippets, and maybe 10 seconds total of gameplay. Like someone pointed out earlier, narrated "Let's Play" style videos are great for promoting wargames. It gives you a chance to see how the game plays, what sort of strategic thinking is going on, what sort of options the player has, and so on. Have a developer do one of these (which could be delegated to a beta tester) that lasts 20-30 minutes, then break it up into 4-5 weekly installments. Bonus points for ending on a "What will happen next?" moment each week.

[republicofpepsi]

ORIGINAL: Ranger33
narrated "Let's Play" style videos are great for promoting wargames

I agree completely! That is how I learn to play most wargames.

[Greyshaft]

Iain,
Thanks for the explanation. Much of it is a rehash of what you have said in other posts but it is good to have the discussion taken back to its roots and concentrated in one place. First point, I agree with your right to sell your games at the price you choose just as you agree with my right to refuse to buy them at that price and no offence should be taken either way. One example is my ongoing refusal to buy the BoB/BTR remake at its current price. I have the original BoB (never found a copy of the original BTR)and I know it is a fine game with a (ahem) challenging UI. I'm sure I'd enjoy the remake but to me its not worth the purchase cost. That's just capitalism and I wouldn't expect you to do it any differently.

Keep on doing what you're doing. It all looks fine to me.

Also, could you please help me to get onto the Matix mailing list. I have registered for Matrix newsletters two or three times over the last dozen years but I've never had a newsletter. Do the email postage rates to Australia scare you off sending it over here

Thanks

[grogmaster]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

One other point worth mentioning. I've seen as a tangent to this discussion that wargaming is not niche. I agree that the general concepts of wargaming correspond to strategy gaming and can be made accessible enough to appeal to a wider market. Examples of this are Total War and to a degree Europa Universalis or Crusader Kings. All of these are games rich in history but with large development budgets that are aimed at what the larger market wants. They still have limited reach compared to many other types of games, but it's fair to say they are an example of how wargames can at least be "more mainstream". As a player, I enjoy those games as well.

However, they don't scratch all my wargaming itches. As a hypothetical argument, we could stop publishing as many games per year or working with and helping as many developers as we do. Instead we could add to our internal development team and focus on one or two key games per year and make those as close to AAA quality as possible in terms of graphics and interface and design. That is a viable strategy as shown by other companies, but it does not serve the hard core wargaming market.

While we do have accessible games and games with more mainstream interface and design, and we do have internal development that strives to keep us ahead of the curve and ever expanding to new platforms so that we can also help guide our developers, we focus most of our efforts on supporting the small independent developers in the wargaming world.

It seems you guys have done the worst of both worlds. You force the market to be niche with your high prices, because you own such a large part of the strategy gaming market, with near-monopoly business practices, by swallowing up other competing publishers with shady marketing deals while the Slitherine duo get the last laugh.

You guys think plumping out the most titles in the quickest amount of time is the best strategy, but these titles are shallow, basic, and lack support (most developers). These titles are also priced to the sky and they really bring nothing new to the genre, let alone put a pretty cover on a game we've already seen a decade ago (Close Combat series).

My question is: How much longer do you think the people who enjoy wargames will take this type of behavior before they boycott your products outright? If you think swallowing up competitors and focusing on quantity over quality, trying to release as many games as possible regardless if they're finished or not (even re-releasing games that were originally released 2 years ago, with a higher price), then I'm just waiting for the day that your funds run dry because you guys are lost. I hope the developers that signed with you find a more respectable publisher to help them with their needs because you guys lack the marketing capabilities and desire to listen that is required for publishing. How much longer are you guys going to re-release old games for higher prices?

Even if there was a wargaming niche, Matrix Games, Slitherine or AGEOD does not represent it. You try to be the "voice" of a niche but your concerns are on the dollar and making a buck. You sure aren't my voice for PC wargames. A niche will never be a servant to such things. You don't represent a niche, even if you claim to represent it. You represent the greed within what you claim to be a niche, which you claim to represent.

You stated previously that you do what you do, not for the money, but for the joy you get from doing it. You speak for yourself, and not the people above you on the totem pole. The people above you are seeking more extravagant vacations on exotic islands.
And, if this was truly the case, this whole discussion wouldn't have sprang up in the first place, and RPS wouldn't be sniffing out the greed in your ranks.

[dutchman55555]

ORIGINAL: flanyboy

I have an interesting question to those of you who play more board games than me. Do board-game companies cut prices by 70% or more after the game has been out a few years? Something tells me they don't though I could be wrong.

It's a difficult question. Not apples vs. oranges, but definitely Red Delicious vs. Braeburn. The first thing that leapt to my mind is that there is a market for used board/wargames that the digital market completely obliterates. I'd be happy to take PC wargames off the hands of people done with them in exchange for a smaller price/risk, as it would let me "take a chance" on a game without downloading it and after 10 minutes feeling that I'd wasted $40. (Yes, I know, the developers don't receive a penny from the sales of used games, but in lieu of demos that apparently can't or won't be made, I can't think of another venue where I can risk buying something I'm unsure whether I'll like or not.)

[grogmaster]

ORIGINAL: grogmaster

My question is: How much longer do you think the people who enjoy wargames will take this type of behavior before they boycott your products outright?

About this... many people have boycotted Matrix Games already because what the company that bought them out represents (not to mention the prices).

[dutchman55555]

ORIGINAL: republicofpepsi

ORIGINAL: Ranger33
narrated "Let's Play" style videos are great for promoting wargames

I agree completely! That is how I learn to play most wargames.

Also agreement here, especially with a complex game like WitP:AE. WitP:AE comes with no tutorial despite the documentation saying there is one, and Matrix promised one would come out after release (the promise was made at least three years ago, IIRC). It comes with a 320 page rulebook, followed by an 8 page index that quite frankly is an abomination. But there was a short Youtube series by a chap explaining some of the basics which helped immensely, and if not for his love of the game I might not have even taken a crack at WitP:AE.

[Erik Rutins]

Grogmaster,

We pretty much completely disagree. Your posts are filled with assertions without facts behind them and are overwhelmingly negative. It's obvious you have a personal dislike for some people in the company and you are unable to be objective about the company as a whole because of that. I'll try to engage some of your comments though, but if this goes nowhere don't expect another reply.

If by "forcing the market to be niche with high prices" you mean that after trying many different price levels and models early in our history we settled on the one that seemed to work best to keep us and our developers in business, then I might agree. Our philosophy is that the wargame market is better off with its developers in business rather than not. However, we can't force that on anyone. You can choose to purchase or not and whether to purchase when a title is on sale or not. If our model does not work, a competitor with a different model will eventually replace us.

If by "plumping out the most titles in the quickest amount of time" you mean sticking with games and developers that have been in progress for years, in an effort to get a highly anticipated game finished after other publishers would have given up, I might agree. If you meant that we were trying to give every promising developer that was interested in making wargames an actual chance at success even if other publishers would not, then I might agree. I think you'd have to be part of the internal process to see how much work and effort we put into these games from our side and how few of them would have seen the light of day or been in the shape they ended up in without the support of a similar publisher. Our developers do an incredible job and put their hearts into these games, but it's the partnership between us that really gives them the best chance to release within a reasonable timeframe and to meet customer expectations.

If by "swallowing up competitors" you mean "keeping them from going out of business" then I might agree. If a good developer or publisher approaches us looking for a better solution, or we see one that's struggling, we'd rather give it our best shot using what we know to try to make them successful. That often works, but sometimes does not. If we see a great title and we'd like to publish it, we will certainly talk to those developers and give them an offer of what we can do.

You mentioned Close Combat. Here's a series that was approaching extinction. The only way you could even get a copy was to pay over $100 on E-Bay and the odds were it would not work with your current operating system. The owner of the brand was not doing anything with it and had no future plans. We negotiated on behalf of wargamers and paid to get that license. Even then, it was just opening the door a bit. We were allowed to work with the existing engine and update and remake the original releases. That's also what many in the community wanted, so we focused on that. It was only a year ago that we finally managed to buy the rights to Close Combat outright. Panthers in the Fog was the first result, but it's not our end goal. As you may know, the result of finally getting ownership meant that we immediately started work on a new 3D Close Combat engine. We've invested our money and time into that. We didn't want to keep the community waiting with no Close Combat releases while that was in progress though, so we also continued to work on the existing engine and updated it to create the first non-remake, Panthers in the Fog.

We are not a monopoly, nor are we trying to harm the wargaming community. We're doing our best to do the opposite. I would argue that we've released and funded many landmark computer wargames that are the best of their kind, period and set the benchmark for their subject matter and likely will for years to come. We've given the best developers a home and many of them have done their best work here and most are still with us after 10+ years which speaks to their experience.

As for the people above me on the totem pole, I'm one of the founders and one of the Directors of the company, of which there are five. Based on your previous replies, I assume you are referencing Iain. Iain is also a wargamer and works on these games because he personally enjoys them. His personal history includes competitive tournament tabletop wargaming as well as computer wargaming. He and his father, JD are a wargaming family. Again, I don't know where your assertions come from but as far as I can tell they are without basis.

Also, as far as I can tell RPS was not "sniffing out greed" but rather giving us their advice on what would work better as a pricing strategy to make even more money and attract more customers. We may disagree on some of the specifics, but advice like that is always appreciated if not always agreed with. Apparently you think we are both greedy and yet unwilling to take advice that would make us more money? Or we're just greedy and stupid, which is I guess your real stance.

As I said to Rogo, please consider if you are actually advancing the discussion now in any constructive way, or simply using it to vent some kind of personal grievance. It looks much more like the latter to me.

Regards,

- Erik

[rodney727]

Here is my progression in college... Risk which led to A&A which then led to house rules of that game...soon after got my first computer bought steel panthers and panzer general. Eventually found matrix games. I think slitherine has opened up a whole new door with tablet gamming. While the "hard core" wargamers will only buy games that will and can only be played on computers. Some of course will do both but many will choose the tablet. To get younger future people to play wargames I think this is the best option.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

I continue to think that the proper target audiences for wargame promotions are to be found on college campuses. There you've got the right age-group for future wargamers and the right intellect pool. I can never forget that that is just how SPI got me hooked, so many decades ago: They placed their games in the college bookstore. That's probably not doable anymore, but, somehow, that audience needs to be targeted.

[histgamer]

I think it depends largely on the type of game. I would definitely play Panzer Corps on an iPad or Android, I would not play WiTP nor do I think WiTP would run on most tablets out today.

I think the only way I would play a game like WiTP on a tablet at this point is if the mobile version let you wirelessly sync with your computer version so you could play on your PC at home and also play on the go. That's really where I hope a lot of the Tablet/PC gaming goes next, once tablets are a bit more powerful.

ORIGINAL: rogo727

Here is my progression in college... Risk which led to A&A which then led to house rules of that game...soon after got my first computer bought steel panthers and panzer general. Eventually found matrix games. I think slitherine has opened up a whole new door with tablet gamming. While the "hard core" wargamers will only buy games that will and can only be played on computers. Some of course will do both but many will choose the tablet. To get younger future people to play wargames I think this is the best option.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

I continue to think that the proper target audiences for wargame promotions are to be found on college campuses. There you've got the right age-group for future wargamers and the right intellect pool. I can never forget that that is just how SPI got me hooked, so many decades ago: They placed their games in the college bookstore. That's probably not doable anymore, but, somehow, that audience needs to be targeted.

[wodin]

Tablets are an option but not the answer..apparently the bigger tablets are dead and it's all going to be 7 inch. My 19 inch screen is a huge issue for me in wargames let alone a 7 inch one. Yes you can plug it into a TV..but isn't that then defeating the whole purpose of an IPad in the first place?

IOS is a good way to get the lighter wargames out there leading them onto the games on a PC I suppose.

TabletPC hybrids might be the way forward..where the screen detaches to be a tablet..just a rather big one. One has already been made I believe.