Command Ops going forward

[dougb]

Dave has provided a fairly detailed plan for the Command Ops successor engine over the next 2 years, including a description of features and business plan. He makes it clear that this is obviously subject to change but it does look very interesting and its nice to finally have a better idea of the timelines for the next game.

I really like some of the proposed improvements in the UI and overall graphical look. Looks though like another year at least for the East Front which is a bit disappointing.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3310918&mpage=1&key=&#3311142

Doug

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 22 apr, 15:44, dougb <douglasbrun...@rogers.com> wrote:

> I really like some of the proposed improvements in the UI and overall graphical look.

Don't care at all about that but I *do* care about this :

"PBEM = play by email. This will involve the ability to issue orders,
email your save to your opponent, have them issue their orders and
then play out a turn covering an agreed period of game time. "

The other interesting things (doctrine, mounted / unmounted split of
units, linked scenarios/campaigns) were always on the "nice to have
list" but this is the very first time I see Dave give the nod to PBEM.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Arjuna]

There is no truth in the rumour that Bil Hardenberger had me in a headlock when I agreed. No truth at all. ;)

[Arjuna]

So what do you guys think on our pricing policy?

[Giftzwerg]

In article <02062439-f3c6-4d73...@googlegroups.com>,
da...@panthergames.com says...

>
> So what do you guys think on our pricing policy?

<laughter>

Oh, shit on toast, I'm the wrong guy to ask, since my position is,
"whatever you're charging, and whatever you're selling, I'll buy.'

I'm not your "market-forces" customer.

--
Giftzwerg
***
"While Ms. Giffords certainly has my sympathy for the violence she
suffered, it should be noted that being shot in the head by a lunatic
does not give one any special grace to pronounce upon public-policy
questions, nor does it give one moral license to call people 'cowards'
for holding public-policy views at variance with one?s own."
- Kevin Williamson

[Giftzwerg]

In article <MPG.2bdfc05...@news-east.giganews.com>, giftzwerg999
@hotmail.com says...

> Oh, shit on toast, I'm the wrong guy to ask, since my position is,
> "whatever you're charging, and whatever you're selling, I'll buy.'

Wait. Strike that. I fucked up the negotiations. Make me an offer.

[Arjuna]

On Tuesday, April 23, 2013 12:49:29 PM UTC+10, Giftzwerg wrote:
> > Oh, shit on toast, I'm the wrong guy to ask, since my position is,
>
> > "whatever you're charging, and whatever you're selling, I'll buy.'
>

> Wait. Strike that. I fucked up the negotiations. Make me an offer.
>

LOL

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 23 apr, 04:11, Arjuna <d...@panthergames.com> wrote:
> So what do you guys think on our pricing policy?

Seriously ?

That you're setting yourself up for *a lot* of work with no direct
return with those free upgrades once you buy into the upgrade path.

Anyway, I'm jumping back in, no matter what the price, as soon as PBEM
is in there - there's little room in my current gaming life for AI
play, played 18 different games this month, but only 1 of them against
an AI.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Frank E]

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 19:11:38 -0700 (PDT), Arjuna
<da...@panthergames.com> wrote:

>So what do you guys think on our pricing policy?

One thing that occured to me when I read it was that if there was a
CO2 complete for $90, I'd buy it without a 2nd thought. I don't know
if you'll get more money out of me in the long run with 5 x $30 since
there's a fair chance I wouldn't buy all 5 and you'd definitely get my
money sooner.

If I understand it correctly, the upgrade policy is a really bad idea.
If I only wanted to upgrade my old games, I have every incentive to
hold on to my money until after you release the 5th upgrade. If I
could spend $30 and get all the future engine upgrades for my old
games, you'd get my money a lot earlier.

Rgds, Frank


Rgds, Frnak

[Arjuna]

On Tuesday, April 23, 2013 10:11:01 PM UTC+10, Frank E wrote:
> One thing that occured to me when I read it was that if there was a
>
> CO2 complete for $90, I'd buy it without a 2nd thought. I don't know
>
> if you'll get more money out of me in the long run with 5 x $30 since
>
> there's a fair chance I wouldn't buy all 5 and you'd definitely get my
>
> money sooner.

>
> If I understand it correctly, the upgrade policy is a really bad idea.
>
> If I only wanted to upgrade my old games, I have every incentive to
>
> hold on to my money until after you release the 5th upgrade. If I
>
> could spend $30 and get all the future engine upgrades for my old
>
> games, you'd get my money a lot earlier.

Frank,

There is nothing stopping someone waiting till say engine upgrade stage 5, paying their $30 and getting their old data packs updated for free. However, they will have to wait all that time without a data update. You only get a data update if buy an engine update. I'm happy with that. I want to encourage new customers to be able to buy in for the cost of an engine upgrade and one data pack - ie a $60 outlay.

But let me clarify, when you buy an engine upgrade you will only get your data packs updated at that time. It does not qualify you to get data upgrades in the future. Eg if you buy stage 2 engine upgrade then you can get your previously purchased data packs upgraded then. If you don't buy the stage 3 engine upgrade you won't be able to upgrade your data packs at that time.

Have I made that clear enough? If not, just ask away and I'll give it another shot. :)

[Frank E]

On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 05:52:56 -0700 (PDT), Arjuna
<da...@panthergames.com> wrote:

>> If I only wanted to upgrade my old games, I have every incentive to
>>
>> hold on to my money until after you release the 5th upgrade. If I
>>
>> could spend $30 and get all the future engine upgrades for my old
>>
>> games, you'd get my money a lot earlier.
>
>Frank,
>
>There is nothing stopping someone waiting till say engine upgrade stage 5, paying their $30 and getting their old data packs updated for free. However, they will have to wait all that time without a data update.

But either way, they're going to have to wait all that time before
they have all the updates and they're still going to have to pay $30
in 2 years to get the final udate. So if I want to upgrade my existing
games, I can either pay you $150 spread out over the next two years
and have access to partial updates along the way or pay you $30 in two
years and have access to the full set of updates. The balance between
those two seems way off to me. Now granted, that $150 also gives me
the new data packs along the way but it seems to me that you want a
cheaper way for customers to upgrade their current games. Note that
I'm only talking about engine updates for existing games (HttR, BftB,
etc.) not data updates.

If I'm running a business, having you pay me $50 today is worth more
to me than having you (probably) pay me $100 two years from now. I
guess you don't see it that way? I'd by trying my best to convince
people to give me money sooner rather than later. Right now there's a
huge incentive to wait to buy.

Rgds, Frank

[Arjuna]

On Tuesday, April 23, 2013 11:56:25 PM UTC+10, Frank E wrote:
> If I'm running a business, having you pay me $50 today is worth more
>
> to me than having you (probably) pay me $100 two years from now. I
>
> guess you don't see it that way? I'd by trying my best to convince
>
> people to give me money sooner rather than later. Right now there's a
>
> huge incentive to wait to buy.

I acknowledge that. But it rests on the premise that you won't want to get the new data updates. These will generally require the latest engine upgrade. We have a some very interesting data packs coming up so I am hoping this will get people across the line. So that counters that argument to a degree. It doesn't eliminate it though.

What would you recommend?

[Arjuna]

Frank,

One option may be to charge a small upgrade fee based on the version number. Eg if we charged $5 per pack for each version difference. eg if you have version 1 and you wait till stage 5 then you would pay an upgrade fee of #20.

I'm just tossing ideas here for your feedback in an endeavour to come up with a better approach.

[Bil Hardenberger]

On Monday, April 22, 2013 9:55:14 PM UTC-4, Arjuna wrote:
> There is no truth in the rumour that Bil Hardenberger had me in a headlock when I agreed. No truth at all. ;)

And nobody was as surprised as I was when he gave in and cried uncle. ;o)

[Arjuna]

On Wednesday, April 24, 2013 1:14:37 PM UTC+10, ade...@inbox.com wrote:
>
> No idea what you just said actually. I am familiar with the HPS Tiller
>
> model, where advancements in new games are back ported to the older ones
>
> eventually.
>
>
> Are you saying the Command Ops system works in a different way?
>
>
> Buy Command Ops
>
> Buy data pack 1 and 2
>
> Buy Engine Upgrade 1: Data pack 1 and 2 also updated with Engine Upgrade
>
> 1's advancements.
>
>
> Buy data pack 3: will not be updated with Engine Upgrade 1's features as it
>
> was bought after Engine Upgrade 1?

Ade,

Sorry for the confusion. What we are aiming for is to decouple the engine from the data. We will produce a series of upgrades to the engine. Whenever you buy an engine upgrade you will get every feature that has preceded no matter when it was released. Eg if you buy the upgrade for stage 4 you will get all the features that were added in stages 1 to 4. You will not need to buy the previous engine upgrades to get the features. In other words it doesn't matter when you buy the engine upgrade you will get the latest set of features developed at that point in time.

When you buy an engine upgrade you will be eligible to update your already owned data packs to the current level. Eg is you own HTTR data pack and BFTb and wait till the stage 3 upgrade of the engine before you buy your engine upgrade, then at that time you will get the latest engine with all the features and converted data packs for HTTR and BFTB that will be able to run with the latest engine.

Is that clearer now?

[Arjuna]

On Wednesday, April 24, 2013 6:04:42 PM UTC+10, ade...@inbox.com wrote:
>
> Yes. This is basically Playdek's Summoner Wars model where one of the DLCs
>
> gets you everything released to the point when you bought it.
>
>
>
> Any interest in making a Pacific War carrier wargame for a change? :)

Love to....just waiting to amass enough cash that I can take a whole year off to do the air and naval doctrine.

[Frank E]

I'd offer the game engine fo $30 along with a few scenarios from your
older games. Maybe two scenarios each from HttR, BftB, CotA. That
makes it pretty cheap and gives you some free advertising for the
existing games for people that haven't bought them. Anyone who gets
the engine gets upgrades to their existing games and is promised
engine updates in perpetuity because I want people to come back to my
web site, download the udates and, while they're there, look at the
new data packs that I'm trying to sell.

Then I'd sell the 'expansion (data) packs' for $30 each. I'd also
offer a 'complete' pack for $90 that includes everything since I'd
rather have your $90 now than a potential $150 spread out over the
next few years.

Rgds, Frank

[Frank E]

See my other reply, but I think you're making a mistake charging for
the engine upgrades (past the one time $30 purchase). Right or wrong,
you're going to give many people the impression that you're charging
for patches, especially if you start bugging them every few months for
$5. The engine is, for lack of a better word, the loss leader to sell
your expansion packs.

It seems to me that the money you can make off of engine updates is
minimal at best. The hard core fans will be buying most of the data
packs anyway and the casual players won't care enough to bother. Who's
the target audience?

Hell, I could make a pretty compelling argument for giving away the
game engine, releasing it into the wild on bit torment and any other
download site you can think of.

Rgds, Frank

[Mike Kreuzer]

The whole scheme is too confusing by half. There are games being
released on certain dates (engine + data), but if I already have the
engine I can just buy the data, unless I need to upgrade the engine
because there's sometimes (always?) a dependency in which case I can...
what? Seriously, what? How is this not paying for patches? Crazy.

It's eerily like what the marketing guys always tell me will happen if
programmers are allowed to get control of communications. Maybe they're
right.

Regards,
Mike Kreuzer
www.mikekreuzer.com

[Arjuna]

Point taken Mike about the complexity and confusion.

I see a patch as a series of fixes to existing features/capabilities. The engine upgrades include new features. New features require extensive work. That has to be funded.

The alternatives appear to be to stick with the standard approach of releasing a series of stand alone games or Frank's approach of loss leading with the engine and charging for the data packs.

The stand alone game approach involves significant work that must be replicated with each game - eg producing customised manual, tutorials and movies. This is costly and takes a lot of time thus delaying the delivery of the product with a real impact on cash flow. Each title ends up costing a lot to the user and discourages new users from taking up the product.

The loss leader approach can only work if you charge a significant premium for the data packs to cover the development costs invested into the engine. This then runs into the user perception that it's only a data pack and they shouldn't have top pay as much for it as a full tiled game.

So I see problems with both of these. I have tried the stand alone title approach but it is not providing enough of a return to support the continuing development.

I am wary of the loss leader approach because it is predicated on expanding sales volume. This would be great but I can't see it happening to the level required to make it work, not from the current distribution arrangements. That may have to change.

But even going to something like Steam is not guaranteed to succeed for niche products. Steam is geared for more main stream products with mass appeal. It is also geared to products with a short shelf life and rapidly discounted price structure. This works fine for some popular products but it can have a savage impact on a niche product.

I am still unclear as to the best way forward and welcome your input.

[Giftzwerg]

In article <kl9v38$sll$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, mi...@FIRSTNAMEkreuzer.com
says...

> The whole scheme is too confusing by half. There are games being
> released on certain dates (engine + data), but if I already have the
> engine I can just buy the data, unless I need to upgrade the engine
> because there's sometimes (always?) a dependency in which case I can...
> what? Seriously, what? How is this not paying for patches? Crazy.
>
> It's eerily like what the marketing guys always tell me will happen if
> programmers are allowed to get control of communications. Maybe they're
> right.

I'm feeling the same way; a pricing / buying scheme that can't be
explained to me in a tweet seems a bit much. Sounds kinda like The
Death Of A Thousand Cuts.

[Mike Kreuzer]

On 25/04/2013 11:54 AM, Arjuna wrote:
> Point taken Mike about the complexity and confusion.
>

[snip]

I suppose the jumble is really only at the beginning - and as
hypothetical Bulge scenarios have about as much interest for me as
actual Bulge scenarios my first purchases will likely be Stage 3 of the
engine together with the West Wall in April next year. Then & later the
engine upgrades & data packs look to be in synch as far as I can see (in
August 2014 and November 2014).

I readily admit I may have completely misunderstood it though. And all
the confusion to get three lots of $60 from me instead of three lots of
$100. Maybe that loss will be offset by people who can't wait three
months to get stage one engine upgrades along with stage two, I don't know.

Maintaining six separate game engines, and the scenario design & head to
head & pbem compatibility issues all seems like a lot of effort that
would be saved by having as many people as possible on the one supported
version of the game engine.

Parenthetically I hate the LOTB name - I hated it for the book as well
as hating the book, I hated it for the MMP boardgame, and I'm hating it
here too. <g>

Cheers, Mike

[Giftzwerg]

In article <783072ef-886d-47d6...@googlegroups.com>,
da...@panthergames.com says...

> I am still unclear as to the best way forward and welcome your input.

Speaking for myself, my problem is that my own advice would be virtually
worthless. You're talking about a marketing and pricing scheme ... to
someone who's already drunk the Kool-Aid. You don't need to "market" to
me, since I'm already hooked. The pricing scheme is similarly
irrelevant; I just paid almost $1,000 for plumbing repairs to the house,
something that gave me no pleasure at all (unless being glad that the
toilet went on working exactly as before is pleasing...).

So my "advice" is, "Just throw the goddamn thing on the shelf, Dave,
I've got the money."

One bit of advice might be germane, though. I'm not sure it's
reasonable to expect that prospective customers have any interest at all
in what current development costs are. When Photoshop CS7 shows up,
I'll look at it and see if the upgrade cost is worth the added
functionality; what it costs *Adobe* to build the thing doesn't pertain
to me.

To paraphrase Kevin Costner, "If they build it, I *might* come."

But first the thing has to get built.

[Big Salad]

On 4/24/2013 9:54 PM, Arjuna wrote:
> I am still unclear as to the best way forward and welcome your input.

I think part of the reason this looks complex is because we are looking
at a business plan, not a marketing plan. The consumer isn't
necessarily looking out at 5 stages and trying to min-max their
expenditures over the next few years. Well, I guess given our
demographic, some of them are, aren't they? But more typical would be
the consumer looking at the current offerings and trying to decide
whether to buy, pass, or wait a little longer.

To that end, I think this scheme is (should be?) attempting to do a
couple of things. First, it makes sure that the early buyer knows that
the purchase is just an initial outlay - that there are going to be
add-ons. Sure, their will always be people (are there still posts from
people who paid for Red Devils and are not buying another game because
they expect the HTTR2 content for free?) who will feel that they are
paying for patches, and that is unacceptable. But for the most part,
setting the expectation ahead of time should prevent people from feeling
they've been had. At the same time, you can't deter people who get
interested at Stage 3 by requiring that the buy all the pieces full price.

Laying out that, when you buy the game, you get some things for free and
some things will be future upgrades - this proposal should look much
simpler at any given point in the development cycle. Emphasizing the
perpetual upgrade policy of the data packs for free I think is a good
demonstration of the value to the customer.

In fact, it doesn't look that much unlike the release schedule for a
typical big-budget strategy game. The initial release is followed by a
couple of expansion packs. Then the base game is released as "Gold",
with all the upgrades included (often for the same price as the original
game). Then maybe another expansion or two, followed by the "Platinum."

Would the market make more sense of this if you tried to closely follow
this known scheme? It could add more development complexity, but you
could make each Stage after the initial release first an add-on only,
and then as a stand-alone.

I'm thinking something like this:

Date A
CO stage 1 - $35

Date B
CO stage 1 - $30
CO stage 2 - $20 (add-on only, not stand alone)

Date C
CO stage 2 - $35 (stand alone)

Date D
CO stage 2 - $30 (i.e. base game)
CO stage 3 - $20 (add-on only)

Date E
CO stage 3 - $35 (stand alone)

etc.

Depending on your distribution, distribution add-ons may not require a
separate software solution. That is, the add-on price could be made
available to registered users, but the installation is actually the same.

The disadvantages are it is even more complex, and requires an
out-of-cycle management of price reductions. It also would lower the
total amount of money the early adopter would end up paying for the full
game.

The advantages are, hopefully that early adopter perceives the value of
that lowered price. That is, such a scheme might give the early
adopters a good feeling on price. Yes, they would have paid less if
they had waited a couple of years, but buying early makes them eligible
for an add-on price not available to others. Also, as I said, I think
it could be an advantage to fit an existing market paradigm. It might
help defuse the "Why do I have to pay $60 for what someone else can now
get for $30" complaints.

[DirkG]

On 4/24/2013 9:54 PM, Arjuna wrote:

How about the DCS approach, the engine is free but you charge for the
data sets? Plus, with a limited module included it becomes a living demo
of the most current engine. The thing I think is important is for the
most current engine version to be available without cost, especially if
you can play others. It's really annoying to have multiple versions of
the game out there and not be able to play because you or the opponent
don't want to pay for an upgrade.

Or, there's the HPS model where engine updates (patches) are made for
all the series but each module is a standalone game. I've got about 50
HPS disks sitting on my shelf so this method works for me. Scary to
think how much money it cost over 10 years even with sales (about $30
per). I think either way seems fair and at least the HPS version is proven.

[Arjuna]

On Saturday, April 27, 2013 1:22:53 PM UTC+10, DirkG wrote:
> How about the DCS approach, the engine is free but you charge for the
>
> data sets? Plus, with a limited module included it becomes a living demo
>
> of the most current engine. The thing I think is important is for the
>
> most current engine version to be available without cost, especially if
>
> you can play others. It's really annoying to have multiple versions of
>
> the game out there and not be able to play because you or the opponent
>
> don't want to pay for an upgrade.
>
>
>
> Or, there's the HPS model where engine updates (patches) are made for
>
> all the series but each module is a standalone game. I've got about 50
>
> HPS disks sitting on my shelf so this method works for me. Scary to
>
> think how much money it cost over 10 years even with sales (about $30
>
> per). I think either way seems fair and at least the HPS version is proven.

Thanks for those suggestions Dirk.

I acknowledge that there are real issues for multiplayer with a fragmented set of engines out there. So I am coming around to the idea of always having just the one engine.

The HPS's approach works because they don't invest heavily in expanding their engine features. This enables them to focus on data content and put out a steady stream of it.

We too could stop engine development and adopt the cookie cutter approach but that's not very interesting. Nor do I believe that is what customers want. Certainly the feedback I have received lately is that they want the new features.

All we have to do is come up with a way to invest heavily in engine and data development, give away the engine for nothing, charge a small price for the data packs and somehow survive in a niche market. Pretty easy really. ;)

[Fizzbizzle]

On Monday, April 22, 2013 9:44:52 AM UTC-4, dougb wrote:
> Dave has provided a fairly detailed plan for the Command Ops successor engine over the next 2 years, including a description of features and business plan. He makes it clear that this is obviously subject to change but it does look very interesting and its nice to finally have a better idea of the timelines for the next game.
>
>

I just read the post on the Matrix forums, and my reaction is - no thanks.

The proposed plan strikes me as similar to the approach Battlefront is taking with Combat Mission, which I find I can live with even though I'm typically a cheapskate who already owns enough unplayed games to see me through the remainder of my life. That includes Battles for the Bulge, by the way, which sits unplayed on my PC hard drive since I bought it in January.

The biggest disincentive to me is the combination of price and upgrade frequency. I really don't want to buy an upgrade to my core game engine every 3-4 months, and most importantly, I don't want to have to pay "full price" each time I do so. I'd rather just wait a year and buy the "finished" product for the same price that I would have paid for any one of your intermediate releases. Now if the upgrade price were $5-$10, then I might be persuaded to open my wallet. But not $30.

The proposed pricing policy seems geared toward the devoted aficionados within the existing customer base. It may work out for everyone involved, but it simply doesn't appeal to a more lukewarm customer like me.

- Fizzbizzle

[Arjuna]

Thanks for the feedback. As I mentioned on the CmdOps forum we accept that the original proposed plan need to be simpler. I appreciate what you are saying about the price for upgrading the engine. We will go back to the drawing board on this and advise in due course.