Tim Stone on the Slitherine/Matrix price policy over at RPS

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

Hi

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/04/19/the-flare-path-indecent-proposal/#more-150192

Can't say I disagree with him - almost never do actually

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Holdit]

In article <5983fb87-ffc6-4930-bfe1-e31759b8aa87
@b10g2000vbu.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...
> Hi
>
> http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/04/19/the-flare-path-indecent

> -proposal/#more-150192
>
> Can't say I disagree with him - almost never do actually
>

Me neither.

"We don?t engage in periodic Steam-style price-slashing"

Quite, and that's why you don't get as much of my money as Steam does.
which, given your niche and my interest, means that someone's doing it
right, and someone's doing it wrong.

My most recent Steam purchase was Skyrim. I ignored it until at €49.99
for ages until one fine day it popped up at €29.99. Kaching! I if they
hadn't dropped the price, I still wouldn't be playing it.

It also applies to FSX-related purchases. I'm on the mailing lists of
all the main aircraft and scenery developers, and there's a lot of stuff
on my hard drive now that I never would have bought if an e-mail hadn't
arrived up offering a special price for a limited period. That's not to
say that all such reductions result in a sale - they mostly don't. But
they're responsible for a fair amount of money travelling from me to
them that otherwise wouldn't have.

"Carenado Cessna 208? I don't know if I'd ever fly it that much? Oh...
$15? That's about $11.00 or the cost of less than 3 hours parking in
dublin city centre. Hmmmm, oh well why not.."

On the other hand, there have been many times when I've visited the
Matrix site, curious about a game only to think: "They want *how* much
for it? Hmmm...nope...I'm not *that* interested..."

Holdit


--
"In economy no frills; in business class it'll all be free - including the blowjobs."
- Michael O'Leary

[Climate Change]

On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 16:23:10 +0100, Holdit wrote:
>> http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/04/19/the-flare-path-indecent
>> -proposal/#more-150192
>>
>> Can't say I disagree with him - almost never do actually
>>
>>
> Me neither.
>
> "We don?t engage in periodic Steam-style price-slashing"
>
> Quite, and that's why you don't get as much of my money as Steam does.
> which, given your niche and my interest, means that someone's doing it
> right, and someone's doing it wrong.

Add me to the list of people agreeing with the article. I had a read of
the message thread on the Matrix forums.. unbelievable! So basically
Matrix/Slitherine are right and Paradox, Steam, and everyone else is wrong.

And he seems to want to position Matrix as some sort of exclusive "niche"
club that only a small number of people use (and pay a large price to
use). Someone needs to shows him that the world has changed in the last
20 years. I have never owned and played as many games as I do now with
all the Steam sales and releases. But apparently I don't "value" any of
those cheap games. Wrong, I value games like "FTL" a lot. Also, I don't
value "Unity of Command" any less because I obtained it on a sale.. why
should I?

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 20 apr, 02:43, Climate Change <climate.cha...@itsafact.com> wrote:
>
> And he seems to want to position Matrix as some sort of exclusive "niche"
> club that only a small number of people use (and pay a large price to
> use).

Well, that's almost a given.

Either you believe pc wargames are just another entertainment product,
in which case the economic law of price elasticity holds true or - and
this is the only other alternative - you believe your product is
somehow exclusive and your customers don't care about the price they
have to pay in order to belong to "the Club"

10 years ago, when there was not much price difference with
alternative entertainment options, you could get away with this, but
today with ultra-cheap Steam games and a $50 filling up your iPad with
every game you ever wanted this is no longer true.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Frank E]

He'd be preaching to the choir here but I've given up bitching about
Matrix's pricing policies and shitty online store. With very few
exceptions, I just assume that they don't want my money so I spend it
elsewhere.

Rgds, Frank

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 22 apr, 14:34, Frank E <fakeaddr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> He'd be preaching to the choir here but I've given up bitching about
> Matrix's pricing policies and shitty online store. With very few
> exceptions, I just assume that they don't want my money so I spend it
> elsewhere.

Remember when I posted about changing buying patterns ? That pc
wargames today are either a hit or a bust with nothing in between ?

I wonder how much of that is related to what we're seeing here and in
the thread over at the Matrix forum : people saying they only buy a
limited amount of games anymore - the hits - and spend the rest of
their gaming money elsewhere because of a lack of serious discounts
for older games.

Steam simply changed the rules of the game.

Looking into my crystal ball I perceive a change in their pricing
policy in the near future. Why ? Because I know these guys are not
idiots who'll run a business into the ground just to prove a point.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Frank E]

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 05:43:15 -0700 (PDT), "eddys...@hotmail.com"
<eddys...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On 22 apr, 14:34, Frank E <fakeaddr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> He'd be preaching to the choir here but I've given up bitching about
>> Matrix's pricing policies and shitty online store. With very few
>> exceptions, I just assume that they don't want my money so I spend it
>> elsewhere.
>
>Remember when I posted about changing buying patterns ? That pc
>wargames today are either a hit or a bust with nothing in between ?
>
>I wonder how much of that is related to what we're seeing here and in
>the thread over at the Matrix forum : people saying they only buy a
>limited amount of games anymore - the hits - and spend the rest of
>their gaming money elsewhere because of a lack of serious discounts
>for older games.

I'd say that most of it is related to that point. When you have games
that are too niche to get reviewed (in most cases), don't have demos
and cost more than many AAA titles. How many people are going to take
a chance on some game that they've never heard of before.

>
>Steam simply changed the rules of the game.
>
>Looking into my crystal ball I perceive a change in their pricing
>policy in the near future. Why ? Because I know these guys are not
>idiots who'll run a business into the ground just to prove a point.
>

Reading that thread and the replies posted by that McNeil guy, I'd
have to argue that point. :p For example:

"Is anyone seriously suggesting that this enormous game is not worth
$24.99? It clearly is and just because someone had the crazy idea of
selling it for $5 on Steam doesn't change that fact."

Anyone stating that he knows how much a given game is worth to me is
an idiot.

Rgds, Frank

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 22 apr, 16:31, Frank E <fakeaddr...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> >Looking into my crystal ball I perceive a change in their pricing
> >policy in the near future. Why ? Because I know these guys are not
> >idiots who'll run a business into the ground just to prove a point.
>
> Reading that thread and the replies posted by that McNeil guy, I'd
> have to argue that point. :p For example:
>
> "Is anyone seriously suggesting that this enormous game is not worth
> $24.99? It clearly is and just because someone had the crazy idea of
> selling it for $5 on Steam doesn't change that fact."
>
> Anyone stating that he knows how much a given game is worth to me is
> an idiot.

He's not the one calling the (money) shots over at Slitherine :)

Iain is the product development guy, the one who takes a look at the
rough alpha of a game and gives his input on what it'll take to make a
good game out of it. That's his strength. He lives and breaths
wargames, they're his babies, that's why you get emotional responses
from him instead of logical ones.

JD is the money guy, sharp as a razor - as most self-made millionaires
are - hardly plays (digital) wargames, but has a keen eye for people
and numbers and how to create win/win situations. I cannot for a
minute imagine that he won't change course when the situation demands
it.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Andy]

Although I wonder if there isn't some truth in what Iain claims is shown by
their 13 years of hard sales data (which they can't share with us, of course).

Iain claims that high discount sales of a particular product are usually
followed by very few sales of that product once the discount ends, whereas
their current policy produces a steady (I guess if unremarkable) stream of
full-price income.

To me, this sounds about right. A punter who has been debating whether or
not to pay full-price for a game will snap it up if it's suddenly discounted 50%
so he certainly won't be buying it later.

I guess the qustion is whether it's better to sell, say, 200 units at half price now
or 100 units at full price during the next 12 months? If the 50% discounted sale
of the "niche product" only generates 190 sales now, the developer loses.

If, because the product is "niche", you're only going to sell so many of them
anyway, price-per-unit could be more important than large-discount events
that, for non-niche products, would be aimed at increasing market share. If
this is the case, I can see why Matrix/Slitherine are sticking to their guns.

Although my personal price-points mean I'm unlikely to be buying any Matrix
games anytime soon, I can see that the same, heavily discounted sale that
does get SOME money out of me might also deny them greater revenue from
some other guy who would have eventually paid full-price for the same product.

It remains to be seen how this continues to balance out into the future.

Andy Brown

[Giftzwerg]

In article <cad0fbf2-10a8-4833...@googlegroups.com>,
brit_...@hotmail.com says...

>
> Although I wonder if there isn't some truth in what Iain claims is shown by
> their 13 years of hard sales data (which they can't share with us, of course).

"It's the law. The law of England. Nothing to do with me."
- Basil Fawlty

> Iain claims that high discount sales of a particular product are usually
> followed by very few sales of that product once the discount ends, whereas
> their current policy produces a steady (I guess if unremarkable) stream of
> full-price income.

The counter-argument, of course, is that Matrix has a shitpile of games
for sale that I'm *never* going to buy at $30 or $40. If they ended up
in the bargain bin for $4.99, I would almost certainly buy them. Maybe
a dozen of them.

> To me, this sounds about right. A punter who has been debating whether or
> not to pay full-price for a game will snap it up if it's suddenly discounted 50%
> so he certainly won't be buying it later.

Exactly. But I'm not "debating" whether to pay full-price for these
games - I've decided against them at this price. The seller gets $0.00
instead of $X.XX.

So ... yes ... in all likelihood he won't be buying it later *at all*.
Your only chance of selling to him is at a discount.

> I guess the qustion is whether it's better to sell, say, 200 units at half price now
> or 100 units at full price during the next 12 months? If the 50% discounted sale
> of the "niche product" only generates 190 sales now, the developer loses.

Sure would be nice to see some of those Magic Invisible Numbers,
wouldn't it?

> Although my personal price-points mean I'm unlikely to be buying any Matrix
> games anytime soon, I can see that the same, heavily discounted sale that
> does get SOME money out of me might also deny them greater revenue from
> some other guy who would have eventually paid full-price for the same product.

Sure would be nice to see some of those Magic Invisible Numbers,
wouldn't it?

--
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

[Andy]

> Exactly. But I'm not "debating" whether to pay full-price for these
> games - I've decided against them at this price. The seller gets $0.00
> instead of $X.XX.

But I guess that's my point. While, say, a 50% sale might get $20
instead of $zero out of you, from how many other people is it getting
$20 instead of $40?

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 23 apr, 03:27, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Sure would be nice to see some of those Magic Invisible Numbers,
> wouldn't it?

Past numbers would be irrelevant anyway because Steam changed the
rules of the game.

It's now a world where deep discounts of software are the norm, not
the exception, a world where tablet games go for $1.99 full price

They're acting now as if they're somehow removed from this world, that
they and all their customers are living in a complete seperate niche
and are not affected by all this. Well, maybe they are, but their
customers aren't

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Frank E]

Matrix will never have a meaningful answer to that question. I have
bought games from there but I've never gotten any kind of email
advertising a sale or special offer. If they're 'regular' customers
don't even hear about a sale how could they possibly expect to draw in
new buyers.

And lets say you have the choice between selling 1000 games at $50 or
2000 games at $20. Matrix will pick the first, if I'm a publisher I'll
pick the 2nd because guess what, I just doubled the potential audience
for that $20 expansion pack I also want to sell in a few months.

Here's an interesting link that I ran across on PA with some hard
numbers:

http://hitboxteam.com/dustforce-sales-figures

Rgds, Frank

[smr]

In article <YXN2UTqvktltZo...@4ax.com>, fakea...@hotmail.com
says...

I don't understand why this debate comes up constantly. Matrix is acting
in a purely free market manner which, given the general political leanings
of most around here, should be hailed. They're obviously making enough
money to be comfortable doing what they're doing with their current model.
And as much as it's fun to listen to a bunch of armchair non-business-
owners (with very few exceptions) bray on about how they could do it
better, there's no doubting that Matrix has been by far the most
successful wargames publisher for the computing world since
SSI/Talonsoft's heyday.

--
smr

[Holdit]

In article <MPG.2be043ff...@news.ftupet.com>,
m...@shawnritchie.com says...

> In article <YXN2UTqvktltZo...@4ax.com>, fakea...@hotmail.com
> says...

>

> I don't understand why this debate comes up constantly. Matrix is acting
> in a purely free market manner which, given the general political leanings
> of most around here, should be hailed. They're obviously making enough
> money to be comfortable doing what they're doing with their current model.
> And as much as it's fun to listen to a bunch of armchair non-business-
> owners (with very few exceptions) bray on about how they could do it
> better, there's no doubting that Matrix has been by far the most
> successful wargames publisher for the computing world since
> SSI/Talonsoft's heyday.
>

I certainly wouldn't suggest that their business model is necesarily
wrong. It's just wrong if they want to get my money, because their
business model is mostly incompatible with my purchasing model. I don't
pretend to know business, but I do know what I look for as a consumer,
and I bet I'm not alone.

Holdit


--
"Can I touch it if I wash my hands first? Especially this one?"
- Loud Howard

[Giftzwerg]

In article <d4eb2779-9bc3-49c3...@googlegroups.com>,
brit_...@hotmail.com says...

Ah. We don't know that. Because the people who do know that won't tell
us. Odd, ain't it?

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 23 apr, 15:09, smr <m...@shawnritchie.com> wrote:
>
> They're obviously making enough
> money to be comfortable doing what they're doing with their current model.

Sure.

I'm the one saying they will change because their model got
invalidated by Steam and tablet software prices.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Frank E]

Ask Arjuna how well the current model is working for him.

>And as much as it's fun to listen to a bunch of armchair non-business-
>owners (with very few exceptions) bray on about how they could do it
>better, there's no doubting that Matrix has been by far the most
>successful wargames publisher for the computing world since
>SSI/Talonsoft's heyday.

Some of us would like to see them grow their market for purely selfish
reaons. If there's more money in making wargames, we'd get more and
(hopefully) higher quality wargames.

Rgds, Frank

[smr]

In article <9d1f27e4-58d2-44c4-992b-
56d31d...@s9g2000vba.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...

But those competitive issues have been around for a few years already, no?
When it comes to wargames, Steam is still a vast wasteland for the most
part. And I've bought the (very) few valid wargames out for the iPad
and... meh. Even price aside, I almost never choose to play a graphically,
tactically, content-crippled version of Combat Mission on my iPad when I
can play its fleshed-out big brother on my huge-assed monitor. And
CM:Touch is about as good as wargames get on the tablet front right now
(Battle Academy is... okay).

I guess I'll be curious to see how Panzer Corps does on iOS since it's
been a hit on the PC.

--
smr

[smr]

In article <MPG.2be09afe1...@news-europe.giganews.com>,
holdit...@indigoTHE.ieCAPS says...

There's not a business model on the planet that's predicated on getting
all ranges of the market, and everybody's money, at all times.

--
smr

[smr]

In article <Uo12UZrMkdg5F6ET7B8rUrF+25B=@4ax.com>, fakea...@hotmail.com
says...

Is Arjuna Matrix? Is there something holding Arjuna back from tossing his
wares onto Steam at $10 a shot or something? (I honestly don't know why
you asked this question or what the answers are).

> Some of us would like to see them grow their market for purely selfish
> reaons. If there's more money in making wargames, we'd get more and
> (hopefully) higher quality wargames.

The selfish reason is the only one I understand so far. And Matrix is
apparently acting in their own selfish manner, and it's working out for
them. I don't see why the consumer's selfish need outweighs theirs.

I mean, I'd _like_ to have a fleet of 5-Series BMWs and loaded Audi A7's
in the garage. Selfishly speaking. Somehow, I make do with a Ford Focus
and a VW Jetta.

--
smr

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 23 apr, 15:49, smr <m...@shawnritchie.com> wrote:
>
> But those competitive issues have been around for a few years already, no?

Yes and no - latency.

In early 2012 Slitherine/Matrix reported a 67% increase in gross
revenue over they year 2011. Note that this is the year Panzer Corps
and Battle Academy got released - both huge hits.

This year's press conference where they'd normally release the 2012
numbers is at GenCon in August - chances that they'll invite me there
this time are slim, especially since I'm already scheduled to meet
them in October anyway, so I'm hoping that someone else will be there
to ask the tough questions and report back to the general public.

> When it comes to wargames, Steam is still a vast wasteland for the most
> part.

Agreed - but you're working on the assumption that people who buy pc
wargames at Matrix are only in the market for pc wargames and not for
all sorts of different digital entertainment products *which got way
cheaper over the past couple of years*

That last point is crucial : they are not competing with digital
wargames on the iPad or on Steam, they're competing with digital
*games* on Steam and the iPad

> I guess I'll be curious to see how Panzer Corps does on iOS since it's
> been a hit on the PC.

Panzer General managed to cross the boundary into general gamer
country, I guess Panzer Corps has the best shot of them all of doing
the same - no guarantees though - everything will depend on the
initial price setting.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Holdit]

In article <MPG.2be04d937...@news.ftupet.com>,
m...@shawnritchie.com says...
> In article <MPG.2be09afe1...@news-europe.giganews.com>,
> holdit...@indigoTHE.ieCAPS says...

> >
> There's not a business model on the planet that's predicated on getting
> all ranges of the market, and everybody's money, at all times.
>
>

True enough, and that's their prerogative. Neverthless, I find it hard
to pass up an opportunity to let a vendor know why I don't buy from
them. I can't say that it will mean more money from them overall, but I
can say that it would mean more money from me.

Here's an example: Orbx creates excellent scenery add-ons for FSX. For a
long time I stayed away from it because of price. Then in the run-up to
Christmas a couple of years ago, they knocked almost all their offerings
down to 50% off the list price. As a result, I bought their PNW
offering, and a gaggle of local airports. Total spend about $150.00. If
I'd bought the PNW by itself off sale, I woult have spent about $50.00
and stopped there. Later on, I bought their Northern and Central Rockies
scenery when it was similarly reduced.

Then there was a big fuss when a lot of pre-orderers complained about
their special pre-order pricing having ben undercut in a subsequent
sale. Orbx's response was "OK, no more sales." I don't believe I've
bought anything from them since.

(I might weaken for the new Southern Alaska release, though.)

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 23 apr, 15:52, smr <m...@shawnritchie.com> wrote:
>
> Is Arjuna Matrix? Is there something holding Arjuna back from tossing his
> wares onto Steam at $10 a shot or something?

Visibility.

If you've got a niche product, your best bet is to get it published by
the largest publisher of such niche products because that's where a
large part of your natural audience will be.

Want to sell your game at Spiel, GenCon and Salute - to name just
these gamer gatherings - well, your games wil sell there if you
publish with Slitherine/Matrix, but not when you go it alone

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Holdit]

In article <ff2958f7-25c4-4b00-94ff-45e937cb76a0
@f18g2000vbs.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...

> Agreed - but you're working on the assumption that people who buy pc
> wargames at Matrix are only in the market for pc wargames and not for
> all sorts of different digital entertainment products *which got way
> cheaper over the past couple of years*
>

Nail: "Ouch, my head!"

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 23 apr, 16:16, Holdit <holditREM...@indigoTHE.ieCAPS> wrote:
> In article <MPG.2be04d9378ad6035989...@news.ftupet.com>,
> m...@shawnritchie.com says...> In article <MPG.2be09afe1e75ace5989...@news-europe.giganews.com>,
> > holditREM...@indigoTHE.ieCAPS says...

>
> > There's not a business model on the planet that's predicated on getting
> > all ranges of the market, and everybody's money, at all times.
>
> True enough, and that's their prerogative. Neverthless,  I find it hard
> to pass up  an opportunity to let a vendor know why I don't buy from
> them. I can't say that it will mean more money from them overall, but I
> can say that it would mean more money from me.

Multinationals *pay* agencies to find out why a particular product
isn't selling as expected or could sell more. Here they get this info
for free.

Same as with DRM : us tellng Norm Koger exactly why his new venture
wouldn't fly was golden information - he should have listened -
instead of walking away in a huff.

Norm who ?

Exactly.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 23 apr, 13:50, Frank E <fakeaddr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I have
> bought games from there but I've never gotten any kind of email
> advertising a sale or special offer. If they're 'regular' customers
> don't even hear about a sale how could they possibly expect to draw in
> new buyers.

I asked them once about this. The answer was they were afraid too many
customers would consider this spam and complain on the forums where
this would create negativity even if it was just a minority who
complained. Short : it's not worth their trouble.

People are weird - you'd think that all people who buy wargames would
be interested in getting news about new wargames and sales / special
offers, but you'd be wrong.

Over at BGG many people *pay* so as to not have to see the banner ads,
whereas guys like me *want* to see them. I've picked up more than one
game after noticing it on a banner ad and clicking on it.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Frank E]

>> >I don't understand why this debate comes up constantly. Matrix is acting
>> >in a purely free market manner which, given the general political leanings
>> >of most around here, should be hailed. They're obviously making enough
>> >money to be comfortable doing what they're doing with their current model.
>>
>> Ask Arjuna how well the current model is working for him.
>
>Is Arjuna Matrix? Is there something holding Arjuna back from tossing his
>wares onto Steam at $10 a shot or something? (I honestly don't know why
>you asked this question or what the answers are).
>

I'm pretty sure the answer is no, he couldn't sell on Steam for $10 a
copy. You'll have to trust me (or not <g>) on that one. I can't get
into the reasons for saying that.

The reason I asked that question is becaus while the current model
might work well enough for Matrix, I don't think it works nearly as
well for the developers using them to publish their games. The sales
number per game just aren't there which Arjuna has pointed out here
previously. That's why I brought his name into it.

>> Some of us would like to see them grow their market for purely selfish
>> reaons. If there's more money in making wargames, we'd get more and
>> (hopefully) higher quality wargames.
>
>The selfish reason is the only one I understand so far. And Matrix is
>apparently acting in their own selfish manner, and it's working out for
>them. I don't see why the consumer's selfish need outweighs theirs.
>

It doesn't, but you're also assuming that companies never make
mistakes or misread their customers. You don't need to look further
than 'new' coke or Windows 8 to see that even big companies can fuck
that up.

If I'm running a company, I'd be thrilled to have my customers tell
me what I need to do to get more of their money and that's basically
all that's going on here. Whether they use that info or not is none of
my business. I can spend my money elsewhere just as easily.

Rgds, Frank

[Frank E]

On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 07:32:10 -0700 (PDT), "eddys...@hotmail.com"
<eddys...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On 23 apr, 13:50, Frank E <fakeaddr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> I have
>> bought games from there but I've never gotten any kind of email
>> advertising a sale or special offer. If they're 'regular' customers
>> don't even hear about a sale how could they possibly expect to draw in
>> new buyers.
>
>I asked them once about this. The answer was they were afraid too many
>customers would consider this spam and complain on the forums where
>this would create negativity even if it was just a minority who
>complained. Short : it's not worth their trouble.

The obvious solution is that you have an 'opt-in' checkbox when you
buy a game. 'Click here if you'd like to receive information on future
sales or products'.

I'm on of those that doesn't mind the occasional email as long as
there's an obvious way to opt out but I'm sure that isn't true for
everyone.

Rgds, Frank

[Holdit]

In article <a33f15bd-4c61-46af-ade4-
2e2204...@z4g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com
says...

I doubt that people would object to a mailing list as long as its opt-
in, and unsubscribing is easy.

I may not be a businessman (yet), but I know that if you're selling
stuff on the web, then more traffic = good and less traffic = not so
good. Mailing lists give people a reason to visit the vendor's site
again with a means of quickly doing so, and not every sale made as a
result of such a visit is of the item that was on special offer.

Another example...I don't even know what new games Matrix has recently
released, because I have to visit the site to find out. Of course,
that's no great hardship, but you do have to remember to do it. Failing
that, I'll probably find out from your good self first here in the NG.
An e-mail provides a nice little memory-jogger. Click on link...have a
look around...delete mail. "Seemples" as the meerkat says in the ad.

Holdit

[smr]

In article <ff2958f7-25c4-4b00-94ff-45e937cb76a0
@f18g2000vbs.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...

> That last point is crucial : they are not competing with digital
> wargames on the iPad or on Steam, they're competing with digital
> *games* on Steam and the iPad

I disagree with this; when I'm looking to buy a wargame, I don't care if
all of the available options are $40 and north; I want a _wargame_. I
don't get an itch to fight out WWI and decide to get a $9.99 Steam console
platformer instead due to price pressure; I want to fight WWI and if
Commander: The Great War at $40 is the best option out there, that's what
I buy.

The argument many of you seem to be making is, but what if you could get
that game for $10? Maybe then FIVE people would buy it who wouldn't ever
buy it at $40, making them more money overall?

Possibly, but I can understand why they're leery to try:

1) They're making the money they want to make, I would guess, or they
wouldn't be healthily in business like they seem to be.
2) Once you sell something for $10, real fuckin' hard to sell it (or
anything similar to it) for $40 ever again.

To even test RPS' admittedly attractively laid-out challenge, they're
risking #2 and cutting out the market for their games at full-price ever
again. What if the bundles are released and tank? Now they're fucked.

I know Gifty is the same as myself in that neither of us care that the
biennial Bethesda Uber-RPG is usually $60 to start and $100 with all the
DLC by the time it's said and done; when that's what I want to play,
that's the only thing that will do, and I buy it. Ditto when Codemasters
releases their Euro-rally game every other year or so; that's precisely
what I want to play, so I pay full freight. I don't feel differently when
it comes time to wargame, I guess.

> Panzer General managed to cross the boundary into general gamer
> country, I guess Panzer Corps has the best shot of them all of doing
> the same - no guarantees though - everything will depend on the
> initial price setting.

I imagine it's going to be iPad-only where the prices seem to be accepted
as somewhat higher than the $1-3 that dominates for iPhone games. I know
I've happily spent $20-40 on some iPad apps in the past.

--
smr

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 23 apr, 16:48, Frank E <fakeaddr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 07:32:10 -0700 (PDT), "eddyster...@hotmail.com"

>
> <eddyster...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On 23 apr, 13:50, Frank E <fakeaddr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> I have
> >> bought games from there but I've never gotten any kind of email
> >> advertising a sale or special offer. If they're 'regular' customers
> >> don't even hear about a sale how could they possibly expect to draw in
> >> new buyers.
>
> >I asked them once about this. The answer was they were afraid too many
> >customers would consider this spam and complain on the forums where
> >this would create negativity even if it was just a minority who
> >complained. Short : it's not worth their trouble.
>
> The obvious solution is that you have an 'opt-in' checkbox when you
> buy a game. 'Click here if you'd like to receive information on future
> sales or products'.

What can I say ? PR isn't their strong suit - never was - I always got
the impression they had a "if we build it, they will come" attitude.
But things are changing, albeit slowly - they have had a presence at
Spiel for the past couple of years and this year they'll debute at
Salute and GenCon.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Holdit]

In article <MPG.2be05b848...@news.ftupet.com>,
m...@shawnritchie.com says...

> I know Gifty is the same as myself in that neither of us care that the
> biennial Bethesda Uber-RPG is usually $60 to start and $100 with all the
> DLC by the time it's said and done; when that's what I want to play,
> that's the only thing that will do, and I buy it. Ditto when Codemasters
> releases their Euro-rally game every other year or so; that's precisely
> what I want to play, so I pay full freight. I don't feel differently when
> it comes time to wargame, I guess.
>

You've highlights a fundamental difference in buying philosphy. I prefer
to be a late adopter myself, for the following reasons:

- I have more information about the game's issues
- The game is better patched
- There are more mods available, where applicable (e.g. Bethesda)
- I pay less for it.

I'm grateful for the early buyers, though, even if I don't want to be
one of them. Keep up the good work lads! :-)

[smr]

In article <b7d166be-4c15-4027-9423-e47fef619003
@b10g2000vbu.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...

I haven't read the reams posted here by or about Arjuna and this
relationship; is he locked into Matrix to get this visibility and they
also won't allow him to try the Steam route or something?

--
smr

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 23 apr, 16:48, Holdit <holditREM...@indigoTHE.ieCAPS> wrote:
>
> Another example...I don't even know what new games Matrix has recently
> released, because I have to visit the site to find out.

The funny thing is I got a mail from them just a minute ago announcing
the release of the Panzer Corps Mega Pack.

What I find most aggravating of all is that there's zero information
available on upcoming games. I didn't know squat about this Mega Pack
until it's release got announced into my mail box.

Compare this with Eclipse, a space 4X game, that got announced for the
iPad, gamers were given regular updates on the progress, screenshots,
the works. The news today is they've submitted the release code to
Apple. Like many gamers I'm waiting for it CC in hand. They've now
build-up customer expectation and buzz to the max, people are talking
about it on the forums etc. so when it hits the iTunes store in a week
or so *everybody* will be jumping on it.

From Matrix/Slitherine you get a mail "oh, we released <x>" whoop-de-
do - the game had no buzz, the forum is still empty, will you be the
first to jump in or wait and see ?

Right there and then they're losing sales. Lots of them. I'm buying
Eclipse, not this new Mega Pack for Panzer Corps.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Holdit]

In article <22f3f7f2-a34d-4fa7-b563-
218636...@a34g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com
says...

> On 23 apr, 16:48, Holdit <holditREM...@indigoTHE.ieCAPS> wrote:
> >
> > Another example...I don't even know what new games Matrix has recently
> > released, because I have to visit the site to find out.
>
> The funny thing is I got a mail from them just a minute ago announcing
> the release of the Panzer Corps Mega Pack.
>

So there is a mailing list after all?

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 23 apr, 16:49, smr <m...@shawnritchie.com> wrote:
> In article <ff2958f7-25c4-4b00-94ff-45e937cb76a0

> @f18g2000vbs.googlegroups.com>, eddyster...@hotmail.com says...

>
> > That last point is crucial : they are not competing with digital
> > wargames on the iPad or on Steam, they're competing with digital
> > *games* on Steam and the iPad
>
> I disagree with this; when I'm looking to buy a wargame, I don't care if
> all of the available options are $40 and north; I want a _wargame_.

Sure, and there will surely be gamers who are just in the market for
digital wargames and for many of them price will not be a
consideration.

The question is if enough of those guys remain to keep digital
wargaming afloat or does survival also depend on sales to more general
gamers who might pick up a wargame occasionally. This is important
because this latter category will have noticed a serious price rift
between wargames and other types of games and while price may not be a
prime consideration where it concerns your main hobby, it most
assuredly is one for "also-ran" hobbies

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 23 apr, 17:10, Holdit <holditREM...@indigoTHE.ieCAPS> wrote:
> In article <22f3f7f2-a34d-4fa7-b563-
> 2186365f6...@a34g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>, eddyster...@hotmail.com

> says...
>
> > On 23 apr, 16:48, Holdit <holditREM...@indigoTHE.ieCAPS> wrote:
>
> > > Another example...I don't even know what new games Matrix has recently
> > > released, because I have to visit the site to find out.
>
> > The funny thing is I got a mail from them just a minute ago announcing
> > the release of the Panzer Corps Mega Pack.
>
> So there is a mailing list after all?

Yes - but you have to go look for it and subscribe whereas the initial
suggestion was to mail news to everyone who bought a game from them
because they have your email address anyway.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[smr]

In article <+Zd2UUgGhsGLRO...@4ax.com>, fakea...@hotmail.com
says...

> I'm pretty sure the answer is no, he couldn't sell on Steam for $10 a
> copy. You'll have to trust me (or not <g>) on that one. I can't get
> into the reasons for saying that.
>
> The reason I asked that question is becaus while the current model
> might work well enough for Matrix, I don't think it works nearly as
> well for the developers using them to publish their games. The sales
> number per game just aren't there which Arjuna has pointed out here
> previously. That's why I brought his name into it.

Okay, I thought that's what the case might be and in which case I feel for
Arjuna. Hopefully his publishing agreement is up sometime soon where he
can renegotiate that if he so feels like.

> It doesn't, but you're also assuming that companies never make
> mistakes or misread their customers. You don't need to look further
> than 'new' coke or Windows 8 to see that even big companies can fuck
> that up.

Windows 8, for all of the complaints, is selling in the millions upon
millions. I'm not sure there's a mistake there MS needs to worry about;
they took the longview and decided to drag their customers kicking and
screaming into the touchscreen era. We're a loooooooooooooong way off from
being to write the coda on the Win8 experiment. It's a major OS release
that will have a decade-long lifecycle, not a wargame that can be expected
to have the limelight for a few months.

> If I'm running a company, I'd be thrilled to have my customers tell
> me what I need to do to get more of their money and that's basically
> all that's going on here. Whether they use that info or not is none of
> my business. I can spend my money elsewhere just as easily.

You're assuming they don't already have info in this regard that has told
them it's not in their interests to Steamify things.

Again, I'm just saying that there's nothing about what Matrix and
Slitherine have accomplished to date that screams "Shitty Businessmen!" to
me, even if a lot of their decisions irk specific members of this group
for specific, and selfish (and that's ok) reasons.

--
smr

[smr]

In article <4958a596-7f4b-4532-b22b-7df127154714
@a6g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...

Yeah, that's the crux of things. I'm not sure that there's enough folks
out there that will jump on, say, a Tiller game at $10 that won't at $40
to make dropping the price to the former viable. I mean, at some point, I
realize that my favorite gaming niche is never, ever going to sell in
Minecraft numbers no matter what the price is.

--
smr

[smr]

In article <MPG.2be0b2242...@news-europe.giganews.com>,
holdit...@indigoTHE.ieCAPS says...

Heh. I would _suspect_ (but obviously can't prove) that the occasional
sale for your type of buyer would be a better strategy long-term than a
permanent reduction of the regular price of full-on wargames to Steam's
throwaway levels. I don't really buy the argument that, say, War In
Russia, if it cost $10, would entice Johnny "Buys Every Call of Duty for
$60" Fratboy to buy it. Much like I don't think that a new Norm Kroger
game, if he left the dark side and produced some awesome groggy Matrix-
style update to Age of Rifles or something, would get a bunch of buyers at
$10 that he wouldn't at $40. I think that he could reasonably and
comfortably assume that 90%+ of all possible buyers of AoRII would be in
from the get-go.

--
smr

[Giftzwerg]

In article <MPG.2be05b848...@news.ftupet.com>,
m...@shawnritchie.com says...

> I know Gifty is the same as myself in that neither of us care that the
> biennial Bethesda Uber-RPG is usually $60 to start and $100 with all the
> DLC by the time it's said and done; when that's what I want to play,
> that's the only thing that will do, and I buy it. Ditto when Codemasters
> releases their Euro-rally game every other year or so; that's precisely
> what I want to play, so I pay full freight. I don't feel differently when
> it comes time to wargame, I guess.

I mostly agree, but I still focus on the fact that, *I almost didn't buy
HIGHWAY TO THE REICH*. I gave it a pass at $49.95 because a) it
promised some radical new system, and I'd had quite enough of that in
PATRIOT, thank you very much, and b) it was Yet Another Market-Garden
Game, and I was all bulged and gardened out, and c) it cost the
aforementioned $50.

I finally bought it for $4.99 or $9.99 at Electronics Boutique a year
later, on the "what the hell, it's only ten bucks" theory. Now I think
it's the greatest thing since sliced bread.

But what if it wasn't ever in the bargain bin at EB? As it stands now,
Matrix / Panther has made the following ~money on me:

$4.99 for the original HTTR.
$59.99 for COTA
$79.99 for BFTB
$39.99 for HTTR "2"
-------
$184.96

$184.96 instead of *zero* - all because EB discounted a game I didn't
buy for $49.99.

And I'm a Panther customer for life; the chances of me seeing a new game
of theirs come out and *not* instantly ponying up whatever they want is
nil. That simple discount turned me into a Panther-buying *machine*,
and the amount of money they get from me is only limited by how many
offerings they put on the market.



--
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 <ap52UVffG3wvNX...@4ax.com>,
fakea...@hotmail.com says...

> >I asked them once about this. The answer was they were afraid too many
> >customers would consider this spam and complain on the forums where
> >this would create negativity even if it was just a minority who
> >complained. Short : it's not worth their trouble.
>
> The obvious solution is that you have an 'opt-in' checkbox when you
> buy a game. 'Click here if you'd like to receive information on future
> sales or products'.
>
> I'm on of those that doesn't mind the occasional email as long as
> there's an obvious way to opt out but I'm sure that isn't true for
> everyone.

Also, the company has to be *smart*. Smart as Amazon.com.

Amazon, for example, "knows" that, among other things, I like to write
with fountain pens. Often, deals on nifty pens show up in my inbox, and
if the deal is sweet enough, I'll probably bite. Similarly, they know
I'm a Canon camera enthusiast, fly RC helicopters, and read a lot of
books on the Kindle by certain authors.

So I get all sorts of nifty offers - all targeted specifically on
exactly the things I'm likely to appreciate a good deal on. Amazon
sells me a *ton* of stuff exactly this way.

[smr]

In article <MPG.2be093d...@news-east.giganews.com>, giftzwerg999
@hotmail.com says...

The one thing I think Matrix would be fools not to do is just start
slashing the shit out of prices on the earliest variants of their multi-
game/one engine family games. Like, the oldest AEGOD game, HTTR... or
creating Tiller-like bundles. They effectively HAVE slashed prices on
those, if you think about it; I bought Tiller's Campaign Series for $35
even though I had the bulk of it scattered about just to have it all in
one place and I know that fucking thing was penny-packeted to us for well
over $150 all told originally. Ditto TOAWIII with everything from 1-II and
the expansions and then some all bundled in for less than what any one
version cost originally.

They need to be doing more of that kind of stuff, I reckon.

--
smr

[Holdit]

In article <MPG.2be084868...@news.ftupet.com>,
m...@shawnritchie.com says...

> Heh. I would _suspect_ (but obviously can't prove) that the occasional
> sale for your type of buyer would be a better strategy long-term than a
> permanent reduction of the regular price of full-on wargames to Steam's
> throwaway levels.
>

Oh I agree. Regular but not permanent reductions work better, I think
because it creates at least a slight sense of urgency about the
decision. In fact, I think all of the examples I quoted so far were done
like that. But that's how Steam does it too. They currently have a few
games at what they call "Midweek Madness" pricing, but only until
Friday.

Mind you, this can be overdone. One FSX add-on provider e-mails me
almost every second weekend with a this weekend only special offer.
Apart from the fact that I know that if I don't take up the offer, it'll
be around again in two or three weeks. Their approach is also not
working because I've bought everything from them that I'm going to buy
at any price. So for me to buy, they need increase the range of
offerings. I'm not interested in the Piaggio Avanti or Cirrus Vision,
even for just a fiver.

Holdit



--
"The other night I dreamt I was shagging the blonde one out of ABBA.
It was the worst experience I've ever had to endure. Why the fuck
I couldn't have dreamt that I was shagging his gorgeous wife Agnetha
instead, I'll never know."

Angry Bob, Blackpool

[Steve Bartman]

On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 10:39:03 -0400, Frank E <fakea...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>I'm pretty sure the answer is no, he couldn't sell on Steam for $10 a
>copy. You'll have to trust me (or not <g>) on that one. I can't get
>into the reasons for saying that.

I've been reading this with interest. I have pointed this thread out
to some folks I know on the Matrix forums, where there is now, and
usually is, a big pricing thread re Steam in at least two forums
(Pride of Nations and the General.)

I come by here now and then. I don't wargame; I WITP:AE. I have
purchased three titles form Matrix: WITP, WITP:AE, and WitE. All three
were despite the price. In two cases I am still happy. I did not care
for WitE and regret the buy. The most expensive mistake I've made in
over 30 years of PC gaming.

I only wanted to add that, beyond the ever present issue of price,
there's another way Matrix/Slith is hurting themselves IMO. Their
on-line store is a horror show. The previous fulfiller, Digital River,
was barely acceptable in terms of reliability and customer service.
Their current one (Primus or something similar) draws lots of
complaints in their forums on multiple grounds--fulfillment,
re-download difficulty, corrupted copies, serial numbers, currency
conversions, etc.

I use Steam. I love Steam. It just works. It's often upgraded. It has
many layers of very friendly customer service reps. It has never
failed to give me my game on time, perfectly, and the payments have
also been on rails. It has a chance of orphaning my games, but I
assess the risk of this as the lowest of any of the digital retailers
in the PC space. Price is still paramount with me vis a vis
Matrix--their prices are too high versus my gaming alternatives on
Steam--but the store is a close second. I don't trust it. I trust it a
lot less with $80 of my money than I would $14.99.

Steve

[Frank E]

On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 14:08:08 -0500, Steve Bartman <sbar...@visi.com>
wrote:

>On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 10:39:03 -0400, Frank E <fakea...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>>I'm pretty sure the answer is no, he couldn't sell on Steam for $10 a
>>copy. You'll have to trust me (or not <g>) on that one. I can't get
>>into the reasons for saying that.
>
>I've been reading this with interest. I have pointed this thread out
>to some folks I know on the Matrix forums, where there is now, and
>usually is, a big pricing thread re Steam in at least two forums
>(Pride of Nations and the General.)
>
>I come by here now and then. I don't wargame; I WITP:AE. I have
>purchased three titles form Matrix: WITP, WITP:AE, and WitE. All three
>were despite the price. In two cases I am still happy. I did not care
>for WitE and regret the buy. The most expensive mistake I've made in
>over 30 years of PC gaming.

Same here, I never could get into WitE so it was an expensive bust.
Come to think of it, that's when I started to be very hesitant about
buying stuff from Matrix.

>I only wanted to add that, beyond the ever present issue of price,
>there's another way Matrix/Slith is hurting themselves IMO. Their
>on-line store is a horror show. The previous fulfiller, Digital River,
>was barely acceptable in terms of reliability and customer service.
>Their current one (Primus or something similar) draws lots of
>complaints in their forums on multiple grounds--fulfillment,
>re-download difficulty, corrupted copies, serial numbers, currency
>conversions, etc.
>
>I use Steam. I love Steam. It just works. It's often upgraded. It has
>many layers of very friendly customer service reps. It has never
>failed to give me my game on time, perfectly, and the payments have
>also been on rails. It has a chance of orphaning my games, but I
>assess the risk of this as the lowest of any of the digital retailers
>in the PC space. Price is still paramount with me vis a vis
>Matrix--their prices are too high versus my gaming alternatives on
>Steam--but the store is a close second. I don't trust it. I trust it a
>lot less with $80 of my money than I would $14.99.

Hell, it's not just that the Matrix download service is worse than
Steam, it's worse than every other download service I've ever used.
Everyone else will give me a link so that I can download an item
multiple times without having to worry about manual backups.

Rgds, Frank

[smr]

In article <Cex2UUGdnXFsVBueU1i7=8se...@4ax.com>, fakea...@hotmail.com
says...

> Hell, it's not just that the Matrix download service is worse than
> Steam, it's worse than every other download service I've ever used.
> Everyone else will give me a link so that I can download an item
> multiple times without having to worry about manual backups.
>
> Rgds, Frank

Oooh yeah, agreed. Their download service sucks rocks (though I've never
had a problem asking for a fresh link via email if needed). In the Digital
River days I learned early on to chuck copies of my installers all over
the place just in case. Recently, I realized I didn't do that with Panzer
Corps: Afrika and wanted to install it on the travel laptop. I emailed
Plimus and had a link within a few hours, at least.

But still, Steam no-brainers this shit, so anything less is aggravating.

--
smr

[Steve Bartman]

Plimus. Thanks. I knew I was only close.

As G. said a while ago when he tried to d/l a Matrix game on the road,
it's difficult at best. With Steam I don't have to ask, I don't need
an email, I don't need permission, I don't need to go to a special
Members Section ("Register first!" "Why? You guys should know you sold
it to this password already.") With Steam I just have my stuff Right
There and I can start playing without rummaging around in drawers for
passwords, data discs, installers, serial numbers on Post-Its. I did
that for decades with discs and jewel boxes.

I just wanted to say that it's about price, but not only. If Matrix
put their catalog on Steam I still wouldn't buy them. But if they cut
prices and I had to give Plimus my dough I wouldn't either.

That said, I won't do business with Origin/EA either. A dozen tries to
free up my account from a lost password, set up years and years ago
for "Spore" or something, and I can't get their auto-responder to give
me a link that works. I played "Mass Effect" 1 and 2 off Steam and
they were great. I want to play 3. I'll pay full price for 3. But not
if I have to do business with Origin and their crapware front end. If
they relent someday and put it through Steam like 1 and 2 I'm there
Day 1. If not, no sale. The store matters, and everything related to
the store.

Steve

[Dimensional Traveler]

On 4/22/2013 5:03 PM, Andy wrote:
> Although I wonder if there isn't some truth in what Iain claims is shown by
> their 13 years of hard sales data (which they can't share with us, of course).
>
> Iain claims that high discount sales of a particular product are usually
> followed by very few sales of that product once the discount ends, whereas
> their current policy produces a steady (I guess if unremarkable) stream of
> full-price income.
>
> To me, this sounds about right. A punter who has been debating whether or
> not to pay full-price for a game will snap it up if it's suddenly discounted 50%
> so he certainly won't be buying it later.
>
> I guess the qustion is whether it's better to sell, say, 200 units at half price now
> or 100 units at full price during the next 12 months? If the 50% discounted sale
> of the "niche product" only generates 190 sales now, the developer loses.
>
Not necessarily, because of something called "The Time Value of Money".
Basically 100 dollars now might be worth more than 200 dollars a year
from now.


--
The 'Enterprise' crew in the 2009 Star Trek are adrenaline addicted,
hyper-active teenagers with ADD whose Ritalin got replaced with
methamphetamine, displaying a level of discipline that a Somali pirate
wouldn't tolerate.

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 24 apr, 05:00, <adel...@inbox.com> wrote:
>
> Is Norm who? still relevant? He has not released anything on mobile or
> tablet...

Seems all he's doing is updating that Steam clone nobody is interested
in. Such a waste.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 24 apr, 10:04, <adel...@inbox.com> wrote:

> Maybe he feels stressed from his past successes, so the only way to avoid
> disappointment is to spend his days doing other stuff, like making a Steam
> clone...

A steady income and no commerical pressure ? I'd sign up for such a
job :)

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Climate Change]

On 23/04/2013 11:49 PM, smr wrote:
> I guess I'll be curious to see how Panzer Corps does on iOS since it's
> been a hit on the PC.
>

Even more interesting will be to see how Panzer Corps does on Steam if
it gets accepted via Greenlight. (especially if it ends up on a Steam
sale at 75% off..)

[Climate Change]

On 24/04/2013 12:49 AM, smr wrote:
> The argument many of you seem to be making is, but what if you could get
> that game for $10? Maybe then FIVE people would buy it who wouldn't ever
> buy it at $40, making them more money overall?

But it's more than that.. quite often it has been stated that Steam
sales will increase volume by 20-30 times normal.

Instead of 10 x $40, you have 200 x $10 - big difference

> 1) They're making the money they want to make, I would guess, or they
> wouldn't be healthily in business like they seem to be.

How do we know they have a healthy business? Just because a business
survives for a number of years, it doesn't mean it is doing well.

> 2) Once you sell something for $10, real fuckin' hard to sell it (or
> anything similar to it) for $40 ever again.

Nope, not true at all - that's the whole point of a sale, a short time
reduction in the price. In fact sometimes it raises the profile of the
game and makes it more visible.. and often a game has already stopped
selling by the time it hits a $10 sale. Better to sell some at a lower
price than none at a higher price.

> To even test RPS' admittedly attractively laid-out challenge, they're
> risking #2 and cutting out the market for their games at full-price ever
> again. What if the bundles are released and tank? Now they're fucked.

How is selling a 5 year old game at a reduced price cutting out the
market for a full-price current release? Games companies do it all the
time! They will release a sequel to a game at e.g. $50 and at the same
time will reduce the original game down to a ridiculously low price e.g.
$10 or $5. Not only do they get extra sales of the original game, but
it increases their market for the new game.

> I know Gifty is the same as myself in that neither of us care that the
> biennial Bethesda Uber-RPG is usually $60 to start and $100 with all the
> DLC by the time it's said and done; when that's what I want to play,
> that's the only thing that will do, and I buy it. Ditto when Codemasters
> releases their Euro-rally game every other year or so; that's precisely
> what I want to play, so I pay full freight. I don't feel differently when
> it comes time to wargame, I guess.

But there are people out there e.g. me, that have more than 1 interest
in games. I enjoy wargames, but I also enjoy a good strategy game or
rpg. Also, when you see games on sale for $5 you sometimes just buy it
as an impulse buy out of curiosity. That's sales the company gets that
they would never get even when the game is new.

So many times on Steam I have seen comments in forums "didn't know what
the game would be like but I thought I would give it a try at $5". Had
a few of those style comments for Unity of Command (it only reduced down
to $10, which was still enough for impulse buyers).

Wargame sites aren't just competing with other wargame sites any more..

[Giftzwerg]

In article <962175030388465611.15...@news.aioe.org>,
ade...@inbox.com says...

> > And I'm a Panther customer for life; the chances of me seeing a new game
> > of theirs come out and *not* instantly ponying up whatever they want is
> > nil. That simple discount turned me into a Panther-buying *machine*,
> > and the amount of money they get from me is only limited by how many
> > offerings they put on the market.
>

> That happened to me too, with a different publisher. One of their apps went
> free and I downloaded it. It was so polished that I bought all the
> expansions and their other games too.
>
> Caveat being you must have a quality game to begin with, and a catalogue of
> other quality games as well as expansions to sell the John once he is
> Jonesing for more...

Oh, certainly. Had HTTR been forgettable, then all they'd have gotten
was the $4.99.

But that brings up another issue with discounting; if I'd paid the $4.99
for HTTR and it had turned out to be "bleagh," I wouldn't be down on
Panther they way I would be if I'd paid $50 for it. When I pay $50 for
something and it's lousy, I tend to fall into, "won't make that mistake
again" mode.

For $5, I might not even remember who made the game - and wouldn't be
all that grumpy about it. I'd just dispatch it onto Giftzwerg's "shelf
of shame." Heck, I might be well-disposed to pick up another of their
games at some future time.

But I'm *really* pissed when a $50 game turns out to be absolute shit.

[Giftzwerg]

In article <35151eac-08a9-47cb-b7ae-
b450b8...@m2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com
says...

> > Is Norm who? still relevant? He has not released anything on mobile or
> > tablet...
>
> Seems all he's doing is updating that Steam clone nobody is interested
> in. Such a waste.

Hey, maybe they're beavering away on an appstore - take on *Apple* and
*Google* based on their unconditional triumphs as Steamkillers!

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 24 apr, 12:48, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <35151eac-08a9-47cb-b7ae-
> b450b8ac5...@m2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, eddyster...@hotmail.com

> says...
>
> > > Is Norm who? still relevant? He has not released anything on mobile or
> > > tablet...
>
> > Seems all he's doing is updating that Steam clone nobody is interested
> > in. Such a waste.
>
> Hey, maybe they're beavering away on an appstore - take on *Apple* and
> *Google* based on their unconditional triumphs as Steamkillers!

Why stop there ? I heard they were working on a console with dedicated
firmware to combat them darn' pirates. You'll have to provide a DNA
sample every 5 minutes or the game stops working. But they might relax
it to 10 minutes to show they care about their subjec^H^H^Hcustomers

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 19 apr, 16:44, "eddyster...@hotmail.com" <eddyster...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/04/19/the-flare-path-indecent-pr...

Iain McNeil has responded here :

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3312181

The bottom line (money) quotes :

"Volume sales for digital downloads increased 44% last year and we are
still trying to take on board our astonishing success on the tablets.
Every indication is showing that these numbers will be exceeded in the
current year. "

"company continues to grow exponentially, with growth approaching 70%
last year and on track for a similar pattern this year."

Seems their current way generates them ever increasing amounts of
money, so they must be doing something right.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 24 apr, 13:31, "eddyster...@hotmail.com" <eddyster...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>
> Seems their current way generates them ever increasing amounts of
> money, so they must be doing something right.

A bit further down in the thread :

"These stats are related to iOS

* Volume sales of our strategy/wargames on iOS increased 502% in 2012
compared to 2011.
* The growth in volume sales in the first quarter of 2013 compared to
1st quarter of 2012 is 352%. This growth is continuing and we expect
it to be higher when major releases like Panzer Corp and Space Program
Manager hit the app store.
* In value terms the increase is higher. In 2012 the value of all
sales increased 3033% compared 2011. Yes I did say 3033%, or an
increase of 30 times.

An increase of 44% on PC/Mac is very healthy but these growth figures
are amazing to us. So while we do have some new blood on PC and Mac
the main source of newcomers to the hobby looks very much like it will
be on tablets."

-

I detect a (predicted) change of focus

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Climate Change]

On 24/04/2013 9:36 PM, eddys...@hotmail.com wrote:
> "These stats are related to iOS
>
> * Volume sales of our strategy/wargames on iOS increased 502% in 2012
> compared to 2011.
> * The growth in volume sales in the first quarter of 2013 compared to
> 1st quarter of 2012 is 352%. This growth is continuing and we expect
> it to be higher when major releases like Panzer Corp and Space Program
> Manager hit the app store.
> * In value terms the increase is higher. In 2012 the value of all
> sales increased 3033% compared 2011. Yes I did say 3033%, or an
> increase of 30 times.

While it does sound impressive, it's very difficult to know how to treat
these sort of results when you don't know what the baseline is.

a quantity of 6 is a 500% increase on a quantity of 1 - but neither is
impressive.

(ok, maybe I'm being a bit cynical..)

[Steve Bartman]

You aren't. Massaging versus-year-ago numbers is PR 101.

He also doesn't mention how cutting the secondary retailers loose
(NWS?) is considered in the stats.

Steve

[smr]

On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 20:25:38 +1000, Climate Change wrote:

> On 24/04/2013 12:49 AM, smr wrote:
>> The argument many of you seem to be making is, but what if you could get
>> that game for $10? Maybe then FIVE people would buy it who wouldn't ever
>> buy it at $40, making them more money overall?
>
> But it's more than that.. quite often it has been stated that Steam
> sales will increase volume by 20-30 times normal.
>
> Instead of 10 x $40, you have 200 x $10 - big difference

I'd need a cite on this. And I'd need it to not be from hip, indie hit of
the day, but a regular, ugly-assed old wargame. I do not think the market
for ANY wargame is this big, period.

>> 1) They're making the money they want to make, I would guess, or they
>> wouldn't be healthily in business like they seem to be.
>
> How do we know they have a healthy business? Just because a business
> survives for a number of years, it doesn't mean it is doing well.

Well, I imagine if they were flailing for cash, they'd consider any model
that would save them, such as the pricing changes people keep demanding of
them. And they've bought some other publishers in the last year or so,
which speaks to having cash on hand or access to credit, neither of which
is a hallmark of a failing business.

Do you have any evidence that they ARE in trouble?

> Nope, not true at all - that's the whole point of a sale, a short time
> reduction in the price. In fact sometimes it raises the profile of the
> game and makes it more visible.. and often a game has already stopped
> selling by the time it hits a $10 sale. Better to sell some at a lower
> price than none at a higher price.

There's knocking $10 off to make a sale price, and there's cutting 75% of
the price off like a lot of people here are advocating. If I know something
was available for 75% off, I'm NEVER buying it at full freight. If the
difference is $10 or so, my instant gratification needs will override the
savings.

> How is selling a 5 year old game at a reduced price cutting out the
> market for a full-price current release? Games companies do it all the
> time! They will release a sequel to a game at e.g. $50 and at the same
> time will reduce the original game down to a ridiculously low price e.g.
> $10 or $5. Not only do they get extra sales of the original game, but
> it increases their market for the new game.

I've already retracted this point elsewhere; I think it would be wise for
Matrix to release earlier games in their ongoing series at cut-rates.

> But there are people out there e.g. me, that have more than 1 interest
> in games. I enjoy wargames, but I also enjoy a good strategy game or
> rpg. Also, when you see games on sale for $5 you sometimes just buy it
> as an impulse buy out of curiosity. That's sales the company gets that
> they would never get even when the game is new.
>
> So many times on Steam I have seen comments in forums "didn't know what
> the game would be like but I thought I would give it a try at $5". Had
> a few of those style comments for Unity of Command (it only reduced down
> to $10, which was still enough for impulse buyers).
>
> Wargame sites aren't just competing with other wargame sites any more..

You're still comparing apples to toilets; sometimes, I want to be
entertained by just any game. Then, lowest price usually wins out. Often,
though, I want a specific game. I don't care if every killer platformer in
the world is on sale on Steam for $3 when the urge hits; if it's a
_wargame_ I want, I'll pay whatever gets me a new wargame.

--
smr

[smr]

Yep. This is the sort of data that I would love for Matrix to share once
it's been out on all platforms for a while, but I somehow doubt they will.

--
smr

[smr]

On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 03:09:16 +0000 (UTC), ade...@inbox.com wrote:

> smr <m...@shawnritchie.com> wrote:

>> In article <+Zd2UUgGhsGLRO...@4ax.com>, fakea...@hotmail.com
>> says...

>>
>>> I'm pretty sure the answer is no, he couldn't sell on Steam for $10 a
>>> copy. You'll have to trust me (or not <g>) on that one. I can't get
>>> into the reasons for saying that.
>>>

>>> The reason I asked that question is becaus while the current model
>>> might work well enough for Matrix, I don't think it works nearly as
>>> well for the developers using them to publish their games. The sales
>>> number per game just aren't there which Arjuna has pointed out here
>>> previously. That's why I brought his name into it.
>>
>> Okay, I thought that's what the case might be and in which case I feel for
>> Arjuna. Hopefully his publishing agreement is up sometime soon where he
>> can renegotiate that if he so feels like.
>>
>>> It doesn't, but you're also assuming that companies never make
>>> mistakes or misread their customers. You don't need to look further
>>> than 'new' coke or Windows 8 to see that even big companies can fuck
>>> that up.
>>
>> Windows 8, for all of the complaints, is selling in the millions upon
>> millions. I'm not sure there's a mistake there MS needs to worry about;
>> they took the longview and decided to drag their customers kicking and
>> screaming into the touchscreen era. We're a loooooooooooooong way off from
>> being to write the coda on the Win8 experiment. It's a major OS release
>> that will have a decade-long lifecycle, not a wargame that can be expected
>> to have the limelight for a few months.
>>
>>> If I'm running a company, I'd be thrilled to have my customers tell
>>> me what I need to do to get more of their money and that's basically
>>> all that's going on here. Whether they use that info or not is none of
>>> my business. I can spend my money elsewhere just as easily.
>>
>> You're assuming they don't already have info in this regard that has told
>> them it's not in their interests to Steamify things.
>>
>> Again, I'm just saying that there's nothing about what Matrix and
>> Slitherine have accomplished to date that screams "Shitty Businessmen!" to
>> me, even if a lot of their decisions irk specific members of this group
>> for specific, and selfish (and that's ok) reasons.
>
> Is Windows 8 really selling in the millions, as in retail SKUs? I suspect
> that they are mainly preinstalled in new PCs as I hardly see anyone buying
> Windows off the shelf anymore. The days of Start Me Up Windows 95 and NT
> technology for the masses XP, are over.
>
> says the guy who is going to buy a Windows 8 tablet these few days...
>
> See buy tablet that already has Windows, not buying the OS to install on my
> PC.

A sale is a sale. OEMs pay for Windows8, too.

--
smr

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

> But his artistic vision, his heart must weep at the soul crushing drudgery
> of pounding out a utility rather than another work of art like, ehm, what
> was he famous for? Been too long and forgot. Wait was it Tanks or
> something, no no I think Age of Rifles, yes that is it.
>
> We need, no Norm needs to do an Age of Machine Guns, for his sanity's sake.

I'm not taking any bets on the sanity of someone who has been working
with JR for over a decade

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Climate Change]

On 25/04/2013 2:20 AM, smr wrote:
>> But it's more than that.. quite often it has been stated that Steam
>> sales will increase volume by 20-30 times normal.
>>
>> Instead of 10 x $40, you have 200 x $10 - big difference
>
> I'd need a cite on this. And I'd need it to not be from hip, indie hit of
> the day, but a regular, ugly-assed old wargame. I do not think the market
> for ANY wargame is this big, period.

Here's an article that gives some details about it:

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/174587/Steam_sales_How_deep_discounts_really_affect_your_games.php

(plenty of other articles if you search a bit..)

Only happens for hip, indie hits? Maybe.. but there are still plenty
of strategy game players who might be likely to give wargames a try. I
saw this comment in a "Unity of Command" Steam forum:

"I'm looking for a new strategy indie game and I have been eyeing this
one up"

He ended up buying the game.

> Well, I imagine if they were flailing for cash, they'd consider any model
> that would save them

e.g. putting one of their games on Steam Greenlight? :-)

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

Two additional points worthy of some consideration.

1) They've now given us a peek into their sales volume / gross revenue
- which is going up - but that's a number for all games combined. It
could well be that the huge sales of Panzer Corps and Battle Academy
are making up for lesser sales of other wargames.

2) Closely connected to the above point : it might well be that a
pricing strategy that works for game A is not the optimal strategy for
game B - the type of gamers who flock to Panzer Corps are a different
bunch than the ones who swear by WitP - I'm a bit wary of one size
fits all approaches.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Steve Bartman]

On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 00:28:49 -0700 (PDT), "eddys...@hotmail.com"
<eddys...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On 25 apr, 00:18, Climate Change <climate.cha...@itsafact.com> wrote:
>> On 25/04/2013 2:20 AM, smr wrote:
>
>> > Well, I imagine if they were flailing for cash, they'd consider any model
>> > that would save them
>>
>> e.g. putting one of their games on Steam Greenlight?  :-)
>
>Two additional points worthy of some consideration.
>
>1) They've now given us a peek into their sales volume / gross revenue
>- which is going up - but that's a number for all games combined. It
>could well be that the huge sales of Panzer Corps and Battle Academy
>are making up for lesser sales of other wargames.

I took the long "wall of text" a different way. It seems he carefully
outlines--no figures--that digital downloads are up. No mention of
boxed copies which I believe were the core of the secondary retailers
now being cut off. Due to my reticence with their store I have boxed
CD versions of all three of my Matrix games and paid a premium to have
that assurance.

If loss of hard copy sales were added to the digital upside would
their net revenue look so healthy? We don't know.

>2) Closely connected to the above point : it might well be that a
>pricing strategy that works for game A is not the optimal strategy for
>game B - the type of gamers who flock to Panzer Corps are a different
>bunch than the ones who swear by WitP - I'm a bit wary of one size
>fits all approaches.

I think this encapsulates where a lot of the communication breakdown
occurs. I don't think anyone is advocating they start to sell every
game, no matter where in its life cycle, at $10. Early adopters will
pay a premium for time and bragging rights. Folks outside the walls
are simply calling for a more rational, consumer-market-normal,
pricing strategy with the back catalog combined with the most powerful
and visible on-line game retailer in the world. What I think Matrix
hears is "you want our stuff for nothing, every day." That isn't true.
If WITP were left at full price and only in their store I wouldn't be
surprised that made business sense. But the pricing on games five or
ten years old is crazy.

Whether they have hand-waved their own definition of "niche" into
existence because it meets their need for a story is another matter.
Niche markets are not all uniform in behavior. A diamond ring made in
1975 may be worth more today than then; a 2005 Ferrari is not worth
more than a 2013.

Steve

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 25 apr, 14:19, Steve Bartman <sbart...@visi.com> wrote:

> No mention of
> boxed copies which I believe were the core of the secondary retailers
> now being cut off. Due to my reticence with their store I have boxed
> CD versions of all three of my Matrix games and paid a premium to have
> that assurance.

I'd be stunned if at this point in time boxed copies were more than 5%
of their total sales. I mean, you may have legitimate reasons to still
do so, but you'll have to accept you're a minority.

> I think this encapsulates where a lot of the communication breakdown
> occurs. I don't think anyone is advocating they start to sell every
> game, no matter where in its life cycle, at $10. Early adopters will
> pay a premium for time and bragging rights. Folks outside the walls
> are simply calling for a more rational, consumer-market-normal,
> pricing strategy with the back catalog combined with the most powerful
> and visible on-line game retailer in the world.

Yup - the issue got muddled rather quickly - that's quite unfortunate.

> But the pricing on games five or
> ten years old is crazy.

I agree - but the issue has now been put on the table again and I'm
sure the third interested party in all of this - the developers - will
discuss things with Matrix/Slitherine as well, but do so internally.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Steve Bartman]

On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 05:44:51 -0700 (PDT), "eddys...@hotmail.com"
<eddys...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On 25 apr, 14:19, Steve Bartman <sbart...@visi.com> wrote:
>
>> No mention of
>> boxed copies which I believe were the core of the secondary retailers
>> now being cut off. Due to my reticence with their store I have boxed
>> CD versions of all three of my Matrix games and paid a premium to have
>> that assurance.
>
>I'd be stunned if at this point in time boxed copies were more than 5%
>of their total sales. I mean, you may have legitimate reasons to still
>do so, but you'll have to accept you're a minority.

Probably.

>> I think this encapsulates where a lot of the communication breakdown
>> occurs. I don't think anyone is advocating they start to sell every
>> game, no matter where in its life cycle, at $10. Early adopters will
>> pay a premium for time and bragging rights. Folks outside the walls
>> are simply calling for a more rational, consumer-market-normal,
>> pricing strategy with the back catalog combined with the most powerful
>> and visible on-line game retailer in the world.
>
>Yup - the issue got muddled rather quickly - that's quite unfortunate.
>
>> But the pricing on games five or
>> ten years old is crazy.
>
>I agree - but the issue has now been put on the table again and I'm
>sure the third interested party in all of this - the developers - will
>discuss things with Matrix/Slitherine as well, but do so internally.

I have long sensed from comments here and elsewhere by Erik R. that
part of the problem is legacy legal agreements made with long-ago
developers. Contracts which limit what Matrix/S. can do now. If so,
and they can't be re-negotiated that's a shame. But ongoing contracts
need to address new world distribution and pricing norms.

Steve

[iain.sl...@gmail.com]

Very interesting reading guys :)

FYI boxed sales are about 40% of total sales and always have been. They vary by game with higher priced games getting a higher % of boxed sales. By every measure business is booming. We are turning away developers because we have too many coming to us. We have recruited 5 new staff in the last year. We have 1 game a week releasing right now.

There is extensive coverage of the games on our Facebook and twitter feeds as well as forums, and social media is increasingly important for us. Many sites just don't cover these type of games any more so we need to build our own network with users instead of news sites.

We only mail people who opt in to our newsletter. Spamming laws prevent just mailing anyone who you have the details for and are not opted in.

NWS were an insignificant part of our sales and while we'd be happy to work with them if they followed our dealer store guidelines this was not something they felt like they could not do.

Cheers

Iain

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 13 mei, 08:48, iain.slither...@gmail.com wrote:
> Very interesting reading guys :)
>
> FYI boxed sales are about 40% of total sales and always have been.

Whoops - that's much, much more than I thought possible - who the heck
still spends good money on cardboard boxes containing air and the
exact same game you get when you buy it digital ? <boggle>

> We have 1 game a week releasing right now.

Expansions, re-releases, gold editions and games released on a
different platform may mean a lot of work, but they're not exactly new
games. I'm missing *real* new releases in your line-up.

> NWS were an insignificant part of our sales and while we'd be happy to work with them if they followed our dealer store guidelines this was not something they felt like they could not do.

Basically they were underselling you - which I can appreciate is not
fun - but NWS is the first port of call for many old-skool boardgamers
- see the 2 recent threads applauding NWS in the BGG wargame forum -
and thus also acts like a pr site for your games.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Steve Bartman]

On Mon, 13 May 2013 07:43:09 -0700 (PDT), "eddys...@hotmail.com"
<eddys...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On 13 mei, 08:48, iain.slither...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Very interesting reading guys :)
>>
>> FYI boxed sales are about 40% of total sales and always have been.
>
>Whoops - that's much, much more than I thought possible - who the heck
>still spends good money on cardboard boxes containing air and the
>exact same game you get when you buy it digital ? <boggle>

As I said before I have three Matrix games and all are on hard media.
WITP was the first digital DL game I ever bought and I didn't trust
the concept in 2005. AE I wanted the printed manual, and it has proven
to be $10 well-spent. WITE was so expensive, and I had no confidence
Matrix would be around long-term, that I got the disc that time as
well. I'm not surprised at the 40% figure at all. With Steam though I
have never felt the lack of a disc in the slightest.

Latest Steam story:

I wanted the new XCom game when it came out last fall at circa $50.
But never at that price. Played the old ones to death, but I read the
reviews of the newest and knew they had altered/removed content to the
point it wasn't a $50 buy to me.

I open Steam every Wed. and every Friday for the weekly sales. XCom
was not in the weekend sale. Last night just before I shut down the PC
for some reason I flipped open the client and saw a 1-day sale on XCom
counting down at 14 hours 40 minutes to go. Game plus both DLC packs
for $17.50. Two clicks (they have my credit card already; the other
was to say it was for me and not a gift, a huge opportunity I don't
think the Matrix store provides for) and 45 seconds later it was
downloading. They were never, ever, ever going to get my money at $50.
Today they have my $17.50. We are both happy I expect.

Steve

[Mark Bestley]

Steve Bartman <sbar...@visi.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 13 May 2013 07:43:09 -0700 (PDT), "eddys...@hotmail.com"
> <eddys...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On 13 mei, 08:48, iain.slither...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Very interesting reading guys :)
> >>
> >> FYI boxed sales are about 40% of total sales and always have been.
> >
> >Whoops - that's much, much more than I thought possible - who the heck
> >still spends good money on cardboard boxes containing air and the
> >exact same game you get when you buy it digital ? <boggle>
>

Agreed much more than I expected. However could that be due to just
having repeat customers who always have done this or just missing the
download market. In both cases if the industry has a higer proportion of
downloaders than matrix has then matrix are missing out on customers.

> As I said before I have three Matrix games and all are on hard media.
> WITP was the first digital DL game I ever bought and I didn't trust
> the concept in 2005. AE I wanted the printed manual, and it has proven
> to be $10 well-spent. WITE was so expensive, and I had no confidence
> Matrix would be around long-term, that I got the disc that time as
> well. I'm not surprised at the 40% figure at all. With Steam though I
> have never felt the lack of a disc in the slightest.
>
> Latest Steam story:
>
> I wanted the new XCom game when it came out last fall at circa $50.
> But never at that price. Played the old ones to death, but I read the
> reviews of the newest and knew they had altered/removed content to the
> point it wasn't a $50 buy to me.
>
> I open Steam every Wed. and every Friday for the weekly sales. XCom
> was not in the weekend sale. Last night just before I shut down the PC
> for some reason I flipped open the client and saw a 1-day sale on XCom
> counting down at 14 hours 40 minutes to go. Game plus both DLC packs
> for $17.50. Two clicks (they have my credit card already; the other
> was to say it was for me and not a gift, a huge opportunity I don't
> think the Matrix store provides for) and 45 seconds later it was
> downloading. They were never, ever, ever going to get my money at $50.
> Today they have my $17.50. We are both happy I expect.

Agreed.

Another example is tat I should get one of Panther's games but I want
Mediterranean or desert, I am not that interested in Arnhem. So I could
pay full price for the old COTA which will be obselete and not upgraded
to the new form or if I want an up to date engine I need to but HTTR and
a new expansion. If COTA was on offer I could pay that now and then if I
liked it when the new stuff comes out buy the improved version.

--
Mark

[iain.sl...@gmail.com]

OK I get it :)

If we have 5% of our sales in boxes that means something bad.

If we have 40% of our sales in boxes that means something else bad.

I wonder if there is a % that wouldn't mean something bad ;)

[Dimensional Traveler]

The lack of anything obviously bad would mean something bad. :P

--
The 'Enterprise' crew in the 2009 Star Trek are adrenaline addicted,
hyper-active teenagers with ADD whose Ritalin got replaced with
methamphetamine, displaying a level of discipline that a Somali pirate
wouldn't tolerate.

[Warship NWS]

"""> NWS were an insignificant part of our sales and while we'd be happy to work with them if they followed our dealer store guidelines this was not something they felt like they could not do.

Basically they were underselling you - which I can appreciate is not
fun - but NWS is the first port of call for many old-skool boardgamers
- see the 2 recent threads applauding NWS in the BGG wargame forum -
and thus also acts like a pr site for your games. """"

That is not even close to an accurate or the complete story of what happened between us and Slitherine (who completely took over Matrix operations and retailer accounts after the "merger"). I would note, we worked just fine with Matrix Games for over 12 years before Slitherine came along .. so someone here should be smart enough to do the math.

Thanks
Christopher Dean
NWS Online Gaming Store
Director of Operations

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

Lemme take a shot at it : new boss, new rules ?

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Warship NWS]

Well, they were not just dictating "guidelines" - not by a long shot. There was also a lot more to it then just a "new boss". There is always two sides to a story.. Matrix treated us like an asset of the community and industry with mutual professional respect, that all ended with the Slitherine takeover.

That is all I have to say.

[finbogey]

I haven't read this whole thread (catching up after a long time gone),
but I bought a bunch of games on MAtrix's weekly deals this summer.
Not as cheap as $10 games, but 40-50% off. Made me buy some games I'd
wanted but didn't want to pay full price for.

-fin

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 05:43:15 -0700 (PDT), "eddys...@hotmail.com"
<eddys...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On 22 apr, 14:34, Frank E <fakeaddr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> He'd be preaching to the choir here but I've given up bitching about
>> Matrix's pricing policies and shitty online store. With very few
>> exceptions, I just assume that they don't want my money so I spend it
>> elsewhere.
>
>Remember when I posted about changing buying patterns ? That pc
>wargames today are either a hit or a bust with nothing in between ?
>
>I wonder how much of that is related to what we're seeing here and in
>the thread over at the Matrix forum : people saying they only buy a
>limited amount of games anymore - the hits - and spend the rest of
>their gaming money elsewhere because of a lack of serious discounts
>for older games.
>
>Steam simply changed the rules of the game.
>
>Looking into my crystal ball I perceive a change in their pricing
>policy in the near future. Why ? Because I know these guys are not
>idiots who'll run a business into the ground just to prove a point.
>
>Greetz,
>
>Eddy Sterckx

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On Monday, July 29, 2013 9:05:45 PM UTC+2, finbogey wrote:
> I haven't read this whole thread (catching up after a long time gone),
>
> but I bought a bunch of games on MAtrix's weekly deals this summer.
>
> Not as cheap as $10 games, but 40-50% off. Made me buy some games I'd
>
> wanted but didn't want to pay full price for.

One wonders how much money they've thrown away over all these years when they were stubbornly denying wargames have price elasticity too ...

Next step in 6 months or so : a list of games that goes on permanent 50% discount.

Next step : 75% discount on a few selected titles

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On Tuesday, July 30, 2013 1:51:12 PM UTC+2, ade...@inbox.com wrote:
>
> Do you enjoy playing your discounted wargames as much as your full priced
>
> ones?

Discounted == old

By definition this means I wasn't particularly interested in the game when it came out, but curious enough to buy it when the price dropped to my curiosity level.

Example : War in the East : I would never buy this full price, but if the price drops to $10 or so I'll buy it and spend an evening with it.

So, no, I'm not going to enjoy/play a discounted game as much as the stuff I buy day-1, simply because I'm not as much interested in it - if I were, I'd have bought it full price.

Things are not much different in the iPad world, except for the fact that discounts start appearing a lot sooner - often after only a couple of months - so there have been a few occasions where I was going to buy a game only to find it already discounted when I actually came around to it.

These days I'm usually a bit behind the curve when it comes to digital gaming anyway, this in sharp contrast to the cardboard stuff where my membership card of the Cult of the New sees heavy usage :)

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Giftzwerg]

In article <f263863d-7dfd-44f6...@googlegroups.com>,
eddys...@hotmail.com says...

> > Not as cheap as $10 games, but 40-50% off. Made me buy some games I'd
> >
> > wanted but didn't want to pay full price for.
>
> One wonders how much money they've thrown away over all these years when they were stubbornly denying wargames have price elasticity too ...

Price elasticity of demand is *most* pronounced in entertainment
products. I think that was on, like, page 12 of my ECON101 textbook.

Speaking for myself, there's a metric fuck-ton of elderly wargames on
Matrix's site that I'd buy this afternoon for $9.99 or $4.99. I ain't
never gonna buy them at $29.99 or $39.99.

And there's any number of strategies available. "Buy a new game for
$49.99, get a coupon for these other games at $9.99"

--
Giftzwerg
***
"In the new world of the NSA, the only secret left is Barack Obama's
college grades."
- Roger Simon

[Frank E]

On Tue, 30 Jul 2013 13:40:33 -0400, Giftzwerg
<giftzw...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>In article <f263863d-7dfd-44f6...@googlegroups.com>,
>eddys...@hotmail.com says...
>
>> > Not as cheap as $10 games, but 40-50% off. Made me buy some games I'd
>> >
>> > wanted but didn't want to pay full price for.
>>
>> One wonders how much money they've thrown away over all these years when they were stubbornly denying wargames have price elasticity too ...
>
>Price elasticity of demand is *most* pronounced in entertainment
>products. I think that was on, like, page 12 of my ECON101 textbook.
>
>Speaking for myself, there's a metric fuck-ton of elderly wargames on
>Matrix's site that I'd buy this afternoon for $9.99 or $4.99. I ain't
>never gonna buy them at $29.99 or $39.99.
>
>And there's any number of strategies available. "Buy a new game for
>$49.99, get a coupon for these other games at $9.99"

I actually went to the Matrix site a few weeks ago looking for
something of interest. I was going to be stuck in Korea for 3 weeks,
wanted something to keep me entertained and didn't want to risk any
steam games since I didn't know if I'd have an internet connection.

I don't know why I even bothered o look, there were a couple of older
games I've had a passing interest in but at the end of the day I'm
just too cheap to pay $40+ for a game that's a few years old and that
I might or might not like. THey did get $20 from me for an expansion
that I was pretty sure I'd like but the rest of my money was spent
elsewhere. I ended up spending about $60 on Steam and GoG for a whole
bunch of games instead.

Rgds, Frank

[Giftzwerg]

In article <4fv3UcaIMr7rWA...@4ax.com>,
fakea...@hotmail.com says...

> >Speaking for myself, there's a metric fuck-ton of elderly wargames on
> >Matrix's site that I'd buy this afternoon for $9.99 or $4.99. I ain't
> >never gonna buy them at $29.99 or $39.99.
> >
> >And there's any number of strategies available. "Buy a new game for
> >$49.99, get a coupon for these other games at $9.99"
>
> I actually went to the Matrix site a few weeks ago looking for
> something of interest. I was going to be stuck in Korea for 3 weeks,
> wanted something to keep me entertained and didn't want to risk any
> steam games since I didn't know if I'd have an internet connection.
>
> I don't know why I even bothered o look, there were a couple of older
> games I've had a passing interest in but at the end of the day I'm
> just too cheap to pay $40+ for a game that's a few years old and that
> I might or might not like. THey did get $20 from me for an expansion
> that I was pretty sure I'd like but the rest of my money was spent
> elsewhere. I ended up spending about $60 on Steam and GoG for a whole
> bunch of games instead.

Oh, I'm all over the sales on Steam. In their recent sale, I bought the
whole FALLOUT3 smash - game and all the DLC - just because I wanted it
all in one neat, tidy package where I didn't have to fiddle-fuck with
"Microsoft points."

And GOG?! I can't count the number of games I've bought there just
because I *might* play them again and don't want to keep a CD lying
around.

[Giftzwerg]

In article <441606885396942817.25...@news.aioe.org>,
ade...@inbox.com says...

> > And GOG?! I can't count the number of games I've bought there just
> > because I *might* play them again and don't want to keep a CD lying
> > around.
>

> Good news, MS points are going extinct. The Xbox One uses currency.
>
> Bad news, the new Xbox is not backwards compatible, so when your 360 goes
> RRoD, all your digital purchases go with it.

<shrug> All I use it for is Amazon Prime, Netflix, and xFinity anyhow.