Matrix Games, Whatever Are You Thinking?

[Arctic Blast]

I think the one area that Slitherine is exploring that is good for all concerned is what they did with Battle Academy.  They were able to make the same game play on PC, Mac, and iPads.  You can play multiplayer against anyone who owns the game regardless of platform and the game was not further scaled back to develop the iPad version.  I think it's the trend whether we like it or not.  And frankly many of the finest wargames of the past would play well on an iPad.

Couldn't agree more. Cross platform support is rapidly becoming a big, big deal.

It's also nice to see a game that doesn't feature a UI from about 1989.

[spelk]

The fact is - the number of people under twenty five who could tell you the dates of even the best known war is achingly small.

There'll be plenty of them able to tell you the best perk loadout for a lone wolf p00ner in Call of Duty 3 though. ;)

[spelk]

Slitherine produces some console games, which is probably where that number comes from.

Or their royalties from Deadliest Warrior TV show and beat-em up games ;)

[spelk]

I think it's the trend whether we like it or not.  And frankly many of the finest wargames of the past would play well on an iPad.

Time to set up a petition to get Ron Dockal to dip into tablet development methinks..

(apologies for all the flippant one liners today, especially in this thread... I'm guessing it's the diabetic sugar rush from chocolate cake I've just wolfed down! Naughty spelk! )

[spelk]

I'm happy to pay full freight for the shiny new game I've been waiting for, but the older stuff....I buy at a bargain or I don't buy.

I've bought games from Matrix that are so old, or so unloved that even Matrix has abandoned them!! :)

As someone who has ploughed a lot of moolah into Matrix over the few years I've been an aspiring wargamer, you do feel like your being milked for the much older titles. Not in a way that Tiller does, by iterations of the same idea with different rulesets and dressings, but in a way that you're paying full price for games that if they were retail boxes would have hit the bins ages ago, and you'd probably see them on some Abandonia web site, or Gog.com.

If you have a loyal wargamer who wants to throw money at you, surely it would be better to invest more in the future, than just try to milk them of your aging creaking often unsupported back catalogue?

I'd love to give Matrix money for new wargame development. Lock n Load is already sold as far as I'm concerned. What I don't want to buy from them is a game that come out two years ago for full price (Pride of Nations). Rather than sucking existing titles into their range, and holding prices high, fund new development, bring the indies into your fold and support them. Vic Reijkersz being a good example. More of him. More games like his. etc.

[Tuna]

I'm happy to pay full freight for the shiny new game I've been waiting for, but the older stuff....I buy at a bargain or I don't buy.

I've bought games from Matrix that are so old, or so unloved that even Matrix has abandoned them!! :)

As someone who has ploughed a lot of moolah into Matrix over the few years I've been an aspiring wargamer, you do feel like your being milked for the much older titles. Not in a way that Tiller does, by iterations of the same idea with different rulesets and dressings, but in a way that you're paying full price for games that if they were retail boxes would have hit the bins ages ago, and you'd probably see them on some Abandonia web site, or Gog.com.

If you have a loyal wargamer who wants to throw money at you, surely it would be better to invest more in the future, than just try to milk them of your aging creaking often unsupported back catalogue?

I'd love to give Matrix money for new wargame development. Lock n Load is already sold as far as I'm concerned. What I don't want to buy from them is a game that come out two years ago for full price (Pride of Nations). Rather than sucking existing titles into their range, and holding prices high, fund new development, bring the indies into your fold and support them. Vic Reijkersz being a good example. More of him. More games like his. etc.

Ugly that they are, Tiller still patches all his older titles.

Your right on Vic and a lot of new titles, reasonable starting prices. Yet on the 'older' side of the catalog, many games with premium and above premium prices.

[Nefaro]

This whole "bargain shopping" mentality that many of us in the Wargaming niche possess, has the potential to kill off the wargame development that we so love.

Do I agree that paying $50-80 for a five year old game is a bit excessive? Yes.

Do I think paying $19.99 for a new wargame is a good thing for the industry as a whole? No.

DOOM!!1

[Zulu1966]

I'm happy to pay full freight for the shiny new game I've been waiting for, but the older stuff....I buy at a bargain or I don't buy.

I've bought games from Matrix that are so old, or so unloved that even Matrix has abandoned them!! :)

As someone who has ploughed a lot of moolah into Matrix over the few years I've been an aspiring wargamer, you do feel like your being milked for the much older titles. Not in a way that Tiller does, by iterations of the same idea with different rulesets and dressings, but in a way that you're paying full price for games that if they were retail boxes would have hit the bins ages ago, and you'd probably see them on some Abandonia web site, or Gog.com.

If you have a loyal wargamer who wants to throw money at you, surely it would be better to invest more in the future, than just try to milk them of your aging creaking often unsupported back catalogue?

I'd love to give Matrix money for new wargame development. Lock n Load is already sold as far as I'm concerned. What I don't want to buy from them is a game that come out two years ago for full price (Pride of Nations). Rather than sucking existing titles into their range, and holding prices high, fund new development, bring the indies into your fold and support them. Vic Reijkersz being a good example. More of him. More games like his. etc.

Not sure I get the logic of the age of the game thing in it being cheaper ? I am not sure I understand why it should be cheaper for you just because you didnt buy it at release ? Its still the same game it was when it released so I dont get that as the sole criterea for you expecting to see it cheaper ?.  Other games in other genres get sold cheaper not as some kind of atruistic reward from the publisher for the buyers patience but as attempt to sell to those who may pick it up on a whim or wouldnt have bought it in the first place. They only get sold cheaper because that model works for large volume sales operations. Its patently a model that will never work for niche wargame products as they operate with a ceiling of buyers to start with and then further limited by particular preferences in period or conflict for wargamers.

Not bitching at you, honestly  - just dispute your reasoning about age being an automatic qualifier for a price reduction and the fact you are applying a business model that doesnt work in this market. Sure - they may pick up a few more sales if they halve the price but it is never going to be a steam sale type argument where they may sell a few hundred thousand more with one of their ridiculous price points. I remain to be convinced that model ever works in the wargaming market to the extent some people seem to beleive it would.

[FlickJax]

I'm happy to pay full freight for the shiny new game I've been waiting for, but the older stuff....I buy at a bargain or I don't buy.

I've bought games from Matrix that are so old, or so unloved that even Matrix has abandoned them!! :)

As someone who has ploughed a lot of moolah into Matrix over the few years I've been an aspiring wargamer, you do feel like your being milked for the much older titles. Not in a way that Tiller does, by iterations of the same idea with different rulesets and dressings, but in a way that you're paying full price for games that if they were retail boxes would have hit the bins ages ago, and you'd probably see them on some Abandonia web site, or Gog.com.

If you have a loyal wargamer who wants to throw money at you, surely it would be better to invest more in the future, than just try to milk them of your aging creaking often unsupported back catalogue?

I'd love to give Matrix money for new wargame development. Lock n Load is already sold as far as I'm concerned. What I don't want to buy from them is a game that come out two years ago for full price (Pride of Nations). Rather than sucking existing titles into their range, and holding prices high, fund new development, bring the indies into your fold and support them. Vic Reijkersz being a good example. More of him. More games like his. etc.

Not sure I get the logic of the age of the game thing in it being cheaper ? I am not sure I understand why it should be cheaper for you just because you didnt buy it at release ? Its still the same game it was when it released so I dont get that as the sole criterea for you expecting to see it cheaper ?.  Other games in other genres get sold cheaper not as some kind of atruistic reward from the publisher for the buyers patience but as attempt to sell to those who may pick it up on a whim or wouldnt have bought it in the first place. They only get sold cheaper because that model works for large volume sales operations. Its patently a model that will never work for niche wargame products as they operate with a ceiling of buyers to start with and then further limited by particular preferences in period or conflict for wargamers.

Not bitching at you, honestly  - just dispute your reasoning about age being an automatic qualifier for a price reduction and the fact you are applying a business model that doesnt work in this market. Sure - they may pick up a few more sales if they halve the price but it is never going to be a steam sale type argument where they may sell a few hundred thousand more with one of their ridiculous price points. I remain to be convinced that model ever works in the wargaming market to the extent some people seem to beleive it would.

Well i'm not to sure on your argument too, we will never know how it will effect matrix sales if they never try a major reduction.

Have you never thought that the reason it remains a "niche" market is because matrix price it out of a lot of peoples budgets. Games are seen by a lot of people as luxuries and that is probably why they will buy cheaper games from Steam than perhaps games they would like to own from Matrix.

I'd like to know how many Panzer generals and their clones have been sold I would imagine it would be pretty high.

[Bison]

I'd say after 5 years a reasonable price reduction would be in order.  Instead of $50 maybe $30 or something like that.  The actual problem I'm starting to have with Matrix is that you are asked to pay a premium for older titles that no longer enjoy developer support.  And even Slitherine in house developed games tend to not have as long term support as other wargaming developers like John Tiller.  Say what you want about the Tiller line of games the reality is that games 10 years old still get updates and support.  That is worth more of a premium on price point then unsupported Matrix/Slitherine titles.

[Longdan]

That, my friend Bison, is a very good point.  I am a very loyal Matrix customer and their customer service is the best I have encountered
(looking at you Steam) but something is starting to get out of whack.  I will pay extra for a "unique" product like BFTB any day
but when a girl is ugly and old she can't expect supermodel wages.

[Zulu1966]

I'm happy to pay full freight for the shiny new game I've been waiting for, but the older stuff....I buy at a bargain or I don't buy.

I've bought games from Matrix that are so old, or so unloved that even Matrix has abandoned them!! :)

As someone who has ploughed a lot of moolah into Matrix over the few years I've been an aspiring wargamer, you do feel like your being milked for the much older titles. Not in a way that Tiller does, by iterations of the same idea with different rulesets and dressings, but in a way that you're paying full price for games that if they were retail boxes would have hit the bins ages ago, and you'd probably see them on some Abandonia web site, or Gog.com.

If you have a loyal wargamer who wants to throw money at you, surely it would be better to invest more in the future, than just try to milk them of your aging creaking often unsupported back catalogue?

I'd love to give Matrix money for new wargame development. Lock n Load is already sold as far as I'm concerned. What I don't want to buy from them is a game that come out two years ago for full price (Pride of Nations). Rather than sucking existing titles into their range, and holding prices high, fund new development, bring the indies into your fold and support them. Vic Reijkersz being a good example. More of him. More games like his. etc.

Not sure I get the logic of the age of the game thing in it being cheaper ? I am not sure I understand why it should be cheaper for you just because you didnt buy it at release ? Its still the same game it was when it released so I dont get that as the sole criterea for you expecting to see it cheaper ?.  Other games in other genres get sold cheaper not as some kind of atruistic reward from the publisher for the buyers patience but as attempt to sell to those who may pick it up on a whim or wouldnt have bought it in the first place. They only get sold cheaper because that model works for large volume sales operations. Its patently a model that will never work for niche wargame products as they operate with a ceiling of buyers to start with and then further limited by particular preferences in period or conflict for wargamers.

Not bitching at you, honestly  - just dispute your reasoning about age being an automatic qualifier for a price reduction and the fact you are applying a business model that doesnt work in this market. Sure - they may pick up a few more sales if they halve the price but it is never going to be a steam sale type argument where they may sell a few hundred thousand more with one of their ridiculous price points. I remain to be convinced that model ever works in the wargaming market to the extent some people seem to beleive it would.

Well i'm not to sure on your argument too, we will never know how it will effect matrix sales if they never try a major reduction.

Have you never thought that the reason it remains a "niche" market is because matrix price it out of a lot of peoples budgets. Games are seen by a lot of people as luxuries and that is probably why they will buy cheaper games from Steam than perhaps games they would like to own from Matrix.

I'd like to know how many Panzer generals and their clones have been sold I would imagine it would be pretty high.

Well no actually - I think they are niche because not a lot of people want to play them, price has nothing to do with it. Exposure on steam or any where else for that matter wont change it. That is the argument I disagree with. The argument for discounts is that you sell at a lower price but at a much greater volume. My argument is that for wargames the increase in any volume is not going to make much difference and would likely be less than selling fewer games at a higher price. Most wargame companys follow that model (unless they hook up with someone like paradox - which was obviously a mistake) - and I guess being at the sharp end they know what works.

I am not picking a fight I just disagree with your assuption that for wargaming discounts (large ones and permanent) mean significantly more sales - to the point they are worth it.

[Johnnie]

I really don't begrudge Matrix with regard to charging what they wish for an existing game.  Maybe that's what they need to provide the services and support they do and stay in business.  Or maybe they want to make a few bucks rather than just surviving.  In any case,  we have the best of both words with respect to Pride of Nations. You can purchase from Matrix if you want to support them or you just like their system or you can save a few bucks by purchasing elsewhere.  It's a free country. (Or it used to be a free country.)

[tgb]

I really don't begrudge Matrix with regard to charging what they wish for an existing game.  Maybe that's what they need to provide the services and support they do and stay in business.  Or maybe they want to make a few bucks rather than just surviving.  In any case,  we have the best of both words with respect to Pride of Nations. You can purchase from Matrix if you want to support them or you just like their system or you can save a few bucks by purchasing elsewhere.  It's a free country. (Or it used to be a free country.)

Actually they claim to have exclusive distributorship, and will be shutting down other dealers.

[spelk]

I guess, it's the idea that as games age in the catalogue, and their development and playing communities dwindle, reducing their buy-in price, could extend their niche life, perhaps fuel a revival in community play. But charging full whack for really old games, sort of starts to price them out of further purchases. Even for existing wargamers, a more modern title stacked up against an oldie is always going to get more attention, more market share.

The buying window for these old niche titles is long gone. By reducing them a bit, you will attract a few more of your existing wargamer niche to pay for them. I'm not talking Steam sale silliness here, I'm just talking a price gradation of some sort dependant upon the age, developer support and playing community attached to these titles.

You might not pull in new gamers in droves, but you might extend the libraries of your already small but loyal audience.