Am I the only one who is finding that, with all the relatively cheap new indy games coming out on Steam, the Matrix pricing model just isn't working any more?
Matrix games have always been arguably a bit overpriced, and particularly for older games that never see the bargain-basement prices that you see elsewhere. I've always just dealt with it, and not even complained, really; they made game types I might not see elsewhere, and I wanted to support the developers. But it's seeming more and more as if paying $50-80 for a new game, not to mention an old game, is less of a purchase for my benefit and more of an outright contribution to some developer.
I shelled out $80 a few months ago for WITP-AE, and was disappointed to realize that you can no longer assign other theaters like Burma and China to the AI. But do I want to spend another $60 to get regular WITP, an 11-year-old game that I used to own, or buy 3 brand-new Steam games that are getting active support from the developers? I had a few fun games out of the $40 I spent for 8-year-old Carriers at War, but there's not a lot of variety in that game, and it got old before I put 20 hours in. For that same money, I could've bought 2 new Steam games.
If the new games were cutting-edge developments that were unlike anything ever done before, that would be a different story. But instead we typically get slightly tweaked Combat Mission clones, Panzer General clones, Close combat clones, and the millionth slightly-different variation on the hex-based wargame. Why should I spent $50 or more for those games? Especially once they're 5 years old?
I don't mean this as an anti-Matrix rant. I've been buying from Matrix for decades, and it's a quality company with integrity. It's just that I've noticed I'm not really buying from Matrix any more, and also that price has become a huge factor for me in looking at their games, even though historically price hasn't mattered that much in my game purchasing. So I'm really just asking, are other people having similar experiences?
I guess I mostly agree with you.
I think $50 is a very reasonable price for a wargame. We were paying that much, or more, 20 years ago when the value of the dollar was less. So I don't think the prices they charge are unfair.
But, why I agree with you is that my perception of cost/value for a game has changed, whether I know it or not. I have become increasingly used to ridiculous Steam sale prices to the extent that I hesitate, or don't buy, a game on Matrix that I might otherwise buy, because I now have this price barrier that sits at about $20 or so. Any purchase over that, I really scrutinize whether it's worth it or not.
To put this in perspective, you can get a game like Crusader Kings 2, on sale, for a few bucks and you can pimp it out with DLC, on sale, for probably less than $40. This is a game that provides hundreds of hours of dynamic content. And it's modern and has bells and whistles.
Anyway, I'm rambling. Bottom line, in principle I don't want to agree, but my buying habits indicate that I do.
Yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying. I'm not complaining about their pricing, just noticing that it seems to have me not buying their games much any more.
Quote from: glen55 on May 08, 2015, 01:06:54 PM
Yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying. I'm not complaining about their pricing, just noticing that it seems to have me not buying their games much any more.
I mostly agree, oftening feeling the same way. But they do have innovative newer, more recent stuff too....SOW Napoleon coming soon, Brother against Brother, Sovereignty Crown of Kings, War in the West, Decisive Campaigns, just to name a few.
I usually don't bother with Matrix games unless they're on sale which they have been doing lately. With all the competition I don't see how they can reasonably expect gamers to want older games at still release prices. But it's not my company.
The $20 barrier is a very real one.
If I see a game that costs more than that, my first reaction is to wait until it goes on sale.
And if the game costs more than that, I start to ask myself if I really need that game.
Right now I have more games than I will ever get around to playing, or even want to get around to playing. Most of the games I own I paid less than $10 for, and a lot of them less than $5. And that's before you start factoring in things like Blue Coins.
I need to have a very good reason to buy something outside of that pricing context, and a game just being 'new' is hardly justification enough.
I've looked long and hard at Brother against Brother, and am looking forward to eventually owning it. But I've played most of those battles with the Tiller and other engines, and they just don't interest me that much, so there is no way I can rationalize that pricing. I hope the series survives Matrix's unfortunate price decisions, because there are a few battles a bit later in the war (and I don't mean the ten millionth reiteration of Gettysburg) that I'm looking forward to playing with that system.
Matrix should revisit supply and demand curves and the concept of alternate opportunities when setting their pricing.
Same deal for me on Brother vs Brother. It was definitely price that kept me from buying that game. If all the feedback on it was absolutely stellar, I would probably make the move anyway, but I would buy it as is if it was $20.
For older games I would agree. Hard to pay $50 for a 5 year old game. However, games like Rayfer mentioned above, are not going to to be on Steam for $20.
Quote from: Philippe on May 08, 2015, 01:41:45 PM
The $20 barrier is a very real one.
If I see a game that costs more than that, my first reaction is to wait until it goes on sale.
And if the game costs more than that, I start to ask myself if I really need that game.
+1 That's exactly my thought process when buying games these days.
I don't need any games at all these days, but under 20 dollars, I will impulse buy and add to the collection of games I'll likely never get to in my lifetime :P
Quote from: glen55 on May 08, 2015, 12:41:04 PM
So I'm really just asking, are other people having similar experiences?
Yes.
I've purchased the occasional overpriced title, but not near as many as I did years ago. Further, it seems like the really high-priced ones are still a work-in-progress with a long dev path ahead. In essence, an early access.
I also rarely play hex & counter digital wargames these days, so my consumption rate has bottomed out. Especially since I already have plenty of gaming left in the ones I purchased and only briefly played.
Fortunately not all of Slitherine's published developers charge a kidney for their stuff. I still pick up many of the AGEOD titles. I got the last couple AJE standalones for something like $20 - $30. Glad they didn't shoot up too far after joining.
I wonder now that their games are on steam, thus more visibility and not a niche site, if we will start seeing prices coming down or better sales.
Paradox is really good at deep discounting their content and bundling with DLC and expansions.
I'm generally OK with Matrix' pricing.
I think if the value is there for me, I don't mind the high priced ones: Distant Worlds, War in the West, Command Modern Air Naval Operations. All good examples of expensive games I am happy with. My good will does not extend to Brother Against Brother however. BaB just seems to be feature sparse for what you are asked to pay, IMHO.
But then there are the old games....
Maximum Football 2.0 released 2007. Still $39 for download edition really? Heck it might not even on my system anymore.
Napoleon in Italy, that last I checked, didn't run on my system anymore...a comparative "bargain" at $29
When I see those....I do wonder just what they are thinking...
i got to agree on the pricing of the older titles, especially since they might not run on current systems. It's their business to run any way they want. I don't buy as many because i have a lot of the ones i want already and the price has to be right for me to jump on something not right in my area of interest and my interest in the battle academy engine games and plain hex games in really starting to wane. that's why i probably wont get the new pacific game. BAB looks interesting with the unique command system and the maps look great but ACW isn't my main area of interest so the price put me off.
I'll just give a +1 to those who say it depends.
JTS games --downloads mind -- are uniformly $40 and, unless it's something way out of my wheelhouse, you might as well just put me on an auto-purchase program.
BFC games -- about much has been said re: their pricing policy -- are an auto-purchase for me.
I shudder to think what I'd pay for Scourge of War: Waterloo.
I, however, am out on CMANO for two reasons: lack of MP and price. I really do kick myself for not pulling the trigger on the Christmas sale when I had a Steam gift card in my hand ready to go. Now I lurk and wait. For what it's worth, if it had MP, I'd be in already.
I'd also take a tumble on WitW, more to poke around than likely ever play the thing, if the price were other than what it is.
I never expect the games I love most to cost $20. That's for GTA:V's and Goat Simulators come the holiday sale.
Best,
Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)
Quote from: Cyrano on May 09, 2015, 11:53:53 AM
I, however, am out on CMANO for two reasons: lack of MP and price. I really do kick myself for not pulling the trigger on the Christmas sale when I had a Steam gift card in my hand ready to go. Now I lurk and wait. For what it's worth, if it had MP, I'd be in already.
I would never normally pay £61 for a game but I'd pay it for CMANO if it just supported Linux! That's an absurd price though.
I'm actually glad to see the comments here. When I've brought up Matrix pricing on other forums I usually get the same old responses, how the price is entirely justified, lots of gaming hours, niche market blah blah blah. I understand the points but I've never
agreed with them. I have dozens of games on my wishlist, and I could probably buy at least a quarter of them for the price of a single copy of CMANO.