Misleading statements made by a computer games publisher

[spelk]

So I always thought the Matrix/Slitherine deal was a merger! Two companies sharing the load, so to speak. But from what has been said here, Slitherine bought out Matrix?

I wonder about the identities involved, and why you have such a divided set of communities, and facilities, why they haven't properly integrated the whole lot into a single place. Presumably because it would take a lot of time and money and they might lose some members/customers on the way..?

• Slitherine have a store and a dedicated forum community (with developers like Lordz Studio and many others in tow)
• Matrix have a store and a dedicated forum community (with lots of developers in tow)
• Wargamer.com have a dedicated forum community.

All these resources on stores and forum communities could possibly be better served in a single place, with a single identity?

Presumably Matrix is out on top in terms of recognition amongst wargaming communities as the leading seller of games? But Slitherine have been making headway into the mobile market big time, and have even dabbled in TV licensing and what not. It's like Slitherine is the "trendy" side to the whole business. :)

I'm not wishing to lambast any company or their current identities, but I would welcome speculation and conjecture on the reasons why they keep all their assets fragmented and disparate. And what would be the consequences for good or ill if they tried to transpose them into a single entity with its own store and forum community.

[jomni]

I think there's a difference in branding
Slitherine = lighter, casual, mass market strategy games.
Matrix = monster games, grognard games, and everything else (includes casual / light wargames etc.).

[bayonetbrant]

So I always thought the Matrix/Slitherine deal was a merger! Two companies sharing the load, so to speak. But from what has been said here, Slitherine bought out Matrix?

how things were initially presented to the public, and how they actually went down are rarely the same thing :)

[Martok]

I think there's a difference in branding
Slitherine = lighter, casual, mass market strategy games.
Matrix = monster games, grognard games, and everything else (includes casual / light wargames etc.).

That does seem to be part of it.  Ian McNeill himself has stated that Matrix, Slitherine, and AGEOD all have distinctive communities; and that while ideally they might *like* to combine them all into one, they recognized from the start that that almost certainly wouldn't fly very well with said communities.  Bringing them all together is a possible long-term goal, but it's pretty clear Slitherine doesn't envision that happening anytime soon (if ever). 

So I always thought the Matrix/Slitherine deal was a merger! Two companies sharing the load, so to speak. But from what has been said here, Slitherine bought out Matrix?

how things were initially presented to the public, and how they actually went down are rarely the same thing :)

Indeed.  Certainly they made it sound like a merger at the beginning, but it's since become clear that Slitherine was the one who courted Matrix. 

[Jarhead0331]

So I always thought the Matrix/Slitherine deal was a merger! Two companies sharing the load, so to speak. But from what has been said here, Slitherine bought out Matrix?

I wonder about the identities involved, and why you have such a divided set of communities, and facilities, why they haven't properly integrated the whole lot into a single place. Presumably because it would take a lot of time and money and they might lose some members/customers on the way..?

Slitherine have a store and a dedicated forum community (with developers like Lordz Studio and many others in tow)
Matrix have a store and a dedicated forum community (with lots of developers in tow)
Wargamer.com have a dedicated (if a little lighter) forum community.

All these resources on stores and forum communities could possibly be better served in a single place, with a single identity?

Presumably Matrix is out on top in terms of recognition amongst wargaming communities as the leading seller of games? But Slitherine have been making headway into the mobile market big time, and have even dabbled in TV licensing and what not. It's like Slitherine is the "trendy" side to the whole business. :)

I'm not wishing to labast any company or their current identities, but I would welcome speculation and conjecture on the reasons why they keep all their assets fragmented and disparate. And what would be the consequences for good or ill if they tried to transpose them into a single entity with its own store and forum community.

Maintaining separate identities and separate store fronts is hardly a unique or unusual corporate retail strategy. It widens your market base and permits you to specialize.  You've already noted that matrix is better known and respect amongst the wargaming community, whereas Slitherine has a broader appeal.  That is the key.  You may lose, alienate or confuse your customer base if you consolidated everything under one roof.

Here in the United States, you have large retail chains that specialize in some product or products, but are owned by the same corporate entity.  For instance, take Bed Bath and Beyond.  This is a rather large department store that sells products for the home.  Items for the bedoom, bathroom, kitchen, etc.  This company also owns a chain called Harmon.  Harmon is like a drug store that sells over the counter medicine, grooming/hygiene products, etc.  Finally, Bed Bath and Beyond also owns another large chain called Buy Buy Baby.  This large retail outlet sells products exclusively for infants, babies and toddlers.  Same company owns all three chains, but they each have different websites and different store fronts.

There is no conspiracy here...just one rational corporate marketing strategy. 

[LongBlade]

So I always thought the Matrix/Slitherine deal was a merger! Two companies sharing the load, so to speak. But from what has been said here, Slitherine bought out Matrix?

how things were initially presented to the public, and how they actually went down are rarely the same thing :)

In business there are no equals. One fish has to eat the other. Even if the merger is is a 51%/49% split, one company (or person) must be able to make the final decision.

I was running Wargamer when the merger took place, and the ownership of Wargamer changed with that merger.

We were told that the story was to be "nothing will change." Slitherine was true to its word for several months. Nothing did change.

Of course, the deeper truth is that nothing could change until they figured out how things worked.

Gradually people started leaving.

---------

I'd like to make an observation about the game publishing business. Game publishing is largely about cash flow. A publisher invests time and money in a title to bring it to market. That cost is relatively fixed. But how many consumers buy the game and when is a variable cost. In simple terms, let's say it costs $3000 to publish a game. But if only $1000 worth of games is bought in six months you haven't paid for the game's cost.

So even a well-run company that pays close attention to its bottom line runs the risk of running into financial problems if they invest (publish) a game that doesn't sell well.

Where Slitherine faces the greatest challenge is that it brings together a good financial manager and a keen sense of how to sell light/mass market games. Prior to buying Matrix their best selling game was quite good - Ice Road Truckers IIRC. It sold far better than more niche titles like War in the Pacific.

So Slitherine has a challenge. It knows how to manage money. It knows the big money isn't in wargaming. But it owns the biggest wargaming stable on the planet.

[Herman Hum]

Might they not have just been replacing people who left?

IIRC, their 2012 recruitment drive seemed to focus upon games production staff.  I thought they were looking for up to 6 people.  This last one appears to want only one.  You could be right that it is simply attrition, but they had never publicly posted so many positions at the same time.

[spelk]

There is no conspiracy here...just one rational corporate marketing strategy.

Ah yeah, I guess it makes financial/business sense. And I wasn't intimating at any sort of conspiracy.

Community wise, it just seems a little self-defeating, because you have three disparate communities of players, all wargamers at heart, all playing or potentially wanting to play and discuss Matrix/Slitherine/AGEOD titles. Wargaming communities are niche enough, without being divided in this way.

Although, I may be being a little naive here, because I totally understand the need for product specific communities to serve deeply committed players in their one game of choice (like WitP etc), and I understand the need for competitive player group communties having a small enough set of players to be able to run ladders/tournaments etc in wargames.

So, perhaps clustering them all together, in the vain hope that more wargamers in a single place would be a good thing(tm) is but a ridiculously naive pipe dream.

[bayonetbrant]

So, perhaps clustering them all together, in the vain hope that more wargamers in a single place would be a good thing(tm) is but a ridiculously naive pipe dream.

Nah, bring 'em all here!  ;)

[Darkspire]

So, perhaps clustering them all together, in the vain hope that more wargamers in a single place would be a good thing(tm) is but a ridiculously naive pipe dream.

Nah, bring 'em all here!  ;)

I only came here to clear up some points and help on Distant Worlds, now I am in danger of using my dusty leather bag of odd shaped and sided dice, I have already bought Rome Total War, Starmade and upgraded my copy of Europa Universalis III due to topics and posts on here, If I stay much longer I am in real danger of strategically planning my shopping trips with figures and flanking actions  :o

Darkspire

[Tuna]

LOL well thanks for joining us, you helped me 'Get Into" Distant Worlds!

[Martok]

So, perhaps clustering them all together, in the vain hope that more wargamers in a single place would be a good thing(tm) is but a ridiculously naive pipe dream.

Nah, bring 'em all here!  ;)

I only came here to clear up some points and help on Distant Worlds, now I am in danger of using my dusty leather bag of odd shaped and sided dice, I have already bought Rome Total War, Starmade and upgraded my copy of Europa Universalis III due to topics and posts on here, If I stay much longer I am in real danger of strategically planning my shopping trips with figures and flanking actions  :o

Darkspire

LOL.  That sounds familiar.  ;D 

[airboy]

Slitherine is a privately held company.  There is no publically traded stock that I can find.  The limited information that I can find is that it is a private company and does not provide their financials to anybody (except to the tax people & perhaps creditors if they have any).

Matrix was independent at one point in time. Matrix owned wargamer.com  Slithering purchased Matrix including wargamer.

I have had private conversations with some of the Slitherine people.  They believe they are in a niche market and can charge premium prices.  They clearly have enough cash flow to continue to make acquisitions and to launch new products. 

The 480% sales growth number is not substantiated by outside audit like a publically traded company.  This does not mean they are making it up, just that it is not like the reporting requirements of a publically traded company.

480% growth also depends on the benchmark on the growth.  What the original post questioned is if the base sales level is original Slitherine sales without acquisitions, or if most of the sales growth has been purchased via acquisitions.  Or it could be that the sales growth is a combination of acquisitions and organic growth.  Either way, it is not illegal or misleading to give a growth figure and not give details on the sources of the revenue growth.

For example, revenue growth could come from acquisitions, selling more of the same stuff at the same price, selling lots of new products, or selling the same stuff at a higher price.  Any of these (or any combination) could yield increases in revenues.

This is part of the reason why people go to business school.  A competent business school gives people the tools to understand how cash flows work and what they mean in a business sense.

One last thing.  Revenues do not equal profits.  They are one part of the profit equation with the other component being costs.

[bayonetbrant]

Matrix was independent at one point in time. Matrix owned wargamer.com  Slithering purchased Matrix including wargamer.

Not quite.  Matrix did not own Wargamer.  David Heath owned WGer.  David was also a partner in Matrix.  Same guy w/ feet on 2 sides of a fence, but a fence was there.  A decent analogy would be that Paul Allen at one point owned the Portland Trailblazers, and he owned part of Microsoft.  But Microsoft didn't own the Trailblazers.

Slitherine's purchase of Matrix did include taking ownership of WGer, though.

[SgtRock]

Who cares? If they make games I like, I'll buy them, if not, I won't. Is Matrix the same company it was 5 years ago, no but, neither is BattleFront or any other company.