ORIGINAL: hondo1375
I'm no Matrix shill, but Iain is making a good point here. I think we can all agree that Matrix is trying to make as much money as possible "for the devs" over the lifetime of this game. If they believed they could make more by selling it for $40 at release, why wouldn't they? What's stopping them?
Matrix is a business, not a charity. Their primary goal is making enough money for themselves. Making enough money for the devs is a secondary concern, as is evidenced in the few games where Matrix does not have unique distribution rights. Matrix primary goal therefore is most likely to keep their near-monopoly on the genre intact as long as possible. A genre that suddenly starts growing faster than they can keep up might actually not be in their benefit.
ORIGINAL: hondo1375
Nothing except the fact that they don't believe they can. Based on tons of data built up over 14 or so years that let's them understand the different market segments for wargames, the demand, the price elasticity and so forth.
I know from years of professional experience that data can easily, either deliberately or accidentally, be completely misinterpreted, especially is said misinterpretation seems to prove a pet theory.
ORIGINAL: hondo1375
Also, their day job, for 14 years, as distributors, is to understand just these kinds of things. Who that has posted here can claim to know the business better? You've got to imagine walking into a business board meeting presenting to a CEO - you need lots of data to support a contention, not a couple of anecdotes, some (possibly dis)analogies, and a few numbers published by Steam.
When people can see every other distributor in the entire industry is doing the exact opposite and obviously benefiting from it, it doesn't take being a distributor yourself to see which way the wind is blowing.
ORIGINAL: hondo1375
In the end you have to believe either Matrix doesn't know their job or are greedy. They certainly may be mistaken about how they have assessed the market for this game, but Iain has even accepted that, and is willing to listen to any "real" data to the contrary. (The other argument, that is not being made here, is that Matrix and the devs should make less profit from this game by offering it at a lower price so the people that find it too expense can afford to buy it. Since no one is making that argument, I won't pursue it here, although I expect there aren't too many hardcore wargaming millionaires around.)
Iain just dismisses every single piece of data that does not prove his preconceptions. That's not "being willing to listen", that's just trying to smother the discussion.
Nobody wants less profits for everyone just to save themselves $30. People are arguing here in favor of a business strategy that would massively increase profits for the developers and see the wargaming genre actually flourish again.
ORIGINAL: hondo1375
Don't get me wrong, I certainly have sympathy with the posters here that are priced out of this game, and I myself am waiting a couple of weeks to see how the game is before laying down that much cash, I just think the arguments that claim to know Matrix's business better than Matrix need a lot more data to be convincing that is being offered here.
Matrix doesn't present any actual data to support their point of view either, and yet somehow you consider them convincing.
It is not even related to the price - Panzer Corps was $40 and the price received the same kind of reaction. Battle Academy iOS released for $20 and received the same kind of reaction. Legion iOS was $10 and received the same reaction. Whatever price we release at there will be people who think its too expensive. Those people assume if they wont pay the price the vast majority of other people are like them. This is clearly not true or the business would not be growing so fast.