Matrix Games Forums

War in the West Manual previewThe fight for Armageddon begins! The Matrix Holiday sales are starting today! Warhammer - Weapons of WarFlashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm gets huge update and a Steam release!Battle Academy 2 opens up a new front!Flashpoint Campaigns Featured on weekly Streaming SessionFrontline: The Longest Day - New Screenshots!Deal of the Week: Hannibal Rome and CarthageFlashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm gets Players Edition!
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Pricing

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Age of Muskets] >> Pride of Nations >> RE: Pricing Page: <<   < prev  5 6 7 [8] 9   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Pricing - 4/21/2013 11:15:52 PM   
dutchman55555

 

Posts: 139
Joined: 4/21/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian


quote:

ORIGINAL: dutchman55555


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

Since they *own* Pride of Nations, they get to determine who gets to sell it.



In this case they get to determine that no one sells Pride of Nations but Matrixgames.com. Hence my correct observation that it is a monopoly.



You are not correct, it is not a monopoly. To be a monopoly, they must control the market. Standard Oil was a monopoly.

They do not keep other producers of wargames from entering the market. They are not the only company selling in the market. They are not manipulating the quantity in order to get the price they want.


The sale of Pride of Nations, at least as a digital download, is indeed a monopoly (as I have asserted all along). You cannot (indeed this is a Materineod point of pride) purchase it from anyone but them. They control the supply and indeed the price, and profit from it. Were this not the case there would be no grief with the situation, as it could be purchased for different prices from different retailers. And, once again, there is no example of a monopoly that I can think of where the consumer benefits.

(in reply to Aurelian)
Post #: 211
RE: Pricing - 4/21/2013 11:21:32 PM   
dutchman55555

 

Posts: 139
Joined: 4/21/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes


quote:

ORIGINAL: dutchman55555


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

Since they *own* Pride of Nations, they get to determine who gets to sell it.



In this case they get to determine that no one sells Pride of Nations but Matrixgames.com. Hence my correct observation that it is a monopoly.

And that's fine. But they don't then get to imply that it's a service they're doing for their shrinking customer base, nor can they (successfully) pretend that their business model isn't dooming sales of the product.

If I have the only lemonade stand on the block and I charge $10 a cup, I have (for me) a fine business model. Now if I go around the block arranging it so no other lemonade stands can open up, I can't claim it's to serve my customers better or that "(shrug) That's just the way business works." Nor should I be surprised when my neighbourhood loses its taste for citrus beverages.

Again, about a third of my online game purchases are at full price (desire, curiosity, or goodwill from getting great deals in the past), but not a single one of my Matrix purchases has been at full price. Monopolies aren't for/to the benefit of the consumer, so why should the consumer cut a monopoly any slack?

Another person that already owns the game complaining about a business decision that has no bearing on them.


And someone who doesn't own the game, indeed states that he has never played it, supporting a business decision that will see the hobby that he loves disappear.

(Just out of interest, when did I purchase Pride of Nations, how much did I pay for it, and where is it on my hard drive? I can't seem to find it. Perhaps the 300+ Steam and GG games are obscuring it, but with less than 10 Matrix purchases you think it would be easy to find.)

(in reply to Twotribes)
Post #: 212
RE: Pricing - 4/21/2013 11:28:10 PM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 2285
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: dutchman55555


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian


quote:

ORIGINAL: dutchman55555


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

Since they *own* Pride of Nations, they get to determine who gets to sell it.



In this case they get to determine that no one sells Pride of Nations but Matrixgames.com. Hence my correct observation that it is a monopoly.



You are not correct, it is not a monopoly. To be a monopoly, they must control the market. Standard Oil was a monopoly.

They do not keep other producers of wargames from entering the market. They are not the only company selling in the market. They are not manipulating the quantity in order to get the price they want.


The sale of Pride of Nations, at least as a digital download, is indeed a monopoly (as I have asserted all along). You cannot (indeed this is a Materineod point of pride) purchase it from anyone but them. They control the supply and indeed the price, and profit from it. Were this not the case there would be no grief with the situation, as it could be purchased for different prices from different retailers. And, once again, there is no example of a monopoly that I can think of where the consumer benefits.



You can repeat it ad infinitum, but it doesn't change the fact that not only are you wrong, but have no understanding on what a monopoly is.

(in reply to dutchman55555)
Post #: 213
RE: Pricing - 4/21/2013 11:42:10 PM   
Twotribes


Posts: 4947
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dutchman55555


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian


quote:

ORIGINAL: dutchman55555


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

Since they *own* Pride of Nations, they get to determine who gets to sell it.



In this case they get to determine that no one sells Pride of Nations but Matrixgames.com. Hence my correct observation that it is a monopoly.



You are not correct, it is not a monopoly. To be a monopoly, they must control the market. Standard Oil was a monopoly.

They do not keep other producers of wargames from entering the market. They are not the only company selling in the market. They are not manipulating the quantity in order to get the price they want.


The sale of Pride of Nations, at least as a digital download, is indeed a monopoly (as I have asserted all along). You cannot (indeed this is a Materineod point of pride) purchase it from anyone but them. They control the supply and indeed the price, and profit from it. Were this not the case there would be no grief with the situation, as it could be purchased for different prices from different retailers. And, once again, there is no example of a monopoly that I can think of where the consumer benefits.


So Ford has a monopoly on new Mustangs? A monopoly applies to an entire type of business. According to YOUR definition any game company that rightly maintains control of their products and sets the price is exercising a Monopoly and that is NOT how it works. In fact US law specifically gives the manufacturer of a licensed and patented product the right to set the price and control that one specific item in the Market place. In the case of drugs there is a time limit that once met generics can be made, in other cases there is no exception.

(in reply to dutchman55555)
Post #: 214
RE: Pricing - 4/21/2013 11:45:07 PM   
Twotribes


Posts: 4947
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dutchman55555


quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes


quote:

ORIGINAL: dutchman55555


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

Since they *own* Pride of Nations, they get to determine who gets to sell it.



In this case they get to determine that no one sells Pride of Nations but Matrixgames.com. Hence my correct observation that it is a monopoly.

And that's fine. But they don't then get to imply that it's a service they're doing for their shrinking customer base, nor can they (successfully) pretend that their business model isn't dooming sales of the product.

If I have the only lemonade stand on the block and I charge $10 a cup, I have (for me) a fine business model. Now if I go around the block arranging it so no other lemonade stands can open up, I can't claim it's to serve my customers better or that "(shrug) That's just the way business works." Nor should I be surprised when my neighbourhood loses its taste for citrus beverages.

Again, about a third of my online game purchases are at full price (desire, curiosity, or goodwill from getting great deals in the past), but not a single one of my Matrix purchases has been at full price. Monopolies aren't for/to the benefit of the consumer, so why should the consumer cut a monopoly any slack?

Another person that already owns the game complaining about a business decision that has no bearing on them.


And someone who doesn't own the game, indeed states that he has never played it, supporting a business decision that will see the hobby that he loves disappear.

(Just out of interest, when did I purchase Pride of Nations, how much did I pay for it, and where is it on my hard drive? I can't seem to find it. Perhaps the 300+ Steam and GG games are obscuring it, but with less than 10 Matrix purchases you think it would be easy to find.)

If games makers do not recoup the cost of providing the games they will go out of business. the danger of that is not allowing a Company to set its prices but rather forcing it to allow anyone that wants to sell it at any price brand new. Go ahead you keep saying it is a monopoly, provide with link the accepted english definition of Monopoly in regards business.

(in reply to dutchman55555)
Post #: 215
RE: Pricing - 4/22/2013 12:25:12 AM   
rogo727


Posts: 1417
Joined: 7/12/2011
From: Iowa
Status: offline
Thank you two tribes for pointing this out. They simply overpaid for the rights. They want their money back to invest in new games (not this one tho). They look really silly right now. If they admit they paid x amount and at 24.99 if they sale 1000 units at that price then yes we will make our money back. The bottom line is again If they did any research at all they would have sold this game at 9.99 and we would not have any conversation about this. While every company as supporters such as yourself that are "yes" men there are others who see what the truth really is.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes


quote:

ORIGINAL: dutchman55555


quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes


quote:

ORIGINAL: dutchman55555


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

Since they *own* Pride of Nations, they get to determine who gets to sell it.



In this case they get to determine that no one sells Pride of Nations but Matrixgames.com. Hence my correct observation that it is a monopoly.

And that's fine. But they don't then get to imply that it's a service they're doing for their shrinking customer base, nor can they (successfully) pretend that their business model isn't dooming sales of the product.

If I have the only lemonade stand on the block and I charge $10 a cup, I have (for me) a fine business model. Now if I go around the block arranging it so no other lemonade stands can open up, I can't claim it's to serve my customers better or that "(shrug) That's just the way business works." Nor should I be surprised when my neighbourhood loses its taste for citrus beverages.

Again, about a third of my online game purchases are at full price (desire, curiosity, or goodwill from getting great deals in the past), but not a single one of my Matrix purchases has been at full price. Monopolies aren't for/to the benefit of the consumer, so why should the consumer cut a monopoly any slack?

Another person that already owns the game complaining about a business decision that has no bearing on them.


And someone who doesn't own the game, indeed states that he has never played it, supporting a business decision that will see the hobby that he loves disappear.

(Just out of interest, when did I purchase Pride of Nations, how much did I pay for it, and where is it on my hard drive? I can't seem to find it. Perhaps the 300+ Steam and GG games are obscuring it, but with less than 10 Matrix purchases you think it would be easy to find.)

If games makers do not recoup the cost of providing the games they will go out of business. the danger of that is not allowing a Company to set its prices but rather forcing it to allow anyone that wants to sell it at any price brand new. Go ahead you keep saying it is a monopoly, provide with link the accepted english definition of Monopoly in regards business.



< Message edited by rogo727 -- 4/22/2013 12:30:00 AM >


_____________________________

"I thank God that I was warring on the gridirons of the midwest and not the battlefields of Europe"
Nile Kinnick 1918-1943

(in reply to Twotribes)
Post #: 216
RE: Pricing - 4/22/2013 12:36:01 AM   
rogo727


Posts: 1417
Joined: 7/12/2011
From: Iowa
Status: offline
Also I will end this argument right now if you can tell me one computer game that is over three years old that is being re-released at a 30% increase in price with no major update or dcl added to it.

< Message edited by rogo727 -- 4/22/2013 1:09:37 AM >


_____________________________

"I thank God that I was warring on the gridirons of the midwest and not the battlefields of Europe"
Nile Kinnick 1918-1943

(in reply to rogo727)
Post #: 217
RE: Pricing - 4/22/2013 1:08:11 AM   
dutchman55555

 

Posts: 139
Joined: 4/21/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

quote:

ORIGINAL: dutchman55555


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian


quote:

ORIGINAL: dutchman55555


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

Since they *own* Pride of Nations, they get to determine who gets to sell it.



In this case they get to determine that no one sells Pride of Nations but Matrixgames.com. Hence my correct observation that it is a monopoly.



You are not correct, it is not a monopoly. To be a monopoly, they must control the market. Standard Oil was a monopoly.

They do not keep other producers of wargames from entering the market. They are not the only company selling in the market. They are not manipulating the quantity in order to get the price they want.


The sale of Pride of Nations, at least as a digital download, is indeed a monopoly (as I have asserted all along). You cannot (indeed this is a Materineod point of pride) purchase it from anyone but them. They control the supply and indeed the price, and profit from it. Were this not the case there would be no grief with the situation, as it could be purchased for different prices from different retailers. And, once again, there is no example of a monopoly that I can think of where the consumer benefits.



You can repeat it ad infinitum, but it doesn't change the fact that not only are you wrong, but have no understanding on what a monopoly is.


Cannot post the link, but they are all under "Monopoly versus competitive markets" in the Wikipedia article on monopoly.

"Marginal revenue and price: In a perfectly competitive market, price equals marginal cost. In a monopolistic market, however, price is set above marginal cost."

"Product differentiation: There is zero product differentiation in a perfectly competitive market. Every product is perfectly homogeneous and a perfect substitute for any other. With a monopoly, there is great to absolute product differentiation in the sense that there is no available substitute for a monopolized good. The monopolist is the sole supplier of the good in question. A customer either buys from the monopolizing entity on its terms or does without."

"Number of competitors: PC markets are populated by an infinite number of buyers and sellers. Monopoly involves a single seller."

"Excess Profits: Excess or positive profits are profit more than the normal expected return on investment. A PC company can make excess profits in the short term but excess profits attract competitors, which can enter the market freely and decrease prices, eventually reducing excess profits to zero. A monopoly can preserve excess profits because barriers to entry prevent competitors from entering the market."

"P-Max quantity, price and profit: If a monopolist obtains control of a formerly perfectly competitive industry, the monopolist would increase prices, reduce production, and realise positive economic profits."

Their exclusive sale of PoN is, as I have asserted all along, a monopoly. Again. monopolies are to the benefit of the distributor, and the detriment of the consumer.

(in reply to Aurelian)
Post #: 218
RE: Pricing - 4/22/2013 3:43:01 AM   
Challerain

 

Posts: 234
Joined: 6/16/2001
From: Grand Prairie, Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rogo727

Thank you two tribes for pointing this out. They simply overpaid for the rights. They want their money back to invest in new games (not this one tho). They look really silly right now. If they admit they paid x amount and at 24.99 if they sale 1000 units at that price then yes we will make our money back. The bottom line is again If they did any research at all they would have sold this game at 9.99 and we would not have any conversation about this. While every company as supporters such as yourself that are "yes" men there are others who see what the truth really is.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes


quote:

ORIGINAL: dutchman55555


quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes


quote:

ORIGINAL: dutchman55555


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

Since they *own* Pride of Nations, they get to determine who gets to sell it.



In this case they get to determine that no one sells Pride of Nations but Matrixgames.com. Hence my correct observation that it is a monopoly.

And that's fine. But they don't then get to imply that it's a service they're doing for their shrinking customer base, nor can they (successfully) pretend that their business model isn't dooming sales of the product.

If I have the only lemonade stand on the block and I charge $10 a cup, I have (for me) a fine business model. Now if I go around the block arranging it so no other lemonade stands can open up, I can't claim it's to serve my customers better or that "(shrug) That's just the way business works." Nor should I be surprised when my neighbourhood loses its taste for citrus beverages.

Again, about a third of my online game purchases are at full price (desire, curiosity, or goodwill from getting great deals in the past), but not a single one of my Matrix purchases has been at full price. Monopolies aren't for/to the benefit of the consumer, so why should the consumer cut a monopoly any slack?

Another person that already owns the game complaining about a business decision that has no bearing on them.


And someone who doesn't own the game, indeed states that he has never played it, supporting a business decision that will see the hobby that he loves disappear.

(Just out of interest, when did I purchase Pride of Nations, how much did I pay for it, and where is it on my hard drive? I can't seem to find it. Perhaps the 300+ Steam and GG games are obscuring it, but with less than 10 Matrix purchases you think it would be easy to find.)

If games makers do not recoup the cost of providing the games they will go out of business. the danger of that is not allowing a Company to set its prices but rather forcing it to allow anyone that wants to sell it at any price brand new. Go ahead you keep saying it is a monopoly, provide with link the accepted english definition of Monopoly in regards business.




What you are doing is stating a bunch of opinions as facts. In your opinion they payed too much. In your opinion they didn't do any research. In your opinion they priced it too high and have no customer service skills or marketing skills. You know what? You may be right. Or you may not. But you certainly have the right to say it. Just like I can disagree with you without being a "yes man". In fact, I just don't give a rats ass. It's their company and they can do what they want and what they feel is best for THEIR company.

And as to your second post, didn't Ian say it was already going for 24.99 on the AEGOD site?

(in reply to rogo727)
Post #: 219
RE: Pricing - 4/22/2013 4:31:26 AM   
Vasquez


Posts: 314
Joined: 12/29/2000
From: München, Bayern, Deutschland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rogo727

Also I will end this argument right now if you can tell me one computer game that is over three years old that is being re-released at a 30% increase in price with no major update or dcl added to it.


I dont want to be pendantic (like others here). But why are some people always claiming that PoN is 3+ years old? Maybe Iam just bad at math. But wasnt PoN released in June 2011? What do we have now? April 2013 last time I checked. That makes PoN 1 3/4 years old or not?

_____________________________

KP, BiN, BiI, HttR, TOAWIII, Campaign Series, GoA, AGEOD:ACW, CC:TLD,CC:WaR, Advanced Tactics, FoF, CoG:EE,
GG:WAW, GG:WbtS, GG:EDtBtR, GG:WitE, WitP:AE, GB:M, PzCorps, Scourge of War Series, AP:OS, C:TGW

http://7idGaming.de

(in reply to rogo727)
Post #: 220
RE: Pricing - 4/22/2013 8:07:45 AM   
hartwig.modrow

 

Posts: 788
Joined: 8/27/2006
Status: offline
I just bought (even though it is unlikely I will play it much - AE PBEM eats my time, if there's some left I play WitE. Get AE if you don't have it and like 1600 turn games.

My reasons for buying this one:

a) I want to keep matrix games in business till they published WitPII.
b) I want to encourage using download distribution channels other than steam.
c) I believe that producing, publishing and supporting war games is an activity that should pay off (to keep this genre in the stores) and don't think this can be done for the prices mentioned above.

Just my 2cts.

Hartwig

(in reply to Vasquez)
Post #: 221
RE: Pricing - 4/22/2013 9:01:25 AM   
DBeves

 

Posts: 393
Joined: 7/29/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: dutchman55555


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

quote:

ORIGINAL: dutchman55555


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian


quote:

ORIGINAL: dutchman55555


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

Since they *own* Pride of Nations, they get to determine who gets to sell it.



In this case they get to determine that no one sells Pride of Nations but Matrixgames.com. Hence my correct observation that it is a monopoly.



You are not correct, it is not a monopoly. To be a monopoly, they must control the market. Standard Oil was a monopoly.

They do not keep other producers of wargames from entering the market. They are not the only company selling in the market. They are not manipulating the quantity in order to get the price they want.


The sale of Pride of Nations, at least as a digital download, is indeed a monopoly (as I have asserted all along). You cannot (indeed this is a Materineod point of pride) purchase it from anyone but them. They control the supply and indeed the price, and profit from it. Were this not the case there would be no grief with the situation, as it could be purchased for different prices from different retailers. And, once again, there is no example of a monopoly that I can think of where the consumer benefits.



You can repeat it ad infinitum, but it doesn't change the fact that not only are you wrong, but have no understanding on what a monopoly is.


Cannot post the link, but they are all under "Monopoly versus competitive markets" in the Wikipedia article on monopoly.

"Marginal revenue and price: In a perfectly competitive market, price equals marginal cost. In a monopolistic market, however, price is set above marginal cost."

"Product differentiation: There is zero product differentiation in a perfectly competitive market. Every product is perfectly homogeneous and a perfect substitute for any other. With a monopoly, there is great to absolute product differentiation in the sense that there is no available substitute for a monopolized good. The monopolist is the sole supplier of the good in question. A customer either buys from the monopolizing entity on its terms or does without."

"Number of competitors: PC markets are populated by an infinite number of buyers and sellers. Monopoly involves a single seller."

"Excess Profits: Excess or positive profits are profit more than the normal expected return on investment. A PC company can make excess profits in the short term but excess profits attract competitors, which can enter the market freely and decrease prices, eventually reducing excess profits to zero. A monopoly can preserve excess profits because barriers to entry prevent competitors from entering the market."

"P-Max quantity, price and profit: If a monopolist obtains control of a formerly perfectly competitive industry, the monopolist would increase prices, reduce production, and realise positive economic profits."

Their exclusive sale of PoN is, as I have asserted all along, a monopoly. Again. monopolies are to the benefit of the distributor, and the detriment of the consumer.

quote:

markets are populated by an infinite number of buyers


You are a bit strange. Every single one of those definitions only serve to prove how you are WRONG in your assertion. Those definitions apply to the MARKET - not individual products within that market. PON is a computer game, you have an infinite choice of other computer games priced at hugely varying prices. PON is not a MARKET all on its own it is merely one product within a market. They are also TEXTBOOK definitions - which everyone with more than one brain cell knows are merely that and bear no relation to real world economic systems.

< Message edited by DBeves -- 4/22/2013 9:07:34 AM >

(in reply to dutchman55555)
Post #: 222
RE: Pricing - 4/22/2013 9:10:18 AM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 2285
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: online
He doesn't get it.

< Message edited by Aurelian -- 4/22/2013 9:35:14 AM >

(in reply to DBeves)
Post #: 223
RE: Pricing - 4/22/2013 9:23:11 AM   
DBeves

 

Posts: 393
Joined: 7/29/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rogo727

Also I will end this argument right now if you can tell me one computer game that is over three years old that is being re-released at a 30% increase in price with no major update or dcl added to it.


Erm ... Pride of Nations... does that mean you are going to shut up now ?

(in reply to rogo727)
Post #: 224
RE: Pricing - 4/22/2013 9:34:07 AM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 2285
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: DBeves


quote:

ORIGINAL: rogo727

Also I will end this argument right now if you can tell me one computer game that is over three years old that is being re-released at a 30% increase in price with no major update or dcl added to it.


Erm ... Pride of Nations... does that mean you are going to shut up now ?


Probably not, as the game came out around June 2011.

(in reply to DBeves)
Post #: 225
RE: Pricing - 4/22/2013 9:42:39 AM   
loki100


Posts: 976
Joined: 10/20/2012
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: DBeves
You are a bit strange. Every single one of those definitions only serve to prove how you are WRONG in your assertion. Those definitions apply to the MARKET - not individual products within that market. PON is a computer game, you have an infinite choice of other computer games priced at hugely varying prices. PON is not a MARKET all on its own it is merely one product within a market. They are also TEXTBOOK definitions - which everyone with more than one brain cell knows are merely that and bear no relation to real world economic systems.


Please, insulting those you disagree with is not the best way to convince, nor is the use of capital letters, nor assuming we all want a lesson in Marketing 101.

PoN is unique, its only near competitor is Paradox's Victoria. I own and really like both, but they are very different game experiences. Vicky is a typical Paradox strategy game, well grounded in its period with a lot of neat mechanics but still geared to the sandbox concept. PoN is different, it is much more rooted in the key concepts of the Nineteenth Century - I don't think, even with the UK or America that you could do a world conquest and that alone means you are playing a very different game. You can build up other powers and exceed what happened in reality but you are still constrained to a relatively historical outcome.

(in reply to DBeves)
Post #: 226
RE: Pricing - 4/22/2013 10:06:36 AM   
DBeves

 

Posts: 393
Joined: 7/29/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

He doesn't get it.


I think he does. Its just the admitting it part he cant do.

(in reply to Aurelian)
Post #: 227
RE: Pricing - 4/22/2013 10:09:27 AM   
DBeves

 

Posts: 393
Joined: 7/29/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100


quote:

ORIGINAL: DBeves
You are a bit strange. Every single one of those definitions only serve to prove how you are WRONG in your assertion. Those definitions apply to the MARKET - not individual products within that market. PON is a computer game, you have an infinite choice of other computer games priced at hugely varying prices. PON is not a MARKET all on its own it is merely one product within a market. They are also TEXTBOOK definitions - which everyone with more than one brain cell knows are merely that and bear no relation to real world economic systems.


Please, insulting those you disagree with is not the best way to convince, nor is the use of capital letters, nor assuming we all want a lesson in Marketing 101.

PoN is unique, its only near competitor is Paradox's Victoria. I own and really like both, but they are very different game experiences. Vicky is a typical Paradox strategy game, well grounded in its period with a lot of neat mechanics but still geared to the sandbox concept. PoN is different, it is much more rooted in the key concepts of the Nineteenth Century - I don't think, even with the UK or America that you could do a world conquest and that alone means you are playing a very different game. You can build up other powers and exceed what happened in reality but you are still constrained to a relatively historical outcome.

quote:

more than one brain cell knows


Its not an insult. Its a statement of fact. Shouting is the only way to be heard sometimes, especially when someones not listening. A marketing 101 is what he is trying to give, I am merely correcting him as he is entirely wrong about, well, everything. Anything else ?

< Message edited by DBeves -- 4/22/2013 10:10:50 AM >

(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 228
RE: Pricing - 4/22/2013 10:11:13 AM   
Johan

 

Posts: 10
Joined: 8/4/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DBeves
Well PON had a metacritic score of 70 and victoris one of 75 - so review wise there is not much difference - certainly not 20 times the difference - so it seems to me there were other things at play here - such as the paradox name and a certain "auto buy" from paradox loyalists that AGEOD didnt have.


The difference between 75 and 70 is not that much at first glance. However, consider that the majority of games are between 65-80 on metacritic, then the step between 70 and 75 is rather significant.

Also important to notice that 75 is the first number that is colored green on metacritic.

It is just one of many factors that affects the salesvolume of a game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DBeves
The median time played for Pride of Nations was 1 hour & 13 minutes in total. Victoria 2 had 13 hours & 12 minutes. Well - its a nice number - but is actually meaningless as its not time to play either game to completion or to any great depth - all your number actually tells us is that most of the people who bought it on steam didnt play either game very much. As I always suspect with most steam sales - people buy the games on a whim - and most end up un played - so essentially its irrelevant to the actual argument.


I don't think you understood my point with that statement.

With a median time of about 1 hour: It means that most of the people who was interested enough to pay 19.99 was willing to even invest one hour into the game before they gave up. With 58% of all who bought it at fullprice never playing more than 1,5 hour, you have a severe problem.

With such a low playtime, and giving up so quickly you miss out so much on the most important things with longtail sales. 'Word of Mouth'. Seeing your friends play a game, and/or talking about that game is very important in driving sales.

If Pride of Nations had had quick turntimers (less than 5 seconds), and a good intuitive interface, the it would have been a major seller!

(in reply to DBeves)
Post #: 229
RE: Pricing - 4/22/2013 11:33:42 AM   
DBeves

 

Posts: 393
Joined: 7/29/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Johan

quote:

ORIGINAL: DBeves
Well PON had a metacritic score of 70 and victoris one of 75 - so review wise there is not much difference - certainly not 20 times the difference - so it seems to me there were other things at play here - such as the paradox name and a certain "auto buy" from paradox loyalists that AGEOD didnt have.


The difference between 75 and 70 is not that much at first glance. However, consider that the majority of games are between 65-80 on metacritic, then the step between 70 and 75 is rather significant.

Also important to notice that 75 is the first number that is colored green on metacritic.

It is just one of many factors that affects the salesvolume of a game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DBeves
The median time played for Pride of Nations was 1 hour & 13 minutes in total. Victoria 2 had 13 hours & 12 minutes. Well - its a nice number - but is actually meaningless as its not time to play either game to completion or to any great depth - all your number actually tells us is that most of the people who bought it on steam didnt play either game very much. As I always suspect with most steam sales - people buy the games on a whim - and most end up un played - so essentially its irrelevant to the actual argument.


I don't think you understood my point with that statement.

With a median time of about 1 hour: It means that most of the people who was interested enough to pay 19.99 was willing to even invest one hour into the game before they gave up. With 58% of all who bought it at fullprice never playing more than 1,5 hour, you have a severe problem.

With such a low playtime, and giving up so quickly you miss out so much on the most important things with longtail sales. 'Word of Mouth'. Seeing your friends play a game, and/or talking about that game is very important in driving sales.

If Pride of Nations had had quick turntimers (less than 5 seconds), and a good intuitive interface, the it would have been a major seller!


quote:

the majority of games are between 65-80 on metacritic, then the step between 70 and 75 is rather significant.


Well yes I know that ... 70 - 75 and a slightly different colour is a differencee but I am telling you, as a buyer of these games - those slight differences even on metacritic make absolutely no difference to me in a purchasing decision - so I still dont accept your point.

Again - I really dont see the chasm in investing 1.5 hours or 2.5 hours into games of these magnitudes - someone who invests so little time into the games was never that interested in the first place and was never going to play them. I maintain - that the prices at which steam sell their games sometimes leads thousands into buying them merely to "have a Look" - I have done it countless times myself. It doesnt say anything at all about the quality of a game in the slightest and the median figures you mention are simply indications of precisely that fact. You used the numbers as an indication of the difference in the reception of the two games and in that respect they illustrate only that the reception was largely the same - ie people had a look and quickly gave up. The 2.5 hours for Vic II - no more illustrates a "word of mouth" factor as you call it than the 1.5 hours for PON.

If victoria II sold more than PON it was entirely due to the previous incarnation of that game and the paradox name. The fact praradox didnt understand that shows only that paradox was entirely the wrong place for AGEOD to be. As it was for battlefront when the CMSF release was such a mess. I can only say that I am immensley pleased that both have managed to extricate themselves from the paradox umbrella, intact and still breathing.

< Message edited by DBeves -- 4/22/2013 11:47:19 AM >

(in reply to Johan)
Post #: 230
RE: Pricing - 4/22/2013 11:56:16 AM   
Emir Agic


Posts: 331
Joined: 3/29/2004
From: Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DBeves
Well yes I know that ... 70 - 75 and a slightly different colour is a differencee but I am telling you, as a buyer of these games - those slight differences even on metacritic make absolutely no difference to me in a purchasing decision - so I still dont accept your point.


Yes, review scores make no difference to you but why do you think you are entitled to be represenative sample? Will you trust more some anonymous on the forum or to a company who was actually selling PoN and have all data (and experience in producing and selling strategy games)?

If we are talking about single consumer experience, then my is that I was in situation to buy PoN on GG sale for about 2$ but I didn't. Why? Because I was aware of all negative reviews about turn processing time in PoN. Just for a record, I have almost all other Ageod's games except Napoleon (which, again, I didn't purchase beacuse of relatively bad reviews).


< Message edited by Emir Agic -- 4/22/2013 11:57:24 AM >

(in reply to DBeves)
Post #: 231
RE: Pricing - 4/22/2013 2:13:10 PM   
DBeves

 

Posts: 393
Joined: 7/29/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Emir Agic

quote:

ORIGINAL: DBeves
Well yes I know that ... 70 - 75 and a slightly different colour is a differencee but I am telling you, as a buyer of these games - those slight differences even on metacritic make absolutely no difference to me in a purchasing decision - so I still dont accept your point.


Yes, review scores make no difference to you but why do you think you are entitled to be represenative sample? Will you trust more some anonymous on the forum or to a company who was actually selling PoN and have all data (and experience in producing and selling strategy games)?

If we are talking about single consumer experience, then my is that I was in situation to buy PoN on GG sale for about 2$ but I didn't. Why? Because I was aware of all negative reviews about turn processing time in PoN. Just for a record, I have almost all other Ageod's games except Napoleon (which, again, I didn't purchase beacuse of relatively bad reviews).



I didnt say review scores make no difference to me - I said - in the context of what the paradox guy was trying to prove (trying reading that post before commenting on mine) - that the difference between 70 AND 75 makes no difference to me. If you think that is a huge difference then the rating system is essentially meaningless - because it isnt. I didnt buy Vic II because of the negative reviews that got - so dont tell me that game didnt have problems - so I dont see the point in relation to the post I was responding to which was that there was a qualatative difference in the numbers he posted that illustrated what he was saying with regard to PON being unsuccesful in relation to the paradox game Vic II. Essentially what he posted proved nothing and that is what I was pointing out so try not commenting on things out of context before commenting on what I think I am entitled to. And given you are as entitled to be a representative example as I am then why you did or didnt buy a game is not really relevant either.

< Message edited by DBeves -- 4/22/2013 2:17:42 PM >

(in reply to Emir Agic)
Post #: 232
RE: Pricing - 4/22/2013 2:16:52 PM   
tocaff


Posts: 4674
Joined: 10/12/2006
From: USA now in Brasil
Status: offline
You guys are to much. The consumer can choose to buy or not to buy. The companies survive or die as has happened constantly in the past.

If you don't like people's comment use the green button.

_____________________________

Todd

I never thought that doing an AAR would be so time consuming and difficult.
www.matrixgames.com/forum/tm.asp?m=2080768

(in reply to Emir Agic)
Post #: 233
RE: Pricing - 4/22/2013 3:06:34 PM   
Johan

 

Posts: 10
Joined: 8/4/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DBeves
Again - I really dont see the chasm in investing 1.5 hours or 2.5 hours into games of these magnitudes - someone who invests so little time into the games was never that interested in the first place and was never going to play them. I maintain - that the prices at which steam sell their games sometimes leads thousands into buying them merely to "have a Look" - I have done it countless times myself. It doesnt say anything at all about the quality of a game in the slightest and the median figures you mention are simply indications of precisely that fact. You used the numbers as an indication of the difference in the reception of the two games and in that respect they illustrate only that the reception was largely the same - ie people had a look and quickly gave up. The 2.5 hours for Vic II - no more illustrates a "word of mouth" factor as you call it than the 1.5 hours for PON.


What do you get 2.5 hours from? I said 13 hours for Victoria 2.

I don't know about you, but 792 minutes compared to 73 minutes is a rather significant difference.

Far more people took a look at Victoria 2, and they also thought it was worth spending multiple evenings with it, while an average customer of PoN gave up after one try.

Another value, is that over 40% of all who bought Victoria 2 has over 150 hours played, while its less than 1% for PoN.

Having seen and analysed these type of numbers for the last 3 years, and seeing how ease of access correlates directly to large number of sales, makes me wish I had a time machine... so I could go back and make some changes to PoN when I was in charge of the project.

(in reply to DBeves)
Post #: 234
RE: Pricing - 4/22/2013 7:34:45 PM   
Alchenar

 

Posts: 234
Joined: 8/2/2010
Status: offline
Why would a publisher ever be unhappy about people paying money for a game and then only playing it for an hour?

(other than the implication that they've put out a game that a majority of people who were at least interested enough to stump up cash for found deeply unsatisfying and are unlikely to be either repeat customers or word-of-mouth advertising?)

There's a really clear circle-of-thinking going on:
1) We are a niche market
2) Therefore we don't bother trying to make our games accessible
3) Therefore nobody outside of our niche audience buys our games

This reasoning is used to justify ridiculously high product prices. And in isolation it is correct - if you make horribly inaccessible products then the only way to survive is to leech your most loyal customers for as much money as you can possibly get out of them.

Of course, of the obvious solution that's really at the heart of the argument every time wargame pricing is brought up is that if effort was actually put into making these games accessible (and that doesn't mean a flashy expensive UI, Unity of Command demonstrates perfectly that you can do it on the cheap so long as you pay attention to basic industry standard rules of design) then the customer base would vastly open up and the normal rules of discounts/revenue relationships would apply again.


e: tocaff the point is that we don't want these companies to die. Nobody's arguing for cheaper games because we're cheap bastards who just want something for less - we're arguing that a genre that we're big fans of and want to see more games made in is stuck in a self-destructive cycle and either needs to break out of it or eventually there will be no wargames for anyone.

< Message edited by Alchenar -- 4/22/2013 7:38:59 PM >

(in reply to Johan)
Post #: 235
RE: Pricing - 4/22/2013 8:10:31 PM   
Ingtar

 

Posts: 173
Joined: 8/1/2004
Status: offline
4. Therefore our niche shrinks?

(in reply to Alchenar)
Post #: 236
RE: Pricing - 4/22/2013 8:33:51 PM   
Alchenar

 

Posts: 234
Joined: 8/2/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ingtar

4. Therefore our niche shrinks?


Well yes the inevitable long term trend is that very few new customers appear because when the pricing strategy incorporates a massive subsidy to keep the developer in business because they make a game that won't sell then on a cost-benefit analysis you'd be better off spending your money on hobby x or y that doesn't have this premium built in.

Then you get inevitably bleed off of a customer base that gets gradually alienated by being openly treated as a cash farm.

(in reply to Ingtar)
Post #: 237
RE: Pricing - 4/23/2013 1:22:33 AM   
flipperwasirish


Posts: 1651
Joined: 2/25/2003
From: The Nutmeg State
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: dutchman55555

Cannot post the link, but they are all under "Monopoly versus competitive markets" in the Wikipedia article on monopoly.
or, and the detriment of the consumer.



You may be correct, but do more research as "trusting" Wikepedia to support any side in a debate is often easy way to lose a bet.

_____________________________

Flipper

(in reply to dutchman55555)
Post #: 238
RE: Pricing - 4/23/2013 2:41:49 AM   
Deomrve

 

Posts: 104
Joined: 9/4/2006
Status: offline
Johan is correct, basically Vic 2 is successful and PoN is not. Vic 2 is accessible and PoN is not. Vic 2 is well liked and PoN isn't. The length of time between turns in PoN is a game breaker for the majority of people, including me. I've played the game quite a bit and saw that it has a decent foundation, but I really don't want to read War and Peace between turns. With that being said Matrix can charge what they want for the game, but I don't foresee a lot of people buying the game, which should bring about it's demise. This has nothing to do with price Matrix now charges. It's too bad because there is a decent game there it's just that Ageod needs to totally revamp the game by making it use multi-threading better and getting the turn processing times down to acceptable levels (probably to less than a minute in late game). Since Ageod is doing other thing I don't see them coming back to PoN. This is just my opinion and all this arguing about it's price between people that already bought the game and people who won't isn't going to change the facts.

< Message edited by Deomrve -- 4/23/2013 2:44:27 AM >

(in reply to flipperwasirish)
Post #: 239
RE: Pricing - 4/23/2013 7:28:23 AM   
Tomn

 

Posts: 40
Joined: 4/22/2013
Status: offline
Hello, chaps. Passing stranger who'd happened to run across this discussion and thought it might be worthwhile to throw in a cent or two.

Now, passing through all the fire and venom, it seems to me that a great deal of this discussion boils down to one simple question - is Matrix Game's pricing strategy (i.e. unusually high prices compared to most of the industry) the best one possible? That is, does their pricing strategy bring in the maximum amount of revenue that can be gained from their games, thereby enriching both the developers and the publishers as much as they can hope for and thus fueling future games?

To begin with, it can be easily established that a lower price can in some cases lead to greater overall profits. A brief look at your local supermarket and their many sales will clear that up, and I see little reason to expand on the reasoning there much further at the risk of belaboring the obvious any more than need be done. We can thereby conclude that there is a possibility, at least, that a strategy of lower prices and higher volume could prove more beneficial than its converse.

Are there, then, special circumstances that preclude the high-volume strategy? Judging from the arguments presented, there are many who think so. In effect, it is argued that Matrix Games covers a small niche, and that this niche is incapable of growing and that all those outside the niche will be so supremely uninterested that prices would need to be dropped to unacceptable levels to lure them in. Such a situation would indeed doom any high-volume strategy to failure, as the publisher ends up leaving money on the table. But is this situation actually true? Let's look into it a bit.

First, there are those who argue that the actual events and time periods and actions being covered are not interesting to those outside the niche - a recent post in this discussion specifically states how most are not interested in an 18th century Prussian simulation. I can't help but think, however, that this argument doesn't hold up that well. Age of Empires 3, for instance, covers roughly the same time period, and was taken rather well by the gaming community at large. Empire: Total War did less well, but the flop had more to do with its unfinished and unpolished state - the fact that it caused as much bitterness as it did actually contributes to the idea that 18th century warfare can be interesting to people. Napoleon: Total War did rather better on its release. And of course, how we talk about games covering the 18th century without mentioning Europa Universalis? Now you can certainly state that some of these games simplified the historical details involved and that they relied more on spectacle than strategy, but the point still stands - the historical periods being covered, even the more obscure ones, are not inherently incapable of engaging a wider audience, so long as they are properly presented (that is, marketed). Certainly other subjects may have larger markets, but it can be seen that the market of "slightly obscure history" isn't actually so incredibly unappealing so as to turn off outsiders entirely.

If, then, the actual subject matter isn't an obstacle, are the designs of the games a problem? These are, after all, remarkably complicated beasts down to their very bones, which could turn off the less dedicated player. But before we can begin this discussion, one thing must be made clear - our goal here is to put money in the pockets of the developers so that they can make more such games. Therefore, it doesn't seriously matter if someone only played a game for a handful of hours before putting it down again as long as they paid for it and as long as they came away with a generally positive impression of the game. Looking at Steam achievements for wildly popular games can be very instructive in this regard. Skyrim, for instance, boasts only about 51% of players who managed to reach a fairly early point in the main questline. Only about 55.4% made it to about the midway point of XCOM. A full 17% of Civ 5 players have never founded a second city, something which should happen fairly early in gameplay. We can see, then, that not playing the game much is no obstacle to either funding the developers or passing on good word of mouth - some things are just cool even if you don't have the time to go through them all.

From the developer's point of view, then, there isn't really a need to turn every casual gamer who picks up their games into a ravening fanatic who racks up triple-digit playtimes. It's enough as long as they pick up the game in the first place, and generally like what they see before they put it away again. This lowers the bar tremendously, as a game need only be just appealing and just accessible enough that a wider audience can get a taste of what is offered - with a couple of them, hopefully, finding out that they want much, much more and becoming new and loyal fans. Can this bar be passed, then?

Evidence suggests that it can. Paradox Interactive's games are, of course, the prime example. While it can be argued that their games succeed only on the basis of "Paradox loyalists", the obvious question must be asked - how exactly did Paradox GAIN these loyalists in the first place? I would argue that their success can be attributed to good marketing, good product accessibility (for grand strategy games, that is - they still aren't as accessible as more mainstream titles, and probably never will be), and industry-competitive prices, which has allowed them to draw in people who might not have normally touched a grand strategy title, providing them with their loyalists who provide them in turn with a large and steady income stream. Other examples include Unity of Command, which allows even the most incompetent neophyte to have a basic idea of what he's doing and enjoy himself even as he leads his armies to doom and destruction. Battle Academy, too, hasn't exactly done badly for itself, and it's easily one of the more accessible games in Matrix's stable. Accessible wargames or grand strategy games that appeal to a wider audience than existing Matrix fans, then, are clearly quite possible and quite profitable - and would be likely even more profitable if sold at lower prices than they're currently going for.

But what of the more complicated games, like War in the Pacific or Distant Worlds? Can these be made more accessible without reducing the detail and complexity that gives them their charm for their old fans? Here, unfortunately, I am more out of my depth, and to the best of my knowledge questions like these remain in fairly fierce debate in communities where the developers have decided to produce more accessible games in beloved series. What can be said, however, is that since we've demonstrated that affordably-priced and more accessible strategy games can find a wider audience, it's entirely possible for a developer to use the money gained from more accessible games to fund the development of their more complicated games - in fact, they gain twice, as fans of their more accessible games would be more receptive to the possibility that their more complex games are worth checking out. While some of these may find the more complex games to be too rich for their blood, they will still have actually bought the games, and some of these newcomers may even discover that they had a hidden love for such things all along, bringing new fans, new blood and new money to the table.

As we can see, then, the case for cheaper prices bringing in greater profits is a fairly strong one, and not so easily dismissed. Nor is it at all easy to simply assume that higher prices will necessarily bring in greater profits. That is not to say that the argument is ABSOLUTELY perfect, and that Matrix Games is 100% guaranteed to earn more money overall if they reduced their prices, but it can certainly explain why there will be people constantly questioning their business practices, particularly when it shuts out prospective consumers (as it does - the question isn't whether more people will buy the games at cheaper prices, but whether enough will). Disposable income is ultimately a limited resource, and judging from the examples above there are quite a few people who could well be interested in the kind of strategy Matrix Games helps provide, but who aren't willing to take a gamble by putting down as much money as is normally provided for well-reviewed AAA games. While ultimately Matrix Games possesses information we do not have and are in any event the ones making the final decisions, I would ask that they examine the reasoning behind their decisions more carefully to ensure that they are truly doing what is best for their company and their developers and not leaving money on the table.

In closing, I'd like to end with a relevant link. The link is to a blog post by Jeff Vogel, a long-time designer of RPGs who insisted on pricing high for what he felt was a niche product - old-school RPGs with lousy graphics. He felt that it was literally impossible to generate enough sales outside of his niche by lowering prices. The blogpost essentially explains how he realized he was wrong. (It seems I can't post links yet, so Google Jeff Vogel and "Why all our games are now cheaper") While old-school RPGs are not grognardy wargames, it's still an interesting lesson to consider - and one possibly worth applying.

(in reply to Deomrve)
Post #: 240
Page:   <<   < prev  5 6 7 [8] 9   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Age of Muskets] >> Pride of Nations >> RE: Pricing Page: <<   < prev  5 6 7 [8] 9   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.148