Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: flanyboy

That's also a double edged sword because you can definitely train consumers to not pay full price for a product but rather wait for a sale and thus lose out on revenue from people who otherwise would have paid full price. In fact that is what Steam is doing, right now it's beneficial to gaming studios for the most part because it's bringing so many new customers into the fold and that's offsetting lost revenues but there is a risk that in the long term the race to the bottom in pricing could have negative impacts for the developers of the games more so than the publishers.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fintilgin

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Just one question.

Why is it that so many people state so confidently that if the price of something drops, then thousands of people will rush to buy what previously they wouldn't - and that the company selling automatically makes more profits??

On what basis is this fact or even probable?

If life was that simple then why would any company ever go out of business? Got a product? Not selling? No problem, just slash the price and all will be well.....

Because that's what plenty of people have said Steam sales have done for them? You know Steam doesn't force those discounts on publishers, right? They have control over how steep the discount is. If it wasn't working for the publishers and people making the games they wouldn't keep doing it!

I've read articles too that say sales of a title are often higher after the sale is over and the game goes back to its regular price then it was before the sale (presumably from word of mouth).

Right now these games are kinda 'hidden away'. If you aren't already a fan of wargames you're not that likely to find your way here. What do you think will happen if you take some of the high quality titles Matrix has and put them in front of an audience of seven million people at a price designed to encourage people to take a chance on them?

Matrix won't lose money, that's for sure, and you can potentially bring in tons of new people to the hobby, which will pay vast long term dividends for the hobby as a whole.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Boomer78

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/12/06/valve-experimenting-with-tongue-bottom-controllers/#more-179005

Ahem... yes, because as well know, flying into the wonderful 21st century means dedicated ass-2-mouth game controllers.

Thank you, Valve. You prove my point with your silly Tron-bot Steampunk devices far more than I can with rhetoric alone.

quote:

ORIGINAL: flanyboy

That's also a double edged sword because you can definitely train consumers to not pay full price for a product but rather wait for a sale and thus lose out on revenue from people who otherwise would have paid full price. In fact that is what Steam is doing, right now it's beneficial to gaming studios for the most part because it's bringing so many new customers into the fold and that's offsetting lost revenues but there is a risk that in the long term the race to the bottom in pricing could have negative impacts for the developers of the games more so than the publishers.

quote:


Thank you, Valve. You prove my point with your silly Tron-bot Steampunk devices far more than I can with rhetoric alone.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: flanyboy

That's also a double edged sword because you can definitely train consumers to not pay full price for a product but rather wait for a sale and thus lose out on revenue from people who otherwise would have paid full price. In fact that is what Steam is doing, right now it's beneficial to gaming studios for the most part because it's bringing so many new customers into the fold and that's offsetting lost revenues but there is a risk that in the long term the race to the bottom in pricing could have negative impacts for the developers of the games more so than the publishers.

The idea has been around in marketing textbooks and in practice for at least the entire post-war period and maybe before. It's usually called "skimming" in US marketing circles, but "price tiering" is more gentile. You price fully for the first time slice and skim off those in the demand curve who value time more than money. When you think you've captured all or enough of them (based on a number of factors, primarily competition), you lower to the next tier and reap those buyers. And so on.

I've never seen a Steam contract, but I doubt developers hand over pricing decisions to them. They do, from what I've read here and there, hand over the power to place the product in the sale physically on the lay-out on the site as well as perhaps the duration of the offer price in the sale (daily, 8-hour, etc.) It's probable these decisions are also open to being paid for and secured by the devs/publishers. But it's highly unlikely Steam has the authority to set a sale price unilaterally. If they do it's only because the devs/publishers allow it.

What I HAVE seen by participating in the game industry as a customer since 1982 is that many/most titles have a shorter cycle time than they used to. Shorter I'm sure than the devs would like. There is vastly more product out there than there was in 1990. (Same thing has happened with movies; one weekend and then "NEXT BATTER!") So AAA titles like Fallout: New Vegas only stay fully priced for maybe 90 days now whereas in the past it might have been six months. or more. Some franchises, like the Blizzard stable, have channel power sufficient to hold pricing for years, or forever essentially. But those are very rare. GTA V did something like a billion dollars gross in the first month worldwide, but it will be on sale by the end of its first year most likely.

Tiering is used because it works. It most fully drives investment capital in terms of revenue maximization. Matrix/Slith does not subscribe to this rule of business. They survive, but they are not prospering IMO. The world changes and wargamers are not insulated in only the wargame space.

quote:

ORIGINAL: gradenko_2000

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Just one question.

Why is it that so many people state so confidently that if the price of something drops, then thousands of people will rush to buy what previously they wouldn't - and that the company selling automatically makes more profits??

On what basis is this fact or even probable?

If life was that simple then why would any company ever go out of business? Got a product? Not selling? No problem, just slash the price and all will be well.....

quote:

Now, obviously we do not know how many copies of WITP-AE have ever been sold, but if a game as niche as Football Manager just falls shy of 100k players, what does that say about how many potential buyers there are of Matrix's catalogue, if the prices were low enough that people felt they could take it even if they ended up not liking the game?

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: dutchman55555

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Right so if its that clear cut and that simple why would Matrix - who have stockholders and financiers with a keen interest on the bottom line - not simply go down that route?

Untrue. Matrix is a privately-held company. No stock to hold.

As for financiers I have no idea if they need to raise capital beyond their walls. Given how small...I'm sorry, I meant to say niche...they've kept their market, I doubt they could get venture capital if they needed it. I suspect all projects (since I've seen here and there that they are apparently on shoestring budgets) are financed in-house except for the usual loans any small business will incur.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: mekjak

quote:


Thank you, Valve. You prove my point with your silly Tron-bot Steampunk devices far more than I can with rhetoric alone.

That's funny, I thought Valve proved their point by experimentation and research, becoming rich as hell, and owning the most widely used digital distribution service that developers are desperate to get on to. But what do I know, I haven't bought enough $100 games from Matrix.

Whatever Steam's flaws may be, and there are many, it has helped PC gaming a lot, and spurred a revolution in indie development. Wargamers seem to be inherently opposed to change, but this attitude gets way too ridiculous at times.

quote:

ORIGINAL: flanyboy

I don't think the idea is new but consumers consciousness about it is different and the life cycle is becoming so short on a lot of these products that it will hurt the developer more. If a product goes on sale 30 days after release you're going to lose out on a lot vs 6 months that short life cycle is becoming more and more acute, Tomb Raider went on sale less than 60 days after release if my memory serves me right. What I think Steam has done more so however is create a storefront where something you like is always on sale so fewer people will be willing to pay full price when they can find something else they enjoy on sale for 90% off and just tell themselves they will wait for that product to be on sale. They are not specifically waiting for one game but rather just the next sale. That mindset can hurt. I know numerous people who will not buy a single game unless it's on sale and these people use to buy games full price all the time. Better for the consumer and publisher but not a trend the industry wants to see.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: dutchman55555

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Right so if its that clear cut and that simple why would Matrix - who have stockholders and financiers with a keen interest on the bottom line - not simply go down that route?

Untrue. Matrix is a privately-held company. No stock to hold.

As for financiers I have no idea if they need to raise capital beyond their walls. Given how small...I'm sorry, I meant to say niche...they've kept their market, I doubt they could get venture capital if they needed it. I suspect all projects (since I've seen here and there that they are apparently on shoestring budgets) are financed in-house except for the usual loans any small business will incur.

warspite1

Eh?

dutchman55555 come on. So you are saying that a privately owned company does not have share/stockholders? How does that work?

Matrix will be owned by stock/shareholders - the fact they are not a public company does not alter that fact.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Boomer78

Again, shall I mention EA, Walmart, or Microsoft?

quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin

A privately owned company is just that owned privately with no share holders etc.

J D owns the business I think.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: dutchman55555

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Right so if its that clear cut and that simple why would Matrix - who have stockholders and financiers with a keen interest on the bottom line - not simply go down that route?

Untrue. Matrix is a privately-held company. No stock to hold.

As for financiers I have no idea if they need to raise capital beyond their walls. Given how small...I'm sorry, I meant to say niche...they've kept their market, I doubt they could get venture capital if they needed it. I suspect all projects (since I've seen here and there that they are apparently on shoestring budgets) are financed in-house except for the usual loans any small business will incur.

warspite1

Eh?

dutchman55555 come on. So you are saying that a privately owned company does not have share/stockholders? How does that work?

Matrix will be owned by stock/shareholders - the fact they are not a public company does not alter that fact.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin

A privately owned company is just that owned privately with no share holders etc.

J D owns the business I think.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: dutchman55555

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Right so if its that clear cut and that simple why would Matrix - who have stockholders and financiers with a keen interest on the bottom line - not simply go down that route?

Untrue. Matrix is a privately-held company. No stock to hold.

As for financiers I have no idea if they need to raise capital beyond their walls. Given how small...I'm sorry, I meant to say niche...they've kept their market, I doubt they could get venture capital if they needed it. I suspect all projects (since I've seen here and there that they are apparently on shoestring budgets) are financed in-house except for the usual loans any small business will incur.

warspite1

Eh?

dutchman55555 come on. So you are saying that a privately owned company does not have share/stockholders? How does that work?

Matrix will be owned by stock/shareholders - the fact they are not a public company does not alter that fact.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Boomer78

Again, shall I mention EA, Walmart, or Microsoft? Those companies are filthy rich, excellent at marketing, and in the past have created some wonderful products. They are also consistently at the top of the worst companies lists. I believe EA currently owns that title. Success in business doesn't negate bad decisions, poor future sales, or even bankruptcy. In fact, it's because of the arrogance of successful businesses that competitors rise up and take the top position. That's sort of how the cycle of business works.

Steam though, like so many other big players, doesn't like competition, and now uses its abundant resources to force developers to ONLY distribute on Steam. That's my biggest problem with them. Paradox has been releasing Steam and non-Steam versions of games for several years now, but as of EU4 they will be Steam only from now. That harkens back to the PC vs Mac debate of the mid-late 90s. Mac was constantly developing some of the best hardware on the market, but because of the wide spread use of Windows, there just weren't hardly any devs making games for Mac. Thankfully that has leveled off a bit over the years, and now we're onto the DRM platform debate.

If you consider these anti-Steam points to be contentious or frustrating, just sit back and enjoy the smug feeling in knowing that your beloved game distributor is now over 80% of the market and will probably absorb all others within the next few years. This isn't a debate worth really having any more. The battle's been decided. People... well, most people, like Steam.

Just remember that the future is a constantly changing thing, and someday when Steam goes belly up or changes course, and you find yourself with 90 gigs of Steam shovel-ware on your computer, you'll know that at least you bet on a winner. Because, after all, winning is everything? Isn't it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: gradenko_2000

quote:

ORIGINAL: Boomer78

Again, shall I mention EA, Walmart, or Microsoft? Those companies are filthy rich, excellent at marketing, and in the past have created some wonderful products. They are also consistently at the top of the worst companies lists. I believe EA currently owns that title. Success in business doesn't negate bad decisions, poor future sales, or even bankruptcy. In fact, it's because of the arrogance of successful businesses that competitors rise up and take the top position. That's sort of how the cycle of business works.

Steam though, like so many other big players, doesn't like competition, and now uses its abundant resources to force developers to ONLY distribute on Steam. That's my biggest problem with them. Paradox has been releasing Steam and non-Steam versions of games for several years now, but as of EU4 they will be Steam only from now. That harkens back to the PC vs Mac debate of the mid-late 90s. Mac was constantly developing some of the best hardware on the market, but because of the wide spread use of Windows, there just weren't hardly any devs making games for Mac. Thankfully that has leveled off a bit over the years, and now we're onto the DRM platform debate.

If you consider these anti-Steam points to be contentious or frustrating, just sit back and enjoy the smug feeling in knowing that your beloved game distributor is now over 80% of the market and will probably absorb all others within the next few years. This isn't a debate worth really having any more. The battle's been decided. People... well, most people, like Steam.

Just remember that the future is a constantly changing thing, and someday when Steam goes belly up or changes course, and you find yourself with 90 gigs of Steam shovel-ware on your computer, you'll know that at least you bet on a winner. Because, after all, winning is everything? Isn't it?

It bears mentioning that EA keeps getting put on worst company lists because their Steam analogue, Origin, is a cheap cash-in that performs poorly, does not integrate well with their games, does not offer sales and discounts as often and as targeted as Steam's, and is basically a worse platform than Steam while forcing people to use a completely separate platform just for the hell of it.

It's frankly laughable for Valve to be compared with the likes of Walmart and EA when the latter are guilty of the bad business practices that the former routinely avoids: Yes, you have to play through Steam's client, but you wouldn't have 7 million people choosing to do it that way if it wasn't a hell of a lot more convenient to do so.

As for your calling-out of Paradox: Steam didn't do anything to "force" them switch over to Steamworks. They made separate Steam and non-Steam versions of their games, and then they decided to switch exclusively to Steamworks because keeping the 2 versions separate was costing them more money and effort than it was winning over Steam-disliking people.

Less than 10% of their Crusader Kings 2 playerbase was still using the non-Steam version, and people kept getting caught in "GOTCHAS" where they'd buy some DLC only to find that it's a Steam version and not compatible with their non-Steam base game, or vice-versa (EU4 was particularly bad at this with the CK2 converter)

Valve hardly forced them to do anything - this is an example of the company listening to the customer's wallets.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Boomer78

quote:

ORIGINAL: gradenko_2000

quote:

ORIGINAL: Boomer78

Again, shall I mention EA, Walmart, or Microsoft? Those companies are filthy rich, excellent at marketing, and in the past have created some wonderful products. They are also consistently at the top of the worst companies lists. I believe EA currently owns that title. Success in business doesn't negate bad decisions, poor future sales, or even bankruptcy. In fact, it's because of the arrogance of successful businesses that competitors rise up and take the top position. That's sort of how the cycle of business works.

Steam though, like so many other big players, doesn't like competition, and now uses its abundant resources to force developers to ONLY distribute on Steam. That's my biggest problem with them. Paradox has been releasing Steam and non-Steam versions of games for several years now, but as of EU4 they will be Steam only from now. That harkens back to the PC vs Mac debate of the mid-late 90s. Mac was constantly developing some of the best hardware on the market, but because of the wide spread use of Windows, there just weren't hardly any devs making games for Mac. Thankfully that has leveled off a bit over the years, and now we're onto the DRM platform debate.

If you consider these anti-Steam points to be contentious or frustrating, just sit back and enjoy the smug feeling in knowing that your beloved game distributor is now over 80% of the market and will probably absorb all others within the next few years. This isn't a debate worth really having any more. The battle's been decided. People... well, most people, like Steam.

Just remember that the future is a constantly changing thing, and someday when Steam goes belly up or changes course, and you find yourself with 90 gigs of Steam shovel-ware on your computer, you'll know that at least you bet on a winner. Because, after all, winning is everything? Isn't it?

It bears mentioning that EA keeps getting put on worst company lists because their Steam analogue, Origin, is a cheap cash-in that performs poorly, does not integrate well with their games, does not offer sales and discounts as often and as targeted as Steam's, and is basically a worse platform than Steam while forcing people to use a completely separate platform just for the hell of it.

It's frankly laughable for Valve to be compared with the likes of Walmart and EA when the latter are guilty of the bad business practices that the former routinely avoids: Yes, you have to play through Steam's client, but you wouldn't have 7 million people choosing to do it that way if it wasn't a hell of a lot more convenient to do so.

As for your calling-out of Paradox: Steam didn't do anything to "force" them switch over to Steamworks. They made separate Steam and non-Steam versions of their games, and then they decided to switch exclusively to Steamworks because keeping the 2 versions separate was costing them more money and effort than it was winning over Steam-disliking people.

Less than 10% of their Crusader Kings 2 playerbase was still using the non-Steam version, and people kept getting caught in "GOTCHAS" where they'd buy some DLC only to find that it's a Steam version and not compatible with their non-Steam base game, or vice-versa (EU4 was particularly bad at this with the CK2 converter)

Valve hardly forced them to do anything - this is an example of the company listening to the customer's wallets.

Convenience. Steam fans just love that word. Man, arguing with you guys about this is getting really old, and I've been making and have been hearing the same points over and over again for at least 5 or 6 years. Time and time again Steam users highlight the positives of Steam as a way to counter the criticisms and concerns that many people have about it. A good deed doesn't outweigh the bad. If there never was any concerns over technology, we'd have all gone the cyborg implant route long ago. Fears of monopoly, network instability, privacy issues, future install compatibility, price wars/gouging, hacking, all of these are legitimate concerns that people have about Steam, and all these years later hardly any of them have been addressed at all. But remember... convenience. Name of the game.

And as to the 10% of Crusader Kings 2 being sold on GG, well, I'm one of those 10%. I can only try and put my money where my mouth is and try and support outlets like Matrix and GOG, sites that work in open competition with Steam.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
I don't disagree with everything you say, but I see it as a function of vastly more supply than in the old days. (Again, same as the movie industry.) Sellers are reacting to the realities of the market, which is BOTH supply and demand.

Also, the games themselves have changed. When I bought a game in 1990 it came on one or two 3-in discs and I could count on getting a month or two, maybe, out of it. Many games I was done with in a weekend. I bought Skyrim in the Steam summer sale last July, with all three DLCs, for $29.95. I have over 400 hours in the game so far and I have played perhaps 15% of the content. OTOH, I paid full price for AE and I have thousands of hours with it since 2009. On the third hand, I bought the whole Half-Life franchise in the Summer Sale and I have yet to even launch one of the games. So it varies.

FWIW, last week in the Autumn sale Skyrim without the DLCs was on sale for $7.50. Should I be upset? No. I got to play it from July to now, plus the DLCs. I like having different choices at various times in the product's life cycle.

I'm sure publishers would love for it to be 1990 again, but with modern games. They'd love to have six months or a year at full price. But that's not the market now. I don't blame consumers a bit for using leverage they have. It's what markets do. Then they adjust.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Boomer78
Convenience. Steam fans just love that word. Man, arguing with you guys about this is getting really old, and I've been making and have been hearing the same points over and over again for at least 5 or 6 years. Time and time again Steam users highlight the positives of Steam as a way to counter the criticisms and concerns that many people have about it. A good deed doesn't outweigh the bad. If there never was any concerns over technology, we'd have all gone the cyborg implant route long ago. Fears of monopoly, network instability, privacy issues, future install compatibility, price wars/gouging, hacking, all of these are legitimate concerns that people have about Steam, and all these years later hardly any of them have been addressed at all. But remember... convenience. Name of the game.

And as to the 10% of Crusader Kings 2 being sold on GG, well, I'm one of those 10%. I can only try and put my money where my mouth is and try and support outlets like Matrix and GOG, sites that work in open competition with Steam.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iain McNeil

We are not moving to Steam....

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: dutchman55555

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Right so if its that clear cut and that simple why would Matrix - who have stockholders and financiers with a keen interest on the bottom line - not simply go down that route?

Untrue. Matrix is a privately-held company. No stock to hold.

As for financiers I have no idea if they need to raise capital beyond their walls. Given how small...I'm sorry, I meant to say niche...they've kept their market, I doubt they could get venture capital if they needed it. I suspect all projects (since I've seen here and there that they are apparently on shoestring budgets) are financed in-house except for the usual loans any small business will incur.

warspite1

Eh?

dutchman55555 come on. So you are saying that a privately owned company does not have share/stockholders? How does that work?

Matrix will be owned by stock/shareholders - the fact they are not a public company does not alter that fact.

quote:

ORIGINAL: gradenko_2000

It bears mentioning that EA keeps getting put on worst company lists because their Steam analogue, Origin, is a cheap cash-in that performs poorly, does not integrate well with their games, does not offer sales and discounts as often and as targeted as Steam's, and is basically a worse platform than Steam while forcing people to use a completely separate platform just for the hell of it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: gradenko_2000

Less than 10% of their Crusader Kings 2 playerbase was still using the non-Steam version, and people kept getting caught in "GOTCHAS" where they'd buy some DLC only to find that it's a Steam version and not compatible with their non-Steam base game, or vice-versa (EU4 was particularly bad at this with the CK2 converter)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Boomer78

And as to the 10% of Crusader Kings 2 being sold on GG, well, I'm one of those 10%. I can only try and put my money where my mouth is and try and support outlets like Matrix and GOG, sites that work in open competition with Steam.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dutchman55555

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: dutchman55555

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Right so if its that clear cut and that simple why would Matrix - who have stockholders and financiers with a keen interest on the bottom line - not simply go down that route?

Untrue. Matrix is a privately-held company. No stock to hold.

As for financiers I have no idea if they need to raise capital beyond their walls. Given how small...I'm sorry, I meant to say niche...they've kept their market, I doubt they could get venture capital if they needed it. I suspect all projects (since I've seen here and there that they are apparently on shoestring budgets) are financed in-house except for the usual loans any small business will incur.

warspite1

Eh?

dutchman55555 come on. So you are saying that a privately owned company does not have share/stockholders? How does that work?

Matrix will be owned by stock/shareholders - the fact they are not a public company does not alter that fact.

You are correct, there are shareholders...but they are all internal, there is no public trading of them. Shares indicate control of the company, and have no fiduciary significance beyond that. Your argument was focused on stockholders and investors having a "keen interest on the bottom line". There are none, beyond owners.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: gradenko_2000

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Just one question.

Why is it that so many people state so confidently that if the price of something drops, then thousands of people will rush to buy what previously they wouldn't - and that the company selling automatically makes more profits??

On what basis is this fact or even probable?

If life was that simple then why would any company ever go out of business? Got a product? Not selling? No problem, just slash the price and all will be well.....

quote:

Now, obviously we do not know how many copies of WITP-AE have ever been sold, but if a game as niche as Football Manager just falls shy of 100k players, what does that say about how many potential buyers there are of Matrix's catalogue, if the prices were low enough that people felt they could take it even if they ended up not liking the game?

quote:

warspite1

I find that remark absolutely astonishing. Football Manager is being compared to the likes of WITP-AE in terms of niche status, in terms of actual (and potential) market size? I have no access to sales data for either - none whatsoever - but despite this I can, confidently, without any fear of contradiction, categorically state that that statement is just about as wrong as its humanly possible to be.