Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Change publishers

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Distant Worlds 1 Series >> RE: Change publishers Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Change publishers - 2/16/2014 8:04:56 AM   
crusader2010

 

Posts: 7
Joined: 2/15/2014
Status: offline 		Yes the game is expensive, but for every (crudely) expensive product there is a very cheap (i.e. free) way to play it people just need to stop thinking too much and use it! That's how you make a publisher reconsider its prices

(in reply to Spidey)
Post #: 61
RE: Change publishers - 2/16/2014 12:09:02 PM   
Kayoz


Posts: 1516
Joined: 12/20/2010
From: Timbuktu
Status: offline 		I'm bored, so let's look at YOUR numbers in a little detail:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gregorovitch55
67,377 Sid Meier's Civilization V - 4x strategy game
60,147 Football Manager 2014 - sports sim
13,604 Arma 3 - first-person shooter
12,713 Football Manager 2013 - sports sim
7,433 Europa Universalis IV - grand strategy historical
5,538 Arma 2: Operation Arrowhead - first person shooter
5,347 Crusader Kings II - grand strategy historical
5,106 Kerbal Space Program - not sure where to classify this - but it sure isn't DW
4,629 Age of Empires II: HD Edition - real-time strategy
4,845 Football Manager 2012 - sports sim


Given that DW is a 4x grand strategy game, I think we can safely eliminate the items in red. If it's not even a strategy game in the loosest definition, it can't be considered.

Total: 186,739
Genre eliminates: 97,108

6 down, 4 left.

You've lost over half of your numbers just on cursory elimination of games not even within DW's genre. Of the remaining, I think only Civ is close to DW - it's a real 4x game, while I'd debate that of the remaining, two are the same tedious spreadsheet game (EU and CK are just the same engine with different skins) and a click-fest C&C clone (AoE).

So, you're left with about 1/3 the numbers that you started with. That's ONE example of the TEN you started with.

Well done. A more illustrative example of Mark Twain's quote is hard to come by.

1 left standing out of 10. If this were bowling, I'd say I'm having a good night.

< Message edited by Kayoz -- 2/16/2014 1:14:50 PM >

_____________________________

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” ― Christopher Hitchens

(in reply to Gregorovitch55)
Post #: 62
RE: Change publishers - 2/16/2014 12:15:54 PM   
Rising-Sun


Posts: 2082
Joined: 11/5/2009
From: Clifton Park, NY
Status: offline 		I agreed, i wouldnt pay much either. Already wasted enough money on Matrix and wont spend anymore regardless. My highest was "War in the Pacific: Admiral Edition", wasnt too impress with it, since AI cheats. Anyway few other games i bought, no demo turned out ****s and i was really upset over it.

So new game like War in Flames for 99$ while 25% off being still development and no AI. I looked into, dont like the way it setup and still look classic.

All i can say is keep looking other places and maybe you will find something you like to mess with. But before you do, MAKE SURE you do some research before buying it!

_____________________________


(in reply to Spidey)
Post #: 63
RE: Change publishers - 2/16/2014 2:22:51 PM   
Kayoz


Posts: 1516
Joined: 12/20/2010
From: Timbuktu
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: RisingSun
"War in the Pacific: Admiral Edition", wasnt too impress with it, since AI cheats.


Every AI cheats. Every. Single. One.

If you have problems with WitP - why don't you post your complaints in that forum? This hardly seem the place for such a discussion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RisingSun
War in Flames... still development and no AI.


You mean "World in Flames"?

You investigated it, you decided that it's not for you. I don't see the problem here.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RisingSun
All i can say is keep looking other places and maybe you will find something you like to mess with. But before you do, MAKE SURE you do some research before buying it!


Caveat emptor. Yes, that should be embraced by every consumer.


_____________________________

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” ― Christopher Hitchens

(in reply to Rising-Sun)
Post #: 64
RE: Change publishers - 2/16/2014 5:07:10 PM   
Rising-Sun


Posts: 2082
Joined: 11/5/2009
From: Clifton Park, NY
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kayoz

quote:

ORIGINAL: RisingSun
"War in the Pacific: Admiral Edition", wasnt too impress with it, since AI cheats.


Every AI cheats. Every. Single. One.

If you have problems with WitP - why don't you post your complaints in that forum? This hardly seem the place for such a discussion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RisingSun
War in Flames... still development and no AI.


You mean "World in Flames"?

You investigated it, you decided that it's not for you. I don't see the problem here.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RisingSun
All i can say is keep looking other places and maybe you will find something you like to mess with. But before you do, MAKE SURE you do some research before buying it!


Caveat emptor. Yes, that should be embraced by every consumer.



I have contact the moderator in private about WiTP:AE, only way to enjoy the game is find the right players to stick with it. So it would be almost impossible to do, since alot of players arent dependable. He told me it was the only ways he/they can do it, infact can be improved though, but he/they didnt want me to expose the infos. So i had to keep that under the lids.

Yes i mean World in Flames, since it doesnt have AIs and doesnt look that great and still look classic. I dont want to step on someone toes and start a war. There some will like and will not like certain things when it come to wargaming. I like realistic stuffs!

I would say i bought many softwares since mid/late 80's and over 90% of them are trash lol. huge waste of money too :( And not itsnt easy to find what you are looking for, its like a gamble.

I have to say Distant Worlds is pretty good 4x strategy game, depending on your setups. I have put alot of hours into it! Been playing Geo-Political (Master of the World) 3, its kinda kool and funny simulation game.

< Message edited by RisingSun -- 2/16/2014 6:14:43 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to Kayoz)
Post #: 65
RE: Change publishers - 2/17/2014 12:19:06 AM   
DrApostle

 

Posts: 59
Joined: 12/8/2010
Status: offline 		My recommendation to Code Force, the developer of this game, is to not use Matrix Games to distribute their next game.

1. Take the money from Universe and use it to develop the next new iteration of DW, no matter the name.
2. Use Kickstarter if you need to raise more money. You will get it. You don't have to be tied to a distribution channel which benefits the publisher (Matrix) more than the developer (Code Force).
3. Use Greenlight and Early Access on Steam.
4. Watch yourself make more money in 1 single Steam sale than an entire year with Matrix.

BAM!

Who cares if the business plan makes sense from a publisher's perspective? It doesn't make sense from a customer's perspective nor a developer like Code Force's perspective.

(in reply to Rising-Sun)
Post #: 66
RE: Change publishers - 2/17/2014 8:47:02 AM   
Icemania


Posts: 1847
Joined: 6/5/2013
From: Australia
Status: offline 		The Matrix Games approach to Distant Worlds would make a fantastic case study on how not to do marketing. Matrix certainly appear to have been very helpful in working with Code Force and probably would not have the great game we have now without this. However, with the experience that Code Force have gained along the Distant Worlds journey, you have to wonder how much value Matrix would add going forward ...


(in reply to DrApostle)
Post #: 67
RE: Change publishers - 2/17/2014 12:20:06 PM   
Kayoz


Posts: 1516
Joined: 12/20/2010
From: Timbuktu
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Icemania
However, with the experience that Code Force have gained along the Distant Worlds journey, you have to wonder how much value Matrix would add going forward ...


quote:

ORIGINAL: DrApostle
1. Take the money from Universe and use it to develop the next new iteration of DW, no matter the name.


I just want to interject here on how this sounds...

You're suggesting that Elliot, who has had support and funding to develop his dream, now that he's achieved some measure of success - turn his back on what was probably the only publisher willing to embrace his vision. You're suggesting that he break his ties with his most active supporter in any way that matters and go his own way.

I'm not a moral philosopher, but this suggestion sounds downright amoral. Prima facie, it seems to be suggesting a completely selfish and disloyal action on Elliot's part.

Furthermore, perhaps I'm reading too much into the Matrix-CodeForce relationship, but it seems to be one that works. Whatever they each bring to the table, it's the (and I do hate this word) synergy that made DW a reality. I think it would be a very risky venture to gamble that one side has all the elements of success and can make the most out of DW (or whatever its successor is called). If it ain't broke, don't fix it. It's a combination that works and rewards both participants.

I might point out the successful development done under Microprose. If any of you are old enough to remember, you'll have fond recollections of that dear old publishing house. You'll also remember how the gems of its catalogue got turned into pieces of dung when they were bought out by Hasboro.

X-Com - effectively killed till resurrected by Sid
Civilization - orphaned and carried forward by Sid/Firaxis
Falcon 3 - dead
MoO (Masters of Orion) - dead

That's just off the top of my head. Anyone familiar with Microprose can probably think of a dozen more titles.

If the publisher-developer relationship were as simple as DrApostle and Icemania suggest, then we should have seen all the developers who witnessed the last twitches of the bloodless carcass that Hasboro left, go on to continue producing gems of games to entertain today's generation. But is that what we saw?

Oh, I'm probably being overly simplistic in my view here. But what is being suggested seems morally bankrupt and absurdly risky.

*edit*
I don't think the "Steam is the land of milk and honey" argument is worth discussing further and I pointedly avoided this rotting, flagellated horse carcass on purpose. If someone has some real information to bring to the discussion, then I'd be happy to engage them in debate. But all I've seen - and this thread is nothing new - are the same tired old arguments, marched out once again to be machine-gunned down by the Maxim gun of critical analysis.

< Message edited by Kayoz -- 2/17/2014 1:28:27 PM >

_____________________________

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” ― Christopher Hitchens

(in reply to Icemania)
Post #: 68
RE: Change publishers - 2/17/2014 12:27:41 PM   
Bingeling

 

Posts: 5186
Joined: 8/12/2010
Status: offline 		Well said, Kayoz.

The mighty Code Force is also knows as Elliot. Matrix is much more than a publisher that just distributes the creations of Code Force.

I wonder what happens when Universe is out. What is the price? Will there be other changes to marketing and distribution? Will sales explode? Time will show.

< Message edited by Bingeling -- 2/17/2014 1:27:57 PM >

(in reply to Kayoz)
Post #: 69
RE: Change publishers - 2/17/2014 12:46:01 PM   
Kayoz


Posts: 1516
Joined: 12/20/2010
From: Timbuktu
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bingeling
Well said


Thanks, I was worried that I was the only one to find the suggestions to be worrisome. I let the comments lie to see if anyone else would call them out - but alas, nobody did. So I sharpened my machete and waded in.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bingeling
I wonder what happens when Universe is out. What is the price?


What I hope to see is it released as
1. an expansion ($25-35 range) for those who already have DW and all expansions
and
2. A complete installable game in its own right ($60-75 range)
or
3. 2 and 1 combined, so there's a discount for existing DW+expansion owners. But a single, complete install package.

It would probably be a pain for Matrix to manage two install packages and two potentially different file sets - but we're sure to find out soon enough.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bingeling
Will there be other changes to marketing and distribution? Will sales explode? Time will show.


Personally, I don't expect DW: Universe to be the franchise's breakout title. I think DW's engine is too poorly optimized, the graphics too dated and the whole development environment of C# unwieldy for games. If Elliot and Erik take the lessons from DW and make it's successor with a decent engine designed for real games - then that would be a good next step. And perhaps making the leap to multiplayer once that's all sorted. With a snappy engine and appealing graphics, it's market appeal should be sufficient to break out - potentially with the DW successor - and near certainly with a multiplayer version.

I specifically state that DW's successor should be single-player. The networking, match-making and balance issues of multiplayer are non-trivial in the extreme. I'd be worried if Erik were to announce a DW multiplayer - or egads - MMO any time soon.

Just my 2p.


_____________________________

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” ― Christopher Hitchens

(in reply to Bingeling)
Post #: 70
RE: Change publishers - 2/17/2014 12:59:03 PM   
Bingeling

 

Posts: 5186
Joined: 8/12/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kayoz

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bingeling
Well said


Thanks, I was worried that I was the only one to find the suggestions to be worrisome. I let the comments lie to see if anyone else would call them out - but alas, nobody did. So I sharpened my machete and waded in.

You are a much superior forum warrior to me .
Probably a tad more controversial too, though.

I hope the full package price will at the low end of your 60-75$ estimate, or even a tad below. I fear that it will be at the upper end.

(in reply to Kayoz)
Post #: 71
RE: Change publishers - 2/17/2014 12:59:09 PM   
Cauldyth

 

Posts: 752
Joined: 6/27/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kayoz
What I hope to see is it released as
1. an expansion ($25-35 range) for those who already have DW and all expansions
and
2. A complete installable game in its own right ($60-75 range)
or
3. 2 and 1 combined, so there's a discount for existing DW+expansion owners. But a single, complete install package.


In one of the interviews (Space Sector maybe?) Erik described how it will be released, and it's #3. Universe will be sold as a standalone game which contains all previous content plus the new stuff. Existing DW customers will be able to buy it at a discount.

Pricing wasn't mentioned yet.

(in reply to Kayoz)
Post #: 72
RE: Change publishers - 2/17/2014 1:01:24 PM   
Icemania


Posts: 1847
Joined: 6/5/2013
From: Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kayoz
Oh, I'm probably being overly simplistic in my view here.

Exactly.

If Code Force was to break an agreement mid-stream then I would agree with you completely.

However, if that agreement is focused on Distant Worlds 1, with no agreement in place for Distant Worlds 2, it's completely absurd to suggest Code Force should feel morally obliged to sole source a business relationship for Distant Worlds 2.

It's normal practice to reconsider the pro's and con's of business relationships from time to time, normally at contractually pre-defined intervals/milestones, there is nothing remotely amoral about it.

Further, in any responsible business, blindly going "sole source" requires significant justification. If Matrix were Marketing as well as they appear to have helped Code Force with Development, then such justification could be considered solid. Alas it is clear this is not the case.


< Message edited by Icemania -- 2/17/2014 2:07:43 PM >

(in reply to Kayoz)
Post #: 73
RE: Change publishers - 2/17/2014 3:10:41 PM   
Kayoz


Posts: 1516
Joined: 12/20/2010
From: Timbuktu
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Icemania
If Code Force was to break an agreement mid-stream then I would agree with you completely.


Neither you nor I know any of the details of the agreement between CodeForce and Matrix. I note that you're making speculation as to what their contractual obligations are - while I have not.

You seem to be of the opinion that contracts and emotions (trust, loyalty) are entirely independent and need to be viewed separately. So, in your opinion, CodeForce should examine it's contract for where it can wriggle out of any obligation to Matrix.

I heartily disagree with you in this.

I contend that one does not enter into a contract with an entity/individual one doesn't have a degree of trust/loyalty. It's not purely a dispassionate business analysis, but a working relationship with the contract as the stick to keep each other in line.

While you seem to think that business contracts are straightforward dispassionate exercises in number crunching, it seems scholars disagree:

The role of trust and contract in the supply of business advice

The Impact of Psychological Contracts Upon Trust and Commitment within Supplier-Buyer Relationships: A Social Exchange View

I don't pretend to be the oracle of business theory - but your viewpoint seems inconsistent with current theory. I'll let others debate business theories - but be aware that your position is far from "accepted norm".

quote:

ORIGINAL: Icemania
...if that agreement is focused on Distant Worlds 1...


Again, neither you nor I know the details of the CodeForce-Matrix contract. Nor is it any of our business. You're making speculation and throwing around suggestions based on complete ignorance - on a subject which is none of your business.

Not to mention the fiddly bits of contracts, such as who owns the code and any restrictions on game development which might very well be in the contract. Any serious legal contract is unlikely to be near as cut-and-dried as you suggest.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Icemania
If Matrix were Marketing as well as they appear to have helped Code Force with Development, then such justification could be considered solid. Alas it is clear this is not the case.


Clear? It's incredibly murky from my perspective.

Neither you nor I know anything about DW's market demographics. I assume that we both like it - but how many similar customers are there out there and what would it cost to reach any portion of them? I don't know. I don't have any numbers. And neither do you. The only thing "clear" here is that you're speculating on matters you're entirely ignorant of.

And even if you have "reasonable" numbers to work with and can make educated guesses as to DW's demographic appeal - you're still left with the question of Matrix sales and marketing numbers, before you can evaluate whether or not they're bollocksing it up. Do you have access to those figures? Do you have an estimate - and I'm willing to accept a ±10% error - on either number? What's that I hear? Silence?

If you have some numbers and a basis for estimates - then by all means present your analysis. I'd love to see how your estimates compare to my own WAG numbers.

But you haven't presented a single number. You've given empty criticism with nothing to base it on other than you don't personally like how Matrix is marketing DW.

_____________________________

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” ― Christopher Hitchens

(in reply to Icemania)
Post #: 74
RE: Change publishers - 2/17/2014 4:17:00 PM   
Cauldyth

 

Posts: 752
Joined: 6/27/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Cauldyth
In one of the interviews (Space Sector maybe?) Erik described how it will be released, and it's #3. Universe will be sold as a standalone game which contains all previous content plus the new stuff. Existing DW customers will be able to buy it at a discount.

Pricing wasn't mentioned yet.


Found it, it was Space Sector: http://www.spacesector.com/blog/2014/01/distant-worlds-universe-more-modding-and-wrap-up-pack/

The quote isn't directly from Matrix themselves, but I interpret as being in-the-know:

quote:

Also, this fourth expansion will be standalone, meaning that it will be a “wrap up” release of the entire Distant Worlds series in one package, with owners of the game getting a discount.



(in reply to Cauldyth)
Post #: 75
RE: Change publishers - 2/17/2014 5:01:26 PM   
Kayoz


Posts: 1516
Joined: 12/20/2010
From: Timbuktu
Status: offline 		Thanks for the info. It will be interesting to see how this affects the DW user base. Hopefully it'll bring in more users, and perhaps more critically, modders.

_____________________________

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” ― Christopher Hitchens

(in reply to Cauldyth)
Post #: 76
RE: Change publishers - 2/17/2014 7:37:33 PM   
Rising-Sun


Posts: 2082
Joined: 11/5/2009
From: Clifton Park, NY
Status: offline 		Kayoz, i wouldnt say Master of Orion (MoO) is dead, there another group have been making another one and been around for some time. They call themselves FreeOrion...

http://www.freeorion.org/index.php/Main_Page

Kinda slow development, due to software knowledges and debugging. Look interesting, but they still got some work to do to complete it.

_____________________________


(in reply to Kayoz)
Post #: 77
RE: Change publishers - 2/17/2014 8:13:16 PM   
Osito


Posts: 875
Joined: 5/9/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: RisingSun

Kayoz, i wouldnt say Master of Orion (MoO) is dead, there another group have been making another one and been around for some time. They call themselves FreeOrion...

http://www.freeorion.org/index.php/Main_Page

Kinda slow development, due to software knowledges and debugging. Look interesting, but they still got some work to do to complete it.


Having played freeorion a month or so ago, I'd be inclined to say Kayoz's assessment is spot on.

In any event, I'm not sure the relative health of MOO, per se, has much bearing on his point.

(in reply to Rising-Sun)
Post #: 78
RE: Change publishers - 2/17/2014 10:38:43 PM   
Icemania


Posts: 1847
Joined: 6/5/2013
From: Australia
Status: offline 		Of course we don’t know the details Kayoz, and despite what you seem to think, we are both engaging in speculation. From my point of view, you are speculating that they have a long-term agreement that covers Distant Worlds 2. Neither of us know.

Regarding trust in contracts, on the main, I agree. Indeed in a past roles I have been a whistle-blower for actions by others that breached our Code of Conduct and have also invested vast amounts of effort to lead relationship building for many different Contracts. As an example, for a future agreement, if Code Force did not give Matrix (and vice versa) a fair and reasonable opportunity to be selected, or along the way they did not follow the intent of the original agreement despite what was actually written, I would agree with you.

However, again, it is normal practice to engage in a competitive selective process, unless there is a strong sole source justification. It is normal practice to define the period up-front where there may be a renegotiation or competitive selection. There is no breach of trust, as all parties all fully aware of what will take place in the years ahead.

During a competitive selection the established relationship will have weight (i.e. as you say a known quantity, less risk) but so too will past performance. In additions others need to be given a fair and reasonable opportunity … is it fair that others are essentially locked out from future agreements?

Let’s get back to the heart of my speculative argument. My contention is based on the premise that Matrix marketing performance is poor. What I am suggesting is that Matrix performance in Marketing probably does not justify a sole source arrangement for Distant Worlds 2. Marketing is a key component of how the overall performance of Matrix should be evaluated. It is not fair and reasonable for Code Force to feel obliged to blindly commit to a future agreement when others may provide a superior Marketing service, if a time to re-evaluate was agreed up-front?

Again, as you say, we are both engaged in idle speculation, but you are giving your own position far too much merit. There is nothing in your analysis that provides a credible sole source justification, or are you seriously going to suggest Matrix are good at Marketing?

(in reply to Kayoz)
Post #: 79
RE: Change publishers - 2/18/2014 1:42:18 AM   
Kayoz


Posts: 1516
Joined: 12/20/2010
From: Timbuktu
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Icemania
From my point of view, you are speculating that they have a long-term agreement that covers Distant Worlds 2.


Bull.

I never suggested that I have that knowledge. The most I ever did was shoot down your speculations on what their contract might be. Any speculation I made was to illustrate that your contractual divination can very easily be wrong.

If I did make any guesses on what their contract might be that wasn't illustrative to show the fallacy in your argument, then point to the post where I wrote such. Otherwise, I call it a lie.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Icemania
...it is normal practice to engage in a competitive selective process...


This isn't buying widgets. It's far closer to the relationship between an author and a book publisher than it is to Company-X supplying Company-Y with widgets. You have a very similar business relationship and yet you oddly refuse to use it. Hrm... why's that? Perhaps... because you know full well that if you look at a similar contractual relationship, your examples don't work?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Icemania
My contention is based on the premise that Matrix marketing performance is poor.


We addressed this - and I asked you to present some quantification to support your assertion. You have failed to supply a single number and are once again making wild speculations.

If you have some basis to your complaint about Matrix marketing - then by all means present it. But do so with something more substantial than wild speculation and your personal feelings on the matter.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Icemania
Again, as you say, we are both engaged in idle speculation, but you are giving your own position far too much merit.


If I'm giving myself too much credit for assuming that Erik is motivated by profit and that he has sufficient business experience to be able to make a reasonable business decision ... then go right ahead and challenge my assertions as I have done yours.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Icemania
...are you seriously going to suggest Matrix are good at Marketing?


Point of order: I never suggested Matrix bods are "good" at marketing. I've only suggested that their performance should be considered reasonable in the absence of proof otherwise. Reasonable != good.

Didn't I make that clear? I don't have access to the data to even guess at Matrix's relative performance. I don't have the information necessary to say if they're doing a "good" or "bad" job. And neither do you.

I have asserted that Matrix has managed to carve out a niche for itself - this suggests that the Matrix directors have some reasonable business acumen. Also, I asserted that Erik is motivated by profit and can be expected to make decisions which will benefit him. Well, that's the core of my argument. If you have disagreement with either of those assertions, then by all means shoot down my assertions by pointing out the flaws in my logic.

_____________________________

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” ― Christopher Hitchens

(in reply to Icemania)
Post #: 80
RE: Change publishers - 2/18/2014 2:05:20 AM   
Icemania


Posts: 1847
Joined: 6/5/2013
From: Australia
Status: offline 		Kayoz, I would be happy to engage in further discussion as I have to lot to say in response. However, this is contingent on your agreement to tone down the language, specifically please avoid language such as “bull” and “lie”. We should try to understand each other’s point of view and perhaps try to reflect that in our future dialog.

(in reply to Kayoz)
Post #: 81
RE: Change publishers - 2/18/2014 2:24:27 AM   
Kayoz


Posts: 1516
Joined: 12/20/2010
From: Timbuktu
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Icemania
..please avoid language such as “bull” and “lie”.


I don't see what problem you might have with "lie" - It's a common word in the English language. I have used it correctly and appropriately. I never made any speculation on Matrix contracts which was not illustrative to counter your claims. Not within this or any recent threads, in any case. If I did, then by all means point to the post. Otherwise, I contend that the word usage is correct and appropriate. It's a lie, so it's right to call it a lie.

As to "bull" - this isn't profanity. You might not be fond of the word, but you'll be hard pressed to find "bull" in many profanity filters. But if you don't like what might be considered "harsh" language - then don't make offensive statements. Don't lie.

But back to the source complaint:
I complained about your false claims about my statements - and I'll note that you have not addressed the complaint.

_____________________________

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” ― Christopher Hitchens

(in reply to Icemania)
Post #: 82
RE: Change publishers - 2/18/2014 3:29:07 AM   
Icemania


Posts: 1847
Joined: 6/5/2013
From: Australia
Status: offline 		My response is ready to send (although it would have to wait for when I have more time available). I could equally say your statement on buying widgets is a lie, since I have not once stated that the contract experience I have is for Widgets, indeed funnily enough they are all Service focused. But if you cannot agree to be civil, I'm out.



(in reply to Kayoz)
Post #: 83
RE: Change publishers - 2/18/2014 8:13:14 AM   
Kayoz


Posts: 1516
Joined: 12/20/2010
From: Timbuktu
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Icemania
I could equally say your statement on buying widgets is a lie, since I have not once stated that the contract experience I have is for Widgets


Nope. You can't. That would be yet another lie. I wrote "It's far closer to the relationship between an author and a book publisher than it is to Company-X supplying Company-Y with widgets.". Where's the lie? It's an interpretation of your line of logic. I didn't fabricate statements which you never wrote. You, on the other hand, did.

I didn't speculate as to the Matrix-CodeForce contract. You did. Not me. Any references I made were clearly illustrative and to the negative (ie: to invalidate your argument). I was and always have been very explicit in my position that I do not know any details of Matrix business dealings. If I've made wild speculations as to what they might be - then by all means show where I've written such and I'll post a full apology/retraction.

Let us be perfectly clear - this is your wrong, not mine. If you want to run off in a huff because you've been caught in a lie, then that's your right. Don't let the (albeit virtual) door hit you on the way out.

< Message edited by Kayoz -- 2/18/2014 9:49:34 AM >

_____________________________

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” ― Christopher Hitchens

(in reply to Icemania)
Post #: 84
RE: Change publishers - 2/18/2014 12:06:29 PM   
Icemania


Posts: 1847
Joined: 6/5/2013
From: Australia
Status: offline 		Rather predictably Kayoz has continued and I'm back to continue the debate anyway.

First topic

quote:

ORIGINAL: Icemania
My contention is based on the premise that Matrix marketing performance is poor.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kayoz
We addressed this - and I asked you to present some quantification to support your assertion. You have failed to supply a single number and are once again making wild speculations.

If you have some basis to your complaint about Matrix marketing - then by all means present it. But do so with something more substantial than wild speculation and your personal feelings on the matter.


You know full well that neither of us can provide anything other than the back of a fag packet. But hold on a moment ... wasn't there another thread for this topic? Hmm ...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kayoz
It might also go some way to explain why DW is generally so poorly marketed.


I'm sorry, did you just say Poor? Does Poor = Reasonable?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kayoz
My position is:

1. Matrix needs to improve it's marketing. Improvements to "social media marketing" seem to offer the greatest return on their investment - which thus far has been near zero.
2. Matrix needs to improve its release-day quality.
3. Matrix needs to be more open in documenting game mechanics, so that the community can identify flaws/exploits for removal in future patches.

If you have a specific retort to those 3 points, please chime in.


I agree with that other Kayoz, so indeed, please chime in.



Next topic

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kayoz
Nope. You can't. That would be yet another lie. I wrote "It's far closer to the relationship between an author and a book publisher than it is to Company-X supplying Company-Y with widgets.". Where's the lie? It's an interpretation of your line of logic. I didn't fabricate statements which you never wrote. You, on the other hand, did.


You have made a selective quotation (the part you have quoted I agree with).

What you actually said in full was ...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kayoz
This isn't buying widgets. It's far closer to the relationship between an author and a book publisher than it is to Company-X supplying Company-Y with widgets. You have a very similar business relationship and yet you oddly refuse to use it. Hrm... why's that? Perhaps... because you know full well that if you look at a similar contractual relationship, your examples don't work?


Which was a direct response to:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Icemania
...it is normal practice to engage in a competitive selective process...


Every one of the many Contracts that I have been responsible for is focused on Services and a number of them include significant Software Development making my examples directly relevant. Widgets has no relevance at all to my original statement which remains perfectly valid based on direct experience. All of them have fixed terms, with limited options to extend, regardless of what type of Contract it is. After expiry, primarily depending on past performance (but could also relate to other changes in circumstance/market) this would then either lead to a decision to sole source and develop a new agreement or to engage in competitive selection.

Now the relevant part that you failed to quote was "because you know full well that if you look at a similar contractual relationship, your examples don't work?". You are putting words in my mouth Kayoz i.e. doing exactly what you said you did not do ... fabricating. My examples do work.

I look forward to your apology as promised.

Next topic

quote:

ORIGINAL: Icemania
From my point of view, you are speculating that they have a long-term agreement that covers Distant Worlds 2.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kayoz
I never suggested that I have that knowledge. The most I ever did was shoot down your speculations on what their contract might be. Any speculation I made was to illustrate that your contractual divination can very easily be wrong.

If I did make any guesses on what their contract might be that wasn't illustrative to show the fallacy in your argument, then point to the post where I wrote such. Otherwise, I call it a lie.


You have raised serious issues around trust, morality and loyalty associated with my previous post. The only way your comments on trust and loyalty make any sense is if you think there is a long-term agreement. As I have highlighted, there is no breach of trust and loyalty if the relationship is reviewed at a previously mutually agreed time in a way that ensure fair dealings. I have never suggested they break an existing agreement, where your comments on trust and loyalty would be perfectly valid.

It’s perfectly reasonable to suggest the agreement has a fixed term based on personal experience I have outlined. To claim I have lied when I have openly stated that I am not sure is ridiculous, refer below.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Icemania
However, if that agreement is focused on Distant Worlds 1, with no agreement in place for Distant Worlds 2


quote:

ORIGINAL: Icemania
Of course we don’t know the details Kayoz


What I am suggesting is very simple. Evaluate options at the end of the agreed contract period without a predicated conclusion either way. This ensures existing agreements are fully honoured and fair dealings for all.

I’ll admit I falsely assumed you believed there was long-term agreement. Again, I was trying to make sense of what you were saying with trust and loyalty, and was assuming you understood the difference between an agreement in process and an agreement that has expired.

You need to reflect on what you have said. What you have done is jump to a wildly inappropriate conclusion.

I look forward to your apology as promised.

Next topic

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kayoz
I have asserted that Matrix has managed to carve out a niche for itself - this suggests that the Matrix directors have some reasonable business acumen. Also, I asserted that Erik is motivated by profit and can be expected to make decisions which will benefit him. Well, that's the core of my argument. If you have disagreement with either of those assertions, then by all means shoot down my assertions by pointing out the flaws in my logic.


I would be happy to point out a flaw. Of course Matrix is motivated by profit and will make the best decisions they can. The flaw is that all of us have strengths and weaknesses in our capabilities. Matrix appear to have a strength in supporting Development but a weakness in Marketing e.g. their Marketing Strategy for Distant Worlds is identical to what they apply to War Strategy Games generally, a point you have also agreed with elsewhere.

(in reply to Kayoz)
Post #: 85
RE: Change publishers - 2/18/2014 8:01:19 PM   
DevildogFF


Posts: 187
Joined: 12/8/2012
From: Northern Virginia, USA
Status: offline 		I've always like you, Ice....

Now I understand better *why* I like you.

:)

(in reply to Icemania)
Post #: 86
RE: Change publishers - 2/18/2014 9:32:56 PM   
Kayoz


Posts: 1516
Joined: 12/20/2010
From: Timbuktu
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Icemania
First topic
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kayoz
It might also go some way to explain why DW is generally so poorly marketed.


You're quoting a 4-month old post? People change their opinions and positions with time. If you look hard enough, you'll probably find threads where I anxiously awaited the release of Daikatana.

Clearly, I changed my mind some time in the last 4 months. I'm not sure when or why. But I'm sure you'll dredge through 4 months of forum chatter to try to find an answer. Have fun. I personally don't care.

Nice try, but irrelevant.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Icemania
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kayoz
1. Matrix needs to improve it's marketing. Improvements to "social media marketing" seem to offer the greatest return on their investment - which thus far has been near zero.
2. Matrix needs to improve its release-day quality.
3. Matrix needs to be more open in documenting game mechanics, so that the community can identify flaws/exploits for removal in future patches.

If you have a specific retort to those 3 points, please chime in.



And a post that's 8 months old. Are you going to start digging through old dial-up BBS posts next?

People change their opinions over time. Or did you not realize that?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Icemania
Next topic
You have made a selective quotation (the part you have quoted I agree with).


*snip irrelevant text*
Nothing to do with your allegation that I lied about widgets. The body of text associated with this topic is entirely irrelevant to your claim of lying.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Icemania
You have raised serious issues around trust, morality and loyalty associated with my previous post. The only way your comments on trust and loyalty make any sense is if you think there is a long-term agreement.


No. There is no requirement. Many authors publish multiple books by the same publisher and work exclusively with editors that they trust. Any contract is book-to-book, and eyebrows are raised when an author is poached by another publisher. That's one common and easy to understand example that "makes sense" to anyone and does not require a long-term agreement.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Icemania
As I have highlighted, there is no breach of trust and loyalty if the relationship is reviewed at a previously mutually agreed time in a way that ensure fair dealings.


You seem to have missed my objection, despite my efforts - and fail to understand - that this is of concern to Matrix and CodeForce alone. If they want to re-negotiate their contract, then that's their business. It's not for you to comment on an affair in which you have no standing.

Example: If I tell some bird that her bloke isn't good enough for her, I'd probably get slapped. Since you're not a "close friend" of either Matrix or CodeForce - the bird example is one of a complete stranger (or perhaps someone whom she recognizes from the tram) commenting on her personal affairs. In the absence of clear wrongdoing by one side and/or proof of bad faith - you're being a busybody sticking your nose where it doesn't belong.

It's for Matrix and CodeForce to decide. Not you. Not me. Not the bloke down at the pub. Them and them alone. None of your business. After stating this multiple times in this thread, is this finally clear enough for you to understand?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Icemania
I have never suggested they break an existing agreement


No, you didn't. Irrelevant, since I never suggested that you made such a suggestion. You didn't suggest that you're stalked by a 6-foot invisible, purple bunny rabbit. Are you going to recite that non-suggestion as well? If you did make such a suggestion, do you think I'd fail to call you on it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Icemania
What I am suggesting is very simple. Evaluate options at the end of the agreed contract period without a predicated conclusion either way. This ensures existing agreements are fully honoured and fair dealings for all.


I trust that Elliot isn't a complete financial fool and knows enough to give himself sufficient wiggle-room in a contract. I'm not going to try to give him contract negotiation advice - on contracts I've never seen and on a matter which is none of my business.

Are you seeing a pattern here? None of my/your business. Is that so difficult to comprehend?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Icemania
..the difference between an agreement in process and an agreement that has expired.


Again, that has no bearing. Perhaps you can only understand "loyalty" and "trust" within the parameters of a binding contract. Some might argue that it's a sign of sociopathy - but psychology isn't an area of interest to me. Suffice to say - nothing in my post refuting the calls for Elliot to dump Matrix even hinted at a contract.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Icemania
Next topic
I would be happy to point out a flaw. Of course Matrix is motivated by profit and will make the best decisions they can. The flaw is that all of us have strengths and weaknesses in our capabilities. Matrix appear to have a strength in supporting Development but a weakness in Marketing.


No comment. Because I can't. I don't know what resources Erik has available to him. I don't know DW's market potential. I don't know what Matrix's marketing efforts consisted of. I don't have sufficient facts to comment. And not to belabor the point, but neither do you.

If CodeForce is being ill served by Matrix, then it's for Elliot, and Elliot alone, to address the issue.

Oh, I'll submit to temptation and speculate a tad on what Elliot is doing.

<wild_speculation>
Now, if Elliot actually felt that Matrix was doing a poor job at marketing DW, there are avenues open to him. He could keep a developer blog. He could beat on some email boxes and get some interviews. He could write articles for game dev sites on his experiences. He could - egads - set up and update a social media channel. Has he done any of these? Well, a quick glance at the CodeForce web site will leave you (astonishingly enough) less informed about his game than Matrix's page for DW. And for interviews - I've only run across one. Social media? None that I can find - not on Facebook, no Twitter channel. Nothing.

What can I conclude from his lack of activity in promoting DW himself? Well, either he has a contract with Matrix that's tighter than Miley Cyrus' g-string... or he's content with what they're doing and doesn't deem it worthy of his time to beat the proverbial drum. Since the former is illogical and non-conducive to Matrix's goal (sales, profit), I think I can safely eliminate that. So we have only the latter. He's happy and we should leave him and his business decisions alone. If he has a gripe with Matrix and calls for support, I'll surely give him all I can - but in the meantime, it's none of my business.
</wild_speculation>

< Message edited by Kayoz -- 2/18/2014 10:39:34 PM >

_____________________________

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” ― Christopher Hitchens

(in reply to Icemania)
Post #: 87
RE: Change publishers - 2/18/2014 10:28:33 PM   
Tcby


Posts: 342
Joined: 12/16/2013
From: Australia
Status: offline 		Kayoz,
I read this discussion from the beginning. I have seen good arguments on both sides, and do not have a strong opinion either way, any more. When I first got into this game I thought the matrix marketing was poor. I only discovered this game after lengthy, exhaustive research into the genre. Now I'm not sure what to think about the whole issue.

What I do know is that your tone and penchant for insults are very, very unpleasant to read. Even when you make a point I agree with, I find myself annoyed.

Comments like these:
quote:

Perhaps you can only understand "loyalty" and "trust" within the parameters of a binding contract. Some might argue that it's a sign of sociopathy - but psychology isn't an area of interest to me.


...are juvenile.

< Message edited by Tcby -- 2/18/2014 11:29:14 PM >

(in reply to Kayoz)
Post #: 88
RE: Change publishers - 2/18/2014 10:41:52 PM   
Cauldyth

 

Posts: 752
Joined: 6/27/2010
Status: offline

(in reply to Tcby)
Post #: 89
RE: Change publishers - 2/19/2014 2:46:51 AM   
Icemania


Posts: 1847
Joined: 6/5/2013
From: Australia
Status: offline 		You do not understand the basics of trust/loyalty in Contracts. As I have said before, trust/loyalty are still relevant when considering options at expiry, but there are many others factors that need to be considered. Performance is a critical one. Similarly, with the papers you quoted previously, to anybody with experience in Contract Management, they do nothing more than state the obvious. I invest a huge amount of time in building trust and maintaining the psychological contract. They have no relevance to counter-arguing my position, they do not any way imply that just because there is trust, the same business relationship must be blindly retained, and new contracts written indefinitely in the future. For the majority of agreements that I’m responsible for, the relationship continues. But this is not always the right decision and again ongoing poor performance on a critical KPI would be a legitimate reason to re-evaluate the status quo at the appropriate junction. In short, your accusations on trust/loyalty are completely without basis, demonstrate a lack of competence in the subject, and do not provide a vehicle to have a constructive discussion.

Your 4-8 month old post response was expected. It’s an extraordinarily weak retort to say you don’t care why your position has changed. What difference has there been in the Matrix Marketing Strategy for Distant Worlds in that time? Because as far as I can tell, at least as of today there has been no material change. Note the word material Kayoz. I would be very supportive of material changes from Matrix.

You continue to object to the fact that I’m speculating and state this is none of our business. All you are doing is stating the obvious … of course we are speculating! How many times do I need to agree I’m speculating! But this is a forum, and last I checked we have freedom of speech, so I’m going to continue to speculate regardless of your completely inappropriate open hostility e.g. bull, lie, amoral, sociopath and so on. Somebody needs to stand-up to you Kayoz, without resorting to the same appalling behaviour in response. A forum bully you are. And unfortunately it seems this is being allowed by the Moderators.

Fundamentally, the difference between our positions is that you consider Matrix performance good enough to justify an ongoing arrangement. While I am concerned about marketing performance and propose that at the right time and in the right way there is a review of the status quo. See … this can expressed without being juvenile.

I have had pretty much the same speculation that you finished with and I suspect you might be more or less right. However, this doesn’t mean that I have to agree that this is the right path for the reasons I’ve already outlined.


< Message edited by Icemania -- 2/19/2014 3:47:56 AM >

(in reply to Kayoz)
Post #: 90
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Distant Worlds 1 Series >> RE: Change publishers Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   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

2.516