I'll be letting Gary know tomorrow morning.

I found this picture of poor Eric at the office with Daivd and Jennfier.

It is also standard policy to provide a DEMO in such cases, so users can verify that the game runs on their systems and is what they want before buying...

ROFL!!

Exactly. That is what is missing in that whole statement that Erik posted.

You can make the statement that other competitors have similar policies, but to save your poor policy in the first place, omit that other companies have demos in place to let customers have the chance to decide for themselves without paying the extra for a CD version.

FOF, .400, GDS, OOTP Dev, SI, PureSim before the move to Matrix, all had demos that you could try the game first before buying the game.

The Matrix story is a interesting one to watch, to say the least.

That's interesting...I had to check for myself, but for some reason I thought most of their games had demos and Maximum Football was just an exception. I was wrong. It seems there are only a few games with a demo. That is a strange stance to take, but they have been successful at it for some reason.

I'd be willing to bet a large sum of money that nearly all of these competitors that he cites also provide customers with demo versions of their games first so they have some idea of what they're buying. As such, his comparison lacks validity.

I am pretty sure I have never once bought a game without a demo. Possible exception: Diamond Mind Baseball.

okay, I won't quote everyone of you who talked about the demo issue but I'm sure glad I'm not the only one that got ticked off by it.

FM

i eagerly look forward to developments with MF from now until Monday. I expect AT LEAST another 15 pages in this thread by then guys!

The demo issue wouldn't be so bad if that 14 day refund actually existed. I am glad, however, that they are going to offer the refund in this case.

Hopefully it won't take 5 years+ to get the money credit back to them. :)

ZING!!!

you're EN FUEGO jb!!

This thread is TT. The game is SOC, but this thread is TT.

Ya youngins and your new fangled abbreviations. What in the hell does this mean?

yeah, that was my point. He's all business saying "hey look around, other people do this no-refund thing" but fails to say they offer demos.

I also understand how unprofitable it can become when you decide to offer refunds, almost no questions asked, on a digidownload product. But that is not my problem. THEY decided to use the digital download medium to distribute their products. If they don't want to offer refunds, they have to offer a demo. The present situation seems to be a very special case to them but to me, it should be standard procedure, i.e. demo available=no refund, no demo=possible refund...

FM

SOC = Shit On a Cracker?
TT = Terrific and Tasty?

:confused:

TTT = to the top (as in bump the thread). SOC??

Edit - just noticed it was TT not TTT. Carry on.

Damn, I know I'm late but ... what an utter load of horseshit this comment is.

The moment Matrix decided to get involved with Daivd, the two are connected.

And every developer connected with Matrix is now, unfortunately for them, connected to this debacle.

You fucked up when you got involved with this piece of crap, you fucked up even MORE when you made the half-witted decision to release it (no way I believe Matrix didn't know that the game was a coaster when it went out the door, or if you didn't, you're even bigger fools than this game makes you look), and now you're quite probably going to screw the reputation of at least any sports game designer who gets involved with you for good measure.

And you want to play the "keep them separate" card? What a fucking joke.

TT - True Talent
SOC - Sack of Crap

Damn, I was sure that TT was "The Tits"... :(

What's the difference, really?

I still think Shit On a Cracker is better.

It's an OOTP board thing.

My TT is filling a SOC.

Ok, call me crazy, but with the annoncement that the refund policy was Digital River's mistake, why does the refund information remain on the site? I am still puzzled by this.

Yeah I found that statement weird. I think this was a weak attempt at damage control, because he thought it would affect Shaun's sales knowing that Shaun is known here.

We need a clarification from Jennifer Winter, by god!

I'd say that's a slam dunk certainty, this debacle IS going to affect everything that Matrix does for a while. How _much_ impact it has and how long that impact lasts is something they can try to control, but it's beyond denial to believe that it won't have some impact.

It's kind of like Ford after the Pinto incident.

What the hell did Ford do to the beans?

They gave the beans a bad name.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto

I was kidding. Sorry. I may be young, but I know what a Ford Pinto is.

Okay it looks like DR is f*n up again. That explains why no action was taken on the site So it looks like that you guys waiting for the refund will have to wait a bit longer.

Has Erik addressed that fact that so many of their competitors offer demo versions of their games prior to the full version going on sale?

But in the business Matrix is primarily competing in, they don't. Paradox's demo for Diplomacy was a non-competative tutorial, none for the games prior to HOI had one, and the last HOI demo didn't contain any of the features most used in the retail version. HPS has no demos for products, and the latest strategy game Galactic Civilizations doesn't appear to have one either. Matrix are primarily in the war/strategy business, so they're are acting similarly to the other companies in this matter.

It's not in Matrix's or any other "niche" company's interest to produce a demo. Typically their games are unplayable until a couple of patches are released, so rather than have a demo, better to have a bunch of fanboys cheering how the great the game is in a forum so that the curious will be tempted to buy.

MF isn't even unique in it's missed deadlines, I found Matrix by chance, when Empires In Arms was announced. That game was scheduled for release Christmas 2003, it's been in "testing and tweaking" mode since early 2004. There are numerous other games which have been in development for years and yet to see the light of day, but when they do, they will instantly be snapped up.

Why potentially scare off customers when you don't have to?


I agree with you in principle. I doubt it's any less convenient or any less unprofitable for large chain stores to offer refunds on anything, no questions asked, as it would be for software vendors. Piracy is used an excuse in this industry to cover up a host of practices which are not only unrelated, but convenient to maintain such a business model. I wonder if Eric thinks it's more or less difficult to make a credit card purchase, then return, than to simply download the game?

There was an interesting exchange a while ago, when one of the Matrix staff goes off the reservation about those who might not want to pay full price for 3 year old games:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm...9359&mpage=2&#
Go to post 51, where :

However, Matrix are hardly alone in not accepting returns, offering demos, or releasing half-finished goods. MF is IMHO, par for the course in most of these areas, where it eclipses others though is that sometimes, it is worth dealing with all the crap buying a PC game entails, whereas MF wouldn't be of any value for free.

Okay now that is the most ridiculous statement I have ever seen. He basically sees a bargain bin shopper as theif. The ebay shopper can be argued. But the bargain bin shopper? That's a bunch of shite.

Except you miss the point - Maximum Football isn't a typical Matrix game. In the field in which MF competes (sports simulations) it is almost always the case that a demo version of the game is available ahead of time. Solecismic, .400 Studios, Grey Dog, OOTP, PureSim, Mogul, Fast Break, etc. - they all have demos you can try before you buy.

Maybe the other Matrix games are usually stable, well-designed games that deliver on very precisely worded descriptions of what the game is supposed to be, but that is obviously not the case with MF. Anyone buying this game without researching the forums first is getting essentially a Beta-build game that requires a lot of patching to get to where it delivers on the promises of the developer.

To offer such a game for sale with a no-refund policy and no demo version is essentially saying "We're trying to sucker as many people into buying this game as possible before they figure out what a train-wreck it is."

By the way, I wonder how they feel about GoGamer. They are an online retailer that sells their games cheaper as well:

http://www.gogamer.com/cgi-bin/GoGam...t/View/001AIRB
http://www.gogamer.com/cgi-bin/GoGam...t/View/001FORE
http://www.gogamer.com/cgi-bin/GoGam...ct/View/001KOR
http://www.gogamer.com/cgi-bin/GoGam...t/View/001UNCV
http://www.gogamer.com/cgi-bin/GoGam.../View/001WORWA

I must admit I don't truly understand their arguement in that thread. I didn't really know too much about Matrix when I was looking for I of the Enemy and heard that Shaun had moved there and that PaulVebber is one nifty character.

Antmeister
Read his other stuff in that thread. :)


Well it looks as though Matrix aren't prepared to change their business model for two games: Puresim and MF, so you may be missing the point ;) They have been successful at what they do, and a minor dabble into the world of sports doesn't mean the tail gets to wag the dog.

If you read what I've posted, then no, many Matrix titles are exactly like MF. Same delays, similar quality. While Matrix has some games which are spectacularly good releases, they have had almost as many stinkers.

Where Matrix do exceed most publishers is in their long term support, and attempts (not always successful) to iron out every problem and improve gameplay. The other difference is that most of the other games are decent designs/concepts, so that patching eventually makes a difference.

Which is exactly the same model used by Matrix's strategy competitors. In fact, it's the strategy used by most publishers period.

I agree completely. Seems to work for them and many others though.

Oh, the read it all the way until it was locked by David Heath. It seems he is content of blaming the consumers on what retail stores do to hurt his business. That is a great way to appeal to new customers. I guess that he simply forgot that he chose this business to go into. And I wonder if that is the same SlapBone from the FOFC.

That may be true, but my quibble is with Erik trying to describe their policy as standard practice - that may be true for most of the kinds of games they sell, but it's not true for the sports sim market.

If that's the case, I wonder why anyone bothers buying a Matrix game at release - it sounds like they all require multiple patches to be playable.

That's all fine and dandy, and maybe that's the model they have to follow in order to remain viable financially. It's not a business model I appreciate though.

Doesn't mean it's a good model. I have great appreciation for the sports sim market for providing demos for the user to decide whether or not it's worth plunking down X amount of dollars and Y amount of time to buy and play a game that that can't be refunded. Maybe these publishers lose out on some initial "sucker" purchases, but I'd like to think they gain credibility as a tradeoff and thus a more trusting long-term relationship with their audience.

In any event, without much exposure to other Matrix releases, the fact that they released MF when they did along with their no refund/no demo policy makes me quite reluctant to give their game catalog the benefit of the doubt - I'd have to see overwhelming evidence that a particular game is worth the time and money before doing business with them.

71 pages later, and people are still taking this seriously... I'm impressed.

An anti-trust plaintiff's lawyer might have a ball with some of the statements they made in that thread.

By now, I shouldn't be surprised.

Because gamers are among the biggest suckers in the world?

I'm not sure I'd necessarily agree with that based on some of the observations spcd made above. Maximum Football appears to be really a fringe product for them, it seems like they are more focused on war games. I'm not sure how much crossover there is from war gamers to graphical football, but I would guess that a majority of their core customers never even bother to click on/check out Maximum Football.

The biggest impact might be to Puresim (under the thinking that someone coming to the site looking for maximum football might try be willing to try another sports sim if MF was decent), but Purseim is such a different type of simulation I'm not sure there are many crossover customers there either.

So (outside of this board) the only potential customers I think this will affect are the folks who come to Matrix looking for MF, and it won't have much impact on Matrix's 'core' base of customers who are looking for war games.

We all know you mean GalCivII... You're right that the game doesn't have a demo right now - it's in QA, and should be out soon. And although the lead developer has said that he hates doing demos, there was never any question that there *would* be a demo.

On the other hand, GalCivII is selling like hotcakes, getting top of the line reviews, and generally blowing people's minds. Obviously, the developers know nothing about making and selling games online.

Good thing Matrix is sticking to their guns, eh?

Good post. Gal Civ2 just keeps raising my level of enjoyment the more I play it. Quite a few very good games out right now, and I still find myself dreaming up my next ship design.

Who rattled your cage? I didn't realize that "Galactic Civilizations" was camoflaging the name of the game.

The discussion was about demos, particularly from strategy dev/publishers, the market Matrix is primarily competing in. It's irrelevant how good/bad the game might be, the point was, it was released without a demo and without the possibility of a refund, something which I was trying to point out was not unique in this genre.

Did any of the people currently demanding refunds read any reviews of the game before they bought it?