New Brad McQuiad Interview "I want to make Worlds. Not games."

2»

Comments

  • PhryPhry OxfordshireMember EpicPosts: 9,033
    KinkyAmra said:
    Albatroes said:
    DMKano said:

    "But if you're making a game that is meant to be played for a longer period of time, then I think you should have a target audience and you should spend the time making the best game for them because you want to keep them around. Every player is important - not just the 3% or 5% that monetise. And especially if you're using the sub model, keeping them around and keeping them happy and making it more than a game and more of a home, that's what's important."


    Nice find, was a good read. Now I need to stop looking at this game again so I stop getting my hopes up! lol



    The problem with pure subscription model when it comes to MMOs - it's a losing battle longterm, as there's only one outcome - declining population which means decreasing profits over time.

    WoW, EvE and a handful of others managed to grow the population post launch - but inevitably after a while they too started losing players.

    What WoW and EvE both did (as well as 99.99% of all MMOs currently running) is introduce additional ways to spend money on game outside of subscription to compensate for declining playerbase - aka cash shop.

    Pantheon can launch without a cash shop - it can even run for a year or more without one - but it cannot run for 5+ years without something in addition to subscription that players can spend money on to offset declining playerbase.


    I don't mind the addition of shops if they are done like lets say GW2, ESO, FF14. Cosmetic stuff doesn't bother me(as long as it goes with the image of the game) Even items for your house. Subscription to me isn't a big deal, 10-15 for a month is nothing. If I plan on playing this game as long as I played eq1/2 or any other long term mmo I played then it saves me money from other games :-)

    I think they know they are making a game that isn't going to reach the success of a WoW, they have a target audience in mind and that target audience is who they are trying to keep. I've been saying for a long time devs need to start doing that and get this one size fits all mentality out. The game is designed for a niche audience in mind. 
    Slippery slope tbh. People tend to generalize too much and not understand execution which is the real thing to notice in all of this. GW2/ESO are b2p games that over boosts and so on (ESO has a sub option as well while also charging for ever "expansion" which they tend to launch about once a year?). FF14 is a bit more egregious imo but its updated at the same rate of a f2p game (at least once a month) and sacrifices in game cosmetics just to put them into the cash shop instead of being earned in game. On top of that, there a lot of cosmetics that are not account-wide and even are gender specific (even though they have a npc that can be used in game to change the gender locks on outfits except for some of the cash shop ones). Comparing FFXIV's cash shop to WoW's, you can easily see who's better in terms of fairness since everything you buy in WoW's shop is account-wide and only updated 4-5 times out of the year (then again, Blizzard does have a lot of other properties such as books and stuff that they sell more often than SE so maybe it balances out in terms of economy, but Blizzard doesn't sacrifice as much stuff that could be put in the game as a reward as SE does). I think Kano makes a strong point and I think he's suggesting that they at least consider adopting a "token" system to keep payment options diverse and can actually make the game more money since tokens are usually charged a few bucks more than an actual subscription.
    The hate you have for FFXIV and SE is so real.In every post you make you bash them.
    Have to agree on that, FFXIV:ARR has updates/added content on a far more regular basis than you would find in 99% of the F2P MMO's out there, indeed most F2P games add content that is paywall gated in some way, or is more focused on adding 'cash shop' items that improve gameplay etc. BDO is a good example of this, where they bring out a new class every now and then, and add a bunch of costumes to go with it along with other pearl shop items, as they know that most players who try the new classes will inevitably buy a costume for them at the very least, just because of the QoL bonuses from them and because once you have one character that has a costume, you do miss the bonuses that come with it when you start up a new character, its very profitable. :p
    Gdemami
  • Azaron_NightbladeAzaron_Nightblade KingsmouthMember EpicPosts: 4,286
    rodarin said:
    These guys still completely out of touch. They cant make games so they spin the other yarn and sell dreams. These guys have done nothing but fail fail fail when they had any sort of control. He and Chris Roberts cut from the same cloth.

    How many games have released since SC and Pantheon were announced? Many of them completely unheard of. Of course rthese guys have to claim theyre not making a 'game' thats obvious because if they were they would have released something years ago.

    But MMOs are dead. Look at games like PuBG, Fortnite, Dota 2,  Overwatch, and hearthstone. All less than 3 years old, a couple of them less than 6 months old all have more VIEWERS (as in watching OTHER people play the game) than SC or Pantheon could dream of. Add that to some of these other games that are flavor of the week like SoS, Cupheads, Destiny (although that one will prob have legs), CoD WW II and you have 10 or so games, most of which have been released in the past year that combine to have about 300K people watching other people play them.

    Many of those games are games no one had even heard of, on top of that.

    So kno these guys arent about making games because making games is easy. But they would rather sit back, NOT make a game and keep relying on demented nostalgia addicts to support them.
    MMOs have always been smaller than most other genres though. The only difference between now, and y2k, is that the other genres have gone online too. Shooters, offline RPGs, sports games - they've always dwarfed the MMO genre. Nothing has changed there.

    I won't play Pantheon. It has zero appeal to me. But he's right that MMO's aren't dead. They are pretty much that same small percentage of the gaming market that they've always been, and likely always will be unless something amazing happens.

    Also, MMOs are boring to watch. I play them, and I wouldn't go and watch someone else play them. Granted, I generally don't bother with streams at all.
    Kyleran

    My SWTOR referral link for those wanting to give the game a try. (Newbies get a welcome package while returning players get a few account upgrades to help with their preferred status.)

    Feel free to send me a message if you want a guest pass to try Black Desert Online as well!

  • delete5230delete5230 Member RarePosts: 4,226
    - Huge world     
    - Spread out mobs, to be less frantic and more relaxing
    - Many starting areas and cities
    - Community based game for friends and guilds
    - No individual story lines to isolate
    - Challenging content, so abilities count 
    - Slower leveling, so crafting would count
    - Steady income payment model ( not F2P )
    - Re-invest revenue by developers 

    Yes!!!... Absolutely... Pantheon will be a world not a game. 
    As for now we have zero mmos, maybe EvE ? 

    XodicGdemami
  • GdemamiGdemami Member EpicPosts: 10,938
    Good read - essentially how not to do business 101...
    Azaron_NightbladeXarkoFrodoFragins
  • VutarVutar S. KoreaMember UncommonPosts: 890
    Can't wait to play this game. Since a lot of the trolls on here swear they won't be playing, it should be a good community.  
    Kylerandragonlee66JemAs666Kiori001JamesGoblinLegotheHutt
  • GaxusnGaxusn Manchester, UK.Member UncommonPosts: 77
    rodarin said:
    These guys still completely out of touch. They cant make games so they spin the other yarn and sell dreams. These guys have done nothing but fail fail fail when they had any sort of control. He and Chris Roberts cut from the same cloth.

    How many games have released since SC and Pantheon were announced? Many of them completely unheard of. Of course rthese guys have to claim theyre not making a 'game' thats obvious because if they were they would have released something years ago.

    But MMOs are dead. Look at games like PuBG, Fortnite, Dota 2,  Overwatch, and hearthstone. All less than 3 years old, a couple of them less than 6 months old all have more VIEWERS (as in watching OTHER people play the game) than SC or Pantheon could dream of. Add that to some of these other games that are flavor of the week like SoS, Cupheads, Destiny (although that one will prob have legs), CoD WW II and you have 10 or so games, most of which have been released in the past year that combine to have about 300K people watching other people play them.

    Many of those games are games no one had even heard of, on top of that.

    So kno these guys arent about making games because making games is easy. But they would rather sit back, NOT make a game and keep relying on demented nostalgia addicts to support them.
    I believe you are the one that is out of touch. 

    VR have stated their target audience isn't the masses but the players who fell in love with the old school style of MMO; living, breathing, dangerous worlds in which you can create real friendships through teamwork.

    Most players from EQ1, EQ2, VG:SoH will be massively drawn to this game. 

    Nostalgia is always there. You think all those hundreds of thousands of ex-WoW players wouldn't be excited and sniffing around if a game that is practically WoW 2 was being developed... of course they would. 

    If Pantheon isn't a success, it isn't a success. But saying they are out of touch because YOU aren't their target audience and comparing other games completely unrelated to Pantheon genre is just stupid. 
    DullahanjimmywolfMawneeJemAs666Kiori001GdemamiAmathe

    Playing: Nothing
    Played: EQ1, EQ2, VG:SoH, WoW, AoC, LoTRO, Aion, L2, DF, WAR.
    Favourites: EQ1, VG:SoH, Original WoW.
    Waiting: Pantheon: ROTF

  • rodarinrodarin camarillo, CAMember RarePosts: 1,952
    Gaxusn said:
    rodarin said:
    These guys still completely out of touch. They cant make games so they spin the other yarn and sell dreams. These guys have done nothing but fail fail fail when they had any sort of control. He and Chris Roberts cut from the same cloth.

    How many games have released since SC and Pantheon were announced? Many of them completely unheard of. Of course rthese guys have to claim theyre not making a 'game' thats obvious because if they were they would have released something years ago.

    But MMOs are dead. Look at games like PuBG, Fortnite, Dota 2,  Overwatch, and hearthstone. All less than 3 years old, a couple of them less than 6 months old all have more VIEWERS (as in watching OTHER people play the game) than SC or Pantheon could dream of. Add that to some of these other games that are flavor of the week like SoS, Cupheads, Destiny (although that one will prob have legs), CoD WW II and you have 10 or so games, most of which have been released in the past year that combine to have about 300K people watching other people play them.

    Many of those games are games no one had even heard of, on top of that.

    So kno these guys arent about making games because making games is easy. But they would rather sit back, NOT make a game and keep relying on demented nostalgia addicts to support them.
    I believe you are the one that is out of touch. 

    VR have stated their target audience isn't the masses but the players who fell in love with the old school style of MMO; living, breathing, dangerous worlds in which you can create real friendships through teamwork.

    Most players from EQ1, EQ2, VG:SoH will be massively drawn to this game. 

    Nostalgia is always there. You think all those hundreds of thousands of ex-WoW players wouldn't be excited and sniffing around if a game that is practically WoW 2 was being developed... of course they would. 

    If Pantheon isn't a success, it isn't a success. But saying they are out of touch because YOU aren't their target audience and comparing other games completely unrelated to Pantheon genre is just stupid. 
    problem is those guys are all in their 50s now, mid 40s at least. if the game ever releases theyre going to be even older than that. These guys are catering to a literally dying playerbase. I also think that anyone who knew anything about Brad Mcquaid is dead as well. I remember when this project was first announced and the things I said. Those thoughts havent changed. He just hasnt been exposed yet. Tigers dont change their stripes, and if it werent for Chris Roberts and the shit he is pulling with SC you might see a nice meltdown with this thing. As for WoW, the number of people in that game grossly exaggerated despite 'public reports'. yeah they sold millions of copies and had millions of 'players' but there is no concrete numbers on UNIQUE people playing it. Or how many were in 'civilized' parts of the world and paying top dollar i.e. NA and Europe. WoW caters(ed) to the lowest common denominator and it will never be repeated. But that is another debate for another time. 

    As for twitch and these 'FoTM' games. They still have legs and as long as they last more than 30 days theyre all outperforming any MMO ever created except WoW, and Eve and maybe ESO in terms of being able to hold any sort of population. But Eve numbers were and are fake as cited above since everyone playing that game had 3 or 4 accounts and some people had way more than that, so at their peak of 60K or so players I would say you could cut that number in at least half to get UNIQUE people playing it. SO 30-35K and as cited the top 5-10 games on Twitch have that many viewers.

    Someone cited that Overwatch has 30 million players. Not sure of that accuracy but even so that blows every MMO ever made out of the water COMBINED in terms of playerbase. But look atthe games I DIDNT mention. Witcher 3, Fallout4, GTA, Skyrim, Assassins Creed, and the new one Divinity 2. Yeah theyre console/stand alone/solo games for the most part but all have 'worlds' created and all are better than most any MMO world (ever)created.

    So once again these guys trying to reinvent the wheel in a futile effort to make excuses as to why theyre not actually RELEASING a game.

    The way gaming is now the model really should be. Develop something that takes maybe 40-50 hours to get through and then start releasing new zones and areas and content on a monthly basis. Because thats how people 'devour' games these days. ESO tries to do it but their schedule is a bit longer than a month between. They have an almost 'perfect' (IMO) approach. They also have a very good world. Problem comes with other mechanics in the game. Housing isnt all that great, no auction house (opinion based negative), skills are cookie cutter, and a few hardcore lore fans not liking some of the changes they have had to make to make the game portion viable. Thats why I think some of the better established IPs dont fair well because of fanbois of the source material.

    But Ark sort of followed the pattern, and they updated and added stuff for free (for the most part) but they also had a lot of outside help from modders and basement developers. Now that theyre released and will soon have two paid expansions we will see how it goes.

    But the thing all these MMO types games have in common is they all had add ons or mods or outside help in improving gameplay. Including WoW. Add Ons basically made WoW. Because for people who remember it back when it first came out it wasnt all that. But hand holding easy mode add ons helped more people be semi competent.

    So there are a lot of things that contribute to a games success, and quite frankly the world is maybe the least important. Yeah for awe value and making videos sure, but other than maybe a time or two in a few hundred hours who really notices the details in the game? I do actually look at stuff in ESO when I am running around but I think I am in the minority, and I do fit into that 'old age' group so I do have the appreciation for it. But I have also been around long enough and seen enough games fail to know it really doesnt matter.

    And I also know that for these guys like McQuaid and Roberts and all the other failures who have burned good ideas to the ground its just their way of leeching more money from people. Because they lack any ability whatsoever to release anything on time and close to budget.
    JemAs666Kiori001JamesGoblin
  • NeanderthalNeanderthal Member UncommonPosts: 1,724

    I wasn't impressed by anything Brad said in that interview.  That fluff crap about building a world instead of a game is such a load of BS.  If he were serious about that he would first have to do away with levels and move the focus away from character progression.  A game focused on character progression can never be designed to really feel like a "world".  That doesn't mean it will necessarily be bad but it does mean that any talk about it being "a living breathing world" is just pure marketing BS.

    He also, once again, talked about picking a target audience and trying to make the best game for that particular niche.  Ok, that makes some sense, but has he actually figured out yet what his target audience is?  They keep sending conflicting messages about this and hiding behind vagueness and generalizations. 

     Is it a game for people who enjoy small group play but don't want to treat the game like a job or is it a game for the no-life raiders?  It really can't be both because catering to either one of those demographics will make the other unhappy.  So I would ask Brad to come clean and tell us which of these is the actual target audience and give specific details about how he is targeting that audience. 

    MendelJemAs666Kiori001JamesGoblin
  • MendelMendel Marietta, GAMember RarePosts: 1,876

    I wasn't impressed by anything Brad said in that interview.  That fluff crap about building a world instead of a game is such a load of BS.  If he were serious about that he would first have to do away with levels and move the focus away from character progression.  A game focused on character progression can never be designed to really feel like a "world".  That doesn't mean it will necessarily be bad but it does mean that any talk about it being "a living breathing world" is just pure marketing BS.

    He also, once again, talked about picking a target audience and trying to make the best game for that particular niche.  Ok, that makes some sense, but has he actually figured out yet what his target audience is?  They keep sending conflicting messages about this and hiding behind vagueness and generalizations. 

     Is it a game for people who enjoy small group play but don't want to treat the game like a job or is it a game for the no-life raiders?  It really can't be both because catering to either one of those demographics will make the other unhappy.  So I would ask Brad to come clean and tell us which of these is the actual target audience and give specific details about how he is targeting that audience. 

    I've been asking who is the audience for this game for a long time.  What characterizes them?  What are they doing now?  How is Pantheon planning to dislodge these customers from their current activities and draw them in?

    All we know is that they have been somehow under-served by the MMORPG genre.  Brad suggested once that they are playing games like Call of Duty.  What about Pantheon is going to cause a CoD player to stop playing that and come play it?

    If people were more interested in making living worlds rather than games, shouldn't they be thinking 'simulation' rather than 'game'?  That ties in with the point about levels and vertical progression.  Thinking about Pantheon from the game mechanics level only ensures that the game will be exactly as before, and the market is likely to suffer a mass case of deja vu in the future.  Before anyone suggests that deja vu is 'what we want', let me suggest that for every poster on these forums, there's an untold number of people for whom deja vu is going to be 'been there, done that'.

    I'm even more convinced than ever that Brad and company are only making a game they are comfortable with.

    @Neanderthal, you're spot on about the 'vagueness and generalizations'.
    Neanderthal

    Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.

  • Gyva02Gyva02 Member UncommonPosts: 402
    rodarin said:
    Gaxusn said:

    problem is those guys are all in their 50s now, mid 40s at least. if the game ever releases theyre going to be even older than that. These guys are catering to a literally dying playerbase. 
    Hey buddy, I'm 39, I'm not in my mid 40's just quite yet  :) 
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Nashville, TNMember EpicPosts: 3,055
    edited October 1
    rodarin said:

    The way gaming is now the model really should be. Develop something that takes maybe 40-50 hours to get through and then start releasing new zones and areas and content on a monthly basis. Because thats how people 'devour' games these days. ESO tries to do it but their schedule is a bit longer than a month between. They have an almost 'perfect' (IMO) approach. They also have a very good world. Problem comes with other mechanics in the game. Housing isnt all that great, no auction house (opinion based negative), skills are cookie cutter, and a few hardcore lore fans not liking some of the changes they have had to make to make the game portion viable. Thats why I think some of the better established IPs dont fair well because of fanbois of the source material.

    That model is, quite frankly, unsustainable.

    Releasing entire zones of quality content in a month isn't something that Blizzard was even able to do at the height of WoW's popularity; why the heck would you think any other developer can afford the manpower to do so?  ESO hasn't even been able to come up with content at that rate.  It's unrealistic.

    You cited my 30 million players in Overwatch without much context of the two genres' histories.  FPSs have always been a more popular genre, pre-Twitch, pre-OW, pre-F2P movement.

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/189592/breakdown-of-us-video-game-sales-2009-by-genre/

    The two largest genres: shooter comes in at number one, action at number two.  This jives with your post's intention, sure, but you make a lot of assumptions as to why.  Assumptions not really supported with any additional fact-based arguments.  You correctly asserted that the shooter genre blows RPGs out of the water, though you didn't actually cite any stats to support it (congrats, I did that for ya).  Here's my argument, supported by statistics instead of just rhetoric:

    More men play video games than women.  The extent to which this is true differs by platform (roughly 60/40 on PC, 70/30 on consoles), with console gamers skewing more heavily male than female gamers (incidentally, where the largest popularity of FPS lies, as well).  However, that's not enough to account for the large disparity in popularity between FPSs and RPGs.  So let's take a closer look at the preferences among both groups to see if that affords any additional evidence to lend credibility to the idea that the gender disparity in gaming contributes to the success of a particular genre.

    A comparison of genre preferences gives us more insight as to why FPS, as a genre, is much more popular than RPGs.  According to a 2017 report by the video game analytics company Quantic Foundry, based on surveys of about 270,000 gamers, the following proportions of gamers within a genre are women or men, respectively:

    High Fantasy MMO: relatively consisent with the aforementioned gender populations.  36% of the genre is comprised of women, 64% comprised of men.
    Japanese RPG: oddly enough, another one that's consistent with the gender population as a whole.  33% women, 66% men.
    Western RPGs: These skew slightly more towards men than the overall gender populations.  26% female, 74% male.
    Sci-fi MMO: This is the most strongly biased MMORPG genre towards males.  Considering that two of the most popular sci-fi MMOs ever created were shooters (the Planetside series), with only a few notable non-FPS exceptions (EVE online and E:D I guess?  Though, E:D probably relates more to FPS than traditional 3rd person MMORPG), this mitigates the contribution of this category to the overall differences.
    MOBAs: only comprised of 10% female gamers, 90% male.
    First-Person Shooters: Only 7% of the population is female, with 93% being male.
    Tactical Shooters: A whopping 4% of this genre population is comprised of female gamers, with 96% of the genre population being male.

    So, by far, the largest population of gamers by gender skews the largest in genre preference towards playing FPSs, with no regard to a particular gameplay mechanic or content creation/delivery method.  But I'd like to add further support to why online competitive shooters enjoy a much larger amount of success, in general, than do MMORPGs (spoiler alert: it doesn't involve any particular gameplay mechanic utilized within these shooters or their content creation/delivery method, either).  According to data collected by Quantic Foundry in 2016, the primary motivations why people play video games differ, on average, by gender. While men frequently want most to compete with others and destroy things, women often want most to complete challenges and immerse themselves in other worlds:

    Fantasy: Immersion in and exploring other worlds.  16% of women surveyed reported this as a primary motivation for gaming, while only 9% of men did.
    Community: Socializing of collaborating with others.  This one is consistent between genders with 10% of women citing this as a primary motivator and 9% of men.
    Story: Elaborate narrative, well-developed characters.  9% women, 6% men.
    Competition: Competing with other players.  5% of women, 14% of men.
    Excitement: Action, thrills, fast-paced gameplay.  3% of women, 6% of men.
    Challenge: Exercising personal skill and ability, requiring practice.  3% of women, 7% of men.

    You'll notice that the primary motivators typically associated with RPGs, and specifically MMORPGs (Story, Fantasy, and Community), align more consistently with female gamers' primary motivators than male gamers'.  In contrast, the primary motivators typically associated with FPSs, and specifically online competitive shooters (Competition, Excitement, Challenge), align much more closely with the larger gender demographic (men) in gaming.  And not only do they align, the motivations skew much harder towards men in the categories traditionally associated with FPSs than the MMORPG motivators skew towards women.  Each of the three FPS-related motivators skew 2:1 or more towards men.  Of the MMORPG-related categories, none of them skew even 2:1, though Fantasy comes very close.

    So we have a larger gender base in men that prefer FPSs even more than the smaller gender base (women) prefer MMORPGs.  Not only do they prefer the genres themselves, but their underlying motivators for playing video games in general align with those genres.  And that, in a nutshell, is how you get a genre that's overwhelmingly more popular than another, gameplay mechanics, content creation/delivery vehicles, or development philosophy focuses be damned.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_and_video_games#Women_in_competitive_gaming

    The wiki page has citations for the statistics used throughout, so it's much easier to link to it than the individual pages it cites.
    Post edited by MadFrenchie on
    Kiori001GdemamiJamesGoblin

    image
  • gervaise1gervaise1 .Member EpicPosts: 4,461
    DMKano said:

    "But if you're making a game that is meant to be played for a longer period of time, then I think you should have a target audience and you should spend the time making the best game for them because you want to keep them around. Every player is important - not just the 3% or 5% that monetise. And especially if you're using the sub model, keeping them around and keeping them happy and making it more than a game and more of a home, that's what's important."


    Nice find, was a good read. Now I need to stop looking at this game again so I stop getting my hopes up! lol



    The problem with pure subscription model when it comes to MMOs - it's a losing battle longterm, as there's only one outcome - declining population which means decreasing profits over time.

    WoW, EvE and a handful of others managed to grow the population post launch - but inevitably after a while they too started losing players.

    What WoW and EvE both did (as well as 99.99% of all MMOs currently running) is introduce additional ways to spend money on game outside of subscription to compensate for declining playerbase - aka cash shop.

    Pantheon can launch without a cash shop - it can even run for a year or more without one - but it cannot run for 5+ years without something in addition to subscription that players can spend money on to offset declining playerbase.

    Agree that subscriptions are a losing battle. 

    Less sure that WoW was "an exception". We now know that WoW passed 100 million (non-trial) accounts a few years back. In other words WoW, like EQ1 before it, had huge churn with on average 8-10 million people a year leaving. That Blizzard's triumph was to sell "10 million" copies of WoW every year for a decade.



  • gervaise1gervaise1 .Member EpicPosts: 4,461
    goboygo said:
    <snip>

    Who says an MMO is supposed to last forever.  It should last as long as its good, not as long as the developer can find ways to keep making money on a sub par or dated game.

    That's what I hate most about F2P and even most B2P games.  They just aren't very good, at all.  But they can survive simply because of the business model not because its a great game.

    How does this benefit the gamer if we keep getting crap games that still survive.  It doesn't.   If the game isn't good enough to warrant an upfront cost and a sub, it should fail and go away.  The next developer will then know they have to do better or don't bother.  I'd rather have one amazing MMO every 5 to 10 years than 20 pieces of shit every year.
    1. Developers make stuff to make money. I am sure you are not suggesting an mmo should be run as a "social" operation along the lines of a "non-profit"! 

    2. How long an mmo lasts is not the issue its how long do people want to play it. Once you get bored with it its dead in your eyes. And every game gets boring eventually. Period. No exceptions. Why over 100 million have dumped WoW; good enough to buy and play but not good enough to stick with for 10 years.

    3. F2P or B2P are just business models. The suggestion that subscription = "best" doesn't hold water.

    Now in some cases a subscription model may be "best" - these are usually niche involving a small target market. This is what Brad is hoping to appeal to - small audience but large enough to be sustainable. History says it won't be easy. Do you rent your television or car? TV rentals are very rare these days, cars much less common.

    Sometimes f2p may be best. Google search engine is an obvious example - you used to have to buy search engines! 

    As for b2p Brad used a b2p example. Going to the cinema is a b2p experience, you don't sign up to go to the cinema for a 30 day period. b2p is the default method of commerce in the world. You go to a restaurant - you pay for your meal; you buy a microwave; you buy gas/fuel by the gallon/litre. 

    There are also lots of examples where you get both: private golf course - pay a yearly membership (subscription) vs. municipal gold course - pay per round. Amazon Prime - pay to listen to some music, watch some videos vs. buy them outright (vs. for some pirate them of course).

    4. You ask how does this benefit gamers? Remember, as the adage goes, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Ones persons good game is another persons crap.

    There is no restriction on business models. Companies are free to do what they want. And if you checkout some games you will find that - for better or (probably) worse - they have been designed independently of a business model.

    Brad however is free to release Pantheon with a subscription - the market allows this. And those some who like the idea of Pantheon will play it, for a month, a year or whatever. Others might consider it crap. There is the freedom to do this however. There is no rule that says: must release as a subscription game.

    5. To conclude I hope it works out for Brad, choice is good. I doubt he is under any illusions. His experience with EQ! didn't help with Vanguard however - which failed. (Vanguard was only "saved" when SoE stepped in and many remained unhappy). Hopefully Pantheon will pull through. Are you planning to stay subscribed to it for the next 10 years though ... maybe 5 .... what about 1 year, maybe without new content ...?
  • DullahanDullahan Member EpicPosts: 4,419
    Like anything else, if you make something people want, they will pay for it. There's nothing inherently wrong with subscription, especially for a game that is designed around the long-term. People will continue paying for it if it provides something that cannot be found elsewhere.

    That's why subscription is unsustainable for the current breed of mmorpgs. They are all with only a few old school exceptions, fast food gaming that is quickly consumed.
    Kiori001Gdemami


  • DMKanoDMKano Gamercentral, AKMember LegendaryPosts: 17,140
    edited October 1
    goboygo said:


    How does this benefit the gamer if we keep getting crap games that still survive.  It doesn't.   If the game isn't good enough to warrant an upfront cost and a sub, it should fail and go away.  The next developer will then know they have to do better or don't bother.  I'd rather have one amazing MMO every 5 to 10 years than 20 pieces of shit every year.

    You are under the mistaken assumption that anyone is looking for gamer's benefit. That's not how business works.

    Who makes the product - that's who is benefiting - in the case - the question should be - "how does this benefit the game companies" - as that's the only question the game companies are asking, "the benefit for the gamer" - that's never brought up, because it's not their concern.

    The focus is - "how do we get the consumers to spend money on our product" - that's the bottom line of any business.

    Again - you are looking at this from the gamer's perspective - why? Because gamers are not the ones that run game companies - so your wants and needs of "wanting to have most games shut down and only few survive" - why would any business do this? 

    It would be like going to  movie companies and telling them to only make a few great movies and skip 100s of mediocre movies - should the movie industry listen to an outsider who has no investment, and no direct input in making any movies?

    Get real - your needs are completely irrelevant to the industry as whole.

    Movies just like games are made to make money - that's what drives the whole industry.

    Would it be nice to only have awesome quality product - yes it would be - is this in any way shape or form realistic - nope, so why even go there?

    Post edited by DMKano on
  • delete5230delete5230 Member RarePosts: 4,226
    DMKano said:
    goboygo said:


    How does this benefit the gamer if we keep getting crap games that still survive.  It doesn't.   If the game isn't good enough to warrant an upfront cost and a sub, it should fail and go away.  The next developer will then know they have to do better or don't bother.  I'd rather have one amazing MMO every 5 to 10 years than 20 pieces of shit every year.

    You are under the mistaken assumption that anyone is looking for gamer's benefit. That's not how business works.

    Who makes the product - that's who is benefiting - in the case - the question should be - "how does this benefit the game companies" - as that's the only question the game companies are asking, "the benefit for the gamer" - that's never brought up, because it's not their concern.

    The focus is - "how do we get the consumers to spend money on our product" - that's the bottom line of any business.

    Again - you are looking at this from the gamer's perspective - why? Because gamers are not the ones that run game companies - so your wants and needs of "wanting to have most games shut down and only few survive" - why would any business do this? 

    It would be like going to  movie companies and telling them to only make a few great movies and skip 100s of mediocre movies - should the movie industry listen to an outsider who has no investment, and no direct input in making any movies?

    Get real - your needs are completely irrelevant to the industry as whole.

    Movies just like games are made to make money - that's what drives the whole industry.

    Would it be nice to only have awesome quality product - yes it would be - is this in any way shape or form realistic - nope, so why even go there?


    How come you get away with using " your " instead of " you're " ? 

    Maybe because everything else I spell is wrong ?.... Only kidding, I don't care :) 
    KyleranDullahanGdemamiJamesGoblin
  • MendelMendel Marietta, GAMember RarePosts: 1,876
    DMKano said:
    goboygo said:


    How does this benefit the gamer if we keep getting crap games that still survive.  It doesn't.   If the game isn't good enough to warrant an upfront cost and a sub, it should fail and go away.  The next developer will then know they have to do better or don't bother.  I'd rather have one amazing MMO every 5 to 10 years than 20 pieces of shit every year.

    You are under the mistaken assumption that anyone is looking for gamer's benefit. That's not how business works.

    Who makes the product - that's who is benefiting - in the case - the question should be - "how does this benefit the game companies" - as that's the only question the game companies are asking, "the benefit for the gamer" - that's never brought up, because it's not their concern.

    The focus is - "how do we get the consumers to spend money on our product" - that's the bottom line of any business.

    Again - you are looking at this from the gamer's perspective - why? Because gamers are not the ones that run game companies - so your wants and needs of "wanting to have most games shut down and only few survive" - why would any business do this? 

    It would be like going to  movie companies and telling them to only make a few great movies and skip 100s of mediocre movies - should the movie industry listen to an outsider who has no investment, and no direct input in making any movies?

    Get real - your needs are completely irrelevant to the industry as whole.

    Movies just like games are made to make money - that's what drives the whole industry.

    Would it be nice to only have awesome quality product - yes it would be - is this in any way shape or form realistic - nope, so why even go there?


    How come you get away with using " your " instead of " you're " ? 

    Maybe because everything else I spell is wrong ?.... Only kidding, I don't care :) 
    Possibly because his 'your' was correctly used.
    KyleranDullahanConstantineMerusJamesGoblinAzaron_Nightblade

    Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.

  • AmatheAmathe Miami, FLMember RarePosts: 2,989
    What interests me most about Brad's article is his dedication to the game world being a place where you feel you belong. It's not just a stage prop along the road to greater shinies. Everquest drew me in because of that.  

    EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests

  • kitaradkitarad RomeMember EpicPosts: 3,740
    DMKano said:
    goboygo said:


    How does this benefit the gamer if we keep getting crap games that still survive.  It doesn't.   If the game isn't good enough to warrant an upfront cost and a sub, it should fail and go away.  The next developer will then know they have to do better or don't bother.  I'd rather have one amazing MMO every 5 to 10 years than 20 pieces of shit every year.

    You are under the mistaken assumption that anyone is looking for gamer's benefit. That's not how business works.

    Who makes the product - that's who is benefiting - in the case - the question should be - "how does this benefit the game companies" - as that's the only question the game companies are asking, "the benefit for the gamer" - that's never brought up, because it's not their concern.

    The focus is - "how do we get the consumers to spend money on our product" - that's the bottom line of any business.

    Again - you are looking at this from the gamer's perspective - why? Because gamers are not the ones that run game companies - so your wants and needs of "wanting to have most games shut down and only few survive" - why would any business do this? 

    It would be like going to  movie companies and telling them to only make a few great movies and skip 100s of mediocre movies - should the movie industry listen to an outsider who has no investment, and no direct input in making any movies?

    Get real - your needs are completely irrelevant to the industry as whole.

    Movies just like games are made to make money - that's what drives the whole industry.

    Would it be nice to only have awesome quality product - yes it would be - is this in any way shape or form realistic - nope, so why even go there?


    How come you get away with using " your " instead of " you're " ? 

    Maybe because everything else I spell is wrong ?.... Only kidding, I don't care :) 

    Now I understand the problem, you really thought that 'your' and 'you're' are the same.

    Your is a possessive pronoun  for example.... your car, your wife and so on.

    You're is a contraction for you are. It is when two words are made into one word.  You are an idiot can be written as you're an idiot.
    LegotheHuttJamesGoblinjimmywolf

  • MargraveMargrave Member UncommonPosts: 945
    I remember his worlds. No thank you. I will not return to any product with his name attached to it.

    He wants to make worlds, eh? Well I want him to leave the online game industry.
    jpedrote52GdemamiJamesGoblin
  • AmatheAmathe Miami, FLMember RarePosts: 2,989
    How come you get away with using " your " instead of " you're " ?  
    Maybe this will help you remember:

    You're not going to forget your grammar. 
    JamesGoblin

    EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests

  • delete5230delete5230 Member RarePosts: 4,226
    kitarad said:
    DMKano said:
    goboygo said:


    How does this benefit the gamer if we keep getting crap games that still survive.  It doesn't.   If the game isn't good enough to warrant an upfront cost and a sub, it should fail and go away.  The next developer will then know they have to do better or don't bother.  I'd rather have one amazing MMO every 5 to 10 years than 20 pieces of shit every year.

    You are under the mistaken assumption that anyone is looking for gamer's benefit. That's not how business works.

    Who makes the product - that's who is benefiting - in the case - the question should be - "how does this benefit the game companies" - as that's the only question the game companies are asking, "the benefit for the gamer" - that's never brought up, because it's not their concern.

    The focus is - "how do we get the consumers to spend money on our product" - that's the bottom line of any business.

    Again - you are looking at this from the gamer's perspective - why? Because gamers are not the ones that run game companies - so your wants and needs of "wanting to have most games shut down and only few survive" - why would any business do this? 

    It would be like going to  movie companies and telling them to only make a few great movies and skip 100s of mediocre movies - should the movie industry listen to an outsider who has no investment, and no direct input in making any movies?

    Get real - your needs are completely irrelevant to the industry as whole.

    Movies just like games are made to make money - that's what drives the whole industry.

    Would it be nice to only have awesome quality product - yes it would be - is this in any way shape or form realistic - nope, so why even go there?


    How come you get away with using " your " instead of " you're " ? 

    Maybe because everything else I spell is wrong ?.... Only kidding, I don't care :) 

    Now I understand the problem, you really thought that 'your' and 'you're' are the same.

    Your is a possessive pronoun  for example.... your car, your wife and so on.

    You're is a contraction for you are. It is when two words are made into one word.  You are an idiot can be written as you're an idiot.

    You fixed something I never thought of, and busted my balls by calling me an idiot at the same time..... Good for you :)
    LegotheHutt
  • KajidourdenKajidourden Panama City, FLMember RarePosts: 1,483

    Slow news day eh?  Basically the same thing everyone says when they go to make an MMO.

    Nobody has, or probably ever will though. 

    Only way I see it happening is with 20+ years of tech advancement and some billionaire angel investor who happens to love MMOs.

    The first is a matter of time, the second?  LOL

    JamesGoblinKyleran
  • goboygogoboygo Member RarePosts: 1,740
    Vutar said:
    Can't wait to play this game. Since a lot of the trolls on here swear they won't be playing, it should be a good community.  
    lol
Sign In or Register to comment.