Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

2012 Reflections

2

Comments

  • grimalgrimal Stamford, CTPosts: 2,873Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Wizardry

    Well for the most part i have to agree but 1/8 are iffy.

    1 That is a great IP no question however HUGE budget i am not so sure,matter of fact i doubt it.

    8 great combat imo does make a great game.I am not so sure i would say TERA has great combat,i did not like any part of that game.Combat is 85% the reason why i liked/loved FFXi.

    Combat does have a lot to it however,more so than simply killing.So much of a game can tie into combat,that is what does it for me.

    Truth of course is that ONE aspect does nopt make a great GAME,it is however a VERY important piece of the pie.IMO it is like the pie filling,the crust is al lthe other little things.

    Well as for #1, huge budget in terms of the market.  It was reportedly the biggest budget for any video game ever made.

    #8 Applies to Tera but it is also a lesson that should have been learned from AoC.  Both put combat in the forefront but focused on little else.  I never tried FFXI, so I can't comment...but I think the lesson is to not forget the rest of the game just because of one feature.

  • grimalgrimal Stamford, CTPosts: 2,873Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Foomerang

    2012 was rough. After 8 years of having swg, i found myself struggling to connect with the new style of mmos.

    Let's hope 2013 is a smoother ride!

  • grimalgrimal Stamford, CTPosts: 2,873Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by tank017
    I suggest everyone say number 9 to themselves before bed every night.

    Please please please!!!

  • eye_meye_m Notta Chance, ABPosts: 3,133Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by DSWBeef

     

    [mod edit]

    LOL. Elitism by hours dedicated!  

    All of my posts are either intelligent, thought provoking, funny, satirical, sarcastic or intentionally disrespectful. Take your pick.

    I get banned in the forums for games I love, so lets see if I do better in the forums for games I hate.

    I enjoy the serenity of not caring what your opinion is.

  • RaysheRayshe London, ONPosts: 1,284Member

    You cant treat a MMO like a console games. MMO's age like Wine, they continue to get better. However people jump from MMO's like they are on a trial limit without looking back. I have done my share of jumping in F2P games, but thats not because i beat it and moving on to the next its because i didn't like it. Jumping game to game is fine if your lookin for the game that you want to spend afew years playing. Jumping game to game until you get bored will only create more WoW clones for you to jump to.

     

    So in short its game jumpers who arent looking for a commitment in a game that is the problem with the community. Its not the companies fault, its yours. Stick to a game and fund their updates and you will have a game you enjoy, and it will gain steam and strength.

    Because i can.
    I'm Hopeful For Every Game, Until the Fan Boys Attack My Games. Then the Knives Come Out.
    Logic every gamers worst enemy.

  • OG_ZorvanOG_Zorvan Fresno, CAPosts: 615Member
    Originally posted by xAPOCx
     

    image       1000%

    That your sig is awesome? I agree also! image

    EA CEO John Riccitiello's on future microtransactions: "When you are six hours into playing Battlefield and you run out of ammo in your clip, and we ask you for a dollar to reload, you're really not very price sensitive at that point in time...We're not gouging, but we're charging."

  • Shoko_LiedShoko_Lied -, WAPosts: 2,080Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by DSWBeef
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by DSWBeef
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by DSWBeef
    Business model makes little difference to gamers. Poor design choices do. (GW2 and SWTOR)

    I disagree. Sub forces a level of commitment, and prevent gamers from dabbling in a game. F2P obviously attract a lot more people to play test. So business model does change behaivor.

     

    The business model wasnt the problem with all these converted f2p games. Poor design choices were. Swtor had no endgame and the endgame it did have was unfinished, AOC buggy no endgame, aion grindy, WAR buggy, VG buggy as all hell, list goes on and on. IF SWtor was amazing you would see sub numbers near wow. The sub isnt going anywhere poor design choices are.

    But the statement that "business model makes little difference" is clearly wrong. If by moving from p2p to f2p, player population increases 10x ... the business model is having an effect.

    Don't tell me increase a player base and revene is "making little difference".

    [mod edit]

    Plays games more than an hour a day.

    Isn't a gamer.

    Wat

  • OG_ZorvanOG_Zorvan Fresno, CAPosts: 615Member
    Originally posted by DSWBeef
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by DSWBeef
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by DSWBeef
    Business model makes little difference to gamers. Poor design choices do. (GW2 and SWTOR)

    I disagree. Sub forces a level of commitment, and prevent gamers from dabbling in a game. F2P obviously attract a lot more people to play test. So business model does change behaivor.

     

    The business model wasnt the problem with all these converted f2p games. Poor design choices were. Swtor had no endgame and the endgame it did have was unfinished, AOC buggy no endgame, aion grindy, WAR buggy, VG buggy as all hell, list goes on and on. IF SWtor was amazing you would see sub numbers near wow. The sub isnt going anywhere poor design choices are.

    But the statement that "business model makes little difference" is clearly wrong. If by moving from p2p to f2p, player population increases 10x ... the business model is having an effect.

    Don't tell me increase a player base and revene is "making little difference".

    [mod edit]

    Let's see...according to Raptr, I have spent 87 hours in Fallen Earth F2P in less than 2 weeks. I'd hardly call that "casual".

    EA CEO John Riccitiello's on future microtransactions: "When you are six hours into playing Battlefield and you run out of ammo in your clip, and we ask you for a dollar to reload, you're really not very price sensitive at that point in time...We're not gouging, but we're charging."

  • KiljaedenasKiljaedenas New Westminster, BCPosts: 468Member
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by DSWBeef
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by DSWBeef
    Business model makes little difference to gamers. Poor design choices do. (GW2 and SWTOR)

    I disagree. Sub forces a level of commitment, and prevent gamers from dabbling in a game. F2P obviously attract a lot more people to play test. So business model does change behaivor.

     

    The business model wasnt the problem with all these converted f2p games. Poor design choices were. Swtor had no endgame and the endgame it did have was unfinished, AOC buggy no endgame, aion grindy, WAR buggy, VG buggy as all hell, list goes on and on. IF SWtor was amazing you would see sub numbers near wow. The sub isnt going anywhere poor design choices are.

    But the statement that "business model makes little difference" is clearly wrong. If by moving from p2p to f2p, player population increases 10x ... the business model is having an effect.

    Don't tell me increase a player base and revene is "making little difference".

    If in that movement of p2p to f2p the player population increases 10x but a good chunk of the original players go "Hey, I can pay for free now, no need to dump in more cash!" and the new players don't bother to pay either...you end up LOSING money.

    Where's the any key?

  • Vunak23Vunak23 In your house eatin'' your cookies, FLPosts: 635Member
    Games that are not worth (keyword) the sub fee will fail.

    "In the immediate future, we have this one, and then we’ve got another one that is actually going to be – so we’re going to have, what we want to do, is in January, what we’re targeting to do, this may or may not happen, so you can’t hold me to it. But what we’re targeting to do, is have a fun anniversary to the Ilum shenanigans that happened. An alien race might invade, and they might crash into Ilum and there might be some new activities that happen on the planet." ~Gabe Amatangelo

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by Kiljaedenas
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by DSWBeef
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by DSWBeef
    Business model makes little difference to gamers. Poor design choices do. (GW2 and SWTOR)

    I disagree. Sub forces a level of commitment, and prevent gamers from dabbling in a game. F2P obviously attract a lot more people to play test. So business model does change behaivor.

     

    The business model wasnt the problem with all these converted f2p games. Poor design choices were. Swtor had no endgame and the endgame it did have was unfinished, AOC buggy no endgame, aion grindy, WAR buggy, VG buggy as all hell, list goes on and on. IF SWtor was amazing you would see sub numbers near wow. The sub isnt going anywhere poor design choices are.

    But the statement that "business model makes little difference" is clearly wrong. If by moving from p2p to f2p, player population increases 10x ... the business model is having an effect.

    Don't tell me increase a player base and revene is "making little difference".

    If in that movement of p2p to f2p the player population increases 10x but a good chunk of the original players go "Hey, I can pay for free now, no need to dump in more cash!" and the new players don't bother to pay either...you end up LOSING money.

    if .. if .. if ... evidence suggests that converting from p2p to f2p not only increase player pop, it also increase revenue. DIdn't you read the link i post?

    It is not a matter of opinon. There were data, you know.

  • DraronDraron A town in, KYPosts: 993Member
    Don't use flash for your game and make sure to futureproof it, even if it offers a unique sandbox world by some of the best devs ever (Glitch).
  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by bingbongbros
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by xAPOCx

    Maybe you want to float from game to game and thats your right. Console games alow you to do that just fine. But a trully epic MMO will keep you in that game world for a very very long time. And that game has been missing from the MMO market.

     

     

    "True epic MMO"? I dont' need a game to keep me for very very long time. Everything gets boring for very very long time. F2P is fine .. just hop from game to game.

    And if that game is missing from the MMO market, there is a reason. May be there is few players who want such a game. Personally i don't miss it.

    As far as the trend is concern:

    http://www.newzoo.com/press-releases/free-to-play-mmo-game-spending-increases-24-to-1-2bn-dollar-in-u-s/

    And i quote

    "Free-to-play share of total U.S. MMO spending increases from 39% to 47%."

    BTW, this is 2011 .. just last year.

    no offense but honestly it's people like you that are the problem with the mmo genre.  Yes there are huge issues with companies rushing unfinished products out of the gate and them going down in flames.  But people who never even intend on sticking around passed a month or two are to blame as well.

     

    MMO's are not console games, they are not meant to be consumed and then thrown away for the next new thing.  Originally mmo's were games that people would play for years on end.  I played EQ1 for 5 years straight and loved it.  Now we have games come out, even as broken as some are, that people just rush through and then ditch. 

     

    If you never intend to actually be a loyal customer to this mmo then why do you even bother playing it?  MMo's are dependent on their communities along with their revenue.

    "problem" too blame" .. lol .. that is from your perspective. Player preferenes just are ... there is no right or wrong. I don't apologize for what i like. Blaming others for how they use entertainment products .. that is a silly notion. Do you get angry when people see Avenger 3 times instead of going to see independent movies too?

    MMOs are not "meant" for anything. They are entertainment products, just like console games, sci-fi movies, and tv shows. I played EQ for 1 year and only stood it so long because there were few alternatives. Won't do that again.

    "If you never intend to actually be a loyal customer to this mmo then why do you even bother playing it?" .. that is a silly question. The answer, of course, is to be entertained for however long the game can keep it fun for me.

    "MMo's are dependent on their communities along with their revenue." .. so? I am not in it to "support" anything. I am playing for entertainment. The moment it stops being fun, i stop playing.

     

  • OG_ZorvanOG_Zorvan Fresno, CAPosts: 615Member
    Originally posted by bingbongbros

     

    If you never intend to actually be a loyal customer to this mmo then why do you even bother playing it?  MMo's are dependent on their communities along with their revenue.

    Let me explain something to you, and others that seem to share your "unique" train of thought.

    Most of us are not here to "support" any developer, publisher, or combination thereof, be they "AAA" or "Indie".

    We do not go to a movie  to "support" the theater, the director, the producer, or anyone else even remotely connected to the movie. We go to the movie for entertainment. Plain and simple.

    Another thing the movie and MMO's have in common?

    Neither one is an "investment". They are "products" and "services" that incur "expenses".

    And when the product and/or service no longer justifies the expense, we move on.

    I, and many others, have played a few MMO's over the years FOR years. I, and many others, have also played many MMO's over the years that I/we never even made it through the first month.

    The only difference in these MMO's were some continually justified their expense, and others didn't.

    And as for the "investment" part ( which was not in your quote but seems to be one of the favorite catchphrases people use now to tell us why we're supposed to "support the indie dev " regardless of outcome ), until I see a quarterly dividend check from any of these publishers, devs, or combinations thereof, be they "AAA" or "Indie", there is no "investment" other than my time.

    And I owe my time to noone.

     

     

    EA CEO John Riccitiello's on future microtransactions: "When you are six hours into playing Battlefield and you run out of ammo in your clip, and we ask you for a dollar to reload, you're really not very price sensitive at that point in time...We're not gouging, but we're charging."

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by OG_Zorvan
    Originally posted by bingbongbros

     

    If you never intend to actually be a loyal customer to this mmo then why do you even bother playing it?  MMo's are dependent on their communities along with their revenue.

    Let me explain something to you, and others that seem to share your "unique" train of thought.

    Most of us are not here to "support" any developer, publisher, or combination thereof, be they "AAA" or "Indie".

    We do not go to a movie  to "support" the theater, the director, the producer, or anyone else even remotely connected to the movie. We go to the movie for entertainment. Plain and simple.

    Another thing the movie and MMO's have in common?

    Neither one is an "investment". They are "products" and "services" that incur "expenses".

    And when the product and/or service no longer justifies the expense, we move on.

    I, and many others, have played a few MMO's over the years FOR years. I, and many others, have also played many MMO's over the years that I/we never even made it through the first month.

    The only difference in these MMO's were some continually justified their expense, and others didn't.

    And as for the "investment" part ( which was not in your quote but seems to be one of the favorite catchphrases people use now to tell us why we're supposed to "support the indie dev " regardless of outcome ), until I see a quarterly dividend check from any of these publishers, devs, or combinations thereof, be they "AAA" or "Indie", there is no "investment" other than my time.

    And I owe my time to noone.

     

     

    Well said. I think some here are just too attached, emotionally, to their entertainment products. Or even worse ... attached to an mirage of an ideal entertainment product in their minds. Thus, they have to be loyal to it. They have to "support" it. They probably have to "love" it too.

    So sad.

  • NitthNitth AustraliaPosts: 3,684Member Uncommon


    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by DSWBeef Originally posted by nariusseldon Originally posted by DSWBeef Business model makes little difference to gamers. Poor design choices do. (GW2 and SWTOR)
    I disagree. Sub forces a level of commitment, and prevent gamers from dabbling in a game. F2P obviously attract a lot more people to play test. So business model does change behaivor.  
    The business model wasnt the problem with all these converted f2p games. Poor design choices were. Swtor had no endgame and the endgame it did have was unfinished, AOC buggy no endgame, aion grindy, WAR buggy, VG buggy as all hell, list goes on and on. IF SWtor was amazing you would see sub numbers near wow. The sub isnt going anywhere poor design choices are.
    But the statement that "business model makes little difference" is clearly wrong. If by moving from p2p to f2p, player population increases 10x ...

    Does it really tho? f2p retention is horrible, as in the population numbers are unstable.

    image
    TSW - AoC - Aion - WOW - EVE - Fallen Earth - Co - Rift - || XNA C# Java Development

  • DraronDraron A town in, KYPosts: 993Member
    Originally posted by Nitth

     


    Originally posted by nariusseldon

    Originally posted by DSWBeef

    Originally posted by nariusseldon

    Originally posted by DSWBeef Business model makes little difference to gamers. Poor design choices do. (GW2 and SWTOR)
    I disagree. Sub forces a level of commitment, and prevent gamers from dabbling in a game. F2P obviously attract a lot more people to play test. So business model does change behaivor.  
    The business model wasnt the problem with all these converted f2p games. Poor design choices were. Swtor had no endgame and the endgame it did have was unfinished, AOC buggy no endgame, aion grindy, WAR buggy, VG buggy as all hell, list goes on and on. IF SWtor was amazing you would see sub numbers near wow. The sub isnt going anywhere poor design choices are.
    But the statement that "business model makes little difference" is clearly wrong. If by moving from p2p to f2p, player population increases 10x ..

    Does it really tho? f2p retention is horrible, as in the population numbers are unstable.

    Most F2P's population is stable, just the retention of players themselves are horrible. It's bad games that have bad population retention.

  • madazzmadazz A town, ONPosts: 1,564Member Uncommon
    This year I learned that a quantity of 8 or more is now considered to be a massive number.
  • madazzmadazz A town, ONPosts: 1,564Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Draron
    Originally posted by Nitth

     


    Originally posted by nariusseldon

    Originally posted by DSWBeef

    Originally posted by nariusseldon

    Originally posted by DSWBeef Business model makes little difference to gamers. Poor design choices do. (GW2 and SWTOR)
    I disagree. Sub forces a level of commitment, and prevent gamers from dabbling in a game. F2P obviously attract a lot more people to play test. So business model does change behaivor.  
    The business model wasnt the problem with all these converted f2p games. Poor design choices were. Swtor had no endgame and the endgame it did have was unfinished, AOC buggy no endgame, aion grindy, WAR buggy, VG buggy as all hell, list goes on and on. IF SWtor was amazing you would see sub numbers near wow. The sub isnt going anywhere poor design choices are.
    But the statement that "business model makes little difference" is clearly wrong. If by moving from p2p to f2p, player population increases 10x ..

    Does it really tho? f2p retention is horrible, as in the population numbers are unstable.

    Most F2P's population is stable, just the retention of players themselves are horrible. It's bad games that have bad population retention.

    While I agree with your perspective/opinion (individual player retention is terrible), I find most F2P games that I have tried suffer from the same thing as most modern copy/paste sub games. That being the game only has a stable population for a couple months at most. I can only think of 3-4 F2P games that have maintained a stable population for a longer period of time. I can however list off more SUB games that have a stable population. 

    Besides, what good is having 10x the population only for the first 10-15 levels if none of them stick around and its always different people? 

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by Nitth

     


    Originally posted by nariusseldon

    Originally posted by DSWBeef

    Originally posted by nariusseldon

    Originally posted by DSWBeef Business model makes little difference to gamers. Poor design choices do. (GW2 and SWTOR)
    I disagree. Sub forces a level of commitment, and prevent gamers from dabbling in a game. F2P obviously attract a lot more people to play test. So business model does change behaivor.  
    The business model wasnt the problem with all these converted f2p games. Poor design choices were. Swtor had no endgame and the endgame it did have was unfinished, AOC buggy no endgame, aion grindy, WAR buggy, VG buggy as all hell, list goes on and on. IF SWtor was amazing you would see sub numbers near wow. The sub isnt going anywhere poor design choices are.
    But the statement that "business model makes little difference" is clearly wrong. If by moving from p2p to f2p, player population increases 10x ...

     

    Does it really tho? f2p retention is horrible, as in the population numbers are unstable.

    So? You still get plenty of people to play with. An unstable 10x population is still 10x.

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by madazz

    Besides, what good is having 10x the population only for the first 10-15 levels if none of them stick around and its always different people? 

    What good? You always have plenty to group with. In a pvp game, you always have enough targets.

    Plus, no one says you cannot make friends and try to convince them to play longer with you. You have no one to play with if the pop is too small.

  • WayshubaWayshuba Ada, MIPosts: 71Member
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    As far as the trend is concern:

    http://www.newzoo.com/press-releases/free-to-play-mmo-game-spending-increases-24-to-1-2bn-dollar-in-u-s/

    And i quote

    "Free-to-play share of total U.S. MMO spending increases from 39% to 47%."

    BTW, this is 2011 .. just last year.

    This means little. Of course the trend is going to increase in F2P revenue when more companies are utilizing it as a business model and less are utilizing sub fees. That is all it means.

    However, forcasts on the total revenue growth are rather low compared to the number of MMOs in the market.

  • CecropiaCecropia Posts: 3,472Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Nitth

     

    Does it really tho? f2p retention is horrible, as in the population numbers are unstable.

    So? You still get plenty of people to play with. An unstable 10x population is still 10x.

    We only ever hear about how amazing these "free" MMOs are doing after the initial switcheroo. Turbine actually just let go two high profile long time employess. You don't do that when you when you have "10x population".

    These companies make a conscious decision to squeeze the sponge when these titles convert. I think it's understandable, but don't kid yourself into believing that all of these games are bustling with population numbers that are remotely close to where they were during their switcheroo re-launches.   

    "Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb

  • madazzmadazz A town, ONPosts: 1,564Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by madazz

    Besides, what good is having 10x the population only for the first 10-15 levels if none of them stick around and its always different people? 

    What good? You always have plenty to group with. In a pvp game, you always have enough targets.

    Plus, no one says you cannot make friends and try to convince them to play longer with you. You have no one to play with if the pop is too small.

    Yeah... I am glad I stopped arguing with you. Your MMO experience is blatantly very limited. I do recall in another thread you stated you don't share the same opinion with the majority of MMO gamers who are looking for a game to stick with (for at least more than a month or 2). I recall you stated you are okay playing for a little bit then moving on to the next fun game. It is great that you share your opinion and all, but my opinion stems from wanting a game that is conducive to maintaining a community. Not a game where I have to try to convince people to stick around. So please, leave me alone, your responses do not apply to my argument. I have learned that regardless of what someone states, with you, you TRY to find a way to argue another point. Regardless of logic. I could go into greater details, but again, it is pointless with you. So please, go ahead and respond with your endless drivel of pure BS and trolling and realize that from this period on I will have you blocked. I am sure regardless you will try to skew yet another thread on to a path of arguing and weird ramblings that do not apply. 

    I could pinpoint quite a few points out of the little you wrote that completely bashes your argument, but I know you will somehow come up with something that doesn't apply, effectively creating a strawman argument, or you will bring up a non-mmo and just de-rail this thread. Again, you are blocked on my end from here on out.

  • WayshubaWayshuba Ada, MIPosts: 71Member
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
     

    So? You still get plenty of people to play with. An unstable 10x population is still 10x.

    If a game has had 10x population increase (which I doubt) then it usually is attributed to two things:

    1.) The population was so low already, that 10x still isn't really much.

    2.) Turning on a number of accounts that were previously subs and left before the F2P transition (ala SWTOR).

     

    There is little evidence that F2P is a viable long term, and heavily profitable, business models among a mature customer base. Furthermore, all evidence shows a brief increase after a F2P transition (because of the existing customer base at the time) followed by barely getting by afterwards.

     

    You quoted DDO as an example. I can in fact tell you that neither DDO or LOTRO going to F2P have been smashing long term successes. Yes, a spike in the quarter after F2P, but that is about it. Since acquiring Turbine, the gaming division of Time-Warner has been progressiving losing more and more money every year (currently at -19% YoY). Doesn't sound like a money maker to me.

2
Sign In or Register to comment.