The impact of subscription greed on Mmorgs

Bladestrom

ok loads of chat about positives and negatives for themeparks, and i think I have a definition that explains simply why themeparks design is corrupted by greed:

Scenario: a themepark has 90% resource allocated to fast activities, 10% to sandbox activities.  80% of people enjoy the fast activites, 5% of which also enjoys the sandbox activites.  A Further 20% enjoy only  the sandbox activites.

A Balanced development approach:  Developers recognise 25% of the customer base likes the sandbox so they continue to develop the sandbox elements and fast activities at the same ratio.

A Greed/profit is king view. Players who enjoy fast activites but do not enjoy sandbox elements demand that it is unfair that they do not have the additional free time to invest, but they want the same rewards as the sandbox activities.  The Greedy model determines that if we focus entirely on fast activities then the majority will be happier and therefore greaterst return in maintained subscriptions. we dont care about the minority they represent less profit/subs. 

=

The effect - sandbox activites dont evolve.  The 5% that liked both fast and sandbox lose out, the 20% that liked sandbox only loses out.  In addition those that like fast activites may change their tastes and want to do other activities, but the option is dead.  You now have a typical modern themepark with no diversity and depth and stale end game.

 

Loktofeit

Where does 'social' fit into your formula? Is that part of sandbox?

stayontarget

And 90% of the people reading this thread are wondering where you are getting your numbers from.

Isometrix

No idea what you just said. Looks to me like you wanted to say something, then pulled some numbers out of a dark place beneath your clothing to support your own thoughts. 

Bladestrom

The figures are guestimates and actually irelevant in that it only matters that more like fast activites such as raiding than sandbox/slow, equally this is not an exercise in correcting people's english or only responding if the points raised are perfectly formed (this is actually leading on from a conversation elsewhere in this forum).  If you have nothing to add or not intested in discussing the points then move on, its not a personal attack on your senses, and maybe learn how to just discuss for discuss sake (in a forum)

A forum slug : someone who stops reading or trying to understand what the post is trying to convey when they see something they don't like,  before shitting out a 'clever' comment and moving on. 

Loktofeit

Originally posted by Bladestrom

The figures are guestimates and actually irelevant in that it only matters that more like fast activites such as raiding, equally this is not an exercise in correcting people's english or only responding if the points raised are perfectly formed (this is actually leading on from a conversation elsewhere in this forom).  If you have nothing to add or not intested in discussing the points thenmove on, its not a personal attack on your senses, and maybe learn how to just discuss for discuss sake (in a forum)

A forum slug : someone who stops reading or trying to understand what the post is trying to convey when they see something they don't like,  before shitting out a 'clever' comment and moving on. 

 

You presented numbers as if they were fact and then, in the same breath that you state that you made them up, you get pissy with people for questioning them.  Really?

Cuathon

Originally posted by Loktofeit

Originally posted by Bladestrom

The figures are guestimates and actually irelevant in that it only matters that more like fast activites such as raiding, equally this is not an exercise in correcting people's english or only responding if the points raised are perfectly formed (this is actually leading on from a conversation elsewhere in this forom).  If you have nothing to add or not intested in discussing the points thenmove on, its not a personal attack on your senses, and maybe learn how to just discuss for discuss sake (in a forum)

A forum slug : someone who stops reading or trying to understand what the post is trying to convey when they see something they don't like,  before shitting out a 'clever' comment and moving on. 

 

You presented numbers as if they were fact and then, in the same breath that you state that you made them up, you get pissy with people for questioning them.  Really?

The numbers are essentially irrelevant is what he means. Its the concept he is trying to get across. I disagree somewhat though with what he says, its not reasonable to expect an AAA 90% sandbox game because the profit isnt there. Its not greed per say. No one is owed their ideal videogame.

Nevertheless the fact that millions of players continue to pay money for the current kind of MMO and the fact that only a few hundred to a few thousand players go to the internet, and not even all the same place, to beg for sandboxes tells the companies that a high quality sandbox is not worth it.

Bladestrom

Originally posted by Loktofeit

Originally posted by Bladestrom

The figures are guestimates and actually irelevant in that it only matters that more like fast activites such as raiding, equally this is not an exercise in correcting people's english or only responding if the points raised are perfectly formed (this is actually leading on from a conversation elsewhere in this forom).  If you have nothing to add or not intested in discussing the points thenmove on, its not a personal attack on your senses, and maybe learn how to just discuss for discuss sake (in a forum)

A forum slug : someone who stops reading or trying to understand what the post is trying to convey when they see something they don't like,  before shitting out a 'clever' comment and moving on. 

 

You presented numbers as if they were fact and then, in the same breath that you state that you made them up, you get pissy with people for questioning them.  Really?

The numbers in the use case were irrelevant it could equally have said x% and x% +1.  You did not read the full text or you would have realised this.  No worries, move on if you are not interested.

Bladestrom

Originally posted by Cuathon

Originally posted by Loktofeit

Originally posted by Bladestrom

The figures are guestimates and actually irelevant in that it only matters that more like fast activites such as raiding, equally this is not an exercise in correcting people's english or only responding if the points raised are perfectly formed (this is actually leading on from a conversation elsewhere in this forom).  If you have nothing to add or not intested in discussing the points thenmove on, its not a personal attack on your senses, and maybe learn how to just discuss for discuss sake (in a forum)

A forum slug : someone who stops reading or trying to understand what the post is trying to convey when they see something they don't like,  before shitting out a 'clever' comment and moving on. 

 

You presented numbers as if they were fact and then, in the same breath that you state that you made them up, you get pissy with people for questioning them.  Really?

The numbers are essentially irrelevant is what he means. Its the concept he is trying to get across. I disagree somewhat though with what he says, its not reasonable to expect an AAA 90% sandbox game because the profit isnt there. Its not greed per say. No one is owed their ideal videogame.

Nevertheless the fact that millions of players continue to pay money for the current kind of MMO and the fact that only a few hundred to a few thousand players go to the internet, and not even all the same place, to beg for sandboxes tells the companies that a high quality sandbox is not worth it.

Thanlks for actually reading Cauth, your points make sense.  Im both looking at Archage which is going for an AAA hybrid sand/themepark (ang going well by all accounts) and what has happened historically to WOW.  Wow used to have a more balanced approach between fast reward activites and slow burning activites (e.g long term rep grinds) Many enjoyed the latter  purely because there were long term goals to be achieved, but over time they have been weeded out with the game entirely focusing on activities that have a quick reward/achievment structure.

 My main point that I was trying to make is that subscription level is not the only indicator of a good gameand that everyon benefits from sandbox or even long term activites, you may not like them all in a game, but there is usually something for everyone so everyone benefits when you look at it collectively.

 

ropenice

Originally posted by stayontarget

And 90% of the people reading this thread are wondering where you are getting your numbers from.

I did some research and crunches the numbers and it seems closer to 93%. In seriousness, it''s not greed, it's business. Why would a company put the money and effort into a game they think will fail. I'm not saying a sandbox would fail if done well, as most efforts recently were pretty half-assed, but the evidence in current games show that to make a good profit, you need to keep the game casual and themeparkish. It's not greed to want to have a profitable business. If gamers, and not businessmen made the decisions, we would have better games on the market.

Bladestrom

Originally posted by ropenice

Originally posted by stayontarget

And 90% of the people reading this thread are wondering where you are getting your numbers from.

I did some research and crunches the numbers and it seems closer to 93%. In seriousness, it''s not greed, it's business. Why would a company put the money and effort into a game they think will fail. I'm not saying a sandbox would fail if done well, as most efforts recently were pretty half-assed, but the evidence in current games show that to make a good profit, you need to keep the game casual and themeparkish. It's not greed to want to have a profitable business. If gamers, and not businessmen made the decisions, we would have better games on the market.

it is greed at a certain level where there is market domination. Also consider loyalty to existing players who have invested hundreds of pounds in a product. There is absolutely no issue where they maintain the level of investment in a part of the game that they have allways maintained, but where they reallocate investment at the cost of service to existing customers, then that is bad practice (but good for profit)

Imagine if in 3 years Archeahge and sandboxes became hugely popular (just pretend) and Blizzard said hey lets stop investing in raiding, lets switch to focusing on sandbox elements at the cost of raiding development, and profits rose as  a result. What about the loyalty the raiders showed over the years? - its the same problem.  

 

 

snapfusion

Originally posted by Loktofeit

Originally posted by Bladestrom

The figures are guestimates and actually irelevant in that it only matters that more like fast activites such as raiding, equally this is not an exercise in correcting people's english or only responding if the points raised are perfectly formed (this is actually leading on from a conversation elsewhere in this forom).  If you have nothing to add or not intested in discussing the points thenmove on, its not a personal attack on your senses, and maybe learn how to just discuss for discuss sake (in a forum)

A forum slug : someone who stops reading or trying to understand what the post is trying to convey when they see something they don't like,  before shitting out a 'clever' comment and moving on. 

 

You presented numbers as if they were fact and then, in the same breath that you state that you made them up, you get pissy with people for questioning them.  Really?

Do you want to debate the over arching theme of the post or debate details like a worthless politician.  Im pretty sure the OP didnt plan on a one on one to satisfy whatever insignificant nerve he struck with you, he made his point the ratios are actually irrelevant to the topic now debate or move on.

Gdemami

So you basically say that developers do not develop sandbox games because there is insignificant demand.

Not particularly shocking news to be honest...

Gdemami

---

Originally posted by Bladestrom

it is greed at a certain level where there is market domination.
 

---

It is not a greed, it is common sense...

Mehve

@OP: Honestly, I can't understand where you're coming from. If anything, the problem is the fact that these companies are diluting the pure "themepark-ness" with those lousy sandbox elements. If they really cared about their main source of income (themeparkers), they wouldn't even pretend to cater to the sandbox crowd in the first place, who would quickly go elsewhere, and quit whining on the game forums for stuff that the majority of the players don't want in the first place. In fact, there are probably good sandbox games out there that wind up failing, because their target fanbase is too busy settling for leftovers and scraps in that themepark, rather than actively seeking out and supporting a more suitable game.

I'm being a little facetious there, but you can look at the issue from both sides of the coin. Catering towards the people who pay your bills and make your shareholders happy is just common sense, not greed.

On separate note, I'm also a little curious why the word "subscription" even needs to be in the topic title, but that's neither here nor there.

Dewm

Originally posted by stayontarget

And 90% of the people reading this thread are wondering where you are getting your numbers from.

But I bet that fact is true only about 20% of the time. The other 80% would be filled with words that people stopped reading. So as long as it equaled 100% I could say anything on here. Like how 1% of gamers like cool games while 99% of people tried to stop playing cool games.

 

But in reality only 50% of those even want a sandbox.

Bladestrom

Waste of time, I give up.

Loktofeit

Originally posted by Bladestrom

Originally posted by Loktofeit

Originally posted by Bladestrom

The figures are guestimates and actually irelevant in that it only matters that more like fast activites such as raiding, equally this is not an exercise in correcting people's english or only responding if the points raised are perfectly formed (this is actually leading on from a conversation elsewhere in this forom).  If you have nothing to add or not intested in discussing the points thenmove on, its not a personal attack on your senses, and maybe learn how to just discuss for discuss sake (in a forum)

A forum slug : someone who stops reading or trying to understand what the post is trying to convey when they see something they don't like,  before shitting out a 'clever' comment and moving on. 

 

You presented numbers as if they were fact and then, in the same breath that you state that you made them up, you get pissy with people for questioning them.  Really?

The numbers in the use case were irrelevant it could equally have said x% and x% +1.  You did not read the full text or you would have realised this.  No worries, move on if you are not interested.

Actually, I was interested and I did ask a question that you hadn't answered. Definitely moving on though.

 

Slampig

Originally posted by Bladestrom

The figures are guestimates and actually irelevant in that it only matters that more like fast activites such as raiding than sandbox/slow, equally this is not an exercise in correcting people's english or only responding if the points raised are perfectly formed (this is actually leading on from a conversation elsewhere in this forum).  If you have nothing to add or not intested in discussing the points then move on, its not a personal attack on your senses, and maybe learn how to just discuss for discuss sake (in a forum)

A forum slug : someone who stops reading or trying to understand what the post is trying to convey when they see something they don't like,  before shitting out a 'clever' comment and moving on. 

Kind of made me laugh. I really have no idea what this thread is about. So you don't like themeparks and think companies are "greedy" for wanting to make money?

WSIMike

Originally posted by Loktofeit

Originally posted by Bladestrom

The figures are guestimates and actually irelevant in that it only matters that more like fast activites such as raiding, equally this is not an exercise in correcting people's english or only responding if the points raised are perfectly formed (this is actually leading on from a conversation elsewhere in this forom).  If you have nothing to add or not intested in discussing the points thenmove on, its not a personal attack on your senses, and maybe learn how to just discuss for discuss sake (in a forum)

A forum slug : someone who stops reading or trying to understand what the post is trying to convey when they see something they don't like,  before shitting out a 'clever' comment and moving on. 

 

You presented numbers as if they were fact and then, in the same breath that you state that you made them up, you get pissy with people for questioning them.  Really?

Actually, no he wasn't.

He presented them as a 'scenario'... in other words, a 'hypothetical" or "for argument's sake"', not an 'absolute'.

You took it as him presenting them factually. He didn't present them that way.

VengeSunsoar

Originally posted by Bladestrom

ok loads of chat about positives and negatives for themeparks, and i think I have a definition that explains simply why themeparks design is corrupted by greed:

Scenario: a themepark has 90% resource allocated to fast activities, 10% to sandbox activities.  80% of people enjoy the fast activites, 5% of which also enjoys the sandbox activites.  A Further 20% enjoy only  the sandbox activites.

A Balanced development approach:  Developers recognise 25% of the customer base likes the sandbox so they continue to develop the sandbox elements and fast activities at the same ratio.

A Greed/profit is king view. Players who enjoy fast activites but do not enjoy sandbox elements demand that it is unfair that they do not have the additional free time to invest, but they want the same rewards as the sandbox activities.  The Greedy model determines that if we focus entirely on fast activities then the majority will be happier and therefore greaterst return in maintained subscriptions. we dont care about the minority they represent less profit/subs. 

=

The effect - sandbox activites dont evolve.  The 5% that liked both fast and sandbox lose out, the 20% that liked sandbox only loses out.  In addition those that like fast activites may change their tastes and want to do other activities, but the option is dead.  You now have a typical modern themepark with no diversity and depth and stale end game.

 

Your entire premise is flawed on every level from the numbers that are completely made up (both in the % of players, and the resources), to your belief that fast activities are not or cannot be in a sandbox as well, to your belief that sandbox means having activities that take a great deal of time.

The amount of time an activity takes has nothing to do with sandbox.

Every point in your post is flawed and  without merit. Sorry but this makes your entire argument false, even from a thought exercise.  Themepark activities are just fun rides, sandbox is freedom and having an impact.  Both are involved in almost every MMO in existence including WoW, both are evolving at different speeds depending on the playerbase the game is targeting.

A sandbox can and should have fast activitiies, slow activities, one-time activities, repetitive activities.  As long as the player an have some impact some and has some freedom to develop their character it is a sandbox.  Yes WoW has some sandbox elements.  Yes sandboxes are being developed.  Yes sandbox elements still exist and are being developed in themeparks.

Your argument is moot.

Venge

Arglebargle

Question does not take into account that every game developer group has to have project management to decide what gets focused on.  Generally, that focus will be on elements that they think will help sell the game.   Bad project management tends to lead to games that do not do as well as projected.   And lost jobs and reputations.

 

Without some serious indication that 'sandbox' elements will pull their weight AND  be relatively easy to develop within the scope of the project, they are going to be ignored, or jetisonned.

Konfess

Originally posted by Bladestrom

The figures are guestimates and actually irelevant in that it only matters that more like fast activites such as raiding than sandbox/slow, equally this is not an exercise in correcting people's english or only responding if the points raised are perfectly formed (this is actually leading on from a conversation elsewhere in this forum).  If you have nothing to add or not intested in discussing the points then move on, its not a personal attack on your senses, and maybe learn how to just discuss for discuss sake (in a forum)

A forum slug : someone who stops reading or trying to understand what the post is trying to convey when they see something they don't like,  before shitting out a 'clever' comment and moving on. 

axiom or postulate : are a tool of Reason.  The very foundation that ALL Math and Science stand upon.  It is a convention accepted in intelligent discussions for Centuries.  To chalange the use of postulates here and now, well that is not intellegent discussion.  Example of a postulate, the shortest distance between two points is a straight line.

X = % who like themepark   Y = % who like sandbox   Z = % who like both.  So long as X > Y > Z, I concede that his is a valid postulate.  And the OP may continue, unchalanged on that issue.

Axiom : Dev's will allways try to produce a game with the highest potential for profit.  This is what I took away from the OP.  Now if the Original Poster added A = Profits from players X, and B = Profits from players Y; then also said that A <= B.  That would have been news or reason to dispute, and say show me the "Car Fax".  But he didn't.  He said A > B, and this is statement we can beleive with out seeing the numbers.  Becasue Observation of industry action sugests it is a True statment.

Vrika

Originally posted by Bladestrom

A Balanced development approach:  Developers recognise 25% of the customer base likes the sandbox so they continue to develop the sandbox elements and fast activities at the same ratio.

 

A theme-part focusing 25% of its development resources to sandbox activities won't beat those games that specialize in sanbox activities. But it might well lose to those theme-parks that specialize on themepark activities.

An MMO needs to offer a huge amount of activities to offer players variety. But if they want to be successfull, they also need to specialize to something and leave other things to less attention to be the best game at the area they specialize in.

Gdemami

---

Originally posted by Bladestrom

Waste of time, I give up.

---

Agreed, waste of time.

Hopefully your next thread will be thought out unlike this pile of mess ;-)

Loktofeit

Originally posted by Konfess

Originally posted by Bladestrom

The figures are guestimates and actually irelevant in that it only matters that more like fast activites such as raiding than sandbox/slow, equally this is not an exercise in correcting people's english or only responding if the points raised are perfectly formed (this is actually leading on from a conversation elsewhere in this forum).  If you have nothing to add or not intested in discussing the points then move on, its not a personal attack on your senses, and maybe learn how to just discuss for discuss sake (in a forum)

A forum slug : someone who stops reading or trying to understand what the post is trying to convey when they see something they don't like,  before shitting out a 'clever' comment and moving on. 

axiom or postulate : are a tool of Reason.  The very foundation that ALL Math and Science stand upon.  It is a convention accepted in intelligent discussions for Centuries.  To chalange the use of postulates here and now, well that is not intellegent discussion.  Example of a postulate, the shortest distance between two points is a straight line.

X = % who like themepark   Y = % who like sandbox   Z = % who like both.  So long as X > Y > Z, I concede that his is a valid postulate.  And the OP may continue, unchalanged on that issue.

Axiom : Dev's will allways try to produce a game with the highest potential for profit.  This is what I took away from the OP.  Now if the Original Poster added A = Profits from players X, and B = Profits from players Y; then also said that A <= B.  That would have been news or reason to dispute, and say show me the "Car Fax".  But he didn't.  He said A > B, and this is statement we can beleive with out seeing the numbers.  Becasue Observation of industry action sugests it is a True statment.

*subscribes to Konfess' newsletter*