Pantheon needs to open forums to the public - here's why

salaciouscrumbs

Edit: For those of you viewing the thread for the first time, please view these materials on participation marketing if you want a little more information as to why I'm advocating open-forum-participation:

https://www.ideasforleaders.com/ideas/how-customer-participation-builds-loyalty

http://www.bizbash.com/how-guest-participation-at-events-builds-brand-loyalty/new-york/story/28140/#.VgWT4Je8oVg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engagement_marketing#Common_online_engagement_marketing_tools

http://www.alanrosenspan.com/recent_pubs/participation.html

Also, my original post references a discussion on the official forum regarding $30-50/monthly subscription. This has been officially rejected by Pantheon. The intention is to have a competitive, $15/monthly subscription plan. Don't get the wrong idea from my post.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


I'm pretty damn happy with the new site and the new content.

However, Pantheon needs to open the forums to the public. Right now, a subscription is required to post on the forums. This is definitely a huge barrier to growing the community.

As a marketing guy myself (albeit not in gaming), I don't see how having this communication barrier can be helpful at all. Especially since some of the crucial topics being decided right now (such as monthly pricing) are basically being discussed in an echo chamber of people who are clearly high-end donors.

These donors are actually talking about a $30-50 monthly subscription cost as if it's nothing. This is quite shocking (even disturbing) to me. Sure, I can afford to pay $30-50 per month. And so could a bunch of other guys. But a subscription like that sure as hell won't go over well with the hordes of other people who will want to play this game. How is the Pantheon team going to obtain a clear, objective understanding of their future player-base and develop a pricing model that takes maximum advantage of potential when they're only hearing from people that have already dropped big money on this game?

I understand that forum-posting privileges were some of the original incentives for backing. But isn't it time to look towards the future? The Pantheon forums are almost empty. There's more activity on other sites than the actual site for the game. This needs to change, and quickly, if Pantheon intends to to take maximum advantage of the new site launch and pending updates.

Vrika

Pantheon team could not obtain an understanding of their future playerbase through forums in any case. People who post in this early in game's development are always a marginal group.

salaciouscrumbs

Vrika said:

Pantheon team could not obtain an understanding of their future playerbase through forums in any case. People who post in this early in game's development are always a marginal group.

True, but looking at the success of other projects, forum membership and participation is a huge boon to growth in the community. Look at almost any other game in development and then look at the forums. They are massive communities. People want to participate, and many people want to ask questions and get involved before being donors. Getting their feet wet, so-to-speak, before taking the dive.

And even if marginal, a public community is far better than a small, private group that represents a specific financial demographic. Especially when discussions such as subscription pricing are going on. Hence the appalling (from a marketing perspective) ideas of $30-50/month subscriptions that are being thrown around.

If Pantheon comes out with a price-plan like that, it's going to completely kill their momentum. Forgive me for becoming interested in the project and wanting it to succeed. It seems clear to me that opening the forums is the clear next step in their community-building campaign.

waynejr2

No, I don't agree with you OP.  It will just end up being full of trolls and haters.   I don't trust you and your marketing background.   What they need to measure is what paying customers do not what random people on a forum.  There is nothing about a simple posting by a random that forces any kind of commitment to spend money on the game.

Also, I believe mmoRPG are best developed by companies following their own vision over responding to the latest flavor of the month DEMANDS.   Plus, suppose I am a customer who purchase this game but now thanks to you, the devs have flipped flopped on what the game should be due to randoms.  Now I get screwed because of that.

This is all about money and there is zero responsibility on posters to spend money based on free access to forums.

salaciouscrumbs

waynejr2 said:

No, I don't agree with you OP.  It will just end up being full of trolls and haters.   I don't trust you and your marketing background.   What they need to measure is what paying customers do not what random people on a forum.  There is nothing about a simple posting by a random that forces any kind of commitment to spend money on the game.

Also, I believe mmoRPG are best developed by companies following their own vision over responding to the latest flavor of the month DEMANDS.   Plus, suppose I am a customer who purchase this game but now thanks to you, the devs have flipped flopped on what the game should be due to randoms.  Now I get screwed because of that.

This is all about money and there is zero responsibility on posters to spend money based on free access to forums.

It's not required to trust in me - my credentials have very little to do with my post. I don't work in video-game marketing.

There are trolls and haters, of course. That's why there are moderators to control that type of behavior, just as there have been since the beginning of the internet.

I invite you to take a look at the forum community for any other MMO title in production. How many require a purchase in order to post on the forums? Does Crowfall? Does Star Citizen? How about Facebook and Twitter? Pantheon uses these platforms. Does your logic also apply there regarding trolls? What's preventing trolls from posting on social media? Nothing. 

When it comes down to it, the communities like Star Citizen are massive for a reason: because the public is allowed to participate. Participation is only good, never bad. This is why social media is such a big deal in marketing. Participation leads to greater awareness and market visibility. People tell their friends, who tell their friends, who tell their friends. The more people participate, the more invested they feel in the success of the game. Questions get answered, ideas are discussed. Sure there are trolls and crazies that will post. Moderators cost nothing and can deal with those people as the company sees fit.

So yes, I think that maximum participation and exposure is what Pantheon should be going for now. It's a tried-and-true formula that clearly works. Get the community rolling and build things up, then do another kickstarter.

Temp0

Two things right off the bat, they do not require a subscription to post on the forums currently and haven't for a while. Currently I think any backer of any amount is allowed to post. Second, it was confirmed a while ago (maybe a month or so) on these very forums (mmorpg) that they will stick to  a normal sub cost ($15) by Brad Mcquaid himself.

I am not exactly opposed to the idea of having the forums opened up but I think that the time for that is when the game is closer to release (maybe by beta). I also think this is in fact the plan (to open it up down the road).

reeereee

For a niche game aimed at allowing aging gamers to recapture the glory of their EQ1 days 30-50 dollars a month is about right.

salaciouscrumbs

Temp0 said:

Two things right off the bat, they do not require a subscription to post on the forums currently and haven't for a while. Currently I think any backer of any amount is allowed to post. Second, it was confirmed a while ago (maybe a month or so) on these very forums (mmorpg) that they will stick to  a normal sub cost ($15) by Brad Mcquaid himself.

I am not exactly opposed to the idea of having the forums opened up but I think that the time for that is when the game is closer to release (maybe by beta). I also think this is in fact the plan (to open it up down the road).

Ah ok, that's a relief to hear about the $15 sub price. I was viewing the forum tonight and surfed a thread that was casually throwing around ridiculous subscription figures. I really don't want to see this project torpedoed after so much hard work has been done, and things are really starting to look promising.

Regarding opening up the forums . . . I think that it's never early enough to open them. Keep in mind that Star Citizen had initial success before kickstarter, because of an open forum community that was nurtured and cultivated before the marketing campaign.

I can't reiterate enough how important a large, base-community is in the early stages of a project. It's a bedrock that companies can fall back on. A place of support and feedback that is essential for spreading the word about impending updates and releases. It's what Pantheon was missing when they launched the first kickstarter.

 

emota

reeereee said:

For a niche game aimed at allowing aging gamers to recapture the glory of their EQ1 days 30-50 dollars a month is about right.

Your in a dream world, that price would kill the game over night.

Zandil

The higher sub was us on the game forums throwing ideas around, we were asked by Brad just to get some discussion going on payment models and sub prices to see what we thought about paying a higher then market average for a game we enjoyed and if so how much would we be willing to pay.  There was no mention of this ever actually making it into the game just some discussion.
This led to another discussion about prices of MMO subs have never inflated inline with general market inflation. 

Temp0

(in response to salaciouscrumbs)

That may be true, and it may not be (its valid enough). Pantheon however, isn't really being built on the idea of being "community made" like some of the other kickstarered titles. In some ways it is, and I believe they are nice and open to feedback but that at the end of the day the game is going to be the dev vision first and regardless of player feedback  it can be over ruled if it undermines that vision (note your example of many of the fans suggesting a premium price but the devs deciding that going standard was the better route).

I actually support this approach even if it ultimately means that pantheon isn't the game I want it to be. For me games are always about their core design and that design shouldn't be compromised to broaden appeal. They should listen to feedback and adjust as best they can but never undermine what the game was supposed to be.

salaciouscrumbs

reeereee said:

For a niche game aimed at allowing aging gamers to recapture the glory of their EQ1 days 30-50 dollars a month is about right.

Everquest and World of Warcraft were niche games as well during their initial release. Look at their numbers and market share, for their respective time-periods. Niche has nothing to do with success. Star Citizen is a "niche" space game. It has 1 million pre-orders.

The biggest mistake Pantheon could make is to assume that their game will not be successful on a big scale. They should assume the opposite, while still avoiding the abhorrent business models of modern MMO's. They should do a subscription, but keep it reasonable. Maybe even less than WoW, to attract some of their players looking for a challenge - people who may want to justify the switch by saving a couple bucks a month. I think that if Pantheon wants to maximum potential, they should start with a competitive subscription model, wait and see what happens, and react accordingly.

But the scary part about paying $30--50 per month is that you can't go back after trying it at launch. If the price is wrong when the marketing campaign is in full steam at and exposure is maximized, people will blanch and never look back again. Brad is right to think $15 is the safe bet at launch.

Personally, I think it would be best to start with two plans, one being at $12 and one at $18. The basic plan gives normal membership. The premium plan gives a discount on physical goods on the website, a cool game-parser and a shared bank slot (normal membership needs to trade items by ground-drop or using other players). Would be a good incentive to pay more, but normal members would still feel great with paying less than competitors.

salaciouscrumbs

Temp0 said:

(in response to salaciouscrumbs)

That may be true, and it may not be (its valid enough). Pantheon however, isn't really being built on the idea of being "community made" like some of the other kickstarered titles. In some ways it is, and I believe they are nice and open to feedback but that at the end of the day the game is going to be the dev vision first and regardless of player feedback  it can be over ruled if it undermines that vision (note your example of many of the fans suggesting a premium price but the devs deciding that going standard was the better route).

I actually support this approach even if it ultimately means that pantheon isn't the game I want it to be. For me games are always about their core design and that design shouldn't be compromised to broaden appeal. They should listen to feedback and adjust as best they can but never undermine what the game was supposed to be.

@Temp I agree that the core design can't be compromised due to appeal. However, if the developers wish to be informed (as Pantheon developers frequently request), they should be informed from the least marginal audience possible, which would include the public. It's up to the developers to decide what feedback to accept and what to reject, as you similarly exemplified with Brad's decision to stick to $15.

But I don't want to get too sidetracked from the main purpose of my post. I think that I digressed to much in my OP and lent too much weight to the subscription concern. The main reason that Pantheon should open the forums is because doing so is essential for building a large, strong community. Moderators will take care of trolls and haters. There's nothing to be afraid of here. Really, there isn't. Pantheon is already utilizing social media, which doesn't even have the option of moderation.

It will truly sadden me to see a great marketing opportunity lost by squandering the growth potential that is occurring now and in the near-term. They need to open up the forums and advertise on the website and every other gaming news site that they are now open and free to use. They need to do this quick, while the iron is hot!

Nitth

Can the 'company' actually produce a game that's worth $30-50 a month?

salaciouscrumbs

Nitth said:

Can the 'company' actually produce a game that's worth $30-50 a month?

@Nitth I think it's confirmed that the price is going to be roughly $15 per month.

And I don't think it's important what the game is "worth", so much as what people are willing to pay. Even if the game was "worth" $100 per month, the number of people willing and able to pay that amount for a game would be extremely marginal.

The key is to get as many people as possible to play with a sustainable, profitable business model. Gotta hit that "sweet spot". It's just hard to know where it is, exactly. That's what marketing guys are for.

reeereee

emota said:

reeereee said:

For a niche game aimed at allowing aging gamers to recapture the glory of their EQ1 days 30-50 dollars a month is about right.

Your in a dream world, that price would kill the game over night.

Yeah it would kill the game for the 13-16 year-olds.  For people in their 30s and 40s paying $30-50 a month is pocket change.  You can't go see a 2 hour movie for that but it's way too much for a month of entertainment?  I'm sorry but if you don't care about making your game accessible to adolescents then charging more than $15 a month is completely viable... assuming the game delivers... and that's a big assuming.

waynejr2

salaciouscrumbs said:

waynejr2 said:

No, I don't agree with you OP.  It will just end up being full of trolls and haters.   I don't trust you and your marketing background.   What they need to measure is what paying customers do not what random people on a forum.  There is nothing about a simple posting by a random that forces any kind of commitment to spend money on the game.

Also, I believe mmoRPG are best developed by companies following their own vision over responding to the latest flavor of the month DEMANDS.   Plus, suppose I am a customer who purchase this game but now thanks to you, the devs have flipped flopped on what the game should be due to randoms.  Now I get screwed because of that.

This is all about money and there is zero responsibility on posters to spend money based on free access to forums.

It's not required to trust in me - my credentials have very little to do with my post. I don't work in video-game marketing.

There are trolls and haters, of course. That's why there are moderators to control that type of behavior, just as there have been since the beginning of the internet.

I invite you to take a look at the forum community for any other MMO title in production. How many require a purchase in order to post on the forums? Does Crowfall? Does Star Citizen? How about Facebook and Twitter? Pantheon uses these platforms. Does your logic also apply there regarding trolls? What's preventing trolls from posting on social media? Nothing. 

When it comes down to it, the communities like Star Citizen are massive for a reason: because the public is allowed to participate. Participation is only good, never bad. This is why social media is such a big deal in marketing. Participation leads to greater awareness and market visibility. People tell their friends, who tell their friends, who tell their friends. The more people participate, the more invested they feel in the success of the game. Questions get answered, ideas are discussed. Sure there are trolls and crazies that will post. Moderators cost nothing and can deal with those people as the company sees fit.

So yes, I think that maximum participation and exposure is what Pantheon should be going for now. It's a tried-and-true formula that clearly works. Get the community rolling and build things up, then do another kickstarter.

If some game company gives forum access to everyone that doesn't mean other companies have to do that same thing.  You are suggesting people have to follow what some other company does.  BS.  If you don't like that game X is not giving you free forum access you are free to take a hike.  Right?

Great news announcement you just made.  Hey everyone, Star Citizen has been released and it is doing great! Oh wait, it isn't release therefore you can make any silly claim you can try to pull off here.  Many games look good ... until they are released.   So good luck on your claim.

Participation can drive real customers away.  That is what trolling does.   Also, this attitude that I have to talk to the devs so they can see my vision of their game is kind of immature.  You are expecting a game custom to your needs.  That is crap.

And here is where I am going to call BS on you.  You aren't talking about the game company marketing their game.  What you are really about is getting some number of people to be vocal so you can demand the game be made YOUR way.  Using other people to get numbers to agree with your position to influence that company.

Temp0

Okay, you last two guys need to stop. You are both sounding like elitist jerks and are making the community look bad (trollish which is ironic considering the arguments). I personally think the current approach is ok and will work out fine but the OPs concerns are ok and valid as well. Both approaches have ups and downs and it ultimately comes down to what you hope to accomplish. You disagree with them and thats fine but you should leave it at that rather than talking down to him and making all kinds of off base assumptions.

reeereee

Temp0 said:

Okay, you last two guys need to stop. You are both sounding like elitist jerks and are making the community look bad (trollish which is ironic considering the arguments). I personally think the current approach is ok and will work out fine but the OPs concerns are ok and valid as well. Both approaches have ups and downs and it ultimately comes down to what you hope to accomplish. You disagree with them and thats fine but you should leave it at that rather than talking down to him and making all kinds of off base assumptions.

Being an elitist is bad?

Reread the OP. 

He did not come here to have a discussion about the ideal monthly subscription fee for Pantheon. 

He came here because the official Pantheon forums only allow backers.  He was upset because the Pantheon devs need to listen to him and not the backers so he can save them from doing the wrong thing as he already knew exactly what the right thing to do was.

That's not really a place to start an objective conversation about the merits of various price points as you seem to be suggesting this should be.

Temp0

Yes, being an elitist is bad. Pantheon is not some exclusive club for you or anyone else and treating it as such is harmful to the community at large (something pantheon is passionate about), the game itself (bad reputation is unhealthy), and to the developers (for the same reasons I previously stated). We are supporting the game, that matters but it doesn't entitle you to exclusivity or ownership of the title and while the game is definitely intended to be niche (and is not ashamed to be such) I am 100% sure that the developers aren't building the game as a platform of social superiority.

As for what follows, that was not said at all. You are discerning meaning from what they said that is not explicitly stated anywhere nor is it heavily implied anywhere. From what I have read there are only two major points being made by the OP.

1. That locking forum access behind a subscription impedes the growth of community. (I would agree with this but it also doesn't apply currently as you don't need to subscribe to access the forums, you only need to be a backer on some level)

2. That removal of this limitation would be a healthy measure for the game.

Thebeasttt

It was ultimately the subscribers that voted to keep the forums closed. Though why they were asked to begin with is beyond me, obviously they are going to vote to keep their exclusive club that they paid for.

I agree with the OP. Keeping the forums closed just makes them look scared at best and guilty at worst. They didn't even get trolled that much back when they were open anyways. You NEED feedback from people that are less then thrilled with you, it keeps you humble and keeps the balance. If all you listen to are fanboi's you end up at launch wondering why the silent majority hate your crappy game.

Temp0

Thebeasttt said:

It was ultimately the subscribers that voted to keep the forums closed. Though why they were asked to begin with is beyond me, obviously they are going to vote to keep their exclusive club that they paid for.

I agree with the OP. Keeping the forums closed just makes them look scared at best and guilty at worst. They didn't even get trolled that much back when they were open anyways. You NEED feedback from people that are less then thrilled with you, it keeps you humble and keeps the balance. If all you listen to are fanboi's you end up at launch wondering why the silent majority hate your crappy game.

While I think that it is important to get feedback of all kinds I don't think it will have the impact you think that it will. They already have the approach that this game is not being built for mass appeal at all and that they are catering to a much more specific, niche appeal. So while it is probably good for them to see what people are thinking when they play, I wouldn't expect too much to be changed based on the silent majority as you put it.

Shaigh

Crowfall forums are open to backers only, same thing for camelot unchained forums. All of these developers has made games in the past and already know which game they wish to make instead of relying on the public of what to do. Forums discussions simply leads nowhere, it will be the same meaningless discussions of what the game totally should or shouldn't have.

Once they start serious testing of the game player participation becomes far more important, and the biggest danger to the game will be all people that will praise the glory of the visionary Brad Mcquaid and trying to talk down any criticism of the game that's being tested. At that point they need people that are critical about everything and know how to put together sentences to explain the issue.

reeereee

Fair enough.  However, reputations for elitism and other community ills are made almost entirely in game not on forums during early development.

It's hard to define the community for a game in early development.  Does giving more people access to one specific forums really expand the community?  They're not doing anything unusual.  Almost every game limits the amount of people they take input from at this stage of development. 

Also, official forums are rarely inclusive or democratic.  Most official forums require a subscription and frequently quash dissenting opinions or negative reviews.

kjempff

Generally speaking I think that basing game design decisions on a very small and loud minority (fans), is a bad thing. They feel they should have a much bigger say than what their donation is worth (even 50$ in a mmorpg lifespan is nothing). If you let those people decide too much you will just end up narrowing the player base even more, as well as taking decisions that are not thought through and will end up causing problems in other areas.

This is especially true with Pantheon. If supporters get to make the decisions, there will be no innovation, cause "all things new are bad and will never work" mentality.. Challenge them instead.

It should be "our vision is this, take it or leave it"... That makes the best game.

Temp0

reeereee said:

Fair enough.  However, reputations for elitism and other community ills are made almost entirely in game not on forums during early development.

It's hard to define the community for a game in early development.  Does giving more people access to one specific forums really expand the community?  They're not doing anything unusual.  Almost every game limits the amount of people they take input from at this stage of development. 

Also, official forums are rarely inclusive or democratic.  Most official forums require a subscription and frequently quash dissenting opinions or negative reviews.

The exact benefits of change are unknown but plausible is what I would say. Note again, I don't care one way or the other in that regard (I think the current plan is working fine for now). So you could say that we are more on the same side than not, I just felt the reaction was more than what was called for.