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.
Totally wrong,
I don't agree with mass feedback. It's there game, they have a vision, They have a plan already set in motion. They see what the market is lacking and what works. They should choose their path taking everything they know into account.
Leave discussions to the public?........They would be making a Free-to-play crap mmo that would be dead in two months, all because of free loaders trying to get a game for FREE !
Important ;
Pantheon is for an old school group. I don't agree. I think everyone would welcome it. The formula had changed several years back and no one asked for a formula change !
No op, like you know what's best for this game, delusional at best. Public forum full of trolls and going over old news about Brad and past mistakes, nope we don't want or need to read it on our forums. It's bad enough on here that a topic desends into bashing one of the devs. This game is not looking for vast numbers it's being made for a niche following. If you want to get involved then do so but don't start dictating what you think is best for this game.
The people at Visionary Realms are gamers. Not only that, but they read these forums as well as others. Opening up their official forums to get feedback is therefore unnecessary and would be counterproductive.
They know what they want to make, and they simply want to narrow the discussion down to those who agree with that philosophy in general. That is their target audience and sort of the barrier of entry. However, among those who agree on the basics of what Pantheon should be, there is still healthy debate over many topics.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Like @Kyleran ;said, I'd be fully willing to drop a lot of money each month on a game that provided me with a GOOD experience. I don't think Star Citizen is a good example, though, considering the stuff that's just came out about the company itself.
As a forum admin on another F2P online game I can say that I think you underestimate the amount of work that is required to keep F2P forums somewhat civil.
Of course many forums are moderated by volunteers but lets be honest - a company wants to hear from people willing to pay for the game in the first place and if the devs do not have the cash to run a moderation team, which is often the case in small companies, it's sometimes better to close the forum (or at least sections of it) behind a paywall.
Last but not least, remember that too much feedback is sometimes just as bad as no feedback.
Originally posted by nethaniah
Seriously Farmville? Yeah I think it's great. In a World where half our population is dying of hunger the more fortunate half is spending their time harvesting food that doesn't exist.
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.
Maybe their best bet is to only make/develop the game toward the people who are willing to back it in such a way?
Maybe having a small dedicated player base is the better player base to be listening to.
I can afford the $30 - $50 per month provided it gives me what I've been looking for in an mmo. Or at least gives me a great experience.
It's a business so what business is going to actively want to listen to people who want their voices heard so they can spend nothing on their product?
Sure sure, I know the arguments about why "free players" are important but in the end, no matter what, a company has to listen to the people who are actually going to giving money. Not "might give money".
I would never base a business on "maybe we will get paid, let's hope!".
I mean, does your company allow their services completely free with the hope that they might get paid? And would they actively listen to those people? Or does your company know it's customers and listens to them as they are paying the bills?
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Being able to pay 30-50 is no bragging right that's for sure. However, it's hard enough for a game to feel worth $15 a month I can't imagine any game being worth 30 or more.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
1. I think it is a good idea for games to only have one small section open to non backers to post in. Rest of forums should only be open to backers of the game that play it in alpha, beta, release to get credible ideas on the game.
2. A lot of people have been asking for a 30 to 50 sub to keep the kiddies out or what I like to say very immature people (I find more mature kids in games than some adults).
3. Still not sure if I can trust BM in any game being made or supported by him. Time will tell.
1. @temp Thanks for defending me against those unfounded and oddly conspiratorial accusations. I never stated anything about wanting to influence the game beyond talking about the pricing. I used the pricing discussion as an example of something that could have used a less marginalized population for feedback, if and when feedback is requested. I think the developers should reject any calls for changing the core game or moving away from a subscription model. I love the game the way it is currently presented. I want the game to be successful and my suggestion of opening the forum does not go beyond that intent. So put the pitchforks down people, there's nothing malicious going on here.
2. For those people stating that having a highly limited (in population) closed community is a good thing, I would urge you to try and be more objective in your view. Clearly, a lot of people are posting here that are currently members on the Pantheon site and don't want things to change. Sure, there will need to be forum moderation if the forums are opened. And no, your voices won't be as visible as they were before. Based on those two factors alone it would seem that many people are dismissing the massive benefits of an open and thriving community. It is undeniable that the game will be in a healthier state (base supporters) and receive exponentially more visibility if participation is maximized. Trying to argue this point is like trying to say "having fewer potential customers is better for my business model". It's completely bonkers under normal circumstances and doubly-so in for a subscription-based game.
Public forums = more people participating = more people telling their friends = more potential pre-orders and investors.
I'm sorry for those who don't like the reality of the formula, but it's
true. It's why companies use social media and forum communities to
attract customers. It's why the Pantheon team is currently engaged on Facebook and Twitter and is trying to create visibility. And neither of those platforms have moderation, either. At least the website would have moderation, and it would cost virtually nothing to maintain with volunteers.
So the question for those people disagreeing: are you willing to make the sacrifice of becoming less visible on the Pantheon forums if doing so would benefit the game? Do you want what's best for the game, or only what's best for you personally? Are you able to move beyond this conflict of interest?
3. This idea that $30-50/month is reasonable in any way in the current market is pretty off-base in my opinion (hence why Brad put his foot down at $15 on the official forums). I actually understand and sympathize with people who want to avoid "teenagers" and trolls, being an adult gamer myself. However, I would consider a couple things before buckling down on this concept.
From most important to least important reasons to avoid a high subscription-cost:
A high subscription cost would result in a large reduction in population, resulting in potential losses far exceeding the benefit of higher margins. Imagine a situation at a car dealership... the listing price for a car is $20,000. The dealership knows that it will sell 10 cars at this price for a gross of $200,000. On the other hand, some people think the car should be priced higher at $50,000. But the dealership knows that it will only sell 2 cars at this price, for a gross of $100,000, because most people won't see the value in the car (considering competition and other factors) as $50,000. So what should the dealership choose to do? Obviously, sell more cars at a lower price.
2. A high subscription cost would not significantly reduce trolling or griefing in the game. I'm sorry to break the news, but I think that many of the people that are bothering you and/or trolling you in games can also afford a high subscription-based plan. They're adults. It's sad but it's true. I think that trying to get younger audiences to shoulder the blame for your internet woes is pretty disingenuous, considering that very little data is available to support the idea that trolling or griefing has a correlation with age or financial demographic. If such data is available, please show it. I'd be curious to see it myself.
3. A high subscription cost would garner hugely negative press about the game. It would spread like wildfire to all the gaming sites, that Pantheon was trying gauge players. It would do the exact opposite of growing the community - it would scare people away. People are naturally distrusting when a business charges much more for a product than competitors. It doesn't matter if a few people think the product is worth it - others will avoid purchasing simply because they are distrustful of the irregular pricing.
The Pantheon team isn't stupid. They know any ideas being discussed on their forums are ideas presented by their hardcore followers who are willing to pay mass amounts of money to see their vision realized (read: whales). The Pantheon website model is doing what it is intended to do. And that is raise money. The fact that you are in this forum creating a post about your inability to post on their forum unless you pay is a clear indication that this business model works. Although you may not eventually give in to your itch and pay to have voice, many who are feeling your itch have already done so. It is working as intended.
Suggesting that people won't talk about Pantheon or that it won't gain as much popularity, solely because people aren't able to participate on the forums is absurd. All the information for the game is available to everyone. Anyone can read Pantheon forums. If people really want to participate further and help shape the game, the option is theirs to take, but it isn't currently free.
Beyond that, many members of the Pantheon community post and interact here. The Creative Director, Chief Creative officer, Artists and the community manager also read and post on these forums when they are able.
There is simply no legitimate reason to flood the forums with noise, nor is it logical to assume having a private forum for a game in pre-Alpha will somehow limit the games visibility or the number of its potential customers.
The Pantheon team isn't stupid. They know any ideas being discussed on their forums are ideas presented by their hardcore followers who are willing to pay mass amounts of money to see their vision realized (read: whales). The Pantheon website model is doing what it is intended to do. And that is raise money. The fact that you are in this forum creating a post about your inability to post on their forum unless you pay is a clear indication that this business model works. Although you may not eventually give in to your itch and pay to have voice, many who are feeling your itch have already done so. It is working as intended.
I'd pay good money for a kickstarter, not for forum-access. It would be counterproductive to reward Pantheon for a bad idea that stifles community growth.
Yes, I would enjoy participating on the official forums.
No, I did not create this thread for the sole purpose of benefiting me. Again, as Temp said earlier, passive-aggressive attacks on someone you disagree with are underhanded, baseless and shine the community in a very bad light.
My argument for opening the forum is logically sound and rational. Obviously you don't want to, or are incapable of, countering my points. So instead you try to discredit me personally and insinuate that my motivation here is purely personal and that I am just some guy who doesn't want to pay for forum-access. If anything, trying to discredit another person rather than confront their arguments is a sign of insecurity.
The Pantheon team isn't stupid. They know any ideas being discussed on their forums are ideas presented by their hardcore followers who are willing to pay mass amounts of money to see their vision realized (read: whales). The Pantheon website model is doing what it is intended to do. And that is raise money. The fact that you are in this forum creating a post about your inability to post on their forum unless you pay is a clear indication that this business model works. Although you may not eventually give in to your itch and pay to have voice, many who are feeling your itch have already done so. It is working as intended.
I'd pay good money for a kickstarter, not for forum-access. It would be counterproductive to reward Pantheon for a bad idea that stifles community growth.
Yes, I would enjoy participating on the official forums.
No, I did not create this thread for the sole purpose of benefiting me. Again, as Temp said earlier, passive-aggressive attacks on someone you disagree with are underhanded, baseless and shine the community in a very bad light.
My argument for opening the forum is logically sound and rational. Obviously you don't want to, or are incapable of, countering my points. So instead you try to discredit me personally and insinuate that my motivation here is purely personal and that I am just some guy who doesn't want to pay for forum-access. If anything, trying to discredit another person rather than confront their arguments is a sign of insecurity.
Lets really break that logic down for a second. How many people that buy an MMO participated in the forums prior to the game launching or entering beta. Statistics? How about a percentage?
I've never participated in a game prior to playing it outside of posting bug reports for beta testing. I've played almost every MMO to date. I'm betting that number is way in the minority.
When you have those statistics, check back in and validate your logic.
Suggesting that people won't talk about Pantheon or that it won't gain as much popularity, solely because people aren't able to participate on the forums is absurd. All the information for the game is available to everyone. Anyone can read Pantheon forums. If people really want to participate further and help shape the game, the option is theirs to take, but it isn't currently free.
Beyond that, many members of the Pantheon community post and interact here. The Creative Director, Chief Creative officer, Artists and the community manager also read and post on these forums when they are able.
There is simply no legitimate reason to flood the forums with noise, nor is it logical to assume having a private forum for a game in pre-Alpha will somehow limit the games visibility or the number of its potential customers.
No one is suggesting that people won't talk about Pantheon regardless of forum access. But I strongly disagree that restriction will not affect growth. Pantheon certainly will not gain as much popularity and visibility if it restricts membership on the site.
People like to be members. They like to invest emotionally and creatively. For many people, going to the website and realizing that participation is exclusive to immediate financial investment is off-putting. I know for Star Citizen, as an example, that I was a participating member on the forum for some months before buying a package. Opening the forums is not just about giving feedback - in fact, giving feedback to the developers is really the least important part of the idea.
It's about letting people become official members of Pantheon, regardless of their financial situation. It's about creating brand loyalty and getting people to invest in the game emotionally. People who are invested will make the effort to spread the word.
For every 10 more people who access the site for free, maybe 1 more will contribute financially. For every 100 more people who become official members, maybe 30 will participate in a new kickstarter when it launches.
Wouldn't you rather have 500,000 people on the forum, with 10% financial participation and 30% more potential financial participation in a kicktarter, as opposed to 500 people with 100% financial participation?
I think it's pretty strange, considering the success of games like Star Citizen, which continually harvest their massive, brand-loyal forum community, that people are really arguing against participation here. It's pretty insane, in my opinion, considering the staggering amount of evidence to the contrary of limited access.
The bottom line OP is you're way wrong. In fact this is a brilliant idea to filter out the f2p trolls. I say good on them. Anyone who cares enough about the game's potential is going to be backing it anyway.
The Pantheon team isn't stupid. They know any ideas being discussed on their forums are ideas presented by their hardcore followers who are willing to pay mass amounts of money to see their vision realized (read: whales). The Pantheon website model is doing what it is intended to do. And that is raise money. The fact that you are in this forum creating a post about your inability to post on their forum unless you pay is a clear indication that this business model works. Although you may not eventually give in to your itch and pay to have voice, many who are feeling your itch have already done so. It is working as intended.
I'd pay good money for a kickstarter, not for forum-access. It would be counterproductive to reward Pantheon for a bad idea that stifles community growth.
Yes, I would enjoy participating on the official forums.
No, I did not create this thread for the sole purpose of benefiting me. Again, as Temp said earlier, passive-aggressive attacks on someone you disagree with are underhanded, baseless and shine the community in a very bad light.
My argument for opening the forum is logically sound and rational. Obviously you don't want to, or are incapable of, countering my points. So instead you try to discredit me personally and insinuate that my motivation here is purely personal and that I am just some guy who doesn't want to pay for forum-access. If anything, trying to discredit another person rather than confront their arguments is a sign of insecurity.
There is no need to get defensive. The fact that you became defensive after reading my post is telling in and of itself. My post was written with a general overtone. The general premise of my post was that there is a business model behind the website concept. And the proof that it works is the reason why you are posting your concerns about it here. It has nothing to do with discrediting you. The insinuation you allude to in your post is in your mind only. There is nothing to support said insinuation in my post whatsover.
The bottom line OP is you're way wrong. In fact this is a brilliant idea to filter out the f2p trolls. I say good on them. Anyone who cares enough about the game's potential is going to be backing it anyway.
@Kalidourden The developers don't need accept feedback from people advocating f2p. The core tenets of the game are already established. That's not going to change.
This isn't about developer feedback, it's about increasing viability, population growth and future financial prospects.
People here really don't get that. They just can't wrap their mind around the idea that I'm not here on some personal crusade to get free-forum access. It's ridiculous, the justifications that people will think of to maintain the status-quot when they feel that they are personally benefiting things staying the same.
The Pantheon team isn't stupid. They know any ideas being discussed on their forums are ideas presented by their hardcore followers who are willing to pay mass amounts of money to see their vision realized (read: whales). The Pantheon website model is doing what it is intended to do. And that is raise money. The fact that you are in this forum creating a post about your inability to post on their forum unless you pay is a clear indication that this business model works. Although you may not eventually give in to your itch and pay to have voice, many who are feeling your itch have already done so. It is working as intended.
I'd pay good money for a kickstarter, not for forum-access. It would be counterproductive to reward Pantheon for a bad idea that stifles community growth.
Yes, I would enjoy participating on the official forums.
No, I did not create this thread for the sole purpose of benefiting me. Again, as Temp said earlier, passive-aggressive attacks on someone you disagree with are underhanded, baseless and shine the community in a very bad light.
My argument for opening the forum is logically sound and rational. Obviously you don't want to, or are incapable of, countering my points. So instead you try to discredit me personally and insinuate that my motivation here is purely personal and that I am just some guy who doesn't want to pay for forum-access. If anything, trying to discredit another person rather than confront their arguments is a sign of insecurity.
There is no need to get defensive. The fact that you became defensive after reading my post is telling in and of itself. My post was written with a general overtone. The general premise of my post was that there is a business model behind the website concept. And the proof that it works is the reason why you are posting your concerns about it here. It has nothing to do with discrediting you. The insinuation you allude to in your post is in your mind only. There is nothing to support said insinuation in my post whatsover.
The business model behind the website is sound in concept, but the results are poor relative to what is possible. That is my argument.
The bottom line OP is you're way wrong. In fact this is a brilliant idea to filter out the f2p trolls. I say good on them. Anyone who cares enough about the game's potential is going to be backing it anyway.
@Kalidourden The developers don't need accept feedback from people advocating f2p. The core tenets of the game are already established. That's not going to change.
This isn't about developer feedback, it's about increasing viability, population growth and future financial prospects.
People here really don't get that. They just can't wrap their mind around the idea that I'm not here on some personal crusade to get free-forum access. It's ridiculous, the justifications that people will think of to maintain the status-quot when they feel that they are personally benefiting things staying the same.
No one feels like they're personally benefiting though. The only real benefit is that it allows Visionary Realms to get feedback purely from their target audience. The forums were actually open to everyone for a time, and it simply didn't work out. There were far too many naysayers, trolls and people who did not even support the game tenets.
I wouldn't be surprised if the policy changes as the game draws nearer to beta. At that point, arguing over concrete design decisions will be futile and the trolls crying vaporware will be silent.
The Pantheon team isn't stupid. They know any ideas being discussed on their forums are ideas presented by their hardcore followers who are willing to pay mass amounts of money to see their vision realized (read: whales). The Pantheon website model is doing what it is intended to do. And that is raise money. The fact that you are in this forum creating a post about your inability to post on their forum unless you pay is a clear indication that this business model works. Although you may not eventually give in to your itch and pay to have voice, many who are feeling your itch have already done so. It is working as intended.
I'd pay good money for a kickstarter, not for forum-access. It would be counterproductive to reward Pantheon for a bad idea that stifles community growth.
Yes, I would enjoy participating on the official forums.
No, I did not create this thread for the sole purpose of benefiting me. Again, as Temp said earlier, passive-aggressive attacks on someone you disagree with are underhanded, baseless and shine the community in a very bad light.
My argument for opening the forum is logically sound and rational. Obviously you don't want to, or are incapable of, countering my points. So instead you try to discredit me personally and insinuate that my motivation here is purely personal and that I am just some guy who doesn't want to pay for forum-access. If anything, trying to discredit another person rather than confront their arguments is a sign of insecurity.
There is no need to get defensive. The fact that you became defensive after reading my post is telling in and of itself. My post was written with a general overtone. The general premise of my post was that there is a business model behind the website concept. And the proof that it works is the reason why you are posting your concerns about it here. It has nothing to do with discrediting you. The insinuation you allude to in your post is in your mind only. There is nothing to support said insinuation in my post whatsover.
The business model behind the website is sound in concept, but the results are poor relative to what is possible. That is my argument.
Thanks for the links to Intro to Business topics, but as someone who works in the marketing industry, I'm already acquainted with them. They also do not provide evidence that free access to a game forum in pre-alpha has any consequential impact on the size or success of an MMO post-launch. They also do not address the benefit of having a clear channel to your target audience versus a forum full of dissonant voices and the negative impact said voices can have on the community they are seeking to build.
The bottom line OP is you're way wrong. In fact this is a brilliant idea to filter out the f2p trolls. I say good on them. Anyone who cares enough about the game's potential is going to be backing it anyway.
@Kalidourden The developers don't need accept feedback from people advocating f2p. The core tenets of the game are already established. That's not going to change.
This isn't about developer feedback, it's about increasing viability, population growth and future financial prospects.
People here really don't get that. They just can't wrap their mind around the idea that I'm not here on some personal crusade to get free-forum access. It's ridiculous, the justifications that people will think of to maintain the status-quot when they feel that they are personally benefiting things staying the same.
No one feels like they're personally benefiting though. The only real benefit is that it allows Visionary Realms to get feedback purely from their target audience. The forums were actually open to everyone for a time, and it simply didn't work out. There were far too many naysayers, trolls and people who did not even support the game tenets.
I wouldn't be surprised if the policy changes as the game draws nearer to beta. At that point, arguing over concrete design decisions will be futile and the trolls crying vaporware will be silent.
Their target audience should certainly be more than a handful of people willing to buy forum-access. I don't think that they should be accepting much feedback regardless, but good lord, should they really restrict themselves to such an infinitesimally marginal demographic for feedback if they are going to accept it?
I understand what you are saying about the naysayers and trolls situation. That's something that happened because of the lack of preparation, lack of content and Brad's failure to re-invent his image before the kickstarter. That's changed now, I think. I think that people are ready to start believing in Pantheon, and even Brad.
So let's take advantage of the newfound goodwill that the internet is going to feel towards Pantheon and allow people to become members without and immediate financial investment. People want to test the waters, test the community out, see what's going on. Let them do that and build some brand loyalty. Help the community grow, that's my vote.
The bottom line OP is you're way wrong. In fact this is a brilliant idea to filter out the f2p trolls. I say good on them. Anyone who cares enough about the game's potential is going to be backing it anyway.
@Kalidourden The developers don't need accept feedback from people advocating f2p. The core tenets of the game are already established. That's not going to change.
This isn't about developer feedback, it's about increasing viability, population growth and future financial prospects.
People here really don't get that. They just can't wrap their mind around the idea that I'm not here on some personal crusade to get free-forum access. It's ridiculous, the justifications that people will think of to maintain the status-quot when they feel that they are personally benefiting things staying the same.
No one feels like they're personally benefiting though. The only real benefit is that it allows Visionary Realms to get feedback purely from their target audience. The forums were actually open to everyone for a time, and it simply didn't work out. There were far too many naysayers, trolls and people who did not even support the game tenets.
I wouldn't be surprised if the policy changes as the game draws nearer to beta. At that point, arguing over concrete design decisions will be futile and the trolls crying vaporware will be silent.
Their target audience should certainly be more than a handful of people willing to buy forum-access. I don't think that they should be accepting much feedback regardless, but good lord, should they really restrict themselves to such an infinitesimally marginal demographic for feedback if they are going to accept it?
I understand what you are saying about the naysayers and trolls situation. That's something that happened because of the lack of preparation, lack of content and Brad's failure to re-invent his image before the kickstarter. That's changed now, I think. I think that people are ready to start believing in Pantheon, and even Brad.
So let's take advantage of the newfound goodwill that the internet is going to feel towards Pantheon and allow people to become members without and immediate financial investment. People want to test the waters, test the community out, see what's going on. Let them do that and build some brand loyalty. Help the community grow, that's my vote.
They are clearly of the opinion that input from the community is not of the essence at this point. They are at the point in game development where they have a clear idea of what they want to do with their game and input from the masses who will vehemently disagree with their vision is not welcomed on their website. If you are serious about the game and providing input, you will pay for said privilege. It makes sense.
Comments
Totally wrong,
I don't agree with mass feedback. It's there game, they have a vision, They have a plan already set in motion. They see what the market is lacking and what works. They should choose their path taking everything they know into account.
Leave discussions to the public?........They would be making a Free-to-play crap mmo that would be dead in two months, all because of free loaders trying to get a game for FREE !
Important ;
Pantheon is for an old school group. I don't agree. I think everyone would welcome it. The formula had changed several years back and no one asked for a formula change !
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
They know what they want to make, and they simply want to narrow the discussion down to those who agree with that philosophy in general. That is their target audience and sort of the barrier of entry. However, among those who agree on the basics of what Pantheon should be, there is still healthy debate over many topics.
Make it worth my while and I'll gladly spend $30 to $75 a month.
Maybe there is a niche for games that cater to the financial elite? (see SC)
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Of course many forums are moderated by volunteers but lets be honest - a company wants to hear from people willing to pay for the game in the first place and if the devs do not have the cash to run a moderation team, which is often the case in small companies, it's sometimes better to close the forum (or at least sections of it) behind a paywall.
Last but not least, remember that too much feedback is sometimes just as bad as no feedback.
Maybe having a small dedicated player base is the better player base to be listening to.
I can afford the $30 - $50 per month provided it gives me what I've been looking for in an mmo. Or at least gives me a great experience.
It's a business so what business is going to actively want to listen to people who want their voices heard so they can spend nothing on their product?
Sure sure, I know the arguments about why "free players" are important but in the end, no matter what, a company has to listen to the people who are actually going to giving money. Not "might give money".
I would never base a business on "maybe we will get paid, let's hope!".
I mean, does your company allow their services completely free with the hope that they might get paid? And would they actively listen to those people? Or does your company know it's customers and listens to them as they are paying the bills?
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
BAHAHAHAHA
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
2. A lot of people have been asking for a 30 to 50 sub to keep the kiddies out or what I like to say very immature people (I find more mature kids in games than some adults).
3. Still not sure if I can trust BM in any game being made or supported by him. Time will tell.
Star Citizen – The Extinction Level Event
4/13/15 > ELE has been updated look for 16-04-13.
http://www.dereksmart.org/2016/04/star-citizen-the-ele/
Enjoy and know the truth always comes to light!
1. @temp Thanks for defending me against those unfounded and oddly conspiratorial accusations. I never stated anything about wanting to influence the game beyond talking about the pricing. I used the pricing discussion as an example of something that could have used a less marginalized population for feedback, if and when feedback is requested. I think the developers should reject any calls for changing the core game or moving away from a subscription model. I love the game the way it is currently presented. I want the game to be successful and my suggestion of opening the forum does not go beyond that intent. So put the pitchforks down people, there's nothing malicious going on here.
2. For those people stating that having a highly limited (in population) closed community is a good thing, I would urge you to try and be more objective in your view. Clearly, a lot of people are posting here that are currently members on the Pantheon site and don't want things to change. Sure, there will need to be forum moderation if the forums are opened. And no, your voices won't be as visible as they were before. Based on those two factors alone it would seem that many people are dismissing the massive benefits of an open and thriving community. It is undeniable that the game will be in a healthier state (base supporters) and receive exponentially more visibility if participation is maximized. Trying to argue this point is like trying to say "having fewer potential customers is better for my business model". It's completely bonkers under normal circumstances and doubly-so in for a subscription-based game.
Public forums = more people participating = more people telling their friends = more potential pre-orders and investors. I'm sorry for those who don't like the reality of the formula, but it's true. It's why companies use social media and forum communities to attract customers. It's why the Pantheon team is currently engaged on Facebook and Twitter and is trying to create visibility. And neither of those platforms have moderation, either. At least the website would have moderation, and it would cost virtually nothing to maintain with volunteers.
So the question for those people disagreeing: are you willing to make the sacrifice of becoming less visible on the Pantheon forums if doing so would benefit the game? Do you want what's best for the game, or only what's best for you personally? Are you able to move beyond this conflict of interest?
3. This idea that $30-50/month is reasonable in any way in the current market is pretty off-base in my opinion (hence why Brad put his foot down at $15 on the official forums). I actually understand and sympathize with people who want to avoid "teenagers" and trolls, being an adult gamer myself. However, I would consider a couple things before buckling down on this concept.
From most important to least important reasons to avoid a high subscription-cost:
- A high subscription cost would result in a large reduction in population, resulting in potential losses far exceeding the benefit of higher margins. Imagine a situation at a car dealership... the listing price for a car is $20,000. The dealership knows that it will sell 10 cars at this price for a gross of $200,000. On the other hand, some people think the car should be priced higher at $50,000. But the dealership knows that it will only sell 2 cars at this price, for a gross of $100,000, because most people won't see the value in the car (considering competition and other factors) as $50,000. So what should the dealership choose to do? Obviously, sell more cars at a lower price.
2. A high subscription cost would not significantly reduce trolling or griefing in thegame. I'm sorry to break the news, but I think that many of the people that are
bothering you and/or trolling you in games can also afford a high
subscription-based plan. They're adults. It's sad but it's true. I think that trying to get
younger audiences to shoulder the blame for your internet woes is pretty
disingenuous, considering that very little data is available to support the idea that
trolling or griefing has a correlation with age or financial demographic. If such data
is available, please show it. I'd be curious to see it myself.
3. A high subscription cost would garner hugely negative press about the game. It
would spread like wildfire to all the gaming sites, that Pantheon was trying gauge
players. It would do the exact opposite of growing the community - it would scare
people away. People are naturally distrusting when a business charges much more
for a product than competitors. It doesn't matter if a few people think the product is
worth it - others will avoid purchasing simply because they are distrustful of the
irregular pricing.
Beyond that, many members of the Pantheon community post and interact here. The Creative Director, Chief Creative officer, Artists and the community manager also read and post on these forums when they are able.
There is simply no legitimate reason to flood the forums with noise, nor is it logical to assume having a private forum for a game in pre-Alpha will somehow limit the games visibility or the number of its potential customers.
Yes, I would enjoy participating on the official forums.
No, I did not create this thread for the sole purpose of benefiting me. Again, as Temp said earlier, passive-aggressive attacks on someone you disagree with are underhanded, baseless and shine the community in a very bad light.
My argument for opening the forum is logically sound and rational. Obviously you don't want to, or are incapable of, countering my points. So instead you try to discredit me personally and insinuate that my motivation here is purely personal and that I am just some guy who doesn't want to pay for forum-access. If anything, trying to discredit another person rather than confront their arguments is a sign of insecurity.
I've never participated in a game prior to playing it outside of posting bug reports for beta testing. I've played almost every MMO to date. I'm betting that number is way in the minority.
When you have those statistics, check back in and validate your logic.
People like to be members. They like to invest emotionally and creatively. For many people, going to the website and realizing that participation is exclusive to immediate financial investment is off-putting. I know for Star Citizen, as an example, that I was a participating member on the forum for some months before buying a package. Opening the forums is not just about giving feedback - in fact, giving feedback to the developers is really the least important part of the idea.
It's about letting people become official members of Pantheon, regardless of their financial situation. It's about creating brand loyalty and getting people to invest in the game emotionally. People who are invested will make the effort to spread the word.
For every 10 more people who access the site for free, maybe 1 more will contribute financially. For every 100 more people who become official members, maybe 30 will participate in a new kickstarter when it launches.
Wouldn't you rather have 500,000 people on the forum, with 10% financial participation and 30% more potential financial participation in a kicktarter, as opposed to 500 people with 100% financial participation?
I think it's pretty strange, considering the success of games like Star Citizen, which continually harvest their massive, brand-loyal forum community, that people are really arguing against participation here. It's pretty insane, in my opinion, considering the staggering amount of evidence to the contrary of limited access.
There is no need to get defensive. The fact that you became defensive after reading my post is telling in and of itself. My post was written with a general overtone. The general premise of my post was that there is a business model behind the website concept. And the proof that it works is the reason why you are posting your concerns about it here. It has nothing to do with discrediting you. The insinuation you allude to in your post is in your mind only. There is nothing to support said insinuation in my post whatsover.
This isn't about developer feedback, it's about increasing viability, population growth and future financial prospects.
People here really don't get that. They just can't wrap their mind around the idea that I'm not here on some personal crusade to get free-forum access. It's ridiculous, the justifications that people will think of to maintain the status-quot when they feel that they are personally benefiting things staying the same.
The business model behind the website is sound in concept, but the results are poor relative to what is possible. That is my argument.
@Dullahan
I understand your desire for evidence. Here are 4 links to help you research the topic.
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
I wouldn't be surprised if the policy changes as the game draws nearer to beta. At that point, arguing over concrete design decisions will be futile and the trolls crying vaporware will be silent.
I understand what you are saying about the naysayers and trolls situation. That's something that happened because of the lack of preparation, lack of content and Brad's failure to re-invent his image before the kickstarter. That's changed now, I think. I think that people are ready to start believing in Pantheon, and even Brad.
So let's take advantage of the newfound goodwill that the internet is going to feel towards Pantheon and allow people to become members without and immediate financial investment. People want to test the waters, test the community out, see what's going on. Let them do that and build some brand loyalty. Help the community grow, that's my vote.
They are clearly of the opinion that input from the community is not of the essence at this point. They are at the point in game development where they have a clear idea of what they want to do with their game and input from the masses who will vehemently disagree with their vision is not welcomed on their website. If you are serious about the game and providing input, you will pay for said privilege. It makes sense.