Quantcast

Howdy, Stranger!

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

Developer seems frustrated that publishers don't understand CoE's appeal

1235717

Comments

  • GeezerGamerGeezerGamer Member EpicPosts: 8,815
    The very context of this thread continues to support my ongoing opinion that this project is doomed.
    Slapshot1188NildenKyleran
  • SovrathSovrath Member LegendaryPosts: 28,402
    @Slapshot, we all know your opinion already, you have made it quite clear. *Shrugs* However, I didn't post for your benefit, but rather for others that might not be familiar with CoE
    Regardless of what Slapshot thinks or the actual financial place this game is in, this game will not get 1 million players.

    Just look across the board at games that are not World of Warcraft, unless they are huge heavy hitters, Star Wars the Old Republic, World of Warcraft, Elder Scrolls Online, they seem to settle (if they are "successful", at around 200/250/300k ish players.

    Just look at the Secret World! At one point Funcom announced that it wasn't doing well as they only had 300k players. My first thought was "who the heck thought it would gather more players?" That's over 50k more players than I thought it would get.

    Maybe the biggest issue with developers is that they are so disconnected from the reality of their industry that every project they work on will "of course" have 1 million plus players.

    If I was inclined to give money to this project (which I didn't given my reasons earlier in this thread) and I heard from him (or anyone on the project) that they expected 1 million plus players, given what was/is shown, that would be a huge red flag.

    If this project is successful I say 400 k max IF they fulfill all their goals and IF they make the game look far more polished than it is and that's ONLY because there are herds of MMORPG players who are dying to try something out and will do so out of desperation.

    And that's not just this game, goes same for Pantheon though Pantheon might gather a bit more.

    1 million? I seriously hope that those who put together the business plan are not relying on that. There is no basis for those numbers given this type of project, given that its an indy project with an unproven team.
    MendelKyleranIselin
  • KajidourdenKajidourden Member EpicPosts: 3,019
    No shit, they crowdfunded for a reason.  If they failed to raise the funds they need via crowdfunding then they failed to set their real goal which means they just failed at trying to launch this product.  
    Nilden
  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Member EpicPosts: 16,775
    Publishers are asshat morons who dont know a good game when they see one so I am not sure why this is a surprise

    Elite Dangerous had the same problem

    Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.

    Please do not respond to me

  • KajidourdenKajidourden Member EpicPosts: 3,019
    SEANMCAD said:
    Publishers are asshat morons who dont know a good game when they see one so I am not sure why this is a surprise

    Elite Dangerous had the same problem
    The whole point of crowdfunding is to not be beholden to anyone.  Sounds like they are shitty devs.
    Nilden
  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Member EpicPosts: 16,775
    SEANMCAD said:
    Publishers are asshat morons who dont know a good game when they see one so I am not sure why this is a surprise

    Elite Dangerous had the same problem
    The whole point of crowdfunding is to not be beholden to anyone.  Sounds like they are shitty devs.
    maybe but the OP is a quote that is 100% related to finding publishers. So it seems obfuscation is going on here

    Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.

    Please do not respond to me

  • Tiamat64Tiamat64 Member RarePosts: 1,537
    edited December 2017
    SEANMCAD said:
    Publishers are asshat morons who dont know a good game when they see one so I am not sure why this is a surprise

    In this case, considering what CoE is promising for its budget, most rational people know there won't be any actual game here to see in the first place.
  • MendelMendel Member EpicPosts: 3,818
    Sovrath said:
    @Slapshot, we all know your opinion already, you have made it quite clear. *Shrugs* However, I didn't post for your benefit, but rather for others that might not be familiar with CoE
    Regardless of what Slapshot thinks or the actual financial place this game is in, this game will not get 1 million players.

    Just look across the board at games that are not World of Warcraft, unless they are huge heavy hitters, Star Wars the Old Republic, World of Warcraft, Elder Scrolls Online, they seem to settle (if they are "successful", at around 200/250/300k ish players.

    Just look at the Secret World! At one point Funcom announced that it wasn't doing well as they only had 300k players. My first thought was "who the heck thought it would gather more players?" That's over 50k more players than I thought it would get.

    Maybe the biggest issue with developers is that they are so disconnected from the reality of their industry that every project they work on will "of course" have 1 million plus players.

    If I was inclined to give money to this project (which I didn't given my reasons earlier in this thread) and I heard from him (or anyone on the project) that they expected 1 million plus players, given what was/is shown, that would be a huge red flag.

    If this project is successful I say 400 k max IF they fulfill all their goals and IF they make the game look far more polished than it is and that's ONLY because there are herds of MMORPG players who are dying to try something out and will do so out of desperation.

    And that's not just this game, goes same for Pantheon though Pantheon might gather a bit more.

    1 million? I seriously hope that those who put together the business plan are not relying on that. There is no basis for those numbers given this type of project, given that its an indy project with an unproven team.
    We definitely seem to be experiencing a period when developers are prone to wishful thinking as opposed to realistic expectations.  There seems to me to be a 'field of dreams' thing going on here.  Instead of determining a market base, there's an awful lot of 'build it and players will show up' mentality going on.  Not knowing the consumer is dangerous for a business at the best of times, but when all the businesses serving a specific market segment adopt this philosophy, it really brings up questions about the long-term future of that market segment (in this case, MMORPGs).
    BLNX

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

  • KajidourdenKajidourden Member EpicPosts: 3,019
    SEANMCAD said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    Publishers are asshat morons who dont know a good game when they see one so I am not sure why this is a surprise

    Elite Dangerous had the same problem
    The whole point of crowdfunding is to not be beholden to anyone.  Sounds like they are shitty devs.
    maybe but the OP is a quote that is 100% related to finding publishers. So it seems obfuscation is going on here
    Allow me to retract my statement,  they very well may be great devs.....their planning is definitely piss poor though lol.
  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Member EpicPosts: 16,775
    edited December 2017
    Tiamat64 said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    Publishers are asshat morons who dont know a good game when they see one so I am not sure why this is a surprise

    To be fair to the publishers, there isn't any actual game here for them to see in the first place.
    ok let me try this

    what they said in the quote is pretty much exactly what the developer of Elite Dangerous said, its the same thing the developer of Wasteland 2 said as well. Tow VERY successful games that got crowd funding

    Publishers do not want to publish what are good games. 
    Now this developer being good or not good or not able to get crowdfunding is an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT conversation from the OPs quote.

    Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.

    Please do not respond to me

  • BLNXBLNX Member UncommonPosts: 93
    SEANMCAD said:

    Publishers do not want to publish what are good games. 
    Now this developer being good or not good or not able to get crowdfunding is an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT conversation from the OPs quote.

    Slapshot1188 said:

    Looks like other folks have the same concerns discussed here.  They have "pre-sold" the product to their most loyal customers along with tons of "sparks" to last for years.  There seems to be a question about the viability of the business model.

    If @Slapshot1188 wants to correct me, that's fine, but it seems the OP quote was to explain the title and Slapshot's comment about the viability of the pricing model that the developer put in place. It wasn't about a publisher's eye on what is a good game, more that they won't work with ANY game if they don't see a way to make back what they put into it.

    In that respect, I think any investor would worry about putting money into a product when they do not see a market for it, or any way to make a profit from it.
  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Member EpicPosts: 16,775
    edited December 2017
    BLNX said:
    SEANMCAD said:

    Publishers do not want to publish what are good games. 
    Now this developer being good or not good or not able to get crowdfunding is an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT conversation from the OPs quote.

    Slapshot1188 said:

    Looks like other folks have the same concerns discussed here.  They have "pre-sold" the product to their most loyal customers along with tons of "sparks" to last for years.  There seems to be a question about the viability of the business model.

    If @Slapshot1188 wants to correct me, that's fine, but it seems the OP quote was to explain the title and Slapshot's comment about the viability of the pricing model that the developer put in place. It wasn't about a publisher's eye on what is a good game, more that they won't work with ANY game if they don't see a way to make back what they put into it.

    In that respect, I think any investor would worry about putting money into a product when they do not see a market for it, or any way to make a profit from it.
    the quote from the developer in the OP doesnt remotely have anything whatosever to do with that observation is what I am trying to say. not even in the same universe. 
    Developers of two of the arugeably most successful kickstarters for games ever said nearly the EXACT same thing.

    the complaint of the OP is different then the quote, that is called an error. It doesnt mean the developer is good or that I know anything about this game at all, its just an observation that the quote is not related to the complaint of this OP

    Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.

    Please do not respond to me

  • KyleranKyleran Member LegendaryPosts: 36,149
    SEANMCAD said:
    Publishers are asshat morons who dont know a good game when they see one so I am not sure why this is a surprise

    Elite Dangerous had the same problem
    They "all" are eh? Did you catch Take Two's purchase of Kerbal Space Program last summer, or the formation of their new studio, Private Division which will support smaller studios and indie efforts?

    I'll be starting a new thread about it shortly.
    ConstantineMerus

    "See normal people, I'm not one of them" | G-Easy & Big Sean

    "I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant

    Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing FO76 at the moment.

    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






  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Member EpicPosts: 16,775
    edited December 2017
    Kyleran said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    Publishers are asshat morons who dont know a good game when they see one so I am not sure why this is a surprise

    Elite Dangerous had the same problem
    They "all" are eh? Did you catch Take Two's purchase of Kerbal Space Program last summer, or the formation of their new studio, Private Division which will support smaller studios and indie efforts?

    I'll be starting a new thread about it shortly.
    that was predicted years ago.

    The predication was that these large AAA companies would start branching off smaller studios that are indie or at least look indie. The reason for that is because of the indie explosion.

    not sure what that has to do with this topic though because those publishers had to be spoon fed for years into understanding these games are good. 
    I have also predicted that AAA games will start to look more like indie titles and have things like building in them like...Fallout 4. They follow, they do not lead

    So in short, Take Two does not know what a good game is, they just follow sales and trends
    StaalBurgher

    Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.

    Please do not respond to me

  • BLNXBLNX Member UncommonPosts: 93
    @SEANMCAD

    The argument you're making here is not the argument the quote or the OP is making. If I read it correctly, both the quote and the OP are talking about how the pricing model is holding back the game, not the content.

    "...He described publishers that refused to read his 8 page comparison of COE to other MMOs, publishers that wanted loot crates and micro transactions, and publishers simply not understanding the appeal COE has for so many."

    Elite Dangerous and Kerbal Space Program have been discussed as looking for publishers but instead relied on crowdfunding, but in this context they are not an accurate comparison. They both had a straight, upfront buy to play model. As @mystichaze was quick to point out, and @Slapshot1188 is criticizing in his OP, and the quote makes mention of, the pricing model is something the publishers do not want to work with, which is the reason it is different and new according to some ( @mystichaze ) and not viable to others ( @Slapshot1188 ).

    The quote implies that publishers don't want to invest in a good game, but what they are making is a good game because doesn't have loot crates or microtransactions. So even if it's about publisher's tastes in games, the quote itself raises questions about their pricing model, which is what has been discussed in almost every post in this thread. It's the topic of the thread, and even if the OP was in error about the quote, as you say, it is what the topic is about. 
  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Member EpicPosts: 16,775
    edited December 2017
    BLNX said:
    @SEANMCAD

    The argument you're making here is not the argument the quote or the OP is making. If I read it correctly, both the quote and the OP are talking about how the pricing model is holding back the game, not the content.

    "...He described publishers that refused to read his 8 page comparison of COE to other MMOs, publishers that wanted loot crates and micro transactions, and publishers simply not understanding the appeal COE has for so many."

    Elite Dangerous and Kerbal Space Program have been discussed as looking for publishers but instead relied on crowdfunding, but in this context they are not an accurate comparison. They both had a straight, upfront buy to play model. As @mystichaze was quick to point out, and @Slapshot1188 is criticizing in his OP, and the quote makes mention of, the pricing model is something the publishers do not want to work with, which is the reason it is different and new according to some ( @mystichaze ) and not viable to others ( @Slapshot1188 ).

    The quote implies that publishers don't want to invest in a good game, but what they are making is a good game because doesn't have loot crates or microtransactions. So even if it's about publisher's tastes in games, the quote itself raises questions about their pricing model, which is what has been discussed in almost every post in this thread. It's the topic of the thread, and even if the OP was in error about the quote, as you say, it is what the topic is about. 
    yes the develolper of this game are horrible terrible aweful failures.. whatever your missing the point

    the quote of: 'we could not get funding from publishers'
    in of itself applies to good developers and bad developers. I am not saying this developer is bad I dont even know a fucking thing about this developer, I am saying the statement of 'we could not get funding from publishers' applies to GOOD games as well as bad games.

    The INTENT of the OP is not my beef, its a technical problem I am having with the quote, which is not related to the real complaint they have.

    In fact to just get focus I could argue that only bad games GET funding from publishers

    Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.

    Please do not respond to me

  • DleatherusDleatherus Member UncommonPosts: 162
    hrmmm - the issue i find with these kind of discussions is that they are primarily based on belief, with some of the belief propped up by 'facts' on either side

    i remember watching a widely acclaimed debate between an atheist and a christian cleric one time and none of them really listened to what the other side had to say, but rather wanted to intelligently (and sometimes sarcastically) put their own argument across

    if you believe the game is going to fail, very little can be said or done to change that perspective until the game either launches or fails

    if you believe/want the game is going to launch and be a success, very little can be said or done to change that perspective until the game either launches or fails

    it's the age old fact that some folks see a glass as half full, others see it as half empty (and all the other derivatives as still others see it as an opportunity to drown an ex etc)

    personally i am a whale in this game because i like the vision and scope of it

    does that mean it will be a success - nope

    does that mean it might launch without the entire list of features - yup

    does the possibility exist that it fails and i 'lose' all my money - yup

    i think it's refreshing to see a studio say 'no' to publishers who think that they can just wave money and hijack an unfinished product and reduce it down to the same cookie cutter basics that though might be financially successful, are relatively uninspiring

    i also think that any publisher who wouldn't read a simple 8 page document is showing that it has zero fucking interest in the game itself, and so if i was a developer that was passionate about his actual project, rather than just bringing something to the point of gaining publishers interest and then just taking the money and bailing out, i might be a little frustrated also

    i'm a skeptic by nature, and think many of the concerns being brought up are grounded in valid beliefs and past track records of other studios

    Do I think Caspian and SBS are infallible and don't make mistakes? - heck no

    Do I think Caspian and SBS might well be onto something? - heck yes

    and that comes from nothing other than a personal belief and opinion that this particular project was worth backing to see where it ends up

    so i'm not trying to convince others to back or pledge, or even change their own opinion or belief if it is counter to mine

    I will however do everything i can to help support the project (for it isn't a product/game until it is released) and to promote it, and allow others to come to their own conclusions
    mystichaze
  • BLNXBLNX Member UncommonPosts: 93
    hrmmm - the issue i find with these kind of discussions is that they are primarily based on belief, with some of the belief propped up by 'facts' on either side

    i remember watching a widely acclaimed debate between an atheist and a christian cleric one time and none of them really listened to what the other side had to say, but rather wanted to intelligently (and sometimes sarcastically) put their own argument across

    if you believe the game is going to fail, very little can be said or done to change that perspective until the game either launches or fails

    if you believe/want the game is going to launch and be a success, very little can be said or done to change that perspective until the game either launches or fails

    it's the age old fact that some folks see a glass as half full, others see it as half empty (and all the other derivatives as still others see it as an opportunity to drown an ex etc)

    personally i am a whale in this game because i like the vision and scope of it

    does that mean it will be a success - nope

    does that mean it might launch without the entire list of features - yup

    does the possibility exist that it fails and i 'lose' all my money - yup

    i think it's refreshing to see a studio say 'no' to publishers who think that they can just wave money and hijack an unfinished product and reduce it down to the same cookie cutter basics that though might be financially successful, are relatively uninspiring

    i also think that any publisher who wouldn't read a simple 8 page document is showing that it has zero fucking interest in the game itself, and so if i was a developer that was passionate about his actual project, rather than just bringing something to the point of gaining publishers interest and then just taking the money and bailing out, i might be a little frustrated also

    i'm a skeptic by nature, and think many of the concerns being brought up are grounded in valid beliefs and past track records of other studios

    Do I think Caspian and SBS are infallible and don't make mistakes? - heck no

    Do I think Caspian and SBS might well be onto something? - heck yes

    and that comes from nothing other than a personal belief and opinion that this particular project was worth backing to see where it ends up

    so i'm not trying to convince others to back or pledge, or even change their own opinion or belief if it is counter to mine

    I will however do everything i can to help support the project (for it isn't a product/game until it is released) and to promote it, and allow others to come to their own conclusions


    As a true believer and a "whale" as you put it for this game, I would ask if you find the current price model worth seeing this game possibly fail? It seems to be a major hang up right now for publishers and something a lot of the playerbase likes. Would it be okay for this game to be hampered or incomplete for that idea?

    And as for a political stance on the game, I don't have one, but I do like to see reason in everything, which is why I ask. As a person emotionally and financially invested in this game, where would your line of compromise be when it comes to catering to publishers, and if there isn't one, what do you think should be the alternative?
  • DleatherusDleatherus Member UncommonPosts: 162
    edited December 2017
    BLNX said:


    As a true believer and a "whale" as you put it for this game, I would ask if you find the current price model worth seeing this game possibly fail? It seems to be a major hang up right now for publishers and something a lot of the playerbase likes. Would it be okay for this game to be hampered or incomplete for that idea?

    And as for a political stance on the game, I don't have one, but I do like to see reason in everything, which is why I ask. As a person emotionally and financially invested in this game, where would your line of compromise be when it comes to catering to publishers, and if there isn't one, what do you think should be the alternative?

    ty for the questions and how you asked them

    to clarify i am a 'true believer' in liking the scope and approach of the project

    i'm not a 'true believer' in that 'OMG this is like so awesome that it can't fail and anybody who says anything contrary should be sent immediately to hell'

    skepticism and questioning/examining things in my opinion are very healthy things if done without the snark and sarcasm that accompanies a lot of contrary opinions/discussions

    so .... I find the current price model 'interesting' in that on one level the player is paying more for use of the soul (character) - a risky playstyle might have that particular soul only live 3-4 months - a more conservative playstyle might have it last 12 months

    i think a significant number of players will run 2-3 characters at the same time, each with their own soul 'subsription'

    Slapshot has a very valid point in my opinion regarding the issue of so many soulsparks already being prepurchased in the pledge packages

    By extension that means in order for the game to continue after launch, it would need to either:
    (a) have already sufficient funds to carry it through the window of time where existing soulparks get consumed and the existing players have to start purchasing them again, or
    (b) the game attracts enough new players that are buying soulsparks to fund development of further content, keep the game going etc


    regarding where would i draw the line since i am emotionally and financially invested in the game - i think i would categorize myself as being at an extreme end of the scale:
    (a) financially i have invested funds that if the game didn't come to launch, it doesn't effect my lifestyle in the least - so for me at least, the finances have no bearing on where the line is drawn
    (b) emotionally, because of point (a) just above, i'd rather they hold off on finding an investor if the only choice currently available was to bring on board an investor that was going to substantially change the concept of the game
    mystichaze
  • Slapshot1188Slapshot1188 Member LegendaryPosts: 12,103


    Slapshot has a very valid point in my opinion regarding the issue of so many soulsparks already being prepurchased in the pledge packages

    By extension that means in order for the game to continue after launch, it would need to either:
    (a) have already sufficient funds to carry it through the window of time where existing soulparks get consumed and the existing players have to start purchasing them again, or
    (b) the game attracts enough new players that are buying soulsparks to fund development of further content, keep the game going etc


    Thank you for that... and by no means is this isolated to CoE.  Many other Crowdfunded games face the same challenge.  It just seems that CoE will face an even tougher challenge because of it's monetization scheme.  You can look back and I have said this from the beginning.  He is pre-selling YEARS of play to his most dedicated fans.  As you describe above... that only works if scenario A or B work out.  Neither of which are likely IMHO.  "A" because they obviously need the cash for development and "B" because there just isn't a market of a million players who are going to buy into the game to be the vassals and underlings of the 20k who started the game with a 3 month early no wipe headstart and who are pre-positioned with titles, relationships and in game assets.  The idea that he closes the cash shop when the 3 month headstart begins just makes that power gap even WORSE!  This is a territory control, PvP game with player looting.   The players that will attract are a niche to start with.  The players who would want to start after other folks had a 3 month headstart and were able to buy things like titles, population centers, castles, housing, mounts, recipies, etc... is a fraction of that niche.

    If Caspien truly believes what he said:  "that still pales in comparison to the hundreds of thousands we expect on each server across the globe" it should ring every alarm bell you have.  

    I have no idea what his 8 page pitch presentation looked like, but if at the top he mentions his expectation that there are a million players I would not blame the publisher for not finishing.  It's simply unrealistic.
    Kyleran

    "I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator

    Starvault's reponse to criticism related to having a handful of players as the official "test" team for a supposed MMO: "We've just have another 10ish folk kind enough to voulenteer added tot the test team" (SIC) This explains much about the state of the game :-)

    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

    My ignore list finally has one occupant after 12 years. I am the strongest supporter of free speech on here, but free speech does not mean forced listening. Have fun my friend. Hope you find a new stalking target.

  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Member EpicPosts: 16,775
    I am not defending this game and I dont know anything about it honestly but guys keep in mind all kickstarters couldn't get funding from publishers, that is the whole point of kickstarters. so all those successful kickstarter games...guess what? had the same problem

    Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.

    Please do not respond to me

  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,505
    SEANMCAD said:
    I am not defending this game and I dont know anything about it honestly but guys keep in mind all kickstarters couldn't get funding from publishers, that is the whole point of kickstarters. so all those successful kickstarter games...guess what? had the same problem
    Cool story, but we all know the reason you're here has nothing to do with the OP or Slapshot's concerns for CoE, but you saw a chance to, yet again, inject your "AAA games bad, indie games good" spiel.
    Slapshot1188YashaXIselin

    image
  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Member EpicPosts: 16,775
    SEANMCAD said:
    I am not defending this game and I dont know anything about it honestly but guys keep in mind all kickstarters couldn't get funding from publishers, that is the whole point of kickstarters. so all those successful kickstarter games...guess what? had the same problem
    Cool story, but we all know the reason you're here has nothing to do with the OP or Slapshot's concerns for CoE, but you saw a chance to, yet again, inject your "AAA games bad, indie games good" spiel.
    sorry to offend, its not my intention to make you upset, sorry that view pains you so much.

    Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.

    Please do not respond to me

  • DleatherusDleatherus Member UncommonPosts: 162
    Thank you for that... and by no means is this isolated to CoE.  Many other Crowdfunded games face the same challenge.  It just seems that CoE will face an even tougher challenge because of it's monetization scheme.  You can look back and I have said this from the beginning.  He is pre-selling YEARS of play to his most dedicated fans.  As you describe above... that only works if scenario A or B work out.  Neither of which are likely IMHO.  "A" because they obviously need the cash for development and "B" because there just isn't a market of a million players who are going to buy into the game to be the vassals and underlings of the 20k who started the game with a 3 month early no wipe headstart and who are pre-positioned with titles, relationships and in game assets.  The idea that he closes the cash shop when the 3 month headstart begins just makes that power gap even WORSE!  This is a territory control, PvP game with player looting.   The players that will attract are a niche to start with.  The players who would want to start after other folks had a 3 month headstart and were able to buy things like titles, population centers, castles, housing, mounts, recipies, etc... is a fraction of that niche.

    If Caspien truly believes what he said:  "that still pales in comparison to the hundreds of thousands we expect on each server across the globe" it should ring every alarm bell you have.  

    I have no idea what his 8 page pitch presentation looked like, but if at the top he mentions his expectation that there are a million players I would not blame the publisher for not finishing.  It's simply unrealistic.

    well let's look at the numbers which we are being mentioned

    150,000+ is the number of people registered on the website, not the number actually pledged

    with the influence list down i don't have anything concrete to validate the current numbers, but when i had last looked, around 46,000 of them were pledged, and of those, the large majority (around 90% +/-) were in the first three tiers of pledge:




    as you can see those packages only come with 1 or 2 sparks of life, so personally i don't see it as 'YEARS' of being sold out except in the case of the very top 5% - 10% of those currently pledged

    the vast majority of the existing pledges will be purchasing another spark of life within the first year

    then add to that the remaining approximately 100,000 who are registered but not pledged (some of which no doubt are alt accounts, lookie loos who won't play, lost interest, joined a different game etc) and if we just took that figure and didn't count anybody else joining before launch, and all they bought was the entry level package, that still brings in another $4.5 million

    i'm now entering the realms of speculation because should the game launch, none of us here have any substantiated idea of how many will actually play - supposedly there are metrics and algorithms etc out there that can project that if you have x number of folks already pledged before launch, then you can expect z number additional to join when (if) it does launch - i don't have access to those methods and numbers so even if we take the figure mentioned in this thread of 200,000 to 300,000 players in the game across the servers, it still brings in a substantial sum 

    whether that is enough, i don't personally know enough about what SBS's internal costs of operation are to make a qualified judgement

    (i'm also not an economist so am just applying the 'logic' from my own admittedly limited perspective)
    Slapshot1188
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,505
    SEANMCAD said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    I am not defending this game and I dont know anything about it honestly but guys keep in mind all kickstarters couldn't get funding from publishers, that is the whole point of kickstarters. so all those successful kickstarter games...guess what? had the same problem
    Cool story, but we all know the reason you're here has nothing to do with the OP or Slapshot's concerns for CoE, but you saw a chance to, yet again, inject your "AAA games bad, indie games good" spiel.
    sorry to offend, its not my intention to make you upset, sorry that view pains you so much.
    Your attempts to make every discussion you can about that same spiel is what's offensive.

    Give it a rest.
    Slapshot1188KyleranYashaXIselin

    image
Sign In or Register to comment.