Yes. I do. And if they didn't and thought they would make a lot of money, well it looks like they are failing.
Don't be so sure. If their model depended on long-term subscriptions, then I would agree, but I think it does not. I think they have already made a profit on STO.
Every shitty game they put out makes drags their rep further down into the dirt. Cryptic would be an example of a bad company who will eventually no longer be profitable.
Ah, but the catch is that "eventually". If they make good profits on two or three games, then they win. The company can dissolve and reform with a new name.
At this point, what's the chances of people trusting any of their future releases?
It depends on the IP.
How is that good for their long term profitability?
Don't assume 'long term' is part of their business model.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
If profit was their top goal why not release the game in 2009 as they orginally planned. Why waste time and money producing a game when they could easily made a huge amount of profit releasing a half arsed game?
My theory: They determined that a polished game would make more money - even taking the delay into account. That's what worked for WoW after all.
Your theory?
Why have they only just recently broke even if their main objective was profit from the start despite having sold 6 million copies. Why bother releasing Q&A to help remove misconceptions when they could rely completely on blind hype. Why offer services for free when other companies change for them.
Doesn't GW charge for things like extra character slots?
Those things help the game from going into loss. They need it to supplement the b2p payment plan to help them break even. It's no where near the same as sacrificing the quality of the game for profit.
Why separate from Blizzard and set up a b2p game instead of b2p which is clearly less profitable.
It's obvious A-net makes games because they enjoy making games and they don't believe in screwing over their customers. They need money to continue support for their game as well as rewarding them for their effort but profit is not their main goal otherwise why do any of the things they have done? I have plenty of evidence for my point of view show me yours?
What you made was a stupid question. Sure it isn't "wrong" but it's still moronic.
Again with the insults. If I can restrain myself, why can't you? It must be that superior debating skill you claimed.
Fine I'll stop with the insults when you back up your points fair? It just really annoys me.
Yes. I do. And if they didn't and thought they would make a lot of money, well it looks like they are failing.
Don't be so sure. If their model depended on long-term subscriptions, then I would agree, but I think it does not. I think they have already made a profit on STO.
Every shitty game they put out makes drags their rep further down into the dirt. Cryptic would be an example of a bad company who will eventually no longer be profitable.
Ah, but the catch is that "eventually". If they make good profits on two or three games, then they win. The company can dissolve and reform with a new name.
At this point, what's the chances of people trusting any of their future releases?
It depends on the IP.
How is that good for their long term profitability?
Don't assume 'long term' is part of their business model.
You may be right. They will never be big though. I guess Cryptic has decided to fill the "direct to video" niche for MMOs.
Yes. I do. And if they didn't and thought they would make a lot of money, well it looks like they are failing.
Don't be so sure. If their model depended on long-term subscriptions, then I would agree, but I think it does not. I think they have already made a profit on STO.
Every shitty game they put out makes drags their rep further down into the dirt. Cryptic would be an example of a bad company who will eventually no longer be profitable.
Ah, but the catch is that "eventually". If they make good profits on two or three games, then they win. The company can dissolve and reform with a new name.
At this point, what's the chances of people trusting any of their future releases?
It depends on the IP.
How is that good for their long term profitability?
Don't assume 'long term' is part of their business model.
I greatly agree with doubter here. You don't always need a quality brand name to make a profit. The vast majority of businesses don't and they do fine in the short term. The long term doesn't matter as they already made most of their money.
It's partly why you see so many half arsed games among other factors. Creating a quality game just isn't always profitable. Very often the two things conflict. It's a sad but true fact of this business. Most of the time only well funded games can afford to go for "quality" over "profit" as they can make the money back in the long term through a good brand name. Smaller business don't have that luxury.
With all due repsect, this is nonsense. I would guess that every development team starts off thinking they are making the next best thing. But things go wrong. Either through ideas that sound good but don't pan out, bad management, not enough money - whatever - many times the end product does not fit their vision. And despite whether they want to or not, the game has to ship by a certain date so the people who financed the game can either make a profit, but I bet most times when a game is launched way too early it's just to try to break even.
MMO development is risky and expensive, but an MMO has potential to make great sums of money.. The reason why games like WoW or EQ are copied has to do with minimizing risk. In an industry where you already are rolling the dice, the last thing most invenstors or companies want to do is take more of chance by doing something untested.
The reason why you see so few games come out that are truly different all come back to the facts I stated above. A publisher, company, investors - whoever is supplying the money - usually only allow developers with a proven track record and a strong IP to take any chances. If you think of the most successful game developers, they usually have one or two titles and they build upon the success of them.
I know why there have been nothing but clones, most people who pay any amount of attention do. I also know why games ship early, that's no great mystery. That's part of what ruins the 'fun" I was referring to. You're correcting me with issues I'm fully aware of, and have spoken about here many times.
You seem to have completely misunderstood my point. (In layman's) In order for a game to be considered the best today, they have to innovate there's no question about it. That is far from nonsense, IMO arguing otherwise is nonsense.
Most have grown tired of the same old same old, if it's a wow clone, people will just continue to play WOW for the most part (as history has shown). Companies may garner medial success with clones. However, that's not putting them on the road toward being "the best" in any way.
I'm referring only to Arenanet's comment that (to paraphrase) "they want their MMO to be the best ever".... Maybe I should have put that in (if I didn't).
No one is going to become the best by making nothing but a cash-grab with a semi-popular I.P. How are any of these points nonsense?
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
That's what everyone is expecting, maybe you didn't read their replies thoroughly?
When I read posts suggesting that the game is B2P because the company doesn't care about profits, I have to doubt your claim.
It feels a lot more like some posters think A.Net exists soley to make MMO gamers happy.
I see your point here, people do the same thing with Bioware and Blizzard as well.
The best way for a game to make a profit is for it to be fun and innovative.
Explain cash shops, then.
Touche', I didn't say that as I really intended, what I meant to say was, "for it to be wildly popular as well as highly profitable".
There's no better way, anything else today withers and slowly dies.
The industry's history of the last few years calls that claim into great doubt.
Most games that released in the last few years have had trouble retaining players, what's there to doubt about that? Remember in order for a game to be "fun" it has to be relatively stable. Fun means a lot more than a feeling when I referrence it in this way.
Maybe that's what they mean by "the best MMO ever"? I don't like WOW, but one could consider it the best MMO ever simply because it's held the largest amount of players interest for the longest amount of time. That's because it was a very well made product.
That's the main reason, I agree.
They've studied player tendancies within the game and genre over time and have adjusted accordingly, that's why they've remained successful.
From a profit standpoint, yes.
That's what it takes to be the best in this industry, anything else and you're held to public ridicule and/or failure. I think a company like Arenanet should know this, as other industry professionals should by now. Just look at what they've changed from the original GW, namely the biggest complaint about the game, the instancing. Yet they've kept the most popular feature, B2P.
Have they actually made it clear that GW2 will be B2P? Not doubting, just asking.
This you'll have to take a guess at, everyone posting says it is, if it's not my bad.
It's little things like this I look at to decide where a companies motivations may fall. To me, so far it looks like they are aiming at offering a great game first, the profit will roll in after if they are successful in that.
Some are claiming that that model didn't work very well for them with GW1. That makes me very doubtful.
Also - when they are making the game more loot-oriented that does not suggest quality as their top priority.
I agree (my taste anyway) I'm not into loot based progression, I like chracter building (ala UO/SWG). Seems quite a few players would disagree with our taste though.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Fine I'll stop with the insults when you back up your points fair? It just really annoys me.
Rise above it. I do.
Nice double satndard on the paid services, BTW.
If a company makes a loss and they require to sell items that do not in anyway negatively affect there customers and helps keep the game a float is now considered a double standard? That's actually a good thing for the customers as it helps keep the game a float a allows them to continue playing the game. There is no contradiction of standards there......
Comments
Don't assume 'long term' is part of their business model.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
Fine I'll stop with the insults when you back up your points fair? It just really annoys me.
Rise above it. I do.
Nice double satndard on the paid services, BTW.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
You may be right. They will never be big though. I guess Cryptic has decided to fill the "direct to video" niche for MMOs.
I greatly agree with doubter here. You don't always need a quality brand name to make a profit. The vast majority of businesses don't and they do fine in the short term. The long term doesn't matter as they already made most of their money.
It's partly why you see so many half arsed games among other factors. Creating a quality game just isn't always profitable. Very often the two things conflict. It's a sad but true fact of this business. Most of the time only well funded games can afford to go for "quality" over "profit" as they can make the money back in the long term through a good brand name. Smaller business don't have that luxury.
So many college kids so many business majors its gotta be settled. A-net must learn from these posts so much to learn........right......
I know why there have been nothing but clones, most people who pay any amount of attention do. I also know why games ship early, that's no great mystery. That's part of what ruins the 'fun" I was referring to. You're correcting me with issues I'm fully aware of, and have spoken about here many times.
You seem to have completely misunderstood my point. (In layman's) In order for a game to be considered the best today, they have to innovate there's no question about it. That is far from nonsense, IMO arguing otherwise is nonsense.
Most have grown tired of the same old same old, if it's a wow clone, people will just continue to play WOW for the most part (as history has shown). Companies may garner medial success with clones. However, that's not putting them on the road toward being "the best" in any way.
I'm referring only to Arenanet's comment that (to paraphrase) "they want their MMO to be the best ever".... Maybe I should have put that in (if I didn't).
No one is going to become the best by making nothing but a cash-grab with a semi-popular I.P. How are any of these points nonsense?
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I agree (my taste anyway) I'm not into loot based progression, I like chracter building (ala UO/SWG). Seems quite a few players would disagree with our taste though.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
If a company makes a loss and they require to sell items that do not in anyway negatively affect there customers and helps keep the game a float is now considered a double standard? That's actually a good thing for the customers as it helps keep the game a float a allows them to continue playing the game. There is no contradiction of standards there......