@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.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
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.
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.
@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).
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
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.
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.
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
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?
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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)
Games like Mortal Online always touted the number of forum accounts. Those are utterly meaningless. Their player base was a tiny fraction of the forum accounts. Note the 150,000 figure came from MisticHaze who said they there were 150,000 players invested through pledges. I would not question 150,000 forum accounts, but clearly there is nowhere close to 150,000 pledged accounts. It is this kind of spreading of misinformation that damages the community.
Now remember.. per statements made a spark is enough for as much as a year's worth of play. How many of these people that are on the lower tier do you really think will play the game past their first spark? Even if they play somewhat dangerously that's 6 months. I don't know the latest figures but most games do not have high retention. I know you believe CoE will be revolutionary but reality is that many of those folks will not be playing the game after 6 months, even less after a year.
And don't forget all the sparks sold as standalones in the shop. And again... how many people do you really think are going to join a Territory control, PvP game with looting when others have a 3 month no-wipe head start and have been able to buy titles, resources, castles, population centers, recipes, etc... and they would be unable to similarly purchase those items? Do you really think there are hundreds of thousands of people that will do so? Has that EVER happened in ANY game ever?
As for 300,000 players referenced in other posts... that is for massive AAA games like GW2. If you think CoE is going to match the population of a AAA MMORPG I think you are going to be in for disappointment. But remember... Caspien didn't just think a million was POSSIBLE... he said he EXPECTED hundreds of thousands of players on each server. The more you guys allow him to live in that alternate reality the less likely that you will actually get the game you really desire to play.
You guys... the ones who paid enough money to get access to not only the secret forums but the super-secret inner council need to speak reality to him. I know... I have seen some folks bring some difficult topics up on that forum... but in general it's always with a fear of being labeled a "harbringer" (seems to be caspien's word for those who dare to encourage others to ask questions) . Even when you asked questions of him on the stream... you never followed up to challenge any of his responses but simply gave a response along the lines of "Yeah I think that's a very valid and important point to make" when Caspien mentions his expectation of a million players... In the end, that doesn't help the community and it even doesn't help Caspien. Replace his name with Ryan Dancy or Henrik Nystrom... we have seen this before. The echo chamber just allows the developer to live in a bubble and when the game "launches" nobody comes. There IS time to change that course, but it's going to involve you guys stepping up to the challenge. Contrary to public opinion, I do not want to see his staff lose their jobs. I do not want to see his family lose their house. Even when Pathfinder Online inevitably went into the shitter I felt bad for the staff. Hearing Lisa in tears explaining what they had to do was not pleasant.
There is a REASON that publishers turned down his pitch. Do you really think they were all saying he had to put lootcrates into the game? Or do you think that at least SOME of those people whose business it is to know the market... looked at the figures he presented and just did not think they matched reality? And do you think that the fact he has been trying since APRIL to land a publisher and keeps getting told no should at the very least cause a very open and honest re-evaluation of the entire monetization scheme?
PS- It's a pleasure to talk with you compared to some of your predecessors. Some of your community have come on here, impersonated myself or others, been banned multiple times.. and just in general give a very bad impression of your community (every community has them). You seem a thoughtful and reasonable person that can actually talk about differences without personalizing them. I hope you stick around!
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
Comments
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.
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
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
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
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.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
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
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.
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.
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
I'll be starting a new thread about it shortly.
"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
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
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
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.
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.
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
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?
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
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.
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
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
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)
Give it a rest.
Now remember.. per statements made a spark is enough for as much as a year's worth of play. How many of these people that are on the lower tier do you really think will play the game past their first spark? Even if they play somewhat dangerously that's 6 months. I don't know the latest figures but most games do not have high retention. I know you believe CoE will be revolutionary but reality is that many of those folks will not be playing the game after 6 months, even less after a year.
And don't forget all the sparks sold as standalones in the shop. And again... how many people do you really think are going to join a Territory control, PvP game with looting when others have a 3 month no-wipe head start and have been able to buy titles, resources, castles, population centers, recipes, etc... and they would be unable to similarly purchase those items? Do you really think there are hundreds of thousands of people that will do so? Has that EVER happened in ANY game ever?
As for 300,000 players referenced in other posts... that is for massive AAA games like GW2. If you think CoE is going to match the population of a AAA MMORPG I think you are going to be in for disappointment. But remember... Caspien didn't just think a million was POSSIBLE... he said he EXPECTED hundreds of thousands of players on each server. The more you guys allow him to live in that alternate reality the less likely that you will actually get the game you really desire to play.
You guys... the ones who paid enough money to get access to not only the secret forums but the super-secret inner council need to speak reality to him. I know... I have seen some folks bring some difficult topics up on that forum... but in general it's always with a fear of being labeled a "harbringer" (seems to be caspien's word for those who dare to encourage others to ask questions) . Even when you asked questions of him on the stream... you never followed up to challenge any of his responses but simply gave a response along the lines of "Yeah I think that's a very valid and important point to make" when Caspien mentions his expectation of a million players... In the end, that doesn't help the community and it even doesn't help Caspien. Replace his name with Ryan Dancy or Henrik Nystrom... we have seen this before. The echo chamber just allows the developer to live in a bubble and when the game "launches" nobody comes. There IS time to change that course, but it's going to involve you guys stepping up to the challenge. Contrary to public opinion, I do not want to see his staff lose their jobs. I do not want to see his family lose their house. Even when Pathfinder Online inevitably went into the shitter I felt bad for the staff. Hearing Lisa in tears explaining what they had to do was not pleasant.
There is a REASON that publishers turned down his pitch. Do you really think they were all saying he had to put lootcrates into the game? Or do you think that at least SOME of those people whose business it is to know the market... looked at the figures he presented and just did not think they matched reality? And do you think that the fact he has been trying since APRIL to land a publisher and keeps getting told no should at the very least cause a very open and honest re-evaluation of the entire monetization scheme?
PS- It's a pleasure to talk with you compared to some of your predecessors. Some of your community have come on here, impersonated myself or others, been banned multiple times.. and just in general give a very bad impression of your community (every community has them). You seem a thoughtful and reasonable person that can actually talk about differences without personalizing them. I hope you stick around!
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