Lol, some people here would probably swoon if they new how much I already have put into this game. The reason being is that is there is no game out there that is being made with similar game design concepts of AC. For me this is the closest thing to that yet also has new ideas and the Devs are very passionate . Last night there were tons of people on coming through the starter island and the devs were on helping and answering questions of new comers. Also every night the amount of people on goes up, at any given time yesterday there between 300 and 400 people on.
This is exactly it for them to make money and keep the game going the people who want this type of game must be ready to pay a little more and I say what is wrong with that. Something Pantheon should do too because let's face it these types of games are rare now and if we want them to survive open your wallet and pay for them.
You're asserting that those casual tourists keep an MMORPG alive and I claim they're a detriment, not a boon. Now if those casual tourists are paying then they at least add something financially for the disruption to the community they cause. If they pay nothing then they're just a drain and disruption.
I've not seen anyone prove that Free Players are anything but a drain on a game that treats their population as anything more than a commodity. In a pvp game they have a potential as a resource to be harvested (or shot in this case). Outside of that, they offer nothing of long term value.
This lie about the playerbase needing them as filler is a propaganda piece put forth by free players that overvalue themselves. And by desperate publishers living a revenue conversion fantasy that will never materialize.
Casual tourists yeah, why do you think F2P is such a successful colossus in revenue? You allow a large amount of people in at no cost, and from that some of it translates into active playerbase, then you monetize that active playerbase and then revenue is generated without having to ever charge any initial fee to get them playing.
So I'm not sure what revenue conversion fantasy you are talking about, I think the current reality of the industry speaks for itself, in the MMO genre, in the mobile platform, and so on...
I don't really agree with raising prices on games for the sake of driving people away, or because it's 2018 and games should be more expensive now because f**k people without income. There's a reason 99 cent stores and stores with lower prices in general seem to be the go-to for products. Which is exactly what this and games are, this is a product in a "market" or "retail" scenario. And the saying that always counts no matter if it's 1999 or 2018 is that "Less is More".
If this game was 10-15$ on release instead of 40 I believe it's population on steam could've easily doubled or tripled. At that point, it would've been a lot easier to draw new players into the game by both advertisement and people already playing the game trying to pitch it to their friends.
And then if people were to see that there were a lot of people playing this game, they might be more inclined to try it out themselves. It's hard to know if you're going to like a game in the time period steam gives us become we can refund it, especially when it comes to MMOs. So if you make a 40$ mistake with this one, that's an extremely sour taste in your mouth compared to being ok with dumping 15$ into the company to support them.
I don't understand the position that this game isn't worth $40 when people regularly pay far more for "AAA" games with a fraction of the depth and play time that this game has.
You'd have to consider the MMO genre.
On it, you have big most of the titles are F2P by nature, so when you compare this game and you compare you could get GW2 + Expansions for the same price, it does get very hard for a game like this to compete in worth.
I'm with Sedryn because that worth you are talking about can also have a subjective component.
So if you want to compare apples to apples "sure" Guild Wars 2 would "give you more" and with higher production values.
But is it actually worth it?
I suppose this is why I don't get players who complain about old games having comparable price tags to new games. They are just looking at surface things and concluding that the older game can't compete.
I've played Guild Wars 2 a bit and though it has its positives, to me, it's not worth $10. I just couldn't stand it after a while.
But let's say they relaunched Vanguard and charged $40 or $50 to buy in, I WOULD pay that. Even though I know full well it doesn't compare to Guild Wars 2 on quality and polish and Expansions.
There are not going to be many people that will find this game to be worth $40. That is the bottom line.
Which contributes to the current F2P/eastern imports trend.
Niches don't get the best production values. If we demand those values here in the west, innovation will continue to suffer for it.
That's a really bad ultimatum.
Niche or indie does not mean it has to look like and play like total shit.
What indie devs need to stop doing is trying to make their graphics realistic if they don't have the resources. Go for a stylized look, your game will ultimately look and play 100000x better than the half-assed attempts to look "real".
Hell, Pantheon has come a long way in visuals but the animations still look like total shit. Granted, there's still probably plenty of time for that to be worked on but the point is they have the resources.
Take for example: PUBG vs Fortnite. PUBG is quickly becoming irrelevant because Fortnite offers MUCH better gameplay by utilizing a stylized look.
I'd rather play a game with 2.5D graphics where the animations look incredible and the gameplay is fluid than a clunky POS attempt at 3D
Only I don't feel the game plays like total shit.
That's not an ultimatum, it's reality. If consumers in this genre are unwilling to pay for anything that doesn't include AAA production values (and let's be real, a large portion won't pay for those values, either), be prepared for more BDO and a sluggish or non-existent investor interest in funding additional titles. Investors have largely made it clear they want no part in trying to entertain the current crowd's demands by taking risks on new western projects.
It doesn't have to look like Crysis to be appealing, just look at games like stardew valley, or terraria, or minecraft.
It has to play well though, and too many indie devs are trying to be BDO with the budget of nearly nothing.
Do what you can afford to do really well, not what you can barely afford to do half-assed.
Quality will always matter more than graphical style. Project Gorgon plays like it was built in the 90's.
Again, looking at the graphics, it appears to me they spent the majority of their time on the gameplay mechanics, which I found to be unique and refreshing in many ways. I think they were focusing on what they could afford to do really well. Even if you go with stylized art graphics, you still need the artists on deck to make them look good.
Not every Joe Schmoe can throw together an aesthetically pleasing game just because it's 2.5D.
Yeah, that was the plan on paper but it's not panning out that way. Revenue conversion is that point where the dead weight pays some money. That's the part where you said "then you monetize" like it just happens.
The problem is free players aren't converting at a necessary rate, and more importantly aren't paying long term, to make F2P a long term sustainable business model. That "then you monetize" isn't happening in a way that makes the game survivable long term.
What we've found is that F2P games have a much shorter life limit because the churn only stays until the next new free thing. They don't care about the game, community, or longevity. Like Narius has said time and again, he doesn't care about community and why should he? He'll move on to the next game and play for free. What happens to the paying "whales" who stay isn't his concern.
What I think Froobs don't understand is that paying players want some games where they can play without them around even if it means playing with fewer people. I'm more than happy to play with fewer paying players than I am with a sea of indifferent moochers.
What is not working out that way? If something hasn't been working out is things like sub MMO's, with some of the main ones having felt into F2P or just B2P.
The conversion lies on the game itself and how they do it, I don't see the longevity factor being tied to either it is F2P or not, you have examples like Warframe that have seen nothing but growth. When you talk longevity I think the oldest living still active MMO's around are mostly F2P, like Entropia, Mapplestory, Star Trek Online, Everquest, the still mainstream Runescape and others.
Yeah, that was the plan on paper but it's not panning out that way. Revenue conversion is that point where the dead weight pays some money. That's the part where you said "then you monetize" like it just happens.
The problem is free players aren't converting at a necessary rate, and more importantly aren't paying long term, to make F2P a long term sustainable business model. That "then you monetize" isn't happening in a way that makes the game survivable long term.
What we've found is that F2P games have a much shorter life limit because the churn only stays until the next new free thing. They don't care about the game, community, or longevity. Like Narius has said time and again, he doesn't care about community and why should he? He'll move on to the next game and play for free. What happens to the paying "whales" who stay isn't his concern.
What I think Froobs don't understand is that paying players want some games where they can play without them around even if it means playing with fewer people. I'm more than happy to play with fewer paying players than I am with a sea of indifferent moochers.
What is not working out that way? If something hasn't been working out is things like sub MMO's, with some of the main ones having felt into F2P or just B2P.
The conversion lies on the game itself and how they do it, I don't see the longevity factor being the determining factor on how long the game lives popular, you have examples like Warframe that have seen nothing but growth. When you talk longevity I think the oldest living still active MMO's around are mostly F2P, like Entropia, Mapplestory, Star Trek Online, Everquest, the still mainstream Runescape and others.
Even when the model is profitable, it's piss poor for consumers, in principle and practice:
"Oh you like mounts?? Fuck YOU, give us $30 dollars a pop!"
"Oh, you like costumes? Fuck YOU, give us 10 dollars a pop!"
"Oh you like collecting things? Fuck YOU, give us $5-15 a pop!"
"Oh, you like to keep things? Fuck YOU, give us $5 per bag slot!"
Even when the model is profitable, it's piss poor for consumers, in principle and practice:
"Oh you like mounts?? Fuck YOU, give us $30 dollars a pop!"
"Oh, you like costumes? Fuck YOU, give us 10 dollars a pop!"
"Oh you like collecting things? Fuck YOU, give us $5-15 a pop!"
"Oh, you like to keep things? Fuck YOU, give us $5 per bag slot!"
Well, it may be, but this is business right? So in that reality, you need to apply the best strategies to be successful, being that the F2P model with microtransactions would, in my opinion, be the best strategy for like this, that needs to captivate player base, as the game is not visually attractive by default yet it has solid gameplay the best strategy for me is let people play first and that would be the retainer.
I don't really agree with raising prices on games for the sake of driving people away, or because it's 2018 and games should be more expensive now because f**k people without income. There's a reason 99 cent stores and stores with lower prices in general seem to be the go-to for products. Which is exactly what this and games are, this is a product in a "market" or "retail" scenario. And the saying that always counts no matter if it's 1999 or 2018 is that "Less is More".
If this game was 10-15$ on release instead of 40 I believe it's population on steam could've easily doubled or tripled. At that point, it would've been a lot easier to draw new players into the game by both advertisement and people already playing the game trying to pitch it to their friends.
And then if people were to see that there were a lot of people playing this game, they might be more inclined to try it out themselves. It's hard to know if you're going to like a game in the time period steam gives us become we can refund it, especially when it comes to MMOs. So if you make a 40$ mistake with this one, that's an extremely sour taste in your mouth compared to being ok with dumping 15$ into the company to support them.
That really depends on who you are in the customer base.
I have never purchased anything from a 99 cent store (or dollar store if you want to be all fancy) and will never purchase anything from them.
I remember I was once suit shopping but every store I went to did NOT have what I wanted. So I changed my tack. How much do I have to spend in order to get what I wanted. Ended up in Lord and Taylor and purchasing a very nice suit which was EXACTLY what I wanted.
This is not to say that shopping at that Dollar store is bad. Hardly. Especially if they can deliver reasonable products to people on a budget or people who just "need a thing" and don't want to spend a lot on that thing.
But some people want to get something and not spend a lot and some people want to get what they want and are willing to pay for it.
edit, I should add that there is enough media out there that a person can investigate a game and see if they want to play it without buying it.
Also, many game companies eventually offer trials or free weekends so that's always a possibility as well.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Even when the model is profitable, it's piss poor for consumers, in principle and practice:
"Oh you like mounts?? Fuck YOU, give us $30 dollars a pop!"
"Oh, you like costumes? Fuck YOU, give us 10 dollars a pop!"
"Oh you like collecting things? Fuck YOU, give us $5-15 a pop!"
"Oh, you like to keep things? Fuck YOU, give us $5 per bag slot!"
Well, it may be, but this is business right? So in that reality, you need to apply the best strategies to be successful, being that the F2P model with microtransactions would, in my opinion, be the best strategy for like this, that needs to captivate player base, as the game is not visually attractive by default yet it has solid gameplay the best strategy for me is let people play first and that would be the retainer.
I don't disagree with a trial. But poor business decisions in embracing F2P and microtransactions is why you currently have multiple crowdfunding devs caught between a rock and a hard place reference pay to win and their high roller backers' desires.
I don't disagree with a trial. But poor business decisions in embracing F2P and microtransactions is why you currently have multiple crowdfunding devs caught between a rock and a hard place reference pay to win and their high roller backers' desires.
I see the strategy BDO takes rather smart in a business perspective, they literally could be F2P but they have a very cheap entry cost, that they often sell as low as 5$, just to make attract people to play that game with the 7 day trial codes they do, that seems to be more effective put a value on the game, in the trials and the likeness those convert into a player who buys. All that is just only to get the player into the game, the real business model of BDO is indeed the microtransactions that come after.
But the thing is, just having the entry cost by buying the game in one MMO doesn't work out, after the sale peaks they need sustainability and this is the usual problem that finds its answer on microtransactions.
I don't disagree with a trial. But poor business decisions in embracing F2P and microtransactions is why you currently have multiple crowdfunding devs caught between a rock and a hard place reference pay to win and their high roller backers' desires.
I see the strategy BDO takes rather smart in a business perspective, they literally could be F2P but they have a very cheap entry cost, that they often sell as low as 5$, just to make attract people to play that game with the 7 day trial codes they do, that seems to be more effective put a value on the game, in the trials and the likeness those convert into a player who buys. All that is just only to get the player into the game, the real business model of BDO is indeed the microtransactions that come after.
But the thing is, just having the entry cost by buying the game in one MMO doesn't work out, after the sale peaks they need sustainability and this is the usual problem that finds its answer on microtransactions.
The folks who brought BDO to the west already had initial development investment paid for through its profits in the East. Not sure it's a good comparison to this situation.
EDIT- also, from what I understand, BDO was built from the ground up with those microtransactions in mind. Adding the. To Gorgon at this stage would likely be jarring.
Problem with putting a $30 price tag is that you only get the faithful while you leave out people that are on the fence. This means that you will fail to get a crowd that might have enjoyed it as much as some of you guys do and would have gladly paid $30, $60 or $100 while playing the game instead of opting out and buying some other game instead.
Iselin: And the next person who says "but it's a business, they need to make money" can just go fuck yourself.
The folks who brought BDO to the west already had initial development investment paid for through its profits in the East. Not sure it's a good comparison to this situation.
EDIT- also, from what I understand, BDO was built from the ground up with those microtransactions in mind. Adding the. To Gorgon at this stage would likely be jarring.
In terms of financials it works the same, both need financial sustainability and profitability one way or the other, like if we are to expect just because you sell one MMO like this for 40$ you won't have to have further revenue methods afterwards that would be unreasonable because after the sale peaks are done with, the service sustainability + further development will be imposing, unless you achieve really good results on sales that would safeguard operations, it's just the very nature of MMO's.
Problem with putting a $30 price tag is that you only get the faithful while you leave out people that are on the fence. This means that you will fail to get a crowd that might have enjoyed it as much as some of you guys do and would have gladly paid $30, $60 or $100 while playing the game instead of opting out and buying some other game instead.
Again, if $10 dollars or even $20 dollars is going to dissuade a person then they probably weren't even that interested to begin with.
Also, a large number of people bought into starter packs, founding packs etc for any number of games without trying them out.
Black Desert, Elder Scrolls Online, etc.
And these games charged quite a bit. Yet many people bought them.
This just sounds like "being cheap" because the game doesn't have AAA looks.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Problem with putting a $30 price tag is that you only get the faithful while you leave out people that are on the fence. This means that you will fail to get a crowd that might have enjoyed it as much as some of you guys do and would have gladly paid $30, $60 or $100 while playing the game instead of opting out and buying some other game instead.
Again, if $10 dollars or even $20 dollars is going to dissuade a person then they probably weren't even that interested to begin with.
Also, a large number of people bought into starter packs, founding packs etc for any number of games without trying them out.
Black Desert, Elder Scrolls Online, etc.
And these games charged quite a bit. Yet many people bought them.
This just sounds like "being cheap" because the game doesn't have AAA looks.
Again, though, the market has conditioned folks to expect that value for nothing or almost nothing. The consumer base has literally been trained to devalue the game itself to nothing at all.
There's fault on both sides, but consumers aren't a coordinated entity that regularly looks ahead with foresight. They just respond to what's offered. That's why I generally err on the side of the market producers shouldering more blame than consumers.
Problem with putting a $30 price tag is that you only get the faithful while you leave out people that are on the fence. This means that you will fail to get a crowd that might have enjoyed it as much as some of you guys do and would have gladly paid $30, $60 or $100 while playing the game instead of opting out and buying some other game instead.
Again, if $10 dollars or even $20 dollars is going to dissuade a person then they probably weren't even that interested to begin with.
Also, a large number of people bought into starter packs, founding packs etc for any number of games without trying them out.
Black Desert, Elder Scrolls Online, etc.
And these games charged quite a bit. Yet many people bought them.
This just sounds like "being cheap" because the game doesn't have AAA looks.
Again, though, the market has conditioned folks to expect that value for nothing or almost nothing. The consumer base has literally been trained to devalue the game itself to nothing at all.
There's fault on both sides, but consumers aren't a coordinated entity that regularly looks ahead with foresight. They just respond to what's offered. That's why I generally err on the side of the market producers shouldering more blame than consumers.
yeah, that's just a shame.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Another question about Gorgon: How is a three person team going to generate enough content to keep people interested? You guys know how MMO players burn through content.
Another question about Gorgon: How is a three person team going to generate enough content to keep people interested? You guys know how MMO players burn through content.
I'm guessing this is probably more old school than that and that players have to make their own fun. I've only played it a little bit so I can't really comment on that other than "I made my own fun".
So more like "this is the world, this is your playground, have at it" as opposed to "this is the word and these are the rides make sure you have your tickets ready and you must be "this" tall to ride.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Even when the model is profitable, it's piss poor for consumers, in principle and practice:
"Oh you like mounts?? Fuck YOU, give us $30 dollars a pop!"
"Oh, you like costumes? Fuck YOU, give us 10 dollars a pop!"
"Oh you like collecting things? Fuck YOU, give us $5-15 a pop!"
"Oh, you like to keep things? Fuck YOU, give us $5 per bag slot!"
Well, it may be, but this is business right? So in that reality, you need to apply the best strategies to be successful, being that the F2P model with microtransactions would, in my opinion, be the best strategy for like this, that needs to captivate player base, as the game is not visually attractive by default yet it has solid gameplay the best strategy for me is let people play first and that would be the retainer.
Since this is business I've been taking that money somewhere else away from bankrolling a free game for hunter killer achievers. I'm a collector explorer and the system has evolved such that the stuff I like to MMO for is all behind the cash shop.
I don't feel like I need free players in my games and I'm willing to pay for games where they're not a part of the equation. I'm not interested in paying for games like you describe so they can be free. I think free players need payers like me whereas I don't need free players at all to enjoy my games and MMOs.
The question is why would I want to put money into an mmo like you describe when I can put my money into a game like this.
This really is the bubble of microtransactions. They have to focus on specific areas to the detriment of the gamers who specifically enjoy those features. That's why I have an issue with F2P in principle; not everyone plays a game like as large as an MMORPG for the same reasons, so you don't even market to your playerbase equally. Some segments end up getting royally screwed.
I feel like collector/explorers like you mentioned will eventually stop playing these games when they realize that they're the ones who have to pay to engage in the parts of the games they enjoy best. I mean, you're already getting fed up with being the taxed much more heavily for your entertainment than others, which is absolutely reasonable. Why is your favorite part of games any less important than anyone else's? Why do they get their content for free, but you have to pay per piece (most of the time)? I've even been guilty of "at least it's just cosmetics" before, because I don't value them as highly. But if it were classes? Even if they were objectively sidegrades, I'd likely never consider playing.
jeez I played this for a couple years off and on, donated a bit, but damned if I would pay 40$ to play a game that looks worse than Asheron's Call, when I can just play on the AC Emulators
well it seems they did a minor graphical upgrade, fwiw I played for a year or so about 2 years ago. But they still haven't figured out how to not have a giant hit box around a mob
Another question about Gorgon: How is a three person team going to generate enough content to keep people interested? You guys know how MMO players burn through content.
I'm guessing this is probably more old school than that and that players have to make their own fun. I've only played it a little bit so I can't really comment on that other than "I made my own fun".
So more like "this is the world, this is your playground, have at it" as opposed to "this is the word and these are the rides make sure you have your tickets ready and you must be "this" tall to ride.
Right now the game has up to skill lvl 70 on fighting skills with the ability to get 15 to 20 AA lvls exrtra . When PG truly launch's there will be 100 for all and 25 AA skill lvls you can obtain. Things aren't as quickly done as in other MMO's. At lvl 50 you have to get favor with your npc trainer, many times having to full fill other requirements as well and pay alot of gold to train beyond that skill lvl. Same at 60 but the gold price is much higher. Anyway the Dev's have told everyone in their blog that after the true launch that they planned on having meaningful patches every 1 & 1/2 to 2 months and a x-pac every year & 1/2 or so. Can they do it well they have basically been doing that for 3 years now.
There you go, they do what old school MMORPGs traditionally provide for content.
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
Since this is business I've been taking that money somewhere else away from bankrolling a free game for hunter killer achievers. I'm a collector explorer and the system has evolved such that the stuff I like to MMO for is all behind the cash shop.
I don't feel like I need free players in my games and I'm willing to pay for games where they're not a part of the equation. I'm not interested in paying for games like you describe so they can be free. I think free players need payers like me whereas I don't need free players at all to enjoy my games and MMOs.
The question is why would I want to put money into an mmo like you describe when I can put my money into a game like this.
There's both quality and lack of quality in F2P, that is not the determining factor for me.
As for your last bit, I would say you would belong to more of a niche when doing that, that's really no the standard approach people take when choosing to buy or not one MMO like this, there are exceptions but one has to hope that this turns into one of those exceptions and just achieves success and popularity, as for one Indie developer trying to sustain one MMO they surely need that.
I was raised grinding in MMO's and to tell the truth it feels funny sometimes when I can't. There are different types of grinding in games. There's the grind that's added to the storyline. The grind that's added to games as an optional xp bonus. Regular pick a spot and grind. Demising returns grinds. Reputation grinding. And so on.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
So , for all those wanting a Trial .. it is coming ... from the dev
"We do plan on having a free trial, but I'm afraid I don't have a solid ETA for you on when that might be available."
I dont think it would be to far out
Smart move.
My point all along on these Project Gorgon threads. Lower the entry barrier by either offering a free trial or lower the box price. Once you get them in and hooked, you will then have achieved the primary goal for any MMO which is populating your game with those pioneers who will do the really hard work for you of pulling in friends and family and advertising your game via word of mouth.
As it relates to the lower box price introductory option, the objective there is to remove any barriers into your game with the condition that its an introductory offer and the price may go up within a specified time (say three months down the line). This would, thereby, afford the developers the option of raising prices down the line should their game population begin to thrive. After you get them in and hooked, you can then monitor your success levels and decide upon a date to increase your box price.
You will not only attain a higher net profit by implementing a price target of, say $14.99 and securing 100 sales, than a price target of $39.99 and securing 20 sales, but you will attain the additional benefit of populating your game and allowing friendship/family ties and word of mouth to sell your game.
Maybe PG read my posts on these threads, and unlike the usual few on this forum who always love to disagree just to be disagreeable, agreed that I made all the sensible sense in the world after all. Good on them. As I've said all along, the game has some redeeming qualities. What it lacks is the eye-candy visuals that translate to impulse buying. However, if you allow players to at least try your game, you may succeed in hooking a good few that would otherwise not have given the game a second look.
Comments
So I'm not sure what revenue conversion fantasy you are talking about, I think the current reality of the industry speaks for itself, in the MMO genre, in the mobile platform, and so on...
If this game was 10-15$ on release instead of 40 I believe it's population on steam could've easily doubled or tripled. At that point, it would've been a lot easier to draw new players into the game by both advertisement and people already playing the game trying to pitch it to their friends.
And then if people were to see that there were a lot of people playing this game, they might be more inclined to try it out themselves. It's hard to know if you're going to like a game in the time period steam gives us become we can refund it, especially when it comes to MMOs. So if you make a 40$ mistake with this one, that's an extremely sour taste in your mouth compared to being ok with dumping 15$ into the company to support them.
Not every Joe Schmoe can throw together an aesthetically pleasing game just because it's 2.5D.
The conversion lies on the game itself and how they do it, I don't see the longevity factor being tied to either it is F2P or not, you have examples like Warframe that have seen nothing but growth. When you talk longevity I think the oldest living still active MMO's around are mostly F2P, like Entropia, Mapplestory, Star Trek Online, Everquest, the still mainstream Runescape and others.
"Oh you like mounts?? Fuck YOU, give us $30 dollars a pop!"
"Oh, you like costumes? Fuck YOU, give us 10 dollars a pop!"
"Oh you like collecting things? Fuck YOU, give us $5-15 a pop!"
"Oh, you like to keep things? Fuck YOU, give us $5 per bag slot!"
I have never purchased anything from a 99 cent store (or dollar store if you want to be all fancy) and will never purchase anything from them.
I remember I was once suit shopping but every store I went to did NOT have what I wanted. So I changed my tack. How much do I have to spend in order to get what I wanted. Ended up in Lord and Taylor and purchasing a very nice suit which was EXACTLY what I wanted.
This is not to say that shopping at that Dollar store is bad. Hardly. Especially if they can deliver reasonable products to people on a budget or people who just "need a thing" and don't want to spend a lot on that thing.
But some people want to get something and not spend a lot and some people want to get what they want and are willing to pay for it.
edit, I should add that there is enough media out there that a person can investigate a game and see if they want to play it without buying it.
Also, many game companies eventually offer trials or free weekends so that's always a possibility as well.
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
But the thing is, just having the entry cost by buying the game in one MMO doesn't work out, after the sale peaks they need sustainability and this is the usual problem that finds its answer on microtransactions.
EDIT- also, from what I understand, BDO was built from the ground up with those microtransactions in mind. Adding the. To Gorgon at this stage would likely be jarring.
Also, a large number of people bought into starter packs, founding packs etc for any number of games without trying them out.
Black Desert, Elder Scrolls Online, etc.
And these games charged quite a bit. Yet many people bought them.
This just sounds like "being cheap" because the game doesn't have AAA looks.
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
There's fault on both sides, but consumers aren't a coordinated entity that regularly looks ahead with foresight. They just respond to what's offered. That's why I generally err on the side of the market producers shouldering more blame than consumers.
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
So more like "this is the world, this is your playground, have at it" as opposed to "this is the word and these are the rides make sure you have your tickets ready and you must be "this" tall to ride.
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
I feel like collector/explorers like you mentioned will eventually stop playing these games when they realize that they're the ones who have to pay to engage in the parts of the games they enjoy best. I mean, you're already getting fed up with being the taxed much more heavily for your entertainment than others, which is absolutely reasonable. Why is your favorite part of games any less important than anyone else's? Why do they get their content for free, but you have to pay per piece (most of the time)? I've even been guilty of "at least it's just cosmetics" before, because I don't value them as highly. But if it were classes? Even if they were objectively sidegrades, I'd likely never consider playing.
Just add extra grind.
"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
As for your last bit, I would say you would belong to more of a niche when doing that, that's really no the standard approach people take when choosing to buy or not one MMO like this, there are exceptions but one has to hope that this turns into one of those exceptions and just achieves success and popularity, as for one Indie developer trying to sustain one MMO they surely need that.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
"We do plan on having a free trial, but I'm afraid I don't have a solid ETA for you on when that might be available."
I dont think it would be to far out
Smart move.
My point all along on these Project Gorgon threads. Lower the entry barrier by either offering a free trial or lower the box price. Once you get them in and hooked, you will then have achieved the primary goal for any MMO which is populating your game with those pioneers who will do the really hard work for you of pulling in friends and family and advertising your game via word of mouth.
As it relates to the lower box price introductory option, the objective there is to remove any barriers into your game with the condition that its an introductory offer and the price may go up within a specified time (say three months down the line). This would, thereby, afford the developers the option of raising prices down the line should their game population begin to thrive. After you get them in and hooked, you can then monitor your success levels and decide upon a date to increase your box price.
You will not only attain a higher net profit by implementing a price target of, say $14.99 and securing 100 sales, than a price target of $39.99 and securing 20 sales, but you will attain the additional benefit of populating your game and allowing friendship/family ties and word of mouth to sell your game.
Maybe PG read my posts on these threads, and unlike the usual few on this forum who always love to disagree just to be disagreeable, agreed that I made all the sensible sense in the world after all. Good on them. As I've said all along, the game has some redeeming qualities. What it lacks is the eye-candy visuals that translate to impulse buying. However, if you allow players to at least try your game, you may succeed in hooking a good few that would otherwise not have given the game a second look.