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 thing is, is it "not commercially viable" or is it "not commercially viable as an unfinished game?"
If they had the full game done, reasonably polished, would people want to play it? I think they would.
To be commercially viable requires not only a "good" game (the definition of good being an eye of the beholder thing) it also means having a good marketing team with "enough" of a budget.
Worlds Adrift didn't have it. Maybe they believed that being on Steam - one title amongst thousands - would guarantee huge sales; if so they were disappointed.
We dont need MORE MMORPGS we need fewer better and more viable MMORPGS. The MMORPG genre was never designed to have hundreds of titles and games. There is not enough money there to keep many afloat. Add to that the nature of MMORPGS, they suck ass in the F2P P2W cash shop BS that occurs today. Less and less players play these games and spend less money on them. Why? Because its like going from Candy crush to another Candy Crush like game to another Candy Crush like game. If you dont want to play the main game why do you want to play the Candy Crush Clone? Add to that the MMORPG Genre thrived on the Subscription model for a long time, now with F2P and microtransactions look how players no longer commit to a game.
MMORPGS take too long to make and having players not make long term commitments to the game is all but pointless. This is why Games as a service will also soon shrink. Its good to have 12 to maybe 30 games in MMORPGs and Games as a service. But not all games should be designed this way. Hell take a look at the idea being dragon age 4, they want to make that a games as a service with microtransactions and the interest in DA4 dropped like a rock. Look at MMORPGS when players find out they are F2p yes a rush comes in for a month then quits. Its not a sustainable model.
This is not a MMORPG, it was another survival game like Ark, Conan, 7Days, etc...
I dont agree with your outlook, and neither does most developers. This IS the age of Cash shops in mmo's, just cause you dont like it doesnt mean its trash. Do i bulk out in these games? Nope, would I rather pay a sub? Nope, I love free to play titles with cash shops, cause i can bounce back and forth without worry bout wasting sub times. I have subbed to games like WoW, and after 2 days was like, nah, dont really wanna play this right now. But, had to pay that $19 CAN to find out i wasnt in the WoW like mood. You cant do a retrial on your max level characters, so unless you subbed you dont know.
Why do people by fancy sport cars they dont intend to drive fast? Why do people by the nike shoe, when the walmart brand is just as good? Its about stature. Society for ya. These so called "trash" cash shop games you mention are what the majority want. Numbers speak for themselves. What your idea of what a "good" mmo isnt what the majority want.
Wanna know why mmo's thrived on subs........cause its practically all there was. If both sub and f2p cash shops happened at the exact same time, it would still be a f2p cash shop world.
What in the world are you talking about? This game was in no way shape and form a traditional MMORPG, It is a Survival/builder at best.
People are really crazy these days with their personal definitions of such. I am just going to start saying well before 2004ish MMORPG meant this, but after that date the definition changed to something else.
I was reffering to your opinion on the cash shop/f2p.......not the genre
We dont need MORE MMORPGS we need fewer better and more viable MMORPGS. The MMORPG genre was never designed to have hundreds of titles and games. There is not enough money there to keep many afloat. Add to that the nature of MMORPGS, they suck ass in the F2P P2W cash shop BS that occurs today. Less and less players play these games and spend less money on them. Why? Because its like going from Candy crush to another Candy Crush like game to another Candy Crush like game. If you dont want to play the main game why do you want to play the Candy Crush Clone? Add to that the MMORPG Genre thrived on the Subscription model for a long time, now with F2P and microtransactions look how players no longer commit to a game.
MMORPGS take too long to make and having players not make long term commitments to the game is all but pointless. This is why Games as a service will also soon shrink. Its good to have 12 to maybe 30 games in MMORPGs and Games as a service. But not all games should be designed this way. Hell take a look at the idea being dragon age 4, they want to make that a games as a service with microtransactions and the interest in DA4 dropped like a rock. Look at MMORPGS when players find out they are F2p yes a rush comes in for a month then quits. Its not a sustainable model.
This is not a MMORPG, it was another survival game like Ark, Conan, 7Days, etc...
I dont agree with your outlook, and neither does most developers. This IS the age of Cash shops in mmo's, just cause you dont like it doesnt mean its trash. Do i bulk out in these games? Nope, would I rather pay a sub? Nope, I love free to play titles with cash shops, cause i can bounce back and forth without worry bout wasting sub times. I have subbed to games like WoW, and after 2 days was like, nah, dont really wanna play this right now. But, had to pay that $19 CAN to find out i wasnt in the WoW like mood. You cant do a retrial on your max level characters, so unless you subbed you dont know.
Why do people by fancy sport cars they dont intend to drive fast? Why do people by the nike shoe, when the walmart brand is just as good? Its about stature. Society for ya. These so called "trash" cash shop games you mention are what the majority want. Numbers speak for themselves. What your idea of what a "good" mmo isnt what the majority want.
Wanna know why mmo's thrived on subs........cause its practically all there was. If both sub and f2p cash shops happened at the exact same time, it would still be a f2p cash shop world.
All kinds of wrong.
Majority of folks don't keep these F2P games afloat, it's a small minority spending exorbitant amounts of cash monthly. Devs encourage the fleecing through manipulation of game systems, which results in conflicts of interest in regard to development goals. This... has, at best, been begrudgingly accepted by the majority of gamers. At its worst, it has gamers wondering if Disney is gonna pull the Star Wars license from EA.
I have been playing POE since March, now up to $60 spent (20 per month) just for additional inventory space.
Has taken a bit of will power to resist spending significantly more on costumes by squashing the desire to do so.
Begrudgingly I've had to accept looking like a murder hobo the entire time and only recently traded up for some decent looking end game gear.
Would have much rather paid a box price and sub which although I'd be out more cash to date, I'd likely have access to a much wider variety of in game storage and gear options, or could at least earn them through playing.
As I seldom suffer from indecision or making impulsive buying decisions (Fallout 76 not withstanding) dropping $15 on a months sub (which is a pittance for me) isn't really a concern in my case.
Im not sure why you want to resist? Gaming is entertainment, most entertainment costs money now. Money contributes to game. I dont mean buy your life savings worth, but to throw more then a sub here and there doesnt make you a bad guy : )
I also played PoE, I dropped $160 over 3 months, costumes only. Very satisfied, if the dollar was divided by the mins I enjoyed watching my costumes smash mobs, were talking pennies per minute. Worth imo. Im not a full time player tho, i play 2 days a week now after 3 months of daily play.
We dont need MORE MMORPGS we need fewer better and more viable MMORPGS. The MMORPG genre was never designed to have hundreds of titles and games. There is not enough money there to keep many afloat. Add to that the nature of MMORPGS, they suck ass in the F2P P2W cash shop BS that occurs today. Less and less players play these games and spend less money on them. Why? Because its like going from Candy crush to another Candy Crush like game to another Candy Crush like game. If you dont want to play the main game why do you want to play the Candy Crush Clone? Add to that the MMORPG Genre thrived on the Subscription model for a long time, now with F2P and microtransactions look how players no longer commit to a game.
MMORPGS take too long to make and having players not make long term commitments to the game is all but pointless. This is why Games as a service will also soon shrink. Its good to have 12 to maybe 30 games in MMORPGs and Games as a service. But not all games should be designed this way. Hell take a look at the idea being dragon age 4, they want to make that a games as a service with microtransactions and the interest in DA4 dropped like a rock. Look at MMORPGS when players find out they are F2p yes a rush comes in for a month then quits. Its not a sustainable model.
This is not a MMORPG, it was another survival game like Ark, Conan, 7Days, etc...
I dont agree with your outlook, and neither does most developers. This IS the age of Cash shops in mmo's, just cause you dont like it doesnt mean its trash. Do i bulk out in these games? Nope, would I rather pay a sub? Nope, I love free to play titles with cash shops, cause i can bounce back and forth without worry bout wasting sub times. I have subbed to games like WoW, and after 2 days was like, nah, dont really wanna play this right now. But, had to pay that $19 CAN to find out i wasnt in the WoW like mood. You cant do a retrial on your max level characters, so unless you subbed you dont know.
Why do people by fancy sport cars they dont intend to drive fast? Why do people by the nike shoe, when the walmart brand is just as good? Its about stature. Society for ya. These so called "trash" cash shop games you mention are what the majority want. Numbers speak for themselves. What your idea of what a "good" mmo isnt what the majority want.
Wanna know why mmo's thrived on subs........cause its practically all there was. If both sub and f2p cash shops happened at the exact same time, it would still be a f2p cash shop world.
What in the world are you talking about? This game was in no way shape and form a traditional MMORPG, It is a Survival/builder at best.
People are really crazy these days with their personal definitions of such. I am just going to start saying well before 2004ish MMORPG meant this, but after that date the definition changed to something else.
It was totally an MMORPG.
Launch servers had over 1,000 on them. And you could go and meet anyone on your server since there is zero instancing in the game. Your characters also "advanced" with persistent stats. And when it came to abandoned ships they could hang out in the world for weeks at a time on launch.
Practice doesn't make perfect, practice makes permanent.
"At one point technology meant making tech that could get to the moon, now it means making tech that could get you a taxi."
We dont need MORE MMORPGS we need fewer better and more viable MMORPGS. The MMORPG genre was never designed to have hundreds of titles and games. There is not enough money there to keep many afloat. Add to that the nature of MMORPGS, they suck ass in the F2P P2W cash shop BS that occurs today. Less and less players play these games and spend less money on them. Why? Because its like going from Candy crush to another Candy Crush like game to another Candy Crush like game. If you dont want to play the main game why do you want to play the Candy Crush Clone? Add to that the MMORPG Genre thrived on the Subscription model for a long time, now with F2P and microtransactions look how players no longer commit to a game.
MMORPGS take too long to make and having players not make long term commitments to the game is all but pointless. This is why Games as a service will also soon shrink. Its good to have 12 to maybe 30 games in MMORPGs and Games as a service. But not all games should be designed this way. Hell take a look at the idea being dragon age 4, they want to make that a games as a service with microtransactions and the interest in DA4 dropped like a rock. Look at MMORPGS when players find out they are F2p yes a rush comes in for a month then quits. Its not a sustainable model.
This is not a MMORPG, it was another survival game like Ark, Conan, 7Days, etc...
I dont agree with your outlook, and neither does most developers. This IS the age of Cash shops in mmo's, just cause you dont like it doesnt mean its trash. Do i bulk out in these games? Nope, would I rather pay a sub? Nope, I love free to play titles with cash shops, cause i can bounce back and forth without worry bout wasting sub times. I have subbed to games like WoW, and after 2 days was like, nah, dont really wanna play this right now. But, had to pay that $19 CAN to find out i wasnt in the WoW like mood. You cant do a retrial on your max level characters, so unless you subbed you dont know.
Why do people by fancy sport cars they dont intend to drive fast? Why do people by the nike shoe, when the walmart brand is just as good? Its about stature. Society for ya. These so called "trash" cash shop games you mention are what the majority want. Numbers speak for themselves. What your idea of what a "good" mmo isnt what the majority want.
Wanna know why mmo's thrived on subs........cause its practically all there was. If both sub and f2p cash shops happened at the exact same time, it would still be a f2p cash shop world.
All kinds of wrong.
Majority of folks don't keep these F2P games afloat, it's a small minority spending exorbitant amounts of cash monthly. Devs encourage the fleecing through manipulation of game systems, which results in conflicts of interest in regard to development goals. This... has, at best, been begrudgingly accepted by the majority of gamers. At its worst, it has gamers wondering if Disney is gonna pull the Star Wars license from EA.
Yes, you are all kinds of wrong.
Free players are needed for the whales to feel stronger.Games being free to play means lots of traffic. Being free 2 play with cash shops brings drop in drop outs which keep populations heavy enough to keep players bulking.
Its not manipulating by any means, its just a system. Its people not being able to curb there spending. Thats bad upbringing and self control. So gambling should be illegal cause loads of people cant stop that? Alcohol? Weed?
There was a post on her about total money spent on cell phone games, compared to others, being a regular you probably saw that right? I would say the proofs in numbers. A majority of cell phone games run off these cash shop ideas. The sooner people accept that gaming has evolved to this the sooner they can move on to a new hobby if there so disgusted. Its not everyones cup of tea, just like when "hardcore mmo's" were a thing they werent the rest of the worlds cup of tea. Look what happened when the transition took place.
Theres more to play now then ever, and good quality. Theres alot of "when i was younger" "back in my day" mechanics on this forum. Remember when you heard thos sayings when you were younger and you laughed it off.......
These are my opinions, but mine are backed by the success of the market. People are blinded to see the numbers, and when they do see them they choose to ignore it.
We dont need MORE MMORPGS we need fewer better and more viable MMORPGS. The MMORPG genre was never designed to have hundreds of titles and games. There is not enough money there to keep many afloat. Add to that the nature of MMORPGS, they suck ass in the F2P P2W cash shop BS that occurs today. Less and less players play these games and spend less money on them. Why? Because its like going from Candy crush to another Candy Crush like game to another Candy Crush like game. If you dont want to play the main game why do you want to play the Candy Crush Clone? Add to that the MMORPG Genre thrived on the Subscription model for a long time, now with F2P and microtransactions look how players no longer commit to a game.
MMORPGS take too long to make and having players not make long term commitments to the game is all but pointless. This is why Games as a service will also soon shrink. Its good to have 12 to maybe 30 games in MMORPGs and Games as a service. But not all games should be designed this way. Hell take a look at the idea being dragon age 4, they want to make that a games as a service with microtransactions and the interest in DA4 dropped like a rock. Look at MMORPGS when players find out they are F2p yes a rush comes in for a month then quits. Its not a sustainable model.
This is not a MMORPG, it was another survival game like Ark, Conan, 7Days, etc...
I dont agree with your outlook, and neither does most developers. This IS the age of Cash shops in mmo's, just cause you dont like it doesnt mean its trash. Do i bulk out in these games? Nope, would I rather pay a sub? Nope, I love free to play titles with cash shops, cause i can bounce back and forth without worry bout wasting sub times. I have subbed to games like WoW, and after 2 days was like, nah, dont really wanna play this right now. But, had to pay that $19 CAN to find out i wasnt in the WoW like mood. You cant do a retrial on your max level characters, so unless you subbed you dont know.
Why do people by fancy sport cars they dont intend to drive fast? Why do people by the nike shoe, when the walmart brand is just as good? Its about stature. Society for ya. These so called "trash" cash shop games you mention are what the majority want. Numbers speak for themselves. What your idea of what a "good" mmo isnt what the majority want.
Wanna know why mmo's thrived on subs........cause its practically all there was. If both sub and f2p cash shops happened at the exact same time, it would still be a f2p cash shop world.
All kinds of wrong.
Majority of folks don't keep these F2P games afloat, it's a small minority spending exorbitant amounts of cash monthly. Devs encourage the fleecing through manipulation of game systems, which results in conflicts of interest in regard to development goals. This... has, at best, been begrudgingly accepted by the majority of gamers. At its worst, it has gamers wondering if Disney is gonna pull the Star Wars license from EA.
I have been playing POE since March, now up to $60 spent (20 per month) just for additional inventory space.
Has taken a bit of will power to resist spending significantly more on costumes by squashing the desire to do so.
Begrudgingly I've had to accept looking like a murder hobo the entire time and only recently traded up for some decent looking end game gear.
Would have much rather paid a box price and sub which although I'd be out more cash to date, I'd likely have access to a much wider variety of in game storage and gear options, or could at least earn them through playing.
As I seldom suffer from indecision or making impulsive buying decisions (Fallout 76 not withstanding) dropping $15 on a months sub (which is a pittance for me) isn't really a concern in my case.
Im not sure why you want to resist? Gaming is entertainment, most entertainment costs money now. Money contributes to game. I dont mean buy your life savings worth, but to throw more then a sub here and there doesnt make you a bad guy : )
I also played PoE, I dropped $160 over 3 months, costumes only. Very satisfied, if the dollar was divided by the mins I enjoyed watching my costumes smash mobs, were talking pennies per minute. Worth imo. Im not a full time player tho, i play 2 days a week now after 3 months of daily play.
Not going to overly compensate developers for payment models I don't support so $ 20 a month is what I'll spend, same as I would a monthly sub.
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
Majority of folks don't keep these F2P games afloat, it's a small minority spending exorbitant amounts of cash monthly. Devs encourage the fleecing through manipulation of game systems, which results in conflicts of interest in regard to development goals. This... has, at best, been begrudgingly accepted by the majority of gamers. At its worst, it has gamers wondering if Disney is gonna pull the Star Wars license from EA.
Yes, you are all kinds of wrong.
Free players are needed for the whales to feel stronger.Games being free to play means lots of traffic. Being free 2 play with cash shops brings drop in drop outs which keep populations heavy enough to keep players bulking.
Its not manipulating by any means, its just a system. Its people not being able to curb there spending. Thats bad upbringing and self control. So gambling should be illegal cause loads of people cant stop that? Alcohol? Weed?
There was a post on her about total money spent on cell phone games, compared to others, being a regular you probably saw that right? I would say the proofs in numbers. A majority of cell phone games run off these cash shop ideas. The sooner people accept that gaming has evolved to this the sooner they can move on to a new hobby if there so disgusted. Its not everyones cup of tea, just like when "hardcore mmo's" were a thing they werent the rest of the worlds cup of tea. Look what happened when the transition took place.
Theres more to play now then ever, and good quality. Theres alot of "when i was younger" "back in my day" mechanics on this forum. Remember when you heard thos sayings when you were younger and you laughed it off.......
These are my opinions, but mine are backed by the success of the market. People are blinded to see the numbers, and when they do see them they choose to ignore it.
No, the numbers don't support your assertions regarding mobile and what it says. The reason folks play and spend on mobile is convenience of the platform (smartphone) and boredom.
"When out and about, or watching TV, they're likely to turn to mobile games for entertainment. When at home, and when the opportunity for a focused play session arises, they'll turn to PC or Console."
Literally, folks are playing mobile because they already have a smartphone within arm's reach and because they can acceptably do so in things like waiting lines, bathrooms, or while doing something else (like the example given of watching TV). The money comes from the monetization techniques that employ the same sort of techniques that casinos do to pry that next dollar outta their consumers' pockets. When their targets are not actively playing, that's okay; they can send a push notification to make the phone vibrate and remind the player they've got more work to do building that Clan village!
"When asked to provide their reasons for engaging with mobile, Super Gamers' responses emphasized its convenience and cited its low amount of required attention"
From the same article. Literally. Convenience.
Mobile game popularity and the resulting revenue is proof that convenience is one of the most powerful motivators for consumer behavior, but that isn't really news, is it? Even the monetization usually takes the form of convenience- skipping build timers and such. And among those, the companies depend not upon the mass popularity but upon a small core of heavy spenders. Take a look at crowdfunded MMORPGs if you refuse to believe a small group of big spenders can float a project. How do you think SotA is still around? By its broad appeal and massive popularity?
It's not a path consumers chose, so much as one that they accepted because a small population of gamers were willing to throw relatively ridiculous amounts of money at being given or provided with something that most others don't have. It's a rather brash and arrogant exploitation of socioeconomic stratification to float video game companies and projects increasingly built around severe exploitation. The companies are literally testing how far they can go before consumers finally scream "Uncle!" The idea that the masses wanted this doesn't jive with the fact that companies are literally trying to find the sweet spot right before players become so frustrated with the exploitation they mount a rather noticeable consumer revolt. That says "most consumers don't really enjoy or like this system, they just put up with it."
No, the numbers don't support your assertions regarding mobile and what it says. The reason folks play and spend on mobile is convenience of the platform (smartphone) and boredom.
"When out and about, or watching TV, they're likely to turn to mobile games for entertainment. When at home, and when the opportunity for a focused play session arises, they'll turn to PC or Console."
Literally, folks are playing mobile because they already have a smartphone within arm's reach and because they can acceptably do so in things like waiting lines, bathrooms, or while doing something else (like the example given of watching TV). The money comes from the monetization techniques that employ the same sort of techniques that casinos do to pry that next dollar outta their consumers' pockets. When their targets are not actively playing, that's okay; they can send a push notification to make the phone vibrate and remind the player they've got more work to do building that Clan village!
"When asked to provide their reasons for engaging with mobile, Super Gamers' responses emphasized its convenience and cited its low amount of required attention"
From the same article. Literally. Convenience.
Mobile game popularity and the resulting revenue is proof that convenience is one of the most powerful motivators for consumer behavior, but that isn't really news, is it? Even the monetization usually takes the form of convenience- skipping build timers and such. And among those, the companies depend not upon the mass popularity but upon a small core of heavy spenders. Take a look at crowdfunded MMORPGs if you refuse to believe a small group of big spenders can float a project. How do you think SotA is still around? By its broad appeal and massive popularity?
It's not a path consumers chose, so much as one that they accepted because a small population of gamers were willing to throw relatively ridiculous amounts of money at being given or provided with something that most others don't have. It's a rather brash and arrogant exploitation of socioeconomic stratification to float video game companies and projects increasingly built around severe exploitation. The companies are literally testing how far they can go before consumers finally scream "Uncle!" The idea that the masses wanted this doesn't jive with the fact that companies are literally trying to find the sweet spot right before players become so frustrated with the exploitation they mount a rather noticeable consumer revolt. That says "most consumers don't really enjoy or like this system, they just put up with it."
I fear we are going to far off the original thread kinda my fault, but again, numbers dont lie. When your trying to entertain yourself do you go with convience or something you actually enjoy? People enjoy this method......again wallets are doing the talking, theories and speculations are fluff in the article. People arnt spending money on cell games if they dont enjoy them....... but i fear this debate is turning the thread the wrong way, so imma stop posting about it here, however if the topic is brought up else where i will continue to debate : )
STarted a diffrent post cause its more back on topic, speaking of backers, its a investment. Like going thru the stock market. Your putting your money on faith, in the stock market its for financial gain, in the gaming industry its for entertainment. Ever hear the expression time is money? My opinion is that its actually the opposite now. Money is time enjoyed..... am I opposed to kickstarters, at first I was, but now im not. Should companies be held accountable if htey flop there kickstarters, heck yea! But that doesnt make them bad.
Going to your grocery store to buy food is a investment, furniture for your house, gas in your car.... these are all investments. Different degrees of outcomes per investment.
Check out a show called Dragons Den, its an investment show, should those people on the show be treated like trash for asking for help? Great ideas are in shorter supply these days, so dont oppose people looking for help to get it off the ground.
I'm really sorry to see this one go, but I think they were just trying to do too much, too early, with too little backing, etc.
LOVED the basic concept and the potential it had -- really open world, vast numbers of player-designed areas to explore, building your own vehicle and not just following a silly recipe of gathering ridiculous "ingredients" and dumping them into something.
But like they said, it really needed more, a fleshing-out with things like more creatures -- it was NOT like No Man's Sky, but having many different creatures to discover and interact with like that game has would have been a big help. More challenges such as dungeons and castles with traps, monsters, etc.
I'm hoping Dual Universe will turn out to be much like the sort of game this was aiming to be. It's true we don't need more MMORPGs, but we do need for them to advance beyond the glorified theme parks and PvP arenas we have now.
So basically, they didn't have enough money to make a game, hoped that people would give them the money they needed to make the game if they could get into early access, and gave up when that didn't happen?
So basically, they didn't have enough money to make a game, hoped that people would give them the money they needed to make the game if they could get into early access, and gave up when that didn't happen?
So basically, they didn't have enough money to make a game, hoped that people would give them the money they needed to make the game if they could get into early access, and gave up when that didn't happen?
Bingo, pretty much the standard finance model for most of these indie MMOs, from SotA to SC and many in between.
Only a few claim to be self funded, and even with those I have my doubts, especially with release dates eternally moving outward.
Burn rates are very real things which will one day catch up with most of these devs, well except maybe RI, people appear willing to throw money at SC ad infinitum.
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
I watched this game from inception. Oddly enough, the reason I didn't back it was because they didn't have inverted mouse-look. I played with the building program, liked the concept of the game, and was more free with my kickstart money back then.
While waiting for basic control configurations (low priority for them), I watched the game grow. While their vision of the world was unique and interesting, their vision of PvP left a lot to be desired.
No limit PvP at first, so newbies were initially at the mercy of they type of PvPer that gets off on no challenge 'fights'. This went on for a long time while the devs were all rainbows and unicorns about their vision of the game being a wonderful world to explore and group with friends, etc.
Weirdly at odds with their view of unrestrained PvP.
It took a long time, and much outcry, to get them to put in the most basic of mechanics to make the new player experience a little better.
Sadly, the bugs were another aspect that made the experience a poor one.
So while someone in this thread said adding PvE was the downfall... yea not even close. Their bright and shiny vision of everyone working together was at odds from the very beginning with the reality that unrestrained PvP brings out the worst of PvPers.
Their shiny wonderland was a psychopaths' playground.
I stopped following them before they turned on a PvE server, so it must have been a last ditch effort to bring in an audience they had already lost.
I really thought this game would end up being finished, but I guess it was just another cash grab. Either that, or the developers were complete noobs who didn't do their homework. How could they not realize they would need enough cash up front to get it into at least an early access stage before money would start rolling in?
I was waiting on at least EA before I dropped a penny on it as it had a ton of bugs that were game breaking, IMO.
I doubt I would have spent money on it even in EA, honestly. Done getting burned on games like this that promise the world, have huge goals and potential, and end up amounting to shit and I'm left without a game to play and minus $$$ from my bank.
Crash and burn due to your own failures and using your own damn money!
Comments
For many, early access is considered a launch of sorts....
George would have been amazed at how much he got right.
"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
Worlds Adrift didn't have it. Maybe they believed that being on Steam - one title amongst thousands - would guarantee huge sales; if so they were disappointed.
So are they saying they should have spent time making the experience they wanted it to be - which didn't work?
I also played PoE, I dropped $160 over 3 months, costumes only. Very satisfied, if the dollar was divided by the mins I enjoyed watching my costumes smash mobs, were talking pennies per minute. Worth imo. Im not a full time player tho, i play 2 days a week now after 3 months of daily play.
Practice doesn't make perfect, practice makes permanent.
"At one point technology meant making tech that could get to the moon, now it means making tech that could get you a taxi."
Free players are needed for the whales to feel stronger.Games being free to play means lots of traffic. Being free 2 play with cash shops brings drop in drop outs which keep populations heavy enough to keep players bulking.
Its not manipulating by any means, its just a system. Its people not being able to curb there spending. Thats bad upbringing and self control. So gambling should be illegal cause loads of people cant stop that? Alcohol? Weed?
There was a post on her about total money spent on cell phone games, compared to others, being a regular you probably saw that right? I would say the proofs in numbers. A majority of cell phone games run off these cash shop ideas. The sooner people accept that gaming has evolved to this the sooner they can move on to a new hobby if there so disgusted. Its not everyones cup of tea, just like when "hardcore mmo's" were a thing they werent the rest of the worlds cup of tea. Look what happened when the transition took place.
Theres more to play now then ever, and good quality. Theres alot of "when i was younger" "back in my day" mechanics on this forum. Remember when you heard thos sayings when you were younger and you laughed it off.......
These are my opinions, but mine are backed by the success of the market. People are blinded to see the numbers, and when they do see them they choose to ignore it.
"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
https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2018-08-07-96-percent-of-heavily-engaged-us-gamers-play-on-mobile-eedar
"When out and about, or watching TV, they're likely to turn to mobile games for entertainment. When at home, and when the opportunity for a focused play session arises, they'll turn to PC or Console."
Literally, folks are playing mobile because they already have a smartphone within arm's reach and because they can acceptably do so in things like waiting lines, bathrooms, or while doing something else (like the example given of watching TV). The money comes from the monetization techniques that employ the same sort of techniques that casinos do to pry that next dollar outta their consumers' pockets. When their targets are not actively playing, that's okay; they can send a push notification to make the phone vibrate and remind the player they've got more work to do building that Clan village!
"When asked to provide their reasons for engaging with mobile, Super Gamers' responses emphasized its convenience and cited its low amount of required attention"
From the same article. Literally. Convenience.
Mobile game popularity and the resulting revenue is proof that convenience is one of the most powerful motivators for consumer behavior, but that isn't really news, is it? Even the monetization usually takes the form of convenience- skipping build timers and such. And among those, the companies depend not upon the mass popularity but upon a small core of heavy spenders. Take a look at crowdfunded MMORPGs if you refuse to believe a small group of big spenders can float a project. How do you think SotA is still around? By its broad appeal and massive popularity?
It's not a path consumers chose, so much as one that they accepted because a small population of gamers were willing to throw relatively ridiculous amounts of money at being given or provided with something that most others don't have. It's a rather brash and arrogant exploitation of socioeconomic stratification to float video game companies and projects increasingly built around severe exploitation. The companies are literally testing how far they can go before consumers finally scream "Uncle!" The idea that the masses wanted this doesn't jive with the fact that companies are literally trying to find the sweet spot right before players become so frustrated with the exploitation they mount a rather noticeable consumer revolt. That says "most consumers don't really enjoy or like this system, they just put up with it."
Going to your grocery store to buy food is a investment, furniture for your house, gas in your car.... these are all investments. Different degrees of outcomes per investment.
Check out a show called Dragons Den, its an investment show, should those people on the show be treated like trash for asking for help? Great ideas are in shorter supply these days, so dont oppose people looking for help to get it off the ground.
LOVED the basic concept and the potential it had -- really open world, vast numbers of player-designed areas to explore, building your own vehicle and not just following a silly recipe of gathering ridiculous "ingredients" and dumping them into something.
But like they said, it really needed more, a fleshing-out with things like more creatures -- it was NOT like No Man's Sky, but having many different creatures to discover and interact with like that game has would have been a big help. More challenges such as dungeons and castles with traps, monsters, etc.
I'm hoping Dual Universe will turn out to be much like the sort of game this was aiming to be. It's true we don't need more MMORPGs, but we do need for them to advance beyond the glorified theme parks and PvP arenas we have now.
Only a few claim to be self funded, and even with those I have my doubts, especially with release dates eternally moving outward.
Burn rates are very real things which will one day catch up with most of these devs, well except maybe RI, people appear willing to throw money at SC ad infinitum.
"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
I was waiting on at least EA before I dropped a penny on it as it had a ton of bugs that were game breaking, IMO.
I doubt I would have spent money on it even in EA, honestly. Done getting burned on games like this that promise the world, have huge goals and potential, and end up amounting to shit and I'm left without a game to play and minus $$$ from my bank.
Crash and burn due to your own failures and using your own damn money!