Shareholder or Chump: Developer-Player Relations For MMOs | MMORPG.com

System · July 2021

Shareholder or Chump: Developer-Player Relations For MMOs | MMORPG.com

What do MMO companies owe their subscribers? Niklas explores developer and player relationships, especially in the context of Dark Age of Camelot's developer Broadsword and its subscribers.

Read the full story here

ultimateduck · July 2021

It kind of seemed like you were really going after DAoC there, which seems odd for such an old game with an fairly established player base. I would think the game population is dwindling because the game is 20 years old, not because Broadsword doesn't keep people in the loop as much as they should.

I do agree that the adversarial attitude with players and developers is getting a little over the top. We see it here often with most posts being complaints. I can only imagine it gets pretty heated in Discord as well.

[Deleted User] · July 2021

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Viper482 · July 2021

The problem is too many gamers do not view themselves as customers and therefore do not hold these companies accountable as such. Gamers first, customers never....no wonder they don't take us seriously.

Viper482 · July 2021

Wargfoot said:

Too much interaction can be a sign that the developer has no core vision.

.

.

That's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard in regards to gaming. The only way this could be remotely accurate is if the devs in fact do not have any vision.

Wizardry · July 2021

100% most certainly they view the customer as CHUMPS.
I look at the recent Valheim for example,those devs litterally won the lottery with the amount of support they never could have imagined.Well 6-7 months later i have seen VERY little development from a team that just sold more than 5 million copies.Instead they felt the need to tell us they had bought a horse,i imagine for someone's kids to ride around.

Once developers get your money they do two things,they either run with it or start working on the next thing to sell you.These busineeses most often have investors and partners that couldn't care less how rich you made them,they feel jusitified and deserving.

NONE of these studios should feel justified,the lack of effort i have seen over and over is incredible.
As to CCP's move...lol WAY TOO LATE.FFXI already did that idea about 10 years ago or more and likely were the first to ever do it.FFXI is not a pvp game and Eve is .CCP most certainly needed some kind of policing especially with the long past debacle of one it's employees outside interference with the integrity of the game.
As for DAOC...sigh,that game is so outdated and was never good so why would i even care?

Blizzard.....ummm one of the recent additions to scummy businesses tha tno longer care about any quality but instead are working very hard at as many monetization ideas as they can think of.
If you had ANY shred of respect for your community you wouldn't be trying to monetize the hell out of your games.

ultimateduck · July 2021

Wizardry said:

100% most certainly they view the customer as CHUMPS.
I look at the recent Valheim for example,those devs litterally won the lottery with the amount of support they never could have imagined.Well 6-7 months later i have seen VERY little development from a team that just sold more than 5 million copies.Instead they felt the need to tell us they had bought a horse,i imagine for someone's kids to ride around.

Well this explains your nonstop hostility towards every game ever released.

And Valheim was pretty solid when it was released. I'm not sure what "development" you expect them to do other than what they have been doing.

Alders · July 2021

Stop making games for shareholders.

kilun · July 2021

Expect no support after you buy a game. That is the easiest logical thing to do. and frankly if you dropped 2-3k for playing ONE game for 20 years, you win sir at a cheap hobby.

As for the Valheim comment, they are literally doing what every other person dreams of. Making something good, getting rich quick, and retiring. Awesome for them since there is a mod community that will make it how they want to play anyways.

Sometimes a one hit wonder is all you need.

SalmonMan · July 2021

Wizardry said:

100% most certainly they view the customer as CHUMPS.

I look at the recent Valheim for example,those devs litterally won the lottery with the amount of support they never could have imagined.Well 6-7 months later i have seen VERY little development from a team that just sold more than 5 million copies.Instead they felt the need to tell us they had bought a horse,i imagine for someone's kids to ride around.

If they never added a single other feature, I got my $20 worth 50 times over.

KnightFalz · July 2021

The obligation of a company is to provide that paid for. Paying ongoing fees to access anything doesn't make you a shareholder of it. You remain a customer and nothing more.

Delusions of grandeur otherwise are bound to lead to disappointment.

Malathoos · July 2021

ultimateduck said:

Wizardry said:

100% most certainly they view the customer as CHUMPS.

I look at the recent Valheim for example,those devs litterally won the lottery with the amount of support they never could have imagined.Well 6-7 months later i have seen VERY little development from a team that just sold more than 5 million copies.Instead they felt the need to tell us they had bought a horse,i imagine for someone's kids to ride around.

Well this explains your nonstop hostility towards every game ever released.

And Valheim was pretty solid when it was released. I'm not sure what "development" you expect them to do other than what they have been doing.

I think Wiz has a good point on this. Also Valheim has a whole road map that seems to be put to the wayside.

Scot · July 2021

Unless your game is doing famously, in the age of social media would you as a developer really want to be talking to the fans? I know I wouldn't.

Theocritus · July 2021

I preferred the days before the players were investing in games in alpha or beta state.....Once money gets involved it changes everything and usually not for the better. I remember when we joined betas to help companies find bugs in their games, but then players got greedy and started selling beta accounts for money and companies decided to not let people in to test for free anymore.....In the end, it is our faults.

Sovrath · July 2021

Zegaloth said:

People who have paid into crowd funded products probably to some degree feel like they are investors, but they aren't, unless a company specifically says you are going to get a return on your investment, then you aren't an investor, you are a customer. If you aren't okay with possibly throwing your money away, then I would steer clear of crowdfunding.

I've said this before and I'll say it again, people aren't understanding the use of "invest" in these scenarios.

You can go to any number of sites, not gaming sites, where a they say that "investing" or giving money, is a way to invest in community, invest in, underprivilidged youth, heck, invest in a person, etc, etc.

You don't get money for that type investment but you get a result.

Same goes with crowdfunding a game.

Unless (and I might have seen this only once) the game develper specifically says "you wil get a financial return," the return you get is "a result."

The result? a game you want to play. Something that might have not been made without your money.

And I dare say, when I give money to or "invest" in a game I'm not expecting money back. And it seems my track record is better than most as Solasta just came out and it's a very good game.

In any case, it's just a different use of the word and one that other organizatiosn use all the time.

I'll also add, one can invest time into community-driven projects, but you don't expect to get time back.

Scot · July 2021

Sovrath said:

Zegaloth said:

People who have paid into crowd funded products probably to some degree feel like they are investors, but they aren't, unless a company specifically says you are going to get a return on your investment, then you aren't an investor, you are a customer. If you aren't okay with possibly throwing your money away, then I would steer clear of crowdfunding.

I've said this before and I'll say it again, people aren't understanding the use of "invest" in these scenarios.

You can go to any number of sites, not gaming sites, where a they say that "investing" or giving money, is a way to invest in community, invest in, underprivilidged youth, heck, invest in a person, etc, etc.

You don't get money for that type investment but you get a result.

Same goes with crowdfunding a game.

Unless (and I might have seen this only once) the game develper specifically says "you wil get a financial return," the return you get is "a result."

The result? a game you want to play. Something that might have not been made without your money.

And I dare say, when I give money to or "invest" in a game I'm not expecting money back. And it seems my track record is better than most as Solasta just came out and it's a very good game.

In any case, it's just a different use of the word and one that other organizatiosn use all the time.

I'll also add, one can invest time into community-driven projects, but you don't expect to get time back.

I agree, but for some players (not me) who put in they have already reached the stage where they should have a government health warning.

Sovrath · July 2021

Zegaloth said:

Sovrath said:

Zegaloth said:

People who have paid into crowd funded products probably to some degree feel like they are investors, but they aren't, unless a company specifically says you are going to get a return on your investment, then you aren't an investor, you are a customer. If you aren't okay with possibly throwing your money away, then I would steer clear of crowdfunding.

I've said this before and I'll say it again, people aren't understanding the use of "invest" in these scenarios.

You can go to any number of sites, not gaming sites, where a they say that "investing" or giving money, is a way to invest in community, invest in, underprivilidged youth, heck, invest in a person, etc, etc.

You don't get money for that type investment but you get a result.

Same goes with crowdfunding a game.

Unless (and I might have seen this only once) the game develper specifically says "you wil get a financial return," the return you get is "a result."

The result? a game you want to play. Something that might have not been made without your money.

And I dare say, when I give money to or "invest" in a game I'm not expecting money back. And it seems my track record is better than most as Solasta just came out and it's a very good game.

In any case, it's just a different use of the word and one that other organizatiosn use all the time.

I'll also add, one can invest time into community-driven projects, but you don't expect to get time back.

That isn't really what investing means in the context of the article, that is donating, or contributing. While they are a form of investment, it is important to use the proper distinction because the expected outcome is different.

.

You can invest in a community and see profits from it, gentrifying is what investing in the community can lead to.

If you contribute, donate, or volunteer in your community you aren't expecting the same kind of returns that someone who is investing into the community would, and the mistake a lot of people who crowdfund make is that they frame it like a business pitch, and not like a contribution.

are we reading the same article? because there's nothing in this article about "investing." just what players should expect when they've stood by the game.

Maybe I missed it?

Sovrath · July 2021

Zegaloth said:

I read the article through the lense of the title. Share Holder or Chump, which to me a share holder is a financial investor, who is looking on a return in profit, and has the right to certain expectations because they have monetarily invested into the future of the game or product.

I was stating that in the context of being a share holder or a chump, that crowd funding does not make you an investor like a shareholder does. You are a consumer buying a yet to be made product, and that consumers who decide to buy a product before it's made need to have expectations that align more with a contributor, or a donator. OPB comes to mind, in that you donate some money, and they give you something in return, like a cup, a hat, videos, or whatever else, and that to me is what Kickstarter is more akin to than it being like wall street or a board room.

Yeah but the article doesn't mention anything about financial investing and seems to me more about someone who has a vested interest in a game.

Sometimes people use the word "shareholder" to mean that you have an interest in the outcome because you are "invested" (not financial) in the outcome.

This is used in meetings all the time in my company (as well as stakeholder) but has nothing to do with financial gain.

Don't think I don't get it, I do, the word is used as you say. But if one casts a slightly broader net and look at the content of the article, it seems to be more about those people who have "invested" (though that word is not used) time and money into a game and expect to be listened to, expect that their concerns and desire are to be met.

Which is a different type of return.

KnightFalz · July 2021

Zegaloth said:

People who have paid into crowd funded products probably to some degree feel like they are investors, but they aren't, unless a company specifically says you are going to get a return on your investment, then you aren't an investor, you are a customer. If you aren't okay with possibly throwing your money away, then I would steer clear of crowdfunding.

You aren't even a customer, but an aspirant hoping to one day elevate to being so.

Howdy, Stranger!

Shareholder or Chump: Developer-Player Relations For MMOs | MMORPG.com

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Shareholder or Chump: Developer-Player Relations For MMOs | MMORPG.com

Comments