at the same time doing the same thing over and over for twenty years doesn't yield the best results either.
i think you overestimate them.
I disagree, I have seen lots of different designs, some better, some worse, especially in smaller games. The fact that the same themepark WoW variants are the only ones hitting mainstream is mostly because that's what the majority of players want. Respect your opinion though.
And you know that's what the players want because that's what they buy, the only thing available.
I've banged myself over the head many, many times.
The general public wants easy to play simple games. Do you want evidence?
Just look at the games available for purchase today.
I don't believe that. You know the old saying "you can't please everybody all of the time"? I believe there are huge numbers out there that want something that's not easy to "win." Just as there are huge numbers that want easy.
But all they do is make games that are "made to win." So naturally, if you want to play the game, you got to play what's available.
I so want to believe that. I'm getting pretty cynical in my old age.
All this is, is the masses being treated like one kind, the lowest common denominator. You ask any of them, and they'll tell you (whether it's true or not) that they are not one of those "lowest common denominators." The truth is that people are as diverse as snowflakes. And I don't mean that negatively. And no amount of perceived marketing control really changes that, even if it appears that way sometimes. I've been in sales and related to marketing most of my working life. (I'm retired and old now.) And this is what I've witnessed, from all the dealings with so many, many people. Really, marketing doesn't change minds, it merely informs. People take it from there. When Coka Cola advertised Santa Clause in red instead of green, people loved it. They weren't persuaded, they were informed of an option that just fit better. When RJ Reynolds advertised cigarettes for women, no one's minds were changed. People were already accepting of the idea of equal rights, and at the time it was informing women of an option. None of them started smoking just because someone said they should. They did it because they decided they wanted to.
We've seen the change in MMORPGs, with CSs and PtW and all of that. Just because many gamers want it, and still more gamers do it because "that's the way of the world", doesn't mean that's what all gamers really want in their MMORPGs.
And the same holds true with easy mode.
I see things more like the Roman Mob these days.
I got a lot of great advice from salesmen back when I was young. Advice from some guys who had been around a while back then, advice that was given towards me being a manufacturer and not a salesman.
One piece of advice that really stuck with me, was that I was told that $5 was a number that most people will blow without thinking twice. $10 was something that actually had to be useful. $20 and over, the product had to be something really good.
I'm not sure what we would come up with taking inflation into account but it's really hard to come up with something really good
this is literally my housing based sub model. The lowest rate is $7 ( the new $5) subscription that gets you access and the base house (alot of things happen in the house in my theoretical game) and options go all the way to $25 for single players and $50 for guild/specialty locations).
your sub is literally renting a house/apartment based on what you can afford. No cash shop, p2W, nfts. Pay what you can though the bigger houses have more space and storage. I feel a sub is necessary to avoid certain problems.
this is just a way to maintain a sub but make it more accessible. There are no gameplay advantages for house size other than storage limit. This model also nudges you to get a larger house/sub when space becomes tight. Over time that 7 becomes 9, then 11, then 13 etc.
the sub is as efficient as you are. I dont like pay to win ( you apparently do), cash shops and the like. I feel they eat away at development time that would be better redirected into the actual game.
the sub is as efficient as you are. I dont like pay to win ( you apparently do), cash shops and the like. I feel they eat away at development time that would be better redirected into the actual game.
It's not a matter of liking them or not. You deal with blacks and whites and your "apparently" is an incorrect conclusion.
1) My defending these companies' right to monetize their product has nothing to do with me liking their monetization. I do not like loot boxes for example, but I defend the companies' right to include them in their game. I simply won't buy one and, if and only if that gets in my way of having fun with the game, I can simply skip that game since it's not for me. In contrast, lots of others do not like any kind of sub, which I like as a model.
2) The P2W term is non-sensical: it means different things to different people and it has become synonymous to "I am bitching because I have to pay for the price the dev set for a game". For example, there's many cases where I have seen people bitch for one-off costs from the cash shop (like the BDO costumes or any other game's bag storage items) where I simply see them as an entry fee for the activity I want to do in the game, hence as part of the price of the game. Then it's just a matter of evaluating whether that price is worth it for me. Simple.
3) As with everything, developing cash shop items (especially skins) takes time out of the development, but the money they bring enables the whole development of the game in the first place. Again, see LoL and again, quoting another poster's brilliant way of putting it: complaining about cash shops is just a way of saying "I want to tell you how you should run your business".
Focusing on #2
PtW is PtW. What gamers will accept has nothing to do with that "title", and how much money a game company can make off of it doesn't either.
Anytime players can buy "win", which is to say "faster advancement" or "things others can't have unless they pay too", it most certainly is PtW.
It doesn't mean different things to different people, it only gets ignored by those, like you, who don't want to attach that stigma to the practice.
As to #3 I sure as hell will tell companies how to make their games. I can say anything I want about it. I am not calling for laws or trying to remove their right to make their own choices. They can do what they want. But I still get to say whatever the hell I want to say, within the law and forum rules.
I am late to this party, but.. I love the Guild vs Guild idea.. #2 IIRC.
I could see that being applied as a Revamped system of the Guild Challenges of GW2.
Where you have 3 guilds, and lets say the challenge of the day is Trek, so each guild needs to find their 6 trek points, and the guild that finds them all first, wins the challenge.
This idea could be added to the guild Rush, and the Bounty.
In Bounty, Say 3 guilds all start the Bounty, each guild gets their own target, and the guild that completes killing their target first, wins for the day.
With a 2nd and 3rd place awards as well, so no one feels left out, everyone gets Something, which is not a bad thing, as it would allow for some weaker less coordinated guilds to join with more organized guilds, knowing they would lose, but still get something for their efforts, even if it was 3rd place.
This way, they would be willing to jump in and play, as opposed to a winner take all system, where the stronger guilds would find it harder and harder to get other guilds to run against them.
I could so see a system like that happening.. it would really build some community and guild spirit, and be a nice bridge between PvP and PvE.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
I am late to this party, but.. I love the Guild vs Guild idea.. #2 IIRC.
I could see that being applied as a Revamped system of the Guild Challenges of GW2.
Where you have 3 guilds, and lets say the challenge of the day is Trek, so each guild needs to find their 6 trek points, and the guild that finds them all first, wins the challenge.
This idea could be added to the guild Rush, and the Bounty.
In Bounty, Say 3 guilds all start the Bounty, each guild gets their own target, and the guild that completes killing their target first, wins for the day.
With a 2nd and 3rd place awards as well, so no one feels left out, everyone gets Something, which is not a bad thing, as it would allow for some weaker less coordinated guilds to join with more organized guilds, knowing they would lose, but still get something for their efforts, even if it was 3rd place.
This way, they would be willing to jump in and play, as opposed to a winner take all system, where the stronger guilds would find it harder and harder to get other guilds to run against them.
I could so see a system like that happening.. it would really build some community and guild spirit, and be a nice bridge between PvP and PvE.
I like the idea. Applying a race-like challenge condition on the existing PVE guild activities of GW2 would indeed be loads of fun and could revitalize that content. Plus some of the bounty challenges are actually really fun. It would have to be added side-by-side to the existing system though (potentially with more substantial rewards), otherwise the existing GW2 player base would revolt. Unless your "last place" reward matches the current one.
Re everyone getting a reward, I personally do not like the concepts of "everyone is a winner"/"it's the effort that matters", but I can see why a studio would want it from a business perspective, to keep everyone happy. It is a game and supposed to be primarily fun after all, so it's ok - just not my taste.
Well GW2, runs on a Gold / Silver / Copper tier reward system for pretty much all their existing Open World / Community Content, so as far as GW2 went, it would just be a part of their existing system.
and you have to admit.. it would put the "Guild Wars" into Guild Wars 2.
As far as a Winner Take All, ideally, this is a PvE game, and as the OP said, this was to get Casuals into a more Competitive game play, so the last thing you really want is to make less organized guilds more hesitant to get involved because then it just becomes a matter of wasting time for no reward, and, lets be honest, not enough people like that to make that viable.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
As to #3 I sure as hell will tell companies how to make their games. I can say anything I want about it.
And they will keep ignoring you, unless the MMORPG community tells them (via wallet vote) that they do not like what they do. Apparently gamers find enough value in what those companies produce to pay for it.
Now, you just got done posting an article that claims that they all have PtW. Which I think might be true these days, but I'm not sure. But if that's so, then where's the options to judge your point on? Gamers still want to play, and lacking any viable options against PtW, most of them will play those games.
In short, your point is meaningless.
I will agree that there are many gamers who really don't care about PtW. That does not mean that there aren't just as many, or more, who do care.
Now, you just got done posting an article that claims that they all have PtW.
Nah. Context. I posted for the comments that prove that people do not agree on what is P2W. Including between the MOP staff and its community. Because you thought that people did not have differing opinions
Amaranthar said: It doesn't mean different things to different people, it only gets ignored by those, like you, who don't want to attach that stigma to the practice.
Now, you just got done posting an article that claims that they all have PtW.
Nah. Context. I posted for the comments that prove that people do not agree on what is P2W. Including between the MOP staff and its community. Because you thought that people did not have differing opinions
Amaranthar said: It doesn't mean different things to different people, it only gets ignored by those, like you, who don't want to attach that stigma to the practice.
So, did the Emperor have cloths on, or not?
So do you still believe that people do not disagree what is P2W?
More interestingly, did you really believe that in the first place?
Yes. In the fictional tale of the naked emperor, everyone could clearly see that he was naked. They just wouldn't admit it.
In this RL tale of MMORPGs and PtW, everyone can clearly see that gamers are paying for "advantages" (use that term in broad scope), but they too don't want to admit it, or simply don't think about it.
And the situation with so many RMTers (closely linked to CSs, as Farmville showed us) it would have to be expected that there would be a lot of deceptive practices to keep gamers from thinking clearly about the subject.
Now, you just got done posting an article that claims that they all have PtW.
Nah. Context. I posted for the comments that prove that people do not agree on what is P2W. Including between the MOP staff and its community. Because you thought that people did not have differing opinions
Amaranthar said: It doesn't mean different things to different people, it only gets ignored by those, like you, who don't want to attach that stigma to the practice.
So, did the Emperor have cloths on, or not?
So do you still believe that people do not disagree what is P2W?
More interestingly, did you really believe that in the first place?
Yes. In the fictional tale of the naked emperor, everyone could clearly see that he was naked. They just wouldn't admit it.
In this RL tale of MMORPGs and PtW, everyone can clearly see that gamers are paying for "advantages" (use that term in broad scope), but they too don't want to admit it, or simply don't think about it.
And the situation with so many RMTers (closely linked to CSs, as Farmville showed us) it would have to be expected that there would be a lot of deceptive practices to keep gamers from thinking clearly about the subject.
Hahaha, now that was a fine debate. I don't know who "won." But then again, there wasn't any PtW involved, so there's that. Thanks, tzervo. You are a gentleman.
at the same time doing the same thing over and over for twenty years doesn't yield the best results either.
i think you overestimate them.
I disagree, I have seen lots of different designs, some better, some worse, especially in smaller games. The fact that the same themepark WoW variants are the only ones hitting mainstream is mostly because that's what the majority of players want. Respect your opinion though.
And you know that's what the players want because that's what they buy, the only thing available.
I've banged myself over the head many, many times.
The general public wants easy to play simple games. Do you want evidence?
Just look at the games available for purchase today.
I don't believe that. You know the old saying "you can't please everybody all of the time"? I believe there are huge numbers out there that want something that's not easy to "win." Just as there are huge numbers that want easy.
But all they do is make games that are "made to win." So naturally, if you want to play the game, you got to play what's available.
I so want to believe that. I'm getting pretty cynical in my old age.
All this is, is the masses being treated like one kind, the lowest common denominator. You ask any of them, and they'll tell you (whether it's true or not) that they are not one of those "lowest common denominators." The truth is that people are as diverse as snowflakes. And I don't mean that negatively. And no amount of perceived marketing control really changes that, even if it appears that way sometimes. I've been in sales and related to marketing most of my working life. (I'm retired and old now.) And this is what I've witnessed, from all the dealings with so many, many people. Really, marketing doesn't change minds, it merely informs. People take it from there. When Coka Cola advertised Santa Clause in red instead of green, people loved it. They weren't persuaded, they were informed of an option that just fit better. When RJ Reynolds advertised cigarettes for women, no one's minds were changed. People were already accepting of the idea of equal rights, and at the time it was informing women of an option. None of them started smoking just because someone said they should. They did it because they decided they wanted to.
We've seen the change in MMORPGs, with CSs and PtW and all of that. Just because many gamers want it, and still more gamers do it because "that's the way of the world", doesn't mean that's what all gamers really want in their MMORPGs.
And the same holds true with easy mode.
I see things more like the Roman Mob these days.
I got a lot of great advice from salesmen back when I was young. Advice from some guys who had been around a while back then, advice that was given towards me being a manufacturer and not a salesman.
One piece of advice that really stuck with me, was that I was told that $5 was a number that most people will blow without thinking twice. $10 was something that actually had to be useful. $20 and over, the product had to be something really good.
I'm not sure what we would come up with taking inflation into account but it's really hard to come up with something really good
Second reply to this post.
I had to look up your "Roman mob" comment. I knew that, but never heard that term. That's pretty much standard, isn't it? Mobs form, the mentality of them anyways, and they break up, based on stimuli of the time.
I think you're right about that in this game market. But I think that it would only take a new game, something different, that hits it big, to change that current status quo (the Roman mob situation). And after that, it would probably sink back to it again. Rinse and repeat, over the years. The same as with movies over the years. "The vast wasteland" was what they called movies and television for a time. If I remember right, the first Star Wars movie helped to break things out of a "wasteland" image, at the time.
I've been thinking more on this. When we we're young and the computer game industry was young I would drive a minimum of 45 minutes, through nightmare traffic to find one and only location available to purchase computer games besides a Radio Shack.
I use to travel Internationally on the chase for a good game. Luckily Seattle was a 2hr drive away and they had double the amount of computer game stores that Vancouver had for a total of 2. At least after hours and hours of research in the Yellow Pages from a motel room.
The games I did manage to find, and there were was quite a few, were quite complicated games. Most came with big manuals. Some of my favorites didn't even really have graphics per se.
Getting and playing these games was a complicated process, that took a lot of time.
Now a days, I can get a game faster and easier than I can get a stick of gum.
at the same time doing the same thing over and over for twenty years doesn't yield the best results either.
i think you overestimate them.
I disagree, I have seen lots of different designs, some better, some worse, especially in smaller games. The fact that the same themepark WoW variants are the only ones hitting mainstream is mostly because that's what the majority of players want. Respect your opinion though.
And you know that's what the players want because that's what they buy, the only thing available.
I've banged myself over the head many, many times.
The general public wants easy to play simple games. Do you want evidence?
Just look at the games available for purchase today.
I don't believe that. You know the old saying "you can't please everybody all of the time"? I believe there are huge numbers out there that want something that's not easy to "win." Just as there are huge numbers that want easy.
But all they do is make games that are "made to win." So naturally, if you want to play the game, you got to play what's available.
I so want to believe that. I'm getting pretty cynical in my old age.
All this is, is the masses being treated like one kind, the lowest common denominator. You ask any of them, and they'll tell you (whether it's true or not) that they are not one of those "lowest common denominators." The truth is that people are as diverse as snowflakes. And I don't mean that negatively. And no amount of perceived marketing control really changes that, even if it appears that way sometimes. I've been in sales and related to marketing most of my working life. (I'm retired and old now.) And this is what I've witnessed, from all the dealings with so many, many people. Really, marketing doesn't change minds, it merely informs. People take it from there. When Coka Cola advertised Santa Clause in red instead of green, people loved it. They weren't persuaded, they were informed of an option that just fit better. When RJ Reynolds advertised cigarettes for women, no one's minds were changed. People were already accepting of the idea of equal rights, and at the time it was informing women of an option. None of them started smoking just because someone said they should. They did it because they decided they wanted to.
We've seen the change in MMORPGs, with CSs and PtW and all of that. Just because many gamers want it, and still more gamers do it because "that's the way of the world", doesn't mean that's what all gamers really want in their MMORPGs.
And the same holds true with easy mode.
I see things more like the Roman Mob these days.
I got a lot of great advice from salesmen back when I was young. Advice from some guys who had been around a while back then, advice that was given towards me being a manufacturer and not a salesman.
One piece of advice that really stuck with me, was that I was told that $5 was a number that most people will blow without thinking twice. $10 was something that actually had to be useful. $20 and over, the product had to be something really good.
I'm not sure what we would come up with taking inflation into account but it's really hard to come up with something really good
this is literally my housing based sub model. The lowest rate is $7 ( the new $5) subscription that gets you access and the base house (alot of things happen in the house in my theoretical game) and options go all the way to $25 for single players and $50 for guild/specialty locations).
your sub is literally renting a house/apartment based on what you can afford. No cash shop, p2W, nfts. Pay what you can though the bigger houses have more space and storage. I feel a sub is necessary to avoid certain problems.
I want a Virtual World in my MMORPG
That includes War and Peace
The Industry badly needs Good Ideas, ideas that are not about monetization.
If I was Microsoft, Amazon or whoever. I would make an MSFS including the 1:1 Earth, modding, monetization model and all. Throw in the trains and automobiles along with FPS game play and let the community go nuts.
Comments
your sub is literally renting a house/apartment based on what you can afford. No cash shop, p2W, nfts. Pay what you can though the bigger houses have more space and storage. I feel a sub is necessary to avoid certain problems.
the sub is as efficient as you are. I dont like pay to win ( you apparently do), cash shops and the like. I feel they eat away at development time that would be better redirected into the actual game.
PtW is PtW. What gamers will accept has nothing to do with that "title", and how much money a game company can make off of it doesn't either.
Anytime players can buy "win", which is to say "faster advancement" or "things others can't have unless they pay too", it most certainly is PtW.
It doesn't mean different things to different people, it only gets ignored by those, like you, who don't want to attach that stigma to the practice.
As to #3
I sure as hell will tell companies how to make their games. I can say anything I want about it.
I am not calling for laws or trying to remove their right to make their own choices.
They can do what they want.
But I still get to say whatever the hell I want to say, within the law and forum rules.
Once upon a time....
I could see that being applied as a Revamped system of the Guild Challenges of GW2.
Where you have 3 guilds, and lets say the challenge of the day is Trek, so each guild needs to find their 6 trek points, and the guild that finds them all first, wins the challenge.
This idea could be added to the guild Rush, and the Bounty.
In Bounty, Say 3 guilds all start the Bounty, each guild gets their own target, and the guild that completes killing their target first, wins for the day.
With a 2nd and 3rd place awards as well, so no one feels left out, everyone gets Something, which is not a bad thing, as it would allow for some weaker less coordinated guilds to join with more organized guilds, knowing they would lose, but still get something for their efforts, even if it was 3rd place.
This way, they would be willing to jump in and play, as opposed to a winner take all system, where the stronger guilds would find it harder and harder to get other guilds to run against them.
I could so see a system like that happening.. it would really build some community and guild spirit, and be a nice bridge between PvP and PvE.
Once upon a time....
and you have to admit.. it would put the "Guild Wars" into Guild Wars 2.
As far as a Winner Take All, ideally, this is a PvE game, and as the OP said, this was to get Casuals into a more Competitive game play, so the last thing you really want is to make less organized guilds more hesitant to get involved because then it just becomes a matter of wasting time for no reward, and, lets be honest, not enough people like that to make that viable.
Which I think might be true these days, but I'm not sure.
But if that's so, then where's the options to judge your point on?
Gamers still want to play, and lacking any viable options against PtW, most of them will play those games.
In short, your point is meaningless.
I will agree that there are many gamers who really don't care about PtW. That does not mean that there aren't just as many, or more, who do care.
Once upon a time....
Once upon a time....
In this RL tale of MMORPGs and PtW, everyone can clearly see that gamers are paying for "advantages" (use that term in broad scope), but they too don't want to admit it, or simply don't think about it.
And the situation with so many RMTers (closely linked to CSs, as Farmville showed us)
it would have to be expected that there would be a lot of deceptive practices to keep gamers from thinking clearly about the subject.
Once upon a time....
Once upon a time....
I don't know who "won." But then again, there wasn't any PtW involved, so there's that.
Thanks, tzervo. You are a gentleman.
Once upon a time....
I use to travel Internationally on the chase for a good game. Luckily Seattle was a 2hr drive away and they had double the amount of computer game stores that Vancouver had for a total of 2. At least after hours and hours of research in the Yellow Pages from a motel room.
The games I did manage to find, and there were was quite a few, were quite complicated games. Most came with big manuals. Some of my favorites didn't even really have graphics per se.
Getting and playing these games was a complicated process, that took a lot of time.
Now a days, I can get a game faster and easier than I can get a stick of gum.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
That includes War and Peace
The Industry badly needs Good Ideas, ideas that are not about monetization.
If I was Microsoft, Amazon or whoever. I would make an MSFS including the 1:1 Earth, modding, monetization model and all. Throw in the trains and automobiles along with FPS game play and let the community go nuts.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee