It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
I agree that the elitism and toxic environment is bad for MMO, but reality, if there is not a healthy PUG community in an MMO, then the Developers really should revisit how they designed their Instance content, because they screwed up someplace.BadSpock said:Also, I don't understand the hate for auto-grouping features.
Do people want to go back to "join a guild or you might as well not play" or "spam chat channels for hours" really? So archaic.
I know what you are saying, but, a large part of making something good, is knowing who you are making it for.Just as a theoretical though consider this: What if the developer had to do or die with the current servers?I dunno about your example in that if the game doesn't change, and continues to develop, on the PVP servers I don't see where the loss is for anyone. If there is a loss it would be 95% of the players moving to the PVE servers leaving the gankers with nothing to do.I don't disagree and completely agree with your last sentence.that person who is complaining about that game (what game is it?) should know better and the developers "should" just say "this is what the game is about."But as I mentioned, there is another game, worlds adrift (finally remembered the name) where people have been asking for a more pve oriented server. The World's Adrift developers initially said they wouldn't but now they are.The "pvp people" seem to be up in arms. Did the developers abandoned their vision to listen to the complainers or did they realize they can't stay in business and need that revenue? I believe it's the latter.many people asked for an easy mode for the Dark Souls games and they got nothing. From Software could make money on their vision and not have to change.Worlds Adrift Developers? Not so much.
I guess before I'd create a new set of servers I'd want to take a hard looks at what could be done to make PvP endurable for the PvE crowd. In UO I didn't mind getting ganked occasionally, but every 10 minutes got to be old. Why do developers in 2018 think allowing high level people to slaughter noobs is workable?
If your vision for a game is allowing struggling starting players to get serially destroyed ad nauseum then you're a bit of an idiot. It would be good for those kinds of developers to fail, TBH.I would agree and there is absolutely no harm in having an alternate server. Some would argue it separates the player base but that is a huge assumption that those PvE players would tolerate PvP servers instead of leaving. Which is what they would do.all I know is that, at least from what I saw, they never had the inclination to make pve servers and suddenly they announced it.I guess the pvp players think it's time/money taken away from developing pvp servers, separating the player base and capitulating to whiners and "breaking their promise" as they said they would never have them.What I have to say to them is "life." Deal with it.
Necessity is the mother of invention, I've heard said.
Perhaps true innovation in this space could be achieved if the answer wasn't always abandoning the vision and back pedaling to separate servers, cash shops, FTP, and other abominations. I'll grant you encouraging correct player behavior is whopper of an undertaking - but figuring out those tough problems is what makes innovation so great.
It seems the current solutions are around milking players for cash and developing for the lowest common denominator. This thread is about making a great game - those answers won't get us there.Well, I've worked for small companies, one being a software company.It's possible that the developers can pull an "i-Mac" type product out of their ass which will save the company or most likely they will fail like so many others.Look at the game landscape; it's so full of failure, of small ventures tanking, because they were being run by passionate people who didn't have the talent or resources or patience to make it happen.And what is that mother of invention? if it's monetization and monetization that some players don't want, they are going to scream their bloody heads off.Even if they make a "good game" is it going to be enough to keep them in business. So many game companies release games and then close.Heck, famous game companies, game companies that created notable games closed.It's not always about a "we can do it!" attitude.
This is not true at all, nor is that what they said.aummoid said:That's certainly a long-winded way of saying "yes, people stopped spending money; yes, they felt they could make more money if they got those people who stopped spending back; yes, they changed course to get those people back; yes, they did get those people back."Superman0X said:Sadly, in this instance, you are (semi) incorrect. The industry (in general) didn't react at all to this. It also didnt change the development of games from SE. In general, it made no difference to how games were developed, or monetized (the discussion of this thread).
However, you are correct that there was a change, but you are not clearly understanding what it was. After accepting that the initial launch had run its course from a financial standpoint ( there was no long tail of profit being forecast), they made the decision to take the existing assets, and use them to build a new, second product. This was something that is rarely done this early in the process, and was a very brave (and risky) step for them. They should be recognized for not waiting another year or two to try to maximize the profit of the existing product, before moving to a new product.
The key to why they were able to do it was this, they believed that if they moved quickly enough, they could obtain an artificially low customer acquisition cost for the new product, and in doing so, save a huge portion of the marketing cost associated with a new release. When they combined these savings with the low cost of recycling a new product from the old, and subtracted out the potential earnings from the old product, it looked like they would make more by abandoning the old product quickly, and moving to the next. I also have to think that in order for them to do it this quickly, there had to have been people internally that believed that the original product was not going to succeed long before it launched... and that they had ideas to fix it that had not been implemented.
The bottom line here is that NOT spending money didnt have any real effect... but that the fact that they were chasing the people that WERE spending money did. i.e. it is not hard to fail, but it is hard to succeed.
That's why your bottom line of "no, people who stopped spending money didn't have an impact" is even sillier now than it was the first time you said it.
As for me, I think the bottom line is that SE is still making and publishing PC games and you are not. That's why I used the phrase "evolution in action".
I know what you are saying, and I agree with you to a point.Okay, it would be cool if people in this thread would stop pretending to care about the developers as a means of justifying horrible products and ideas. It isn't binary, it isn't "introduce crap into the game" or "starve to death".I don't disagree. If an artist/creator/developer has a vision then let them realize their vision.But reality is that if the artist/creator/developer needs to put food on their table but they insist that they must be true to their vision then they should expect people to go find something else if that vision isn't in line with what people like.Developers don't change their games because whiny forum goers complain and complain.They change their games because they see that they are not making money and they need to stay open.but some players don't understand that. To the point where I've seen players say "well then they should just close it down."I bet those developers like their paycheck and might even have bills to pay so closing it down might be the last option.
How about making money by making a good product?
Lazy, half hearted cash grabs are lazy, half-hearted cash grabs. Period.
The thread is about "How to make games great again." and part of the answer is "Have a vision, stick to it" and not "prostitute out your vision for lazy ass cash grabs" or "do whatever you have to in order to keep the lights on".
^--- If you're at that point you already made a crap game. This thread is about how to make a great game, not how to patch garbage to milk it for cash.
It isn't fair to any of the players when games undergo significant changes because developers are too weak in the knees to follow through with a great idea. If you want to make a great game come up with an idea and follow through with it at all costs. That is how the great emerge.Well, I'll tell you, given the conversations I've had on this site, I usually side with the developers. Players are sometimes living in their little dream worlds and can certainly become untethered from reality.No one is saying it's one or another. But guess what? Most developers really do want to make great games.But it's not as easy as "Hey guys, let's just make a great game and cal it a day. The checks will just roll in"
I agree, I really wish Anet had told all the people crying for challenge to shove it, and focused on making the best moderate/casual game out there as opposed to giving into a small subset of players that offer nothing to the game overall.With 100 million the first thing I'd do is find 10 other developers where we all have the same vision for a game and then be prepared to defend that vision against customers who don't understand or appreciate it.
I'm playing a survival game right now where a person is petitioning the developer to make it so when people die they don't lose their stuff. This is in a game labeled 'survival' - in the genre 'survival'.
We desperately need developers who aren't afraid to clearly describe their vision to the community (crucial first step) and then defend it to the death against those that try to change it. Too many games drift along with no real direction and the kneejerk responses to the community usually make it worse.
Be unapologetic (See: Dark Souls) - Don't be afraid to make something challenging and great and don't be afraid to tell half the gaming public to take a hike.