Avatar

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Badges

Iselin

About

Username
Iselin
Joined
Visits
9,980
Last Active
Roles
Member
Points
8,184
Rank
Legendary
Favorite Role
Support
Currently Playing
ESO
Posts
10,730
Badges
52
  • Visionary Realms Wants to Know Where You Draw the Line on RMT, F2P & More - Pantheon: Rise of the Fa

    CrazKanuk said:
    Anthur said:

    DMKano said:





    A monthly sub and everything available in the game just like the old days



    The only problem with this model is that it requires a very high population of players to stay viable because you put a low, fixed cap on how much a player can spend on the game. 



    The real problem is that is unsustainable - it is literally impossible to run a MMORPG on pure subscription for a long time.

    The population over time declines - and only continues to decline - thus inevitably reaching a point where running a game costs more than the number of players remaining to sustain it.

    The only variable is how fast you get to this point - 6 months, a year - or decades - but it is inevitable.





    That's the same nonsense like EA saying that they can't develop great games anymore without loot boxes because the development costs are too high. Monster Hunter can. Others can too. WoW would still be a great success even without any cash shop.

    Server costs are not that high anymore even. And when your population dwindles the game runs into financial issues independent from the payment system it uses.

    Don't fall for what the marketing guys want you to believe. They just found out a long time ago that you can squeeze much more money out of your customers with a F2P/cash shop/loot box game than a subscription based game.


    Why not just do math? Here's $2 million, now you tell me a story about how you're going to survive the year with a team of 18 people.
    So... what number would make you happy? You don't like 10K subs? How about 50k?

    I honestly don't get why you seem to be personally invested in subs not being viable.

    We get why AAA studios no longer like them except as a way to supplement their loot boxes and other lucrative MTs but last I checked crowdfunded MMOs are ostensibly doing what they do to do it a different way.

    So how many subs do you think your team of 18 needs to carry on and not fall prey to Kano's depression?
    GdemamiCendharia
  • Visionary Realms Wants to Know Where You Draw the Line on RMT, F2P & More - Pantheon: Rise of the Fa

    Sovrath said:
    Iselin said:
    DMKano said:
    The real problem is that is unsustainable - it is literally impossible to run a MMORPG on pure subscription for a long time.


    It's not "literally" anything lol. It is 100% dependent on the developer's expectations and their definition of success and what's worth their time.

    DAoC has been a sub game for 17 years and continues that way despite a small population.

    If success means you want 3 Ferraris then yeah, you probably won't get that with a small population and sub. But if you have reasonable expectations and plan around 10K subs it would be very possible.
    While I agree with the idea, if you only have 10k people and say you are charging 15.95 that's less than 2 million per year. They better have a very small team.
    Yup. And players would also need to accept the reality of very infrequent additions and slow costumer support.

    It's just that I have to laugh at the misconception expressed often in this forums is that you need to be humongous or you failed. Modest successes are also a thing.
    SovrathGdemamiScotSpottyGekkoMelissa-0MrMelGibsonRelampagoCendharia
  • Visionary Realms Wants to Know Where You Draw the Line on RMT, F2P & More - Pantheon: Rise of the Fa

    DMKano said:
    The real problem is that is unsustainable - it is literally impossible to run a MMORPG on pure subscription for a long time.


    It's not "literally" anything lol. It is 100% dependent on the developer's expectations and their definition of success and what's worth their time.

    DAoC has been a sub game for 17 years and continues that way despite a small population.

    If success means you want 3 Ferraris then yeah, you probably won't get that with a small population and sub. But if you have reasonable expectations and plan around 10K subs it would be very possible.
    PhryGdemamiTorvalSandmanjwSpottyGekkoMelissa-0RelampagoCendharia
  • Elder Scrolls Online - The 5 Best Things in Dragon Bones - Update 17 - MMORPG.com

    Sovrath said:
    etharn said:
    Only thing I was excited for was outfit system.
    I was excited for the leveling up guide but not that I've seen it, it seems only half baked.

    Oh sure, it gives you skills to get but doesn't say much about armor/weapons. Which means, any player who doesn't already know something about the game could really screw themselves over.
    That's the basic default build for each class. The other builds in the adviser (magicka DPS, Stamina DPS, Healer and Tank) do include armor and weapon skill recommendations.

    It's ironic that the one build it defaults to and that newer players will be most likely to try totally ignores armor and weapon recommendations.

    I gave them as much feedback as I could while on the PTS about it telling them this was a mistake but I guess it was more important to them for some unknown reason to remain neutral in not directing new players toward either magicka or stamina with their appropriate armor and weapons.

    As I said in my thread here about that system a couple of weeks ago, considering the available adviser options, a new player would be best served by following the magicka DPS build and specifically the ones for either the Warden, Sorcerer or Templar since those are the easiest classes to level early due to access to end-game caliber self-heals before level 5.

    Magicka DPS with all light armor using a destro staff at first and getting a resto staff as the 2nd weapon at level 15 is by far the easiest way to level for new players. But that build doesn't exist in the adviser and it's sort of a mix of their magicka DPS and healer builds. 
    SovrathMegilindirOctagon7711Sinsai
  • EA Confirms 'Early 2019' Release, Claims It's Not a Delay, Also Posts Nearly $200M Loss in Q3 2017 -

    CrazKanuk said:
    Iselin said:
    CrazKanuk said:
    Aeander said:
    CrazKanuk said:
    As much as I'd love to be a lemming on this subject and just jump onto the Internet hate for EA, the fact remains that Activision still has their paid loot crates, with very little backlask, so all that is really proven with this line of discussion is that the Internet says they don't like EA, a meme that pre-dates memes themselves. It hasn't proven that paid loot crates aren't acceptable, it's shown that anyone (even the largest AAA publisher in the world) can have paid loot crates.... unless you're EA. 
    Where is the rock you've been living under and can I move in because it must be really quiet?

    Activision has faced huge, continued backlash for Destiny 2, especially for loot crates. The only real difference is that their bottom line hasn't been hit as hard (namely because the loot crates weren't revealed until the beta tests and their ramifications on the game were obfuscated).

    Meh, the D2 stuff was a bit of a different bag, right? Like there was more nefarious stuff going on there. People were fine with the model as it was with Bright Engrams before they found out that Activision was directly and knowingly restricting their progress towards their next FREE Bright Engram. 

    Even with that, though, after some ruffled feathers, the seas are calm... ish.... once again, right? Destiny 2 still shows as one of the top 3 games of the year, as far as sales go, next to CODWW2 which also has paid loot crates for things that apparently impact the game. 

    That's mostly my point. When you compare the backlash against each of them, the reasoning is quite clear. It's not a loot crate issue, it's an EA issue. 
    Nah. It's an industry wide issue of preying on gamers with all manner of obfuscation. It simply came to a head with SWBF2 and Destiny 2 to such an extent that some who are normally oblivious to it noticed it and commented.

    That the games continue to sell well despite that is just an indication that the lemmings - the real lemmings - will just keep bending over and saying "Fuck it. I don't care if they're screwing me. It's new, it's shinny and by gosh I'm going to play it."


    Why would you say they're bending over? By all indications they are getting fucking awesome stuff that is giving them a distinct advantage over everyone else.... at least that's what people have been saying. 

    To be completely fair, if I was a billionaire, I would probably spend thousands of dollars on games just to assert my real life authority over people in any game that would allow me to do that. So, in that regard, you'd be bending over for me. 
    I guess you either get fair pricing or you don't. If you're willing to pay any price for anything then yeah bud, you're bending over. If you're so wealthy that it doesn't matter to you one way or the other you're just bending over conspicuously with a smile on your face.

    It's beyond my comprehension how anyone can deny the concept of fair and appropriate pricing. It makes absolutely no difference whether or not you can afford it.

    Funny though that your mind immediately went to paying to win when it's not even about that.
    Gdemami