Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
I'm actually glad EQN is unlikely to be released
This discussion has been closed.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Comments
I'm enjoying the back-and-forth here. Here's an angle that neither of you have addressed. In my opinion, that if there are no plans to wipe all prior characters and development back to a pristine state (a launch event), that that game is effectively released, whether money changes hands in any form at all. So, under this definition, the game isn't being tested, but is being developed 'live' or 'on-the-fly'. Money is changing hands for an incomplete product, and most players expect (or demand) that their work-to-date be preserved and carried forward. In effect, the 'release' is a product of the developer's intent and their actions.
To me, a pay-for-access (alpha or beta) pre-release game is essentially just another kickstarter project, only desiring to part me from my money. I happen to like my money.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
I have said something along that lines. That Early access is not different then what kickstarters are doing, just supporting a game you love. I do find the line of a sub and calling it alpha/beta a little repulsive but again there are few EA I would pay for as well but there is a good chance I would pay EA fee to play EQN but I wont drop a sub price as well. But I do get 100% where you are coming from. All comes down to where you draw the line, we all have one where this much and no more.
Except that steam is very clear that they are not a crowd funding site and that developers need to be able to develop their games with little to no sales.
Funny how often what you consider something to be is directly at odds with the facts.
@Mendel
I agree about the persistence of the game between Early Access and whatever they determine release will be called. Nothing is going to get wiped, cash shop purchases will remain intact. The only thing that will change is the "early access" label.
As the saying goes. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and sounds like a duck......
Says who?
The company formerly known as SOE has been wiping the shit out of the H1Z1 servers (also an "early access" game) and MOST of the stuff purchased from the cash shop, not counting a few things that bind to the acct, are also wiped.
Like all the stuff anyone ever got from a paid airdrop. And a lot more to boot.
So, there is every indication that the same thing will happen with the next not-SOE game, as with the one they are currently trying to get finished.
Well...
Except that KickStarter is fore independent developers, who are trying to get off the ground. Not a multi-million dollar company with 4 major MMO under it's belt. SOE took our money not to fund Landmark, but as access to EQ's beta.
So now it is time to face them music and John Smedley is a spoof, doesn't know how to make a MMORPG, only knows how to make money. The community has learned the truth, that Smed doesn't love his games, he loves the money. So we move on to a developer who cares about their games.
Enough said.
Says DGC, that has specifically stated, for Landmark, that any item from a code redemption or purchase from the marketplace will be re-rewarded after any wipe. Additionally, all builds will be retained due to templates being made of any active plot. The only thing that will need to be acquired again will be materials to re-place the plot template.
I'm not sure about H1Z1. Are they going to re-reward airdrop tickets after alpha/beta? They probably wouldn't re-reward the specific items inside because I believe it's random at the time of drop.
You say this like you actually know the man, do you? KS is for all sorts of things, not just games and not just by indie developers. The market is not what it once was. There is no more mass investment, box sales, and subs to get an MMO off the ground and keep it in the air. I'm not sure what you mean by not funding Landmark but the rest of the message is fuzzy after that anyways. The community has learned the truth? Not quite sure what that's supposed to mean.
Free to play is the best option nowadays.. The market is so saturated with games, it is next to impossible to justify a subscription base.. "Early Access" is the new F2P.. This means it's the new hot formula of making money.. It's surprising that people still support and pay Blizzard for WoW.. OMG.. Seriously, people shelling out $15 a month.. So after 4 months you have paid enough to support a FULL completed "console" game.. This is basically paying for an "expansions" worth of content every 4 months and NOT GETTING IT.. lmao.. Talk about sheep paying cash cow.. Blizzard is smiling all the way to the bank.. KUDO's to Blizzard..
IMO.. The best format is B2P like GW2.. I'll pay you what you earn.. (subjective).. Personally I think early access is a big scam.. Where is the value or reward for "paying" for a F2P game? I wonder if any early access people are going to demand some type of perk when the games actually go live.. Cuz right now, it just looks like people are paying to beta test and that is boggling that some buy it.. Come to our new Cafe, where our menu is incomplete, and staff is inexperienced, but we expect you to pay FULL value to test us....... Yeah.. right.. How about YOU pay me to be your guinea pig.. lol
I'm not talking about what players think they should pay to play an MMO, though one would argue the value of so much entertainment, even at 15.00 a month, is an unbelievable deal. What I'm talking about is the development money that was available to titles a couple years ago compared to now. Thus far, most "free to play" MMOs were actually sub titles that later converted to a F2P model. The whole game was built upon an initial lump funding and then infused with box sales and subs for n months before the F2P transition. The quality for those titles was not paid for by a F2P model. What quality of new MMOs will we see going forward? I guess we'll have to see but my fear is unless there is a tremendous gap closing by technology the quality of MMOs Will go down. That's what those that think MMO costs are rip-offs seem to overlook. They want quality entertainment, I assume, but don't want to pay for it.
This is where EA and KS come into play. They aim to bridge that gap and provide needed development costs. EA more specifically is the replacement of box sales back in the days of box/sub. As a side note MMOs are not comparable to console games. MMOs in general provide more content and as such hold a higher entertainment value. One can call people names for paying for MMOs but it comes down to paying for the things one enjoys. As it is, name one other field of entertainment that costs money to produce but offers so much for free or small cost (15.00/month is a small cost for a month of unlimited entertainment). It's insane when you think about it.
Finally, EAs do typically provide perks that persist after release. Look at Landmark. It offered perks equal to the cost and included entry. The purchase was completely optional and it was simply paying for entertainment.
You fail to recognize that development money that was available years ago, is directly related to the money we as MMORPG players are willing to spend as consumers.
You make it sound as if Companies control the amount of money spent on games... they don't. The People interest in that game and the POTENTIAL sales of that game is what drove investors. That is, until FREE to PLAY came along. Then marketing and monetizing (any game) is what drove these developers, not the potential sales of their game. Thus the content suffered, because it wasn't designed to hold a player for years, just entice him enough to buy/play (for however short of a time)
You do not need a million players, to make a billion dollars. You just need a good game with a fair price and Developers that are willing to work for it over 6 to 8 years. The quick buck is gone (ArcheAge anyone..?), all the whales in all the other games have been harpooned. Time for these fly by night developers to look for a new business model, other than whale fishing.
Lastly, Box sales and subscription is the best business model for PC MMORPG. As nobody really cares what mobile game developers do with their MMOs... they are a dime a dozen and if you don't like one, there are 50 more to chose from. They are not games you will play year to year, only pass threw on your way to the next hyped game.
You kind of made my point for me. I didn't fail to recognize anything, potential sales driving investment money is business 101, but mentioned it as the "lump sum" comment in my post. The problem is the number of available MMOs has exceeded the growth of the MMO player base, even though it is growing. That combined with a F2P-as-a-standard market means it is a saturated market filled with an instant spike in activity followed by a quick drop to it's core player base. People in the business know this now, the 5-7 years to develop an MMO meant there was a delayed reaction, and is why there hasn't been as many releases per year in the last couple. They've (the money holders) realized that WoW duped everyone into thinking they too could get a big piece of the pie.
There are success stories of course and I agree with you that a game just needs to be good to sustain itself in the market. The problem is the startup money. To combat this and the aforementioned show of market interest along comes EA and KS. These are controversial to be sure but they are a part of the market now.
My sole argument is that no matter what form it comes in, MMO development needs money and so if one is interested in a title, support it in any way they see fit. Developers didn't chose for the market to become F2P, it just ended up that way because so many companies released their own titles and there wasn't enough players to sub to each in the proportions needed. So instead of feast or famine F2P with micro transactions allowed for some money on a part time basis. How do you run a free MMO, that isn't free to develop, and be prosperous? You make the marketplace items enticing so yes, it becomes one of the focuses of development to keep the game going. That can't be surprising.
I would also like to build a time machine and make it so MMOs were still sub based and everything was gained via playing. That isn't reality however. In this evolved (or arguably devolved) market companies are doing what they can to keep going.
The graphics were really silly.
And it was clear they were going hyper casual, with tons of instances, and quests that didn't advance unless the player was present (no consequence) and their wording on so many features showed they were going to do their best never to inconvenience the player (dark day and night cycles).
But man, finally a company picked up on the fact that a dynamic AI and quest system is the only way to go. Wish that had come about.