lol That would probably be an argument I could agree with. Sad too, when I saw them at E3 long ago, showing off Rift with a booth that was probably one of the most expensive on the floor... they made a good showing as to the confidence they had in their product. Why they were spending that kind of money on promoting a less than ideal product is beyond me, they really dropped the ball, financially and with their flagship products. It was all show, no substance.
Is that what you mean by "all show, no substance"?
Also how would H1Z1 survive right now without a cash shop - they've lost 90% playerbase to PUBG/Fornite.
How do you survive that in a pure subscription model?
Hmm?
How many MMO companies would have to scale back staff by 50%+ or just shut down completely without the cash shop?
Also you say "final fantasy online is doing great right now" - I am assuming you are talking about FFXIV - which has a cash shop, so it's not a pure sub model at all.
Let's face it: how talented as a developer can someone really be if they have to remove the zombies from their zombie game to get people to even play it?
Well they were talented enough to have lots of players before PUBG/Fornite - H1Z1 had a very sizable playerbase prior to those games.
That's not really relevant at all - my point stands - when you have a game that's been doing great for over a year - and then a new game comes out and you lose 90% playerbase - how do you survive that in a 100% subscription model?
That's the core point - sub model is inflexible, it has no safety net
Subscription model = zero flexibility - you have a hard set ceiling of $ per player per month and no other way of making more money. The ONLY way to make more money when you are hurting is to get more players, which in a critical event (like major loss of players) = is not survivable
Cash shop model - no hard ceiling of how much players can spend = a single player can spend as much as they want, this provides massive flexibility and makes games more resilient to player attrition.
You don't. We don't owe any Dev or publisher to keep their game profitable when a newer one comes out that better serves that niche.
The cash shop model is a Frankenstein approach to extending the life of games that would otherwise fold, right? Then let them fold. The market for MMORPGs doesn't want to support the current number of titles at the profit levels those pubs want. Best thing to do is lose the fat decrease market saturation.
Ok but these people don't want to lose their jobs, as any of us don't want to lose our jobs.
You are correct, players don't owe these people anything. But since that is the case, they don't owe us anything either, other than to make a product and to implement a way to get paid.
So I guess that's that. If a sub can't keep these people employed then OF COURSE they are going to implement other means to stay solvent.
I'm not necessarily blaming them, I'm just trying to highlight a reality I think goes unnoticed.
This genre has become bloated way beyond what it actually supports. So we add monetization to exploit impulse, we completely eliminate the barrier to entry, and we copy whatever we can from other titles that seemed to have worked at all in gouging players for more money. Where do these items come from? The mobile market. And that market is nothing if not oversaturated with titles.
It's a band-aid fix to a systemic problem. MMORPG were always a small niche relative to the gaming industry at large, they still are, but developers have been attempting to pivot the product towards gameplay systems from other genres along with the aforementioned monetization practices to keep up the total number base that WoW's flash in the pan explosion brought. Only, it's a fool's errand, and it's been reduced to including non-MMORPG titles when speaking of genre health because we would otherwise have to face reality: MMORPGs are a small niche interest genre.
I agree with you, they are a small interest game and it's true that other developers have looked toward World of Warcraft numbers.
But since they are niche games and since these developers want to stay employeed, I really can see why they add other revenue streams.
That's the thing, players (gamers) just want their games and then they move on (which is fine) but they need to understand that this is a job for people, it's not a club, it very well might be something of a calling, but in the end, they would like to continue doing what they love and not have to change jobs after every project finishes.
So "yeah" I would very much understand if Visionary Realms added some sort of cash shop and i wouldn't blame them.
Don't necessarily disagree, but again: who decided to try to extend the life of a failing product with such monetization? Publishers conditioned players to believe they get the game itself for free. I don't remember receiving a gamer survey asking me if I'd come back to any of these games if they were F2P, did you?
Market research told them F2P would help extend the life of these games. What it didn't tell them was how it would condition the consumer base to expect the games moving forward to follow the same path.
lol That would probably be an argument I could agree with. Sad too, when I saw them at E3 long ago, showing off Rift with a booth that was probably one of the most expensive on the floor... they made a good showing as to the confidence they had in their product. Why they were spending that kind of money on promoting a less than ideal product is beyond me, they really dropped the ball, financially and with their flagship products. It was all show, no substance.
Is that what you mean by "all show, no substance"?
Also how would H1Z1 survive right now without a cash shop - they've lost 90% playerbase to PUBG/Fornite.
How do you survive that in a pure subscription model?
Hmm?
How many MMO companies would have to scale back staff by 50%+ or just shut down completely without the cash shop?
Also you say "final fantasy online is doing great right now" - I am assuming you are talking about FFXIV - which has a cash shop, so it's not a pure sub model at all.
Let's face it: how talented as a developer can someone really be if they have to remove the zombies from their zombie game to get people to even play it?
Well they were talented enough to have lots of players before PUBG/Fornite - H1Z1 had a very sizable playerbase prior to those games.
That's not really relevant at all - my point stands - when you have a game that's been doing great for over a year - and then a new game comes out and you lose 90% playerbase - how do you survive that in a 100% subscription model?
That's the core point - sub model is inflexible, it has no safety net
Subscription model = zero flexibility - you have a hard set ceiling of $ per player per month and no other way of making more money. The ONLY way to make more money when you are hurting is to get more players, which in a critical event (like major loss of players) = is not survivable
Cash shop model - no hard ceiling of how much players can spend = a single player can spend as much as they want, this provides massive flexibility and makes games more resilient to player attrition.
You don't. We don't owe any Dev or publisher to keep their game profitable when a newer one comes out that better serves that niche.
The cash shop model is a Frankenstein approach to extending the life of games that would otherwise fold, right? Then let them fold. The market for MMORPGs doesn't want to support the current number of titles at the profit levels those pubs want. Best thing to do is lose the fat decrease market saturation.
Ok but these people don't want to lose their jobs, as any of us don't want to lose our jobs.
You are correct, players don't owe these people anything. But since that is the case, they don't owe us anything either, other than to make a product and to implement a way to get paid.
So I guess that's that. If a sub can't keep these people employed then OF COURSE they are going to implement other means to stay solvent.
I'm not necessarily blaming them, I'm just trying to highlight a reality I think goes unnoticed.
This genre has become bloated way beyond what it actually supports. So we add monetization to exploit impulse, we completely eliminate the barrier to entry, and we copy whatever we can from other titles that seemed to have worked at all in gouging players for more money. Where do these items come from? The mobile market. And that market is nothing if not oversaturated with titles.
It's a band-aid fix to a systemic problem. MMORPG were always a small niche relative to the gaming industry at large, they still are, but developers have been attempting to pivot the product towards gameplay systems from other genres along with the aforementioned monetization practices to keep up the total number base that WoW's flash in the pan explosion brought. Only, it's a fool's errand, and it's been reduced to including non-MMORPG titles when speaking of genre health because we would otherwise have to face reality: MMORPGs are a small niche interest genre.
I agree with you, they are a small interest game and it's true that other developers have looked toward World of Warcraft numbers.
But since they are niche games and since these developers want to stay employeed, I really can see why they add other revenue streams.
That's the thing, players (gamers) just want their games and then they move on (which is fine) but they need to understand that this is a job for people, it's not a club, it very well might be something of a calling, but in the end, they would like to continue doing what they love and not have to change jobs after every project finishes.
So "yeah" I would very much understand if Visionary Realms added some sort of cash shop and i wouldn't blame them.
Don't necessarily disagree, but again: who decided to try to extend the life of a failing product with such monetization? Publishers conditioned players to believe they get the game itself for free. I don't remember receiving a gamer survey asking me if I'd come back to any of these games if they were F2P, did you?
Market research told them F2P would help extend the life of these games. What it didn't tell them was how it would condition the consumer base to expect the games moving forward to follow the same path.
There was this developer, can't remember his name but he was a bit infamous, who made a video about f2p games in china. There's also a video of a talk he did at a games conference to developers. He basically explained exactly how free to play games ran in china, how much one could make, etc.
It's my thought that he was one of the first western developers/producers "whatever" to start the conversation and developers just fell in line. I really think their industry is so horrible that anything that gives them a leg up as far as staying in business is going to be explored.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
@DMKano already refuted this, all those games have Cash Shops now.
To further support his statement, UO/EQ/WoW were created in an era where movie tickets averaged $5.40 each and newspapers weren't in deep financial troubles. Inflation happened, and the basic subscription didn't keep up. Newspapers and periodicals had ad revenues, which rose to compensate and keep margins in check. Now those rates are contributing to the financial pressures on those industries.
Game companies aren't exempt from inflation. A 15-20+ year old subscription model that hasn't adapted to changing financial situations cannot keep up with rising costs. Games, especially games that require daily support, require additional revenue for the companies to remain solvent.
They've chosen to implement optional revenue sources (cash shops) as opposed to possibly driving away customers by raising subscription prices. Would you balk at a mandatory cost increase in the subscription rate? If it increased by only by $5/month (to $20/month), you'd probably stick around. But it might drive away others.
A very simple example from the company's point of view. We were charging $15 a month from 10 customers, with a total income of $150/month. We raised the rate to $20 a month, but we lost 3 customers. Now we're only making $140 a month from 7 customers -- a loss of $10 a month. Who's going to make that up difference? (This is the same basic problem newspapers face -- how to maintain revenue when circulation drops).
It is a basic economic principle that it's taken businesses to fully realize -- the subscription model needs external sources of income to sustain profitability. It has been true for newspapers, magazines and now, games.
Eh that was not really a refutation. It does not change the fact that need and want are two different things, what the publisher does to squeeze out a bit more revenue is not generally based on need. UO and EQ are not really getting updates. Do we honestly think they are supporting a full dev team? The publisher is just looking to "cash in" on some additional revenue with titles in their portfolio.
Its like hey, candy and soda in the US used to be made with cane sugar. Now everything is using corn syrup. Is this need or just a way to maximize profits? Obviously its the latter. The quality goes down, they continue to push product and revenue goes up.
Additionally, wages have not exactly gone up either. I know an art lead who worked on some EA titles who used to make well over $120k a year, he is lucky to break past 80K now for the same work. A lot more outsourcing is going on, cheap workers being brought in... ect Developers can find themselves getting paid less with less job security to boot.
When a game goes gold, much of the original dev team does not stay on board either. They will either be let go or moved over to a completely different project.
The only argument one can make in terms of cost going up for development is as it relates to required tech and newer pipelines. Licensing cost and a more complicated art pipeline to be more specific. Where before you could get away with some super low poly models and one texture map, we now deal with a high poly to retopo low poly workflow, PBR shaders with multiple texture maps, more detailed rigs, motion capture...ect
As for "sustaining profitability"...nah
Lets look at World of Warcraft.... its playerbase ranges from somewhere around 5 to 10 million active accounts, goes up especially around the time of xpack releases. Xpacks cost money, plus the sub. If we do not count the xpack or any other source of revenue, then about near 1 billion dollars is going into Blizzard's coffers per year. Do we really think cash shops are needed? Not even close.
If a game can charge $15 for a sub and maintain a 100,000 player base, that alone is around 1.5 million per month, 18 million annually. Again cash shops necessary, not really. The publishers would like bigger bonuses though, and more profit is always better when it comes to the number pushers. As long as the playerbase is willing to show its profitable, they will go for it. Sadly, one of the arguments is that it does not make the game better, but rather can make them worse. Cash shops by their own nature, will influence a game's design. Instead of designing challenge mechanics for enjoyment, it has to include mechanics that encourage the player to spend more in a market place that in a way, breaks the "4th wall".
Honestly subs do not need to be raised either, given those numbers. It is easier for the publisher to put less effort into development, than to put money into developing new content and marketing material which would result in a steady flow of active subscriptions. The old practice meant developers and publisher had to be invested in their game, to keep players engaged. It was a win win for everyone, new content, more active development teams and thus consistent if not growing revenue from subs. The process was more honest, it rewarded good game dev.
Game designers do not need producers breathing down their necks saying "hey that's great, but lets focus on designing the progression system that limits the player until they get X item in the shop we laid out". Sadly that's whats happening more and more often. I'd argue that games are not exactly getting better, the design and the mechanics are getting dumber. Cash Shop centric design subverts the normal game design process, which should be player centric.
If something doesn't make sense, reference these 10 Golden Rules:
1) All items that can be purchased from the Vanity Merchant can also be purchased with gold.
2) Vanity items are meant to be fun/flavorful items that help build/distinguish character personality/creativity/reputation.
3) Nothing is gated behind vanicoin or enhanced sub. (Vanicoin value is purposely designed to be relatively insignificant.)
4) Vanity Merchant has merit to exist regardless of how everything else ties in.
5) There is absolutely zero P2W. No higher sub tiers.
6) Players are encouraged to help support an anti-RMT fund with minimal gimmicky incentive. (Small monthly allowance of untradeable vanicoin that can ONLY be used at the vanity merchant. No other purpose or function)
7) Reputation ties everything together. Reputation for the game (We are ready to battle RMT, and will win) -- Reputation for the player (annual house item that shows you contributed toward winning the war) -- and reputation for our characters through the items that the vanity merchant offers.
8) Haircuts & Tattoos are other potential vanity items. (Nothing unique, just a makeover using whatever options are available at character select for your race)
9) Can help offset costs of anti-RMT staff, and thus create additional funding for actual game development.
10) No important development time is being used to create cosmetic art assets. Options are very generic, but meaningful. Development team is not encouraged to spend time making more assets. (They could, however be justified and that would be a success)
For me, as long as it does not limit my game play... sell it.
As long as I can earn an equal quality/power item in game.. Sell it.
As long as the game is not built around me needing to buy this stuff.. Sell it.
I have no issues with spending money on a game, if that is an item shop, then fine. I'll buy items.
As long as I don't feel cohered to buy something.. sell as much as you want.
Costumes, Weapon Cosmetics, Armor Cosmetics, Patterns, Home Decor, Guild Hall Decor, Name Change, Gender Change, Inventory, Portable Bankers, Cosmetics, Convince, all great ideas.
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.
lol That would probably be an argument I could agree with. Sad too, when I saw them at E3 long ago, showing off Rift with a booth that was probably one of the most expensive on the floor... they made a good showing as to the confidence they had in their product. Why they were spending that kind of money on promoting a less than ideal product is beyond me, they really dropped the ball, financially and with their flagship products. It was all show, no substance.
Is that what you mean by "all show, no substance"?
Also how would H1Z1 survive right now without a cash shop - they've lost 90% playerbase to PUBG/Fornite.
How do you survive that in a pure subscription model?
Hmm?
How many MMO companies would have to scale back staff by 50%+ or just shut down completely without the cash shop?
Also you say "final fantasy online is doing great right now" - I am assuming you are talking about FFXIV - which has a cash shop, so it's not a pure sub model at all.
Let's face it: how talented as a developer can someone really be if they have to remove the zombies from their zombie game to get people to even play it?
Well they were talented enough to have lots of players before PUBG/Fornite - H1Z1 had a very sizable playerbase prior to those games.
That's not really relevant at all - my point stands - when you have a game that's been doing great for over a year - and then a new game comes out and you lose 90% playerbase - how do you survive that in a 100% subscription model?
That's the core point - sub model is inflexible, it has no safety net
Subscription model = zero flexibility - you have a hard set ceiling of $ per player per month and no other way of making more money. The ONLY way to make more money when you are hurting is to get more players, which in a critical event (like major loss of players) = is not survivable
Cash shop model - no hard ceiling of how much players can spend = a single player can spend as much as they want, this provides massive flexibility and makes games more resilient to player attrition.
You don't. We don't owe any Dev or publisher to keep their game profitable when a newer one comes out that better serves that niche.
The cash shop model is a Frankenstein approach to extending the life of games that would otherwise fold, right? Then let them fold. The market for MMORPGs doesn't want to support the current number of titles at the profit levels those pubs want. Best thing to do is lose the fat decrease market saturation.
Ok but these people don't want to lose their jobs, as any of us don't want to lose our jobs.
You are correct, players don't owe these people anything. But since that is the case, they don't owe us anything either, other than to make a product and to implement a way to get paid.
So I guess that's that. If a sub can't keep these people employed then OF COURSE they are going to implement other means to stay solvent.
I'm not necessarily blaming them, I'm just trying to highlight a reality I think goes unnoticed.
This genre has become bloated way beyond what it actually supports. So we add monetization to exploit impulse, we completely eliminate the barrier to entry, and we copy whatever we can from other titles that seemed to have worked at all in gouging players for more money. Where do these items come from? The mobile market. And that market is nothing if not oversaturated with titles.
It's a band-aid fix to a systemic problem. MMORPG were always a small niche relative to the gaming industry at large, they still are, but developers have been attempting to pivot the product towards gameplay systems from other genres along with the aforementioned monetization practices to keep up the total number base that WoW's flash in the pan explosion brought. Only, it's a fool's errand, and it's been reduced to including non-MMORPG titles when speaking of genre health because we would otherwise have to face reality: MMORPGs are a small niche interest genre.
Trying to make it in such a saturated market is tough. Doubly so when the major publishers ignite a graphics war amongst themselves that exponentially balloons dev costs while raising the consumer base's expectations on what's considered the minimum acceptable graphical fidelity for new titles. That was a self-inflicted wound, a kind of Pandora's box.
Remember that the most expensive part of current development is the art and animation portions. If less focus had been placed on pretty shinies to outdo those bastards at Microsoft/Sony/EA/Acitivions, blah blah, and instead more had been placed on ensuring those games were constant fun, costs would be less than what they are today. Remember Order 1886? Vaguely? That's because it was a shallow game dressed up with intense graphical fidelity. Expensive as hell, and boring too.
EDIT- trying to post from phone is still a royal pain in the ass.
I've recently become of the mind that when it's single player and I know a game will have extra content, DLC etc added later on... I just wait until the game dies down, no more is added and buy it on the cheap with all the extra content included. I've recently done similar things with deals on ESO etc... So for the most part, I don't subscribe to games anymore, and don't continually pay for stuff on the cash shop. I prefer B2p like GW2.. and I understand people get upset about games needing funding, but single income family of four comes first.
That won't work though because how many times have you seen threads here where people lament the loss of a game they had played that was shut down prematurely. Sure you don't owe them, the developers I mean, anything and having paid for the game I would certainly chafe to think I have to keep them afloat. However if you enjoyed the game and you cannot be bothered to contribute as the critical population level drops then why expect them to maintain any policies they may have otherwise kept. It's a two way street and unlike you they have employees to feed.
As for any koolaid I am just looking at how few games we have coming out and fewer still are the ones that I want to play. If indeed we were flooded with them I can play the role of the expensive date wanting to be wined and dined but unfortunately there are only slim pickings to be had and I believe this beggar cannot be a chooser.
I am contributing to the problem rather than helping to solve it will be the argument but this is a hobby for me and I will spend my money on it as I see fit and you are perfectly entitled to do likewise.
I have seen the reluctance by devs for both MH(Gazillion) and Infinite Crisis(Turbine) to explore alternate payment models to keep their games going. I can't count on twenty five hands how many times pre-BUE people suggested a subscription or DLC option for MH just to have a way to further support the game but they always shot down any and all ideas for people to GIVE THEM MORE MONEY almost immediately. The cash shop or die philosophy possibly stems from pride, overconfidence in their product or hope that numbers will go up but like you said if population is decreasing then that makes people hesitant to spend money. How could it hurt to come up with another payment model at that point? I personally think $14.99 or whatever the starting sub fee is should be reduced over time in older games if no new or less content is being released at a certain time. Overall I think the $14.99 price in games like WoW and ESO should be brought down to $9.99 cause they charge you for the game AND have cash shops.
I am reading the responses and one thing I am thinking is how stingy people are about the games they play. They want old models to work because they worked before but news alert they aren't working so well now. Everything is dependent on a threshold of population below which they might as well shut the game down.
Go on with your delusions. Every failing game is blamed on WoW. May be it is time we paid more for the games we play since we play them daily. They should really charge people by the hour best way to monetize.
I mostly agree, but I'm a bit more cynical. They want old models to work because it was cheap and the people constantly bitching about P2W don't want to spend more than 50 cents a day. If they pay the 50 cents they can pat themselves on the back like they're actually contributing because they think that's all a studio needs.
How can you assume that people who don't want P2W in their games only want to pay a sub model? On top of that bold assumption you insult those who want to support a game even if it's in the smallest amount because perhaps that's all they can afford or feel the game is deserving of.
Maybe people who want a sub model don't want the focus of the development to shift from game development to cash shop development like it has in almost every single current MMO.
I am reading the responses and one thing I am thinking is how stingy people are about the games they play. They want old models to work because they worked before but news alert they aren't working so well now. Everything is dependent on a threshold of population below which they might as well shut the game down.
Go on with your delusions. Every failing game is blamed on WoW. May be it is time we paid more for the games we play since we play them daily. They should really charge people by the hour best way to monetize.
I mostly agree, but I'm a bit more cynical. They want old models to work because it was cheap and the people constantly bitching about P2W don't want to spend more than 50 cents a day. If they pay the 50 cents they can pat themselves on the back like they're actually contributing because they think that's all a studio needs.
How can you assume that people who don't want P2W in their games only want to pay a sub model? On top of that bold assumption you insult those who want to support a game even if it's in the smallest amount because perhaps that's all they can afford or feel the game is deserving of.
Maybe people who want a sub model don't want the focus of the development to shift from game development to cash shop development like it has in almost every single current MMO.
My opinion is Torval is putting the cart before the horse.
Consumers didn't introduce F2P to the market; publishers did. That's because games were not profitable until the cash shop opened to utilize things like loot boxes and power items to entice players into spending on items that don't require them to play the game a single second, really, for the pub to make money off of them.
It was done to stretch the lifespan of games that had no business surviving. Sorry, I know there's jobs on the line, but that's business. It had the side effect of conditioning an entire generation of gamers into thinking they shouldn't have to pay to play the base game. Well boohoo, a little foresight when you were considering moving wholesale to F2P would've told you that consumers would acclimate to that new reality and begin to expect it.
I am reading the responses and one thing I am thinking is how stingy people are about the games they play. They want old models to work because they worked before but news alert they aren't working so well now. Everything is dependent on a threshold of population below which they might as well shut the game down.
Go on with your delusions. Every failing game is blamed on WoW. May be it is time we paid more for the games we play since we play them daily. They should really charge people by the hour best way to monetize.
I mostly agree, but I'm a bit more cynical. They want old models to work because it was cheap and the people constantly bitching about P2W don't want to spend more than 50 cents a day. If they pay the 50 cents they can pat themselves on the back like they're actually contributing because they think that's all a studio needs.
How can you assume that people who don't want P2W in their games only want to pay a sub model? On top of that bold assumption you insult those who want to support a game even if it's in the smallest amount because perhaps that's all they can afford or feel the game is deserving of.
Maybe people who want a sub model don't want the focus of the development to shift from game development to cash shop development like it has in almost every single current MMO.
If all you'll pay is what you feel it deserves then you'll get what you pay for. People suggesting a simple sub are making a suggestion that won't keep the boat afloat in the long term. They're doing that for selfish reasons and not thinking of what it takes to keep the project running.
It doesn't matter what imaginary or real demons you think a sub will keep you away from. It only matters if you can keep the project afloat. All that pontificating at $15/mo won't do you a bit of good if it can't keep the doors open. An insignificant contribution is just there to stroke the ego.
If you want a good game. Don't be a cheapskate.
Again, I think the larger issue is not just the new normal gamers have acclimated with with the rise of F2P, but the reason that entire system started in the first place... To avoid the natural death of games that have no real business trying to claim a part of this saturated market.
Let the mediocre or broken die. Stop artificially extending the game through monetization life support. I get that this does not help that company in that moment, but again, it was the shortsightedness of those companies to introduce that model without realizing consumers would begin to expect it. The market is merely holding more games than the consumer base really cares to support by heavily marketing to folks they can squeeze exorbitant amounts of cash from.
Let the market contract, create some breathing room for demand, and then consider if you have a project worth bringing to market. Otherwise, we're just delaying the inevitable, as the monetization methods become more and more brash to make up the lost difference.
Why should old games die? As long as there is a playerbase willing to support them I see no reason that the players who enjoy them should give them up and if they are willing to support them with RMTs that is entirely their choice.
Who are we to dictate the life span of these games and decide that they are not worthy of support. Just because you do not approve the manner in which their existence is being supported does not mean that they must die. Plus new games can come up and have a population even if these old games continue on. The pool of players is not finite. There is no need to rob Peter to pay Paul.
it is obviously too late for this team to plan out a strategy,they should have aimed for around 50 levels tops and VERY slow leveling and sub classes,for longevity.Doing it any other way ,makes levels meaningless and in reality the entire game meaningless,you end up with end game instancing,no immersion and going one step further down the foxhole,crappy ideas like scaling.
Screw pvp,concentrate on a smaller game but with lot's to do,quality and longevity and keeping ALL zones relevant.Never thought i would say this but also restrict crafting,why make crafting into an end game rush the same way we are ruining our mmorpg experience.You can do that by making harvesting very slow/tough and crafting levels very slow as well. Last thing i want to see is some players at end game crafting in 3 days and creating a market for rmt by selling top end wares at over the top prices.
So with a slow and quality game of longevity,you create a long term player base,a community instead of a greedy race to end game,that also keeps your money rolling in.I saw this same flaw with AOC,people seemed all very happy until all those who raced to end game,started to complain of content,then the game died very quickly.
So DO NOT encourage speed leveling or racing,make level 1 as important as level 51,your money will keep rolling in AND new players won't feel overwhelmed because level 1 is important.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
I'd gladly pay $100+ bucks for the box for a quality game, plus a sub, plus expansions. If it's good, the higher the better since maybe it will keep riff raff out and have folks who feel more committed to their shared hobby.
I realize that might be an unpopular view, but considering inflation over the past 20 years of somewhere in the neighborhood of 50% -- a game that retailed for $60 bucks then with a $10 sub would be $90 now with a $15 sub.
Got no prob with developers making a good living. I will absolutely not play something with a cash shop though, it's just my preference, it breaks immersion which completely undermines the entire reason I enjoy MMO's / fantasy games in the first place. Said another way: the last thing I want to think about when I'm trying to be a wizard or dwarf or whatever is what my credit card number is.
Lets get something clear, companies follow money, they don't try to force the market. As trying to force the market often is expensive, and risky.
If sub based systems worked game companies would use them. This is self evident.
Companies don't use Item shops because they want to force people to buy items, they use them, because that is what people will spend their money on.
Players will gladly play a game that gives them the illusion that it is free to play, and then sell things to people who want to support the game and the freeloaders that don't support the game yet still play it.
If Item malls were not able to pay the bills they would remove them, and do something else, It's that simple.
This holds true for anything and everything in a game. If was not a dependable means to make a profit, it would not be used, if it was a dependable means to make a profit, it would be used.
That simple.
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'd gladly pay $100+ bucks for the box for a quality game, plus a sub, plus expansions. If it's good, the higher the better since maybe it will keep riff raff out and have folks who feel more committed to their shared hobby.
I realize that might be an unpopular view, but considering inflation over the past 20 years of somewhere in the neighborhood of 50% -- a game that retailed for $60 bucks then with a $10 sub would be $90 now with a $15 sub.
Got no prob with developers making a good living. I will absolutely not play something with a cash shop though, it's just my preference, it breaks immersion which completely undermines the entire reason I enjoy MMO's / fantasy games in the first place. Said another way: the last thing I want to think about when I'm trying to be a wizard or dwarf or whatever is what my credit card number is.
This is the thing.
IF
The main problem with B2P and Subs, is that there are a lot of players out there that have spent good money on a crappy game.
Personally, I have seen some good systems.
Have a "Free Trial" where progress is halved, and there are no log in rewards, and the like. But once you "Buy" the game, you gain all your collected progress and collect daily rewards, even past ones owed. This way, players can see if it's the game for them.
In the Modern MMO landscape, it's hard to get people to buy something sight unseen, and have them spend money just to play the game, when there are so many other games out there giving it away for free.
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.
According to "Bartle taxonomy of player types," there are four type of MMO gamers: Killers, Socializers, Explorers, and Achievers. The so called cosmetic items are typically bought by Socializers exclusively. This gives a free ride to Killers, Explorers, and Achievers. Especially since most gamers are of the Killer type, that only buy P2W items.
Pardon any spelling errors
Konfess your cyns and some maybe forgiven Boy: Why can't I talk to Him? Mom: We don't talk to Priests. As if it could exist, without being payed for. F2P means you get what you paid for. Pay nothing, get nothing. Even telemarketers wouldn't think that. It costs money to play. Therefore P2W.
According to "Bartle taxonomy of player types," there are four type of MMO gamers: Killers, Socializers, Explorers, and Achievers. The so called cosmetic items are typically bought by Socializers exclusively. This gives a free ride to Killers, Explorers, and Achievers. Especially since most gamers are of the Killer type, that only buy P2W items.
I'm an explorer - socializer I guess. I like collecting things throughout the world. I liked collecting shinies, L&L, and Heritage items in EQ2. I like collecting pets, mounts, and cosmetics in WoW and other games. It's not that I mind cash shops, but I've found that they've evolved to mostly sell the stuff I like and not anything for other play styles. The stuff I like to do gets sidelined for the cash shop because it's easy. The competitive people don't pay for anything in the cash shop.
That's why I don't go for the "no P2W" argument not because I think buying your progression is great game design, but I know it means I'll be the only one who pays while the tryhards get a free freaking ride, always. Because no P2W means collectors get bent over.
It is disappointing, but the alternative is to introduce gameplay-altering items, which is a slippery slope. Say what you like, design tenets become very different once a cash shop with progression or power items becomes attached.
Again, that's why this monetization method is so incredibly far from consumer-friendly it's hilarious, save for the folks who literally refuse to pay anything for their video games. This idea that folks should be subsidizing other's entertainment like this is silly not only in practice, but in principle, and it always ends by fucking one group hard while the others get a pass.
Why should old games die? As long as there is a playerbase willing to support them I see no reason that the players who enjoy them should give them up and if they are willing to support them with RMTs that is entirely their choice.
Who are we to dictate the life span of these games and decide that they are not worthy of support. Just because you do not approve the manner in which their existence is being supported does not mean that they must die. Plus new games can come up and have a population even if these old games continue on. The pool of players is not finite. There is no need to rob Peter to pay Paul.
Actually, the pool of players is finite. That's why market saturation is a thing. Market saturation is also why no major western developer wants to create a new game for the genre right now.
So yes, there's very much a need for old or mediocre games to die. Exploiting predatory practices to extract silly amounts of money from whales isn't a monetization scheme based on the merits of the game by itself, but also on how clever the techniques are to funnel players towards a purchase of an item from the shop. Those techniques then alter the gameplay design philosophies, which in turn affects the merits of the game.
MMORPGs are truly a small niche product here in the west. You have two options moving forward for traditionally published MMORPGs: eastern imports, or letting the western market eliminate the less fit to make room for new growth.
There is a huge assumption made here of which is 100% false.
If old games are still going,then people like them and don't like what they see now.So by closing older games down ,we are going to force those people to like games they don't like,NOT happening.
This unless we think people are two faced .I can tell you right now,if all my fave games shut down,i am NOT playing Wow,i am not playing Rift,i am NOT playing ANY Arpg or moba,i am NOT playing lol/Dota/ANY Diablo game,POE game,Starcraft,HOTS,Destiny etc etc.
Devs can spend a bazillion dollars on marketing,they can add Esport leagues,bla bla bla,that doesn't cut it for me,i look for the right type of challenging,depth and is it FUN.
This leads to the topic at hand,NOTHING superficial is going to influence me on cash shops/rmt,i am not in favor of it ,unless it is done to not alienate ANY player or ruin the game immersion and economy.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
There is a huge assumption made here of which is 100% false.
If old games are still going,then people like them and don't like what they see now.So by closing older games down ,we are going to force those people to like games they don't like,NOT happening.
This unless we think people are two faced .I can tell you right now,if all my fave games shut down,i am NOT playing Wow,i am not playing Rift,i am NOT playing ANY Arpg or moba,i am NOT playing lol/Dota/ANY Diablo game,POE game,Starcraft,HOTS,Destiny etc etc.
Devs can spend a bazillion dollars on marketing,they can add Esport leagues,bla bla bla,that doesn't cut it for me,i look for the right type of challenging,depth and is it FUN.
This leads to the topic at hand,NOTHING superficial is going to influence me on cash shops/rmt,i am not in favor of it ,unless it is done to not alienate ANY player or ruin the game immersion and economy.
I can't think of a single cash shop in an MMORPG that doesn't break immersion or make some people bitter because they can't afford an item. Look at how many complaint threads about ESO being a "cosmetic" game there are on this site alone.
I think a better option than a flat out cash shop mall selling items would be rewards tied into a sub fee as a bonus so that everyone paying the required sub fee all receive the same rewards. In MMO's looking unique should be a bonus earned by playing the game rather than spending money. It used to be like that but people got greedy and IMO it adds too much real world competition based on $ that I feel should never exist in games. Remember the CoH character creator was so well done that you could make your character look great from the get-go or Vanguard you could re-customize your character whenever you wanted. I'd play both of those games if they were still around cause they had everything I need in a game ---> A world, fun classes, meaningful progression and content.
Even if there is a cash shop - it's a PvE game - other players being more powerful than you won't mean a thing.
I mean what difference did it make in EQ1 if someone was in kick ass gear and was killing Nagafen with their guild and you were level 10 in shit gear - did this ruin EQ1 for you?
You probably didn't even know it was happening - it didn't make any difference.
This is why it won't matter in Pantheon - if Pantheon was a heavy PvP game from ground up - there would be cause for concern.
But it's a PvE game - so everyone can just relax about the cash shop.
I mean do people have something against Pantheon devs making money?
It's their game, their company - what they need to do financially is their decision ultimately - they can ask for feedback - which is great - but players have no skin in the game as none of us own any stock or part of the company.
So - ultimately - their decision, all you can do is play or not play.
But how they choose to monetize the game - none of our business.
Firstly, having items/gear/titles whatever that aren't obtainable through normal gameplay (ie must be purchased through cash shop) undermines at least the tangible goal of PVE activity, which is to obtain items/gear/titles etc. (and hopefully have fun with friends doing it). So yes, people do care -- it's not about NOT wanting someone else to have something, it's about wanting us all to have a great world to adventure / waste time in that doesn't NEED to have a soul-less RMT item shop tacked on in order to generate money to support the game. It's a tall order, but Pantheon is self admittedly a niche game.
Secondly, it is our business as stakeholders (not stockholders) since many of us backed it. We do have a small financial interest in it as well as a potentially large personal interest in the outcome of the project. That is not to say that it's comparable to the financial interest of the investors, but it's a little naive to think that the opinions of the folks that were early supporters of the game don't matter and that they can just throw a cash shop in their face with no consequences. I mean, we're all replying to a post that is a link to where the developer asked for opinions on this topic...
So yes - of course they're doing it to make money. They're also in the entertainment business. The stated goal of the game is to make an MMO which was heavily inspired by the late 90's offerings. That's the game I want to play -- look I realize it might be a pipe dream for both the developers and for us, but it's the best looking thing that suits my tastes that is in development right now and I'm hoping for the best.
Comments
Market research told them F2P would help extend the life of these games. What it didn't tell them was how it would condition the consumer base to expect the games moving forward to follow the same path.
It's my thought that he was one of the first western developers/producers "whatever" to start the conversation and developers just fell in line. I really think their industry is so horrible that anything that gives them a leg up as far as staying in business is going to be explored.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Its like hey, candy and soda in the US used to be made with cane sugar. Now everything is using corn syrup. Is this need or just a way to maximize profits? Obviously its the latter. The quality goes down, they continue to push product and revenue goes up.
Additionally, wages have not exactly gone up either. I know an art lead who worked on some EA titles who used to make well over $120k a year, he is lucky to break past 80K now for the same work. A lot more outsourcing is going on, cheap workers being brought in... ect Developers can find themselves getting paid less with less job security to boot.
When a game goes gold, much of the original dev team does not stay on board either. They will either be let go or moved over to a completely different project.
The only argument one can make in terms of cost going up for development is as it relates to required tech and newer pipelines. Licensing cost and a more complicated art pipeline to be more specific. Where before you could get away with some super low poly models and one texture map, we now deal with a high poly to retopo low poly workflow, PBR shaders with multiple texture maps, more detailed rigs, motion capture...ect
As for "sustaining profitability"...nah
Lets look at World of Warcraft.... its playerbase ranges from somewhere around 5 to 10 million active accounts, goes up especially around the time of xpack releases. Xpacks cost money, plus the sub. If we do not count the xpack or any other source of revenue, then about near 1 billion dollars is going into Blizzard's coffers per year. Do we really think cash shops are needed? Not even close.
If a game can charge $15 for a sub and maintain a 100,000 player base, that alone is around 1.5 million per month, 18 million annually. Again cash shops necessary, not really. The publishers would like bigger bonuses though, and more profit is always better when it comes to the number pushers. As long as the playerbase is willing to show its profitable, they will go for it. Sadly, one of the arguments is that it does not make the game better, but rather can make them worse. Cash shops by their own nature, will influence a game's design. Instead of designing challenge mechanics for enjoyment, it has to include mechanics that encourage the player to spend more in a market place that in a way, breaks the "4th wall".
Honestly subs do not need to be raised either, given those numbers. It is easier for the publisher to put less effort into development, than to put money into developing new content and marketing material which would result in a steady flow of active subscriptions. The old practice meant developers and publisher had to be invested in their game, to keep players engaged. It was a win win for everyone, new content, more active development teams and thus consistent if not growing revenue from subs. The process was more honest, it rewarded good game dev.
Game designers do not need producers breathing down their necks saying "hey that's great, but lets focus on designing the progression system that limits the player until they get X item in the shop we laid out". Sadly that's whats happening more and more often. I'd argue that games are not exactly getting better, the design and the mechanics are getting dumber. Cash Shop centric design subverts the normal game design process, which should be player centric.
If something doesn't make sense, reference these 10 Golden Rules:
1) All items that can be purchased from the Vanity Merchant can also be purchased with gold.
2) Vanity items are meant to be fun/flavorful items that help build/distinguish character personality/creativity/reputation.
3) Nothing is gated behind vanicoin or enhanced sub. (Vanicoin value is purposely designed to be relatively insignificant.)
4) Vanity Merchant has merit to exist regardless of how everything else ties in.
5) There is absolutely zero P2W. No higher sub tiers.
6) Players are encouraged to help support an anti-RMT fund with minimal gimmicky incentive. (Small monthly allowance of untradeable vanicoin that can ONLY be used at the vanity merchant. No other purpose or function)
7) Reputation ties everything together. Reputation for the game (We are ready to battle RMT, and will win) -- Reputation for the player (annual house item that shows you contributed toward winning the war) -- and reputation for our characters through the items that the vanity merchant offers.
8) Haircuts & Tattoos are other potential vanity items. (Nothing unique, just a makeover using whatever options are available at character select for your race)
9) Can help offset costs of anti-RMT staff, and thus create additional funding for actual game development.
10) No important development time is being used to create cosmetic art assets. Options are very generic, but meaningful. Development team is not encouraged to spend time making more assets. (They could, however be justified and that would be a success)
As long as I can earn an equal quality/power item in game.. Sell it.
As long as the game is not built around me needing to buy this stuff.. Sell it.
I have no issues with spending money on a game, if that is an item shop, then fine. I'll buy items.
As long as I don't feel cohered to buy something.. sell as much as you want.
Costumes, Weapon Cosmetics, Armor Cosmetics, Patterns, Home Decor, Guild Hall Decor, Name Change, Gender Change, Inventory, Portable Bankers, Cosmetics, Convince, all great ideas.
Remember that the most expensive part of current development is the art and animation portions. If less focus had been placed on pretty shinies to outdo those bastards at Microsoft/Sony/EA/Acitivions, blah blah, and instead more had been placed on ensuring those games were constant fun, costs would be less than what they are today. Remember Order 1886? Vaguely? That's because it was a shallow game dressed up with intense graphical fidelity. Expensive as hell, and boring too.
EDIT- trying to post from phone is still a royal pain in the ass.
I tend to wonder why game play can take the back seat to "graphics/Art Design" when they are handled by totally different people.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
B2P, subscription, blah blah blah. As long as the cash shop isn't selling power, why should I care?
Maybe people who want a sub model don't want the focus of the development to shift from game development to cash shop development like it has in almost every single current MMO.
Consumers didn't introduce F2P to the market; publishers did. That's because games were not profitable until the cash shop opened to utilize things like loot boxes and power items to entice players into spending on items that don't require them to play the game a single second, really, for the pub to make money off of them.
It was done to stretch the lifespan of games that had no business surviving. Sorry, I know there's jobs on the line, but that's business. It had the side effect of conditioning an entire generation of gamers into thinking they shouldn't have to pay to play the base game. Well boohoo, a little foresight when you were considering moving wholesale to F2P would've told you that consumers would acclimate to that new reality and begin to expect it.
Let the mediocre or broken die. Stop artificially extending the game through monetization life support. I get that this does not help that company in that moment, but again, it was the shortsightedness of those companies to introduce that model without realizing consumers would begin to expect it. The market is merely holding more games than the consumer base really cares to support by heavily marketing to folks they can squeeze exorbitant amounts of cash from.
Let the market contract, create some breathing room for demand, and then consider if you have a project worth bringing to market. Otherwise, we're just delaying the inevitable, as the monetization methods become more and more brash to make up the lost difference.
Who are we to dictate the life span of these games and decide that they are not worthy of support. Just because you do not approve the manner in which their existence is being supported does not mean that they must die. Plus new games can come up and have a population even if these old games continue on. The pool of players is not finite. There is no need to rob Peter to pay Paul.
Screw pvp,concentrate on a smaller game but with lot's to do,quality and longevity and keeping ALL zones relevant.Never thought i would say this but also restrict crafting,why make crafting into an end game rush the same way we are ruining our mmorpg experience.You can do that by making harvesting very slow/tough and crafting levels very slow as well.
Last thing i want to see is some players at end game crafting in 3 days and creating a market for rmt by selling top end wares at over the top prices.
So with a slow and quality game of longevity,you create a long term player base,a community instead of a greedy race to end game,that also keeps your money rolling in.I saw this same flaw with AOC,people seemed all very happy until all those who raced to end game,started to complain of content,then the game died very quickly.
So DO NOT encourage speed leveling or racing,make level 1 as important as level 51,your money will keep rolling in AND new players won't feel overwhelmed because level 1 is important.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
I realize that might be an unpopular view, but considering inflation over the past 20 years of somewhere in the neighborhood of 50% -- a game that retailed for $60 bucks then with a $10 sub would be $90 now with a $15 sub.
Got no prob with developers making a good living. I will absolutely not play something with a cash shop though, it's just my preference, it breaks immersion which completely undermines the entire reason I enjoy MMO's / fantasy games in the first place. Said another way: the last thing I want to think about when I'm trying to be a wizard or dwarf or whatever is what my credit card number is.
If sub based systems worked game companies would use them. This is self evident.
Companies don't use Item shops because they want to force people to buy items, they use them, because that is what people will spend their money on.
Players will gladly play a game that gives them the illusion that it is free to play, and then sell things to people who want to support the game and the freeloaders that don't support the game yet still play it.
If Item malls were not able to pay the bills they would remove them, and do something else, It's that simple.
This holds true for anything and everything in a game. If was not a dependable means to make a profit, it would not be used, if it was a dependable means to make a profit, it would be used.
That simple.
IF
The main problem with B2P and Subs, is that there are a lot of players out there that have spent good money on a crappy game.
Personally, I have seen some good systems.
Have a "Free Trial" where progress is halved, and there are no log in rewards, and the like. But once you "Buy" the game, you gain all your collected progress and collect daily rewards, even past ones owed. This way, players can see if it's the game for them.
In the Modern MMO landscape, it's hard to get people to buy something sight unseen, and have them spend money just to play the game, when there are so many other games out there giving it away for free.
According to "Bartle taxonomy of player types," there are four type of MMO gamers: Killers, Socializers, Explorers, and Achievers. The so called cosmetic items are typically bought by Socializers exclusively. This gives a free ride to Killers, Explorers, and Achievers. Especially since most gamers are of the Killer type, that only buy P2W items.
Boy: Why can't I talk to Him?
Mom: We don't talk to Priests.
As if it could exist, without being payed for.
F2P means you get what you paid for. Pay nothing, get nothing.
Even telemarketers wouldn't think that.
It costs money to play. Therefore P2W.
Again, that's why this monetization method is so incredibly far from consumer-friendly it's hilarious, save for the folks who literally refuse to pay anything for their video games. This idea that folks should be subsidizing other's entertainment like this is silly not only in practice, but in principle, and it always ends by fucking one group hard while the others get a pass.
So yes, there's very much a need for old or mediocre games to die. Exploiting predatory practices to extract silly amounts of money from whales isn't a monetization scheme based on the merits of the game by itself, but also on how clever the techniques are to funnel players towards a purchase of an item from the shop. Those techniques then alter the gameplay design philosophies, which in turn affects the merits of the game.
MMORPGs are truly a small niche product here in the west. You have two options moving forward for traditionally published MMORPGs: eastern imports, or letting the western market eliminate the less fit to make room for new growth.
If old games are still going,then people like them and don't like what they see now.So by closing older games down ,we are going to force those people to like games they don't like,NOT happening.
This unless we think people are two faced .I can tell you right now,if all my fave games shut down,i am NOT playing Wow,i am not playing Rift,i am NOT playing ANY Arpg or moba,i am NOT playing lol/Dota/ANY Diablo game,POE game,Starcraft,HOTS,Destiny etc etc.
Devs can spend a bazillion dollars on marketing,they can add Esport leagues,bla bla bla,that doesn't cut it for me,i look for the right type of challenging,depth and is it FUN.
This leads to the topic at hand,NOTHING superficial is going to influence me on cash shops/rmt,i am not in favor of it ,unless it is done to not alienate ANY player or ruin the game immersion and economy.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
I think a better option than a flat out cash shop mall selling items would be rewards tied into a sub fee as a bonus so that everyone paying the required sub fee all receive the same rewards. In MMO's looking unique should be a bonus earned by playing the game rather than spending money. It used to be like that but people got greedy and IMO it adds too much real world competition based on $ that I feel should never exist in games. Remember the CoH character creator was so well done that you could make your character look great from the get-go or Vanguard you could re-customize your character whenever you wanted. I'd play both of those games if they were still around cause they had everything I need in a game ---> A world, fun classes, meaningful progression and content.
Secondly, it is our business as stakeholders (not stockholders) since many of us backed it. We do have a small financial interest in it as well as a potentially large personal interest in the outcome of the project. That is not to say that it's comparable to the financial interest of the investors, but it's a little naive to think that the opinions of the folks that were early supporters of the game don't matter and that they can just throw a cash shop in their face with no consequences. I mean, we're all replying to a post that is a link to where the developer asked for opinions on this topic...
So yes - of course they're doing it to make money. They're also in the entertainment business. The stated goal of the game is to make an MMO which was heavily inspired by the late 90's offerings. That's the game I want to play -- look I realize it might be a pipe dream for both the developers and for us, but it's the best looking thing that suits my tastes that is in development right now and I'm hoping for the best.