Sega is Taking a Cautious Approach on NFTs, Considers Negative Player Feedback | MMORPG.com

System · January 2022

Sega is Taking a Cautious Approach on NFTs, Considers Negative Player Feedback | MMORPG.com

Sega will not rule out using NFTs or blockchain elements, but the company's position will be cautious and acknowledges negative reactions.

Read the full story here

[Deleted User] · January 2022

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Kyleran · January 2022

You can't possibly believe that's true

lahnmir · January 2022

Wargfoot said:

It's nice to pretend that what players want is actually going to make a difference.

The problem is that what players say they want differs greatly from what they do. And guess what companies base their decisions on

/Cheers,
Lahnmir

Iselin · January 2022

lahnmir said:

Wargfoot said:

It's nice to pretend that what players want is actually going to make a difference.

The problem is that what players say they want differs greatly from what they do. And guess what companies base their decisions on

/Cheers,
Lahnmir

Isn't it cool that what we really, really want (insert Spice Girls soundtrack here) so often coincides with what makes the most profit?

And no I don't need to see those super secret metrics of what we do myself. I trust that they do things other than what we say we want for our own good.

Rungar · January 2022

im pretty sure we get what they want. The dont give a fuck about what we want.

if there's overwhelming resistance they will just wait a while and try again, and again...and again until they push their agenda through.

BC_Animus · January 2022

BC is so skeptical nowadays - everything he sees and hears he considers PR. It's all about the bottom line, about what they can say without outright lying, how they can spin things in ways that will make them look good to their investors.

Scot · January 2022

Wargfoot said:

It's nice to pretend that what players want is actually going to make a difference.

The fact they have not said "we are jumping in" does indicate they are going at a slower pace than others. How much that is down to the players negative feedback is anyone's guess.

Aeander · January 2022

Sega releases "Original Character Do Not Steal" Sonic NFTs. The world cringes while Sega grows rich off its embarassing fanbase.

lahnmir · January 2022

Iselin said:

lahnmir said:

Wargfoot said:

It's nice to pretend that what players want is actually going to make a difference.

The problem is that what players say they want differs greatly from what they do. And guess what companies base their decisions on

/Cheers,
Lahnmir

Isn't it cool that what we really, really want (insert Spice Girls soundtrack here) so often coincides with what makes the most profit?

And no I don't need to see those super secret metrics of what we do myself. I trust that they do things other than what we say we want for our own good.

I don’t actually think our current climate makes the most money, it is a careful balance between what companies can get away with and what people will put up with. Costs for games have increased twenty fold over the last two decades with the playerbase only growing, roughly, a factor seven. That in an over saturated market without taking inflation into consideration.

Yet price of entry for games has become cheaper and cheaper, deep discounts after three months, free to play, getting into a game has never been cheaper yet costs are spiraling out of control. So they raised the spending ceiling, or in the case of gatcha and lootboxes removed it altogether. Whales, cash shop hoarders and NFT crazies are keeping games affordable for the rest of us.

I once calculated that an average game, under the same conditions and monetization as roughly fifteen years ago, would have to cost about 190 bucks to make the same ROI. They are still 60 bucks though, or cheaper.

Ahh well, just me rambling. I think gaming is cheaper then ever.

/Cheers,
Lahnmir

Champie · January 2022

Scot said:

Wargfoot said:

It's nice to pretend that what players want is actually going to make a difference.

The fact they have not said "we are jumping in" does indicate they are going at a slower pace than others. How much that is down to the players negative feedback is anyone's guess.

Queue the requisite nonsensical Strawman "I'd rather them take as much time as they need to get it right than release a product before it's ready"

Kyleran · January 2022

lahnmir said:

Iselin said:

lahnmir said:

Wargfoot said:

It's nice to pretend that what players want is actually going to make a difference.

The problem is that what players say they want differs greatly from what they do. And guess what companies base their decisions on

/Cheers,
Lahnmir

Isn't it cool that what we really, really want (insert Spice Girls soundtrack here) so often coincides with what makes the most profit?

And no I don't need to see those super secret metrics of what we do myself. I trust that they do things other than what we say we want for our own good.

I don’t actually think our current climate makes the most money, it is a careful balance between what companies can get away with and what people will put up with. Costs for games have increased twenty fold over the last two decades with the playerbase only growing, roughly, a factor seven. That in an over saturated market without taking inflation into consideration.

Yet price of entry for games has become cheaper and cheaper, deep discounts after three months, free to play, getting into a game has never been cheaper yet costs are spiraling out of control. So they raised the spending ceiling, or in the case of gatcha and lootboxes removed it altogether. Whales, cash shop hoarders and NFT crazies are keeping games affordable for the rest of us.

I once calculated that an average game, under the same conditions and monetization as roughly fifteen years ago, would have to cost about 190 bucks to make the same ROI. They are still 60 bucks though, or cheaper.

Ahh well, just me rambling. I think gaming is cheaper then ever.

/Cheers,
Lahnmir

I figured out all total I'll have spent $500 for my single ESO account in my first year of playing.

Cheaper? Not in my book.

laserit · January 2022

Wargfoot said:

It's nice to pretend that what players want is actually going to make a difference.

Kyleran said:

You can't possibly believe that's true

Money talks

Sad but True

lahnmir · January 2022

Kyleran said:

lahnmir said:

Iselin said:

lahnmir said:

Wargfoot said:

It's nice to pretend that what players want is actually going to make a difference.

The problem is that what players say they want differs greatly from what they do. And guess what companies base their decisions on

/Cheers,
Lahnmir

Isn't it cool that what we really, really want (insert Spice Girls soundtrack here) so often coincides with what makes the most profit?

And no I don't need to see those super secret metrics of what we do myself. I trust that they do things other than what we say we want for our own good.

I don’t actually think our current climate makes the most money, it is a careful balance between what companies can get away with and what people will put up with. Costs for games have increased twenty fold over the last two decades with the playerbase only growing, roughly, a factor seven. That in an over saturated market without taking inflation into consideration.

Yet price of entry for games has become cheaper and cheaper, deep discounts after three months, free to play, getting into a game has never been cheaper yet costs are spiraling out of control. So they raised the spending ceiling, or in the case of gatcha and lootboxes removed it altogether. Whales, cash shop hoarders and NFT crazies are keeping games affordable for the rest of us.

I once calculated that an average game, under the same conditions and monetization as roughly fifteen years ago, would have to cost about 190 bucks to make the same ROI. They are still 60 bucks though, or cheaper.

Ahh well, just me rambling. I think gaming is cheaper then ever.

/Cheers,
Lahnmir

I figured out all total I'll have spent $500 for my single ESO account in my first year of playing.

Cheaper? Not in my book.

You didn’t have to though.

I spent 25 bucks on Mortal Kombat 11 Ultimate on Series X which is compatible with futures xboxes. It features roughly 25 times the content the first Mortal Kombat had which never went below 60 bucks, only worked on one console ever and never got any patches.

Older physical games almost never went on sale, these days games get discounted 25-50% in the first year. My floppy disks didn’t fit my cd-rom, which didn’t fit my DVD, which didn’t fit my all digital system. With Gamepass Ultimate I not only get hundreds of games for 14 bucks a month, I don’t even need the hardware anymore, at all.

These days we also get patches, bug fixes, forum support etc. after a game has released, back in the day we just got the game, period. We get so much more and yet we almost never pay 60 bucks anymore to get into a game. 60 bucks, the same as 20 years ago, its insane really.

But yes, the spending ceiling has been raised or sometimes removed altogether. The people subsequently paying way more then ‘needed’ are most definitely the ones keeping gaming cheap for the rest of us. Unless we dream of a future where the playing field is leveled so all of us start paying 190 bucks for a single game, unfortunately excluding about 80% of gamers because they can’t afford it.

/Cheers,
Lahnmir

Scot · January 2022

Champie said:

Scot said:

Wargfoot said:

It's nice to pretend that what players want is actually going to make a difference.

The fact they have not said "we are jumping in" does indicate they are going at a slower pace than others. How much that is down to the players negative feedback is anyone's guess.

Queue the requisite nonsensical Strawman "I'd rather them take as much time as they need to get it right than release a product before it's ready"

I would prefer we never saw this at all, but compared to others who seem 'full steam ahead' it is good news.

lahnmir · January 2022

Torval said:

Iselin said:

lahnmir said:

Wargfoot said:

It's nice to pretend that what players want is actually going to make a difference.

The problem is that what players say they want differs greatly from what they do. And guess what companies base their decisions on

/Cheers,
Lahnmir

Isn't it cool that what we really, really want (insert Spice Girls soundtrack here) so often coincides with what makes the most profit?

And no I don't need to see those super secret metrics of what we do myself. I trust that they do things other than what we say we want for our own good.

If ya wanna be my luver ya gotta git wif my friends. NFTs are forever. Blockchain never ends.

lahnmir said:

You didn’t have to though.

I spent 25 bucks on Mortal Kombat 11 Ultimate on Series X which is compatible with futures xboxes. It features roughly 25 times the content the first Mortal Kombat had which never went below 60 bucks, only worked on one console ever and never got any patches.

Really? I kind of feel like your post is misleading because you had to have bought that on sale. Right now if you want to buy MK 11 It's $50 for the "base" version and $60 for the Ultimate. There are $256.74 worth of DLC addons for the game which can probably be purchased for cheaper if you buy the Ultimate and then the packs that aren't included. Trying to make the argument that gaming is cheaper because bought something during a limited time sale when it retails for a few hundred dollars all inclusive, doesn't seem accurate.

You're also comparing the cost and overhead of producing physical cartridges or discs to cheap distribution over a CDN service. Demand was high in the early days of gaming and supply constricted by manufacturing and distribution in a way that digital sales don't face. The market is more diluted now so if anything any price drops are due to how capitalism works.

I don't feel like consumers are obligated to rollover for every new marketing scheme that tickles the corporate capitalist fancy. This is capitalism (and late stage necrotic capitalism thanks to our love affair with the "business first" deregulation mindset) and it's up to them to sell it to us. If they can't do that then they don't get the deal. I like it when they work for it just a little.

I agree that GamePass is an incredible value and I love the service. To me it just shows that we may be moving on from the illusion of digital software ownership and on to an "on demand" style of entertainment. There are a lot of titles on GamePass that I've enjoyed but also glad I didn't purchase.

I actually used the Mortal Kombat example to show a game being on sale versus a game never being on sale. But these sales never occurred ‘back in the day.’ This specific deal gave tremendous value, hence me using it. It was in no way meant to mislead, buying everything for the normal price costs a massive sum of money.

/Cheers,
Lahnmir

laserit · January 2022

lahnmir said:

Kyleran said:

lahnmir said:

Iselin said:

lahnmir said:

Wargfoot said:

It's nice to pretend that what players want is actually going to make a difference.

The problem is that what players say they want differs greatly from what they do. And guess what companies base their decisions on

/Cheers,
Lahnmir

Isn't it cool that what we really, really want (insert Spice Girls soundtrack here) so often coincides with what makes the most profit?

And no I don't need to see those super secret metrics of what we do myself. I trust that they do things other than what we say we want for our own good.

I don’t actually think our current climate makes the most money, it is a careful balance between what companies can get away with and what people will put up with. Costs for games have increased twenty fold over the last two decades with the playerbase only growing, roughly, a factor seven. That in an over saturated market without taking inflation into consideration.

Yet price of entry for games has become cheaper and cheaper, deep discounts after three months, free to play, getting into a game has never been cheaper yet costs are spiraling out of control. So they raised the spending ceiling, or in the case of gatcha and lootboxes removed it altogether. Whales, cash shop hoarders and NFT crazies are keeping games affordable for the rest of us.

I once calculated that an average game, under the same conditions and monetization as roughly fifteen years ago, would have to cost about 190 bucks to make the same ROI. They are still 60 bucks though, or cheaper.

Ahh well, just me rambling. I think gaming is cheaper then ever.

/Cheers,
Lahnmir

I figured out all total I'll have spent $500 for my single ESO account in my first year of playing.

Cheaper? Not in my book.

You didn’t have to though.

I spent 25 bucks on Mortal Kombat 11 Ultimate on Series X which is compatible with futures xboxes. It features roughly 25 times the content the first Mortal Kombat had which never went below 60 bucks, only worked on one console ever and never got any patches.

Older physical games almost never went on sale, these days games get discounted 25-50% in the first year. My floppy disks didn’t fit my cd-rom, which didn’t fit my DVD, which didn’t fit my all digital system. With Gamepass Ultimate I not only get hundreds of games for 14 bucks a month, I don’t even need the hardware anymore, at all.

These days we also get patches, bug fixes, forum support etc. after a game has released, back in the day we just got the game, period. We get so much more and yet we almost never pay 60 bucks anymore to get into a game. 60 bucks, the same as 20 years ago, its insane really.

But yes, the spending ceiling has been raised or sometimes removed altogether. The people subsequently paying way more then ‘needed’ are most definitely the ones keeping gaming cheap for the rest of us. Unless we dream of a future where the playing field is leveled so all of us start paying 190 bucks for a single game, unfortunately excluding about 80% of gamers because they can’t afford it.

/Cheers,
Lahnmir

Your talking about a very long time ago.

From what I have witnessed over the last 50 years is that the video game industry through all it’s historical monetization models has grown to become one of the richest if not the richest entertainment industry in the world.

I’m here to play games, not make other people even richer.

I think it might be time to change the definition for game.

Theocritus · January 2022

Another day, another NFT thread......

ashiru_1978 · January 2022

I don't think I've played a SEGA game in the last 20 years.

Mendel · January 2022

Kyleran said:

lahnmir said:

Iselin said:

lahnmir said:

Wargfoot said:

It's nice to pretend that what players want is actually going to make a difference.

The problem is that what players say they want differs greatly from what they do. And guess what companies base their decisions on

/Cheers,
Lahnmir

Isn't it cool that what we really, really want (insert Spice Girls soundtrack here) so often coincides with what makes the most profit?

And no I don't need to see those super secret metrics of what we do myself. I trust that they do things other than what we say we want for our own good.

I don’t actually think our current climate makes the most money, it is a careful balance between what companies can get away with and what people will put up with. Costs for games have increased twenty fold over the last two decades with the playerbase only growing, roughly, a factor seven. That in an over saturated market without taking inflation into consideration.

Yet price of entry for games has become cheaper and cheaper, deep discounts after three months, free to play, getting into a game has never been cheaper yet costs are spiraling out of control. So they raised the spending ceiling, or in the case of gatcha and lootboxes removed it altogether. Whales, cash shop hoarders and NFT crazies are keeping games affordable for the rest of us.

I once calculated that an average game, under the same conditions and monetization as roughly fifteen years ago, would have to cost about 190 bucks to make the same ROI. They are still 60 bucks though, or cheaper.

Ahh well, just me rambling. I think gaming is cheaper then ever.

/Cheers,
Lahnmir

I figured out all total I'll have spent $500 for my single ESO account in my first year of playing.

Cheaper? Not in my book.

$500? Try a Paradox game or two. Europa Universalis IV with all its DLC is $400+, Cities Skylines is $300+, Stellaris is $200+, Crusader Kings II is $300+, and Surviving Mars is $150+. Sure, you can get them on sale, but that really adds up. Fortunately, I discovered the secret to dealing with the Paradox model on a limited budget -- only buy the base game and specific DLCs if you absolutely want them. Either that, or buy only their older games that they aren't developing new DLC for -- Hearts of Iron III and Victoria II.

I've decided all game companies think anyone who plays a game is a whale.

TheDalaiBomba · January 2022

Kyleran said:

lahnmir said:

Iselin said:

lahnmir said:

Wargfoot said:

It's nice to pretend that what players want is actually going to make a difference.

The problem is that what players say they want differs greatly from what they do. And guess what companies base their decisions on

/Cheers,
Lahnmir

Isn't it cool that what we really, really want (insert Spice Girls soundtrack here) so often coincides with what makes the most profit?

And no I don't need to see those super secret metrics of what we do myself. I trust that they do things other than what we say we want for our own good.

I don’t actually think our current climate makes the most money, it is a careful balance between what companies can get away with and what people will put up with. Costs for games have increased twenty fold over the last two decades with the playerbase only growing, roughly, a factor seven. That in an over saturated market without taking inflation into consideration.

Yet price of entry for games has become cheaper and cheaper, deep discounts after three months, free to play, getting into a game has never been cheaper yet costs are spiraling out of control. So they raised the spending ceiling, or in the case of gatcha and lootboxes removed it altogether. Whales, cash shop hoarders and NFT crazies are keeping games affordable for the rest of us.

I once calculated that an average game, under the same conditions and monetization as roughly fifteen years ago, would have to cost about 190 bucks to make the same ROI. They are still 60 bucks though, or cheaper.

Ahh well, just me rambling. I think gaming is cheaper then ever.

/Cheers,
Lahnmir

I figured out all total I'll have spent $500 for my single ESO account in my first year of playing.

Cheaper? Not in my book.

I would also be willing to spend $190 if the game, say, truly provided a GM curated experience. Just want the finished experience instead of funding pipe dreams that might turn into something akin to what I backed eventually.

I have the funds to be a whale. I just don't find spending tons of cash to bypass game content tailored towards pushing me there to be an attractive product.

lahnmir · January 2022

TheDalaiBomba said:

Kyleran said:

lahnmir said:

Iselin said:

lahnmir said:

Wargfoot said:

It's nice to pretend that what players want is actually going to make a difference.

The problem is that what players say they want differs greatly from what they do. And guess what companies base their decisions on

/Cheers,
Lahnmir

Isn't it cool that what we really, really want (insert Spice Girls soundtrack here) so often coincides with what makes the most profit?

And no I don't need to see those super secret metrics of what we do myself. I trust that they do things other than what we say we want for our own good.

I don’t actually think our current climate makes the most money, it is a careful balance between what companies can get away with and what people will put up with. Costs for games have increased twenty fold over the last two decades with the playerbase only growing, roughly, a factor seven. That in an over saturated market without taking inflation into consideration.

Yet price of entry for games has become cheaper and cheaper, deep discounts after three months, free to play, getting into a game has never been cheaper yet costs are spiraling out of control. So they raised the spending ceiling, or in the case of gatcha and lootboxes removed it altogether. Whales, cash shop hoarders and NFT crazies are keeping games affordable for the rest of us.

I once calculated that an average game, under the same conditions and monetization as roughly fifteen years ago, would have to cost about 190 bucks to make the same ROI. They are still 60 bucks though, or cheaper.

Ahh well, just me rambling. I think gaming is cheaper then ever.

/Cheers,
Lahnmir

I figured out all total I'll have spent $500 for my single ESO account in my first year of playing.

Cheaper? Not in my book.

I would also be willing to spend $190 if the game, say, truly provided a GM curated experience. Just want the finished experience instead of funding pipe dreams that might turn into something akin to what I backed eventually.

I have the funds to be a whale. I just don't find spending tons of cash to bypass game content tailored towards pushing me there to be an attractive product.

I am definitely not against that, 190 buck games would have also prevented my gaming catalogue from having grown in the thousands with many games not even being touched

/Cheers,
Lahnmir

paco_magillicuddy · January 2022

I'm starting to see NFTs as a bit of a sign from the universe--a sign that I'm too old to play video games anyway and that now is a time to find a new hobby.

Howdy, Stranger!

Sega is Taking a Cautious Approach on NFTs, Considers Negative Player Feedback | MMORPG.com

Comments

Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV

Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Sega is Taking a Cautious Approach on NFTs, Considers Negative Player Feedback | MMORPG.com

Comments

Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV

Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV