Their cash issue isn't due to their choices for the game. It was caused by unexpected extreme costs due to a medical issue that arose. The resources that now had to go to that would have been used to sustain the game while they finished developing it.
Well, if this game was successful then there wouldnt be a cash problem at all.
Ideally a game should aim between making alot of money and a whole lot of money. Start with that customer base, then their wont be these kinds of problems.
This game has been barely making it. 300 players 2 years after release is not sustaining the game. They have been talking about money problems for years.
I feel bad for them and hope things work out, but I am not going to let that cloud my judgement on what is clearly a problem that this game put systems in place that appealed to only a very small niche of players.
All the other players hoping this game would be good, essentially wasted their money. To me this is like buying something from China that breaks after 30 days. These game devs should have made a game that would thrive, and not one that would flounder. At no point was this game ever thriving.
Your definition of "success" is my definition of "barely surviving" My definition of success is thriving.
Their cash issue isn't due to their choices for the game. It was caused by unexpected extreme costs due to a medical issue that arose. The resources that now had to go to that would have been used to sustain the game while they finished developing it.
Well, if this game was successful then there wouldnt be a cash problem at all.
Ideally a game should aim between making alot of money and a whole lot of money. Start with that customer base, then their wont be these kinds of problems.
This game has been barely making it. 300 players 2 years after release is not sustaining the game. They have been talking about money problems for years.
I feel bad for them and hope things work out, but I am not going to let that cloud my judgement on what is clearly a problem that this game put systems in place that appealed to only a very small niche of players.
All the other players hoping this game would be good, essentially wasted their money. To me this is like buying something from China that breaks after 30 days. These game devs should have made a game that would thrive, and not one that would flounder. At no point was this game ever thriving.
Your definition of "success" is my definition of "barely surviving" My definition of success is thriving.
Nah. They made the game they wanted. Whether they got a lot of players or not is immaterial.
Making a game that makes a lot of money or a whole lot of money could mean changing your vision and making someone else's game.
Good on them. They tried and though they weren't successful financially (which is a shame) they worked on something they actually believed in.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Nah. They made the game they wanted. Whether they got a lot of players or not is immaterial.
Making a game that makes a lot of money or a whole lot of money could mean changing your vision and making someone else's game.
Good on them. They tried and though they weren't successful financially (which is a shame) they worked on something they actually believed in.
There is a big difference and a very fine line in following your vision and stick to it and ignore mistakes or wrong decisions and be blind to it and ignore the player feedback.
When the vast majority of players say a specific design decision, mechanic or game system is bad or even terrible and not fun, then maybe actually it is and a good game designer should take that feedback to heart.
Any good game designer makes mistakes and runs into unforeseen problems and challenges of things he/she thought would be a great idea, can turn out not to be.
It doesn't always have to cause a conflict in your vision, as often than not it just requires a simple tweak to get it working right.
And yes....in a worse case scenario, an idea turns out to be simply bad and then you should just remove it and return to the drawing board.
----------------
Of course you can ignore I said above and just simply set yourself up for failure, by being ignorant and having a big fat iron plate on your forehead.
As that is how they behave in Project Gorgon. They are arrogant and completely ignore all player feedback and then they are wondering why almost everyone abandoned their game and end up in financial trouble.
Each time a AAA publisher drops their game with a box cost plus monthly sub these forums trash it as a money grab - unfettered capitalism, out of touch with players, etc.
That opinion would be far from unanimous. I, for one, deride any game that launches free-to-play, and I am extremely skeptical of buy-to-play with no sub.
My feeling is that microtransactions are toxic, not only on a consumer level, but to the player experience within a game. If a game does not charge a sub, it must constantly barrage the player with opportunities to spend cash. It must also make the game unpleasant in some way for those who are not spending.
It's a ridiculous tradeoff, in fact. You attract a lot of eyes by offering the game for free, but the vast majority of those people have no intention of ever spending a dime. It makes a lot more sense to tell players they can either pay up or get out. If you don't get enough subscribers, your game wasn't all that great in the first place.
There is a big difference and a very fine line in following your vision and stick to it and ignore mistakes or wrong decisions and be blind to it and ignore the player feedback.
When the vast majority of players say a specific design decision, mechanic or game system is bad or even terrible and not fun, then maybe actually it is and a good game designer should take that feedback to heart.
Any good game designer makes mistakes and runs into unforeseen problems and challenges of things he/she thought would be a great idea, can turn out not to be.
It doesn't always have to cause a conflict in your vision, as often than not it just requires a simple tweak to get it working right.
And yes....in a worse case scenario, an idea turns out to be simply bad and then you should just remove it and return to the drawing board.
----------------
Of course you can ignore I said above and just simply set yourself up for failure, by being ignorant and having a big fat iron plate on your forehead.
As that is how they behave in Project Gorgon. They are arrogant and completely ignore all player feedback and then they are wondering why almost everyone abandoned their game and end up in financial trouble.
Gjeezzz.... who would have thought. /facepalm
That's not really the thing.
They made the game they wanted. The real issue is whether or not there were enough players who also thought it was fun.
The problem is that a lot of players think a "thing" is not fun when in reality is surely is. To some people.
To use my mod as an example, I've gotten a nice bit of praise. Truly. When some people say my mod is a masterpiece that is a real shot in the arm I can tell you.
There's the other player who got mad and "uninstalled." He found it "not fun."
Still another player said that it was an amazing mod "but" if I removed some of the puzzles, some of the bits that were not really liked by some I'd have thousands of upvotes.
So I looked at it thinking "hmmm what would/should I change? And my final thought was "nothing."
I made what I thought was fun. Really fun. If players don't like it then it's not for them.
Of course, I'm not making a mod for money. For the developers of Project Gorgon, if they had removed things because players didn't like them they wouldn't be making "their" game. They'd be making a game for other people. Not them.
So they stuck with their plans but unfortunately worked too slowly and didn't have enough cash, not to mention the sad health problems that most likely hindered development.
Had they actually finished the game who knows? I strongly suspect they would have had a very small but devoted player base. Would it be enough to support the game? Again, who knows.
The real challenge is making the game (or mod) that the creator(s) want but also being realistic about who your audience will be and whether or not they will be enough.
I loved the idea of their curses. I hated that they were, in some cases, silly. So not the game for me.
And, at the risk of making this longer, the developers at From Soft made games where players demanded difficulty options and they said "no." It's already sort of built into the game anyway. They seem to be doing fine.
Post edited by Sovrath on
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Each time a AAA publisher drops their game with a box cost plus monthly sub these forums trash it as a money grab - unfettered capitalism, out of touch with players, etc.
That opinion would be far from unanimous. I, for one, deride any game that launches free-to-play, and I am extremely skeptical of buy-to-play with no sub.
My feeling is that microtransactions are toxic, not only on a consumer level, but to the player experience within a game. If a game does not charge a sub, it must constantly barrage the player with opportunities to spend cash. It must also make the game unpleasant in some way for those who are not spending.
It's a ridiculous tradeoff, in fact. You attract a lot of eyes by offering the game for free, but the vast majority of those people have no intention of ever spending a dime. It makes a lot more sense to tell players they can either pay up or get out. If you don't get enough subscribers, your game wasn't all that great in the first place.
Except that, there are documented cases of MMORPGS starting with the sub model, tanking initially then thiving later on a different monetization model.
SWTOR, LOTRO, ESO all found success with a hybrid monetization model including F2P, B2P, Patron subs, loot boxes and cash shops.
Only the big two, FFXIV, WOW and maybe EVE Online have managed to stay largely with the mandatory sub models, and I personally haven't played any of them in almost 7 years now.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Each time a AAA publisher drops their game with a box cost plus monthly sub these forums trash it as a money grab - unfettered capitalism, out of touch with players, etc.
That opinion would be far from unanimous. I, for one, deride any game that launches free-to-play, and I am extremely skeptical of buy-to-play with no sub.
My feeling is that microtransactions are toxic, not only on a consumer level, but to the player experience within a game. If a game does not charge a sub, it must constantly barrage the player with opportunities to spend cash. It must also make the game unpleasant in some way for those who are not spending.
It's a ridiculous tradeoff, in fact. You attract a lot of eyes by offering the game for free, but the vast majority of those people have no intention of ever spending a dime. It makes a lot more sense to tell players they can either pay up or get out. If you don't get enough subscribers, your game wasn't all that great in the first place.
Except that, there are documented cases of MMORPGS starting with the sub model, tanking initially then thiving later on a different monetization model.
SWTOR, LOTRO, ESO all found success with a hybrid monetization model including F2P, B2P, Patron subs, loot boxes and cash shops.
Only the big two, FFXIV, WOW and maybe EVE Online have managed to stay largely with the mandatory sub models, and I personally haven't played any of them in almost 7 years now.
It's a bit more nuanced than that though. SWTOR and LOTRO suffered, and continue to suffer, from quality and content issues. They didn't struggle because they were sub games, they struggled because people didn't think they were worth a sub. I also wouldn't say they thrived. They both got a boost when they changed models (how could they not) but have since been doing just ok.
TESO is a little more convulated but suffered badly from lack of content in particular which drove the loss in subs. After switching models (to the bleed customers of money however possible model), they became a trendy choice for online gaming. Even with all the current content, I don't think TESO would even float now if the sub model was the only option.
Ultimately, it's the allure and illusion of free that makes those models work, as well as the ability to come back later without an obvious upfront entry fee. I think if someone makes a quality game, with consistent content releases and a focus on meaningful progression, a sub model even at $20 or more could dominate the market. Unfortunately, we haven't been able to test that yet. And as long as stupid people throw money at F2P games, the incentive for someone to commit to that kind of model is lacking.
"I think if someone makes a quality game, with consistent content
releases and a focus on meaningful progression, a sub model even at $20
or more could dominate the market. Unfortunately, we haven't been able
to test that yet."
Because that game doesnt exist and it never will....Wha tmost people dont seem to understand is that there are simply too many gaming options available in 2023, and many of them are little or no obligation.....For some company to claim that their game is so good that you should pay $240 or more a year extra for the right to play it is just not realistic.
That's very cool that people are donating $$$ to them to keep the game going. I might buy the game to help out as well. Every little bit helps, right? Seriously.
Every bit does, absolutely. Things are tenuous now but not yet at a critical state. There is time to affect the outcome in a positive way so that P:G can at least sustain operation. With that, hope can yet endure the game will be around to further develop when circumstances permit.
With optional sub only, barely 300 people left playing and no funding. There is no way they can sustain this. They won't have enough cash to keep the lights on (server infrastructure) and pay the bills each month.
If everyone of those 300 players pays a monthly sub, then they might barely able to keep it running. Barely. And according this article, clearly not many of those 300 are paying a sub, hence they are in deep trouble.
It's your money.... you can do what you want with it. At this point it would be like throwing 30-40 bucks in the fireplace. Will have the same effect.
I expect those directly involved in the project have more certain knowledge on what is needed for it to be sustainable than you. Accordingly, I will rely on their appraisal.
There is a chance that further contribution will not change the outcome but it is not certain, and at times one feels compelled to influence a result to the extent personally possible.
And quite frankly, devoting $30 - $40 to such an effort is pretty trivial in the grand scheme of things.
The satisfaction of knowing I did what I could to save the game is worth that cost.
"I think if someone makes a quality game, with consistent content
releases and a focus on meaningful progression, a sub model even at $20
or more could dominate the market. Unfortunately, we haven't been able
to test that yet."
Because that game doesnt exist and it never will....Wha tmost people dont seem to understand is that there are simply too many gaming options available in 2023, and many of them are little or no obligation.....For some company to claim that their game is so good that you should pay $240 or more a year extra for the right to play it is just not realistic.
I would go so far to say that developers had the opportunity to make that "quality game with consistent content releases and a focus on meaningful progression" and these are the games we've been given.
A statement like that is always the "game in their head" and doesn't seem to be reality. I'm sure developers try to strive for those things. It's not like they've forgotten that those are important.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
"I think if someone makes a quality game, with consistent content
releases and a focus on meaningful progression, a sub model even at $20
or more could dominate the market. Unfortunately, we haven't been able
to test that yet."
Because that game doesnt exist and it never will....Wha tmost people dont seem to understand is that there are simply too many gaming options available in 2023, and many of them are little or no obligation.....For some company to claim that their game is so good that you should pay $240 or more a year extra for the right to play it is just not realistic.
Yes, because it's not like we have a fruit company that overcharges for all their products and people wait in long lines to buy the newest version of the same thing each year, right? Does the game exist now? Nope, but that doesn't mean it couldn't. And despite how many options are out there, if something is deemed the best and people are flocking to it, it could charge whatever it wanted. People are spending way more than $240 on F2P games as it is.
Of course, I'm not making a mod for money. For the developers of Project Gorgon, if they had removed things because players didn't like them they wouldn't be making "their" game. They'd be making a game for other people. Not them.
I cant even understand this point at all. Of course they should be making the game for others. Are they selling the game? Who is supposed to be the customer, themselves? When you are selling a game retail and commercially then you should be making it for customers. If your vision and the customers align thats even better. But the customer should be the people you are striving to make happy.
This game can only get 300 players in the entire world to continue to play it, most of which wont even sub. They have had so many obviously dissapointed customers. They are essentially putting out a defective product where customers are wasting their money and time on garbage.
I dont believe anyone regardless of whether its sold or even given away should be putting out garbage.
I recently had a potluck at the business I am at, I dont think anyone should be putting out something knowingly that 99% of the people will hate. I dont even care if its free. When you put something out to others, you need to have a better quality standard than garbage.
The majority of customers told them it was subpar, yet they didnt change. Now they cant sustain the game and are begging for money. This is a lose - lose scenario. No surprise.
How about make a great game, make customers happy, make a bunch of money, then donate money instead. Alot of winners in that scenario.
Because that game doesnt exist and it never will....Wha tmost people dont seem to understand is that there are simply too many gaming options available in 2023, and many of them are little or no obligation.....For some company to claim that their game is so good that you should pay $240 or more a year extra for the right to play it is just not realistic.
The first MMORPG that releases where a high majority of players can actually say this is better than "WoW vanilla". That game will be making billions and can easily charge $240 a year. I dont know when that game will come out, but eventually one will, and it will transform the market.
Its sad that after 20 years we still dont have a game that can claim that. This is why the market is dead.
I dont think a WoW type game is the only type that could have that kind of success. I was just using "WoW" as a benchmark. I think any type of game can succeed that is made with really high quality standards that appeals to a broad market and doesnt have stupid stuff that drive everyone away.
Because that game doesnt exist and it never will....Wha tmost people dont seem to understand is that there are simply too many gaming options available in 2023, and many of them are little or no obligation.....For some company to claim that their game is so good that you should pay $240 or more a year extra for the right to play it is just not realistic.
Its sad that after 20 years we still dont have a game that can claim that. This is why the market is dead.
Maybe, just maybe, there never will be another WOW because the socioeconomic conditions which existed when it released are long, long gone.
One might argue there have been many games which have met or even exceeded WOW, at least financially but they aren't MMORPGS of course.
Maybe that's the thing, after 20 years there never will be a resurgence of the MMORPG genre.
I mean, anyone still waiting for cameras which provide an instant photo in your hand since Polaroid collapsed?
How about the return of newspapers as being the major source of information once again?
Or that bi-partisan politics will return in our lifetimes?
Only if our technology based society collapses back into the steam age after the EMP pulse weapons in WWWIII destroy it all.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Of course, I'm not making a mod for money. For the developers of Project Gorgon, if they had removed things because players didn't like them they wouldn't be making "their" game. They'd be making a game for other people. Not them.
I cant even understand this point at all. Of course they should be making the game for others. Are they selling the game? Who is supposed to be the customer, themselves? When you are selling a game retail and commercially then you should be making it for customers. If your vision and the customers align thats even better. But the customer should be the people you are striving to make happy.
This game can only get 300 players in the entire world to continue to play it, most of which wont even sub. They have had so many obviously dissapointed customers. They are essentially putting out a defective product where customers are wasting their money and time on garbage.
I dont believe anyone regardless of whether its sold or even given away should be putting out garbage.
I recently had a potluck at the business I am at, I dont think anyone should be putting out something knowingly that 99% of the people will hate. I dont even care if its free. When you put something out to others, you need to have a better quality standard than garbage.
The majority of customers told them it was subpar, yet they didnt change. Now they cant sustain the game and are begging for money. This is a lose - lose scenario. No surprise.
How about make a great game, make customers happy, make a bunch of money, then donate money instead. Alot of winners in that scenario.
The point is they are making the game for people "like them." People who like the same things. How is that not obvious. You act like they should make something they DON'T want to make so they can just make money.
What creative person wants to do that? None. None want to do that
They might as well do anything else. Why would someone, a very small team in this case, spend years of their lives making something they don't want to make?
As I said before, the issue is that they have to be realistic about how large that group is.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
I recently had a potluck at the business I am at, I dont think anyone should be putting out something knowingly that 99% of the people will hate. I dont even care if its free. When you put something out to others, you need to have a better quality standard than garbage.
The majority of customers told them it was subpar, yet they didnt change.
Pot Luck are solely about bringing food for others to eat. One could bring that one dish that only 1% would eat but one should know and expect that people won't eat it.
Making something like a game (or music or art, etc) is more complicated than that. You make what you want but while you make it you make changes (or not) depending on if you "want to sell it" or you "have to sell it."
Have you ever been to an art festival? loads and loads of artists all wanting to sell their stuff. They'll sell "some" of their stuff but only a fraction. They didn't make that art to unload it all. They made what they wanted in order to sell to those who want what they have.
In the case of Project Gorgon they could have done anything else that actually made money. They could have been IT consultants or some such thing. But they chose to make a game and one that they wanted to make. Good on them. It didn't work out but that's what you get when you make things that only a small group will like.
And if they didn't know that then lesson learned.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Of course, I'm not making a mod for money. For the developers of Project Gorgon, if they had removed things because players didn't like them they wouldn't be making "their" game. They'd be making a game for other people. Not them.
I cant even understand this point at all. Of course they should be making the game for others. Are they selling the game? Who is supposed to be the customer, themselves? When you are selling a game retail and commercially then you should be making it for customers. If your vision and the customers align thats even better. But the customer should be the people you are striving to make happy.
This game can only get 300 players in the entire world to continue to play it, most of which wont even sub. They have had so many obviously dissapointed customers. They are essentially putting out a defective product where customers are wasting their money and time on garbage.
I dont believe anyone regardless of whether its sold or even given away should be putting out garbage.
I recently had a potluck at the business I am at, I dont think anyone should be putting out something knowingly that 99% of the people will hate. I dont even care if its free. When you put something out to others, you need to have a better quality standard than garbage.
The majority of customers told them it was subpar, yet they didnt change. Now they cant sustain the game and are begging for money. This is a lose - lose scenario. No surprise.
How about make a great game, make customers happy, make a bunch of money, then donate money instead. Alot of winners in that scenario.
The point is they are making the game for people "like them." People who like the same things. How is that not obvious. You act like they should make something they DON'T want to make so they can just make money.
What creative person wants to do that? None. None want to do that
They might as well do anything else. Why would someone, a very small team in this case, spend years of their lives making something they don't want to make?
As I said before, the issue is that they have to be realistic about how large that group is.
Artists.... They'd rather starve on principle than face the realities of life.
There's about a hundred other things I would have rather done than deliver business computer software for a living, but there are thousands of worse things to do than what I chose, because hey, the pay was good.
As a practical person my mother taught me that pursuing any dream is fine as long as you are realistic about what you personally bring to the table and can make a decent living from it, which on that basis I succeeded.
There really isn't anything admirable about someone following their dreams if they were never anywhere realistic in the first place. Project Gorgon definitely falls into this category in my eyes.
Yes, I know every famous musician, athlete or entertainer were told by critics they'd never make it.
But here's the thing, for every successful person, there are 10K+ (totally made up stat to denote "many") failures, so best advice, always have a solid "Plan B."
Good advice sometimes even for those who do "make it"
I recall once working midnight shift in a warehouse in central Pennsylvania with a man who played for the NFL Eagles for 2 years..... until he blew out a knee.
definitely didn't have a good backup plan for what came later....
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Of course, I'm not making a mod for money. For the developers of Project Gorgon, if they had removed things because players didn't like them they wouldn't be making "their" game. They'd be making a game for other people. Not them.
I cant even understand this point at all. Of course they should be making the game for others. Are they selling the game? Who is supposed to be the customer, themselves? When you are selling a game retail and commercially then you should be making it for customers. If your vision and the customers align thats even better. But the customer should be the people you are striving to make happy.
This game can only get 300 players in the entire world to continue to play it, most of which wont even sub. They have had so many obviously dissapointed customers. They are essentially putting out a defective product where customers are wasting their money and time on garbage.
I dont believe anyone regardless of whether its sold or even given away should be putting out garbage.
I recently had a potluck at the business I am at, I dont think anyone should be putting out something knowingly that 99% of the people will hate. I dont even care if its free. When you put something out to others, you need to have a better quality standard than garbage.
The majority of customers told them it was subpar, yet they didnt change. Now they cant sustain the game and are begging for money. This is a lose - lose scenario. No surprise.
How about make a great game, make customers happy, make a bunch of money, then donate money instead. Alot of winners in that scenario.
The point is they are making the game for people "like them." People who like the same things. How is that not obvious. You act like they should make something they DON'T want to make so they can just make money.
What creative person wants to do that? None. None want to do that
They might as well do anything else. Why would someone, a very small team in this case, spend years of their lives making something they don't want to make?
As I said before, the issue is that they have to be realistic about how large that group is.
Artists.... They'd rather starve on principle than face the realities of life.
There's about a hundred other things I would have rather done than deliver business computer software for a living, but there are thousands of worse things to do than what I chose, because hey, the pay was good.
As a practical person my mother taught me that pursuing any dream is fine as long as you are realistic about what you personally bring to the table and can make a decent living from it, which on that basis I succeeded.
There really isn't anything admirable about someone following their dreams if they were never anywhere realistic in the first place. Project Gorgon definitely falls into this category in my eyes.
Yes, I know every famous musician, athlete or entertainer were told by critics they'd never make it.
But here's the thing, for every successful person, there are 10K+ (totally made up stat to denote "many") failures, so best advice, always have a solid "Plan B."
Good advice sometimes even for those who do "make it"
I recall once working midnight shift in a warehouse in central Pennsylvania with a man who played for the NFL Eagles for 2 years..... until he blew out a knee.
definitely didn't have a good backup plan for what came later....
Everything you say is true. But when you are dealing with creative fields you can't really go "half way."
It's always about taking a chance. It should be an educated chance but it's a chance.
You can't have a job that takes all your time and energy AND put all the work you need to be successful at something creative. For the most part it doesn't work that way.
That's why I have my day job. Definitely makes enough money to support myself and my interests but will never make me rich. However, I can easily leave it once I leave work and be refreshed enough to be creative, have my concerts, record my music and see what happens. Most likely nothing will happen on a large scale but I'm satisfied with the small scale.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Everything you say is true. But when you are dealing with creative fields you can't really go "half way."
What is this creative field stuff. Every field is a creative field. You think inventing computers,light bulbs, cars, food, toothpaste, buildings, keyboards, furniture or ANYTHING doesnt take creativity? Sorry, but I dont buy creative as only some poor artist that cant sell their pee painting.
You think none of the people who invented things had to change their IDEAL plan based on the customer? Designers of successful businesses are changing their plan constantly to meet the customers demands.
Customers are king, they buy the product, a designer should be making a product for customers not for themselves. I think its totally selfish that they are making a product for themselves only, then begging people for money because they cant pay bills.
They should be making a good product for a wide enough audience to make money. Rather than making garbage barely anyone will buy. So many people bought this game thinking it would be good only to be dissapointed.
Your point of view is likely why this genre is completely messed up, a bunch of big headed designers lost sight of making games for customers. They think the world revolves around them.
Everything you say is true. But when you are dealing with creative fields you can't really go "half way."
What is this creative field stuff. Every field is a creative field. You think inventing computers,light bulbs, cars, food, toothpaste, buildings, keyboards, furniture or ANYTHING doesnt take creativity? Sorry, but I dont buy creative as only some poor artist that cant sell their pee painting.
You think none of the people who invented things had to change their IDEAL plan based on the customer? Designers of successful businesses are changing their plan constantly to meet the customers demands.
Customers are king, they buy the product, a designer should be making a product for customers not for themselves. I think its totally selfish that they are making a product for themselves only, then begging people for money because they cant pay bills.
They should be making a good product for a wide enough audience to make money. Rather than making garbage barely anyone will buy. So many people bought this game thinking it would be good only to be dissapointed.
Your point of view is likely why this genre is completely messed up, a bunch of big headed designers lost sight of making games for customers. They think the world revolves around them.
Van Gogh never sold a painting until after his death. the Pre-Raphaelites couldn't get a showing because they were considered avante garde,
The art world is filled with successful people who did what they wanted but weren't really successful until later.
Also, you've got to do better. Work that "brainy" of yours. When people say "creative" they mean artists, actors, musicians. No one thins programmer even though there is definitely creativity in programing or engineering.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Everything you say is true. But when you are dealing with creative fields you can't really go "half way."
What is this creative field stuff. Every field is a creative field. You think inventing computers,light bulbs, cars, food, toothpaste, buildings, keyboards, furniture or ANYTHING doesnt take creativity? Sorry, but I dont buy creative as only some poor artist that cant sell their pee painting.
You think none of the people who invented things had to change their IDEAL plan based on the customer? Designers of successful businesses are changing their plan constantly to meet the customers demands.
Customers are king, they buy the product, a designer should be making a product for customers not for themselves. I think its totally selfish that they are making a product for themselves only, then begging people for money because they cant pay bills.
They should be making a good product for a wide enough audience to make money. Rather than making garbage barely anyone will buy. So many people bought this game thinking it would be good only to be dissapointed.
Your point of view is likely why this genre is completely messed up, a bunch of big headed designers lost sight of making games for customers. They think the world revolves around them.
Van Gogh never sold a painting until after his death. the Pre-Raphaelites couldn't get a showing because they were considered avante garde,
The art world is filled with successful people who did what they wanted but weren't really successful until later.
Also, you've got to do better. Work that "brainy" of yours. When people say "creative" they mean artists, actors, musicians. No one thins programmer even though there is definitely creativity in programing or engineering.
I dont understand the point you are trying to make here. Many of these works are sold due to rarity and not quality. Putting a painting in a basement for 200 years for nobody to see doesnt seem like a good idea for a game dev strategy for selling games. Does it even matter if a the 1st copy of PG sells for 1 million dollars 200 years from now?
List of most expensive items sold at Sotheby's.
$119.9 million “The Scream,” Edvard Munch (1895)
$105.4 million “Silver Car Crash (Double Disaster),” Andy Warhol (1963)
$104.3 million “L’Homme Qui Marche I,” (English: “Walking Man I”), Alberto Giacometti (1961)
$104.2 million “Garçon à la Pipe” (English: “Boy With a Pipe”), Pablo Picasso (1905)
$95.2 million “Dora Maar au Chat” (English: "Dora Maar with Cat"), Pablo Picasso (1941)
When you look at the most expensive items sold around the world, some of these look like children made them. I guarantee 1 million artists around the world could easily duplicate these, so its obviously not a quality thing. It is all about being rare.
You can make something rare by being very unique, sell 1 to 1 buyer.
Another strategy is to increase demand and appeal to many and sell many. Ford comes to mind here. I would rather sell my products while I am alive and not dead. Additionally I would rather people like my products because its a good product, not because its a rare product.
I dont understand the point you are trying to make here. Many of these works are sold due to rarity and not quality. Putting a painting in a basement for 200 years for nobody to see doesnt seem like a good idea for a game dev strategy for selling games. Does it even matter if a the 1st copy of PG sells for 1 million dollars 200 years from now?
List of most expensive items sold at Sotheby's.
$119.9 million “The Scream,” Edvard Munch (1895)
$105.4 million “Silver Car Crash (Double Disaster),” Andy Warhol (1963)
$104.3 million “L’Homme Qui Marche I,” (English: “Walking Man I”), Alberto Giacometti (1961)
$104.2 million “Garçon à la Pipe” (English: “Boy With a Pipe”), Pablo Picasso (1905)
$95.2 million “Dora Maar au Chat” (English: "Dora Maar with Cat"), Pablo Picasso (1941)
When you look at the most expensive items sold around the world, some of these look like children made them. I guarantee 1 million artists around the world could easily duplicate these, so its obviously not a quality thing. It is all about being rare.
You can make something rare by being very unique, sell 1 to 1 buyer.
Another strategy is to increase demand and appeal to many and sell many. Ford comes to mind here. I would rather sell my products while I am alive and not dead. Additionally I would rather people like my products because its a good product, not because its a rare product.
My point is that they are actually brilliant works and while it's true at this point they are rare, they area also valued for their work.
pre-raphaelite work is amazing. Not only is it amazing but people love it today. It's friggin' everywhere. At the time it was considered rather horrible.
And circling around, the team for project gorgon could have changed their game for the taste of others but they decided they wanted to make something "they" wanted to make. Good on them for not listening to the nay sayers though it didn't turn out as they hoped.
And now we've gone around again. It's clear we have very different ideas as to how things should be made so there really isn't a discussion here. Just going around and around.
It's agree to disagree time.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
My point is that they are actually brilliant works and while it's true at this point they are rare, they area also valued for their work.
I think that drove the success of many initial MMORPGs. They were unique (or rare) and that drove success.
I tried to go back to UO and just ended up angry that they've made no progress in 15 years on the most basic QoL issues. I wouldn't put up with that nonsense today.
Hey everyone.... It's the Autumn Sale 11/21 to 11/28 and Project Gorgon is on sale NOW for -75% off. It's ONLY $9.99 (lowest price I have ever seen it!) if your interested in helping them fund further updates or at least try out the game, here's your chance!
Proud MMORPG.com member since March 2004! Make PvE GREAT Again!
For some company to claim that their game is so good that you should pay $240 or more a year extra for the right to play it is just not realistic.
Except it's actually happening in reality right this very minute (at a slightly lower price point), so obviously it's possible.
In the end, the company has to continue making money no matter what, so someone is going to have to keep paying up on an ongoing basis, whether that be through subs or cash shop stuff. My point is that the overall quality of the game is generally better when it's done through subs, because the devs are accountable for keeping things fun, interesting and enjoyable. With f2p, they just have to keep dangling p2w carrots in front of their whales.
Comments
Well, if this game was successful then there wouldnt be a cash problem at all.
Ideally a game should aim between making alot of money and a whole lot of money. Start with that customer base, then their wont be these kinds of problems.
This game has been barely making it. 300 players 2 years after release is not sustaining the game. They have been talking about money problems for years.
I feel bad for them and hope things work out, but I am not going to let that cloud my judgement on what is clearly a problem that this game put systems in place that appealed to only a very small niche of players.
All the other players hoping this game would be good, essentially wasted their money. To me this is like buying something from China that breaks after 30 days. These game devs should have made a game that would thrive, and not one that would flounder. At no point was this game ever thriving.
Your definition of "success" is my definition of "barely surviving"
My definition of success is thriving.
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
When the vast majority of players say a specific design decision, mechanic or game system is bad or even terrible and not fun, then maybe actually it is and a good game designer should take that feedback to heart.
Any good game designer makes mistakes and runs into unforeseen problems and challenges of things he/she thought would be a great idea, can turn out not to be.
It doesn't always have to cause a conflict in your vision, as often than not it just requires a simple tweak to get it working right.
And yes....in a worse case scenario, an idea turns out to be simply bad and then you should just remove it and return to the drawing board.
----------------
Of course you can ignore I said above and just simply set yourself up for failure, by being ignorant and having a big fat iron plate on your forehead.
As that is how they behave in Project Gorgon. They are arrogant and completely ignore all player feedback and then they are wondering why almost everyone abandoned their game and end up in financial trouble.
Gjeezzz.... who would have thought. /facepalm
And, at the risk of making this longer, the developers at From Soft made games where players demanded difficulty options and they said "no." It's already sort of built into the game anyway. They seem to be doing fine.
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
SWTOR, LOTRO, ESO all found success with a hybrid monetization model including F2P, B2P, Patron subs, loot boxes and cash shops.
Only the big two, FFXIV, WOW and maybe EVE Online have managed to stay largely with the mandatory sub models, and I personally haven't played any of them in almost 7 years now.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
TESO is a little more convulated but suffered badly from lack of content in particular which drove the loss in subs. After switching models (to the bleed customers of money however possible model), they became a trendy choice for online gaming. Even with all the current content, I don't think TESO would even float now if the sub model was the only option.
Ultimately, it's the allure and illusion of free that makes those models work, as well as the ability to come back later without an obvious upfront entry fee. I think if someone makes a quality game, with consistent content releases and a focus on meaningful progression, a sub model even at $20 or more could dominate the market. Unfortunately, we haven't been able to test that yet. And as long as stupid people throw money at F2P games, the incentive for someone to commit to that kind of model is lacking.
I expect those directly involved in the project have more certain knowledge on what is needed for it to be sustainable than you. Accordingly, I will rely on their appraisal.
There is a chance that further contribution will not change the outcome but it is not certain, and at times one feels compelled to influence a result to the extent personally possible.
And quite frankly, devoting $30 - $40 to such an effort is pretty trivial in the grand scheme of things.
The satisfaction of knowing I did what I could to save the game is worth that cost.
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
I cant even understand this point at all. Of course they should be making the game for others. Are they selling the game? Who is supposed to be the customer, themselves? When you are selling a game retail and commercially then you should be making it for customers. If your vision and the customers align thats even better. But the customer should be the people you are striving to make happy.
This game can only get 300 players in the entire world to continue to play it, most of which wont even sub. They have had so many obviously dissapointed customers. They are essentially putting out a defective product where customers are wasting their money and time on garbage.
I dont believe anyone regardless of whether its sold or even given away should be putting out garbage.
I recently had a potluck at the business I am at, I dont think anyone should be putting out something knowingly that 99% of the people will hate. I dont even care if its free. When you put something out to others, you need to have a better quality standard than garbage.
The majority of customers told them it was subpar, yet they didnt change. Now they cant sustain the game and are begging for money. This is a lose - lose scenario. No surprise.
How about make a great game, make customers happy, make a bunch of money, then donate money instead. Alot of winners in that scenario.
Its sad that after 20 years we still dont have a game that can claim that. This is why the market is dead.
I dont think a WoW type game is the only type that could have that kind of success. I was just using "WoW" as a benchmark. I think any type of game can succeed that is made with really high quality standards that appeals to a broad market and doesnt have stupid stuff that drive everyone away.
One might argue there have been many games which have met or even exceeded WOW, at least financially but they aren't MMORPGS of course.
Maybe that's the thing, after 20 years there never will be a resurgence of the MMORPG genre.
I mean, anyone still waiting for cameras which provide an instant photo in your hand since Polaroid collapsed?
How about the return of newspapers as being the major source of information once again?
Or that bi-partisan politics will return in our lifetimes?
Only if our technology based society collapses back into the steam age after the EMP pulse weapons in WWWIII destroy it all.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
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
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
There's about a hundred other things I would have rather done than deliver business computer software for a living, but there are thousands of worse things to do than what I chose, because hey, the pay was good.
As a practical person my mother taught me that pursuing any dream is fine as long as you are realistic about what you personally bring to the table and can make a decent living from it, which on that basis I succeeded.
There really isn't anything admirable about someone following their dreams if they were never anywhere realistic in the first place. Project Gorgon definitely falls into this category in my eyes.
Yes, I know every famous musician, athlete or entertainer were told by critics they'd never make it.
But here's the thing, for every successful person, there are 10K+ (totally made up stat to denote "many") failures, so best advice, always have a solid "Plan B."
Good advice sometimes even for those who do "make it"
I recall once working midnight shift in a warehouse in central Pennsylvania with a man who played for the NFL Eagles for 2 years..... until he blew out a knee.
definitely didn't have a good backup plan for what came later....
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
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
You think none of the people who invented things had to change their IDEAL plan based on the customer? Designers of successful businesses are changing their plan constantly to meet the customers demands.
Customers are king, they buy the product, a designer should be making a product for customers not for themselves. I think its totally selfish that they are making a product for themselves only, then begging people for money because they cant pay bills.
They should be making a good product for a wide enough audience to make money. Rather than making garbage barely anyone will buy. So many people bought this game thinking it would be good only to be dissapointed.
Your point of view is likely why this genre is completely messed up, a bunch of big headed designers lost sight of making games for customers. They think the world revolves around them.
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
List of most expensive items sold at Sotheby's.
Another list:
https://news.artnet.com/news-pro/here-are-the-15-most-expensive-artworks-sold-at-auction-around-the-world-in-april-2023-2302102
When you look at the most expensive items sold around the world, some of these look like children made them. I guarantee 1 million artists around the world could easily duplicate these, so its obviously not a quality thing. It is all about being rare.
You can make something rare by being very unique, sell 1 to 1 buyer.
Another strategy is to increase demand and appeal to many and sell many. Ford comes to mind here. I would rather sell my products while I am alive and not dead. Additionally I would rather people like my products because its a good product, not because its a rare product.
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
They were unique (or rare) and that drove success.
I tried to go back to UO and just ended up angry that they've made no progress in 15 years on the most basic QoL issues. I wouldn't put up with that nonsense today.
Proud MMORPG.com member since March 2004! Make PvE GREAT Again!