Thread title seems to be an evident fail. Archeage's failure shows how not to make a successful game. It doesn't show anything about what people want beyond that people would like a game that doesn't have a cash shop thrust under their noses. Thing is, the more a F2P game tries to force people to pay, the more people just uninstall it instead. Archeage has certainly demonstrated that.
Moral: to make money, either (a) force players to pay upfront and be honest about it; (b) be so good that you generate a loyal user base that will stay with you for the long haul.
What has happened to AA should show players that it is not themeparks that are the problem, its the cash shop. The cash shops are driving game design in a way that creates a poor game world and poor gameplay.
We predicted this years ago, it is time to wake up and make a stand for P2P. Without a financial model that is in tune with gaming ethos, online games have become nothing more than a combination of shopping malls and casinos.
What has happened to AA should show players that it is not themeparks that are the problem, its the cash shop. The cash shops are driving game design in a way that creates a poor game world and poor gameplay.
We predicted this years ago, it is time to wake up and make a stand for P2P. Without a financial model that is in tune with gaming ethos, online games have become nothing more than a combination of shopping malls and casinos.
I agree.
1 main reason why i am not playing PoE (i know its not an mmo) But its due to the cosmetics...man i remember back in the days..when you got an item..and it was glowing..it meant it was f-king epic...now you just see cool looking chars..with shitty gear..it has lost all of the cool things in a game...(regarding looks) also..i loved wow before the item morhping...i remember following kungen like a kid on Magertheridon to inspect him.,.allong with 40 other people...that was a great feeling.. now...everyone can look epic..with just a few bucks..its a shame really.
Yes, perhaps the initial rush of players to ArcheAge will "prove" that sandboxy game designs are popular too.
The cynical among us will quickly point out that players' behaviour i.r.o. ArcheAge is pretty much indistinguishable from any other new MMO launch. Huge hype before launch, mass rush at launch followed by a steep drop in player numbers 4-8 weeks after launch. The given reasons for the behaviour may be different from "themepark" MMO's, but the eventual pattern is the same, so who cares what kind of game design it is ?
Less cynically, if the popularity of AA signals a clear and significant market for "sandboxy" games, then in 3 to 5 years from now, we may have far more choice in the market. Here's hoping.
The cynical among us will quickly point out that players' behaviour i.r.o. ArcheAge is pretty much indistinguishable from any other new MMO launch. Huge hype before launch, mass rush at launch followed by a steep drop in player numbers 4-8 weeks after launch. The given reasons for the behaviour may be different from "themepark" MMO's, but the eventual pattern is the same, so who cares what kind of game design it is ?
You are right in quite some measure. Though it is probably worthy to note that the first people crying blood and tears on the forums where the "mislead" theme park players, though which are essentially the same clients who managed to tank every themeparky MMO in the last years with always the same lines.
But now also the people slated more to sandbox games tune in, because the little sand left is essentially taken out of the box completely by a row of very idiotic decisions. A "sandbox" or "sandpark" where you introduce token grind, "normalize" end game goals (mounts and gliders) and trivialize gold generation has not much left where to mould and form. Even the castle holding guilds have the problem that there is a 6 week hiatus before the first sieges start. 6 freaking weeks nobody knows why they were introduced. Probably because the first sieges will start shortly after the next deadline for patron accounts then.
So you have three bigger groups of players leaving here. The people who didn't find the themepark + happy farmville they expected for their own secret reasons, the people fed up with Trions decisions and handling of the game, and the people who think that the game is not sandbox enough. I am more in the third group (with a bit of the second) and though I will not leave very soon, because I want to experience the first siege of our guild castle, my playtime already started dropping considerably.
Trion is indeed working hard to reiterate evers mistake they made in the launch phase of Rift. Unfortunately it may well be that ArcheAge cannot recover from the last blows they did against it with essentially free near BiS weapons and easy real money thunderstrucks and archeum.
I dont think AA is a failure. alot of people enjoy the game, i think people who were expecting to much might see it as a failure ( to them ). but over all its doing pretty good.
I also think they should not of advertised as a sandbox though because its not even close to a sandbox MMO. that part could be seen as a failure for sure.
I really wish people like you would stop telling people like me why I did not like the game. Seriously...who do you people think you are? I KNOW why I did not like the game, and it was not because of the lack of sandbox, it was BECAUSE OF the sandbox elements. Trion destroyed it with their cash shop antics and poor decisions, period.
Funny how it is a weekend and a game that you could barely get into without a queue is now barren, two high pop servers ALL weekend how long after launch?
Nah, not a failure at all.
And yes I call it a failure because of the road to success it was on before Trion screwed it all up. Not a monetary failure, Trion cashed, failure as what could have been a great and long lasting MMO. RIP, yes I am calling it. I want all of you naysayers to come back here and tell me I was right 1 year from now when this game is all but dead and gone.
So, using this prespective WoW is a failure because only have 10millions players (dont know if is true, just a example) and it could have 15millions if was a better game and blizard made better decisions...
Talk only about EU only 4 servers at launch if i remeber correctly, atm is what? 8, 10? not sure, and all weekend only 1 wasnt at high population. Trion expect fill 4 server and they have the double atm, is that a failure?
Its totally the contrary, considering all the huge problems the launch and post launch had its a huge sucess.
ArcheAge didn't fail as a game, IMO. It's in fact quite solid. What failed with it, for me, is how it was run.
#1. Nothing done to combat the endless economy-busting gold farmers / spammers.
#2. A handfull of 24-7 guild players can virtually grab as much land as possible due to the ease of obtaining a subscription without paying a single dime. I personally could've funded several accounts with mere gold.
#3. The labor system. I felt like I could only play a few hours per day due to the limited labor system. Worst idea ever.
#4. Not westernized enough. Too Asian. It's hard to feel like a torn and weathered warrior when it looks like my character can cry at any given time.
ArcheAge didn't fail as a game, IMO. It's in fact quite solid. What failed with it, for me, is how it was run.
#1. Nothing done to combat the endless economy-busting gold farmers / spammers.
#2. A handfull of 24-7 guild players can virtually grab as much land as possible due to the ease of obtaining a subscription without paying a single dime. I personally could've funded several accounts with mere gold.
#3. The labor system. I felt like I could only play a few hours per day due to the limited labor system. Worst idea ever.
#4. Not westernized enough. Too Asian. It's hard to feel like a torn and weathered warrior when it looks like my character can cry at any given time.
I dont think AA is a failure. alot of people enjoy the game, i think people who were expecting to much might see it as a failure ( to them ). but over all its doing pretty good.
I also think they should not of advertised as a sandbox though because its not even close to a sandbox MMO. that part could be seen as a failure for sure.
I really wish people like you would stop telling people like me why I did not like the game. Seriously...who do you people think you are? I KNOW why I did not like the game, and it was not because of the lack of sandbox, it was BECAUSE OF the sandbox elements. Trion destroyed it with their cash shop antics and poor decisions, period.
Funny how it is a weekend and a game that you could barely get into without a queue is now barren, two high pop servers ALL weekend how long after launch?
Nah, not a failure at all.
And yes I call it a failure because of the road to success it was on before Trion screwed it all up. Not a monetary failure, Trion cashed, failure as what could have been a great and long lasting MMO. RIP, yes I am calling it. I want all of you naysayers to come back here and tell me I was right 1 year from now when this game is all but dead and gone.
So, using this prespective WoW is a failure because only have 10millions players (dont know if is true, just a example) and it could have 15millions if was a better game and blizard made better decisions...
Talk only about EU only 4 servers at launch if i remeber correctly, atm is what? 8, 10? not sure, and all weekend only 1 wasnt at high population. Trion expect fill 4 server and they have the double atm, is that a failure?
Its totally the contrary, considering all the huge problems the launch and post launch had its a huge sucess.
Some people do honestly view WoW's changes as a failure. However, it took a long time for those changes, and WoW's playerbase in general was steadily growing for a looooooong time. Even those who call it a failure only mean "later", not "right off the bat".
As for AA, considering how FAST Trion had new servers up and ready to go, I'm marginally sure 4 servers was NOT their initial expectations despite how the game started out with 4 servers, because the new servers came out so quickly afterwarsds (indicating new servers were not just pre-planned in advance, but set-up in advance) Instead, they were doing R2Games' publically-presented strategy of releasing new servers shortly after releasing the old to cash in (and double-dip) on those who couldn't get what they wanted on the old servers.
Some people do honestly view WoW's changes as a failure. However, it took a long time for those changes, and WoW's playerbase in general was steadily growing for a looooooong time. Even those who call it a failure only mean "later", not "right off the bat".
As for AA, considering how FAST Trion had new servers up and ready to go, I'm marginally sure 4 servers was NOT their initial expectations despite how the game started out with 4 servers, because the new servers came out so quickly afterwarsds (indicating new servers were not just pre-planned in advance, but set-up in advance) Instead, they were doing R2Games' publically-presented strategy of releasing new servers shortly after releasing the old to cash in (and double-dip) on those who couldn't get what they wanted on the old servers.
Well, i didnt want to say that WoW is a failure, was just a example/anology related to the reason Viper say AA is a failure.
This thread have a title like AA failure is allready a know fact.
It isnt yet, maybe will be maybe not, but i dont see much sense stating AA a failure in general way atm. Its is on personal view for some, thats for sure, but in companys view i dont see much proves that is allready.
When we state that a game is a failure as a fact, it as to be in company prespective like allready hapened with some games. ArcheAge didnt hapened yet.
Some people do honestly view WoW's changes as a failure. However, it took a long time for those changes, and WoW's playerbase in general was steadily growing for a looooooong time. Even those who call it a failure only mean "later", not "right off the bat".
As for AA, considering how FAST Trion had new servers up and ready to go, I'm marginally sure 4 servers was NOT their initial expectations despite how the game started out with 4 servers, because the new servers came out so quickly afterwarsds (indicating new servers were not just pre-planned in advance, but set-up in advance) Instead, they were doing R2Games' publically-presented strategy of releasing new servers shortly after releasing the old to cash in (and double-dip) on those who couldn't get what they wanted on the old servers.
Well, i didnt want to say that WoW is a failure, was just a example/anology related to the reason Viper say AA is a failure.
This thread have a title like AA failure is allready a know fact.
It isnt yet, maybe will be maybe not, but i dont see much sense stating AA a failure in general way atm. Its is on personal view for some, thats for sure, but in companys view i dont see much proves that is allready.
When we state that a game is a failure as a fact, it as to be in company prespective like allready hapened with some games. ArcheAge didnt hapened yet.
It's true that it takes a while to really determine if a game is a failure, yes. Pretty sure Wildstar took at least another month from AA's current age for that to start showing. Assuming only at the western version of AA, of course.
Financially, I'm actually certain the game was a success. So many people said they spent thousands and founders packs sold like crazy. However, as R2Games' presentation disclosed, some F2P companies actually include, anticipate, and accept "Game's short life span" when designing the business model for that game.
If, hypothetically speaking, Trion did as well (which would thus include cost saving measures such as releasing very few servers in spite of knowing how many they'd need to fit all those pre-purchased founders packs, knowing fully well that thanks to the "Games' short life span" and "low player retention" cons of the business model as stated by R2Games meant those founders wouldn't stick around anyways), is it even possible to fail in the first place? IE, if a game company doesn't care whether the game has a good lifespan or not because most of the profits are front-loaded (again, as pointed out by R2's presentation), it's pretty hard for a game to fail from the company's perspective.
At that point the original question of the original post becomes kinda moot. You don't even need to argue the semantics of failure or not. Whether or not the game failed by whatever yours or anyone else's definition of failure is, the only thing other companies will learn about this is that if you do a whaling business F2P model, you'll make good profits at the cost of the game's life span. And that's something they already know, to the point where R2Games was fine with publically saying that.
It's true that it takes a while to really determine if a game is a failure, yes. Pretty sure Wildstar took at least another month from AA's current age for that to start showing. Assuming only at the western version of AA, of course.
Financially, I'm actually certain the game was a success. So many people said they spent thousands and founders packs sold like crazy. However, as R2Games' presentation disclosed, some F2P companies actually include, anticipate, and accept "Game's short life span" when designing the business model for that game.
If, hypothetically speaking, Trion did as well (which would thus include cost saving measures such as releasing very few servers in spite of knowing how many they'd need to fit all those pre-purchased founders packs, knowing fully well that thanks to the "Games' short life span" and "low player retention" cons of the business model as stated by R2Games meant those founders wouldn't stick around anyways), is it even possible to fail in the first place? IE, if a game company doesn't care whether the game has a good lifespan or not because most of the profits are front-loaded (again, as pointed out by R2's presentation), it's pretty hard for a game to fail from the company's perspective.
At that point the original question of the original post becomes kinda moot. You don't even need to argue the semantics of failure or not. Whether or not the game failed by whatever yours or anyone else's definition of failure is, the only thing other companies will learn about this is that if you do a whaling business F2P model, you'll make good profits at the cost of the game's life span. And that's something they already know, to the point where R2Games was fine with publically saying that.
And what a slippery slope it becomes. Founders packs, "exclusives" for folks who pay before getting their hands on the game based on hype and edited videos.. If, in fact, such a practice turns a profit before the finished product is ever released to the public, it's ripe for exploitation. When you've combined F2P with crowdfunding development, it's a recipe for disaster.
What is the problem with players? They are weak, noobish, most of them cannot play.
That is EXACTLY what most of Wildstar's biggest fans said about players who left their game.
(Though I suppose in AA's case the major difference is the monetization strategy means Trion pulled a profit even if the game does bomb as badly as Wildstar did)
Comments
Thread title seems to be an evident fail. Archeage's failure shows how not to make a successful game. It doesn't show anything about what people want beyond that people would like a game that doesn't have a cash shop thrust under their noses. Thing is, the more a F2P game tries to force people to pay, the more people just uninstall it instead. Archeage has certainly demonstrated that.
Moral: to make money, either (a) force players to pay upfront and be honest about it; (b) be so good that you generate a loyal user base that will stay with you for the long haul.
What has happened to AA should show players that it is not themeparks that are the problem, its the cash shop. The cash shops are driving game design in a way that creates a poor game world and poor gameplay.
We predicted this years ago, it is time to wake up and make a stand for P2P. Without a financial model that is in tune with gaming ethos, online games have become nothing more than a combination of shopping malls and casinos.
I agree.
1 main reason why i am not playing PoE (i know its not an mmo) But its due to the cosmetics...man i remember back in the days..when you got an item..and it was glowing..it meant it was f-king epic...now you just see cool looking chars..with shitty gear..it has lost all of the cool things in a game...(regarding looks) also..i loved wow before the item morhping...i remember following kungen like a kid on Magertheridon to inspect him.,.allong with 40 other people...that was a great feeling.. now...everyone can look epic..with just a few bucks..its a shame really.
mmorpg junkie since 1999
Yes, perhaps the initial rush of players to ArcheAge will "prove" that sandboxy game designs are popular too.
The cynical among us will quickly point out that players' behaviour i.r.o. ArcheAge is pretty much indistinguishable from any other new MMO launch. Huge hype before launch, mass rush at launch followed by a steep drop in player numbers 4-8 weeks after launch. The given reasons for the behaviour may be different from "themepark" MMO's, but the eventual pattern is the same, so who cares what kind of game design it is ?
Less cynically, if the popularity of AA signals a clear and significant market for "sandboxy" games, then in 3 to 5 years from now, we may have far more choice in the market. Here's hoping.
You are right in quite some measure. Though it is probably worthy to note that the first people crying blood and tears on the forums where the "mislead" theme park players, though which are essentially the same clients who managed to tank every themeparky MMO in the last years with always the same lines.
But now also the people slated more to sandbox games tune in, because the little sand left is essentially taken out of the box completely by a row of very idiotic decisions. A "sandbox" or "sandpark" where you introduce token grind, "normalize" end game goals (mounts and gliders) and trivialize gold generation has not much left where to mould and form. Even the castle holding guilds have the problem that there is a 6 week hiatus before the first sieges start. 6 freaking weeks nobody knows why they were introduced. Probably because the first sieges will start shortly after the next deadline for patron accounts then.
So you have three bigger groups of players leaving here. The people who didn't find the themepark + happy farmville they expected for their own secret reasons, the people fed up with Trions decisions and handling of the game, and the people who think that the game is not sandbox enough. I am more in the third group (with a bit of the second) and though I will not leave very soon, because I want to experience the first siege of our guild castle, my playtime already started dropping considerably.
Trion is indeed working hard to reiterate evers mistake they made in the launch phase of Rift. Unfortunately it may well be that ArcheAge cannot recover from the last blows they did against it with essentially free near BiS weapons and easy real money thunderstrucks and archeum.
So, using this prespective WoW is a failure because only have 10millions players (dont know if is true, just a example) and it could have 15millions if was a better game and blizard made better decisions...
Talk only about EU only 4 servers at launch if i remeber correctly, atm is what? 8, 10? not sure, and all weekend only 1 wasnt at high population. Trion expect fill 4 server and they have the double atm, is that a failure?
Its totally the contrary, considering all the huge problems the launch and post launch had its a huge sucess.
ArcheAge didn't fail as a game, IMO. It's in fact quite solid. What failed with it, for me, is how it was run.
#1. Nothing done to combat the endless economy-busting gold farmers / spammers.
#2. A handfull of 24-7 guild players can virtually grab as much land as possible due to the ease of obtaining a subscription without paying a single dime. I personally could've funded several accounts with mere gold.
#3. The labor system. I felt like I could only play a few hours per day due to the limited labor system. Worst idea ever.
#4. Not westernized enough. Too Asian. It's hard to feel like a torn and weathered warrior when it looks like my character can cry at any given time.
Are you discriminating against emo barbarians?
Some people do honestly view WoW's changes as a failure. However, it took a long time for those changes, and WoW's playerbase in general was steadily growing for a looooooong time. Even those who call it a failure only mean "later", not "right off the bat".
As for AA, considering how FAST Trion had new servers up and ready to go, I'm marginally sure 4 servers was NOT their initial expectations despite how the game started out with 4 servers, because the new servers came out so quickly afterwarsds (indicating new servers were not just pre-planned in advance, but set-up in advance) Instead, they were doing R2Games' publically-presented strategy of releasing new servers shortly after releasing the old to cash in (and double-dip) on those who couldn't get what they wanted on the old servers.
Well, i didnt want to say that WoW is a failure, was just a example/anology related to the reason Viper say AA is a failure.
This thread have a title like AA failure is allready a know fact.
It isnt yet, maybe will be maybe not, but i dont see much sense stating AA a failure in general way atm. Its is on personal view for some, thats for sure, but in companys view i dont see much proves that is allready.
When we state that a game is a failure as a fact, it as to be in company prespective like allready hapened with some games. ArcheAge didnt hapened yet.
It's true that it takes a while to really determine if a game is a failure, yes. Pretty sure Wildstar took at least another month from AA's current age for that to start showing. Assuming only at the western version of AA, of course.
Financially, I'm actually certain the game was a success. So many people said they spent thousands and founders packs sold like crazy. However, as R2Games' presentation disclosed, some F2P companies actually include, anticipate, and accept "Game's short life span" when designing the business model for that game.
If, hypothetically speaking, Trion did as well (which would thus include cost saving measures such as releasing very few servers in spite of knowing how many they'd need to fit all those pre-purchased founders packs, knowing fully well that thanks to the "Games' short life span" and "low player retention" cons of the business model as stated by R2Games meant those founders wouldn't stick around anyways), is it even possible to fail in the first place? IE, if a game company doesn't care whether the game has a good lifespan or not because most of the profits are front-loaded (again, as pointed out by R2's presentation), it's pretty hard for a game to fail from the company's perspective.
At that point the original question of the original post becomes kinda moot. You don't even need to argue the semantics of failure or not. Whether or not the game failed by whatever yours or anyone else's definition of failure is, the only thing other companies will learn about this is that if you do a whaling business F2P model, you'll make good profits at the cost of the game's life span. And that's something they already know, to the point where R2Games was fine with publically saying that.
And what a slippery slope it becomes. Founders packs, "exclusives" for folks who pay before getting their hands on the game based on hype and edited videos.. If, in fact, such a practice turns a profit before the finished product is ever released to the public, it's ripe for exploitation. When you've combined F2P with crowdfunding development, it's a recipe for disaster.
That is EXACTLY what most of Wildstar's biggest fans said about players who left their game.
(Though I suppose in AA's case the major difference is the monetization strategy means Trion pulled a profit even if the game does bomb as badly as Wildstar did)