The term "minimal functionality" is apparently subjective. It's the customer's subjective opinion that will count more than the developer's.
The price of a good is based on what the market is willing to pay. There are many undervalued MMOs out there, I don't think this is one of them.
My opinion. This game needs to shutter it's doors, rework some things that meet what the consumer deems to be minimal functionality, and switch to systems/tools that don't create development problems down the road. You'll pay a lot more for "Free" when free becomes broken/unusable/unviable. $2-3 Million remaining based on $4 Million to date also leads me to believe there are some serious business decisions needed. The first being whether to continue the project or shut it down. I sense, given the current enlistment of players to sell the game to the general MMO community, that GW is at a key decision point, or very close to it.
It seems weird to me that you want to insist on using the term "alpha". We had an alpha. It ran from June to December.
OK so the game Alpha tested for 6 months. How long was the beta test? I'm pretty sure (feel free to correct any inaccuracy) that you started "Early Enrollment" at the end of Dec, or Jan 1st...
So please do clarify when exactly the beta occurred? Because if Early Enrollment isn't beta... when exactly was the beta test?
Bumped since Ryan stated he was looking to answer questions. He must have somehow missed this one.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Originally posted by CrazKanuk It's a shame that this game was successfully funded through Kickstarter. I think that they low-balled their KS funding, hoping for backend deals or additional funding (obviously) and it simply never happened. Unfortunately, I think PFO is hurting crowdfunding at this point.
How so? The game has always been scheduled for a 2016 "full" release. The kickstarter specifically said the game was coming out in 2016 and that the KS funding was to speed it up. I've been playing since alpha back in August and through the first 4 months of "Early Enrollment" and I if nothing else, I can tell you that there is absolutely positively ZERO doubt this game is not only being built, but being built on a fast track. There is real value in that when you consider the graveyard of vaporware games scattered around the archives of this very site.
Say whatever you want about the controversial early access but the game is being built and you can play an early version of it right now if you want to.
Its... quite sad. First they come up with an idea and for the sake of getting more attention pretty much throw in pathfinder while having practically nothing to do with it. Then they make people pay to test, not only a straight fee but also a subscription fee to TEST a game. THEN they require those people PAYING to test an INCOMPLETE game to get more people to do the same.
We aren't testing anything. There is a test server some big accounts have access to that does the testing. When it passes the test server it goes live. The game is rough and bare bones and not quite suitable for general consumption, all of that is true. But we are not in alpha, we aren't testing and a small population of players who signed on for the benefits of the early access are enjoying it and that is also true.
Its... quite sad. First they come up with an idea and for the sake of getting more attention pretty much throw in pathfinder while having practically nothing to do with it. Then they make people pay to test, not only a straight fee but also a subscription fee to TEST a game. THEN they require those people PAYING to test an INCOMPLETE game to get more people to do the same.
We aren't testing anything. There is a test server some big accounts have access to that does the testing. When it passes the test server it goes live. The game is rough and bare bones and not quite suitable for general consumption, all of that is true. But we are not in alpha, we aren't testing and a small population of players who signed on for the benefits of the early access are enjoying it and that is also true.
So please do clarify when exactly the beta occurred? Because if Early Enrollment isn't beta... when exactly was the beta test?
Bumped since Ryan stated he was looking to answer questions. He must have somehow missed this one.
Maybe they decided not to have one? If you're going to try to define a new paradigm for development, sometimes old terms fail to fit.
Constantly rolling out new features every couple of weeks while the game is live and people are paying probably makes a traditional "beta" a bit of an inadequate construct. It's a strange way to deliver software, a difficult thing to label, and I think it's making a lot of people uncomfortable.
Maybe they should have called it "gamma."
Hey, I could post a lot of my own MAYBES.. so could anyone else. That''s why I asked the CEO. To get the actual not the maybe.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Wow. I just don't know what to say. This is is supposedly not released (although you have to buy it AND pay a sub which is laughable) but the CEO complains that people are not recruiting enough players?
He even goes so far as to state specifically what forums the folks should be posting on... and calling out one specific player that posted on here and asking others to come argue with him. Note that he didn't do it HERE but rather on his own forums that he totally controls.
LOL, and here it is...
People are talking about us. If we don't participate, all that gets transmitted is a one-sided, usually inaccurate message. Engagement is crucial.
For example, do you want this to go unchallenged?
Bluddwulf In order to fully participate in the Holding / Outpost aspects of the game that was just added, you will most likely have to join one of the three main settlements or their alliance. Actually getting to own and run an outpost / holding requires that you run escalations and defeat the escalation bosses.
Only the larger populated settlements can run these, and at the same time ensure that no one kill steals the escalation boss. You can actually spend hours running an escalation and by a stroke of luck, another team can spot the boss before your group and kill it (getting all of the rewards, including the resources needed to build an outpost / holding).
So the meaning of this sandbox is, the content is only if you join one of the big boys.
But there is a difference between the CEO saying Bluddwulf is wrong, and players who represent Settlements and can offer support for their objections saying he is wrong.
I think I won the internet vs. Ryan Dancey. Especially considering that in that thread the eary responses were that I was not wrong, or not technically wrong.
I have also been accused of almost single-handedly driving potential new subscribers away. Yeah, as if the game being a buy-to-play + subscription based alpha / beta / early enrollment .... new name pending after MMORPG review, has nothing to do with lack of interest.
The real panic mode is going into high gear, for one simple reason. May 1 will mark the first day that the 4 Month Kick Starter Free Play comes to an end. That means the only players in game after May 1 will be those who pre purchased more time, or continue to pay the subscription time.
I warned Ryan Dancey, over a year ago, that PFO will suffer a double dip in server population. But, fro the looks of things now, I may have been wrong. There will be just a single dip, and it is coming in a few days.
PFO should change gears and the roll out of its "vision". It should revisit its game engine, its focus (PVP or PVE, not both), its monetization structure and the player base it is truly seeking.
Played: E&B, SWG, Eve, WoW, COH, WAR, POTBS, AOC, LOTRO, AUTO.A, AO, FE, TR, WWII, MWO, TSW, SWTOR, GW2, NWO, WoP, RUST, LIF, SOA, MORTAL, DFUW, AA, TF, PFO, ALBO, and many many others....
And with how this game was handled/brought to the community is just another case of how most developers are out of touch with the community. Pretty sad actually, had hopes for this game, was even a backer. But how massively mismanaged this title is being handled is just unfortunate.
I feel sad for the people who shelled out $1000 for "alpha access" when more or less you're playing alpha now. Oh wait I forgot, "release". Think I'd rather throw a sub Trion's way than delve any deeper into this poor excuse of a "sandbox".
And with how this game was handled/brought to the community is just another case of how most developers are out of touch with the community. Pretty sad actually, had hopes for this game, was even a backer. But how massively mismanaged this title is being handled is just unfortunate.
That really is the bottom line, and seems to be what most of us are trying to communicate.
Man, how do I get investors to give me money for an unfinished product that I'm already charging people both a purchase price AND a subscription fee to beta test for me? That sounds like a great gig!
Seriously.... it's not the job of the customers to hawk your product for you. That's YOUR job. Anything they do is extra gravy you should be THANKFUL for.
Man, how do I get investors to give me money for an unfinished product that I'm already charging people both a purchase price AND a subscription fee to beta test for me? That sounds like a great gig!
Seriously.... it's not the job of the customers to hawk your product for you. That's YOUR job. Anything they do is extra gravy you should be THANKFUL for.
Get a popular license and tell the fans there's a promised land waiting for them in a unprecised future, but they have to prove they're worthy of it first.
If a game is good (especially an MMO) it will speak for itself, and people will come.
The MMO crowd is EXTREMELY hungry for a new and exciting world to explore, that has been my experience over the last 10 eyars. If your game is not drawing crowds of players, you should take it as a very strong message that your game is not good enough.
When I look at youtube videos of Pathfinder, it looks like total crap. End of story. I'm very forgiving of graphics when it comes to online worlds but it just looks like total shit, let's be honest. Like an amateur game from 6 years ago.
So, step up your game, Pathfinder team, and then we'll come. Complaining on the official forums that people won't come to play is not the solution.
First of all, the CEO of the game did not blame us, he simply encouraged word of mouth promotion and told us how to do it if we wanted to. They gave us trial keys and told us where we could offer them on sites like this one. They want to grow the game like EVE did and this is one of those methods. From that which actually happened to being :"guilted like jewish children", well wow, OP has got some issues he needs to address, good luck with that. We weren't blamed for anything, that's absurd, I have no idea where OP would get that impression. There was no crime here.
Secondly, Early Enrollment is akin to a paid Beta with no XP rollbacks, that is true. Stop saying it's alpha, it's definitely not alpha, it's a functional game with lots of working features that hundreds of people are enjoying. They have been honest about its current state and those who want to pay for it do, big deal. They are adding BIG chunks monthly, there is absolutely zero indication development for the game is halting or slowing down in any way.
Thirdly, I don't actually expect PFO to have too many people playing throughout the paid Beta and I doubt Ryan Dancey does either. With 5,000 paying accounts they probably pay their salaries for the entirety of 1.5 year Beta and for an inidie company that is golden. I've built two projects with similar pay as you go models so I get what he's doing. They don't even need to break even, the goal is just not be too far in the red during development. Again, not a crime, the risks of large scale development is exactly what keeps Hollywood and major gaming in major ruts constantly.
Lastly, I know I am paying for an undercooked product. When you pay my rent, you can tell me what to do with my money. Until then I'll spend it and my time on the community we are building at Pathfinder Online, which is far, far and away the healthiest I've ever been around for a full PvP MMO. If there were a more complete game out there that would make me happier, I'd play it, believe me I would.
So go ahead and caw away in your own "echo chamber" of MMO rumor mills and half truths like miserable crows. Meanwhile my life is full and my eyes are wide open and I am happy with my game.
People have a right to say what they believe is objectively bad and not worth the money. Even you yourself imply the game is subpar, but that you enjoy it in any case. That's great. Nobody in their right mind is saying you should outright stop and be morally opposed to the "evils" of corporations or what they view as shady practices. There are many different guilty pleasures that I enjoy that aren't / weren't popular and only had "hundreds" of players as opposed to thousands or millions. Sometimes incredibly small communities are the best ones. Though we have to ask ourselves if we're paying for the community -- which we ourselves own -- or the game. Ultimately it doesn't matter if we're willing to pay anyway.
Originally posted by wmmarcellino
Originally posted by GolbezTheLion
Every single post you've ever made on this forum is in relation to PFO. You're obviously a huge fan, which also makes you hugely biased. Try taking off the rose colored glasses, you'll see things more clearly that way.
Wait, I play a game that I like, and that's a problem? Dude, try think through what you just said. The reason I play PFO is because I like it. It's fun. We have a lot of fun playing it. We like the social dimensions, the depth and complexity of character building and especially the depth in crafting/economic development. We like it so much, that even though the game is pretty minimum in some respects--graphics are improving but still pretty weak, client isn't optimized, only 4 classes/3 races in currently--we still play it and have a ton of fun.
And so I shouldn't like it because what? Because you don't like? Just to help you in the future, taste and preference isn't bias. Bias is selective evidentiality. So "I like X, Y and Z enough to compensate for P, D, & Q," is the friggin' opposite of bias, because you're explicitly including evidence broadly and then interpreting it in context.
Just for clarity's sake, you played PFO, and didn't enjoy it? What settlement were you in?
From my understanding he's stating that you have a history of speaking in a positive light with the game after you failed to read the topic at hand and wrote on what you imagined it was about. At least, this is the impression I also got when I first read your post and is completely of my own opinion.
I find myself hard pressed not to offer personal opinions based on screenshots, what I've read, etc. Instead, I will simply state that the vast, vast majority of people who haven't heard of this game have called it "bad" simply by looking at it. It is unfair, to be sure. Yet, still... the vast majority of those who do some research thereafter, come to the same conclusion. Again, unfair as there is a lot of precedence on what people expect now, and today's gamer do not have the same tolerance of specific design choices as well as business dealings. Speaking as someone who is intensely against anti-consumerist policies, I can definitely see why still a third group call this game a scam. With the scandals it has had in the past, as well as people being tired of early access titles, paying for alphas or incomplete or unpolished games and the crap we're getting from Steam Greenlight... well, it's a minefield of people projecting hatred of these systems into a game they have no experience within. Though also, in reality, we're talking about the vast, vast majority of people here. Combining all of its faults, and all of the talk -- of both onlookers and players -- the game itself seems to be objectively bad in general. With the community and potential being the only saving factors (and every player I've talked to saying the game is rough, has little content and under normal circumstances for any other game, isn't worth the money).
I do, however, like the idea of a passionate amount of gamers willing to pay for the development of a game. Who enjoy the community and the development team, as well as the current game in development. To essentially be a part of the development team by producing and testing it. This is a great way to spin things for those who are in the "in crowd", but again, from an outside perspective, it is a foolish use of money and show of trust.
Trust me, I get it. The sheer hypocrisy of this all if I were to claim this game was and or is a bad idea, given that I have and do support various projects on Kickstarter. When it comes to such, I do plenty of research on projects -- this one included (though not a lot of information about the actual game was available back then) when it was first revealed -- before deciding on investing or not. To me, I saw a lot of warning signs in my research, and opted not to invest. Though these signs are set by myself and not indicative at all of there being something wrong or that a project will fail. But ultimately, there will be the onlooker who doesn't do research that will buy in, or the one who doesn't and condemns.
However, when it comes to this... we have both sides saying the game is unfinished, unpolished, etc. It would be unjust and dishonest if they were to say others, given the sheer evidence and the amount of people saying such. Most people do not want to pay for a community they can make or form themselves, if that's the only reason the game has any draw at the moment. Intended depth or potential are not things many take kindly to. When you sell a game, that game is open to criticism. To the collection of information in which to state what is likely objective in the public eye in two ways -- of those who play it, and of those who see it for the first time (which is important when figuring the amount of draw a game as, which helps with moving power). With regards to myself, I have nothing to say about it. I haven't played it and I don't intend to play it until it is a full game feature complete game. Even then, I am exceedingly harsh on P2P games in terms of a need for them be as close to perfect as possible when it comes to my needs and what I want from them.
Due to frequent travel in my youth, English isn't something I consider my primary language (and thus I obtained quirky ways of writing). German and French were always easier for me despite my family being U.S. citizens for over a century. Spanish I learned as a requirement in school, Japanese and Korean I acquired for my youthful desire of anime and gaming (and also work now). I only debate in English to help me work with it (and limit things). In addition, I'm not smart enough to remain fluent in everything and typically need exposure to get in the groove of things again if I haven't heard it in a while. If you understand Mandarin, I know a little, but it has actually been a challenge and could use some help.
Also, I thoroughly enjoy debates and have accounts on over a dozen sites for this. If you wish to engage in such, please put effort in a post and provide sources -- I will then do the same with what I already wrote (if I didn't) as well as with my responses to your own. Expanding my information on a subject makes my stance either change or strengthen the next time I speak of it or write a thesis. Allow me to thank you sincerely for your time.
Originally posted by thundercles This is embarassing. Sounds like things aren't going as well as he wanted and he's blaming his paying customers. Makes sense.
As it's not released, they are "paying testers" not "paying customers".
You know, it used to be that testers got paid to test, even if it was only with in game stuff.
Wow. I just don't know what to say. This is is supposedly not released (although you have to buy it AND pay a sub which is laughable) but the CEO complains that people are not recruiting enough players?
He even goes so far as to state specifically what forums the folks should be posting on... and calling out one specific player that posted on here and asking others to come argue with him. Note that he didn't do it HERE but rather on his own forums that he totally controls.
Even if the game was released this would be sketchy.
All I can say is.... WOW.
Edit to add:
I think this snip from a post by a well establish Guild Leader sums it up perfectly:
Now how do we get new people? Perhaps I am part of the problem. I'm barely holding on myself, only persuading myself of the long term goals and potential. But I won't, can't sell this to my friends or gaming group, not with a $15 monthly kicker right now. And the amount of money isn't an issue, its the investment of money into something that isn't ready. And while you can put your head in the sand over whether the game is ready for not, the fact remains that I alone have 30 unique people who were playing the game, no longer playing the game. And it only took a month or two after EE started to convince them of that fact, the game just isn't there yet.
I think GW's expectations of how many people would want to play, grind, accept frustration and boredom was greatly exaggerated. They've tried to adjust from that realization and have done everything in my opinion except admit what everyone else knows.
Many of us tried to tell this to Ryan in advance. I even did so on these forums. Instead of listening, he argued and chose to listen to his small echo chamber. I think it's clear by this point that the concept of charging for "Early Enrollment" (both game purchase AND SUB) crossed the line with the vast majority of his customer base. The public's perception of what a Minimal Viable Product is has proven vastly different from Ryan's. Blaming the remaining customers for not recruiting enough is just beyond silly.
So let me get this clear, he is charging players access and sub and he wants them to also do recruiting? Shameful.
Just for clarity's sake, you played PFO, and didn't enjoy it? What settlement were you in?
Correct, I didn't enjoy it at all. I tried very hard to enjoy it, as a long time Pathfinder PnP fan/player, but in the end it seemed fairly obvious to me that there is no long term future for the game.
Conversely, I spent years playing Darkfall, UO, SWG and other fantasy sandboxes.
The settlement was Emerald Lodge, not that it matters.
This thread is actually an interesting study in gamer behaviour. Never really thought of us " gamers " as lab rats before, but this thread really screams control group and test subjects to me.
I find it interesting when Indie studios so miss the whole psychology aspect of game development and then sit there butt hurt that their game is not more popular.
Over the years billions have been spent studying human chemical reaction to auditory and visual stimulus. The science application to gaming actually started with pinball machine makers, but was then adopted and refined to an art by casinos, some of the early console developers Atari, Coleco, Nintendo had budgets testing gamer reaction to color, flashes and audio stimuli.
Blizzard spent millions on the science and applied it to every aspect of their success including magazine and TV commercials as well as the game development itself.
Then along comes these no budget, no science indie studios that toss out any color, and sound combination they like often creating a recipe for human chemical repulsion and never even know it.
It's sad but game success/failure is more about the science of positive stimuli, endorphin release, and chemical addiction than most gamers would ever care to admit.
How many times have you said " these graphics are amazing" ?
How many times have you gone on an item mall to buy one item and ended up buying the special brightly lit flashing " sale " item?
This thread is actually an interesting study in gamer behaviour. Never really thought of us " gamers " as lab rats before, but this thread really screams control group and test subjects to me.
I find it interesting when Indie studios so miss the whole psychology aspect of game development and then sit there butt hurt that their game is not more popular.
Over the years billions have been spent studying human chemical reaction to auditory and visual stimulus. The science application to gaming actually started with pinball machine makers, but was then adopted and refined to an art by casinos, some of the early console developers Atari, Coleco, Nintendo had budgets testing gamer reaction to color, flashes and audio stimuli.
Blizzard spent millions on the science and applied it to every aspect of their success including magazine and TV commercials as well as the game development itself.
Then along comes these no budget, no science indie studios that toss out any color, and sound combination they like often creating a recipe for human chemical repulsion and never even know it.
It's sad but game success/failure is more about the science of positive stimuli, endorphin release, and chemical addiction than most gamers would ever care to admit.
How many times have you said " these graphics are amazing" ?
How many times have you gone on an item mall to buy one item and ended up buying the special brightly lit flashing " sale " item?
It is all brain chemistry.
There's also a psychological mechanism whose name I dont remember that basically goes like this:
The more people invest in something, the more they'll persuade themselves they did the right thing. It has been studied and documented before. For instance someone who bet on a horse will be more convinced that very horse will win just by betting on it.
That must explain why we can see people say they blew thousands of $ on a f2p game like Neverwinter and that it was totally worth it.
Blizzard spent millions on the science and applied it to every aspect of their success including magazine and TV commercials as well as the game development itself.
Then along comes these no budget, no science indie studios that toss out any color, and sound combination they like often creating a recipe for human chemical repulsion and never even know it.
This is also interesting on another part.
Blizzard did anything to make the game more appealing to a broad variety of people aka mainstream.
PO is a niche game - so all quality and lack of content issues aside it raises one question:
Why didn't the CEO realize before that niche game stands for a small player base?
Comments
Translator: PFO Early Enrollment = Beta - Wipes + Alpha Swirl (aka Crowdforging) + Bugs^3
The term "minimal functionality" is apparently subjective. It's the customer's subjective opinion that will count more than the developer's.
The price of a good is based on what the market is willing to pay. There are many undervalued MMOs out there, I don't think this is one of them.
My opinion. This game needs to shutter it's doors, rework some things that meet what the consumer deems to be minimal functionality, and switch to systems/tools that don't create development problems down the road. You'll pay a lot more for "Free" when free becomes broken/unusable/unviable. $2-3 Million remaining based on $4 Million to date also leads me to believe there are some serious business decisions needed. The first being whether to continue the project or shut it down. I sense, given the current enlistment of players to sell the game to the general MMO community, that GW is at a key decision point, or very close to it.
Bumped since Ryan stated he was looking to answer questions. He must have somehow missed this one.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
How so? The game has always been scheduled for a 2016 "full" release. The kickstarter specifically said the game was coming out in 2016 and that the KS funding was to speed it up. I've been playing since alpha back in August and through the first 4 months of "Early Enrollment" and I if nothing else, I can tell you that there is absolutely positively ZERO doubt this game is not only being built, but being built on a fast track. There is real value in that when you consider the graveyard of vaporware games scattered around the archives of this very site.
Say whatever you want about the controversial early access but the game is being built and you can play an early version of it right now if you want to.
We aren't testing anything. There is a test server some big accounts have access to that does the testing. When it passes the test server it goes live. The game is rough and bare bones and not quite suitable for general consumption, all of that is true. But we are not in alpha, we aren't testing and a small population of players who signed on for the benefits of the early access are enjoying it and that is also true.But lets charge a sub and box fee for it!
Hey, I could post a lot of my own MAYBES.. so could anyone else. That''s why I asked the CEO. To get the actual not the maybe.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Alpha Romeo 4c is sub $70k usd, if he can't even afford that on his normal CEO wages than I guess he shouldn't even be CEO :P
LOL, and here it is...
For example, do you want this to go unchallenged?
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/430654/page/1#6634498
I don't.
But there is a difference between the CEO saying Bluddwulf is wrong, and players who represent Settlements and can offer support for their objections saying he is wrong.
Played: E&B, SWG, Eve, WoW, COH, WAR, POTBS, AOC, LOTRO, AUTO.A, AO, FE, TR, WWII, MWO, TSW, SWTOR, GW2, NWO, WoP, RUST, LIF, SOA, MORTAL, DFUW, AA, TF, PFO, ALBO, and many many others....
And with how this game was handled/brought to the community is just another case of how most developers are out of touch with the community. Pretty sad actually, had hopes for this game, was even a backer. But how massively mismanaged this title is being handled is just unfortunate.
I feel sad for the people who shelled out $1000 for "alpha access" when more or less you're playing alpha now. Oh wait I forgot, "release". Think I'd rather throw a sub Trion's way than delve any deeper into this poor excuse of a "sandbox".
Maybe if they made a good game people would play it.
That really is the bottom line, and seems to be what most of us are trying to communicate.
Man, how do I get investors to give me money for an unfinished product that I'm already charging people both a purchase price AND a subscription fee to beta test for me? That sounds like a great gig!
Seriously.... it's not the job of the customers to hawk your product for you. That's YOUR job. Anything they do is extra gravy you should be THANKFUL for.
Get a popular license and tell the fans there's a promised land waiting for them in a unprecised future, but they have to prove they're worthy of it first.
This really pisses me off, for some reason.
If a game is good (especially an MMO) it will speak for itself, and people will come.
The MMO crowd is EXTREMELY hungry for a new and exciting world to explore, that has been my experience over the last 10 eyars. If your game is not drawing crowds of players, you should take it as a very strong message that your game is not good enough.
When I look at youtube videos of Pathfinder, it looks like total crap. End of story. I'm very forgiving of graphics when it comes to online worlds but it just looks like total shit, let's be honest. Like an amateur game from 6 years ago.
So, step up your game, Pathfinder team, and then we'll come. Complaining on the official forums that people won't come to play is not the solution.
People have a right to say what they believe is objectively bad and not worth the money. Even you yourself imply the game is subpar, but that you enjoy it in any case. That's great. Nobody in their right mind is saying you should outright stop and be morally opposed to the "evils" of corporations or what they view as shady practices. There are many different guilty pleasures that I enjoy that aren't / weren't popular and only had "hundreds" of players as opposed to thousands or millions. Sometimes incredibly small communities are the best ones. Though we have to ask ourselves if we're paying for the community -- which we ourselves own -- or the game. Ultimately it doesn't matter if we're willing to pay anyway.
From my understanding he's stating that you have a history of speaking in a positive light with the game after you failed to read the topic at hand and wrote on what you imagined it was about. At least, this is the impression I also got when I first read your post and is completely of my own opinion.
I find myself hard pressed not to offer personal opinions based on screenshots, what I've read, etc. Instead, I will simply state that the vast, vast majority of people who haven't heard of this game have called it "bad" simply by looking at it. It is unfair, to be sure. Yet, still... the vast majority of those who do some research thereafter, come to the same conclusion. Again, unfair as there is a lot of precedence on what people expect now, and today's gamer do not have the same tolerance of specific design choices as well as business dealings. Speaking as someone who is intensely against anti-consumerist policies, I can definitely see why still a third group call this game a scam. With the scandals it has had in the past, as well as people being tired of early access titles, paying for alphas or incomplete or unpolished games and the crap we're getting from Steam Greenlight... well, it's a minefield of people projecting hatred of these systems into a game they have no experience within. Though also, in reality, we're talking about the vast, vast majority of people here. Combining all of its faults, and all of the talk -- of both onlookers and players -- the game itself seems to be objectively bad in general. With the community and potential being the only saving factors (and every player I've talked to saying the game is rough, has little content and under normal circumstances for any other game, isn't worth the money).
I do, however, like the idea of a passionate amount of gamers willing to pay for the development of a game. Who enjoy the community and the development team, as well as the current game in development. To essentially be a part of the development team by producing and testing it. This is a great way to spin things for those who are in the "in crowd", but again, from an outside perspective, it is a foolish use of money and show of trust.
Trust me, I get it. The sheer hypocrisy of this all if I were to claim this game was and or is a bad idea, given that I have and do support various projects on Kickstarter. When it comes to such, I do plenty of research on projects -- this one included (though not a lot of information about the actual game was available back then) when it was first revealed -- before deciding on investing or not. To me, I saw a lot of warning signs in my research, and opted not to invest. Though these signs are set by myself and not indicative at all of there being something wrong or that a project will fail. But ultimately, there will be the onlooker who doesn't do research that will buy in, or the one who doesn't and condemns.
However, when it comes to this... we have both sides saying the game is unfinished, unpolished, etc. It would be unjust and dishonest if they were to say others, given the sheer evidence and the amount of people saying such. Most people do not want to pay for a community they can make or form themselves, if that's the only reason the game has any draw at the moment. Intended depth or potential are not things many take kindly to. When you sell a game, that game is open to criticism. To the collection of information in which to state what is likely objective in the public eye in two ways -- of those who play it, and of those who see it for the first time (which is important when figuring the amount of draw a game as, which helps with moving power). With regards to myself, I have nothing to say about it. I haven't played it and I don't intend to play it until it is a full game feature complete game. Even then, I am exceedingly harsh on P2P games in terms of a need for them be as close to perfect as possible when it comes to my needs and what I want from them.
As it's not released, they are "paying testers" not "paying customers".
You know, it used to be that testers got paid to test, even if it was only with in game stuff.
Lost my mind, now trying to lose yours...
So let me get this clear, he is charging players access and sub and he wants them to also do recruiting? Shameful.
want 7 free days of playing? Try this
http://www.swtor.com/r/ZptVnY
Correct, I didn't enjoy it at all. I tried very hard to enjoy it, as a long time Pathfinder PnP fan/player, but in the end it seemed fairly obvious to me that there is no long term future for the game.
Conversely, I spent years playing Darkfall, UO, SWG and other fantasy sandboxes.
The settlement was Emerald Lodge, not that it matters.
This thread is actually an interesting study in gamer behaviour. Never really thought of us " gamers " as lab rats before, but this thread really screams control group and test subjects to me.
I find it interesting when Indie studios so miss the whole psychology aspect of game development and then sit there butt hurt that their game is not more popular.
Over the years billions have been spent studying human chemical reaction to auditory and visual stimulus. The science application to gaming actually started with pinball machine makers, but was then adopted and refined to an art by casinos, some of the early console developers Atari, Coleco, Nintendo had budgets testing gamer reaction to color, flashes and audio stimuli.
Blizzard spent millions on the science and applied it to every aspect of their success including magazine and TV commercials as well as the game development itself.
Then along comes these no budget, no science indie studios that toss out any color, and sound combination they like often creating a recipe for human chemical repulsion and never even know it.
It's sad but game success/failure is more about the science of positive stimuli, endorphin release, and chemical addiction than most gamers would ever care to admit.
How many times have you said " these graphics are amazing" ?
How many times have you gone on an item mall to buy one item and ended up buying the special brightly lit flashing " sale " item?
It is all brain chemistry.
There's also a psychological mechanism whose name I dont remember that basically goes like this:
The more people invest in something, the more they'll persuade themselves they did the right thing. It has been studied and documented before. For instance someone who bet on a horse will be more convinced that very horse will win just by betting on it.
That must explain why we can see people say they blew thousands of $ on a f2p game like Neverwinter and that it was totally worth it.
This is also interesting on another part.
Blizzard did anything to make the game more appealing to a broad variety of people aka mainstream.
PO is a niche game - so all quality and lack of content issues aside it raises one question:
Why didn't the CEO realize before that niche game stands for a small player base?