The fact that it's a numbers game is why they do care about maintaining many players. (They care a lot.)
The fact that it's a numbers game is why they don't care about forum extremists. (Because (a) they'll complain about something no matter what and (b) they're a vocal minority who are often statistically unimportant.)
There is always going to be a player out there, even in WOW, who thinks the game is unacceptable due to some very important reason to them.
But what matters is whether the millions of players who constitute the bulk of players care about that problem (and care enough to warrant change,) as those players are very important. Quite frequently extremists are simply a vocal minority when you look at the data, and so it literally makes no sense to let them lead the game around by its nose, wasting time chasing the happiness of that unsatisfiable player potentially at the cost of other players as you make too many changes they didn't like.
So it's essentially the act of becoming a forum extremist that causes one not to matter. Only widespread opinions carry weight, not individual rage-mongers.
Well, I could believe that some games have given up and that the devs just run it with a skeleton crew to keep it going, and if that is not caring then some games don't.
But they werent made that way and the devs would surely be happy if a game like that got a revival for some reason.
Believing someone would make a game like that on purpose is another matter, that would just be a waste of money. If you have $50M and you either could try to make a best selling MMO or a quick scam what would you do? The best selling MMO would earn more money even the first month and continue earning while the scam gives you a quick income a few years after you put money into it and then just is a waste of resources.
You are comparing apples and oranges. Single player games dont run on servers. They sell 1 billion copies, and the devs live happily and make either DLC or new games. MMO games run on servers. They sell 1 billion copies, and the money goes away keeping the servers alive. More money comes in from the constant players, but it again goes away keeping the servers alive, its a vicious cicle with mmos.
And the main difference. If everyone leaves a single player game, the game stays alive, waiting for you to return. If everyone leaves an mmo, it shuts down and you will never see it again.
mantaining servers is cheap as hell if u have a decent sub population that cover the cost and more.
the problem is simple , and wow is a perfect example , because albeit having hugeeeeeeeeee revenue all that money goes to the pockets or to others projects instead of WoW , with the money wow has generated and look and its poor state ....
FFXIV is on the other side of the fence , gains lots money and gets lots in return to keep it going , hope that doesnt change , because thats when ppl say goodbye.
mantaining servers is cheap as hell if u have a decent sub population that cover the cost and more.
the problem is simple , and wow is a perfect example , because albeit having hugeeeeeeeeee revenue all that money goes to the pockets or to others projects instead of WoW , with the money wow has generated and look and its poor state ....
FFXIV is on the other side of the fence , gains lots money and gets lots in return to keep it going , hope that doesnt change , because thats when ppl say goodbye.
Milking older games for money isn't uncommon but I don't think Blizzard wont care that Wow is losing players, Activision probably just thought that they could get away with a cheaper expansion and fewer patches. Now they know that it doesn't work that way and I am sure they will put a lot more resources on Legion that WoD.
Wow lost almost half it's subs in 9 months and there is no way that actually earned them money to save a few bucks on the expansion and updates. If you think Activision is happy about that you think wrong. 5M players x $15 = $75M each month and that is far more money than WoD cost they lose every month. Only a madman would think that would be a good idea.
mantaining servers is cheap as hell if u have a decent sub population that cover the cost and more.
, Activision probably just thought that they could get away with a cheaper expansion and fewer patches. Now they know that it doesn't work that way and I am sure they will put a lot more resources on Legion that WoD.
Wow lost almost half it's subs in 9 months and there is no way that actually earned them money to save a few bucks on the expansion and updates. If you think Activision is happy about that you think wrong. 5M players x $15 = $75M each month <snip>
Maintaining servers is (relatively) cheap - didn't use to be which is what gave birth to subscription (and only AC provided any content.)
I agree that AB probably thought they could get away with less - cutting costs as a result of the "buy-out" maybe. And the 14 month content drought pre-WoD has come home to roost with a 46% drop in 6, not 9, months. It is somewhat less than $15 per player though - different deals in different countries etc.
Do "developers" care? In a sense probably not; most people in a team will have a specific job and they will do it with a mix of pride, passion and boredom! And at times they will hope that those steering the ship know what they are doing - much better to work in a company that isn't contimually laying off staff, re-interviewing people for the job they are doing etc.
Those steering - they are the ones indirectly grappling with the cost of acquisition and cost of retention; indirectly because they have probably been given budgets and deadlines and targets. And they will hope that their managers know what they are doing! And maybe that someone in the organisation cares about customer satisfaction - which only indirectly drives acquisition and retention via repeat purchases.
Yep. Devs care about their next paycheck and future job security just like any other job. Do they love the game they are making? Well, I met a bone specialist that truly lived for his job. If the medical industry came to a halt for some reason he would be on the streets mending bones for chicken eggs. Some people will program with the same zeal. They've decided already it's not the money but part of who they see themselves as. They probably care if people like their game. Not everyone making the game is programming "dev." A lot of artists get involved. I think most of them do care.
Making a game is like making a movie. Not everyone can be the director. Not everyone can be makeup, wardrobe, stunt person, investor, etc. But success does seem to flow out from the top of the chain - the director. Devs are like the actors. Do all actors care if their movie is a hit? They'd better, lol.
I don't think anyone is under the impression that these games are Persistent anymore...if they ever were to begin with. That's the big problem I see with 'buy to play'. At least if there's some financial incentive to retain a player from month to month, such as subscription fees, the producers have some incentive to invest in the service. But if that incentive isn't there, the only thing a player has to keep the good thing is the arbitrary whim of the publisher.
this is essentially the problem with the industry.
at some point there was a paradigm shift with mmo publishers and developers starting to sell "a product" instead of trying to sell "an entertainment service".
True, but perhaps it is even worse than that, Pemmin.
Even good games which retain interest more than their competitors are not safe from cancellation. During the time when CoH closure discussion was hot, we had a guy on here--I forget his handle--who knew a little bit about CoH's churn rate, which was on the order of 0.95 or something; that meant that for every hundred players who played one month, ninety-five came back the next month. That's ungodly huge retention.
But despite these retention numbers, the game was still shut down, and I have to imagine it was shut down because, when push comes to shove, responding to the industry trends is far more important to a game publisher than retaining players in games which are no longer trendy. It's why game development, like most creative industries, is more akin to the fashion industry than something like productivity software.
__________________________ "Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it." --Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints." --Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls." --Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
Even good games which retain interest more than their competitors are not safe from cancellation. During the time when CoH closure discussion was hot, we had a guy on here--I forget his handle--who knew a little bit about CoH's churn rate, which was on the order of 0.95 or something; that meant that for every hundred players who played one month, ninety-five came back the next month. That's ungodly huge retention.
That number - which I believe was retention, not churn - is rather meaningless without acquisition numbers. All it's saying is that if you start the year with 100k subscribers, you will have 56k subscribers by December.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Your fractured sentence structured question deserves another, I have never considered Developers to not care about players staying, except maybe if they all tried to fit in said developers homes, all at once.
Even good games which retain interest more than their competitors are not safe from cancellation. During the time when CoH closure discussion was hot, we had a guy on here--I forget his handle--who knew a little bit about CoH's churn rate, which was on the order of 0.95 or something; that meant that for every hundred players who played one month, ninety-five came back the next month. That's ungodly huge retention.
But despite these retention numbers, the game was still shut down, and I have to imagine it was shut down because, when push comes to shove, responding to the industry trends is far more important to a game publisher than retaining players in games which are no longer trendy. It's why game development, like most creative industries, is more akin to the fashion industry than something like productivity software.
I don't necessarily think it's industry trends so much as how much the game was making vs how much money was being put in the game.
People forget that NC Soft is a publicly traded company. That means they need to do whatever it takes to make money and to make as much money as possible (within reason naturally).
So if they are putting in x dollars and getting y back but they realize they can take that x dollars and get a far greater amount they will do that.
The only reason they would allow a small amount of profit over a large amount of profit and then keep the game going would be if (in this case) keeping City of Heroes going had some greater effect on how their business was perceived which would then affect stock prices.
If City of Heroes was "bucking industry trends" and was making oodles of money they would of course kept it going.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
IF they didnt care many MMOs that where P2P would not have gone F2P to get more players.
I don't think that usually is the devs choice but the publishers though. Going F2P tend to get new attention to your game and new people will try it out and it means a bigger income. The devs might like that or not but it really is the people who pay their salary who tend to make choices like this (economical).
The devs usually do their best with the cards they are dealt, and they are surely happy when people like their work but it is really only kickstarter companies and indie devs that can make large economical decisions for themselves.
IF they didnt care many MMOs that where P2P would not have gone F2P to get more players.
I don't think that usually is the devs choice but the publishers though. Going F2P tend to get new attention to your game and new people will try it out and it means a bigger income. The devs might like that or not but it really is the people who pay their salary who tend to make choices like this (economical).
The devs usually do their best with the cards they are dealt, and they are surely happy when people like their work but it is really only kickstarter companies and indie devs that can make large economical decisions for themselves.
That makes sense if it was 2005, but that doesn't seem to be the publisher/developer relationship of today's MMOs, for two major reasons:
1) There's no physical product, and most advertising is online. What's the publisher's leverage? Who is still using a publisher? 2) Many current dev/publsiher relationships in NA/EU MMOs are where a title is licensed and the publisher is really the operator for that region. The 'publisher' often has their hands tied as to what they can do, how they can price things, and how to manage the releases.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
That makes sense if it was 2005, but that doesn't seem to be the publisher/developer relationship of today's MMOs, for two major reasons:
1) There's no physical product, and most advertising is online. What's the publisher's leverage? Who is still using a publisher? 2) Many current dev/publsiher relationships in NA/EU MMOs are where a title is licensed and the publisher is really the operator for that region. The 'publisher' often has their hands tied as to what they can do, how they can price things, and how to manage the releases.
You could say the same about the music industry but most games still have a publisher. EA, Activision, Ubisoft, NC Soft and other still have a lot to say out there. Mostly I think to get the funding.
But you are right that publishers just like record companies are living on borrowed time. The games who moved from P2P to F2P have very often had a publisher or some other type of owner who makes the economical calls though.
I am sure that individual quits make no difference, but if they see trends then I imagine they start to be concerned about the life of the product and thus maybe their job security. Overall the developers are just making shit to throw at a market instead of having a relationship with the consumers. There are downsides to relationships, but there are upsides too.
MMORPG players are often like Hobbits: They don't like Adventures
IF they didnt care many MMOs that where P2P would not have gone F2P to get more players.
I don't think that usually is the devs choice but the publishers though. Going F2P tend to get new attention to your game and new people will try it out and it means a bigger income. The devs might like that or not but it really is the people who pay their salary who tend to make choices like this (economical).
The devs usually do their best with the cards they are dealt, and they are surely happy when people like their work but it is really only kickstarter companies and indie devs that can make large economical decisions for themselves.
Devs know their job is tied to how many people are paying to play. Even the content they make is designed towards the biggest market but for a few niche games. From marketing to developers they all care about their payday and more players means more paydays. If a dev didnt care, they would be very dumb. Heck even niche games have their target for how many gamers they need to make a living.
I currently believe that the MMO market has flipped. Right now companies make far more money with pre-order sales and memberships before the game is even released. Before a game is released it is perfect. It is all hopes and dreams. Promises that have not been broken. It is the perfect time to cash in on an MMO. My guess is many games make more in pre-orders and first weeks orders than they do with subs for the first year, basically to FTP.
This to me is why MMO have turned into what they are. Quick cash grabs based on unrealistic promises that are never meant to be met. My guess is that MMO consumers are the most gullible and loose with their money. The current state of MMOs seems a very likely outcome to a market where customers prepay for promises and have no recourse or memory of getting bamboozled.
Kickstarter has only exasperated this and I expect that at some point the bottom will completely fall out. Although, the ability to companies to separate people from their money should never be underestimated, especially when dealing with MMO fanbase.
“It's unwise to pay too much, but it's worse to pay too little. When you pay too much, you lose a little money - that's all. When you pay too little, you sometimes lose everything, because the thing you bought was incapable of doing the thing it was bought to do. The common law of business balance prohibits paying a little and getting a lot - it can't be done. If you deal with the lowest bidder, it is well to add something for the risk you run, and if you do that you will have enough to pay for something better.”
I currently believe that the MMO market has flipped. Right now companies make far more money with pre-order sales and memberships before the game is even released. Before a game is released it is perfect. It is all hopes and dreams. Promises that have not been broken. It is the perfect time to cash in on an MMO. My guess is many games make more in pre-orders and first weeks orders than they do with subs for the first year, basically to FTP.
This to me is why MMO have turned into what they are. Quick cash grabs based on unrealistic promises that are never meant to be met. My guess is that MMO consumers are the most gullible and loose with their money. The current state of MMOs seems a very likely outcome to a market where customers prepay for promises and have no recourse or memory of getting bamboozled.
Kickstarter has only exasperated this and I expect that at some point the bottom will completely fall out. Although, the ability to companies to separate people from their money should never be underestimated, especially when dealing with MMO fanbase.
This is not a new trend. The AAA market has always been based on front loaded sales. This is why the industry was based on the P2P approach. It was only with longer lifecycles of games that there was any consideration of doing things differently. This is why F2P, or backend based sales, took off. However, the best return is still to mix the two... Which big publishers can still do. Launching an upfront campaign takes resources, and small companies have a hard time competing. However, it generates quick cash, and then they convert to a long term monetization strategy after it has peaked out.
I currently believe that the MMO market has flipped. Right now companies make far more money with pre-order sales and memberships before the game is even released. Before a game is released it is perfect. It is all hopes and dreams. Promises that have not been broken. It is the perfect time to cash in on an MMO. My guess is many games make more in pre-orders and first weeks orders than they do with subs for the first year, basically to FTP.
This to me is why MMO have turned into what they are. Quick cash grabs based on unrealistic promises that are never meant to be met. My guess is that MMO consumers are the most gullible and loose with their money. The current state of MMOs seems a very likely outcome to a market where customers prepay for promises and have no recourse or memory of getting bamboozled.
Kickstarter has only exasperated this and I expect that at some point the bottom will completely fall out. Although, the ability to companies to separate people from their money should never be underestimated, especially when dealing with MMO fanbase.
I don't think so. Yes, most MMOs from the last 7 years have earned more money until one month after launch then they will do under their lifetime but that doesn't mean they weren't hoping to become the next Wow.
It is simple mathematics. You have a budget of $50M+. Selling 2 million copies at launch will mean 2M x $50 = $100M. That is some income but you could just have made a singleplayer game for half that cost. Now, if people continue to enjoy your game they will buy your expansions, and they will sub or buy things from your cashshop as well. Having 500K players long term will beat 2M boxes and then 100K players rather soon no matter what payment model you use.
A singleplayer game just need to be fun for about 3 weeks so you don't think it was a waste of money, then you will probably buy the expansion and maybe some DLCs. That is way easier and cheaper to earn money than a MMO. But a long term MMO with many players could earn an amazing amount of money like Wow have.
I think most devs and publishers are optimists and believe in what they are making. Sadly, few of the games are as good as the devs think they are.
Well, I could believe that some games have given up and that the devs just run it with a skeleton crew to keep it going, and if that is not caring then some games don't.
But they werent made that way and the devs would surely be happy if a game like that got a revival for some reason.
Believing someone would make a game like that on purpose is another matter, that would just be a waste of money. If you have $50M and you either could try to make a best selling MMO or a quick scam what would you do? The best selling MMO would earn more money even the first month and continue earning while the scam gives you a quick income a few years after you put money into it and then just is a waste of resources.
I don't consider it uncaring if artists decide not to starve to provide me art.
I do consider it uncaring if viewers of art make entitled demands that the artists starve in order to provide the art.
The nature of installs and player reactivation means that it's very unlikely that content/features alone will create a revival. For installs, I've never seen new content/features generate installs at all in my own games, thought it doesn't seem completely impossible with the right mix of ad campaign and features. For reactivation, getting those players back is extremely hard; for the majority, once they've decided they're done with a game they're really done with a game. (And why not? They have so many other options for entertainment and the game failed them once already.)
As for the last bit, the question is a little weird since I have zero interest producing scams when I could create fun games instead, and also because $50M isn't actually enough money to create a best-selling MMORPG.
To talk about scams, we might best start with cheat-accusers. Perhaps for every ~150 players I see accused of aimbotting in FPSes (including myself), I see one player that is actually hacking. So the majority of aimbot accusations are false, based on the incompetence of the player making the accusation (it's basically Duning-Kruger with low-skill players lacking the skills required to accurately judge whether someone is cheating or not.)
A similar sort of player incompetence generates most scam-accusations. Most are some combination of the player's tastes differing from the game and/or the developer being incompetent. Gross incompetence is, of course, fairly indistinguishable from intentional scamming and the main way we can be sure is if a pattern of scamming exists. So depending on any scams in the background of the people responsible for Greedmonger, I could easily believe they were simply grossly incompetent rather than intentionally scamming.
And apart from Greedmonger (which is ambiguous) I can't really think of any other game in gaming that came that close to being a scam. (Maybe someone else has some examples?)
Granted, I typically don't consider casino gaming as part of the regular games industry, and I consider slot machines to basically be a scam. But hearing about how people talk about slots as an entertainment experience, I suspect I may be doing what I accused others of earlier (calling something a scam just because my tastes differ from the game.) If they feel they're getting enough entertainment value for their dollar, who am I to argue?
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Every developer that I have met was convinced (after a few years of development) that their game was the one game that everyone in the world wanted to play, but just couldn't find. They all think that they have created a masterpiece that everyone will celebrate. They have created a labor of love, and it is beautiful. However, it is pretty rare that developers are also the money people, and/or the publisher.
The people that fund a game, do so in expectation of a return on their investment. They realize that it will take years of development before any product can be sold, and that there is a risk that they may not recoup the investment, let alone make a profit. They are typically very calculating about the risk/reward of any money spent.
The publisher (be it external, or in house) has to take this 'masterpiece' and turn it in to commercial success. They try to respect the developers, but it is their job to make the decisions, and take the actions that will make the money that will pay back the investors. They are not above putting lipstick on a pig and pushing it out the door to do so. They do the things that make the money, and if they do a good enough job, they get to stay employed. They may have a bit of a lead time before launch to plan and prepare, but they don't get the years that developers do, and once sales start, they have to adapt, or get fired. They are the sales team that can make or break any product... but that is only ever interested in the money that they made today.
Every product launch/lifespan is a combination of these elements. Every developer wants their game to be universally loved. Every producer cares who is willing to pay. Every investor hopes that they have the right balance of creativity and commercialism that will bring a return.
Every developer that I have met was convinced (after a few years of development) that their game was the one game that everyone in the world wanted to play, but just couldn't find.
You met a lot of weirdos.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Every developer that I have met was convinced (after a few years of development) that their game was the one game that everyone in the world wanted to play, but just couldn't find.
You met a lot of weirdos.
You should try attending GDC, it is amazing to see how many truly inspired developers there are.
Every developer that I have met was convinced (after a few years of development) that their game was the one game that everyone in the world wanted to play, but just couldn't find.
You met a lot of weirdos.
You should try attending GDC, it is amazing to see how many truly inspired developers there are.
Not sure what your point is. Inspired is a very different thing from "convinced that their game was the one game that everyone in the world wanted to play, but just couldn't find." The first makes complete sense. The second is misguided, borderline delusional.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Comments
But they werent made that way and the devs would surely be happy if a game like that got a revival for some reason.
Believing someone would make a game like that on purpose is another matter, that would just be a waste of money. If you have $50M and you either could try to make a best selling MMO or a quick scam what would you do? The best selling MMO would earn more money even the first month and continue earning while the scam gives you a quick income a few years after you put money into it and then just is a waste of resources.
the problem is simple , and wow is a perfect example , because albeit having hugeeeeeeeeee revenue all that money goes to the pockets or to others projects instead of WoW , with the money wow has generated and look and its poor state ....
FFXIV is on the other side of the fence , gains lots money and gets lots in return to keep it going , hope that doesnt change , because thats when ppl say goodbye.
Wow lost almost half it's subs in 9 months and there is no way that actually earned them money to save a few bucks on the expansion and updates. If you think Activision is happy about that you think wrong. 5M players x $15 = $75M each month and that is far more money than WoD cost they lose every month. Only a madman would think that would be a good idea.
I agree that AB probably thought they could get away with less - cutting costs as a result of the "buy-out" maybe. And the 14 month content drought pre-WoD has come home to roost with a 46% drop in 6, not 9, months. It is somewhat less than $15 per player though - different deals in different countries etc.
Those steering - they are the ones indirectly grappling with the cost of acquisition and cost of retention; indirectly because they have probably been given budgets and deadlines and targets. And they will hope that their managers know what they are doing! And maybe that someone in the organisation cares about customer satisfaction - which only indirectly drives acquisition and retention via repeat purchases.
Making a game is like making a movie. Not everyone can be the director. Not everyone can be makeup, wardrobe, stunt person, investor, etc. But success does seem to flow out from the top of the chain - the director. Devs are like the actors. Do all actors care if their movie is a hit? They'd better, lol.
Even good games which retain interest more than their competitors are not safe from cancellation. During the time when CoH closure discussion was hot, we had a guy on here--I forget his handle--who knew a little bit about CoH's churn rate, which was on the order of 0.95 or something; that meant that for every hundred players who played one month, ninety-five came back the next month. That's ungodly huge retention.
But despite these retention numbers, the game was still shut down, and I have to imagine it was shut down because, when push comes to shove, responding to the industry trends is far more important to a game publisher than retaining players in games which are no longer trendy. It's why game development, like most creative industries, is more akin to the fashion industry than something like productivity software.
__________________________
"Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it."
--Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints."
--Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls."
--Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
People forget that NC Soft is a publicly traded company. That means they need to do whatever it takes to make money and to make as much money as possible (within reason naturally).
So if they are putting in x dollars and getting y back but they realize they can take that x dollars and get a far greater amount they will do that.
The only reason they would allow a small amount of profit over a large amount of profit and then keep the game going would be if (in this case) keeping City of Heroes going had some greater effect on how their business was perceived which would then affect stock prices.
If City of Heroes was "bucking industry trends" and was making oodles of money they would of course kept it going.
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
The devs usually do their best with the cards they are dealt, and they are surely happy when people like their work but it is really only kickstarter companies and indie devs that can make large economical decisions for themselves.
1) There's no physical product, and most advertising is online. What's the publisher's leverage? Who is still using a publisher?
2) Many current dev/publsiher relationships in NA/EU MMOs are where a title is licensed and the publisher is really the operator for that region. The 'publisher' often has their hands tied as to what they can do, how they can price things, and how to manage the releases.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
But you are right that publishers just like record companies are living on borrowed time. The games who moved from P2P to F2P have very often had a publisher or some other type of owner who makes the economical calls though.
This to me is why MMO have turned into what they are. Quick cash grabs based on unrealistic promises that are never meant to be met. My guess is that MMO consumers are the most gullible and loose with their money. The current state of MMOs seems a very likely outcome to a market where customers prepay for promises and have no recourse or memory of getting bamboozled.
Kickstarter has only exasperated this and I expect that at some point the bottom will completely fall out. Although, the ability to companies to separate people from their money should never be underestimated, especially when dealing with MMO fanbase.
--John Ruskin
This is not a new trend. The AAA market has always been based on front loaded sales. This is why the industry was based on the P2P approach. It was only with longer lifecycles of games that there was any consideration of doing things differently. This is why F2P, or backend based sales, took off. However, the best return is still to mix the two... Which big publishers can still do. Launching an upfront campaign takes resources, and small companies have a hard time competing. However, it generates quick cash, and then they convert to a long term monetization strategy after it has peaked out.
It is simple mathematics. You have a budget of $50M+. Selling 2 million copies at launch will mean 2M x $50 = $100M. That is some income but you could just have made a singleplayer game for half that cost. Now, if people continue to enjoy your game they will buy your expansions, and they will sub or buy things from your cashshop as well. Having 500K players long term will beat 2M boxes and then 100K players rather soon no matter what payment model you use.
A singleplayer game just need to be fun for about 3 weeks so you don't think it was a waste of money, then you will probably buy the expansion and maybe some DLCs. That is way easier and cheaper to earn money than a MMO. But a long term MMO with many players could earn an amazing amount of money like Wow have.
I think most devs and publishers are optimists and believe in what they are making. Sadly, few of the games are as good as the devs think they are.
I do consider it uncaring if viewers of art make entitled demands that the artists starve in order to provide the art.
The nature of installs and player reactivation means that it's very unlikely that content/features alone will create a revival. For installs, I've never seen new content/features generate installs at all in my own games, thought it doesn't seem completely impossible with the right mix of ad campaign and features. For reactivation, getting those players back is extremely hard; for the majority, once they've decided they're done with a game they're really done with a game. (And why not? They have so many other options for entertainment and the game failed them once already.)
As for the last bit, the question is a little weird since I have zero interest producing scams when I could create fun games instead, and also because $50M isn't actually enough money to create a best-selling MMORPG.
To talk about scams, we might best start with cheat-accusers. Perhaps for every ~150 players I see accused of aimbotting in FPSes (including myself), I see one player that is actually hacking. So the majority of aimbot accusations are false, based on the incompetence of the player making the accusation (it's basically Duning-Kruger with low-skill players lacking the skills required to accurately judge whether someone is cheating or not.)
A similar sort of player incompetence generates most scam-accusations. Most are some combination of the player's tastes differing from the game and/or the developer being incompetent. Gross incompetence is, of course, fairly indistinguishable from intentional scamming and the main way we can be sure is if a pattern of scamming exists. So depending on any scams in the background of the people responsible for Greedmonger, I could easily believe they were simply grossly incompetent rather than intentionally scamming.
And apart from Greedmonger (which is ambiguous) I can't really think of any other game in gaming that came that close to being a scam. (Maybe someone else has some examples?)
Granted, I typically don't consider casino gaming as part of the regular games industry, and I consider slot machines to basically be a scam. But hearing about how people talk about slots as an entertainment experience, I suspect I may be doing what I accused others of earlier (calling something a scam just because my tastes differ from the game.) If they feel they're getting enough entertainment value for their dollar, who am I to argue?
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Every developer that I have met was convinced (after a few years of development) that their game was the one game that everyone in the world wanted to play, but just couldn't find. They all think that they have created a masterpiece that everyone will celebrate. They have created a labor of love, and it is beautiful. However, it is pretty rare that developers are also the money people, and/or the publisher.
The people that fund a game, do so in expectation of a return on their investment. They realize that it will take years of development before any product can be sold, and that there is a risk that they may not recoup the investment, let alone make a profit. They are typically very calculating about the risk/reward of any money spent.
The publisher (be it external, or in house) has to take this 'masterpiece' and turn it in to commercial success. They try to respect the developers, but it is their job to make the decisions, and take the actions that will make the money that will pay back the investors. They are not above putting lipstick on a pig and pushing it out the door to do so. They do the things that make the money, and if they do a good enough job, they get to stay employed. They may have a bit of a lead time before launch to plan and prepare, but they don't get the years that developers do, and once sales start, they have to adapt, or get fired. They are the sales team that can make or break any product... but that is only ever interested in the money that they made today.
Every product launch/lifespan is a combination of these elements. Every developer wants their game to be universally loved. Every producer cares who is willing to pay. Every investor hopes that they have the right balance of creativity and commercialism that will bring a return.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre