I said there is a large crowd who would be willing to invest their time into "1 game to rule them all". The game has to be good, and if you want proof, look at all the stories you hear about evercrack (it was nicknamed evercrack for a reason). I played with the same people for 4+ years in lineage 2.
and i am saying that is a myth. EQ is so long ago that it is no longer relevant to today's players and gaming market.
So basically you have no data .. just some very old stories that probably won't matter today.
If there WERE such a large crowd, they probably have all gone over to the side of quick f2p games by now. Sure, there are a few people who still want that. If they matter at all, some devs would already have made a game for them.
There is no way in any F2P game you can keep going without at some point spending money to keep going. I mean sure you just go so far and then quit playing but if you really want to keep going at some point you will spend the cash.
You can play every F2P for free, for as long as you want.
Your post was extremely insightful into the power of Big Lies. It was so staggeringly wrong that I seriously sat here several minutes trying to figure out how to respond to it. I mean you looked reality straight in the face (a reality where players have played LoL since beta for free and are still playing) and said the exact opposite of that. No hesitation.
How do you respond to someone who has a complete and utter disregard for truth? It's hard!
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Frankly, we were halfway there with this kind of concept with Second Life and Entropia Universe.
Literally the best subtle punchline I've ever seen on these forums:
Set up the joke by saying you think there's a business for high-end luxury MMORPGs oozing high quality...
...then hit em with the punchline: Second Life and Entropia were halfway there! (Games that look like this and this. Games where the service (gameplay) was the exact opposite of "above and beyond" expectations -- not only wasn't there high quality content, but players were required to make their own damn content!)
Well played, sir.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
For someone who just mentioned the idea of "big lies", you're pretty quick to become an example. Posting a past image of, well, both games that do not represent the actual status of anything as well as criticizing the gameplay without any definitive rationale beyond opinion is not an argument.
Not to mention you apparently take the fact that both games facilitated content creation as a main aspect of them as a detriment as opposed to the fact that they are both very socially and creatively driven sandbox-style titles as opposed to specific or finite game worlds.
Ignoring the fact that criticism doesn't even address the point of them being brought up, the deconstruction just given of them did little merit to the reality of the titles or their design states.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
And that's totes why LoL is the top earning F2P game, because so many people are playing completely free!
...I think there's some logic missing there.
Yes .. you miss the logic that ... when a lot of people are playing, the dev can find more whales who pay a lot.
You don't need every player to pay, obviously, to be the top earning. It is really about finding more whales, and get them to pay more.
I've gone over LoL in other threads where I've linked factoids about Riot and their monetization strategy. The dependence on whales isn't actually as big in that game as it's more so dependent on using it's target demographic to buy-in on the flashy new stuff across the board on a relatively regular basis. That there certainly are free players in LoL and plenty of them there is no doubt, but that does not change that the bulk of the consumers in that game are technically late teens to young adults generally only educated to highschool level and buying into the collection of characters and skins.
The recent "project" event is a remarkable example of that given just how adamant people have obsessed over what is ultimately a set of cosmetics for a few characters. In an extended point, any player that regards themselves as competitive tends to be drawn into purchases due to the often imbalanced nature of a new character's initial release. It's a form of advantage where they can be statistically superior in unintended ways, but they also simply give an edge through being an unknown variable in terms of abilities and performance.
Point being in this case, Riot certainly has whales that will throw alot at their game, but if you look at the products they offer and the manner in which consumers are able to utilize it, there isn't a whole lot to immediately throw your cash at (unless you're buying a backlog) and more so a focus on convincing people to buy into the regular release of content.
Yes, when a lot of people are playing you can certainly attract more whales, and you certainly don't need every player to pay. That does not make it nor excuse it from the reality of it's present model.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Yes, when a lot of people are playing you can certainly attract more whales, and you certainly don't need every player to pay. That does not make it nor excuse it from the reality of it's present model.
It does excuse them from trying to monetize every player. Are you denying that millions are playing LoL (or for that matter, most of the top 10 f2p mmO) for free?
For someone who just mentioned the idea of "big lies", you're pretty quick to become an example. Posting a past image of, well, both games that do not represent the actual status of anything as well as criticizing the gameplay without any definitive rationale beyond opinion is not an argument.
Not to mention you apparently take the fact that both games facilitated content creation as a main aspect of them as a detriment as opposed to the fact that they are both very socially and creatively driven sandbox-style titles as opposed to specific or finite game worlds.
Ignoring the fact that criticism doesn't even address the point of them being brought up, the deconstruction just given of them did little merit to the reality of the titles or their design states.
It's hardly a big lie to point out the well-known lack of quality to Entropia.
The criticism of gameplay was in relation to the analogy of a high-end luxury club. These are not high-end experiences we're talking about here. A better analogy is that these are companies who'll sell you an empty lot or warehouse -- it's up to you fill it with whatever you want! While there's a small market for that, it's nowhere close to the club analogy.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
For your f2p game argument, there you go, the people have spoken.
As for the rest I don't care if you believe it or not. I was there when it happened, and you asked how to compete and I just told you. Take it or ignore it. No reason to discredit it when you weren't even around during those times.
The fact you chose not to take advice from anyone providing a logical argument here and try to tell them what they are saying are all lies, is either making me think you are trolling or just trying to somehow prove f2p games are the best with fallacies. Either way, this is my last replay to you.
a poll here is evidence ... lol ... you should look at market data instead.
Yeah .. i don't believe it .. care .. don't care .. it is your choice.
If you think an old game has anything relevant to this age of MOBA, and convenient f2p online game, be my guest. If any dev buys into it, you will see a modern EQ made already ... but you don't, right? Not even Blizz will make a MMORPG anymore.
It's hardly a big lie to point out the well-known lack of quality to Entropia.
The criticism of gameplay was in relation to the analogy of a high-end luxury club. These are not high-end experiences we're talking about here. A better analogy is that these are companies who'll sell you an empty lot or warehouse -- it's up to you fill it with whatever you want! While there's a small market for that, it's nowhere close to the club analogy.
I didn't know thirteen people with naught but a personal opinion, of which only half of them are even making an argument that even slants towards your claims, represents a majority.
You, the one who just wanted to laugh off something as being a poor use of examples or references, just utilized a source which itself is devoid of content to attempt to reaffirm your opinion. By all means you're free to have that opinion and disagree, but you have not shared anything that establishes a factual argument. Laughing their comments off derisively, accusing them of failing in a reasonable argument, and then offering the exact opposite of a reasonable argument yourself is not a good strategy to making a point.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
For someone who just mentioned the idea of "big lies", you're pretty quick to become an example. Posting a past image of, well, both games that do not represent the actual status of anything as well as criticizing the gameplay without any definitive rationale beyond opinion is not an argument.
Not to mention you apparently take the fact that both games facilitated content creation as a main aspect of them as a detriment as opposed to the fact that they are both very socially and creatively driven sandbox-style titles as opposed to specific or finite game worlds.
Ignoring the fact that criticism doesn't even address the point of them being brought up, the deconstruction just given of them did little merit to the reality of the titles or their design states.
It's hardly a big lie to point out the well-known lack of quality to Entropia.
The criticism of gameplay was in relation to the analogy of a high-end luxury club. These are not high-end experiences we're talking about here. A better analogy is that these are companies who'll sell you an empty lot or warehouse -- it's up to you fill it with whatever you want! While there's a small market for that, it's nowhere close to the club analogy.
Some of the most trendy hipster joints I've been in IRL are--quite literally--"empty warehouses" that get filled up with some theme that the promoters want.
But I digress...
Small markets can, if properly targeted, be quite lucrative and grow into big markets over time as word spreads. And I can think of a few small markets that a proper boutique-style MMO can exploit.
Here's one example.
A combination "club" "virtual cruise ship" "LARP/MUSH" and "participatory murder mystery theatre" for Star Trek fans. Yes we have the mass market STO designed by MMO designers for a mass market. The problem is that they never asked Trekkies what they want, and they never designed a game with Trek fans in mind.
If they did, they'd understand that the true Trek fan wants authenticity over playability, and deep character play. And the reason I know this is because they are already doing it, in real life, going to such lengths as to reconstruct a whole freaking language just so they can roleplay as "authentic" Klingons.
I can imagine a Star Trek game that is almost like "Second Life in space." In other words, you have a few super detailed "sets" (DS-9, Enterprise, a Klingon battle cruiser, Star Fleet academy, etc.) and perhaps a few ones that live GMs can roll out on occasion to spice things up (a Borg ship, the Gorn homeworld, A damaged freighter, etc.). Everybody gets to start as an ensign and can sign up for various duties (engineering, security, medical, etc.) on board under the captain (who would be played by a dev). They can also go explore the ship, go to the holodeck, go to Ten-Forward and do other things on their "off time" if they want.
They can play the species they want. Promotions would be given out every so often by the developers for those players who play their characters well (do their jobs well, volunteer for things like away teams, fix problems, show good character play, not be a dick, etc.).
Now the thing about this game is that there will be all kinds of stuff going on at once. You might have a Cardassian spy who is trying to smuggle something off the ship in the cargo bay, at the same time that an away team is investigating a freighter, at the same time that some crazy Vulcan is kicking ass and dry humping everything in sight while going through the Pon Far, at the same time that the traditional Klingon ritual of MajQa is held in Holodeck 1, at the same time that the ship encounters a Romulan vessel in the neutral zone...some or all of which is planned out by the developers ahead of time.
Now, how much would you pay for that? If Trek isn't your thing, probably not all that much. But if you are a Trekkie, or a sci-fi fan, or a roleplayer, that kind of experience is easily worth many times more money than a traditional MMO. Remember, these people pay thousands of dollars just to buy an authentic StarFleet replica uniform to cosplay in once or twice. They can--and will--pay similarly high amounts for the best Star Trek experience they can get online (assuming that it is the best, with no compromise).
Perhaps Trek isn't a lot of peoples' thing. But that doesn't mean that the right game, done to the highest standards of what this medium can do, won't draw interest and income from people who just want to be a part of something that's unique and done very well, regardless of whether they are Trek fans or not. That's what a commitment to excellence does; it may not be "your thing," but you'll know that it'll be done right.
That's what I see...but we have to take our stale, "mass-market gamified" blinders off in order to see the potential for this kind of boutique experience.
Post edited by Beatnik59 on
__________________________ "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
Small markets can, if properly targeted, be quite lucrative and grow into big markets over time as word spreads. And I can think of a few small markets that a proper boutique-style MMO can exploit.
Here's one example.
A combination "club" "virtual cruise ship" "LARP/MUSH" and "participatory murder mystery theatre" for Star Trek fans. Yes we have the mass market STO designed by MMO designers for a mass market. The problem is that they never asked Trekkies what they want, and they never designed a game with Trek fans in mind.
If they did, they'd understand that the true Trek fan wants authenticity over action, and deep character play. And the reason I know this is because they are already doing it, in real life, going to such lengths as to reconstruct a whole freaking language just so they can roleplay as "authentic" Klingons.
I can imagine a Star Trek game that is almost like "Second Life in space." In other words, you have a few super detailed "sets" (DS-9, Enterprise, a Klingon battle cruiser, Star Fleet academy, etc.) and perhaps a few ones that live GMs can roll out on occasion to spice things up (a Borg ship, the Gorn homeworld, A damaged freighter, etc.). Everybody gets to start as an ensign and can sign up for various duties (engineering, security, medical, etc.) on board under the captain (who would be played by a dev). They can also go explore the ship, go to the holodeck, go to Ten-Forward and do other things on their "off time" if they want.
They can play the species they want. Promotions would be given out every so often by the developers for those players who play their characters well (do their jobs well, volunteer for things like away teams, fix problems, show good character play, not be a dick, etc.).
Now the thing about this game is that there will be all kinds of stuff going on at once. You might have a Cardassian spy who is trying to smuggle something off the ship in the cargo bay, at the same time that an away team is investigating a freighter, at the same time that some crazy Vulcan is kicking ass and dry humping everything in sight while going through the Pon Far, at the same time that the traditional Klingon ritual of MajQa is held in Holodeck 1, at the same time that the ship encounters a Romulan vessel in the neutral zone...some or all of which is planned out by the developers ahead of time.
Now, how much would you pay for that? If Trek isn't your thing, probably not all that much. But if you are a Trekkie, or a sci-fi fan, or a roleplayer, that kind of experience is easily worth many times more money than a traditional MMO. Remember, these people pay thousands of dollars just to buy an authentic StarFleet replica uniform to cosplay in once or twice. They can--and will--pay similarly high amounts for the best Star Trek experience they can get online (assuming that it is the best, with no compromise).
Perhaps Trek isn't a lot of peoples' thing. But that doesn't mean that the right game, done to the highest standards of what this medium can do, won't draw interest and income from people who just want to be a part of something that's unique and done very well, regardless of whether they are Trek fans or not. That's what a commitment to excellence does; it may not be "your thing," but you'll know that it'll be done right.
That's what I see...but we have to take our stale, "mass-market gamified" blinders off in order to see the potential for this kind of boutique experience.
I don't think anyone is questioning that with proper marketing and an experience done to the highest standards for a specific demographic you cannot attract an audience. The question is whether the revenue that audience generates is worth the cost.
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
For someone who just mentioned the idea of "big lies", you're pretty quick to become an example. Posting a past image of, well, both games that do not represent the actual status of anything as well as criticizing the gameplay without any definitive rationale beyond opinion is not an argument.
Not to mention you apparently take the fact that both games facilitated content creation as a main aspect of them as a detriment as opposed to the fact that they are both very socially and creatively driven sandbox-style titles as opposed to specific or finite game worlds.
Ignoring the fact that criticism doesn't even address the point of them being brought up, the deconstruction just given of them did little merit to the reality of the titles or their design states.
It's hardly a big lie to point out the well-known lack of quality to Entropia.
The criticism of gameplay was in relation to the analogy of a high-end luxury club. These are not high-end experiences we're talking about here. A better analogy is that these are companies who'll sell you an empty lot or warehouse -- it's up to you fill it with whatever you want! While there's a small market for that, it's nowhere close to the club analogy.
Some of the most trendy hipster joints I've been in IRL are--quite literally--"empty warehouses" that get filled up with some theme that the promoters want.
But I digress...
Small markets can, if properly targeted, be quite lucrative and grow into big markets over time as word spreads. And I can think of a few small markets that a proper boutique-style MMO can exploit.
Here's one example.
A combination "club" "virtual cruise ship" "LARP/MUSH" and "participatory murder mystery theatre" for Star Trek fans. Yes we have the mass market STO designed by MMO designers for a mass market. The problem is that they never asked Trekkies what they want, and they never designed a game with Trek fans in mind.
If they did, they'd understand that the true Trek fan wants authenticity over playability, and deep character play. And the reason I know this is because they are already doing it, in real life, going to such lengths as to reconstruct a whole freaking language just so they can roleplay as "authentic" Klingons.
I can imagine a Star Trek game that is almost like "Second Life in space." In other words, you have a few super detailed "sets" (DS-9, Enterprise, a Klingon battle cruiser, Star Fleet academy, etc.) and perhaps a few ones that live GMs can roll out on occasion to spice things up (a Borg ship, the Gorn homeworld, A damaged freighter, etc.). Everybody gets to start as an ensign and can sign up for various duties (engineering, security, medical, etc.) on board under the captain (who would be played by a dev). They can also go explore the ship, go to the holodeck, go to Ten-Forward and do other things on their "off time" if they want.
They can play the species they want. Promotions would be given out every so often by the developers for those players who play their characters well (do their jobs well, volunteer for things like away teams, fix problems, show good character play, not be a dick, etc.).
Now the thing about this game is that there will be all kinds of stuff going on at once. You might have a Cardassian spy who is trying to smuggle something off the ship in the cargo bay, at the same time that an away team is investigating a freighter, at the same time that some crazy Vulcan is kicking ass and dry humping everything in sight while going through the Pon Far, at the same time that the traditional Klingon ritual of MajQa is held in Holodeck 1, at the same time that the ship encounters a Romulan vessel in the neutral zone...some or all of which is planned out by the developers ahead of time.
Now, how much would you pay for that? If Trek isn't your thing, probably not all that much. But if you are a Trekkie, or a sci-fi fan, or a roleplayer, that kind of experience is easily worth many times more money than a traditional MMO. Remember, these people pay thousands of dollars just to buy an authentic StarFleet replica uniform to cosplay in once or twice. They can--and will--pay similarly high amounts for the best Star Trek experience they can get online (assuming that it is the best, with no compromise).
Perhaps Trek isn't a lot of peoples' thing. But that doesn't mean that the right game, done to the highest standards of what this medium can do, won't draw interest and income from people who just want to be a part of something that's unique and done very well, regardless of whether they are Trek fans or not. That's what a commitment to excellence does; it may not be "your thing," but you'll know that it'll be done right.
That's what I see...but we have to take our stale, "mass-market gamified" blinders off in order to see the potential for this kind of boutique experience.
1.trek is all about convenience, teleport there, replicate that, laziness fits the lore perfectly
2. they barely scraped enough resources together for a casual mmo, and now you want them to get even more resources for a niche game? good luck with that
For your f2p game argument, there you go, the people have spoken.
As for the rest I don't care if you believe it or not. I was there when it happened, and you asked how to compete and I just told you. Take it or ignore it. No reason to discredit it when you weren't even around during those times.
The fact you chose not to take advice from anyone providing a logical argument here and try to tell them what they are saying are all lies, is either making me think you are trolling or just trying to somehow prove f2p games are the best with fallacies. Either way, this is my last replay to you.
a poll here is evidence ... lol ... you should look at market data instead.
Yeah .. i don't believe it .. care .. don't care .. it is your choice.
If you think an old game has anything relevant to this age of MOBA, and convenient f2p online game, be my guest. If any dev buys into it, you will see a modern EQ made already ... but you don't, right? Not even Blizz will make a MMORPG anymore.
But of course you don't care about that, do you?
The masses are pretty far removed from actual market data information.
It is quite common for an average forum poster to be completely convinced that his/her opinion is true when in fact it's completely wrong when compared to actual research data.
Even market data can be hard to interpret because you cannot always know the other side. Why did FFXIV do well? Because it was a sub only game? Because it was FF? Because it was a good game? All of these? Why are WoW's numbers going down? Because people like F2P? Because WoW sucks? Because suddenly half the playerbase lost their jobs? You can make reasonable guesses but you can never *know* short of actually physically asking them.
What I mean is you can see how much money people are spending where, but you cannot find out why.
For your f2p game argument, there you go, the people have spoken.
As for the rest I don't care if you believe it or not. I was there when it happened, and you asked how to compete and I just told you. Take it or ignore it. No reason to discredit it when you weren't even around during those times.
The fact you chose not to take advice from anyone providing a logical argument here and try to tell them what they are saying are all lies, is either making me think you are trolling or just trying to somehow prove f2p games are the best with fallacies. Either way, this is my last replay to you.
a poll here is evidence ... lol ... you should look at market data instead.
Yeah .. i don't believe it .. care .. don't care .. it is your choice.
If you think an old game has anything relevant to this age of MOBA, and convenient f2p online game, be my guest. If any dev buys into it, you will see a modern EQ made already ... but you don't, right? Not even Blizz will make a MMORPG anymore.
But of course you don't care about that, do you?
The masses are pretty far removed from actual market data information.
It is quite common for an average forum poster to be completely convinced that his/her opinion is true when in fact it's completely wrong when compared to actual research data.
Even market data can be hard to interpret because you cannot always know the other side. Why did FFXIV do well? Because it was a sub only game? Because it was FF? Because it was a good game? All of these? Why are WoW's numbers going down? Because people like F2P? Because WoW sucks? Because suddenly half the playerbase lost their jobs? You can make reasonable guesses but you can never *know* short of actually physically asking them.
What I mean is you can see how much money people are spending where, but you cannot find out why.
I see where you're going with that, but FFXIV is one of the few where you actually can follow the numbers. Also devs have plenty of data on when and how money is spent in their game. Between sharing info with colleagues, conferences, research, and other means they also can see where their data lines up and assess why it's being spent where it is.
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
I don't think anyone is questioning that with proper marketing and an experience done to the highest standards for a specific demographic you cannot attract an audience. The question is whether the revenue that audience generates is worth the cost.
I think you explain the dominant thinking of the major publishers quite well, and I'm glad that most industries which have passion for their crafts aren't like the major MMO publishers in all things, all the time.
Nobody doubts that these publishers need to do what it takes to build equity. But then, what do you do once you build the equity? That's why I'm glad that most industries don't act like MMO publishers in all things, and actually do things every now and then that still show that there's taste in the world.
There are reasons--legitimate business reasons--for an established group who knows how to make money to say "to hell with the books on this one, we're doing it anyway just to show that we can." I mean, Dodge loses more money than it makes when it develops and produces the Viper after it's all said and done. But you don't make a car like the Viper to float the books...You do it to enhance the brand, so that the things like the Dart and the Charger--which do float the books--become more appealing.
We are gaming in a time when it is all too obvious to everyone that the things we play are just the same basic game with some superficial differences. And it's this way because, as we've heard ad nauseum, the formula extracts the maximum revenue for a minimum of cost. So then, if this is true, why should someone choose to game with NCSoft over Daybreak? EA over Funcom? If they are all giving me the same basic thing, there's no reason to stick with one over the other. Hence, a lot of churn and a lot of boredom.
But where is gaming going? What is possible? These are questions that the current publishers don't answer, but other media can point the way. Art films, flagship hotel properties, exotic cars and marquee product lines point the way. And if we see the demographics of the kind of people who play these games, we see that its begging for a luxury brand.
__________________________ "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
I don't think anyone is questioning that with proper marketing and an experience done to the highest standards for a specific demographic you cannot attract an audience. The question is whether the revenue that audience generates is worth the cost.
I think you explain the dominant thinking of the major publishers quite well, and I'm glad that most industries which have passion for their crafts aren't like the major MMO publishers in all things, all the time. ... That's why I'm glad that most industries don't act like MMO publishers in all things, and actually do things every now and then that still show that there's taste in the world. ... These are questions that the current publishers don't answer...
You make a lot of claims as to what publishers and developers do and why they do it. Can you link to the data, articles or interviews that you are basing any of this on?
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
I don't think anyone is questioning that with proper marketing and an experience done to the highest standards for a specific demographic you cannot attract an audience. The question is whether the revenue that audience generates is worth the cost.
I think you explain the dominant thinking of the major publishers quite well, and I'm glad that most industries which have passion for their crafts aren't like the major MMO publishers in all things, all the time. ... That's why I'm glad that most industries don't act like MMO publishers in all things, and actually do things every now and then that still show that there's taste in the world. ... These are questions that the current publishers don't answer...
You make a lot of claims as to what publishers and developers do and why they do it. Can you link to the data, articles or interviews that you are basing any of this on?
Niche markets are actually considered hot markets today. They key is to keep the cost low. The problem of the past was not the one game for everyone approach. The problem was the game needed to appeal to everyone to cover the cost. The issue has been runaway costs, in a competitive marketplace. This is slowly starting to fix itself, but has a few years to go still.
For your f2p game argument, there you go, the people have spoken.
As for the rest I don't care if you believe it or not. I was there when it happened, and you asked how to compete and I just told you. Take it or ignore it. No reason to discredit it when you weren't even around during those times.
The fact you chose not to take advice from anyone providing a logical argument here and try to tell them what they are saying are all lies, is either making me think you are trolling or just trying to somehow prove f2p games are the best with fallacies. Either way, this is my last replay to you.
a poll here is evidence ... lol ... you should look at market data instead.
Yeah .. i don't believe it .. care .. don't care .. it is your choice.
If you think an old game has anything relevant to this age of MOBA, and convenient f2p online game, be my guest. If any dev buys into it, you will see a modern EQ made already ... but you don't, right? Not even Blizz will make a MMORPG anymore.
But of course you don't care about that, do you?
The masses are pretty far removed from actual market data information.
It is quite common for an average forum poster to be completely convinced that his/her opinion is true when in fact it's completely wrong when compared to actual research data.
I didn't know thirteen people with naught but a personal opinion, of which only half of them are even making an argument that even slants towards your claims, represents a majority.
You, the one who just wanted to laugh off something as being a poor use of examples or references, just utilized a source which itself is devoid of content to attempt to reaffirm your opinion. By all means you're free to have that opinion and disagree, but you have not shared anything that establishes a factual argument. Laughing their comments off derisively, accusing them of failing in a reasonable argument, and then offering the exact opposite of a reasonable argument yourself is not a good strategy to making a point.
Right, it's not even high enough quality to attract reviews.
It's a cruddy low-quality indie game that was cited in an analogy about a high-end club. It's a game where collecting sweat from live animals is literally a thing you do. The graphics are shoddy, and the controls are awful. Which are all reasons why hardly anyone has reviewed the game: it's clearly not a game many are interested in.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Some of the most trendy hipster joints I've been in IRL are--quite literally--"empty warehouses" that get filled up with some theme that the promoters want.
But I digress...
Small markets can, if properly targeted, be quite lucrative and grow into big markets over time as word spreads. And I can think of a few small markets that a proper boutique-style MMO can exploit.
Here's one example.
A combination "club" "virtual cruise ship" "LARP/MUSH" and "participatory murder mystery theatre" for Star Trek fans. Yes we have the mass market STO designed by MMO designers for a mass market. The problem is that they never asked Trekkies what they want, and they never designed a game with Trek fans in mind.
If they did, they'd understand that the true Trek fan wants authenticity over playability, and deep character play. And the reason I know this is because they are already doing it, in real life, going to such lengths as to reconstruct a whole freaking language just so they can roleplay as "authentic" Klingons.
I can imagine a Star Trek game that is almost like "Second Life in space." In other words, you have a few super detailed "sets" (DS-9, Enterprise, a Klingon battle cruiser, Star Fleet academy, etc.) and perhaps a few ones that live GMs can roll out on occasion to spice things up (a Borg ship, the Gorn homeworld, A damaged freighter, etc.). Everybody gets to start as an ensign and can sign up for various duties (engineering, security, medical, etc.) on board under the captain (who would be played by a dev). They can also go explore the ship, go to the holodeck, go to Ten-Forward and do other things on their "off time" if they want.
They can play the species they want. Promotions would be given out every so often by the developers for those players who play their characters well (do their jobs well, volunteer for things like away teams, fix problems, show good character play, not be a dick, etc.).
Now the thing about this game is that there will be all kinds of stuff going on at once. You might have a Cardassian spy who is trying to smuggle something off the ship in the cargo bay, at the same time that an away team is investigating a freighter, at the same time that some crazy Vulcan is kicking ass and dry humping everything in sight while going through the Pon Far, at the same time that the traditional Klingon ritual of MajQa is held in Holodeck 1, at the same time that the ship encounters a Romulan vessel in the neutral zone...some or all of which is planned out by the developers ahead of time.
Now, how much would you pay for that? If Trek isn't your thing, probably not all that much. But if you are a Trekkie, or a sci-fi fan, or a roleplayer, that kind of experience is easily worth many times more money than a traditional MMO. Remember, these people pay thousands of dollars just to buy an authentic StarFleet replica uniform to cosplay in once or twice. They can--and will--pay similarly high amounts for the best Star Trek experience they can get online (assuming that it is the best, with no compromise).
Perhaps Trek isn't a lot of peoples' thing. But that doesn't mean that the right game, done to the highest standards of what this medium can do, won't draw interest and income from people who just want to be a part of something that's unique and done very well, regardless of whether they are Trek fans or not. That's what a commitment to excellence does; it may not be "your thing," but you'll know that it'll be done right.
That's what I see...but we have to take our stale, "mass-market gamified" blinders off in order to see the potential for this kind of boutique experience.
So do you consider trendy hipster joints to be high-end luxury clubs? Or was that you agreeing with my point?
Nobody's arguing that the hipster joint can't be profitable. It's just very obviously not a luxury club.
Your idea is unlikely to be viable in MMORPG form, given that SWTOR's $200 million essentially was the "luxury MMORPG" and given your attitude I doubt you're off playing TOR between posting. TOR was successful but not a runaway smash hit like WOW was.
Furthermore, keep in mind the actual percentage numbers of your idea. A typical game costs $50. If you're taking the appeal of that typical game and slicing it down so that only 1 in 5 players would be interested, the price must rise to $250 dollars (just to buy the box!) Then on top of that, the box now costs $250 dollars! This further reduces the number of people interested in the product! If 1 in 5 of those remaining players (1 in 25 of the original) was willing to pay that much, then well...now we would be forced to charge $1250 for the box to break even. See the problem? (Also the subscription would be $375 a month.)
Part of the problem is that mass-market games are capable of being some of the deepest games as well (like WOW.) So in terms of gameplay nothing is really being sacrificed to deliver a game which is both simple to learn and takes a long time to master.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Comments
So basically you have no data .. just some very old stories that probably won't matter today.
If there WERE such a large crowd, they probably have all gone over to the side of quick f2p games by now. Sure, there are a few people who still want that. If they matter at all, some devs would already have made a game for them.
Second, well I guess if you made a game worth something in the first place you wouldn't need a second option.
Your post was extremely insightful into the power of Big Lies. It was so staggeringly wrong that I seriously sat here several minutes trying to figure out how to respond to it. I mean you looked reality straight in the face (a reality where players have played LoL since beta for free and are still playing) and said the exact opposite of that. No hesitation.
How do you respond to someone who has a complete and utter disregard for truth? It's hard!
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
...I think there's some logic missing there.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Literally the best subtle punchline I've ever seen on these forums:
- Set up the joke by saying you think there's a business for high-end luxury MMORPGs oozing high quality...
- ...then hit em with the punchline: Second Life and Entropia were halfway there! (Games that look like this and this. Games where the service (gameplay) was the exact opposite of "above and beyond" expectations -- not only wasn't there high quality content, but players were required to make their own damn content!)
Well played, sir."What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Second Life
For someone who just mentioned the idea of "big lies", you're pretty quick to become an example. Posting a past image of, well, both games that do not represent the actual status of anything as well as criticizing the gameplay without any definitive rationale beyond opinion is not an argument.
Not to mention you apparently take the fact that both games facilitated content creation as a main aspect of them as a detriment as opposed to the fact that they are both very socially and creatively driven sandbox-style titles as opposed to specific or finite game worlds.
Ignoring the fact that criticism doesn't even address the point of them being brought up, the deconstruction just given of them did little merit to the reality of the titles or their design states.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
You don't need every player to pay, obviously, to be the top earning. It is really about finding more whales, and get them to pay more.
The recent "project" event is a remarkable example of that given just how adamant people have obsessed over what is ultimately a set of cosmetics for a few characters. In an extended point, any player that regards themselves as competitive tends to be drawn into purchases due to the often imbalanced nature of a new character's initial release. It's a form of advantage where they can be statistically superior in unintended ways, but they also simply give an edge through being an unknown variable in terms of abilities and performance.
Point being in this case, Riot certainly has whales that will throw alot at their game, but if you look at the products they offer and the manner in which consumers are able to utilize it, there isn't a whole lot to immediately throw your cash at (unless you're buying a backlog) and more so a focus on convincing people to buy into the regular release of content.
Yes, when a lot of people are playing you can certainly attract more whales, and you certainly don't need every player to pay. That does not make it nor excuse it from the reality of it's present model.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Or at least one *can* do so?
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
The criticism of gameplay was in relation to the analogy of a high-end luxury club. These are not high-end experiences we're talking about here. A better analogy is that these are companies who'll sell you an empty lot or warehouse -- it's up to you fill it with whatever you want! While there's a small market for that, it's nowhere close to the club analogy.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Yeah .. i don't believe it .. care .. don't care .. it is your choice.
If you think an old game has anything relevant to this age of MOBA, and convenient f2p online game, be my guest. If any dev buys into it, you will see a modern EQ made already ... but you don't, right? Not even Blizz will make a MMORPG anymore.
But of course you don't care about that, do you?
"No score yetbased on 0 Critics"
"... reviews based on 13 Ratings"
I didn't know thirteen people with naught but a personal opinion, of which only half of them are even making an argument that even slants towards your claims, represents a majority.
You, the one who just wanted to laugh off something as being a poor use of examples or references, just utilized a source which itself is devoid of content to attempt to reaffirm your opinion. By all means you're free to have that opinion and disagree, but you have not shared anything that establishes a factual argument. Laughing their comments off derisively, accusing them of failing in a reasonable argument, and then offering the exact opposite of a reasonable argument yourself is not a good strategy to making a point.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
But I digress...
Small markets can, if properly targeted, be quite lucrative and grow into big markets over time as word spreads. And I can think of a few small markets that a proper boutique-style MMO can exploit.
Here's one example.
A combination "club" "virtual cruise ship" "LARP/MUSH" and "participatory murder mystery theatre" for Star Trek fans. Yes we have the mass market STO designed by MMO designers for a mass market. The problem is that they never asked Trekkies what they want, and they never designed a game with Trek fans in mind.
If they did, they'd understand that the true Trek fan wants authenticity over playability, and deep character play. And the reason I know this is because they are already doing it, in real life, going to such lengths as to reconstruct a whole freaking language just so they can roleplay as "authentic" Klingons.
I can imagine a Star Trek game that is almost like "Second Life in space." In other words, you have a few super detailed "sets" (DS-9, Enterprise, a Klingon battle cruiser, Star Fleet academy, etc.) and perhaps a few ones that live GMs can roll out on occasion to spice things up (a Borg ship, the Gorn homeworld, A damaged freighter, etc.). Everybody gets to start as an ensign and can sign up for various duties (engineering, security, medical, etc.) on board under the captain (who would be played by a dev). They can also go explore the ship, go to the holodeck, go to Ten-Forward and do other things on their "off time" if they want.
They can play the species they want. Promotions would be given out every so often by the developers for those players who play their characters well (do their jobs well, volunteer for things like away teams, fix problems, show good character play, not be a dick, etc.).
Now the thing about this game is that there will be all kinds of stuff going on at once. You might have a Cardassian spy who is trying to smuggle something off the ship in the cargo bay, at the same time that an away team is investigating a freighter, at the same time that some crazy Vulcan is kicking ass and dry humping everything in sight while going through the Pon Far, at the same time that the traditional Klingon ritual of MajQa is held in Holodeck 1, at the same time that the ship encounters a Romulan vessel in the neutral zone...some or all of which is planned out by the developers ahead of time.
Now, how much would you pay for that? If Trek isn't your thing, probably not all that much. But if you are a Trekkie, or a sci-fi fan, or a roleplayer, that kind of experience is easily worth many times more money than a traditional MMO. Remember, these people pay thousands of dollars just to buy an authentic StarFleet replica uniform to cosplay in once or twice. They can--and will--pay similarly high amounts for the best Star Trek experience they can get online (assuming that it is the best, with no compromise).
Perhaps Trek isn't a lot of peoples' thing. But that doesn't mean that the right game, done to the highest standards of what this medium can do, won't draw interest and income from people who just want to be a part of something that's unique and done very well, regardless of whether they are Trek fans or not. That's what a commitment to excellence does; it may not be "your thing," but you'll know that it'll be done right.
That's what I see...but we have to take our stale, "mass-market gamified" blinders off in order to see the potential for this kind of boutique experience.
__________________________
"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
1.trek is all about convenience, teleport there, replicate that, laziness fits the lore perfectly
2. they barely scraped enough resources together for a casual mmo, and now you want them to get even more resources for a niche game? good luck with that
What I mean is you can see how much money people are spending where, but you cannot find out why.
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
Nobody doubts that these publishers need to do what it takes to build equity. But then, what do you do once you build the equity? That's why I'm glad that most industries don't act like MMO publishers in all things, and actually do things every now and then that still show that there's taste in the world.
There are reasons--legitimate business reasons--for an established group who knows how to make money to say "to hell with the books on this one, we're doing it anyway just to show that we can." I mean, Dodge loses more money than it makes when it develops and produces the Viper after it's all said and done. But you don't make a car like the Viper to float the books...You do it to enhance the brand, so that the things like the Dart and the Charger--which do float the books--become more appealing.
We are gaming in a time when it is all too obvious to everyone that the things we play are just the same basic game with some superficial differences. And it's this way because, as we've heard ad nauseum, the formula extracts the maximum revenue for a minimum of cost. So then, if this is true, why should someone choose to game with NCSoft over Daybreak? EA over Funcom? If they are all giving me the same basic thing, there's no reason to stick with one over the other. Hence, a lot of churn and a lot of boredom.
But where is gaming going? What is possible? These are questions that the current publishers don't answer, but other media can point the way. Art films, flagship hotel properties, exotic cars and marquee product lines point the way. And if we see the demographics of the kind of people who play these games, we see that its begging for a luxury brand.
__________________________
"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
You make a lot of claims as to what publishers and developers do and why they do it. Can you link to the data, articles or interviews that you are basing any of this on?
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
(like this, for example: http://www.engadget.com/2014/10/23/league-of-legends-tops-mmo-revenue-list-hearthstone-no-10/)
.. are clues from devs. If Blizz decided to ditch MMORPGs and make card games, and online shooter, they probably know something that most of us don't.
It's a cruddy low-quality indie game that was cited in an analogy about a high-end club. It's a game where collecting sweat from live animals is literally a thing you do. The graphics are shoddy, and the controls are awful. Which are all reasons why hardly anyone has reviewed the game: it's clearly not a game many are interested in.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
So do you consider trendy hipster joints to be high-end luxury clubs? Or was that you agreeing with my point?
Nobody's arguing that the hipster joint can't be profitable. It's just very obviously not a luxury club.
Your idea is unlikely to be viable in MMORPG form, given that SWTOR's $200 million essentially was the "luxury MMORPG" and given your attitude I doubt you're off playing TOR between posting. TOR was successful but not a runaway smash hit like WOW was.
Furthermore, keep in mind the actual percentage numbers of your idea. A typical game costs $50. If you're taking the appeal of that typical game and slicing it down so that only 1 in 5 players would be interested, the price must rise to $250 dollars (just to buy the box!) Then on top of that, the box now costs $250 dollars! This further reduces the number of people interested in the product! If 1 in 5 of those remaining players (1 in 25 of the original) was willing to pay that much, then well...now we would be forced to charge $1250 for the box to break even. See the problem? (Also the subscription would be $375 a month.)
Part of the problem is that mass-market games are capable of being some of the deepest games as well (like WOW.) So in terms of gameplay nothing is really being sacrificed to deliver a game which is both simple to learn and takes a long time to master.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver