Market investors look at this genre and see a saturated mess of over-monetized projects. That's unattractive.
The real issue, is Dev teams have lost sight of what the customer actually wants, and has just been putting out absolute trash. Even Diablo immortal is making money hand over fist.
Then doesn't that prove that particular product is something that customers want?
If they didn't want it, it wouldn't be making money hand over fist.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Market investors look at this genre and see a saturated mess of over-monetized projects. That's unattractive.
The real issue, is Dev teams have lost sight of what the customer actually wants, and has just been putting out absolute trash. Even Diablo immortal is making money hand over fist.
Then doesn't that prove that particular product is something that customers want?
If they didn't want it, it wouldn't be making money hand over fist.
Its a fair point. The best of the worst is how we have been conditioned.
Market investors look at this genre and see a saturated mess of over-monetized projects. That's unattractive.
The real issue, is Dev teams have lost sight of what the customer actually wants, and has just been putting out absolute trash. Even Diablo immortal is making money hand over fist.
Then doesn't that prove that particular product is something that customers want?
If they didn't want it, it wouldn't be making money hand over fist.
It's proof that a particular product is something that customers are willing to accept. That acceptance may not be as based on want as would be ideal. Sometimes there is a dearth of options otherwise. so people settle. Those wanting a subscription mandatory MMORPG don't have a lot of options for example, so may choose to make do with a game not entirely pleasing if they insist on that payment model.
Also, in the case of cash shop games the ability for a few to spend large amounts on them may give the impression they are more desired overall than they are. While Diablo Immortal is making a great deal of money some servers are also being closed, so it appears the appeal of it has narrowed despite the revenue it brings in.
Looking at other industries, I see a pattern. Cost of making stuff just keeps going up and up here in the west, but the Asian countries seem to be able to pump out despite these set backs.
We been seeing a slow down when it comes to high quality MMOs from western development, but a steady rise of eastern MMOs coming to our market.
How long before the Asian MMO market overtakes the western MMO market in general?
The game design theory for Western and Eastern MMOs seem different because of cultural Normal.
In the past we seen how sometimes these two cultural differences arent just a language barrier, and can compromise the game's life in the West. Look at Archeage for an example of this.
I wonder, as the Asian MMO take over the western market, will traditional western MMO consumer mindset also adjust and change? How fast can we expect that adjustment to take?
Asia will never take over the gaming market. They violate privacy laws and america will not allow that. Until asia stops the paranoia, they can keep there games to themselves.
This user is a registered flex offender. Someone who is registered as being a flex offender is a person who feels the need to flex about everything they say. Always be the guy that paints the house in the dark. Lucidity can be forged with enough liquidity and pharmed for decades with enough compound interest that a reachable profit would never end.
Market investors look at this genre and see a saturated mess of over-monetized projects. That's unattractive.
This is fine to say in theory. But you are putting the cart before the horse here big time.
What game has come out that was amazing that didn't get enough customers? We cant even get 1 good game per year and you are saying oversaturation?
If an amazing game releases that fails due to lack of customers, then maybe you will have a point.
The real issue, is Dev teams have lost sight of what the customer actually wants, and has just been putting out absolute trash. Even Diablo immortal is making money hand over fist. People are so desperate they will buy anything. These greedy incompetent companies are just force feeding us horse pucks and you are calling that oversaturation.
My dude, we have MMORPGs from two decades ago still limping along. We literally have two different EverQuest still somehow shuffling forward. We have about half a dozen crowdfunding "projects" sucking up cash.
We have very few new releases *because* of this saturation. Most other genres do not keep such old titles going indefinitely. You can only innovate on top of WoW or EQ's old code so much. Because the genre's base isn't big enough to support the current offerings and new ones, we don't get much in the way of innovative new titles. We haven't for a long time now.
Market investors look at this genre and see a saturated mess of over-monetized projects. That's unattractive.
This is fine to say in theory. But you are putting the cart before the horse here big time.
What game has come out that was amazing that didn't get enough customers? We cant even get 1 good game per year and you are saying oversaturation?
If an amazing game releases that fails due to lack of customers, then maybe you will have a point.
The real issue, is Dev teams have lost sight of what the customer actually wants, and has just been putting out absolute trash. Even Diablo immortal is making money hand over fist. People are so desperate they will buy anything. These greedy incompetent companies are just force feeding us horse pucks and you are calling that oversaturation.
My dude, we have MMORPGs from two decades ago still limping along. We literally have two different EverQuest still somehow shuffling forward. We have about half a dozen crowdfunding "projects" sucking up cash.
We have very few new releases *because* of this saturation. Most other genres do not keep such old titles going indefinitely. You can only innovate on top of WoW or EQ's old code so much. Because the genre's base isn't big enough to support the current offerings and new ones, we don't get much in the way of innovative new titles. We haven't for a long time now.
Developers have made so much money off of crypto they don't want to make games anymore. there is no incentive. they won at life and left. until this crypto nft craze is over, the next generation who have to make money will start making games again. look at Camelot unchained. they made a game called cube. doesn't that remind you of a blockchain? they won't give refunds to investors because they invested it into crypto. the game has been in development for 15 years. it's never going to launch and if it does it will fail without an in-game currency that can't be turned into real cash. crypto ruined gaming. period.
This user is a registered flex offender. Someone who is registered as being a flex offender is a person who feels the need to flex about everything they say. Always be the guy that paints the house in the dark. Lucidity can be forged with enough liquidity and pharmed for decades with enough compound interest that a reachable profit would never end.
Market investors look at this genre and see a saturated mess of over-monetized projects. That's unattractive.
The real issue, is Dev teams have lost sight of what the customer actually wants, and has just been putting out absolute trash. Even Diablo immortal is making money hand over fist.
Then doesn't that prove that particular product is something that customers want?
If they didn't want it, it wouldn't be making money hand over fist.
It's proof that a particular product is something that customers are willing to accept. That acceptance may not be as based on want as would be ideal. Sometimes there is a dearth of options otherwise. so people settle. Those wanting a subscription mandatory MMORPG don't have a lot of options for example, so may choose to make do with a game not entirely pleasing if they insist on that payment model.
Also, in the case of cash shop games the ability for a few to spend large amounts on them may give the impression they are more desired overall than they are. While Diablo Immortal is making a great deal of money some servers are also being closed, so it appears the appeal of it has narrowed despite the revenue it brings in.
But you're making a judgment call on what you value.
If you don't value it then "it's a dearth of options." I bet there is a whole other group of poeple who are really into this type of thing. Maybe they are saying "finally some real options!"
And yes, there is a group who is very willing to spend large amounts on these games. Their vote in dollars shows game companies that they want this type of thing and those game companies might very well agree to cater to that demographic.
And if they keep making money then perhaps it's a growing demographic. Might not be "our" demographic but one that companies might value.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Market investors look at this genre and see a saturated mess of over-monetized projects. That's unattractive.
This is fine to say in theory. But you are putting the cart before the horse here big time.
What game has come out that was amazing that didn't get enough customers? We cant even get 1 good game per year and you are saying oversaturation?
If an amazing game releases that fails due to lack of customers, then maybe you will have a point.
The real issue, is Dev teams have lost sight of what the customer actually wants, and has just been putting out absolute trash. Even Diablo immortal is making money hand over fist. People are so desperate they will buy anything. These greedy incompetent companies are just force feeding us horse pucks and you are calling that oversaturation.
My dude, we have MMORPGs from two decades ago still limping along. We literally have two different EverQuest still somehow shuffling forward. We have about half a dozen crowdfunding "projects" sucking up cash.
We have very few new releases *because* of this saturation. Most other genres do not keep such old titles going indefinitely. You can only innovate on top of WoW or EQ's old code so much. Because the genre's base isn't big enough to support the current offerings and new ones, we don't get much in the way of innovative new titles. We haven't for a long time now.
You can go on and on about how many MMO's are out there. Where is the proof to support your claim that Great MMO's cannot succeed in the current environment because there are too many options?
Maybe what you say is true, if ever a Great MMO releases and fails due to lack of players, then maybe you will turn out to be right.
I don't believe that will happen. I have yet to see a Great MMO release recently to test your so called saturation theory.
Its no different than old Movies/Books. When a good movie/book releases, it can still make a boatload of money. It doesn't really matter how many good movies/books were in the past. People like new choices for entertainment. Believe it or not, many people like more than 1 source of entertainment and are on the lookout for new awesome things. So just because there are some old book/movie lovers out there that are happy reading the same book/movie over and over again, there are millions more that want MORE and are waiting for something.
If you want to make a bunch of money in entertainment, it helps to release a good product.
Market investors look at this genre and see a saturated mess of over-monetized projects. That's unattractive.
The real issue, is Dev teams have lost sight of what the customer actually wants, and has just been putting out absolute trash. Even Diablo immortal is making money hand over fist.
Then doesn't that prove that particular product is something that customers want?
If they didn't want it, it wouldn't be making money hand over fist.
It's proof that a particular product is something that customers are willing to accept. That acceptance may not be as based on want as would be ideal. Sometimes there is a dearth of options otherwise. so people settle. Those wanting a subscription mandatory MMORPG don't have a lot of options for example, so may choose to make do with a game not entirely pleasing if they insist on that payment model.
Also, in the case of cash shop games the ability for a few to spend large amounts on them may give the impression they are more desired overall than they are. While Diablo Immortal is making a great deal of money some servers are also being closed, so it appears the appeal of it has narrowed despite the revenue it brings in.
But you're making a judgment call on what you value.
If you don't value it then "it's a dearth of options." I bet there is a whole other group of poeple who are really into this type of thing. Maybe they are saying "finally some real options!"
And yes, there is a group who is very willing to spend large amounts on these games. Their vote in dollars shows game companies that they want this type of thing and those game companies might very well agree to cater to that demographic.
And if they keep making money then perhaps it's a growing demographic. Might not be "our" demographic but one that companies might value.
There are some things with a genuine dearth of options. Subscription mandatory MMORPGs have become one of those things. The degree to which I value that monetization model doesn't affect the scarcity of it.
The money spent on a game where there is no limit on individual spending is not conclusive of the degree overall want for a game as extreme spending by a few can easily be construed as a wide degree of popularity.
The only thing proven is that when there is no limit on spending there will those that spend more than others, some to extreme degree.
You spend money on crap,
and you will get crap. The next generation of games will also be
influenced by your spending decision, and you will get even more crap.
Then crap will be cloned. All in an effort to separate customers from
their wallets.
It's a cycle that can only
be broken by some independent thinking mavericks backed with deep
pockets and stacks of patience. When those mavericks come along, treat
them well. I sincerely doubt they will make an appearance in my
lifetime.
Unfortunately the fact I refuse spending my money on crap doesnt stop others from spending it on crap.
I refuse to use Steam since it started and yet many other people keep using this abusive monopoly that has violated basic rules of computer security since day one and does so until this day. Steam can install new software on your computer without prompting you first at any time. Not even Windows update does that.
I refuse to use Facebook and yet many other people have been using it for no good reason whatsoever. Other sites offer the same services without violating your privacy as hard as they can. Heck Facebook even collects data about people who do NOT have a Facebook account. And Zuckerberg just loves to make speeches how he's the Messiah, but even he cannot give you a reason why you would actually need to use Facebook.
I refuse to use Amazon, for obvious reasons. They have gross working conditions for their underpaid and overworked staff, while their boss is sometimes the richest man of the world and flies penis rockets for no good reason but to show off. Same deal, lots of other people still use this service.
I cannot really avoid Google and YouTube. Too dominant. Still, I try to use other services like Excite and Rumble as much as possible. Guess what, people online call me all kinds of stuff for using Rumble. Apparently you're violating their religion for not faithfully following their beloved YouTube monopoly.
So the next generation I get more crap and refuse again and that just never stops the crap or the monopolys.
And no, I dont think rich people are the solution. They are the problem.
Comments
If they didn't want it, it wouldn't be making money hand over fist.
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
It's proof that a particular product is something that customers are willing to accept. That acceptance may not be as based on want as would be ideal. Sometimes there is a dearth of options otherwise. so people settle. Those wanting a subscription mandatory MMORPG don't have a lot of options for example, so may choose to make do with a game not entirely pleasing if they insist on that payment model.
Also, in the case of cash shop games the ability for a few to spend large amounts on them may give the impression they are more desired overall than they are. While Diablo Immortal is making a great deal of money some servers are also being closed, so it appears the appeal of it has narrowed despite the revenue it brings in.
Someone who is registered as being a flex offender is a person who feels the need to flex about everything they say.
Always be the guy that paints the house in the dark.
Lucidity can be forged with enough liquidity and pharmed for decades with enough compound interest that a reachable profit would never end.
We have very few new releases *because* of this saturation. Most other genres do not keep such old titles going indefinitely. You can only innovate on top of WoW or EQ's old code so much. Because the genre's base isn't big enough to support the current offerings and new ones, we don't get much in the way of innovative new titles. We haven't for a long time now.
look at Camelot unchained. they made a game called cube. doesn't that remind you of a blockchain? they won't give refunds to investors because they invested it into crypto. the game has been in development for 15 years. it's never going to launch and if it does it will fail without an in-game currency that can't be turned into real cash.
crypto ruined gaming. period.
Someone who is registered as being a flex offender is a person who feels the need to flex about everything they say.
Always be the guy that paints the house in the dark.
Lucidity can be forged with enough liquidity and pharmed for decades with enough compound interest that a reachable profit would never end.
If you don't value it then "it's a dearth of options." I bet there is a whole other group of poeple who are really into this type of thing. Maybe they are saying "finally some real options!"
And yes, there is a group who is very willing to spend large amounts on these games. Their vote in dollars shows game companies that they want this type of thing and those game companies might very well agree to cater to that demographic.
And if they keep making money then perhaps it's a growing demographic. Might not be "our" demographic but one that companies might value.
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
Maybe what you say is true, if ever a Great MMO releases and fails due to lack of players, then maybe you will turn out to be right.
I don't believe that will happen. I have yet to see a Great MMO release recently to test your so called saturation theory.
Its no different than old Movies/Books. When a good movie/book releases, it can still make a boatload of money. It doesn't really matter how many good movies/books were in the past. People like new choices for entertainment. Believe it or not, many people like more than 1 source of entertainment and are on the lookout for new awesome things. So just because there are some old book/movie lovers out there that are happy reading the same book/movie over and over again, there are millions more that want MORE and are waiting for something.
If you want to make a bunch of money in entertainment, it helps to release a good product.
There are some things with a genuine dearth of options. Subscription mandatory MMORPGs have become one of those things. The degree to which I value that monetization model doesn't affect the scarcity of it.
The money spent on a game where there is no limit on individual spending is not conclusive of the degree overall want for a game as extreme spending by a few can easily be construed as a wide degree of popularity.
The only thing proven is that when there is no limit on spending there will those that spend more than others, some to extreme degree.
Not all that revelatory.