MarkJacobs said:
No offense taken at all! Actually, at 50K subs for a team this size, it keep us going. At 100K, we are profitable. Why is this such a bad business plan? We set out to make this game with reasonable goals for its scope and its user base. From there we hope to branch out and do other games/get additional funding.
That is what I was pointing at - there does not seem to be anything suggesting even 50k subscribers is reachable.
3 faction is good at start but become more and more unbalanced in time, especially if the sides are fixed.
Actually, unless one side is decidedly weaker than the others, it generally balances out. DAoC was quite balanced until they gave a long quest line overpowering powers. That had nothing to do with factions, just who had time to play all day for weeks on end.
All the similar 3 side games i have played ended very unbalanced for 1 side. And that happened sooner rather then later. No exceptions.
Players want to win. They don't actually want balance or competition no matter how much they say they do. One side always becomes stacked. I'm not sure how this can be solved.
You have to provide a lot of negative incentives against stacking, and positive incentives for being on the underdog team. I'm sure the Forest people team in CU will be the underdog as usual.
MarkJacobsCEO City State EntertainmentMemberRarePosts: 649
MarkJacobs said:
No offense taken at all! Actually, at 50K subs for a team this size, it keep us going. At 100K, we are profitable. Why is this such a bad business plan? We set out to make this game with reasonable goals for its scope and its user base. From there we hope to branch out and do other games/get additional funding.
That is what I was pointing at - there does not seem to be anything suggesting even 50k subscribers is reachable.
I think that there is plenty of evidence, starting with the number of people who backed Camelot Unchained. When I talk to journalists or investors, I ask them a few simple question:
1) Do you think that the number of people who back a game during its Kickstarter phase represent the potential base of players out there? If they say yes, I point to all games where that isn't true, like almost all the major games that have been KSed.
2) Do you think that the global audience for an MMORPG has grown significantly since 2001?
3) Do you think that the interest in PvP/RvR games has grown significantly since 2001? Look at how many people are engaging in PvP/RvR in MMORPGs and other game genres.
4) Do you think that having said that (I usually ask some other questions, but those are the key ones), that it's possible that a RvR-focused game like Camelot Unchained can get twice the number of people who backed the game during the Kickstarter considering that amount is only 1/5 of the number that subed to Dark Age of Camelot in 2002 and that CSE is running Camelot Unchained itself, not doing a publishing deal, in US/Europe?
It really is as simple as that. Now, do I think 500K is doable in the West? Nope, but I wasn't a believer in WAR hitting that number either as I said to EA during the negotiations.
Could we be wrong? Sure could, but I think 50K is more than doable.
MarkJacobs said: 1) Do you think that the number of people who back a game during its Kickstarter phase represent the potential base of players out there? If they say yes, I point to all games where that isn't true, like almost all the major games that have been KSed.
2) Do you think that the global audience for an MMORPG has grown significantly since 2001?
3) Do you think that the interest in PvP/RvR games has grown significantly since 2001? Look at how many people are engaging in PvP/RvR in MMORPGs and other game genres/
4) Do you think that having said that (I usually ask some other questions, but those are the key ones), that it's possible that a RvR-focused game like Camelot Unchained can get twice the number of people who backed the game during the Kickstarter considering that amount is only 1/5 of the number that subed to Dark Age of Camelot in 2002 and that CSE is running Camelot Unchained itself in the West?
It really is as simple as that. Now, do I think 500K is doable in the West? Nope, but I wasn't a believer in WAR hitting that number either as I said to EA during the negotiations.
Could we be wrong? Sure could, but I think it is more than doable.
1) Your KS campaign states around 15k backers. Given let's be generous 20% retention, that is 3k subs. 50k, not to say 100k, is very, very long run from there.
2) It did, however that audience isn't craving for a type of the game you are making.
3) No. That is quite the point, players do not engage in world PVP. Look at EVE, only about 15% of total playerbase actually live in space with territorial warfare mechanics. And EVE is likely "the most successful PVP game ever made".
4) Just you talking about a market 15 years ago should be a good hint how dramatically market has changed since.
I do not wish you any ill but somewhat I fail to see why would one want to make such game besides enjoying that type of game themselves.
MarkJacobsCEO City State EntertainmentMemberRarePosts: 649
MarkJacobs said: 1) Do you think that the number of people who back a game during its Kickstarter phase represent the potential base of players out there? If they say yes, I point to all games where that isn't true, like almost all the major games that have been KSed.
2) Do you think that the global audience for an MMORPG has grown significantly since 2001?
3) Do you think that the interest in PvP/RvR games has grown significantly since 2001? Look at how many people are engaging in PvP/RvR in MMORPGs and other game genres/
4) Do you think that having said that (I usually ask some other questions, but those are the key ones), that it's possible that a RvR-focused game like Camelot Unchained can get twice the number of people who backed the game during the Kickstarter considering that amount is only 1/5 of the number that subed to Dark Age of Camelot in 2002 and that CSE is running Camelot Unchained itself in the West?
It really is as simple as that. Now, do I think 500K is doable in the West? Nope, but I wasn't a believer in WAR hitting that number either as I said to EA during the negotiations.
Could we be wrong? Sure could, but I think it is more than doable.
1) Your KS campaign states around 15k backers. Given let's be generous 20% retention, that is 3k subs. 50k, not to say 100k, is very, very long run from there.
2) It did, however that audience isn't craving for a type of the game you are making.
3) No. That is quite the point, players do not engage in world PVP. Look at EVE, only about 15% of total playerbase actually live in space with territorial warfare mechanics. And EVE is likely "the most successful PVP game ever made".
4) Just you talking about a market 15 years ago should be a good hint how dramatically market has changed since.
I do not wish you any ill but somewhat I fail to see why would one want to make such game besides enjoying that type of game themselves.
1. We've already almost doubled the number of Backers since the campaign ended. That's my point, look at every major game on KS, single/multiplayer and look at the difference in their numbers during the KS till launch. I expect that by the time we launch, we will have a minimum of 100K folks who bought the game. Look at Crowfall for the most recent validation of that theory. And, FYI, 20% retention isn't generous, it's a disaster. Dark Age and WoW (granted it was a while ago) were in the 70s/80s%.
2. What are you using for your analysis? If people weren't craving RvR/PvP, why have so many games that feature it done well, at least for a short time. Long-term retention is another matter, I couldn't agree more. I think the audience we are going for wants a game like this. You may not, the vast majority of MMO players may not, but we're not making a game for them.
3. EO is a great game but comparing a fantasy game to a sci-fi game and saying that one is totally on point is not correct. By your argument WoW shouldn't exist since I would call WoW the most successful PvP game because of the number of people who played on the PvP servers at their peak. And ESO, not EO, would be the better choice if you factor in console.
4.I couldn't agree more and it's expanded, that's the point. Fifteen years ago everybody laughed at the idea of Dark Age and even more people laughed at the notion of a game with 1M subs. In 2004 - now, WoW has redefined the market and brought more people into MMOs (and PvP) then any of us (including me), thought possible. If this was 2001, I'd say we have no chance of success without PvE, but given the market, and folks like Crowfall out there, I'm not sure why you think the market is worse considering all that has happened in 16 years.
MarkJacobs said: 1. We've already almost doubled the number of Backers since the campaign ended. That's my point, look at every major game on KS, single/multiplayer and look at the difference in their numbers during the KS till launch. I expect that by the time we launch, we will have a minimum of 100K folks who bought the game. Look at Crowfall for the most recent validation of that theory.
2. What are you using for your analysis? If people weren't craving RvR/PvP, why have so many games that feature it done well, at least for a short time. Long-term retention is another matter, I couldn't agree more. I think the audience we are going for wants a game like this. You may not, the vast majority of MMO players may not, but we're not makign a game for them.
3. EO is a great game but comparing a fantasy game to a sci-fi game and saying that one is totally on point is not correct. By your argument WoW shouldn't exist since I would call WoW the most successful PvP game because of the number of people who played on the PvP servers at their peak. And ESO, not EO, would be the better choice if you factor in console.
4.I couldn't agree more and it's expanded, that's the point. Fifteen years ago everybody laughed at the idea of Dark Age and even more people laughed at the notion of a game with 1M subs. In 2004 - now, WoW has redefined the market and brought more people into MMOs (and PvP) then any of us (including me), thought possible. If this was 2001, I'd say we have no chance of success, but given the market, and folks like Crowfall out there, I'm not sure why you think the market is worse considering all that has happened in 16 years.
1) Doubled? Well, that makes it 6k...not whole a lot of difference.
Can you be specifc about examples you talk about?
2) The analysis is current market and any snippet data that developers provide(like EVE example) - PVP isn't really thrilling in any MMO.
3) Why it isn't correct? Do you want to imply that for some odd reasons spaceship fans are less/more into PVP?
I guess you need to check out WoW pvp servers....no one does world PVP there, same applies to other games with "PVP servers", I would say.
4) It did expanded but like I pointed out before, not in the direction CU is heading.
Yes, Crowfall, despite having some doubts, what the game is trying to do makes sense - it takes popular elements across the genres and try to combine them. It is a modern take on PVP MMO/MOBA for current audience and that is perfectly valid. However CU seems like a game from almost 2 decades ago...again, why?
I'm not to worried about "balance" faction balance in particular. as long as I can solo rome and be impactful. @MarkJacobs That was one of the things I loved about ESO. Will that be possible?
MarkJacobsCEO City State EntertainmentMemberRarePosts: 649
MarkJacobs said: 1. We've already almost doubled the number of Backers since the campaign ended. That's my point, look at every major game on KS, single/multiplayer and look at the difference in their numbers during the KS till launch. I expect that by the time we launch, we will have a minimum of 100K folks who bought the game. Look at Crowfall for the most recent validation of that theory.
2. What are you using for your analysis? If people weren't craving RvR/PvP, why have so many games that feature it done well, at least for a short time. Long-term retention is another matter, I couldn't agree more. I think the audience we are going for wants a game like this. You may not, the vast majority of MMO players may not, but we're not makign a game for them.
3. EO is a great game but comparing a fantasy game to a sci-fi game and saying that one is totally on point is not correct. By your argument WoW shouldn't exist since I would call WoW the most successful PvP game because of the number of people who played on the PvP servers at their peak. And ESO, not EO, would be the better choice if you factor in console.
4.I couldn't agree more and it's expanded, that's the point. Fifteen years ago everybody laughed at the idea of Dark Age and even more people laughed at the notion of a game with 1M subs. In 2004 - now, WoW has redefined the market and brought more people into MMOs (and PvP) then any of us (including me), thought possible. If this was 2001, I'd say we have no chance of success, but given the market, and folks like Crowfall out there, I'm not sure why you think the market is worse considering all that has happened in 16 years.
1) Doubled? Well, that makes it 6k...not whole a lot of difference.
Can you be specifc about examples you talk about?
2) The analysis is current market and any snippet data that developers provide(like EVE example) - PVP isn't really thrilling in any MMO.
3) Why it isn't correct? Do you want to imply that for some odd reasons spaceship fans are less/more into PVP?
I guess you need to check out WoW pvp servers....no one does world PVP there, same applies to other games with "PVP servers", I would say.
4) It did expanded but like I pointed out before, not in the direction CU is heading.
Yes, Crowfall, despite I have some doubts, makes sense - it takes popular elements across the genres and try to combine them. It is a modern take on PVP MMO/MOBA for current audience and that is perfectly valid. However CU seems like a game from almost 2 decades ago...again, why?
1. You really wrong about the retention. A 20% would mean failure and I don't know many sub-based games that were great/good (though it is subjective), that had those kind of low retention numbers. And when you are thinking about retention, remember that we are going for a niche market so most of the people who will be playing Camelot Unchained will be interested in that kind of game, otherwise they wouldn't be paying for it. If our game sucks, then we would have terrible numbers. But to even contemplate numbers that low given all the historical data that points to the opposite as well as the niche market we are aiming it, is almost contradictory assuming we make even a good game.
1A. Crowfall, SoTA, all the Brian Fargo games, all the Obsidian games, etc.
2. In terms of demographics and huge numbers, I agree, but we aren't going into that market.
3. For the same reason you wouldn't say that in terms of a movie. For example,f a sci-fi falls to make big numbers would you say then a fantasy film won't either? If you stick to fantasy games with PvP, the analysis is meaningful but you don't know if more PvP people didn't play EO because of the game itself or simply because they don't like space games. For decades people didn't believe that a sci-fi film could ever make big money, and then Star Wars changed all that.
4. Do you think that in 16 years, with a huge expansion of the world wide market for games, that the number of people who are interested in playing PvP MMOs is less than the Western market for MMOs 16 years ago? If you believe that, there is nothing I could say that would convince you.
In terms of Camelot Unchained being a game from two decades ago, I couldn't disagree more. Large-scale battles (1K), graphics (we're finally catching up), interesting mechanics (A.I.R.), etc. And as to why, because I love PvP/RvR and I think we can bring a lot of new and interesting systems to the genre, just as my games have in the past.
I'm not to worried about "balance" faction balance in particular. as long as I can solo rome and be impactful. @MarkJacobs That was one of the things I loved about ESO. Will that be possible?
Yep. As a general rule, I'm a solo player so rest assured, some of our classes will be great soloing. Others, like healers of course, won't be.
Mark Jacobs CEO, City State Entertainment
MarkJacobsCEO City State EntertainmentMemberRarePosts: 649
Folks,
Thanks for your comments, questions, and well, other stuff. I'm outta here for the day.
3 faction is good at start but become more and more unbalanced in time, especially if the sides are fixed.
Actually, unless one side is decidedly weaker than the others, it generally balances out. DAoC was quite balanced until they gave a long quest line overpowering powers. That had nothing to do with factions, just who had time to play all day for weeks on end.
All the similar 3 side games i have played ended very unbalanced for 1 side. And that happened sooner rather then later. No exceptions.
Nonsense. DAoC, the poster child for this game never had that issue. I am not aware of any other major 3 faction games. Since you don't seem to be able to provide any examples I will have to assume you are just making up excuses.
He's not wrong, there definitely were underpopulated realms back in the day, with Hibernia usually being the smallest on many servers.
They added a skip to level 30 at the start for those willing to reroll in a low pop real vs a skip to level 20 on others.
I think when the dust settled most players agreed skipping the early levels was not a good idea as it meant players lost a chance to develop long term relationships and properly learn to play their class.
I'm hoping CU has no plans to reuse this particular incentive again to resolve balance issues.
Again not exactly true. The problem was that after the "Trials of Atlantis" expansion the servers emptied once people had finished the long quest chains to get their master levels, many casual players left. I hung around up to Catacombs, but the population was never the same. You really can't consider low population servers to be in any indicative.
3 faction is good at start but become more and more unbalanced in time, especially if the sides are fixed.
Actually, unless one side is decidedly weaker than the others, it generally balances out. DAoC was quite balanced until they gave a long quest line overpowering powers. That had nothing to do with factions, just who had time to play all day for weeks on end.
All the similar 3 side games i have played ended very unbalanced for 1 side. And that happened sooner rather then later. No exceptions.
Nonsense. DAoC, the poster child for this game never had that issue. I am not aware of any other major 3 faction games. Since you don't seem to be able to provide any examples I will have to assume you are just making up excuses.
He's not wrong, there definitely were underpopulated realms back in the day, with Hibernia usually being the smallest on many servers.
They added a skip to level 30 at the start for those willing to reroll in a low pop real vs a skip to level 20 on others.
I think when the dust settled most players agreed skipping the early levels was not a good idea as it meant players lost a chance to develop long term relationships and properly learn to play their class.
I'm hoping CU has no plans to reuse this particular incentive again to resolve balance issues.
Again not exactly true. The problem was that after the "Trials of Atlantis" expansion the servers emptied once people had finished the long quest chains to get their master levels, many casual players left. I hung around up to Catacombs, but the population was never the same. You really can't consider low population servers to be in any indicative.
I was playing on Mordred when TOA released and its full negative impact was a bit behind the blue servers.
Eventually though my guild and I bailed throughout 2004 and most ended up in WOW by Nov.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Mark. Original backer here. I haven't been invested in testing so far because... well I'm older than I used to be so free time is a bit more of a premium. You may have posted it elsewhere but do you have a rough feeling for when the game will actually launch?
My feeling is there's something wrong in the works of this project. Perhaps they've gone over budget or they need investors, or both. Whatever it is, it's really feeling like more so a hopeful project that will never come to pass.
Sadly, since the age of the class mmorpgs is dead:
Everquest
Asheron's Call
Anarchy Online
Dark Age of Camelot (on life support and an emu for mostly Europeans)
etc.
Unfortunate.
MarkJacobsCEO City State EntertainmentMemberRarePosts: 649
Mark. Original backer here. I haven't been invested in testing so far because... well I'm older than I used to be so free time is a bit more of a premium. You may have posted it elsewhere but do you have a rough feeling for when the game will actually launch?
My feeling is there's something wrong in the works of this project. Perhaps they've gone over budget or they need investors, or both. Whatever it is, it's really feeling like more so a hopeful project that will never come to pass.
Sadly, since the age of the class mmorpgs is dead:
Everquest
Asheron's Call
Anarchy Online
Dark Age of Camelot (on life support and an emu for mostly Europeans)
etc.
Unfortunate.
Actually, nope on both. We're late (duh, right?) but because we're late due to not being able to hire enough people, we're not overbudget yet.
As to needing investors, don't forget we haven't run telethons, item sales, or even gone the equity crowdfunding route. So, either we don't need investors or I'm doing things the wrong way. And since I've been down this path before, and we had a successful outcome (in terms of ROI for investors/shareholders at Mythic), this isn't my first dance.
As to something being wrong, there was, I kept pointing that out every month, lack of programmers. We have had only one major misstep (the previous ability system) but that's it. That's a pretty good outcome for a small team that's building its own engine and has already shown >1K players in a rather tight space.
If we're not in Beta before the new year, then yeah, something went wrong.
Thanks for your time here MJ. Im also an original backer. I have now leveled up from being previously single when I first backed the game, then got married and now my wife is pregnant. Please hurry and deliver the game (hopefully in its ready state too) otherwise my play time will be less and less and eventually no time to play (partly my personal challenge i know lol). anyhow, please speed it up a bit and good luck to you and the team.
Comments
You have to provide a lot of negative incentives against stacking, and positive incentives for being on the underdog team. I'm sure the Forest people team in CU will be the underdog as usual.
1) Do you think that the number of people who back a game during its Kickstarter phase represent the potential base of players out there? If they say yes, I point to all games where that isn't true, like almost all the major games that have been KSed.
2) Do you think that the global audience for an MMORPG has grown significantly since 2001?
3) Do you think that the interest in PvP/RvR games has grown significantly since 2001? Look at how many people are engaging in PvP/RvR in MMORPGs and other game genres.
4) Do you think that having said that (I usually ask some other questions, but those are the key ones), that it's possible that a RvR-focused game like Camelot Unchained can get twice the number of people who backed the game during the Kickstarter considering that amount is only 1/5 of the number that subed to Dark Age of Camelot in 2002 and that CSE is running Camelot Unchained itself, not doing a publishing deal, in US/Europe?
It really is as simple as that. Now, do I think 500K is doable in the West? Nope, but I wasn't a believer in WAR hitting that number either as I said to EA during the negotiations.
Could we be wrong? Sure could, but I think 50K is more than doable.
Mark Jacobs
CEO, City State Entertainment
2) It did, however that audience isn't craving for a type of the game you are making.
3) No. That is quite the point, players do not engage in world PVP. Look at EVE, only about 15% of total playerbase actually live in space with territorial warfare mechanics. And EVE is likely "the most successful PVP game ever made".
4) Just you talking about a market 15 years ago should be a good hint how dramatically market has changed since.
I do not wish you any ill but somewhat I fail to see why would one want to make such game besides enjoying that type of game themselves.
2. What are you using for your analysis? If people weren't craving RvR/PvP, why have so many games that feature it done well, at least for a short time. Long-term retention is another matter, I couldn't agree more. I think the audience we are going for wants a game like this. You may not, the vast majority of MMO players may not, but we're not making a game for them.
3. EO is a great game but comparing a fantasy game to a sci-fi game and saying that one is totally on point is not correct. By your argument WoW shouldn't exist since I would call WoW the most successful PvP game because of the number of people who played on the PvP servers at their peak.
4.I couldn't agree more and it's expanded, that's the point. Fifteen years ago everybody laughed at the idea of Dark Age and even more people laughed at the notion of a game with 1M subs. In 2004 - now, WoW has redefined the market and brought more people into MMOs (and PvP) then any of us (including me), thought possible. If this was 2001, I'd say we have no chance of success without PvE, but given the market, and folks like Crowfall out there, I'm not sure why you think the market is worse considering all that has happened in 16 years.
Mark Jacobs
CEO, City State Entertainment
Can you be specifc about examples you talk about?
2) The analysis is current market and any snippet data that developers provide(like EVE example) - PVP isn't really thrilling in any MMO.
3) Why it isn't correct? Do you want to imply that for some odd reasons spaceship fans are less/more into PVP?
I guess you need to check out WoW pvp servers....no one does world PVP there, same applies to other games with "PVP servers", I would say.
4) It did expanded but like I pointed out before, not in the direction CU is heading.
Yes, Crowfall, despite having some doubts, what the game is trying to do makes sense - it takes popular elements across the genres and try to combine them. It is a modern take on PVP MMO/MOBA for current audience and that is perfectly valid. However CU seems like a game from almost 2 decades ago...again, why?
1A. Crowfall, SoTA, all the Brian Fargo games, all the Obsidian games, etc.
2. In terms of demographics and huge numbers, I agree, but we aren't going into that market.
3. For the same reason you wouldn't say that in terms of a movie. For example,f a sci-fi falls to make big numbers would you say then a fantasy film won't either? If you stick to fantasy games with PvP, the analysis is meaningful but you don't know if more PvP people didn't play EO because of the game itself or simply because they don't like space games. For decades people didn't believe that a sci-fi film could ever make big money, and then Star Wars changed all that.
4. Do you think that in 16 years, with a huge expansion of the world wide market for games, that the number of people who are interested in playing PvP MMOs is less than the Western market for MMOs 16 years ago? If you believe that, there is nothing I could say that would convince you.
In terms of Camelot Unchained being a game from two decades ago, I couldn't disagree more. Large-scale battles (1K), graphics (we're finally catching up), interesting mechanics (A.I.R.), etc. And as to why, because I love PvP/RvR and I think we can bring a lot of new and interesting systems to the genre, just as my games have in the past.
Yep. As a general rule, I'm a solo player so rest assured, some of our classes will be great soloing. Others, like healers of course, won't be.
Mark Jacobs
CEO, City State Entertainment
Thanks for your comments, questions, and well, other stuff. I'm outta here for the day.
Cya!
Mark
Mark Jacobs
CEO, City State Entertainment
Eventually though my guild and I bailed throughout 2004 and most ended up in WOW by Nov.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
My feeling is there's something wrong in the works of this project. Perhaps they've gone over budget or they need investors, or both. Whatever it is, it's really feeling like more so a hopeful project that will never come to pass.
Sadly, since the age of the class mmorpgs is dead:
Everquest
Asheron's Call
Anarchy Online
Dark Age of Camelot (on life support and an emu for mostly Europeans)
etc.
Unfortunate.
As to needing investors, don't forget we haven't run telethons, item sales, or even gone the equity crowdfunding route. So, either we don't need investors or I'm doing things the wrong way. And since I've been down this path before, and we had a successful outcome (in terms of ROI for investors/shareholders at Mythic), this isn't my first dance.
As to something being wrong, there was, I kept pointing that out every month, lack of programmers. We have had only one major misstep (the previous ability system) but that's it. That's a pretty good outcome for a small team that's building its own engine and has already shown >1K players in a rather tight space.
If we're not in Beta before the new year, then yeah, something went wrong.
Mark Jacobs
CEO, City State Entertainment
Holding up WoW as an example of PvP not popular because "reasons".
LMAO
Because something does PvP badly doesn't not mean people are not interested in it.