Jump to content

bl4ckhunter

Member
  • Content Count

    10
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About bl4ckhunter

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

158 profile views
  1. half a decade from now, now not from launch, launch is estimated late 2018 on kickstarter which will inevitably drag into 2019 like launches always do, i was thinking about late 2020/2021, if it holds until 2024 there's obiviously no need to even check anymore. regarding the thread spam issue honestly i do not mean to question the forum mods but by now it should be clear that it isn't going to stop at least until the game launches so they probably should make a post with the dev's responses to the critics and sticky it, leaving it as it is just clutters the forums for no good reason and maybe people after seeing their own criticism posted over and over again will just drop a like instead of making another whole thread, sad as it is most people do not use the search function in forums, they never did and they never will, so a sticky is the only way to cut down on the reposts.
  2. 1) that's obiviously true, i was just pointing out that you usually don't do a 360 in marketing unless you feel you're losing grip, anyway it's completely unrelated but perhaps adding shards for newer players is an horrible solution, you end up with universes cycling like they do in ogame which is simply horrible as you end up with a ton of super powerful players holing up in their secluded universe while everyone who got completely stomped on moves on another server and tries to win the race, if anything would've killed eve that would have. 2) blizzard released overwatch and hots wich while not mmo are still online games with expasive servers, besides you need to stop bringing f2p into everything, beside the fact there are f2p games that work fine and that you're lumping everything under the korean mmorpg model i never called for the game to be f2p, b2p is a common and very viable alternative that works very well for a ton of games. 3) You're misreading me completely there and i apologize if i failed to specify what i meant, i did not say that p2p publishers are greedy nor i meant to, i said, or at least meant to, that the fact that publishers, as in "major publishers" like activision, ubisoft, ea, who are notriously greedy, are not milking the hell out of subscription based market even if technically the subscription model is the one that brings the highest revenue per player to the publishers means that they think that such a market is neither competitive nor profitable, it was an argumentation to reinforce the point that there's no market for new P2P games, i wasn't accusing p2p publishers in any way. 4)"If you don't like it don't play it." is a point that while true, has absolutely no place in a forum of all things, a public forum is a place for discussion, if you just shut up people there's no point to having anything more than a main site with a news feed, it is NQ choice and theirs alone (unless they decide to involve external investors) but everyone has the right to state their opinions about it. At the end it'll probably take half a decade to find out if they can really make subscriptions work, fingers crossed that they make it to launch (They should, I'm not doubting them and i sincerely hope they do make it, even if just to see if it was you or me who had a point, but nothing is for granted, there are tons of things that could go wrong.), if it ends like i think it will i only hope that it'll serve of lesson to other devs, if it works i'l cheer them on from afar. On a side note you sound like the only things you are willing to play are p2p games, if that's so you're losing out on a ton of nice things out there, like in everything there's the good and there's the bad.
  3. THEY called it f2p and not extended trial, which is what it actually is as you are correctly pointing out, and that's what matters, it means that they wanted to cather to a different marketing sector other than "sub lovers" and felt the need to inflate their playerbase, you don't do that unless you think that your playerbase is seriously decreasing. Now eve online is a venerably old game and sub or not, it's in the end phase of it's life cycle, nothing lasts forever afterall, especially games, but the fact that it changed marketing itself drastically after fourteen years of success shows that the scenery is changed and that advertising as a subscription game is no longer percieved as viable. Subscription is a relic, that much is fact and it doesn't change just becouse subscription is the best model to date (which is arguable in itself but beside the point), even blizzard, one of the last three great holdouts doesn't use it for any new games. Now subscription, at its peak of glory at least, is the model that racks up most money for the devenlopers and publishers with the least amount of work, we can all agree on that much i think, and we all know how greedy big publishers are, so why are subscription games something that you look on as more of a reference than an actual game? On a side point i find it very fun that you all bash (correctly) f2p and b2p models for having microtransactions and providing advantage for money but when it comes to plex systems and selling max levels charachters which are clearly microtransactions everyone turns a blind eye, it's very hypocritical of you all.
  4. Eve online is going f2p in november..... (http://www.ign.com/articles/2016/08/31/eve-online-going-free-to-play-after-13-years) How low have the mighty fallen, stripped of their weapons, they lie dead.
  5. fact is that it's not just "some" sub based game to fail, every single new one has failed in a decade and you really can't say that about any other model, if they truly have done their buisness homework it would be reassuring of them to share it with us, hence the thread, i find it a bit ridiculous to expect people to take stuff at face value. Just like f2p games have to prove that they aren't pay to win and buy to play has to prove that they won't be dlc fests, pay to play games have to prove that they won't convert to f2p after a year or so and to do that they need to at least show some planning and some estimates behind it, if you truly want to do something that's not been done in a decade you should also back it up with a real plan. Also the trial period seems even more of a bust that the pay to play model in itself to me, the wide majority of leavers in mmos leaves in the space of a month and that's a ton of money that buy to play games and pay to play (back in their days of glory) cash in even if the latter benefit a bit less for it and that they won't get at all due to the free trial and they'll also lose the launch day money influx, does really a daring bet like attempting to launch a p2p game nowadays need to cut off one more leg to stand on?
  6. and i don't see how is that even relevant to the topic at hand. no one cares about your feelings anyways.
  7. free to play being what it is doesn't make subscription models any more successful than they've proven out to be in the last decade, the t-rex was a stronger predator than the tiger but, just like subscriptions, alas it's not around anymore, subscriptions models might be better but that doesn't automatically erase the fact that since 2004 any game launched with a subscription model has failed. You can't just shove that sort of thing under the carpet becouse "it's a better model" becouse it's already been proved multiple times that people don't buy "better" even when it actually is better both for the customer and for the producer (this comes to mind as a prime example http://business.time.com/2012/05/17/why-jcpenneys-no-more-coupons-experiment-is-failing/) if you end up with an average player peak of 500 players subscription being better is hardly going to help you out.
  8. i'm fairly certain that even they don't think that they'd get away with absolutely everything, the blog they posted seem to show that they've got a fairly good idea of what is acceptable from a sub model.
  9. Now that is simply not true, monetization models make or break games, saying that sub will work is one thing, i may not share your opinion but it's undeniable that it's completely possible that they will, but saying that EVERYTHING will work becouse the game is good is just vainglory. i seriously hope that the devs don't think like you becouse in that case we're completely doomed then, marketing and financial management is just as important for the success of a game as while they can't make a broken game work (but they can make it sell still, i mean look at no man's sky, they managed to sell what basically is a showcase of a procedural world generator with near zero actual content for 60$ and they topped the steam and gog charts) they sure as hell can break a working one, history of gaming is all too full of those. they could actually use the nerf bat with sense and don't piss off players? i don't know, devs as a category tend to devenlop (no pun intended) a special kind of selective cronical stupidity when it comes to game balance, the only games i've actually seen with a semblance of stable balance are mobas. if they actually know what they're doing with balance then they maybe could avoid this. it actually brings to mind the fact that any discovered exploits also end up culling the playerbase by a large perchentage, since you have to ban exploiters but every exploiter you ban is a subscriber lost forever and if an exploit is discovered you can stay sure that a ton of players will abuse it regardless, and while cheaters deserve bans, well, if you ban a part of your source of revenue you end up with a smaller source of revenue. doesn't really have anything to do with the topic at hand but i find that they might have an unpleasant surprise with that, it seems to me that the system is extremely suceptible to what me and a few others minecraft server owners called the "wasteland effect", basically everything in a wide radius around the protected spawnpoints was scorched down to the bedrock from players constantly duking it out and stalking each other and that was just with a peak of 23 players, (eventually i instanced the spawn and randomized the drop in point but i don't see how that would work here), can't even ban excessive griefers becouse it's a pvp game, couple that with the free trial period and you end up losing a ton of subscribers all the same. this actually brings up another problem that i didn't think about earlier, with the game being a lot harder at the beginning than at late game, as it is without exception in all games that are either or both sandboxes and pvp, and a free trial you either hand-hold gamers for the 4 week trial annoying them at the start and scaring them away once the real thing starts losing and end up subscribers or you scare them right away ending with still loosing subscribers since you take away the incentive to persevere that comes from having already bought the game.
  10. Let me start with the fact that i'm fully aware of this https://board.dualthegame.com/index.php?/topic/394-devblog-monetization-player-happiness-and-economic-viability/ and this thread is NOT about f2p vs b2p vs p2p nor it is about dev needs vs player demands. I've been keeping an eye on the game and personally i've got doubts about the purposed model so seeing that my biggest question about it has been left unasked and unanswered as far as i could see i decided to sign in and ask it myself. While the above mentioned blog is nice and fine, it addresses the reasons why they choose a sub model and it is only an answer to the "which is better?" question, which may or may not persuade people but that's completely beside the point i'm trying to make here, my question in my opinion on the other hand is "Will it work out?" Becouse subscription games have sistematically failed on release for a decade now with only a few older AAA games backed by massive studios surviving thanks to an encroached playerbase and even they are bleeding out, now this is completely aside from the issues addressed in the blog, and on the opposite of those issues is hard, cold statistic, after all there's little point in being "better" if you fail after 6 months and shut down or go f2p with a rushed new monetization models the reasons behind big titles failing to be succesfull with a subscription model can in my opinion be divided in three big problems -The self fulfilling prophecy: subscription fails becouse subscriptions have failed This is a percieved issue with the monetization model perhaps fostered by a few initial failures caused by other reasons, and while it's an "imaginary" issue that won't mean that it won't impact sales -Subscription games fail if people don't buy subscriptions: while on one hand this sounds like an obivious truth it also means that someone who has followed some of the games that have tried subscriptions closely will probably put the game in the backlog until it crashes, couple it by the fact that not all features will be aviable at launch even to subscribers and you've got a recipe for disaster where players waiting for the game to fully flesh out will make it fail -Playerbase culling: one of the biggest problems of sub games is that players that leave have a very high chance of never coming back even when if the game improves and the reason they left is no longer present, giving how reliant on moderately high player count this game looks like it think that it's already going to walk on a very thin line there and subs will most likely push it down Another thing that left me kind of perplexed is the trial period, while it's good and nice for the customers it nullifies the "first day sale/hype train" effect, meaning that if something goes even remotely wrong on day 1 you're left with a disgruntled playerbase leaving for good and not a dime to show for it, given that almost always something goes wrong on release day i'm not exactly sure of how much of a good idea TL;DR wildstar launched with a near identical monetization model, plenty of funds to back it up and the game is one of the best out there as far as that genre is concerned and look where THAT has gone and many others have ended up in the same way, what makes you think that you can prevent this from happening here?
×
×
  • Create New...