Originally posted by Rabenwolf

Originally posted by Gyrus
....................SNIP.................. Billing model idea.........

 

No offense but that is a horrible idea. I know DDO is doing something similar, but you have to realize that by keeping games subscription based, the need to create and keep content that will keep people playing is more important. Meaning, if people just buy a level, thats it. The sale is already done, the developer doesnt need to ever touch on that level again... nor fix any bugs in that level. Instead it encourages selling parts of the game as expendables, it detracts from the concept of strong game design that encompasses the entire game and never goes away. To keep people subbing, a level of responsibility is put on the developer.

If you partition it off and sell it in pieces, well you discourage that. It limits how far a player can go. Some players can get to end game in a month, others can take longer... the thing is, they are all paying the same price. This is a good thing. To say, the player who reached end game spent a total of $120 dollars in one month to get there, while some other player pays $20 and is limited to a few levels... is just a bad idea no matter how you look at it.

In that case, it would be smart just to go with the guild wars model and sell it based on expansions, each expansion adding content with replay value as well, to keep their players happy and ready to buy the next.

Honestly, micro-transactions are one of the worst business models for the user. It really creates a divide on who is willing to spend the money, not necessarily the time. Sub based games keep everyone on the same level with the same options regardless of the actual content thats paid for. This is important, to know that everything in the game can be achieved not by spending more money, but by spending the time to get it.

Way to fail.  MT in Champions is focused on "cosmetics" only.    Some costume pieces, maybe an aura or more.  Nothing at all that directly affects the in-game mechanic or playable content.

Originally posted by smugglapro

Way to fail.  MT in Champions is focused on "cosmetics" only.    Some costume pieces, maybe an aura or more.  Nothing at all that directly affects the in-game mechanic or playable content.

I thought I read that there may be some minor non-cosmetic MT stuff that could also be unlocked through game play.

"...but really the focus is on having things that are fun, cosmetic or are things that are more account-wide and maintenance based."

Taken from an interview on TenTonHammer over Microtransactions.

Originally posted by smugglapro

Originally posted by Rabenwolf

Originally posted by Gyrus
....................SNIP.................. Billing model idea.........

 

No offense but that is a horrible idea. I know DDO is doing something similar, but you have to realize that by keeping games subscription based, the need to create and keep content that will keep people playing is more important. Meaning, if people just buy a level, thats it. The sale is already done, the developer doesnt need to ever touch on that level again... nor fix any bugs in that level. Instead it encourages selling parts of the game as expendables, it detracts from the concept of strong game design that encompasses the entire game and never goes away. To keep people subbing, a level of responsibility is put on the developer.

If you partition it off and sell it in pieces, well you discourage that. It limits how far a player can go. Some players can get to end game in a month, others can take longer... the thing is, they are all paying the same price. This is a good thing. To say, the player who reached end game spent a total of $120 dollars in one month to get there, while some other player pays $20 and is limited to a few levels... is just a bad idea no matter how you look at it.

In that case, it would be smart just to go with the guild wars model and sell it based on expansions, each expansion adding content with replay value as well, to keep their players happy and ready to buy the next.

Honestly, micro-transactions are one of the worst business models for the user. It really creates a divide on who is willing to spend the money, not necessarily the time. Sub based games keep everyone on the same level with the same options regardless of the actual content thats paid for. This is important, to know that everything in the game can be achieved not by spending more money, but by spending the time to get it.

 

Way to fail.  MT in Champions is focused on "cosmetics" only.    Some costume pieces, maybe an aura or more.  Nothing at all that directly affects the in-game mechanic or playable content.

"WAY TO FAIL". I recommend reading the post I am responding to next time. The user recommended a billing model that sold pieces of the game, such as levels, individually.

Again, learn to read before posting next time.Seriously! It will save you a lot of embarrassment. =)

)

Originally posted by Rabenwolf

Originally posted by smugglapro

Originally posted by Rabenwolf

Originally posted by Gyrus
....................SNIP.................. Billing model idea.........

 

No offense but that is a horrible idea. I know DDO is doing something similar, but you have to realize that by keeping games subscription based, the need to create and keep content that will keep people playing is more important. Meaning, if people just buy a level, thats it. The sale is already done, the developer doesnt need to ever touch on that level again... nor fix any bugs in that level. Instead it encourages selling parts of the game as expendables, it detracts from the concept of strong game design that encompasses the entire game and never goes away. To keep people subbing, a level of responsibility is put on the developer.

If you partition it off and sell it in pieces, well you discourage that. It limits how far a player can go. Some players can get to end game in a month, others can take longer... the thing is, they are all paying the same price. This is a good thing. To say, the player who reached end game spent a total of $120 dollars in one month to get there, while some other player pays $20 and is limited to a few levels... is just a bad idea no matter how you look at it.

In that case, it would be smart just to go with the guild wars model and sell it based on expansions, each expansion adding content with replay value as well, to keep their players happy and ready to buy the next.

Honestly, micro-transactions are one of the worst business models for the user. It really creates a divide on who is willing to spend the money, not necessarily the time. Sub based games keep everyone on the same level with the same options regardless of the actual content thats paid for. This is important, to know that everything in the game can be achieved not by spending more money, but by spending the time to get it.

 

Way to fail.  MT in Champions is focused on "cosmetics" only.    Some costume pieces, maybe an aura or more.  Nothing at all that directly affects the in-game mechanic or playable content.

 

 

"WAY TO FAIL". I recommend reading the post I am responding to next time. The user recommended a billing model that sold pieces of the game, such as levels, individually.

 

Again, learn to read before posting next time.Seriously! It will save you a lot of embarrassment. =)

)

Piss off,chief.  How about you eat a bowl of crow before you sling weak ammo at a poster around here.  YOU were talkning about how it's a good idea to do MT like GW's model. 

Fact is, CO's model is NOTHING LIKE THAT CHOWDERHEAD.  You spoke exclusively in that post I quoted around "content"-based MT.  CO's model doesn't sell content like levels or gear.  It's for non-mechanic items.  Costumes, symbols, etc, etc.

SO...go have a Coke and a smile, and fuck off.

Quote from Bill Roper:

"* The vast majority are aesthetic items, such as costume pieces, action figures, emblems, etc.
* A very few are account-level management tools, such as being able to rename a character
* Micro-transactions should never limit your ability to enjoy the game or reach the level cap
* Any micro-transaction that has a game effect can also be earned in the game through play"

Please tone down the fanboy and admit there will be items with in-game effects in the cash shop. Roper made no allusion to how difficult these items would be to obtain in the game through play, so speculation isn't going to solve anything. The point is they will include items with game effects.

Edit: source material quoted from Ten Ton Hammer - www.tentonhammer.com/node/71317

Originally posted by smugglapro

Originally posted by Rabenwolf

Originally posted by smugglapro

Originally posted by Rabenwolf

Originally posted by Gyrus
....................SNIP.................. Billing model idea.........

 

No offense but that is a horrible idea. I know DDO is doing something similar, but you have to realize that by keeping games subscription based, the need to create and keep content that will keep people playing is more important. Meaning, if people just buy a level, thats it. The sale is already done, the developer doesnt need to ever touch on that level again... nor fix any bugs in that level. Instead it encourages selling parts of the game as expendables, it detracts from the concept of strong game design that encompasses the entire game and never goes away. To keep people subbing, a level of responsibility is put on the developer.

If you partition it off and sell it in pieces, well you discourage that. It limits how far a player can go. Some players can get to end game in a month, others can take longer... the thing is, they are all paying the same price. This is a good thing. To say, the player who reached end game spent a total of $120 dollars in one month to get there, while some other player pays $20 and is limited to a few levels... is just a bad idea no matter how you look at it.

In that case, it would be smart just to go with the guild wars model and sell it based on expansions, each expansion adding content with replay value as well, to keep their players happy and ready to buy the next.

Honestly, micro-transactions are one of the worst business models for the user. It really creates a divide on who is willing to spend the money, not necessarily the time. Sub based games keep everyone on the same level with the same options regardless of the actual content thats paid for. This is important, to know that everything in the game can be achieved not by spending more money, but by spending the time to get it.

 

Way to fail.  MT in Champions is focused on "cosmetics" only.    Some costume pieces, maybe an aura or more.  Nothing at all that directly affects the in-game mechanic or playable content.

 

 

"WAY TO FAIL". I recommend reading the post I am responding to next time. The user recommended a billing model that sold pieces of the game, such as levels, individually.

 

Again, learn to read before posting next time.Seriously! It will save you a lot of embarrassment. =)

)

 

Piss off,chief.  How about you eat a bowl of crow before you sling weak ammo at a poster around here.  YOU were talkning about how it's a good idea to do MT like GW's model. 

 

Fact is, CO's model is NOTHING LIKE THAT CHOWDERHEAD.  You spoke exclusively in that post I quoted around "content"-based MT.  CO's model doesn't sell content like levels or gear.  It's for non-mechanic items.  Costumes, symbols, etc, etc.

 

SO...go have a Coke and a smile, and fuck off.

Please refrain from vulgar and childish comments like that.

The user i quoted said that CO's business model would be better if it sold the levels and such separately. Read it before posting. I think its a horrible idea to sell pieces of the game individually.

The fact you are not quoting me says you didnt read what I said nor the topic. You jumped the gun and acted out of line. You did not read the two posts before commenting and assumed you knew what was said, followed by your flaming. There is no excuse for that type of behavior.

Back at ya' putz.

From Jackalope, CO Forums...this page.

"Default Microtransactions?!
I know everyone has questions about microtransactions – what are they, how much are they, etc. I’m sorry we didn’t post something earlier; we’re really heads down in development right now. We’re going to release a WHOLE lot of information in the very near future about not just about microtransactions, but pricing in general. That said, here’s some basic principles about microtransactions to at least answer some of your concerns:

1) Microtransactions enable us to have a larger development team
2) Microtransactions are mostly aesthetic (costume pieces, pets, etc.)
3) If a microtransaction does have any sort of in game effect, then it can be also be earned in game."

Ergo, they might as well not be selling them in the eyes of those that can't/won't partake of MT.  Ergo, them being sold in MT has ZERO effect over game mechanics.

Also, way to ASSUME, chowderhead.  Sure, I can admit a mistake in presentation, but trying to assume I didn't know squat about what I'm talking about?  ...way...to...fail.

As the majority of the player-base isn't likely to partake of MT when they can simply get it for no extra charge by playing the game, then the only substantially impacting sale-items will be the NON-game mechanic items. 

Okay, great.

Now you two are done I will repeat my prediction: This game will have trouble retaining subs and a community.

Players will play and subscribe for 1 - 2 months and then be 'finished'.  That is bad for the community.

I'm not saying the game will die.  It's a fun game - so there will be new people coming in to replace the ones that leave but the population will not grow like a MMO population should.

So, there needs to be a way to incourage people to stay - or rather not to leave when they are 'finished'.

IMHO the way to do that is provide players with an option which will make the game 'free' when they have finished all the content.
The KingsIsle model does that.   An ongoing subscription does not.

Originally posted by Gyrus

Okay, great.

Now you two are done I will repeat my prediction: This game will have trouble retaining subs and a community.

Players will play and subscribe for 1 - 2 months and then be 'finished'.  That is bad for the community.

I'm not saying the game will die.  It's a fun game - so there will be new people coming in to replace the ones that leave but the population will not grow like a MMO population should.

So, there needs to be a way to incourage people to stay - or rather not to leave when they are 'finished'.

IMHO the way to do that is provide players with an option which will make the game 'free' when they have finished all the content.
The KingsIsle model does that.   An ongoing subscription does not.

Thats exactly the point though isnt it? it would be good for the developer and publisher, not necessarily the consumer. By getting them to buy the game in pieces, you essentially take advantage of the consumer, assuming the consumer is dumb enough to shell out more for less content.

Do you not see, by subscription, the developer has to actively seek and design a game that will offer more rather than less. Selling pieces of a game means they can get away with less and not have to keep the more. The games you mention are not really examples of success in my opinion, since we are talking two different target audiences here, two different levels of budgets, and essentially are worlds apart. What works for toy projects like those will not necessarily work in the "professional" arena.

Originally posted by Rabenwolf
....

Thats exactly the point though isnt it? it would be good for the developer and publisher, not necessarily the consumer. By getting them to buy the game in pieces, you essentially take advantage of the consumer, assuming the consumer is dumb enough to shell out more for less content.

It's clear that you didn't even bother to look at the model I suggested.
The KingsIsle model is a hybrid.  I guess I can't make you open your eyes but here is the link
https://www.wizard101.com/site/home2/wizard101/page_8ad6a4041b790501011bce2844474071
Nothing 'forced'.  You have a choice and both options have advantages and dis-advantages.
I think the problem might be that you think everyone wants to play the game the way you do?
Casual players often want to take their time.  They might pick up a game and play it for a week - then have a break for a month - then play for a couple of days - then have a break for a week etc.
The subscription model actually hurts those people - they can pay lots of money for a game they are not even currently playing.  This hybrid model is actually better for those people than the full subscription model.

Do you not see, by subscription, the developer has to actively seek and design a game that will offer more rather than less. Selling pieces of a game means they can get away with less and not have to keep the more. The games you mention are not really examples of success in my opinion, since we are talking two different target audiences here, two different levels of budgets, and essentially are worlds apart. What works for toy projects like those will not necessarily work in the "professional" arena.

Not examples of success?  You might be surprised.
Last year, we saw PotBS, WAR and AoC releases - all 'professional' games from 'experienced' companies.
Some real disasters there.  At least one complete mess of a launch.  Bad design choices.  Unfinished content.
KingsIsle released a game most people didn't even notice.
It was well designed and had a good launch.  Since then they have put on more servers and added more content.
Who's 'professional'.
It's sometimes easy to dismiss some of these games.  But companies like Pop Cap and Mumbo Jumbo with their casual games are multi  million dollar companies now.  It's worth keeping an eye on how they do their business.
 

Did you try the Apocalypse PvP mode?

Originally posted by Gyrus

It's clear that you didn't even bother to look at the model I suggested.
The KingsIsle model is a hybrid. I guess I can't make you open your eyes but here is the link
https://www.wizard101.com/site/home2/wizard101/page_8ad6a4041b790501011bce2844474071
Nothing 'forced'. You have a choice and both options have advantages and dis-advantages.
I think the problem might be that you think everyone wants to play the game the way you do?
Casual players often want to take their time. They might pick up a game and play it for a week - then have a break for a month - then play for a couple of days - then have a break for a week etc.
The subscription model actually hurts those people - they can pay lots of money for a game they are not even currently playing. This hybrid model is actually better for those people than the full subscription model.

Not examples of success? You might be surprised.
Last year, we saw PotBS, WAR and AoC releases - all 'professional' games from 'experienced' companies.
Some real disasters there. At least one complete mess of a launch. Bad design choices. Unfinished content.
KingsIsle released a game most people didn't even notice.
It was well designed and had a good launch. Since then they have put on more servers and added more content.
Who's 'professional'.
It's sometimes easy to dismiss some of these games. But companies like Pop Cap and Mumbo Jumbo with their casual games are multi million dollar companies now. It's worth keeping an eye on how they do their business.

 

 

I get what you are saying, i just disagree with it. Different payment options, rather more choices, in this case are not always the best. Trust me, if there was a better business model than all the rest for both consumers and developers/publishers... the publishers would have been all over it years ago. Again i am not talking about these low budget junk titles like Wizard 101, but rather the games whose budgets and business models reflect the best possible form of long term revenue.

Games that are made for long term play gain the most from a normal subscription based model. Stores can sell subscription cards to those without need of credit card for minors. It also puts everyone at the same level of fairness in opportunity, which is one of the most important factors for any grade A mmorpg.

Business model also directly reflects the design direction of a game, keep this in mind. Selling game pieces has a negative effect on game design as well as the possibility of longevity and quality of the product. Also keep in mind that servers cost money to maintain. In order to maintain servers and have the best server options, a predicable number of active subscribers is better than an unknown number of players that might or might not log in after buying just one piece of the game.

You mention that WAR, AOC and the like failed. It had nothing to do with the business model. In fact, those games were high budget titles that were riddled with individual problems, from game design issues to bugs. AoC had high system requirements, and WAR if designed right could have been a great title. Both fell short on their game design and quality of releases.  WoW is still dominating the market with most of those subs.

Wizards 101 is targeting a completely different target audience, its really a junk title. These have been going on in Korean for years and what you see is the westernized version of it. Think of them as the low budget B... or rather C ranked films. Their designs are based soley around the business model. NEVER THINK THATS A GOOD THING for the consumer. A good game developer would be appalled at having to design a game around the business model rather than have their unlimited creative and design freedoms.

Its hard to explain this to you i suppose... perhaps you need to be in the industry itself to understand what Im talking about.

Add: Again i just want to stress the target audience of these titles. The link you provide to Wizards 101 is geared towards the child, their subscription is a "family plan". This product is designed to keep children entertained, somewhat similar to sony's freerealms. They are in the same market as the toon town by disney. The target audience is very important part of their business strategy.

Look people spend millions on accessories for their dogs (costumes, goggles/doggles, goodies)...ect just because it works with a group of dog lovers doesnt necessarily make sunglasses for dogs a smart idea, or dog hats, or dog jewlery...ect Its just that, business.

A decent review, although I cannot understand how you can claim there is a good variety of quests, the words may change but the mechanics are severely limited and repetitive do X of Y variants, moreso relentlessly so than any other mmo I have played. Add to that the fact the the world we quest in is badly organised and full of immersion and involvement breaking intrusions, its as if they just ran out of steam or imagination.

Originally posted by Rabenwolf

I get what you are saying, i just disagree with it. Different payment options, rather more choices, in this case are not always the best. Trust me, if there was a better business model than all the rest for both consumers and developers/publishers... the publishers would have been all over it years ago. Again i am not talking about these low budget junk titles like Wizard 101, but rather the games whose budgets and business models reflect the best possible form of long term revenue.

You know, you repeatedly refer to Wizard 101 as a 'junk title'.  I am not sure if you suffer from some kind of MMO snobbery or you have never played it?  It is what it is - and was designed with a specific purpose in mind.  That in itself is something many MMOs fail to do.  AoC was the classic: Marketed as a mature title and then nerfed because it upset the kids.
To address this more...

Games that are made for long term play gain the most from a normal subscription based model. Stores can sell subscription cards to those without need of credit card for minors. It also puts everyone at the same level of fairness in opportunity, which is one of the most important factors for any grade A mmorpg.

I still don't think you looked at the model I linked.  Do the math - look at the site.  KingsIsle have covered ALL the options and done so in a way that doesn't disadvantage anyone.  Why has no-one else done this?  GREED.
From what I can see, KingsIsle have looked at the failings of others (MT games, poor marketing, difficulty in getting the product and paying for it etc etc) and decided not to repeat the same mistakes.
Generally Micro Transaction games feed on the ego of their players: You want to win?  You want to look cool?  PAY US MONEY.  And the end result is they drive away as many customers as they attract.  
The KingsIsle model doesn't do that.  As a result they probably don't make as much money as they could from the MT players.  But I would be prepared to bet that this is offset by the fact that they are not driving everyone else away.

Business model also directly reflects the design direction of a game, keep this in mind. Selling game pieces has a negative effect on game design as well as the possibility of longevity and quality of the product. Also keep in mind that servers cost money to maintain. In order to maintain servers and have the best server options, a predicable number of active subscribers is better than an unknown number of players that might or might not log in after buying just one piece of the game.

Here's where we get back to Champions Online.  A number of people have remarked that CO is NOT your typical 'hardcore' MMO (if it's an MMO at all - but that is another topic).  It has a definate 'casual game' feel.
Selling game 'pieces' certainly never hurt WoW... only they call each piece an expansion.
Also the architecture of CO is different to games that lock players and their Avatars to one server.
In any case, if you get too many subscribers logging in at once - you wait list them.
Seriously, if you want a predictable number of subscribers? - market like Darkfall.

You mention that WAR, AOC and the like failed. It had nothing to do with the business model. In fact, those games were high budget titles that were riddled with individual problems, from game design issues to bugs. AoC had high system requirements, and WAR if designed right could have been a great title. Both fell short on their game design and quality of releases.  WoW is still dominating the market with most of those subs.

I mentioned design specifically.  I also dispute that the reason those games failed was because everyone 'went back to WoW'.  Not everyone plays WoW.  In many cases I would be prepared to bet that the subscribers from those games simply unsubscribed and are still looking for the game for them.

Wizards 101 is targeting a completely different target audience, its really a junk title. These have been going on in Korean for years and what you see is the westernized version of it. Think of them as the low budget B... or rather C ranked films. Their designs are based soley around the business model. NEVER THINK THATS A GOOD THING for the consumer. A good game developer would be appalled at having to design a game around the business model rather than have their unlimited creative and design freedoms.

I really don't think you have any idea what you are talking about.  KingsIsle are based in Texas.  Do a Wiki search see who works for them and eat your words.
KingsIsle actually did something smart for once.  Rather than try to go head to head with WoW by designing a game almost identicle to WoW and calling it something like "Sphere of Swordcraft" they looked for areas of the market that hadn't been properly covered.
They came up with a very professional and casual game that didn't cost multi millions to produce and does what it set out to do very well.  They tailored the whole thing to match the market they were aiming for.  They have been rewarded with a success.
That is smart business.  That is good game design.
But, I guess we will soon see.  They have another un-named title in the works.  It will be interesting to see how they manage that one (whatever it is).
 

Its hard to explain this to you i suppose... perhaps you need to be in the industry itself to understand what Im talking about.

 Nice try at hinting you are something you are not and implying I am somehow stupid for not working for Blizzard.
Fail.

Add: Again i just want to stress the target audience of these titles. The link you provide to Wizards 101 is geared towards the child, their subscription is a "family plan". This product is designed to keep children entertained, somewhat similar to sony's freerealms. They are in the same market as the toon town by disney. The target audience is very important part of their business strategy.

Yes.  And what is the target market for CO?  WoW players?  I don't think so.  Console players?  Maybe - so that would be a more casual market.  Hardcore MMO players?  I don't think so here either - simply not enough content.  Casual MMO players?  Maybe.

Look people spend millions on accessories for their dogs (costumes, goggles/doggles, goodies)...ect just because it works with a group of dog lovers doesnt necessarily make sunglasses for dogs a smart idea, or dog hats, or dog jewlery...ect Its just that, business.

Thanks for the lesson on business.  You should run a school or something.

 

Gyrus, the hypocrisy in your rely is so thick i could swim in it. On numerous occasions you purposefully misinterpret my comments. I am not sure why you feel the urge to do so. Furthermore I never once claimed that everyone was going back to WoW. It has however been a constant title players can go back to if given the choice, furthermore WAR's target audience was focused on WoW's pvp junkies.

I also explained what I meant by a junk title. I hate having to repeat myself, not because I do not mind but rather it seems like you just dont care what anyone says to you. By being so rooted in your own "concept" you become ignorant, at least thats how I see it. Thus this repetition of explanations becomes pointless, since you already are going to dismiss anything said to begin with.

I would however like to recommend you look into such titles like Wizards 101 that have long ago appeared in South Korea, furthermore the trend of these style games targeting kids in the western market. You really should educate yourself on this matter before assuming you are already the top authority on this kind of subject.

I told you I did look at the link, and it shows a business plan targeted at the parents of children who play those games. They are competing with the likes of toon town games, such as Freerealms, and other such products. Inherently the design of the game is completely different as they are designed around the business model itself. For some reason you cannot grasp this simple concept.

You think that selling pieces of CO separately is a good idea for champions, i disagree and explained why. Are you suggesting the actual title be given out for free? You have to look at it in the correct and professional perspective. Box sales are important for these types of titles, especially for consoles. You would not be able to sell pieces of the game out in addition to that and expect success.

I cant fathom why you choose to remain so "elitist" while calling me the same. You seem to equate high profit margins as good game design. That is ridiculous. A company can have a low quality game with low production costs and target a large easily exploitable pool of people for high profit margins. This has no correlation with good game design. Again the business model is what designed the game, the business is in making money, not necessarily a good game.

If you have ever worked in the film industry (as i have) you would see there is a conflict between producers and directors. Where the director would focus more on the quality of what they create, the producer is looking and theorizing how to maximize profits. This is why you see many large franchise titles, such as Dragon Ball, recreated by the producer in an attempt to make more money, over a director who would stay true to the franchise itself. Bad products are a result profit focused producers who dictate design based on their profit schemes. Just how it works.

I like how you automatically dismiss the idea that I have professional links to this industry, or even a skill set focused on this very topic. That is ignorance within itself to assume that only "hobbyist" will use game related forums. Your attempts at elitism and belittlement are noted, though it seems to have been a wasted effort.

Please keep in mind your final comment is immature and disrespectful to someone who is taking the time out to have this discussion/debate/dialog (whatever you may call it) with you.

Originally posted by Rabenwolf
...

I told you I did look at the link, and it shows a business plan targeted at the parents of children who play those games. They are competing with the likes of toon town games, such as Freerealms, and other such products. Inherently the design of the game is completely different as they are designed around the business model itself. For some reason you cannot grasp this simple concept.

...

 

You have no idea what you are talking about.

But don't believe me... read this.
http://www.mmogamer.com/04/20/2009/from-shadowbane-to-child%E2%80%99s-play-kingsisle%E2%80%99s-todd-coleman-on-wizard101

Should have checked to see who designed the game as I suggested.
The concept came first.
 

Originally posted by Gyrus

Originally posted by Rabenwolf
...

I told you I did look at the link, and it shows a business plan targeted at the parents of children who play those games. They are competing with the likes of toon town games, such as Freerealms, and other such products. Inherently the design of the game is completely different as they are designed around the business model itself. For some reason you cannot grasp this simple concept.

...

 

 

You have no idea what you are talking about.

But don't believe me... read this.
http://www.mmogamer.com/04/20/2009/from-shadowbane-to-child%E2%80%99s-play-kingsisle%E2%80%99s-todd-coleman-on-wizard101

Should have checked to see who designed the game as I suggested.
The concept came first.
 

Do you honestly believe that he would say anything other than the usual rhetoric in an interview? No offense but the whole purpose of the interview is to create a pretty image in which to attract positive attention. I dont think you can keep a straight face and say "the business model did not affect the game design process".