| 600 posts found | |
|---|---|
|
It seems that no one is paying attention (or has forgotten). If you look back at the news of the 'aquisition' of Crytpic, you will find that it was not so much a buyout, than a merger... with rules.
If you review the recent history, you will find that Cryptic has been growing, and hiring. Atari has been shrinking and laying off. Atari is offloading Cryptic because this has turned out to be a not so good deal for them.
The new buyers will have to either pay more, make a better deal, or offer Cryptic something extra to make this happen. |
|
|
Is it just me, or has no one else noticed...
In the past two years Cryptic has been growing (employees, and services) while Atari has been shrinking. Cryptic has done very well financially, but Atari has not. The reason that Atari is selling Cryptic, is because if they do not, Cryptic will suck them dry.
|
|
I find your comments interesteing... because I feel that COHO failed for the opposite reason.
None of the items that you could buy provided any real advantage. All of the 'good' stuff was random drop only. There was a limited amount of slots available, so there was no point buying lesser items, when you would just be replacing them with the better drops. There was also an overabundance of in game currency, you literally had so much that you could not spend it all.
These were the problems that led the publisher to decide that they were not going to make any money (even the players couldnt see any reason to spend money). They decided to drop the game, and move resources to something with more potential. It is a bit sad, because the game did have good potential, they just didnt know how to capitolize on it. |
|
Originally posted by PBG1
While you are here, do you mind giving a short description of your game. The site doesnt give any info, and the short blurbs that I could find from press releases were less than helpful. |
|
|
I do not think that F2P and P2P should have different scales... both are the same form of entertainment, with differnt fees.
What I DO think should be done, is that the price be taken into consideration. When reviewers look at computers, they dont compare the $500 computer to the $5k computer. They compare based on bang for the buck.
If a F2P game cost ~$5(dl time value) compared to the ~$50 cost for the P2P, is the P2P 10x better? This is the real comparison. You have to use a comparision that is similar to what the consumer would use... to help them make a good decision, not some arbitrary comparison that holds no relation to their decision process. |
|
|
General: Questionable Government Intervention
News Discussion « General Discussion 4/25/11 8:47:18 AM
I am sure that many people will read this article.. and laugh.. and then think 'This has no affect on me'.
However, they have forgotten that gaems are designed for the lowest common denominator. If a designer has to code in a shutoff switch for the game at mighnight... the odds are that it will show up in your version, even if the law doesnt apply to you. Sure, you will complain about it, and it may get fixed.... but the fact is that it will affect you, even indirectly.
The internet is global. Anything that happens on it affects everyone. So, when a government mandates laws that affect how it is used/acessed you should expect that to have repurcussions. |
|
|
Welcome to the wonderful world of (virtual) gold futures...
Is it really surprising that there is a growing trade in (virtual) commodities? |
|
|
"be glad that the industry started with a standard subscription".
Perhaps I am just showing my age here... but MMORPG's started as pay per hour/minute. This model is still used in many parts of the world.
This could also be why I think that the F2P model is a good idea in many cases. |
|
|
Here is some criticism from someone that is NOT subbing:
1. The game requires more hardware than I would like to perform well. 2. The quests are linear. 3. The quests are only ample for a once through (if you repeat, you get tired of the quest line quickly). 4. The game does not really have any difficulty or grouping until ~18-20 5. The game does do new things reasonably well... but is is evolutionary, not revolutionary.
Overally the game isnt bad. I do think that it has a lot of potential... in a year or two it might be a great game. However, I dont have any urge to play what they have now. Sure it would be fun the first time around, but I would burn through it quickly, and then be left with the 'now what' problem. I prefer to stick with what I am playing now, and revisit this once it has more depth.
I would expect this to have problems similar to AOC/WAR where there is a huge crowd of new players... that die off each month, leaving behind the core group of players which is much smaller. I dont consider this a 'bad' thing. I think that with the amount of BETA's that they had, no one should be 'surprised' or dissapointed. I just expect them to play through the game, then move on once the 'new game' feel is gone, and the content has been seen once through. |
|
|
I am going to say this.. you got what you paid for. Look at all of the feedback over the past few years about P2P games. Look at AOC, WAR, AION etc. Every one of these games had a HUGE amount of dissatisfied buyers... and that is what P2P is all about.
The business model in P2P is to trick you into paying for something with marketting and hype. The reality is that most customers today are being dissapointed... but only after they have shelled out the cash.
If they do a good enough job, the game will survive to the next round, which is to make it work. Sure, that may take 3/6/9/12 months... but if they get enough cash up front, they can affort to make this game. They will then work on getting players back with the idea that they can now play the game they paid for a year ago...
Welcome to the P2P treadmill. |
|
|
It is more like a Cousin.
WoW is a descendant of many of the first generation commercial MMORPG's. It is truly a 2nd Generation MMORPG.
Rifts is related to both these first generation games, and WoW and some other 2nd Generation games. It is evelutionary, not revelutionary, and as such it draws on many sources. |
|
|
I will agree with Richard on Point #1
Barriers to Entry/Exit. F2P games are all about removing the barriers. This means that the easier that people can get into the game, and start having fun... the better they will do. However, it also means that if they do not quickly get 'hooked' on the game, they will be gone just as fast.
The best example of this is Farmville. It takes literally seconds to get into this game, and Zynga does a very good job at makeing the game engaging (sticky) from the first click. They also do a very good job at regularly providing reasons to return (via social motivations). If a F2P MMORPG could do this as well, it would be a HUGE hit... (Note: WoW does a very good job at this, and it is one of the reasons it is such a sucess) |
|
|
LoL...
Keys are easy to get. I have already gottten 5.
The hard part is getting them to work. So far all 5 have failed due to errors on their site (key was good, site crashed during acccount creating, and key is now used).
To be honest, I was only interested in seeing the game because there isnt really good information about the game, and what I have heard has been dissapointing... so no real loss. |
|
|
EA isnt looking to buy. They are looking to cut cost, and increase returns.
They will be doing more F2P via their Play4Free branding... but they really dont know how to make money with F2P. They are too fixated with their old methods, and have not really adopted F2P in the way that will make them money.
Playfish (now owned by EA) is doing a great job on their approach, and will turn into a major revenue source for EA. |
|
Originally posted by thamighty213 Have you thought what this means about operations?
If they dont have people to talk about the game now, and to work on building the community... Who is going to do this when the game goes commercial?
It sounds like they need a publisher, because developing a game, and making it a commercial sucess, are two very differnt things. |
|
Originally posted by Alioth The game is in development until something changes. Sure that could be release in three weeks... but until they actually start letting people see the game, it is only something that can be talked about in a theoritical sense.
So, may not change much in three weeks.. but one thing will change (on release) it will go from something that we heard about, to something that can actually be seen. |
|
|
I am sure people will talk about Earthrise when they actually have something to discuss. We pretty much dont know much about the game, and the developer isnt giving out any info. Until that changes, it is just another game in development... |
|
|
I think Richard has missed the ball this time...
Of COURSE subscription is back... as part of the larger package.
F2P + Subscription + Microtransactions or P2P + Subscription + Microtransactions
The reality is that western publishers are taking money where they can. The best option is to offer every option for people to pay. Subscrition was never on the way out... P2P was. |
|
|
The game was designed to be F2P...
However, they are starting with P2P... to see how much money they can get out of it. |
|
|
DCOU was designed from the start to have a cash shop. The game was originally going to be F2P, but with the recovery of the PS3 in the market, the gaming divsion regained control (from SOE), and was able to push this back towards P2P. I really dont know that they will be selling, as there are two different groups looking to control this game. |
|
