Eq2 game are turning into SOE's market, that not RPG! [Archive]

View Full Version : Eq2 game are turning into SOE's market, that not RPG!

Tyrus Dracofire

01-05-2012, 03:47 PM

nearly every game competitors are turning the games into F2P "market" to buy gears and mounts, or upgrades.AoD doesnt feel like expansion, but it feel like "required" to get dungeons, house part assemblies, mounts get faster, or flooding the bank vaults and characters' pack with unopen crates of appearance gears without having any new "Bigger" boxes or bags. it had reach to the point that we cant throw away because it cost alot, or old raid zones are no longer able to 'complete' a whole set since others move on to high tiers zone or others quit playing or raids eq2.there was a topic about "driving players away from eq2" that got closed for off-tracked topic getting too many tangents.it becoming no longer having a game feel, it just more becoming "market" instead of rpg game element.the loots is becoming bland and boring, nothing fancy looks, want cool stuffs? go buy stuffs at "marketplace" just to look cool but not for playing.what players want...crafter dressing panel/tab for crafter gears.better loot drops/corpse drops.new craftings for weapons, armors, and others that are needed very much, since they (SOE) removed DoV shard crafting, or currency for tradings on "upgrades".bigger bags and boxes, or personal "Warehouse Zone".anyways, F2P is just another "fad", one phrase will go away, since there is too many competitors are running market games, once folks realized it just takes real cash for pixels or might having hard time to throw stuffs away, or had no choice to shut down some accounts for other "cheaper deals" F2P games if eq2's market is getting too expensive, they (SOE) will lose more players if others will selling so cheap just to get more players to draw.now i see mounts or prestige house zones are getting costly as it get close to $20.00, or going overboard with $25 or more, then folks will get many 2nd thoughts or feel ripped off and start to move away unsatisfied.other players may have got very upset since there is some players who had spend to get "lifetime" subscriptions and discovered it become no longer profitable or no longer a saving by just seeing becoming "Market Gimmicks" scheme, they may want to ask for refund or filing some lawsuits because it is no longer feel like a RPG gaming, as it get more "Buy ME!" or Buy This or That!Free to Play format wont last long and all the other games will just feel the same, it just made you look in your wallets and you find some lints and cards being on hold, make very slim "game" selection by closing eq2 accounts for cheaper F2P.also it becoming more dangerous as the hackers are seeking as they did last year and will do again, may do more "aggressively" or able to major damages. cyber crime are more active and finding accounts vulnerable again. this may force many players at risk and may close up and never to trust again.once it happened, players may forgive, but another attacks? those companies can lose or forced to get unplug if governments or law firm can force to shut it down for unknown duration on how long it will be down, or pay the fine for not protecting very well.anyway, i am tired and grumpy, just saying F2P wont last as long it is the "Fad" had come and go, many players' budget are limited, there are some "spoileds" and few rich clients can afford, but not many others can, or feel forced and go hungry for few days til next check.

Odomfel

01-05-2012, 04:59 PM

It is a revenue driver. SOE like any other business needs to make a profit. This I feel is another way for SOE to make money and keep eq2 profitable.I do not like the emphasis on the Marketplace but I understand it.

Michayla

01-05-2012, 05:07 PM

<cite>Tyrus@Butcherblock wrote:</cite><blockquote>anyways, F2P is just another "fad", one phrase will go away, since there is too many competitors are running market games, once folks realized it just takes real cash for pixels or might having hard time to throw stuffs away, or had no choice to shut down some accounts for other "cheaper deals" F2P games if eq2's market is getting too expensive, they (SOE) will lose more players if others will selling so cheap just to get more players to draw....Free to Play format wont last long and all the other games will just feel the same, it just made you look in your wallets and you find some lints and cards being on hold, make very slim "game" selection by closing eq2 accounts for cheaper F2P.</blockquote>Didn't people say the same thing about paying a monthly subscription to play a game? That, obviously, wasn't just a fad.

Altom

01-05-2012, 07:06 PM

<cite>Michayla@Najena wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Tyrus@Butcherblock wrote:</cite><blockquote>anyways, F2P is just another "fad", one phrase will go away, since there is too many competitors are running market games, once folks realized it just takes real cash for pixels or might having hard time to throw stuffs away, or had no choice to shut down some accounts for other "cheaper deals" F2P games if eq2's market is getting too expensive, they (SOE) will lose more players if others will selling so cheap just to get more players to draw....Free to Play format wont last long and all the other games will just feel the same, it just made you look in your wallets and you find some lints and cards being on hold, make very slim "game" selection by closing eq2 accounts for cheaper F2P.</blockquote>Didn't people say the same thing about paying a monthly subscription to play a game? That, obviously, wasn't just a fad.</blockquote>Well, it does seem to be fairly universally walked away from at the moment, though, doesn't it?

Lizabethan

01-05-2012, 08:03 PM

SC is a very frustrating aspect of the game ATM. I mean, I personally wouldn't have gone this avenue if I were on the team, but I'm not. In business sense though, lots of people are playing free...so they lose $15 a month from them, whereas in past years it was a mandatory payment. To get back that money, they charge SC for supposedly desirable items.As a hard-core tradeskiller, my biggest gripe is the "building blocks' sold on marketplace for 250sc each. This was something we asked for for years, only to have it not go into our recipe books...but now, 10 items cost 250. They don't scale nearly as large as they should, so you might need to buy five packs to do what you need to do. You might end up spending as much money as a prestige home costs. For squares and rectangles. /sighMy largest gripe is the prestige homes. I'm glad they made one home a 7-year vet reward, and another from Collector's Editions. They ARE special homes, so it's fitting imo. But the rest cost over 1k sc? Really? What if they were random drops from a very hard raid or something, where you had to work and earn it? Now, a level 1 with some real-world money can have a prestige home. I believe that you need to work for these, but people are willing to spend the money to buy them, so the practice will continue. Same thing with the mounts, etc.People will continue to use this SC thing. It isn't going away. Sony is a wonderful company who has brought as a wonderful game, but now they're using this as a way to honor player requests (like the building blocks) THEIR way. You want a new mount? Wonderful, but pay us.

Chronus1

01-05-2012, 08:21 PM

Got to pay the bills and if this is more profitable at the moment for SoE that's the way it's going to be. Sure certain aspects of it are amazingly annoying or particularly expensive for relatively little effort on SoE's part such as say a reskinned mount using an old model but that's the way it's going to have to be for the good of the buisness, which SoE is.

Jovie

01-05-2012, 08:31 PM

I just wish there was something in the store worth buying.

naladini

01-06-2012, 01:07 AM

<cite>Junglelilly@Guk wrote:</cite><blockquote>I just wish there was something in the store worth buying.</blockquote>I agree, there's not much in there at the moment.AoD was worth it for the mercs alone, everything else is gravy.Personally, I do like the F2P model as more folks can straight up play whenever they want. Continued improvements of tools that bring folks together like the DF are imperative when you've got a higher population of people who come and go regularly.

Nuhus

01-06-2012, 01:04 PM

It used to be people who made games had to make good games to be profitable. Shame

Raffir

01-06-2012, 01:21 PM

<cite>Nuhus wrote:</cite><blockquote>It used to be people who made games had to make good games to be profitable. Shame</blockquote>Define a "good" game in a way that will make everyone happy. Its just not possible. This forum proves that without a doubt. Companies like SOE will just design a game as they think it ought to be done...and the opinions of players will be developed as the game proceeds. And maybe some of those opinions and suggestions by players will be incorporated into gameplay and the years progress...maybe not.But since a game company will never, ever be able to to please everyone...they might as well just do what they think is best.Raf

Gaealiege

01-06-2012, 02:11 PM

I believe Nuhus meant to say "It used to be people who made games had to make good games AS DEFINED BY GAMERS to be profitable. Shame."The problem we're seeing in the industry of gaming now is that people who aren't gamers feel their definition matters. I hate NASCAR, personally. You won't catch me in a NASCAR forum screaming that they should change NASCAR to involve intellectual discourse on liquid dynamics as they effect the fluidity of the average tire. And then I start telling NASCAR fans that without such an addition NASCAR is doomed to fail. This is why fans are being driven away! There's no intellectual portion of NASCAR for fans to enjoy! I recognize NASCAR isn't for me, so I stay away. Fad followers though have stormed into the industry I joined decades ago and have began their nonsense arguments such as "I don't have time to X, so make it cater to me," or "Challenging isn't fun. Fun involves mindlessly cow clicking." We've seen a shift from the CORE of what games were designed for that being a challenging, entertaining experience, much like an interactive puzzle. We've shifted from that and moved to "press up on the joystick or D-pad to move forward." DING! You have obtained "Toddler Achievement" you took the first step in the game! Good job!We've been seeing a move to imbecile gaming since the Halo era fad followers flooded in. We're now seeing more hardcore consoles games released with hardcore MMO being as rare as a red diamond. I don't expect to see a hardcore MMO again for a decade or more, but I'm glad to see the Imagine Babies (Ubisoft title) crowd leaving the console arena.

Jovie

01-06-2012, 02:13 PM

It used to be the best games were made by avid gamers. It was definately the case with eq1 for sure.Look at games like bf3 and mw3, they are made moreso by profiteers than avid gamers, hence their games are mostly crap.

Tyrus Dracofire

01-06-2012, 02:30 PM

Thank you for all those replies, it help drive some sense back to me, it is the most civilized answers we can get.

Raffir

01-06-2012, 02:39 PM

<cite>Gaealiege@Butcherblock wrote:</cite><blockquote>I believe Nuhus meant to say "It used to be people who made games had to make good games AS DEFINED BY GAMERS to be profitable. Shame."The problem we're seeing in the industry of gaming now is that people who aren't gamers feel their definition matters. I hate NASCAR, personally. You won't catch me in a NASCAR forum screaming that they should change NASCAR to involve intellectual discourse on liquid dynamics are they effect the fluidity of the average tire. And then I start telling NASCAR fans that without such an addition NASCAR is doomed to fail. This is why fans are being driven away! There's no intellectual portion of NASCAR for fans to enjoy! I recognize NASCAR isn't for me, so I stay away. Fad followers though have stormed into the industry I joined decades ago and have began their nonsense arguments such as "I don't have time to X, so make it cater to me," or "Challenging isn't fun. Fun involves mindlessly cow clicking." We've seen a shift from the CORE of what games were designed for that being a challenging, entertaining experience, much like an interactive puzzle. We've shifted from that and moved to "press up on the joystick or D-pad to move forward." DING! You have obtained "Toddler Achievement" you took the first step in the game! Good job!We've been seeing a move to imbecile gaming since the Halo era fad followers flooded in. We're now seeing more hardcore consoles games released with hardcore MMO being as rare as a red diamond. I don't expect to see a hardcore MMO again for a decade or more, but I'm glad to see the Imagine Babies (Ubisoft title) crowd leaving the console arena.</blockquote> I suspect it has more to do with the fact that aiming at "Gamers" as a particular market segment proved to be less profitable than desired. Where as changing the game mechanics to where each person could choose their own level of challenge and competence and thusly opening any game up to any level of player might increase your profit margin drastically.Elitism never pays the bills forever. The market segment is too small.Well...GW2 is coming out this spring, supposedly. And TERA looks interesting too. So I'll withhold judgment on new hardcore MMO's until I see how those turn out.Seems like I read about another game..whose title escapes me now, darn it. Whose playstyle is so challenging that its making people quit in droves.Raf

Yaggaz

01-06-2012, 04:21 PM

<cite>Nuhus wrote:</cite><blockquote>It used to be people who made games had to make good games to be profitable. Shame</blockquote>Haha legendary comment! And SO true.And they want 40 bucks for a live update? [Aod] Pfffft.

Raffir

01-06-2012, 06:06 PM

(Dark Souls) Here is the article I was referring to. The game is, unfortunately, a console game...but it sounds like it may hold the degree of difficulty some are looking for.<a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-20116976-1/is-dark-souls-too-hard/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105...souls-too-hard/</a>Raf

thewarriorpoet

01-06-2012, 06:20 PM

<cite>Raffir wrote:</cite><blockquote>(Dark Souls) Here is the article I was referring to. The game is, unfortunately, a console game...but it sounds like it may hold the degree of difficulty some are looking for.<a rel="nofollow" href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-20116976-1/is-dark-souls-too-hard/" target="_blank">http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105...souls-too-hard/</a>Raf</blockquote>I got this for the holidays and I love it. I wouldn't say it's too hard but I would say that it is unforgiving. It doesn't care...it has consequences and make no appologies for it.

Hamervelder

01-06-2012, 06:54 PM

<cite>Raffir wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Nuhus wrote:</cite><blockquote>It used to be people who made games had to make good games to be profitable. Shame</blockquote>Define a "good" game in a way that will make everyone happy. Its just not possible. This forum proves that without a doubt. Companies like SOE will just design a game as they think it ought to be done...and the opinions of players will be developed as the game proceeds. And maybe some of those opinions and suggestions by players will be incorporated into gameplay and the years progress...maybe not.But since a game company will never, ever be able to to please everyone...they might as well just do what they think is best.Raf</blockquote>I would define a "good" game as one that generates massive profits for the developer, even if they're not the kinds of games that I like. I say that because clearly, if millions of people are playing a game, then the developers must have done something right. See MW3 or Skyrim for examples. SOE doesn't even try to please their customers. They just push crap to the marketplace and hope to keep the lights on. If it weren't for the guild that I'm in, I'd have left this steaming pile of crap a year ago.

Altom

01-06-2012, 07:10 PM

Felshades

01-06-2012, 07:34 PM

Uhm..Game still looks like a roleplaying game to me.Marketplace or not, it's still an RPG.Now if it turned into an FPS I'd be peeved.

naladini

01-06-2012, 08:11 PM

<cite>Elhonas@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote> SOE doesn't even try to please their customers.</blockquote>I'd suggest the opposite is true. 10 or so years ago, SOE/Verant was saying "You're in Our World Now" and largely ignoring what the bulk of their customers actually wanted. They paid a stiff price for that when competitors came into play. The "rough edges" that EQ1 origianlly had that were passed off as "hardcore" were really primarily time limitations in the original design cycles. Fixes were postponed, or current problems were rationalized as being part of a Vision with no plans to fix eg. Remember when bad pet pathing and crazy aggro was considered to be a risk associated with having a pet? It wasn't that way because people really wanted it to be that difficult. It was that way because rewriting the code for the pathing and aggro systems gamewide was a massive undertaking.Right now, SOE is as attentive as I've ever seen a gaming company to its customers, both from a community/producer standpoint, and from a design standpoint (though design changes usually take longer than many would like).However, I'd acknowledge that the public perception of customer preferences have shifted considerably over the years. So you may not be pleased with the fact that SOE is listening specifically to their customers, customers who may have different preferences than you do, customers who may have been ignored years ago.

agnott

01-06-2012, 08:36 PM

<cite>naladini wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Elhonas@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote> SOE doesn't even try to please their customers.</blockquote>I'd suggest the opposite is true. 10 or so years ago, SOE/Verant was saying "You're in Our World Now" and largely ignoring what the bulk of their customers actually wanted. They paid a stiff price for that when competitors came into play. The "rough edges" that EQ1 origianlly had that were passed off as "hardcore" were really primarily time limitations in the original design cycles. Fixes were postponed, or current problems were rationalized as being part of a Vision with no plans to fix eg. Remember when bad pet pathing and crazy aggro was considered to be a risk associated with having a pet? It wasn't that way because people really wanted it to be that difficult. It was that way because rewriting the code for the pathing and aggro systems gamewide was a massive undertaking.Right now, SOE is as attentive as I've ever seen a gaming company to its customers, both from a community/producer standpoint, and from a design standpoint (though design changes usually take longer than many would like).However, I'd acknowledge that the public perception of customer preferences have shifted considerably over the years. So you may not be pleased with the fact that SOE is listening specifically to their customers, customers who may have different preferences than you do, customers who may have been ignored years ago.</blockquote>SOE makes changes when thier agenda is aligned with the playerbase."Zero" is the amount days SOE floated the idea of MT's before it was implemented.

dawy

01-06-2012, 10:01 PM

<cite>thewarriorpoet wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Raffir wrote:</cite><blockquote>(Dark Souls) Here is the article I was referring to. The game is, unfortunately, a console game...but it sounds like it may hold the degree of difficulty some are looking for.<a rel="nofollow" href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-20116976-1/is-dark-souls-too-hard/" target="_blank">http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105...souls-too-hard/</a>Raf</blockquote>I got this for the holidays and I love it. I wouldn't say it's too hard but I would say that it is unforgiving. It doesn't care...it has consequences and make no appologies for it.</blockquote>It is a brilliant game but one thats never unfair in my eyes but i fear its nothing more than a niche game now which is a shame becuase its something else (though i'd say Demon's soul's was better just shows how good it is)

Xanu

01-07-2012, 01:23 AM

For what it's worth, I'm not seeing it as a market game. I've been playing for over five years as a Station Access member ($29.99/mo) and just last year I got a rate cut to $19.99 per month. That's $120 less per year than they were getting from me and I get the same benefits of upgrades, patches, etc. I don't really use the market all that much so as long as I'm spending less than $120 per year in it, I'm still coming off paying less than I was before the rate cut.As far as game play goes, well...you get out of it what you put into it and I just try to enjoy myself with the game. When I stop enjoying it, I'll simply disappear to another game without so much as a goodbye.

Rijacki

01-07-2012, 01:54 AM

<cite>naladini wrote:</cite><blockquote>However, I'd acknowledge that the public perception of customer preferences have shifted considerably over the years. So you may not be pleased with the fact that SOE is listening specifically to their customers, customers who may have different preferences than you do, customers who may have been ignored years ago.</blockquote>Sadly, people (not just gamers) always think so-and-so isn't listening if the answer to whatever the query or desire is 'no'. They also don't think they're listening to the "right" people if what is done is in response to others who want something different.EQ2 has implemented A LOT of things which players have requested. But of course they can't implement everything every player wants, many conflict with things other players want and/or are entirely impractical.Even the features included in AoD were born out of what players had said they wanted. Nearly every month (or even 2-3 times a month) for years new threads would be started 'begging' for beastlords to be added to the game. For years they said 'no' which was interpreted by those who wanted beastlords to be the devs never listening to the players. Now that they've been added, there is another vocal contingent saying the devs never listen to players and add things no one wants. Player created content has been another thing asked for countless times over the years. Mercenaries became a frequently requested addition, especially after they were added to EQ1. Even tradeskill apprentices come out of player requests for some way to research new recipes. And so on.It could be argued that even the Marketplace came out of SOE listening to the players since there were some players, long before SC or even LoN was added to the game, asking for ways to buy in-game stuff with real money from SOE. Even Free to Play was requested by some players as far back as the first months of the game.Anytime any player claims "SOE never listens to the players" it can be interpreted as "SOE never listens only to me and doesn't only implement the things I want; all other players are utterly unimportant".

Mohee

01-07-2012, 09:30 AM

It's not about making a high quality, smooth running, immersive game anymore.It's about making money with the least bit of effort. Pure and simple...Don't fix major bugs/mechanics that have been broken for many many years, even with tons of players /feedbacking, /bug'ing, and posting on the forums. It's not worth the time, they see it as a waste of manpower and money.It's a lot easier and cheaper to pay someone to change the texture on something and re-sell it on the marketplace.This is the world we are living in. It will never change. Get used to it.

Griffildur

01-07-2012, 10:13 AM

<cite>Mohee wrote:</cite><blockquote>It's not about making a high quality, smooth running, immersive game anymore.It's about making money with the least bit of effort. Pure and simple...Don't fix major bugs/mechanics that have been broken for many many years, even with tons of players /feedbacking, /bug'ing, and posting on the forums. It's not worth the time, they see it as a waste of manpower and money.It's a lot easier and cheaper to pay someone to change the texture on something and re-sell it on the marketplace.This is the world we are living in. It will never change. Get used to it.</blockquote>Well, to be honest, people like you deserve what you get. Maybe you get used to it but those who actualy want a quality product will keep pestering the devs until they deliver it.If they don't, there I am sure at some point there will be a company which realises not every customer is an idiot who accepts everything they throw at them and treat them in a different way. If we want somethingl ike that to happen though, then we need to strive for better. It's the same in reali life, you can be the sheep and accept everything or actually stand up for the thigns that matter to you and not take no for an answer.The question is, which one are you, sir ?

Gaealiege

01-07-2012, 11:34 AM

In regard to gamers not being profitable, Raff, if we (the original gamers) weren't profitable we wouldn't even have this forum to discuss in. Games wouldn't have lasted through the 80s, 90s, or 2000s if the original gamer wasn't profitable.Developers have simply decided they want mindless customers rather than thinking customers. They want the impulse buyer. The loyal customer doesn't have as much appeal as the " OH SHINY TAKE MY $200!" customer.

Shawnyve

01-07-2012, 12:50 PM

<cite>Lizabethan wrote:</cite><blockquote>SC is a very frustrating aspect of the game ATM. I mean, I personally wouldn't have gone this avenue if I were on the team, but I'm not. In business sense though, lots of people are playing free...so they lose $15 a month from them, whereas in past years it was a mandatory payment. To get back that money, they charge SC for supposedly desirable items.</blockquote>It's actually not as simple as that. Saying that for every person paying free SOE is losing $15/month is like saying everybody that downloads a song illegally is costing the music industry the price of a CD. Many of the people playing free probably wouldn't be playing at all if it were subscription based. But they increase the population of the servers, which increases the value of the game to the people who do subscribe.Then you have the whole station cash thing added on to that. Micro-economics (SOE as a company) isn't an easy course of study any more than macro-economics (Everquest II game world economy) is. I don't think anyone in SOE headquarters is waking up in the morning thinking, "How can we shaft our customers today?". They're making tough decisions in a tough economy and competing with behemoths (WoW and TOR atm) on one side and much smaller, nimbler games (think Farmville and smartphone apps) on the other. The middle ground in any industry is always a difficult place to stay alive, and that's where games like Everquest II are finding themselves atm.

Arcturys

01-07-2012, 02:38 PM

<cite>Gaealiege@Butcherblock wrote:</cite><blockquote>We've seen a shift from the CORE of what games were designed for that being a challenging, entertaining experience, much like an interactive puzzle. We've shifted from that and moved to "press up on the joystick or D-pad to move forward." DING! You have obtained "Toddler Achievement" you took the first step in the game! Good job!We've been seeing a move to imbecile gaming since the Halo era fad followers flooded in. We're now seeing more hardcore consoles games released with hardcore MMO being as rare as a red diamond. I don't expect to see a hardcore MMO again for a decade or more, but I'm glad to see the Imagine Babies (Ubisoft title) crowd leaving the console arena.</blockquote>Well said, and I agree completely. I've been saying for years that the new era of gamers has basically turned MMOs into single player games with a social interface (and after the recent updates and AoD, I've gone so far as to say EQ2 is now just a Facebook extension with a game attached).You can do what you want, how you want, when you want, and you can do it easily all by yourself. That's a single player game. And for some reason so many people come to an MMO and want a single player experience. Why? Why can't you guys just stick to single player games and allow the MMOers to have their MULTIplayer game, which includes a multiplayer challenge rating?I loved and miss the old days of EQ1. Those are my fondest MMO memories. We were forced to work together to accomplish things. And it's been my experience that challenge also means a more civil community. You didn't get far if you were an Oscar the Grouch. You either learned how to be a part of the team, or you went to find a different game. And good gamer etiquette prevailed because generally rude folks don't work well in groups, so they got weeded out by the challenge. All that were left at the high levels were folks that worked well with others, loved the challenge, loved the game, and loved the community aspect of the game. With so many like-minded people around, it's not hard to understand why people generally got along much better in those days of the game. But once they started making EQ1 easier, it was easier for the anti-social grouches to play too. This just kept grumpy folks in the game. This is exactly what you see in EQ2 and WoW.

Dasein

01-07-2012, 02:46 PM

<cite>Mohee wrote:</cite><blockquote>It's not about making a high quality, smooth running, immersive game anymore.It's about making money with the least bit of effort. Pure and simple...Don't fix major bugs/mechanics that have been broken for many many years, even with tons of players /feedbacking, /bug'ing, and posting on the forums. It's not worth the time, they see it as a waste of manpower and money.It's a lot easier and cheaper to pay someone to change the texture on something and re-sell it on the marketplace.This is the world we are living in. It will never change. Get used to it.</blockquote>It's about trying to best allocate finite resources while making enough money so that SOE and ultimately Sony can justify keeping the servers running and people employed. Thus, maximizing return on investment is a concern, and sometimes, that means trying t ofix a stubborn bug may not be economical compared to developing new content, especially if people have learned to live with a bug for years.

Arcturys

01-07-2012, 02:50 PM

<cite>Gaealiege@Butcherblock wrote:</cite><blockquote>In regard to gamers not being profitable, Raff, if we (the original gamers) weren't profitable we wouldn't even have this forum to discuss in. Games wouldn't have lasted through the 80s, 90s, or 2000s if the original gamer wasn't profitable.Developers have simply decided they want mindless customers rather than thinking customers. They want the impulse buyer. The loyal customer doesn't have as much appeal as the " OH SHINY TAKE MY $200!" customer.</blockquote>Yep, and this has been especially evident in SOE policies. They weren't like this in the beginning, but over most of the last decade there's been a general trend toward caring more about the players that left for non-SOE games or the players that never played an SOE game than the players currently playing and paying for SOE games. The loyal customer means much less to them; they focus all their energy on "winning back" players that obviously are not loyal, or that had no interest in the game to begin with. Heck, EQ2 exists solely because of that mentality. It was their answer to WoW. They hoped it would keep/win back the players that left for WoW.

agnott

01-07-2012, 04:33 PM

In a way ..MT's may be to MMO's what sub prime mortages where to the housing market.One could be forgiven for coming to the conclunsion that frequent users of MT's are a kin to sub prime home buyers who failed to read the fine print on thier mortages.Questionable decisions by all parties.

Dasein

01-07-2012, 07:38 PM

<cite>Arcturys wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gaealiege@Butcherblock wrote:</cite><blockquote>In regard to gamers not being profitable, Raff, if we (the original gamers) weren't profitable we wouldn't even have this forum to discuss in. Games wouldn't have lasted through the 80s, 90s, or 2000s if the original gamer wasn't profitable.Developers have simply decided they want mindless customers rather than thinking customers. They want the impulse buyer. The loyal customer doesn't have as much appeal as the " OH SHINY TAKE MY $200!" customer.</blockquote>Yep, and this has been especially evident in SOE policies. They weren't like this in the beginning, but over most of the last decade there's been a general trend toward caring more about the players that left for non-SOE games or the players that never played an SOE game than the players currently playing and paying for SOE games. The loyal customer means much less to them; they focus all their energy on "winning back" players that obviously are not loyal, or that had no interest in the game to begin with. Heck, EQ2 exists solely because of that mentality. It was their answer to WoW. They hoped it would keep/win back the players that left for WoW.</blockquote>This is the sort of policy you'll see with most subscription-based services because it makes sense. Early on, the focus needs to be on retaining current players, because you're trying to make a good first impression and need to compete with whatever else they were doing prior to purchasing your service. Further, you have few former customers to worry about at this point, and those who were gone likely have no reason to return.As the service gets older and more mature, there is less reason to focus on retianing your current subscribers, as they are there because they want to be - they know what they're getting, and likely have had many opportunities to switch, but have chosen not to. Thus, spending money on retaining them won't get you much return. On the other hand, trying to attract new subscribers or recapture former subscribers makes lots of sense, an is likely to give yo umuch higher rates of return.

Griffildur

01-07-2012, 08:25 PM

<cite>Dasein wrote:</cite><blockquote>This is the sort of policy you'll see with most subscription-based services because it makes sense. Early on, the focus needs to be on retaining current players, because you're trying to make a good first impression and need to compete with whatever else they were doing prior to purchasing your service. Further, you have few former customers to worry about at this point, and those who were gone likely have no reason to return.As the service gets older and more mature, there is less reason to focus on retianing your current subscribers, as they are there because they want to be - they know what they're getting, and likely have had many opportunities to switch, but have chosen not to. Thus, spending money on retaining them won't get you much return. On the other hand, trying to attract new subscribers or recapture former subscribers makes lots of sense, an is likely to give yo umuch higher rates of return.</blockquote>Yes, losing the current customers during your quest for new ones makes a lot of sense.

agnott

01-07-2012, 10:27 PM

<cite>Mrrshan@Runnyeye wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Dasein wrote:</cite><blockquote>This is the sort of policy you'll see with most subscription-based services because it makes sense. Early on, the focus needs to be on retaining current players, because you're trying to make a good first impression and need to compete with whatever else they were doing prior to purchasing your service. Further, you have few former customers to worry about at this point, and those who were gone likely have no reason to return.As the service gets older and more mature, there is less reason to focus on retianing your current subscribers, as they are there because they want to be - they know what they're getting, and likely have had many opportunities to switch, but have chosen not to. Thus, spending money on retaining them won't get you much return. On the other hand, trying to attract new subscribers or recapture former subscribers makes lots of sense, an is likely to give yo umuch higher rates of return.</blockquote>Yes, losing the current customers during your quest for new ones makes a lot of sense.</blockquote>Not to mention that is exactly what SWG tried to do ..how is that 'rate of return" working out.

Dasein

01-08-2012, 12:02 AM

<cite>Mrrshan@Runnyeye wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Dasein wrote:</cite><blockquote>This is the sort of policy you'll see with most subscription-based services because it makes sense. Early on, the focus needs to be on retaining current players, because you're trying to make a good first impression and need to compete with whatever else they were doing prior to purchasing your service. Further, you have few former customers to worry about at this point, and those who were gone likely have no reason to return.As the service gets older and more mature, there is less reason to focus on retianing your current subscribers, as they are there because they want to be - they know what they're getting, and likely have had many opportunities to switch, but have chosen not to. Thus, spending money on retaining them won't get you much return. On the other hand, trying to attract new subscribers or recapture former subscribers makes lots of sense, an is likely to give yo umuch higher rates of return.</blockquote>Yes, losing the current customers during your quest for new ones makes a lot of sense.</blockquote>Is there any evidence to suggest EQ2 is losing players at a faster rate than other MMOs of similar age? Overall, EQ2's population has remained fairly stable, and I'd suspect what attrition we do see is related to factors beyond SOE's control - work, school, simple burnout, and the like, not any specific decision by SOE.

Gaealiege

01-08-2012, 11:43 AM

We very recently went through an entire slew of mergers. Would you be willing to define "stable population" for me?

Dasein

01-08-2012, 01:59 PM

<cite>Gaealiege@Butcherblock wrote:</cite><blockquote>We very recently went through an entire slew of mergers. Would you be willing to define "stable population" for me?</blockquote>A population where the change - increase or decrease - is within the expected norms based on the overall age of the game and observed trends in similar games. Server mergers do not mean much taken by themselves, and the only recent mergers have been to consolidate custom ruleset servers, which are always a gamble. Of course, as computer hardware improves, a single server can support more players. If the population remains constant, over time, server mergers would make sense simply due to improvements in computing hardware.

Avirodar

01-08-2012, 02:24 PM

<cite>Dasein wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gaealiege@Butcherblock wrote:</cite><blockquote>We very recently went through an entire slew of mergers. Would you be willing to define "stable population" for me?</blockquote>A population where the change - increase or decrease - is within the expected norms based on the overall age of the game and observed trends in similar games. Server mergers do not mean much taken by themselves, and the only recent mergers have been to consolidate custom ruleset servers, which are always a gamble. Of course, as computer hardware improves, a single server can support more players. If the population remains constant, over time, server mergers would make sense simply due to improvements in computing hardware.</blockquote>The server mergers were done due to declining populations.

Cakeny

01-08-2012, 03:02 PM

<cite>Avirodar@Oasis wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Dasein wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gaealiege@Butcherblock wrote:</cite><blockquote>We very recently went through an entire slew of mergers. Would you be willing to define "stable population" for me?</blockquote>A population where the change - increase or decrease - is within the expected norms based on the overall age of the game and observed trends in similar games. Server mergers do not mean much taken by themselves, and the only recent mergers have been to consolidate custom ruleset servers, which are always a gamble. Of course, as computer hardware improves, a single server can support more players. If the population remains constant, over time, server mergers would make sense simply due to improvements in computing hardware.</blockquote>The server mergers were done due to declining populations.</blockquote>Which mergers are you referring to? The most recent one was due to Livegamer service going away and there no need for separate servers for it.

Shawnyve

01-08-2012, 03:52 PM

<cite>Arcturys wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gaealiege@Butcherblock wrote:</cite><blockquote>We've seen a shift from the CORE of what games were designed for that being a challenging, entertaining experience, much like an interactive puzzle. We've shifted from that and moved to "press up on the joystick or D-pad to move forward." DING! You have obtained "Toddler Achievement" you took the first step in the game! Good job!We've been seeing a move to imbecile gaming since the Halo era fad followers flooded in. We're now seeing more hardcore consoles games released with hardcore MMO being as rare as a red diamond. I don't expect to see a hardcore MMO again for a decade or more, but I'm glad to see the Imagine Babies (Ubisoft title) crowd leaving the console arena.</blockquote>Well said, and I agree completely. I've been saying for years that the new era of gamers has basically turned MMOs into single player games with a social interface (and after the recent updates and AoD, I've gone so far as to say EQ2 is now just a Facebook extension with a game attached).You can do what you want, how you want, when you want, and you can do it easily all by yourself. That's a single player game. And for some reason so many people come to an MMO and want a single player experience. Why? Why can't you guys just stick to single player games and allow the MMOers to have their MULTIplayer game, which includes a multiplayer challenge rating?I loved and miss the old days of EQ1. Those are my fondest MMO memories. We were forced to work together to accomplish things. And it's been my experience that challenge also means a more civil community. You didn't get far if you were an Oscar the Grouch. You either learned how to be a part of the team, or you went to find a different game. And good gamer etiquette prevailed because generally rude folks don't work well in groups, so they got weeded out by the challenge. All that were left at the high levels were folks that worked well with others, loved the challenge, loved the game, and loved the community aspect of the game. With so many like-minded people around, it's not hard to understand why people generally got along much better in those days of the game. But once they started making EQ1 easier, it was easier for the anti-social grouches to play too. This just kept grumpy folks in the game. This is exactly what you see in EQ2 and WoW.</blockquote>See, that's exactly what happened, and people still fail to realize it (To the point of trying to 'recreate' it in Vanguard). All that were left were the "good" (cool, elite, friendly) players. Everyone else gave up and moved on.The player base (the 'grumpy ones', referred to in SOE headquarters as 'paying customers'<img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> started leaving once other alternatives were available. People didn't like being forced to work together or any of the other arbitrary timesinks (waiting for boats, spawns, locked out of content). They put up with them because there were no better choices available. Once those choices started coming out, more and more people moved to the them, with the culmination being Blizzard stealing every good feature they could find from every existing MMO, putting in a bunch of their own, then mixing up their own martini (stirred, not shaken) called WoW.SOE weren't idiots. They were so sure that WoW would draw players away that they effectively allowed Blizzard to set the release date for Everquest II (making sure EQII was first to market, for all the good that it did).Love em or hate em you don't get to survive in an industry (pretty much any industry) as long as SOE has without learning a few things like how to ride out tough times and react to market changes. Do you think anyone in Blizzard or Bioware are debating making WoW or TOR a free-to-play game right now? SOE is in the toughest postition to be in in any industry - the middle. (Walmart and Target make money, Nordstrom and Macy's make money...).SOE has two things going for it:1) A variety of MMO titles. So they can get a lot of "cross sales" from one product to another (and would probably like everyone to eventually pick up All Access)2) Housing and "decorative" stuff. Everquest II (and SWG, RIP) has some of the best housing in the business. That's the sort of thing that's perfect for microtransactions. Station Cash was a move to play to their strengths - the thing they were offering that their major competitors aren't.Listening to your customers is a good thing, but blindly giving them "what they want" is a sure way to go out of business, because customers a) are extremely short-sighted, and b) generally want the best of what you have for free (or as little as they can get away with paying).