19 replies to this topic

[Ozeo]

http://www.polygon.c...-to-its-lack-of

I strongly recommend PGI do not commit the mistakes of the past.

[Heffay]

Umm... that's a bit dated. As a valuable exercise, why don't you start identifying the things that PGI is doing that they list as how to do it right.

Start with monetization, and continue from there. We'll wait, since it'll be a while before you consolidate the full list.

[Ozeo]

Heffay, on 21 October 2014 - 06:05 PM, said:

Umm... that's a bit dated. As a valuable exercise, why don't you start identifying the things that PGI is doing that they list as how to do it right.

Start with monetization, and continue from there. We'll wait, since it'll be a while before you consolidate the full list.

Take a moment and read thru my previous posts before jumping to conclusions.

[Heffay]

Ozeo, on 21 October 2014 - 06:06 PM, said:

Take a moment and read thru my previous posts before jumping to conclusions.

Wouldn't it be simpler to include all the context necessary in one post, instead of making the reader go through your complete history to get a sense of your inner soul?

[Rogue Jedi]

I do not see how that article has anything to do with the current state of MWO, so if PGI keep doing what they are doing they have little chance of making the same mistakes.

I fail to see the point of this, unless you were trying to say something to the effect of "please PGI do not change to AOEOs unsucessful funding model"

[Rebas Kradd]

If MWO's biggest critics were playing AoEO, they'd be sneering about how civilizations aren't content and what they really want is deeper, richer gameplay. What civilizations were to AoEO, mechs are to MWO.

[Darth Futuza]

I hardly see any relation to the article you linked and how PGI has been running MWO, sure they've made mistakes, but not in that manner.

[Alreech]

MWO's problem isn't the lack of content.
There are regualry new mechs that you can buy for MCs or real cash.

As long as the players are willing to pay real money for new mechs this shouldn't be a problem for the economic basis of PGI.
Don't get me wrong - a good cashflow and thight controll of finances is needed in any kind of project, and i won't critizise anyone for making money and spending it carefully.

IHMO MWO lacks some other critical things.
The frist thing is the missing teamplay in PUG.
There is no VOIP or Quick Chat to communicate with the members of your team, and any new round you will get new teammates.

The second thing is the total neglection of the choosen faction. You didn't even get a faction symbol on your mech, and your team is mixed with every faction.
There is no immersion of fighting for a faction, there isn't even a single thing like stats.

Most games don't die because there is no new content, they die because the players move on. Counterstrike doesn't get any real new content, but is still popular because anyone and their friends keep playing it.

So the biggest improvment is to encourage the creation of player groups and their support.
In this focus, MWO fails since the end of the open beta.
Player units fighting against other player units would be the best way to keep a steady base of players.

Improving the teamplay for puggers and new players would also a good way to hold players.

[girl on fire]

mwo's problem is that it's too expensive for me.



I work, but not much (twice a week), otherwise I'm in school, doing homework, attending extracurriculars (have a metric crapton of those) and I spend most of that money on comicbooks (I just bought the first volume of the Batman: Court of Owls trade paperback, I know nobody cares, but it's pretty good) or other videogames. Because I can literally buy one or several complete video games for the price of a single mech!

So if PGI could lower their prices (but just for me, i don't care about anyone else ;]) that would be great.... or are the high prices to keep the riff raff like me out?

[Heffay]

girl on fire, on 24 October 2014 - 04:20 PM, said:

So if PGI could lower their prices

There is a lesson learned in the video the OP linked that explained why lowering prices is a bad idea.

girl on fire, on 24 October 2014 - 04:20 PM, said:

(but just for me, i don't care about anyone else ;])

Oh, that's different. That's ok! This is why I wish gifting stuff was an option. You made me laugh. I'd be happy to throw a mech bay or two, or a month of premium time your way for doing so!

[Rebas Kradd]

girl on fire, on 24 October 2014 - 04:20 PM, said:

mwo's problem is that it's too expensive for me.

Too expensive?

I don't get it. MWO is free.

[Anjian]

I agree. PGI has problems with monetization.

One of the reasons for that it makes mechs too easy to buy with real money, instead of grinding a tech tree and researching points to allow access to a new tier of mech and weapons. There is litle incentive to get a Premium account. All the Mech packs and stuff give the public --- regardless whether you argue about it or not --- the impression that the game is pay to win, and has a high barrier of entry. Again, regardless whether its true or not, the damage is done simply because of the impression.

The other problem is that F2P games is a monetization culture that first took root then exploded in Asia (invented in China) then swept to Europe via World of Tanks. All the monetization tactics used by PGI right now would be perfectly acceptable in those regions, but F2P remains a foreign culture in the NA despite League of Legends, DoTA 2, etc,. The NA is used to the console type ecosystem or the MMO traditional subscription system. Not to menntion the shilling pro-console game press always like to take the chance to slap at small firm, indie, PC-only F2P games, while bending to their knees and giving roses to console games like Destiny, Titanfall, etc,.

Gradually though, that perception is eroding as F2P games begin to take root even in the NA, partly because of Facebook games, the -Ville series, partly because of mobile games in the Apple App Store and Google Play, not to mention World of Tanks and the Asian MMOs that has taken root in the NA. In the end, even PGI's practices may end up being acceptable and people won't bat an eye. They just need to weather the current perception until the accepted norm of game monetization culture has fully changed.

Edited by Anjian, 25 October 2014 - 08:17 PM.

[TLBFestus]

Don't let Heffay and his one-sided, blind support for PGI drag you down. The man bangs the drum so often he's replacing it on a weekly basis.

Depending on how you define "content" your argument is valid.

While the game play is engaging it's definitely lacking and very little has changed since beta. Sure, Heffay and others will argue that there are different modes, but they are really just the same. So much so in fact that PGI has given up on being able to chose different "modes" and we just get which ever one pretty much randomly "in order to help the matchmaker".
(side note..it appears to work better, my matches have been much more even, but wait times have increased in my experience).

If you consider "that" content...yes they are lacking.

If you consider a steady flow of new mechs for sale content, then no they aren't lacking. Now i used to criticize the constant "mechs for sale" actions of PGI more harshly, but in light of their more recent efforts to communicate with the community (and if CW isn't the vaporware sale of the century) I don't want to come down on them as harshly as i did in the past. At least the recent mech pack is approaching a reasonable price point for the top tier than previously.

IMHO, they currently DO lack content, but hopefully they are really making strides to alleviate that issue. Hopefully they haven't missed their window of opportunity with this game in this respect.

[Heffay]

TLBFestus, on 27 October 2014 - 08:58 AM, said:

Depending on how you define "content" your argument is valid. While the game play is engaging it's definitely lacking and very little has changed since beta. Sure, Heffay and others will argue that there are different modes, but they are really just the same. So much so in fact that PGI has given up on being able to chose different "modes" and we just get which ever one pretty much randomly "in order to help the matchmaker". (side note..it appears to work better, my matches have been much more even, but wait times have increased in my experience).

That's not even close to accurate. The matchmaker change was rolled back. And the game has changed tremendously since beta. Achievements, maps, launch module, UI 2.0, CW Phase 1... there has been so much content released in 2014. It's been a great year for the game.

[Rebas Kradd]

TLBFestus, on 27 October 2014 - 08:58 AM, said:

While the game play is engaging it's definitely lacking and very little has changed since beta.

That's your opinion. How do you handle the returning players posting on the forums and on Reddit that say the game has improved A LOT in the last year?

Edited by Rebas Kradd, 27 October 2014 - 09:49 AM.

[Heffay]

Rebas Kradd, on 27 October 2014 - 09:49 AM, said:

That's your opinion. How do you handle the returning players posting on the forums and on Reddit that say the game has improved A LOT in the last year?

He replies with "Well, it's not important to me, therefore it doesn't matter."

[TLBFestus]

I never said that the game hadn't improved, I said content was lacking. I'm not the only one who shares that opinion, and all the "Heffaying" about it won't change that.

I'm happy with the improved community relations and I'm hoping it translates into more and better content (which by choice of definition, we disagree on).






Well, at least I was right about this part.

Edited by TLBFestus, 27 October 2014 - 11:29 AM.

[ImperialKnight]

girl on fire, on 24 October 2014 - 04:20 PM, said:

mwo's problem is that it's too expensive for me.



I work, but not much (twice a week), otherwise I'm in school, doing homework, attending extracurriculars (have a metric crapton of those) and I spend most of that money on comicbooks (I just bought the first volume of the Batman: Court of Owls trade paperback, I know nobody cares, but it's pretty good) or other videogames. Because I can literally buy one or several complete video games for the price of a single mech!

So if PGI could lower their prices (but just for me, i don't care about anyone else ;]) that would be great.... or are the high prices to keep the riff raff like me out?

Unfortunately the F2P model assumes you have time or money or both. Both not neither. Accept the fact you can only play with a limited number of free mechs and mech bays.

Paid items in F2P have to be expensive to cover for the fact that other people are playing for free. Otherwise, it becomes an unsustainable business model

I also agree with the OP that PGI needs to keep the core game good and fresh/updated so that people want to keep playing. Just look at how the best in the business do it, Valve.

[girl on fire]

1. There are plenty of f2p games that survive at lower price points... In fact, i'd say most do.

2. I was joking. I thought that was made pretty clear when I said "just for me, I don't care about anyone else"; I'm not sure if you're a pompous jerk who feels the need to correct people when they are clearly not making a serious statement or just your run of the mill rube.

3. Valve? PGI does the opposite of Valve. Valve's micro transactions are actually micro. This point sort of undermines your assertion that the prices "have" to be high, so....

#notbuyingwhatyou'reselling

Edited by girl on fire, 29 October 2014 - 12:28 PM.

[Anjian]

I think this game has a long term monetization problem.

The number of lore battlemechs are limited and you will reach that point you are going to run out, unless you force yourself into the Jihad and Dark Age territory. I think that number is probably around 87 in the pre Jihad, classic Battletech age.

WoT has a problem because the number of historical tanks are limited and so it beefs up the content using historical prototype and proposal tanks that were drafted or tested but never thrown into combat. With that it is able to artificially achieve over 150.

War Thunder isn't finished yet but they already have over 300 vehicles both on air and tanks, and they inflate those numbers using variants (how many variants of the BF109, Emil, Fredrich, Gustav, Karl, or how many variants of the T-34 tank).

While MWO has variants, the variants are more subtle and has a greater overlap due to their modifiability. You can't modify a plane or a tank like a mech.

The other problem is that the more mechs you throw in, the more you encounter diminishing returns. Its like the smartphone race. Companies like Apple and Samsung need you to continually upgrade your smartphone and that fills their coffers. But at some point the device is going to perform very well, that you don't need to upgrade every year, that they may last two or three years. This is a problem with PC companies because many PCs are lasting as long as six years or even more.

Applied to MWO, once a player finds his perfect set of mechs, he is less likely to buy a new mech pack. Those who are in it for collection may buy the packs, which you can call the Fans, but there are going to be players that see less and less wisdom in buying future packs. 2014 might be an apex for MWO because of the release of iconic mechs like Mad Cat, Mad Dog and Zeus but what about the year after. Not only are you going to run the well dry but you get less and less juicy choices to pick.

At this point, the best way to monetize through existing content is to greatly expand the player base, and that probably has to be done the old fashioned way by demonstrating better gameplay to entice other players from other games to come over to MWO.