211 replies to this topic

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

I see this a lot by company's that, are not quite in touch with their actual "Target" demographic.

A company is out there to make money with a product, even with games this is true, but I want to bring attention to something, in a recent post made by Bryan,

Bryan Ekman, on 21 March 2013 - 05:16 PM, said:

Our target demographic has always been (in very simple non-marketing terms): the male action gamer looking for a little bit more than your average shooter. You can lump in someone who likes anything from Call of Duty to Flight Sims into that bucket.

This is a fundimentaly wrong mindset, especially considering your initial marketing pushes for this game, and promises made 2+ years ago two a very different demographic, a demographic that is in an age range far beyond what you're looking for here.

Basically with your statement Bryan, you're looking for gamers aged 15-25+.

Your fundimental flaw in this is that you should be targeting gamers aged 20-45+. Now before you freak out and wonder why I'm saying this. Let's switch to another area of media that tries to get a demographic that just, isn't interested, comic books.

Comic book companys are always looking to draw in new readers. And who can blame them, however comic book companys seem to have this idea that if they keep restructuring their business to try to draw in a demographic that just, isn't interested in reading comic books the 10-20 year old age bracket. Now there WAS a time this was a viable age range, but that time is long past, especially considering the distribution of comic books is relegated primarly to niche comic book stores and the average kid is more interested in playing X-box 360 than reading a comic book. No for comic books, their "niche" is the 20-35 year old that grew up on comics back in the 80's 90's.

Let's flash forward to how this relates to mechwarrior. Those with a vested interest in mechwarrior are *ghasp*20-40+ year olds that grew up with Battletech/mechwarrior in the 80's-00's that have fond memory's of it.

can I fault PGI/IGP for trying to branch out and get more users? No far from it, however there's a proper way to do it, and the way they're going about it is far from it. they are going to be primarily alienating their "core" userbase to try to draw in new players.

steady money is better than a rush of new cash PGI/IGP, you need to understand that. And you won't always be getting NEW players to spend on the little bits of content you have currently. If you restructured your focus on the content delivery, and not trying to milk the game for every cent, you'd be seeing much more in the way of MC buying.

I've talked to several people today alone who would have spent money on more MC but have not because of Consumeables, rumors of 3rd person view [which we've basically been told is happening weather we like it or not] and overall mis-handling of what was promised and why many people bought founders to begin with.

But you know what, it's ok, you guys are going to do what you're going to do in the hopes of getting new players... unlike the comic book's I referenced, you'll simply loose players instead of gain them, where as with comics I can follow a writer they moved off Iron Man to X-men for example... with MWO... I'll simply walk away when my premium time is up. And many other's will do exactly the same.

I feel bad. Because I paid for gold founders, in the hope I was helping this game grow... instead, I get broken promises, and a company that ignore's it's CORE users.

[Vassago Rain]

[redacted ]

Edited by miSs, 22 March 2013 - 11:24 AM.
false allegations

[benth]

A game cannot be successful by merely trying to imitate the competition and steal their playerbase.

Bioware, with all the funding of EA, could not break into the MMO genre successfully with SWTOR. Their strategy was to copy WoW and to seek a "wider audience."

PGI is trying desperately to steal World of Tank's success.

If the big companies cannot hope to accomplish this, what hope does PGI have? None.

Edited by benth, 21 March 2013 - 07:00 PM.

[Davers]

Their target demographic should be people of any age interested in a well made game about giant stompy robot combat. If they build that then everyone will be happy.

[Rather Dashing]

Vassago Rain, on 21 March 2013 - 06:57 PM, said:

deleted

THAT'S A MISDIRECTION OF FUNDING NEARLY ON THE LEVEL OF WHAT GEARBOX DID TO COLONIAL MARINES WITH BORDERLANDS 2.

FOR SHAME.

[Tabrias07]

Yes. Totally agreed (never thought I'd say that...)

You need to understand. That is such a broad description; this cannot work. You cannot make this game appeal to everyone. You don't need to. Trying to will ruin it. I want everyone to enjoy the game, I really do, but they'll never be able to if you water it down to the point where it's unrecognizable.

What you need to do is make an honest to god tutorial. In game. No youtube ********. Teach people how the game works, hands-on. Add more links to the game launcher, get people reading patch notes. What purpose are beta testers who don't understand what's going on?

I love this game, and this franchise. I really do. I loved everything I read about when the founder's program came out, but at this point, I'm beginning to feel betrayed. There is not a single thing in this game that is implemented as it was initially stated they would be. I understand that it's a work in progress, and I try not to fault you for a lot because of that. But simply ignoring your core audience and going directly against previous statements to the people who have been mainly supporting you since this game's inception is simply a monumentally bad position.

I've spent $75 on this game so far. I realize that's not a lot, but it's more than I've spent on any other game. Ever. And I want to spend more. I was even planning on getting another $30 MC today, but almost every piece of news I've heard about this game over the past week has been bad.

Please, don't ignore us, for both our sakes.

On a lighter note, thank you for your much clearer communication lately. You've made huge strides in improving communication with the community.

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

Rather Dashing, on 21 March 2013 - 07:03 PM, said:

THAT'S A MISDIRECTION OF FUNDING NEARLY ON THE LEVEL OF WHAT GEARBOX DID TO COLONIAL MARINES WITH BORDERLANDS 2.

FOR SHAME.

Exactly... and you know what, I'm almost willing to give gearbox a pass over what IGP has done here, and I LOVE Aliens.

Davers, on 21 March 2013 - 07:00 PM, said:

Their target demographic should be people of any age interested in a well made game about giant stompy robot combat. If they build that then everyone will be happy.

If they delivered on what they had promised in the beginning, they would have more users due to a unique, fun game.

Instead we get goldflush and 3rd person casual.

You know how well that "attract casual gamers" attitude has worked for Hawken? Not very.

[Windies]

Basically, if you read that snippet, he's saying that their target demographic is quite literally every human that is breathing that owns a computer, that doesn't have a ****** apparently. Further strengthens my belief that I honestly don't think they know what they want or how to get it.

Edited by Windies, 21 March 2013 - 07:08 PM.

[Vermaxx]

I love how people completely marginalize gamers based on age and liking COD.

COD are good game titles usually. They sell well, they are fun, they have massive pick-up-and-put-down potential. I'm never on MWO for 'a couple matches.' I end up tweaking, or in the forums, etc. Black Ops 2, I can play for a while and then walk off.

25-40 year old gamers have (sometimes) more money than time. The conversion sinks are in, and people complain about monetization. 15-25 gamers generally have time, but also often money these days.

This is not a game for the 'old farts' (and I include myself there). If you thought it would be, you believed a convenient mistruth. Every game is sold to the highest audience it can get. In this case, that is EVERY gamer.

I'm not 15-25 anymore, but I'm not 40. I still love COD. Those of you who hate it seem almost irrational in that hatred sometimes. I don't know why. PGI has a responsibility to its parent companies and investors to make money. You don't have to agree with the target audience, but you do have to accept it.

The game can even survive mixing both, but someone has to grow up and play with the younger folks.

Sorry, screwed up the 25-40 group.

Edited by Vermaxx, 21 March 2013 - 07:12 PM.

[Thirdstar]

Vermaxx, on 21 March 2013 - 07:08 PM, said:

This is not a game for the 'old farts' (and I include myself there). If you thought it would be, you believed a convenient mistruth. Every game is sold to the highest audience it can get. In this case, that is EVERY gamer.

A staggering number of Founders believed this 'mistruth'.

[Commander Kobold]

Davers, on 21 March 2013 - 07:00 PM, said:

Their target demographic should be people of any age interested in a well made game about giant stompy robot combat. If they build that then everyone will be happy.

but then they'd have to make a well done game

[Windies]

Vermaxx, on 21 March 2013 - 07:08 PM, said:

I love how people completely marginalize gamers based on age and liking COD.

COD are good game titles usually. They sell well, they are fun, they have massive pick-up-and-put-down potential. I'm never on MWO for 'a couple matches.' I end up tweaking, or in the forums, etc. Black Ops 2, I can play for a while and then walk off.

20-40 year old gamers have (sometimes) more time than money. The conversion sinks are in, and people complain about monetization. 15-25 gamers generally have time, but also often money these days.

This is not a game for the 'old farts' (and I include myself there). If you thought it would be, you believed a convenient mistruth. Every game is sold to the highest audience it can get. In this case, that is EVERY gamer.

I'm not 15-25 anymore, but I'm not 40. I still love COD. Those of you who hate it seem almost irrational in that hatred sometimes. I don't know why. PGI has a responsibility to its parent companies and investors to make money. You don't have to agree with the target audience, but you do have to accept it.

The game can even survive mixing both, but someone has to grow up and play with the younger folks.

This has nothing to do with CoD, but rather the fact that the developers have little to no idea what their own demographic is other than Male's that are breathing.

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

Vermaxx, on 21 March 2013 - 07:08 PM, said:

20-40 year old gamers have (sometimes) more time than money. The conversion sinks are in, and people complain about monetization. 15-25 gamers generally have time, but also often money these days.
.

Untrue. it's the 20-40 age range that hold the jobs, thus have the money to play out... not the 15-25 crowd. [well partially that crowd, but it's much less than the 20-40 bracket]

The money sits with the one's who have the jobs, the one's who have the jobs are generally older... this is not a hard concept.

[Davers]

Jade Kitsune, on 21 March 2013 - 07:06 PM, said:

If they delivered on what they had promised in the beginning, they would have more users due to a unique, fun game.

Instead we get goldflush and 3rd person casual.

You know how well that "attract casual gamers" attitude has worked for Hawken? Not very.

They still have time to deliver. I believe it was mentioned that the first CW info is coming out in April/May? We can judge then.

Having this game appeal to people who like good games is more important than having this game just appeal to BT fans.

[Vermaxx]

Thirdstar, on 21 March 2013 - 07:10 PM, said:

A staggering number of Founders believed this 'mistruth'.

I know, and that may have been the point. It certainly was the point of my statement. I saw a Mechwarrior game set in 3049-going-to-3050 and thought "Oh cool, Clan invasion and MPBT3025 world map! Win!" I didn't pay based on the ideal.

I paid what I would have paid for MW5, which was originally what I was expecting when Smith and Tinker founded. I didn't expect a game designed to coddle crotchety old gamers, I expected it to entertain me sixty-dollars-worth. I've gotten my money out of it. If it lasts, great.

I'm not faulting anyone for believing PGI for the things they were told, for taking them at face value. I will say, most of us are old enough to know better than to believe the rose-colored description PGI gave us.

[Davers]

Omni 13, on 21 March 2013 - 07:11 PM, said:

but then they'd have to make a well done game

Well, that is the challenge, isn't it?

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

Davers, on 21 March 2013 - 07:14 PM, said:

They still have time to deliver. I believe it was mentioned that the first CW info is coming out in April/May? We can judge then.

Having this game appeal to people who like good games is more important than having this game just appeal to BT fans.

The problem is they're moving toward's a focus on consumables, 3rd person, and coolant.

They've already lost one of their biggest supporters[me]... I've dropped possibly 3-4 hundred dollars on this game [including founders] since "open beta" and at times where I felt they were heading in the right direction, yet then, after some great moments, they switch gears, do a 180 and start heading the arse opposite direction of what was promised.

I'm just riding out my 60+ days of premium time... and hoping, maybe, there will be a reason for me to stick around after my 60 days are up.

[zverofaust]

I love all these comparisons and utterly simplified analogies people are drawing with completely unrelated titles and even mediums. Yes, please tell us more about how some comic book crap is completely and utterly relevant to MWO's development!

Here's an unfortunate reality I'm sure you'll vehemently deny: Basing the financial future and security of PGI on a handful of aging fanmen isn't going to work. You can't just squat over a toilet and push out whatever crap you want and slap a Mechwarrior label on it, even if there will be people who embrace it simply for that label. What you need is a game that's actually fun, takes risks and brings something new to the table.

But before any of that, I'd like to ask you to take a moment and tell me how exactly PGI is trying to copy other popular titles, and how this is watering down the MWO ~experience~?

[Windies]

zverofaust, on 21 March 2013 - 07:20 PM, said:

I love all these comparisons and utterly simplified analogies people are drawing with completely unrelated titles and even mediums. Yes, please tell us more about how some comic book crap is completely and utterly relevant to MWO's development!

Here's an unfortunate reality I'm sure you'll vehemently deny: Basing the financial future and security of PGI on a handful of aging fanmen isn't going to work. You can't just squat over a toilet and push out whatever crap you want and slap a Mechwarrior label on it, even if there will be people who embrace it simply for that label. What you need is a game that's actually fun, takes risks and brings something new to the table.

But before any of that, I'd like to ask you to take a moment and tell me how exactly PGI is trying to copy other popular titles, and how this is watering down the MWO ~experience~?

You literally just described everything PGI is "NOT" doing. It's also hard to take you seriously with that Buffy sig.

Edited by Windies, 23 March 2013 - 09:46 AM.

[tuokaerf]

Can someone post a link or offer any details on IGP using that $5mil somewhere else? I'm not trying to be a ****, I just take Internet claims with skepticism, especially around here.

$5mil is chump change for a software company of around 100 people. That won't float the bills for more than a few quarters.