211 replies to this topic

[PANZERBUNNY]

Jade Kitsune, on 25 March 2013 - 10:20 AM, said:

And to be fair, you have some interesting ideas... most are BAD, but they're atleast interesting.

The infantry idea I totally agree with, it gives us a way to have infantry in the game, gives machine guns a use [killing infantry] AND makes the game more interesting over all.

I'm also down with Aero fighters and Heli's being called in, which gives Anti Air mechs something to do other than stand there and look pretty, and gives additional use to the AC2's.

Everything but the Infantry are made in jest.

Sort of like " wouldn't it be great if mechs have an item that can drastically reduce their heat in a tense brawl so they can get that extra edge to WIN!"

/yawn.

Fire whoever pushed that idea through our screens.

Edited by PANZERBUNNY, 25 March 2013 - 10:30 AM.

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

PANZERBUNNY, on 25 March 2013 - 10:29 AM, said:

Everything but the Infantry are made in jest.

Pretty much figured... regardless in a way, it's better than the idea's PGI's coming up with to cater to the non-existant userbase.

I just, I don't get what went wrong? Is it a simple matter of their original ideas were too hard to do for the team they have? Did they just decide to switch their focus?

What caused the change between last year and this year? where did things go so wrong with this property?

I mean, this is shaping up worse than Aliens:Colonial Marines at this point.

[PANZERBUNNY]

Don't tell me Aliens VS Marines is a pile....I've yet to check that out.

You'd think it would be all hands on deck for Clans and CW, not the efforts we've seen that have polarized people who are paying attention.

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

PANZERBUNNY, on 25 March 2013 - 10:37 AM, said:

Don't tell me Aliens VS Marines is a pile....I've yet to check that out.

You'd think it would be all hands on deck for Clans and CW, not the efforts we've seen that have polarized people who are paying attention.

you mean... you missed the crapstorm over that?

Yeah Gearbox basically took 60million from Sega, intended for A:CM... made Borderlands 2, sent A:CM off to "Timegate Studios" to work on, they apparently did a crap job, Gearbox got it back 9 months before shipping, went "This is crap." and "tried" to make it better... before shoving it out the door as pretty much a mess.

of course, that's if you listen to the media sources and apparently "leaked" information.

Also, as a long time alien's fan, the game can be enjoyable, but it's a pretty generic corrodor shooter, the multipalyer's fun, and the DLC "Bug Hunt" which is basically what CoD does with **** Zombies just with Xenomorphs and Weyland Yutani PMC's as your enemy's. [with a very well done rendition of the Hadley's Hope colony as one of the level's you can play on. it's quite a bit of fun really.] controls are at least tighter than AVP 2010 and none of that crap auto lock on meele that 2010 had.

Hmm, kinda similar to how we had 5million taken from founders and put torwards a DOTA clone and Mechwarrior:Tactics.

[MacKoga]

Something I've noticed in games is that I still run into founders accounts pretty much every match. Given that some founders have alternate accounts, this suggests to me that the core userbase has not actually expanded a whole lot. This also suggests that this is a game in which people are inclined to stick with and support, so long as it is sufficiently good.

But over the past months, there have been a number of things that seem to be alienating to some of the core userbase, which, while many of us stick around, keeps us from continuing to spend money while we're waiting to see if the direction of game development is something we're interested in. Further, whether we can, are able, or are interested in bringing in our friends, also depends on where the game is headed. I, for one, have not seen point to bring in friends, until we hit community warfare.


The point of what I'm showing, is that PGI's been trying to reach out to this nebulus "gamer market," with the goal of increasing profitability, but from what I can piece together about their actual market, is that they would be in a better position for profitability by keeping the quality of the game high, not diluting it with things that feel P2W, casual, etc, and regain the trust of its core market. Then live and thrive on a strong, paying market/playerbase.


Most things that try to cover the most broadest market lose the ability to really appeal to any one group. I.e, "blah."


PGI, I recommend reading Seth Godin's "Purple Cow." It's about businesses and entrepreneurs in your position and how to be profitable and survive, and is a quick, easy read.

[PANZERBUNNY]

Well we really can't blame anyone but ourselves.

The concept of making complete games for market without relying on people buynig it, patching it later, fixing it over two years or however long something takes to make it "playable".

Impatient docile consumers have essentually ruined their own entertainment by buying whatever is shoved at them.

There are some exceptions to well rounded games that aren't crutching on the teet of their money marshmallow bag customers.

It's a sad state of affairs.

MacKoga, on 25 March 2013 - 10:48 AM, said:

Something I've noticed in games is that I still run into founders accounts pretty much every match. Given that some founders have alternate accounts, this suggests to me that the core userbase has not actually expanded a whole lot. This also suggests that this is a game in which people are inclined to stick with and support, so long as it is sufficiently good.

But over the past months, there have been a number of things that seem to be alienating to some of the core userbase, which, while many of us stick around, keeps us from continuing to spend money while we're waiting to see if the direction of game development is something we're interested in. Further, whether we can, are able, or are interested in bringing in our friends, also depends on where the game is headed. I, for one, have not seen point to bring in friends, until we hit community warfare.


The point of what I'm showing, is that PGI's been trying to reach out to this nebulus "gamer market," with the goal of increasing profitability, but from what I can piece together about their actual market, is that they would be in a better position for profitability by keeping the quality of the game high, not diluting it with things that feel P2W, casual, etc, and regain the trust of its core market. Then live and thrive on a strong, paying market/playerbase.


Most things that try to cover the most broadest market lose the ability to really appeal to any one group. I.e, "blah."


PGI, I recommend reading Seth Godin's "Purple Cow." It's about businesses and entrepreneurs in your position and how to be profitable and survive, and is a quick, easy read.

Darkfall survived for many years with their product, catering to a niche market and they are now or have released Darkfall 2.0.

Not sure if Darkfall is a smaller product than MWO in terms of staff and what they have to pay out, but it is most certainly a more adventurous game with a more adventurous vision.

Edited by PANZERBUNNY, 25 March 2013 - 10:52 AM.

[Mercules]

I think modern marketing really misses the point of the old adage, "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush." Especially when dealing with ongoing subscriptions or micro-transactions being their only means of making money.

[PANZERBUNNY]

Perhaps they should cave and link up with Sci-Fi networks or movies that would appeal to the customers for this game on their website.

It's an alternate source of income.

Is that "selling out"? Would it diminish their brand in the eyes of players?

Personally I wouldn't care if it kept them from hatching schemes to draw certain groups over, imitating features of other games.

Edited by PANZERBUNNY, 25 March 2013 - 11:00 AM.

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

PANZERBUNNY, on 25 March 2013 - 10:59 AM, said:

Perhaps they should cave and link up with Sci-Fi networks or movies that would appeal to the customers for this game on their website.

It's an alternate source of income.

Is that "selling out"? Would it diminish their brand in the eyes of players?

Personally I wouldn't care if it kept them from hatching schemes to draw certain groups over, imitating features of other games.

Well, there's already supposed to be a Mechwarrior/battletech movie in the works [granted this has been in devlopment hell for years]

[MacKoga]

As an aside, I find it a little offensive and also not so insightful, that PGI thinks its market is something along the lines of "All guys who play any sort of game, but no girls allowed!"

I know that's not what they said, but when their specifications are pretty much just gender, it does feel that way.

[MaddMaxx]

Windies, on 21 March 2013 - 07:11 PM, said:

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.

Then why don't you tell us what that Demographic actually is? Let me guess. You would say breathing Males... and breathing Females.

[MaddMaxx]

Jade Kitsune, on 21 March 2013 - 07:12 PM, said:

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.

Actually, those at that age with jobs, also have heavy expenses. Those who live at home 15-25 crowd, and don't have a job, well school is like a job, do not have said expenses but do have access to Mom and Dad's monies, or generate their income (summer/odd jobs) off the "books" and it is all liquid cash.

If a kid has a PC and an Internet connection, then he has access to Mom and Dad's wallet as well.

Now the 40 + crowd. We got monies, we got good jobs and we got FREE time. Aka "The Old Farts."

Edited by MaddMaxx, 25 March 2013 - 11:31 AM.