227 replies to this topic

[Roadbeer]

Bhael Fire, on 12 March 2014 - 11:31 AM, said:

What I am saying is that they cannot completely sustain a game. In order for a game to stay afloat, they must have the support of the masses. In order to do that, the game can not shut out those masses by catering only to a smaller portion of the community.

That's backward thinking, grasping the low-hanging fruit, and apparently what PGI is mired in.

If you provide the 'end-game' content and bonuses to members of communities and encourage joining/playing in those communities, you retain PAYING customers and have them on the hook for the long haul.

Catering to the solo player in the hopes that they'll spend $10 here and there before they move on to the next FOTM game is a good way to run out of money, as you've cycled through your likely playerbase pretty quickly. It's player retention, not total players that keeps the lights on, and as has been shown with every multi-player game since...ever... that it's the communities who keep the game alive.

[Bhael Fire]

Roadbeer, on 12 March 2014 - 11:40 AM, said:

It's player retention, not total players that keeps the lights on

I fixed this sentence.

You absolutely must have the support of the masses....and keep their support, in order to stay in business. Ideally, you want to make a game that makes players, of all shapes and sizes, want to keep coming back to play your game. You can't do that if you make the game unfriendly toward all but the most diehard of fans.

The end goal is to create more diehard fans...not just play tiddlywinks with the existing fans.

It's very important to not think of all solo players as "fly-by" customers...they have the potential to be much more, but only if your game is worth it.

Mind you, this is coming from a solo player that's been here since CB and has spent an inordinate amount of money on this game.

[Sandpit]

Bhael Fire, on 12 March 2014 - 11:31 AM, said:

What I am saying is that they cannot completely sustain a game. In order for a game to stay afloat, they must have the support of the masses. In order to do that, the game can not shut out those masses by catering only to a smaller portion of the community.

I dont' see anyone here who is suggesting anythign even remotely like that. What PGI is doing is the exact opposite. They're completely shutting out those in communities. Solo players are always a welcome and needed portion of the game population. They won't support the game by themselves any more than a group oriented player will. It's a symbiotic relationship

Most will acknowledge that community members as Davers described tend to spend more money supporting the game monetarily in a higher and steadier form than casual players. That means your bigger and more constant rates of money coming in come from that section of the population.

Most will acknowledge that casual players won't support the game monetarily as much as the community section BUT they're just as valuable because they are the ones who fill up the population allowing for shorter queue times, easier time for MM to find balanced games, etc.

A game isn't going to flourish by alienating EITHER of those groups. What we have now is a complete alienation of groups.

[Davers]

Bhael Fire, on 12 March 2014 - 12:11 PM, said:

I fixed this sentence.

You absolutely must have the support of the masses....and keep their support, in order to stay in business. Ideally, you want to make a game that makes players, of all shapes and sizes, want to keep coming back to play your game. You can't do that if you make the game unfriendly toward all but the most diehard of fans.

The end goal is to create more diehard fans...not just play tiddlywinks with the existing fans.

It's very important to not think of all solo players as "fly-by" customers...they have the potential to be much more, but only if your game is worth it.

Mind you, this is coming from a solo player that's been here since CB and has spent an inordinate amount of money on this game.

All true.

Look at EVE- 1/14 the population of WoW, but still a commercial success in what many would call a niche game. MW:O could do it too. But we need CW ASAP, not just for the vets, but to keep the F2P players interested enough to buy more mechbays at least.

[Sandpit]

Bhael Fire, on 12 March 2014 - 12:11 PM, said:

It's very important to not think of all solo players as "fly-by" customers...they have the potential to be much more, but only if your game is worth it.
game.

yes and no

A game can do very well even with a high turn over rate as long as the new and casual players come in at a steady rate. It doesn't matter how long they stay. A week, a month, a year. As long as a steady influx comes in the game will do well.

Not the OPTIMUM thing is to retain all of those players.

Even if you don't though, as those players come and go, your groups that have built websites, set up TS servers, etc. stay regardless of those numbers. As they stay they spend money on a regular basis. They're more invested in their communities so they have more reason to stick around long-term. It's a combination of social acceptance and peer pressure. If I join a unit and lets say I make 10 good online buddies I enjoy playing with. Over the course of 6 months we get into our "routine" of when and how we drop together.

When something else that comes along that I also enjoy, I still have that drive to drop in this game not because of the game itself, but because I enjoy the community I've joined.

it's just like going to the gym. having a gym partner means I've made a commitment to someone else to attend the gym at certain times. I'm more apt to not talk myself out of going if I have someone depending on me being there as well.

A good example

Star Citizen. Just about every unit I know of has players that will be playing that game as well. If this game doesn't let me play with those friends I've made, why would I keep supporting it by dropping money on it (note I didn't say quit playing it entirely) when I can put the resources I have built for this game (websites, ts servers, etc.) into SC and take that community I've joined and just move it to a game that's much friendlier in terms of allowing us to play together?

[Roland]

Bhael Fire, on 12 March 2014 - 12:11 PM, said:

It's very important to not think of all solo players as "fly-by" customers...they have the potential to be much more, but only if your game is worth it.

Generally, what makes solo players more than fly-by customers is the existence of organized teams that they can join and play with.

That's what got me really into mechwarrior... I encountered a unit of players on their server, and joined up with them.

[Bhael Fire]

Roland, on 12 March 2014 - 12:21 PM, said:

Generally, what makes solo players more than fly-by customers is the existence of organized teams that they can join and play with.

I don't agree with that. As I pointed out, I spend a considerable amount of money and time on this game and I have no interest in joining an organized team.

There's a lot of dedicated solo players that feel the same way. They have no interest in the social aspect of the game or being obligated to spend time with organized teams; they just want a little escapism and to blow stuff up in a virtual capacity on their own time.

Those players, like myself, can (and often do) spend a lot of money because they enjoy the game for different reasons than the more "social" players.

[Roadbeer]

Bhael Fire, on 12 March 2014 - 12:34 PM, said:

I don't agree with that. As I pointed out, I spend a considerable amount of money and time on this game and I have no interest in joining an organized team.

There's a lot of dedicated solo players that feel the same way. They have no interest in the social aspect of the game or being obligated to spend time with organized teams; they just want a little escapism and to blow stuff up in a virtual capacity on their own time.

Those players, like myself, can (and often do) spend a lot of money because they enjoy the game for different reasons than the more "social" players.

I don't want to say that makes you an anomaly, but it certainly puts you into a minority.

Look at the respondents on this page, 4 of them were Founders/Phoenix buy-ins, and all are part of a community of some sorts. I also know for a fact that the other two Purple Birds have a fair number of mechbays, paint jobs, heros, etc. I think it's safe to say that Roland does too. One has to ask if even if they were still playing, if they'd own half of that if they weren't invested in a community.
I can only speak for myself when I say, that if I wasn't part of a community I enjoyed, I'd probably have left the game LONG ago, after having purchased about 1/4 of what I have to date.

So, it comes down to anecdotal evidence from both of us, but my experience from 20+ years of MMOs,says that i stay longer and spend more money when I'm part of a group than not.

Edited by Roadbeer, 12 March 2014 - 12:42 PM.

[Bhael Fire]

Roadbeer, on 12 March 2014 - 12:42 PM, said:

I don't want to say that makes you an anomaly, but it certainly puts you into a minority.

Perhaps. I just don't feel the need to join organized guilds or teams in order to have fun in a game.

I mean, I'll play with friends once and a while, but for the most part I truly enjoy playing solo. It's far more flexible with my lifestyle.

[Davers]

Bhael Fire, on 12 March 2014 - 01:07 PM, said:

Perhaps. I just don't feel the need to join organized guilds or teams in order to have fun in a game.

I mean, I'll play with friends once and a while, but for the most part I truly enjoy playing solo. It's far more flexible with my lifestyle.

You must like the social aspect a little bit. You are on the forums talking to people about the game after all.

[Roland]

Don't get me wrong, there's certainly no reason to drive AWAY folks who want to play alone.

But I think that in general, communities for most of these games are built up by folks who play them in a more social manner.

Ultimately, the game should cater to both audiences, and not squash either of them.

[Daekar]

I bought a second level Founder's package, several MC packs, and I have preordered an a la carte Stormcrow. I have no desire to join a unit and drops using team speak are a VERY tiny minority of my games. I play nothing heavier than an Orion.

If I'm a minority, that's fine, but I'm a minority worth catering to since I've spent more on this game than any other I've ever played. People play for different reasons, and playing in a group doesn't make you special or somehow make you deserving of higher priority.

[Sandpit]

Bhael Fire, on 12 March 2014 - 01:07 PM, said:

Perhaps. I just don't feel the need to join organized guilds or teams in order to have fun in a game.

I mean, I'll play with friends once and a while, but for the most part I truly enjoy playing solo. It's far more flexible with my lifestyle.

No one is saying players like you dont' exist, just that they aren't a big part of the population generally speaking. As Road pointed out it's anecdotal but some of us are talking from decades of experiences with MMOs, computer gaming, communities, etc. We're not just throwing this kind of information out as part of some ulterior motive, we're doing it because we enjoy the game, we enjoy the communities we've helped build and support, we don't want to see them go away.

If groups don't get some love they WILL go away. If PGI continues with what they're planning then group play and communities will continue to leave. This game cannot survive solely on solo and causal type players any more than it can survive solely on groups. (Although I would say monetarily it would survive better solely on groups but then the population wouldn't be large enough to support easily found and competitive games so we're back to the symbiotic relationship I discussed earlier)

Daekar, on 12 March 2014 - 01:22 PM, said:

People play for different reasons, and playing in a group doesn't make you special or somehow make you deserving of higher priority.

Ok so show me an example of where anyone has suggested that. Wanting to participate in CW, group with others, and earn rewards now translates to "higher priority"?

[Roadbeer]

Daekar, on 12 March 2014 - 01:22 PM, said:

I bought a second level Founder's package, several MC packs, and I have preordered an a la carte Stormcrow. I have no desire to join a unit and drops using team speak are a VERY tiny minority of my games. I play nothing heavier than an Orion.

If I'm a minority, that's fine, but I'm a minority worth catering to since I've spent more on this game than any other I've ever played. People play for different reasons, and playing in a group doesn't make you special or somehow make you deserving of higher priority.

Neither does playing solo.
But all I see is "Don't allow groups (this) because of (this)"
It get's back to the Boogeyman aspect of this thread, where one type of player is being catered to at the exception of the other, because the 'fear' of what 'group' MAY do, it's actually a prejudice against organized play.

4 player cap was pandering to the soloists then they act surprised that most of their population is solo.

The point I'm making is that, historically, it has been empirically proven that those invested in communities spend more money, these communities want to be able to play together, but the fear of the Evil Premade Boogeyman perpetually trumps and preemptively strikes down anything that's put on the table for us,

and all in the interest in gaining the quick dollar than gaining the extended dollars

[Bhael Fire]

Sandpit, on 12 March 2014 - 01:28 PM, said:

If groups don't get some love they WILL go away. If PGI continues with what they're planning then group play and communities will continue to leave.

I've already agreed with you on this. I'm in no way saying groups should take the back seat. I'm just saying that they should not be in the driver's seat.

I'm all for 2-12 player groups...as long as there's a solo only queue as well.

[Roadbeer]

Bhael Fire, on 12 March 2014 - 01:39 PM, said:

I've already agreed with you on this. I'm in no way saying groups should take the back seat. I'm just saying that they should not be in the driver's seat.

I'm all for 2-12 player groups...as long as there's a solo only queue as well.

Ummm...



So, the only way that the Evil Premade Boogeyman will be able to group above 4 is in private matches, but you don't believe that we should receive any rewards because it might be exploited.

So, we can play together with friends and in our communities, we just shouldn't be rewarded for it, but the soloists get to reap all the rewards?

[Bhael Fire]

Roadbeer, on 12 March 2014 - 01:45 PM, said:

So, we can play together with friends and in our communities, we just shouldn't be rewarded for it, but the soloists get to reap all the rewards?

I just got done saying I support 2-12 player groups. That is, 2-12 player groups in PUBLIC matches.

That tweet was with regard to PRIVATE matches.

[Roadbeer]

Bhael Fire, on 12 March 2014 - 01:54 PM, said:

I just got done saying I support 2-12 player groups. That is, 2-12 player groups in PUBLIC matches.

That tweet was with regard to PRIVATE matches.

Private matches are the only option given to us if we happen to want to play with 4,5,6,7,8,9 or 10 more friends.
So you're saying that I should have to choose between playing with less than 4 of my friends in order to receive rewards or play with more for no benefit at all?

Edited by Roadbeer, 12 March 2014 - 01:56 PM.

[Bhael Fire]

Roadbeer, on 12 March 2014 - 01:56 PM, said:

Private matches are the only option given to us if we happen to want to play with 4,5,6,7,8,9 or 10 more friends.
So you're saying that I should have to choose between playing with less than 4 of my friends in order to receive rewards or play with more for no benefit at all?

That's why I support 2-12 player groups; I WANT them to ditch this 4-player maximum silliness and allow groups to play with any number of player that they want in public matches.

Jeez...I didn't think I was being cryptic about that. Thought I was pretty straight forward in my proposal.

Edited by Bhael Fire, 12 March 2014 - 01:59 PM.

[Roadbeer]

Bhael Fire, on 12 March 2014 - 01:58 PM, said:

That's why I support 2-12 player groups; I WANT them to ditch this 4-player maximum silliness and allow groups to play with any number of player that they want in public matches.

Jeez...I didn't think I was being cryptic about that. Thought I was pretty straight forward in my proposal.

But that option isn't on the table, so instead, you advise the president of the company to contemplate not allowing rewards for the only option given to large groups because it might be exploitable.