41 replies to this topic

[Ted Wayz]

Void Angel, on 25 February 2016 - 10:22 PM, said:

Resources are not always fungible, nor negotiable in the short term. Similarly, returns from the investment of resources do not always scale linearly, and the same amount of money spent for one product may not yield an equal amount of utility if spent on an alternative.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing - and you have a little knowledge.

Wow. Nice terms.

Fungible- able to replace or be replaced by another identical item; mutually interchangeable.

So it is ironic that, by trying to throw out terms from freshman economics, you are making my point.

I am well beyond freshman economics.

But by all means please try and insult my credentials which you have no knowledge of. I am very secure in my knowledge.

[Ted Wayz]

Revis Volek, on 25 February 2016 - 10:42 PM, said:

Actually i run my own Laser Engraving Shop. Have for 12 years now...id say that's pretty much as close as it gets to RUNNING a BUSINESS.

Again, Cash flow options exist mostly from your bank. This is not something new to Business' that you just thought of and any good Business has a CFO to some extent, if he/she cant keep your whole staff at work during your whole work week then things more then likely aren't going as planned.

Yes, I hire laser engraving business' all time. But I am also in constant negotiations with Tier one suppliers of electronics and mechanical parts. In case people do not understand Tier one it means I am in constant negotiation with billion dollar companies.

Cash flow options exist from your bank? Now that is small time. I have managed venture funded, self funded/private equity, and publicly traded companies. If you are relying on a bank then thank you for being one of the million small business owners as they are the backbone of our country. But please do not project your experience to the big leagues.

And I am talking about the decisions you make to employ resources. You are making sound like the decision is made and you are stuck with what you got. Some smarty pants was stating "resources in many cases not being negotiable in the short term". I guess they have never heard of temps and contractors that allow your business to remain flexible in the short term. It is a necessity to maintain a flexible labor force to react to changing demand. Yes you keep your core intact but flexibility is key. Especially when you are trying to maintain production in a high price labor region. Yes, we employ thousands and do manufacturing in America instead of outsourcing to LCR's. Imagine the challenges that poses.

Anyway this is exhausting. Think what you want.

Edited by Ted Wayz, 25 February 2016 - 11:06 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

FupDup, on 23 February 2016 - 05:29 PM, said:

Or they can commission some forumwarriors (e.g. McGral) for free to do a few things for them...

Only if he creates a more robust system than simply eyeballing it with lucky guesses.

[FupDup]

Yeonne Greene, on 26 February 2016 - 08:50 AM, said:

Only if he creates a more robust system than simply eyeballing it with lucky guesses.

Well, it can't be any worse than The Man Who Shall Not Be Named, can it?

[MrJeffers]

Ted Wayz, on 25 February 2016 - 10:15 PM, said:

So while it easy to see that a $100k tournament will directly impact development it is harder to people to realize that giving resources to make new colors may prevent you from funding mech re-scaling or CW development.

Finite resources.

It's only looks simple to see for those with a simple binary mind. The 100K tournament is going to have zero tangible impact on game development in the short term. Those funds, much of which are going to be from sponsors and from in-game items/currencies (mechs, MC, cockpit items, etc) are not drawing anything away from other tasks. You are, falsely, assuming this all to be the case. And you are wrong.

Your entire premise of opportunity costs is overlooking one fact - the costs are in lieu of what something else would offer. So your entire initial post is wrong, the existing people costs are sunk costs, not opportunity. You are falsely assuming that PGI is putting up 100K in cash dollars to offer a tournament in lieu of hiring another developer for 6-10 months. And both of those assumptions are 100% wrong.

Edited by MrJeffers, 26 February 2016 - 09:43 AM.

[LordNothing]

i cant imagine adding new colors being harder than punching in new 6 digit hex codes. for some of the premium colors thats almost a buck per keystroke!

[GRiPSViGiL]

I am not sure why more people are not disgusted with how development and direction of the game has gone.

We get redundant mechs because they have a surplus of redundant artists making them in lieu of people who develop the actual game. When the difference is almost 4 to 1 in favor of artist's something is wrong and should not be funded anymore from the player base. At least have as many people on code as you do art assets FFS.

[LordNothing]

i kind of have a hunch that all this game's talent is coming from the art department. meanwhile the programming department looks like that storage area they keep milton and his red stapler.

[Y E O N N E]

FupDup, on 26 February 2016 - 09:26 AM, said:

Well, it can't be any worse than The Man Who Shall Not Be Named, can it?

It can be. At least with Darboard Balance, there's always some excitement. It is entirely possible that McGral's balance solutions could be mechanically sound but also intrinsically boring...which, looking at his numbers, does seem to be the case because the balance is achieved mostly by having the equipment be as similar as possible rather than by making equitable trade-offs to give them dominant niches.

[FupDup]

Yeonne Greene, on 26 February 2016 - 11:13 AM, said:

It can be. At least with Darboard Balance, there's always some excitement. It is entirely possible that McGral's balance solutions could be mechanically sound but also intrinsically boring...which, looking at his numbers, does seem to be the case because the balance is achieved mostly by having the equipment be as similar as possible rather than by making equitable trade-offs to give them dominant niches.

Mind you, I don't 100% agree with his ideas. For example, I wouldn't be as extreme for buffing ERPPCs (lol over 2000 m/s velocity).

Even with things like that, though, he would still probably beat Paul...But then again, who wouldn't?

[Void Angel]

Ted Wayz, on 25 February 2016 - 10:42 PM, said:

Wow. Nice terms.

Fungible- able to replace or be replaced by another identical item; mutually interchangeable.

So it is ironic that, by trying to throw out terms from freshman economics, you are making my point.

I am well beyond freshman economics.

But by all means please try and insult my credentials which you have no knowledge of. I am very secure in my knowledge.

Some kinds always are - but while you're correct that internet claims to credentials cannot be verified, you've completely misunderstood the implications of that fact. See, it applies to your assertion that you're "well beyond freshman economics," and "very secure" in your knowledge, etc. - I can and will safely ignore those claims as the meaningless posturing they are - but not to my assessment of your initial post. My assessment of your knowledge was based on your incorrect argument, and not an attack on your "credentials." For myself, I am well beyond the amateur-hour sophistry you're attempting here - which is incidentally about on par with your economic reasoning.

Either you're this grandiose financier that you claim to be, or you're not - it really doesn't matter. What matters is whether or not your ideas hold up, and I have some bad news for you. Your initial post contains multiple logical and economic errors, including a straw man fallacy to start your first paragraph. Given that PGI has resources (meaning people,) that do non-fungible things, it's not really an optional expense to pay them! These are not temps that you call in when you want them - they're skilled workers with rents and mortgages and bills to pay on a regular basis, and they need a regular job. But you don't care about that: people are like 'mech components, and the c-bills spent on a PPC can't be used to buy Heat Sinks, after all - you must be correct!

Don't worry about the possibility that simply adding more people to a task may produce diminishing returns; if two programmers is workable, two hundred must be better! Assume that all of the money for the tournament you're really complaining about comes out of the same big money pile, and that there are no sponsors or investments involved; assume that the visibility and interest generated by the tournament cannot possibly be worth the investment long-term! Forget all those niggling little details, like the opportunity cost of not having an art department because you treated them all like temp labor; don't worry about the possibility that, just maybe, different skillsets may command different salaries; or that the return for money invested in one area may not be the same as others - just misapply one simple (freshman) principle, and call it good. After all, you gave a definition - this establishes your position as the expert, so no one can question you!

If all it takes to correct your self-absorbed critique is "freshman" economics, your self-satisfied confidence in your opinion is merely the arrogance of the ignorant.

Edited by Void Angel, 26 February 2016 - 11:22 AM.

[Y E O N N E]

FupDup, on 26 February 2016 - 11:19 AM, said:

Mind you, I don't 100% agree with his ideas. For example, I wouldn't be as extreme for buffing ERPPCs (lol over 2000 m/s velocity).

Even with things like that, though, he would still probably beat Paul...But then again, who wouldn't?

Well, the velocity is no big deal as long as the cool-down is sufficiently low.

On that note, though, too low and the weapon becomes useless on its own. I sincerely believe that there is a fundamental mechanics problem with this game, and I strongly suspect it is linked to the ability of electrically-intensive weapons (Gauss, PPC, Laser) to recharge at the same rate regardless of the number of them that are currently drawing on the power supply.

[Saint Scarlett Johan]

The Atlas Overlord, on 25 February 2016 - 03:05 PM, said:

The last time Russ mentioned their actual staff..

It was 20+ doing artwork
6 making and running the actual game.

Their priorities are pretty clear.

Bare minimum required to keep game running...
Maximum effort into pumping out mechs.

Russ and Crew don't understand tangible vs intangible value. They're likely only looking at the tangible value being added by selling artwork and not the intangible value of creating maps, balancing the game, and improving the game modes.

They have it bass-ackwards. They have the mechs as the core content of the game instead of having core content with mechs being the process by which we interact with the core content

[MrJeffers]

Saint Scarlett Johan, on 26 February 2016 - 12:01 PM, said:

Russ and Crew don't understand tangible vs intangible value. They're likely only looking at the tangible value being added by selling artwork and not the intangible value of creating maps, balancing the game, and improving the game modes.

They have it bass-ackwards. They have the mechs as the core content of the game instead of having core content with mechs being the process by which we interact with the core content

Except they don't charge for maps, game modes, base gameplay, etc. So that can't be the core content that is sold in a F2P model. Retail games sure, but for F2P the core content needs to be salable items. Good game play should drive more sales, and from all appearances PGI seems to be maintaining profitability.

The question of how much balance is necessary for rev gen vs how much can be devoted to core mechanics is something that only PGI can answer. But if they flipped it around I'm pretty certain there wouldn't have been enough salable content produced to carry the game this long.

Edited by MrJeffers, 26 February 2016 - 12:27 PM.

[Saint Scarlett Johan]

MrJeffers, on 26 February 2016 - 12:27 PM, said:

Except they don't charge for maps, game modes, base gameplay, etc. So that can't be the core content that is sold in a F2P model. Retail games sure, but for F2P the core content needs to be salable items. Good game play should drive more sales, and from all appearances PGI seems to be maintaining profitability.

The question of how much balance is necessary for rev gen vs how much can be devoted to core mechanics is something that only PGI can answer. But if they flipped it around I'm pretty certain there wouldn't have been enough salable content produced to carry the game this long.

But the explanation for games with solid core content first debunks that. Look at WoT and AW, both are F2P with solid core content and don't rely on a whole slew of new mech packs on a monthly basis to generate revenue.

Warfarm hit that point PGI has been stuck in. But once the devs realized their game became Pokémon they slowed down on making warframes and revamped the mission system and other core entirely and their numbers drastically improved.

They realized they saturated the market and saw they needed to do something. That something was make the core game better, not make more art assets to sell.

PGI hasn't realized that yet. And if they rely on mech pack to mech pack sales to stay open then they ****** up and the product is only sustainable as long as they can crank out mechs.

[MrJeffers]

Saint Scarlett Johan, on 26 February 2016 - 12:44 PM, said:

But the explanation for games with solid core content first debunks that. Look at WoT and AW, both are F2P with solid core content and don't rely on a whole slew of new mech packs on a monthly basis to generate revenue.

Warfarm hit that point PGI has been stuck in. But once the devs realized their game became Pokémon they slowed down on making warframes and revamped the mission system and other core entirely and their numbers drastically improved.

They realized they saturated the market and saw they needed to do something. That something was make the core game better, not make more art assets to sell.

PGI hasn't realized that yet. And if they rely on mech pack to mech pack sales to stay open then they ****** up and the product is only sustainable as long as they can crank out mechs.

I can't comment on AW or Warframe, but WoT absolutely drives tank sales and who knows what percentage of their revenue is PW2 ammo. A qucik look at AW shows booster packs (premium time mainly), WarFrame is "primeAccess", and WoT posts for everyone to see:
https://na.wargaming.../shop/wot/main/
https://na.wargaming...p/wot/vehicles/

And world of warships is currently cranking out about a ship a month similar to MWO.

So really it looks like a breakdown of subscriptions vs purchased content as primary income. Not saying either is better than the other, but given the general disdain for Premium time in MWO it doesn't seem like the subscription type model would work here.

[Torgun]

MrJeffers, on 26 February 2016 - 09:41 AM, said:

The 100K tournament is going to have zero tangible impact on game development in the short term. Those funds, much of which are going to be from sponsors and from in-game items/currencies (mechs, MC, cockpit items, etc) are not drawing anything away from other tasks.

I'm sorry but that is some major wishful thinking. Please tell me which company would sponsor 100K prize money for such a little known game as MWO? You seriously think someone like madcatz would pony up 100K for being seen as a sponsor of an MWO tournament? Not a chance, I'd be surprised if they'd even give 1K for that. It's pretty much going directly out of PGI's funds, and yes that means 100K lost for actually developing the game. Well to be fair at least 80K of that would be for developing new mechs, but you get my point.

Edited by Torgun, 26 February 2016 - 01:01 PM.

[MrJeffers]

Torgun, on 26 February 2016 - 01:00 PM, said:

I'm sorry but that is some major wishful thinking. Please tell me which company would sponsor 100K prize money for such a little known game as MWO? You seriously think someone like madcatz would pony up 100K for being seen as a sponsor of an MWO tournament? Not a chance, I'd be surprised if they'd even give 1K for that. It's pretty much going directly out of PGI's funds, and yes that means 100K lost for actually developing the game. Well to be fair at least 80K of that would be for developing new mechs, but you get my point.

It's not wishful thinking and you need re-read what I said:

Quote

much of which are going to be from sponsors and from in-game items/currencies (mechs, MC, cockpit items, etc)

They got sponsors for their Steam launch party, to the tune of at least a few thousand dollars worth of merchandise. A big tournament should draw in at lest that, if not more.
And if they give away ~20 million in MC or equivalent prizes that's a 100K tournament without spending a cent on prizes.

Note that I didn't say that it was all coming from these sources, I said much. But lets say half. That leaves 50K. Show me where in PGI's books that amount is coming out of salaries and not out of marketing/advertising budgets or some other general pool.

You'd have to be a financial idiot to think that A) This is a 100% cash prize tournament, and/or that B ) The funds for the event are being siphoned away from salary.

Edited by MrJeffers, 26 February 2016 - 01:18 PM.

[Torgun]

MrJeffers, on 26 February 2016 - 01:16 PM, said:

It's not wishful thinking and you need re-read what I said:


They got sponsors for their Steam launch party, to the tune of at least a few thousand dollars worth of merchandise. A big tournament should draw in at lest that, if not more.
And if they give away ~20 million in MC or equivalent prizes that's a 100K tournament without spending a cent on prizes.

Note that I didn't say that it was all coming from these sources, I said much. But lets say half. That leaves 50K. Show me where in PGI's books that amount is coming out of salaries and not out of marketing/advertising budgets or some other general pool.

You'd have to be a financial idiot to think that A) This is a 100% cash prize tournament, and/or that B ) The funds for the event are being siphoned away from salary.

Even if it's just 50K, which I very highly doubt, it's going out of PGI's funds one way or the other. Whether it's loss of revenue from these prize winners as they won't need to buy a lot of the things in the future, which people that invested into a game will do, or partly as a cash prize which is very likely to amass enough interest from the players to join the tournament. Money lost is still money lost, no matter where in the end that loss will end up within the company.

[MrJeffers]

Torgun, on 26 February 2016 - 01:26 PM, said:

Even if it's just 50K, which I very highly doubt, it's going out of PGI's funds one way or the other. Whether it's loss of revenue from these prize winners as they won't need to buy a lot of the things in the future, which people that invested into a game will do, or partly as a cash prize which is very likely to amass enough interest from the players to join the tournament. Money lost is still money lost, no matter where in the end that loss will end up within the company.

I doubt it's 50K either, I think its going to be much less. And in any case, this isn't having any effect on *development* which I said before, and now you have moved the goal posts to be 'lost future revenue'. And by that criteria they should stop having event weekends and giving away MC, cockpit items, mech bays, etc.