30 replies to this topic

[Celldoor]

Games are changing. Blizzard announced reluctantly that they have dropped below 10 million to 9.1 million and this with new expansion on the way.Of this 9.1 million, 6 million are pay by hour players primarily China. A game named Eligium had good possibilities but refused player input. Lasted 6 months before crash and burn. RIP Eligium. Blizzard subscriber base fell just prior to Cataclysm release and rebounded somewhat but many doubt such this round. Tera is now offering free week of play to hook new players. Now to our MWO, Pirahna listens to players, may not be apparent sometimes but they listen. Down to earth staff is going to make this game grow massively when released..

[Hezi Baer]

WoW has gone easier from day to day and they dont gave a **** for what player thought about that. Now they get the bill. But its not Armageddon, much of the people left WoW for D3, so the money stays at the company.
Besides,Everquest II that has gone f2p, SWToR goes f2p this fall.

Edited by Hezi Baer, 04 August 2012 - 03:00 PM.

[cinco]

Celldoor, on 04 August 2012 - 02:45 PM, said:

Games are changing. Blizzard announced reluctantly that they have dropped below 10 million to 9.1 million and this with new expansion on the way.Of this 9.1 million, 6 million are pay by hour players primarily China. A game named Eligium had good possibilities but refused player input. Lasted 6 months before crash and burn. RIP Eligium. Blizzard subscriber base fell just prior to Cataclysm release and rebounded somewhat but many doubt such this round. Tera is now offering free week of play to hook new players. Now to our MWO, Pirahna listens to players, may not be apparent sometimes but they listen. Down to earth staff is going to make this game grow massively when released..

there are just as many games that failed because they listened to the community as there are that failed because they didn't.

if you want it to come down to the proven money making formula, this game will have a longer life than eve or the call of duty series, but its quality level will plummet.

no, i prefer the devs trust their own vision and don't feel the need to appeal to the lowest common denominator.

[LogicalTightRope]

cinco, on 04 August 2012 - 03:09 PM, said:

there are just as many games that failed because they listened to the community as there are that failed because they didn't.

if you want it to come down to the proven money making formula, this game will have a longer life than eve or the call of duty series, but its quality level will plummet.

no, i prefer the devs trust their own vision and don't feel the need to appeal to the lowest common denominator.

Sure, it's true that user input can be just terrible, but having none is just as bad as listening to the bad ones. We need smart devs that listen to the players and see if what they suggest is plausible and positive. If it conflicts with the devs' vision, let 'em throw it out. A middleground is the answer, IMO.

Edited by LogicalTightRope, 04 August 2012 - 03:17 PM.

[Namwons]

so...are pandas part of the alliance or horde? lol Blizzard has ruined there franchises. i mean cmon, *** is a damn panda doing in azeroth.

ps. my highest WoW toon was a lvl 10 elf assassin...i effin hate questing.

[Celldoor]

i agree with all said, guess i left the middle ground part out, lol. as you read forums here you will see some rather good ideas for staff to ponder and some that will never be considered. Guess my main meaning is many companies either ignore or cater to crazy ideas submitted. Logic and common sense are the best routes and I believe after 4 years with a missed year in the middle will foster good decisions.

[JP Josh]

ya know i believe if the devs do this rite this game will easily be around when im 40 (im 20 now)

[Scrooge McDuck]

Namwons, on 04 August 2012 - 03:20 PM, said:

so...are pandas part of the alliance or horde?

Both

[GhostBexar]

cinco, on 04 August 2012 - 03:09 PM, said:

no, i prefer the devs trust their own vision and don't feel the need to appeal to the lowest common denominator.

Just my 2 cents...
May I point out that Jay Wilson and the Diablo 3 dev team are a great example of failing in their vision of what a game should be!
Another visionary epic fail would be the SWTOR dev team.

I am so very thankful that the devs of MWO are looking to be ontrack to awesomeness, and keeping true to the core and spirit of Battletech/Mechwarrior.

Keep it up

[VxSaAgE]

Celldoor, on 04 August 2012 - 02:45 PM, said:

Games are changing. Blizzard announced reluctantly that they have dropped below 10 million to 9.1 million and this with new expansion on the way.Of this 9.1 million, 6 million are pay by hour players primarily China. A game named Eligium had good possibilities but refused player input. Lasted 6 months before crash and burn. RIP Eligium. Blizzard subscriber base fell just prior to Cataclysm release and rebounded somewhat but many doubt such this round. Tera is now offering free week of play to hook new players. Now to our MWO, Pirahna listens to players, may not be apparent sometimes but they listen. Down to earth staff is going to make this game grow massively when released..

WoW died a long time ago, it's just that Blizzard is really good at dressing up a corpse.

F2P is the way to go, and since I've already put $120 into a F2P game, the concept is working.

[Wolf Dagaz]

Game balance is never an easy thing, no matter what kind of game you ared designing. I have never been much for PvP, so although I can have some fun in a game like EVE, ultimately it is not going to work for me. WoW has lots of options, but I found it boring after a while and sooner or later you are forced into group play. I am hoping that there will be a mix of PvE and PvP options, much like sen in Wow environment, but allowing for co-op PvE and enjoyable areas that allow lower level players an ability to control the difficulty of their opponents to some degree. I really liked the way City of Heroes allowed you to work your way into higher difficulty areas and that you could team up with a higher level player and their leadership had an impact on what level of PvE you could do battle with. It really encouraged random teaming for a night of gaming that benefit both people and could influence many factors in the experience a player encountered. I played that game for several years before moving on, but had maxed out a couple characters by the time I reached that point. I am hoping that I will get at least as much time and enjoyment out of this game.

[Morashtak]

Even terribly bad ideas can make a designer say "Huh? What is this poster thinking? Doesn't he know that we could counter that by doing... wait, doing just the opposite just might be the solution to this other problem we're having. Gotta run this by the team."

So bad ideas can be useful but it takes a lot of them for even one to be a diamond in the rough.

[Willpower]

Input from fan-bases like this forum is basically useless for developing the game. What it does is create a small, dedicated community who will help promote the game by word of mouth and promote success that way.

It's a warm-fuzzy.
Not that there is anything inherently wrong with warm fuzzies.

[XIRUSPHERE]

The face of consumption has driven much of this, and primarily because it has grown a lot uglier over the years. Not to sound like a fogey but I remember when a game was released when it was finished and pretty much was bug free. I remember a time when consumers did not expect a game to capitulate to every little whim or every idea some good most mediocre.

I remember a time when game makers weren't terrified of the media or having to cater to them and forcefully strategize while they are compiling code just to keep the game alive before the market aborts it. Like every game that looks promising I hope the devs can see their vision through before the community tears it apart and breaks it.

A final note on the face of gaming, I learned that games were entertainment when I was 7 years old playing my NES and loved a difficult game more than anything. Today all age ranges have a unique problem, they believe games are reality and can't seem to reach a disconnect between the two or think that they have really achieved something and take things very personally.

I miss the thick skin and quick wits of years gone past. Aside pro gamers making good wages from what they do the greatest gamer is just the guy in the asylum that thinks he runs the place.

[Xinaoen]

GhostBexar, on 04 August 2012 - 05:08 PM, said:

Just my 2 cents...
May I point out that Jay Wilson and the Diablo 3 dev team are a great example of failing in their vision of what a game should be!

See, I actually like Diablo 3.

I read an interview with Jay Wilson where he referenced the Henry Ford quote, If I'd asked customers what they wanted, they would have said "a faster horse." For me, that kind of hits the nail on the head. If Blizzard had responded to all of the feedback that they received, we would've gotten "Diablo 2 : HD Remix" instead of "Diablo 3."

Blizzard didn't get to where they are by throwing darts and getting lucky. I don't care what anyone tells you - they are very, very good at game design. They understand what makes a game work better than the gross majority of their community does, and it'd be disastrous if they rolled over every time a design choice provoked a negative reaction

I love a dev team that listens to community feedback. It's a great way to glean ideas that you might not have come up with on your own. On the other hand, I think that a developer needs to have the courage and integrity to stand to its guns when a design choice sparks controversy. I'd rather play a game created by a group of people with good enough design sensibilities to make it in the industry to begin with, than something designed-by-committee courtesy of the loudest voices on the Internet.

My two c-bills.

[Blue Footed Booby]

LogicalTightRope, on 04 August 2012 - 03:17 PM, said:

Sure, it's true that user input can be just terrible, but having none is just as bad as listening to the bad ones. We need smart devs that listen to the players and see if what they suggest is plausible and positive. If it conflicts with the devs' vision, let 'em throw it out. A middleground is the answer, IMO.

The way I see it is that everyone, no matter how dumb, sometimes has good ideas. However, everyone also sometimes has terrible ideas. If they can't tell good ideas from bad ones when they come from the community, how could they possible tell good from bad when you throw in the cognitive bias that comes with having come up with the idea in the first place? What I'm trying to say is that developers who don't understand how to pay attention to the community only when the community is be right has bigger problems than sucking at taking suggestions.

XIRUSPHERE, on 04 August 2012 - 06:00 PM, said:

....
A final note on the face of gaming, I learned that games were entertainment when I was 7 years old playing my NES and loved a difficult game more than anything. Today all age ranges have a unique problem, they believe games are reality and can't seem to reach a disconnect between the two or think that they have really achieved something and take things very personally.

I miss the thick skin and quick wits of years gone past. Aside pro gamers making good wages from what they do the greatest gamer is just the guy in the asylum that thinks he runs the place.

No. This is a totally baseless generalization. The average gamer today is 30 years old and has been playing games for 12 years The gamers of today ARE the gamers of yesteryear. Today's WoW addicts are no more maladjusted than the MUDD junkies of the 90s, and folks who grew up on Megaman and Ninja Gaiden are now playing games like Super Meat Boy and Dark Souls. The only difference in tolerance for difficulty is that most gamers have jobs and aren't really willing to spend hours bashing against a single boss/level/whatever, even if they enjoy it.

And if you think the games of yesteryear were released bug free or weren't ever rushed out the door (see previous links), I just don't know what to tell you.

Your post doesn't come across as old fogey so much as just failing to recognize changes in your level of awareness of the game industry as a whole, and of the world in general thanks to the ubiquity of the internet.

[Caboose30]

Xinaoen, on 04 August 2012 - 07:10 PM, said:

See, I actually like Diablo 3.

I read an interview with Jay Wilson where he referenced the Henry Ford quote, If I'd asked customers what they wanted, they would have said "a faster horse." For me, that kind of hits the nail on the head. If Blizzard had responded to all of the feedback that they received, we would've gotten "Diablo 2 : HD Remix" instead of "Diablo 3."

Blizzard didn't get to where they are by throwing darts and getting lucky. I don't care what anyone tells you - they are very, very good at game design. They understand what makes a game work better than the gross majority of their community does, and it'd be disastrous if they rolled over every time a design choice provoked a negative reaction

I love a dev team that listens to community feedback. It's a great way to glean ideas that you might not have come up with on your own. On the other hand, I think that a developer needs to have the courage and integrity to stand to its guns when a design choice sparks controversy. I'd rather play a game created by a group of people with good enough design sensibilities to make it in the industry to begin with, than something designed-by-committee courtesy of the loudest voices on the Internet.

My two c-bills.

My issue with Diablo 3 is even the single player game needs online access. Why call it single player if you still need to be online? I won't buy a copy till it hits $20, or someone cracks it.

[Celldoor]

so many games are rushed from idea to launch, many less than a year from ideas to launch, This game has a major history so many are drooling to get back to blowing stuff up. I have messaged with several staff here, unlike many games you find you are speaking to a person with a brain, not a walking machine. and no crappy form messages either. Of about 15 messages and e-mail.. only form message was beta acceptance.

Edited by Celldoor, 04 August 2012 - 07:38 PM.

[Blue Footed Booby]

JuiceCaboose, on 04 August 2012 - 07:23 PM, said:

My issue with Diablo 3 is even the single player game needs online access. Why call it single player if you still need to be online? I won't buy a copy till it hits $20, or someone cracks it.

I'm not sure whether it's primarily an anti piracy scheme or a way to get people a few more steps closer to being able to one click impulse buy stuff for real money. I guarantee it's both, I'm just not sure if one was a bigger motivator.

Also, friendly advice: administrators of game forums tend to frown on posts expressing intent to pirate games.

[Xinaoen]

JuiceCaboose, on 04 August 2012 - 07:23 PM, said:

My issue with Diablo 3 is even the single player game needs online access. Why call it single player if you still need to be online? I won't buy a copy till it hits $20, or someone cracks it.

Since the topic is "the changing face of gaming," that's actually a really good point to bring up.

Why always-online? The answer is very simple: it's copy protection. The game hasn't been cracked yet (aside from Chinese servers that let you run around in a field with no enemies); until it is cracked, always-online is 100% effective as DRM. As of right now, every working copy of Diablo 3 was purchased from Blizzard; they don't have to worry about piracy or secondhand sales eating into their profits.

I'm personally thrilled that Diablo 3 broke sales records - because I was looking at it as a test-case for whether Triple-A PC development was still viable. If the game had flopped, I would've been calling it the nail in the coffin for the death of the traditional PC gaming industry. The fact that Blizzard can get away with always-online DRM means that they can get away with spending the kind of money on development that they traditionally do.

Blizzard is Blizzard, though. The size and passion of their fan base allows them to get away with things that other studios can't. And so other studios are taking it in a different direction. You're seeing a bigger focus on DLC-oriented "episodic content." You're seeing more cute little indie games: low-budget titles that try to make the most of their development time and resources. You're seeing more F2P. And it's no mystery why these things are becoming more and more prevalent: because they're safe, reliable money.

The big-budget blockbusters of yesteryear are going the way of the dinosaur, for better or for worse. PC gaming isn't dead yet, but the industry as we know it is dying. Maybe it was built on a bubble in the first place; maybe it's just gotten too big to sustain itself. On the other hand, maybe we'll see more and more innovation (and fewer "playing it safe" knockoffs and sequels-of-sequels) as the industry continues to turn towards a business model where you can afford to take a risk. We'll find out.