60 replies to this topic

[Chemie]

So Russ thinks that 3rd person wil address the low number of players who are signing up and/or players leaving and not being monetized? Stats show less than 14,000 new sign ups since OB. Maybe everyone signed up early but still entire base of 400,000 accounts with no growth is worrying.

How about these as reasons:

1. lack of content (4.5 maps/ one game mode)
2. lack of tutorial (for new players)
3. trial mech grind
4. no mech lab (for new players)
5. netcode
6. bugs and CTD issues galore

I don't have "no 3rd person" anywhere on the list.

Now for monetization they laucnhed a F2P with no store! I mean, that sets a new record for a F2P model.

Now there are lots of examples of games rushed out the door; in the normal model, they sucker small number of early adopters and fanboys into buying full priced game. In F2P, you have to convince people to buy. A half-baked game will be seen through and people will not bite.

Problems with monetization model as it stands today in OB include:

1. new player wants to buy premium...but no prices. You have to buy MC (not knowing price of premium) to buy premium! Really?
2. No store to spend MC - a first for a F2P game. (There is a grey tab called store...but we are three weeks in and it is still grey)
3. "Staggered" MC pricing with big hit for small purchases.
4. No good vanity options (bobble heads are only going so far and skins won;t be seen in first-person)
5. above 6 problems means people will take "wait and see" versus pulling the trigger

Instead of having programmers develop new game modes, maps, or bug fixes, they gonna develop 3rd person? And when that does not solve the problem, then what? We lose the game cuz IGP pulls the plug?

Edited by Chemie, 15 November 2012 - 02:58 PM.

[Taryys]

Yea, I feel ya... Please take a look at this post:

How To Reduce The Grind And Create A Great New User Experience

[RumRunner151]

Chemie, on 15 November 2012 - 02:19 PM, said:

Problems with monetization model include:

1. new player wants to buy premium...but no prices. You have to buy MC (not knowing price of premium) to buy premium! Really?
2. No store to spend MC - a first for a F2P game. (There is a grey tab called store...but we are three weeks in and it is still grey)
3. "Staggered" MC pricing with big hit for small purchases.
4. No good vanity options (bobble heads are only going so far and skins won;t be seen in first-person)
5. above 6 problems means people will take "wait and see" versus pulling the trigger

Your whole post is valid, however much of it is "its coming" or "fix incoming". However, the 2nd part of your post that I quoted really does amaze me.

If you are being realistic, we went to open beta for one reason because there needs to be a consistent influx of capital to fund additional features/fixes/upgrades/etc. So how do you launch Open Beta without a fully developed store with lots of stuff to buy? I don't get it.

Edited by RumRunner151, 15 November 2012 - 02:49 PM.

[Elizander]

I'll agree with most of your points except for the minor gripe at the end.

I really think they should have at least launched with the store even with minimal items on the shelf. I know there are more important things as well that you've listed, but you know... store's a store.

I gave my suggestions but they are just suggestions. It's still up to PGI to decide which is good for their game and what isn't so I don't get upset if nothing I've suggested makes it through. I just hope they make the right choices whichever direction they choose to go.

[Chemie]

Elizander, on 15 November 2012 - 02:55 PM, said:

I'll agree with most of your points except for the minor gripe at the end.

I really think they should have at least launched with the store even with minimal items on the shelf. I know there are more important things as well that you've listed, but you know... store's a store.

I gave my suggestions but they are just suggestions. It's still up to PGI to decide which is good for their game and what isn't so I don't get upset if nothing I've suggested makes it through. I just hope they make the right choices whichever direction they choose to go.

Not sure what you mean here. My list was things I thought they should have addressed before OB including having a functioning store at OB launch.

I edited a bit to see if that clarifies.

Edited by Chemie, 15 November 2012 - 02:58 PM.

[Revorn]

Thrown into a Shreddparty, without knowing whats going on, or even know how to move. Well i guess, this would getting more fun for the new Ones, if they can view this at 3rd Person.

Edited by Revorn, 15 November 2012 - 03:03 PM.

[Cragger]

I haven't played since I hit 21 million Cbills and mastered the Cicada and Hunchback, just nothing else to do really.

[zverofaust]

PS2 has shown grind in and of itself isn't much of a factor. People aren't going to throw money at games that simply aren't fun or rewarding, and MWO is neither of those things. It has no longevity, doesn't appeal to casual gamers because of its archaic Trial Mechs and unintuitive game mechanics (heat's a big one), and it doesn't appeal to competitive gamers because there's a drastic lack of consistency and reliability in those core mechanics.

As for 3rd person, I like that they're introducing it and I don't understand why it was never their default position. You have custom skins and decals, but without 3rd person view, no way to actually view yourself except as an unmoving statue in your Mechbay. That's not very fun. Don't worry about whether it gives you an advantage or not; any advantage it could give is minor by comparison and there are far more important things concerning gameplay balance that need to be addressed.

[Windies]

Everything you listed is why people are not paying or playing. Everything you listed would also take the most resources, the most time, the most money to address and fix. Them adding 3rd person and trying to draw in a new croud is a cheap, desperation tactic. By cheap I mean it doesn't cost a lot of money. The thing is that everything you listed is pretty much game breaking stuff, even with 3rd person those problems will be just as glaring as sitting in the cockpit.

The game is not fun to most anyone after 2 hours because there is nothing there. Small quick matches, brawly gameplay, Zero new player experience, economy that just feels completely wrong and unbalanced, Weapons that feel completely unbalanced, Lack of maps, tons of bugs and unimplemented features, the list goes on. 3rd person is not going to magically make people not see or feel all of this stuff within the game.

I think there's too much wrong at this point for them to fix unless they closed the game down, shut the servers down and reduced their costs to only production costs, redesigned the game to be more feature complete and also invited some of the community as testers and advisors because I've seen tons of good idea's on these forums that have never even been looked at by a dev. Maybe if they tried a re-launch after that, it might be successful. At this point though, word of mouth has spread and it's more powerful than any paid for review site or advertisement. People have gotten their first impressions and it's obviously not very good.

[Kaspirikay]

Add player 3d avatar and a lobby system so we can show off their 100 USD hat

[Vassago Rain]

I can only think of one game that launched as more of a 'minimally viable product.'

Sonic the hedgehog 2006.

[Chemie]

Vassago Rain, on 15 November 2012 - 03:14 PM, said:

I can only think of one game that launched as more of a 'minimally viable product.'

Sonic the hedgehog 2006.

Minimal viable makes no sense for F2P unless it is crazy good minimum. That works for maybe browser based or casual but a "Class A" title and "minmial viable" in F2P = fail

Edited by Chemie, 15 November 2012 - 03:49 PM.

[Vassago Rain]

Chemie, on 15 November 2012 - 03:42 PM, said:

Minimal viable makes no sense for F2P unless it is crazy good minimum. That works for maybe browser based or casual but a "Class A" title and "minmial viable" in F2P = fail

Releasing your flagship title in a truly terrible state doesn't make any sense, either.. I can't get over how this game doesn't have a working cash shop.

[Windies]

Vassago Rain, on 15 November 2012 - 04:19 PM, said:

Releasing your flagship title in a truly terrible state doesn't make any sense, either.. I can't get over how this game doesn't have a working cash shop.

What would they sell? I mean I can see things that they could sell but I'm talking realistically what they have now. With the work they really need to put into this to bring it to a better playable state, I would rather have them focus on that than a cash shop.

[Vassago Rain]

Windies, on 15 November 2012 - 04:51 PM, said:

What would they sell? I mean I can see things that they could sell but I'm talking realistically what they have now. With the work they really need to put into this to bring it to a better playable state, I would rather have them focus on that than a cash shop.

That's the thing. Why would you release your cash shop game without stuff to sell in the cash shop, or even the shop itself?

It's a facepalm moment.

[Splitpin]

To my mind those saying 'nothing to do', 'not rewarding' is the problem with player retention have hit the nail on the head. The game appeals in the first instance to 2 groups, TT players and those who enjoyed playing MW3/4. And those groups are not mutually exclusive. I believe a mass of 'new' F2P players was a pipe dream at best. They may/could come along later, to a finished, attractive, good game but it's no surprise they aren't flooding through the door right now, nor that many don't stay long.
Finish the game, give those that remain something to do. By that I mean community warfare - a reason to play in the barely adequate sandbox we have now. Loosing the 60,000 founders because they've re-learned how to drive and shoot and now have nothing to do but more of that isn't enough. Need a money sink to spend money in, Community warfare, forming and maintaining units, unit skins, custom logos, cost of assaulting planets, dropships to travel in, all of that and more could cost a fortune. So then we keep the core, good they'll be having fun, bringing in friends, slow growth. Hopefully that'll result in good press and a positive feel, more growth, hit some sort of threshold and the game goes mainstream and possibly the general appeal to support the F2P dream resulting in massive sales of bobbleheads.
Finish the game, the whole universe, thats the first thing that'll sell beginning by keeping the customers you've got.

[Chemie]

Windies, on 15 November 2012 - 04:51 PM, said:

What would they sell? I mean I can see things that they could sell but I'm talking realistically what they have now. With the work they really need to put into this to bring it to a better playable state, I would rather have them focus on that than a cash shop.

If they released with cash shop, there is lots they could sell. Heck, think how much they could have made selling pumpkin heads for your Atlas last month. I bet people would pay for a Santa Atlas too. Of course, the die-hard lore folks would screen blue murder over it but I would find it LOL.

[Windies]

Chemie, on 16 November 2012 - 04:14 AM, said:

If they released with cash shop, there is lots they could sell. Heck, think how much they could have made selling pumpkin heads for your Atlas last month. I bet people would pay for a Santa Atlas too. Of course, the die-hard lore folks would screen blue murder over it but I would find it LOL.

What I meant by that quote is kind of two-fold. For one, they should have focused on monetizing cosmetics rather than the core gameplay experience. There's a lot more money in that and a much larger fanbase will follow when customers are happy with your pricing and product. I agree there are lots of things they could have sold, cosmetically, if they had chose to develop them. We don't have time machines though, the date has come and gone.

Secondly, with the current experience the way that it is and with the game lacking much of any replayability, Who wants to spend money on it? Why would you want to buy a santa atlas when you don't play the game? They've already admitted an extremely low turn out compared to what they expected, I'm honestly thinking we are still in the 2-3,000 range of active users, probably even less now that OB hit and people are just more frustrated with the game than happy or content.

So what I meant by it is simply, what could they sell right now or in the near future with a reasonable development rate without sacrificing the already glacially slow development speed they posess, and really, who would buy it if they made it?

[Cole Allard]

As we say here: you never get a second chance to make a first impression.

So, third person, first person...it does not matter. Exept that the few last happy players are thinking about showing their middlefingers to the this game. Even the die hards, the old time battletech fans are just thinking "what the f***".


Another nice saying that could fit this situation: The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

[MrPenguin]

Splitpin, on 15 November 2012 - 06:02 PM, said:

To my mind those saying 'nothing to do', 'not rewarding' is the problem with player retention have hit the nail on the head. The game appeals in the first instance to 2 groups, TT players and those who enjoyed playing MW3/4. And those groups are not mutually exclusive. I believe a mass of 'new' F2P players was a pipe dream at best. They may/could come along later, to a finished, attractive, good game but it's no surprise they aren't flooding through the door right now, nor that many don't stay long.
Finish the game, give those that remain something to do. By that I mean community warfare - a reason to play in the barely adequate sandbox we have now. Loosing the 60,000 founders because they've re-learned how to drive and shoot and now have nothing to do but more of that isn't enough. Need a money sink to spend money in, Community warfare, forming and maintaining units, unit skins, custom logos, cost of assaulting planets, dropships to travel in, all of that and more could cost a fortune. So then we keep the core, good they'll be having fun, bringing in friends, slow growth. Hopefully that'll result in good press and a positive feel, more growth, hit some sort of threshold and the game goes mainstream and possibly the general appeal to support the F2P dream resulting in massive sales of bobbleheads.
Finish the game, the whole universe, thats the first thing that'll sell beginning by keeping the customers you've got.

They are finishing the game... what in the world do you think they're doing right now? Sitting in the office twittling there thumbs? Playing World of warcraft? Literally anything else besides the obvious which is doing there job?

Seriously, Il never understand the mentality of someone who cannot comprehend that you just can't simply "finish" a AAA game with a snap of your fingers. It takes years to makes a game of that quality. Not days, not weeks, not months, years. And F2P games are usually never ending development until they get shut down.

Yet people here are filling "Not finished yet" as a complaint?

Are you guys being completely serious right now?



Wow...