24 replies to this topic

[Hawkeye 72]

Now, before I link this, this thread is not an attack on MWO or another post saying how the development team is doing anything wrong. I will staunchly defend MWO and be damned if one of my threads is sent to forum hell aka Kaeatoa. (However if this should be bumped down to off-topic, our dearest forum moderators may kindly do so)

Now then,

http://www.ign.com/a...t-sales-in-half

Interesting points made here in the article...

Using Xbox 360 sales as an example, Schell proceeded to show his audience that the best-selling games were those that built expectations in players, but then gave them no way to try it out short of buying a copy.

Schell went on to assert that the best way to increase sales is to tease gamers with a trailer, and then to make sure there is absolutely no way the game can be tried out unless they buy a full version. As he said, "The thing is, with no demo, you’ve gotta buy it if you want to try it."

Now I am not saying he is correct, nor is he wrong. Frankly I have zero video game industry experience to give a valid, credible opinion one way or another.

However it is interesting to note the vast majority of people who clamored over the summer to have access to the closed Beta without buying into the Founders program, demanding the "try before you buy model". I am curious if more people, knowing this format might diminish profit margins by 50%, would hold the same opinion now as they did then. Could a free, closed beta have potentially tanked MWO? The idea makes sense-by spending a certain sum of money ($30, $60, or $120), consumers have made a financial investment in the game, and may be more unwilling to bolt the game at the first sign of a hiccup than had they tried the game for free. How many forum topics have you seen in the last 2 months where players pop on, say how they have been on a [x] amount of time break from the game, and either a) like what they see or will check back in again later. Would the players in (a) have neglected to give the game a second chance had they not invested in the game (assuming they made the original founders purchase), and would the players in group ( still be willing to check back in another month to see if things have improved?

Knowing this fact, how does this relate to F2P format and MWO's Open Beta? While many individuals have laid claim that the game in its current inception has hurt its potential going forward, the community is still growing as usual (I will have new statistics to back this up soon). Did PGI have knowledge of such market and industry trends, hence the delay of Open Beta to late September? Wouldn't mind a developer insight here.

Either way I feel PGI made the smart move last summer and fall, and that move (with the above information taken into consideration), may end up turning this game into a F2P juggernaut.

[FrupertApricot]

[Redacted] like that are why piracy is so fulfilling. also doesnt apply since to get into the beta most people have paid MORE THAN RETAIL for a incomplete game.

Edited by Niko Snow, 13 February 2013 - 03:33 AM.

[Vassago Rain]

The thing is, like with cartridge systems in the olden days, if you can't try it before you buy it, you end up buying first party titles, or titles made by companies YOU KNOW deliver good games.

So he's wrong on all accounts.

[FrupertApricot]

Hahah hell no. Big market companies cant be relied on either, see COLONIAL MARINES failure. The only way to go is small purchase games like FTL. and to pirate and try out big games before so you can see if they are worth the money, because 90percent of them are not. Most big games get months of hype then play for 1 month and **** em

[JPsi]

"The thing is, with no demo, you’ve gotta buy it if you want to try it."
"releasing A Game Demo Can Cut Your Sales In Half"

I look at these 2 quotes (read the article) and think "So, half those that purchase games without demos should probably be asking for refunds". Alternatively, "half the sales are made up of unsatisfied customers".

Edited by JPsi, 12 February 2013 - 09:45 PM.

[Zero Neutral]

Hawkeye 72, on 12 February 2013 - 09:36 PM, said:

Now, before I link this, this thread is not an attack on MWO or another post saying how the development team is doing anything wrong. I will staunchly defend MWO and be damned if one of my threads is sent to forum hell aka Kaeatoa. (However if this should be bumped down to off-topic, our dearest forum moderators may kindly do so)

Now then,

http://www.ign.com/a...t-sales-in-half

Interesting points made here in the article...

Using Xbox 360 sales as an example, Schell proceeded to show his audience that the best-selling games were those that built expectations in players, but then gave them no way to try it out short of buying a copy.

Schell went on to assert that the best way to increase sales is to tease gamers with a trailer, and then to make sure there is absolutely no way the game can be tried out unless they buy a full version. As he said, "The thing is, with no demo, you’ve gotta buy it if you want to try it."

Now I am not saying he is correct, nor is he wrong. Frankly I have zero video game industry experience to give a valid, credible opinion one way or another.

However it is interesting to note the vast majority of people who clamored over the summer to have access to the closed Beta without buying into the Founders program, demanding the "try before you buy model". I am curious if more people, knowing this format might diminish profit margins by 50%, would hold the same opinion now as they did then. Could a free, closed beta have potentially tanked MWO? The idea makes sense-by spending a certain sum of money ($30, $60, or $120), consumers have made a financial investment in the game, and may be more unwilling to bolt the game at the first sign of a hiccup than had they tried the game for free. How many forum topics have you seen in the last 2 months where players pop on, say how they have been on a [x] amount of time break from the game, and either a) like what they see or will check back in again later. Would the players in (a) have neglected to give the game a second chance had they not invested in the game (assuming they made the original founders purchase), and would the players in group ( still be willing to check back in another month to see if things have improved?

Knowing this fact, how does this relate to F2P format and MWO's Open Beta? While many individuals have laid claim that the game in its current inception has hurt its potential going forward, the community is still growing as usual (I will have new statistics to back this up soon). Did PGI have knowledge of such market and industry trends, hence the delay of Open Beta to late September? Wouldn't mind a developer insight here.

Either way I feel PGI made the smart move last summer and fall, and that move (with the above information taken into consideration), may end up turning this game into a F2P juggernaut.

Think about it, the game is free to play right? So, offering people incentives to pay retail price for some thing that you know that you will be offering for free is just money. One must simply calculate how long it will take to see that customer return to buy more after offering an incentive to purchase a founder's package.

[The Cheese]

The "open beta started too early" boat sailed off into the sunset a long time ago.

JPsi, on 12 February 2013 - 09:43 PM, said:

"The thing is, with no demo, you’ve gotta buy it if you want to try it."
"releasing A Game Demo Can Cut Your Sales In Half"

I look at these 2 quotes (read the article) and think "So, half those that purchase games without demos should probably be asking for refunds". Alternatively, "half the sales are made up of unsatisfied customers".

Most places won't give you a refund for a game if you just don't like it. For a group that's in the video game industry, PGI was pretty generous when they refunded people's founder's packages.

Edited by The Cheese, 12 February 2013 - 09:55 PM.

[Daiichidoku]

Hawkeye 72, on 12 February 2013 - 09:36 PM, said:

Using Xbox 360 sales as an example

/thread

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

Game creation is a business... it's not a charity, and 9 times out of 10 it's not to create something "unique" or "Artistic" It's "create something that the lowest common denominatior will find apealing, and SELL THE CRAP OUT OF IT TILL WE SWIM IN CASH SO WE CAN DO IT AGAIN!"

Look at CoD and Halo. Do not even give me that crap of "But the story." no Bullcrap, the story has been done better elsewhere! The graphics? You can come up with better in your head as you read a book. The gameplay, PFFT it's cut and dry.

Hell so many people are bashing Aliens:Colonial Marines today, and you know what, I just finished that game... BEST DAMN ALIENS GAME I'VE EVER PLAYED... yet you know what, if you look at it as "just a game" then yeah, it's kinda mediocre. It's not the best thing ever, and it really doesn't do anything NEW. ontop of that if you're buying it without knowing the Aliens franchise, or being a big fan, there's no real point... you're not going to enjoy the story because there's no story there for you.

There was no demo for this game [I wish there had been, regardless I still would have paid full price] And it sold plenty, it was the top seller on steam last week.[that's not to say much... The WarZ was the top seller too when it came out on steam].

But back on topic, Demos DO cause less players to buy games... http://www.penny-arc...isode/demo-daze

Watch this episode of "Extra Credits" to get a better understanding.

[FrupertApricot]

LOL NO WAY. the old aliens vs predator game with the 3 part campaign and multiplayer is SUCH A SUPERIOR GAME. you cant believe that colonial marines has **** on that.

[Corvus Antaka]

Maybe Community warfare should be paid for only

[Alekzander Smirnoff]

I can't really say when the last time I played a demo was...

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

FrupertApricot, on 12 February 2013 - 09:57 PM, said:

LOL NO WAY. the old aliens vs predator game with the 3 part campaign and multiplayer is SUCH A SUPERIOR GAME. you cant believe that colonial marines has **** on that.

AVP is fine, for AVP... but I've been wanting a PURE no predator involved Aliens game for a LONG time [outside of the NES/SNES/SEGA Aliens 3, and the old Alien Trillogy shooters.]

And personally, it has a much better STORY than the old AVP game [assuming you mean AVP2000 or even AVP jaguar] All the AVP games have been 3 campaigns and 3 story's... A:CM has 1 story that spans 10 hours.

Time to take off the nostalgia goggles bro.

[Thirdstar]

Hawkeye 72, on 12 February 2013 - 09:36 PM, said:

How many forum topics have you seen in the last 2 months where players pop on, say how they have been on a [x] amount of time break from the game, and either a) like what they see or will check back in again later. Would the players in (a) have neglected to give the game a second chance had they not invested in the game (assuming they made the original founders purchase), and would the players in group ( still be willing to check back in another month to see if things have improved?

I want to address this point. I'm not a Founder but I do check into MWO every so often. Which is how I recently found the performance improvements. This is not unusual in the F2P space at all. Add to that the fact that Mechwarrior is venerable franchise with a large fanbase.

I check back into the following games regularly to see if anything piques my interest.
GW2
LOTRO
WOT
STO
Firefall
Planetside 2
Hawken
DDO

Hawkeye 72, on 12 February 2013 - 09:36 PM, said:

Either way I feel PGI made the smart move last summer and fall, and that move (with the above information taken into consideration), may end up turning this game into a F2P juggernaut.

And I respectfully disagree. I think the game would have been better received had it gone to Open Beta with less bugs and more features. Like it or not Open Beta sets up expectations.

[Mazgazine1]

If this statement was true Free to Play would have failed right from the start.

Biggest example: Star Trek online, it by all means failed horribly at launch, and for a year it was grim. But now its bigger then ever and its F2P.

[CrashieJ]

Hawkeye 72, on 12 February 2013 - 09:36 PM, said:

"LOLGIC"

Having a game demo is a 50:50 cointoss where people will either like or hate the game, no amount of "lolgic" will prevent that.

having a game demo is actually beneficial because while some will go "ha, not getting that game" some will write up with "hey I know how to make the game better!" and that's DEMONSTRATION to the MAX

not having a demo only leads games to either be ignored or unfinished to an extent. PGI did it sorta-right with people tasting the beta... even of they had to pay for it.

Edited by gavilatius, 12 February 2013 - 10:06 PM.

[Thirdstar]

Publishers and Devs who know they have a **** on their hands dislike having to release a Demo. You can probably guess why.

[Vassago Rain]

Alekzander Smirnoff, on 12 February 2013 - 10:00 PM, said:

I can't really say when the last time I played a demo was...

I demo everything.

[FrupertApricot]

Its less to save me money and more to avoid giving money to ****** companies when i pirate/try things/demo/trial

[Thirdstar]

The Cheese, on 12 February 2013 - 09:50 PM, said:

Most places won't give you a refund for a game if you just don't like it.

You should never use this argument when attempting to get a refund. Giving refunds is also good PR.