6.0 Play your way is a pipe dream

[Seterade]

This has already been tested by Carbine on Wildstar, where that 63% was left rotting with "basics" and focus was on making that top end content. That game went down faster than you can say "literally driving revenue". Crashed and burned.

 

Those 63% are not some silent humble group of nobodies keeping the game funded for those who want to do top end content. They also have long term subs, make guides, give dev feedback, run guilds and buy microtransactions as much as your average raider does (who knows, maybe even more?). Those are the people whose money is needed to keep the game running at all and they should never be treaten as "happy with basics, let's focus on high end" second class citizens. Unless you want to tank your game on purpose.

 

Don't make fun of Rpers. I doubt you contribute as much as them (agreement with bold and a personal truth I realised in time)

[Noerra]

Don't make fun of Rpers. I doubt you contribute as much as them (agreement with bold and a personal truth I realised in time)

 

I don't know why you think i was making fun of RPers? I was replying to that post i was quoting and part you bolded was just reply to that other poster who was assuming that top end content players would be doing more of those things.

[Joonbeams]

This has already been tested by Carbine on Wildstar, where that 63% was left rotting with "basics" and focus was on making that top end content. That game went down faster than you can say "literally driving revenue". Crashed and burned.

 

Those 63% are not some silent humble group of nobodies keeping the game funded for those who want to do top end content. They also have long term subs, make guides, give dev feedback, run guilds and buy microtransactions as much as your average raider does (who knows, maybe even more?). Those are the people whose money is needed to keep the game running at all and they should never be treaten as "happy with basics, let's focus on high end" second class citizens. Unless you want to tank your game on purpose.

 

I'm in the 63% FTR .

 

But you misunderstood the point I was making -- I wasn't making the contributions mutually exclusive, nor saying we (the 63) need only scraps -- that's an over-read (underread?). What I'm saying is that if that 37% is as described, there are numerous, rational economic reasons to focus on delivering content that they would want, even at a higher customer-acquisition cost (CAC). It's an economics argument.

 

Here's an (simple) illustration. Let's assume (for argument sake) both groups bring the same proportional spend, feedback, etc. To keep the math simple, let's say there are 100 total players and each brings $10/month of total "value." 37 "hard core" and 63 "everyone else." Let's also say that the monthly cost of delivering enough content that would keep the 63 happy is $2/player/month. But for the hardcore (37), it's 5$/player/month (and assume they won't sub w/out this additional content). For one year, it costs the studio $1512 to deliver content that satisfies the 63 players. And from that, they'll bring in $6048/year net (7560-1512).

 

The cost of delivering content to the remaining 37 is $2220/year (roughly a 1/3 increase in cost). And for that, the studio nets $2,220 (4440 - 2220) per year. Even with the higher CAC, the studio has the chance to bring in 36% more net gains/year -- no smart company leaves that on the table. And even if you raised the CAC for these 37 hardcore players to $6, 7, 8... a month, it would still be worth the additional spend. In many cases (and this is beyond the scope here) it may even be worth "buying" that 37% at a "loss". I hope it's clear that the concept is basically true even if the 37% is actually 24% or 15%, albeit that it becomes less true the smaller the percentage we're talking about. (Also, please, for the sake of sanity, this is just an illustration and by no means is meant to be representative or accurate -- just merely to illustrate a concept).

 

This is all to say that if the 37% number is accurate, then it's actually substantial economically, and it really makes a great deal of sense for any company to invest the extra resources it would take to capture that group, so long as that didn't alienate the main group (and almost all of the data shows that it doesn't), and so long as the company is getting more value than cost out of that additional group....

[robertthebard]

I'm in the 63% FTR .

 

But you misunderstood the point I was making -- I wasn't making the contributions mutually exclusive, nor saying we (the 63) need only scraps -- that's an over-read (underread?). What I'm saying is that if that 37% is as described, there are numerous, rational economic reasons to focus on delivering content that they would want, even at a higher customer-acquisition cost (CAC). It's an economics argument.

 

Here's an (simple) illustration. Let's assume (for argument sake) both groups bring the same proportional spend, feedback, etc. To keep the math simple, let's say there are 100 total players and each brings $10/month of total "value." 37 "hard core" and 63 "everyone else." Let's also say that the monthly cost of delivering enough content that would keep the 63 happy is $2/player/month. But for the hardcore (37), it's 5$/player/month (and assume they won't sub w/out this additional content). For one year, it costs the studio $1512 to deliver content that satisfies the 63 players. And from that, they'll bring in $6048/year net (7560-1512).

 

The cost of delivering content to the remaining 37 is $2220/year (roughly a 1/3 increase in cost). And for that, the studio nets $2,220 (4440 - 2220) per year. Even with the higher CAC, the studio has the chance to bring in 36% more net gains/year -- no smart company leaves that on the table. And even if you raised the CAC for these 37 hardcore players to $6, 7, 8... a month, it would still be worth the additional spend. In many cases (and this is beyond the scope here) it may even be worth "buying" that 37% at a "loss". I hope it's clear that the concept is basically true even if the 37% is actually 24% or 15%, albeit that it becomes less true the smaller the percentage we're talking about. (Also, please, for the sake of sanity, this is just an illustration and by no means is meant to be representative or accurate -- just merely to illustrate a concept).

 

This is all to say that if the 37% number is accurate, then it's actually substantial economically, and it really makes a great deal of sense for any company to invest the extra resources it would take to capture that group, so long as that didn't alienate the main group (and almost all of the data shows that it doesn't), and so long as the company is getting more value than cost out of that additional group....

 

Except that, a company that operates at a loss, consistently, won't be around to provide whatever services they are providing for very long. At some point, they have to be turning a profit, or they're going to fold, or be folded by shareholders if they're publicly traded. If you're doing something on the side, from your garage, or basement, or whatever, and it's not your primary source of income, you could last a bit longer, but as a main business, you cannot operate at a loss.

 

So a gaming company does have to pick and choose. Resources, both manpower and financial, are limited. If they can't replace what they're spending they're going to run out. Employees must be paid, the rent must be paid, etc. So unless there's a clear profit to catering to a lower percentage of players, they may indeed be put "on the back burner". If companies could operate full time at a loss, then we would still have some decent studios making games, but they can't.

[Damask_Rose]

This is all to say that if the 37% number is accurate, then it's actually substantial economically, and it really makes a great deal of sense for any company to invest the extra resources it would take to capture that group, so long as that didn't alienate the main group (and almost all of the data shows that it doesn't), and so long as the company is getting more value than cost out of that additional group....

 

Anecdotally, I'd say they have alienated quite a bit of the 63% and have hemorrhaged long term story/casual players. Pretty much every player I've know that played and payed for years and spent buckets on the CM has quit because they feel Bioware took them for granted and neglected the content they enjoy and can't even be assed to acknowledge bugs that affect that content.

[Joonbeams]

Anecdotally, I'd say they have alienated quite a bit of the 63% and have hemorrhaged long term story/casual players. Pretty much every player I've know that played and payed for years and spent buckets on the CM has quit because they feel Bioware took them for granted and neglected the content they enjoy and can't even be assed to acknowledge bugs that affect that content.

 

This may very well be true. But I don't think it was because they were focusing resources on the "hard core 37%" -- in fact, I'd argue that group has the same complaint as above. So this point, well-taken, still speaks to something different....

[Seterade]

I don't know why you think i was making fun of RPers? I was replying to that post i was quoting and part you bolded was just reply to that other poster who was assuming that top end content players would be doing more of those things.

Um, I knew that was going to go awry, I tried to word it as "agreed with bold" but it looks like it was received as a contradiction after all. It wasn't at you, it was in agreement. Sorry for the misunderstanding

[Noerra]

Um, I knew that was going to go awry, I tried to word it as "agreed with bold" but it looks like it was received as a contradiction after all. It wasn't at you, it was in agreement. Sorry for the misunderstanding

 

Sorry for my misunderstanding then! I am not native english speaker so i sometimes misunderstand things and also might express myself badly as well.

 

And for others who talked about same subject. I was not meaning that those 37% (or whatever the number is) would be worthless at all. I was merely against the idea (suggested in post i quoted) that they would contribute more (monetary or contentwise) or that "silent non hardcore majority" would actually be happy with just basics.

[sharkfishman]

I'm in the 63% FTR .

 

But you misunderstood the point I was making -- I wasn't making the contributions mutually exclusive, nor saying we (the 63) need only scraps -- that's an over-read (underread?). What I'm saying is that if that 37% is as described, there are numerous, rational economic reasons to focus on delivering content that they would want, even at a higher customer-acquisition cost (CAC). It's an economics argument.

 

Here's an (simple) illustration. Let's assume (for argument sake) both groups bring the same proportional spend, feedback, etc. To keep the math simple, let's say there are 100 total players and each brings $10/month of total "value." 37 "hard core" and 63 "everyone else." Let's also say that the monthly cost of delivering enough content that would keep the 63 happy is $2/player/month. But for the hardcore (37), it's 5$/player/month (and assume they won't sub w/out this additional content). For one year, it costs the studio $1512 to deliver content that satisfies the 63 players. And from that, they'll bring in $6048/year net (7560-1512).

 

The cost of delivering content to the remaining 37 is $2220/year (roughly a 1/3 increase in cost). And for that, the studio nets $2,220 (4440 - 2220) per year. Even with the higher CAC, the studio has the chance to bring in 36% more net gains/year -- no smart company leaves that on the table. And even if you raised the CAC for these 37 hardcore players to $6, 7, 8... a month, it would still be worth the additional spend. In many cases (and this is beyond the scope here) it may even be worth "buying" that 37% at a "loss". I hope it's clear that the concept is basically true even if the 37% is actually 24% or 15%, albeit that it becomes less true the smaller the percentage we're talking about. (Also, please, for the sake of sanity, this is just an illustration and by no means is meant to be representative or accurate -- just merely to illustrate a concept).

 

This is all to say that if the 37% number is accurate, then it's actually substantial economically, and it really makes a great deal of sense for any company to invest the extra resources it would take to capture that group, so long as that didn't alienate the main group (and almost all of the data shows that it doesn't), and so long as the company is getting more value than cost out of that additional group....

 

More imaginary data. Very entertaining read, but absolutely no value to the discussion at hand.

[Joonbeams]

More imaginary data. Very entertaining read, but absolutely no value to the discussion at hand.

 

Lol, umkay

[HoloTweed]

Clearly you dont understand how MMOs work.

 

I understand fine. But there is NO REASON that ONLY Ops or PvP players should get THE BEST gear. There really isn't. I'm playing the same game as they are, I should have access to the same stuff. If they want to play "harder" content and get it FASTER, I'm completely fine with that. I don't mind playing the content I enjoy and doing it LONGER to achieve the same gear.

 

Why should anyone else care what gear I have? Or that I got it from 4 weeks of playing Flashpoints, but they got it in 2 nights from Ops? How is their life in any way lessened?

 

It's NOT. "You don't need it" isn't a reason. I WANT it. I play the game. There should be a way to get it. Period.

 

Same game. Same gear. For everyone.

[OlBuzzard]

I understand fine. But there is NO REASON that ONLY Ops or PvP players should get THE BEST gear. There really isn't. I'm playing the same game as they are, I should have access to the same stuff. If they want to play "harder" content and get it FASTER, I'm completely fine with that. I don't mind playing the content I enjoy and doing it LONGER to achieve the same gear.

 

Why should anyone else care what gear I have? Or that I got it from 4 weeks of playing Flashpoints, but they got it in 2 nights from Ops? How is their life in any way lessened?

 

It's NOT. "You don't need it" isn't a reason. I WANT it. I play the game. There should be a way to get it. Period.

 

Same game. Same gear. For everyone.

 

If there is any player who understand where you are coming from ... it's me. I really don't like guilds. I have my own very PERSONAL reasons due to not one but SEVERAL bad experiences. Usually most of those stim from similar behavioral matters that I really have do desire to display here in this forum. Becuase I don't do a lot of group stuff that somewhat limits a few things. It also means I will probably have to grind things out twice as hard as the next person. BUT... guess what: That's on me ! I get that !

 

There are two extremes: ALL good highend stuff not available unless you are a high roller ... in the toughest zones or the high roller in PvP . And there is and always will be players who genuinly believe that is the way things shuold be. No one will ever change their mind. Not going to happen.

 

The other extreme is that even the highest end stuff should fall on players like rain from the sky. I'm sorry ... as much as I would really like to have that really high end stuf this goes to another extreme.

 

As I understand it several things went sideways the last couple of updates: Excessive grinding to the point the game became a second job. Much needed high end mats only found available if you were in group settings .. ( I personally found this one a little odd ) What about PvP players ? Really odd. The PvP experience even went south.

 

We should always strive to do the best we can in any thing we do ! Even here ! Even in game ! Even the development team should always do their part.

 

BTW.. please note: I'm not going thermal on anyone ! Soooo just read as though you and a good acquaintance are just discussing stuff.

 

At any rate I do hope for the best. I do believe that things aer gradually getting back on track.

 

OH ... One more thing ! If we find out some stuff is NOT working and report that back to the dev team.. That really should not be a problem... Nor should be such a massive, huge issue to over come. Just simply "man up" and help to fix the thing. Even WoW is finding out just how bad they screwed up this last time. Everyone makes mistakes. It happens. Regardless of how we get to that point (when we see what has happened) ... the REAL question is: "What do we do about it ?"

 

NOTE.... Edited early this AM because frankly ... I screwed up ! I was tired and sounded like a babbling idiot!

Edited June 4, 2019 by OlBuzzard

[DarthSpuds]

I understand fine. But there is NO REASON that ONLY Ops or PvP players should get THE BEST gear. There really isn't. I'm playing the same game as they are, I should have access to the same stuff. If they want to play "harder" content and get it FASTER, I'm completely fine with that. I don't mind playing the content I enjoy and doing it LONGER to achieve the same gear.

 

Why should anyone else care what gear I have? Or that I got it from 4 weeks of playing Flashpoints, but they got it in 2 nights from Ops? How is their life in any way lessened?

 

It's NOT. "You don't need it" isn't a reason. I WANT it. I play the game. There should be a way to get it. Period.

 

Same game. Same gear. For everyone.

 

^ This.

 

All The Best

[Lhancelot]

Why should anyone else care what gear I have? Or that I got it from 4 weeks of playing Flashpoints, but they got it in 2 nights from Ops? How is their life in any way lessened?

 

Right. People tend to not appreciate what they got, and instead find what others have ruining their own enjoyment of their own things. I don't get it, but it sure seems common now in the gaming world.

Edited June 4, 2019 by Lhancelot