Sometimes You Have To Vote With Your Wallet.

immolatasia · December 2012

Dear Perfect World Entertainment/Cryptic,

I've been a long time Champions Online player. I've mainly played City of Heroes, but I've fully come back to Champions given the current set of circumstances of its closure. I've seen what NCSoft and eastern companies want to do to gaming. Lockboxes, gambling and P2W is not acceptable to me as a gamer, nor are unrealistic expectations of every game being another WoW in terms of monetary gain.

I want Champions to be an excellent game. I see so much untapped potential here, but I want to say that a two man development team is unacceptable. Purely unacceptable. Many have dropped lifetime subscriptions on this game. I have subbed for months. What am I putting my money toward exactly? Why am I buying wood to patch the holes in a sinking ship that I love, when I see the wood put towards building two new and different ships in the dock?

STO and Neverwinter have all the rights to exist. I play STO, and am interested in Neverwinter, but when it comes to Champions, I want that to be my main game as I am interested in the superhero genre and am rapidly running out of options. We have a throw-disappearance bug and other bugs that still remain in this game. We had a vehicle update that requires $20 (roughly) to purchase a vehicle, more for lockboxes and for them to primarily be used in a single standing alert. I don't know what phase 2 will bring, but this is paltry and disgusting in my own view.

I want to play Neverwinter, I want to enjoy the future games, but unless Champions Online sees some love, and I'm putting it on the timeline of shortly after The Neverwinter launch, as this is when the devs are supposed to come back. If I don't see significant bug fixes to the game and real content that doesn't involve Pay-to-play then I will not give my money to Cryptic or especially PWE any longer. This includes Neverwinter, STO, and future products. We deserve new missions, comics, content.

This hurts me. I enjoy this game and I want to continue to enjoy it as a gold subscriber, but I have to ask myself what am I getting for it? Neglect? This philosophy of building one game and leaving it to languish is wrong.

And I promise that if Neverwinter launches and Champions should be put on shutdown, (which I doubt, but would not be surprised either,) the company will definitely never see another cent from me.

((tl;dr - I'm not paying for Champions Online for PWE/Cryptic to invest in STO and NWN. Why? That makes no sense.))

Signed,
Immolatasia.

jonsills · December 2012

And when you buy bread at the grocery store, do you argue with the store owner until you're certain the proceeds are spent on the bakery department and not the deli? When you buy a car, do you ascertain that the manufacturer isn't putting any of your money toward the development of a new model?

And (the fatal flaw with all these "vote with your wallet" threads) if people stopped spending money on CO, what makes you think Cryptic wouldn't just shut it completely down as a total money loss?

arimikami · December 2012

jonsills wrote: »

And when you buy bread at the grocery store, do you argue with the store owner until you're certain the proceeds are spent on the bakery department and not the deli? When you buy a car, do you ascertain that the manufacturer isn't putting any of your money toward the development of a new model?

And (the fatal flaw with all these "vote with your wallet" threads) if people stopped spending money on CO, what makes you think Cryptic wouldn't just shut it completely down as a total money loss?

I've read a lot of your comments on this forum and do think that you often have a point but, this is a flawed arguement.

When I buy bread at the grocery store, that grocery store gets more of that bread and restocks it so that I and other customers will continue to come to their store and buy the products they have for sale. What they do not do is let the bakery department go empty while filling their shelves of beans to overflowing.

fantasycharacter · December 2012

jonsills wrote: »

And when you buy bread at the grocery store, do you argue with the store owner until you're certain the proceeds are spent on the bakery department and not the deli?

Retail works this way, it is a really bad example to use. The more sales a dept makes the more (work hours) get thrown back into that dept.

What they don't do is make you gamble for your purchases. You want a loaf of bread....well let's see how lucky you are with our bakery grab bag!

arimikami · December 2012

fantasycharacter wrote: »

Retail works this way, it is a really bad example to use. The more sales a dept makes the more (work hours) get thrown back into that dept.

What they don't do is make you gamble for your purchases. You want a loaf of bread....well let's see how lucky you are with our bakery grab bag!

But it would be pretty awesome to go to a deli and see someone going, "Come on roast beef... Come on roast beef!"

nepht · December 2012

You dont vote with your wallet you vote with a ballet paper , you also cant vote in a deli or with a can of beans.

YOUR ALL MAD! :O

fantasycharacter · December 2012

arimikami wrote: »

But it would be pretty awesome to go to a deli and see someone going, "Come on roast beef... Come on roast beef!"

promptly followed by a "Man, crumbs again!?!?!" when they don't get a roast beef.

immolatasia · December 2012

You know what, I'm willing to accept alternatives to this as well. But when the devs are incommunicado and it seems the game is stagnating at the expense of others, what sort of alternative would you propose?

And I'm being realistic, standing there and waving around a flag is kinda pointless if I'm the only jackass standing there. But let's be honest, I like this game. I want it to be more than it is, and I don't want it to rot for STO and Neverwinter's sake. That's not what I signed on for.

Money is what companies pay attention to, bottom line. I want Champions to continue being a quality product. I'd like the developers to allocate more resources and attention to making this so.

jonsills · December 2012

fantasycharacter wrote: »

Retail works this way, it is a really bad example to use. The more sales a dept makes the more (work hours) get thrown back into that dept.

And continuing with the department store analogy, a given department is only going to have more resources allocated to it if it's turning a profit. If you don't go to, say, the Bon Marche Bargain Basement because you think the salesclerks are snooty and the selection is substandard, they aren't going to think, "Gee, we'd better spend more money in that department to get more people into it!"

Instead, they're going to think, "Maybe we don't need a Bargain Basement after all, if people aren't going to shop there..."

If you close your wallet on CO as a form of protest, even if there's something you might like to buy, Cryptic (and PWE) are more likely to see that as a sign that the game is losing money and needs to be shuttered, than as a sign that they need to throw more of their own cash into it.

What you might want to consider instead is sending thoughtful, well-written emails to anyone whose email address you can find at Cryptic. (No, "gimme more stuffs or i eat your babies" is not well-written...

) Snail mail might help, too. In fact, if I can remember where I left my stamps, I might drop a snail-mail missive to them...

spyralpegacyon · December 2012

immolatasia wrote: »

You know what, I'm willing to accept alternatives to this as well. But when the devs are incommunicado and it seems the game is stagnating at the expense of others, what sort of alternative would you propose?

There's a line between where devs see a game losing players and money and think 'we need to do something' and where devs see a game losing players and money and go 'oh well' and decide its no longer worth the hassle. Your mileage may vary as to where we are now.

Buy what you want and invest where you want to have fun. If there's nothing on the market you want to buy, that's fine. I just don't recommend cutting noses to spite faces.

angelphoenix12 · December 2012

looking at twitter it looks to as noone is deving for champions online. if you dotn beilve me search for cryptic games in twitter. ive seen not 1 dev in there that is still here.

then this is the only new info i can find. http://thekoalition.com/2012/10/koalition-exclusive-qa-with-champions-online-executive-producer-brad-stokan/
dated oct. 24 2012.

skcark · December 2012

jonsills wrote: »

And continuing with the department store analogy, a given department is only going to have more resources allocated to it if it's turning a profit. If you don't go to, say, the Bon Marche Bargain Basement because you think the salesclerks are snooty and the selection is substandard, they aren't going to think, "Gee, we'd better spend more money in that department to get more people into it!"

Instead, they're going to think, "Maybe we don't need a Bargain Basement after all, if people aren't going to shop there..."

If you close your wallet on CO as a form of protest, even if there's something you might like to buy, Cryptic (and PWE) are more likely to see that as a sign that the game is losing money and needs to be shuttered, than as a sign that they need to throw more of their own cash into it.

What you might want to consider instead is sending thoughtful, well-written emails to anyone whose email address you can find at Cryptic. (No, "gimme more stuffs or i eat your babies" is not well-written... ) Snail mail might help, too. In fact, if I can remember where I left my stamps, I might drop a snail-mail missive to them...

So what you're saying is. If we stop buying the crap they fleece to us, CO will die, or if we do buy and give them lots of money, enough to make enough money to keep CO going and afford more staff, nothing will change, because you're syaing CO is a car dealership, funding the next model. Either way it seems like it's futile

jonsills · December 2012

No, what I'm saying is that "voting with your wallet", absent any other form of communication, is more likely to result in shutdown than improvement.

And writing here on the forums seems terribly futile, as the only person who reads anything (in this subsection, at least) is TrailTurtle, who is a great guy, but doesn't seem to have been granted any real power in the corporate structure.

If you wish to protest, write letters. Write them calmly; if you find yourself flying into a rage while writing, pause, take a few breaths, and come back to it when you've calmed down. Letters can be sent either via email or post office; optimally, both should be used, but in this modern era, not everyone has envelopes or stamps.

If you need the mailing address, Google is your friend. (Search "Cryptic Studios"; PWE's proving a little harder to track, but I've only been at this for like thirty seconds...)

xaogarrent · December 2012

jonsills wrote: »

And when you buy bread at the grocery store, do you argue with the store owner until you're certain the proceeds are spent on the bakery department and not the deli?

No, because if they were stupid enough to not pour money back into the Bakery I wouldn't be buying bread to begin with.

Back when I tried explaining that the core goal of a business is not one of making money, but about creating a cycle, you guys you didn't understand it then, and you still don't seem to understand it now.

jonsills wrote: »

When you buy a car, do you ascertain that the manufacturer isn't putting any of your money toward the development of a new model?

This makes absolutely no ******n sense because this is legitimately how the automotive industry is supposed to work. Putting money towards a new model in the line I bought from would be akin to putting money back into the game you paid for, because that's what they're supposed to be doing.

On the other hand, if I bought nothing but models out of the same line of cars over a period of 30 years out of a like for that type of car, and they suddenly stopped producing that line for no conceivable reason, actually yes I would in fact do this. If there's no sign of them producing that sort of car again I'm gonna go take my money to whoever's making the next best thing. That's called common sense.

That scenario also doesn't work as an analog to video game development of this sort very well at all.

jonsills wrote: »

And (the fatal flaw with all these "vote with your wallet" threads) if people stopped spending money on CO, what makes you think Cryptic wouldn't just shut it completely down as a total money loss?

I see no flaw whatsoever. Sink or swim in the name of the game, when I vote with my wallet I'm expecting one or those two things to happen, and if it turns out to be sink... Well good riddance/damn shame.

xaogarrent · December 2012

jonsills wrote: »

No, what I'm saying is that "voting with your wallet", absent any other form of communication, is more likely to result in shutdown than improvement.

If they're plugging their ears hard enough they don't get any feedback from the forums, they're plugging their ears enough that nothing short of an avalanche of spam in their mailbox is likely to have an effect.

The fact is, when a company chooses to be ignorant of what feedback they receive in a public venue, it's probably because they don't rightly give a damn. Nothing short but seeing a severe drop in profits is likely to phase them, at which point if you're lucky they start asking "why?" if you're unlucky, they pull the plug.

In which case, see previous post.

There's some Darwinism in here somewhere.

jennymachx · December 2012

jonsills wrote: »

If you close your wallet on CO as a form of protest, even if there's something you might like to buy, Cryptic (and PWE) are more likely to see that as a sign that the game is losing money and needs to be shuttered, than as a sign that they need to throw more of their own cash into it.

What's the better alternative, throw money at them with the hopes that they wake up, or would that give them the impression that their customers are overall content with how things are since they're still getting the money?

If a customer is unsatisfied with the product they're getting, they have every right to give the proper feedback and refuse to make any future purchases.

jonsills wrote: »

What you might want to consider instead is sending thoughtful, well-written emails to anyone whose email address you can find at Cryptic. (No, "gimme more stuffs or i eat your babies" is not well-written... ) Snail mail might help, too. In fact, if I can remember where I left my stamps, I might drop a snail-mail missive to them...

Unnecessary hyperbole and unfair stereotyping of people with valid concerns about the game's future.

zedbrightlander1 · December 2012

nepht wrote: »

You dont vote with your wallet you vote with a ballet paper , you also cant vote in a deli or with a can of beans.

YOUR ALL MAD! :O

"YEAH!" he said, agreeing with the crazy lady.

ashensnow · December 2012

jonsills wrote: »

And continuing with the department store analogy, a given department is only going to have more resources allocated to it if it's turning a profit. If you don't go to, say, the Bon Marche Bargain Basement because you think the salesclerks are snooty and the selection is substandard, they aren't going to think, "Gee, we'd better spend more money in that department to get more people into it!"

Instead, they're going to think, "Maybe we don't need a Bargain Basement after all, if people aren't going to shop there..."

If you close your wallet on CO as a form of protest, even if there's something you might like to buy, Cryptic (and PWE) are more likely to see that as a sign that the game is losing money and needs to be shuttered, than as a sign that they need to throw more of their own cash into it.

What you might want to consider instead is sending thoughtful, well-written emails to anyone whose email address you can find at Cryptic. (No, "gimme more stuffs or i eat your babies" is not well-written... ) Snail mail might help, too. In fact, if I can remember where I left my stamps, I might drop a snail-mail missive to them...

Actually a department store that has invested heavily in a particular department, upon seeing its performance drop, is very likely to look into ways to increase its performance...including (possibly) a temporary increase in resource allocation in order to facilitate that performance increase. Ive spent much of the last twenty two years doing just this.

Of course if ongoing performance analysis determines that there is no longer a significant market for the given department...it is either downsized or eliminated. But this is almost always a last choice because throwing away the heavy investment that goes into developing a department is very painful.

xaogarrent wrote: »

I see no flaw whatsoever. Sink or swim in the name of the game, when I vote with my wallet I'm expecting one or those two things to happen, and if it turns out to be sink... Well good riddance/damn shame.

Exactly so.

I really don't understand the argument that one should continue to give money to a company that isn't providing you with value for your expenditure out of fear that they might cancel the product that you don't find to be worth your money.

I really don't get how someone could believe that, "oh no they might cancel the game I am not willing to pay for !" is a valid concern.

Disclaimer: I am not claiming that I do not find value in CO. I am merely puzzled by the fact that every time someone says that they are, "voting with their wallet," by choosing to no longer play/pay for CO because the game is in some way not worth paying for (to them) someone else pulls out the argument that not paying for CO might cause it to be canceled. Why on earth would that be a factor of any relevance whatsoever to someone who has made it clear that CO is not worth their money/time ?

jonsills · December 2012

You all have mistaken my argument.

I have not been saying not to spend money on things you don't want. If there's nothing offered that you feel is worth your cash, by all means, keep it in your wallet!

But if there are things you would like to buy, but you refuse to spend any money "on principle", the feedback the corporation gets is, "this division is no longer profitable."

Remember, the "department" that PWE has sunk money into is Cryptic, not CO in particular. And if STO makes money, and NWO makes money, and CO doesn't make money, the bean-counters' response is going to be to stop doing the thing that isn't making money.

If you want to protest, do as I plan on doing - write to them. It's become pitifully obvious that only the devs pay any attention to what we say on these forums, and they don't seem to have any real decision-making power on the corporate level. I strongly encourage you to make your voice heard - but just "not giving them money", absent any other input, reads to them as, "the customers have gone away - shut it down."

I don't see why this seems such a difficult concept to grasp. PWE doesn't care about this game. PWE cares about the bottom line. This is the reality of corporate economics. If you write to them and let them know the bottom line could be higher if more attention were paid, that argument might get some traction with them. Without that, though - well, how often in history has a boycott sans protest achieved the desired change?

arimikami · December 2012

Jon, I understand what you've said in your last post and do agree with it completely. Unfortunately, my search fu is weak and a lot of my current freetime is taken up with matters that are a bit more important. If you do get their emails, could you pass them along? It'd be appreciated.

ashensnow · December 2012

jonsills wrote: »

I don't see why this seems such a difficult concept to grasp.

Its not difficult....and the people you are talking to are ALREADY doing what you suggest (using forums rather than snail mail). How many people have you seen post that they are opting to not spend money, "voting with their wallet," without going on at length, repeatedly, over and over, redundantly, ad nauseum, til the cows come home, with filibuster like stamina sufficient to make Jimmy Stewart as Mr Smith proud, about EXACTLY why they are doing so ?

Those who are not interested in the game any longer just quietly disappear until they exist only on your friends list, never to log in again...like the majority of my SG.

Those that are here on the forums, the ones you are, "talking," to Jon, have NEVER been shy about explaining in exhaustive detail exactly why they are quitting, thinking about quitting, boycotting, thinking about boycotting, the game.

decorumfriends · December 2012

nepht seems a bit askew:

You dont vote with your wallet you vote with a ballet paper , you also cant vote in a deli or with a can of beans.

...

What's your stance on legumes, then?

forutnefire · December 2012

jonsills wrote: »

And (the fatal flaw with all these "vote with your wallet" threads) if people stopped spending money on CO, what makes you think Cryptic wouldn't just shut it completely down as a total money loss?

I have also stopped paying Cryptic/PWE for reasons that are apparent to most who have read my posts. But Jon makes a good point and I can't find anything wrong with it.

The only somewhat tangible counter point I can come up with is that a customer who isn't satisfied with a product, shouldn't have to pay for it with no assurance (communication) of a future. In all seriousness, when my Starbucks barista charged me for the wrong size drink, she apologized, said it wouldn't happen again, and gave me a coupon for a free drink. Now she may have just thought I was cute, but THAT is service.

We've received no confirmation about major problems. The appearance by the Devs to refuse to fix numerous glitches. No state of the game in forever (according to server time). They're not even allowed to talk about the chat-ban issue. PvP issues have hardly been addressed (according to those I've talked to in-game at least). I mean, the only real change recently that I've seen is TrailTurtle in-game playing. And with all due respect to him, that's all I've seen. (Don't get me wrong though, you're a hell of a step up from StormShade)

I feel like not only was I not given the free coffee coupon by Cryptic, but I wasn't even given a hot cup sleeve and was half-heartedly tossed the coffee.

The game has been great, but if all we're ever going to know about and get is what we have now and some occasional content with the equivalent value of a door prize, I think in a way it could be said we're on the road to losing the game anyway?

ashensnow · December 2012

nepht wrote: »

you vote with a ballet paper

Is ballet paper that rice based stuff that a Shao Lin Monk can walk on without leaving a mark ?

decorumfriends · December 2012

"Take the pointy voting stylus from my hand, Grasshopper..."

holloweaver · December 2012

jonsills wrote: »

If you close your wallet on CO as a form of protest, even if there's something you might like to buy, Cryptic (and PWE) are more likely to see that as a sign that the game is losing money and needs to be shuttered, than as a sign that they need to throw more of their own cash into it.

What you might want to consider instead is sending thoughtful, well-written emails to anyone whose email address you can find at Cryptic. (No, "gimme more stuffs or i eat your babies" is not well-written... ) Snail mail might help, too. In fact, if I can remember where I left my stamps, I might drop a snail-mail missive to them...

Though I do understand your point, it's not exactly how investment works.
In economics, money's never put into a profitable company as this company generates enough profit to reinvest into it and don't need investment support.
So the point is that in economics, it works rather the opposite way : investment is put only into companies that need money support.

But your argument's valid on the point that a louder community voice may help to catch Cryptic and PWE attention on Champs and may eventually help to change their investment planning for CO.

decorumfriends · December 2012

That may be an economic theory, but it hardly reflects real life. Profitable companies often need an influx of new capital to become even more profitable. Even moreso in the service industry, which is what an MMO most resembles. Providing services is a far different economic model than manufacturing goods.

holloweaver · December 2012

decorumfriends wrote: »

That may be an economic theory, but it hardly reflects real life. Profitable companies often need an influx of new capital to become even more profitable. Even moreso in the service industry, which is what an MMO most resembles. Providing services is a far different economic model than manufacturing goods.

It doesn't work this way but maybe you simply didn't detailed it correctly?

kenpojujitsu3 · December 2012

jonsills wrote: »

And when you buy bread at the grocery store, do you argue with the store owner until you're certain the proceeds are spent on the bakery department and not the deli? When you buy a car, do you ascertain that the manufacturer isn't putting any of your money toward the development of a new model?

And (the fatal flaw with all these "vote with your wallet" threads) if people stopped spending money on CO, what makes you think Cryptic wouldn't just shut it completely down as a total money loss?

Dead horse. Shouldn't even waste the keystrokes explaining this.

holloweaver wrote: »

In economics, money's never put into a profitable company as this company generates enough profit to reinvest into it and don't need investment support.

This is demonstrably false. The company I work for is the number two hospital in the US this year after having been number 1 for the last 21 years prior. The hospital is extremely profitable and does reinvest but money is also put in from outside sources constantly.

decorumfriends wrote: »

That may be an economic theory, but it hardly reflects real life. Profitable companies often need an influx of new capital to become even more profitable. Even moreso in the service industry, which is what an MMO most resembles. Providing services is a far different economic model than manufacturing goods.

Precisely, and our financials reflect this.

decorumfriends · December 2012

holloweaver has me wondering if he's been listening to Elmer Fudd and the elves:

It doesn't work this way but maybe you simply didn't detailed it correctly?

It actually DOES work that way in real life. There is often a serious disconnect between economic theory and practice.

holloweaver · December 2012

decorumfriends wrote: »

That may be an economic theory, but it hardly reflects real life. Profitable companies often need an influx of new capital to become even more profitable. Even moreso in the service industry, which is what an MMO most resembles. Providing services is a far different economic model than manufacturing goods.

Profitable companies don't "need" influx capital : many high ranked companies don't create new stock of earnings and make their profit from the stock trades but not from new money input.
Trading is also a value of trust and a company that needs more investment doesn't look like a healthy company while a company that makes profit and shows plans to grow more calls the traders' interest.

See what happened with NCSoft and Nexon : NCSoft needed investment from Nexon and showed no plans of why... It does work this way in real life.

notburningchick · December 2012

So ...

Does anyone have an example of a superhero MMO that managed to grow its subscriber base?

I mean, I know of one that had regular updates, excellent QA and polish, paid expansions, new systems (i.e., modes of gameplay) that, over its 8 year lifespan, still managed to drift from 150k or so subs to 50k.

Anyone?

That's the thing. The traditional amusement park take on a superhero MMO doesn't seem to have a model for growth. No amount of investment really seems to do much other than slow down the bleeding.

And CO was bled pretty heavily due to some gross incompetence on Cryptic's part during CO's first 6 months. Growing from "not many"? I think we might be in corporate "why bother" territory.

Partial list of goofy mistakes: releasing with 40 hours' worth of content (less than most AAA offline RPGs that don't have subs); the levelling curve nerf / patch; killing that god-awful underwater zones for 2 weeks, making the lack of content seem more glaring; shoddy QA (it got better for a while post-Kitchen Sink, but has drifted south since); the aforementioned Kitchen Sink patch; badbadbad communication (and lack thereof); shifting bodies off CO to STO exacerbating the release-era problems; Cryptic's ongoing commitment towards treating CO's users like marks at a carnival (having us pay to fix CO's most glaring bug [or poor design choice, for the pedantic], lack of content).

Hey, guys? I don't see any real way forward for Cryptic to make money (and theoretically increase the dev team) without applying to some of the basest needs , desires, and vices of the current community that is deeply committed. Since they can't ply me with beer, make the game ... adults-only ..., that leaves gambling.

decorumfriends · December 2012

holloweaver speaks a lot of absolute:

Profitable companies don't "need" influx capital : many high ranked companies don't create new stock of earnings and make their profit from the stock trades but not from new money input.

Some do, some don't. It's quite dependent on HOW profitable we're talking about.

Trading is also a value of trust and a company that needs more investment doesn't look like a healthy company while a company that makes profit and shows plans to grow more calls the traders' interest.

Trading is hardly the only form of investment.

See what happened with NCSoft and Nexon : NCSoft needed investment from Nexon and showed no plans of why...

OK, am I fighting a language barrier (serious question)? Because I don't at all see what this part means (I know what happened, of course). "plans of why"? What would that have to do with whether a profitable company might need a capital investment?

xaogarrent · December 2012

notburningchick wrote: »

So ...

Does anyone have an example of a superhero MMO that managed to grow its subscriber base?

EVE Online. I was having this discussion a while back with someone else and they linked me a graph of it... Can't remember where they got it from, but what the graph showed was over the games lifetime its active playerbase very slowly doubled, although more recently was showing a downward trend.

So, it is possible. Why and how is more important anyway, because even if we haven't seen something to be possible yet, doesn't mean it isn't. Some random graphs showing the possibility or existence of something tell us nothing of why it happened, which until you figure that out often times you can't even say for sure if your data even matters.

Summary: It's more important to try and understand how it can happen, rather than if it has.

EDIT: Also, don't forget about the giganitc nerf patch they dropped on launch day, that made the game multiples harder. If you want to talk about population killers, there's your primary concern.

gandales · December 2012

xaogarrent wrote: »

EVE Online. I was having this discussion a while back with someone else and they linked me a graph of it... Can't remember where they got it from, but what the graph showed was over the games lifetime its active playerbase very slowly doubled, although more recently was showing a downward trend.

So, it is possible. Why and how is more important anyway, because even if we haven't seen something to be possible yet, doesn't mean it isn't. Some random graphs showing the possibility or existence of something tell us nothing of why it happened, which until you figure that out often times you can't even say for sure if your data even matters.

Summary: It's more important to try and understand how it can happen, rather than if it has.

EDIT: Also, don't forget about the giganitc nerf patch they dropped on launch day, that made the game multiples harder. If you want to talk about population killers, there's your primary concern.

Let's start with Eve is not a super hero game. Eve is a sci-fi game, while those markets overlap in some degree, I don't think it is enough to merge both categories.

Second, Eve is a sandbox game, while CO is a themepark. Rules are different and if people complain about time investment and grind here, Eve is way more demanding.

The main problem with superhero games is that its population tends to be too heterogenous given its already small size. Therefore the usual choices to address this are difficult. If they select one playstyle then only a fraction of the population will stay. If they try to please everyboby then the content would be perceived shallow.

In my opinion, CO safeboard is to try to go to asian market. This means to succeed where CoH could not(or was not allow to), by steering the game in ways that the classic comic fans would probably be against to. By relaxing the comic hero paradigm it would be possible to incorporate a broader audience.

spyralpegacyon · December 2012

notburningchick wrote: »

I mean, I know of one that had regular updates, excellent QA and polish, paid expansions, new systems (i.e., modes of gameplay) that, over its 8 year lifespan, still managed to drift from 150k or so subs to 50k.

I know of one that had the AAA-backing of Sony and DC Comics and showed it, and was designed to expand its user base to both the PC and the PS3. It went free to play in, what, less than a year?

That's the thing. The traditional amusement park take on a superhero MMO doesn't seem to have a model for growth. No amount of investment really seems to do much other than slow down the bleeding.

I think that can be said for 99% of all MMOs, but I do agree: We're a happy niche but we're still a niche.

xaogarrent · December 2012

gandales wrote: »

Let's start with Eve is not a super hero game. Eve is a sci-fi game, while those markets overlap in some degree, I don't think it is enough to merge both categories.

Sci Fi MMOs are about as "niche" as Superhero ones. Maybe slightly less, but lets face it, we haven't seen the numbers a fantasy MMO can pull in ever gained by a Sci Fi one. If there aren't tall and thin dudes with pointy ears and ugly green guys, it's probably going to get labeled "niche." This is what's important here.

gandales wrote: »

Second, Eve is a sandbox game, while CO is a themepark. Rules are different and if people complain about time investment and grind here, Eve is way more demanding.

This is by large and far completely irrelevant. Time investment and active subs aren't inherently connected to each other. Time investment will effect the number of active players at any given time, but inherently it has no little to no direct effect on an increase or decrease to either over a given period of time.

gandales wrote: »

The main problem with superhero games is that its population tends to be too heterogenous given its already small size. Therefore the usual choices to address this are difficult. If they select one playstyle then only a fraction of the population will stay. If they try to please everyboby then the content would be perceived shallow.

This I can agree with, because the Superhero genre is heterogeneous by nature. But seeing as CoX still did better than us it's safe to assume that this is not what is primarily responsible for the bad shape CO is in.

In fact, if you actually look at CoX, and remember some of the statements the devs made, a lot of their decisions on what to develop were based off of what would please the greatest portion of players. Something to realize is while everyone wants different things, there are some things a majority of the players want collectively.

gandales wrote: »

In my opinion, CO safeboard is to try to go to asian market. This means to succeed where CoH could not(or was not allow to), by steering the game in ways that the classic comic fans would probably be against to. By relaxing the comic hero paradigm it would be possible to incorporate a broader audience.

The Asian market doesn't care about Superhero games, as we learned when NCSoft tried that. The non-Asian market hates the way the Asian Market operates. Doing this, will result in no one being pleased.

CO already has potential to appeal to people who don't strictly like Comic Books. I'm not a Comic Book person, personally, I just like Superheroes. But who doesn't? There's a Superhero for everyone, like magic? Dr. Strange. Tech? Iron Man. Want a dramatic modernish setting? X-Men is your thing, and X-Men does just about everything. Want dark and gritty? Watchmen.

Comic book heroes go under the sea, across the planet and into space. You can make guys in tights, dudes in powered armor, vile demons, silly furries, epic ninjas and any number of other things and still be within the genre. Problem isn't broader audience here. There's plenty of problems, but this isn't one of them.

visionstorm01 · December 2012

I know this already has been discussed at length, but...

jonsills wrote: »

And (the fatal flaw with all these "vote with your wallet" threads) if people stopped spending money on CO, what makes you think Cryptic wouldn't just shut it completely down as a total money loss?

xaogarrent wrote: »

I see no flaw whatsoever. Sink or swim in the name of the game, when I vote with my wallet I'm expecting one or those two things to happen, and if it turns out to be sink... Well good riddance/damn shame.

...This^

It is not our responsibility to financially support the company till the end no matter what. It is up to the company to make this game an attractive option for us to invest on and to attract enough paying costumers to keep their product afloat. If they don't, its not a fault in us its a fault in them.

Would that mean that in such a hypothetical (but perhaps likely) scenario we would have to watch this game die? Of course it does. But throwing money at a company that is doing nothing to help itself (or more precisely one of their products) will NOT stop that from happening--it will only postpone the inevitable. And it will not feel guilty that I did not throw enough money at a company to save itself or its product when they clearly aren't doing enough to achieve that regardless of my involvement or lack of.

notburningchick wrote: »

The traditional amusement park take on a superhero MMO doesn't seem to have a model for growth. No amount of investment really seems to do much other than slow down the bleeding.

I agree with this entirely but this is not exclusively a CO problem, though, given the minimal amount of content that we have and the themepark focus of the mayority of it, its perhaps more apparent here than in other games. Developers can't possibly provide themepark style content faster than the players can eat through it and later find themselves with nothing to do. It is virtually impossible as the amount of time it takes to create a two hour mission (just to throw a random time figure) will ALWAYS be several times more than two hours.

Personally, I believe that the MMO indistry needs to find ways to adapat sandbox elements and provide enganging, repeatable content that can keep players interested in the long run, rather than focus primarily on "play it once then do NOTHING" themepark content. I believe that themepark games like TSW and GW2 have made strides in this area by making the bulk of their content repeatable, but more needs to be done and more companies need to incorporate similar elements to their games to keep more people enganged for the longrun, rather than play the bulk of the game's content once then find themselves with nothing to do and no reason to sub.

haleakala · December 2012

There's another thing about declaring you will not spend money on the game until... If they don't change what bugs you (and they probably won't), it's a card you can only play once. I would have preferred to make that declaration about the removal of the chat ban system. I couldn't because I'd already made it about lack of content.

xaogarrent · December 2012

haleakala wrote: »

There's another thing about declaring you will not spend money on the game until... If they don't change what bugs you (and they probably won't), it's a card you can only play once. I would have preferred to make that declaration about the removal of the chat ban system. I couldn't because I'd already made it about lack of content.

I've been keeping my sub active, but since they implemented grab bags I haven't spent a dime on the C-Store. Don't plan to, either, until Lock Boxes go away. I'd be glad to buy some vehicles for two or three of my characters, but at this point I'm wary of even using my stipend to do that since I don't know how they track those things. I do not want to support gamble boxes/bags, or anything they're associated with, in any capacity.

Either way, there's a lot of stuff I could have bought, that I haven't, because of this grab bag/lockbox nonsense. I was planning on eventually getting all the hideouts (or most of them anyway) and up until that point I had bought every single costume set but I think one, which is no longer the case.

gavinruneblade · December 2012

My take on this: STO hired Dr. Aeon now Commander Ander. At the same time they put Lifetime Subscriptions on sale. I borrowed money and bought one, and posted in the announcement thread about hiring him that he was the reason why. Two threads on the forum have since cropped up about the value of a LTS and both times I again stated that I vote with my wallet, I liked his work and I have every reason to suspect I will continue to like it.

I would do the same in a heartbeat for Champions if I found out they hired Melissa "War Witch" or Black Scorpion, or Dink (dear God I'd love to see what she can do with asymmetrical costumes like we have here), David "Noble Savage" Nakayama, etc... This would show a commitment to improve the game (invest resources in new staff) as well as them liking the same thing I did.

On the marketing side of the argument, superheroes have crossed out of niche and out of comics. Champions looks like a comic book game but superheroes are no longer the property of comics. The movies and TV series are getting more fans than the comics ever will. A firm who embraces this, and wraps in all the other side niches that we love (horror, modern-world sci-fi, aliens, steampunk, martial arts, kaiju/giant monster, etc) can make a game with an audience vastly larger than "comic book superhero fans". In my mind, this is the angle to go for.

And I think that already CO has a good framework for this. It would be very easy to use content (monetized content yes, but new content) either into existing zones or new zones to channel that experience.

Vampire Diaries, True Blood, etc? Vibora Bay. Walking Dead? Desert. Godzilla? Monster Island. But these aren't 1-40 experiences. They're limited. Grow them out, drop in some comic series etc. and you have the ability to do targetted advertising to many groups and grow the base.

Also on money, I think STO's model is a bit smarter. They are drifting to Dilithium (questionite) rather than Zen as the basis for their income. It is limited, but available for free. You can buy it over the exchange and they make sure you want far more than you are likely to get by yourself. So the desire is there to pay for more. This rewards the free player who grinds it for you by letting them buy things for zen they otherwise can't. It also lets free players get the good stuff as an in-game currency, not real world currency is the core by which new shinies are marked. Essentially, real world cash hits the "buy it NAO" people, and free players can wait in line and get it eventually. I find I'm very much appreciating this model. I don't see any reason it wouldn't work for Champions as well. Yes to some degree this already exists, the difference is in emphasis, and how much content uses one or the other (STO has vastly more "stuff" you can buy with Dil than CO has for Quest; CO has vastly more in the Zen store than STO does).

They can't sell a new comic series, but they can have new action figures, costumes etc unlocked with questionite combined with perks (to unlock) and recognition tokens (to reward replay) from running the content. This monetizes the new content, but lets free players still enjoy it.

My long and rambling thoughts.

Also, I agree with virtually everything Jon said.

rapierwhip · December 2012

Voting with our wallets is about the only option left to us since Cryptic does not seem to be interested in well thought out and carefully constructed suggestions or repeated begging for certain things.

If a department store is not seeing the profits they want from a department and they want to see better profits from it, the only option they have is to devote more resources into improving that department. Closing down a department in a store often involves a significant loss from man-hours devoted to it and products unsold. It is more often the better financial decision to overhaul the department for better sales.

Which is what needs to happen here.

smoochan · December 2012

The problem with voting with your wallet is, it really only effects you. Unless you somehow manage to forge some sort of alliance with the majority of the population which will then boycott the cash shop and the subscription button, it won't really do anything.

And no, this cannot be accomplished through the forums, because this place is only populated by about 10 people, and half of them think this game is fine and nothing should change.

At best, you can offer the devs a Yes vote, by buying what they put out. Not buying it does not however give a No vote.

gamehobo · December 2012

When (if?) the telepathy powers come out I plan on rewarding Cryptic (specifically Gentleman Crush) with $.

Because I appreciate his work and ability to listen to input.
Because I want the game to succeed.
Because I believe in positive reinforcement and never negative (not a cent from me for vehicles)
Because I want to show that powers and playable content are things I support

I'm on the silver model now. No more memberships for me.. so if Cryptic wants my $ they will have to do things I like. That's just the bottom line for me.

vikaernes · December 2012

On the topic of communicating to Cryptic via alternate means (email or letter writing):

That is completely unnecessary. These forums exist for this very purpose, as an outlet for players to discuss the game and offer feedback. There has been an overwhelming negative response to a lot of the changes in the game for quite some time now. It's impossible to ignore, and ridiculous to think that the developers for CO do not know what their playerbase is asking for.

darqaura · December 2012

smoochan wrote: »

The problem with voting with your wallet is, it really only effects you. Unless you somehow manage to forge some sort of alliance with the majority of the population which will then boycott the cash shop and the subscription button, it won't really do anything.

And no, this cannot be accomplished through the forums, because this place is only populated by about 10 people, and half of them think this game is fine and nothing should change.

At best, you can offer the devs a Yes vote, by buying what they put out. Not buying it does not however give a No vote.

The best you can do is stop playing and paying.

If it's a bad product you don't enjoy continuing to pay for it is both masochistic and kind of psychotic.

And this applies to ANY product just not video games.

xaogarrent · December 2012

darqaura2 wrote: »

The best you can do is stop playing and paying.

If it's a bad product you don't enjoy continuing to pay for it is both masochistic and kind of psychotic.

And this applies to ANY product just not video games.

The problem is it's rarely, if ever, that simple.

You know what was a game that was incredibly buggy, to the point where some of the bugs absolutely trivialized the whole game? A game that, overall, was horribly balanced, with some characters being significantly more powerful than others, and the leveling system as well as items and skills having more exploits than just about any game of its type? You know, what we often complain about in CO?

Final Fantasy 6. Yes, that is correct, the game that's often considered the BEST game in the Final Fantasy series. The same game that is outright heralded as one of the greatest examples of a console RPG of its time, if not all time.

On that note, the one game that's often considered even better than it, Chrono Trigger, was NOTORIOUS for being incredibly easy. Yet the game also garnered an extremely high replay score and still to this day is heralded for its incredible production value, compelling story and terrific gameplay.

Problem is, a product can have flaws, and strengths. Sometimes, a product can have some incredible potential hidden in it, that people hang on to the very end in hopes it will eventually be realized. In some cases, the strengths and potential is so high people are even willing to outright forgive its flaws.

It's quite possible that the same product gets better and worse over time, due to mismanagement, and it's possible that if it gets worse people have already invested in it quite a bit assuming that it would be improving over time.

Naturally, it's a damn shame when that thing never realizes its true potential, and it's quite a sad thing to watch it crumple into a pile of failure when you know for a fact it could have been so very much better.

taintedmess · December 2012

spyralpegacyon wrote: »

I know of one that had the AAA-backing of Sony and DC Comics and showed it, and was designed to expand its user base to both the PC and the PS3. It went free to play in, what, less than a year?

Thing is "free to play" doesn't mean the same as it once did its los much of its negative stigma at one point it was pretty much considered the death throws of a game now its pretty much standard practise especially the hybrid subscription mode DCUO (and CO for that matter) uses.

smoochan · December 2012

xaogarrent wrote: »

The problem is it's rarely, if ever, that simple.

It actually is that simple. What he's saying is, if the game doesn't work for you, stop playing it and put it out of your mind. Simple.

diarrea76 · December 2012

smoochan wrote: »

It actually is that simple. What he's saying is, if the game doesn't work for you, stop playing it and put it out of your mind. Simple.

It is not. It's not black or white. If I love the game maybe I become gold. If I like the game I'll be silver. I have to be extremely in love with a game to pay for playing it. I could pay for playing CO however CO is the least important of PWE's games and if I'd pay for playing this game I'd have nothing in return. So a big mass of silvers willing to pay for something like the Foundry, new zones, etc. will keep on being silvers. And basically that's what this post is about, we're saying to PWE 'Hey, if you try a little harder we are willing to give you our money'. They are unable to sell us their product. If I were unable to sell my company's products my boss would fire me btw.

However all of this that we are writing here is nothing but crap (no offense): NO ONE IN PWE IS READING THIS. THEY DON'T CARE AT ALL. Does someone think someone in PWE reads for instance the Suggestions thread? Come on!

So sadly for PWE they'll never have my money.

xaogarrent · December 2012

smoochan wrote: »

It actually is that simple. What he's saying is, if the game doesn't work for you, stop playing it and put it out of your mind. Simple.

No, it really isn't. But as usual, you're incapable of understanding this.

There are plenty of things that are black and white, and plenty of things that are shades of grey. Sometimes, games fall into that grey area. More often than not, actually. CO has plenty of issues, but it's not Superman 64, to be blunt.

Sometimes You Have To Vote With Your Wallet.

Comments