Seeing GW2, DCUO, CoX (kinda sorta), and now TSW embrace this model, I'm curious. I'm not sure if PWE is curious as well, but its worth asking:
Would you be willing to pay for a new zone / comic / power set combo expansion?
I need some clarification in order to answer this question. GW2 doesn't charge a sub fee. The other games, from what I have been told, do not charge subscribers for DLC.
Are you suggesting following the patterns of the games you mention, where someone paying a subscription fee would not need to pay for the expansion ?
Currently I would be willing to pay for an expansion, assuming that quality, performance, and bug issues with the current game were addressed to my satisfaction first. I would be unwilling to pay for an expansion if the current incarnation of the game is subpar (IMO).
I don't think Cryptic / PW give a rat's hindquarters about investing in CO. If the current dev team (perhaps an overly grandiose term) were to launch themselves into a new zone with missions, events, new art, &c., would we put up with nothing else being added in the interim?
I can't speak for anyone else, but I certainly would. In fact, I consider that their primary purpose. Of course, as you note, if the current "team" had to work on it, it'd probably take years.
And that brings us, as always back to "You don't have enough people working there to actually DO anything!" which comes back to "we won't spend any money".
To all appearances, Cryptic has embraced/been bullied into PW's business plan. At least when it comes to CO they have. Make a game, do a little work on it so people play long enough to get invested, and then ignore it in favor of their new projects except for the occasional "gameplay enhancing" addition they can sell to players for more money.
Sort of. It's more like they found a "brother in arms" because Cryptic was always like this, just not quite this bad.
"What are you people talking about? We had a bunch of people working on the game, but we finished and so I fired most of them!"
"Coming out of City of Heroes we launched to great acclaim, we got a lot of publicity, everybody loved it, but we didn't have crafting and we didn't have PvP. All there was to do was fight. Over the years everybody pinged us on this. We added PvP and didn't really gain any subscribers. We added crafting and we gained roughly ten thousand subscribers for three months and then it went back down. So in the grand scheme of things, what I learned is, if you didn't have a feature at launch, you might as well never have it. Whatever you're going to have at launch defines you as a game."
"Coming out of City of Heroes we launched to great acclaim, we got a lot of publicity, everybody loved it, but we didn't have crafting and we didn't have PvP. All there was to do was fight. Over the years everybody pinged us on this. We added PvP and didn't really gain any subscribers. We added crafting and we gained roughly ten thousand subscribers for three months and then it went back down. So in the grand scheme of things, what I learned is, if you didn't have a feature at launch, you might as well never have it. Whatever you're going to have at launch defines you as a game."
What a lousy outlook. Our CEO, ladies and gentlemen.
"Coming out of City of Heroes we launched to great acclaim, we got a lot of publicity, everybody loved it, but we didn't have crafting and we didn't have PvP. All there was to do was fight. Over the years everybody pinged us on this. We added PvP and didn't really gain any subscribers. We added crafting and we gained roughly ten thousand subscribers for three months and then it went back down. So in the grand scheme of things, what I learned is, if you didn't have a feature at launch, you might as well never have it. Whatever you're going to have at launch defines you as a game."
Which doesn't fill me with confidence about any Cryptic game's longevity, and doesn't inspire me to invest in Cryptic's games... at all. Its not about bringing in more subscribers, its about still having them 8 years down the road and flocking to it an a gigantic spectacle and show of solidarity when it finally does close down.
I need some clarification in order to answer this question. GW2 doesn't charge a sub fee. The other games, from what I have been told, do not charge subscribers for DLC.
For GW2, its not DLC but expansions. Pretty much the same thing, you're paying for the next round of content.
Are you suggesting following the patterns of the games you mention, where someone paying a subscription fee would not need to pay for the expansion ?
That looks to be how it works elsewhere, so yeah, we'll go for it here.
"Coming out of City of Heroes we launched to great acclaim, we got a lot of publicity, everybody loved it, but we didn't have crafting and we didn't have PvP. All there was to do was fight. Over the years everybody pinged us on this. We added PvP and didn't really gain any subscribers. We added crafting and we gained roughly ten thousand subscribers for three months and then it went back down. So in the grand scheme of things, what I learned is, if you didn't have a feature at launch, you might as well never have it. Whatever you're going to have at launch defines you as a game."
What a lousy outlook. Our CEO, ladies and gentlemen.
Unfortunately, it's not entirely incorrect.
Wowing people with new features long after launch is difficult. Getting them to even use them requires you either dump them on their head (I. E. Alerts) or make something that is downright outstanding. Games with lots of momentum (and thus resources) take the second option, and succeed as a result, but not everyone is so lucky.
Furthermore, it doesn't tend to draw in new players as much as it attempts to draw back old ones, or keep current ones. Which in itself is part of the reason you do updates, but depending on the frequency and quality of what you're capable of it can show diminishing returns over time.
That isn't to say the model they're attempting now is any better, just that- to put it in more general terms- being successful in the long term with any sort of game is hard.
...I just recently realized something really disturbing. We're all eating Sodapop3's "humble pie."
Wowing people with new features long after launch is difficult. Getting them to even use them requires you either dump them on their head (I. E. Alerts) or make something that is downright outstanding. Games with lots of momentum (and thus resources) take the second option, and succeed as a result, but not everyone is so lucky.
Furthermore, it doesn't tend to draw in new players as much as it attempts to draw back old ones, or keep current ones. Which in itself is part of the reason you do updates, but depending on the frequency and quality of what you're capable of it can show diminishing returns over time.
That isn't to say the model they're attempting now is any better, just that- to put it in more general terms- being successful in the long term with any sort of game is hard.
I agree that making just about any game work in the long term is difficult but Jack's philosophy on long term seems to be "Oops, better luck next game."
"Coming out of City of Heroes we launched to great acclaim, we got a lot of publicity, everybody loved it, but we didn't have crafting and we didn't have PvP. All there was to do was fight. Over the years everybody pinged us on this. We added PvP and didn't really gain any subscribers. We added crafting and we gained roughly ten thousand subscribers for three months and then it went back down. So in the grand scheme of things, what I learned is, if you didn't have a feature at launch, you might as well never have it. Whatever you're going to have at launch defines you as a game."
Which is funny, because this is the same man that was quoted saying that you could release an unpolished unfinished MMO and people would pay you to finish it.
I agree that making just about any game work in the long term is difficult but Jack's philosophy on long term seems to be "Oops, better luck next game."
Except for STO, but he's got Paramount to appease there.
Wowing people with new features long after launch is difficult. Getting them to even use them requires you either dump them on their head (I. E. Alerts) or make something that is downright outstanding. Games with lots of momentum (and thus resources) take the second option, and succeed as a result, but not everyone is so lucky.
Furthermore, it doesn't tend to draw in new players as much as it attempts to draw back old ones, or keep current ones. Which in itself is part of the reason you do updates, but depending on the frequency and quality of what you're capable of it can show diminishing returns over time.
That isn't to say the model they're attempting now is any better, just that- to put it in more general terms- being successful in the long term with any sort of game is hard.
I agree that making just about any game work in the long term is difficult but Jack's philosophy on long term seems to be "Oops, better luck next game."
Exactly,
If at first you don't succeed, try... something else.
Which is funny, because this is the same man that was quoted saying that you could release an unpolished unfinished MMO and people would pay you to finish it.
What's REALLY funny is that shortly before NCSoft purchased CoH from Cryptic, Cryptic introduced the market and crafting which DID win people over to a new system. But the market and crafting were well done whereas bases and PvP (honestly, bases, at release, were tied so closely to PvP there were nearly 2 halves of the same coin) were not.
The rule Jack got wrong for CO's release is better stated: Players will not use systems if they are poorly implemented.
Comments
I need some clarification in order to answer this question. GW2 doesn't charge a sub fee. The other games, from what I have been told, do not charge subscribers for DLC.
Are you suggesting following the patterns of the games you mention, where someone paying a subscription fee would not need to pay for the expansion ?
Currently I would be willing to pay for an expansion, assuming that quality, performance, and bug issues with the current game were addressed to my satisfaction first. I would be unwilling to pay for an expansion if the current incarnation of the game is subpar (IMO).
'Caine, miss you bud. Fly high.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I certainly would. In fact, I consider that their primary purpose. Of course, as you note, if the current "team" had to work on it, it'd probably take years.
And that brings us, as always back to "You don't have enough people working there to actually DO anything!" which comes back to "we won't spend any money".
Sort of. It's more like they found a "brother in arms" because Cryptic was always like this, just not quite this bad.
"What are you people talking about? We had a bunch of people working on the game, but we finished and so I fired most of them!"
http://massively.joystiq.com/2010/08/23/massively-exclusive-jack-emmert-speaks-about-neverwinter-and-a/
"Coming out of City of Heroes we launched to great acclaim, we got a lot of publicity, everybody loved it, but we didn't have crafting and we didn't have PvP. All there was to do was fight. Over the years everybody pinged us on this. We added PvP and didn't really gain any subscribers. We added crafting and we gained roughly ten thousand subscribers for three months and then it went back down. So in the grand scheme of things, what I learned is, if you didn't have a feature at launch, you might as well never have it. Whatever you're going to have at launch defines you as a game."
What a lousy outlook. Our CEO, ladies and gentlemen.
Which doesn't fill me with confidence about any Cryptic game's longevity, and doesn't inspire me to invest in Cryptic's games... at all. Its not about bringing in more subscribers, its about still having them 8 years down the road and flocking to it an a gigantic spectacle and show of solidarity when it finally does close down.
QFT
For GW2, its not DLC but expansions. Pretty much the same thing, you're paying for the next round of content.
That looks to be how it works elsewhere, so yeah, we'll go for it here.
Wow.
Just wow.
How the hell is this guy even running a business?
Unfortunately, it's not entirely incorrect.
Wowing people with new features long after launch is difficult. Getting them to even use them requires you either dump them on their head (I. E. Alerts) or make something that is downright outstanding. Games with lots of momentum (and thus resources) take the second option, and succeed as a result, but not everyone is so lucky.
Furthermore, it doesn't tend to draw in new players as much as it attempts to draw back old ones, or keep current ones. Which in itself is part of the reason you do updates, but depending on the frequency and quality of what you're capable of it can show diminishing returns over time.
That isn't to say the model they're attempting now is any better, just that- to put it in more general terms- being successful in the long term with any sort of game is hard.
...I just recently realized something really disturbing. We're all eating Sodapop3's "humble pie."
I agree that making just about any game work in the long term is difficult but Jack's philosophy on long term seems to be "Oops, better luck next game."
Which is funny, because this is the same man that was quoted saying that you could release an unpolished unfinished MMO and people would pay you to finish it.
Except for STO, but he's got Paramount to appease there.
Exactly,
If at first you don't succeed, try... something else.
What's REALLY funny is that shortly before NCSoft purchased CoH from Cryptic, Cryptic introduced the market and crafting which DID win people over to a new system. But the market and crafting were well done whereas bases and PvP (honestly, bases, at release, were tied so closely to PvP there were nearly 2 halves of the same coin) were not.
The rule Jack got wrong for CO's release is better stated: Players will not use systems if they are poorly implemented.