The only option is, as stated before, to not buy ships and bundles - at all - and then buy when (IF) by pure coincidence their next move is to sell mission packs.
But there are a lot of 'if's involved, it requires one individually to not 'cave' no matter how long one wanted a ship and it assumes the game wouldn't simply end if the current business model decreases profits. And that assumes that there will be even enough individual players that decide to hold out buying bundles and ships to make a dent in profits in the first place.
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
I don’t know if I am interested in funding much in the game as long as the dillex is broken. The game used to be pretty friendly for casual players. It may still be, I don’t know for sure.
I can imagine though if I wanted to give Cryptic money to make more episodes—one possible solution may be crowd funding. If enough people agreed to chip in towards the mission, Cryptic could have the money on the condition that a portion of that went to the mission.
Obviously, they would probably want some of that money to keep, right. If all the money went to the mission—sure it would be “free.” But if it wasn’t as profitable as using those development hours to make another ship, they still wouldn’t like doing it.
It’s not that content or bridges or KDF ships are not profitable. It is that gamble ships are most profitable relative to the development hours.
So maybe there is no viable solution. Maybe something like an open-source foundry clone?
Cryptic *tried* selling mission packs, in CO (back when that was still a fairly thriving game). It flopped. Horribly. They're not going to make the same mistake twice.
Cryptic *tried* selling mission packs, in CO (back when that was still a fairly thriving game). It flopped. Horribly. They're not going to make the same mistake twice.
That assumes the problem was *WHAT* they were monetizing and not *HOW* it was being monetized. Cryptic's long, storied track record of boneheaded leadership decisions strongly suggests that's a foolish assumption to make.
Oh, no, it was what was being monetized. The price per pack was pretty cheap, but it instantly divided the playerbase into those who had the Adventure Packs and those who did not, meaning that your ability to progress through a Free-To-Play game was dependent on whether or not you could afford more of that game - kind of the opposite of F2P.
Cryptic *tried* selling mission packs, in CO (back when that was still a fairly thriving game). It flopped. Horribly. They're not going to make the same mistake twice.
That assumes the problem was *WHAT* they were monetizing and not *HOW* it was being monetized. Cryptic's long, storied track record of boneheaded leadership decisions strongly suggests that's a foolish assumption to make.
Oh, no, it was what was being monetized. The price per pack was pretty cheap, but it instantly divided the playerbase into those who had the Adventure Packs and those who did not, meaning that your ability to progress through a Free-To-Play game was dependent on whether or not you could afford more of that game - kind of the opposite of F2P.
Both LOTRO and GW2 (probably many others?) are labeled F2P but both sell expansion packs and seem to be successful games. It is completely dependent upon the game/company in question and not the model itself.
I can't take it anymore! Could everyone just chill out for two seconds before something CRAZY happens again?!
The nut who actually ground out many packs. The resident forum voice of reason (I HAZ FORUM REP! YAY!)
normal text = me speaking as fellow formite colored text = mod mode
Dangit. Did this thread really devolve into people taking shots at each other?
I just wanted to post saying I wish there was a way to "show them the money" to value making quality episodes more quickly, too.
Cryptic *tried* selling mission packs, in CO (back when that was still a fairly thriving game). It flopped. Horribly. They're not going to make the same mistake twice.
That assumes the problem was *WHAT* they were monetizing and not *HOW* it was being monetized. Cryptic's long, storied track record of boneheaded leadership decisions strongly suggests that's a foolish assumption to make.
Oh, no, it was what was being monetized. The price per pack was pretty cheap, but it instantly divided the playerbase into those who had the Adventure Packs and those who did not, meaning that your ability to progress through a Free-To-Play game was dependent on whether or not you could afford more of that game - kind of the opposite of F2P.
This is true. Cryptic/PWE painted themselves into a corner with their choice of a Free To Play model.
Every other MMO dev out there at the time that had taken a game FtP made accessing the game, even obtaining it, free, but charged for content added beyond what was present at the time the game went FtP. This did not KILL those games. Othere decisions made caused problems with them, most notably when loot boxes were added. For all those other games, the general consumer base accepted that Free to Play simply meant no REQUIREMENT to pay a monthly subscription. They accepted that they would still be expected to pay for additional content upon exhausting the core content. Oh... and those games also did not abandon the subscription model. They just made it so that those who were subscribed automatically got access to added content for as long as the subscription was maintained. This allowed players to choose their level of monetary commitment.
Play entirely for free, and you have access to all content that was available at the start of Free to Play
Buy content packs and other unlocks piece meal
Or subscribe and get everything unlocked for X amount per month
Or Buy a lifetime subscription that unlocked everything and for a price that worked out to be cheaper if one bought all the individual pieces separately.
Those models work too. The biggest difference between them and what Cryptic chose to do is that they see more playable content released in one year than Cryptic has managed to release in FOUR. Unless you count ships as content, which I do not. To me they are FLUFF
Buying ships only insures more ships to buy, as fast as it can be produced.
Buying lockbox keys only ensures more ships in lockboxes, as fast as they can be produced.
Nothing monetized ensures the development of more playable content any faster.
One argument I've seen tossed around is Different devs produce ships from those who produce missions... That is the whole point. They've made damned sure that the ship production side is staffed adequately. They have NOT staffed the content production side adequately to deliver more than 13 releases in four years... FOUR YEARS. Let that sink in.
I wouldn't call TWO ship artists (yes, that's all they have ON STAFF) well staffed; they use 'outside contractors' like Tobias Richter as needed. It appears nothing is all that well staffed at Cryptic.
Formerly known as Armsman from June 2008 to June 20, 2012 PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
Dear god I wish there was a way to financially show Cryptic that we want good mission content decently frequently. I'd think of saving up and buying the expansion packs' z-store bundles, but that'd probably just show the team that I'm interested in items, not expacs. So I'm not sure what to do to show what I *do* want. >_<
Sorry, can you please define what you mean by that term and how it differs from normal forum debate?
I'm genuinely not sure who/what posts you are referring to.
Whatever your response, please be clear/specific and not ambiguous so there is no misunderstanding.
The back and forth between some of you guys and jonsils is getting a bit more heated than the average debate. Debates are good, but I have noticed some topics tend to lead more towards hints of aggressive side. Mostly topics revolving around how people feel Cryptic should do business.
IMO debating topics like that is a gray area because there's no real defined corners so to speak. Everyone has a differing opinion, and... honestly... its a lot easier for tempers to flare up with these kinds of topics.
Right now all I'm saying is be aware that topics like this can lead to interpretations that are sharper than intended. Some see a debate, others may see tensions going up.
I can't take it anymore! Could everyone just chill out for two seconds before something CRAZY happens again?!
The nut who actually ground out many packs. The resident forum voice of reason (I HAZ FORUM REP! YAY!)
normal text = me speaking as fellow formite colored text = mod mode
Episodes cost more time and resources to make with very little return.
Ships, much quicker and cheaper to make, lots of return.
If you were an executive in charge of pretty much the only Star Trek game in town, which would you pick. Players are still buying so why worry about shovelling out story content to placate them. We have another season of Picard coming so that's more players coming in to fly the new hotness that results from that.
I tentatively agree with the OP. IF gearbox allowed Cryptic to hire additional devs, I would like to see team alpha continue the STO storyline as they have it mapped out, while team Bravo works on a pay for expansion lind of like what Blizzard did with WoW. so free STO would be adventuring in the milkey Way, then the expansion could be STO:Andromeda
Episodes cost more time and resources to make with very little return.
Ships, much quicker and cheaper to make, lots of return.
If you were an executive in charge of pretty much the only Star Trek game in town, which would you pick. Players are still buying so why worry about shovelling out story content to placate them. We have another season of Picard coming so that's more players coming in to fly the new hotness that results from that.
Nothing you said here is untrue, however, it's not the entire picture.
Episodes have a lower direct return on investment, yes.. but they're absolutely needed in order to cash in on your 'big money makers.' No one is going to buy ships through any method if there is no game to use them in. The more content the game has, the more people enjoy and play the game. The more they play, the more emotionally invested they are, the more time they spend and therefore.. the more money they spend.
The entire thing is a big eco system one feeding into the other. We all understand the monetization and how profitable these bundles and promos are, we just feel that people would be more encouraged to pay that amount of there was more on the content side.
Many of us feel that the current ratio is not optimal between content and monetization.
Episodes cost more time and resources to make with very little return.
Ships, much quicker and cheaper to make, lots of return.
If you were an executive in charge of pretty much the only Star Trek game in town, which would you pick. Players are still buying so why worry about shovelling out story content to placate them. We have another season of Picard coming so that's more players coming in to fly the new hotness that results from that.
Nothing you said here is untrue, however, it's not the entire picture.
Episodes have a lower direct return on investment, yes.. but they're absolutely needed in order to cash in on your 'big money makers.' No one is going to buy ships through any method if there is no game to use them in. The more content the game has, the more people enjoy and play the game. The more they play, the more emotionally invested they are, the more time they spend and therefore.. the more money they spend.
The entire thing is a big eco system one feeding into the other. We all understand the monetization and how profitable these bundles and promos are, we just feel that people would be more encouraged to pay that amount of there was more on the content side.
Many of us feel that the current ratio is not optimal between content and monetization.
But the thing is for most MMO's a Quarterly content update is a production sweet spot. Very very few MMO's have surpassed that. Famously Asheron's Call. But many if not most don't come close to it. so it's a widely accepted pace. And that will be a hard impression for most to shake. Would I like a little more? Yeah sure. Maybe drop a new Patrol every few weeks or restore an old mission in between the major updates. But Quarterly updates are not really an outrage.
So I cannot find a breakdown of Cryptic's revenue per MMO. Doesn't surprise me. But Cryptic had a revenue of $38 million. The resource I found indicated while it's going up, the rate of growing up is a bit too variable.
Now, maybe Neverwinter or MtG is making more money. Wouldn't surprise me.
Then you look at Glassdoor (for the sake of brevity, I've removed any complaints or comments that do not pertain to game development.)
"Management tends to be clueless about the current state of the game, why things go over well with players, and how to interact with people.
Experts on the ground level are regularly ignored and told their opinion is irrelevant"
"Not pushing boundaries, ok with coasting with basic art
Management gets feedback but is slow to react or sometimes do not."
"Incompetent leadership
Many devs that don't play MMOs
Heavy focus on predatory/outdated monetization strategies with P2W"
(I omitted it: but there's a lot of "old tech" complaints.)
Several comments about P2W MMO focus, which..
I mean, I could go on ,but I think the point here is:
Cryptic won't. They focus on these tactics, expecting any more modern P2W mechanics like say, GW2 or, the sub models of ESO or FFXIV is foolhardy. It's *possible* Gearbox might do something, but the tenor of the announcement suggests they just want the revenue and projects under their umbrella.
Episodes cost more time and resources to make with very little return.
Ships, much quicker and cheaper to make, lots of return.
If you were an executive in charge of pretty much the only Star Trek game in town, which would you pick. Players are still buying so why worry about shovelling out story content to placate them. We have another season of Picard coming so that's more players coming in to fly the new hotness that results from that.
Nothing you said here is untrue, however, it's not the entire picture.
Episodes have a lower direct return on investment, yes.. but they're absolutely needed in order to cash in on your 'big money makers.' No one is going to buy ships through any method if there is no game to use them in. The more content the game has, the more people enjoy and play the game. The more they play, the more emotionally invested they are, the more time they spend and therefore.. the more money they spend.
The entire thing is a big eco system one feeding into the other. We all understand the monetization and how profitable these bundles and promos are, we just feel that people would be more encouraged to pay that amount of there was more on the content side.
Many of us feel that the current ratio is not optimal between content and monetization.
Absolutely agree.
And it's a crying shame. I mean, I waited eight years for them to finally remaster the Nova class and when it did finally come I was already so burnt-out on playing the same content over and over and over again that I found I wasn't actually enjoying the ship as much as I thought I would. But as have said elsewhere, I find the mobile-gaming-cash-grab mentality that drives their business model these days so distasteful that I don't really play the game anymore.
Uber-quoted.
We've been told that the game has been doing extremely well these past two years, (not counting 2022, of course), and yet we don't see the results at all.
Ship upon ship, expensive bundle upon expensive bundle... but where is the meant? Where are the stories?
Then again, maybe it's better this way: with all the stuff they've retconned already, I shudder to think what more they can butcher for the sake of this or that "new" story filled with famous characters - weren't we supposed to write OUR stories? I don't think that means following this or that "historic figure" like lapdogs.
Not agreeing with someone doesn't give you the right to be an TRIBBLE.
Ci sono tre tipi di giocatori:
- quelli a cui non va mai bene niente... e vanno sul forum a trollare;
- quelli che sono talmente imbesuiti da credere a qualunque cosa i dev dicano, perfino che la luna è fatta di formaggio... e vanno sul forum a trollare;
- quelli che credono a quello a cui è giusto credere, sono d'accordo con quello con cui è giusto essere d'accordo e sono critici con quello che non va;
Ai giocatori dei primi due tipi, gratis in omaggio un bello specchio lucente su cui arrampicarsi. E una mazzata in testa per la loro poca intelligenza e compassione verso gli altri giocatori che non la pensano come loro.
Agli appartenenti al terzo tipo, invece, dico grazie. Anche se non sempre si riesce a mantenere la calma, siete quelli per cui vale la pena incazzarsi.
Episodes cost more time and resources to make with very little return.
Ships, much quicker and cheaper to make, lots of return.
If you were an executive in charge of pretty much the only Star Trek game in town, which would you pick. Players are still buying so why worry about shovelling out story content to placate them. We have another season of Picard coming so that's more players coming in to fly the new hotness that results from that.
Nothing you said here is untrue, however, it's not the entire picture.
Episodes have a lower direct return on investment, yes.. but they're absolutely needed in order to cash in on your 'big money makers.' No one is going to buy ships through any method if there is no game to use them in. The more content the game has, the more people enjoy and play the game. The more they play, the more emotionally invested they are, the more time they spend and therefore.. the more money they spend.
The entire thing is a big eco system one feeding into the other. We all understand the monetization and how profitable these bundles and promos are, we just feel that people would be more encouraged to pay that amount of there was more on the content side.
Many of us feel that the current ratio is not optimal between content and monetization.
Absolutely agree.
And it's a crying shame. I mean, I waited eight years for them to finally remaster the Nova class and when it did finally come I was already so burnt-out on playing the same content over and over and over again that I found I wasn't actually enjoying the ship as much as I thought I would. But as have said elsewhere, I find the mobile-gaming-cash-grab mentality that drives their business model these days so distasteful that I don't really play the game anymore.
I'm currently flying the Nova on my built science character, in the Rhode Island skin, thanks to the T6 token they gave out. It's small, but I love it.
So I cannot find a breakdown of Cryptic's revenue per MMO. Doesn't surprise me. But Cryptic had a revenue of $38 million. The resource I found indicated while it's going up, the rate of growing up is a bit too variable.
Now, maybe Neverwinter or MtG is making more money. Wouldn't surprise me.
Then you look at Glassdoor (for the sake of brevity, I've removed any complaints or comments that do not pertain to game development.)
"Management tends to be clueless about the current state of the game, why things go over well with players, and how to interact with people.
Experts on the ground level are regularly ignored and told their opinion is irrelevant"
"Not pushing boundaries, ok with coasting with basic art
Management gets feedback but is slow to react or sometimes do not."
"Incompetent leadership
Many devs that don't play MMOs
Heavy focus on predatory/outdated monetization strategies with P2W"
(I omitted it: but there's a lot of "old tech" complaints.)
Several comments about P2W MMO focus, which..
I mean, I could go on ,but I think the point here is:
Cryptic won't. They focus on these tactics, expecting any more modern P2W mechanics like say, GW2 or, the sub models of ESO or FFXIV is foolhardy. It's *possible* Gearbox might do something, but the tenor of the announcement suggests they just want the revenue and projects under their umbrella.
Neverwinter might be making them money, but Magic Legends didn't. In fact, they had to give out refunds FOR the game because it got shuttered.
Episodes cost more time and resources to make with very little return.
Ships, much quicker and cheaper to make, lots of return.
If you were an executive in charge of pretty much the only Star Trek game in town, which would you pick. Players are still buying so why worry about shovelling out story content to placate them. We have another season of Picard coming so that's more players coming in to fly the new hotness that results from that.
Nothing you said here is untrue, however, it's not the entire picture.
Episodes have a lower direct return on investment, yes.. but they're absolutely needed in order to cash in on your 'big money makers.' No one is going to buy ships through any method if there is no game to use them in. The more content the game has, the more people enjoy and play the game. The more they play, the more emotionally invested they are, the more time they spend and therefore.. the more money they spend.
The entire thing is a big eco system one feeding into the other. We all understand the monetization and how profitable these bundles and promos are, we just feel that people would be more encouraged to pay that amount of there was more on the content side.
Many of us feel that the current ratio is not optimal between content and monetization.
Absolutely agree.
And it's a crying shame. I mean, I waited eight years for them to finally remaster the Nova class and when it did finally come I was already so burnt-out on playing the same content over and over and over again that I found I wasn't actually enjoying the ship as much as I thought I would. But as have said elsewhere, I find the mobile-gaming-cash-grab mentality that drives their business model these days so distasteful that I don't really play the game anymore.
I'm currently flying the Nova on my built science character, in the Rhode Island skin, thanks to the T6 token they gave out. It's small, but I love it.
So I cannot find a breakdown of Cryptic's revenue per MMO. Doesn't surprise me. But Cryptic had a revenue of $38 million. The resource I found indicated while it's going up, the rate of growing up is a bit too variable.
Now, maybe Neverwinter or MtG is making more money. Wouldn't surprise me.
Then you look at Glassdoor (for the sake of brevity, I've removed any complaints or comments that do not pertain to game development.)
"Management tends to be clueless about the current state of the game, why things go over well with players, and how to interact with people.
Experts on the ground level are regularly ignored and told their opinion is irrelevant"
"Not pushing boundaries, ok with coasting with basic art
Management gets feedback but is slow to react or sometimes do not."
"Incompetent leadership
Many devs that don't play MMOs
Heavy focus on predatory/outdated monetization strategies with P2W"
(I omitted it: but there's a lot of "old tech" complaints.)
Several comments about P2W MMO focus, which..
I mean, I could go on ,but I think the point here is:
Cryptic won't. They focus on these tactics, expecting any more modern P2W mechanics like say, GW2 or, the sub models of ESO or FFXIV is foolhardy. It's *possible* Gearbox might do something, but the tenor of the announcement suggests they just want the revenue and projects under their umbrella.
Neverwinter might be making them money, but Magic Legends didn't. In fact, they had to give out refunds FOR the game because it got shuttered.
If I remember correctly from that info that was posted a couple of weeks ago, they make more money per head on STO than they do on Neverwinter, despite Neverwinter earning more overall. As for Magic Legends.....well Shandalar was what they should've aimed for; it came nowhere near to it and was practically a poor Diablo/Baulder's Gate Dark Alliance clone.
"You don't want to patrol!? You don't want to escort!? You don't want to defend the Federation's Starbases!? Then why are you flying my Starships!? If you were a Klingon you'd be killed on the spot, but lucky for you.....you WERE in Starfleet. Let's see how New Zealand Penal Colony suits you." Adm A. Necheyev.
Episodes cost more time and resources to make with very little return.
Ships, much quicker and cheaper to make, lots of return.
If you were an executive in charge of pretty much the only Star Trek game in town, which would you pick. Players are still buying so why worry about shovelling out story content to placate them. We have another season of Picard coming so that's more players coming in to fly the new hotness that results from that.
Nothing you said here is untrue, however, it's not the entire picture.
Episodes have a lower direct return on investment, yes.. but they're absolutely needed in order to cash in on your 'big money makers.' No one is going to buy ships through any method if there is no game to use them in. The more content the game has, the more people enjoy and play the game. The more they play, the more emotionally invested they are, the more time they spend and therefore.. the more money they spend.
The entire thing is a big eco system one feeding into the other. We all understand the monetization and how profitable these bundles and promos are, we just feel that people would be more encouraged to pay that amount of there was more on the content side.
Many of us feel that the current ratio is not optimal between content and monetization.
Absolutely agree.
And it's a crying shame. I mean, I waited eight years for them to finally remaster the Nova class and when it did finally come I was already so burnt-out on playing the same content over and over and over again that I found I wasn't actually enjoying the ship as much as I thought I would. But as have said elsewhere, I find the mobile-gaming-cash-grab mentality that drives their business model these days so distasteful that I don't really play the game anymore.
I'm currently flying the Nova on my built science character, in the Rhode Island skin, thanks to the T6 token they gave out. It's small, but I love it.
So I cannot find a breakdown of Cryptic's revenue per MMO. Doesn't surprise me. But Cryptic had a revenue of $38 million. The resource I found indicated while it's going up, the rate of growing up is a bit too variable.
Now, maybe Neverwinter or MtG is making more money. Wouldn't surprise me.
Then you look at Glassdoor (for the sake of brevity, I've removed any complaints or comments that do not pertain to game development.)
"Management tends to be clueless about the current state of the game, why things go over well with players, and how to interact with people.
Experts on the ground level are regularly ignored and told their opinion is irrelevant"
"Not pushing boundaries, ok with coasting with basic art
Management gets feedback but is slow to react or sometimes do not."
"Incompetent leadership
Many devs that don't play MMOs
Heavy focus on predatory/outdated monetization strategies with P2W"
(I omitted it: but there's a lot of "old tech" complaints.)
Several comments about P2W MMO focus, which..
I mean, I could go on ,but I think the point here is:
Cryptic won't. They focus on these tactics, expecting any more modern P2W mechanics like say, GW2 or, the sub models of ESO or FFXIV is foolhardy. It's *possible* Gearbox might do something, but the tenor of the announcement suggests they just want the revenue and projects under their umbrella.
Neverwinter might be making them money, but Magic Legends didn't. In fact, they had to give out refunds FOR the game because it got shuttered.
If I remember correctly from that info that was posted a couple of weeks ago, they make more money per head on STO than they do on Neverwinter, despite Neverwinter earning more overall.
Not disagreeing, but just adding a few points:
1: to put it as simply as possible, NW is the more profitable game.
2: the "which game makes more per person" logic doesn't really matter, because in a F2P game the VAST majority of people aren't even spending anything at all. Some small percent of people (and and even smaller percent of whales) support entire F2P games. Especially the ones with gambling.
3: the figures from that corporate brochure a few weeks/month ago were actually lifetime profits, and STO is several years older than NW. So NW has actually made nearly double the amount of profit that STO has, in a shorter amount of time.
Comments
But there are a lot of 'if's involved, it requires one individually to not 'cave' no matter how long one wanted a ship and it assumes the game wouldn't simply end if the current business model decreases profits. And that assumes that there will be even enough individual players that decide to hold out buying bundles and ships to make a dent in profits in the first place.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
I can imagine though if I wanted to give Cryptic money to make more episodes—one possible solution may be crowd funding. If enough people agreed to chip in towards the mission, Cryptic could have the money on the condition that a portion of that went to the mission.
Obviously, they would probably want some of that money to keep, right. If all the money went to the mission—sure it would be “free.” But if it wasn’t as profitable as using those development hours to make another ship, they still wouldn’t like doing it.
It’s not that content or bridges or KDF ships are not profitable. It is that gamble ships are most profitable relative to the development hours.
So maybe there is no viable solution. Maybe something like an open-source foundry clone?
Both LOTRO and GW2 (probably many others?) are labeled F2P but both sell expansion packs and seem to be successful games. It is completely dependent upon the game/company in question and not the model itself.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
normal text = me speaking as fellow formite
colored text = mod mode
I just wanted to post saying I wish there was a way to "show them the money" to value making quality episodes more quickly, too.
I wouldn't call TWO ship artists (yes, that's all they have ON STAFF) well staffed; they use 'outside contractors' like Tobias Richter as needed. It appears nothing is all that well staffed at Cryptic.
PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
Sorry, can you please define what you mean by that term and how it differs from normal forum debate?
I'm genuinely not sure who/what posts you are referring to.
Whatever your response, please be clear/specific and not ambiguous so there is no misunderstanding.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
The back and forth between some of you guys and jonsils is getting a bit more heated than the average debate. Debates are good, but I have noticed some topics tend to lead more towards hints of aggressive side. Mostly topics revolving around how people feel Cryptic should do business.
IMO debating topics like that is a gray area because there's no real defined corners so to speak. Everyone has a differing opinion, and... honestly... its a lot easier for tempers to flare up with these kinds of topics.
Right now all I'm saying is be aware that topics like this can lead to interpretations that are sharper than intended. Some see a debate, others may see tensions going up.
normal text = me speaking as fellow formite
colored text = mod mode
What do you mean "you guys"? Which part of my 1 and only response to jon are you calling "sniping"?
Once again, please be specific and not ambiguous.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Ships, much quicker and cheaper to make, lots of return.
If you were an executive in charge of pretty much the only Star Trek game in town, which would you pick. Players are still buying so why worry about shovelling out story content to placate them. We have another season of Picard coming so that's more players coming in to fly the new hotness that results from that.
Nothing you said here is untrue, however, it's not the entire picture.
Episodes have a lower direct return on investment, yes.. but they're absolutely needed in order to cash in on your 'big money makers.' No one is going to buy ships through any method if there is no game to use them in. The more content the game has, the more people enjoy and play the game. The more they play, the more emotionally invested they are, the more time they spend and therefore.. the more money they spend.
The entire thing is a big eco system one feeding into the other. We all understand the monetization and how profitable these bundles and promos are, we just feel that people would be more encouraged to pay that amount of there was more on the content side.
Many of us feel that the current ratio is not optimal between content and monetization.
Omni-Man: "That's the neat thing: you don't."
Now, maybe Neverwinter or MtG is making more money. Wouldn't surprise me.
Then you look at Glassdoor (for the sake of brevity, I've removed any complaints or comments that do not pertain to game development.)
"Management tends to be clueless about the current state of the game, why things go over well with players, and how to interact with people.
Experts on the ground level are regularly ignored and told their opinion is irrelevant"
"Not pushing boundaries, ok with coasting with basic art
Management gets feedback but is slow to react or sometimes do not."
"Incompetent leadership
Many devs that don't play MMOs
Heavy focus on predatory/outdated monetization strategies with P2W"
(I omitted it: but there's a lot of "old tech" complaints.)
Several comments about P2W MMO focus, which..
I mean, I could go on ,but I think the point here is:
Cryptic won't. They focus on these tactics, expecting any more modern P2W mechanics like say, GW2 or, the sub models of ESO or FFXIV is foolhardy. It's *possible* Gearbox might do something, but the tenor of the announcement suggests they just want the revenue and projects under their umbrella.
Uber-quoted.
We've been told that the game has been doing extremely well these past two years, (not counting 2022, of course), and yet we don't see the results at all.
Ship upon ship, expensive bundle upon expensive bundle... but where is the meant? Where are the stories?
Then again, maybe it's better this way: with all the stuff they've retconned already, I shudder to think what more they can butcher for the sake of this or that "new" story filled with famous characters - weren't we supposed to write OUR stories? I don't think that means following this or that "historic figure" like lapdogs.
Ci sono tre tipi di giocatori:
- quelli a cui non va mai bene niente... e vanno sul forum a trollare;
- quelli che sono talmente imbesuiti da credere a qualunque cosa i dev dicano, perfino che la luna è fatta di formaggio... e vanno sul forum a trollare;
- quelli che credono a quello a cui è giusto credere, sono d'accordo con quello con cui è giusto essere d'accordo e sono critici con quello che non va;
Ai giocatori dei primi due tipi, gratis in omaggio un bello specchio lucente su cui arrampicarsi. E una mazzata in testa per la loro poca intelligenza e compassione verso gli altri giocatori che non la pensano come loro.
Agli appartenenti al terzo tipo, invece, dico grazie. Anche se non sempre si riesce a mantenere la calma, siete quelli per cui vale la pena incazzarsi.
I'm currently flying the Nova on my built science character, in the Rhode Island skin, thanks to the T6 token they gave out. It's small, but I love it.
Neverwinter might be making them money, but Magic Legends didn't. In fact, they had to give out refunds FOR the game because it got shuttered.
If I remember correctly from that info that was posted a couple of weeks ago, they make more money per head on STO than they do on Neverwinter, despite Neverwinter earning more overall. As for Magic Legends.....well Shandalar was what they should've aimed for; it came nowhere near to it and was practically a poor Diablo/Baulder's Gate Dark Alliance clone.
Not disagreeing, but just adding a few points:
1: to put it as simply as possible, NW is the more profitable game.
2: the "which game makes more per person" logic doesn't really matter, because in a F2P game the VAST majority of people aren't even spending anything at all. Some small percent of people (and and even smaller percent of whales) support entire F2P games. Especially the ones with gambling.
3: the figures from that corporate brochure a few weeks/month ago were actually lifetime profits, and STO is several years older than NW. So NW has actually made nearly double the amount of profit that STO has, in a shorter amount of time.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008