Goblin Squad Member
|
Personally, I'd love for the game world to be inhabited by lots of "NPCs" that are actually just PCs running automated, that we could make our "avatar" at any time in order to control them more directly.
I see two obstacles to characters that remain in game after their players log off.
First, it doesn't save GW any processing power. As I understand things, NPCs will be invisible so that GW doesn't have to render them all the time, move them around, track their hit points, etc. Maybe always-on PCs would have to wait until GW feel like they have the computing resources to spare for rendering NPCs (and inactive PCs).
Second, inactive PCs might be killed. Would they be loot-able? Would they incur any other death penalties? Would they re-appear at a bind point and start walking back to where they were when they died? If so, someone might kill them again en route. People would probably have different tolerance levels for bad things happening to their characters when they weren't around.
All that being said, I like the idea. Always-on PCs would definitely make settlements look less empty when most players are offline.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Personally, I'd love for the game world to be inhabited by lots of "NPCs" that are actually just PCs running automated, that we could make our "avatar" at any time in order to control them more directly.
That's an interesting idea, playing a 'possessing' entity of some kind that can step in and control various members of the NPC populace, or perhaps the ability to either directly possess (demon) or to stay out of their heads but but inspire and help them accomplish the things they're inspired to do (angel). It's not Pathfinder, but it's an interesting idea.
I also think it would be interesting to see something like Eclipse Phase as an MMO, with the idea that your mind is software that can be backed up and installed in other forms.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Personally, I'd love for the game world to be inhabited by lots of "NPCs" that are actually just PCs running automated, that we could make our "avatar" at any time in order to control them more directly.That's an interesting idea, playing a 'possessing' entity of some kind that can step in and control various members of the NPC populace, or perhaps the ability to either directly possess (demon) or to stay out of their heads but but inspire and help them accomplish the things they're inspired to do (angel). It's not Pathfinder, but it's an interesting idea.
I also think it would be interesting to see something like Eclipse Phase as an MMO, with the idea that your mind is software that can be backed up and installed in other forms.
That interpretation of Nihimon's quote would be neat, but it has its pitfalls, too. If I possess an NPC and start it training blacksmithing, then you possess it and start it training long swords, it'll wind up not very useful to either of us. If neither of us can make it train, it's only useful to someone who needs its particular skillset and hasn't trained those skills on their own character. GW doesn't have much incentive to let us get our hands on skills we haven't paid to train.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That interpretation of Nihimon's quote would be neat, but it has its pitfalls, too. If I possess an NPC and start it training blacksmithing, then you possess it and start it training long swords, it'll wind up not very useful to either of us. If neither of us can make it train, it's only useful to someone who needs its particular skillset and hasn't trained those skills on their own character. GW doesn't have much incentive to let us get our hands on skills we haven't paid to train.Personally, I'd love for the game world to be inhabited by lots of "NPCs" that are actually just PCs running automated, that we could make our "avatar" at any time in order to control them more directly.That's an interesting idea, playing a 'possessing' entity of some kind that can step in and control various members of the NPC populace, or perhaps the ability to either directly possess (demon) or to stay out of their heads but but inspire and help them accomplish the things they're inspired to do (angel). It's not Pathfinder, but it's an interesting idea.
I also think it would be interesting to see something like Eclipse Phase as an MMO, with the idea that your mind is software that can be backed up and installed in other forms.
As I said, it's not Pathfinder... it's more like some version of In Nomine. Your character is the possessing/inspiring entity, not the puppet/person they're interacting with. Remember the Denzel Washington film, Fallen?
Either way, that's not the game they're making, so never mind.|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Xeen: The problem is, there is no solution. :p
In all seriousness reading some sources suggests that any serious mmorpg worth it's salt will require a virtual economist on their team or face failures. So finding out what the successful mmorpg have done and what that is based on is possibly the answer?
edit: wrong info removed.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I've never played a game made by a non-gamer. I've never played a game that wasn't meant for gamers to play.
Honestly, I think that means you haven't played enough different games. I've played many games by non-gamer educators, psychologists, artists, and even programmers.
Or maybe we have different referents for 'game'; I'm including everything that the author markets as a game or in channels which are intended for games.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My statement does not need fixing.There, I fixed that for you.Na... Its actually kinda sad...
It just proves there are no games being made by me for me. I thought it was going to be different with PFO. (dont ask me why)
I should clarify, then: Your preferences do not represent all gamers.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Oh , you mean my new follower, Tom.
Hey, it's approaching Thanksgiving so I thought I would give him a ride temporarily.
I may change it in a few anyway.
Now you've changed it any anyone reading this after the fact will have no idea what this is about. So much for the historical records. /sigh
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I should clarify, then: Your preferences do not represent all gamers.My statement does not need fixing.There, I fixed that for you.Na... Its actually kinda sad...
It just proves there are no games being made by me for me. I thought it was going to be different with PFO. (dont ask me why)
Who said it did?
Im just disappointed in the general state of gaming lately.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Well, for anyone interested my transitional avatar image appeared to be that of a turkey wearing a 'Being' mask.
I can only imagine the intense humor that is about to manifest itself, as if the hand of Jon Stewart reached down from on high to point out the innate suitability of that image.
There, I fixed that for you.Na... Its actually kinda sad...
It just proves there are no games being made by me for me. I thought it was going to be different with PFO. (dont ask me why)
Gamers want to play a game where money spended isnt equal power, only dedication and smart gameplay, and i never saw a cash shop that wasnt pay to win. what is happening is a bunch of suits and developers are trying to "force" a new business paradigm that greatly favors them in prejudice of consumers (read as gamers)using spins off and buzzwords, the sad part is a lot of ppl are falling for this BS, when i play a game i want to be immersed in a fantasy world where ppl are rewarded by the efforts and not by the size of his walllets where money creates pixels from nothing and im sure a lot of ppl posting here agrees with me, xeen and wraithkin but invested so much in the game that the passion blinds them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The self aware generally distinguish between what they individually think and what their peers collectively think. If many of us, gamers all, did not disagree with your take on things, then why do we so often disagree with you? Kabal and Xeen and some others have a position, yes. But that position does not represent all gamers. Only some gamers. Possibly only a very few gamers who do not see their 'something-for-nothing' point of view as greedy and anyone else' point of view of wanting to make a living as 'greedy suits'.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So I fail to see the problem.I know, and that is the problem.
Gamers want to play a game where money spended isnt equal power, only dedication and smart gameplay, and i never saw a cash shop that wasnt pay to win. what is happening is a bunch of suits and developers are trying to "force" a new business paradigm that greatly favors them in prejudice of consumers (read as gamers)using spins off and buzzwords, the sad part is a lot of ppl are falling for this BS, when i play a game i want to be immersed in a fantasy world where ppl are rewarded by the efforts and not by the size of his walllets where money creates pixels from nothing and im sure a lot of ppl posting here agrees with me, xeen and wraithkin but invested so much in the game that the passion blinds them.
Here it is, the problem you are looking for.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The self aware generally distinguish between what they individually think and what their peers collectively think. If many of us, gamers all, did not disagree with your take on things, then why do we so often disagree with you? Kabal and Xeen and some others have a position, es. But that position does not represent all gamers. Only some gamers. Possibly only a very few gamers who do not see their 'something-for-nothing' point of view as greedy and anyone else' point of view of wanting to make a living as 'greedy suits'.
Nice edit
Also, your right, some gamers lack a competitive mindset.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Wanting something for nothing is also greed. Entitlement.
*cough strawman cough* What? Who said that? Anyway. The people that are arguing against a cash shop don't want something for nothing. They want to the current paradigm of “I pay my subscription, I get the game” to continue. That is the opposite of wanting something for nothing. They want to give GW their money, they just feel that cash shops aren't the best way to do that.
I happen to have little issue with cash shops when they are implemented well (see League of Legends). The trouble is that the vast majority of developers are terrible at cash shops.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Wanting everything in the game for only the basic subscription which has been clearly described as including only training and some non-specified perks is wanting something for nothing. Not just wanting, demanding. Pretending your position represents all gamers is a falsehood. You accuse GW of greed when in reality it is you who are greedy.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Wanting everything in the game for only the basic subscription which has been clearly described as including only training and some non-specified perks is wanting something for nothing. Not just wanting, demanding. Pretending your position represents all gamers is a falsehood. You accuse GW of greed when in reality it is you who are greedy.
I would suggest you read the thread and re-evaluate your statements...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Wanting everything in the game for only the basic subscription which has been clearly described as including only training and some non-specified perks is wanting something for nothing. Not just wanting, demanding. Pretending your position represents all gamers is a falsehood. You accuse GW of greed when in reality it is you who are greedy.
No. Disagreeing with the developers is not greed. Arguing for the current paradigm is not greed. It may be misguided, it may not be a sustainable business model. But it isn't greed. This is the way that things have worked for the last decade. From a player point of view, it has worked very well, even if developers feel otherwise. It is in the best interest of the players to argue for the system that best benefits them. That isn't greed, it's being pragmatic.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
No. Disagreeing with the developers is not greed. Arguing for the current paradigm is not greed. It may be misguided, it may not be a sustainable business model. But it isn't greed. This is the way that things have worked for the last decade. From a player point of view, it has worked very well, even if developers feel otherwise. It is in the best interest of the players to argue for the system that best benefits them. That isn't greed, it's being pragmatic.
We disagree. If the developer has identified that their subscription model includes X enhanced by a few perks but there will be a cash store, and someone complains that all humanity wants everything included in the subscription price, then that is asking for additional gain without additional cost, a.k.a something for nothing. Consumer greed. Entitlement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Wanting everything in the game for only the basic subscription which has been clearly described as including only training and some non-specified perks is wanting something for nothing. Not just wanting, demanding. Pretending your position represents all gamers is a falsehood. You accuse GW of greed when in reality it is you who are greedy.No. Disagreeing with the developers is not greed. Arguing for the current paradigm is not greed. It may be misguided, it may not be a sustainable business model. But it isn't greed. This is the way that things have worked for the last decade. From a player point of view, it has worked very well, even if developers feel otherwise. It is in the best interest of the players to argue for the system that best benefits them. That isn't greed, it's being pragmatic.
But barring WoW and to a lesser extent EVE, the sub model hasn't worked for the last 10 years. Every other MMO that has been released has gone to a Free-to-play or hybrid model six months to a year after launch. In most cases they have lost money, and in some they have completely shut down.
Having a game that is sub only but fails due to not enough players paying is not in the players best interest or being pragmatic. Being pragmatic is recognizing that keeping the game profitable is in EVERYONE's best interest, and accepting that a MTX store will be in the game, and trying to make sure that is is used as micro-expansions and not pay-to-win.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wanting everything in the game for only the basic subscription which has been clearly described as including only training and some non-specified perks is wanting something for nothing. Not just wanting, demanding. Pretending your position represents all gamers is a falsehood. You accuse GW of greed when in reality it is you who are greedy.No. Disagreeing with the developers is not greed. Arguing for the current paradigm is not greed. It may be misguided, it may not be a sustainable business model. But it isn't greed. This is the way that things have worked for the last decade. From a player point of view, it has worked very well, even if developers feel otherwise. It is in the best interest of the players to argue for the system that best benefits them. That isn't greed, it's being pragmatic.
A small clarification from someone who Kick-started.
I don't want everything in my subscription. I want only those things necessary to complete what needs to be completed, and methods to generate the less important stuff.
If people want to buy crafting materials to accelerate their skills, that's fine. If you HAVE to buy a crafting recipe in order to get to the next tier of crafting, that is NOT fine. I truly hate games that you simply cannot progress without spend, it is a forced expenditure when this happens and is not fair to your player base in that regard.
Micro transactions for me should only be for the micro parts of the world, or for accelerating things that would normally take much longer. They should not enable new dungeon access and be the only way to get that dungeon for example.
Vanity items are another prime example, by all means buy all the mounts and pets, so long as I have access to basic mounts that are no worse in ability or in game effect, that's fine with me too.
I also, as a Kickstarter contributor, want to be recognised for being willing to cash up front. So a totally free to play game would, to me, feel like a slap in the face.
Now, the benefits I get are cosmetic items in game, etc, but in fairness, shouldn't those who have effectively already paid for the game in varying degrees, be allowed to expect those who haven't funded the development to have some cost involved in playing the game - fair is fair after all.
No. Disagreeing with the developers is not greed. Arguing for the current paradigm is not greed. It may be misguided, it may not be a sustainable business model. But it isn't greed. This is the way that things have worked for the last decade. From a player point of view, it has worked very well, even if developers feel otherwise. It is in the best interest of the players to argue for the system that best benefits them. That isn't greed, it's being pragmatic.We disagree. If the developer has identified that their subscription model includes X enhanced by a few perks but there will be a cash store, and someone complains that all humanity wants everything included in the subscription price, then that is asking for additional gain without additional cost, a.k.a something for nothing. Consumer greed. Entitlement.
subscritions isnt additional gain without additional cost because we are paying every month, 15 bucks not enough, fine, charge 20 bucks then.
Wanting everything in the game for only the basic subscription which has been clearly described as including only training and some non-specified perks is wanting something for nothing. Not just wanting, demanding. Pretending your position represents all gamers is a falsehood. You accuse GW of greed when in reality it is you who are greedy.No. Disagreeing with the developers is not greed. Arguing for the current paradigm is not greed. It may be misguided, it may not be a sustainable business model. But it isn't greed. This is the way that things have worked for the last decade. From a player point of view, it has worked very well, even if developers feel otherwise. It is in the best interest of the players to argue for the system that best benefits them. That isn't greed, it's being pragmatic.A small clarification from someone who Kick-started.
I don't want everything in my subscription. I want only those things necessary to complete what needs to be completed, and methods to generate the less important stuff.
If people want to buy crafting materials to accelerate their skills, that's fine. If you HAVE to buy a crafting recipe in order to get to the next tier of crafting, that is NOT fine. I truly hate games that you simply cannot progress without spend, it is a forced expenditure when this happens and is not fair to your player base in that regard.
Micro transactions for me should only be for the micro parts of the world, or for accelerating things that would normally take much longer. They should not enable new dungeon access and be the only way to get that dungeon for example.
Vanity items are another prime example, by all means buy all the mounts and pets, so long as I have access to basic mounts that are no worse in ability or in game effect, that's fine with me too.
I also, as a Kickstarter contributor, want to be recognised for being willing to cash up front. So a totally free to play game would, to me, feel like a slap in the...
lol, sandboxes are competitive at extreme, paying to accelerate stuff its pay to win in the purest form.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Its not a failed model, eve profits for 2012 were $66 million... Easy to find.
I already mentioned Eve. I just don't count it as a Sub only model because of PLEX. However, Outside of Eve and WOW, it is a failed model. Having two successful games out of dozens does not indicate success of the model.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
subscritions isnt additional gain without additional cost because we are paying every month, 15 bucks not enough, fine, charge 20 bucks then.
I take it you have never dealt with the issues that encumber a business plan, where you have to have and describe clearly how you intend to make money. It is not something you change on a whim.
Granted if you are willing to pay a premium for your subscription then suggesting it is out of greed is incorrect.
However you should be able to understand that it is not a small task to change your business model for every customer who thinks a different business model is better. If you sold your business plan based on a specific set of expectations then you have to ensure that you do not risk suit for making that change.
Crowdfunders are, if memory serves, not the only financial interest involved.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Indeed it is - the point I was trying to make was, if it doesn't prevent me from ever completing some quest or some in game event. I don't care.
Let people spend on pixels, gear, acceleration and when they are six months ahead of everyone else, let them twiddle their thumbs waiting for the rest of us to catch up :P
I already mentioned Eve. I just don't count it as a Sub only model because of PLEX. However, Outside of Eve and WOW, it is a failed model. Having two successful games out of dozens does not indicate success of the model.Its not a failed model, eve profits for 2012 were $66 million... Easy to find.
Wow - most succesful themepark
Eve - most succesful sandbox|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I already mentioned Eve. I just don't count it as a Sub only model because of PLEX. However, Outside of Eve and WOW, it is a failed model. Having two successful games out of dozens does not indicate success of the model.Its not a failed model, eve profits for 2012 were $66 million... Easy to find.
Wow - most succesful themepark
Eve - most succesful sandbox
Outside of Eve and WOW, it is a failed model. Having two successful games out of dozens does not indicate success of the model.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I love theme park, and theme park 2.
As an aside, and something to consider. What if, even if the micro transactions does become partly pay to win, if there was some recognition of effort for the non pay to win players.
E.g. Awards for long play effort - e.g. Achievement - you have mined a million copper ore without buying any, without spending cash on your character or transferring to that character funds or ore from other characters. Such an achievement could be rewarded with a "Copper Imbued Mining Pick +5 to skill that always gives one copper ore in addition to whatever is being mined." and that item can only be acquired the hard, non money way.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Outside of Eve and WOW, it is a failed model. Having two successful games out of dozens does not indicate success of the model.
Having them be the MOST successful does indicate something. Though me and my fancy pair of boots would like to point out that EVE does have micro-transactions. Last I heard WoW does too.
subscritions isnt additional gain without additional cost because we are paying every month, 15 bucks not enough, fine, charge 20 bucks then.I take it you have never dealt with the issues that encumber a business plan, where you have to have and describe clearly how you intend to make money. It is not something you change on a whim. Granted if you are willing to pay a premium for youor subscription then suggesting it is out of greed is incorrect. However you should be able to understand that it is not a small task to change your business model for every customer who thinks a different business model is better. If you sell your business plan based on a specific set of expectations you have to ensure that you do not risk suit for making that change. Crowdfunders are, if memory serves, not the only financial interest involved.
we all have something in common, we both want PO to succeed, well have to agree to disagree then in the ways of business model, i cant say of what is it for u, but im a lot worried about the impact of a CS in a sandbox.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is perfectly understandable to be concerned with the CS, and it is a good idea to stay on top of how that works out.
As I mentioned, I too have concerns, but I am not well-positioned to micromanage how GW intends to run their business. I am positioned only well enough to provide input into the design of the game from one player's point of view. To me that seems like quite a perk in itself.
Indeed it is - the point I was trying to make was, if it doesn't prevent me from ever completing some quest or some in game event. I don't care.
Let people spend on pixels, gear, acceleration and when they are six months ahead of everyone else, let them twiddle their thumbs waiting for the rest of us to catch up :P
i like a lot ur honest approach, u just dont want to have ur fun to be hampered behind microtransactions, forgive me if im wrong but looks like ur fun are more linked to the PvE aspect. if this is right im worried about both playstyles PvE/PvP because the ppl that want to be in the top wont think twice about spending a lot of money to achieve that and i just hope they let the PvE ppl have their fun.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Outside of Eve and WOW, it is a failed model. Having two successful games out of dozens does not indicate success of the model.
Correlation does not imply causation. Sure, those games could have failed because of the subscription model. They could have also failed because, by and large, they were terrible games which overreached. Warhammer had no real end game at release. SWTOR had no real end game at release. AION was buggy as all hell at release.
The subscription model didn't kill those games, incompetence killed those games.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was going to post a serious response to some of you bozos but I found my argument diluted somewhat by using the term 'Goblin Balls'. We need some new definitions around here-especially for those of us who never played Eve (MTX? Plex? Flux? Rex?). When Lord Sepherum reaches the depths of the Caves of Eternal Peril, proudly displaying his 20 'merit badges', perhaps the black dragon will just die laughing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let people spend on pixels, gear, acceleration and when they are six months ahead of everyone else, let them twiddle their thumbs waiting for the rest of us to catch up :P
Mmmmmm. Open world non-factional PvP... I wouldn't expect people to teach the top six months ahead of everyone else to "twiddle their thumbs." They won't be sitting there waiting for everyone else to catch up to them so they can go raiding. They'll be raiding your settlements instead.
Players are not divided by power in PFO. Not in PVE, PVP, crafting, trading or anything else. There is no ill effects of having more power. No matter how much power you amass, there will always be a challenge that pushes you to your edges, and you will always be able to to bring all your buddies with you when you go to face it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Gamers want to play a game where money spended isnt equal power, only dedication and smart gameplay, and i never saw a cash shop that wasnt pay to win. what is happening is a bunch of suits and developers are trying to "force" a new business paradigm that greatly favors them in prejudice of consumers (read as gamers)using spins off and buzzwords, the sad part is a lot of ppl are falling for this BS, when i play a game i want to be immersed in a fantasy world where ppl are rewarded by the efforts and not by the size of his walllets where money creates pixels from nothing and im sure a lot of ppl posting here agrees with me, xeen and wraithkin but invested so much in the game that the passion blinds them.
It would be a not insubstantial essay to reply to this.
Let's just say, a lot of games are wasting people's time and the devs seem to build their business on this fact and you know the results.
I don't think GW and PFO are working on that assumption. That's why I like what I'm seeing and hearing... so far!