 |
|  |
 |
|
tniem
|
|
Hope College
Apr 2000 time: 00:20
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Osweld
they can't get away with making some shitty clone and conning people into buying it to make a quick buck... atleast, not aswell as they could with 'standard' games. |
Well why not?
They are still charging for the game. Then on top of that they are charging a monthly fee. That is why these games are the fad in the industry.
You get someone to spend $50 on the game which fules your production costs just like any other game and then your subscription cost is all profit. So lets say as a producer it costs four million to produce a game. Now, if you make 40 a copy and you can sell 100,000 copies you have broken even on what you paid the developer. Any more on subscription is profit. So even if you can con people into buying the game and then playing an average of three months before deciding its not worth the money, you have made 3 million. If the game succeeds - even more.
Now of course I am not saying that these are the actual numbers, but what I am saying is that even if the MMORPG market is not that large long term, it may be apealing enough to producers because they believe they can cover costs with sales and that any subscriptions will fund profit. That seems to me why it is such a good bet right now in the industry.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
tniem
|
|
Hope College
Apr 2000 time: 00:20
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Osweld
Exactly. When they flood the market with MMORPGs, and there are a hundred different ones to choose from, each one of them is going to have a hell of a hard time keeping anyone subscribed. |
Read my entire post, not just the first sentence. I argue that the market will be able to handle it because they are charging a game's full price up front in box. That can make the money back off the game easily. Then subscription will mostly be profit. Now, if they gave away the game for free and then charged subscription, I would agree that they might not be able to make it but they do not and herein lays how they feel they can make money out of it and have the market support it.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Victor Galis
|
 |
in exile
Jul 1999 time: 00:20
|
|
quote: Read my entire post, not just the first sentence. I argue that the market will be able to handle it because they are charging a game's full price up front in box. |
-The $25 or so I paid for Dark Age of Camelot is hardly a full price, not to mention it included the first month of subscription. Additionally, there 's people selling their copies of these games on eBay, which the company is not trying to stop.
quote: Then subscription will mostly be profit. |
- They won't keep their customers that way. DAoC has nearly a full team of programmers making almost biweekly patches to the game. These don't only fix bugs and correct imbalances in different classes, they also add new features to the game that weren't there before. At least DAoC is expanding dramatically, and that combined with server maintenence can't be too cheap.
quote: Now, if they gave away the game for free and then charged subscription, I would agree that they might not be able to make it but they do not and herein lays how they feel they can make money out of it and have the market support it. |
-If they just made the game available for download and didn't put out a physical copy, then made the download free, I don't think this would impact their profitability at all.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
tniem
|
|
Hope College
Apr 2000 time: 00:20
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Grumbold
Eventually there has to be a saturation point at which they are no longer attracting new customers to the genre or persuading an existing player to open an new game account wjile retaining all their existing ones. |
One thing is that when it reaches that saturation point, there is a chance, maybe a good chance, that players of old games will move on to newer ones. The older games that have already made back production costs lose customers but it does not matter to them. Because they already made their money and so it does not matter that gamers are leaving. Meanwhile the new games need the old customers to fund their developement. So it works for them as well.
I am just advocating that there is a chance that the market can sustain the games being produced without the catsotrophe that everyone is predicting.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
RonHiler
|
|
California, USA
May 2000 time: 21:20
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Victor Galis
-AC? |
Asheron's Call. Which is by far the best MMO game in existance, old or new, but which has been so badly mis-managed by MicroSoft marketing that it's always at the bottom of the list of the "big three".
I'll be interested to see what happens to the server populations when AC2 arrives, not to mention SWG.
I'm a little wary of the hype around SWG. Its very reminiscent of the hype that existed around AO and DAoC, both of which started out as *terrible* games (especially AO, in terms of buggyness), and haven't really gotten much better since. I revisited AO not too long ago, and there is *still* nothing to do. It's like a glorified chat room.
The stregth of AC is that there is a *ton* of content built up over years of free monthly "patches" which add new quests, functionality, etc to the game every month. A new MMO cannot compete with that. And the EQ and UO model of releasing expansion packs every six months or so doesn't keep up (though it makes a lot more money for the design house, heh). It's the monthly updates that make AC such a great MMO, and (assuming they use the same model) will also make AC2 very strong (after you give them a few months to add content and fix the inevitable major problems).
If the double punch of AC2 and SWG doesn't kill AC (and IMO it won't), it still has a long life ahead of it. UO is the one that's in trouble right now, if you ask me 
|
|
|  |
 |
|
RonHiler
|
|
California, USA
May 2000 time: 21:20
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Victor Galis
DAoC used to have weekly patches, but they seem to have slowed down now. Still the game is a lot better than when I got it, and there's a lot of promise to this new PvP server. |
Yeah, but the patches there were bug fixes, while ACs are content adders. Not the same thing I played DAoC when it first came out. I stopped after a couple of weeks because the cities were slide shows for me. Nothing will make me stop playing a game faster than it going all unresponsive and slide-showy Is it better now?
quote:
Any idea of what the server populations are like right now for the big games? |
No idea. They don't, in general, publish them. AC does, and they tend to run about 12,000 people at a time at peak times (on seven (IIRC) servers).
EQ runs much higher than that, from what I understand, while UO runs a bit less.
As for DAoC and AO, your guess is as good as mine. AO shows server pops when you log in (or they did a few months ago when I was there last), but the numbers always seemed totally absurd, so I'm not sure if they're right (if they are, they're beating EQ by a lot, which I'm pretty sure is not true).
quote: Originally posted by Grumbold
Its a question of personal taste. The principle thing I disliked about Asherons Call was the dynamic content because unless you were riding the crest of the player population and playing constantly much of the new plot related content would open, run and then close without you getting a look in. All too often I would log on during prime UK playing time to find that the big event had showed up and been killed/solved/looted during peak US time while I was sleeping like a baby.
|
Hmmm, not sure I follow that, Grumbold. Content doesn't, in general, close in AC. They've retired a *very* few quests (four or five total), but, unless you have some hangup about being the *first* to run a quest , you can always do the quests whenever you feel like it. The first large quest, "The Sword of Lost Light" was introduced in Beta testing, and it's still there for anyone who wants to do it. Almost all of the other quests are the same way.
But you're right. It is a matter of taste. A lot of people really like EQ. I hated it Still, I think AC deserves a lot more recognition than it gets, although to be sure, it has its share of problems *cough*macroers*cough*
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Victor Galis
|
 |
in exile
Jul 1999 time: 00:20
|
|
quote: The principle thing I disliked about Asherons Call was the dynamic content because unless you were riding the crest of the player population and playing constantly much of the new plot related content would open, run and then close without you getting a look in. All too often I would log on during prime UK playing time to find that the big event had showed up and been killed/solved/looted during peak US time while I was sleeping like a baby. |
-Hurray for 3am relic raids
quote: Yeah, but the patches there were bug fixes, while ACs are content adders. Not the same thing I played DAoC when it first came out. I stopped after a couple of weeks because the cities were slide shows for me. Nothing will make me stop playing a game faster than it going all unresponsive and slide-showy Is it better now? |
-They've added plenty of content. Indeed, they went through a content-adding phase before they started messing around with the concept of a PvP server and that ate up all of their time.
quote: No idea. They don't, in general, publish them. AC does, and they tend to run about 12,000 people at a time at peak times (on seven (IIRC) servers).
EQ runs much higher than that, from what I understand, while UO runs a bit less.
As for DAoC and AO, your guess is as good as mine. AO shows server pops when you log in (or they did a few months ago when I was there last), but the numbers always seemed totally absurd, so I'm not sure if they're right (if they are, they're beating EQ by a lot, which I'm pretty sure is not true). |
-Current server population for DAoC is 5338 (mind you it's 6:40am EDT on a Tuesday). I've seen total server populations in the US hit about 25,000 before. 18 total servers.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:20. Apolyton Time is 00:20. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|