So Puzz: IF it had all that, what would you be willing to pay?
Printable View
So Puzz: IF it had all that, what would you be willing to pay?
I'd pay $50 for the game and $15 usd a month, and I don't need multiplayer campaign, DirectIP (already rejected as a matter of company policy), host distributed stats and maps (already rejected because it would delay launching a battle) or host distributed 3D graphics.
Are all these things beyond what can be modded?Quote:
I wouldn't pay anything unless the battle engine was returned to the tactical depth it once had. I would also require stable operation, support for AthlonXP cpu, lag free 4v4 battles with 8000 men, dynamically balanced combined arms gameplay, improved control interface and better MP foyer. In short, all the things the game once had.
if the multiplayer community goes to paying to play im out.50 bucks is enough out of my pocket.
As would those of us without a creditcard.Quote:
if the multiplayer community goes to paying to play im out.50 bucks is enough out of my pocket.
They are all beyond what can be modded except for the unit stats, and there is no consensus on modded stats. As a result, mods fracture the online community. I would say that good playbalance in the vanilla game is necessary.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
It's also detrimental to the online community to release a buggy game, and then take many months to correct those bugs because players leave and don't come back. Another consequence is that playbalance issues take a backseat to bug fixing and may never be addressed.
Paid subscription would be the best way to get ongoing support, and get enough interations of playbalance adjustments to bring that to a high level. However, subscription would also prevent a lot of people from playing. It seems like the current business model is the one that keeps coming back as most viable. The difficulty with it is how do the players get the developer to put more effort into what's under the hood as opposed to what's on the surface when the business model is geared toward maximizing initial sales and then moving on to the next product as quickly as possible.
If the game meets your expectations now, then go ahead and enjoy it. Any improvements will be icing on the cake. If the game doesn't meet your expectations, then I would say you shouldn't even own it at this time. I think that's the most effective way to deal with the current Total War business model.
Thus spake ZaraPuzzthra :)
Thanks for the insights into gaming industry business models, Sir. :bow: I agree with your analysis.
Except one thing: I think modding is a viable pursuit for the SP crowd. I believe there is room for the MP gamers' requirements for equity in battle and reliability of connection to other human players -
and the SP gamers' desires for dragons, or purple ponies, or more diplomacy, or a more zoom-able campaign map...
whatever,
can, rather than alienate the 2 camps, inform each other. Hence my suggestion that SP and MP get a divorce. An amicable one, but a divorce nevertheless.
Credit card possession problems can be got 'round. And not every MP player is a no-credit-card 10 year old. Merely look at, not only the popularity of, but the paying public of World of Warcraft. Those folks find ways to extract profit via negligible subscriptions, and garner non-credit card players (and they update (read: patch) almost weekly). Because they are dedicated to their product.
CA could do the same, if they were persuaded that there was enough demand.
Totalwar Multiplayer has been the red-headed step-child of the series since MTW, for a variety of reasons. If we smart guys could figure out a way to suggest a product they could build, that we would support (and enjoy), for a few years... why would they not build it?
I believe they would. As long as it wasn't a money-loser. Nobody in their right minds would do that. Even Mother Theresa, somewhere along the course of her life, had to have done a cost-benefit analysis - effort expended vs. lives/souls saved. Yanno?
I just thought, instead of the bashing, and nostalgia, and gloom and doom, if we (all of us) figured out some way for the bright minds of CA - and they are brilliant - to give we little 1-percenters a product we would buy and support...maybe they'd take notice and do so.
If not, OK. We'd have done our part.
Marketing research informs the decisions about how the product will be developed and presented not something posted at the org.
The RTW v1.2 beta team was made up of all hardcore players with hardcore suggestions, so near the end of that 3 month effort when the developer said they wouldn't make changes that were only of interest to hardcore players, it made you wonder why you were there. Several people quit before the end. The rest of us stuck it out to the end, and then quit the MP game.
I recently went to a movie with a friend on a Saturday morning. This isn't a cheap theater as matinees cost $8.25 usd and evenings cost $10.75 usd. There were about 50 people in the theater. When the previews came on, the sound was so loud as to be painful, the picture was out of focus enough to give you a headache and the image was partially off the top of the screen. I went to the manager and informed him of this. Fifteen minutes later the movie started, and all those issues were still present. My friend and I got a refund and left. None of the other 48 people left or even went to complain during the time I was in the theater.
Ladies and Gentlemen, and especially Puzz3D:
In my last post, above (#67), I wrote: "Thus spake ZaraPuzzthra :)" in initial response to his response.
I thought I was being clever, but the fact is that the phrase invites unwarranted disrespect for our tenured, talented gentleman, whose work and opinions I have admired, respected, and valued for years.. I apologize to him publicly, here:
Puzz3D: To reiterate what I wrote by PM: I'm sorry that I let a moment of frivolity take me over, resulting in my making a disrespectful comment aimed at you. I deeply regret that. It won't happen again.
And I apologize to the community at large; such language, common among good friends, can do untold damage to relations among the community when written/spoken in the general public, where the "good friends" condition is not understood by all. Rather than enhancing bonding between us, it creates chasms of misunderstanding, mistrust, and disrespect. I meant no part of that, and work against it.
Finally: sorry to all for this public announcement. It seemed necessary to me, to make things right.
Friends,
A moment of your time please. What follows are my honest opinions, that I only ask people read and consider with an open mind. Also, please understand it is never my intent to insult or personally attack, if any is taken or perceived I apologize in advance.
Please please please please please please do NOT feed the horrible, malignant, cancerous beast that is subscription/monthly fee/episodic-based gaming.
I submit that all these are, are attempts to bilk gamers out of more money for products which we've paid for and received the same thing in the past. It could be argued that games like Everquest and World of Warcraft offer enough new content on a regular basis to merit the monthly fees, however as counter-examples I would submit Guild Wars and Anarchy Online, both games that charge only for the software itself, have no monthly fees, and add new content on a regular basis. I submit to you the Bethesda Oblivion nickel-and-dime method for charging for what amounts to 10 minutes/several megs of new content, that arguably should have been in the game to start with. Thankfully this appears to have failed for the most part, most sales were to Xbox 360 players who have no way to mod their game, and as such must resort to purchasing official downloadable mods to experience anything different that we PC players can. I submit to you Sam and Max by Telltale games, which they want to charge us approx. $10 per "episode", which as I read amount to maybe 2-3 hours of play each on the outside. 4 episodes so far at ~$10 = ~$40, for say ~12 hours of gameplay. I don't know about you guys but I paid $40-50 for KOTOR1 and 2, Deus Ex, Half-life, System Shock 2, etc etc which all provided me far more than just 10-12 hours of gameplay. Of course everything I've just provided above is subjective, please keep in mind I simply submit these to argue my case.
I think what this boils down to in my mind is people's drastic lowering of standards, unfulfilled desire (heh) for a quality product that fits a particular want, and bad perceptions of the gaming industry in general. It's hard, if not impossible to independantly discuss these three concepts as I see them. In terms of bad or "wrong" perceptions of the gaming industry, it's well established that it does not require a subscription or monthly-fee based model to promote or ensure an outstanding online game experience. Look at the Battlefield (and spinoffs) series, Quake series, Guild Wars, Anarchy Online, Ghost Recon/Rainbow 6 series, Command and Conquer series, Half-life and it's derivatives, etc etc etc on and on and on... Charging a monthly fee is honestly what I perceive to be a lame excuse for a greedy or poor business model. It is perfectly feasible and doable to support the large server and network infrastructures based on profits from game sales alone, and as the Quake, Battlefield, and old Half-Life WON-based multiplayer series have proven, key-based authentication is more than enough to ensure that pirate copies will not be playable through the official internet means. As for the desire of a quality product and lowering of standards, I think these go hand in hand. Like many of you guys, there are certain franchises and genres that have long since died of neglect, been killed off, or sunk into mediocrity/unacceptability for various reasons that I would love to see resurrected. As two examples, I would kill for a good new modern military flight sim (LOMAC stinks, and uses Starforce) like one from the golden days of Janes and EA, or for a new good friggin' non-Dark Age non-console-arcade-fest stinking BATTLETECH game!!! If somebody came up with a solution for either of these I would bear their love children... but in the same token I will absolutely NOT lower my standards to to play them. For example, there are certain copy-protection schemes, like Starforce, that I refuse to purchase anything that utilizes them for a number of reasons, not the least of which that it does damage your hardware. There are other reasons for not lowering your standards but I won't get into them, this is getting long enough as is. In my view, stooping to pay a monthly fee for something that we should have been getting from the start (good TW MP) is lowering of our standards and giving in to something that we should not, and that we should hold the provider accountable for based on prior history of inclusion, as well as advertisement to the effect of it's availability in the final product. In simple terms, I submit that we should not offer to pay additionally for something that we should fully expect and demand to begin with. If a publisher chooses to go in a different direction than an individual expects or wants in terms of an old beloved game or game series, then I think it comes down to the fact that one must choose to "vote with their money" so to speak, and tell the publisher their thoughts by not purchasing said product. It's painful to do, but I've done it many times with other games, and from reading these forums there are enough who have done just this with M2TW. In the end it's the only real way to get a message across, as profit is the bottom line and speaks louder than any words in the business world.
I know this is a long read, and there may be some logical gaps as it's hard to condense all I wish to say you all my friends, but I think you can get my major points. All I ask is that you consider what I've said, if I'm very lucky perhaps I can influence or change a few minds.
Respectfully
:bow:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
So the question begs. If you could make a really good TW mp game with all the features mentioned how big a following could you expect? If it were really that good how many would play it?
Only CA/Sega marketing probably have a good idea of what this would be. I still firmly believe that in today's PC gaming environment, a game's following is going to be largely based on whether or not it's highly modable. Modding has just become one of, if not the, major selling points these days. And let's face it folks, the TW series has NOT been the most modable or accessible in this respect. I'd imagine that if they changed their tune on this, separated the MP/SP components like most all other modern games do, and gave their community the same level of support that other game publishers do in the above regards, they'd get a very sizeable following. I don't have any numbers nor can I offer any anecdotal evidence, but some of the "old timers" seem to indicate that the number of online players has remained about the same, if not shrunk some since the days of Shogun. This, if true, I read as a bad sign, as time passes the number of players should always be increasing. /shrugQuote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
:bow:
Oh for god's sake, you were being humourous. No need to apologize for, humour is pretty normal you know.Quote:
Originally Posted by KukriKhan
Whacker, i mostly agree with you BUT i do think Steam is a good system, and i do play an mmo with a monthly fee - EVE online. But that is only because of the type of game it is(no other mmo like it, or that allows as much player freedom), and because of the huge amount of new content the devs keep on adding.
Whacker: I too stay away from purchasing anything StarForce protected. I ended up having to reformat and reinstall WinXP due to its corrupting my harddrive and causing no-end of problems. On my other PC I used the StarForce uninstaller, and it helped, but I also ended up having to reformatting to get rid of some of the hidden files which the installer did not eliminate and which were making it to where my PC didn't recognize my CD or DVD drives.
I always check the Anti-StarForce site to see which games use it. I have not bought games just for that fact. Games I otherwise am interested in and which had good reviews in the magazines.
StarForce lost a lawsuit and UBIsoft will no longer use them as their copy-protection scheme since they were listed in the suit as well. They ended up losing sales of their games by being stubborn about it when people began to complain about StarForce. It will be a while before they get back a chunk of their previous customer base due to their arrogant attitude.
Here is the URL for the list of games using StarForce:
http://www.glop.org/starforce/list.php
I completely agree with you, in that the concept behind Steam is outstanding. Steam itself is just a terrible implementation of that concept. As I stated the main issue for me is the DRM riddled throughout it, and the "big brother" style approach taken to the authentication mechanisms. Also I think the patching stinks, as the system will simply autopatch your games without your approval. This coupled with the fact that Valve is extremely hush-hush about what they tell people they've changed and fixed doesn't sit well with me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lusted
As to the MMO content argument... We're just going to have to agree to disagree like gentlemen. :grin:
@ Elmo
My dvd drive is slowly dying in my main PC. Long story short, I've linked it to me installing the Lock-on Modern Air Combat add-on which uses Starforce "protection" some time ago. Apparently Starforce will force your disc drive drivers into a certain mode of operation that is long since depreciated, and if run for extended periods of time in that mode can and will cause damage. Lovely, eh? Thank god that Ubi and the other publishers are starting to listen. There's good ways to do cd protection schemes, and there's bad ones, Starforce is the poster child for the latter.
:bow:
Not sure I agree with this. What percentage of people who buy the game even look on the forum? I doubt it's much more than 10%...I'd eat my own foot if it was higher than 20%. Without a shadow of doubt, less than half the people who have bought the game will even patch it, let alone install a mod! (My stepbrother (23 years old and generally computer literate), for instance, didn't even realise there WAS a patch until I told him...he'd been content with 1.0 too!)Quote:
Originally Posted by Whacker
Only the hardcore gamers think modding is a necessity. Sure, some non-hardcore gamers may use and enjoy mods, but if the mods didn't exist, they wouldn't miss them. To say a game's success is largely down to its modability is wrong, IMO. Also, to say that Total War games in general aren't mod-able is debateable. I agree modders can't do EVERYTHING they'd like, but look at Napoleonic Total War for RTW, or Samurai Wars? Pretty decent mods there if you ask me...you think these mods are in some way poor, due to limitations in what can be achieved? Please, enlighten us. :verycool:
A quick glance at this very forum at this very moment provides interesting numbers to consider. As I write this, 36 people are viewing the SP board, compared to 5 viewing the mod board...
Well mostly i agree with you, in the case of EVE i must disagree given the huge amount of new content the devs have added to it over the years for free. Apart from the cost of the game and monthly fee, there have been no additional charges for expansion packs. Unlike WoW which i despise.Quote:
As to the MMO content argument... We're just going to have to agree to disagree like gentlemen.
Personally I no longer have any faith that CA is capable of producing a quality MP tactical "wargame". Even when they finally allow the programmers the time to make a 100% working MP interface, there will still be the combat mechanisms that will need to work well at release time.
Having a MP game in which it is easy to exploit the game system is not good for the atmosphere of a community. And with M2:TW CA isn't really showing that they can deliver... at least that is what I gather from the forums as I've kept my promise that I wouldn't buy M2:TW if it contained obvious bugs. :wink:
You are looking at the M2:TW forums. M2:TW is not as moddeable as M:TW or R:TW. Currently more people are looking at R:TW modding forums then all M2:TW forums combined. Plus TW mods have been published in game magazines quite often.Quote:
A quick glance at this very forum at this very moment provides interesting numbers to consider. As I write this, 36 people are viewing the SP board, compared to 5 viewing the mod board..
I'm sorry, I'm not going to read the rest of the replies to this thread. (Patience :laugh4: )Quote:
Originally Posted by KukriKhan
I would buy the game. I have played MTW2. I will not buy it. I have bought every other TW game and add on to date. As it stands, I WILL NOT BUY MTW2. CA has lost my money until something like this comes out. I mean, something like a MP only game comes out.
Do I want SP? It would be nice. But if it comes down to it, I CARE ONLY FOR MULTIPLAYER.
I WILL ONLY SPEND MY MONEY ON MULTIPLAYER. Do not provide me with multi fun, and you do not get my money. Period. That is why I never bought MTW2.
Lets be clear. I never pirated, nor have I ever condoned pirating of the TW franchise. But...
At one point I did, successfully, talk friends into buying the game, because it had more of a MP portion to it. As I see it, each TW game does more to KILL the multiplayer portion of the game. Yes, I capitalized KILL for a reason. CA is killing their biggest POTENTIAL market.
Keep doing it. I'll keep an eye on your product, and only spend money again when the product is to my liking. As it stands, you do not have my money, nor the money of my friends, nor the money of the other people I would have talked into buying your product. In fact, I will talk people out of buying your games, until I see what I want.
That is real marketing. Tell your people. They'll **** a brick. If they don't, fire them.
Yes, my degree IS in marketing. Opps, original question unanswered, right?
I would easily pay $50 dollars for a game that gives me the multiplayer I want. Do not provide it, and I will not provide you with the money.
Hope that is clear.
Only going over a few posts, not breaking my original rule.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
GAWAIN!!! Good to see you're still okay man. Still play orig MTW? If its still going, maybe I'll come back to that. That at least, was somewhat thought out. WTF happened to LittleJohn, GilJay, and all the others that made the CA brand worth following?
Hi Aelwyn
I believe both LongJohn and Gil has left CA.
CBR
If all mentioned bugs regarding MTW 2 are fixed in next patch we could have very good game.Quote:
Personally I no longer have any faith that CA is capable of producing a quality MP tactical "wargame".
Any other game on the horizonth? Since RTW came out I've had been browsing around internet and the only game I've spotted was XIII century: death and glory - I doubt that it will ever be released.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KukriKhan
Im not sure if these topics were covered as Im arriving at this discussion via link, and simply dont feel like sifting through the entire thread. Yes, Im lazy.
The reason that Multi-player features will not improve is because people don't want to play Mp as it currently stands. If they REALLY wanted to gain players, any company mind you, they'd create the ability FIRST, not try to drum up a community THEN put it into development. The reason Starcraft and Warcraft 3 are the most MP played RTS's is for 1 simple, defining fact:
Battle.net. A FREE service.
If they (CA) was to create a BattleNet hybrid or similar version of this, you'd see a surge in the Multiplayer community pure and simple. But the fact that they do not, is what seperates the "men from the boys." THQ/Relic are trying to do it with the Warhammer series, and its been working. Their communities, while smaller then Blizzard's are far larger then any other RTS company out there. This is not a problem unique to CA. Lucas did the same thing with Star Wars:Empire at War. A HUGE star wars following, and the game fizzled after 3 weeks because the MP options weren't there. Relic has had a series of games as well fall victim to the "Gayspy" reliance. Homeworld 1 and 2 come to mind. Even the C&C series has had this issue.
If Creative Assembly wants to bring in MORE players, and recover the one's it lost (like me and my clanmates) this is what they need to do. Ditch Gamespy, develop their own online system that doesnt suck, lag, has a stable ladder that doesnt require players to CREATE them or JOIN them, put in some clan options etc. Do this, and they will come.
But its never going to happen. Which is why me and mine abandoned Creative Assembly. Me personaly, Im still waiting for a good Napoleonic RTS. Here's to hoping the Lordz can pull it off.
And for such a game and setup... what would they, or you, pay?Quote:
Originally Posted by Emperor[1G
Not a dime. Nor should I. If Blizzard can make Battle.net free (even at its conception) and Relic, a much smaller company/design by nature make one for Warhammer free, that sets the precedent. Funny thing is, Relic runs their own version OFF Gamespy servers and its far superior to everything save Bnet.
Here's where the money comes in: If they were to make a multiplayer system that met the above qualifications, they would gain me back as a paying customer. After the debacle that was the Barb Invasion, as I alluded to above, myself and my clanmates gave up on the franchise. Balance issues not withstanding and the lack of real/timely patch support. Why would I pay $50+ for a TW game that offers crummy balance, little real continued support and minimal multiplayer gameplay, when I can spend $50 to buy Warcraft and its expansion, or $40 for Warhammer and any of its THREE expansions and get all the above free for countless hours of entertainment? I STILL play these games, hell I still play Warcraft II on occasion. Don't get me wrong, I hate Blizzard for a number of reasons, but their MP setup is second to none and the replay value alone is well worth it.
But I wouldn't pay a dime more for a game, or a monthly service for TW. The way I see it, CA already OWES me for giving the most inane and minimal support for MP as is. I did not buy Medeival II, nor will I. I will not buy its expansion, or any future game from this company for the same reasons. Nevermind that MTW II shouldn't have been made when there are other era's out there to explore, they were trying to recapture revenue by trotting out their best title repackaged since Rome didn't bring it what it was projected. First CA needs to pony up, show me the consumer that they are serious about the games and product they create, THEN and only THEN will they get my money again.
I see. To sum up: you demand some free product by way of an apology for previously-bought product that you found unsatisfactory - and refuse to purchase any future product, whether it be a "full" tw game, or cheaper, niche-aimed MP-only game.
Got it. Thanks for your feedback.
By use of the word "product" it sounds more like you are talking about dealing in illegal drugs than a PC game. Let me know when you get the next shipment in. :laugh4:
Too late, I think CA smoked it all. ~:smoking:
LoL. Ya gotta admit, the druggie paradigm works as marketing: give it away free 'til they're hooked, then charge, charge, charge. Worked pretty well in software in the 70's, 80's & 90's, too.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElmarkOFear
Then some hired Mba's discovered the money to be made overall, and decided to roll back the 'charge point' to way earlier than when the addiction point kicked in, betting that new 'marks'/customers would always be generated as computer usage spread throughout the land(s).
Bingo. More profit today, with little thought to the repercussions in some distant tomorrow, when computer adoption would (might?) hit the saturation point.
Emphasis switched from product quality (to encourage addiction) to product volume and speed. More product, quicker.
The gaming industry followed the same model. More developers, artists, coders & programmers got rushed to deliver product quickly, regardless of the requirements for solid coding, intelligent programming, and researched art.
More Flash, less Bang. Fix trouble in a patch... maybe.
The other factor is labor: how the industry workers and bosses get compensated. Look at the attrition into and out of CA over the past 4 years, for example. Those guys are mostly independent contractors, signed on for a single job of work (or probably, 3 or 4, with different companies) with few ties to the company or community. They have to produce (quickly) chunks of work, on a project controlled mostly be marketing guys - those same Mba's charged with moving profit realization to an earlier date.
The programmers, artists and coders are just cogs in the wheel.
It still, even now, amazes me when I see a 'purple' (CA) member here, trolling through threads. The only incentive I can see is: personal pride in a piece of work they've done.
To be honest, what I'd hoped for in this thread, was not to change CA's mind viz-avis their business model. That's a done deal. I hoped to plant a seed in some purple guy's mind, should he accidentally stumble into this thread, that another option (a multi-player-only game or sub-game) might be feasible.
Sadly, I failed at that, I guess. What I brought out instead was vindictive vitriol, mostly, by buyers who've been disappointed in their purchased product, who swear they'd pay nothing for such a product.
I fear totalwar multiplayer has died, and cannot be ressurected. The interest isn't there, the commitment of the fanbase no longer exists, and the incentive to invest (by CA) has evaporated quicker than a fart in a Kansas tornado. Why would they bother?
Unless they wanted to take a financial shot-in-the-dark on a probably losing proposition... that might surprise them (and us), and be successful.
OK :/rant:
Sorry for the tedium. :bow:
Just thought I'd properly lament the end of twMP.