|
|
Post by bblackstone on Jul 18, 2016 23:51:33 GMT
|
|
Caliya
Strong in the Force
People fight to gain things they can't take with them in the end
Posts: 2,121 
|
Post by Caliya on Jul 19, 2016 11:01:36 GMT
I dunno. I guess I see that those of us that bailed early, complained loudest the soonest, and combated harshly with those fanboys who are now also bailing, are highly amused by this.
I mean, if both views of the game, those of us that were disgruntled and now the heavy backing fans, have all bailed, who do they have left really? How can they possibly see the game will succeed? How can they continue to post paid shill articles that promote the game? Somehow there are either a lot of really stupid young gamers or the team at Portalarium are too stupid to get it right.
I think I opt for the latter definition.
|
|
|
|
Post by khael on Jul 19, 2016 13:44:02 GMT
Fat chance of getting money worth back from the looks of that marketplace. someone trying to sell a lotm 2 for 8k.theyre getting desperate to unload those acct's and get what they can back, no one left who will buy them. I think that ship has sailed.
|
|
titsup
Strong in the Force
Posts: 819 
|
Post by titsup on Jul 19, 2016 15:00:08 GMT
I'm actually coming around to the idea that it might succeed, just not in the form many of us would call a game.
|
|
Caliya
Strong in the Force
People fight to gain things they can't take with them in the end
Posts: 2,121
|
Post by Caliya on Jul 19, 2016 19:29:36 GMT
I'm actually coming around to the idea that it might succeed, just not in the form many of us would call a game. Succeeding at what? Failing?  |
|
dodgy
Strong in the Force
Posts: 1,171
|
Post by dodgy on Jul 19, 2016 21:46:07 GMT
I'm actually coming around to the idea that it might succeed, just not in the form many of us would call a game. Succeeding at what? Failing? It made more then 7million bucks. That's a success. |
|
titsup
Strong in the Force
Posts: 819
|
Post by titsup on Jul 19, 2016 23:04:14 GMT
I'm actually coming around to the idea that it might succeed, just not in the form many of us would call a game. Succeeding at what? Failing? I think ultimately it will become mostly a virtual chat room with some little bits of world story thrown in and that will be how it survives. Will a lot of Kickstarter backers be happy with that? Probably not. The more I think about it though, a good deal of the game's active player base is completely content with what's been given to them. There are numerous MMOs that came ntinue to exist despite there seeming to be no audience or source of income. Yet there is Star Trek Online, as one example. I don't think it will ever be what most thought of when they heard a new Ultima game was being made by LB. I think it'll go on to exist as a self sustaining social space. Mind you, by successful, I mean merely remaining in operation. I don't mean any sort of achievement beyond maintaining a minimally viable player base. |
|
|
|
Accounts!
Jul 20, 2016 0:20:19 GMT
via mobile
Post by fossil on Jul 20, 2016 0:20:19 GMT
Succeeding at what? Failing? I think ultimately it will become mostly a virtual chat room with some little bits of world story thrown in and that will be how it survives. Will a lot of Kickstarter backers be happy with that? Probably not. The more I think about it though, a good deal of the game's active player base is completely content with what's been given to them. There are numerous MMOs that came ntinue to exist despite there seeming to be no audience or source of income. Yet there is Star Trek Online, as one example. I don't think it will ever be what most thought of when they heard a new Ultima game was being made by LB. I think it'll go on to exist as a self sustaining social space. Mind you, by successful, I mean merely remaining in operation. I don't mean any sort of achievement beyond maintaining a minimally viable player base. I don't feel the need to post much anymore here for I feel I have made my point clear. Star Trek Online and Neverwinter just made there console ports and seemingly still have an audience or thy would not have the income to port over. I did think the same way as you Gargyle but same as Lorto or DDO they have players and frankly lots of them. They still rake in the money on skeleton staffs basically milking the games dry. STO and Neverwinter still put out content on the regular. Funny that IM and Nemo have been playin these games of no audience. Please talk with what you have knowledge about. Last point, can't wait to see the Steam player count on soft launch. |
|
titsup
Strong in the Force
Posts: 819
|
Accounts!
Jul 20, 2016 1:11:29 GMT
via mobile
Post by titsup on Jul 20, 2016 1:11:29 GMT
Please talk with what you have knowledge about. I'm not entirely sure what you mean. My point was that those games have a fairly small player base, yet persist. I used STO specifically because I know IM still plays it occasionally as do others and that the game appears to remain viable despite its relatively small player base. I said 'seeming to be no audience or Income' as in they aren't widely accepted as successful MMOs yet continue persist on a small scale with a small audience. |
|
|
|
Accounts!
Jul 20, 2016 2:08:48 GMT
via mobile
Post by fossil on Jul 20, 2016 2:08:48 GMT
Please talk with what you have knowledge about. I'm not entirely sure what you mean. My point was that those games have a fairly small player base, yet persist. I used STO specifically because I know IM still plays it occasionally as do others and that the game appears to remain viable despite its relatively small player base. I said 'seeming to be no audience or Income' as in they aren't widely accepted as successful MMOs yet continue persist on a small scale with a small audience. The playerbase isn't small, is the problem with your assumption. If you knew perfect world well, you'd realize that if it wasn't a money maker (which small player bases don't create) they wouldn't spend the time and money putting updates and or console ports together. My same assumption I recently had with DDO, but I was completely blown away recently with the amount of people still playing. |
|
titsup
Strong in the Force
Posts: 819
|
Accounts!
Jul 20, 2016 3:00:05 GMT
via mobile
Post by titsup on Jul 20, 2016 3:00:05 GMT
I think the real disagreement is with my use of the term 'small' so I'll elaborate. I would consider an mmo small if a few thousand players were playing concurrently. I would consider an mmo large if tens of thousands of players were playing at once. Large, I'd consider WoW or BDO for two examples.
The point you made about DDO online is exactly what I mean. Lots of people expect those smaller (as in thousands of players not tens of thousands of players) to be unsuccessful. I'm saying exactly what you are, that those smaller MMOs are actually financially successful despite their populations being small in comparison to the traditional view of MMOs being juggernauts like UO in its day, EQ, WoW, etc.
I guess one could classify STO as a large mmo. In that case though, I'm not sure what a small mmo would be or how I would classify something like WoW or BDO.
Or whatever, it's not worth arguing about really. Small, large, whatever. Games like STO continue to exist and thrive without tens of thousands of concurrent users and I think that STO or Perfect World or DDO or LotRO are examples of that.
|
|
|
|
Accounts!
Jul 20, 2016 3:40:59 GMT
via mobile
Post by fossil on Jul 20, 2016 3:40:59 GMT
Ya I just think those games are in between small and large. it's not much of an argument we can agree on the dwarf size of sota and the implosion that's going on with it.
I mean it's hard to know numbers when there not accessible. My thought on small is a game that exists but isn't being worked on anymore. It heads to the demands of the people playing it but doesn't justify the cost to add to what already exists. To me that's what I see as small.
|
|
Caliya
Strong in the Force
People fight to gain things they can't take with them in the end
Posts: 2,121
|
Post by Caliya on Jul 20, 2016 7:38:50 GMT
I guess I don't define SotA as successful, despite that they made 7 million. Successful for them, but I'm thinking success for the player base, that it is a game worth playing or not. I mean, look at all the hundreds of movies that failed at the box office. Yes, they made money but did the people really like it?
There are a core of players that are content with what's been produced and don't care about the politics, making their own money off the game, and it being little more than a keep up with the Jones graphic chat room.
But it could have been sooooo much more, and they missed that boat. To me, that is not a success. I mean, if they had their sights set on a small and persistent player base, that's one thing that could be successful. But they touted it as the greatest thing to come along since the ground breaking UO.
Not.
|
|
Caliya
Strong in the Force
People fight to gain things they can't take with them in the end
Posts: 2,121
|
Post by Caliya on Jul 20, 2016 8:05:36 GMT
Look at Dota 2, 1,095,994 online players at the peak. Or Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, 636,056 peak players. Ok, so they're AAA titles. Sota didn't expect those numbers. But they also didn't expect to fall below original backer numbers, and it's possible they have fallen below those numbers. We will know how many peak players they keep within a 2 month of persistent unfinished launch.
SotA on Steam is now fallen to 64% mixed, which is not seen as successful to the gaming community and will repel people from buying the game.
In addition, the opening trailer has removed all of the narrative that promises lots of things and it's nothing but music now. They don't want people to have any expectations they can complain about when they aren't met, so just drop any expectations. The videos posted on Steam are cheesy.
They will probably maintain an incredibly small niche audience. Who really cares at this point. I just know that by industry standards, they are not considered successful, nor by customer standards.
|
|
titsup
Strong in the Force
Posts: 819
|
Accounts!
Jul 20, 2016 20:53:35 GMT
via mobile
Post by titsup on Jul 20, 2016 20:53:35 GMT
My thought on small is a game that exists but isn't being worked on anymore. It heads to the demands of the people playing it but doesn't justify the cost to add to what already exists. To me that's what I see as small. Ah, now I understand your earlier responses. Definitely didn't mean to imply those games were failing or dead or abandoned. I think people perceive them as failures in a lot of cases, but as you said, they've actually got dedicated playerbases and active communities that keep them thriving. I kind of think those sorts of games are the new sweet spot for MMOs. And after thinking about it more, i think you are right. They're small by my outdated definition, but they're much more the norm for MMOs now. I kind of see it as better for the mmo market as well. Lots of options and variety in game experiences without everyone trying to create the next mmo juggernaut. |
|
calico
Strong in the Force
Posts: 299
|
Post by calico on Jul 26, 2016 23:35:24 GMT
Look at all the crap that moron bought. No wonder he has such a long leash on the forums, money talks.
|
|
|
|
Post by nemolives on Aug 4, 2016 14:01:34 GMT
I think ultimately it will become mostly a virtual chat room with some little bits of world story thrown in and that will be how it survives. Will a lot of Kickstarter backers be happy with that? Probably not. The more I think about it though, a good deal of the game's active player base is completely content with what's been given to them. There are numerous MMOs that came ntinue to exist despite there seeming to be no audience or source of income. Yet there is Star Trek Online, as one example. I don't think it will ever be what most thought of when they heard a new Ultima game was being made by LB. I think it'll go on to exist as a self sustaining social space. Mind you, by successful, I mean merely remaining in operation. I don't mean any sort of achievement beyond maintaining a minimally viable player base. Funny that IM and Nemo have been playin these games of no audience. I'm back, baby! I see a recent frolic with the IM was noticed; the thing about Star Trek Online is that you really can dip in and out as you wish; There are lock box ships, and there's a slight power imbalance towards those, but apart from the actual model, no one else can see it or is affected by it. And all of the gameplay, every single mission, is available to the free players and can be done with any ship at all (including the starter ones if you fancy a challenge). It also gives away a lot more stuff than Shroud; another friend recently popped back in because a lot of stuff, including the original Constitution class (Original Enterprise) was in the recent Lootbox. Both of you are correct though; there isn't much of a constant audience. Actual connected players at any one time tends to be small. I think IM and I only played one day. But our accounts are permanently open and we can go back at any time; The owners having already done most of the work are content to run at a smaller profit from a small number of whales, and then use that money to buy voice overs from famous ST actors and give it all back as free content to everyone. Where as Shroud... well we all know how they've gone for the worst of every possible part of all the worst models. |
|
