|
|
On October 02 2016 03:08 JimmyJRaynor wrote:no idea how people can be "shocked" or "stunned" with this game getting cancelled. It was a 4 year old company with no track record. With employees who had almost no track record with developing games and zero revenue. The game itself did not even have a revenue model. Show nested quote +On October 02 2016 01:04 -Archangel- wrote:
Wow I just found out his game is DOA. Compared to this game, Grey Goo or Act of Aggression are masterpieces, they at least got released and sold more than 100+k copies. they had experienced game makers running the show. For $10, the GG and the AoA the campaign and skirmish modes aren't half bad. As a full priced game with viable automatch multiplayer GG and AoA failed. You are correct though, The makers of GG and AoA accomplished far more than the snake oil salesmen promising a browser-based platform that will make hte console obsolete and then ended up producing absolutely nothing. I love RTS games and I admire all these developers for trying to make a great game I might love. However, the marketplace is just not there. Everyone is playing Clash of Clans and Mobile Strike to scratch their army-building, stragetical-tactical itch. And its more easy and more convenient to set up those games on a tablet than any PC-RTS game. In retrospect, this is some awesome hyperbole and big talk marketing; what makes its even better is that fact these guys had never done a damn thing before. http://www.dailydot.com/esports/project-atlas-artillery-games-day-nine-esports-ankur-pansari/
In their defense, they DID have some big name investors. And whatever happened, it must have been a big surprise. Not too long ago they were announcing more job listings opening up and going forward at full speed.
Even the days leading up to release, it seemed to catch the developers off guard.
Also, the browser based thing was put behind them at least a year-year and a half ago. It held them back, although much of it still worked in web client. And the client was actually pretty nice functionality.
I still say, the market is there. You can see it obviously on market metrics. If you were a marketer, you would easily be able to determine that the market is there. It's the sustainability & conversion rate that's not high enough.
It's just that none of the RTS games to come out have been high enough quality to sustain players. Every single one has made questionable decisions, either with the marketing or design of their games. None have truly got it right to deserve a 9.0 rating or above. There's been a few 8.0's... but not a 9 in over 10 years.
SC2 is finally beginning to join the modern genre with their new payment schemes coming up. And it's about damn time. If they were concerned with actually making profit from SC2, it should have went fully F2P years ago. That's where people spend money on competitive multiplayer games nowdays. Box sales only work on hyped releases, not sustainable competitive multiplayer games years after the original release.
|
Blizzard is a slow-moving behemoth. The boxed model was planned years before the current trend of F2P really hit its stride, and they weren't going to switch up the model so late into the development cycle. To be fair, they still made the expansions out to be hyped releases, especially Heart of the Swarm which really benefited from being released so soon after the height of SC2.
|
On October 05 2016 02:48 eviltomahawk wrote:
Blizzard is a slow-moving behemoth. The boxed model was planned years before the current trend of F2P really hit its stride, and they weren't going to switch up the model so late into the development cycle. To be fair, they still made the expansions out to be hyped releases, especially Heart of the Swarm which really benefited from being released so soon after the height of SC2.
Yep, but most those players ended up just playing campaign and then being done with it.
The industry has shifted, especially in terms of competitive gaming. It's too hard to sustain players off box releases, where F2P pricing schemes allow sheer numbers in player base that in turn makes lower conversion rates a non-issue. Basically all competitive moba's, mmo's, CCG's, etc - all would not have succeeded without F2P or similar models (at some point in their life cycle). Box releases for initial releases is not uncommon, but F2P is required for sustainability.
Regarding SC2, they have been teasing it ever since Heart of the Swarm, when they mentioned the skin thing & made starter edition. But never pulled the trigger, or even seen any progress towards it, until now.
And SC2 has always had issues with sustainability past their box releases. It was really marketed (and often times, developed) more as a boxed game that's focused on campaign more than a competitive game. Which is part of what I believe contributed to it's suffering as a competitive game.
|
On October 05 2016 02:48 eviltomahawk wrote:
Blizzard is a slow-moving behemoth. The boxed model was planned years before the current trend of F2P really hit its stride, and they weren't going to switch up the model so late into the development cycle. To be fair, they still made the expansions out to be hyped releases, especially Heart of the Swarm which really benefited from being released so soon after the height of SC2.
no F2P RTS has ever hit any level of commercial success. Boxed copy pre-paid revenue model works for Overwatch , WoW, Diablo, and SC. and a bazillion other game franchises
|
Spyridon have you read the new update coming to SC2?
They are moving towards microtransactions for SC2 (skins, mission packs, coop commanders etc.)
I don't mind a game with microtransactions, as long as the purchases aren't P2W, but SC2 is also marketed as a traditional boxed model.
|
i'd like it if Blizzard would bundle every new tiny item for sale in 2016 and sell for $60 USD. I'd buy it. The Nova Missions, the voice packs, the commanders, everything.
On October 05 2016 02:09 Spyridon wrote:
In their defense, they DID have some big name investors. And whatever happened, it must have been a big surprise. Not too long ago they were announcing more job listings opening up and going forward at full speed.
...
Also, the browser based thing was put behind them at least a year-year and a half ago. It held them back, although much of it still worked in web client. And the client was actually pretty nice functionality.
the road to hell is paved with good intentions. i said this before they cancelled this game: i feel sorry for the volunteer testers they suckered into providing free labour.
|
On October 05 2016 03:25 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:
Spyridon have you read the new update coming to SC2?
They are moving towards microtransactions for SC2 (skins, mission packs, coop commanders etc.)
I don't mind a game with microtransactions, as long as the purchases aren't P2W, but SC2 is also marketed as a traditional boxed model.
Yup, that's why I mentioned "But never pulled the trigger, or even seen any progress towards it, until now.".
This seems like it could be that step towards a F2P model, which honestly, would be best for the game anyway. They can do traditional releases for major campaign content, but if they want the multiplayer to reach it's best potential, F2P microtransactions is the way to do it. It's extremely difficult for a competitive game with a high learning curve/skill cap to survive without it..
On October 05 2016 03:27 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
the road to hell is paved with good intentions. i said this before they cancelled this game: i feel sorry for the volunteer testers they suckered into providing free labour.
I was one of the daily testers ever since the first weekend test that happened probably around a year ago. I don't feel suckered one bit! It was a cool experience, fun at times and not-fun at times No regrets in the time I spent giving feedback. While I still do wonder where things went wrong, and at times I wondered what feedback was really being listened to, overall it was good.
And the testers had our own discord channels, in the end the reaction is surprise and sadness. Not feeling suckered, though. Slightly hopeful that the source will be released or something, slight worry that nothing else has been mentioned by Artillery when they said more info would be available in a few days.
Overall, no reason to feel sorry for us. Was a good time, and a shame the public didn't get to see the game at it's best (in my opinion). Most the daily testers just moved from Atlas to Battlerite =p
|
I wouldn't include MMO's as an example of F2P being that necessary. Various popular MMO's still have B2P elements sometimes paired with optional or even required sub fees, yet they still command respectable player-bases. And there's also CS:GO which has grown a huge player base and competitive scene despite its $15 cost.
F2P SC2 would definitely help, but it was never going to be an easy switch, and it was never going to be as straightforward as F2P switches in MOBAs and MMOs. The development of cosmetic-based progression or microtransactions is logical for SC2, but it's clear that a lot of content-creation was focused on campaign assets for the expansion packs.
|
F2P SC2 will do much. The barrier of entry is to great, the skill floor to high.
The MMO's & MOBA's you mention are all easy to get into. They lend themselves to just jumping in, to goofing around with some friends. SC2 isn't going to offer that, F2P or not.
If you want a game to break open and revive the dying RTS genre you need a Hearthstone, a League of Legends. Something easy to get into but deep enough to capture those who try it.
Its why GoA went the route it did, it's not the only route for sure but the hardcore RTS ala SC2, Grey Goo, Acts of Agression are basically dead. The market is simply not big enough for developers to give it a shot and the genre is probably to complex for true indy devs to give it a shot.
|
ya, the investment money was so great they couldn't pay the testers. ya, i can smell the BS from here.
On October 05 2016 03:59 Spyridon wrote:
I was one of the daily testers ever since the first weekend test that happened probably around a year ago...
when other people are looking to profit i never work for free. ever. i make database software. first thing i want to know is the transaction value of every record in the database.
|
On October 05 2016 04:52 JimmyJRaynor wrote:ya, the investment money was so great they couldn't pay the testers. ya, i can smell the BS from here. Show nested quote +On October 05 2016 03:59 Spyridon wrote:
I was one of the daily testers ever since the first weekend test that happened probably around a year ago...
when other people are looking to profit i never work for free. ever. i make database software. first thing i want to know is the transaction value of every record in the database.
What crackpot have you been smoking from? No company pays their invited alpha testers. They are always volenteers.
Their not the Q/A department.
Just because you are not willing to test upcoming games/software for nothing doesn't mean others are not willing to help with their spare time in exchange for helping something they like/enjoy improve. Nor does it make the developers crooks...
Get off your high horse and face reality for once.
|
On October 05 2016 04:57 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2016 04:52 JimmyJRaynor wrote:ya, the investment money was so great they couldn't pay the testers. ya, i can smell the BS from here. On October 05 2016 03:59 Spyridon wrote:
I was one of the daily testers ever since the first weekend test that happened probably around a year ago...
when other people are looking to profit i never work for free. ever. i make database software. first thing i want to know is the transaction value of every record in the database. What crackpot have you been smoking from? No company pays their invited alpha testers. They are always volenteers. Their not the Q/A department. Just because you are not willing to test upcoming games/software for nothing doesn't mean others are not willing to help with their spare time in exchange for helping something they like/enjoy improve. Nor does it make the developers crooks... Get off your high horse and face reality for once.
Hey now lets take the tone down a bit. JJR wasn't implying anything nor standing on a pedestal.
You are correct about alpha testers. However, most game developers at least have an internal testing team that does get paid. From what I understand, these guys didn't even field their game to an internal team. They seemed to want free labour so just kicked off an invite-alpha test. That seems a bit greedy no? Alpha testers aren't here to find bugs or determine major gameplay imbalances. They should be used to fine-tune the game.
|
On October 05 2016 05:58 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2016 04:57 Gorsameth wrote:On October 05 2016 04:52 JimmyJRaynor wrote:ya, the investment money was so great they couldn't pay the testers. ya, i can smell the BS from here. On October 05 2016 03:59 Spyridon wrote:
I was one of the daily testers ever since the first weekend test that happened probably around a year ago...
when other people are looking to profit i never work for free. ever. i make database software. first thing i want to know is the transaction value of every record in the database. What crackpot have you been smoking from? No company pays their invited alpha testers. They are always volenteers. Their not the Q/A department. Just because you are not willing to test upcoming games/software for nothing doesn't mean others are not willing to help with their spare time in exchange for helping something they like/enjoy improve. Nor does it make the developers crooks... Get off your high horse and face reality for once. Hey now lets take the tone down a bit. JJR wasn't implying anything nor standing on a pedestal. You are correct about alpha testers. However, most game developers at least have an internal testing team that does get paid. From what I understand, these guys didn't even field their game to an internal team. They seemed to want free labour so just kicked off an invite-alpha test. That seems a bit greedy no? Alpha testers aren't here to find bugs or determine major gameplay imbalances. They should be used to fine-tune the game.
I understand the industry has muddled the waters in recent years but no, Beta testers are there to fine-tune the game. Alpha testers can expect to run into major gamebreaking bugs and large imbalances.
The programs are normally not even feature complete until late into alpha testing. Fine tuning doesnt even come into it.
As for JJR, your right. he isnt implying anything. He is outright stating it...
|
they did not even have a revenue model during these testing phases.
in my jurisdiction Artillery would have a rough time proving their "volunteer" testing team does not violate employment standards.
|
On October 05 2016 06:52 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
they did not even have a revenue model during these testing phases.
in my jurisdiction Artillery would have a rough time proving their "volunteer" testing team does not violate employment standards.
Testing was primarily on the staging server with a team of employees vs a team of daily testers, outside of the 2 gatherings per week that the daily testers had.
Why would they have a revenue model before going public?
They actually added the revenue model very soon before things went bad. Which, again, is evidence that whatever happened was sudden.
And again, all games have testers who do not work on the team. Even Blizzard. I've been in a number of friend & family alphas. You don't get paid for that.
|
On October 05 2016 06:52 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
they did not even have a revenue model during these testing phases.
in my jurisdiction Artillery would have a rough time proving their "volunteer" testing team does not violate employment standards.
There have been a lot of internet projects in the last couple decades that were created first and the revenue model came later. Google, Facebook, and Twitter all come to mind.
It's also been pretty standard practice in the game industry to get free labor in exchange for early access by offering beta slots. Hell, some people will even pay money (buying keys from third parties or just through pre-orders) to obtain beta slots and early access. People like to play early and they like to have input into a game. Casual game design is extremely fun for a lot of people whereas the actual work, the actual nitty-gritty design and creation is a job that needs to be paid for.
It's a little bit more unusual to use free labor during the alpha phase, but it's nowhere near out of bounds. The border between alpha and beta is pretty vague as well. Some of the early alpha testers talked of a highly functional, fun game from over a year ago and that the game actually went in the wrong direction since then. Sure, they probably squashed some bugs in the meantime and switched out art assets, but there isn't some super clear demarcation point between alpha and beta.
Also, while they might not have had paid testers, they did have a company full of gamers who tested the game themselves and provided feedback. Day9 being a prime example of that.
So I have no issue with what Artillery did on that front. Yes, they over-hyped a platform for future games. Yes, they over-hyped a game that had no clear design. And yes, they failed to deliver on both accounts. So overall, it was quite disappointing. However, I think you've got way too much anger for something that is really standard practice and the only difference between this one and a whole host of other games is that you heard of this and may have even been pessimistically hopeful while most of the other games never hit your radar.
|
On October 05 2016 07:42 RenSC2 wrote:
So I have no issue with what Artillery did on that front. Yes, they over-hyped a platform for future games. Yes, they over-hyped a game that had no clear design. And yes, they failed to deliver on both accounts. So overall, it was quite disappointing. However, I think you've got way too much anger for something that is really standard practice and the only difference between this one and a whole host of other games is that you heard of this and may have even been pessimistically hopeful while most of the other games never hit your radar.
for the most part i share your perspective. i appreciate the depth of your reply. However, please do not attempt to assess my emotional state. I said the company was a "House of Cards"... and that is pretty much what it turned out to be. There is nothing to be angry about.
yep, entertainment software companies standard practice is exploiting employees....
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/feb/18/crunched-games-industry-exploiting-workforce-ea-spouse-software
just because its standard for EA to do this doesn't mean EA is a good company. other companies that do this then use the "hey everyone does it" logic.. they are no better than EA.
|
On October 05 2016 08:10 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2016 07:42 RenSC2 wrote:
So I have no issue with what Artillery did on that front. Yes, they over-hyped a platform for future games. Yes, they over-hyped a game that had no clear design. And yes, they failed to deliver on both accounts. So overall, it was quite disappointing. However, I think you've got way too much anger for something that is really standard practice and the only difference between this one and a whole host of other games is that you heard of this and may have even been pessimistically hopeful while most of the other games never hit your radar. for the most part i share your perspective. i appreciate the depth of your reply. However, please do not attempt to assess my emotional state. I said the company was a "House of Cards"... and that is pretty much what it turned out to be. There is nothing to be angry about. yep, entertainment software companies standard practice is exploiting employees.... https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/feb/18/crunched-games-industry-exploiting-workforce-ea-spouse-softwarejust because its standard for EA to do this doesn't mean EA is a good company. other companies that do this then use the "hey everyone does it" logic.. they are no better than EA.
You defend Blizzard all the time, and tout what a great company they are. Yet they do the same exact thing, and have ever since the Blizzard North days... Friends and family alphas were taking place ever since then.
All these other companies are bad companies, EA, Artillery, etc.... but somehow Blizzard is a good company for doing the same thing?
By your own definition, that would make Blizzard "no better than EA".
Please explain?
|
On October 05 2016 06:52 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
they did not even have a revenue model during these testing phases.
in my jurisdiction Artillery would have a rough time proving their "volunteer" testing team does not violate employment standards.
This makes 0 sense. Are you saying any and every game that has an alpha/beta test is violating labor laws? C'mon...you don't seriously believe that...
|
I guess f2p might actually work for competitive games soon. I mean we are moving towards anti cheats that are so intrusive that the NSA would be proud.
Overwatch does it. Streetfighter tries to do it. But otherwise a 1v1 f2p rts for pc would just be who runs the better cheats. It is really not my piece of cake.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
