Dirty Bomb Philosophy & Business Model - Your Thoughts?

(tokamak) #101

Locki has actually been very ambiguous in his OP so I guess everyone is reading their own interpretation into it. Which serves the discussion but falling back on his OP as an argument or example doesn’t mean that much.

(Runeforce) #102

It was not an argument, but a personal opinion (because evidently you did not get it the first time, nor the second.)

(tokamak) #103

Nor do I get it the third time because you’re not specifying exactly what your opinion is. You can’t say ‘whatever Locki wants’ because you don’t really know what his plan is.

Ad I really do see where you’re coming from, you see it appearing more in this thread. If you were to offer feedback on the new iPhone you would also say that it should come with more stuff and that all of it should be free. That’s your interest!

However if you’re also taking SD’s interests into account then you would help them a lot more by stating what would be the most amount you’re willing to pay for what. Don’t play games and don’t be strategic. Just put your cards on the table if you want DB to be viable on the long term.

(mortis) #104

I would gladly pay to be rid of in-game and/or splash screen advertisements, if the price was right…

(tokamak) #105

I think people feel better about paying to obtain something than pay to be rid of something. The latter feels more like blackmail.

(dommafia) #106

This is true in many ways.

(acQu) #107

I know that e.g. Planetside 2 sells just skins/clanoutfits. I already saw some of these in DB, so i think this is good. I liked the pink weapons :slight_smile:

But for what i post is that maybe you can make certain, let’s say ‘really cool’, vsays available only when you are a member and have paid for it. That would be cool in my eyes.

(I always liked them in W:ET. But then again, if you will allow mods, this is pretty much nullified, since you would be able to add them without problems. Also skins. So i think modding this game will not be possible ? because you can basically create your own skins then. Hm, very likely you won’t be able to write custom mods. Haven’t read this anywhere in the forum so far. I must admit i didn’t read all the threads, so this might have been said already elsewhere.)

(SockDog) #108

Mod support has been given the thumbs up by Locki BUT there are some technical issues SD would have to overcome. I believe the two major ones being how to make the tools available (currently they are part of SDs network and not standalone) and the fact that an SDK could seriously compromise the security of the game (aid hacking etc). <-- my words so please take with a pinch of salt.

Should an SDK become available I’m not sure if it would be possible to lock off something like the character customisation and limit/exclude parts of the game that generate coins. Should they be able to do that though I don’t see how it could hurt to allow people to make maps and additional modes of play without it destroying the F2P revenue.

(ailmanki) #109

Lua interface could be enough, could also ensure that mods take a certain direction… well taking away some liberty. But I guess its good for business.

(stealth6) #110

Just stumbled across this:

Path of exile is a game like Diablo 3, they are also aiming for the F2P market and are offering beta keys, just like SD is doing. Over 100 people have bought the 1000$ pack. Just goes to show how dedicated some people are.

(Dragonji) #111

Offtopic: Path of Exile is in closed beta stage for almost a year IIRC.

EDIT:
I see some1 sent me a beta PoE key a few weeks ago :smiley:

EDIT2:

It’s more like a Diablo I and Diablo II mix :wink:

(rookie1) #112

[QUOTE=stealth6;417388]Just stumbled across this:

Path of exile is a game like Diablo 3, they are also aiming for the F2P market and are offering beta keys, just like SD is doing. Over 100 people have bought the 1000$ pack. Just goes to show how dedicated some people are.[/QUOTE]
I like the way they done their website page purchase …Clear and Very visual …Nicely done

(Bloodbite) #113

F2P: Normally strikes suspicion in me but I think Tribes has worked well as a bridging example… but they still have too much of a grind-or-pay-for-xp-boost mechanic in it. I think what Splash is doing is finally the right thing. **** what everyone else in the industry is doing. To stand out you either need a massive marketing budget or the balls to do something truly worthy of the adjective “intrepid.”

SDK: we’ve been promised it… now lets wait till the game is near polished before thinking any further about modding. Custom maps are one thing, but lets not forget how replayable those original W:ET and ETQW maps were. I loved Brink but as cool as those maps were, they didn’t have as much to offer in tactical manipulation as the former 2 titles.

Founders Club: I actually think the name is fitting. But if you’re going to go with an alternative go with something thematic. Whatever story backdrop you boys have in the works, base it on that. If we have the usual xp rank of private to general, make it distinctly different from that as well.

Limited Editions: absolutely yes… never available again. I preordered Brink and I did feel thoroughly burnt when all the preorders became cheapie dlcs. Even at a higher price… it would have felt like a promo lie.

I think the greatest example of how a community responds to limited edition content… look at Killing Floor. Some avatars that were only available with the preorder of a certain game or if you buy/already own a certain cross promoted game. THEN you have the seasonal events of avatars you can unlock, but only during the events and only if you genuinely achieve it. You tend to see others using those rarer avatars with as much of a sense of pride as you can invest into a game… moreso than a TF2 item, in an ocean of items.

Prizes: Splash owe us event style one off ingame prizes to help drive promotion and continued commitment from gamers. Money generated from this game must absolutely be devoted to ongoing patches and paying staff/expenses. This game should be good enough that it attracts sponsors to put money and such up for we the gamers to compete for, not from Splash. This, as far as I am concerned, is an absolute law that must be obeyed. If Splash put out some funky character sculpture or something that could be cool… maybe, but lets not get gimmicky.

Clan Fees: I don’t mind the idea of a fee here. If it’s a monthly thing it shouldn’t top more than $15 or $20 a year. I don’t think it would hurt to have an entry fee to compete/register for league participation for the year. Maybe that way a dormant clan isn’t throwing extra money away at a monthly fee if, for whatever reason, they aren’t competing for a month or even a whole year.

(tokamak) #114

The content you propose isn’t sufficient to make the game profitable though. Scrap it all together and you still have a rounding error on what actually sells, the pay-or-grind stuff.

(Runeforce) #115

[QUOTE=tokamak;417899]The content you propose isn’t sufficient to make the game profitable though.[/QUOTE] And how would you know? Locki has previously said that SD’s goal is not to score huge bucks (but I would not hold it against them if they did with their current business model and game philosophy,) but to earn enough to cover the expenses and pay the staff.

(SockDog) #116

I’d imagine if they got anywhere near the userbase and lifespan of W:ET even a tiny revenue from each player would leave them rolling in cash. That’s not to even mention having a valuable franchise under their own belts.

Covering their initial costs as a short term plan and then making a reasonable profit in addition to covering ongoing costs as a long term plan is the best we can hope for. It requires faith and commitment in your product though.

(tokamak) #117

Even if they didn’t and DB was some weird charity thing, then it’s still in ALL of our interest to have as many people gnashing their teeth while drawing their wallet to fuel their addiction. The more revenue this game receives the more SD can invest back into expanding the content.

Right now DB is being financed by Brink’s profits. This capital is SD’s first and last chance to become an independent developer. They NEED to secure a proper income from this game or they have to crawl back to a big publisher, or quit.

Nobody here is saying that the players need to be sucked dry. That’s not how a F2P works either, people would only shrug and move on to a game that offers better value. It’s okay if the brunt of the players are playing for free but the purchasable content HAS to be appealing before players start spending on it. And that means that just a bunch of cosmetic bull**** and clan fees (something that wouldn’t be something SD should prefer in the first place) aren’t going to cut it.

If we want DB to be profitable then we have to accept that there’s going to be a lot of very strong privileges for paying clients. Not directly through in-game power, but stuff like opportunity cost, time spend and collection slots just has to be there.

(Runeforce) #118

[QUOTE=tokamak;417921]
Even if they didn’t and DB was some weird charity thing, then it’s still in ALL of our interest to have as many people gnashing their teeth while drawing their wallet to fuel their addiction. [/QUOTE]

The language of that quote pretty much shows why I distest most of everything you write!

As far a I am informed HALF THE COMPANY is already working on titles for big publishers, while the other half works of F2P titles. That pretty much nullifies your statement.

[QUOTE=tokamak;417921]Nobody here is saying that the players need to be sucked dry. That’s not how a F2P works either, people would only shrug and move on to a game that offers better value.[/QUOTE] I beg to differ, that’s EXACTLY how almost all F2P titles work! And your statement seems contradictory, because that is EXACTLY what people are doing (with the odd exception ofc.)

[QUOTE=tokamak;417921]It’s okay if the brunt of the players are playing for free but the purchasable content HAS to be appealing before players start spending on it. And that means that just a bunch of cosmetic bull**** and clan fees (something that wouldn’t be something SD should prefer in the first place) aren’t going to cut it. [/QUOTE] I would like to see you back that up, otherwise it is just remains yet another Tokamak postulate.

[QUOTE=tokamak;417921]If we want DB to be profitable then we have to accept that there’s going to be a lot of very strong privileges for paying clients. Not directly through in-game power, but stuff like opportunity cost, time spend and collection slots just has to be there.[/QUOTE] SIGH

(Bloodbite) #119

You gotta remember here that DB is stepping into crowd-funding territory. And I’m not talking about giving any importance about those that do end up buying one of the Founders Packs… I mean that they are stepping out of the publisher/developer model. Even Tribes is beholden to a publisher (one with a stable of pay2win or pay2not’grind titles).

Profit for a self-funded and self-published title does not compare AT ALL with a title with a finite Publisher’s budget for development + Publisher’s marketing budget + Manufacturing/Distribution + any regional tariffs/fees/censorship rating approvals + shareholder expectations + an entire department of “management” and “legal” and “accounting” that need to be paid simply for having glanced at the project.

There’s been too much of an emphasis put on the crazy record breaking sales of games like CoD and GTA so forth in this industry… yet most gamers aren’t clued in on the truly massive amount of money that needs to be recouped not just for the fat development of these AAA titles but the insane marketing that is behind them. I daresay that if Splash pooled all their Gross profits from every single game they’ve earned anything from, including an optimistic projection for DB, it still wouldn’t touch what was spent in advertising alone to ram Black Ops 2 down our collective throats.

Profit is always relative. Splash is stepping out into brave new territory… they’re not alone, but they’re amongst the first to make the effort to do something themselves.

Like the other 2 crowd-funding games I’m supporting… they’re all from developers that have AAA publisher experience, and they’re all doing more than just the trendy “indie” thing of hipster nerds that are just kind of wingin’ it.

Star Citizen and Project CARS. Both are offering games with what is essentially a massive amount of content and versatility (modding, clanning, on going content/community support intended for 3+ years title survival, etc.) that outstrips anything major studios would claim is possible even with their massive AAA budgets.

It also sees all of these developers and their games fronting their own money to make it work. None of this shareholder profit or loss nonsense. If they fail they really lose in a big way. It ain’t like Bobby Kotick having to cut back on the amount of diamonds encrusting the wris****ches (check this out, the forum is censoring w r i s t w a t c h e s) of his man servants while the development teams liquidate contract staff that were going to get canned regardless of the project’s success simply because they aren’t needed post-release of the last hallowed project budget. It’s make or break for Splash… they HAVE to make it good, not just because we want it to be good, but because there’s no safety net for what’s being invested into this venture.

(tokamak) #120

Lol wris****ches

That’s just the one-time founder’s thing. That’s not what will keep people buying stuff. People want to get value for what they pay and if it keeps the company in business then that’s a nice bonus that will make them feel good about themselves.

I must stress here that thinking about what you would prefer and what would make you pay the highest amount of money in this game are two different things. They’re both helpful but if all you do is saying that you want have as much as possible for as cheap as possible then you’re not helping the company in determining with what you find valuable.