Depraved wrote: » you cant offer everything to everybody and you cant give them too many options.
Azherae wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Azherae wrote: » CROW3 wrote: » Fantmx wrote: » Respectfully I think you are missing the point of why they are saying niche. It doesn't have anything to do with old schools days. I played EQ from beta. It was as old school as it gets. But I could always opt out of pvp and always had something to do as a PvE player for hours and hours a day. I think part of why the word niche is being used is because we are hearing more and more the line "this game may not be for you" which started to ramp in use at the time open seas pvp was released. And so the more we use that line the less people we will find interested. So, niche. Agreed. Which is why I don't think the OP's premise is accurate. My use of 'niche' is coming from a product marketing perspective. If you're targeting a micro-segment of a consumer audience you're going to be in a niche position. Selling artisanal pour over coffee with fusion spices for $15 a cup is a niche market. In this case gamers > mmo players > not strict pvp audience / not strict pve audience, combined with a tagline of 'this may not be for you.' This @Ravicus The question isn't 'why did you walk into my Artisanal Pourover Coffee Establishment in the first place?' It's 'why are you expecting this spice blend that I have chosen not to offer?' And the answer is usually 'well I thought it was an obvious blend to offer'. The person doesn't know the precise spice blends available before they walk in. And so they walk back out. To further your analogy, and what you wrote states. A customer walks into the coffee shop. He reads what they have and before they buy anything, they see they do not have what they want, and does not purchase anything. They then leave as an informed coffee buyer to not go back to that shop. Yes, I agree entirely. The problem with Ashes is that at the moment, it's not quite that simple, it's a little closer to the following timeline. "Guys I am gonna open a Pourover with Spice blends, really good spice blends (gives some examples)." The public goes wild! All the old Pourovers have closed down or fallen into disrepair or use old tech and don't accept Google Pay (or something). A new one would be great! "Ok guys I'm going to offer a lot of blends from the old days, but note that my staff won't combine all the spice combinations, I have to keep it realistic and on theme, so this shop may not be for you." Public (right or wrong) still clamors for it, all expecting their favorite 'most obvious' spice blends to be available. "Ok guys I'll let you know which spice blends once we open our mall kiosk, we'll be testing which ones are best for the theme and flavors, here's a list of what we definitely won't be allowing." Public still eager, except everyone who left because of the things on the disallowed list. Now from here it's just 'removing people' as one adds to the disallowed list. The whole reason I'm here is because Intrepid might need to know if they are removing customers they actually want by 'not offering certain blends' that they could theoretically offer. That's why I always ask people for clarification on the exact reason they are opposing something, and what they like instead, and whatever else. I am not sure Intrepid can afford to just go 'eh, I'll offer what I feel like and anyone who doesn't like it can just not come', but idk how much money Steven actually has. I only know that he's said 'Taking feedback'. It's up to them to decide if it's worth changing X because it makes Y group leave. Our part is to define 'why X is a problem' and 'Which group we're part of' when leaving or considering leaving. Intrepid will handle analyzing 'did they want or expect this person to play at all?'
Ravicus wrote: » Azherae wrote: » CROW3 wrote: » Fantmx wrote: » Respectfully I think you are missing the point of why they are saying niche. It doesn't have anything to do with old schools days. I played EQ from beta. It was as old school as it gets. But I could always opt out of pvp and always had something to do as a PvE player for hours and hours a day. I think part of why the word niche is being used is because we are hearing more and more the line "this game may not be for you" which started to ramp in use at the time open seas pvp was released. And so the more we use that line the less people we will find interested. So, niche. Agreed. Which is why I don't think the OP's premise is accurate. My use of 'niche' is coming from a product marketing perspective. If you're targeting a micro-segment of a consumer audience you're going to be in a niche position. Selling artisanal pour over coffee with fusion spices for $15 a cup is a niche market. In this case gamers > mmo players > not strict pvp audience / not strict pve audience, combined with a tagline of 'this may not be for you.' This @Ravicus The question isn't 'why did you walk into my Artisanal Pourover Coffee Establishment in the first place?' It's 'why are you expecting this spice blend that I have chosen not to offer?' And the answer is usually 'well I thought it was an obvious blend to offer'. The person doesn't know the precise spice blends available before they walk in. And so they walk back out. To further your analogy, and what you wrote states. A customer walks into the coffee shop. He reads what they have and before they buy anything, they see they do not have what they want, and does not purchase anything. They then leave as an informed coffee buyer to not go back to that shop.
Azherae wrote: » CROW3 wrote: » Fantmx wrote: » Respectfully I think you are missing the point of why they are saying niche. It doesn't have anything to do with old schools days. I played EQ from beta. It was as old school as it gets. But I could always opt out of pvp and always had something to do as a PvE player for hours and hours a day. I think part of why the word niche is being used is because we are hearing more and more the line "this game may not be for you" which started to ramp in use at the time open seas pvp was released. And so the more we use that line the less people we will find interested. So, niche. Agreed. Which is why I don't think the OP's premise is accurate. My use of 'niche' is coming from a product marketing perspective. If you're targeting a micro-segment of a consumer audience you're going to be in a niche position. Selling artisanal pour over coffee with fusion spices for $15 a cup is a niche market. In this case gamers > mmo players > not strict pvp audience / not strict pve audience, combined with a tagline of 'this may not be for you.' This @Ravicus The question isn't 'why did you walk into my Artisanal Pourover Coffee Establishment in the first place?' It's 'why are you expecting this spice blend that I have chosen not to offer?' And the answer is usually 'well I thought it was an obvious blend to offer'. The person doesn't know the precise spice blends available before they walk in. And so they walk back out.
CROW3 wrote: » Fantmx wrote: » Respectfully I think you are missing the point of why they are saying niche. It doesn't have anything to do with old schools days. I played EQ from beta. It was as old school as it gets. But I could always opt out of pvp and always had something to do as a PvE player for hours and hours a day. I think part of why the word niche is being used is because we are hearing more and more the line "this game may not be for you" which started to ramp in use at the time open seas pvp was released. And so the more we use that line the less people we will find interested. So, niche. Agreed. Which is why I don't think the OP's premise is accurate. My use of 'niche' is coming from a product marketing perspective. If you're targeting a micro-segment of a consumer audience you're going to be in a niche position. Selling artisanal pour over coffee with fusion spices for $15 a cup is a niche market. In this case gamers > mmo players > not strict pvp audience / not strict pve audience, combined with a tagline of 'this may not be for you.'
Fantmx wrote: » Respectfully I think you are missing the point of why they are saying niche. It doesn't have anything to do with old schools days. I played EQ from beta. It was as old school as it gets. But I could always opt out of pvp and always had something to do as a PvE player for hours and hours a day. I think part of why the word niche is being used is because we are hearing more and more the line "this game may not be for you" which started to ramp in use at the time open seas pvp was released. And so the more we use that line the less people we will find interested. So, niche.
Azherae wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Azherae wrote: » CROW3 wrote: » Fantmx wrote: » Respectfully I think you are missing the point of why they are saying niche. It doesn't have anything to do with old schools days. I played EQ from beta. It was as old school as it gets. But I could always opt out of pvp and always had something to do as a PvE player for hours and hours a day. I think part of why the word niche is being used is because we are hearing more and more the line "this game may not be for you" which started to ramp in use at the time open seas pvp was released. And so the more we use that line the less people we will find interested. So, niche. Agreed. Which is why I don't think the OP's premise is accurate. My use of 'niche' is coming from a product marketing perspective. If you're targeting a micro-segment of a consumer audience you're going to be in a niche position. Selling artisanal pour over coffee with fusion spices for $15 a cup is a niche market. In this case gamers > mmo players > not strict pvp audience / not strict pve audience, combined with a tagline of 'this may not be for you.' This @Ravicus The question isn't 'why did you walk into my Artisanal Pourover Coffee Establishment in the first place?' It's 'why are you expecting this spice blend that I have chosen not to offer?' And the answer is usually 'well I thought it was an obvious blend to offer'. The person doesn't know the precise spice blends available before they walk in. And so they walk back out. To further your analogy, and what you wrote states. A customer walks into the coffee shop. He reads what they have and before they buy anything, they see they do not have what they want, and does not purchase anything. They then leave as an informed coffee buyer to not go back to that shop. Yes, I agree entirely. The problem with Ashes is that at the moment, it's not quite that simple, it's a little closer to the following timeline. "Guys I am gonna open a Pourover with Spice blends, really good spice blends (gives some examples)." The public goes wild! All the old Pourovers have closed down or fallen into disrepair or use old tech and don't accept Google Pay (or something). A new one would be great! "Ok guys I'm going to offer a lot of blends from the old days, but note that my staff won't combine all the spice combinations, I have to keep it realistic and on theme, so this shop may not be for you." Public (right or wrong) still clamors for it, all expecting their favorite 'most obvious' spice blends to be available. "Ok guys I'll let you know which spice blends once we open our mall kiosk, we'll be testing which ones are best for the theme and flavors, here's a list of what we definitely won't be allowing." Public still eager, except everyone who left because of the things on the disallowed list. Now from here it's just 'removing people' as one adds to the disallowed list. The whole reason I'm here is because Intrepid might need to know if they are removing customers they actually want by 'not offering certain blends' that they could theoretically offer. That's why I always ask people for clarification on the exact reason they are opposing something, and what they like instead, and whatever else. I am not sure Intrepid can afford to just go 'eh, I'll offer what I feel like and anyone who doesn't like it can just not come', but idk how much money Steven actually has. I only know that he's said 'Taking feedback'. It's up to them to decide if it's worth changing X because it makes Y group leave. Our part is to define 'why X is a problem' and 'Which group we're part of' when leaving or considering leaving. Intrepid will handle analyzing 'did they want or expect this person to play at all?' when you buy something, do you want 100 options or just 3? also, by removing things, people who aren't the target audience might leave (before the game is out), but guess what? new people who are the target audience might join. you cant offer everything to everybody and you cant give them too many options. It's good that you're defending the approach, but I think the way we view the world is just too far removed for any productive conversation to happen. Basically I fundamentally disagree with everything in this post, but I think it's because we just have entirely different bases. I think my Marketer doesn't agree with you, but I'm not the specialist in consumer sentiment management. She's unlikely to care to engage, so maybe you can have this discussion with @CROW3 if that works out. I'd be glad to learn from any discussion you two did have, or 'learn from the fact that CROW3 doesn't actually have the discussion'. Either's good.
Depraved wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Azherae wrote: » CROW3 wrote: » Fantmx wrote: » Respectfully I think you are missing the point of why they are saying niche. It doesn't have anything to do with old schools days. I played EQ from beta. It was as old school as it gets. But I could always opt out of pvp and always had something to do as a PvE player for hours and hours a day. I think part of why the word niche is being used is because we are hearing more and more the line "this game may not be for you" which started to ramp in use at the time open seas pvp was released. And so the more we use that line the less people we will find interested. So, niche. Agreed. Which is why I don't think the OP's premise is accurate. My use of 'niche' is coming from a product marketing perspective. If you're targeting a micro-segment of a consumer audience you're going to be in a niche position. Selling artisanal pour over coffee with fusion spices for $15 a cup is a niche market. In this case gamers > mmo players > not strict pvp audience / not strict pve audience, combined with a tagline of 'this may not be for you.' This @Ravicus The question isn't 'why did you walk into my Artisanal Pourover Coffee Establishment in the first place?' It's 'why are you expecting this spice blend that I have chosen not to offer?' And the answer is usually 'well I thought it was an obvious blend to offer'. The person doesn't know the precise spice blends available before they walk in. And so they walk back out. To further your analogy, and what you wrote states. A customer walks into the coffee shop. He reads what they have and before they buy anything, they see they do not have what they want, and does not purchase anything. They then leave as an informed coffee buyer to not go back to that shop. Yes, I agree entirely. The problem with Ashes is that at the moment, it's not quite that simple, it's a little closer to the following timeline. "Guys I am gonna open a Pourover with Spice blends, really good spice blends (gives some examples)." The public goes wild! All the old Pourovers have closed down or fallen into disrepair or use old tech and don't accept Google Pay (or something). A new one would be great! "Ok guys I'm going to offer a lot of blends from the old days, but note that my staff won't combine all the spice combinations, I have to keep it realistic and on theme, so this shop may not be for you." Public (right or wrong) still clamors for it, all expecting their favorite 'most obvious' spice blends to be available. "Ok guys I'll let you know which spice blends once we open our mall kiosk, we'll be testing which ones are best for the theme and flavors, here's a list of what we definitely won't be allowing." Public still eager, except everyone who left because of the things on the disallowed list. Now from here it's just 'removing people' as one adds to the disallowed list. The whole reason I'm here is because Intrepid might need to know if they are removing customers they actually want by 'not offering certain blends' that they could theoretically offer. That's why I always ask people for clarification on the exact reason they are opposing something, and what they like instead, and whatever else. I am not sure Intrepid can afford to just go 'eh, I'll offer what I feel like and anyone who doesn't like it can just not come', but idk how much money Steven actually has. I only know that he's said 'Taking feedback'. It's up to them to decide if it's worth changing X because it makes Y group leave. Our part is to define 'why X is a problem' and 'Which group we're part of' when leaving or considering leaving. Intrepid will handle analyzing 'did they want or expect this person to play at all?' when you buy something, do you want 100 options or just 3? also, by removing things, people who aren't the target audience might leave (before the game is out), but guess what? new people who are the target audience might join. you cant offer everything to everybody and you cant give them too many options.
CROW3 wrote: » Depraved wrote: » you cant offer everything to everybody and you cant give them too many options. That's a bit of a strawman comparison. 7-11 sells coffee, Starbucks sells coffee, and Philz sells coffee. Each have different approaches to the consumer segment for who is buying coffee when. If Starbucks doesn't want to focus their product line on 3rd wave artisanal coffee, it doesn't mean they start selling coke and pepsi. They just have a broader consumer base they are marketing toward. WoW is chasing a broad commercial segment of gamers . Ashes isn't - they are much more focused, and happy to trade off the revenue of broader consumer segments to retain that focus.
Ravicus wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Azherae wrote: » CROW3 wrote: » Fantmx wrote: » Respectfully I think you are missing the point of why they are saying niche. It doesn't have anything to do with old schools days. I played EQ from beta. It was as old school as it gets. But I could always opt out of pvp and always had something to do as a PvE player for hours and hours a day. I think part of why the word niche is being used is because we are hearing more and more the line "this game may not be for you" which started to ramp in use at the time open seas pvp was released. And so the more we use that line the less people we will find interested. So, niche. Agreed. Which is why I don't think the OP's premise is accurate. My use of 'niche' is coming from a product marketing perspective. If you're targeting a micro-segment of a consumer audience you're going to be in a niche position. Selling artisanal pour over coffee with fusion spices for $15 a cup is a niche market. In this case gamers > mmo players > not strict pvp audience / not strict pve audience, combined with a tagline of 'this may not be for you.' This @Ravicus The question isn't 'why did you walk into my Artisanal Pourover Coffee Establishment in the first place?' It's 'why are you expecting this spice blend that I have chosen not to offer?' And the answer is usually 'well I thought it was an obvious blend to offer'. The person doesn't know the precise spice blends available before they walk in. And so they walk back out. To further your analogy, and what you wrote states. A customer walks into the coffee shop. He reads what they have and before they buy anything, they see they do not have what they want, and does not purchase anything. They then leave as an informed coffee buyer to not go back to that shop. Yes, I agree entirely. The problem with Ashes is that at the moment, it's not quite that simple, it's a little closer to the following timeline. "Guys I am gonna open a Pourover with Spice blends, really good spice blends (gives some examples)." The public goes wild! All the old Pourovers have closed down or fallen into disrepair or use old tech and don't accept Google Pay (or something). A new one would be great! "Ok guys I'm going to offer a lot of blends from the old days, but note that my staff won't combine all the spice combinations, I have to keep it realistic and on theme, so this shop may not be for you." Public (right or wrong) still clamors for it, all expecting their favorite 'most obvious' spice blends to be available. "Ok guys I'll let you know which spice blends once we open our mall kiosk, we'll be testing which ones are best for the theme and flavors, here's a list of what we definitely won't be allowing." Public still eager, except everyone who left because of the things on the disallowed list. Now from here it's just 'removing people' as one adds to the disallowed list. The whole reason I'm here is because Intrepid might need to know if they are removing customers they actually want by 'not offering certain blends' that they could theoretically offer. That's why I always ask people for clarification on the exact reason they are opposing something, and what they like instead, and whatever else. I am not sure Intrepid can afford to just go 'eh, I'll offer what I feel like and anyone who doesn't like it can just not come', but idk how much money Steven actually has. I only know that he's said 'Taking feedback'. It's up to them to decide if it's worth changing X because it makes Y group leave. Our part is to define 'why X is a problem' and 'Which group we're part of' when leaving or considering leaving. Intrepid will handle analyzing 'did they want or expect this person to play at all?' I pretty much agree with this. To me it depends on what the people want that needs to be changed. If its a core principle or something less that does not affect the core principles. One thing that you mentioned is questions. I do think over the years they could have been addressing questions more, especially on the forums here. I am just recently joining after a long time some I have missed out on much. Thank you for your input on saying many games have had some of the same mechanics, but they are new to me I guess lol. I think the forums would do good with a community manager to help with this. I do understand the point of the process being dragged out since kickstarter and people are wondering if they will get to play before they die. There are many elderly people that back these games that have started in their late 50's when they pledged and now are mid 60's. A few more years and they will be 70. So I can understand people who think it should have been sped up.
KingDDD wrote: » Fantmx wrote: » KingDDD wrote: » NiKr wrote: » KingDDD wrote: » Where's your screenshot come from and is it the total number of servers added, region based, or what? It's just "ctrl+f" on that page. KingDDD wrote: » The faction imbalances happened over time and really kicked off when server transfers became vogue sometime in 2007 or 2008. Only blizzard could tell exact population and player activity per server at specific time periods. In other words it's been the case for over 15 years. So, in theory, 3 gens of gamers are used to seeing non-pvp "pvp" servers. We can all praise and shout off the rooftops about how our beloved mmos were so damn great 15 years ago, but that won't change the current realities of gaming. Anyone who wants pvp went to mobas and brs and everyone who wanted to play mmos are playing ff14 and wow, which are both as pve as it gets. Yes, wow might've had great balanced servers back at its start, but back then even Lineage 2 had over a millions subs and was a very nice game. And the genre overall had way more pvp mmos. Times have changed. Yes so you are looking at the total number of servers added, not the dates for when they were added. I used 2005 as the year to measure from as thats the period of wows largest growth. The fact blizzard choose to implement more pvp servers that year illustrates the popularity of pvp servers over pve. The 15 year comment is irrelevant as the major faction imbalances were mostly from 2008 to 2012, long after world activities and any pvp beyond 3vs3 arena was dead. All those players that went to mobas BRs arena shooters etc want to play an mmo. There's a reason Intrepid is doing interviews with shroud and summit, and it isn't because they're pretty. Pvp games are more popular then ever. There hasn't been any type of major pvp mmo in well over a decade +. The feature count, graphics, cycle of astonishment will make ashes insanely popular at launch. How robust those features are and how well the game runs will determine how well they retain those players. The problem with trying to rely solely on the shooter, moba, BR crowds is attention span and longevity. Ashes is going to require a long attention span. While those games do have shorter matches compared to an MMO, I'd think thatll be a boon. Longterm play sessions haven't died in the last decade, they just morphed into 20-45 min chunks. As long as Ashes has things you can accomplish in those chunks it'll be fine. The issue will arise if players spend 20 mins getting from point a to b and accomplish nothing in that time period. The node system should solve this as it gives players a way to progress in those small chunks and at the same time encourages engagement in longer play sessions.
Fantmx wrote: » KingDDD wrote: » NiKr wrote: » KingDDD wrote: » Where's your screenshot come from and is it the total number of servers added, region based, or what? It's just "ctrl+f" on that page. KingDDD wrote: » The faction imbalances happened over time and really kicked off when server transfers became vogue sometime in 2007 or 2008. Only blizzard could tell exact population and player activity per server at specific time periods. In other words it's been the case for over 15 years. So, in theory, 3 gens of gamers are used to seeing non-pvp "pvp" servers. We can all praise and shout off the rooftops about how our beloved mmos were so damn great 15 years ago, but that won't change the current realities of gaming. Anyone who wants pvp went to mobas and brs and everyone who wanted to play mmos are playing ff14 and wow, which are both as pve as it gets. Yes, wow might've had great balanced servers back at its start, but back then even Lineage 2 had over a millions subs and was a very nice game. And the genre overall had way more pvp mmos. Times have changed. Yes so you are looking at the total number of servers added, not the dates for when they were added. I used 2005 as the year to measure from as thats the period of wows largest growth. The fact blizzard choose to implement more pvp servers that year illustrates the popularity of pvp servers over pve. The 15 year comment is irrelevant as the major faction imbalances were mostly from 2008 to 2012, long after world activities and any pvp beyond 3vs3 arena was dead. All those players that went to mobas BRs arena shooters etc want to play an mmo. There's a reason Intrepid is doing interviews with shroud and summit, and it isn't because they're pretty. Pvp games are more popular then ever. There hasn't been any type of major pvp mmo in well over a decade +. The feature count, graphics, cycle of astonishment will make ashes insanely popular at launch. How robust those features are and how well the game runs will determine how well they retain those players. The problem with trying to rely solely on the shooter, moba, BR crowds is attention span and longevity. Ashes is going to require a long attention span.
KingDDD wrote: » NiKr wrote: » KingDDD wrote: » Where's your screenshot come from and is it the total number of servers added, region based, or what? It's just "ctrl+f" on that page. KingDDD wrote: » The faction imbalances happened over time and really kicked off when server transfers became vogue sometime in 2007 or 2008. Only blizzard could tell exact population and player activity per server at specific time periods. In other words it's been the case for over 15 years. So, in theory, 3 gens of gamers are used to seeing non-pvp "pvp" servers. We can all praise and shout off the rooftops about how our beloved mmos were so damn great 15 years ago, but that won't change the current realities of gaming. Anyone who wants pvp went to mobas and brs and everyone who wanted to play mmos are playing ff14 and wow, which are both as pve as it gets. Yes, wow might've had great balanced servers back at its start, but back then even Lineage 2 had over a millions subs and was a very nice game. And the genre overall had way more pvp mmos. Times have changed. Yes so you are looking at the total number of servers added, not the dates for when they were added. I used 2005 as the year to measure from as thats the period of wows largest growth. The fact blizzard choose to implement more pvp servers that year illustrates the popularity of pvp servers over pve. The 15 year comment is irrelevant as the major faction imbalances were mostly from 2008 to 2012, long after world activities and any pvp beyond 3vs3 arena was dead. All those players that went to mobas BRs arena shooters etc want to play an mmo. There's a reason Intrepid is doing interviews with shroud and summit, and it isn't because they're pretty. Pvp games are more popular then ever. There hasn't been any type of major pvp mmo in well over a decade +. The feature count, graphics, cycle of astonishment will make ashes insanely popular at launch. How robust those features are and how well the game runs will determine how well they retain those players.
NiKr wrote: » KingDDD wrote: » Where's your screenshot come from and is it the total number of servers added, region based, or what? It's just "ctrl+f" on that page. KingDDD wrote: » The faction imbalances happened over time and really kicked off when server transfers became vogue sometime in 2007 or 2008. Only blizzard could tell exact population and player activity per server at specific time periods. In other words it's been the case for over 15 years. So, in theory, 3 gens of gamers are used to seeing non-pvp "pvp" servers. We can all praise and shout off the rooftops about how our beloved mmos were so damn great 15 years ago, but that won't change the current realities of gaming. Anyone who wants pvp went to mobas and brs and everyone who wanted to play mmos are playing ff14 and wow, which are both as pve as it gets. Yes, wow might've had great balanced servers back at its start, but back then even Lineage 2 had over a millions subs and was a very nice game. And the genre overall had way more pvp mmos. Times have changed.
KingDDD wrote: » Where's your screenshot come from and is it the total number of servers added, region based, or what?
KingDDD wrote: » The faction imbalances happened over time and really kicked off when server transfers became vogue sometime in 2007 or 2008. Only blizzard could tell exact population and player activity per server at specific time periods.
Depraved wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Azherae wrote: » CROW3 wrote: » Fantmx wrote: » Respectfully I think you are missing the point of why they are saying niche. It doesn't have anything to do with old schools days. I played EQ from beta. It was as old school as it gets. But I could always opt out of pvp and always had something to do as a PvE player for hours and hours a day. I think part of why the word niche is being used is because we are hearing more and more the line "this game may not be for you" which started to ramp in use at the time open seas pvp was released. And so the more we use that line the less people we will find interested. So, niche. Agreed. Which is why I don't think the OP's premise is accurate. My use of 'niche' is coming from a product marketing perspective. If you're targeting a micro-segment of a consumer audience you're going to be in a niche position. Selling artisanal pour over coffee with fusion spices for $15 a cup is a niche market. In this case gamers > mmo players > not strict pvp audience / not strict pve audience, combined with a tagline of 'this may not be for you.' This @Ravicus The question isn't 'why did you walk into my Artisanal Pourover Coffee Establishment in the first place?' It's 'why are you expecting this spice blend that I have chosen not to offer?' And the answer is usually 'well I thought it was an obvious blend to offer'. The person doesn't know the precise spice blends available before they walk in. And so they walk back out. To further your analogy, and what you wrote states. A customer walks into the coffee shop. He reads what they have and before they buy anything, they see they do not have what they want, and does not purchase anything. They then leave as an informed coffee buyer to not go back to that shop. Yes, I agree entirely. The problem with Ashes is that at the moment, it's not quite that simple, it's a little closer to the following timeline. "Guys I am gonna open a Pourover with Spice blends, really good spice blends (gives some examples)." The public goes wild! All the old Pourovers have closed down or fallen into disrepair or use old tech and don't accept Google Pay (or something). A new one would be great! "Ok guys I'm going to offer a lot of blends from the old days, but note that my staff won't combine all the spice combinations, I have to keep it realistic and on theme, so this shop may not be for you." Public (right or wrong) still clamors for it, all expecting their favorite 'most obvious' spice blends to be available. "Ok guys I'll let you know which spice blends once we open our mall kiosk, we'll be testing which ones are best for the theme and flavors, here's a list of what we definitely won't be allowing." Public still eager, except everyone who left because of the things on the disallowed list. Now from here it's just 'removing people' as one adds to the disallowed list. The whole reason I'm here is because Intrepid might need to know if they are removing customers they actually want by 'not offering certain blends' that they could theoretically offer. That's why I always ask people for clarification on the exact reason they are opposing something, and what they like instead, and whatever else. I am not sure Intrepid can afford to just go 'eh, I'll offer what I feel like and anyone who doesn't like it can just not come', but idk how much money Steven actually has. I only know that he's said 'Taking feedback'. It's up to them to decide if it's worth changing X because it makes Y group leave. Our part is to define 'why X is a problem' and 'Which group we're part of' when leaving or considering leaving. Intrepid will handle analyzing 'did they want or expect this person to play at all?' when you buy something, do you want 100 options or just 3? also, by removing things, people who aren't the target audience might leave (before the game is out), but guess what? new people who are the target audience might join. you cant offer everything to everybody and you cant give them too many options. It's good that you're defending the approach, but I think the way we view the world is just too far removed for any productive conversation to happen. Basically I fundamentally disagree with everything in this post, but I think it's because we just have entirely different bases. I think my Marketer doesn't agree with you, but I'm not the specialist in consumer sentiment management. She's unlikely to care to engage, so maybe you can have this discussion with @CROW3 if that works out. I'd be glad to learn from any discussion you two did have, or 'learn from the fact that CROW3 doesn't actually have the discussion'. Either's good. if your marketeer disagrees, then you need to re-read those books and re-take thouse courses havent you noticed lots of things that are sold come in 3? subscriptions, products, etc. think abou tthat for a second. if you disagree about target audiences, then what can i tell you? thats how things work o.o
Ravicus wrote: » Not directly no. But you do know that many people want to multi box right? I have seen it in many games in the past. Maybe it would include more than casuals that want to do this, but It is more prominent for solo players to do this as they do not need a guild. *edit This would make the solo player that is used to multi/boxing min/maxing to want to make the game easier being that they could not do this.
Solvryn wrote: » Asherons Call lasted for officially seventeen years and is still going on private servers, same for all of these games. DAoC is still going on its official website.
Dygz wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Not directly no. But you do know that many people want to multi box right? I have seen it in many games in the past. Maybe it would include more than casuals that want to do this, but It is more prominent for solo players to do this as they do not need a guild. *edit This would make the solo player that is used to multi/boxing min/maxing to want to make the game easier being that they could not do this. Um. You are conflating solo players with casual players. And it's just a small subset of solo players who multibox. Casuals probably are not hardcore enough to multibox. Lots of solo players are in guilds, by the way.
Azherae wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Azherae wrote: » CROW3 wrote: » Fantmx wrote: » Respectfully I think you are missing the point of why they are saying niche. It doesn't have anything to do with old schools days. I played EQ from beta. It was as old school as it gets. But I could always opt out of pvp and always had something to do as a PvE player for hours and hours a day. I think part of why the word niche is being used is because we are hearing more and more the line "this game may not be for you" which started to ramp in use at the time open seas pvp was released. And so the more we use that line the less people we will find interested. So, niche. Agreed. Which is why I don't think the OP's premise is accurate. My use of 'niche' is coming from a product marketing perspective. If you're targeting a micro-segment of a consumer audience you're going to be in a niche position. Selling artisanal pour over coffee with fusion spices for $15 a cup is a niche market. In this case gamers > mmo players > not strict pvp audience / not strict pve audience, combined with a tagline of 'this may not be for you.' This @Ravicus The question isn't 'why did you walk into my Artisanal Pourover Coffee Establishment in the first place?' It's 'why are you expecting this spice blend that I have chosen not to offer?' And the answer is usually 'well I thought it was an obvious blend to offer'. The person doesn't know the precise spice blends available before they walk in. And so they walk back out. To further your analogy, and what you wrote states. A customer walks into the coffee shop. He reads what they have and before they buy anything, they see they do not have what they want, and does not purchase anything. They then leave as an informed coffee buyer to not go back to that shop. Yes, I agree entirely. The problem with Ashes is that at the moment, it's not quite that simple, it's a little closer to the following timeline. "Guys I am gonna open a Pourover with Spice blends, really good spice blends (gives some examples)." The public goes wild! All the old Pourovers have closed down or fallen into disrepair or use old tech and don't accept Google Pay (or something). A new one would be great! "Ok guys I'm going to offer a lot of blends from the old days, but note that my staff won't combine all the spice combinations, I have to keep it realistic and on theme, so this shop may not be for you." Public (right or wrong) still clamors for it, all expecting their favorite 'most obvious' spice blends to be available. "Ok guys I'll let you know which spice blends once we open our mall kiosk, we'll be testing which ones are best for the theme and flavors, here's a list of what we definitely won't be allowing." Public still eager, except everyone who left because of the things on the disallowed list. Now from here it's just 'removing people' as one adds to the disallowed list. The whole reason I'm here is because Intrepid might need to know if they are removing customers they actually want by 'not offering certain blends' that they could theoretically offer. That's why I always ask people for clarification on the exact reason they are opposing something, and what they like instead, and whatever else. I am not sure Intrepid can afford to just go 'eh, I'll offer what I feel like and anyone who doesn't like it can just not come', but idk how much money Steven actually has. I only know that he's said 'Taking feedback'. It's up to them to decide if it's worth changing X because it makes Y group leave. Our part is to define 'why X is a problem' and 'Which group we're part of' when leaving or considering leaving. Intrepid will handle analyzing 'did they want or expect this person to play at all?' when you buy something, do you want 100 options or just 3? also, by removing things, people who aren't the target audience might leave (before the game is out), but guess what? new people who are the target audience might join. you cant offer everything to everybody and you cant give them too many options. It's good that you're defending the approach, but I think the way we view the world is just too far removed for any productive conversation to happen. Basically I fundamentally disagree with everything in this post, but I think it's because we just have entirely different bases. I think my Marketer doesn't agree with you, but I'm not the specialist in consumer sentiment management. She's unlikely to care to engage, so maybe you can have this discussion with @CROW3 if that works out. I'd be glad to learn from any discussion you two did have, or 'learn from the fact that CROW3 doesn't actually have the discussion'. Either's good. if your marketeer disagrees, then you need to re-read those books and re-take thouse courses havent you noticed lots of things that are sold come in 3? subscriptions, products, etc. think abou tthat for a second. if you disagree about target audiences, then what can i tell you? thats how things work o.o Unfortunately I think I have a bias against arguments from people who have this sort of reaction, which is both ironic and hypocritical considering that I want to say this sort of thing in arguments a lot. It's probably because when I say it, people latch onto it as rude or bad form, so it irritates me that others get away with it when I don't. I'm jealous of you, honestly, but I do think it doesn't add much to conversations. Then again, if people are wrong they're wrong and one should be able to just call them out until someone with better knowledge can actually challenge your position. I can't challenge yours with my current level of expertise, so I leave it to the pros.
CROW3 wrote: » That's a bit of a strawman comparison. 7-11 sells coffee, Starbucks sells coffee, and Philz sells coffee. Each have different approaches to the consumer segment for who is buying coffee when. If Starbucks doesn't want to focus their product line on 3rd wave artisanal coffee, it doesn't mean they start selling coke and pepsi. They just have a broader consumer base they are marketing toward.
Solvryn wrote: » This thread turning into a fight to be right thread.
Fantmx wrote: » KingDDD wrote: » Fantmx wrote: » KingDDD wrote: » NiKr wrote: » KingDDD wrote: » Where's your screenshot come from and is it the total number of servers added, region based, or what? It's just "ctrl+f" on that page. KingDDD wrote: » The faction imbalances happened over time and really kicked off when server transfers became vogue sometime in 2007 or 2008. Only blizzard could tell exact population and player activity per server at specific time periods. In other words it's been the case for over 15 years. So, in theory, 3 gens of gamers are used to seeing non-pvp "pvp" servers. We can all praise and shout off the rooftops about how our beloved mmos were so damn great 15 years ago, but that won't change the current realities of gaming. Anyone who wants pvp went to mobas and brs and everyone who wanted to play mmos are playing ff14 and wow, which are both as pve as it gets. Yes, wow might've had great balanced servers back at its start, but back then even Lineage 2 had over a millions subs and was a very nice game. And the genre overall had way more pvp mmos. Times have changed. Yes so you are looking at the total number of servers added, not the dates for when they were added. I used 2005 as the year to measure from as thats the period of wows largest growth. The fact blizzard choose to implement more pvp servers that year illustrates the popularity of pvp servers over pve. The 15 year comment is irrelevant as the major faction imbalances were mostly from 2008 to 2012, long after world activities and any pvp beyond 3vs3 arena was dead. All those players that went to mobas BRs arena shooters etc want to play an mmo. There's a reason Intrepid is doing interviews with shroud and summit, and it isn't because they're pretty. Pvp games are more popular then ever. There hasn't been any type of major pvp mmo in well over a decade +. The feature count, graphics, cycle of astonishment will make ashes insanely popular at launch. How robust those features are and how well the game runs will determine how well they retain those players. The problem with trying to rely solely on the shooter, moba, BR crowds is attention span and longevity. Ashes is going to require a long attention span. While those games do have shorter matches compared to an MMO, I'd think thatll be a boon. Longterm play sessions haven't died in the last decade, they just morphed into 20-45 min chunks. As long as Ashes has things you can accomplish in those chunks it'll be fine. The issue will arise if players spend 20 mins getting from point a to b and accomplish nothing in that time period. The node system should solve this as it gives players a way to progress in those small chunks and at the same time encourages engagement in longer play sessions. But how much are we really going to be able to do in a 20 to 30 minute session in Ashes? I'm betting it is not too much.
Mag7spy wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » This thread turning into a fight to be right thread. Yuuup, i don't understand the point of arguing target player base lol. Many games have copied WoW only to all be dead which technically would be capturing more of a large group. Many gamers aren't wanting to play WoW and want different types of experiences Some people want a game like Ashes, some want the game but are overly fearful it will fail if thy don't capture casual WoW level players etc, some want to fear monger to use that in their arguments to create changes.. The only challenge that matters is making a good game, that is the reality right now. If the game is good it will gain /maintain its player base and be able to actually grow.
Ravicus wrote: » @Azherae, I am for the process it has now. Open world pvp. I generally do not go looking for fights but I will defend myself. I have always been a gatherer, and if possible the end game crafting. In this game I am (so far) going to focus on rogue play, in the role of treasure hunting, and gathering. The treasure hunting fascinates me and hope it gets fleshed out. I have a small group of friends that have been watching this game and we all still play UO, so we understand pvp combat. We constantly get raided doing champ spawns and such, which is basically like the people that are going to group up and attack caravans. To me it mimics what real life can be and the risk and rewards. Of course if the balance of this is off then I will voice my opinion and hopefully they listen. But that would be a change that would not change the core principle of the game, which is PVX. If what people are wanting to change is the core principles of the game that the developers have adamantly stated they will not, then they probably not "buy this coffee". Changes withing the core features for the better of all might be a good thing.
Ravicus wrote: » I pretty much agree with this. To me it depends on what the people want that needs to be changed. If its a core principle or something less that does not affect the core principles.
Depraved wrote: » but look at intrepid packages for example, they have 3 packs and 1 premium pack. looking at diablo 4 from blizzard, 1 pack, one a lil bit more, then 1 premium pack. look at wow editions, again 3 packs. look at cod, 3 packs. sure there are exceptions, but you dont offer a million options to people.
