KingDDD wrote: » 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. Harvesting, making progress toward a religious reputation, selling auctions, etc are definitely things you can do in 30 minutes while also continuing to do them for longer to get more progress. Obviously, you shouldnt get the necessary mats to craft a legendary sword in 30mins of harvesting, nor should you be able to max a reputation in that time, but that progression loop needs to be there to facilitate both a reason for logging in and staying logged in. How many times have people logged onto a game intending to do some small task only to get looped into larger activities by guildmates? The secret sauce for MMOs is social relationships and all systems in the game need to be designed with encouraging both positive and negative interactions between people.
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.
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: » 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. i dont think you were rude. but look at intrepid packages for example, they have 3 packs and 1 premium pack, 2 for betas 2 for alphas. looking at diablo 4 from blizzard, 1 pack, one a lil bit more money (there is a reason for this), then 1 premium pack. look at wow editions, again 3 packs. look at cod, 3 packs. sure there are exceptions, but you dont offer 1 thing or a million options to people. have you ever wondered why all fast food places use the color red on their brand (and more often than not add yellow)? its not random or cuz it looks good. there is a reason for that. the marketer in you can disagree all you want, and anybody can disagree as well, free speech and all that hooray!. but you guys are disagreeing with decades worth of research and practice by people who know more than all of us combined.
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.
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
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.
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.
CROW3 wrote: » 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. We seem to have shifted the conversation between market segmentation and product packaging. These are two very different things. Addressing the broader point, attempting to please everyone is a stupid strategy in any endeavor; commercial or otherwise. But, no one here is attempting to defend that position.
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.
Solvryn wrote: » This thread turning into a fight to be right thread.
Depraved wrote: » i miss @Arya_Yeshe. i wonder what happened to him. i wanna see what he has to say about all these freehold thing
Mag7spy wrote: » Depraved wrote: » i miss @Arya_Yeshe. i wonder what happened to him. i wanna see what he has to say about all these freehold thing Are you assuming a gender
Depraved wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Depraved wrote: » i miss @Arya_Yeshe. i wonder what happened to him. i wanna see what he has to say about all these freehold thing Are you assuming a gender yassssssssss. i think he said he was a guy lmao. plus no women is as psychopathic as he is based on his ultima online confessions lmao
Mag7spy wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Depraved wrote: » i miss @Arya_Yeshe. i wonder what happened to him. i wanna see what he has to say about all these freehold thing Are you assuming a gender yassssssssss. i think he said he was a guy lmao. plus no women is as psychopathic as he is based on his ultima online confessions lmao It would be a she not a he.
Depraved wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Depraved wrote: » i miss @Arya_Yeshe. i wonder what happened to him. i wanna see what he has to say about all these freehold thing Are you assuming a gender yassssssssss. i think he said he was a guy lmao. plus no women is as psychopathic as he is based on his ultima online confessions lmao It would be a she not a he. his name and avatar are female, but he said he was a guy! also, there are no women on the internet
Mag7spy wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Depraved wrote: » i miss @Arya_Yeshe. i wonder what happened to him. i wanna see what he has to say about all these freehold thing Are you assuming a gender yassssssssss. i think he said he was a guy lmao. plus no women is as psychopathic as he is based on his ultima online confessions lmao It would be a she not a he. his name and avatar are female, but he said he was a guy! also, there are no women on the internet Tell ya people said she was male and she said she wasn't lol. Also she said this. I think you are mixing up Azherae
Depraved wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Depraved wrote: » i miss @Arya_Yeshe. i wonder what happened to him. i wanna see what he has to say about all these freehold thing Are you assuming a gender yassssssssss. i think he said he was a guy lmao. plus no women is as psychopathic as he is based on his ultima online confessions lmao It would be a she not a he. his name and avatar are female, but he said he was a guy! also, there are no women on the internet Tell ya people said she was male and she said she wasn't lol. Also she said this. I think you are mixing up Azherae that doesnt prove anything! and azherae said she was a girl. my theory is he only thinks he is a girl.
Mag7spy wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Depraved wrote: » i miss @Arya_Yeshe. i wonder what happened to him. i wanna see what he has to say about all these freehold thing Are you assuming a gender yassssssssss. i think he said he was a guy lmao. plus no women is as psychopathic as he is based on his ultima online confessions lmao It would be a she not a he. his name and avatar are female, but he said he was a guy! also, there are no women on the internet Tell ya people said she was male and she said she wasn't lol. Also she said this. I think you are mixing up Azherae that doesnt prove anything! and azherae said she was a girl. my theory is he only thinks he is a girl. Where is your proof?
Depraved wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Depraved wrote: » i miss @Arya_Yeshe. i wonder what happened to him. i wanna see what he has to say about all these freehold thing Are you assuming a gender yassssssssss. i think he said he was a guy lmao. plus no women is as psychopathic as he is based on his ultima online confessions lmao It would be a she not a he. his name and avatar are female, but he said he was a guy! also, there are no women on the internet Tell ya people said she was male and she said she wasn't lol. Also she said this. I think you are mixing up Azherae that doesnt prove anything! and azherae said she was a girl. my theory is he only thinks he is a girl. Where is your proof? i dont wanna dig for that ug next nooani, nikr, you, crow, liniker and dygz are also girls. you know what? im also a girl now. lets all be grills
Mag7spy wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Depraved wrote: » i miss @Arya_Yeshe. i wonder what happened to him. i wanna see what he has to say about all these freehold thing Are you assuming a gender yassssssssss. i think he said he was a guy lmao. plus no women is as psychopathic as he is based on his ultima online confessions lmao It would be a she not a he. his name and avatar are female, but he said he was a guy! also, there are no women on the internet Tell ya people said she was male and she said she wasn't lol. Also she said this. I think you are mixing up Azherae that doesnt prove anything! and azherae said she was a girl. my theory is he only thinks he is a girl. Where is your proof? i dont wanna dig for that ug next nooani, nikr, you, crow, liniker and dygz are also girls. you know what? im also a girl now. lets all be grills Sorry but Noaani is 100% a grandpa, I wont budge on that one.
Dygz wrote: » 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. And how many people were playing them compared to EvE and ArcheAge and Lineage II?
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.
ZippyA wrote: » Love the discussion. One thing to add - when somebody talks of a good MMO from the past, think of "commercially viable" in the context of longevity. UO - 25 years still commercially viable AC - 18 years, dead now with no commercial servers EvE - 20 years and still commercially viable Lineage - multiple reincarnations that die after 4-5 years, otherwise not commercially viable in long run. Think of what Intrepid might want to choose, and what you as a player would want to pay for. a) big success and swift death (like many modern inclusive MMORPGs "for all"), or b) moderate success "not for all" and 10+ years commercially viable on official servers
