Aradune said:
No my friend, most certainly not. Accusing us of removing 'core tenets' to make our target audience appear larger has not happened, will not happen, and is even borderline offensive. Rather, what's happening is that more and more online gamers in general are including themselves in the audience that is hotly anticipating Pantheon. What's happening is that the number of people who consider themselves 'online gamers' has and continues to grow rapidly. And, quite honestly, our messaging is resonating with more and more gamers in general, even younger ones who never experienced the first generation of these games. They like the idea of working cooperatively against the AI in a persistent world. But when they play Destiny or the Division they're just not finding this experience they seek -- still they log in and find themselves in 'shared' instances with other real people but with no real mechanism (or even reason) to get to know those people. Indeed, once the instance is complete those people are forgotten -- no bonds have formed, no friendships, no really anything truly social.
Aradune - I know you read the different forums (Rerolled, MMORPG, and here) and I've always been supportive of you and the project even when a solid 90%+ were not; however, that obviously doesn't mean I'm immune to being rude, but, I do believe it garners me a shred of credibility when I say my post wasn't meant as being offensive, but offering constructive criticism. While positive support is great, having a community of Yes Men (Women) is also not productive either. So, again, I apologize if this was taken offensively - it wasn't the intent. And, I don't disagree with the rest of your statement here at all.
Aradune said:
Combine that with the word of mouth amongst older MMO gamers where they are letting their friends know about Pantheon and getting more and more excited... this phenomenon is gaining momentum and it is observable in posts, coverage, general excitement, and in crowdfunding growth. In fact, the major turning point was likely our first stream in which the skeptics were silenced and their ability to talk down about Pantheon to their friends obliterated.
I don't disagree with this at all either - and with both streams you have garnered a lot of extra support, but, those streams both displayed the tenets which makes Pantheon different, not more like mainstream games.
Aradune said:
Notice I did not say we’re 'mainstream' – not in this post or any other. But while perhaps 1-2 years ago, when the idea of a group oriented game that wasn't F2P was an oddity (and even closed some doors for us), it's mid-2017 now. Publishers and investors are re-opening the doors, reaching out to us, and are very interested in Pantheon. And they’re interested before they’ve even had the chance to play Pantheon (usually they've seen at least the two twitch streams). And I'm pleased to announce that, once they do play it, they become even more excited. Numerous articles keep popping up talking about how F2P may actually not be the revenue model that best fits every genre, every platform, and every game (amazing revelation, eh?). Some are even talking about a 'post-F2P' era. In summary it would appear that Pantheon may no longer be truly niche, at least not anymore. The reality is that more and more people are getting excited about the game. And it’s not just interest in general that provides evidence -- crowdfunding, for example, is way up when compared to last year, or even six months ago. FB, twitter, you tube, etc. is coming alive. And like I said earlier, people in the industry are reaching out to us. The size of our audience is simply growing, and growing rapidly.
Again, no disagreement here either. But, I'd also add that the investors have become more interested due to the progress you all have shown on the game, not simply because it a subscription based MMORPG that is social, group focused, etc.. 2 years ago you all had a lot less progress. That is not meant as a negative, but, rather, a compliment to you and the team's continued hard work aganist all odds. And, the social media outlets are having much more activity, a lot due to your progress, and Kilsin's exhaustive efforts of continually trying to reply to everyone (does he ever sleep?).
Aradune said:
And all the while we've never removed a tenet, or dumbed down some aspect of the game, or diluted the Vision in any way. Rather, we've stuck to our guns and will continue to do so. In fact, changing our game into something else would likely remove it from the list of qualities that make it so unique and powerful in this changing and evolving genre. Pantheon would become 'just another modern MMO', thereby harming the traction we are now getting from both private investors as well as the more enlightened publishers who have begun to reach out to us (and not vice versa).
So yeah, whether this appeals to you or not, Pantheon is becoming something more than 'niche' and its target audience has the potential to be quite larger than anyone once thought, including us, and especially early on. So, heck no, we don't describe Pantheon to investors or publishers as something 'niche' and you'll probably notice us refraining from referring to it as such to the community as well.
The MMO Renaissance
The rebirth of the Massively Multiplayer Online game genre that will occur in
2018 when Visionary Realms releases Pantheon, which allows players
to rediscover true open worlds, challenge, interdependent group play and
shared experiences.
And, this last quote here really is excellent, and I appreciate the clarification. We're really just discussing semantics then - I'd still consider it niche, but, I understand for marketing and investor purposes, it would be better to remove that tag. As long as you all stick to your guns, and stick to the proposed tenets, then by all means, advertise it as you see fit and what will gain you the largest draw. But, I'm glad I asked as I'd rather get the clarification now, so I can share with others who are on the fence (or who may be following this thread), then see some alarmist reactions begin across external threads due to the potential of bending core values to investors/publishers.
So, thanks for the time you took to responding to me - I know for myself (and others) are appreciative.
*Edit Quotes
werzul said:kilsins's cash shop thread and this current 'we're not niche' has my conspiracy braincells swimming. i frankly doubt kilsin starts any threads without the express written consent of VR/brad mcquaid. VR doesnt seem to grasp that people will pay more for what they percieve as the better experience ('what do we offer that ESO doesnt?') < most of us thought you were offering a great deal that other modern/'mainstream' mmo's didnt offer, perhaps we were all wrong. this strikes me as people that dont view their product as above the McD's mmo's of the world. more and more getting the feeling this will be typical modern mmo tripe with a couple of oldschool mechanics, perhaps one or two 'unique' yet inconsequential features tacked on, but otherwise succumbing to all the modern pitfalls.
feel free to flame me into oblivion (at no risk to yourselves, as AoE's that damage you have been removed haha)
Well, first let's break this into two pieces.
First, Kilsin's questions he puts out to the community to get conversations going. I think it's great. I think it does what it's designed to do -- it provokes discussion, the exchange of ideas, and even healthy debate. We usually follow up and post in those threads as well, letting you know what our thinking is.
That said, if it's a volatile issue we've already answered, it probably shouldn't re-appear sometime soon after its answered -- this could be confusing at best, and make someone think we've changed our mind at worst. I will have a chat with Ben D. about this (the death penalty is a good example here). Regardless, I can assure you, these questions are just what we've described them to be and their purpose to provoke conversation, debate, and activity. Btw, no, I don't personally approve them -- Ben D runs that department and I have both no need and no desire to micromanage. In any case, I can assure you these posts are not nefarious and sekret strategies to somehow allow us to change our positions on key topics and get away with doing it covertly. If you are even considering that this might be the case or the reason behind them, take my word for it (they're not) and cut down on your conspiracy literature :)
Second, my 'we're not a niche product' post has nothing to do and is completely unrelated to Kilsin's posts. Like I said, he does his, has them approved by his boss Ben D., and rarely if ever am I involved unless something comes up as a result of the question and the PR guys want my help in answering it.
My posts are me trying to interact with the community, to hopefully be helpful, and, at the very least, be as accessible as I can be. The truth is, I love interacting with MMO communities, both before and after launch. Yes, this includes being flamed, accused of all sorts of things, being sent hate mail, being held responsible for anything and everything a player might feel after we make a change or nerf, etc. The latter is not so pleasant, but it comes with the job, especially if we are committing to you that the development team will always be around, be listening, answering questions, etc. It's easier to just set up CS people and then go back to making the game better, or to working on the next expansion, leaving them to themselves with no insight or help from the dev team. But, despite the negatives, I truly feel that the community should be heard by the dev team and, as time permits, the dev team should interact directly with the community.
Raidan said:Aradune said:
No my friend, most certainly not. Accusing us of removing 'core tenets' to make our target audience appear larger has not happened, will not happen, and is even borderline offensive. Rather, what's happening is that more and more online gamers in general are including themselves in the audience that is hotly anticipating Pantheon. What's happening is that the number of people who consider themselves 'online gamers' has and continues to grow rapidly. And, quite honestly, our messaging is resonating with more and more gamers in general, even younger ones who never experienced the first generation of these games. They like the idea of working cooperatively against the AI in a persistent world. But when they play Destiny or the Division they're just not finding this experience they seek -- still they log in and find themselves in 'shared' instances with other real people but with no real mechanism (or even reason) to get to know those people. Indeed, once the instance is complete those people are forgotten -- no bonds have formed, no friendships, no really anything truly social.
Aradune - I know you read the different forums (Rerolled, MMORPG, and here) and I've always been supportive of you and the project even when a solid 90%+ were not; however, that obviously doesn't mean I'm immune to being rude, but, I do believe it garners me a shred of credibility when I say my post wasn't meant as being offensive, but offering constructive criticism. While positive support is great, having a community of Yes Men (Women) is also not productive either. So, again, I apologize if this was taken offensively - it wasn't the intent. And, I don't disagree with the rest of your statement here at all.
Aradune said:
Combine that with the word of mouth amongst older MMO gamers where they are letting their friends know about Pantheon and getting more and more excited... this phenomenon is gaining momentum and it is observable in posts, coverage, general excitement, and in crowdfunding growth. In fact, the major turning point was likely our first stream in which the skeptics were silenced and their ability to talk down about Pantheon to their friends obliterated.
I don't disagree with this at all either - and with both streams you have garnered a lot of extra support, but, those streams both displayed the tenets which makes Pantheon different, not more like mainstream games.
Aradune said:
Notice I did not say we’re 'mainstream' – not in this post or any other. But while perhaps 1-2 years ago, when the idea of a group oriented game that wasn't F2P was an oddity (and even closed some doors for us), it's mid-2017 now. Publishers and investors are re-opening the doors, reaching out to us, and are very interested in Pantheon. And they’re interested before they’ve even had the chance to play Pantheon (usually they've seen at least the two twitch streams). And I'm pleased to announce that, once they do play it, they become even more excited. Numerous articles keep popping up talking about how F2P may actually not be the revenue model that best fits every genre, every platform, and every game (amazing revelation, eh?). Some are even talking about a 'post-F2P' era. In summary it would appear that Pantheon may no longer be truly niche, at least not anymore. The reality is that more and more people are getting excited about the game. And it’s not just interest in general that provides evidence -- crowdfunding, for example, is way up when compared to last year, or even six months ago. FB, twitter, you tube, etc. is coming alive. And like I said earlier, people in the industry are reaching out to us. The size of our audience is simply growing, and growing rapidly.
Again, no disagreement here either. But, I'd also add that the investors have become more interested due to the progress you all have shown on the game, not simply because it a subscription based MMORPG that is social, group focused, etc.. 2 years ago you all had a lot less progress. That is not meant as a negative, but, rather, a compliment to you and the team's continued hard work aganist all odds. And, the social media outlets are having much more activity, a lot due to your progress, and Kilsin's exhaustive efforts of continually trying to reply to everyone (does he ever sleep?).
Aradune said:
And all the while we've never removed a tenet, or dumbed down some aspect of the game, or diluted the Vision in any way. Rather, we've stuck to our guns and will continue to do so. In fact, changing our game into something else would likely remove it from the list of qualities that make it so unique and powerful in this changing and evolving genre. Pantheon would become 'just another modern MMO', thereby harming the traction we are now getting from both private investors as well as the more enlightened publishers who have begun to reach out to us (and not vice versa).
So yeah, whether this appeals to you or not, Pantheon is becoming something more than 'niche' and its target audience has the potential to be quite larger than anyone once thought, including us, and especially early on. So, heck no, we don't describe Pantheon to investors or publishers as something 'niche' and you'll probably notice us refraining from referring to it as such to the community as well.
The MMO Renaissance
The rebirth of the Massively Multiplayer Online game genre that will occur in
2018 when Visionary Realms releases Pantheon, which allows players
to rediscover true open worlds, challenge, interdependent group play and
shared experiences.
And, this last quote here really is excellent, and I appreciate the clarification. We're really just discussing semantics then - I'd still consider it niche, but, I understand for marketing and investor purposes, it would be better to remove that tag. As long as you all stick to your guns, and stick to the proposed tenets, then by all means, advertise it as you see fit and what will gain you the largest draw. But, I'm glad I asked as I'd rather get the clarification now, so I can share with others who are on the fence (or who may be following this thread), then see some alarmist reactions begin across external threads due to the potential of bending core values to investors/publishers.
So, thanks for the time you took to responding to me - I know for myself (and others) are appreciative.
*Edit Quotes
Awesome, a good exhange then!
Sorry about the offended part.... I didn't word that well... I guess I was just trying to say that, hey, we go back so far and you understand this project so well, that I'd appreciate the benefit of the doubt before you bring up the possibility that we are sacrificing tenets in order to increase the size of our audience. Was just a little bummed you would entertain this idea, even if briefly.
Anyway, all good, and I am glad you asked for clarification!
Rachael said:I'm thinking Kilsin meant there are more people who are interested in this type of game then just a very niche audience, or maybe a lot of people just don't know this is what they want :)
"Were not a niche game" was the first time anyone from VR stated that ( That I've seen anyway ), made me think oh sh!t. If not a niche game then what is it now....whats changing etc.
Probably would of been better to say, We think there will be a bigger playerbase for Pantheon, so I wouldnt call it a niche game anymore.
Brad cleared it up its all good : )
@Aradune
thank you for the lengthy response.
the Mcdonalds remark wasabout how people are willing to pay mor efor a better version of a product (in that case a rancid McD's burger vs a real steakhouse burger)
reesponding to your individual points is likely to cause more arguing than im inclined to endure. let me just quote a popular fantasy book series: "words are wind" - and i sincerely hope all the things in your FAQ, game tenets, etc., eventually all come to fruition - without compromise.
EDIT: see you edited post, haha i re-wrote mine numerous times before settling on this. i really do hope this is the game we are all wanting (VR included :) )
werzul said:kilsins's cash shop thread and this current 'we're not niche' has my conspiracy braincells swimming. i frankly doubt kilsin starts any threads without the express written consent of VR/brad mcquaid. VR doesnt seem to grasp that people will pay more for what they percieve as the better experience ('what do we offer that ESO doesnt?') < most of us thought you were offering a great deal that other modern/'mainstream' mmo's didnt offer, perhaps we were all wrong. this strikes me as people that dont view their product as above the McD's mmo's of the world. more and more getting the feeling this will be typical modern mmo tripe with a couple of oldschool mechanics, perhaps one or two 'unique' yet inconsequential features tacked on, but otherwise succumbing to all the modern pitfalls.
feel free to flame me into oblivion (at no risk to yourselves, as AoE's that damage you have been removed haha)
I am the Community and Web Manager man, I don't need anyone's approval to post these threads, they are part of my designed CM content, I report to Ben D for a lot of company related things and I am sure if he ever saw fit to speak to me about one of my posts he would do so without hesitation, but it has not happened to date, he trusts me and relies on me to do my job as he knows I am capable of interacting and engaging with the community that I hold so close to me and knows I am professionally trained in communication and management at an executive level.
I explained why I raised the topic of cash shops in both the forums and my interview with Brainbean gaming, it was to give you a voice in the larger gaming community after what happened with BDO going P2W via their cash shop, it was giving you a chance to voice your opinion and dislike for them, it didn't mean we were going to implement one and that was never even hinted at, don't let conspiracies effect your thinking when it comes to Pantheon or VR man, we don't buy into that stuff, we are straight shooters and will tell you if we are going to make changes like that but I wouldn't expect that announcement to come anytime soon lol ;)
I have also said that we are not niche multiple times across several platforms and I have also explained how we appeal to a much larger audience than first anticipated several times ;)
If you are ever not sure, you can always PM me but I think we have earned the benefit of the doubt over the last couple of years and people should know we wouldn't change something as drastic and important as that.
Obliquity said:Rachael said:I'm thinking Kilsin meant there are more people who are interested in this type of game then just a very niche audience, or maybe a lot of people just don't know this is what they want :)
"Were not a niche game" was the first time anyone from VR stated that ( That I've seen anyway ), made me think oh sh!t. If not a niche game then what is it now....whats changing etc.
Probably would of been better to say, We think there will be a bigger playerbase for Pantheon, so I wouldnt call it a niche game anymore.
Brad cleared it up its all good : )
I have said that multiple times my friend, across multiple platforms, and in several posts on these forums, it isn't new it is just the first time recently that it has been stated and corrected and although Brad did a great job explaining it in much more detail, I have also explained it in several posts previously, I am quite frankly shocked that it comes as such a surprise to a few people, it should go without saying with all of the publicity and the wide range of curious gamers that we have seen increasing lately ;)
I think $14.99 is a bit cheap, but it does make the game more accessible to those of all incomes. I would pay much more for a game that promises what it delivers, and so far I like what I see, and I like the feedback that we get from VR. I am sorta against servers where you would pay more, I think that would unnecessarily divide the community into different groups. This is not based off any knowledge or past experience, just a gut feeling. Each time I log in I see that more and more people are joining the community, and I think that is great. I would love to see Pantheon become the next big game, and I'm sure VR would also, but I am sure that they are cautiously optimistic. I think lots of people are looking for this sort of game, and if Brad and the Team continue the great work, it will be successful.
Manouk said:Aradune said:zewtastic said:What would you be able or willing to pay for a monthly subscription for Pantheon.
Now if we were EA, or Microsoft, or Activision, etc., maybe we could change the industry and successfully raise the 'sub standard'-- but we are not (yet anyway :)
0_o Ho HO! what are you saying here Aradune? are you saying that other games hosted on these mega platforms are "sub-standard games?!?" Regardless that the community tends to agree, you're in our wor...
oh wait.
carry on.
Yes, they are "sub-standard". Let Pantheon be a beacon, put the "premium" back in freemium. I remember reading something about mercedez benz once on this very kind of thing during an economic slump or "economy cars and lack thereof in their fleet.
I'll see what I can do about getting some data together on GOTY or "premium" type packages (with stuff along with the game disc)- I'll use gov't retail data and if possible some real world examples of the industry (asking nicely or just a public annual report from likes of Bethesda et al in the past 5 years).
The irony here is, until about 3 weeks ago I did work at EA. :0
I can pay as much as you like, provided that the game will be polished and fun to play.
I wish you and ourselves that this game will be good, fingers crossed.
Aradune said:But while perhaps 1-2 years ago, when the idea of a group oriented game that wasn't F2P was an oddity (and even closed some doors for us), it's mid-2016 now.
Maybe I'm reading it wrong, or are your years wrong ("it's mid-2016 now"), or is VR living in the future? :) And does that change the reply on early testing from 2018 back to 2017?
Or option #3, am I just still living in the past. ;)
Fulton said:Aradune said:But while perhaps 1-2 years ago, when the idea of a group oriented game that wasn't F2P was an oddity (and even closed some doors for us), it's mid-2017 now.
Maybe I'm reading it wrong, or are your years wrong ("it's mid-2017 now"), or is VR living in the future? :) And does that change the reply on early testing from 2018 back to 2017?
Or option #3, am I just still living in the past. ;)
I believe it was a typo and Brad intended to say mid-2016 and testing early 2017, he wasn't feeling very well and still soldiered on with the AMA so I am impressed that he only made a few slip ups! lol ;)
I am a little concerned here. What market is VR shooting for? If the game is $15 to $25 a month I think people will not play the game. I look to GW2 for that reasoning. Games like that have opened Pandora’s Box with that model and I don’t think that can be put back in very easily. The market forces equations will apply here regardless of what VR fee scale is. You go above that $15 range the big question is what value am I getting for it? My reason for paying it will be different that most on this forum but with people on fixed incomes and income situations games become a sideline and often left to the roadside.
The old adage of you get what you paid for isn’t so simple anymore. Operational costs and further development will be a financial drain so VR has to be very careful about how this is done. I think we will have a smaller niche of the genera but a loyal player base. It’s a finite number and if you scale to that the monthly cost is going to be high or higher than the usual larger IP’s. VR has to play this for the long run so lower costs for players going in with a great product will be a major win for us as players and the VR brand.
As Kilsin stated this is a very complicated topic. It frankly can make or break the game.
I would like to see reasonable rates and a long term plan.
Ox
Now I'm gonna throw this in here and I'm not trying to bash or anything because I understand circumstances and thought processes change so just take it at face value.
It's super easy for a gamer like myself to get nervous and denfensive when even some of the wording that drew us here changes. You see, if someone who was always very visible in gaming such as Scott Hartsman can go from believing that games do not need to have microtransactions to heading up the company with games that have some of the worst in microtransactions, then you understand why myself and those like me are sometimes skittish.
Again, I'm not putting that name out here out of spite. It's just he was someone I believed in, who said all the right things, and then got won over by the dark side. The money trail can be very seductive.
So thank you Kilsin and Aradune for helping to keep us in the know because it really does help to assuage our jaded feelings and fears.
And cookies help too. Just sayin'.
Marilee said:Now I'm gonna throw this in here and I'm not trying to bash or anything because I understand circumstances and thought processes change so just take it at face value.
It's super easy for a gamer like myself to get nervous and denfensive when even some of the wording that drew us here changes. You see, if someone who was always very visible in gaming such as Scott Hartsman can go from believing that games do not need to have microtransactions to heading up the company with games that have some of the worst in microtransactions, then you understand why myself and those like me are sometimes skittish.
Again, I'm not putting that name out here out of spite. It's just he was someone I believed in, who said all the right things, and then got won over by the dark side. The money trail can be very seductive.
So thank you Kilsin and Aradune for helping to keep us in the know because it really does help to assuage our jaded feelings and fears.
And cookies help too. Just sayin'.
Very good point.
Ox
Aradune said:Raidan said:Aradune said:Dullahan said:Ya, that "not a niche" thing scares me. I'd love it if there was mainstream appeal to a game like pantheon, but there isn't. Unless something has changed behind closed doors at Visionary Realms, Pantheon is a niche product.
Btw, while we remain not necessarily a 'mainstream' title, we have also stopped the use of the word 'niche' as well, as we believe our target audience, based on the data and analysis we do have, is quite larger than what most would consider 'niche'.
While you may have found that the audience for Pantheon is wider than originally anticipated, which is great, it still doesn't change the fact that Pantheon is a niche title in today's MMORPG universe, based off the core tenets.
And the data for the anticipated audience that you all have analyzed and observed is while marketing Pantheon as a niche title. What removing that title suggests to me, is the core tenets that were proposed for Pantheon which placed into into the "niche" category are subject to change based on the audience that is observed/analyzed/anticipated.
No my friend, most certainly not. Accusing us of removing 'core tenets' to make our target audience appear larger has not happened, will not happen, and is even borderline offensive. Rather, what's happening is that more and more online gamers in general are including themselves in the audience that is hotly anticipating Pantheon. What's happening is that the number of people who consider themselves 'online gamers' has and continues to grow rapidly. And, quite honestly, our messaging is resonating with more and more gamers in general, even younger ones who never experienced the first generation of these games. They like the idea of working cooperatively against the AI in a persistent world. But when they play Destiny or the Division they're just not finding this experience they seek -- still they log in and find themselves in 'shared' instances with other real people but with no real mechanism (or even reason) to get to know those people. Indeed, once the instance is complete those people are forgotten -- no bonds have formed, no friendships, no really anything truly social.
Combine that with the word of mouth amongst older MMO gamers where they are letting their friends know about Pantheon and getting more and more excited... this phenomenon is gaining momentum and it is observable in posts, coverage, general excitement, and in crowdfunding growth. In fact, the major turning point was likely our first stream in which the skeptics were silenced and their ability to talk down about Pantheon to their friends obliterated.
Notice I did not say we’re 'mainstream' – not in this post or any other. But while perhaps 1-2 years ago, when the idea of a group oriented game that wasn't F2P was an oddity (and even closed some doors for us), it's mid-2017 now. Publishers and investors are re-opening the doors, reaching out to us, and are very interested in Pantheon. And they’re interested before they’ve even had the chance to play Pantheon (usually they've seen at least the two twitch streams). And I'm pleased to announce that, once they do play it, they become even more excited. Numerous articles keep popping up talking about how F2P may actually not be the revenue model that best fits every genre, every platform, and every game (amazing revelation, eh?). Some are even talking about a 'post-F2P' era. In summary it would appear that Pantheon may no longer be truly niche, at least not anymore. The reality is that more and more people are getting excited about the game. And it’s not just interest in general that provides evidence -- crowdfunding, for example, is way up when compared to last year, or even six months ago. FB, twitter, you tube, etc. is coming alive. And like I said earlier, people in the industry are reaching out to us. The size of our audience is simply growing, and growing rapidly.
And all the while we've never removed a tenet, or dumbed down some aspect of the game, or diluted the Vision in any way. Rather, we've stuck to our guns and will continue to do so. In fact, changing our game into something else would likely remove it from the list of qualities that make it so unique and powerful in this changing and evolving genre. Pantheon would become 'just another modern MMO', thereby harming the traction we are now getting from both private investors as well as the more enlightened publishers who have begun to reach out to us (and not vice versa).
So yeah, whether this appeals to you or not, Pantheon is becoming something more than 'niche' and its target audience has the potential to be quite larger than anyone once thought, including us, and especially early on. So, heck no, we don't describe Pantheon to investors or publishers as something 'niche' and you'll probably notice us refraining from referring to it as such to the community as well.
The MMO Renaissance
The rebirth of the Massively Multiplayer Online game genre that will occur in
2018 when Visionary Realms releases Pantheon, which allows players
to rediscover true open worlds, challenge, interdependent group play and
shared experiences.
Wow, just WoW ! You guys are on point ! I know it might sound awkward to some people but I am praying for you guys as well. I know for a fact you guys are pouring heart and soul into this and I just wanted VR to know that there is powerful prayer behind ya'll as well. Prayer for the wisdom in all matters, courage to face all obstacles and not only come out victorious but stay victorious in all things, favor for investors and donors. "Do not be anxious about anything, but in every situation, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God." Philippians 4:6 You guys are going to set a very high bar for other mmo's to follow. I am just happy to be a part of it and watch it happen ! *cheers ! :)
@ Brad & Kilsin,
I for one appreciate all the clarifiction you have laid out. As I'm sure you know, it doesn't take much for MMO fans to voice their concerns when something may, or may not, be going according to plan during development (and afterwards). We are vested in varying degrees but we are such a fine tooth comb.
Thanks muchly!
Amazing what people argue about on this forum. And how it is argued. Good job Kilsin
This is quite the excellent group of gamers and developers here. Pantheon is starting to be talked about now, even among my old I'll never leave EQ friends who play almost every night.
This game is going to become a big deal. To much experience laying around this place not to.
This forum and these people are what EQ next needed instead of the whole landmark build it yourself thing. Lets let the pros build the game and the community can keep telling them how they feel about it every step of the way.
OakKnower said:@ Brad & Kilsin,
I for one appreciate all the clarifiction you have laid out. As I'm sure you know, it doesn't take much for MMO fans to voice their concerns when something may, or may not, be going according to plan during development (and afterwards). We are vested in varying degrees but we are such a fine tooth comb.
Thanks muchly!
You're very welcome my friend, we try our best to give you as much info as we possibly can and explain in a way that makes sense, it isn't always delivered in that way and when questions or concerns pop up I try to be as fast as I can to jump in and explain them properly, I know you are all very passionate, mature and supportive which is why we love you all so much and share that same passion but if anything is not understood please feel free to ask me via a PM or a post in the appropriate section and I will always be happy to clarify or shed some more info on the subject where possible. :)
Skycaster said:Amazing what people argue about on this forum. And how it is argued. Good job Kilsin
This is quite the excellent group of gamers and developers here. Pantheon is starting to be talked about now, even among my old I'll never leave EQ friends who play almost every night.
This game is going to become a big deal. To much experience laying around this place not to.
This forum and these people are what EQ next needed instead of the whole landmark build it yourself thing. Lets let the pros build the game and the community can keep telling them how they feel about it every step of the way.
Haha, I am not sure if it was arguing but we definitely have passionate community members and that is what we love to see, we may debate things every now and then but we usually always end up in the right place afterward, which is the important thing, people only question these types of things because they care and that is something I appreciate a lot because it's how we feel too :)
I read thru some of this skimmed thru most. As a professional business owner. I will state a few points.
1. 15.99 is a fair and reasonable price for the average American family can afford for maybe 2 or 3 subscriptions in their home.
2. Demographics plays a large part and what the household income is in an area.
3. All families like to shop for a good deal and quality entertainment.
4. Product must be quality and they can get at least more than 5 years of use out of the product before they would have to replace it statistically.
5. Product will be go thru the novelty phase and settle down to the audience that it appeals too.
6. Word of mouth, demonstrations and testimonials actually sell products more than tv commercials and radio.
7. Continued enhancement and worthy product upgrades that enhance products lifespan or quality will continue to bring in sales. No gimmicks
8. Service after the sale is a must regardless of products life span.
9. Honesty and truth will always win another sale.
Be true to your product and true to your consumers admit your products failures to meet a customers needs.... and how you can address these needs and you will see your sales increase stay true.
I couldnt help myself as I see the statistics being thrown around and really it comes down to fundamentals.
I'm not buying you are any kind of business owner based on what you used for criteria.
A $15 price point, which has been used for almost 20 years can make no sense given the costs to cloth and feed content creators and support game costs given no other financial revenue streams.
Costs for ALL aspects of game design, development, creation, support, ongoing content engineering and more have gone up dramatically in the last 20 years, so unless you expect to get the content, graphics and performance of a 1999 game you should expect to pay more.
Either that or those teams in 1999 were driving around in Rolls Royces back in the day from making $15/month.
Aradune said:Spot on Ben, but then we don't want to rule-out (or commit to, lol) servers with higher sub rates that offer more of 'something'. It's still a matter of debate (whether to have special servers whose sub rates are higher than 'industry standard'), although more focus to the debate will take place during beta.
I wonder how often these types of servers work out for the better -- whether the man-hours and cost of providing that extra service have truly worthwhile returns, or if they would be better invested in regular servers for a greater long-term gain (and/or prevention of long-term decline).
The issue with a premium server is that not only do you have to provide a 'premium service', but it also has to be $X value better than the quality provided on regular servers. How do you meet that value? How much can really be added to a premium server before it starts taking away from regular servers or depriving them of what should be included in basic service?
Thinking back on it, it seems that the launch and presence of EverQuest's Stormhammer (Legends) Server (opened in 2002) coincided with a reduced visible presence of staff on regular servers (certainly on my home server, at least). I was also in the Guide Program at the time (2002-2004), and GM attention and assistance in running in-game events was very noticeably declining as well. Also occurring in this time period was EverQuest's subscription peak and ensuing downward slope. Obviously, there was a heck of a lot of things going on, but was Stormhammer helping, hurting, or just a non-factor?
According to player accounts of 'life on Stormhammer', the server had GMs online "all the time" and had "about three events per day" even up to its final weeks ahead of closure. That's an awful lot of missed opportunities for events on regular servers.
They performed an untold number of events for the same 1,000 players on a premium server for a premium fee, when what they could have been doing is performing (however many unique) events on the regular servers for an untold number of players. For those 1,000 (or however many) premium players, the events were just business as usual -- they were paying for them, so there was nothing particularly special going on. For that untold number of players on the regular servers, though, those events are something special -- memorable experiences, extra fun, and added engagement. And they are stories that are going to be told, with some of the people listening to them thinking, "Hmm, that EverQuest game sounds interesting..." How the payoff of this effect can be measured against premium services, I don't know (I'm certainly not a financials guy).
Financials aside, raise your hand if you've heard of the Battle of Bloody Kithicor... Now, raise your hand if you've heard of the opening of Marauder's Mire...
zewtastic said:A $15 price point, which has been used for almost 20 years can make no sense given the costs to cloth and feed content creators and support game costs given no other financial revenue streams.Costs for ALL aspects of game design, development, creation, support, ongoing content engineering and more have gone up dramatically in the last 20 years, so unless you expect to get the content, graphics and performance of a 1999 game you should expect to pay more.
EverQuest started off at $9.99 (I think), and an inflation calculator equates that to $14.43 in 2016, so in that sense, they are basically in line with inflation (if not actually a little bit over it).
'Industry Standard' is probably the safest bet, but personally and depending on game quality, I would probably go up to $19.99 with cheaper options for multi-month subs. I would be leery of cracking the $20 barrier -- as has been mentioned, maybe let a bigger company experiment with that one.
zewtastic said:I'm not buying you are any kind of business owner based on what you used for criteria.
A $15 price point, which has been used for almost 20 years can make no sense given the costs to cloth and feed content creators and support game costs given no other financial revenue streams.
Costs for ALL aspects of game design, development, creation, support, ongoing content engineering and more have gone up dramatically in the last 20 years, so unless you expect to get the content, graphics and performance of a 1999 game you should expect to pay more.
Either that or those teams in 1999 were driving around in Rolls Royces back in the day from making $15/month.
I'm a business owner you can look up my Limited Liability Company at the Secretary of State of North Carolina J&A Novelties Fantasy Products LLC.
I'm 42 and have years of experience and I have 10 years in business and sales along with the education. So dismissing the fundamentals business of sales and retail.......tells me your not versed in any sales and your shooting off the hip hoping to make a profit and demanding more money from the consumer because of innovation.
I was a Marine Corps Recruiter and had the best sales training in the world and sold the Idea of the Marine Corps to individual men and women. I sold them something they couldn't touch feel or consume. I sold them an experience of a life time. As a business owner you need to know what your consumers desire and why they feel they need your products or desire your product.
Inflation has been on the rise since 1999 and EQ was at subs of 9.95 a month. Monetary inflation and overheads cost has been on the rise and has been a problem in the United States due to the excess of printing more money and borrowing the United states has done in the last 20 years.
The everyday American consumer is hard pressed daily to tighten their budgets to due to inflation and taxes. If your young and single and can afford to spend the 60.00 dollars for the price game title the more power to you.
Most consumers will wait till a product has dropped in price or a products competitor has the same product cheaper...or is close to meeting their needs......and if a reliable competitor..... the consumer will spend the money. Un-disciplined consumers will by a product on release or new and spend more money only later to get buyers remorse because they didn't really need it at the time or a competitors product would have met their needs at a better price.
I will make more money on selling the same quality units at 15.95 and will sell more of them then the exact same unit at 20.95 at a different location. I have had customers go to my competitor only to return to save 5.00 dollars on my product because they worked out the tax on top of the 20.95 that would cost them more than my unit at 15.95 with taxes. Consumers watch their budgets and consumers with families need too.
Inflation, taxes, overheads, payroll taxes, etc and economic status and demographics all are all business risks and how you manage to over come those adversaries to make a profit and endure economic up turns and down turns..... and building a quality product that will meet the needs of your consumers will be your ultimate challenge. To sell a product you have to find the need behind the need of your consumer to sell them products and service after the sale regardless is a must and if you fail to meet this...... your consumer will likely find a business that makes them feel worthy and special and no forgotten.
You can disagree with me all you want....but I know my consumers and I have years of experience that tells me I'm on the right path to be a successful business owner.