 |
|
|
|
Next: Guns of August - revised manual
|
| Author |
Message |
External
Since: May 13, 2005
Posts: 1293
|
(Msg. 1) Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 7:01 am
Post subject: Multi-player making economic sense
Archived from groups: comp>sys>ibm>pc>games>war-historical (more info?)
|
|
|
Hi,
We've already had a couple of debates in here about playing the AI
versus playing humans, with some developers pointing out that every
bit of data they have points to wargames overwhelmingly being played
versus the AI
This would lead us to conclude that programming in PBEM features or
TCP/IP play is a waste of resources, were it not for reviewers and
gamers for some weird psychological reason deducting points if those
features are not present.
So the silent majority out there is playing wargames against the AI.
Fine. Now have a look at who's keeping a game alive 3-6 months after
it's release. By this I mean a lively forum, making mods, etc. The
ratio of gamers who play versus other humans is much, much higher
there, sending a clear "this game is not dead" message to lurkers
wandering in, looking for their next AI-only wargame.
What I'm trying to say is that a game which attracts the PBEM or TCP/
IP crowd is much more likely to stay in the picture for a long, long
time - hereby contributing enormously to long-term sales. So good
multi-player features might not directly be the top priority based on
how many gamers actually use it, but if a large proportion of the
vocal minority who keep the game alive demand it, this changes the
picture dramatically and adding multi-player features starts to make
economic sense again.
I did make a couple of assumptions here
1) A vocal community is needed for a game to be a steady seller over a
long period of time. For all I know the AI-only wargamer may just
visit a publisher's site, look at what's new and make his decision
based on game-features, never even bothering to check the game's
forum.
2) There is such a thing as long-term steady sales. Of this I'm fairly
sure - unlike other genres, most wargames age beautifully - Major H
has mentioned more than once that every month he receives his check,
with occasional peaks when Battlefront releases a new game. I don't
think there's an RTS or FPS programmer who still receives monthly
payments for a game released in the same year as TacOps. Another
indication is that if wargame developers saw 95% of their sales happen
in the first month or two after the release, they would be discounted
severely after a couple of years - which isn't happening. I'm sure
there's some price elasticity as far as wargames are concerned (hence
the yearly returning discount periods at every publisher) but as a
whole the main reason they stay at their price level must be that
after the initial rush, sales drop to a low, but steady level and
remain there for years and years.
Comments on the above ramblings, as usually, very much appreciated
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx |
|
| Back to top |
|
 | |
External
Since: May 13, 2005
Posts: 1293
|
(Msg. 2) Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:34 am
Post subject: Re: Multi-player making economic sense [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On 21 jan, 17:57, Big Salad <big.sa... RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
> Frank E wrote:
> > On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 07:01:22 -0800 (PST), "eddyster...@hotmail.com"
> > <eddyster... RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> What I'm trying to say is that a game which attracts the PBEM or
> >> TCP/ IP crowd is much more likely to stay in the picture for a
> >> long, long time - hereby contributing enormously to long-term
> >> sales. So good multi-player features might not directly be the top
> >> priority based on how many gamers actually use it, but if a large
> >> proportion of the vocal minority who keep the game alive demand it,
> >> this changes the picture dramatically and adding multi-player
> >> features starts to make economic sense again.
>
> > I'd say that longevity comes down to 2 things: - Modding / scenarios
> > - multiplayer Either of those has the potential to greatly expand the
> > life cycle of a game.
>
> There is "longevity" as in, "I'm still playing TacOps on a regular
> basis." The, arguably, is not helpful to the game business as, I am
> more likely to do without, for example, the new Combat Mission or Close
> Combat if I am already getting my TacOps fix.
>
> Eddy's point is more about a kind of longevity that keep new sales
> coming in.
Correct - I can't help but notice some wargames are still attracting
new gamers trying it out years after it launched. These games tend to
be games where there's a strong (and vocal) player community. And
these communities are "inhabited" to a large degree by human vs human
gamers. It might be that the same human interaction element which they
find in the forums is also what attract particular gamers to multi-
player games.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Dec 01, 2004
Posts: 398
|
(Msg. 3) Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 11:08 am
Post subject: Re: Multi-player making economic sense [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 07:01:22 -0800 (PST), "eddysterckx@hotmail.com"
<eddysterckx.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
>What I'm trying to say is that a game which attracts the PBEM or TCP/
>IP crowd is much more likely to stay in the picture for a long, long
>time - hereby contributing enormously to long-term sales. So good
>multi-player features might not directly be the top priority based on
>how many gamers actually use it, but if a large proportion of the
>vocal minority who keep the game alive demand it, this changes the
>picture dramatically and adding multi-player features starts to make
>economic sense again.
>
I'd say that longevity comes down to 2 things:
- Modding / scenarios
- multiplayer
Either of those has the potential to greatly expand the life cycle of
a game.
As for the multiplayer, I think a lot depends on what type of game it
is. If it's a 1v1 game, I don't find that multiplayer adds all that
much to the gameplay, what you basically get is a better AI.
If it's a game that has 5-20 players then multiplayer adds another
level to the gameplay. Now you have diplomacy, backstabbing, player
interactions, etc and it makes the game much more interesting than
playing against 5 AIs. This should, I think, be the niche for wargames
that want to do multiplayer right.
FInally, we have what I'd guess is the holy grail for game developers,
some type of MMO game where you can actually charge a monthly
subscription. I don't see how you could make that viable for a
historic wargame though.
Rgds, Frank >> Stay informed about: Multi-player making economic sense |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Oct 30, 2007
Posts: 21
|
(Msg. 4) Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 11:57 am
Post subject: Re: Multi-player making economic sense [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Frank E wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 07:01:22 -0800 (PST), "eddysterckx@hotmail.com"
> <eddysterckx.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> What I'm trying to say is that a game which attracts the PBEM or
>> TCP/ IP crowd is much more likely to stay in the picture for a
>> long, long time - hereby contributing enormously to long-term
>> sales. So good multi-player features might not directly be the top
>> priority based on how many gamers actually use it, but if a large
>> proportion of the vocal minority who keep the game alive demand it,
>> this changes the picture dramatically and adding multi-player
>> features starts to make economic sense again.
>>
> I'd say that longevity comes down to 2 things: - Modding / scenarios
> - multiplayer Either of those has the potential to greatly expand the
> life cycle of a game.
There is "longevity" as in, "I'm still playing TacOps on a regular
basis." The, arguably, is not helpful to the game business as, I am
more likely to do without, for example, the new Combat Mission or Close
Combat if I am already getting my TacOps fix.
Eddy's point is more about a kind of longevity that keep new sales
coming in.
My gut feeling is that Modding/scenario support probably does the
latter. Whereas the multiplayer points, as made below, probably do
more of the former. (Comments about active forums notwithstanding.
I'll post separately for that).
> As for the multiplayer, I think a lot depends on what type of game it
> is. If it's a 1v1 game, I don't find that multiplayer adds all that
> much to the gameplay, what you basically get is a better AI.
>
> If it's a game that has 5-20 players then multiplayer adds another
> level to the gameplay. Now you have diplomacy, backstabbing, player
> interactions, etc and it makes the game much more interesting than
> playing against 5 AIs. This should, I think, be the niche for
> wargames that want to do multiplayer right.
Good point. >> Stay informed about: Multi-player making economic sense |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Oct 30, 2007
Posts: 21
|
(Msg. 5) Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 12:00 pm
Post subject: Re: Multi-player making economic sense [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
eddysterckx.RemoveThis@hotmail.com wrote:
> 1) A vocal community is needed for a game to be a steady seller over
> a long period of time. For all I know the AI-only wargamer may just
> visit a publisher's site, look at what's new and make his decision
> based on game-features, never even bothering to check the game's
> forum.
I tend to agree with your counter point, although based more on my own
personal preferences than on any data.
I think that active forums and especially After Action Reports are
overrated. As one of those AI-only wargamers, I would tend not to use
them as part of my purchase-decision-making process. But that is just me.
Numbers probably will bear out that, even if only a minority of gamers
buy games based on forum traffic, that minority may be enough to make
this form of marketing more than worthwhile. >> Stay informed about: Multi-player making economic sense |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: May 13, 2005
Posts: 1293
|
(Msg. 6) Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 11:05 pm
Post subject: Re: Multi-player making economic sense [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On 21 jan, 22:31, Big Salad <big.sa....DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
> eddyster....DeleteThis@hotmail.com wrote:
> > Correct - I can't help but notice some wargames are still attracting
> > new gamers trying it out years after it launched. These games tend
> > to be games where there's a strong (and vocal) player community. And
> > these communities are "inhabited" to a large degree by human vs
> > human gamers. It might be that the same human interaction element
> > which they find in the forums is also what attract particular gamers
> > to multi- player games.
>
> One counter-example is Take Command: Bull Run/2nd Manassas. Here is a
> game that has no multiplayer component. But yet is has a very active
> forum, enthusiastic ability and, based on forum postings, an influx of
> new players/purchasers. This tells me that multiplayer isn't a
> necessary condition for the kind of community that serves to attract the
> new interest over the long term.
Good point - so it's indeed not a necessary condition.
> As I suggested previously, I think that is the the scenarios/mods plus
> the general amount of positive chatter that makes the forums "strong."
Mutually supportive causes ? a strong game, leading to positive
chatter, leading to a continued influx of players, leading to modders
spending time on the game because they know there's a community out
there, which in turn creates longetivity.
What I mean is that every item in the above list influences every
other item and isolating some as the prime cause is maybe not correct.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx >> Stay informed about: Multi-player making economic sense |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Oct 26, 2007
Posts: 73
|
(Msg. 7) Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 9:40 am
Post subject: Re: Multi-player making economic sense [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 07:01:22 -0800 (PST), "eddysterckx@hotmail.com"
wrote:
>We've already had a couple of debates in here about playing the AI
>versus playing humans, with some developers pointing out that every
>bit of data they have points to wargames overwhelmingly being played
>versus the AI
>
>This would lead us to conclude that programming in PBEM features or
>TCP/IP play is a waste of resources, were it not for reviewers and
>gamers for some weird psychological reason deducting points if those
>features are not present.
Even for "playing against the AI" it is important for me that a game
have TCP/IP multiplayer. Maybe that sounds contradictory, but even in
games that I mostly play solo against the AI, the most *fun* is had
when I can play a cooperative game with one or more of my kids on our
home LAN - which requires TCP/IP support.
One more thing about that: when possible, we don't usually play
against each other, but will be allies or on the same team against
various AI opponents. For some games this works well, for others not
so much. I bought Close Combat Modern Tactics with this kind of game
in mind, but haven't had time to install it and try it out yet. More
games that allow this kind of play would be a big plus for me.
But I don't know if that is a big enough segment of the market that
wargame developers should include this stuff, or not. 
BP >> Stay informed about: Multi-player making economic sense |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Apr 23, 2006
Posts: 13
|
(Msg. 8) Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 2:27 pm
Post subject: Re: Multi-player making economic sense [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
<eddysterckx DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote on 21.01.2008 15:01 GMT the message
news:d5c92645-1627-4d55-88f0-522eddc35f7f@x69g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
> We've already had a couple of debates in here about playing the AI
> versus playing humans, with some developers pointing out that every
> bit of data they have points to wargames overwhelmingly being played
> versus the AI
Please let me observe that customer behaviour investigations, which are very
habitual in various branches of industry, are less known in case of
(historical and other) wargames -- concerned online resources are rare.
Developer business reports are also not necessarily made public and posted
on the website. Empirical considerations are, however, possible and
desirable.
> This would lead us to conclude that programming in PBEM features or
> TCP/IP play is a waste of resources, were it not for reviewers and
> gamers for some weird psychological reason deducting points if those
> features are not present.
If a military or other school acquires a game, then the students just have
to do the job, if it is required to play it in the class, and they will also
discuss together the AAR. But the individual private gamer is another
entity... Even a weekend might be not sufficient to play some larger
scenario by TCP/IP or in a LAN, and, sometimes, it does not work to set a
time per move like in chess. PBEM sometimes fails and the game is broken up
for the gamers fail to respond within the agreed period of time, e.g. 24hrs
or 48 hrs etc. I've seen various AARs on PBEMs c/o gaming clubs: two human
gamers register a PBEM game with the club, the club assigns an observer who
always gets the moves (CC of e-mails) and watches if the appropriate
historical rules are observed, for the game itself would not protest saying
that some move was not habitual in the concerned past. The club usually
reported via its website if & when a play has been aborted. In any event,
the true great challenge is to play the game against a human opponent, like
with any kind of game  .
> So the silent majority out there is playing wargames against the AI.
For many gamers, the AI might be the most convenient playmate, it will not
protest, if the gamer resumes a game after a couple of weeks. But what about
creating a Super-PBEM-AI-Brain, located at the website of the game developer
or of some AI expert, that would PBEM with many gamers at the same time. The
AI-Brain would have to be self learning, creating and enlarging its files,
finally getting better and better with each game. This would be a serious
opponent for any solitaire gamer.
> Fine. Now have a look at who's keeping a game alive 3-6 months after
> it's release. By this I mean a lively forum, making mods, etc.
Certainly, new mods and scenarios keep a game alive, otherwise the gamer
might be bored. Some gamers just start again a game after a couple of years
and this is also an example illustrating how games live.
> I did make a couple of assumptions here
>
> 1) A vocal community is needed for a game to be a steady seller over a
> long period of time. For all I know the AI-only wargamer may just
> visit a publisher's site, look at what's new and make his decision
> based on game-features, never even bothering to check the game's
> forum.
Some developers use to post news in the forum, this seems to be a somewhat
new feature, thus the AI-only wargamer ought to pay attention to the forum.
Some newsletters also provide links to relevant forum items.
> 2) There is such a thing as long-term steady sales.
This is something I'd not like to comment right now.
> Comments on the above ramblings, as usually, very much appreciated
Thank you, here they are...
Greetings, PY >> Stay informed about: Multi-player making economic sense |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Dec 13, 2007
Posts: 9
|
(Msg. 9) Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 2:45 pm
Post subject: Re: Multi-player making economic sense [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
> There is "longevity" as in, "I'm still playing TacOps on a regular
> basis." The, arguably, is not helpful to the game business as, I am
> more likely to do without, for example, the new Combat Mission or Close
> Combat if I am already getting my TacOps fix.
>
> Eddy's point is more about a kind of longevity that keep new sales
> coming in.
I played Steel Panthers for ten years (see my post somewhere else on this
forum) because:
-The initial release was a new, reasonably polished, competently made
product from a genre that interested me, and
-People kept developing it, mainly in directions I agreed it needed to go.
Not sure if I'd agree that the ability to play against human opponents was
essential for SP's longevity. What kept me playing it was the fact that,
officially or unofficially, it kept getting better.
I guess there was a certain amount of inertia in my decisions not to embrace
other tac games. I knew the SP system intimately and didn't feel like
putting in the effort required to master, say, Combat Mission, to the same
degree. However, I doubt I would have stuck with SP for so long if there
wasn't always some new game feature or database enhancement to look forward
to.
And a lot of it was free :-^
Cheers,
Andy >> Stay informed about: Multi-player making economic sense |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
| Related Topics: | TBC Fast Package(1-70) - Any Class Free 2000G - Wow level50-60，30g per level level60-70，150g per level. Dear Sir or Madam Hot Sale!For all of our customers,the news and olds,www.game-powers.com are some Special Package! We now provide Powerleveling measured by..
Birth of America-First impressions - Well I downloaded the game last night and dove right in to try and get a feel for it. Overall my impressions are good, however the game has an unfinished feel to it. Minor issues like text running outside the display box, or major concerns like..
Another request for games recommendations - Hi. I just checked the most recent posts, and I don't think my request quite matches any of the others. I haven't bought a game for years (except a secondhand Civ III which doesn't really rival Civ II IMO). I still play Civ II and sometimes TOAW, also..
BIRTH OF AMERICA: Steep System Requirements? - Game seems pretty cool, but it's more-or-less unplayable on my laptop; the cursor lag is terrific, and it's boiling the heatpipes. Works OK on my gaming machine, but I couldn't find the system requirements anywhere. -- Giftzwerg *** "Let's see....
Digital downloads done right? - Hi, Given all the recent threads about copy protection and digital downloads, this weekend I took a close look at how one publisher decided to do it. Specifically, I bought and downloaded GalCiv 2 from Stardock. Let me add that I don't think any of.. |
|
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
