I was watching a video about the AIDS game I have spent most of my life playing, NBA 2k. I played all the bball games that I could, but now there is pretty much only 2k for competition. The video features clips of a man talking about how to monetize your game. This is based on the "p2w" model, but I would say that it is more relevant than you think in regards to sub based games as well.
I marked the part where he talked about selling content. He says a lot of other things, too, which are interesting, but he states matter of factly that selling content is not sustainable. It's not. It doesn't take a marketing genius to see why. Not only are you setting yourself up to be on a never-ending treadmill (where you are the ones working and not your player base haha, in a sandbox??,) but you are also devaluing your previous content. Since most content in games comes in types (like, let's say for MO: magic schools, armor/wep types, dungeons/pois) there is a limit to how many times you can 'splash the pot' with that sort of stuff.
Now, we also hear him talking about progress and balance (competitive advantage.) I would bet anything that Henrik has done his homework on what he believes people need to continue playing. That is, he has taken in various seminars and read up on the psychology of the player. Why? Because it fits what has happened.
It is a sub based game, so it is not monetized, however, the implementation of progress through playtime is definitely something SV has done. There is also a limit to that before it starts negatively affecting the game, but let's put that to the side for a moment.
There is a great flaw, in my opinion, in this sort of 'normie' development. Why does the sandbox genre exist? The sandbox is designed for atypical players who are burnt out on the current flavor of games. It is also a sub based game, so people have to understand the downside of micro-transaction based gameplay. What people actually want (need, maybe) is slow block-by-block development that builds into something unique. Think of all the shit in MO. All of the tools they have. It's kind of amazing the amount of stuff you can do, but it's all blah because the game imposes limitations on itself. It is focused on creating an environment where players will never be angry enough with the game to quit, but where they are incentivized by content / progress to continue grinding or fighting over the opportunity to grind. That is flawed. I've said it before, but I will say it again.
Psychology is interesting. Psychology of gaming is interesting, but due to the fact that only certain companies have enough money to make games that can support these theories, I don't think there is enough data to say these ideas are optimal or, even, correct. They are logical in some cases.
The problem, and people know this even if they are addicted to a game, the GAMES are suffering due to these changes. MO is suffering as well. It is hard-capped, and it's turning into the kinda game like late stage Black Desert, where people come back for things, play for awhile, then quit again. It's too new of a game to be in that state. It needs immediate rethinking.
The original Henrik vision was TO MAKE A GOOD GAME. Henrik didn't really give a fuck about who quit or whatever as long as he felt he was getting his vision out. Now, people are quitting due to his vision, but not due to the game. So, I mean, people will quit anyway haha. People will also play anyway. You don't need to have people who never quit for the game to be good. I would argue it's irrational to try to hold onto the same players for a decade as your main player base. It makes everything harder for devs as well, when if people DO quit the game due to taking a hard loss or due to not having enough time, they can come back and everything will be new again. It requires fewer adjustments. They didn't need for you to make a new goal like NEW DUNGEON, their goal is the same, progress back to the point they were before they got destroyed.
If you look at people coming in and out, it will still fill the same amount of spots and you won't have to continually juice people with new incentives. The game will do the work, which is, as I said, the point of hardcore pvp sandboxes.
TRUST THE SYSTEM.
I marked the part where he talked about selling content. He says a lot of other things, too, which are interesting, but he states matter of factly that selling content is not sustainable. It's not. It doesn't take a marketing genius to see why. Not only are you setting yourself up to be on a never-ending treadmill (where you are the ones working and not your player base haha, in a sandbox??,) but you are also devaluing your previous content. Since most content in games comes in types (like, let's say for MO: magic schools, armor/wep types, dungeons/pois) there is a limit to how many times you can 'splash the pot' with that sort of stuff.
Now, we also hear him talking about progress and balance (competitive advantage.) I would bet anything that Henrik has done his homework on what he believes people need to continue playing. That is, he has taken in various seminars and read up on the psychology of the player. Why? Because it fits what has happened.
It is a sub based game, so it is not monetized, however, the implementation of progress through playtime is definitely something SV has done. There is also a limit to that before it starts negatively affecting the game, but let's put that to the side for a moment.
There is a great flaw, in my opinion, in this sort of 'normie' development. Why does the sandbox genre exist? The sandbox is designed for atypical players who are burnt out on the current flavor of games. It is also a sub based game, so people have to understand the downside of micro-transaction based gameplay. What people actually want (need, maybe) is slow block-by-block development that builds into something unique. Think of all the shit in MO. All of the tools they have. It's kind of amazing the amount of stuff you can do, but it's all blah because the game imposes limitations on itself. It is focused on creating an environment where players will never be angry enough with the game to quit, but where they are incentivized by content / progress to continue grinding or fighting over the opportunity to grind. That is flawed. I've said it before, but I will say it again.
Psychology is interesting. Psychology of gaming is interesting, but due to the fact that only certain companies have enough money to make games that can support these theories, I don't think there is enough data to say these ideas are optimal or, even, correct. They are logical in some cases.
The problem, and people know this even if they are addicted to a game, the GAMES are suffering due to these changes. MO is suffering as well. It is hard-capped, and it's turning into the kinda game like late stage Black Desert, where people come back for things, play for awhile, then quit again. It's too new of a game to be in that state. It needs immediate rethinking.
The original Henrik vision was TO MAKE A GOOD GAME. Henrik didn't really give a fuck about who quit or whatever as long as he felt he was getting his vision out. Now, people are quitting due to his vision, but not due to the game. So, I mean, people will quit anyway haha. People will also play anyway. You don't need to have people who never quit for the game to be good. I would argue it's irrational to try to hold onto the same players for a decade as your main player base. It makes everything harder for devs as well, when if people DO quit the game due to taking a hard loss or due to not having enough time, they can come back and everything will be new again. It requires fewer adjustments. They didn't need for you to make a new goal like NEW DUNGEON, their goal is the same, progress back to the point they were before they got destroyed.
If you look at people coming in and out, it will still fill the same amount of spots and you won't have to continually juice people with new incentives. The game will do the work, which is, as I said, the point of hardcore pvp sandboxes.
TRUST THE SYSTEM.
