|
Ranloth -> RE: is there really a war going on (6/30/2014 16:31:04)
|
The war is meant to be ongoing, if you didn't realize already. It's not like the Infernal War or Frysteland War, where it was an event for few weeks and then rare. It was clarified few times already, as well as the same regions eventually being used again for the war. If they wanted the war to be the War, then they would've ended it in few months tops, and stuck to one region. Shifting regions means you can try out new story (as OWA highlighted already), and give players an incentive to fight or spend money. Some players like to show off (like Rui has said) instead. Some just don't have anything better to do.
If you compare it to the previous two wars, don't bother. One-off Event vs. ongoing War. Two different things. Otherwise, they wouldn't have release Rev's missions, or "filler" missions before that (back in April), that didn't really relate to the Dread War. It merely exists as an incentive to fight/play. Players want competition (faction wise), and this is sorta similar but not quite - this does NOT include bugs such as the current Overlord War having Exiles getting War Rallies at 2M+ advantage. So, don't bother saying "NO ONE CARES ABOUT THE WAR" because that's minority saying so at most. Probably high level players, which are minority anyway - compared to newer players or those around/under Level 30. Not mentioning the story potential - which players DO want, and some players like games for the story, not necessarily the gameplay. (DF has not-so-good gameplay, but the Book 1 story was really good - with bigger Team too, before any comparisons are made)
Dread War was never designed to bring players back. It's funny how people still assume they do all these changes on purpose, to deliberately drive players away and kill off their own game, which would result in pretty much losing their jobs. Yeah, because when you have a job, what you really want is to lose it. No one said the changes are always good, but some DO have long-term returns, whilst players look short-term and ocus on "me" - not "others".
You know... if they were doing that much better in Delta, with everything being oh-so-good (and there are threads around saying Delta + Gamma were really bad, by few (now) retired players), why release Omega? Why lose players and profit, and pretty much everything else? If they get certain share of money made (Devs) by their game (from AE), then less profit made = less money earnt. It's getting to the point where these arguments are pointless, and people don't even bother using logic when posting. "Financial stability? Nah, let's mess around and lose our jobs!"
Also, few things aren't taken into account. The spike in tablet and smartphone users (and newer Android + iOS don't support Flash), smartphones getting better and better, and Flash not really made for games. Why was Project Omni a priority? Mobile gaming. Tablets and smartphones alike. Vast majority have them, and you can earn money off these. This doesn't mean Omega isn't to blame, but do look for some more data, apart from one-sided arguments that may barely hold any truth. The very same reason is why DF and AQ lost a lot of players - AQ reaching 10-15K+ easily, few years ago, and now averaging around 1K players. DF also had around 4-5K players before, if not a bit more. MQ was popular back then too. Now? Yeah.
Do you really think MMO Flash Games can make up for it? Not really. AQW is slowly heading that way too, but the difference is, much bigger Team, so they can hold the players for a bit longer. Before you say "why not recruit more people for ED then?" - how about AE expands ED's budget to enable them to do so? Volunteers? Ah yes, and then have Staff shortages because the Devs would have to train the volunteers, thus even less content for the players.
Lastly, Charfade already said before that they aren't bothered that much by the lower playerbase. It's to be expected, after some drastic changes + the above paragraph (which was ALSO discussed in the Livestreams before), but it's a stable playerbase. Small but stable. Sometimes, it's better than a bigger playerbase made out of casuals who quit after few days or weeks, for good. Stable also relates to being financially stable. Instead of assuming "only 300-600 players online", how about actual players online during the 24h period? You count the ones logged in at the given moment, and new ones may log in, whilst the older ones log out. Unique players may be as high as 1-2K even. You have no way of checking how many unique players log in during the x time period, but ones currently online. If an hour later, there is the same amount of players online, this doesn't mean they are the same people. Active =/= stable. There's a lot less active players, but there can be a lot more unique players who do get on every now and again, and maybe buy some Varium. For a business, 1K stable > 3K unstable (example), especially if you have data to back it up with - in terms of Varium sales.
(don't bother nitpicking the post apart, because if anything, it's meant to be quoted in paragraph; each paragraph covers a topic, and picking one sentence will put it out of context)
Rui's latest post is ironically right too - players do care. If they didn't, you wouldn't see them bother with the War, or logging in at all. They spent money thus hard to quit? You can still play, but there's a difference between casual logging in and playing for hours each day. :p
|
|
|
|
