Q. What incentive is there for the devs to add...

[ringring]

the intercontinental meta game?

(This isn't a post accusing the devs or SOE of bad faith ect, simply an honest question.)

It seems to be the FTP model puts the main emphasis on getting new players and retaining them, but only for a while.

New players buy stuff and subscribe in order to level up but after a while once they have maxed out BR and bought the gear they want they will stop buying and either stop playing or continue as a totally free player.

The game changes that are likely to want the more experienced play to continue to play would be stuff like the intercontinental meta game and other 'end game' features.

My question is that the meta game stuff would appeal much more to the people who no longer play the game so what incentive would there be for SOE to spend time and money creating them.

Of course I know the devs would want to put them in because they would naturally take pride in a job well done, however as we know when economics and 'what you want' conflict then economics wins every time.

Thoughts?

[Mox]

Well, the incentive is the survival of the game. New players wont stay for a long time or spend any money at all if they are experiencing empty servers. And the server will be empty soon if there is not progress (e.g.. the introduction of meta game).

[Boomzor]

One vital fact is that players are the MAIN content.
There's no point in having new land, different bases and spectacular guns if there are no enemies to shoot at or compete against.

As such EVERY SINGLE PLAYER you get into the game adds value to the game experience.
Equally, every player you fail to retain is a loss in over all game value.

So the incentive to add new stuff is to keep people from getting bored and leave. Or better yet, create mechanics that allow players to generate their own incentive to keep playing. Intercontinental lattice is a big part of such a mechanic (though not on its own).

[Vashyo]

One vital fact is that players are the MAIN content.
There's no point in having new land, different bases and spectacular guns if there are no enemies to shoot at or compete against.

As such EVERY SINGLE PLAYER you get into the game adds value to the game experience.
Equally, every player you fail to retain is a loss in over all game value.

So the incentive to add new stuff is to keep people from getting bored and leave. Or better yet, create mechanics that allow players to generate their own incentive to keep playing. Intercontinental lattice is a big part of such a mechanic (though not on its own).

Revolving doors, old players leave, new players come in. Old players come back every "big" update/double XP and play for a week then go away again, simply because everything has been seen and tried so many times. :/

I doubt anyone will come back to this game simply because you have masterchiefesque-helmet in the store. We need lot more depth to the gameplay, new vehicles with different ways to play, new continents, new mechanics. But that's all still atleast half a year away.


all hope rests on PS4 now, and maybe e-sports.

[ringring]

Revolving doors, old players leave, new players come in. Old players come back every "big" update/double XP and play for a week then go away again, simply because everything has been seen and tried so many times. :/

I doubt anyone will come back to this game simply because you have masterchiefesque-helmet in the store. We need lot more depth to the gameplay, new vehicles with different ways to play, new continents, new mechanics. But that's all still atleast half a year away.


all hope rests on PS4 now, and maybe e-sports.

Well e-sports is going to be a niche and I don't see anyone paying to get involved, or rather not paying more over and above what they would to level their character.

The way I look at it is why would SOE spend resources attracting me back to the game and spending money? Even if I came back I doubt there would be anything to spend on that I don't already have and want. Having said that I spent quite a lot already, what with alpha squad+subs+SC.

[kubacheski]

Well e-sports is going to be a niche and I don't see anyone paying to get involved, or rather not paying more over and above what they would to level their character.

The way I look at it is why would SOE spend resources attracting me back to the game and spending money? Even if I came back I doubt there would be anything to spend on that I don't already have and want. Having said that I spent quite a lot already, what with alpha squad+subs+SC.

I used to think this way also because I kept seeing it from a PS1 perspective (business model and gameplay). How does one make money from e-sports anyway? the players pay to play? Somehow the event sponsors and such may be a much larger money generator for SOE than players spending cash in game. I mean all e-sports players all start out at the same "level" or it would kill balance and make it P2W. That's not very sporting.

Anyway, SOE already seems to be saving money by having player generated content via the Player Studio. Players make stuff that players want to pay for and SOE reaps the benefits. How easy is that?

Also, I know they said you wouldn't pay for content, but how easy is it to charge for access to more conts. If that's what everyone really wants, and SOE isn't interested because it doesn't generate revenue to push more landmass, it's not a far leap to make a cash grab on that at some point in the future.

As someone said F2P is a revolving door and only when the door slows its spinning will SOE be incented to do anything about it. We can complain all we want, but if the money is coming in as fast as they expect it to, they're not going to do anything that may adversely affect that. (Maybe that's the lesson they learned from Core Combat.)

[AThreatToYou]

Simple:

Players are content [the basic theory of free-to-play]

If a game has no consistent player-base, it is much, much harder to bring in new players.
So it is then much harder to get more folks who are willing to buy stuff.