Are DICE Getting worried about planetside 2.. - Page 10

Sephirex · 2012-07-13, 07:26 PM

Originally Posted by Stardouser

That would leave the BF2 vets! Victory!

The Inquisitors haven't decided yet. But I think you're okay.

Ratstomper · 2012-07-13, 07:26 PM

Originally Posted by Zalmoxis

The LoL community isn't THAT bad. You should have seen Dota back in the day, and especially on the semi-competitive side

. NOTHING can compare to it, LoL is just small remains of it. But it was fun in a way heh.

I play some games where I just never want to turn the game back on. Constantly people being total assholes and generally disrespectful. Add on top of that People who don't even speak your language who LOVE to ping the map constantly, but can't understand a word you're saying.

Bleh.

Emperor · 2012-07-13, 07:27 PM

This thread devolved into "Our game is better than your game," and some needless "Consoles vs. PCs" discussion towards the middle; skipping over all of that and getting back to the question posed:

Is DiCE worried about PS2? No, probably not. Regardless of which game has a better play experience, like it or not Battlefield has brand influence and a much wider reach. They've got the console audience which PS2 does not have, and regardless of your personal stance on consoles you cannot deny what that means for sales.

Speaking of sales, PS2 is a free to play game; it's free to download, free to play. There's no box to buy or digital copy to purchase. The F2P model works off the hope that being free will get players in the door, and once they're there they'll spend on items in their cash shop. The model works, but you also miss out on those initial sales. There will be people who play your game who never drop a dime on it; anyone who's ever actually been privy to looking at F2P sales figures knows that the majority of users don't spend anything, there's a select amount that spend minimally, and a really, really small number that accounts for most of your revenue--those people who buy a ton of stuff in a store and max out the amount of currency (Station Cash, for example) that they can purchase in one go. (Most games have a cap that can't be bypassed, for fraud protection purposes) Those people who never spend a dime on your game? There's the risk that if your game wasn't free, they might have never picked it up; but on the flipside that might've also been $50 you could've got off them purchasing a box. And let's not devalue the fact that the name "Battlefield" has the clout to make people want to go out and pick up a box.

Honestly, I can't even imagine Planetside having a higher CCU than BF3; you have to consider how many millions picked up BF3 and are still playing the game. Say what you want about how BF3 disappointed its core audience, how many people have left, the game is still doing well. The game is selling. There are people signing up for the Premium service. There are tons of PC servers and tons of console gamers playing BF3 all the time, all around the world.

So, realistically, from a financial standpoint, I HIGHLY doubt DiCE is worried about PS2. This isn't a dis against Planetside 2, mind you--there's no gameplay or personal opinion factored in here. This is strictly coming from a financial standpoint; I just can't see PS2 even being a blip on BF3's neon blue minimap. The only real thing PS2 has going for it--again, with regards to revenue--is the hope that PS2 will be a longer-lasting experience than BF3. If they can maintain a high enough CCU over a number of years they might turn a profit that could be comparable.

Then again, by that time we'll likely have Battlefield 4.

Chronic · 2012-07-13, 07:32 PM

Originally Posted by Zalmoxis

What are you talking about?

AThreatToYou · 2012-07-13, 07:36 PM

Originally Posted by Kevin D Lee

PS2's Engine can't do what BF3's Engine can. More players does not make PS2 the better game by default.

fanboys I swear...

BF3's engine can't do what PS2's engine can. Destructible environments does not make BF3 the better game by default.

fanboys I swear...

goneglockin · 2012-07-13, 07:38 PM

My prediction: No one will know what MMOFPS is until someone besides an MMO company makes one.

At this point, I don't see any reason as to why PS2 will not suffer from the same high player turnover as PS1.

I really am impressed the way SOE seems to understand the FPS genre at this time. PS1 clearly resembled a team of folks who specialized in orcs and dorks online RPG games trying their hand at a shooter; so that's an improvement... I just don't think they have what it takes to compete with what are essentially "brand names" in FPS gaming.

We already know you can't expect MMO players to keep an MMOFPS alive. That's where all the PS1 players came from, and that's where they went- to other MMOs. We know we need the FPS crowd. The question is, how is an MMO company going to get them?

ChipMHazard · 2012-07-13, 07:38 PM

Originally Posted by Sephirex

We must cleanse the player base or we risk total destruction!
Who's with me, brothers?!

Burn the BF3ers!
Kill the CODers!
Purge the Vets!

Sounds like an exterminatus might be in order.
No ane does house cleaning as well as the Inquisition.

Zalmoxis · 2012-07-13, 07:49 PM

Originally Posted by Ratstomper

I play some games where I just never want to turn the game back on. Constantly people being total assholes and generally disrespectful. Add on top of that People who don't even speak your language who LOVE to ping the map constantly, but can't understand a word you're saying.

Bleh.

Well, let's say that in Dota there wasn't a single match ever where at least 2-3 people didn't constantly insult each other, and 1 in every 3 matches people did a "where do you live?" routine ( not exaggerating about either here). I know 3 guys that actually went through with their promise haha. Oh and in internet cafe's, these fights were quite often.

And the ping thing came from W3. Was even more abused in Dota than LoL.

Haro · 2012-07-13, 08:02 PM

Originally Posted by Sephirex

We must cleanse the player base or we risk total destruction!
Who's with me, brothers?!

Burn the BF3ers!
Kill the CODers!
Purge the Vets!

Bring it on.

As one of those PS1 vets who probably has those probably-destructive ideas Stew was talking about, I take it on myself to challenge the Planetside status quo as much as I can because I know most other people won't. And that's fine, there was a lot to love about the original Planetside, but I think my ultimate criticism comes down to this:

Do you think, truthfully, that you would have enjoyed Planetside if it was not an MMOFPS, but instead a conventional 64 man shooter? I know this robs Planetside of it's most unique, fun, and defining feature, but that's the point. Did Planetside rely too much on this one facet of gameplay? Would its fundamental mechanics survive in a vacuum? In some ways, you can't compare it, but on the other hand you have to admit that there are a lot of things about the original really didn't work very well, even from the outset, before the expansions bombed.

I think it's perfectly fine for Planetside 2 to look outwards and see how it can improve. Like it or not, you have to admit that other games, even Call of Duty or Battlefield, have their good points that attract people, and that's important. Planetside 1 would be dead on arrival if it shipped today with a fresh paint job and better net coding, of this I am convinced, but if it learns and adapts and sees where other "dumber," more mainstream games have succeeded and failed, then I don't see why it couldn't surpass all of these games on mechanics alone.

But I am mostly hopeful. I'm glad hundreds of journalists got to jump into a random, cluster fuck of the game and from all that still gave the game some 40 nominations and 20 awards, some of them damn prestigious. Something is going right: the original Planetside would NEVER have gotten that. I think that was the main thing that was missing in the original, and I'm glad it seems to have been specifically improved by the devs.

Well, that's my rant for now. Hope to see you all soon in the beta.

BTW, I don't really think this is a shitty community, though you guys do get under my skin sometimes with all the console hating, CoD bashing, and so on. If anything, I consider the Planetside community to be a kind of West-Brooklyn-esque hipster-gamer commune that really does believe it is all the shit, even though strong arguments can be made that the Village is still a bit better.

Blackwolf · 2012-07-13, 08:21 PM

Originally Posted by TAA

I think they should not listen to anyone other than their collected data. Especially nobody who posts on these forums (the 1-2% of players this will eventually account for at best). They need to trust their data and their market research papers, they need to put a survey into the launcher and get the opinions of the other 98-99% of players. Not anyone here.

Why? It's pretty clear to me that the majority will always favor unbalanced and overpowered BS to things that will make the game fun and enjoyable. PS Vets included.

Difference is, we know how PS1 worked, and how PS2 will likely work. We've experienced the 133vs133vs133 battles that you haven't. There are immense differences in how you fight when there are 266 people gunning for you.

It's also fairly easy to tell the difference between a bad opinion and a good one. I've always trusted the PS1 DEVs to do their best, and I've disliked nothing that they came out with. What I hated with a passion? The bickering and whining in the forums that caused those things to be changed repeatedly. The "greater populace" that you speak of essentially ruined the game with their flood of opinions.

The DEVs listen to the player base, but it's not as if they act on every idea. If they did, tanks would require 2 people, 3rdPV would be available to infantry, and vehicle enter/exit animations would exist.

polywomple · 2012-07-13, 08:21 PM

COD pretty much sucks, though.

By the time you're rank 70 in COD or whatever, you ask yourself why you wasted so much time.

Not in PS, however.

GLaDOS · 2012-07-13, 08:25 PM

Originally Posted by Sephirex

Fingers crossed for a massive Star Wars Battlefront sequel.

YES. So much yes. Also, the guy above me seems right.

EDIT: Woops, the guy 2 posts above me.

EDIT: Damn, 3. Sorry about that.

Haro · 2012-07-13, 08:38 PM

Originally Posted by polywomple

COD pretty much sucks, though.

By the time you're rank 70 in COD or whatever, you ask yourself why you wasted so much time.

Not in PS, however.

Oh, so that's why soooo many people quit playing Call of Duty so quickly, and how PS has managed to maintain a population of millions even 9 years after it first came out.

But seriously,

Top Sgt · 2012-07-13, 08:42 PM

Originally Posted by Emperor

This thread devolved into "Our game is better than your game," and some needless "Consoles vs. PCs" discussion towards the middle; skipping over all of that and getting back to the question posed:

Is DiCE worried about PS2? No, probably not. Regardless of which game has a better play experience, like it or not Battlefield has brand influence and a much wider reach. They've got the console audience which PS2 does not have, and regardless of your personal stance on consoles you cannot deny what that means for sales.

Speaking of sales, PS2 is a free to play game; it's free to download, free to play. There's no box to buy or digital copy to purchase. The F2P model works off the hope that being free will get players in the door, and once they're there they'll spend on items in their cash shop. The model works, but you also miss out on those initial sales. There will be people who play your game who never drop a dime on it; anyone who's ever actually been privy to looking at F2P sales figures knows that the majority of users don't spend anything, there's a select amount that spend minimally, and a really, really small number that accounts for most of your revenue--those people who buy a ton of stuff in a store and max out the amount of currency (Station Cash, for example) that they can purchase in one go. (Most games have a cap that can't be bypassed, for fraud protection purposes) Those people who never spend a dime on your game? There's the risk that if your game wasn't free, they might have never picked it up; but on the flipside that might've also been $50 you could've got off them purchasing a box. And let's not devalue the fact that the name "Battlefield" has the clout to make people want to go out and pick up a box.

Honestly, I can't even imagine Planetside having a higher CCU than BF3; you have to consider how many millions picked up BF3 and are still playing the game. Say what you want about how BF3 disappointed its core audience, how many people have left, the game is still doing well. The game is selling. There are people signing up for the Premium service. There are tons of PC servers and tons of console gamers playing BF3 all the time, all around the world.

So, realistically, from a financial standpoint, I HIGHLY doubt DiCE is worried about PS2. This isn't a dis against Planetside 2, mind you--there's no gameplay or personal opinion factored in here. This is strictly coming from a financial standpoint; I just can't see PS2 even being a blip on BF3's neon blue minimap. The only real thing PS2 has going for it--again, with regards to revenue--is the hope that PS2 will be a longer-lasting experience than BF3. If they can maintain a high enough CCU over a number of years they might turn a profit that could be comparable.

Then again, by that time we'll likely have Battlefield 4.

umm I hate to burst your buble but please do research.. the PC servers are down like 70% from launch.. yes you can find some but it's way way down than it was before.

it's not doing well on PC at all anymore.. that's why they have even been giving away free premium codes for PC only to certain people.. trying to regain people's interest. They only care about console sales anyways at this point.

rTekku · 2012-07-13, 09:05 PM

Originally Posted by Emperor

Honestly, I can't even imagine Planetside having a higher CCU than BF3; you have to consider how many millions picked up BF3 and are still playing the game. Say what you want about how BF3 disappointed its core audience, how many people have left, the game is still doing well. The game is selling. There are people signing up for the Premium service. There are tons of PC servers and tons of console gamers playing BF3 all the time, all around the world.

BF3 is dead on the PC, Emp.

http://bf3stats.com/

26k online on PC at this moment. And if you want, feel free to check that number throughout the day. It doesn't get much higher. And keep in mind this game isn't even that old yet and the numbers have already dropped down to BC2 numbers(BC2 had lower than 30k players on average a few months after launch despite BF3 having better sales).

As far as NA and CAN are concerned, there are not many servers and this problem becomes even worse if you like a specific set of maps/modes. For example, there are only 4 or 5 B2K servers that are populated throughout the day. And some of those are running just one map instead of the full rotation and a higher ticket count.

http://beta.xfire.com/games/bf3

Look at the significant drop off in hours over time. Expect that to get lower as the months past. It may see a temporary increase when new DLC releases as it did in June, but the numbers will drop right back off.

So if we're talking PC only here, Planetside 2 will have no problem competing with BF3. I'm sure PS2 will be able to get more than 26k players worldwide...