I'm considering all the feedback on the business model of expansions, btw. Just not a lot to say since we are so early in the process of trying to get a game going 
Likes:
Wyntyr and Fabricio21RJ
Oi!
Bem... a alguns dias atrás, eu havia apresentado um exemplo de monetização, que me agrada como jogador e cliente.
Recentemente, foi postado no fórum abaixo, um pequeno lembrete de que jogos de gêneros diferentes possuem faturamentos diferente. Acredito que todos concordam.
Esse parágrafo me fez pensar um pouco.
Se o projeto Ember se tornasse um gênero de jogo do tipo "Ark - sobrevivência", apenas no inicio do seu desenvolvimento? Teria várias vantagens.
- Seria um protótipo jogável, como um jogo normal;
- Com os aluguéis de servidores, não haveria a necessidade de financiamento de terceiros que poderiam arruinar a idéia principal;
- Também com os aluguéis de servidores, a publicidade através dos youtubers, seria mais barata e ampla;
- Não haveria necessidade de CashShop, todos os itens seriam fabricados pelo jogador;
- O jogo seria vendido (B2P), sem a necessidade de um jogo livre (F2P). Todo o conteúdo do jogo seria aberto para todos;
- Poderia ter dois tipos de servidores, PvE e PvP;
- Nesse protótipo seria apresentado todas as idéias que Mark Kern pretende colocar no Universo Ember Online. Exemplo, Omniframe, veículos, FTL, mercado, coleta de itens, inimigos, costumes e etc;
- Com esse protótipo seria mais fácil ajustar algumas mudanças que não agradariam os jogadores.
Até o momento eu não achei uma desvantagem.
Acima está uma forma da Crixa ganhar dinheiro depois do jogo finalizado.
Abaixo vou dar uma sugestão que poderia incentivar os jogadores no financiamento desse primeiro protótipo.
A Crixa poderia vender Cotas da Empresa para aqueles jogadores que estão ajudando no financiamento do protótipo. A Crixa estabeleceria um valor de 1 Cota e os jogadores comprariam essas Cotas. Quando a Crixa lançar o jogo + os aluguéis dos servidores, compraria essas cotas de volta pelo preço de mercado. Se o jogador investir $100 dólares no protótipo e o jogo for vendido por $30 dólares, o jogador recebe de volta $70 dólares no valor de mercado. Todos ganham... empresa, desenvolvedor e jogador.
No futuro, a Crixa poderia iniciar o desenvolvimento do Universo Ember Online com as suas próprias pernas.
Obrigado por sua atenção.
Abraços.
Hi!
Well ... a few days ago, I had an example of monetization, which pleases me as a player and client.
It was recently posted on the forum below, a small reminder that games of different genres have different billings. I believe everyone agrees.
This paragraph made me think a bit.
If the Ember project to become a game genre like "Ark - survival," only the beginning of its development? Would have several advantages.
- It would be a playable prototype, as a normal game;
- With rents servers, there would be no need for third party financing that could ruin the main idea;
- Also with rents servers, advertising via the youtubers, would be cheaper and wide;
- There would be no need for Cash Shop, all items would be made by the player;
- The game would be sold (B2P) without the need for a free game (F2P). All content of the game would be open for all;
- You could have two types of servers, PvE and PvP;
- In this prototype would be presented all ideas that Mark Kern to place in the universe Ember Online. For example, Omniframe, vehicles, FTL, market, collecting items, enemies, customs and etc;
- With this prototype would be easier to adjust some changes that would please not the players.
So far I have not found a disadvantage.
Above is a way of Crixa make money after the game finished.
Below I will give a suggestion that could encourage players in the financing of this first prototype.
The Crixa could sell Company Quotas for those players who are helping in prototype funding. The Crixa set a value of 1 quota and players buy these quotas. When Crixa launch the game + rents servers, buy these quotas back at market price. If the player to invest $100 US dollars in the prototype and the game is sold for $30 US dollars, the player gets back $70 US dollars in market value. Everybody wins ... company, developer and player.
In the future, the Crixa could start the development of Ember Online Universe with their own legs.
Thanks for your attention.
Hugs.
Bem... a alguns dias atrás, eu havia apresentado um exemplo de monetização, que me agrada como jogador e cliente.
Recentemente, foi postado no fórum abaixo, um pequeno lembrete de que jogos de gêneros diferentes possuem faturamentos diferente. Acredito que todos concordam.
Esse parágrafo me fez pensar um pouco.
Se o projeto Ember se tornasse um gênero de jogo do tipo "Ark - sobrevivência", apenas no inicio do seu desenvolvimento? Teria várias vantagens.
- Seria um protótipo jogável, como um jogo normal;
- Com os aluguéis de servidores, não haveria a necessidade de financiamento de terceiros que poderiam arruinar a idéia principal;
- Também com os aluguéis de servidores, a publicidade através dos youtubers, seria mais barata e ampla;
- Não haveria necessidade de CashShop, todos os itens seriam fabricados pelo jogador;
- O jogo seria vendido (B2P), sem a necessidade de um jogo livre (F2P). Todo o conteúdo do jogo seria aberto para todos;
- Poderia ter dois tipos de servidores, PvE e PvP;
- Nesse protótipo seria apresentado todas as idéias que Mark Kern pretende colocar no Universo Ember Online. Exemplo, Omniframe, veículos, FTL, mercado, coleta de itens, inimigos, costumes e etc;
- Com esse protótipo seria mais fácil ajustar algumas mudanças que não agradariam os jogadores.
Até o momento eu não achei uma desvantagem.
Acima está uma forma da Crixa ganhar dinheiro depois do jogo finalizado.
Abaixo vou dar uma sugestão que poderia incentivar os jogadores no financiamento desse primeiro protótipo.
A Crixa poderia vender Cotas da Empresa para aqueles jogadores que estão ajudando no financiamento do protótipo. A Crixa estabeleceria um valor de 1 Cota e os jogadores comprariam essas Cotas. Quando a Crixa lançar o jogo + os aluguéis dos servidores, compraria essas cotas de volta pelo preço de mercado. Se o jogador investir $100 dólares no protótipo e o jogo for vendido por $30 dólares, o jogador recebe de volta $70 dólares no valor de mercado. Todos ganham... empresa, desenvolvedor e jogador.
No futuro, a Crixa poderia iniciar o desenvolvimento do Universo Ember Online com as suas próprias pernas.
Obrigado por sua atenção.
Abraços.
Hi!
Well ... a few days ago, I had an example of monetization, which pleases me as a player and client.
It was recently posted on the forum below, a small reminder that games of different genres have different billings. I believe everyone agrees.
This paragraph made me think a bit.
If the Ember project to become a game genre like "Ark - survival," only the beginning of its development? Would have several advantages.
- It would be a playable prototype, as a normal game;
- With rents servers, there would be no need for third party financing that could ruin the main idea;
- Also with rents servers, advertising via the youtubers, would be cheaper and wide;
- There would be no need for Cash Shop, all items would be made by the player;
- The game would be sold (B2P) without the need for a free game (F2P). All content of the game would be open for all;
- You could have two types of servers, PvE and PvP;
- In this prototype would be presented all ideas that Mark Kern to place in the universe Ember Online. For example, Omniframe, vehicles, FTL, market, collecting items, enemies, customs and etc;
- With this prototype would be easier to adjust some changes that would please not the players.
So far I have not found a disadvantage.
Above is a way of Crixa make money after the game finished.
Below I will give a suggestion that could encourage players in the financing of this first prototype.
The Crixa could sell Company Quotas for those players who are helping in prototype funding. The Crixa set a value of 1 quota and players buy these quotas. When Crixa launch the game + rents servers, buy these quotas back at market price. If the player to invest $100 US dollars in the prototype and the game is sold for $30 US dollars, the player gets back $70 US dollars in market value. Everybody wins ... company, developer and player.
In the future, the Crixa could start the development of Ember Online Universe with their own legs.
Thanks for your attention.
Hugs.
I'm considering all the feedback on the business model of expansions, btw. Just not a lot to say since we are so early in the process of trying to get a game going
Likes:
Pandagnome
Value/Worth is just as subjective as fun.
It would appear it has enough going for it to be worth a players while that it remains a functional method of sale.
I myself can't find it worth it unless I seriously enjoy the core of the game. I presume it is probably similar for you?
People buy them for less game content. Many collectors editions scratch that price point time to time plus the additional content later. Ember will cost some here much more than the box price. I have been conservative and I bet I have spent over the box price for Ember and we have no game.
It really is a weird thing. Lol
It would appear it has enough going for it to be worth a players while that it remains a functional method of sale.
I myself can't find it worth it unless I seriously enjoy the core of the game. I presume it is probably similar for you?
People buy them for less game content. Many collectors editions scratch that price point time to time plus the additional content later. Ember will cost some here much more than the box price. I have been conservative and I bet I have spent over the box price for Ember and we have no game.
It really is a weird thing. Lol
Likes:
DARKB1KE
It isn't really, it's just that the playerbase bends over for activision and electronic arts 99.9% of the time and if it's got a battlefield/CoD sticker people buy it anyways, you try it with another game and you end up with what happened to evolve, aka a massive failure, APB? another failure. The division? currently sitting at a pitiful 3k players per day and ever decreasing.
People still purchased them. Game play fell very short in Divison and didn't pack enough into the game and that was worse off for how easily players geared to max and had nothing to do but PvP.
The others I haven't played so I can't comment but Divison still sold. I belive I just didn't like Evolve after 15 minutes of the beta weekend.
The others I haven't played so I can't comment but Divison still sold. I belive I just didn't like Evolve after 15 minutes of the beta weekend.
the division is by ubisoft tho another big screwer of players, anyways vaporware sells, look at NMS, a shit ton of people bought an indie game for 60$ without even knowning exactly what it was about, my point is that just couse they want to gut us doesn't mean we should show them the belly. (not referring to ember, talking about activision/ubisoft/ea here.)
Heh, we absolutely shouldn't let them rip us off. It just seems that the gaming community offers opens wallets with these sorts of things too regularly. It works for the moment.
I figure if Ember goes off and grows it will provide good content at a fair price.
Here is hoping our investments are better than those in the games/companies you've mentioned.
I figure if Ember goes off and grows it will provide good content at a fair price.
Here is hoping our investments are better than those in the games/companies you've mentioned.
Likes:
EvilKitten and Bl4ckhunter
Here is hoping our investments are better than those in the games/companies you've mentioned.
Likes:
Squid Boss
Alright, so wait a year and buy the Game of the Year/Complete Edition then, if your concern is price point.... or wait a year till the prices drop (typical for retail releases).
The point of expansions is that it adds new content onto a game that you're done with. It gives players another reason to play it again or check out the additions. At this point you've paid for the base game, you had your several hours worth of fun and enjoyment out of it.
Expansions are just more content and more things to do, you don't think they should cost anything?
That's kinda what I'm getting from you is that you don't think expansions should cost any money.
Or maybe you're just complaining about your hobby costing you money?
The point of expansions is that it adds new content onto a game that you're done with. It gives players another reason to play it again or check out the additions. At this point you've paid for the base game, you had your several hours worth of fun and enjoyment out of it.
Expansions are just more content and more things to do, you don't think they should cost anything?
That's kinda what I'm getting from you is that you don't think expansions should cost any money.
Or maybe you're just complaining about your hobby costing you money?
If you are staying away from vertical progression, then having paid content expansions opens up its own pitfalls, i.e. what exactly are you putting into that expansion that will entice players to splash the cash? If it is items that cannot be found in the non-paid for content, especially ones that may appear to be more 'powerful' then you're back to the P2W model, with vertical progression.
If it is purely content and new enemies to fight then it is not too much of a problem.
You can also earn plenty of revenue in aspects of convenience that do not effectively put paying players ahead of others. One example is loadouts for the omniframe; you begin with your one loadout slot, which you can change at the 'garage' but if you want more slots to store different loadouts, plug in a few dollars and slot number 2 is unlocked. Separate loadouts for the omniframe surely must be an essential part of the game and a welcome one and I'm sure players won't complain about forking out a few dollars every month or so as they start building up their equipment. I certainly have no issues with this sort of convenience and I'm sure this sort of thing will keep the money trickling in on a regular basis.
If it is purely content and new enemies to fight then it is not too much of a problem.
You can also earn plenty of revenue in aspects of convenience that do not effectively put paying players ahead of others. One example is loadouts for the omniframe; you begin with your one loadout slot, which you can change at the 'garage' but if you want more slots to store different loadouts, plug in a few dollars and slot number 2 is unlocked. Separate loadouts for the omniframe surely must be an essential part of the game and a welcome one and I'm sure players won't complain about forking out a few dollars every month or so as they start building up their equipment. I certainly have no issues with this sort of convenience and I'm sure this sort of thing will keep the money trickling in on a regular basis.
First GOTY is perhaps even more of a scam as it's ripping of the people who actually did purchase the dlcs separately, second they should't cost THAT much, how can you justify a 5h expansion with a couple of pvp maps or a simple gear pack costing one third of the original 50h game? they're just milking players, simple as it is, it's not that "expansions" shouldn't cost any money, is that they should be priced fairly and in most cases simply shouldn't exist, what is even the point of making expansions for a game that comes out every two years, like put it in the next game, it's not like they don't make profit already.
Anyways i can't really complain that it did cost me money becouse i never actually bought any of them when they came out and by the time the goty comes out i had well lost interest or already unistalled the thing, it's just the scummy buisness practice that annoys me.
Anyways i can't really complain that it did cost me money becouse i never actually bought any of them when they came out and by the time the goty comes out i had well lost interest or already unistalled the thing, it's just the scummy buisness practice that annoys me.
Okay so what's fair to you? 5$ 10$ 15$ 20$ 30$ 50$ ?
You're ignoring what it takes to produce content or a game, the manpower and time.
The employees hours and wages?
The costs of running a business, paying for power and expenses of a studio, computers/servers....
The tech support/customer care?
Upkeep/patching?
Think about it from their perspective and not just yours.
Sure, people want things cheap as they can, but at some point you have to mature and realize that business runs things and they need to stay profitable to keep making games in the first place. There is a cost to your hobby. Otherwise just stop playing videogames if you can't afford it.
You're ignoring what it takes to produce content or a game, the manpower and time.
The employees hours and wages?
The costs of running a business, paying for power and expenses of a studio, computers/servers....
The tech support/customer care?
Upkeep/patching?
Think about it from their perspective and not just yours.
Sure, people want things cheap as they can, but at some point you have to mature and realize that business runs things and they need to stay profitable to keep making games in the first place. There is a cost to your hobby. Otherwise just stop playing videogames if you can't afford it.
Likes:
Torgue_Joey
are you SERIOUSLY telling me that major publishers like activision ubisoft and ea have to resort to this to stay profitable? with games that sell over 550$ millions (CoD:Bo3) in the first week? are you bullshitting me? excuse me while I laugh at you.
There's a cost to everything but that doesn't mean i'm willing to be overcharged and taken for a fool, the costs for your standard (non MMO) AAA game, even without resorting to exploitive marketing techniques pales in comparison to the massive profits.
The only reason AAA games do this is to milk more money out of purchasers.
That ember might need to resort to this to substain itself it debatable but acceptable, but that major publishers do? that's just being in denial about the willingness to be ripped off.
There's a cost to everything but that doesn't mean i'm willing to be overcharged and taken for a fool, the costs for your standard (non MMO) AAA game, even without resorting to exploitive marketing techniques pales in comparison to the massive profits.
The only reason AAA games do this is to milk more money out of purchasers.
That ember might need to resort to this to substain itself it debatable but acceptable, but that major publishers do? that's just being in denial about the willingness to be ripped off.
The business model will be amazing maybe i am too optimistic but i have a feeling, all i am worrying atm is the music of ember & to support it with monies when i get the monies. The music will need to be epic but be good for dancing also!
Visual this yes
The Kern could have backing dancers for his navel enforcers they dance as the Ember intro tune blasts out
mark appears they keep dancing until Kern talks in tishu language and the dancers run into the crowd vanishing out of the building to grab lunch... until the talk is over then dancers run back in and finish off dancing and kern is escorted by navel enforcers and the reaper mech team to the Ember bus where tactical plans are made for the next journey
Visual this yes
The Kern could have backing dancers for his navel enforcers they dance as the Ember intro tune blasts out
mark appears they keep dancing until Kern talks in tishu language and the dancers run into the crowd vanishing out of the building to grab lunch... until the talk is over then dancers run back in and finish off dancing and kern is escorted by navel enforcers and the reaper mech team to the Ember bus where tactical plans are made for the next journey
becouse the format was horrible and i think most people (myself included) skipped the whole post due to the portugese(spanish?) header, anyway this part
Is a good idea in theory but sadly unless mark is willing to move the company out of the US it's impossible to apply as US stock law doesn't allow for people with less than a million dollars to invest in private companies apparently (No don't ask me why, if you look into it his posts you could probably find mark saying so himself at least one or two times), still so much for capitalism.
as for the main suggestion depends on what actually mark has intended for the game as i seem to think that mark wants to keep a tight leash on the game and with private servers inevitably players are going to want modding (not a bad thing imho, wondrous things have been done with server modding, tf2 and bukkit minecraft servers are prime examples of that), and while it could be a very viable idea ark characters aren't cross server and there's limitations with the AI i think, then again, it could be fixed with a company hosted character database ala warframe and running the actual game on rented servers, it's a very intresting option and definitely bears thinking about.
as for the main suggestion depends on what actually mark has intended for the game as i seem to think that mark wants to keep a tight leash on the game and with private servers inevitably players are going to want modding (not a bad thing imho, wondrous things have been done with server modding, tf2 and bukkit minecraft servers are prime examples of that), and while it could be a very viable idea ark characters aren't cross server and there's limitations with the AI i think, then again, it could be fixed with a company hosted character database ala warframe and running the actual game on rented servers, it's a very intresting option and definitely bears thinking about.