Pardon me, but doesn't the whole 'No sales, ever' thing...

Ngu · 2014-02-28 03:06:23

Well... it would be fine to be morally principled about that if your game was a single player game, where the player's experience didn't outright require participation from other people.

But you made a multiplayer game, one that is dependant on either a maintaining of current players or a slow but steady / periodic large influx of players, via planned sale periods. Applying your 'No sales, ever' rule to a game like this seems like it does the exact opposite of the intended effect. You wanted to protect your players to ensure they don't feel like they've wasted their money in buying something at $16 when it's $5 for someone else later down the line. But all you're actually doing is effectively ensuring they aren't getting the full worth of their purchase price that they could have had, aren't you?

Without a steady flow / explosion of players from time to time, the amount of time and fun they could have had with your game dries up as older players leave and no new ones take their place at an even ratio.

Or am I wrong in this? People playing the game, has the game been growing instead of shrinking?

Shinnbob · 2014-02-28 03:13:43

Putting a game up on sale doesn't necessarily boost the player base - surely we all have countless games we buy on the cheap (with no real profit for the developer) and then never play?

StefanLindskog · 2014-02-28 04:00:51

We who love this game should make an effort ourselves, not expect Jason to solve this for us. He's working hard enough as it is - and don't you dare say otherwise.
No. We need to recruit by spreading the word, litterally and in social media. Why not gift a copy to a friend or five on Steam? I have a score of friends who would love this game if they ever tried it.
Joni the Facebook group and share some vids, pics and stories to create some buzz. This forum is great for existing players, but it does nothing to recruit new players. We must show the world how great this game is by exposing people to it, simple as that.
Write a Metacritic review or shout one out on the bus.

Do it!

Ngu · 2014-02-28 04:23:05

1. Do you have a single example of a game that absolutely required a healthy multiplayer community to be playable, that didn't have it's playerbase increased during a sale period? Awesomenauts has had it's player numbers dip down quite a few times, but each sale on Steam or the Humble store always draws in a decent new batch to keep the community alive.

2. You are the consumer. He is the merchant. He sold you a product, it's not up to you to market the product for him or keep it from dying a premature death. You have every right to expect him to solve it for you since you paid money for it. The 'No Sales Ever' thing is an experiment on his part, at your expense, since if the game fails as a result of that it hurts you. If this were a singleplayer game, the only person it would hurt is himself. But since you have a vested interest in keeping your product playable, you actually have to market his game for him just to have new people to play with due to his experiment. Hrm.

StefanLindskog · 2014-02-28 04:50:49

I'll gladly market his product. I don't expect to be pampered just because I spent a few dollars. If Jason was the EA I would, but he's one dedicated man with a product worth promoting.

Amatiel · 2014-02-28 08:54:48

I will never buy a game before watching copious amounts of lets play, a look at the meta-critic score (user score only) and maybe an angry joe show review

I happily post an independent review on meta critic when i find a good game, like i did with this one. I gave it a 9 i think.

I do all this because many in the gaming community (especially indy gamers) also regard mainstream critics with something worse than utter contempt for the bought and paid for parasites that they are, so rely on other gamers/lets players to point us toward good games. This phenomenon is known as an informed consumer which is thankfully growing within the gaming community and ultimately results in us, the consumer, getting better products.

Ngu: I mean absolutely no offense here but i view your opinion as being very short sighted, "penny wise, pound foolish" and is the worst enemy of the gaming industry consumer. If you read Jason's post about his pricing, he reiterates what I already believed which is that sales, full price pre-purchasing/beta testing and the like ultimately screw over us, the consumer as they allow companies like EA and Sega to sell us utter garbage and get away with it.

If all consumers started to demand the kind of high standard of "proof of quality" like actual gaming footage, refusing to pre-purchase, expect a cheaper price for buying/testing a game that is in alpha/beta then we wouldnt have to put up with the kind of criminal, misleading horse shit that was Rome 2: Total War, the recent sim-city, Aliens: colonial marines..... the list goes on.

You think you are saving money by being offered a discount on something, yet fail to notice or check if that something is garbage or not. People with that mentality seem to see the word "Discount!" and lose all sense of sanity and reason to the point of masochism.

I own and run my own business and am frequently dismayed at how people will buy what is essentially manure, if you just stick a "20% off!" sign over it. They wont pay 10% more for a product that is 200% more effective for example. It seriously erodes my faith in human intelligence.

Shinnbob · 2014-02-28 10:00:02

Amatiel wrote:

I do all this because many in the gaming community (especially indy gamers) also regard mainstream critics with something worse than utter contempt for the bought and paid for parasites that they are, so rely on other gamers/lets players to point us toward good games. This phenomenon is known as an informed consumer which is thankfully growing within the gaming community and ultimately results in us, the consumer, getting better products.

Amatiel wrote:

You think you are saving money by being offered a discount on something, yet fail to notice or check if that something is garbage or not. People with that mentality seem to see the word "Discount!" and lose all sense of sanity and reason to the point of masochism.

This guy. Too much sense for one post.

But seriously, a reduction in price MAY see a boost in sales, but I always find a game grows more from the players that WANT it whatever the price & not just because its cheap.

JoyOfTrapping · 2014-02-28 11:57:34

Ngu wrote:

Well... it would be fine to be morally principled about that if your game was a single player game, where the player's experience didn't outright require participation from other people.
But you made a multiplayer game, one that is dependant on either a maintaining of current players or a slow but steady / periodic large influx of players, via planned sale periods. Applying your 'No sales, ever' rule to a game like this seems like it does the exact opposite of the intended effect. You wanted to protect your players to ensure they don't feel like they've wasted their money in buying something at $16 when it's $5 for someone else later down the line. But all you're actually doing is effectively ensuring they aren't getting the full worth of their purchase price that they could have had, aren't you?
Without a steady flow / explosion of players from time to time, the amount of time and fun they could have had with your game dries up as older players leave and no new ones take their place at an even ratio.
Or am I wrong in this? People playing the game, has the game been growing instead of shrinking?

Good posts Amatiel and Stefan- I agree with both of you completely. Excellent points.

Ngu- your arguments here make sense. However, I think it's important to acknowledge that these are perspectives, which are not "True," but are true to a point. They reflect certain preconceptions about the way multiplayer gaming should be executed today. Though these conventions are commonplace, it is not necessary, or even desirable, that this particular intersection of community dynamics and economics be followed in every gaming community.

I will point out two things I find myself questioning while reading:

1) The idea that many more people will be likely to buy something only if it is marked down from its original price. This may be true to a point, but is it good? Is it something necessary to reinforce and encourage, and if so, on behalf of whom? We who are Steam users know there are plenty of people who buy 80% of their games when they are on sale, or only buy games when they are on sale. This makes sense, people only have so much money to toss around for entertainment. But is it something necessary to cater to and encourage? In life, typically, the maxim "You get what you pay for," is a good rule of thumb to follow as you make decisions with your money. People today, more entitled and more instant-gratification minded than ever, seem to be losing this mindset in droves. It is about people losing their understanding of what actual Value, capital V, is. As Amatiel says of his own business, people pass up huge amounts of quality every week, in favor of colorful signs which read "SALE!!!" Lack of understanding of actual Value, and an unwillingness to pay full price for quality products, are two conditions which will lead to a person's mismanagement of their finances, and even personal ruin.

2) The idea that the garden of this community should be regularly "watered" by influxes of players from weekend sales, or whatever sales. In another post, I give a couple examples of a certain type of player that surges in multiplayer communities during sales: "There are a lot of kids using dad's debit card to scoop up anything on the front page whose ad photo held their interest for 5-10 seconds. There are a lot of instant gratification type people that just hoover up featured games like vacuum cleaners and poke at them until the torrent for this week's episode of their favorite show pops up." This may sound spiteful but it is accurate. If you play a lot of multiplayer games, and you are an extrovert like me, you can gather this data yourself in a very short amount of time, and you will map a very large cross-section of the Steam population. And here we get to my point, which is Quality vs. Quantity. How exactly is it that this community "should" be nurtured and grown? What is the type of player we will best attract to the Castle Doctrine server by catering to those who are most swayed by sales? Will we receive Quality, or just Quantity? What is it best to nurture this community with? Is it worth it for Jason, who designed this game and slaves daily on all of our behalf, to earn less money for 2+ years of work, so that we can be titillated for a couple of days by a few more robbers and a little more money circulating in the server economy, only to have those players peace out the second time they die to a foolish mistake? How does this benefit us, the real pillars of the community, and how does this benefit Jason? There are real ways to grow, expand, and sustain a community like this. More advertising, and grassroots/word of mouth efforts by players, are two good ways to do that. Sales, are not.

Suedeo · 2014-02-28 12:07:26

Shinnbob, my experience is that sales certainly bring in new players. Some will be "impulse buyers" that don't really give it a shot, but I'm sure there would be others who would find this game very appealing, but didn't hear it was released and need a "reminder", as well as a little financial nudge.

The underlying reason Jason decided not to have sales on TCD, as explained in his blog post, strikes me as extremely noble and well-intentioned . However, I think Ngu's reasoning is also sound, because I can't see when the next injection of "new blood" will ever arrive.

When I die in TCD, it's very upsetting and I give myself some time off. I think this is a common reaction, and if it is, that's another bad sign for the long term health of the playerbase. Losing everything and taking a break is the perfect opportunity to try a different game.

This is an extremely high quality game and it deserves to be successful. If there was a sale, I wouldn't feel cheated, because I was brought up in a culture of sales. I would be delighted to have some new dimwits to to darken my door.

I have to respect Jason's willingness to experiment and try stuff, especially when he's willing to put his own income on the line. I guess we'll see what happens.

jasonrohrer · 2014-02-28 12:10:09

This is a different kind of multiplayer game than a MOBA like Awesomenauts.

In a MOBA or other "match" games, you need a certain critical mass of players online, together, at a given moment to even function. For 5v5 games, that minimum critical mass is known: 10 players. But not just "10 players today." 10 players online at this very moment waiting to play.

Furthermore, 15 online at this moment doesn't work. Nor does 19, 29, or 1009. There will be 9 players sitting around waiting in each of those cases. The only way to prevent that is to have TONS of players coming in and out of the game at any moment... so many that the effective wait time for any player is very small. Add in ranking algorithms, and the number of necessary players grows even bigger.

In other words, the critical mass for those games to function at all is HUGE. Thus, they may depend on sales to bring in new blood.

But this game is totally different. The interactions are asynchronous. Even if you are the only person to be online at the moment, there is still plenty to do (houses to rob, and your own house to design.

The peak for this game was 3600 daily players, the day after the Steam launch.

Right now, the game has 500 daily players, with 42 of them online at this very moment. That is way more than enough. 386 houses to rob is not enough for you?

And the game scales just fine up and down. The game even did okay back in the days when we had only 30 daily players. The overall play experience doesn't change much, beyond a certain point, with the addition of players.

So, at one point we had 30 active players total and it worked okay.

We currently have 40+ new players joining every day. I think we'll be okay for a very long time to come.

The Castle Doctrine Forums

#1 2014-02-28 03:06:23

Pardon me, but doesn't the whole 'No sales, ever' thing...

#2 2014-02-28 03:13:43

Re: Pardon me, but doesn't the whole 'No sales, ever' thing...

#3 2014-02-28 04:00:51

Re: Pardon me, but doesn't the whole 'No sales, ever' thing...

#4 2014-02-28 04:23:05

Re: Pardon me, but doesn't the whole 'No sales, ever' thing...

#5 2014-02-28 04:50:49

Re: Pardon me, but doesn't the whole 'No sales, ever' thing...

#6 2014-02-28 08:54:48

Re: Pardon me, but doesn't the whole 'No sales, ever' thing...

#7 2014-02-28 10:00:02

Re: Pardon me, but doesn't the whole 'No sales, ever' thing...

#8 2014-02-28 11:57:34

Re: Pardon me, but doesn't the whole 'No sales, ever' thing...

#9 2014-02-28 12:07:26

Re: Pardon me, but doesn't the whole 'No sales, ever' thing...

#10 2014-02-28 12:10:09

Re: Pardon me, but doesn't the whole 'No sales, ever' thing...

Board footer