4 ms·

There is a fine line between maintaining the current player-base and attracting new players, and the money in both is fast and hard to come by (however the latt

by ihsw 14y ago

There is a fine line between maintaining the current player-base and attracting new players, and the money in both is fast and hard to come by (however the latter is more exciting). It would be an unfortunate charity to give little to no attention to attracting new players but instead letting the current player-base stagnate, and it's troublesome to keep assigning hard-working developers and artists to maintain the slow and steady decline of a game. Make no mistake; killing off the stagnating games is in the best interest of the artists and game developers in the same way that it is financially sane.

ChuckMcM 14y ago
Sounds like you have some better first hand knowledge here, tell me is there no situation in which you just 'run' the game and artists and game developers are no longer involved? This is a critical point for me. I was a huge World of Warcraft fan, played a lot, and would still play a lot if it wasn't a complete waste of time :-) I also play 'Settlers of Catan.' (SoC) I've played SoC since it came out, and while it has had a couple of expansions, I don't play them, I still play the original. Once I got the box and tiles and cards there was no additional participation of any game designers or artists. The game continues to grab followers, the marginal cost of shipping a new one is some injection molded plastic and printed cardboard. Why aren't there computer games like SoC ?
- ihsw 14y ago
  Blizzard is an excellent example. They are doing a great job at maintaining a balance between attracting new players and maintaining existing players, particularly in the recent Cataclysm expansion and Mists of Pandaria expansion. The Cataclysm expansion was massive in that it revamped the existing world in addition to adding new content and I believe this is highly undervalued by existing players. Furthermore they have applied the same attention to detail to an entirely new expansion (MoP), and the gold-trim is really starting to shine through -- especially with regards to how well received the pet battles are (appealing to new and returning players) and how well received the challenge modes are (appealing to existing players). Since Cataclysm was such a huge under-taking it took an astronomical amount of time and effort and they have adopted a policy of more regular intervals between expansions and patches, and in that regard Cataclysm was an opportunity to stream-line their entire workflow (from art design to player-facing content) -- an impressive feat in itself for which they are currently reaping the benefits. The amount of over-head involved in making making new content and engaging consumers is expensive in all fields from offline single-player games to online multi-player games and from movies to music, and Zynga's shotgun approach to new games has been expensive and it's starting to hurt them.
  - nwh 14y ago
    > Blizzard is an excellent example. Blizzard is a complete mystery. I paid for a copy of Starcraft: Brood War when it first came out (1998), and I've played on Battle.net using my original serial on and off ever since. Their servers are still up and running silky smooth, 15 years later.
    - ChuckMcM 14y ago
      Yes, that is a great counter point.
    - zacharycohn 14y ago
      What is even MORE amazing is that I was in Best Buy four days ago, and I saw not one, but TWO copies of the Starcraft Battle Chest (Starcraft, the expansion, and strategy guides for both) still selling at $30. I first bought my battlechest in 2000 for $30. So 14 years after the release of the original game, it still moves enough copies for Best Buy to have it on the shelves.
      - Too 14y ago
        To keep adding things to the amazing-list. Blizzard is updating this game even 10+ years after it's release. Last patch is from 2009 and the game was released 1998, http://forums.battle.net/thread.html?topicId=14498532341 http://forums.battle.net/thread.html?topicId=14498532341
    - lmm 14y ago
      Starcraft has player numbers that would make a two-year-old game envious. I have no doubt Blizzard will kill it off at roughly the same player count as other companies with similar games, but for now it's well worth them keeping it running.
      - JimWestergren 14y ago
        I had bought the game years ago and installed and played it yesterday, 2 versus 2. It is really a great game.
- Kaizyn 14y ago
  Zynga's taking advantage of human psychology to abuse their customers who have been playing their games for a long time. I didn't realize this until working this out while responding to your post: By killing off the oldest games, Zynga causes a significant segment of its customer base to substitute newer games for the older ones. These customers are probably the most profitable (they likely buy stuff in game), and they will likely make purchases in the new games as well. This has another benefit for Zynga in that it lets them play games with the user metrics for their newest titles (thus making the stock holders happy). Having a long-time customer start playing a new/trending game is just as good as (or better than, see above) a brand new customer.
- egypturnash 14y ago
  > the marginal cost of shipping a new one is some injection molded plastic and printed cardboard ...times several thousand copies if it's going to be worth firing up the presses and machines.
- swivelmaster 14y ago
  Was that last question ironic? Aren't you describing a traditional 'boxed'/retail PC/console game? That's something that is well designed and self contained that you buy once and can enjoy forever (if you have some friends to play it with). (IMO, in the context of Zynga and similar, the idea of pay-once-play-forever games is off topic in this discussion!)

by ihsw 14y ago

ChuckMcM 14y ago

Sounds like you have some better first hand knowledge here, tell me is there no situation in which you just 'run' the game and artists and game developers are no longer involved? This is a critical point for me. I was a huge World of Warcraft fan, played a lot, and would still play a lot if it wasn't a complete waste of time :-) I also play 'Settlers of Catan.' (SoC) I've played SoC since it came out, and while it has had a couple of expansions, I don't play them, I still play the original. Once I got the box and tiles and cards there was no additional participation of any game designers or artists. The game continues to grab followers, the marginal cost of shipping a new one is some injection molded plastic and printed cardboard. Why aren't there computer games like SoC ?

ihsw 14y ago
Blizzard is an excellent example. They are doing a great job at maintaining a balance between attracting new players and maintaining existing players, particularly in the recent Cataclysm expansion and Mists of Pandaria expansion. The Cataclysm expansion was massive in that it revamped the existing world in addition to adding new content and I believe this is highly undervalued by existing players. Furthermore they have applied the same attention to detail to an entirely new expansion (MoP), and the gold-trim is really starting to shine through -- especially with regards to how well received the pet battles are (appealing to new and returning players) and how well received the challenge modes are (appealing to existing players). Since Cataclysm was such a huge under-taking it took an astronomical amount of time and effort and they have adopted a policy of more regular intervals between expansions and patches, and in that regard Cataclysm was an opportunity to stream-line their entire workflow (from art design to player-facing content) -- an impressive feat in itself for which they are currently reaping the benefits. The amount of over-head involved in making making new content and engaging consumers is expensive in all fields from offline single-player games to online multi-player games and from movies to music, and Zynga's shotgun approach to new games has been expensive and it's starting to hurt them.
- nwh 14y ago
  > Blizzard is an excellent example. Blizzard is a complete mystery. I paid for a copy of Starcraft: Brood War when it first came out (1998), and I've played on Battle.net using my original serial on and off ever since. Their servers are still up and running silky smooth, 15 years later.
  - ChuckMcM 14y ago
    Yes, that is a great counter point.
  - zacharycohn 14y ago
    What is even MORE amazing is that I was in Best Buy four days ago, and I saw not one, but TWO copies of the Starcraft Battle Chest (Starcraft, the expansion, and strategy guides for both) still selling at $30. I first bought my battlechest in 2000 for $30. So 14 years after the release of the original game, it still moves enough copies for Best Buy to have it on the shelves.
    - Too 14y ago
      To keep adding things to the amazing-list. Blizzard is updating this game even 10+ years after it's release. Last patch is from 2009 and the game was released 1998, http://forums.battle.net/thread.html?topicId=14498532341 http://forums.battle.net/thread.html?topicId=14498532341
  - lmm 14y ago
    Starcraft has player numbers that would make a two-year-old game envious. I have no doubt Blizzard will kill it off at roughly the same player count as other companies with similar games, but for now it's well worth them keeping it running.
    - JimWestergren 14y ago
      I had bought the game years ago and installed and played it yesterday, 2 versus 2. It is really a great game.
Kaizyn 14y ago
Zynga's taking advantage of human psychology to abuse their customers who have been playing their games for a long time. I didn't realize this until working this out while responding to your post: By killing off the oldest games, Zynga causes a significant segment of its customer base to substitute newer games for the older ones. These customers are probably the most profitable (they likely buy stuff in game), and they will likely make purchases in the new games as well. This has another benefit for Zynga in that it lets them play games with the user metrics for their newest titles (thus making the stock holders happy). Having a long-time customer start playing a new/trending game is just as good as (or better than, see above) a brand new customer.
egypturnash 14y ago
> the marginal cost of shipping a new one is some injection molded plastic and printed cardboard ...times several thousand copies if it's going to be worth firing up the presses and machines.
swivelmaster 14y ago
Was that last question ironic? Aren't you describing a traditional 'boxed'/retail PC/console game? That's something that is well designed and self contained that you buy once and can enjoy forever (if you have some friends to play it with). (IMO, in the context of Zynga and similar, the idea of pay-once-play-forever games is off topic in this discussion!)