Warframe's Monetization And Lack Of Depth: A Challenge To De

[DiabolusUrsus]

This... is really on-point. I've stopped buying plat. It's not that I don't want to; I just can't justify it right now. When I started off I was itching to cash in on some cosmetics. 25%? Very tempting. But I threw out a rule that I'd wait for 50% coupons and buy a little more plat when I got them. I did that... I think... twice? Yeah. And I lucked out and picked up another 1000 from a contest. I'm still coasting on that plat for weapon slots and any accessories that I just can't pass up. 

 

But I can say with certainty that if Warframe continues in the same direction it's going now, when that plat runs out that's it. I'm not buying more. When I started buying plat I was excited and starry-eyed about the great potential I saw in the game. "Ooh, they could do this! They could do that! That would be awesome!" I was even more impressed by the number of excellent ideas I saw flying around the forums, especially because DE laid a strong claim to being more liberal than most with accepting player feedback. 

 

Now I can say with certainty that DE has successfully weaned me off of the concept of early-access games. The Forest looks really interesting to me. Interstellar Marines was semi-tempting. There are a few other titles I'm keeping track of here and there, but I'm not dropping a single cent on them until they become a full-release. I got too caught up in the awe-factor of potential to see the underlying limitations of practicality. Money talks. So yeah, count me in. I'll start dropping more money on this game when I start seeing it go a more promising direction... and continue in that direction for a bit. If it's going particularly well, I may not even wait for a coupon. 

 

Ah, right. Starbound was another one of those early-access games I bought into. It was fun-ish, but it's running super-slowly on the development front right now. Probably not gonna play it again until full-release, but I'm still fairly hopeful for it; the devs reportedly have enough money from initial sales to continue development for years. I'm looking forward to seeing where it goes. I'm this relaxed about it in part because it was $15. I've dropped a good 50 or so on Warframe. Something to keep in mind. 

[Davoodoo]

I'm not suggesting that all of WF's development should be funded this way lol. This isn't going to replace investors at large, nor will it replace microtransactions. The game will go on as is. This is a separate development course, for a separate set of features.

 

I'm proposing a small test pilot program to crowdfund non-monetizing initiatives that would add depth to WF. It would simply allow a small group of devs to work on new features which are outside the cycle of build->monetize->build->monetize.

 

So your point is, "what if DE lies to us and make these features packed with RNG grind"? I think it's pretty clear what would happen then, they would lose the faith and goodwill of some of their core players. This isn't a vague kickstarter to "make a game". It would be raising money for a specific feature, one that already has some documentation and design done. It would be pretty clear if they turned that around and tried to milk money out of it on both ends.

 

Could they lie? Sure. But you can get f-d any time you open your wallet. Nyx wraith could come out tomorrow, making your $100 Nyx prime crap. Your exclusive syndana could be inside the "vault" when it re-opens. What's the difference? At least this way you have a shot and a promise.

More like "no one can guarantee that crowdfunders will throw as much money next month, we need to make additional source of income" which will most likely be microtransactions.

 

If investors get a glimpse that different content might bring more ppl into game and thus boost sales they will want a cut of that too, then you will get replaced with stable income which will make demands and turn it into S#&$ with microtransactions and rnggrind to boost sales.

 

Crowdfunders have no real power here and can at best politely suggest changes, even customer have more power by providing income for investors, thus forcing some changes at them.

 

Theres no reason for investors to accept any changes mainly because warframe is making stable income, if you really want to change something then start paying only for what you truly find worthy and not for promises and grindwalls, if warframe stops making money out of same stuff every 2 weeks/3 months/etc then they will either back up or accept changes that might bring customers back.

Edited October 14, 2014 by Davoodoo

[notionphil]

More like "no one can guarantee that crowdfunders will throw as much money next month, we need to make additional source of income" which will most likely be microtransactions.

 

If investors get a glimpse that different content might bring more ppl into game and thus boost sales they will want a cut of that too, then you will get replaced with stable income which will make demands and turn it into S#&$ with microtransactions and rnggrind to boost sales.

 

Theres no reason for investors to accept any changes mainly because warframe is making stable income, if you really want to change something then start paying only for what you truly find worthy and not for promises and grindwalls, if warframe stops making money out of same stuff every 2 weeks/3 months/etc then they will either back up or accept changes that might bring customers back.

 

You're not getting what I'm saying.

 

 

I'm not suggesting that all of WF's development should be funded this way lol. This isn't going to replace investors at large, nor will it replace microtransactions. The game will go on as is. This is a separate development course, for a separate set of features.

 

Crowdfunders would fund the development of a specific system/feature, and that's it. Get it?

 

DE would continue selling rng grind, slots, etc all the while. I'm not suggesting they change their overall revenue model, this is in ADDITION to their existing revenues.

[Davoodoo]

You're not getting what I'm saying.

 

 

 

Crowdfunders would fund the development of a specific system/feature, and that's it. Get it?

 

DE would continue selling rng grind, slots, etc all the while. I'm not suggesting they change their overall revenue model, this is in ADDITION to their existing revenues.

You arent entitled to anything as crowdfunding, you would like promise that they wont turn it into anything you might not like and will keep investors out of that part but you have no power to demand such promise.

 

Not only that but even such program is risk to them, if we someday stop funding that then they lose profit from potential customers this program brought during its existence even if itself it wasnt making any money, thus losing profits as a whole and being forced to explain why arent they doing everything to keep sales as high as possible, what then?? make free content with their own money to bring ppl back??

 

We need to trust they wont sell us out and they need to trust that we wont stop throwing money, can you guarantee such thing?? i cant.

Edited October 14, 2014 by Davoodoo

[notionphil]

 

We need to trust they wont sell us out and they need to trust that we wont stop throwing money, can you guarantee such thing?? i cant.

 

There is no pledge to continuously crowdfund. It's a one time support payment, like a 'founder'. If you are suggesting this program is a risk, then you must think the founder's program was a risk also. Same thing.

 

You're not getting the concept at all, and while I appreciate the constant bumping, I can't keep replying to comments that I've already addressed. Sorry bro.

[DiabolusUrsus]

You arent entitled to anything as crowdfunding, you would like promise that they wont turn it into anything you might not like and will keep investors out of that part but you have no power to demand such promise.

 

Not only that but even such program is risk to them, if we someday stop funding that then they lose profit from potential customers this program brought during its existence even if itself it wasnt making any money, thus losing profits as a whole and being forced to explain why arent they doing everything to keep sales as high as possible.

 

We need to trust they wont sell us out and they need to trust that we wont stop throwing money, can you guarantee such thing?? i cant.

 

Uhm... what?

 

There's no risk for DE in this. They throw out an idea to the community. The community likes it, they buy it. They don't like it, it gets scrapped and they try again. This isn't "continual funding." It's "initially dropping enough money on an idea to get it implemented." 

 

And in exchange for that complete funding we get to have a greater say in how it develops over time. We've already paid the devs for their time, so we should be able to ask them to work on specific things during that time. 

 

There's zero risk, and it offers the potential for gradually creating a more solid foundation for the rest of the game to stand on. notionphil is talking about a micro-team of five or so devs working on one idea. That's not going to make any noticeable dent in the rest of Warframe's ongoing development. 

[Davoodoo]

There is no pledge to continuously crowdfund. It's a one time support payment, like a 'founder'. If you are suggesting this program is a risk, then you must think the founder's program was a risk also. Same thing.

 

You're not getting the concept at all, and while I appreciate the constant bumping, I can't keep replying to comments that I've already addressed. Sorry bro.

Founder is different thing, its one time offer, its cheap to produce and discountinuing it is very unlikely to turn down customers.

 

If blizzard decided to make raids purely from crowdfunding, then at some point in future, ppl would stop putting money on raids, discountinuing raids would have negative impact on game sales as whole, thing they cant afford to happen since they also have investors expecting sales to improve or at least stay same.

Edited October 14, 2014 by Davoodoo

[DiabolusUrsus]

Founder is different thing, its one time offer, its cheap to produce and discountinuing it wont turn down customers.

 

If blizzard decided to make raids purely from crowdfunding, then at some point in future, ppl would stop putting money on raids, discountinuing raids would have negative impact on game sales as whole, thing they cant afford to happen since they also have investors expecting sales to improve or at least stay same.

 

This is the same thing. A one-time offer.

 

Let's say they give us an example of a prototype focus system. Enough people buy into the idea that they can dedicate three devs to it for three months.

 

Then, those three devs need to complete that focus system within three months. Then it is implemented, and doesn't need to be further supported by money. It's part of the game. 

 

Let's say that enough people buy into it to support five devs for twelve months. Then development will continue for twelve months. When the money runs out, the feature needs to be complete, and implemented. 

 

This is crowd-funding the expedited creation of key gameplay features, not fundraising to support an ongoing alert campaign. This has nothing to do with sales or immediate profit. It's a labor of love to improve the game as a whole. Profit will still be driven by the current market system. 

Edited October 14, 2014 by DiabolusUrsus

[Davoodoo]

This is the same thing. A one-time offer.

 

Let's say they give us an example of a prototype focus system. Enough people buy into the idea that they can dedicate three devs to it for three months.

 

Then, those three devs need to complete that focus system within three months. Then it is implemented, and doesn't need to be further supported by money. It's part of the game. 

 

Let's say that enough people buy into it to support five devs for twelve months. Then development will continue for twelve months. When the money runs out, the feature needs to be complete, and implemented. 

 

This is crowd-funding the expedited creation of key gameplay features, not fundraising to support an ongoing alert campaign. This has nothing to do with sales or immediate profit. It's a labor of love to improve the game as a whole. Profit will still be driven by the current market system. 

Development of mmo features is never one time offer, discountinuing development is sign of game lifecycle coming to end, that fact alone scares potential players who will spend less on project which might stop existing in near future, less sales means less profit, less profit means that investors are more likely to back out leaving warframe without any funding.

 

You see no risk in such action??

 

At the same time its no risk in singleplayer games which require no servers, but once warframe servers go down everything is lost.

 

Even skipping whole features part, if youre going to accustom consumers with high standards then lowering these standards will have negative impact on sales.

Edited October 14, 2014 by Davoodoo

[DiabolusUrsus]

Development of mmo features is never one time offer, discountinuing development is sign of game lifecycle coming to end, that fact alone scares potential players who will spend less on project which might stop existing in near future, less sales means less profit, less profit means that investors are more likely to back out leaving warframe without any funding.

 

You see no risk in such action??

 

At the same time its no risk in singleplayer games which require no servers, but once warframe servers go down everything is lost.

 

What exactly are you on about?

 

Are you suggesting that if Archwing either doesn't make money or stops making money, they're going to remove it? Because that's all this is. It's taking an idea like Archwing (not Archwing specifically, just some similar aspect of gameplay) and paying the devs to complete it, because it's a feature that is not expected to generate revenue on its own. Like "Hey, we'll pay you X dollars to add this new set of enemies to the game!" Once those enemies are in, they don't need further funding. They're not going to be "discontinued." The devs will just go back to working on other things. 

 

So yeah, this would be a one-time offer for the development of a specific feature. If there's no funding, no development time is spent on it. So where exactly is the risk in that? This isn't replacing anything that is already happening in Warframe. It's purchasing specific bonus content, kind of like DLC, except it's for the community at large, not just the people who buy it. 

 

Where did servers come into this? This has nothing to do with servers. This has nothing to do with generating revenue. This isn't going to affect investors in any way. 

[Davoodoo]

What exactly are you on about?

 

Are you suggesting that if Archwing either doesn't make money or stops making money, they're going to remove it? Because that's all this is. It's taking an idea like Archwing (not Archwing specifically, just some similar aspect of gameplay) and paying the devs to complete it, because it's a feature that is not expected to generate revenue on its own. Like "Hey, we'll pay you X dollars to add this new set of enemies to the game!" Once those enemies are in, they don't need further funding. They're not going to be "discontinued." The devs will just go back to working on other things. 

 

So yeah, this would be a one-time offer for the development of a specific feature. If there's no funding, no development time is spent on it. So where exactly is the risk in that? This isn't replacing anything that is already happening in Warframe. It's purchasing specific bonus content, kind of like DLC, except it's for the community at large, not just the people who buy it. 

 

Where did servers come into this? This has nothing to do with servers. This has nothing to do with generating revenue. This isn't going to affect investors in any way. 

Being constantly updated is golden standard for mmos.

 

They dont need to remove any features, they will lose players as soon as theyll stop making updates, thats everything they need to do.

If someone decides that they are gonna play this game cause it have archwing and suddenly de decides that they dont have money to improve archwing because crowdfunders didnt pay then guy who liked archwing will quit game sooner or later, its guaranteed to happen.

 

Every lost player is potential customer being lost, every customer being lost is money lost, money lost means that investors wont fund project which loses money, if investors wont fund this project then servers will eventually go down.

Edited October 14, 2014 by Davoodoo

[Mokkania]

still on a lockdown...

Development of mmo features is never one time offer, discountinuing development is sign of game lifecycle coming to end, that fact alone scares potential players who will spend less on project which might stop existing in near future, less sales means less profit, less profit means that investors are more likely to back out leaving warframe without any funding.

 

You see no risk in such action??

 

At the same time its no risk in singleplayer games which require no servers, but once warframe servers go down everything is lost.

you don't understand when they say it's a project proposition? it's not continuous development and there are zero relations to any investors policy.

I ask DE to try to go for a project let's say "it was archwing", the project is estimated for X month and need Y money, people who are up to it can invest in aim for that Y money X months, and additionnally have some access privileges for feedback.

At the end of that Y money X months, archwing is coming out

The point is DE are up to working on something that players are "asking" for and willing to pay for it.

 

Of course there is a risk,

there is the risk that they don't manage to do it for how much money they raised, or any kind of things that make the money end as no return whatever the circumstances leading to that.

I also consider that somewhat idealistic as an idea but if they're up for it...

[Liminal]

I agree with everything except the DE cannot fix the game from it's flawed implementation. I hope the original idea of this thread changes things.

Well, yeah, they can. But I'm  pretty sure they won't. Apart from the time and effort it would take it would surely piss off a lot of players.

[DiabolusUrsus]

Being constantly updated is golden standard for mmos.

 

They dont need to remove any features, they will lose players as soon as theyll stop making updates, thats everything they need to do.

If someone decides that they are gonna play this game cause it have archwing and suddenly de decides that they dont have money to improve archwing because crowdfunders didnt pay then guy who liked archwing will quit game sooner or later, its guaranteed to happen.

 

Every lost player is potential customer being lost, every customer being lost is money lost, money lost means that investors wont fund project which loses money, if investors wont fund this project then servers will eventually go down.

 

Again, what are you on about? How would this stop Warframe from being updated? Once the feature is a part of the main game, it should be a matter of course that it continue to change in accordance with the development of the game as a whole. Do you think Melee 2.0 was a direct source of income for DE? You shouldn't. Yet it is continuing to develop. Do you think Focus is going to be a direct source of income for DE? (It's not going to be.) Focus development is still happening. 

 

You sure are fond of going on about potential lost players, but have you seen the stats for Warframe's player retention? It's been a while since that thread was up and running, but they weren't good, and I can't see how they could have gotten better considering the game's development history. It's pretty useless to do nothing but talk about all the things that could go wrong, when they're the exact same as the things that will go wrong if we don't preemptively make efforts to fix them. 

[Davoodoo]

still on a lockdown...

you don't understand when they say it's a project proposition? it's not continuous development and there are zero relations to any investors policy.

I ask DE to try to go for a project let's say "it was archwing", the project is estimated for X month and need Y money, people who are up to it can invest in aim for that Y money X months, and additionnally have some access privileges for feedback.

At the end of that Y money X months, archwing is coming out

The point is DE are up to working on something that players are "asking" for and willing to pay for it.

 

Of course there is a risk,

there is the risk that they don't manage to do it for how much money they raised, or any kind of things that make the money end as no return whatever the circumstances leading to that.

I also consider that somewhat idealistic as an idea but if they're up for it...

The problem of this idea is that its worst case scenario is its success.

 

1)If it gonna be one time then you will get content which isnt improved upon and will quickly get forgotten, meaning that it was wasted oppurtunity.

 

2)To improve it they need to get money from somewhere.

 

3)Its either crowdfunding or investors.

 

4)Investors are gonna demand that this content brings money thus changing it into everything that we already have in game, meaning that we havent achieved anything.

 

5)We wont bring endless money to develop that content further since crowdfunding will never be reliable, meaning that either development of that feature needs to be discountinued or they need to look for more stable source of funding.

[-FrostByte-]

i'll complain when the game is 100% finished. we only have about half the game so far

[Lukap99]

i'll complain when the game is 100% finished. we only have about half the game so far

The game will never be "finished" mate. That sounds about as logical as saying that WoW shouldn't get any expansions until they're 100% with the game.

Unless you're talking about the mechanics, in which case I agree.

But we're also asked to give feedback, so feel free to complain if something in the game doesn't quite satisfy your needs for fun.

And by complain, I mean give feedback, not whine that something isn't exactly how you like it.

 

[Mokkania]

The problem of this idea is that its worst case scenario is its success.

 

1)If it gonna be one time then you will get content which isnt improved upon and will quickly get forgotten, meaning that it was wasted oppurtunity.

 

2)To improve it they need to get money from somewhere.

 

3)Its either crowdfunding or investors.

 

4)Investors are gonna demand that this content brings money thus changing it into everything that we already have in game, meaning that we havent achieved anything.

 

5)We wont bring endless money to develop that content further since crowdfunding will never be reliable, meaning that either development of that feature needs to be discountinued or they need to look for more stable source of funding.

I'm not sure, I think you're associating too closely project production workload with after-production updates/fixes workload.

[Sylaenius]

The hilarious thing that people in general and certainly Davoodoo seem to forget is; A game being good and enjoyable is what has greater potential to make short term cash and ultimately make more money over a longer period.

 

You want to attract people to your game?  Make it fun and interesting.

 

You want to make money in your game?

 

You have two options; You can neglect gameplay and release Shiny Things™ every three months so the portion of your player base that plays casually (1- 16 hours weekly) will always have something to do, but may get sick of the grind just enough to take the presented option to buy items with real cash-

 

Or you can have the game be fun and enticing to play for it's rich story, intriguing lore, and deep, challenging, and rewarding gameplay, with the in game cash market acting as a way to enhance gameplay by allowing easier acquisition of weaponry so as to get to the fun stuff faster or make your stuff reflect yourself through cosmetic customization.

 

 

It is my opinion that Warframe went from the latter to the former at some point in the last two years. Shiny Things™ you are forced to buy with either hours or cash can only hold your player's attention so long as they are there to acquire. Current F2P doctrine is wholly focused on this form of monetization, but what every company ever soon finds out is once the shallow content dries up, so does player interest.

 

Since an actual good game is an end and money-maker unto itself, funding projects that increase the depth of Warframe as a game, and improve it as a product will have any costs of upkeep and maintenance on these systems absorbed and surpassed by the consumer retention the game being good would facilitate.

 

TL;DR If Warframe is fun and well made, then the cost incurred by maintaining content generated by this system will be subsumed by the revenue generated from the people attracted to, and retained by, the game being good. Thusly, it is not a risk.

 

Edit: I also don't think people get that a good game will encourage customers to pay more money and buy more crap simply because it's good and enjoyable.

 

There have been games I have played before where I made purchases of 50 or even 100 dollars when I only had to buy 5 or 10 dollars worth of cash currency for my purposes. This is a thing. While it clearly isn't a dependable form of revenue, it happens, people do it, and it's simple psychology and sociology, and yes, simple marketing, that if people like your product, they will buy more of it, and pay more for it.

 

Double edit because myeh; Also, if the gameplay and game shines, then the Shiny Things™ will also shine. People buy stuff that shines.

Edited October 14, 2014 by Sylaenius

[Mokkania]

uh you spoiled my second point

 

about the investors having a go in a project needing to bring money out

 

Once the production project is finished it should be able to join the normal development system, should investors have a say on the project maintenance pumping on their own investment system?

Not necessarily, it's not as if each and every project by themselves are supposed to bring out money, if it contribute to the game in general as one of its assets it works too. (though the phrasing can give out interpretations I think you can guess the meaning)

[Davoodoo]

uh you spoiled my second point

 

about the investors having a go in a project needing to bring money out

 

Once the production project is finished it should be able to join the normal development system, should investors have a say on the project maintenance pumping on their own investment system?

Not necessarily, it's not as if each and every project by themselves are supposed to bring out money, if it contribute to the game in general as one of its assets it works too. (though the phrasing can give out interpretations I think you can guess the meaning)

Whose gonna pay to develop these features after they start with crowdfunding??

Investors are gonna demand to monetize it and if de can make it without any additional funding then what was crowdfunding for??

 

I wouldnt mind if de simply paid off all investors and decided to keep game running with microtransactions alone while asking for crowdfunding for additional features, it brings no risk to de themselves, as soon as players decide they dont want to pay anymore they simply wont and no new content will be developed. I could have some objections about microtransactions being put into crowdfunded stuff but as long as i find it fair it would be ok.

But combining regular investment with crowdfunding is huge risk to whole project due to crowdfunding part being unreliable and investors usually tend to avoid unneccesary risks.

Edited October 14, 2014 by Davoodoo

[Mokkania]

So you're back to one view thing

1 project, just one project, why do you always put it as a general funding system? Can be a one time or occasional thing.

 

They are too much uncertain element with the way you say it,

the crowdfunding is not an engagement from DE to always go crowdfunding their projects, it's a two way engagement for both DE and the people willing to pay but it will never happen if DE is not interested in trying that kind of risk or similarly if some higher up investor things~ don't "allow" something like that. That's where risk doesn't matter, no matter what people say if they don't want to do it they won't do it they don't have any obligation, it's just and idea someone made, they can do it or not, weight the pros and cons, think about the risk or whatnot, get pressured to avoid something like that or not. Whatever.

The game is running as if normal, the only concerned things by crowdfunding is 1 thing, 1 project at a certain time, why can't DE work normally as always until now on their other projects? Do they work only on one project at a time?

When you say you'd prefer that they just keep the game running on microtransactions, you're also missing the underlying reason for what OP asks for.

 

 

Whose gonna pay to develop these features after they start with crowdfunding??

You haven't read what is above or you're once again on the separation of crowdfunding project and running microtransactions as a global fund system.

 

Investors are gonna demand to monetize it and if de can make it without any additional funding then what was crowdfunding for??

You haven't read what is above

and you're also missing the point from OP,

what is crowdfunding for?

 

If you still don't bring something that make it seem you understand I'll limit myself to only one last post

[Davoodoo]

So you're back to one view thing

1 project, just one project, why do you always put it as a general funding system? Can be a one time or occasional thing.

 

They are too much uncertain element with the way you say it,

the crowdfunding is not an engagement from DE to always go crowdfunding their projects, it's a two way engagement for both DE and the people willing to pay but it will never happen if DE is not interested in trying that kind of risk or similarly if some higher up investor things~ don't "allow" something like that. That's where risk doesn't matter, no matter what people say if they don't want to do it they won't do it they don't have any obligation, it's just and idea someone made, they can do it or not, weight the pros and cons, think about the risk or whatnot, get pressured to avoid something like that or not. Whatever.

The game is running as if normal, the only concerned things by crowdfunding is 1 thing, 1 project at a certain time, why can't DE work normally as always until now on their other projects? Do they work only on one project at a time?

When you say you'd prefer that they just keep the game running on microtransactions, you're also missing the underlying reason for what OP asks for.

 

 

You haven't read what is above or you're once again on the separation of crowdfunding project and running microtransactions as a global fund system.

 

You haven't read what is above

and you're also missing the point from OP,

what is crowdfunding for?

 

If you still don't bring something that make it seem you understand I'll limit myself to only one last post

Ill start from beginning.

 

Crowdfunding is gonna pay to start developing certain features and in the way OP mentioned its meant to start funding any project that wouldnt bring money by itself.

But how is it gonna be finished, working on something and expanding upon isnt free, there needs to be money coming from somewhere, still no one explained where this money would come from, so i looked into 5 possible options, 1.further crowdfunding, 2.investors, 3.self funding, 4. monetization, 5.no further development

Option number 1 is too unreliable to fund continous development.

Option number 2 will lead to option number 4

Option number 3 would simply mean that our initial funding was unnecessary

Option number 4 wouldnt provide any changes from what we currently have in the long run

Option number 5 would mean that we funded something that aint gonna benefit us in the long run and players interested in this content would start leaving.

 

You ignored all of these and pretend like money gonna rain from sky and it will nicely develop into what we want.

 

Also do you think that 1 or 2 projects are gonna satisfy all our needs for content we wont normally get due to ROI based decisions.

I doubt it, especially that you got no plan to develop it further past initial phase.

 

The whole problem is this idea being combined with their normal work routine, succes or failure of each of these projects will affect warframe as whole, even if these projects arent monetized at all they will bring players which might and probably will spend money on monetized stuff, meaning that every loss of player caused by these projects are gonna affect sales and create problems with investors.

 

To sum it up, even if these project are best thing ever happened to gaming which is very unlikely, unless you continously expand them they are gonna be the cause of player loss, to continously expand these features you will need money, no one gonna make content which cannot bring money on its own without external funding, but every change to make it bring money are gonna make that content worse, the whole point of this idea is to create content which wont be brought down by microtransactions, walls and ROI decisions, thats where whole idea falls apart though.

 

With this i finished that discussion.

If de ever decides to adopt this idea, god help us all.

Edited October 15, 2014 by Davoodoo

[Sylaenius]

-snip-

Your question "How will DE pay for these projects after they're implemented and crowdfunding no longer pays them? IE Updates and bug fixes".

 

 

My answer; Content that builds the game into an attractive, fun, and deep product pays for itself in player retention.

 

It's the same concept of putting solar panels on a house, you reduce the amount of your electric bill and bring up the overall value of your house by a decent margin.

 

Good content brings more players to the game, and keeps them there, and a certain number of them will be paying players. That is what will pay for this content post-crowd fund.

 

I mean really, according to your logic Melee or Warframe Abilities would never have been implemented in the game as they cannot be monetized. Yet they are there, and they are why some people decided to pick up Warframe, and stayed playing.

[AlphaHorseman]

Having a limited amount of Devs work on something that is so integral to the game could and pretty much will be detrimental. We must realize that all the areas that we see in the game are a product of all those at DE pitching in. Mynki gives the concept art for a frame, Steve and the others do the rendering, Geoff guys flesh it out with animations, and Scott does the balancing and powers for it. There is no way that 3 devs or a small team of devs could be able to create something so massive for the game, they'd have to work in tandem with one another.

 

I like what you're suggesting, the depth of the game part, but splitting up the resources of people (not money) that DE has available isn't going to be helpful in the long-run. Sure we'll get things done, but with a smaller team that'll have a huge amount of work. Keep in mind that they're also limited to their functions, and seeing how these proposed systems work in tandem with the other systems in the game is something we have to consider as well. Sure, we have a small dev team working on a system and how it works, and we see that this system works wonders on its own. But, throw that system into gameplay with the other variables and systems we currently have working in warframe at hand, and the situation may prove entirely different.

 

I'd personally say that DE is too focused on the breadth of the game, and are plugging all their resources into those systems rather than the depth of it. I've played 1200 hours of this game, and I know many of you have either done the same or more so, as such we feel this lack of depth more potently than most. I'd rather hope that we can convince DE to be able to add the depth of the game, and focus more on that, as we already have systems in-game that need some massive work. It feels like they've given us the beginnings of great systems, but have failed to continue to flesh these systems out.

 

To give examples:

              -Spectres

              -Mod Balance

              -Mission dynamics (per mission, not number of mission types)

              -Story

              -Quests

              -Damage (both melee and ranged)

              -Balance

 

And I'm sure you can give more. Although ArchWing is gonna be an interesting addition to the game, its still not something that can keep players that are into whatever we would call "late game" content for long. The question is, how do we convince DE that Depth must be taken into consideration more-so than width at this point in time?