How much would you pay for PS?

[AgentX_003]

Wait, how did your map idea differ than mine? You just put 3 maps instead of 1. :P

I explained that I said 1 simply because there are next to no maps even planned. The point I'm making is that at one point something would have to be held back. I agree that holding back resolutions or graphical quality is a drastic measure to ensure money (or more likely crush yourself), but that it's simply another thing that's within their power to hold back. It's taken to an extreme, yes, but still something.

Plus how you put it, would there be a constant need to buy new Map packs as they became available? Because that is a good strategy also, as that ensures that as long as you create content people will potentially give money.

However, this whole time I was talking about a 1 time fee of a little more, but everything afterwards being free (like how Minecraft or TF2 works).

Hellllllllllllll No! that's the plague of all games today paying for downloadable content. I'm sorry but who ever was the inventor for that should be shot and whatever grotesque anomaly  you can think of . What ever happened to expansion packs ! sorry if im getting off course here but PS having the feature to download the maps auto matically within the game is the best because thats what killed chaostheory because no one knew about mr.mic's map pack in the begging , only those who actually knew about it and for all the euros who got left in the dark find out about it 4 years later of its release/ not just euros but everyone who was soo glued to what Ubisoft was producing and not focusiong on community created content.

[Spekkio]

The major issue with a limited free version is that it splits the player base, making the game experience less enjoyable to everyone. That's why my free copy of Angry Birds doesn't limit me in that way, although that's a singleplayer example and may be apples to oranges.

Oh repostingink since it was last post on previous page...

http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2012/04/opinion-kohler-video-expensive/

[Farley4Fan]

actually there is a huge market now for this kind of game esp. due to the fact people from xbox/ps2 are dying to
play a game like this because of the overall shutdown of original xbox live games/discontinuation of service on the ps2 , that including Splintercell chaostheory/ but also due to the overall enhancements PS is bringing to the table.I know alot of people who would buy this.

[Cronky]

Hellllllllllllll No! that's the plague of all games today paying for downloadable content. I'm sorry but who ever was the inventor for that should be shot and whatever grotesque anomaly  you can think of . What ever happened to expansion packs ! sorry if im getting off course here but PS having the feature to download the maps auto matically within the game is the best because thats what killed chaostheory because no one knew about mr.mic's map pack in the begging , only those who actually knew about it and for all the euros who got left in the dark find out about it 4 years later of its release/ not just euros but everyone who was soo glued to what Ubisoft was producing and not focusiong on community created content.

While I understand what you're getting at Agent, and I too don't really like the flood of DLC map packs (especially when they cost money), it would be one way that PS COULD monetize the game. I still think that a good way to go about it would be a higher priced, but 1 time payment of the game. Couple this with a limited, yet very open, free version of the game to get those who aren't sure whether they would like it or not time to get to know the game.

Imagine the "limited" version would have access to (and this is going by Meister's comments) 2 Dev maps (Lake House, Asylum) and 1 community map (Puu's Roka(?)). Nothing is stopping you from playing those 3 maps. No gadget restrictions, no move restrictions and you can play any mode available for those maps.

What you potentially don't have access to is:
-The PS Editor (map maker thing)
-Ability to upload/download/use community maps
-No further dev maps will become available (at least for a long while. After a year or so you should probably release another map or 2 to free players as a way to refresh the free experience.)
-Community dev parts of the forum

::Edit:: (iffy stuff):
-Access to ranked games


Basically all the parts of PS that will KEEP it enjoyable and keep it from stagnating like PT/CT did.

The major issue with a limited free version is that it splits the player base, making the game experience less enjoyable to everyone. That's why my free copy of Angry Birds doesn't limit me in that way, although that's a singleplayer example and may be apples to oranges.

Oh repostingink since it was last post on previous page...

http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2012/04/opinion-kohler-video-expensive/

My main reply is the newer explanation of what the limited free version could be above. I think your example of Angry Birds, while good, is also a single player means of revenue. Since isn't the free version also supported with Ads? Or is it just that Angry Birds paid for itself like 2 years ago and they made it free to breath new life into it?

Ad supported games work, but I think they rely mostly on a bigger player base because of the low amount of change you get for each "customer". Something that right now it doesn't look like the stealth multiplayer genre has.

[clown358]

what about adding ads on the website? if the game is good, everyone will talk about the game and more people will visit your website to download project stealth.

[Cronky]

A good idea clown, but I believe that would fall under the same type of problem that having an ad supported game would. Selling ad space on a site, as far as I know, is not a hugely profitable venture. It takes tremendous amounts of traffic through a site for you to see even a small chunk of money.

While yes, if the game is good then there would be more traffic, the idea is that the game first has to generate buzz before any of that will work. Also just because a person plays the game may not mean that they have to visit the site. Perhaps once or twice, yes, but I'd assume that most of the games content would be handled in-game and not outside on the website.

In short, if they wanted the best bang for their buck then selling ad space on the website would probably fall short by a bit.

[frvge]

Meister, we just doubled our programming team and sound designers. We didn't get much done in 2011 because of MIA people, but those have been replaced. However, with that doubling done, we hope to pump out some new stuff to glue the code together faster.

New people:
BearInATie (HUD and generalist programer)
RedOne (Core programmer)
frvge (genelist programmer) <--- yes, I learned UScript

MIA people:
Lennard :( but we're hoping he'll be back after he finishes his education in a few months.

People who left:
Zedblade. He got other things to do.

[NeoSuperior]

 thx for the info^^



you did not answer my question though, if a playable version of PS had a "best case scenario"-chance of being released at the end of 2012?  Well if you said "I really have no clue if it takes 1 or 3 years", then that would be a satisfying answer for me too.

[VaNilla]

I don't know if you guys work to internal deadlines, but it would definitely help if you did. If you have all the time in the world, then you allow yourself to slave over small decisions for months, reducing both your creativity and efficiency. That's how it seems from the outside :P

[Spekkio]

Every economic model requires a large volume to turn a decent profit. Even if you charged $60 for the game, you'd only make hundreds for half a decade worth of work without a very large number of people purchasing the game.

The advantage of ads is that the revenue never stops.

I find it ironic that Cronky would say one can't make a profit off website ads when Google and Facebook make all of their money that way.

[AgentX_003]

Meister, we just doubled our programming team and sound designers. We didn't get much done in 2011 because of MIA people, but those have been replaced. However, with that doubling done, we hope to pump out some new stuff to glue the code together faster.

New people:
BearInATie (HUD and generalist programer)
RedOne (Core programmer)
frvge (genelist programmer) <--- yes, I learned UScript

MIA people:
Lennard :( but we're hoping he'll be back after he finishes his education in a few months.

People who left:
Zedblade. He got other things to do.

seeing the news about zed kinda made me die a little inside.

[DreadStunLock]

Definitely going to miss Zed, he helped me out so much in my College coursework it's unbelievable, hell if it wasn't for him I wouldn't get the best University portfolio out of 75 candidates. D:

R.I.P Zed "Tim" Blade. :(

[Cronky]

Every economic model requires a large volume to turn a decent profit. Even if you charged $60 for the game, you'd only make hundreds for half a decade worth of work without a very large number of people purchasing the game.

The advantage of ads is that the revenue never stops.

I find it ironic that Cronky would say one can't make a profit off website ads when Google and Facebook make all of their money that way.

The context of the discussion was talking about an ad supported website for a game. That it may not be as worthwhile a venture as other options they could take. It's not that it's IMPOSSIBLE to make money from ads on a Website, but you do need a large audience to make that worthwhile. Google and Facebook's website don't have any bars associated with accessing their sites other than needing an internet connection and a computer (or phone, or tablet, etc.). From there they are Web-based and don't have the heft of their content located on a client outside of the web. So people who want to use Facebook usually have to go through Facebook. It's the same situation with Google.

Do you think PS has the same potential market as Facebook or Google's? Keep in mind I was only talking about an ad supported website, not an ad supported game.

R.I.P Zed "Tim" Blade. :(

...I feel like I missed something...

[Spekkio]

Cronky, I wasn't trying to say that you could make as much as Google. But your revised option still splits the community because the "free" version players only have a handful of original maps and can't download community content. Again, this makes the game less enjoyable for EVERYONE, not just the free players, because the list of people with whom I can play the latest hot map is limited.

It bewilders me that multi-million dollar companies like EA Sports can't understand that charging $60 for a game and then $20 for an expansion a few months later doesn't yield very high profits. Consumers will quickly lose interest in having to pay for expansions so shortly in order to enjoy the latest, and with each expansion the player base becomes more and more split. Additionally, when they add things like new guns/equipment, the player base who doesn't want the expansion gets frustrated with being at a competitive disadvantage and stops playing.

That economic model is not where you guys ought to go. You need to focus on ways to generate revenue that promote openness and a larger community. Sadly, a little add on the screen here or there may be the only way to accomplish both of those goals.

[NeoSuperior]

Yes, don't fall down to EA's niveau! They got nerves to publish something with a "Day 1 DLC"...