Project Stealth

Alright people here is the big question...

How much would you realistically pay for Project Stealth?

I'm putting emphasis on realistically, as I know everyone wants to give the PS team a million billion dollars for their ongoing creation, but who really has that? I also know at least a few people have said that they would pay 60+ dollars for it, but how well do you think PS would sell if it initially had that price? So think harder than that hypothetical "I would give them the world just to play" mentality and ask yourself how much you would actually pay for PS.

Related side question, what do you think a fair price tag would be for PS?

As a side note: if you want, you can list the amount in a post. If you are uncomfortable doing so in public but you still want to have us notice, you can PM me.

I would pay £30 as a hardcore fan of SvM, but realistically I don't think it would sell for more than £15. There's so much competition in the market; games like TF2 are free to play, CS:GO wont sell for more than £20, there's no way Project Stealth could compete in that price bracket. And most 'indie' games don't sell for any more than £10.

I think people would be most comfortable paying £10 for the game. The market for hardcore stealth games is pretty small, and the only other game that's been released with SvM is Splinter Cell, so most people don't know a lot about it. It's a risky purchase for anyone who's unfamiliar with the genre. You will need great marketing and a great price to sell this game.

I would start emailing sites like IGN and Kotaku with information about the game. I would make a weekly series of videos explaining the SvM genre, all leading up to the final release of the game. I would start with the basic rules of the game. Then I would move onto equipment, teamwork, and so on. Once the final video was released, I would make a countdown on the Project Stealth website, leading up to a Launch Trailer and the release of the game on Steam.

Thought I realize it's ground-up work, I'd consider paying what I'd comparably pay for a deep expansion pack for a AAA game. Anywhere from $20-$40.

I just read an interesting article on wired.com about video game pricing [summary:  console games are too expensive in lieu of free to $3 mobile products]. If PS cost money, the initial pricing is going to have to be about $5 with a free trial option to get people hooked. Anything more than that and the 5 people who pay over 20 for the game will be left scratching their heads wondering how they can get a game. PS isnt competing in the AAA market, you guyzs juat don't have the resources for that. Also, the traditional pricing scheme of games revolves around people getting bored enough in time for your sequel, which as far as I can tell isn't your goal. Your best hope for cashing in is ad revenue on the free version. If the game catches on, the revenue would also give you a steady stream of money to provide updates to keep people hooked to make more ad money to provide more updates etc etc.

I paid 10 for Deathspank, an indy Adventure game. Do you really think an indy stealth game is worth 3-4 times that amount?

Sorry for typos on mobile phone.

Other -

Will wait for beta to decide donation amount.  You guys either get 46 cents or my entire trust fund.  Make it gewd.

Honestly, I know I wouldnt pay any more than 30-40 US dollars for any game that would mostly be played for 1/2 of its total content, In this case its multiplayer aspects (no offense), as apposed to its single player story.  A great example was Halo  ODST (which released at 40 dollars since it was not a full single player game experience).

Just my opinion though. 

/FlameShield

nothing. Because, if I understand right, this game should bring players in who are interested. But there are not many stealth-based asymetric multiplayer games. I doubt many people would play it, if people have to pay for it. HOWEVER of course you could just change your opinion later, if the number of people is higher than expected (like for example in minecraft).

my speculation:


if it costs >10 € or $, number of players after a year:   20

if it costs around 10 € or $, number of players after a year:   100

if it costs nothing, number of players after a year:   250+


well this is only my opinion and i would PROBABLY pay for it with 10€ MAX, but that would in my opinion destroy any possibility for building up a bigger fanbase.

@Frvge,

How are you going to pay for the servers without any income out of the game?

Because I remember we spoke about this, and you said that it is NOT going to be possible to use JUST Tunngle or Hamachi to create Lan games and play them, since you need to have a somesort of a global/main server of somekind?

Or something alike.

The reason I ask, is because I am not playing a game that uses servers that are being paid for out of a single developers job. It's immoral to me.

I would pay everything even up to 40-50$ ( for me it's 3.2PLN x $ - so kinda expensive, more expensive than retail newest games ) if game will be  a success and worth playing it. But...

this game is aiming into rice dot of gaming market. We can't hope for milions of players or success like Minecraft - in my opinion amount of luck needed to grow up so big fanbase is as big as winning on Lottery. :)

If you would want us to pay since first release then you should be sure about your products. IMO, without some kind of hook at the beginning there is no chance for this game to get bigger than CT/PT multiplayer, because people will be simply not interesed in playing this.

@ Dreadstunlock
He will probably provide us just a mastersever which will work like a lobby (like HTTP link, you press and got redirected to proper website) for servers created on client's PC or Dedicated  ( I wonder which companies will offer this in future )

As long as it will cost the developers no cash spent weekly/monthly/yearly, hosting a server for 3 more people including yourself, is not that much of a requirement.

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.

Agent a lot means how many for you ?
5-10-100-200? Because for now even many of CT players have no hope for this game. I doubt they would risk buying this.

You are just too positive :D

Quote from: KnoogeR on April 17, 2012, 06:22:50 PM
Agent a lot means how many for you ?
5-10-100-200? Because for now even many of CT players have no hope for this game. I doubt they would risk buying this.

You are just too positive :D

alot means like 60 dollars or so even 80 Ive heard some say.As long as PS doesn't lose focus of the original task at hand of providing an overall better playing experience with server support in mind, then everything should be fine.

I like all the discussion going on here. A lot of good points have been brought up.

@Spekkio

I tried to find the article on wired.com that you were talking about and the closest I got was an article  (http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2011/06/free-to-play/)on Free-to-Play games and how they can make more money than a one time payment.

That, or an article (http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2012/03/free-games-temple-run/all/1) on the difference between "Pay to Play" vs what they call "Freemium" games.

If you could link the actual article you read then I think that would be good reading material for a lot of people on here. As just reading those two articles above gave some insight, and possible strategies that PS could take, if they were willing. It seems like the idea that you said in terms of how they should release PS would fall more towards the first article. Perhaps a Free-to-Play "trial" of the game would be available. The trial version wouldn't limit the player on gadgets, but maybe maps, or skins, or adjustable colors. Not sure if it would be right, but you could also limit people on system specs, I would think.

Perhaps not the best way to gain fanship, but imagine it was much like how Valve did TF2. You get the game for free, and the minimum for "buying" the game is whatever costs the least at the Mann Co. store. After your first (and potentially only) purchase you get full rein of the game and wont have to worry about paying more unless you want to. PS could limit free players (or trial users) to maybe 1 map, but give them all the gadgets and options within the game to play that map to the full extent. After a one time payment of something reasonable they would get access to the rest of the maps and options for other cosmetic, or perhaps functional, details.

@Knooger

I agree on if there is a payment up-front then there needs to be a strong way to get people to play. Stone touched on some good points saying that a kind of media blowout would help the cause a lot. Though just that is probably not enough.

I like the idea mentioned by Spekkio that I replied to above also. Having the game Free, though perhaps limited in some aspect that would require payment, could give an broad base of potential players without demanding them to pay up front for something they might be unsure of.

@Agent

How many is "a lot" though? Also is that a realistic number that they'd pay (60+ dollars)? I mean, I love video games. I love video games that I am almost assured to be exactly what I want. But none of that mean I would pay upwards to 80 dollars on one video game. Plus even if I pay that much doesn't mean that everyone will.

The question at hand is: How much would you pay for PS? If there was a flat fee that everyone had to pay, what would be your point of no purchase? Again, realistically.

Strangely enough, I perfectly agree with all that meister said. The money would mean a smaller fanbase, which was one of the weak points of SC(PT/CT). As in terms of Donations, I'll agree with knooger: "I'll play, I'll pay"(reminds me of: "Its done, when its done")

Other:  If the beta is good enough, I would easily pay for it.   If you are going to make people pay, there should be a free offline version to just run around a map so people know what they are getting into.  Otherwise people may think it is a waste of money without actually getting a taste.

Quote from: CurdyMilk on April 17, 2012, 07:30:59 PM
Other:  If the beta is good enough, I would easily pay for it.   If you are going to make people pay, there should be a free offline version to just run around a map so people know what they are getting into.  Otherwise people may think it is a waste of money without actually getting a taste.

I can gurantee this will fail. Did you enjoy SCCT even a bit while running around without enemies (aside from finding easter eggs etc)?

Just seeing what spies and mercs can do is not nearly enough to convince someone to pay and play. You must test out the interaction between them, and that is impossible for offline mode.

While it will be me repeating, what would you guys say to a limited, free version of the game? Perhaps only access to 1 map, or perhaps they could do something like limit graphical quality/resolution (HD textures/1920x1080 only available in full version), or something to that extent.

Paying a reasonable price afterwords would unlock those features that were limited before. (I'd estimate somewhere between 5-20 us dollars as reasonable)

It seems like a best of both worlds to me. Kind of like how Minecraft had the free alpha version on the site, but to get the full, constantly updated, beta version you needed to only pay 1 flat fee.

Hmpf. 1 map would not be enough, and limiting resolution..................... Are you SERIOUS?!
(https://community.projectstealthgame.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fprofile.ak.fbcdn.net%2Fhprofile-ak-snc4%2F211115_154796337920523_6380252_q.jpg&hash=21b63cb67987891820b629b3592390b8ff05e88f)

This money talk really scares me a bit... PS will have a REALLY hard time to get fans, even for free, as the number of people looking for it is not very big. If you make them pay for the complete game, I think like 30% will leave because they are "too lazy" for the buying procedure, another 20% will leave because they are angry that it was stated: "look here is PS, a remake of SvM from splinter cell PT/CT! AND IT'S FREE! It will be done when it's done and will be an AWESOME experience!".....
and then all of a sudden at the 6th year frvge comes out and says:









































Although i still wonder what our "20 guests" are thinking about the matter... or are they all just spam bots?

The ideas for what they could limit were just ideas. If the point was (and this is after beta) for the PS devs to make some money off of this, HOW could they do it? Yes, it was originally planned to be free (and may still end up being free), but it was stated by Frvge that they might look into some way to reimburse their time since it took a lot longer than they originally had expected.

You want it to be free, and that's fine, but that wont make much money for the devs unless there is something you would need to buy after the fact. Think of all the Free-to-play games out now. All have some means of giving you the option to pay for something that you otherwise don't have, or could only get if you worked on it for a while.

Is limiting resolution a good idea for free players? No, but it's a drastic idea that I think is within their ability. Other drastic things could include: Voice chat, HD textures, Controller support, etc etc.. Again, good ideas? Not really. Game breaking though? Also No.

Access to only 1 Map on the other hand? It seems a fair deal. You would not be restricted from playing with any gadgets, moves, or game types, but you are restricted to only 1 map. Is 1 map something that's set in stone? No, but it sounds reasonable considering the amount of maps that are planned as of right now (what... 2?)

I don't want to pay for this game because you said it will be for free. But I definitely give a donation about 5$ and depending on the game quality and the fun-factor it can rise up to 10-15$ just to honor the devs.

Welcome to the forum clown!

That is going to be a hurdle they will have to deal with, if they plan on trying to get some money from this project. I would be surprised if the Beta costs anything, which is what we are all looking forward to. The finished game though I would assume is going to try and rake in some money for the like 6 years they've been spending on this.

That's far off though, as Beta isn't even a whisper on the wind with how many times I said the word in this post.

(How many months did I just delay it?)

In a game like PS, where everything is about details, things like limiting the resolution or other graphic aspects ARE GAME BREAKING. It's a fact. When i still had my old comp, i could play SC:DA only on 800x640 without FPS breakdowns... and as merc that was absolutly unplayable. You just couldn't fish out the spy in these black pixels, it just didn't work!

And i think you don't understand my point. Forcing the players to pay for the full game will be contraproductive in the long term. From the moment the game costs something, the number of players will either stagnate, or even fall. But with such a tiny community we have right now, that would burry PS faster than you think...

I think the "base game" or PS 1.0 (including 3 maps: lakehouse, that hospital, and pusianka's roka) should be released free. Then we build up a fanbase and then, only then, there will be extensions, like the "recreated pack", that among other things includes recreations of old CT maps (under different names of course  ;) ), which will be buyable for a small fee (not more than 5€).

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).

Quote from: Cronky on April 18, 2012, 12:02:48 AMHowever, 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).

And the whole time i was talking about, that exactly THAT will backfire. The way you describe it requires a trusting fanbase, that "blindly" buys the game, because they know or at least (can) expect what it is. However in the case of PS, this will exclude almost everyone, who has not played PT/CT. And even not all of the PT/CT people will be guaranteed to buy it. It's also nothing for casual gamers and little CoD kiddies anyway.

But if it is free, then people that "looked around and stumbled on it" may be impressed of PS and join the fanbase. If they would have to pay for PS beforehand, they would not even take a look on it, and therefore not get into the fanbase.
You understand my point now?

Please note that while Cronky is in the "awesome" team (which basically means board moderator), he is not part of the Dev Team and is mostly trying to get the discussion going.

Thusfar really interesting :)

Yeah... but on top of the little more of a fee there was a free version that was "limited" with what I was saying. This free version was the one that we just went on about with the 1 or 3 maps available...

Quote from: Cronky on April 17, 2012, 08:33:19 PM
While it will be me repeating, what would you guys say to a limited, free version of the game? Perhaps only access to 1 map, or perhaps they could do something like limit graphical quality/resolution (HD textures/1920x1080 only available in full version), or something to that extent.

Paying a reasonable price afterwords would unlock those features that were limited before. (I'd estimate somewhere between 5-20 us dollars as reasonable)

It seems like a best of both worlds to me. Kind of like how Minecraft had the free alpha version on the site, but to get the full, constantly updated, beta version you needed to only pay 1 flat fee.

I think we are getting mixed up on what each other are talking about. The only difference between our ideas is that you said 3 maps available from the start (assuming there will be a lot more at the time that a price comes out), and I said 1 (because I don't know of any other maps being developed beyond what the PS devs have made public).

Quote from: frvge on April 18, 2012, 12:30:55 AM
Please note that while Cronky is in the "awesome" team (which basically means board moderator), he is not part of the Dev Team and is mostly trying to get the discussion going.

Thusfar really interesting :)

Too true. I don't claim to have any say about what the PS Devs will do with the game when it's completed. I just have a fancy green bar under my name.

When the time comes, i want all presently active members to have some badass bars too!


And Cronky, I think a "limited" game is OK, but in my opinion 1 map is not enough. I think 3 would be the right amount. Well there is still time and with luck we will have PS-? at the end of 2012 (before the world is supposed to end), but PS 1.0 will take it's time after that i think... oh right frvge, if you can answer it, is there at least an "existing chance" that a ?-version will be released at the end of 2012?

Link to wired.com article

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

Aptly titled "Video Games Can't Afford to Cost this Much."

Quote from: Cronky on April 18, 2012, 12:02:48 AM
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.

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/

Quote from: AgentX_003 on April 17, 2012, 06:18:47 PM
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.

Quote from: AgentX_003 on April 18, 2012, 01:48:17 AM
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.

Quote from: Spekkio on April 18, 2012, 02:27:13 AM
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.

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.

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.

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.

 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.

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

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.

Quote from: frvge on April 18, 2012, 10:22:44 PM
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.

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. :(

Quote from: Spekkio on April 19, 2012, 02:36:39 AM
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.

Quote from: DreadStunlock on April 19, 2012, 05:15:41 AM
R.I.P Zed "Tim" Blade. :(

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

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.

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

What if the game needs a permanent connection to your server (like splinter cell conviction)? and if someone develops an application for iphone/android to get access to leaderboards and customizing the spies/mercs classes (like call of duty elite)? I think this would cause high traffic....

Quote from: clown358 on April 20, 2012, 03:57:59 PM
What if the game needs a permanent connection to your server (like splinter cell conviction)? and if someone develops an application for iphone/android to get access to leaderboards and customizing the spies/mercs classes (like call of duty elite)? I think this would cause high traffic....

No, it would just rise the laags, because it must be a dual connection (to host and to main site), but jokes aside, I would really have a good laugh, if PS copy-pasted from ubisofts ways...


Or how about making it only playable, if you have EA-Origin, Steam AND Ubisoft game launcher installed? I am VEEEERY sure it would rise the traffic too. /sarcasm

EDIT: Oh i forgot Securom 2.0

I hate DRM. However, we might go with Steam, but then mostly for the big market. We'll see.

Steam is DRM done right. I can't think of any other DRM service customers actively want to install with everything they own.

frvge's signature says it all.

Piracy didn't rise because "the DRM was not good enough", but instead because it was "too good".

Quote from: Spekkio on April 20, 2012, 04:57:08 AM
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.

It limits people, yes, but because that is how that economic model works. It's giving a trial or a demo of the game. You need a way, with this model, that gives the customer a reason to pay (as with all models though). You can hold off a lot worse things if you were particularly evil, but the revised options I said seem like the best way in my head IF they wanted to use that method.

Ad supported games share a similar problem though. Though it's not limiting people with access to features, it does usually limit access to the convenience of the given features. If we are still talking about mobile games with this model then you are paying to play the game faster and smoother. As mobile games are usually played in short bursts, this means that you can get more gaming in in less time. Sometimes this is coupled on with added bonuses like extra items that would cost you some kind of in-game currency that would take you a long time to get normally. While the Ads help for a part of profit, it's usually coupled with a secondary way for players to give more money.

Usually with non-mobile games you get a similar situation. TF2 has you buy items if you want them now, as an example. After the first purchase you get the full suite of the game without restrictions. It requires that first purchase though to get it all.

The question is does this ad supported model work effectively with PS's gameplay and features? If the PS devs are looking for some kind of profit off the past 6 or so years of work, would this be their best option to choose?

The only game that comes to my mind about a "witholding-stuff-demo" and acutally does it right, is UT2004.

How did that one work? For some reason I'm not remembering an 8 year old game (Not surprising though. I don't remember games released last week). :P

It had most game modes of which each consisted of 1-2 playable maps. Multiplayer was functional with these maps too. campaign of course was not included. I still have it on my comp for Lan purposes (And i have the full game at home too)

But that brings me to another problem with DRM. You can, for example, not play StarCraft 2 over Lan and the same applies to other "DRM hubs" like Battle.Net_2.0, ubisoft game launcher etc. Not sure about steam though. DAMN! What about the good old LAN parties? Damn gamer industry has no love for "gamers".

Oh wow, UT2004 was the first demo I ever downloaded, and the second game I ever played on PC after Vice City :o. Nostalgia.

Quote from: Meister_Neo on April 23, 2012, 11:49:53 PM
It had most game modes of which each consisted of 1-2 playable maps. Multiplayer was functional with these maps too. campaign of course was not included. I still have it on my comp for Lan purposes (And i have the full game at home too)

But that brings me to another problem with DRM. You can, for example, not play StarCraft 2 over Lan and the same applies to other "DRM hubs" like Battle.Net_2.0, ubisoft game launcher etc. Not sure about steam though. DAMN! What about the good old LAN parties? Damn gamer industry has no love for "gamers".

That's pretty much what this "limited" free version of the game would be that I've been talking about. All modes would be unlocked, but you would be limited on the amount of maps you could play. Upon paying a reasonable amount (5-20 dollars or so) you would gain access to all those maps previously locked. One option amongst a sea of other options, but I personally think it's the best one.

It seems like Steam DRM would be the best bet. While it's offline mode is hokey at best, it still has that ability built in. Games like Borderlands can be played over LAN without signing in online into steam.

Plus I think Gearbox, while not having the reputation after Duke Nukem Forever, is still thinking about the PC. ...at least as far as this thing about Borderlands 2 says... (http://www.borderlands2.com/loveletter/?x) It seems dumb that them actually adding those things in though is a big deal now a days (at least they seem to understand that it's ridiculous).

I would pay it like a normal PC Game...
Anyway if it will be f2p by now... i hope that you guys will not make "Pay 4 Win Shops" :|

Thankfully I don't see PS having a tiered weapon system or similar features that usually is the sole purpose of those kinds of shops.

That is... unless the PS devs have something under wraps that they just haven't told us. ;)

Hell no.

hahaha, if frvge really did that, he would be troll of the century.

Cronky, you don't get it. If you give a limited demo version but charge for a "full" version, you are punishing the paying customers by limiting their player base.

Games that are extremely popular like COD4 can get away with this, even though it frustrates most consumers. Games that have a cult following of about a dozen players like PS can't afford to divide the community.

Maybe a few dozen 'active' people, but we do get big leaps in visitors on other pages too.

Spekkio, I do get it. I understand that with this system you are separating your player base into two groups. That's the only way THIS system works though. And with this system you need to give the customer a reason to buy. Gamers are used to that now a days. It's how you pay for game everywhere. Usually potential players are given even less information to base their purchase on though. Giving a "Demo" like I've explained lets players judge the worth of the entirety of the base game (plus a little taste of what's possible). Denying them access to the content outside of the base game is normal.

It's not the only way they could do this though. As you stated, Ads are another possible direction. Selling Map packs is another possibility. You could mix these systems together also, but because of the small market to play with means that you don't want to take TOO many risks. With each system though comes a new set of pros and cons.

With Ads you would need a large, constant, and active community just to make a little bit of money. Nothing says those who play are going to play often just because it's free. Or even that a lot of people with play at all if it's free. Usually games with Ads have a different source of income within their game also. If you are giving your product away for "Free" then usually you try to find multiple ways to profit of it.

Map packs on the other hand could quickly become redundant with community made maps. Why pay for a Dev map pack when you can download as many community ones as you want for free?

In my opinion though the 1 time, reasonable fee, coupled with a pretty open "Demo" of the game is their best bet at making the most money. IF that's what they are wanting to do.

Cronky, define "a little bit of money."

Judging by the amount of people who visit this site regularly, if PS sold 100 copies at $10/ea, they'd make $1k. Then they'd divide that up into however many developers worked on the game. Finally, you divide that by the over half-a-decade worth of work, and you're down to mere pennies an hour. Perhaps ads would generate less revenue than that, I don't know. There are way too many variables to consider, such as longevity, frequency of play, etc. I will concede that the up-front pricing scheme would generate more revenue AT FIRST, but once the game peaks and tapers off, wherever that is, revenue will cease. Either way, neither scheme is going to pay the bills at first, so you might as well try to use one that brings the community together rather than divides it.

But your post hit the nail on the head wrt how ads generate revenue -- you're absolutely correct that for an ad system to generate profit, players have to want to play the game, play it often, and continue to play it. But isn't that the goal of PS? A one-time payment scheme doesn't give any incentive to create a game that has lasting appeal, nor does it create any incentive to give patch support. The developers will make the same amount of money if people play it for 10 minutes or 10 years.

Finally, you keep focusing on giving players a "reason to pay money" without focusing on the reason NOT to pay money. Let's say you release the demo with a pay option, and 35% of people decide to pay for the "full" version (I think it would be a poor assumption that a higher percentage of people will purchase the full version than just use the free version). Let's also be generous and assume 100 people started playing the demo. By paying for the game, I just reduced my player base from 65 people to 35 people. Now of those 35 people, only a smaller percentage are going to be in my time zone and willing to play the game at 8pm-10pm EST. So I just paid money to have access to more maps/features, but now I don't have anyone to play the game with! And there's no singleplayer option to keep me occupied until more people purchase the game. Oh, but now you want to charge money for more individual maps in the future. Well, let's say 2/3 of paying customers purchase your new maps. Now that brings the number down to 24 players who have full access to the game.

Again, the system you describe is punishing a paying customer, but you're not looking at it that way. You're looking at it from the perspective of a seller who thinks he ought to get paid for content. While that is true, the traditional payment scheme you are proposing doesn't work for dedicated online multiplayer games that are intended to lure players in for continued play. It was created for single player games that would be replaced within the year with the next single player game. Nintendo doesn't make more money when I fire up my NES classics, they only make money when I purchase a new Wii game. That's why successful MMORPGs are a subscription service. It's also why Angry Birds can still make money for its developers when I fire it up, but not COD4.

Which is why I do agree revenue should be ad-based, and anyone that wishes to donate freely should be allowed. Good points, Spek.

Quote from: Spekkio on April 26, 2012, 04:40:48 AM
...Just showing a quote to clarify who I'm talking to...

So first off, when I say "a little bit of money", I mean the difference between dimes and dollars.

Secondly, I agree with you that my personal favorite option does not think about longevity of funds. I also am optimistic about the number of players this game will have since competitive multilayer is a popular genre, even if S.A.M. isn't. If only 100 people play PS in total then either option will be a bust if profit was a plan from all this.

Thirdly, while paying for the game in my idea would limit you on the new maps player count initially, this would in no way limit you in overall player base. As paid players could play with free players, on the maps that free players have access to. Yes, shit deal it seems to pay for a product and continue using the stuff you used for free. That's why I suggested more than maps be available to paid players before. None of the things I mentioned though were set in stone. I don't know where the perfect balance would lie in this system, but it's a fact that there WOULD need to be something that would be worth paying for.

Trying another approach... Perhaps the free version would have ads. Perhaps it would also have the ability to create maps and share maps with friends. Then perhaps you have to pay a fee to get an ad free game and the ability to upload the maps to the PS site for others to play freely. I'm not sure what the appropriate way this system would work out would be with this genre and type of game.

I also didn't specifically say that you'd pay for extra maps after you paid for the game. I was pretty clearly against selling map packs in my last post. I did say that it would be possible (though not entirely well thought) to combine the multiple ways to gain money off of PS. As you've said multiple times, as have I, the market for this genre is small. You shouldn't take too many risks lest you shrink the already small pool of people you potentially have. This combining idea holds true with what I said above about ads for free players and a way to pay up front.

Lastly, I AM thinking of this strictly from the PS Devs perspective and how they can get the most money. Not a good way to think probably. Sounds big business-y. So while it all hangs on who would actually pay and how many people actually play, if you could only pick one system then I would probably say their best bet for possibly the most money would be the upfront, 1 time fee with a free demo.

Keep in mind this was an idea initially said by you Spekkio...

Quote from: Spekkio on April 17, 2012, 04:05:14 AM
I just read an interesting article on wired.com about video game pricing [summary:  console games are too expensive in lieu of free to $3 mobile products]. If PS cost money, the initial pricing is going to have to be about $5 with a free trial option to get people hooked.

You have the right to change your opinion, but I'm simply elaborating on how the idea might be able to work. This also is under the assumption that the Beta will be well advertised and completely free.

Even simpler games can get 10k copies sold on Steam, if the price is right.

Yeah, you're deluded if you think a game marketed and then sold on Steam could only muster 100 copies. There's nothing wrong with simply advertising in a free version of the game, and charging for no ads. If the team puts effort into marketing the game (I go into more detail in an earlier post) then they could sell way more than 10k.

Look at Trials Evolution on xbox live arcade. 100k launch day sales, a world record. The game was sold at £10, and the free version is limited. Yet you see no split in the audience. Why? Because there's a lot of content available for the game, and user generated content is embedded by design. This gives people a reason to buy the game if they like it, because there's a huge difference when the game is unlocked. The difference with PS is that the brand has a much smaller following, and there's far less replay value than Trials because there's much less content in the game.

This is why you can't limit content in an early version of PS, there's only going to be 1-2 maps max in the first beta. You'd be best off doing what Mojang did with Minecraft, start at a low price for the beta and increass the price to £10 when the game is in a more complete state. Sorry for the bad grammar, writing from my phone :P

I think it may come down to "do you want to sell (generously) 1000 copies at (for example) $2.99, 200 at $9.99 or 100 at $14.99." Seems to me you'd want to get the game out as much as possible with a revenue system  designed to be long-term, not a one time affair. More people that have it the more that contribute toward the revenue stream, which would have to be something like ad-based.

Cronky, my overall points are 1) the scheme still punishes paying customers, however way you spin it and 2) is that charging a one-time fee lends itself to one-time developer efforts. The devs can't get paid for patches, new content, etc, so they aren't likely to try very long after the game's release ala Ubisoft. Well, they can if they start nickle and diming everyone for DRM, but that's the same type of payment scheme that frustrates consumers with companies like EA Sports. If you want to go that road, we might as well just go back to playing CT because PS will just be an independently developed version of that with regards to lackluster support. The majority of the dev team will move on to bigger and better things with all the money they are going to make off the game already in hand, regardless of how perfect or imperfect it is.

Again, it does punish the paying players, but every way you go about this leads to a situations where someone is punished. If it's not, initially, the paying players (1 time fee) then it's everyone, all the time, with inconveniences (ad based). There's no one right answer, only answers that try to get to the same end in a different way.

I do think you are being very assuming on how the PS devs will support their product post beta though. Yes, some will inevitably leave, there is the possibility though that some will actually stay around.

How about being able to buy an "ad-free" version, and on the other hand being able to play a free version with ads? Then we have a compromise, that sounds OK to me.

I'm personally thinking about that. That's on a personal basis. Not what the team actually wants.

I would pay $60 max. Unless there are some amazing features that make this worth being some subscription based game, then the average price for all games seems about right. However you could do something like give a 50% discount to people who beta test or who do something to help spread the word before release, kind of like how the xsplit pricing was.

Quote from: Cronky on April 26, 2012, 11:13:53 PM
I do think you are being very assuming on how the PS devs will support their product post beta though. Yes, some will inevitably leave, there is the possibility though that some will actually stay around.

No, I just understand economics. If PS becomes about money, then the only way to make more under a single-payment scheme is to charge for additional downloaded content or release a sequel. Patches only serve to generate more sales as glaring bugs/balance issues are discovered, but as the game's lifecycle moves past the sales apex, there's no more reason to patch the game.

Additionally, with such a meager production team, "some" people leaving is enough to stagnate development. Need proof? They still haven't produced an actual game after over 6 years of supposed development.

Finally, ads only punish players if you don't do them right. Putting an ad banner or two on the loading screen, for example, is unobtrusive to the game experience. The "beta" isn't the final retail version, btw...that's why it's called a "beta."

Quote from: Spekkio on April 30, 2012, 04:45:41 AM

Quote from: Cronky on April 26, 2012, 11:13:53 PM
I do think you are being very assuming on how the PS devs will support their product post beta though. Yes, some will inevitably leave, there is the possibility though that some will actually stay around.

No, I just understand economics. If PS becomes about money, then the only way to make more under a single-payment scheme is to charge for additional downloaded content or release a sequel. Patches only serve to generate more sales as glaring bugs/balance issues are discovered, but as the game's lifecycle moves past the sales apex, there's no more reason to patch the game.

But who (and I feel like I'm going to regret saying this) said that PS was only going for the money? Yes, with this topic it's an easy jump from "We would like to get reimbursed for the time it took to make the game" to "We want to sell this game", but those two ideas are far different from each other when put in proper perspective. The perspective being that they don't NEED to put a price on the game, they might just WANT to. They were originally, and may still be, planning on giving it away for free.

Will they still support it at that point? I'd think so, since they've spent the last 6 years supporting it without getting a dime as far as I know.

Does that mean if they do end up putting a price tag (whether 1 time or ad based) on it that they will stop supporting it when the sales dry up? Who knows, but they aren't a company that needs money. That may be a crappy excuse because people need money to live, but the PS Devs don't need to churn out sequels. There is no ramifications of them never making a Project Stealth 2 because there is no need for them to make money in the first place (Other than obvious want for reimbursement of time used again).

Quote from: Spekkio on April 30, 2012, 04:45:41 AM
Additionally, with such a meager production team, "some" people leaving is enough to stagnate development. Need proof? They still haven't produced an actual game after over 6 years of supposed development.

"Some" people will have no use (or very little) once the first real version of the game comes out. Some could be re-purposed, but some may just not have anything to do after their part(s) are done with.

Also I admit 6 years sounds bad, but that's 6 years, what... 2-3 engines (thus major restructuring) and all volunteer work. Had they had an unwavering finish line to cross from the beginning then they could have been done a long time ago. Instead they decided to try to keep it as up-to-date as possible, this being the result.

Quote from: Spekkio on April 30, 2012, 04:45:41 AM
Finally, ads only punish players if you don't do them right. Putting an ad banner or two on the loading screen, for example, is unobtrusive to the game experience.

I agree. Though there are those people that will not be pleased as Ads, regardless of unobtrusive-ness as it will break the experience for them. Minor point, but still there.

Quote from: Spekkio on April 30, 2012, 04:45:41 AM
The "beta" isn't the final retail version, btw...that's why it's called a "beta."

Minecraft has shown us that a Beta can sell if there is enough of a reason to buy outright. PS has little chance of doing that, but the option is always out there.

Nice to see Cronky is still going strong.

Quote from: Savior20061 on May 03, 2012, 02:46:29 AM
Nice to see Cronky is still going strong.

nice to see your still alive :D

Quote from: Savior20061 on May 03, 2012, 02:46:29 AM
Nice to see Cronky is still going strong.

Yup. Still not sure how to get my point across without needing a table of contents for each post. :P

Quote from: AgentX_003 on May 03, 2012, 02:55:43 AM

Quote from: Savior20061 on May 03, 2012, 02:46:29 AM
Nice to see Cronky is still going strong.

nice to see your still alive :D

It's been too long Agent. :'(

Quote from: AgentX_003 on April 17, 2012, 06:18:47 PM
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.

I'm a former Xbox player that logged in way too many hours in PT and CT that would pay $100, if it was perfect and had players playing.  Realistic price point is $20 and cutting the price to $5 during a steam sale, not sure how that works, to rope in other people soon after the release.

But then the people who bought it @ 20 feel like they got boned.  Maybe 15?  Or not too soon after?

1.99$ I would pay.

That's the standard price of CT Versus.

I would gladly play $39.99 USD for a fully polished, and working product. I think PS is a AAA title, and as Indie standards go this would far surpass alot of other Indie games... Long story short the quality and amount of work is well deserving of a $29.99 as a Steam Sale, and $39.99 full price, or Pre-Order.

Quote from: nubishdubishbone on May 12, 2012, 08:54:56 PM
I would gladly play $39.99 USD for a fully polished, and working product. I think PS is a AAA title, and as Indie standards go this would far surpass alot of other Indie games... Long story short the quality and amount of work is well deserving of a $29.99 as a Steam Sale, and $39.99 full price, or Pre-Order.

Yes that seems possible.... if you want the community to consist of 10 people, that is.

Steam? Really...

I wonder how 10-15$ subscription would work. BETA stage for free but with final release you have to pay these 10-15$ every 6 months or so to be able to play. But still it's hard to say what kind of price and payment method will work the best. All matter from amount of people who wants to play this game.

Quote from: KnoogeR on May 13, 2012, 05:06:28 AM
Steam? Really...

I wonder how 10-15$ subscription would work. BETA stage for free but with final release you have to pay these 10-15$ every 6 months or so to be able to play. But still it's hard to say what kind of price and payment method will work the best. All matter from amount of people who wants to play this game.

NO. One of the reasons i never even tried a MMORPG is exactly this. Please don't give the devs weird ideas...

Quote from: Meister_Neo on May 13, 2012, 01:33:19 PM

Quote from: KnoogeR on May 13, 2012, 05:06:28 AM
Steam? Really...

I wonder how 10-15$ subscription would work. BETA stage for free but with final release you have to pay these 10-15$ every 6 months or so to be able to play. But still it's hard to say what kind of price and payment method will work the best. All matter from amount of people who wants to play this game.

NO. One of the reasons i never even tried a MMORPG is exactly this. Please don't give the devs weird ideas...

I don't mean every month, but once or twice a year few dollars is really not much if you want to keep game alive :P

Quote from: KnoogeR on May 13, 2012, 02:36:17 PM

Quote from: Meister_Neo on May 13, 2012, 01:33:19 PM

Quote from: KnoogeR on May 13, 2012, 05:06:28 AM
Steam? Really...

I wonder how 10-15$ subscription would work. BETA stage for free but with final release you have to pay these 10-15$ every 6 months or so to be able to play. But still it's hard to say what kind of price and payment method will work the best. All matter from amount of people who wants to play this game.

NO. One of the reasons i never even tried a MMORPG is exactly this. Please don't give the devs weird ideas...

I don't mean every month, but once or twice a year few dollars is really not much if you want to keep game alive :P

I'm with Neo... it's a bad idea... better have a normal cost, and obiviously an heavy developing.
i hate the words "monthly subscription" and "f2p" (p4w)

Quote from: DreadStunlock on May 12, 2012, 08:36:46 PM
1.99$ I would pay.

That's the standard price of CT Versus.

Just because it's old.

Oh at least 50...  Nothing can top this type of game.

Here is an idea:

1. try to calculate the amount of new personnel and time to finish the mod
2. open a kickstarterpage, asking for the planned amount of cash
3. given that the amount of money is received, hire the planned staff and finish the mod

I know that it may sound a bit simplistic and / or wishfull thinking, but I'd give it a try

We're keeping all options open ;)

Great.

BTW: A couple of days ago I helped funding a game which also will have stealth elements once it's completed.
(http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/486250632/republique-by-camouflaj-logan (http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/486250632/republique-by-camouflaj-logan))

So did I :)

I pretty much hate Steam. That being said, I purchase a ton of cheap indie games from them. I think this would be a great fit at $10 providing decent money and exposure. Then again, if it were free to download and play, I would certainly donate twice that to help reimburse the dev team for all their hard work. Either way, the quality of the final product will surely determine the longevity and profitability of the project.

as long as you don't have to pay per month I would pay what I usually pay for video games.

How about making it free, but if you want to host a server you need the "full version"?

Quote from: Meister_Neo on July 08, 2012, 12:35:24 PM
How about making it free, but if you want to host a server you need the "full version"?

Interesting idea. Didn't think about that one yet.

Flawed idea in my opinion. How much do people value the ability to host a server? Given that it's a P2P environment where a LAN client could achieve the same purpose, not very much. All it would do is prevent players from playing the game, as there wouldn't be as many people hosting games. It would cause an early death for Project Stealth if you did that, in my opinion :P

Well... it does not have to be EXACTLY like i said. But just so when people like the game, they can get additional features that in no way make their gameplay easier than for non-payers, if they "donate" for the game. Things like different colored names or something like that. Also you have to bear in mind that frvge and co. dont have unlimited server capacities, so it wouldn't be too good if they have 200 public servers. And for PS to work, we NEED dedicated servers. People with ping of 0 always have an advantage!

Anyway.. the problem is: PS needs money, but taking it from players is a risk, because you have no access to the "12-year-old-CoD-kiddies", because the game is "too hard" for them and stealth genre is not very popular at the moment. So not giving it out for free, may bury PS before it even really starts to kick in, because there are no (or just very few) players. On the other hand frvge will not act as the "great-charity-man" who pays all bills for the games and server costs himself, naturally. It would be more than unfair to the developers, if it would end like that.

Also... WE, who are active here right now are also not really enough to pay for everything, I guess.


So before we discuss further... frvge, if we just for now leave the issue with the money aside: Do you plan to make "public/dedicated" servers that are always active and can be used by players so there is no host advantage? Or do you not plan something like that?

We'll see about supplying dedicated server. For now, it's a no. Mostly because of resources indeed. We'll be supplying the master servers of course.

OK... then will it be possible that a 5th guy creates a server and is spectating himself? Or maybe things like Gamemasters/Moderators checking for bugs in some games, looking out for cheaters or maybe to help new guys to get into the game?

Not anymore. We dropped a few of those things to make development easier. Up till 6 months ago, I would have said yes.