Why is the PC FPS market stale>
- Thread starter Draconix
- Start date
T-Refried-455
Veteran XX
i don't really know why this thread has 'PC' in the title
I play CoD and yet can appreciate the fact that it requires no thought whatsoever.
I have 'fallen out' with my brother-in-law because he doesn't understand that Battlefield 3 is CoD with bigger maps and an equally depressing amount of realism or thought behind it.
FPS dide because people hate complexity and thought.
I have 'fallen out' with my brother-in-law because he doesn't understand that Battlefield 3 is CoD with bigger maps and an equally depressing amount of realism or thought behind it.
FPS dide because people hate complexity and thought.
Yeah damnit, someone had an interesting post in the T:A thread that didnt make sense and i wanted to expound on it without being lost. It just seemed interesting.
Activision wants to make all its FPS a pay to play type model. I dont think that would work, but it seems that its the only viable way to make money off of a game? Console games do a bit better.
750k to produce and you only coming up with maybe to your break even point (things I heard going through game dev sites) and plus reading how the business model that activision seeks has been influencing all games and IPs they own.
The one thing that struck out in that one guys post was Server browsing. That it is a failed feature. I dont understand why this would be. I dont understand why getting in a lobby with 5 friends is better than a friends list with a browser for servers in your area.
mp games die out much more quickly with server browsers. the healthiest thing to do for a mp game that is not co-op is to outright prevent players from certain freedoms/choices. if i could make t:a mp (or any fps shooter) i'd:
eliminate server browser
Przn said this, and after reading market information on pc gaming I guess i just rolled my thought into this.
eliminate server browser
Przn said this, and after reading market information on pc gaming I guess i just rolled my thought into this.
Uhhh yeah. Me too. That makes no sense.
Perhaps you are making the common mistake of confusing causation with correlation, good sir.
I think his point was that, from a business perspective in a free-to-play model, you need new players to have a good initial experience with your game so that they stick around any pay you money. That means that you don't want to dump them in a server with a whacky ruleset, or into a server where vets are going to cuss at them the whole game for being so fucking useless. You want to put them in with other noobs so that they can have some success mixed in with their initial failures.
Also, in general, software is getting more intuitive across the board, and seeing a list of servers that you know nothing about is just not an intuitive, friendly thing for users that are not already familiar with such things from previous games.
How much Battlefield 3 have you actually played besides the horrible demo on Metro? The gameplay and graphics are very different than MW3. It requires a lot more teamwork for one.
Also, TF2 does have quickmatching now.
Because T2 with new graphics never came out, and everyone hacks in CS:S. Seriously, that's exactly what is happening with me. I play T2, but there's only one server left (Goons Haven). I play CS:S and I'm always dead before I see the other person. I've checked all my settings, ping is good. It's like the other people have a 1 second advantage over me and I don't know why. The other military games don't interest me.
Im looking at it from two views, game development (successful game) and business model (successful franchise/product). That is why. I just didnt see why, but Shoddy's post made it a bit more clear.
The pub experiance is what sells the game. Matchmaking is better than finding a server with a nice ping, and a map rotation that you like.
I dont think Ive (and this is limited) experianced matchmaking until I hit consoles and thought it was because of their architecture.
And then I am noticing a shift it seems (including Hi Rezs "free" to play model) in how games are being marketed and produced. Is it better to sell a fixed cost game, or find a way to produce on going revenue. Thats what bothers me so much about the T:A is that Hi Rez seems to be forcing their game around this business model. (new load outs)
MMOs are more profitable than anything, so why produce anything else for the PC.
Ah. I stopped playing once it became free to play and they added all the item drops and crafting bullshit.
Xbox matchmaking pisses me off, though I've only done it for Forza. If I choose an unpopular gametype, I can just sit there twiddling my fucking thumbs waiting for enough players to join. Nobody ever joins. I have no idea if a particular gametype is enjoyed by anyone else on the entire planet. Sometimes I'll do a reasonably popular gametype such as Spec series races and end up in a lobby by myself. Nobody joins in 10 minutes. There are clearly other lobbies out there that have people joining. What the fuck. The T:A / Firefall / SWTOR warzone queue system seems to work okay though.
I understand it might be overwhelming for someone to see a list of servers... but not having that option is a detriment to the community.
So have a hybrid system with a quick match option. I use both for BF3. I check my favorites, then I do quick match if I don't like what I see in my favorites.