Home Ideas, Suggestions & Feedback

We need new Moderators!


ModeratorWe are always on the lookout for talented people to join the team. That means you! If you think you could help us organise and inform the community while entertaining everyone then apply. We need people to help out on the forum, behind the scenes with announcements, on Discord and on our other Social Media channels.


If this is something you think might be of interest to you, HERE

GoodGame Empire - Changing of Funding, GGE II, Ruby Rage

Cyclone14 (INT1)Cyclone14 (INT1) INT1 Posts: 11,909
So, as you can tell by the lengthy title, this is going to be a lengthy post. This is going to be half question, half suggestion, though I thought it'd fit better here. The topics I'll be covering here are questions and suggestions that look deeper into not only Empire's funding layout, but GoodGame Studios as a whole. Changing of Empire's funding layout, a possible sequel as well as the weekly rage about Empire's premium currency; rubies.

So, ready yourselves for a rant-filled, really lengthy, crazy Cyclonic Post . . .

Changing of Funding
So, the idea of changing the funding layout has never been discussed, though I feel it must be. Many, many companies are now using "Free-To-Play"or "Freemium," otherwise known as micro-transactions. Empire and all the games by GoodGame Studios have been made with micro-transactions as a core part of gameplay. With smaller (Compared to the big players) companies such as GoodGame Studios, micro-transactions can be understood to keep the game running. Electronic Arts, or EA, on the other hand, have recently stated that all of their future games will contain micro-transactions. Now, with companies like EA, which are much bigger than the likes of GoodGame Studios, do not need micro-transactions to keep the game running. But, to make matters even worse, you already have to pay before you even see these micro-transactions! Dungeon Keeper on mobile has a micro-transaction at 65 pounds, if I'm not mistaken. It's not even a micro-transaction anymore, it's a mega-transaction!
So, Cyclone, what are you rambling on about EA and micro-transactions for? Well, I'd like to question the funding of GoodGame Studios' games. I've already said that micro-transactions are fine for them , but what if we didn't have them at all? I'd say that'd make a lot of people happy. But Cyclone, then GoodGame Studios wouldn't get enough money! Empire would fall apart! Yes, you'd be right. But, what I'm proposing is a change to the way Empire, and all the other GoodGame Studios games. So, most of us know of games like Minecraft, Terraria, Starbound - the list goes on. All of these games have at least two things in common. One, they're all based around blocks of some sort, but that's trivial. Reason Two is the most important; all of these games have you pay for the game - then there's no more paying. This is something I'm proposing for Empire, and most of the GoodGame Studios games. Cyclone, you may be thinking, there's not enough content to make us pay for the game! This exact reason leads me onto my next subject . . .

GoodGame Empire II
So, this may seem a little bit unoriginal, or unconventional, or even plain idiotic. It may be exactly those things. But, having a paid, traditional sequel to an already famous game would actually generate quite a lot of profit. Empire could become spread throughout the gaming industry, perhaps even making it onto Steam, though GoodGame Studios has stated working with external sources isn't something they do often. but what I'm saying is, that, like Happy Wheels is doing, leave the first game free-to-play; something of a demo for the more advanced, paid sequel. GoodGame Studios could potentially introduce more features, make an Alpha or Beta pre-order program, the possibilities are endless. In my opinion, a sequel to a great game would generate much more profit than the current game is doing. Although, that is just my opinion . . .

Ruby Rant
This is a very controversial subject in the Empire community. Many people, including myself, have ranted about the premium currency of the game; Rubies. To cut a long story short, as CM Malreyn has reminded me, rubies are needed to fund the development of Empire. Some people have fully decked-out castles, and are at Level 70 with everything at the highest level - yet have not spent a single cent. Rubies, are, undoubtedly, almost a shortcut. But, either way, you'll still get there if you have dedication . . . And a lot of time on your hands!

Okay, so that was my first, perhaps of many, regular rants about things that nag at my mind and say, Type us down! We can make a difference! These suggestions may be awesome to you, and you may think I'm a genius, while others may think that these are absolutely . . . Umm . . . Well, you know what I mean. Well, I'm just putting them out there, so you can read them, ponder them, then shout at me for some obscure reason or misplaced apostrophe . . . '

- Cyclone14
Post edited by Cyclone14 (INT1) on
The Completely Insane,
Cyclone14


One of the old-timers, long since departed from this land — my inbox, however, remains open!

Comments

  • edited 18.03.2014
    So basically you are suggesting that we release an actual paid game?

    Sorry, but we are browser game company (who also has a mobile game). We currently have no plans to change that.

    Regards,
    Ethan
  • Cyclone14 (INT1)Cyclone14 (INT1) INT1 Posts: 11,909
    edited 18.03.2014
    Ah, okay. That's understandable. As I've said, I wanted to put them out there, so that you could shout at me for any reason possible. Add that to the things not to suggest list? :D

    Any specific reason why? Say; the browser industry is more productive; more people use browsers; downloads aren't required . . . ?
    The Completely Insane,
    Cyclone14


    One of the old-timers, long since departed from this land — my inbox, however, remains open!
  • edited 18.03.2014
    Cyclone14 wrote: »
    Any specific reason why? Say; the browser industry is more productive; more people use browsers; downloads aren't required . . . ?

    There are many reasons really, but at the end of the day the simplist one is that it's just not a direction we are looking to go in at the moment. The model we have seems to be working pretty well for us as it is and we are happy to stick with it. Maybe in the distant future something will change, but not right now.

    Regards,
    Ethan
  • ErsioErsio Posts: 1,039
    edited 18.03.2014
    Not sure why I would pay to have an even playing field, when I have the option to pay to have an advantage???
    Ersio @ USA1 Serv
    Official Sammich Quality Control Taste Tester of KON
    Official Spokesperson for JJ-5792
  • RdrnnrRdrnnr Posts: 1,615
    edited 18.03.2014
    Ersio wrote: »
    Not sure why I would pay to have an even playing field, when I have the option to pay to have an advantage???

    That's an easy one to answer. If all things are equal, the smartest and most skilled players will win, not the ones with the largest wallet or trust fund. I play games like this, without paying, just to see how well I can do. It's a challenge. I've paid in games before, but that cheapens the win to me, I might as well have sent the gaming company a check and had them put a pop-up on my account saying "You have won the game!". Then I could have used the time to do something else...
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

    Maximum angulo Inferno
  • ErsioErsio Posts: 1,039
    edited 18.03.2014
    Rdrnnr wrote: »
    That's an easy one to answer. If all things are equal, the smartest and most skilled players will win, not the ones with the largest wallet or trust fund. I play games like this, without paying, just to see how well I can do. It's a challenge. I've paid in games before, but that cheapens the win to me, I might as well have sent the gaming company a check and had them put a pop-up on my account saying "You have won the game!". Then I could have used the time to do something else...

    That still does not answer why I would fork up money for an even playing field, when I can play for free with an even playing field...
    Ersio @ USA1 Serv
    Official Sammich Quality Control Taste Tester of KON
    Official Spokesperson for JJ-5792
  • RdrnnrRdrnnr Posts: 1,615
    edited 18.03.2014
    Ersio wrote: »
    That still does not answer why I would fork up money for an even playing field, when I can play for free with an even playing field...

    Because you CAN'T play for free on an even playing field. Paying players are specifically given an advantage over non-paying players. That is normally what causes the eventual downfall of all the "freemium" games. Eventually the advantages for paying so overwhelm the non-payers that server population drops to the point that even the paying players aren't having fun any more. So they quit and move the next "best game on the internet". The cycle repeats steadily. A fixed price to play guarantees a certain level of income, and makes the game more even, which usually means longer lasting. WoW is a perfect example of this, it is dying now, but lasted for many years. A really good freemium game will typically last about 5 years before the death spins hit, most last less than half of that.

    If you don't care about a long-term investment in a game, then freemium games are the way to go. If you like sticking with something you enjoy, and want it to last for a while, pay-to-play is much better.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

    Maximum angulo Inferno
  • ErsioErsio Posts: 1,039
    edited 19.03.2014
    Although I agree with a lot of what you said... WoW compared to this or as an example is just poor choice. Feel free to look into the gge budget compared to WoW for game developing...
    Ersio @ USA1 Serv
    Official Sammich Quality Control Taste Tester of KON
    Official Spokesperson for JJ-5792
  • Cyclone14 (INT1)Cyclone14 (INT1) INT1 Posts: 11,909
    edited 19.03.2014
    CM Malreyn wrote: »
    There are many reasons really, but at the end of the day the simplist one is that it's just not a direction we are looking to go in at the moment. The model we have seems to be working pretty well for us as it is and we are happy to stick with it. Maybe in the distant future something will change, but not right now.

    Regards,
    Ethan

    That makes sense. 54 million players on Empire alone is something of awe. That's at least twice the population of Australia.
    The Completely Insane,
    Cyclone14


    One of the old-timers, long since departed from this land — my inbox, however, remains open!
  • RdrnnrRdrnnr Posts: 1,615
    edited 19.03.2014
    Ersio wrote: »
    Although I agree with a lot of what you said... WoW compared to this or as an example is just poor choice. Feel free to look into the gge budget compared to WoW for game developing...

    I used WoW as an example, simply because it is one of the best known pay-to-play games out there, and I wanted to display the differences in the way games are run, between pay-to-play and fremium.

    WoW had a much larger budget, because it made a lot more money. It made a lot more money because it was a decently thought our idea, and they went ahead and did a fixed price from the beginning. They guaranteed their income up front, which gave them the flexibility to have a large, permanent staff just to take care of that one game. Granted, the game was created by an established company, that had more development funds to work with, and was created for a more powerful computing platform. These facts aside, GGS has a fluctuating income, which limits them as a business from being able to dedicate assets to any single game. The last time I looked at the GGS website, this game only has a permanent staff of 5 or 7 people... of which 1 is management and 2 or 3 are PR. The actual code writers for much of this come from a shared pool of people, or is farmed out to sections that do the same thing for all the games, i.e. a troubleshooting section, a graphics department, etc... Disjointed code writing, due to a lack of true ownership is one of the major reasons for bugs in games. Bugs reduce the fun in the player experience, which makes people less likely to stay in pay-to-play game, and makes people less likely to spend anything at all in a freemium game.
    Cyclone14 wrote: »
    That makes sense. 54 million players on Empire alone is something of awe. That's at least twice the population of Australia.
    Not 54 million players... 54 million accounts, total, since the beginning of the game, have been registered in Empire. Only a fraction of that are still playing...
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

    Maximum angulo Inferno
  • HobeeHobee Posts: 106
    edited 19.03.2014
    With the freemium income model causing less fun in the long run, because it unbalances the playing field, here's a good compromise solution for Goodgame Empire: rubies should only empower players to do things that do not fall in the realm of strategic resource allocation.

    For example, single-use horse acceleration, temporary production rate, construction speed, temporary recruiting rate, etc., are appropriate for rubies. Mainly because these all deal with rates of change, not with changed states per se.

    Rubies should not allow exclusive access to permanent state changes; or basically to anything which is permanent. Instead, these ought to be gained just by allocating resources strategically.

    For instance, buildings "made of" rubies are inappropriate because buildings permanently change the state of a castle. Buildings do not naturally switch off, stop, or finish. Ideally, in a strategy game, such permanence should only result from strategic resource allocation. Similarly, resources should be slightly harder to obtain than they are now.

    Rubies should do nothing more--nothing less--than speed the execution of pre-existing strategies, for the convenience of paid customers.

    In other words, rubies should catalyze customers' strategies, not reduce customers' need to strategize.

    This is a strategy game, first and foremost. That is its primary selling proposition (to use a business school term) and its core identity. Thus, little or nothing about it should discredit it as a strategy game. That is what we come for, and what we theoretically pay for. So I believe that's how to raise the most money and the most fun, too.

    -- Hobee
    Hobee @ usa 1
  • gouthamdazzgouthamdazz Posts: 103
    edited 19.03.2014
    When the Gap between Ruby players and non ruby players increase TOO much, GAME OVER
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    3554990.gif
  • Cyclone14 (INT1)Cyclone14 (INT1) INT1 Posts: 11,909
    edited 20.03.2014
    Rdrnnr wrote: »
    Not 54 million players... 54 million accounts, total, since the beginning of the game, have been registered in Empire. Only a fraction of that are still playing...

    . . . Sometimes I'm very intelligent, then at others I'm quite . . . Er . . . Not intelligent. This is one of those times.
    The Completely Insane,
    Cyclone14


    One of the old-timers, long since departed from this land — my inbox, however, remains open!
  • PJboiPJboi Posts: 675
    edited 20.03.2014
    When the Gap between Ruby players and non ruby players increase TOO much, GAME OVER

    Sorry buddy but I disagree with you there I think yes a lot of people will quit and it breaks my heart to know that but I think it will be when the better non-ruby buyers will come out of hiding and show everyone what they are made of because whats stopping them having patients and saving their rubies to build bakeries and stables etc I know someone who saved up enough rubies and now has a level 3 bakery at least I think he saved up for it cos we discussed weather he buys and he said he couldn't cos he had other stuff he need money for.

    Also if GGS did that to the extent your thinking of then it would defeat the object of being a free game and they may as well switch to what this thread is saying.
    Cyclone14 wrote: »
    So, as you can tell by the lengthy title, this is going to be a lengthy post. This is going to be half question, half suggestion, though I thought it'd fit better here. The topics I'll be covering here are questions and suggestions that look deeper into not only Empire's funding layout, but GoodGame Studios as a whole. Changing of Empire's funding layout, a possible sequel as well as the weekly rage about Empire's premium currency; rubies.

    So, ready yourselves for a rant-filled, really lengthy, crazy Cyclonic Post . . .

    Changing of Funding
    So, the idea of changing the funding layout has never been discussed, though I feel it must be. Many, many companies are now using "Free-To-Play"or "Freemium," otherwise known as micro-transactions. Empire and all the games by GoodGame Studios have been made with micro-transactions as a core part of gameplay. With smaller (Compared to the big players) companies such as GoodGame Studios, micro-transactions can be understood to keep the game running. Electronic Arts, or EA, on the other hand, have recently stated that all of their future games will contain micro-transactions. Now, with companies like EA, which are much bigger than the likes of GoodGame Studios, do not need micro-transactions to keep the game running. But, to make matters even worse, you already have to pay before you even see these micro-transactions! Dungeon Keeper on mobile has a micro-transaction at 65 pounds, if I'm not mistaken. It's not even a micro-transaction anymore, it's a mega-transaction!
    So, Cyclone, what are you rambling on about EA and micro-transactions for? Well, I'd like to question the funding of GoodGame Studios' games. I've already said that micro-transactions are fine for them , but what if we didn't have them at all? I'd say that'd make a lot of people happy. But Cyclone, then GoodGame Studios wouldn't get enough money! Empire would fall apart! Yes, you'd be right. But, what I'm proposing is a change to the way Empire, and all the other GoodGame Studios games. So, most of us know of games like Minecraft, Terraria, Starbound - the list goes on. All of these games have at least two things in common. One, they're all based around blocks of some sort, but that's trivial. Reason Two is the most important; all of these games have you pay for the game - then there's no more paying. This is something I'm proposing for Empire, and most of the GoodGame Studios games. Cyclone, you may be thinking, there's not enough content to make us pay for the game! This exact reason leads me onto my next subject . . .

    GoodGame Empire II
    So, this may seem a little bit unoriginal, or unconventional, or even plain idiotic. It may be exactly those things. But, having a paid, traditional sequel to an already famous game would actually generate quite a lot of profit. Empire could become spread throughout the gaming industry, perhaps even making it onto Steam, though GoodGame Studios has stated working with external sources isn't something they do often. but what I'm saying is, that, like Happy Wheels is doing, leave the first game free-to-play; something of a demo for the more advanced, paid sequel. GoodGame Studios could potentially introduce more features, make an Alpha or Beta pre-order program, the possibilities are endless. In my opinion, a sequel to a great game would generate much more profit than the current game is doing. Although, that is just my opinion . . .

    Ruby Rant
    This is a very controversial subject in the Empire community. Many people, including myself, have ranted about the premium currency of the game; Rubies. To cut a long story short, as CM Malreyn has reminded me, rubies are needed to fund the development of Empire. Some people have fully decked-out castles, and are at Level 70 with everything at the highest level - yet have not spent a single cent. Rubies, are, undoubtedly, almost a shortcut. But, either way, you'll still get there if you have dedication . . . And a lot of time on your hands!

    Okay, so that was my first, perhaps of many, regular rants about things that nag at my mind and say, Type us down! We can make a difference! These suggestions may be awesome to you, and you may think I'm a genius, while others may think that these are absolutely . . . Umm . . . Well, you know what I mean. Well, I'm just putting them out there, so you can read them, ponder them, then shout at me for some obscure reason or misplaced apostrophe . . . '

    - Cyclone14

    Like I said it would defeat the point of this being a free game which is the reason GGS is doing so successful. Also it would put a lot of possible new players off as they will think behind that price tag will be loads of things that will take your money from them..
    PJboi @ en 1 (active)
    PJboi @ WWW 1 (inactive)
    PJboi @ usa 1 (inactive)

    proud founder of Sargent of TDS elite on UK server and War marshal of LOST SOULS HB currently general

    contact me if u want to join us
Sign In to comment.