Casual player vs consecutive yearly player
-
@Harrisville318 said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
Ranked season should not be geared towards casual players.
but it is, so here we are.
-
@JEEZY-E said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@eatyum said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@JEEZY-E said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@eatyum said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@JEEZY-E said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@ChuckCLC said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@Untchable704 said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
Casual players make a game grow more than anybody. If you take out that top 10% that’s leave 90%. 60% of the time that 80 more percents.
60% of the time that statement is right every time.
I sure hope for the sake of SDS that 60% is still there in July. I doubt it, but I hope for this franchise's sake they do. Let's all hope that fortnite doesn't release another patch that steal's these loyal 1 time players away from the franchise.
That's not what casual players mean. They aren't one-time players. They still buy the game every year, (and perhaps some microtransactions early on), but they just don't stay or invest as much time each year. The game maker still gets that revenue once a year from the same casual players. It's expected that casuals start to drop off as the game progresses, that wouldn't be a surprise to any company.
If they don't make the game appeal to those people, those people don't buy next year, and they are always the largest majority of buyers
I know they aren't 1 time buyer's, but how many player's joined this franchise after they released it free-to-play through PSN?. Those are the people they are appealing too, the people who couldn't give a sh#$ about their game until its F2P. Do Casual players dictate how terrible the game plays? no, do they dictate your outfielder fielding the ball like an infielder? no, But they also don't help make change's either. Why? because they benefit from this garbage gameplay.
That statement is wrong, there were plenty of casual players before they ever put it as the free game of the month in 19. The bulk of the game has always been casual, way before it was ever free.
You don't have to like it, I certainly don't like it, but those are the facts. Casual players do bring in the most money, they aren't all just waiting for a free game.
Casual's bring as much if not less than the loyal fan base of this game in term's of monetary value, I have dropped quite a few dollars on this game since DD was introduced. RS6 is the best comparison, the game has a learning curve, you either learn and succeed or you don't and you drop off. They do not compromise and that is what keep's their player base and their fan base loyal. I had to learn and adapt to this franchise why shouldn't everyone else?. All I know is this is the last year I buy MLB the show, I am moving on to PC games, I'd rather deal with hacker's than having to fight with this game to field or hit a ball a properly.
But rainbow six is geared towards those markets. They certainly aren't selling copies on the levels of a franchise like Call of Duty. The baseball market can't sustain selling to only fans of that type of gameplay because it's already a way smaller market then the first-person shooter market, so equating those two games doesn't work.
The competitive first-person shooter market is massive compared to any type of baseball game market. You can't compare the two, it's not even close
Most casual baseball fans are not going to adapt. They just won't come back because it's not a fun experience. Rainbow Six gets away with that because of the large FPS market, so even the smaller niche markets are quite large.
-
@MathMan5072 said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
I think it’s how you define the word casual. Im a casual player, but have logged 100 hours. My goal is not to be an elite player. I just like to collect the cards, do the missions, and play against other people sometimes. I don’t play on a monitor, although I’ve thought about it. After three years of playing a lot, I still can’t hit an inside fastball when thrown from the same side as my batter. When you look at the ranking at the end of every season, this group far outnumbers the groups that make the higher levels.
From my perspective there is a wide skill gap. I can tell in the first inning if my game is going to be evenly matched or if I’m going to have to catch some breaks to win. I might be able to hang around on all star setting, but if I make it into the ds, it’s going to be a lot harder for me.
I don’t know if I’m trying make a case against your post. I guess I just want to define what a “casual” player is.
Yeah same here. I get mad if I lose but it’s my competitive nature. As far as the game goes I am casual. User input should always be the main factor, that on top of card attributes. User input favors everyone imo. The casual guy will feel great when he hits it hard and the tryha.... i mean “elite” players will just hit the ball better as it should be
-
If you want to see what happens when a game caters to only casuals or bad players, look at cod MW. The better players hate the game bc it’s so noob friendly, this game has a good balance imo other than the screwed up hit feedback that happens sometimes.
-
@Crimson_Monk said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
If you want to see what happens when a game caters to only casuals or bad players, look at cod MW. The better players hate the game bc it’s so noob friendly, this game has a good balance imo other than the screwed up hit feedback that happens sometimes.
And yet, COD is still massive, and that's because of the casual's providing the bulk of the player base and money. Which is why COD is so noob-friendly. There is a reason companies do it.
-
@eatyum said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@JEEZY-E said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@eatyum said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@JEEZY-E said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@eatyum said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@JEEZY-E said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@ChuckCLC said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@Untchable704 said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
Casual players make a game grow more than anybody. If you take out that top 10% that’s leave 90%. 60% of the time that 80 more percents.
60% of the time that statement is right every time.
I sure hope for the sake of SDS that 60% is still there in July. I doubt it, but I hope for this franchise's sake they do. Let's all hope that fortnite doesn't release another patch that steal's these loyal 1 time players away from the franchise.
That's not what casual players mean. They aren't one-time players. They still buy the game every year, (and perhaps some microtransactions early on), but they just don't stay or invest as much time each year. The game maker still gets that revenue once a year from the same casual players. It's expected that casuals start to drop off as the game progresses, that wouldn't be a surprise to any company.
If they don't make the game appeal to those people, those people don't buy next year, and they are always the largest majority of buyers
I know they aren't 1 time buyer's, but how many player's joined this franchise after they released it free-to-play through PSN?. Those are the people they are appealing too, the people who couldn't give a sh#$ about their game until its F2P. Do Casual players dictate how terrible the game plays? no, do they dictate your outfielder fielding the ball like an infielder? no, But they also don't help make change's either. Why? because they benefit from this garbage gameplay.
That statement is wrong, there were plenty of casual players before they ever put it as the free game of the month in 19. The bulk of the game has always been casual, way before it was ever free.
You don't have to like it, I certainly don't like it, but those are the facts. Casual players do bring in the most money, they aren't all just waiting for a free game.
Casual's bring as much if not less than the loyal fan base of this game in term's of monetary value, I have dropped quite a few dollars on this game since DD was introduced. RS6 is the best comparison, the game has a learning curve, you either learn and succeed or you don't and you drop off. They do not compromise and that is what keep's their player base and their fan base loyal. I had to learn and adapt to this franchise why shouldn't everyone else?. All I know is this is the last year I buy MLB the show, I am moving on to PC games, I'd rather deal with hacker's than having to fight with this game to field or hit a ball a properly.
But rainbow six is geared towards those markets. They certainly aren't selling copies on the levels of a franchise like Call of Duty. The baseball market can't sustain selling to only fans of that type of gameplay because it's already a way smaller market then the first-person shooter market, so equating those two games doesn't work.
Baseball has sustained selling to only fans for year's, only recently have they made comprimises to their game in terms of length of play. Other than that they don't give a s$%# whether you like their game or not and I applaud them for that, one of the reason's I still follow baseball and have completely erased the NHL from my sports viewing agenda. When game companies start focusing on the people who got them to where they are, they will succeed, if they continue to focus on the demographics who pay them out for 1-2 months they will fail. Why do you think Battlefield V was such a colossal failure? because they said F@#$ you to the people who got them there and opened their arms to people who never gave a sh#$ about their games for more than 2 months. This game IMO is a colossal failure.
-
@JEEZY-E said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@eatyum said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@JEEZY-E said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@eatyum said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@JEEZY-E said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@eatyum said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@JEEZY-E said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@ChuckCLC said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@Untchable704 said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
Casual players make a game grow more than anybody. If you take out that top 10% that’s leave 90%. 60% of the time that 80 more percents.
60% of the time that statement is right every time.
I sure hope for the sake of SDS that 60% is still there in July. I doubt it, but I hope for this franchise's sake they do. Let's all hope that fortnite doesn't release another patch that steal's these loyal 1 time players away from the franchise.
That's not what casual players mean. They aren't one-time players. They still buy the game every year, (and perhaps some microtransactions early on), but they just don't stay or invest as much time each year. The game maker still gets that revenue once a year from the same casual players. It's expected that casuals start to drop off as the game progresses, that wouldn't be a surprise to any company.
If they don't make the game appeal to those people, those people don't buy next year, and they are always the largest majority of buyers
I know they aren't 1 time buyer's, but how many player's joined this franchise after they released it free-to-play through PSN?. Those are the people they are appealing too, the people who couldn't give a sh#$ about their game until its F2P. Do Casual players dictate how terrible the game plays? no, do they dictate your outfielder fielding the ball like an infielder? no, But they also don't help make change's either. Why? because they benefit from this garbage gameplay.
That statement is wrong, there were plenty of casual players before they ever put it as the free game of the month in 19. The bulk of the game has always been casual, way before it was ever free.
You don't have to like it, I certainly don't like it, but those are the facts. Casual players do bring in the most money, they aren't all just waiting for a free game.
Casual's bring as much if not less than the loyal fan base of this game in term's of monetary value, I have dropped quite a few dollars on this game since DD was introduced. RS6 is the best comparison, the game has a learning curve, you either learn and succeed or you don't and you drop off. They do not compromise and that is what keep's their player base and their fan base loyal. I had to learn and adapt to this franchise why shouldn't everyone else?. All I know is this is the last year I buy MLB the show, I am moving on to PC games, I'd rather deal with hacker's than having to fight with this game to field or hit a ball a properly.
But rainbow six is geared towards those markets. They certainly aren't selling copies on the levels of a franchise like Call of Duty. The baseball market can't sustain selling to only fans of that type of gameplay because it's already a way smaller market then the first-person shooter market, so equating those two games doesn't work.
Baseball has sustained selling to only fans for year's, only recently have they made comprimises to their game in terms of length of play. Other than that they don't give a s$%# whether you like their game or not and I applaud them for that, one of the reason's I still follow baseball and have completely erased the NHL from my sports viewing agenda. When game companies start focusing on the people who got them to where they are, they will succeed, if they continue to focus on the demographics who pay them out for 1-2 months they will fail. Why do you think Battlefield V was such a colossal failure? because they said F@#$ you to the people who got them there and opened their arms to people who never gave a sh#$ about their games for more than 2 months. This game IMO is a colossal failure.
Battlefield V had a lot of issues, but it's not why you say. COD MW appeals to casuals and is very successful. As someone said above, better COD players are unhappy with the game, but it's still widely successful. You can't just cherry pick things and say "This proves it doesn't work", because there are way more examples of why it does work
I think you are letting your emotion blind to the cold-hard facts. Like I said, you don't have to like it, I def don't, but it's still facts.
-
@eatyum said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@JEEZY-E said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@eatyum said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@JEEZY-E said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@eatyum said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@JEEZY-E said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@eatyum said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@JEEZY-E said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@ChuckCLC said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@Untchable704 said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
Casual players make a game grow more than anybody. If you take out that top 10% that’s leave 90%. 60% of the time that 80 more percents.
60% of the time that statement is right every time.
I sure hope for the sake of SDS that 60% is still there in July. I doubt it, but I hope for this franchise's sake they do. Let's all hope that fortnite doesn't release another patch that steal's these loyal 1 time players away from the franchise.
That's not what casual players mean. They aren't one-time players. They still buy the game every year, (and perhaps some microtransactions early on), but they just don't stay or invest as much time each year. The game maker still gets that revenue once a year from the same casual players. It's expected that casuals start to drop off as the game progresses, that wouldn't be a surprise to any company.
If they don't make the game appeal to those people, those people don't buy next year, and they are always the largest majority of buyers
I know they aren't 1 time buyer's, but how many player's joined this franchise after they released it free-to-play through PSN?. Those are the people they are appealing too, the people who couldn't give a sh#$ about their game until its F2P. Do Casual players dictate how terrible the game plays? no, do they dictate your outfielder fielding the ball like an infielder? no, But they also don't help make change's either. Why? because they benefit from this garbage gameplay.
That statement is wrong, there were plenty of casual players before they ever put it as the free game of the month in 19. The bulk of the game has always been casual, way before it was ever free.
You don't have to like it, I certainly don't like it, but those are the facts. Casual players do bring in the most money, they aren't all just waiting for a free game.
Casual's bring as much if not less than the loyal fan base of this game in term's of monetary value, I have dropped quite a few dollars on this game since DD was introduced. RS6 is the best comparison, the game has a learning curve, you either learn and succeed or you don't and you drop off. They do not compromise and that is what keep's their player base and their fan base loyal. I had to learn and adapt to this franchise why shouldn't everyone else?. All I know is this is the last year I buy MLB the show, I am moving on to PC games, I'd rather deal with hacker's than having to fight with this game to field or hit a ball a properly.
But rainbow six is geared towards those markets. They certainly aren't selling copies on the levels of a franchise like Call of Duty. The baseball market can't sustain selling to only fans of that type of gameplay because it's already a way smaller market then the first-person shooter market, so equating those two games doesn't work.
Baseball has sustained selling to only fans for year's, only recently have they made comprimises to their game in terms of length of play. Other than that they don't give a s$%# whether you like their game or not and I applaud them for that, one of the reason's I still follow baseball and have completely erased the NHL from my sports viewing agenda. When game companies start focusing on the people who got them to where they are, they will succeed, if they continue to focus on the demographics who pay them out for 1-2 months they will fail. Why do you think Battlefield V was such a colossal failure? because they said F@#$ you to the people who got them there and opened their arms to people who never gave a sh#$ about their games for more than 2 months. This game IMO is a colossal failure.
Battlefield V had a lot of issues, but it's not why you say. COD MW appeals to casuals and is very successful.
I think you are letting your emotion blind to the cold-hard facts. Like I said, you don't have to like it, I def don't, but it's still facts.
COD is only succesful due to the release of the free 2 play warzone, shocking they offered a free to play game and saw their user number's rise. Does that make COD a better game? no, does it fix the problems that are in the original release that people paid 80+ dollars for? no, and thats my point. Appealing to this user base may get your exec's a bonus at the end of the year but after about 2 months the people who got you that exec position in the first place are gone. Is this a good business strategy for the short term, yes, is it going to retain the player base that got you to this point to begin with? no, no it is not.
-
@JEEZY-E said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@eatyum said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@JEEZY-E said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@eatyum said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@JEEZY-E said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@eatyum said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@JEEZY-E said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@eatyum said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@JEEZY-E said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@ChuckCLC said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@Untchable704 said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
Casual players make a game grow more than anybody. If you take out that top 10% that’s leave 90%. 60% of the time that 80 more percents.
60% of the time that statement is right every time.
I sure hope for the sake of SDS that 60% is still there in July. I doubt it, but I hope for this franchise's sake they do. Let's all hope that fortnite doesn't release another patch that steal's these loyal 1 time players away from the franchise.
That's not what casual players mean. They aren't one-time players. They still buy the game every year, (and perhaps some microtransactions early on), but they just don't stay or invest as much time each year. The game maker still gets that revenue once a year from the same casual players. It's expected that casuals start to drop off as the game progresses, that wouldn't be a surprise to any company.
If they don't make the game appeal to those people, those people don't buy next year, and they are always the largest majority of buyers
I know they aren't 1 time buyer's, but how many player's joined this franchise after they released it free-to-play through PSN?. Those are the people they are appealing too, the people who couldn't give a sh#$ about their game until its F2P. Do Casual players dictate how terrible the game plays? no, do they dictate your outfielder fielding the ball like an infielder? no, But they also don't help make change's either. Why? because they benefit from this garbage gameplay.
That statement is wrong, there were plenty of casual players before they ever put it as the free game of the month in 19. The bulk of the game has always been casual, way before it was ever free.
You don't have to like it, I certainly don't like it, but those are the facts. Casual players do bring in the most money, they aren't all just waiting for a free game.
Casual's bring as much if not less than the loyal fan base of this game in term's of monetary value, I have dropped quite a few dollars on this game since DD was introduced. RS6 is the best comparison, the game has a learning curve, you either learn and succeed or you don't and you drop off. They do not compromise and that is what keep's their player base and their fan base loyal. I had to learn and adapt to this franchise why shouldn't everyone else?. All I know is this is the last year I buy MLB the show, I am moving on to PC games, I'd rather deal with hacker's than having to fight with this game to field or hit a ball a properly.
But rainbow six is geared towards those markets. They certainly aren't selling copies on the levels of a franchise like Call of Duty. The baseball market can't sustain selling to only fans of that type of gameplay because it's already a way smaller market then the first-person shooter market, so equating those two games doesn't work.
Baseball has sustained selling to only fans for year's, only recently have they made comprimises to their game in terms of length of play. Other than that they don't give a s$%# whether you like their game or not and I applaud them for that, one of the reason's I still follow baseball and have completely erased the NHL from my sports viewing agenda. When game companies start focusing on the people who got them to where they are, they will succeed, if they continue to focus on the demographics who pay them out for 1-2 months they will fail. Why do you think Battlefield V was such a colossal failure? because they said F@#$ you to the people who got them there and opened their arms to people who never gave a sh#$ about their games for more than 2 months. This game IMO is a colossal failure.
Battlefield V had a lot of issues, but it's not why you say. COD MW appeals to casuals and is very successful.
I think you are letting your emotion blind to the cold-hard facts. Like I said, you don't have to like it, I def don't, but it's still facts.
COD is only succesful due to a the release of the free 2 play warzone, shocking they offered a free to play game and saw their user number's rise. Does that make COD a better game? no, does it fix the problems that are in the original release that people paid 80+ dollars for? no, and thats my point. Appealing to this user base may get your exec's a bonus at the end of the year but after about 2 months the people who got you that exec position in the first place are gone. Is this a good business strategy for the short term, yes, is it going to retain the player base that got you to this point to begin with? no, no it is not.
COD MW was successful way before warzone came out. Again, your ignoring facts and trying to twist it to your beliefs. Way before warzone came out, MW was one of the most successful COD in the last few years.
-
@eatyum said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@JEEZY-E said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@eatyum said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@JEEZY-E said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@eatyum said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@JEEZY-E said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@eatyum said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@JEEZY-E said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@eatyum said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@JEEZY-E said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@ChuckCLC said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@Untchable704 said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
Casual players make a game grow more than anybody. If you take out that top 10% that’s leave 90%. 60% of the time that 80 more percents.
60% of the time that statement is right every time.
I sure hope for the sake of SDS that 60% is still there in July. I doubt it, but I hope for this franchise's sake they do. Let's all hope that fortnite doesn't release another patch that steal's these loyal 1 time players away from the franchise.
That's not what casual players mean. They aren't one-time players. They still buy the game every year, (and perhaps some microtransactions early on), but they just don't stay or invest as much time each year. The game maker still gets that revenue once a year from the same casual players. It's expected that casuals start to drop off as the game progresses, that wouldn't be a surprise to any company.
If they don't make the game appeal to those people, those people don't buy next year, and they are always the largest majority of buyers
I know they aren't 1 time buyer's, but how many player's joined this franchise after they released it free-to-play through PSN?. Those are the people they are appealing too, the people who couldn't give a sh#$ about their game until its F2P. Do Casual players dictate how terrible the game plays? no, do they dictate your outfielder fielding the ball like an infielder? no, But they also don't help make change's either. Why? because they benefit from this garbage gameplay.
That statement is wrong, there were plenty of casual players before they ever put it as the free game of the month in 19. The bulk of the game has always been casual, way before it was ever free.
You don't have to like it, I certainly don't like it, but those are the facts. Casual players do bring in the most money, they aren't all just waiting for a free game.
Casual's bring as much if not less than the loyal fan base of this game in term's of monetary value, I have dropped quite a few dollars on this game since DD was introduced. RS6 is the best comparison, the game has a learning curve, you either learn and succeed or you don't and you drop off. They do not compromise and that is what keep's their player base and their fan base loyal. I had to learn and adapt to this franchise why shouldn't everyone else?. All I know is this is the last year I buy MLB the show, I am moving on to PC games, I'd rather deal with hacker's than having to fight with this game to field or hit a ball a properly.
But rainbow six is geared towards those markets. They certainly aren't selling copies on the levels of a franchise like Call of Duty. The baseball market can't sustain selling to only fans of that type of gameplay because it's already a way smaller market then the first-person shooter market, so equating those two games doesn't work.
Baseball has sustained selling to only fans for year's, only recently have they made comprimises to their game in terms of length of play. Other than that they don't give a s$%# whether you like their game or not and I applaud them for that, one of the reason's I still follow baseball and have completely erased the NHL from my sports viewing agenda. When game companies start focusing on the people who got them to where they are, they will succeed, if they continue to focus on the demographics who pay them out for 1-2 months they will fail. Why do you think Battlefield V was such a colossal failure? because they said F@#$ you to the people who got them there and opened their arms to people who never gave a sh#$ about their games for more than 2 months. This game IMO is a colossal failure.
Battlefield V had a lot of issues, but it's not why you say. COD MW appeals to casuals and is very successful.
I think you are letting your emotion blind to the cold-hard facts. Like I said, you don't have to like it, I def don't, but it's still facts.
COD is only succesful due to a the release of the free 2 play warzone, shocking they offered a free to play game and saw their user number's rise. Does that make COD a better game? no, does it fix the problems that are in the original release that people paid 80+ dollars for? no, and thats my point. Appealing to this user base may get your exec's a bonus at the end of the year but after about 2 months the people who got you that exec position in the first place are gone. Is this a good business strategy for the short term, yes, is it going to retain the player base that got you to this point to begin with? no, no it is not.
COD MW was successful way before warzone came out. Again, your ignoring facts and trying to twist it to your beliefs. Way before warzone came out, MW was one of the most successful COD in the last few years.
I bought COD, within 2 months my friends who are hardcore COD players were done with it, most people buy COD for the campaign, Ground War was garbage and looked like the retarded cousin of battlefield, most levels and guns were glitchy. So yea, it was the most successful at launch but until warzone came out most people didn't care and left, nobody wanted to drop close to a bill for battle pass which did nothing for you but get you some cool skins and extra co-op missions. The only thing saving COD (the original release) is hardcore mode, nobody wants to play a bunch of people mashing the A button and Right Trigger, this game is pretty close to that, just mash the X button and you wont strike out and will most likely get a hit, wouldn't want to make it to hard for the noobs.
-
@JEEZY-E said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@eatyum said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@JEEZY-E said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@eatyum said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@JEEZY-E said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@eatyum said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@JEEZY-E said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@eatyum said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@JEEZY-E said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@eatyum said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@JEEZY-E said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@ChuckCLC said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@Untchable704 said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
Casual players make a game grow more than anybody. If you take out that top 10% that’s leave 90%. 60% of the time that 80 more percents.
60% of the time that statement is right every time.
I sure hope for the sake of SDS that 60% is still there in July. I doubt it, but I hope for this franchise's sake they do. Let's all hope that fortnite doesn't release another patch that steal's these loyal 1 time players away from the franchise.
That's not what casual players mean. They aren't one-time players. They still buy the game every year, (and perhaps some microtransactions early on), but they just don't stay or invest as much time each year. The game maker still gets that revenue once a year from the same casual players. It's expected that casuals start to drop off as the game progresses, that wouldn't be a surprise to any company.
If they don't make the game appeal to those people, those people don't buy next year, and they are always the largest majority of buyers
I know they aren't 1 time buyer's, but how many player's joined this franchise after they released it free-to-play through PSN?. Those are the people they are appealing too, the people who couldn't give a sh#$ about their game until its F2P. Do Casual players dictate how terrible the game plays? no, do they dictate your outfielder fielding the ball like an infielder? no, But they also don't help make change's either. Why? because they benefit from this garbage gameplay.
That statement is wrong, there were plenty of casual players before they ever put it as the free game of the month in 19. The bulk of the game has always been casual, way before it was ever free.
You don't have to like it, I certainly don't like it, but those are the facts. Casual players do bring in the most money, they aren't all just waiting for a free game.
Casual's bring as much if not less than the loyal fan base of this game in term's of monetary value, I have dropped quite a few dollars on this game since DD was introduced. RS6 is the best comparison, the game has a learning curve, you either learn and succeed or you don't and you drop off. They do not compromise and that is what keep's their player base and their fan base loyal. I had to learn and adapt to this franchise why shouldn't everyone else?. All I know is this is the last year I buy MLB the show, I am moving on to PC games, I'd rather deal with hacker's than having to fight with this game to field or hit a ball a properly.
But rainbow six is geared towards those markets. They certainly aren't selling copies on the levels of a franchise like Call of Duty. The baseball market can't sustain selling to only fans of that type of gameplay because it's already a way smaller market then the first-person shooter market, so equating those two games doesn't work.
Baseball has sustained selling to only fans for year's, only recently have they made comprimises to their game in terms of length of play. Other than that they don't give a s$%# whether you like their game or not and I applaud them for that, one of the reason's I still follow baseball and have completely erased the NHL from my sports viewing agenda. When game companies start focusing on the people who got them to where they are, they will succeed, if they continue to focus on the demographics who pay them out for 1-2 months they will fail. Why do you think Battlefield V was such a colossal failure? because they said F@#$ you to the people who got them there and opened their arms to people who never gave a sh#$ about their games for more than 2 months. This game IMO is a colossal failure.
Battlefield V had a lot of issues, but it's not why you say. COD MW appeals to casuals and is very successful.
I think you are letting your emotion blind to the cold-hard facts. Like I said, you don't have to like it, I def don't, but it's still facts.
COD is only succesful due to a the release of the free 2 play warzone, shocking they offered a free to play game and saw their user number's rise. Does that make COD a better game? no, does it fix the problems that are in the original release that people paid 80+ dollars for? no, and thats my point. Appealing to this user base may get your exec's a bonus at the end of the year but after about 2 months the people who got you that exec position in the first place are gone. Is this a good business strategy for the short term, yes, is it going to retain the player base that got you to this point to begin with? no, no it is not.
COD MW was successful way before warzone came out. Again, your ignoring facts and trying to twist it to your beliefs. Way before warzone came out, MW was one of the most successful COD in the last few years.
I bought COD, within 2 months my friends who are hardcore COD players were done with it, most people buy COD for the campaign, Ground War was garbage and looked like the retarded cousin of battlefield, most levels and guns were glitchy. So yea, it was the most successful at launch but until warzone came out most people didn't care and left, nobody wanted to drop close to a bill for battle pass which did nothing for you but get you some cool skins and extra co-op missions. The only thing saving COD (the original release) is hardcore mode, nobody wants to play a bunch of people mashing the A button and Right Trigger, this game is pretty close to that, just mash the X button and you wont strike out and will most likely get a hit, wouldn't want to make it to hard for the noobs.
But that's MY POINT. They still all bought it!!! The company doesn't care that they left two months in. Most of them are still going to buy the new game next time, no matter what they say. Just look at these forums and how many make complaints, but still buy it every year.
The game companies know this and use this to their advantage, and it quite clearly works.
-
@eatyum said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@JEEZY-E said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@eatyum said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@JEEZY-E said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@eatyum said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@JEEZY-E said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@eatyum said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@JEEZY-E said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@eatyum said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@JEEZY-E said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@eatyum said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@JEEZY-E said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@ChuckCLC said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@Untchable704 said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
Casual players make a game grow more than anybody. If you take out that top 10% that’s leave 90%. 60% of the time that 80 more percents.
60% of the time that statement is right every time.
I sure hope for the sake of SDS that 60% is still there in July. I doubt it, but I hope for this franchise's sake they do. Let's all hope that fortnite doesn't release another patch that steal's these loyal 1 time players away from the franchise.
That's not what casual players mean. They aren't one-time players. They still buy the game every year, (and perhaps some microtransactions early on), but they just don't stay or invest as much time each year. The game maker still gets that revenue once a year from the same casual players. It's expected that casuals start to drop off as the game progresses, that wouldn't be a surprise to any company.
If they don't make the game appeal to those people, those people don't buy next year, and they are always the largest majority of buyers
I know they aren't 1 time buyer's, but how many player's joined this franchise after they released it free-to-play through PSN?. Those are the people they are appealing too, the people who couldn't give a sh#$ about their game until its F2P. Do Casual players dictate how terrible the game plays? no, do they dictate your outfielder fielding the ball like an infielder? no, But they also don't help make change's either. Why? because they benefit from this garbage gameplay.
That statement is wrong, there were plenty of casual players before they ever put it as the free game of the month in 19. The bulk of the game has always been casual, way before it was ever free.
You don't have to like it, I certainly don't like it, but those are the facts. Casual players do bring in the most money, they aren't all just waiting for a free game.
Casual's bring as much if not less than the loyal fan base of this game in term's of monetary value, I have dropped quite a few dollars on this game since DD was introduced. RS6 is the best comparison, the game has a learning curve, you either learn and succeed or you don't and you drop off. They do not compromise and that is what keep's their player base and their fan base loyal. I had to learn and adapt to this franchise why shouldn't everyone else?. All I know is this is the last year I buy MLB the show, I am moving on to PC games, I'd rather deal with hacker's than having to fight with this game to field or hit a ball a properly.
But rainbow six is geared towards those markets. They certainly aren't selling copies on the levels of a franchise like Call of Duty. The baseball market can't sustain selling to only fans of that type of gameplay because it's already a way smaller market then the first-person shooter market, so equating those two games doesn't work.
Baseball has sustained selling to only fans for year's, only recently have they made comprimises to their game in terms of length of play. Other than that they don't give a s$%# whether you like their game or not and I applaud them for that, one of the reason's I still follow baseball and have completely erased the NHL from my sports viewing agenda. When game companies start focusing on the people who got them to where they are, they will succeed, if they continue to focus on the demographics who pay them out for 1-2 months they will fail. Why do you think Battlefield V was such a colossal failure? because they said F@#$ you to the people who got them there and opened their arms to people who never gave a sh#$ about their games for more than 2 months. This game IMO is a colossal failure.
Battlefield V had a lot of issues, but it's not why you say. COD MW appeals to casuals and is very successful.
I think you are letting your emotion blind to the cold-hard facts. Like I said, you don't have to like it, I def don't, but it's still facts.
COD is only succesful due to a the release of the free 2 play warzone, shocking they offered a free to play game and saw their user number's rise. Does that make COD a better game? no, does it fix the problems that are in the original release that people paid 80+ dollars for? no, and thats my point. Appealing to this user base may get your exec's a bonus at the end of the year but after about 2 months the people who got you that exec position in the first place are gone. Is this a good business strategy for the short term, yes, is it going to retain the player base that got you to this point to begin with? no, no it is not.
COD MW was successful way before warzone came out. Again, your ignoring facts and trying to twist it to your beliefs. Way before warzone came out, MW was one of the most successful COD in the last few years.
I bought COD, within 2 months my friends who are hardcore COD players were done with it, most people buy COD for the campaign, Ground War was garbage and looked like the retarded cousin of battlefield, most levels and guns were glitchy. So yea, it was the most successful at launch but until warzone came out most people didn't care and left, nobody wanted to drop close to a bill for battle pass which did nothing for you but get you some cool skins and extra co-op missions. The only thing saving COD (the original release) is hardcore mode, nobody wants to play a bunch of people mashing the A button and Right Trigger, this game is pretty close to that, just mash the X button and you wont strike out and will most likely get a hit, wouldn't want to make it to hard for the noobs.
But that's MY POINT. They still all bought it!!! The company doesn't care that they left two months in. Most of them are still going to buy next time, no matter what they say. Just look at these forums and how many make complaints, but still buy it every year.
The game companies know this and use this to their advantage, and it quite clearly works.
It works until a game like MLB the show dies because they have to wait until they release a F2P version through PSN. Are my friends going to buy the next COD after this year? no, I certainly won't either. Do you think the people who played this game for 2 months dropped enough money into the game to afford that MLB license?
-
@JEEZY-E said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@eatyum said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@JEEZY-E said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@eatyum said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@JEEZY-E said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@eatyum said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@JEEZY-E said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@eatyum said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@JEEZY-E said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@eatyum said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@JEEZY-E said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@eatyum said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@JEEZY-E said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@ChuckCLC said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@Untchable704 said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
Casual players make a game grow more than anybody. If you take out that top 10% that’s leave 90%. 60% of the time that 80 more percents.
60% of the time that statement is right every time.
I sure hope for the sake of SDS that 60% is still there in July. I doubt it, but I hope for this franchise's sake they do. Let's all hope that fortnite doesn't release another patch that steal's these loyal 1 time players away from the franchise.
That's not what casual players mean. They aren't one-time players. They still buy the game every year, (and perhaps some microtransactions early on), but they just don't stay or invest as much time each year. The game maker still gets that revenue once a year from the same casual players. It's expected that casuals start to drop off as the game progresses, that wouldn't be a surprise to any company.
If they don't make the game appeal to those people, those people don't buy next year, and they are always the largest majority of buyers
I know they aren't 1 time buyer's, but how many player's joined this franchise after they released it free-to-play through PSN?. Those are the people they are appealing too, the people who couldn't give a sh#$ about their game until its F2P. Do Casual players dictate how terrible the game plays? no, do they dictate your outfielder fielding the ball like an infielder? no, But they also don't help make change's either. Why? because they benefit from this garbage gameplay.
That statement is wrong, there were plenty of casual players before they ever put it as the free game of the month in 19. The bulk of the game has always been casual, way before it was ever free.
You don't have to like it, I certainly don't like it, but those are the facts. Casual players do bring in the most money, they aren't all just waiting for a free game.
Casual's bring as much if not less than the loyal fan base of this game in term's of monetary value, I have dropped quite a few dollars on this game since DD was introduced. RS6 is the best comparison, the game has a learning curve, you either learn and succeed or you don't and you drop off. They do not compromise and that is what keep's their player base and their fan base loyal. I had to learn and adapt to this franchise why shouldn't everyone else?. All I know is this is the last year I buy MLB the show, I am moving on to PC games, I'd rather deal with hacker's than having to fight with this game to field or hit a ball a properly.
But rainbow six is geared towards those markets. They certainly aren't selling copies on the levels of a franchise like Call of Duty. The baseball market can't sustain selling to only fans of that type of gameplay because it's already a way smaller market then the first-person shooter market, so equating those two games doesn't work.
Baseball has sustained selling to only fans for year's, only recently have they made comprimises to their game in terms of length of play. Other than that they don't give a s$%# whether you like their game or not and I applaud them for that, one of the reason's I still follow baseball and have completely erased the NHL from my sports viewing agenda. When game companies start focusing on the people who got them to where they are, they will succeed, if they continue to focus on the demographics who pay them out for 1-2 months they will fail. Why do you think Battlefield V was such a colossal failure? because they said F@#$ you to the people who got them there and opened their arms to people who never gave a sh#$ about their games for more than 2 months. This game IMO is a colossal failure.
Battlefield V had a lot of issues, but it's not why you say. COD MW appeals to casuals and is very successful.
I think you are letting your emotion blind to the cold-hard facts. Like I said, you don't have to like it, I def don't, but it's still facts.
COD is only succesful due to a the release of the free 2 play warzone, shocking they offered a free to play game and saw their user number's rise. Does that make COD a better game? no, does it fix the problems that are in the original release that people paid 80+ dollars for? no, and thats my point. Appealing to this user base may get your exec's a bonus at the end of the year but after about 2 months the people who got you that exec position in the first place are gone. Is this a good business strategy for the short term, yes, is it going to retain the player base that got you to this point to begin with? no, no it is not.
COD MW was successful way before warzone came out. Again, your ignoring facts and trying to twist it to your beliefs. Way before warzone came out, MW was one of the most successful COD in the last few years.
I bought COD, within 2 months my friends who are hardcore COD players were done with it, most people buy COD for the campaign, Ground War was garbage and looked like the retarded cousin of battlefield, most levels and guns were glitchy. So yea, it was the most successful at launch but until warzone came out most people didn't care and left, nobody wanted to drop close to a bill for battle pass which did nothing for you but get you some cool skins and extra co-op missions. The only thing saving COD (the original release) is hardcore mode, nobody wants to play a bunch of people mashing the A button and Right Trigger, this game is pretty close to that, just mash the X button and you wont strike out and will most likely get a hit, wouldn't want to make it to hard for the noobs.
But that's MY POINT. They still all bought it!!! The company doesn't care that they left two months in. Most of them are still going to buy next time, no matter what they say. Just look at these forums and how many make complaints, but still buy it every year.
The game companies know this and use this to their advantage, and it quite clearly works.
It works until a game like MLB the show dies because they have to wait until they release a F2P version through PSN. Are my friends going to buy the next COD after this year? no, I certainly won't either. Do you think the people who played this game for 2 months dropped enough money into the game to afford that MLB license?
They say they won't, but most people do. Are you even reading what I'm typing? let me say it again "Just look at these forums and how many make complaints, but still buy it every year." Yes, some people quit, but most always come back no matter what they say.
I think you are projecting your feelings on the gaming community as a whole, and I'm sorry to say that most people aren't that sensible. Even if they complain and say they are done, they never are. In general, gaming audiences are pretty gullible.
-
@eatyum said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@JEEZY-E said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@eatyum said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@JEEZY-E said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@eatyum said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@JEEZY-E said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@eatyum said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@JEEZY-E said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@eatyum said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@JEEZY-E said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@eatyum said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@JEEZY-E said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@eatyum said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@JEEZY-E said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@ChuckCLC said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@Untchable704 said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
Casual players make a game grow more than anybody. If you take out that top 10% that’s leave 90%. 60% of the time that 80 more percents.
60% of the time that statement is right every time.
I sure hope for the sake of SDS that 60% is still there in July. I doubt it, but I hope for this franchise's sake they do. Let's all hope that fortnite doesn't release another patch that steal's these loyal 1 time players away from the franchise.
That's not what casual players mean. They aren't one-time players. They still buy the game every year, (and perhaps some microtransactions early on), but they just don't stay or invest as much time each year. The game maker still gets that revenue once a year from the same casual players. It's expected that casuals start to drop off as the game progresses, that wouldn't be a surprise to any company.
If they don't make the game appeal to those people, those people don't buy next year, and they are always the largest majority of buyers
I know they aren't 1 time buyer's, but how many player's joined this franchise after they released it free-to-play through PSN?. Those are the people they are appealing too, the people who couldn't give a sh#$ about their game until its F2P. Do Casual players dictate how terrible the game plays? no, do they dictate your outfielder fielding the ball like an infielder? no, But they also don't help make change's either. Why? because they benefit from this garbage gameplay.
That statement is wrong, there were plenty of casual players before they ever put it as the free game of the month in 19. The bulk of the game has always been casual, way before it was ever free.
You don't have to like it, I certainly don't like it, but those are the facts. Casual players do bring in the most money, they aren't all just waiting for a free game.
Casual's bring as much if not less than the loyal fan base of this game in term's of monetary value, I have dropped quite a few dollars on this game since DD was introduced. RS6 is the best comparison, the game has a learning curve, you either learn and succeed or you don't and you drop off. They do not compromise and that is what keep's their player base and their fan base loyal. I had to learn and adapt to this franchise why shouldn't everyone else?. All I know is this is the last year I buy MLB the show, I am moving on to PC games, I'd rather deal with hacker's than having to fight with this game to field or hit a ball a properly.
But rainbow six is geared towards those markets. They certainly aren't selling copies on the levels of a franchise like Call of Duty. The baseball market can't sustain selling to only fans of that type of gameplay because it's already a way smaller market then the first-person shooter market, so equating those two games doesn't work.
Baseball has sustained selling to only fans for year's, only recently have they made comprimises to their game in terms of length of play. Other than that they don't give a s$%# whether you like their game or not and I applaud them for that, one of the reason's I still follow baseball and have completely erased the NHL from my sports viewing agenda. When game companies start focusing on the people who got them to where they are, they will succeed, if they continue to focus on the demographics who pay them out for 1-2 months they will fail. Why do you think Battlefield V was such a colossal failure? because they said F@#$ you to the people who got them there and opened their arms to people who never gave a sh#$ about their games for more than 2 months. This game IMO is a colossal failure.
Battlefield V had a lot of issues, but it's not why you say. COD MW appeals to casuals and is very successful.
I think you are letting your emotion blind to the cold-hard facts. Like I said, you don't have to like it, I def don't, but it's still facts.
COD is only succesful due to a the release of the free 2 play warzone, shocking they offered a free to play game and saw their user number's rise. Does that make COD a better game? no, does it fix the problems that are in the original release that people paid 80+ dollars for? no, and thats my point. Appealing to this user base may get your exec's a bonus at the end of the year but after about 2 months the people who got you that exec position in the first place are gone. Is this a good business strategy for the short term, yes, is it going to retain the player base that got you to this point to begin with? no, no it is not.
COD MW was successful way before warzone came out. Again, your ignoring facts and trying to twist it to your beliefs. Way before warzone came out, MW was one of the most successful COD in the last few years.
I bought COD, within 2 months my friends who are hardcore COD players were done with it, most people buy COD for the campaign, Ground War was garbage and looked like the retarded cousin of battlefield, most levels and guns were glitchy. So yea, it was the most successful at launch but until warzone came out most people didn't care and left, nobody wanted to drop close to a bill for battle pass which did nothing for you but get you some cool skins and extra co-op missions. The only thing saving COD (the original release) is hardcore mode, nobody wants to play a bunch of people mashing the A button and Right Trigger, this game is pretty close to that, just mash the X button and you wont strike out and will most likely get a hit, wouldn't want to make it to hard for the noobs.
But that's MY POINT. They still all bought it!!! The company doesn't care that they left two months in. Most of them are still going to buy next time, no matter what they say. Just look at these forums and how many make complaints, but still buy it every year.
The game companies know this and use this to their advantage, and it quite clearly works.
It works until a game like MLB the show dies because they have to wait until they release a F2P version through PSN. Are my friends going to buy the next COD after this year? no, I certainly won't either. Do you think the people who played this game for 2 months dropped enough money into the game to afford that MLB license?
They say they won't, but most people do. Are you even reading what I'm typing? let me say it again "Just look at these forums and how many make complaints, but still buy it every year." Yes, some people quit, but most always come back no matter what they say.
I think you are projecting your feelings on the gaming community as a whole, and I'm sorry to say that most people aren't that sensible. Even if they complain and say they are done, they never are.
I am not denying that people buy this game every year, for people like myself this will be my last year. That may not make a difference in their bottom line but if enough people get fed up it will, and my true motivation for this post is to ensure that doesn't happen. I love this franchise, this year not so much, but if enough people feel the same way and don't buy you wont have this franchise, those people will drop out if they focus solely on the casual's who show up for 2 months and maybe fund half of the game's development.
-
@JEEZY-E said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@eatyum said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@JEEZY-E said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@eatyum said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@JEEZY-E said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@eatyum said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@JEEZY-E said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@eatyum said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@JEEZY-E said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@eatyum said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@JEEZY-E said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@eatyum said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@JEEZY-E said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@eatyum said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@JEEZY-E said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@ChuckCLC said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@Untchable704 said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
Casual players make a game grow more than anybody. If you take out that top 10% that’s leave 90%. 60% of the time that 80 more percents.
60% of the time that statement is right every time.
I sure hope for the sake of SDS that 60% is still there in July. I doubt it, but I hope for this franchise's sake they do. Let's all hope that fortnite doesn't release another patch that steal's these loyal 1 time players away from the franchise.
That's not what casual players mean. They aren't one-time players. They still buy the game every year, (and perhaps some microtransactions early on), but they just don't stay or invest as much time each year. The game maker still gets that revenue once a year from the same casual players. It's expected that casuals start to drop off as the game progresses, that wouldn't be a surprise to any company.
If they don't make the game appeal to those people, those people don't buy next year, and they are always the largest majority of buyers
I know they aren't 1 time buyer's, but how many player's joined this franchise after they released it free-to-play through PSN?. Those are the people they are appealing too, the people who couldn't give a sh#$ about their game until its F2P. Do Casual players dictate how terrible the game plays? no, do they dictate your outfielder fielding the ball like an infielder? no, But they also don't help make change's either. Why? because they benefit from this garbage gameplay.
That statement is wrong, there were plenty of casual players before they ever put it as the free game of the month in 19. The bulk of the game has always been casual, way before it was ever free.
You don't have to like it, I certainly don't like it, but those are the facts. Casual players do bring in the most money, they aren't all just waiting for a free game.
Casual's bring as much if not less than the loyal fan base of this game in term's of monetary value, I have dropped quite a few dollars on this game since DD was introduced. RS6 is the best comparison, the game has a learning curve, you either learn and succeed or you don't and you drop off. They do not compromise and that is what keep's their player base and their fan base loyal. I had to learn and adapt to this franchise why shouldn't everyone else?. All I know is this is the last year I buy MLB the show, I am moving on to PC games, I'd rather deal with hacker's than having to fight with this game to field or hit a ball a properly.
But rainbow six is geared towards those markets. They certainly aren't selling copies on the levels of a franchise like Call of Duty. The baseball market can't sustain selling to only fans of that type of gameplay because it's already a way smaller market then the first-person shooter market, so equating those two games doesn't work.
Baseball has sustained selling to only fans for year's, only recently have they made comprimises to their game in terms of length of play. Other than that they don't give a s$%# whether you like their game or not and I applaud them for that, one of the reason's I still follow baseball and have completely erased the NHL from my sports viewing agenda. When game companies start focusing on the people who got them to where they are, they will succeed, if they continue to focus on the demographics who pay them out for 1-2 months they will fail. Why do you think Battlefield V was such a colossal failure? because they said F@#$ you to the people who got them there and opened their arms to people who never gave a sh#$ about their games for more than 2 months. This game IMO is a colossal failure.
Battlefield V had a lot of issues, but it's not why you say. COD MW appeals to casuals and is very successful.
I think you are letting your emotion blind to the cold-hard facts. Like I said, you don't have to like it, I def don't, but it's still facts.
COD is only succesful due to a the release of the free 2 play warzone, shocking they offered a free to play game and saw their user number's rise. Does that make COD a better game? no, does it fix the problems that are in the original release that people paid 80+ dollars for? no, and thats my point. Appealing to this user base may get your exec's a bonus at the end of the year but after about 2 months the people who got you that exec position in the first place are gone. Is this a good business strategy for the short term, yes, is it going to retain the player base that got you to this point to begin with? no, no it is not.
COD MW was successful way before warzone came out. Again, your ignoring facts and trying to twist it to your beliefs. Way before warzone came out, MW was one of the most successful COD in the last few years.
I bought COD, within 2 months my friends who are hardcore COD players were done with it, most people buy COD for the campaign, Ground War was garbage and looked like the retarded cousin of battlefield, most levels and guns were glitchy. So yea, it was the most successful at launch but until warzone came out most people didn't care and left, nobody wanted to drop close to a bill for battle pass which did nothing for you but get you some cool skins and extra co-op missions. The only thing saving COD (the original release) is hardcore mode, nobody wants to play a bunch of people mashing the A button and Right Trigger, this game is pretty close to that, just mash the X button and you wont strike out and will most likely get a hit, wouldn't want to make it to hard for the noobs.
But that's MY POINT. They still all bought it!!! The company doesn't care that they left two months in. Most of them are still going to buy next time, no matter what they say. Just look at these forums and how many make complaints, but still buy it every year.
The game companies know this and use this to their advantage, and it quite clearly works.
It works until a game like MLB the show dies because they have to wait until they release a F2P version through PSN. Are my friends going to buy the next COD after this year? no, I certainly won't either. Do you think the people who played this game for 2 months dropped enough money into the game to afford that MLB license?
They say they won't, but most people do. Are you even reading what I'm typing? let me say it again "Just look at these forums and how many make complaints, but still buy it every year." Yes, some people quit, but most always come back no matter what they say.
I think you are projecting your feelings on the gaming community as a whole, and I'm sorry to say that most people aren't that sensible. Even if they complain and say they are done, they never are.
I am not denying that people buy this game every year, for people like myself this will be my last year. That may not make a difference in their bottom line but if enough people get fed up it will, and my true motivation for this post is to ensure that doesn't happen. I love this franchise, this year not so much, but if enough people feel the same way and don't buy you wont have this franchise, those people will drop out if they focus solely on the casual's who show up for 2 months and maybe fund half of the game's development.
I get that, and I'm not saying you are wrong to feel that way, I'm pretty close to that myself.
The only thing you are misguided on how games sell, appealing to casuals works, and not just in the short-term. Obviously there is a line somewhere where some games go to far, but it takes a lot for that to happen.
you seem to think call of duty is a failure because you and your hardcore friends are done by this point, let me tell you the executives at Activision don't care, they are swimming in money. Their model works.The gaming community as a whole is as I said, pretty gullible and most simply are just going to buy the next iteration no matter how they feel. That is reality.
-
@eatyum said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@JEEZY-E said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@eatyum said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@JEEZY-E said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@eatyum said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@JEEZY-E said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@eatyum said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@JEEZY-E said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@eatyum said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@JEEZY-E said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@eatyum said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@JEEZY-E said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@eatyum said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@JEEZY-E said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@eatyum said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@JEEZY-E said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@ChuckCLC said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@Untchable704 said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
Casual players make a game grow more than anybody. If you take out that top 10% that’s leave 90%. 60% of the time that 80 more percents.
60% of the time that statement is right every time.
I sure hope for the sake of SDS that 60% is still there in July. I doubt it, but I hope for this franchise's sake they do. Let's all hope that fortnite doesn't release another patch that steal's these loyal 1 time players away from the franchise.
That's not what casual players mean. They aren't one-time players. They still buy the game every year, (and perhaps some microtransactions early on), but they just don't stay or invest as much time each year. The game maker still gets that revenue once a year from the same casual players. It's expected that casuals start to drop off as the game progresses, that wouldn't be a surprise to any company.
If they don't make the game appeal to those people, those people don't buy next year, and they are always the largest majority of buyers
I know they aren't 1 time buyer's, but how many player's joined this franchise after they released it free-to-play through PSN?. Those are the people they are appealing too, the people who couldn't give a sh#$ about their game until its F2P. Do Casual players dictate how terrible the game plays? no, do they dictate your outfielder fielding the ball like an infielder? no, But they also don't help make change's either. Why? because they benefit from this garbage gameplay.
That statement is wrong, there were plenty of casual players before they ever put it as the free game of the month in 19. The bulk of the game has always been casual, way before it was ever free.
You don't have to like it, I certainly don't like it, but those are the facts. Casual players do bring in the most money, they aren't all just waiting for a free game.
Casual's bring as much if not less than the loyal fan base of this game in term's of monetary value, I have dropped quite a few dollars on this game since DD was introduced. RS6 is the best comparison, the game has a learning curve, you either learn and succeed or you don't and you drop off. They do not compromise and that is what keep's their player base and their fan base loyal. I had to learn and adapt to this franchise why shouldn't everyone else?. All I know is this is the last year I buy MLB the show, I am moving on to PC games, I'd rather deal with hacker's than having to fight with this game to field or hit a ball a properly.
But rainbow six is geared towards those markets. They certainly aren't selling copies on the levels of a franchise like Call of Duty. The baseball market can't sustain selling to only fans of that type of gameplay because it's already a way smaller market then the first-person shooter market, so equating those two games doesn't work.
Baseball has sustained selling to only fans for year's, only recently have they made comprimises to their game in terms of length of play. Other than that they don't give a s$%# whether you like their game or not and I applaud them for that, one of the reason's I still follow baseball and have completely erased the NHL from my sports viewing agenda. When game companies start focusing on the people who got them to where they are, they will succeed, if they continue to focus on the demographics who pay them out for 1-2 months they will fail. Why do you think Battlefield V was such a colossal failure? because they said F@#$ you to the people who got them there and opened their arms to people who never gave a sh#$ about their games for more than 2 months. This game IMO is a colossal failure.
Battlefield V had a lot of issues, but it's not why you say. COD MW appeals to casuals and is very successful.
I think you are letting your emotion blind to the cold-hard facts. Like I said, you don't have to like it, I def don't, but it's still facts.
COD is only succesful due to a the release of the free 2 play warzone, shocking they offered a free to play game and saw their user number's rise. Does that make COD a better game? no, does it fix the problems that are in the original release that people paid 80+ dollars for? no, and thats my point. Appealing to this user base may get your exec's a bonus at the end of the year but after about 2 months the people who got you that exec position in the first place are gone. Is this a good business strategy for the short term, yes, is it going to retain the player base that got you to this point to begin with? no, no it is not.
COD MW was successful way before warzone came out. Again, your ignoring facts and trying to twist it to your beliefs. Way before warzone came out, MW was one of the most successful COD in the last few years.
I bought COD, within 2 months my friends who are hardcore COD players were done with it, most people buy COD for the campaign, Ground War was garbage and looked like the retarded cousin of battlefield, most levels and guns were glitchy. So yea, it was the most successful at launch but until warzone came out most people didn't care and left, nobody wanted to drop close to a bill for battle pass which did nothing for you but get you some cool skins and extra co-op missions. The only thing saving COD (the original release) is hardcore mode, nobody wants to play a bunch of people mashing the A button and Right Trigger, this game is pretty close to that, just mash the X button and you wont strike out and will most likely get a hit, wouldn't want to make it to hard for the noobs.
But that's MY POINT. They still all bought it!!! The company doesn't care that they left two months in. Most of them are still going to buy next time, no matter what they say. Just look at these forums and how many make complaints, but still buy it every year.
The game companies know this and use this to their advantage, and it quite clearly works.
It works until a game like MLB the show dies because they have to wait until they release a F2P version through PSN. Are my friends going to buy the next COD after this year? no, I certainly won't either. Do you think the people who played this game for 2 months dropped enough money into the game to afford that MLB license?
They say they won't, but most people do. Are you even reading what I'm typing? let me say it again "Just look at these forums and how many make complaints, but still buy it every year." Yes, some people quit, but most always come back no matter what they say.
I think you are projecting your feelings on the gaming community as a whole, and I'm sorry to say that most people aren't that sensible. Even if they complain and say they are done, they never are.
I am not denying that people buy this game every year, for people like myself this will be my last year. That may not make a difference in their bottom line but if enough people get fed up it will, and my true motivation for this post is to ensure that doesn't happen. I love this franchise, this year not so much, but if enough people feel the same way and don't buy you wont have this franchise, those people will drop out if they focus solely on the casual's who show up for 2 months and maybe fund half of the game's development.
I get that, and I'm not saying you are wrong to feel that way, I'm pretty close to that myself.
The only thing you are misguided on how games sell, appealing to casuals works, and not just in the short-term. Obviously there is a line somewhere where some games go to far, but it takes a lot for that to happen.
you seem to think call of duty is a failure because you and your hardcore friends are done by this point, let me tell you the executives at Activision don't care, they are swimming in money. Their model works.The gaming community as a whole is as I said, pretty gullible and most simply are just going to buy the next iteration no matter how they feel. That is reality.
I know appealing to casuals works, my problem is companies who never relied on casuals to keep them afloat appealing to them. We may think that those who aren't considered top online players, but have been with the fanchise for years are casual's, they are not.
I already know that just because me and my hardcore COD friends are done makes no difference to the execs, thats not my point, I am looking at this from the consumer's view. If I was looking at this from the business perspective (which is my full time job) I would say its brilliant and it is, but for us, the gamer's those who supported these companies from single A developers to AAA developers we are in a serious crisis, we are facing a time where quality games and gameplay are put to the side for profits and to me that is not right.
-
@JEEZY-E said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@Matt_42187 said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@eatyum said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@Matt_42187 said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@bonion said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
Everyone on these forums wants user input to widen the skill gap, myself included. My question is do you really think the % of casual player is > then the % of consecutive yearly player. (Most of us on forum are) If SDS has more casual players then yes the RNG is gonna prevail over input. I just don’t see how the player pool favors the casual? I see arguments of the game is too hard and those people will leave. If you truly love baseball, and are starting the game for the first time...IMO I wouldn’t give up if I’m getting my a$$ kicked. I know the game of baseball inside out, played since I could grip a “fat bat” at age 4. If I’m getting whooped I’m gonna fix what I’m doing wrong and “git better”. If baseball is my 3rd favorite sport then yeah I’d prob walk away from the game and play madden or 2k instead.
My point is I just don’t understand how the casual outweighs the go-hard on DD (the most player based gm mode)
IMO if your a casual you prob shouldn’t be expecting to get much further then P Race and should stick to H2H if you enjoy playing others online
My money is on there being more returning players to the game then first time players. I would imagine the returning player to want user input to prevail over RNG
If there wasn't any RNG, then you would know if you're improving. There are other options in the game to play for the causal fan. I use to be one of them.
I wish there was no RNG and let the divisions play themselves until they move up or down. It's stupid for someone whos ranked 795 playing against a 675 and lose because of some nonsense.
See this is a mistake people make though. It's literally impossible to have no RNG. Stats themselves are RNG. Contact, power, vision, etc, are all RNG. To have no RNG means no stats. What people really mean is less RNG, because it's impossible to have no RNG.
Also, no 795 has to play a 675. You can limit the bar once you get past 750 to only play on HOF
I get what your saying. But, maybe there isn’t any RNG? How can mantle with 47 power hit a ball 440ft. off Wagner on Good/good? While someone with 110 power only flys out with good/good? Some guys doesn’t even play close to their numbers.
It shouldn’t matter if I don’t move the bar or not. Skill should rule over anything else. If pitching control was improved and hitting outcome was realistic, maybe people wouldn’t complain about losing to guys who strike out 15 times and score 6 runs off of solos.
47 power, hits ball 440 ft.? thats RNG, RNG is required in a game like this, just not to the extent that they have pushed it.
Yep. Happened to me yesterday. So, your saying if there was no RNG, it wouldn’t have happened? And if it did, it should only be wall scrapers to center and not absolute bombs.
-
@JEEZY-E said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@TheHungryHole said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@JEEZY-E said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
@bonion said in Casual player vs consecutive yearly player:
Everyone on these forums wants user input to widen the skill gap, myself included. My question is do you really think the % of casual player is > then the % of consecutive yearly player. (Most of us on forum are) If SDS has more casual players then yes the RNG is gonna prevail over input. I just don’t see how the player pool favors the casual? I see arguments of the game is too hard and those people will leave. If you truly love baseball, and are starting the game for the first time...IMO I wouldn’t give up if I’m getting my a$$ kicked. I know the game of baseball inside out, played since I could grip a “fat bat” at age 4. If I’m getting whooped I’m gonna fix what I’m doing wrong and “git better”. If baseball is my 3rd favorite sport then yeah I’d prob walk away from the game and play madden or 2k instead.
My point is I just don’t understand how the casual outweighs the go-hard on DD (the most player based gm mode)
IMO if your a casual you prob shouldn’t be expecting to get much further then P Race and should stick to H2H if you enjoy playing others online
My money is on there being more returning players to the game then first time players. I would imagine the returning player to want user input to prevail over RNG
There is nothing enjoyable about this game, my summers for the past 10 years have included MLB the show, this year, I don't even want to think about it. We were all wondering when SDS would venture into EA/2K territory and they finally have, unfortunately it was at the cost of loyal customers who got them here in the first place. For anyone thinking that these developers or companies have your best interests or even considered your portion of the market share in mind, they don't...they are catering to casual's, who will spend money 3 months of the year and bankroll development for next year. I am moving away from console specifically for this reason.
maybe you are thinking or treating the game way too seriously
i think that is the biggest problem is the expectation that some of you have that somehow you're going to have a perfect videogame
if this games truly makes you feel this way - then why even bother playing it at all ya know?
i say this completely with all respect and politeness but take what you said and reflect a moment - pick up a new hobby or game ya know?
I never take a video game seriously, in this case I am basing it off past experiences. I gave SDS a pass in '18, they sort of redeemed themselves in '19 but this year is horrendous. It's not even the fact that I am getting bad results, this year I have hit better than I have since '16 but it's just not enjoyable, it's predictable.
EDIT: I haven't played a H2H game since the first week of May, I won the game but had no enjoyment from it, the game just feel's terrible and reading negative reviews from top player's has kept me far away from online play, which IMO is the only mode in DD, due to SDS caving to whiner's.
for me 2018 was by far the worst show ever....... 17 and 19 were better, and 20 is better than both. to each their own right? best of luck with your interests
-
They need to make a Hardcore Mode in DD. Strip away RNG, per 9’s, quirks, etc. Only have zone hitting, analogue pitching, and button accuracy throwing. Get rid of auto dive fielding.
Make it all one, solid pitch speed. Have the pci represent the barrel of the bat Tie attributes such as power and contact to the size of the barrel. Tie control of a pitcher to how big the yellow bar is to get it perfectly placed.
Make this mode hard to be terrific and have great consistency. Let controller skills and realistic in game physics determine the outcome.
Only have ping based matchmaking regardless of record. Give rewards based on number of wins. Lose a win if you quit or lose connection.
Why’s is this not doable SDS? This mode would not be for everybody, but those people would still have the original RNG option as well.
Trying to blend input and RNG into a one size fits all model has become the Achilles heel of this game.
-
Why does any of this matter?
