Would you pay to have GGG focus exclusively on fixing the game issues but no new content?
" It would absolutely be worth it far beyond the point that it would've been something to consider. Multi-threading, better optimization, better networking code and future engine updates that are all paid by someone else. If something goes wrong with the core of the engine then it's the vendor's problem and their expense to fix, such as driver issues with some cards like ati. When they add fibers, you get that instead of having to do it yourself... and etc Better retention rates with possibly higher purchases on a game that looks THAT much better, with it running on a AAA engine that is running THAT much better? Losing 25% profit for a 200% boost would be a no brainer.... and with it winning the game of the year award, then yes... a really good engine would've meant a 200% profit increase with all the traffic this game earned from that award that left when they might of continued playing and paying. Last edited by Jiero#2499 on Mar 19, 2014, 5:24:31 PM
|
|
|
That pretty much sums up most of what i feel as well.
I'm guessing the main thing that actually hindered PoE was how early it's development began. With somebody like me, i have been able to watch the progression of multiple online games, some all the way through to death, with a more modern market. Back in 2006, that wouldn't have even been possible, so starting production that early led GGG into a situation where they had to go at it pretty much blind. |
|
" Now that's a really interesting question (albeit purely in hindsight). The 25% cut would only start to be a real revenue problem now-ish -- now that they have a large userbase. It would have cut quite a bit of time off their development, so the game could potentially have come out earlier as well. Lastly, it may have been easier to hire devs ("familiarity with UE" as a resume line). Lessons to learn for the future. |
|
|
Just to play devils advocate to the interesting thought that Xendran proposes in hind sight.
If they HAD gone with that option, we must consider how this would have effected initial game setup. Lets take CB as an example to explain my position (Though I agree that Xendrans point also has merit). If They had taken UE3, it would have been still quite a large down payment at the start, while still not having any income since the start of development has nothing to sell. Would they have been able to keep up production/live having done this? And when we consider large backers in CB who significantly helped the game along and on their own are a large reason that GGG was able to keep developing until OB where they could open the doors fully, would those backers have been as interested in backing a game where they know 25% of that money is going to another company? Would the prices of the packs have been more expensive to cover that 25% additional? $1350 for diamond supporter so 25% can go to the UE3, and still get the same support for GGG as the company? While it is a thought that at this point, right now, they might have been better off due to potentially much higher player base, there is also teh question would they have struggled to get it off the ground early taking a 25% income cut, considering that pretty much all income was not really profit, but going directly back into the game as investment towards future projects/paying employees. There is also the question of the UE3 engine, COULD it have managed to have their game as they wanted it to be? We all know that Desync model was chosen specifically to improve kinaesthetics significantly (and it does), and this was a decision that I would say definitely was chosen due to living in NZ where I can tell you delay model for D2 made the game feel sluggish (30+FCR teleport would often have you teleporting to the same spot twice because of the delay, couldn't actually tele as fast as you could in singleplayer). Would the UE3 engine have been able to handle the sync setup, and the client prediction that would be required, or would they have been forced into a delay setup and as such changed how things interact? Personally at this point I would be willing to kickstarter style a PoE2, same game, same potential model of F2P (though I wouldn't mind buy->play with mtx either), where they use teh money just to hire someone to recreate art/port mechanics to a completely new engine. But I know this would be a significant amount of work, and potentially not a significant benefit income wise (as while you would have more player base, I don't think you'd haev significantly more mtx income from the player base) |
|
|
Wolf, you may want to edit your post a bit because an Unreal 3 license with royalties is $99. I'm still reading through the post, but i just thought you should know because you said there would be a large startup cost. That would only be with the no-royalties option.
Also, remember that GGG told us that this game was funded by wealthy friends and family, so that also comes into play. I'm going to finish reading the post now. Last edited by Xendran#1127 on Mar 19, 2014, 6:31:10 PM
|
|
" ------------- Dear GGG, DOH!!! Epic just announced today that the Unreal Engine 4 will be available for only $19/month USD + 5% revenue royalty. You also get the source code. Too bad you didn't or couldn't get a wealthy backer friend to put up the $2500 USD to license the Unreal 3 game engine when you started development. Read it and weep here: http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/03/unreal-engine-4-now-available-as-19month-subscription-with-5-royalty "You've got to grind, grind, grind at that grindstone..." Necessity may be the mother of invention, but poor QoP in PoE is the father of frustration. The perfect solution to fix Trade Chat: www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/2247070 Last edited by Arrowneous#3097 on Mar 19, 2014, 9:05:55 PM
|
|
" Woulda, coulda, shoulda... |
|
|
Crytec also announced an subscripttion model but without the royalties, fascinating!
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2014-03-20-cryengine-adopts-subscription-model |
|
" Far worse off. For one, unreal is a piece of shit for networked games that have tons of entities. For two, it would significantly impact profitability. And Unreal cannot handled randomly generated terrain - it's all got to be static. And tiny. It's an engine for consoles; for linear hallway shooters. Anyone seriously suggesting an engine change in this thread is on fruit loops. You just can't do that. It would take years to redo all the game systems, even if 100% of this game's assets could be reused. My Keystone Ideas: http://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/744282 Last edited by anubite#0701 on Mar 19, 2014, 10:25:45 PM
|
|
" 'All static and tiny.' Arkham City was clearly tiny. As was/is Blade and Soul. And various other games with plenty of entities in them. Now I can grant you that I haven't seen UE3 handle randomly generated terrain, but saying that it is only for hallway shooters is probably the dumbest statement I've ever seen. |
|
