Tencent & Charan

"

鬼殺し wrote:

https://venturebeat.com/2018/04/10/tencents-new-game-investment-strategy-smaller-and-earlier/

Prescient.

"

鬼殺し wrote:

But I wanted them to get big on their own terms, in their own way. And that did happen, for a while anyway. Ironically it was probably their choice of moral financial model that most obviously contributed to the game being compromised, as the direct link between 'player' and 'payer' saw a number of design decisions that pulled PoE further and further away from that original hardcore ARPG. To this day I'll argue PoE could have been buy to play and done just fine, that it was great despite being f2p, not great because it was f2p. But what-ifs and could-have-beens are pathetic, and I'm nowhere near drunk enough to harp on them for too long. ;)

"

Charan wrote:
Because if I've learned anything these past few days, it's that we really do need to appreciate what we've got while we have it. Even if what follows is bigger, it might not necessarily be better.

"

Unquietheart wrote:

"

鬼殺し wrote:

But I wanted them to get big on their own terms, in their own way. And that did happen, for a while anyway. Ironically it was probably their choice of moral financial model that most obviously contributed to the game being compromised, as the direct link between 'player' and 'payer' saw a number of design decisions that pulled PoE further and further away from that original hardcore ARPG. To this day I'll argue PoE could have been buy to play and done just fine, that it was great despite being f2p, not great because it was f2p. But what-ifs and could-have-beens are pathetic, and I'm nowhere near drunk enough to harp on them for too long. ;)

MM... I dunno.

GGG certainly did promote one of the cleanest and most trustable Free-to-Play business models. There's a lot of really, really predatory, nasty FtP games and products out there. I think the way GGG presented their business model is one of the things that makes them stand out, and makes them worthy of attention.

On the other hand, sure, I'd have preferred a Buy-to-play model. Especially if it came with an off-line mode. But then I'm old (and thus, "old-school").

So I have mixed feelings. I do prefer to play off-line, and I do prefer to pay up front. But at the same time, bringing a more responsible, cleaner, more transparent Free-to-play model to public attention isn't a bad thing either. It is a way for smaller, indie gaming companies to make their funding process more modular and more flexible. I think it's a good thing that GGG presented it they way they did and that they had the success they had with it. Over and above whether it would have been a better game if it had simply been buy-to-play.


And has been said elsewhere, they did work on it for what? 10 years? That's a substantial investment of time. I can't argue that they didn't deserve a big payday at the end of it, even if I don't like large corporate mono-culture. (or Tencent in particular).

Like my quote says: " ... and this, too, shall pass away ... "

Gam Zeh Ya'avor

"

Filousov wrote:

Unfortunately I think that Chris is just tired and that there will be no PoE 2. Sorry, Charan, but that's what I'm getting from this.

"

PoE2

"

鬼殺し wrote:

And yeah, of course he's tired. He's been tired for ages.

"

鬼殺し wrote:

"

themousemaster wrote:

"

鬼殺し wrote:

*snip*

Christ Almighty. I was just wondering, within the frame of the PoE of back-in-the-day, what a better loop-drop model would have been; one that makes ranged-vs-melee a concept of safety-vs-damage, taking the "loot acquisition" dichotomy out of the equation.

If my coworkers ever needle me for making long-winded emails in the future, I'm linking them that post ;p.



Not that your reply wasn't well thought out, of course. I suppose I'm just as much at fault for asking someone known for being eloquently vociferous such an open-ended question ;p

Sorry. :( it was a FUCKING GOOD QUESTION.