Done with this game

What I described above is hardly a conspiracy, let alone a grand conspiracy. It is pretty common business strategy, every major video game project have one. What got me so agitated in this particular case is how narrow the GGG strategy seems to be.

They came really close to making a perfect ARPG. Yes, I wrote all these toxic posts because I cared about PoE and tried (in vain) to advocate some changes with my posts.

Because usually said business strategy includes a broad list of avenues: what part of the game would appeal to casuals, what - to players who value plot and setting and cosmetics, and what - to hardcore. Video games are not car racing, it is not that hard (or expensive) to fuse those different playerbases together on one project.

But PoE is built entirely for hardcore, you have to live in this game if you want to explore all content. GGG willingly sacrificed entire casual population by setting an unavoidable difficulty bar, just so the hardcore players would have a few extra ways to distinguish themselves here.

What is so bad in reducing death exp penalty? Abundance of lvl 100 players? The 10 extra passive points would not make a difference in defeating Maven if your build is underpowered. The only people who would look down on ability to get to 100 with "weak" build are those seeking to build their self-actualization on this game, which is much more "unhealthy" living, and GGG is promoting it unwillingly, for the sake of some extra revenue.

"

Echothesis wrote:

it is not that hard (or expensive) to fuse those different playerbases together on one project.

This is a super hot take from an industry outsider, otherwise you´d never say something like that.


Every single game pre-determines a target audience long before the production starts. Even long before the funding process and budgeting starts.

If you dont determine who you are catering to, you cant estimate potential sales/revenues and if you cant do that you wont be able to formulate a business plan and find investors/publishers.
Meaning, if you cant fund everything somehow on your own, your game/project is dead.


Id be genuinely interested to learn HOW you´d fuse every single group of potential target audiences together, create a game for all of them and also get it funded.

"

Echothesis wrote:

But PoE is built entirely for hardcore, you have to live in this game if you want to explore all content. GGG willingly sacrificed entire casual population by setting an unavoidable difficulty bar, just so the hardcore players would have a few extra ways to distinguish themselves here.

Now this is going into needlessly dramatic, if these two premises are true
- PoE is built entirely for hardcore
- GGG willingly sacrificed entire casual population

That would mean there's absolutely nothing in this game for a casual player to enjoy, and I think we both know that is evidently not true.

People are different, some are happy with just dabbling in something they like, and some have to go all in, but there's nothing wrong with either of those. Thing is, if you want to draw in the latter group, you have to reward investment by having things only they can do, but that doesn't have to mean there's nothing in it for others.

I know it can sometimes seem like there's only two types of players in PoE, a happy full-timer and a disgruntled casual, but that's honestly bull.

"

Echothesis wrote:

What is so bad in reducing death exp penalty? Abundance of lvl 100 players? The 10 extra passive points would not make a difference in defeating Maven if your build is underpowered. The only people who would look down on ability to get to 100 with "weak" build are those seeking to build their self-actualization on this game, which is much more "unhealthy" living, and GGG is promoting it unwillingly, for the sake of some extra revenue.

you can also just accept that ggg want death to be punished, and that levelling to 100 should require both knowledge and time. these arguments are essentially trying to shame people who disagree with you. do i dislike dying and losing exp? yes of course it fucking sucks. but my solution is to figure out how to not die, rather than asking for the removal of the inconvenience

"

The only people who would look down on ability to get to 100 with "weak" build are those seeking to build their self-actualization on this game, which is much more "unhealthy" living

like what the fuck is this shit?

its just like the "nolifer" bullshit some self proclaimed bitter casuals throw around to try to shame those who enjoy the game for what it is, and dont demand the entire thing to be overhauled at its core

and how does this in any way generate more revenue for ggg? none of this makes any sense beyond being a bitter rant out of entitlement

"

Orbaal wrote:

"

Echothesis wrote:

it is not that hard (or expensive) to fuse those different playerbases together on one project.

This is a super hot take from an industry outsider, otherwise you´d never say something like that.


Every single game pre-determines a target audience long before the production starts. Even long before the funding process and budgeting starts.

If you dont determine who you are catering to, you cant estimate potential sales/revenues and if you cant do that you wont be able to formulate a business plan and find investors/publishers.
Meaning, if you cant fund everything somehow on your own, your game/project is dead.


Id be genuinely interested to learn HOW you´d fuse every single group of potential target audiences together, create a game for all of them and also get it funded.

Okay, let me elaborate, I may have used too strict turn of phrase for the sake of dramatic effect, sorry :)

This was the main reason I was so impressed by PoE back when I first started playing, game seems to have done just that: merged both casual and hardcore audience together by offering large convoluted build modeling for hardcore, while at the same time content seemed to be doable with just your favorite skills you chose for visual reasons, not because they were the only meta. The amount of different maps and side mechanics was also more than enough for an explorer player.

It wasn't until I first got to T16 maps that I understood which design line takes preference from there. Roughly speaking, casual players play to unwind and look how something explodes, hardcore players play to apply their tenacity and dedication for a unique and spectacular rewards.

Usually, appeasing both takes too much effort from developers, and they focus resources on one avenue. But PoE already has a setup that may do that, I think addition of global "Easy mode" would bring more revenue (from "wow this game is so massive" newcomers, who wouldn't get past story otherwise), that it would detract (from "bah, a real man only plays HC leagues, this game has degraded, I am leaving" chasers).

Of course I have no way to know for certain, GGG has their telemetry and statistical models.

So, while fusing "every single group of potential target audiences" may be impossible, fusing at least 2 opposites may well be, and it would be very interesting to look what would happen if GGG tried.

In the end, if a developer is building their game with a goal to make a certain type of player happy, in my mind that's more healthy than compromising on what they think the game should be like just so they could earn more revenue.

Dunno what's up with the logic anyway
- GGG somehow earns cash through player frustration, and that's disgusting
- Instead GGG should earn way more cash by dealing cheap dopamine like everyone else

"

Echothesis wrote:

Roughly speaking, casual players play to unwind and look how something explodes, hardcore players play to apply their tenacity and dedication for a unique and spectacular rewards.

While this isnt incorrect, its also not correct when we are talking about industry standards. Terms like "casuals" and "hardcore" are far from the only ones being used.
Its not just those 2 groups, its more like a dozen of them with plenty overlaps in between the groups.

"Completionist" and "Powergamer" would be another 2 groups, which could be viable target audiences for ARPGs and may have overlaps but dont necessarily have to overlap. Whereas the "Builder" group most likely stays away from ARPGs entirely. In short: Its far more complicated than you think it is ;)
Which shouldnt be surprising, given the production budget of AAA-Games rivaling Hollywood movies and the overall turnover of the gaming industry has been on the rise for years and years.

"

Echothesis wrote:

So, while fusing "every single group of potential target audiences" may be impossible, fusing at least 2 opposites may well be, and it would be very interesting to look what would happen if GGG tried.

Well GGG did that already, you simply fail to see it.
Roughly speaking this game is already divided into at least 5 difficulties by default. Being: Campaign, white maps, yellow maps, red maps and aspirational content.

This concept allows ALL groups to play the exact same game, sharing the exact same market and expierences while keeping development as well as maintaince costs as low as possible.

This works well for many groups - except for "completionists" plus "explorers" and some other groups.
Completionists will never be able to "complete" this game and "explorers" will never be able to explore everything there is unless they also happen to be "powergamer". Having said that, there is more than enough stuff to explore to keep "explorers" happy for years unless they happen to be "completionists" as well.
Everyone else can find a sweetspot and enjoy the game to whichever extend they desire.

Given GGGs approach or philosophy of an never ending development, as in this game will never be "complete" anyways and thus its safe to assume catering to "completionists" isnt exactly high on their bucket list.
This is the one group I can think of that will never be happy with how GGG handles their development process no matter what.

I highly doubt GGG is going to change their approach to appease a single group as long as their bottom line is fine and even if the bottom line wasnt fine, assuming "completionists" could turn the tide if GGG changed their approach is questionable at best.

You are correct, but it is hard enough to get a point across a text forum without bringing lots of industry definitions into play, a single post would be a wall of text if written "by the book". And yes, I do happen to be both a "completionist" and an "explorer", so it sucks to hit a wall in endgame here and realize you cannot get around it without redefining most of your build, which you have chosen because you like it, not because it popups better numbers.

I intentionally try to keep my language simple and short, so people won't latch onto specific words and respond like "what is this shit/rant" without noticing that aspect they focused on was already mentioned in earlier posts.

Anyway, I had said all I wanted to, thank you for listening.

It's 2022 and certain PoE players somehow still find ways to complain about the 10% xp penalty.

I am biased in a way as a HC player, but if I and many others can make it to 100 in HC without dying a single time then I don't see how you or anyone else can have troubles making it to 95 or whatever you personal goal is in SC.

You already have the luxury of throwing your corpse at content 6 times and not losing your character for not building enough defense for xyz mechanic or simply walking into a 1 shot, not the game's nor the dev's fault you want to play glasscannons completely unpunished. With that said, I believe a 10% xp loss on death is fine as a balancing factor, even moreso when you account the fact that you can mitigate it by being on 0% xp.

Before you resort into calling me a sweaty tryhard or whatever, I do believe that while the game used to be much more hard core back in the dayz it still doesn't mean that there's no place for casuals in PoE, in fact trade SC serves as a fair environment for such players.

noone likes the deathpenalty - yes

but this doesnt mean players are unhappy about the penalty
its a penelty these are meant to "hurt"
without this effect the penelty would be pointless