|
|
Post by Danjal on Aug 13, 2014 13:17:14 GMT
I think DeNA only get say on stuff to do with making the game profitable for Mobile, and I think that the suggestions from outside, such as yours, are curated by the CM team and then go through Jack and Jamie before they reach Peter. From an outside perspective. I think that might well be part of the current problem. Having decided from the start to go with a cross-platform development, but selecting two vastly different platforms with very differing priorities. And only being able to support one platform fully at any given time. The need to focus entirely on mobile. Then having someone with a vested interest in the success of that mobile platform from a monetary perspective give you advice. That is part of what caused the PC version as it is today to be so horrendously bad. And the only way to 'fix' that now is to go back in and rip all of those parts out. You can't just patch it over and hope it'll work, many of these mechanics work on mobile BECAUSE of how people approach mobile gaming. These mechanics fall flat on PC (as we see with how many people view Godus right now.) Having developed Godus as effectively a mobile only game for so long and taking advice from a company that has no interest in the game, but just its profitability? Just reading the reviews - I've seen so many point out how the game seems to treat its players as mindless automatons whose only purpose in life is to just repeat chores on their mobile device and spend cash on microtransactions. Rather than treating the player with respect and acknowledging that the player isn't utterly stupid. It makes me wonder. There's no way that Peter did not know that he could not be developing both platforms at once. Did he from the start plan to work it in shifts? Developing one side, then going in and ripping out the bits that don't work for the other platform. Then developing the other platform for a time only to have to go in again and rip out its guts to make the new developments function on the other platform? Or does he truely believe that he can make it function with ducttape and bandaid solutions? |
|
Raspofabs
Former 22Cans staff
Posts: 227 
I like: coding, high peat single malts, ... , yeah, that's about it.
I don't like: object oriented design, and liver.
Steam: raspofabs
|
Post by Raspofabs on Aug 13, 2014 13:58:09 GMT
I think DeNA only get say on stuff to do with making the game profitable for Mobile, and I think that the suggestions from outside, such as yours, are curated by the CM team and then go through Jack and Jamie before they reach Peter. From an outside perspective. I think that might well be part of the current problem. Having decided from the start to go with a cross-platform development, but selecting two vastly different platforms with very differing priorities. And only being able to support one platform fully at any given time. The need to focus entirely on mobile. Then having someone with a vested interest in the success of that mobile platform from a monetary perspective give you advice. That is part of what caused the PC version as it is today to be so horrendously bad. And the only way to 'fix' that now is to go back in and rip all of those parts out. You can't just patch it over and hope it'll work, many of these mechanics work on mobile BECAUSE of how people approach mobile gaming. These mechanics fall flat on PC (as we see with how many people view Godus right now.) Having developed Godus as effectively a mobile only game for so long and taking advice from a company that has no interest in the game, but just its profitability? Just reading the reviews - I've seen so many point out how the game seems to treat its players as mindless automatons whose only purpose in life is to just repeat chores on their mobile device and spend cash on microtransactions. Rather than treating the player with respect and acknowledging that the player isn't utterly stupid. It makes me wonder. There's no way that Peter did not know that he could not be developing both platforms at once. Did he from the start plan to work it in shifts? Developing one side, then going in and ripping out the bits that don't work for the other platform. Then developing the other platform for a time only to have to go in again and rip out its guts to make the new developments function on the other platform? Or does he truely believe that he can make it function with ducttape and bandaid solutions? I'm not convinced Peter had the time to consider those things. You can easily get distracted from the bigger picture when you're worrying about stuff, like dwindling funds. He waxed lyrical about the importance of not being couched in the comforts of Microsoft in order to become truly creative again, but that's a double edged sword. I think he's been busy trying to balance his responsibilities to DeNA with his own desires for what the game should be. Maybe now the time is ripe for the realisation of that ideal split between the platforms. It could also be that now we have significantly less distractions and responsibilities, we have the time to consider things that would previously have been deemed development suicide on the way to where we are now. |
|
Lord Ba'al
Supreme Deity
Posts: 6,260
Pledge level: Half a Partner
I like: Cats; single malt Scotch; Stargate; Amiga; fried potatoes; retro gaming; cheese; snickers; sticky tape.
I don't like: Dimples in the bottom of scotch bottles; Facebook games masquerading as godgames.
Steam: stonelesscutter
GOG: stonelesscutter
|
Post by Lord Ba'al on Aug 13, 2014 14:20:54 GMT
[As much as my ideas don't gain any traction, I also don't know how features get requested and authorised either. I think DeNA only get say on stuff to do with making the game profitable for Mobile, and I think that the suggestions from outside, such as yours, are curated by the CM team and then go through Jack and Jamie before they reach Peter. This is all just what I've picked up though, not quotable fact, sorry. Well, we've been giving feedback for the community team for quite a while now but apart from them telling us that they are gathering our feedback and putting it in documents to present to the design team we have no idea what is actually going on there. Are those documents really given to the design team? Are those documents really even made? Are suggestions that we make effectively documented or is there a "loss in translation" that occurs? Something tells me we'd be far better off if there was a more direct line between the backers and the design team. Could you perhaps ask Peter and Jack (and the rest of the team) to have a read through our brand new Feature Request thread that is just brimming with ideas? |
|
Raspofabs
Former 22Cans staff
Posts: 227
I like: coding, high peat single malts, ... , yeah, that's about it.
I don't like: object oriented design, and liver.
Steam: raspofabs
|
Post by Raspofabs on Aug 13, 2014 14:47:25 GMT
[As much as my ideas don't gain any traction, I also don't know how features get requested and authorised either. I think DeNA only get say on stuff to do with making the game profitable for Mobile, and I think that the suggestions from outside, such as yours, are curated by the CM team and then go through Jack and Jamie before they reach Peter. This is all just what I've picked up though, not quotable fact, sorry. Well, we've been giving feedback for the community team for quite a while now but apart from them telling us that they are gathering our feedback and putting it in documents to present to the design team we have no idea what is actually going on there. Are those documents really given to the design team? Are those documents really even made? Are suggestions that we make effectively documented or is there a "loss in translation" that occurs? Something tells me we'd be far better off if there was a more direct line between the backers and the design team. Could you perhaps ask Peter and Jack (and the rest of the team) to have a read through our brand new Feature Request thread that is just brimming with ideas? Can, and will. |
|
|
|
Post by Danjal on Aug 13, 2014 15:39:04 GMT
You make a fair point, and you could very well be correct. It still leaves me wondering what Peter (or anyone else who was with him on making the decisions at the start) was/were thinking. And I'm specifically thinking the 'beforehand' aspect. You'd imagine someone does not go into such a project blind. Is it indeed the lack of experience of actually 'running' a company and design/development of a game. Something that previously had been done by higherups within Microsoft (or any other corporate entity), leaving him to focus on his own 'thing'. In which case, perhaps it'd have been a good idea to acquire more support in these fields. Play to eachothers strengths if you will. But I'll definitely admit, as an outsider we're not privy to all the information and sometimes a solution that seems 'easy' or 'obvious' might not be such when you're faced with the problem yourself. I definitely hope you are right and that 22cans has the chance now to fullfill that vision as it was described during the kickstarter. The vision that most of us liked and the vision that convinced us to support the project in the first place. Not some watered down sellout, attempting to make some quick cash off of the reputation of a pretty awesome game that never really got the chance to become a great commercial success (when compared to franchises such as Call of Duty and others). |
|
|
|
Post by nerdyvonnerdling on Aug 13, 2014 17:11:18 GMT
I think he's been busy trying to balance his responsibilities to DeNA with his own desires for what the game should be. This makes sense. This is also a big source of some (maybe much) of the vitriol he and 22Cans are receiving from their kickstarter backers, who backed a game specifically under the auspices of no publisher involvement/influence. To not only have that influence present, but to have it be ftp gameplay? Something that if mentioned would clearly have heavily influenced peoples decision to fund the project? Ouch. |
|
|
|
Post by nerdyvonnerdling on Aug 13, 2014 17:14:56 GMT
I'm just going to pine in on the focus on graphics/focus on gameplay dichotomy. As someone who is lucky enough to make a living in the visual arts, I'm clearly biased, but by all means, focus on the visuals, all the way. It doesn't exclude (and often is an entirely separate realm from) focus on gameplay, so it harms nothing in that regard. If it were an actual choice, sure. Gameplay is what it all boils down to in the end. But it's not an actual either/or scenario, so, yeah. Rock them graphics!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deth on Aug 13, 2014 17:17:07 GMT
I think he's been busy trying to balance his responsibilities to DeNA with his own desires for what the game should be. Well that answer one question in my mind. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2014 19:16:47 GMT
It makes me wonder. There's no way that Peter did not know that he could not be developing both platforms at once. Did he from the start plan to work it in shifts? Developing one side, then going in and ripping out the bits that don't work for the other platform. Then developing the other platform for a time only to have to go in again and rip out its guts to make the new developments function on the other platform? Or does he truly believe that he can make it function with ducttape and bandaid solutions? I'm sure in one of the early videos when they first mentioned doing mobile Peter talked about being able to seamlessly switch from playing your world on your PC and your tablet, and vice versa. So presumably at the time he didn't imagine any difference between the two, such as a free and paid version, and therefore figured they could be developed along side each other with out any problems. And its a shame as it sounded great at the time. (apologies if I've posted something that's already been covered, I'm new here and it would take too long to read through all the previous posts.  ) |
|
|
|
Post by hardly on Aug 13, 2014 19:29:46 GMT
Fabs, you have brilliant ideas for this game! But it sounds like unfortunately you don't have any input on the actual content, and instead have to follow the instructions you are given. What's the decision-making process at 22Cans as far as design decisions are concerned? Where do the requirements come from - are they based on analytics, user feedback, Peter's ideas or a combination of the three? Does DeNA have any input or offer any ideas? Who gets the final say? As much as my ideas don't gain any traction, I also don't know how features get requested and authorised either. I think DeNA only get say on stuff to do with making the game profitable for Mobile, and I think that the suggestions from outside, such as yours, are curated by the CM team and then go through Jack and Jamie before they reach Peter. This is all just what I've picked up though, not quotable fact, sorry. Wow I expected a more egalitarian approach to development from an "indie". Centralisation of decision making and the opaqueness of that decision making seems to be one reason why this game has struggled to find fun gameplay. Danjal your right that aesthetics have received too much attention to date and core gameplay not enough. Still if Ras is dedicated graphics then I definitely want him to keep thinking about ways to make the game better graphically. Ba'al please don't help them add any more chores to the game. The last thing we need is a requirement to beautify twice a day  |
|
Lord Ba'al
Supreme Deity
Posts: 6,260
Pledge level: Half a Partner
I like: Cats; single malt Scotch; Stargate; Amiga; fried potatoes; retro gaming; cheese; snickers; sticky tape.
I don't like: Dimples in the bottom of scotch bottles; Facebook games masquerading as godgames.
Steam: stonelesscutter
GOG: stonelesscutter
|
Post by Lord Ba'al on Aug 13, 2014 19:30:12 GMT
I'm sure in one of the early videos when they first mentioned doing mobile Peter talked about being able to seamlessly switch from playing your world on your PC and your tablet, and vice versa. So presumably at the time he didn't imagine any difference between the two, such as a free and paid version, and therefore figured they could be developed along side each other with out any problems. And its a shame as it sounded great at the time. (apologies if I've posted something that's already been covered, I'm new here and it would take too long to read through all the previous posts. ) No problem at all. We have a habit of repeating ourselves here.  You are also correct that that was Peter's original vision. |
|
|
|
Post by hardly on Aug 13, 2014 19:35:22 GMT
From an outside perspective. I think that might well be part of the current problem. Having decided from the start to go with a cross-platform development, but selecting two vastly different platforms with very differing priorities. And only being able to support one platform fully at any given time. The need to focus entirely on mobile. Then having someone with a vested interest in the success of that mobile platform from a monetary perspective give you advice. That is part of what caused the PC version as it is today to be so horrendously bad. And the only way to 'fix' that now is to go back in and rip all of those parts out. You can't just patch it over and hope it'll work, many of these mechanics work on mobile BECAUSE of how people approach mobile gaming. These mechanics fall flat on PC (as we see with how many people view Godus right now.) Having developed Godus as effectively a mobile only game for so long and taking advice from a company that has no interest in the game, but just its profitability? Just reading the reviews - I've seen so many point out how the game seems to treat its players as mindless automatons whose only purpose in life is to just repeat chores on their mobile device and spend cash on microtransactions. Rather than treating the player with respect and acknowledging that the player isn't utterly stupid. It makes me wonder. There's no way that Peter did not know that he could not be developing both platforms at once. Did he from the start plan to work it in shifts? Developing one side, then going in and ripping out the bits that don't work for the other platform. Then developing the other platform for a time only to have to go in again and rip out its guts to make the new developments function on the other platform? Or does he truely believe that he can make it function with ducttape and bandaid solutions? I'm not convinced Peter had the time to consider those things. You can easily get distracted from the bigger picture when you're worrying about stuff, like dwindling funds. He waxed lyrical about the importance of not being couched in the comforts of Microsoft in order to become truly creative again, but that's a double edged sword. I think he's been busy trying to balance his responsibilities to DeNA with his own desires for what the game should be. Maybe now the time is ripe for the realisation of that ideal split between the platforms. It could also be that now we have significantly less distractions and responsibilities, we have the time to consider things that would previously have been deemed development suicide on the way to where we are now. Which really raises the question why sell out in the first place especially when as has been pointed out by others that he promised not to sell out. You have to wonder what an alternate reality where GODUS was only developed as a PC game would look like without the mobile distractions. |
|
|
|
Post by Gmr Leon on Aug 13, 2014 21:14:01 GMT
I'm not convinced Peter had the time to consider those things. You can easily get distracted from the bigger picture when you're worrying about stuff, like dwindling funds. He waxed lyrical about the importance of not being couched in the comforts of Microsoft in order to become truly creative again, but that's a double edged sword. I think he's been busy trying to balance his responsibilities to DeNA with his own desires for what the game should be. Maybe now the time is ripe for the realisation of that ideal split between the platforms. It could also be that now we have significantly less distractions and responsibilities, we have the time to consider things that would previously have been deemed development suicide on the way to where we are now. Which really raises the question why sell out in the first place especially when as has been pointed out by others that he promised not to sell out. You have to wonder what an alternate reality where GODUS was only developed as a PC game would look like without the mobile distractions. A game where we were only complaining about the absence of hubworld or hubworld not being a large persistent map...One would hope. |
|
|
|
Post by hardly on Aug 14, 2014 0:26:12 GMT
I knew zygna had problems but I didn't realise king and candy crush had also started to tank: www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/13/kim-kardashian-candy-crush_n_5675009.htmlThis reminds me of the story (biblical?) about building your house on sand. How often will this cycle repeat before investors realise that this companies burn brightly for a very short period of time. There is no long term growth here. In other news I notice Dayz has been in the top 10 on steam for forever. I know which business model I'd follow.... |
|
|
|
Post by Danjal on Aug 14, 2014 0:51:29 GMT
The question there is - how many investors made a loss on these companies.
What you need to understand is that the main goal for an investor is NOT to make a good product. They couldn't care less that the company goes under.
They want to get their investment multiplied and after that they'll cash-out and leave.
Why should they care that a company isn't sustainable? They already have their money and they can just start with a new company after.
They do not care what happens, as long as they get their money out of it.
So as long as companies like zynga, king and others remain vastly profitable - even if it is for short amounts of time.
There will always be investors sinking money into them for a quick payout.
|
|
|
|
Post by 13thGeneral on Aug 14, 2014 2:46:47 GMT
The question there is - how many investors made a loss on these companies. What you need to understand is that the main goal for an investor is NOT to make a good product. They couldn't care less that the company goes under. They want to get their investment multiplied and after that they'll cash-out and leave. Why should they care that a company isn't sustainable? They already have their money and they can just start with a new company after. They do not care what happens, as long as they get their money out of it. So as long as companies like Zynga, king and others remain vastly profitable - even if it is for short amounts of time. There will always be investors sinking money into them for a quick payout. Bingo! That's called smart invest ing; investors (sharks) need to be quick to jump on anything that shows potential profitability, and then cash out and move on when they're comfortable with the return. Buuuut anyway, that's another topic for another kind of forum. This thread is awesome, but it's been a long week and I wish I had the energy to post my thoughts on it all. This weekend for sure! |
|
|
|
Post by dozvati on Aug 14, 2014 3:15:07 GMT
there's nothing like waking up to impossible happiness odds. and because there's no way to back up saves without the game miraculously progressing without itself running, i guess that's 4 days of gameplay wasted. :I  |
|
Lord Ba'al
Supreme Deity
Posts: 6,260
Pledge level: Half a Partner
I like: Cats; single malt Scotch; Stargate; Amiga; fried potatoes; retro gaming; cheese; snickers; sticky tape.
I don't like: Dimples in the bottom of scotch bottles; Facebook games masquerading as godgames.
Steam: stonelesscutter
GOG: stonelesscutter
|
Post by Lord Ba'al on Aug 14, 2014 9:32:06 GMT
Do followers lost to the Astari actually become Astari? If so, why not the other way around?
|
|
|
|
Post by rubgish on Aug 14, 2014 10:16:13 GMT
So, little interesting tid-bit here. Post-update player retention on steam is actually significantly better than it ever has been. There has barely been any drop (actually a minor increase!?) in maximum concurrent players since the update was released almost a week ago. If we compare that to the last major release (V2.0.0), while the initial jump in players was higher (2000 vs 1200), within a week of that release, peak players had dropped to about 600 or ~25% of that 2000. Yesterday's peak figure of 1300 players is actually higher than the peak achieved last friday, the day of the latest release. Now the update was pretty late on friday, so maybe that somewhat explains the lower peak compared to the V2.0.0 release. But nothing I can see explains why so many people are still playing the game, except for the fact that they must be enjoying it. I'd be interested to hear peoples suggestions/comments on this |
|
|
|
Post by dozvati on Aug 14, 2014 11:16:21 GMT
Do followers lost to the Astari actually become Astari? If so, why not the other way around? nope, they stay the same. you can actually see your followers celebrating during the astari festival! you can even win them back, if you don't meteor strike them like i did. |
|
)
