Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 17 of 17

Thread: For all you wondering where your sub money goes

  1. #11

    Default

    Welcome to the gaming industy.

    Funcom is a company, they do not care about the game itself, they care about the profit. Most people here know that - the players that are still here are veterans that love the GAME.
    (And with "Funcom" I mean the people who are the "head" of the company - the marketing people, NOT the developers)
    But it's not just Funcom doing this, just look at EA or Ubisoft. They are the same greedy business people like Funcom, they do not care a bit about the players desires or the continuation of a game's support.

    Basic economy stuff -> spent as little as possible amount of money into games -> release them -> make big profit -> move on. PC games WERE something special when the developers were kind of independent but since the big companies know how to get as much money as they can -> cash cow production. I just say Battlefield or Call of Duty - since 2011 the same sh*t over and over again, grabbing as much money as possible (full priced game with thousands of DLCs) and then move on when the big money was made.

    You can either spend money on these games, or move on too - it's not Funcom's fault that people still buy these lottery boxes for 200 bucks.

    I do not support this sh*t, not a single bit, I totally despise this "Make max. money out of everything without spending anything on it!" principe, but it's like the market nowdays works.

    We all know how it works, the only thing you can do is to stop spending money and move on or keep spending money - but do not expect them to listen to you or interact with you in any way.

  2. #12

    Default

    Not surprised at all the Lego game failed, knew it would flop as soon as I heard they were working on it.

  3. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xCodename View Post
    Welcome to the gaming industy.

    Funcom is a company, they do not care about the game itself, they care about the profit. Most people here know that - the players that are still here are veterans that love the GAME.
    (And with "Funcom" I mean the people who are the "head" of the company - the marketing people, NOT the developers)
    But it's not just Funcom doing this, just look at EA or Ubisoft. They are the same greedy business people like Funcom, they do not care a bit about the players desires or the continuation of a game's support.
    Again, they should. It is a certain trend (not imperative or even economics rule!!!) behind this, responsible for delusion and bad management. History is already proving that trend wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by xCodename View Post
    Basic economy stuff -> spent as little as possible amount of money into games -> release them -> make big profit -> move on. PC games WERE something special when the developers were kind of independent but since the big companies know how to get as much money as they can -> cash cow production. I just say Battlefield or Call of Duty - since 2011 the same sh*t over and over again, grabbing as much money as possible (full priced game with thousands of DLCs) and then move on when the big money was made.
    Again, this is not economics, it is the trend. Real economics are a bit more complicated...even the greed based model rathotis mentioned earlier is only a certain part/school of it, that is valid only under certain circumstances. There is enough literature, experience and examples out there as basis of my argument that they would earn more money with a different approach. The critical point is the time over which you do your evaluations as well (see what i mentioned about greed). For a short term you are probably right, but the quick earnings are not clever or a sign of skill, they always come with a price (which i bet they forget to mention at shareholder meetings).

    Quote Originally Posted by xCodename View Post
    You can either spend money on these games, or move on too - it's not Funcom's fault that people still buy these lottery boxes for 200 bucks.
    Yes, it is partly too. This same line of argumentation is used by scammers ("No one needed to open that email", "no one needed to get addicted", "no one needed to buy that flask of water for 100$").

    Quote Originally Posted by xCodename View Post
    I do not support this sh*t, not a single bit, I totally despise this "Make max. money out of everything without spending anything on it!" principe, but it's like the market nowdays works.

    We all know how it works, the only thing you can do is to stop spending money and move on or keep spending money - but do not expect them to listen to you or interact with you in any way.
    It is not even how the whole market works, but it could be how some companies (or people) would like the market to be. You are right about the spending money part, this is always the first step. And moving on will prove far easier than the heads of funcom imagine...
    Making them listen is the second part, if you want to keep certain things alive or running. Especially if your job is on the line, you will need outside comments and customer feedback, because funcom employees have even less power to change what will cost them their job.
    Last edited by Kurt2013; 20th June 2016 at 15:51.

  4. #14

    Default

    "Not all customers are created equal. In fact, the top 1% of ecommerce customers are worth up to 18 times more than average customers."

    https://rjmetrics.com/resources/repo...uyer-behavior/
    Guild 'House Jade Asp' - PvE server

  5. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Radicaltop View Post
    "Not all customers are created equal. In fact, the top 1% of ecommerce customers are worth up to 18 times more than average customers."

    https://rjmetrics.com/resources/repo...uyer-behavior/
    Even if the article would apply to funcoms situation (which it does not seem to do, if you look at the numbers given, it seems rather like an analysis of online shops for real goods and brands...not micromanagement of virtual goods and subscription models), it points rather in the opposite direction of what they did with the shop and membership (less products, less taking care of customers needs, less focus on returning customers, decreasing customer lifetime value). Also if pleasing the 1 out of 100 worth 18, annoys more than 18 out of the 100, it sounds rather like bad management. Not even mentioning part of the 1% seems actually annoyed about the changes too.

    Bottom line: What do you think that article should show or prove?
    Last edited by Kurt2013; 20th June 2016 at 17:24.

  6. #16

    Default

    If Funcom care about profit, they don't start Lego project in first place

  7. #17

    Default

    Funcom this, Funcom that... There is a rather small amount of people behind all its key decisions throughout the years - as everywhere else the men are always the weakest link of the chain. The amount of bad decision making in Funcom is so absurdly huge it's incredible the company still stands... But - management people come and go - perhaps someday they start to hire the right people. Judging by their latest developments in AoC it won't happen anytime soon though.

    We, the gamers are unfortunate - the great game set in the great universe is owned by mediocre company. We can't change it. We can either accept it or not. If you don't - not much of a choice but to stop playing the game. If you do - like myself - just ignore all the things you don't have any effect on and enjoy the game . I still enjoy it a lot despite many flaws. I just realized many years ago that this game is great to play casually. When you want to become hardcore MMOer here - sooner or later you'll feel as being chewed and spitted out by Funcom .

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •