Business vs Play -- what is more important to D3? New revenue or game quality? (long, boring)

YepyepYepyep Posts: 749 Critical Contributor
As a preface: first, I want to say that I am no mayor of this board and sure am not trying to act like one. I just want to bring several conceptual threads together that seem thematically related to me. Second, I'm a little buzzed (and defintely out of my depth), so your help, correction, etc. is necessary and welcome. I'm trying to open a conversation... So:

There is much discussion on the board about, to grossly simplify, the evolution of MPQ and D3's priorities for that. Issues include

1. Supports. Monster controversy here... 
2. The rapidity of the expansion of the character base, and consequent dilution of existing characters. (i) Our current characters only lose by virtue of inflation; the sacrifice and cost we have struggled to meet, often to meet a particular event demand, is promptly devalued by event demands for new characters. (ii) New powers are only worth chasing if they can beat older powers. This cycle can be fun but is inherently power-inflationary. Can we ever really rest and enjoy deploying our team? 
--Put another way: is this character churn actually fun?
3. Failure to rebalance flawed characters and events. Despite consistent, pervasive requests to address abiding issues.
4. Failure ever, so far, to address legacy bugs; that are consequently always accreting over time meaning: 
5. New bugs, incedental to new features, becoming seemingly permanent.
6. Lack of comunication between business drivers and customers (i.e. players).
7. The gross contempt exhibited by owners for the real-money investment of players in the value of the game as property  (investment in property that only benfits the owners, like all investment in property, regardless of the source of the investment).

This list can grow. The above is a riff...

~~~~~~~

This post comes from something I posted on another thread concerning how most new things we -- the "normal" player base -- get that is new, now, seems to be support characters. Or tinykitty Supports with no avenue to the good stuff. Thinking about that, I wrote this:

I have no problem with a well-implemented support character, personally. 

My real worry is: plenty of supports (and Supports) require tweaks post-release. Forward-facing business goals are easier to justify, because new revenue is usually the primary drive behind the origination process of a new feature. Reparative and maintenance goals are harder to justify, because new revenue is usually not part of the goal origination, or any subsequent, process.

So:

1.  Are there (still) teams in place authorized to (a) gather and courrier player feedback identifying a need and (b) shepherd a buff/nerf up into the necessary upstream (managemen-relatedt) AND back down into the downstream (player population-related) processes?
2.  Within current management, are there business processes capable of (a) pricing the identified changes, (b) triggering required authorization, and (c) locating resources to (i) plan and (ii) execute all related technical demands?

Lately we have seen only new stuff. Not fixes and rebalancings. Stagnation and desperate grabbing, MORE features, MORE characters. MORE, not better.

Not making a better game, making a flashier game.

~~~~~~~
Thoughts on any of the above? Please do call tinykitty on any of it (but please explain, too). For sure, I enjoyed a nice glass of rum and juice while writing it... ;-)
«1

Comments

  • TPF AlexisTPF Alexis Posts: 3,813 Chairperson of the Boards
    Yepyep said:
    This post comes from something I posted on another thread concerning how most new things we -- the "normal" player base -- get that is new, now, seems to be support characters.
    I haven't been playing as long as many, but even in the year and change that I have been, I've noticed that these things sort of tend to go in waves. Not sure if it's really intentional on the part of the devs, but there are definitely clomps of one sort of character or another.

    In latest 12 right now, I see 5 Support characters of varying quality, (Nico, Kraven, Lockjaw, Jubilee, and Valkyrie), 5 offensive characters of varying quality (America, Rogue, MEHulk, Nightcrawler, Yondu), and a couple that I don't have enough experience with, but seem to form a good pair (Panther and Shuri). There are at least a couple of very good options in both the support and offense categories, but also at least a couple of mediocre to bad ones. Seems like a fairly reasonable spread to me.
  • HoundofShadowHoundofShadow Posts: 3,835 Chairperson of the Boards
    There is one element that is difficult to juggle: players' expectations of what should be. There are more than 50,000 players in MPQ. All players have their own views of what could be done to improve MPQ. They, after playing MPQ for sometimes, strongly believe in their ideal ways of improving MPQ, which could be influenced by their experiences playing MPQ and other games, and by other factors.  As such, they believe that their ideas are better than other players or the developers' ideas. When their ideas are not implemented, they feel hurt or resentful. 

    Since all players have different ways of looking at things, naturally, clashes in ideas happen, whether they are clashes with the developers' ideas, or even among the players' themselves. If you observe the responses in each update, there will always be negative, positive and maybe neutral feedbacks from players because each player expects the updates to be beneficial to him/her. Because it is impossible to satisfy every single player's desire in any instance,  prioritising is necessary. 

    We've no idea how the developers prioritise tasks. Common sense tells us that businesses prioritise tasks based on difficulty and urgency. These two factors are further influenced by many more factors such as authority, number of people affected, knowledge etc. It would be reasonable to say that certain tasks or features or changes are made or prioritised  based on the number of players who benefit from the change or those who requested for the change. In other words, the majority wins. Some of you might think that it is unfair but this is the way of life and how reality usually works. No company in this world can make a decision that satisfy every single customer. End of the day, there will always be at least one group of customers left dissatisfied. In MPQ, we have topics like win-based vs point based PvP and tapping vs non-tapping that prove that players disagree with one another. 

    There are some posters' names that stick in my mind because their replies are always negative and they will post snide remarks targeted at the developers whenever they have the opportunity.  It seems to me that they have a lot of hatred and vengeance towards this game or the developers, yet, they continue to play MPQ.  :o

    As far as communication is concerned, they have different channels such as email, in-game feedbacks, websites, forums, interviews, youtube, facebook, twitter for players to communicate with them. They deploy more  communication channels that other big corporations usually deploys. I guess this is not enough because I suppose, based on the replies in this forum, communication means getting the developers to answer Q&As from the players in this forum and revealing all plans and full details weeks in advance. Any incomplete details will ruffle their feathers. The last FAQ went downhill because some players were not happy/unsatisfied/<insert whatever negative emotions> with Will's answer(s). 

    Come to think of it, if they are generating more than 100 million revenues in 4 years, I think they are doing something right, unless you think that generating 100 million revenue for a match-3 game is below average.

    Lastly, it's not that they don't listen to feedbacks, they do. They are probably facing some kind of limitations like manpower, methodology implemented by higher management and even from players' feedbacks etc.
  • NeonBlueNeonBlue Posts: 142 Tile Toppler
    edited May 2018
    I get that the company needs to make money with new revenue streams, but MPQ is the only game I've played in recent memory that is both updated regularly and also so infrequently rebalanced. I think most players' expectations (at least on the forums) is justified when they call for the most egregious cases of overtuning to be addressed. As far as I can tell, there are two such cases currently: 5* Gambit and 4*R&G. In both cases, the vast majority of players use these two in their respective tiers almost exclusively because of the unconditional power, speed, and control offered.  

    Nothing will ever be truly balanced, but if pretty much everyone relies on a few characters, you got to figure it cuts into their revenue stream. Why would the average 4* or 5* who aren't collectors care about new releases if it doesn't compete with what they already have? What's the incentive to spend money champing other characters when one team or character does it so much better, that it becomes almost a requirement to compete?
  • PhumadePhumade Posts: 2,002 Chairperson of the Boards
    NeonBlue said:
     Why would the average 4* or 5* who aren't collectors care about new releases if it doesn't compete with what they already have? What's the incentive to spend money champing other characters when one team or character does it so much better, that it becomes almost a requirement to compete?
    You've truly asked the existential whale question.  But maybe you've asked the question to the wrong audience.

    In all likely hood, mpq is a niche market game with a limited appeal intellectual property.  However, that intersection of niche game (match-3) with comic book aficionados guarantees a passionate fan base with a demonstrated history (in both similar licensed games, and in tangentially related spheres)  of both spending and advocating for their view points.

    So for that audience, the typical mindset already that of a collector.  And once you make that leap,  you pretty much have to abandon common sense economics and apply "collector" psychology.


  • The rockettThe rockett Posts: 1,966 Chairperson of the Boards
    Phumade said:
    NeonBlue said:
     Why would the average 4* or 5* who aren't collectors care about new releases if it doesn't compete with what they already have? What's the incentive to spend money champing other characters when one team or character does it so much better, that it becomes almost a requirement to compete?
    You've truly asked the existential whale question.  But maybe you've asked the question to the wrong audience.

    In all likely hood, mpq is a niche market game with a limited appeal intellectual property.  However, that intersection of niche game (match-3) with comic book aficionados guarantees a passionate fan base with a demonstrated history (in both similar licensed games, and in tangentially related spheres)  of both spending and advocating for their view points.

    So for that audience, the typical mindset already that of a collector.  And once you make that leap,  you pretty much have to abandon common sense economics and apply "collector" psychology.


    This is perfect answer but I would like to add one major point.  

    Until they get bored or see that their value that they have invested into the game doesn’t matter anymore.  Then all bets are off.  
  • NeonBlueNeonBlue Posts: 142 Tile Toppler
    edited May 2018
    Phumade said:
    NeonBlue said:
     Why would the average 4* or 5* who aren't collectors care about new releases if it doesn't compete with what they already have? What's the incentive to spend money champing other characters when one team or character does it so much better, that it becomes almost a requirement to compete?
    You've truly asked the existential whale question.  But maybe you've asked the question to the wrong audience.

    In all likely hood, mpq is a niche market game with a limited appeal intellectual property.  However, that intersection of niche game (match-3) with comic book aficionados guarantees a passionate fan base with a demonstrated history (in both similar licensed games, and in tangentially related spheres)  of both spending and advocating for their view points.

    So for that audience, the typical mindset already that of a collector.  And once you make that leap,  you pretty much have to abandon common sense economics and apply "collector" psychology.


    It's true that whales make up the majority of revenue, but I do think the prototypical mpq player was at one point fairly casual and enjoys seeing Marvel characters, but probably never picked up a comic book in their life. Now that the playerbase has tapered off, it's likely more devoted players have stuck around. Match 3 is not that niche among mobile gamers (going all the way back to Candy Crush and Bejeweled), and Marvel has not been a comics lover IP since the MCU began. If you want to test the niche IP thing, we probably should look at MtGPQ
  • PhumadePhumade Posts: 2,002 Chairperson of the Boards
    mobile gamers are a niche market in and of themselves.  let alone discussing match3 variants.

    In the Realm of discretionary spending on electornic "fun"  mobile gaming probably lags behind console and pc gaming.  And in reality, electronic gaming overall,  is probably a minor subset of the money spent on movies, television etc...

    It all depends on how accurately you think you can describe the actual playerbase.

    What you define as "casual" is actually pretty well informed compared to the avg person who plays candy crush.

    1.  I'm pretty sure even the noobiest mpq player knows the distinction between Avengers, Mutants, and Spider verse.
    2.  I'm also pretty sure they a more than passing interest in mcu.

    Those two statements aren't necessarily true about the avg candy crush player.


    You might think the avg mpq player is noob tier compared to the guys who can discuss the various iterations of GTOG,  but really they are already way more nerdy and collector predisposed than the avg candy crusher.
  • NeonBlueNeonBlue Posts: 142 Tile Toppler
    Phumade said:
    mobile gamers are a niche market in and of themselves.  let alone discussing match3 variants.

    In the Realm of discretionary spending on electornic "fun"  mobile gaming probably lags behind console and pc gaming.  And in reality, electronic gaming overall,  is probably a minor subset of the money spent on movies, television etc...

    It all depends on how accurately you think you can describe the actual playerbase.

    What you define as "casual" is actually pretty well informed compared to the avg person who plays candy crush.

    1.  I'm pretty sure even the noobiest mpq player knows the distinction between Avengers, Mutants, and Spider verse.
    2.  I'm also pretty sure they a more than passing interest in mcu.

    Those two statements aren't necessarily true about the avg candy crush player.


    You might think the avg mpq player is noob tier compared to the guys who can discuss the various iterations of GTOG,  but really they are already way more nerdy and collector predisposed than the avg candy crusher.
    I think mobile games WERE a niche market, but that's changed in the last six years or so. If you consider both the Candy Crush casual and the MPQ player, I think its growth and population outweighs console and PC gaming. Mobile games have activated a market that has not been catered to: Kids and older adults. Kids still play Video games, but mobile games have become far more accessible and far more plentiful for kids. Older adults generally grew up after the console age, and generally won't invest in a machine to play games, but have a phone and are much more willing to download an app. Console and PC gaming appeals mostly to younger adults who grew up in an environment where PC/Console gaming was the standard.

     Is gaming a niche market compared to other forms of entertainment? Yes. But I was considering "niche" to be localized to niche within its own medium: mobile gaming. Within mobile gaming, match 3s have been popular for a very long time, perhaps since the beginning of the mobile games boom. 

    What I describe to be the actual playerbase are people who have downloaded the game and played past the tutorial. I'm not comparing the playerbase of Candy Crush to that of MPQ. Those are a different audience. I only made the comparison to Candy Crush to illustrate that Match-3s are quite popular and not very niche.

    The noobiest mpq player definitely has not read the comics, but likely has seen either the movies or a TV show. Those interested in comic books are a true niche. I'm not sold that these noobiest players have more than a passing interest in the MCU. It's very likely that some of them saw just the latest Avengers film and decided to play based on that.  
  • PhumadePhumade Posts: 2,002 Chairperson of the Boards
    NeonBlue said:

    The noobiest mpq player definitely has not read the comics, but likely has seen either the movies or a TV show. Those interested in comic books are a true niche. I'm not sold that these noobiest players have more than a passing interest in the MCU. It's very likely that some of them saw just the latest Avengers film and decided to play based on that.  
    We will never learn the answer to that question without alot more detailed metrics, survey, and interviews.

    and yes the future of the game depends on how well the devs can read and understand their audience.

    I personally believe that that there are plenty of gaming alternatives.  So most people don't download mpq unless they have more than a passing interest in the inteleectual property.
  • acescrackedacescracked Posts: 996 Critical Contributor
    Phumade said:
    mobile gamers are a niche market in and of themselves.  let alone discussing match3 variants.

    In the Realm of discretionary spending on electornic "fun"  mobile gaming probably lags behind console and pc gaming..
    You just really wrote that mobile gaming is a niche market? And also lags behind consoles? Everyone owns a phone not a console or a gaming PC. 

    "Today, Newzoo released the latest quarterly update of its Global Games Market Report. It shows that 2.2 billion gamers across the globe are expected to generate $108.9 billion in game revenues in 2017. This represents an increase of $7.8 billion, or 7.8%, from the year before. Digital game revenues will account for $94.4 billion or 87% of the global market. Mobile is the most lucrative segment, with smartphone and tablet gaming growing 19% year over year to $46.1 billion, claiming 42% of the market. In 2020, mobile gaming will represent just more than half of the total games market. The PC and console game markets will generate $29.4 billion and $33.5 billion in 2017, respectively."

    https://newzoo.com/insights/articles/the-global-games-market-will-reach-108-9-billion-in-2017-with-mobile-taking-42/
  • PhumadePhumade Posts: 2,002 Chairperson of the Boards
    Fair enough.  Let me point out a few things.

    1.  Newzoo is a mobile focused industry gaming group.  So I'm not surprised they tout their stats in that fashion.

    2.  I will accept the basic premise and scale of the numbers cited.  I.e. that mobile gaming represents  around 46B.

    That said consider the alternatives and how the gaming industry is classified.

    Overall,  analogs to gaming would be things like, books, music, Television, Film.  I.E. if you weren't playing a "game", you would most like be, reading a book, listening to radio, watching tv.

    So lets consider 50B (World Wide) in the context of Book, Music, Film, Television revenues

    Publishing - 115B
    Music - 50B
    Film Box office revenue - 40B
    Netflix/cable/redbox/video/digital - 50B
    Overall TV revenue - 105B

    In that context,  to call 50B out of 400B niche would be overblown,  but mobile gaming is a minor revenue sector compared to other entertainment/media replacement activities.

    So yes I still consider mobile gaming sector (including Candy crush and clash of clans) to be a minor revenue sector.

    Lastly,  I'll make the concession that if you add in the candy crushers and clash of planners,  they probably out number the Call of duty and fortnite consolers.  but lets really look at what constitutes "mobile gaming" and our place in that segment.

    Broadly  mobile gaming gets down to the following categories
    monthy unique
    brain puzzle28%
    matching puzzle22%
    AR21%
    Action/strategy10%
    casino7%
    building simulation6%
    rpg card2%
    casino poker 2%
    race1%

    Brain puzzle include word based puzzle games like words with friends, scrabbleetc..
    So in that "mobile gaming" space.  match 3 is probably only 20% of even mobile gaming.

    So yes while "niche" might be overblown,  Lets keep the numbers in perspective, Mobile gaming is a minor revenue segment when compared to the universe of entertainment substitutes, and within that mobile gaming segment, match 3 represents 1/5 of the industry. More than niche, but probably still a minor segment.
  • YepyepYepyep Posts: 749 Critical Contributor
    edited May 2018
    NeonBlue said:
    ... Match 3 is not that niche among mobile gamers (going all the way back to Candy Crush and Bejeweled), ...
    Nice. Just wanted to point out: CC -- released 2012. Bejeweled -- released 2001. 2001!

    Bejeweled is a work of sheer genius. Lots of hard work by lots of people -- design, programming, marketing, all of it. But in the aggregate, a work of sheer genius.
    NeonBlue said:
    I think mobile games WERE a niche market, but that's changed in the last six years or so. If you consider both the Candy Crush casual and the MPQ player, I think its growth and population outweighs console and PC gaming. Mobile games have activated a market that has not been catered to: Kids and older adults. Kids still play Video games, but mobile games have become far more accessible and far more plentiful for kids. Older adults generally grew up after the console age, and generally won't invest in a machine to play games, but have a phone and are much more willing to download an app. Console and PC gaming appeals mostly to younger adults who grew up in an environment where PC/Console gaming was the standard.
    I think you are dead-on about this. I haven't looked at the revenue numbers to be sure, but I think we can just say the words "App Store" to pretty substantially prove your point...

    Edited to say: oops, @acescracked, just saw your post. Exactly.
  • BorstockBorstock Posts: 1,550 Chairperson of the Boards
    The goal of a business is to make money. The goal of a gamer is to win and have fun. As long as these groups have different priorities, they will view all things through a different lens.
  • YepyepYepyep Posts: 749 Critical Contributor
    Yepyep said:
    This post comes from something I posted on another thread concerning how most new things we -- the "normal" player base -- get that is new, now, seems to be support characters.
    I haven't been playing as long as many, but even in the year and change that I have been, I've noticed that these things sort of tend to go in waves. Not sure if it's really intentional on the part of the devs, but there are definitely clomps of one sort of character or another.

    In latest 12 right now, I see 5 Support characters of varying quality, (Nico, Kraven, Lockjaw, Jubilee, and Valkyrie), 5 offensive characters of varying quality (America, Rogue, MEHulk, Nightcrawler, Yondu), and a couple that I don't have enough experience with, but seem to form a good pair (Panther and Shuri). There are at least a couple of very good options in both the support and offense categories, but also at least a couple of mediocre to bad ones. Seems like a fairly reasonable spread to me.
    I've been playing about the same length of time, more or less. And I agree with you about support characters, generally. In fact, I'll just point out my line that you didn't quote (no worries, it's just important to me personally in this thread): I have no problem with a well-implemented support character, personally.

  • TPF AlexisTPF Alexis Posts: 3,813 Chairperson of the Boards
    Yepyep said:
    Yepyep said:
    This post comes from something I posted on another thread concerning how most new things we -- the "normal" player base -- get that is new, now, seems to be support characters.
    I haven't been playing as long as many, but even in the year and change that I have been, I've noticed that these things sort of tend to go in waves. Not sure if it's really intentional on the part of the devs, but there are definitely clomps of one sort of character or another.

    In latest 12 right now, I see 5 Support characters of varying quality, (Nico, Kraven, Lockjaw, Jubilee, and Valkyrie), 5 offensive characters of varying quality (America, Rogue, MEHulk, Nightcrawler, Yondu), and a couple that I don't have enough experience with, but seem to form a good pair (Panther and Shuri). There are at least a couple of very good options in both the support and offense categories, but also at least a couple of mediocre to bad ones. Seems like a fairly reasonable spread to me.
    I've been playing about the same length of time, more or less. And I agree with you about support characters, generally. In fact, I'll just point out my line that you didn't quote (no worries, it's just important to me personally in this thread): I have no problem with a well-implemented support character, personally.

    Yeah, I get that. I was more kind of going for 1) that we've actually got a pretty good balance of support and offense characters lately, rather than "most" being support characters, and 2) the idea that they've also done some pretty poorly-implemented offense characters as well. I like MEHulk, but he and Nightcrawler are definitely dependent on the right team, not all-rounders like, say, Valkyrie can be. Then you get into characters like Sandman, or going back further, Riri as originally released or XPool.
  • YepyepYepyep Posts: 749 Critical Contributor
    edited May 2018
    Yepyep said:
    I've been playing about the same length of time, more or less. And I agree with you about support characters, generally. In fact, I'll just point out my line that you didn't quote (no worries, it's just important to me personally in this thread): I have no problem with a well-implemented support character, personally.

    Yeah, I get that. I was more kind of going for 1) that we've actually got a pretty good balance of support and offense characters lately, rather than "most" being support characters, and 2) the idea that they've also done some pretty poorly-implemented offense characters as well. I like MEHulk, but he and Nightcrawler are definitely dependent on the right team, not all-rounders like, say, Valkyrie can be. Then you get into characters like Sandman, or going back further, Riri as originally released or XPool.
    Edited to say: [On this particular issue -- there are plenty of others, as folks have been discussing.]
     
    BINGO. This is precisely the issue, thanks for articulating it well. The "problem" is not too many support characters, it is in the paucity of strong leads. 

    That said, I'm not completely sure the issue is poor implementation (though it might be that) -- it might be planned fluff, and I was trying to get to that idea in my post: specifically, 4* characters that have limited use except under really specific conditions. Meaning events tailored to certain characters to make them seem worthwhile and desirable (Chase them! They're new and also your favorite Marvel character from childhood!) but that have little general utility. Like creating a beautiful new gas mask that nobody needs -- until the only way to survive the next challenge is by wearing that gas mask...

    My closet is filling up with gas masks. That is character inflation. But it might be an inherent characteristic of the game. It might be that the CHASE is the protein in the game, and the matching/strategizing is the starchy staple.

  • MysterBMysterB Posts: 25 Just Dropped In
    edited May 2018
    aside from the 2% of those who are dropping fat stacks and beating the rest of the 98% into submission, I think this is the beginning of the end for the game. I find myself not having as much fun as I was 2 years ago. This game sorely needs an overhaul. They can’t even be bothered to fix the in-game character ability sounds. They ask us what we think about their game and barely, if ever, listen. It’s pretty clear with this past Infinity War event 300 vault that put supports behind a Pay wall (what a joke) they only care about money. I could go on........
  • NeonBlueNeonBlue Posts: 142 Tile Toppler
    MysterB said:
    aside from the 2% of those who are dropping fat stacks and beating the rest of the 98% into submission, I think this is the beginning of the end for the game. I find myself not having as much fun as I was 2 years ago. This game sorely needs an overhaul. They can’t even be bothered to fix the in-game character ability sounds. They ask us what we think about their game and barely, if ever, listen. It’s pretty clear with this past Infinity War event 300 vault that put supports behind a Pay wall (what a joke) they only care about money. I could go on........
    There is an important metric that's hard to ignore when anticipating the "end for the game," which is that according to the App Store, despite not consistently making it into "most popular," MPQ has always made it into top grossing. This means that despite people not having as much fun, there has always been consistently enough people who feel like the game's worth whaling for. When this metric declines, then you can be sure changes will come.  

  • MysterBMysterB Posts: 25 Just Dropped In
    edited May 2018
    NeonBlue said:
    MysterB said:
    aside from the 2% of those who are dropping fat stacks and beating the rest of the 98% into submission, I think this is the beginning of the end for the game. I find myself not having as much fun as I was 2 years ago. This game sorely needs an overhaul. They can’t even be bothered to fix the in-game character ability sounds. They ask us what we think about their game and barely, if ever, listen. It’s pretty clear with this past Infinity War event 300 vault that put supports behind a Pay wall (what a joke) they only care about money. I could go on........
    There is an important metric that's hard to ignore when anticipating the "end for the game," which is that according to the App Store, despite not consistently making it into "most popular," MPQ has always made it into top grossing. This means that despite people not having as much fun, there has always been consistently enough people who feel like the game's worth whaling for. When this metric declines, then you can be sure changes will come.  

    Absolutely. You reinforced the first part of my rant. There is a reason why there is a job posted under the career tab for a new digital market manager. The whales will get bored eventually, it’s fast approaching. 
  • NeonBlueNeonBlue Posts: 142 Tile Toppler
    edited May 2018
    MysterB said:
    NeonBlue said:
    MysterB said:
    aside from the 2% of those who are dropping fat stacks and beating the rest of the 98% into submission, I think this is the beginning of the end for the game. I find myself not having as much fun as I was 2 years ago. This game sorely needs an overhaul. They can’t even be bothered to fix the in-game character ability sounds. They ask us what we think about their game and barely, if ever, listen. It’s pretty clear with this past Infinity War event 300 vault that put supports behind a Pay wall (what a joke) they only care about money. I could go on........
    There is an important metric that's hard to ignore when anticipating the "end for the game," which is that according to the App Store, despite not consistently making it into "most popular," MPQ has always made it into top grossing. This means that despite people not having as much fun, there has always been consistently enough people who feel like the game's worth whaling for. When this metric declines, then you can be sure changes will come.  

    Absolutely. You reinforced the first part of my rant. There is a reason why there is a job posted under the career tab for a new digital market manager. The whales will get bored eventually, it’s fast approaching. 
    You may be right. However, there are threads like this that pop up every week along the lines of "Oh, this game isn't fun anymore, so it's dying." What people don't realize is that losing some players isn't going to directly cause the downfall of this game. The lifeblood of this game, like many F2P games is microtransactions, not necessarily player enjoyment. Even if you don't like the game as much as you used to, as long as someone else is willing to foot the bill, it doesn't actually matter. While it is valid that a declining playerbase may encourage whales to leave, whales are far more invested than to leave before the ship fully sinks. You say this time is fast approaching, but its been "fast approaching" for years now, if forum posts are to be believed. Until this actually happens, I'll treat it with some skepticism. 
Sign In or Register to comment.