Lan Support Is Needed

Think of it this way...

For $10 you get to meet a lot of people, and whenever you want to play there is some one online to fight with, ywould you have that on LAN? No, and you would be maxed with 16 players if not less.

On a LAN you would be tired of it very fast, always the same people you fight and they always does the same stupid things that makes you the winner all the time

For $10 you always have company (of people to talk with), well you could also go and rent 2 movies, eer 1 and ? movie. and sit alone with your family and watch it.

What is war with 16 ships ?

Everyone seems to be missing the point. You don't have to buy the singleplayer game to play multilplayer. We give the client away for free.

This means when you pay for the first 4 months of subscription you purchased a full singleplayer game - and it will provide more challenging play for MUCH longer than any straight singleplayer game will provide. Now add the equivalent of a FREE $20.00 add-on every 3 months and you are looking at a break even proposition. With the added bonus that if you don't want to keep subscribing you can stop and not pay anymore.

We are a small independent studio and we can only afford to do what makes the most sense for our vision of Enigma and our company; what we ultimately want Enigma to become. If we had spent our meager resources to make the singleplayer have lan capabilities, what would be the benefit to us? Almost nothing beyond the benefits the singleplayer already carries. Enigma was designed from the very beginning to be a multiplayer online game. That's the only way FOR A SMALL STUDIO (without the resources of an EA or a UBISOFT) to create a world class game and compete with the top studios in the world. That's where our sights are set and that is where we intend to compete.

We have always made sure to deliver much more to the customer than they pay for, we develop the game based on our vision tempered with the suggestions and wishes of our gaming community. We will never please everyone and that's ok. If you like the game, support it, if you don't, enjoy more of the same ol' same ol' coming from the big studios, because they will never create the kind of game that Enigma is now and will become: It doesn't smell like money to them.

Pay to play isn't for everyone, but then again, how many of you have cable AND go to the movies AND rent movies from the local Blockbuster? Uh Huh, just what I thought.

--East

But you get more value from an SP and MP game that allows players to run dedicated servers at no cost to players.
IMO, pay for play will greatly limit the size of the community in a game like this. A lot more would be attracted if, after paying the purchase price, they could join MP games at no charge, like the majority of today's games.

The up-side is that hopefully, only mostly serious players will be willing to shell out the money. That may limit or slow down the number of potential game hackers that can negatively affect the game with cheats and trainers.

On the other hand, in mature gaming communities, this is done by establishing reputable teams and letting them police themselves.

For me, it sounds like I'll defintely try out the MP for a month or two but, considering my limited time playing online, I might not be interested in keeping on paying for this, even if it's as good as it sounds.

Time will tell if you chose the right revenue strategy for keeping this game alive. IMO, you're on the wrong path.

Hmm, did NWN sell more copies than EQ? Nope. Did it make more money for Atari than EQ did for Sony? Nope. Has it been modified/enhanced more than EQ? Nope. Have more people even *heard* of it than EQ? Nope. Does the EQ community outnumber the NWN community 1000 to 1? Yep.

Ask anyone that has played EQ from the beginning if the game is richer, fuller, and more polished now than it was when it was released. Then ask someone playing NWN online in a year (if you can find someone!) and ask how far it has come

To move on to the genre that E:RT is in:

Silent Hunter II did what you suggest, Avon, and it was so horrible that the fans got together and took up donations to fund fixing the game! This is because once SSI sold the game, they had NO financial incentive in fixing it. Where did SHII and Destroyer Command end up? In the clearance bin. The fans got together because there was nothing else to choose from as far as multiplayer online naval games.

I can't believe you're so inexperienced in online games that you've never figured out the appeal of the Massive Online games, much less tried one out yourself. The only game close to this one is WWII Online, and it doesn't even have a hydrodynamics model or even submarines. It's focused on air combat and land combat, in that order.

Perhaps you should see if you can find a copy of DC or SHII for $5 in the clearance bin, find all the official and unofficial patches, then try and find someone online at the same time as you, then try to connect, then try to stay connected, then try to not kill someone in frustration, then decide if $10 a month to have a huge game world and *persistent universe* to play in isn't worth it 8)

Most online games FORCE you to buy the CD at $40-$50, pay $15 a month, THEN buy the expansions twice a year for $30 each (or you don't get the cool new features and content.) E:RT will be a steal!

Many game companies are trying to figure out ways to make most, if not all, their games a subscription model. That way you have a sustained income coming in. How many game programmers and even game studios have been let go the day after finishing a game, even if there are patches that need to be worked on? (East and the crew can answer that one from personal experience.) I submit that if they'd released E:RT as a single player game only, with no plans for multiplayer, they'd be scanning the want ads already, unless they had plans for a 2nd hit up their sleeves.

E:RT will never be the size of EQ, but it can be quite profitable for a small company as an online game. Remember, Looking Glass has a shelf full of awards and years of hit games under their belts. They were one of the most admired groups of game makers in the industry, and still all ended up unemployed and the building closed down because of a cash crunch. It can happen to anyone. Having an online subscription game gives you a future revenue stream, that, if popular enough, can fund other ventures in addition to supporting the online game itself.

Think of it this way...
For $10 you get to meet a lot of people, and whenever you want to play there is some one online to fight with, ywould you have that on LAN? No, and you would be maxed with 16 players if not less.

I never suggested MP should be LAN-only.

I'm suggesting 2 things:

1. the ability for dedicated MP servers to be run by anyone.

2. that the subscription plan rates as they are will tremendously reduce the demand for the game.

For $10 you always have company (of people to talk with)

I've never suffered from loneliness in player communities I've associated with. If I want chat, I'll roam MIRC.

What is war with 16 ships ?

Agreed but like I said, I never suggested this, though it would be possible.

Having a small coop LAN game with a team of 4-8 players against enemy AI is not such a terrible thing every now and then, you know. It also lets teams polish up their strategies, communications and teamwork.

Everyone seems to be missing the point.  You don't have to buy the singleplayer game to play multilplayer.  We give the client away for free.

Point taken but I think it's more like half a point.

Personally, I would rather be forced to pay $40 for the SP client plus $20 for an MP expansion, which would require the SP. That's about 50% more than going game prices but the cost is measurable from day 1 and tolerable.

This means when you pay for the first 4 months of subscription you purchased a full singleplayer game

You forgot to take into consideration those of us that already spent $40 on the SP package.

You also are not taking into consideration those of us that have already purchased satisfying games with both SP and MP cleints included for $40 and don't pay anything more to play MP.

Even assuming that I wouldn't buy the SP client (too late! ), again, my urge to be dedicated long term to a game is tamed by the relatively high ongoing costs incurred.

and it will provide more challenging play for MUCH longer than any straight singleplayer game will provide.

Again, I am not suggesting an SP-only game.

Now add the equivalent of a FREE $20.00 add-on every 3 months and you are looking at a break even proposition.

I would rather buy it when I see it, like most other game's expansion packs.

With the added bonus that if you don't want to keep subscribing you can stop and not pay anymore.

You are once again ignoring the budgetary concerns of those that would love to go on playing much more but cannot afford to or will not shell out what will amount to such an exhorbitant amount of money for a PC game.

We are a small independent studio and we can only afford to do what makes the most sense for our vision of Enigma and our company; what we ultimately want Enigma to become.  If we had spent our meager resources to make the singleplayer have lan capabilities, what would be the benefit to us?

Again, LAN plus dedicated server support - not just SP.

Benefit? Much longer term allegiance by a larger fan base, willing to shell up from the cost for purchasing a shrink-wrapped retail copy and future expansions with some price cap versus a neverending payment schedule for a long term relationship.

Enigma was designed from the very beginning to be a multiplayer online game.  That's the only way FOR A SMALL STUDIO (without the resources of an EA or a UBISOFT) to create a world class game and compete with the top studios in the world.  That's where our sights are set and that is where we intend to compete.

Again, no arguments from me on that.

If you like the game, support it

I support the games I enjoy by purchasing their retail copies, sequels and expansions. These almost always fit into a pricing scheme that is the accepted norm.

As an old member of the Operation Flashpoint gaming community for over two years now, looking back, I would have drawn the line a long time ago had someone told me in advance that my membership would have cost me almost $300 dollars up to now.

My point is simply that your pricing model is way out of line with what a lot of people are willing to accept or can handle for a long term association.

if you don't, enjoy more of the same ol' same ol' coming from the big studios

With a few exceptions, most of the games I enjoy are not developed by large companies, though they may wind up being published by them.

Pay to play isn't for everyone, but then again, how many of you have cable AND go to the movies AND rent movies from the local Blockbuster?

Regarding cable, I don't have it and, to quote a movie: "99 channels and nothing to watch"! Then again, that's 99 channels - not one. Imagine paying $10 a month for each channel.

As for your other two cases, financially, you just mentioned two very bad business models.

I go to the movies much less than I did in my childhood because everything today comes out on DVD and video within a relatively short time. Movie theatres today are having a much rougher time than they did decades ago because of this.

Same with Blockbuster, a franchise with a lot of problems over the last few years. People are more interested in outright purchases than in rentals and people go to Amazon.com for their purchases now.

Uh Huh, just what I thought.

Think again.

I decided to run a little poll for this scenario, though it is not perfect.

Have a look at this thread on the official Operation Flashpoint forums.

Since you're not registered, you may not be able to see the results. Currently, they are:

Question: Mp pay for play - would you? :: Total Votes:57
I would be willing to pay US$10 a month. 3  [5.26%]

US$5 dollars a month is the max I would cough up. 1  [1.75%]

I would be willing to pay a dollar or 2 per month but no more. 4  [7.02%]

I have very little time for MP gaming. It's not worth it for me. 9  [15.79%]

I can't afford to pay for playing online games. 3  [5.26%]

I refuse in principle to pay for playing online games. 32  [56.14%]

Other (please specify in a post). 5  [8.77%]

Most of the members who participated in the thread are long time players. Many are older people. Many have miltary experience.

IMO they're a good barometer to how the real market would react. I was careful not to name the game, so as not to negatively predjudice the results, since not everyone likes sub sims.

I find the results are exactly in line with my predictions prior to starting the poll.

If TesserAction's market analysis has shown otherwise, well, good. I'm more than happy for a developer to succeed when they deserve to. I personally just don't see market forces reacting the way you want them to.

Hmm, did NWN sell more copies than EQ? Nope. Did it make more money for Atari than EQ did for Sony? Nope. Has it been modified/enhanced more than EQ? Nope. Have more people even *heard* of it than EQ? Nope. Does the EQ community outnumber the NWN community 1000 to 1? Yep.

IMO, your comparison of fantasy roll-playing game genres versus naval FPS sims is like apple and oranges.

The former appeal to different types and different quantities of people.

To move on to the genre that E:RT is in:

That's more like it!

Silent Hunter II did what you suggest, Avon, and it was so horrible that the fans got together and took up donations to fund fixing the game! This is because once SSI sold the game, they had NO financial incentive in fixing it. Where did SHII and Destroyer Command end up? In the clearance bin. The fans got together because there was nothing else to choose from as far as multiplayer online naval games.

A showcase of a bad business model. Pity. Read my prior 2 posts. I'm not suggesting that.

I can't believe you're so inexperienced in online games that you've never figured out the appeal of the Massive Online games, much less tried one out yourself.

You don't know me.

The only game close to this one is WWII Online, and it doesn't even have a hydrodynamics model or even submarines. It's focused on air combat and land combat, in that order.

Never bought it. Never played it. Because everone whose opinions I appreciate had nothing but negative things to say about the game and support quality, the online community and its comparison to existing games that are better. I still don't think I ever missed out on anything not playing WWIIO.

Perhaps you should see if you can find a copy of DC or SHII for $5 in the clearance bin, find all the official and unofficial patches, then try and find someone online at the same time as you, then try to connect, then try to stay connected, then try to not kill someone in frustration, then decide if $10 a month to have a huge game world and *persistent universe* to play in isn't worth it  8)

Again, my budget-conscious thinking says that if I am going to stay with a game long-term for, say, 2 years, shelling out $280 (24 months * $10 plus the SP game - who wouldn't buy it?!) is absurd. Sorry, I also have a real life.

Most online games FORCE you to buy the CD at $40-$50,

True.

pay $15 a month,

Most? False.

THEN buy the expansions twice a year for $30 each (or you don't get the cool new features and content.) E:RT will be a steal!

Assuming the model you just gave and assuming we're not talking about subscription fees, the cost over 2 years for the above would be:

$50 + ($30 * 4) = $170

That's significantly less than $280.

I believe the price would generally be even lower - more like $120-140, which is half or less than half of the $280 tab I mentioned above. Still a lot of money but much more tolerbale and inline with accepted pricing standards.

Many game companies are trying to figure out ways to make most, if not all, their games a subscription model.

A subscription model might work if they significantly reduce the cost of the subscription, IMO.

That way you have a sustained income coming in. How many game programmers and even game studios have been let go the day after finishing a game, even if there are patches that need to be worked on?  (East and the crew can answer that one from personal experience.) I submit that if they'd released E:RT as a single player game only, with no plans for multiplayer, they'd be scanning the want ads already, unless they had plans for a 2nd hit up their sleeves.

Again, I never ever said release an SP-only game.

That's $40-$50 for the game (if you buy it when it first came out) then $20 twice a year for expansions, and $15 a month after that. And yes, most games charge in the neighborhood of $15 a month. (edit: I just checked, and they're $13 a month. I was off by $2.)

I'm not going to bother arguing with you any more. Wanting economic realities to be different than they are is not going to change them. As far as your poll on OFP forums, you may as well have taken the poll on a Quake forum, or an online cribbage forum. Those aren't the audience that this game is aiming for, any more than someone would market body piercing to AARP members.

What you propose is an economic impossibilty, and you've been told so by both people experienced in the genre and the developers themselves. If you wish to entrench yourself in the same camp as the people who told Sony and EA that no one would *ever* pay a monthly fee to play a game when there were other, free games out there, knock yourself out. Sony brings in $4 million dollars a MONTH with their online games. So much for the predictions of dismal failure those people predicted.

Oh, and telling TA to make the multiplayer free is WORSE than telling them to make a single-player only game. You're asking them to triple their workload and time to deliver for not a penny more. "Substantially reducing the monthly fee" and running the servers themselves is even worse. I've seen bandwidth requirements from people in the industry, and it will literally overload your brain what it takes in hardware and bandwidth to run a persistent world.

That's $40-$50 for the game (if you buy it when it first came out) then $20 twice a year for expansions, and $15 a month after that. And yes, most games charge in the neighborhood of $15 a month. (edit: I just checked, and they're $13 a month. I was off by $2.)

I'm referring to all the PC games in the world that have an MP element but no play-for-play schemes.

I'm not going to bother arguing with you any more. Wanting economic realities to be different than they are is not going to change them. As far as your poll on OFP forums, you may as well have taken the poll on a Quake forum, or an online cribbage forum. Those aren't the audience that this game is aiming for, any more than someone would market body piercing to AARP members.

Let's see.................... OFP is:
1. A highly successful military FPS, used by the USMC and other agencies as a training simulator.

2. Apeals to military sim fans, many of them with military backgrounds.

3. Has a relatively maturely behaved customer base.

Right. Sounds just like cribbage.

What you propose is an economic impossibilty, and you've been told so by both people experienced in the genre and the developers themselves.

Let's see.............. Novalogic, who may be called the the first to innovate large terrain military sims, has never charged a penny for their MP games - and they even host some servers themselves.

Same for SWAT series, OFP and numerous other games. Impossibility? Are these chartity based organizations?

If you wish to entrench yourself in the same camp as the people who told Sony and EA that no one would *ever* pay a monthly fee to play a game when there were other, free games out there, knock yourself out. Sony brings in $4 million dollars a MONTH with their online games. So much for the predictions of dismal failure those people predicted.

Which of these Sony OE titles are you comparing to ERT?

Oh, and telling TA to make the multiplayer free is WORSE than telling them to make a single-player only game. You're asking them to triple their workload and time to deliver for not a penny more.

1. Works for others.

2. It could be sold for more but at an upfront cost to the consumer.

Delta Force 2 was an upgrade to Delta Force 1, but was in reality a completely different game. Not an upgrade or add-on, but a full priced sequel. Biggest problem with the Novalogic approach: How many of the cheats, hacks, etc. ever were fixed? NONE. I played both games regularly and for many hours. I stopped playing because of the cheating and lack of support. Land Warrior released with MORE cheaters that DF2 had when I quit playing. Yup, good model.

We could have made Enigma a SP/MP Arena style game. We would now be making a complete replacement for Enigma or a completely new game. That isn't our business model. Our business model calls for the enhancement and growth of Enigma over the course of 3 to 5 years. Because we didn't start with a big chunk of change behind us, we had to choose a strategy that could support itself within the NAVAL combat arena. Naval Combat games (SP) don't do that well. Silent Hunter II lifetime sales is in the neighborhood of 70k units. That is NOT enough to support a development team or even pay off the development costs for the game.

We started with our severance packages from Dynamix and what small amount of capital we were able to raise. We've gone unpaid for 4 and 5 months at a time, multiple times to get this to the stage it's at. If we hadn't released it when we did we would be closed. We didn't have the time or money to create a SP game with Player Hosted Multiplayer capabilities. We knew it before we started, that's why we formulated the strategy we did.

It's a sound strategy (40k+ players pre-registered btw) and one we are going to stick with. You have seen how we treat our customers: they get more than they paid for, they get better support from us than any other game company on the planet AND, we not only ask for and use their suggestions to improve the game, we give them credit in the game as well.

I'm not going to slam you for expounding your philosophy when you haven't played anything but a demo of Enigma; we welcome everyones input. It IS however quite important that it doesn't turn into a flame fest; which it very nearly is. Many of our players know our philosophy, commitment and strategy and they GET IT. It's ok if you don't agree.

Cheers,

--East

Delta Force 2 was an upgrade to Delta Force 1, but was in reality a completely different game.

DF2 had improved graphics, new campaign and missions and could be bought independently from DF1. So it was not an upgrade.

Not an upgrade or add-on, but a full priced sequel.  Biggest problem with the Novalogic approach:  How many of the cheats, hacks, etc. ever were fixed? NONE.

It wasn't a question of approach. It was a question of lousy customer service. Indeed, we like to call them "NoLogic".
However, I played plenty of DF1 and 2 online. It took a long time for the cheaters to ruin the game and even then if you belonged to and played with reputable teams and squads, it was great.

I played both games regularly and for many hours.  I stopped playing because of the cheating and lack of support.

We share the same experiences.

Land Warrior released with MORE cheaters that DF2 had when I quit playing.  Yup, good model.

Hated LW from day 1 and that turned me off the DF series for good.
Indeed NoLogic is a cruddy company. I would hesitate to buy another product from them. So their lack of investment has lost them potential futire business.

I assume this is not what TesserAction has in mind, no matter what.

We could have made Enigma a SP/MP Arena style game.  We would now be making a complete replacement for Enigma or a completely new game.  That isn't our business model.  Our business model calls for the enhancement and growth of Enigma over the course of 3 to 5 years.  Because we didn't start with a big chunk of change behind us, we had to choose a strategy that could support itself within the NAVAL combat arena.  Naval Combat games (SP) don't do that well.  Silent Hunter II lifetime sales is in the neighborhood of 70k units.  That is NOT enough to support a development team or even pay off the development costs for the game.

Generally I agree with everything up to this point.

We started with our severance packages from Dynamix and what small amount of capital we were able to raise.  We've gone unpaid for 4 and 5 months at a time, multiple times to get this to the stage it's at.  If we hadn't released it when we did we would be closed.  We didn't have the time or money to create a SP game with Player Hosted Multiplayer capabilities.  We knew it before we started, that's why we formulated the strategy we did.

You could've decided to sell the MP as separately priced expansion.

It's a sound strategy (40k+ players pre-registered btw) and one we are going to stick with.

40K players? Wow. Indeed impressive.

How many SP units have you sold to date?

You have seen how we treat our customers:  they get more than they paid for, they get better support from us than any other game company on the planet AND, we not only ask for and use their suggestions to improve the game, we give them credit in the game as well.

I am indeed impressed with the communication I've seen so far from you and others. I'm spoiled, though, as OFP's developers, BIS, behave in a similar fashion.

I'm not going to slam you for expounding your philosophy when you haven't played anything but a demo of Enigma;

All 9 demos, to be exact. enigma!:

I should be getting the full game delivered to me within the next 2 weeks.

we welcome everyones input.  It IS however quite important that it doesn't turn into a flame fest; which it very nearly is.

No, I'm seriously here because I want this game to succeed and I'm just concerned about the model used for MP for this particular game.

Time will time. I hope it works out best for you guys.