[daslog]

Originally Posted by Ambrosius

I don't think that's in question at all. The issue is it would have been far preferrable to have Jumpgate II instead of Jumpgate Evolution.

It wouldn't have been profitable from a business standpoint. Might have been fun for 100 of us to play for a few months though.

[Ambrosius]

I disagree. Jumpgate done right could have been quite successful, IMO. It would not be WOW-like success . . . more like BF, AO and AH-type success. There are significantly more than "100 of us" playing poor, neglected old Jumpgate Classic.

I continue to be concerned that the "lets make it fun for everyone" approach will make it fun for no one (since there is no single defiition of fun) and result in a mess.

[daslog]

Originally Posted by Ambrosius

I disagree. Jumpgate done right could have been quite successful, IMO. It would not be WOW-like success . . . more like BF, AO and AH-type success. There are significantly more than "100 of us" playing poor, neglected old Jumpgate Classic.

I continue to be concerned that the "lets make it fun for everyone" approach will make it fun for no one (since there is no single defiition of fun) and result in a mess.

I guess we will have to disagree on this one. It's not like either of our opinions actually count for anything (unless you plan to make your own game or something) anyway.

[Jonboy]

Originally Posted by Ambrosius

I continue to be concerned that the "lets make it fun for everyone" approach will make it fun for no one (since there is no single defiition of fun) and result in a mess.

That's what testing is for, Ambro, and they're doing a lot of testing. Just not with us, yet.

[Ambrosius]

Originally Posted by Jonboy

That's what testing is for, Ambro, and they're doing a lot of testing. Just not with us, yet.

Not sure how testing works into it. My issue is making it a "little bit fun" for everyone, makes it "really fun" for no one. But I guess we'll see.

I think Luke's comment (in another thread) about the learning curve and continuous challenge being an important part of his "fun factor" is a biggie for me as well. So the question is, can you create the "accessible" early experience for new players (fun-a) as well as create an ongoing learning-curve challenge for longer-term players (fun-b) in the same space?

And of course you will have lots of others in between who are not noobs, but still want a low-challenege game where they can feel uber to compensate their pitiful real lives (fun-c). Frankly ND trying to please this group concerns me the most.

[Tim]

Originally Posted by Ambrosius

And of course you will have lots of others in between who are not noobs, but still want a low-challenege game where they can feel uber to compensate their pitiful real lives (fun-c). Frankly ND trying to please this group concerns me the most.

Heh, in my experience, that group always finds a way to take challenge out of the game (for themselves, at least) so working to please them is silly. They'll find the easiest way to lame up a game, and then do it till they get bored. I suspect even ND knows this, so they'll concentrate on one of the first two groups you defined. My bet is they go for option a, because i bet that group of folks spends more money.

[Ambrosius]

Originally Posted by Tim

My bet is they go for option a, because i bet that group of folks spends more money.

I'm not sure who "group a" is . . . "fun-a" (one definition of fun) really only applies for the first few days of playing (i.e. the whole accessibility/first fifteen minutes thing). The question there was whether there would be equal attention would be given to "challenge-seekers" (i.e. fun-b definition). If you don't create "fun-b" what you are pretty much left with is "fun-c" -- the game without challenge.

[daslog]

Originally Posted by Tim

Heh, in my experience, that group always finds a way to take challenge out of the game (for themselves, at least) so working to please them is silly. They'll find the easiest way to lame up a game, and then do it till they get bored. I suspect even ND knows this, so they'll concentrate on one of the first two groups you defined. My bet is they go for option a, because i bet that group of folks spends more money.

I think the strategy ND is following goes something like this

1) Get as many people from this group as possible to subscribe
2) 1 to 5% will never play after the first month but continue paying the sub (referred to as "your best customers)
3) Try to retain 10 to 15% of the rest for more than 3 months.