Quoted from "Oscar"

Quoted from "iota-09"

>that moment when peope laugh at you in cte for using a controller, than a couple rounds later someone says "dude, you're sniping with those slugs!"

nobody of you even knows how good it feels to ebe proven right by someone else without them knowing.
controller best sniping tool.

Out of curiosity, do you use the auto aim for controllers on PC?

Quoted from "tiggr"

I think we need to build a game for the reality we are in, and aim to reach better and more teamplay through that. I don't think that means saying "no" to specific solutions (if they work), or doing exactly what seemed to work in the past. We need to find a way for this game, in this time that makes sense and still reaches the gameplay improvements (across the board) we are looking for.

Quoted from "Hideo Kojima"

I think it's very important to consider what you're going to make as the follow-up to something that's very successful. For the successor to a very successful game - if you made one that's exactly like the first one, you might satisfy 100% of the audience but there's no progress being made there and there's actually no progress for the audience as well. When you create something that is different as a follow-up, you might lose half of your fans. Half of them will like it and half of them will not if you make something that's kind of controversial. But in addition to that, you might gain, for example, you lose half, you gain another 50% from a new audience outside of that. So if I had a choice between sastisfying 100% of the fans and having no progress or changing things and incorporating a new fan-base, that's what i'd choose. Even if you're dealing with something that is a part of an ongoing serires, you need to reevaluate the systems, reevaluate the players, things that need to change otherwise the series is no good. I took that challenge when I made Metal Gear Solid 2. I just want to share an example. Say there's this band and they release a new CD and it's a hit all over the world. Then they make their second album. The easiest for them is to create another album with the same sound. No one will complain. But if they do that, the band makes no progress and the audience makes no progress and in fact, there's no actual reason to buy the second album. Really great bands always change things up every album or so. They'll infuse different types of sounds, jazz, hip-hop, or something like that. And of course when they do that, they'll anger some of their fans but that's okay because it's going to accelerate them to a new level and take their fan-base to a new level. That's the kind of thing to pursue with games as well.

Quoted from "Aenonar"

It can help progress if it changes the mindset/opens the mind.



And a game that constantly replaces 50% of their players with every change isn't actually progressing. It's stuck.

WarThunder is one game that does that, they love to piss off the players with changes and is constantly replacing the playerbase. Its been out for about 4-5 years now and has made no growth whatsoever in the past 3-4, which also shows in their income. But they still hail it as a success as they count the number of registered accounts rather than active accounts. The effect of this is pretty bad when you look at the community, it's almost nonexistent now, because players don't stay around long enough. But they actually like that, they've even been actively working on destroying the community. Less people that complain when they change things, they're just replaced instead.

Quoted from "TheMightyVoice"

For a game like Battlefield, constantly replacing half the playerbase is financially sound. Many of those who will be disappointed will leave the game, but have already paid. New players are attracted, who will also pay. DICE isn't reliant on microtransactions from long time players, and frankly, this is a good thing. They are not required in any way to constantly please those who play 3000 hours a year by stroking their progression e-peen, and can instead build a game that is actually fun to play for those who have played 10,000 hours or 100.

Quoted from "Aenonar"

Quoted from "TheMightyVoice"

For a game like Battlefield, constantly replacing half the playerbase is financially sound. Many of those who will be disappointed will leave the game, but have already paid. New players are attracted, who will also pay. DICE isn't reliant on microtransactions from long time players, and frankly, this is a good thing. They are not required in any way to constantly please those who play 3000 hours a year by stroking their progression e-peen, and can instead build a game that is actually fun to play for those who have played 10,000 hours or 100.

Short term financially, yes. But for the future... It's hard to claim to care about your players if losing half over a change could be acceptable, if the players don't trust the creator they wont spend their money. You're treading the same ground while building a reputation, if that reputation catch up, it's all over. You might not just have the initial loss but also their friends etc who wont be part of the new harvest.

Quoted

Eager Beaver