The articles this week lacked perspective, in that they only discussed one side of each issue. Crocefisso's article discussed how the Clan features were shallow and lacked content--which is already common knowledge. Instead of merely pointing out that which we already knew, why did he not give us his opinion of what changes should be made to fix citadels? Similarly, for the 'marketing' features, again he merely discusses some players' emotional reaction to the updates, without providing any information on what alternative fund-raising efforts were available to Jagex, or any financial data showing whether or not additional fund-raising was reasonable or necessary. Perhaps he could have just titled the article "players' reaction to the updates of 2011, a year in review".
edit: "As I have said time and time again, however, is that the best way to sell an MMO is to make an update that is substantial, that will keep people playing and paying without the need for such gimmicks." So actually this does address some of the points I was complaining about before...I just don't agree with your assertion. In my experience, most of the most profitable MMOs are currently rife with such gimmicks. If I can find a reputable source for a top ten profitable MMO, then I'll post that back here with an analysis of which of them forgo such gimmicks.
Here's a quote describing how company-conducted RWT is better for the bottom line than merely focusing on subscription numbers:
"Starting with the bad -- everyone asks to start with the bad news, don't they? -- World of Warcraft's subscriber numbers are much lower than they were this past May. The company reports that subscriptions have dropped from 11.4 million in May to 11.1 million in June to 10.3 million, representing a loss of 10% of the playerbase. These numbers represent the total worldwide, and Blizzard CEO Mike Morhaime said that most of the losses were suffered in the eastern market. No matter where the losses come from, this continues the downward trend of the title during the past year. Blizzard declined to provide a subscriber forecast for the next quarter.
The good news is that the company has whooped expectations by nearly tripling its profit for the quarter over this time last year. During this past quarter, Activision Blizzard raked in $627 million worth of sales, of which $148 million is pure profit. A majority of the revenue -- 62% -- comes from its digital sales."
digital sales = people buying the game online, plus people buying mounts and pets for 10-25$ each, or paying 30$ for a server transfer, etc. Do you really think Jagex is going to look at numbers from the industry leader showing that kind of distribution, and not try to copy it, like every other MMO company out there? I did find another site which listed total revenue worldwide for all MMOs as coming in at about 35% legit RWT, in 2010. Since companies all over are moving away from subscriptions and towards RWT, I would be surprised if that total did not go over 50% very soon, if not already.
This smaller playerbase resulting in a larger profit--kinda reminds me of the F2P hiscore removal. At least you can't accuse Jagex of being inconsistent.
Master_Smither's article I found hard to follow. I couldn't tell exactly what he was saying, if he is accusing Jagex of lying in saying that the bot nuke was very difficult to implement and took up a large portion of development time for 2011, or if he believes them but thinks that the choice to botnuke over doing another 5 quests proves that they are disrespectful to the game in preference for money. I can't respect either of those viewpoints, as he provides no evidence for the first and the second is illogical, considering how the botnuke seems to have cost them money overall. Personally the botnuke is infinitely preferable to me over another 5 quests, and I wouldn't shed a tear if every single player that was against it quit today.
Edited by delapaz, 25 December 2011 - 06:18 PM.