boomervoncannon

I'm not arguing that Apple is better. I personally am not fond of Apple and tend to avoid their products. I'm arguing that Steve Jobs understanding of the importance of marketing is a key component of Apple's success, despite non Apple software and hardware products being as good or better. My computer is a PC and my phone is an android. I use an Ipad for work only because it is work issued, and in many respects it annoys me.

Jobs instilled his philosophy into Apple, which is that the marketing of a product is as important as the product itself, and in designing the product you must always keep the end user and marketing oriented considerations in mind. What their impression of your product will be, what their experience will feel like. This is why Apple products place as much emphasis on things like the physical appearance of the product and it's ease of use by non tech savy folks as it does on anything else. Engineers have a tendency to build things because they can or add things that they view as cool for technical reasons without ever asking "How will this enhance the customer's experience?"

Right, but my point is that just because they are hiring certain positions does not mean things are doing well overall. Companies in the middle of bankruptcy will hire a new CFO if the old one bails because they have to have one. Look I'm perfectly willing to admit this information could also indicate that Eric has determined he needs more talent working on the project and is authorized to go out and get it. Believe me that is what I'd definitely prefer. Mostly I am concerned for how this plan does not seem to be giving the game a very good chance to put it's best foot forward when introducing it to a new platform and a new market. Whatever technical reasons might make this approach seem like a good idea, I can assure you that from where I sit it looks like an absolutely horrible idea from a business and marketing perspective, and over the past 15 years GrapeCard would not be the first studio I have seen make decisions for technical reasons that were poor business decisions. For all the criticism leveled at him, Steve Jobs built Apple into a powerhouse because he understood that it doesn't matter how good your product is if doesn't fill a customer need and isn't marketed properly. Jobs was a businessman first, tech guy second.

I understand why you posted this and no offense but it could just as easily be postings for when key people left positions they cannot afford to not have. I wouldn't think you would lay off a Senior Programmer of any sort, and as far as I know no one has been laid off, but when key people leave an operation they perceive as floundering, they need to be replaced, regardless of whether other positions are or not. It's why companies in bankruptcy still hire CFO's. Either way, my main concern is not really whether they are laying people off or not, but that I don't see any scenario in which launching the same version of a game which tanked hard on PC onto a different platform and announcing in advance you won't be changing much for a while is a good move for your game's long term success. Xbox launch is your best chance for meaningful growth in the playerbase. The plan as laid out seems unlikely to result in anything but some initial rush followed by rapidly dwindling numbers again. If I have overlooked some relevant piece of info I'm all ears, but this is what it looks like from where I sit.

I have been thinking about this for some time now. Essentially since a few days after the livestream and the annoucement there would be no new content until after Xbox launch. I am trying to find a way in which these decisions would make sense based on what I know, or to figure out what I could be overlooking that could create a context in which they make sense. So far I have not been able to come up with anything other than what follows: 1. It's an undeniable fact that Atlas has fared poorly with PC players since it's initial very active release. It's activity numbers have gone nowhere but steadily downward with very temporary and slight upward ticks when the few new major content patches were released. These new content offerings have done little to attract new players to the game or attract inactive players back, and in the case of the torpedo there is strong anecdotal evidence that it may have actively contributed to driving pvp players from the game. 2. This means it's a fair assumption that revenue for the game has been negligible for probably six months now. Anecdotally the number of new players who have posted to the forums during that period are few and far between compared to a healthy game's forums. After initially saying they weren't concerned about the game making money for the time being (in which case why even do EA at all? Why not just do closed testing using the old system of alphas and betas in house?), they have now announced a release to Xbox. I can come to no other conclusion than that is being done for the sake of generating revenue. Here is why: 3. If you don't need revenue but your game's reputation is mud with PC players, since XBox represents your best chance to redeem that reputation with the gaming public by introducing it to a playerbase unsullied by the game's poor reputation amongst PC gamers , it would seem obvious that you should make the game as appealing as possible in order to put your best foot forward with this new market. To wit, fix the game and add content BEFORE Xbox release, not after. Failing to do so is the definition of insanity, with which we are all familiar: Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. 4. How can GrapeCard reasonably expect that Atlas will not fare poorly on Xbox if released to that platform in a state that has been roundly rejected by PC players? In so doing I believe GrapeCard has set itself on a course of squandering it's last best chance to market Atlas's potential by rushing to the platform a version of the game it has no objectively good reason to believe will fare better than it has so far on PC. Furthermore, by announcing in advance that additional content, changes and improvements will come significantly after the Xbox release and not shortly thereafter, they have made it clear that for some time Xbox players will have only the version of the game that has flopped on PC available to play. After having considered it for some time now, I cannot see how this is anything but a recipe for failure. 5. On the other hand, if revenue is running low and staff is being cut, this may be the only option they have left. I want to be very very clear that this is speculation on my part. I have no solid information in hand that leads me to believe GrapeCard is reducing or furloughing it's staff. However I can not conceive of any other set of circumstances in which the announced plan makes sense. If revenue coming in the door isn't critically important, it seems obvious they would want to improve the game before making it available on another platform. 6. This leads me to the worry that they do not now expect the game to have any meaningful chance at success and that this move is in fact the dreaded "cash grab" many players are quick to accuse any developer of doing (the industry has made it's own bed with this problem, and now must lie in it), calculated only to wring a few extra dollars out of the game. While many of us, myself included, have been bickering furiously about whether there will be or should be a wipe, in the back of my head I have found the seemingly secondary detail that further content will be delayed significantly beyond the Xbox release troubling. For the hundredth time I will freely admit I have no experience with coding or participating game development and I realize there could be technical reasons for this approach that make sense from that angle, but what I do know is business and marketing, and from those perspectives, this looks like a horribly foolish approach if one is actually trying to make a successful game. I am loathe to contribute to any atmosphere of hysterical speculation, so I have thought long and hard before putting this forward. I am doing so because the more I consider this information, the more I find it hard to see how their announced plan is one that gives Atlas any real chance for success long term. It really just boils down to this: If you put the same thing out there on Xbox that failed on PC, why would you expect it not to fail on Xbox as well, and then what did that really get you except whatever revenue you garnered from the initial sales? And why should those of us who have been here all along not perceive this skeptically as a cynical desperation cash grab? I would very much like to see Atlas fulfill the promise it holds even now as a unique and compelling game, but with the information I have in hand, I cannot see this as anything but a road map to nowhere.

I do not own a boat, and as luck would have it the one friend who does is having his dock rebuilt atm.

But but but, I has those already! unrelated: does anyone have any small children they’d be willing to “subcontract” out as slave labor? I really don’t wanna do housework.

*head asplodes*

You said something nebulous in the past that my brain clearly incorrectly filed as you worked in software. I have never made a mistake before but it was bound to happen eventually. Thanks for clearing up. Since you worked in hardware, my dishwasher isn’t working, can you come over and fix it? I pay in beer.

I’m sure some SP players buy skins anyway but cosmetic skins routinely sell better overall in multiplayer environments. As far as the devs reasoning yes, but my purely speculative speculation here (did I mention I’m speculating?) is that doing SP was a low risk stab at doing anything which might generate sales. The pattern that seems to have emerged 9 months in is less of a coherent vision for the game and more of a “let’s throw stuff at the wall and see what sticks.” sort of approach. SP seems part of that to me.

So when the game said very clearly before you purchased it “This game is an Early Access product and is in an unfinished state.”, what your post tells us very clearly is that you either didn’t read or ignored that key disclaimer. Sorry you lost your ship. I have lost more than one ship to game issues as well. It sounds like Early Access isn’t really your cup of tea. Perhaps you should consider checking back at release. Or not, up to you, but since you’ve paid for it, might be worth doing at that point.

All true but overlooks one extremely relevant fact: The amount of resources needed to make a sp option is minimal. How do we know this? Because the devs said so. Why can we trust that it’s true? Because they don’t have any reason to lie about it. Dont get me wrong, I’m an MMO guy. I was against sp back when people were calling for it. Then they did it anyway and said basically “ yeah it didn’t take much to be able to offer it.” Think about the way they said Atlas would eventually support itself: cosmetics from a cash shop. Single players are less likely to buy cosmetics from said shop because they have no one to show off for. If the devs are willing to offer SP, as a multi player guy it’s just not really any skin off my nose. You obviously feel differently, but my guess is you’re overestimating how much SP has any impact on you in any real way. The thing standing in the way of true progress isn’t SP, but a lack of coherent vision for the game and meaningful action to make that vision a reality. Blaming SP is imo a red herring. It just doesn’t matter enough one way or the other enough to get worked up about.

Sulfur you’re in your 50’s and retired from both the Navy and Software Industry. So jelly rite nao.

*Looks up from his post in the bushes outside Olivia Munn’s house, Cheeto dust on his face. He notices belatedly that the bottle of Captain Morgan is still in his hand and quickly puts it behind his back. Coughs awkwardly.* Yeah. Sure. Lets go with that. I was just sitting here uh, talking to my friend Mr. Japanese Maple (Olivia has expensive tastes in topiary) about the recent population dip on NA PVE. So far he’s noncommittal on coming back to the game, but he did say something about wanting the devs to put more nitrogen in the soil. *hiccups*

Ark sold a million copies in its first month. It was an established hit before it ever got to console. Atlas has fared about as badly as any game that starts with 50k plus on launch week ever has. It is possible Atlas will do well on console, but if I were a betting man I would not put money on it.

I came across that as well. Unfortunately it doesn’t give any breakdown of how those sales are split across platforms. What every article I did come across which contained a split figure showed is that PC sales have always been the greater portion. This notion that console platforms are the greater portion of the game’s sales is not supported by any source I could find, yet Realist wants to sit here, pull figures from where the sun doesn’t shine, then shit talk other people’s sources when he can’t be bothered to provide a single one to support his assertions. Yeah @Realist, I can definitely believe you’ve been drinking tonite. As an explanation it makes a helluva lot more sense than what you’ve been posting.

For you to criticize my quoting of Wikipedia when you are throwing out numbers with no source whatsoever....explain how that cannot be absurdly hypocritical. Universities won’t accept any wiki because they are editable and therefore cannot be regarded as definitive for the sake of academic integrity. We’re not researching the early works of Dave Barry here. I’ve already challenged you to cite a source to back your claims. You’ve failed to do so but have the temerity to question my source when it’s widely read and the article in question is footnoted with its own citations. Your position here is becoming increasingly unbelievable .

Ty for providing more current information. I was only willing to make a cursory search to refute a bogus point in a debate I’m uninterested in rehashing with him.

WAI= working as Intended. Incidentally it was forever before I knew smh was shaking my head, which Realist uses so often I cannot visualize him as anything but a human bobble head, his head always shaking in disbelief as he posts.

I am not at all opposed to the very highest tier being ultra rare in this fashion. I think it would be cool and make them truly memorable. For all that is worth criticizing about Atlas, if this is WAI, then it gets 2 thumbs up from me.

I refer you to my previous statement. I will not be going around in a circle on this. You have cited nothing. Until you do your statements are wind. Regardless I still don’t care. Wanting others wiped for no other reason than you think you deserve it is selfish. There is absolutely nothing you can say that would convince me otherwise, do not bother trying.

I will add only this reference to refute your nonsense assertion that the bulk of Ark revenue comes from console. It is wholly inconsistent with the facts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ark:_Survival_Evolved#Sales Note in the sales section of Ark's wikipedia entry that the game has sold approximately 5.5 million copies total, with only 1.5 million of those being Xbox sales, thus windows sales at 3 million are a 2 to 1 ratio over console. The article further notes that Ark sold a million copies within a month of it's steam release. That's a million copies in a month to 1.5 million ever on console. Drop your ridiculous notion that console is somehow the greater financial supporter of either game in any way shape or form. It is factually wrong.

Completely wrong. There is zero chance Atlas would be in the state it is today if all of the people who have already bought into it's testing had not been here. It's also impossible they would be able to offer to to Xbox release without the funds that EA support to date has provided. If, as you have posited, Xbox support financially is, or will be massive, then had they been able to go straight to Xbox, they most certainly would have. They did not, which means, by your own reasoning in the past, they could not, therefore no both counts Xbox would not be possible without the financial support and testing already done by PC players. Further what you've said here amounts to nonsense and I'm not going sit here and debate it with you. My position boils down to this: your last post was hogwash, my position stands. Period. I dont care that you don't like the idea of me thumbing my nose at what console players want. I've never liked your selfishness in the way you've insisted how things must be for the sake of people who have yet to play a minute of the game. I'm not going to go around and around with you second time on this, you're simply wrong and talking out of the wrong end on this one.

Leveling progression and balance testing having been ongoing since December 22 2018. You can say that more is needed, but it is verifiably false that putting everyone at max would mean these things have never been tested prior to release. Let's not pretend that the past 9 months didn't happen, tempting as that may be.

I have to tell ya, whether Atlas succeeds or fails, I could give less than a fig about whether Xbox players get the crusts cut off of their sandwiches just the way mommy does for them. If they wanna give me that tired “I deserve the same clean slate you got” argument I will happily throw right back in their faces what a performance nightmare the game was on December 22 2018 and how they only even have the option to play Atlas because of the money and time that me and folks like me put in from then to now that means wipe or no they will have a less of a dumpster fire to deal with when they walk in the door. If the devs wipe they wipe, and having understood what I was getting into with an EA product, if they need a wipe for technical reasons I’m fine with it, but wiping just to placate the entirely self centered desires of prospective players at the expense of current ones, you can count me as being firmly against that notion. I have paid my pound of flesh to get to this point. Let them suck it up do likewise by enduring a slightly already populated game world.