• rigatti
    link
    English
    164 months ago

    A net negative $400 million? Yes?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      124 months ago

      I don’t understand why they abandoned it so quickly instead of at least trying a f2p model. Shut down servers for a week and announce a relaunch?

      • Scrubbles
        link
        fedilink
        English
        164 months ago

        Corpos love to parrot sunk cost fallacy. As a developer myself I have seen very promising projects thrown away at 95% completion because some finance guy realized how much they had spent on it. No amount of “we’re only weeks away from launch” or “look at the potential here” will work with these people. It’s maddening how detached from reality they are, they get it in their head that another penny will mean that they’re just burning money, when all I see is how much was already spent.

        So yeah, with 400mil put in already? You don’t even want to see if any of it is salvageable? The maps? The worlds? F2P? Selling it to an indie dev to retool? Nope, to corpo you might as well throw it in the garbage, anything else is “Sunk cost”

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          34 months ago

          Hell, they were already selling copies too. They were at 100% “completion” and still threw it out

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        4
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        We don’t know that it’s “abandoned” just yet. It has in essence been recalled. They may very well try pivoting it to a free to play model, but something like that can take longer than a week.

      • @RightHandOfIkaros
        link
        English
        24 months ago

        They could not have paid enough people to download the game and play it, let alone get people to do it for free.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    114 months ago

    I still think the games biggest failure was it being paid (and not cheap) while there is plenty of F2P competitors that aren’t any worse. Why on Earth would anyone pay for mediocre online shooter just to try it out when you can instantly play dozen similar ones for free?

    • @ampersandrew
      link
      English
      64 months ago

      It was free in an open beta, and hardly anyone took the opportunity to play it then. Chances are they burn through more money than they make by making it free to play. I’d happily pay $40 if that same game had split-screen, private servers, and LAN deathmatch, but no one makes that kind of game anymore.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        34 months ago

        Idk, my point still stands. Ofc I could try it during open beta (if I knew), but then it still cost $40 which is ridiculous, because all the microtransactions were still there (if I’m not mistaken) so it felt like f2p, played like it, but stil cost 40 bucks. Lol, nope.

  • @steeznson
    link
    English
    64 months ago

    The business model for games like this is entirely geared towards whales which is why almost everyone in online comments seem to hate them but studios keep making them. I really don’t understand why all of them aren’t F2P given that model though.

  • @EarMaster
    link
    English
    34 months ago

    There is still Star Citizen…

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      74 months ago

      That one is raking in cash like crazy though (not that I consider what they are doing ethical)

      • @EarMaster
        link
        English
        44 months ago

        Yeah…the supporters take the role of Sony here…