Very obvious metrics is how much money an expansion generates but I wonder how else expansions are scored internally by management at Daybreak. In a perfect world a DBG dev would tell us but everything. But short of that what do folks think they might evaluate to decide how successful an expansion is? High player use of all zones. If some zones don't get use often is that a negative? Any thoughts folks?
I definitely think there is a push internally to keep zone usage up. Recycling old content is really a slick way to keep costs down while keeping players busy. Take the chase items. Linking BiS items to old content achievements is a stroke of genius. It's fairly accessible to most of the player base, but no one complains about them being BiS due to the time commitment to unlock and evolve them. What is successful? I would say a 60% purchase rate from active accounts upon a new expansion release would be a reasonable target, with 45-50% considered "successful". I don't know if zone usage would even play a role in the corporate vision other than to find and fix bugs. At my company we track customer tool usage to help paint a picture about what customers find useful, which paths they are taking to consume our services. Then we build and expand on those paths. I imagine something similar is done here. Quests, items, raids, zone mechanics, etc should help DBG decide what gets built for the new expansion.
I would think looking at 1 best reviewed expansion 2 most popular expansion 3 most replayed content Some expansions are not well received at first because they are deemed too difficult or too easy maybe even too tedious after launch but sometimes the replay factor actually has something to do with it. For me placing useful items in an expansion that age well causing players who were not able to obtain in era to go back to complete. Not to just cross a check mark off but rather because the item in question is worth going after for years to come. The devs have a fine line between overpowering and longevity but there are certain items just worth having. Epics come to mind sans necro and other docs that had level limits. As a paladin the 2.0 caused exploration ad completiin for an item that still has viability today and I’d recommend any new paladin achieve this quest. Portal clicks Curing items Illusions Debuff clicks Heal clicks Da clicks Mounts Dps clicks The list goes on. In era best items that are useful to revisit if you were not lucky enough to get them to a point as it can be frustrating when you don’t get the drop. Case and point the paladin bracer from revamped seb I have tried to hunt for 3 years of non hardcore play and still did not get it to drop I go back every year but if you asked me to rate my experience I’d place it on the bottom of my list for fun. If and when I do get it I won’t feel satisfaction I’ll just have an item that has lost usefulness. Everything is a balancing act but some zones just stand out others have the boon of best experience or where people congregated at the high end of an expansion as the game progresses so quickly now the casuals don’t have time to catch up to the high end and I think that’s bad for the game.
1. QQ posts per minute post launch resulting in numerous patches/fixes/changes 2. # purchases first quarter VS 2nd quarter 3. Amount of Work invested VS net gains end of year would be my quess much like a banana for scale, typo for sancus! *ps - oh and i think expansions that have items that last multiple expansions are a great idea, you should deff continue that trend (shawl aug, Shoulder Aug, RoF helmet, COTF shoulders, TBM mask/augs and now these evolve items, with evolve items being the best because thay are accessible to everyone!)
The only metric that matters: $$$$$$ Without it, we have no game. Number of presells, number of high tier expansion purchases. The number of voices on these boards is a small percentage of those than actually play. Feedback is way farther down the line of importance than some here would think - and that's the way it ought to be.
This is old-school business acumen, and it no longer applies in today’s market. Maintaining the appearance of responding to customer feedback can turn a business around from the brink. Ignoring it can destroy a business. You don’t have to look very far to find that DBG is doing precisely that. The recent campaign to tap into nostalgia and get the word out via social media was a resounding success. Customers who interact with a company and come away feeling understood - regardless of outcome - have a substantially higher predilection to respond to customer satisfaction questions with “strongly agree” or “highly recommend”. The point here is that feedback isn’t something companies should ignore. Feedback today can be a very powerful income driver by leveraging customer experience. Think about it...if you want to be heard and the entity you are trying to communicate with responds with, “Hi. We hear you. We’re working on delivering the best ideas to you!” You already feel more positive about the experience, and that’s no little thing. Dollars are important. No question. But tapping into the source of those dollars and getting customers to spend based on emotion? That’s where the power of feedback and customer experience comes from.
I think it's more that people think feedback is ignored because someone doesn't reply to every thread that's made. But just because no one replies, doesn't mean one of the devs hasn't read it and made a note. (or laughed at the absurdity of it).
I think from a developer standpoint they track how many players are playing in newer zones and how much time they are spending in them. If I recall correctly prior to the major HA changes the developers had actually commented that they wanted to get players out of Gribble and into other zones. They had mentioned that they could track how many players were doing certain content such as HA's and which HA's were actually being played. Gribble accounted for nearly all HA gameplay which I think upset them because people were leveling and grinding in older content instead of playing in the content they just spent a year designing which is why they made the HA changes I would imagine. From a business standpoint its fairly strait forward. How much money did they make from an expansion and was the expansion engaging enough to keep those same players paying until the next expansion release. Expansion sales are only one part of the equation I imagine with monthly subs being the other major metric for a successful expansion cycle.
I like Aura's answer a lot. But I really doubt there has been much change in expansion sales number trends for at least the last 5-6 years (maybe longer). I expect that they have declined or stayed roughly the same, correlating with the "live server" player base. An expansion is almost a guaranteed sale to the players that can utilize the content (end-game players), but shouldn't have much appeal for TLP or players that aren't max level. Put another way: I haven't seen any indication that any recent expansion has brought more players in. And Holy's recent interview quotes pretty much indicate that their financial model is based entirely on the game's existing player base, which pretty much constantly recycles itself. But, presumably, the recycling player base must lose size over time unless new players outnumber dying (literally) players.
Expansions should be evaluated based on the quantity and quality of memes they incur, TBL number 1 forever!
