PS2 Arena vs. PS2 Classic

I am not interested in PS2 Arena. There are so many sandboxed shooters. Many are quite good. I am interested in community, not gimmicks. PS2 Classic should be all about community. Start with fixing the outfit interface.

I do wish that Daybreak had put as much effort into fixing PS2 as they did into PS2 Arena.

I honestly think PS2 Arena is going to be good for PS2.
If Arena becomes popular, it might draw in curious people to play PS2.
Also, they could try new things with Arena like weapons, vehicles, abilities etc. that might get translated over to PS2.
And if Arena is really successful it means more money for DBG, which means they have more resources to work on cool new things for PS2 as well.
I don't think Arena and PS2 will compete with each other. I don't think its going to be a "versus" situation, but i may be wrong.

Arena will either tank because it fails to make headway (entry cost + engine) vs other numerous offerings;

Or it will kill ps2. Primarily because ps2 pops are already low, it will mainly appeal to people wanting to 'find the fight without all the cheese' - as per Malorn/Buzz's video in this forum section. Because of that appeal to the existing ps2 demographic (assuming arena is a success) it again has that entry price - and they are the ones most likely to take a chance and try it/pay it.

In my experience that makes people more inclined to play, having paid out a fair sum to get involved. We will ofcourse see but with all of ps2's flaws and dwindling populace; I think it's fair to predict that its finished.

Don't call Planetside 2 a classic. Planetside 1 is the classic.

If this secures funding for a potential PS3, then I'm a happy camper. And besides, I always hated the free to play and always wished I could just pay like 30-60 bucks and get the whole game. Monthly memberships are ancient, this is 2018 and PS:A has a bussiness model that is very competitive with modern games.

I fondly remember those days. However, $30-60 for an entire game are long past - shouldn't be because 2018 games are no better than a well made game from 1995, but apparently gamers are wealthy now.

Fixing PS2 wouldn't have done a lot for the game. The franchise needs fresh air, something that can attract new players. As it stands, PS2 can't do that.

I am not saying PS2 is bad, it is a one-of-a-kind and I love it. But for a new player, and I recently invited some friends who told me that, the game is not attractive at all. For the story, they logged in, used the "Instant Action", and get dropped in a warzone just to be killed litteraly 2 seconds later by an ESF rocket-pod. Good thing I told them beforehand that could happen a lot, or else they would have already left.

Now before any vet starts a rant about "casuals players" : yes PS2 isn't your average FPS. But you can't run a game solely on a small "elit" community. It is like trying to live while only eating one bread per week. PS:A will offer a gameplay based on a genre which is more appealing to the masses, while introducing some PS2 mecanics (classes, large scale battles). PS:A will help PS2, either by being a stepping stone for new players or a source of income/upgrades.

I don't believe Arena's gonna do anything for PS2 other than drive it to the grave. I don't like being "One of those guys" but I can't see any positive outcome from this for PS2.

It'll split the player base at worst. True, not a LOT of people will probably hop ship to it, but enough to probably be felt. Rather than getting these "Improvements" soon into PS2, they're probably gonna hold off making PS2 look a little less golden by comparison.

It'll create unrealistic expectations of PS2. What do I mean by that? Netcode. We all know how the lag in this game works in hit detection. It's why you aim oddly in front of enemies rather than at them at all times. It's how people get run over but keep on running. It's how you get corner killed. If it's not fixed in Arena, it's gonna drive people away. Anyone willing to give the franchise a look by now will surely turn their head if that's still the case. No one likes kills that feel cheap or wrong. You get one shot at the mainstream crowd before they throw you under. If they miss...

If it's successful, I don't see any reason on keeping content rolling into PS2. I'm pretty sure it's one of the few games keeping some form of income over time given the lack luster reception of other titles in DBG's catalog. It only has so much content, however, and how long has it taken us to get new real content? Not the sign of a healthy outlook on the series despite what is promised. Remember all the other stuff that was promised? Yeah, that didn't come along either. (More they hyped it up, and it never materialized, but there ya go.) And why bother if you have a new cash cow? Just keep on rolling on the updates and just maintain the older game that might roll in a few bucks here and there. S'what they've been doing so far.

This coming from a guy that subbed, though I've got mixed feelings if I had the option to refund on whether I would or not. I've supported PS2 in particular, but it doesn't seem to get much attention. Other games first, then perhaps a few throw away things modeled by the community or one or two members worth of work. It takes more than that to maintain it of course, but content generation is rather important as a game ages. PS2 hasn't had any of that in quite some time. Don't think Arena's gonna get that fixed if the usual company/publisher mentality kicks in, even if I wanna believe in unicorns and rainbows.

I think PS:A will be the future of PS (thus being PS3 or whatever you want to call it) and existing PS2 as we know it will then be an additional game-play mode of PS:A, call it "Open Play" or "Free Play" or else.

PS2 has failed to generate and retain enough players and therefore enough revenue: whether it has failed to attract or to retain or both (IMHO it has failed to retain) it is a moot point now.

On the long term, if PS:A will be successful it will simply swallow PS2 as we know it today, also from a monetary PoV.

As sad as it can be, I do not believe it will be a 100% bad thing. PS2 has not been able to find the right balance between single objectives vs. team (or faction) objectives. Maybe PS:A will be better in funneling people in the right direction.

Truth is, you can't please everybody and trying to do it (which is the main principle being a Sandbox, "Be what you want to be") without taking a stance does not always pays off.

Yesterday I was playing infiltrator during a Biolab attack, teleporting from a nearby base. I killed tens of defenders in any possible way (mines, frag grenades, SMG, sidearm, ...) dashing in and out the Teleport room having a lot of fun. What is wrong with that? Nothing and everything, because I did NOT contribute at all toward the conquest of the Biolab, I simply farmed.

I think PS2 should make locking continents harder... Yes it makes bigger battles, But some squads like smaller battles and capping points in places far from the war front.
I also would love to see a much more robust tutorial, outfit Quality of life changes, and squad Quality of life changes (Squad change that sticks out to me is in the finder I would love a better description, where the leader, or fireteam leaders [if permissions] could edit a "Mission" such as 'air raid on point X' or 'tank squad moving on point X' AND the ability to do this for fire teams / squads / and platoons obviously joining one joins the other but they have different missions .. or the same their choice.)

After this just be like hey PS2 players we are launching PS3 to bring life to the genre "wink wink" point at PS2 with only these new features. I would still be happy... but they have to let us know that its not actually PS3 cuz then its just a slap in the face. But to anyone who doesnt play it "feels like a new game."

Planetside Arena will kill Planetside 2.

Why? TLDR: A House Divided Against Itself Cannot Stand


The effects of PSA on PS2:

What does Planetside 2 require more than anything else to be fun and unique in the game industry? Lots of players. LOTS.

What does Planetside Arena do? It cannibalizes players from Planetside 2 AND cannibalizes potential new players from PS2.

Many of the new players will not enjoy Planetside Arena. PSA is a much more self-focused, KDR driven, ego driven game. The worst element of Planetside 2 will go there. Hacks will abound. DBG already doesn't have the ability to deal with hackers. New player experience will surely be poor. Retention will be very low. Very few of them will move to Planetside 2. Why would they bother with a "bigger" version of what they just experienced?

Planetside Arena will spike up fast, then will start to decline fast.

Meanwhile, PS2 will suffer blows to population which is already an issue. Outfits will struggle, fail, merge. Fights will be 1-12 vs 1-12...so....people will ask: why NOT move to PSA? Many of them will just go to a non DBG game instead.

Earnings for PS2 will fall, PSA earnings will at first spike, then fall fast. This means less staffing and dollars go to PS2 during this time and beyond and that means even more player flight from the game(s).

DBG brass will take the wrong lesson from this, reasoning that Planetside ins't profitable (when it was they who killed the profit).

Prior SOE/DBG examples:

Everquest vs Everquest 2:

They had a hit called Everquest but when times got hard, instead of building on it, they opted to create their OWN competition via Everquest 2 (thinking that, hey, payments for one game are no different that payments for the other game without realizing that they injected a poison that insured EQ fell in the industry ranks AND it doubled SOE costs and infrastructure/code base/expertise/focus issues.

They also made EQ2 because fewer and fewer people at SOE understood and could work with the original Everquest code base. A planning and retention issue coupled with the general nature of ever changing technology.

And just like PS2 vs PSA, Everquest 2 had none of the real depth and soul and complexity of Everquest. It didnt do as well with the majority of EXISTING players (you know the people already PAYING for your game DBG?)

Everquest 1 and 2 VS Everquest Next AND Everquest Next vs Everquest Landmark:

In yet another bid to compete with itself and thus kill off player base and goodwill, SOE/DBG started work on Everquest Next. It was a colossal failure that failed to even launch and that decimated player goodwill and trust in the company.

(Much of what follows makes full sense only to people who watched EQN's train wreck years of design and development and the outright hoax/fraud that was EQ:Landmark).

1. EQN failed to find its CORE gameplay concept. It waffled monthly and yearly on what it wanted to be.
2. EQN failed to use its large budget wisely, frittering it away on the brightest new penny to come along (Storybricks, Heroic Movement, Faddish Disney art work, emotes over gameplay. You name it, Ponytail (EQN's producer) and Co just chased butterflies.
3. No control of game development direction and timelines.
4. Outright lie to players (many of whom paid $100 for Founders Packs) about how the game development tool, called Everquest Landmark was just that, a tool to build the game.
5. Everquest Next development died and Ponytail forced the budget and time into Everquest Landmark (a minecraft knock off) and to avoid possible legal issues, change the name Everquest Landmark to just "Landmark" thinking that seperated the two even though players who invested in EQ Landmark only did so as a lead into Everquest Next. VERY SHADY. VERY SHADY.

What. A. Crock.


Look, I know, this is a long rant. I WANT DBG to succeed. I want EQ and PS to go on forever. I want DBG to make mountains of money. But I am repeatedly flabbergasted by what I see them do and not do. Hell they haven't gone SJW and Loot Crate insane (yet) so I WANT to be in their corner.

But for Pete's sake DBG:

MODDERS ARE NOT CODERS.
CHASING BATTLE ROYALE IS A CHASE IN A CROWED FIELD. YOU WILL LOSE TO THE ONES 100% FOCUSED ON IT.
NOT KNOWING YOUR GAME'S CORE GAME PLAY AND COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGES IS AN INVITATION TO FAILURE.
RELYING ON THE PONYTAIL FIX-ALL TONIC SALESMEN TYPE WILL LEAD TO FAILURE.

Be good at what you have and do. Invest there. PSA is a move away from what made PS unique and PSA is a move towards a saturated market where your company's failure to update/patch/fix/improve a game in a timely manner will bite you in your financial ***.

Last note, in case any original EQ players or devs read this: HELLO AND THANK YOU GUYS/GALS. What a ride it has been. Great job.

Hate to point it out to you but that's not how companies work. Any profits from PS:A sales go to DBG as a whole. Then a decision is made to spend the funds on either:

• Polishing the already released games
• A CEO pay raise
• New title development

Given that DBG just laid off 70 employees I guess the second option is more likely. It is also a trend that leader wages grow disproportionate to worker pay in most industries.

Sadly I think Planetside 2's fate is already decided and its to be run into the ground. After all, the money to develop PS: Arena had to come from somewhere and with no other real source it pretty much had to come from PS2's budget. Hence why all those toys (new ES vehicle weapons, Oshur, revamped spawns, etc) that were promised have yet to see ONE member of the list actually released since the Flash weapons and those only because they were cheap to design. In short Daybreak is hell bent on chasing the latest "sexy new thing" and only see's PS2 as something to raid for money, staff, and players. Not a viable source of revenue for the next few years that could use some investment.

Now keep in mind just how over-saturated the "battle royale" market is with titles created from the ground up for that market from companies who specialize in that sort of market, failure is pretty much a given. The only way for Daybreak to succeed would be a huge misstep (on par with SOE's screwing up EQ/ EQ2 that let World of Warcraft grab the MMORPG crown from them) by some other company, and frankly its been Daybreak that is doing the stumbling.

To me the entire situation is such that there are really only two outcomes that are remotely likely:

If, by some miracle of luck, Arena doesn't flop Daybreak will divert every bit of money and manpower they can from "the old has-been" PS2 into it in the belief that they can become a major player in this market. At that point you can pretty much kiss any new content - aside from "content" that is reskinned weapons & armor skins - good bye along with bug fixes, cleaning up cheaters, and proper maintenance for the servers. In a fashion Daybreak will become like the parents who are so enthralled by their new child that they ignore their older one completely, justifying it as "the baby needs more attention right now - we'll make it up later." And of course later never comes.

If, and the more likely, Arena is effectively dead on arrival then Daybreak will still divert money and resources in an attempt to save it or at least salvage a few months so they can say it wasn't a total failure. Which means that until they finally admit that there is no way to make Arena success we can forget about major fixes for bugs & stability issues, new content (bye bye Oshur, new Sunderer/ MBT weapons, new ASP perks/ recert system, etc), along with current balance issues remaining unacknowledged. A situation that will keep new players away and drive yet more current players to other games until the population is simply too small to sustain the game.

Frankly I want to know just how many red flags these idiots calling themselves developers ignored to push this junk threw to release. Because the moment I and the engineers & managers at work who I got playing this game all had the same reaction. "What the hell are they thinking?!"

In all fairness what PS:A is trying to bring to the table it could easily be incorporated into PS2 as new continent(s) that would have CTF, DM, LMS etc. modes.

You're right.

It's very simple to those who have taken a business 101 class. They are milking the cow (PS2) while they let it die. Business classes teach executives to spend lots of money on a new venture (game) upfront, spend less once it is established, and then once it starts to decline, spend little or nothing on it while taking the income from it and spending it on another venture while milking the initial venture until its income is too low to justify its minimum costs. They then completely shutdown the initial venture.

It really makes no logical sense, but college business classes teach it and lemmings follow it instead of using their brains learning why the cow started to die and fixing it - or better yet correctly predicting what will harm the cow and proactively fixing it.

The problem is that keeping a cow viable takes more brains than creating a new venture.

As much as I personally detest you and your general opinions on this site, you hit the nail on the head with this.

I actually sat in on one of those classes when bad weather hit my campus (was a good time to grade tests) and this new venture vs. established product happened to be the days subject. After the class I asked the professor if he had ever actually ran a business. He said yes. Then I asked what happened to the business. Took him a few seconds before admitting that it had gone bankrupt. Last question was why and he admitted that the company had focused so much on new products that often flopped that it starved their established ones to the point where they fell behind competitors.

Flash forward ten years later and what do I hear in my emergency mediciene & practice management class (which was taught by a LVT who ran one of the 3 emergency clinics in 1/3 of my state, one who didn't have a business degree at all). That more than half of your revenue is going to come from A) the 10 to 20% of your clients who keep coming back and B) from people who want the services where you have an excellent reputation. In other words most of your money comes from established product/ service lines and their successors that have the same features, not from fancy new things.

Big difference. Of course since to enter management outside of food service or medicine (human or veterinary) you pretty much have to have a degree from business school plus look & act like all the other business types that sort of practical knowledge is wasted. And people wonder why I laugh when people say that business is good training for governance. Only if you live in a world where there are always rainbows and the menu is unicorn every day.*

*A cookie to whoever gets that reference. Find it and you will find true wisdom about the world of business.

In this day and age, having a degree is often a BAD sign.

Given the state of Universities, I'd say having a degree often means ou had your common sense surgically removed and you were left a half-wit with a high opinion of yourself.

Also, if you tout how many "certificates" you have then you are likely to be a financial drain on a team that would be better served to hire a dog in your place. At least dogs are fun.

Never underestimate the idiocy of a committee.

Well, you should see is this way:

PS:A will attract a lot new players in the first few month. After the first hype, the amount of players will normalize to the usual level, which means, the PS community will divide in 2 seperate communities, either playing PS2 or PS:A, no one will play both games at the same time. (PS:A now, PS2 then, but not at the SAME time)
During this time you need at least 2x the players you formerly had, to feed both games with the same amount of players and fill the servers the same as now.
Will that be a serious scenario?

NO! The competition on the market is hard and the most players aint loyal to games... they'll change faster to another game than you can say "New Game Beta is starting".
So a player loss is inevitable, especially when the game is hosted by companies who dont support their games contantly over years with expansions.
However, to keep the state of PS2s playerbase after PS:A comes up, you need AT LEAST 2 times the players as now. But what we have isnt really enough to feed the devs currently.
Or why do you think they make that offer for 4000x 300 bucks lifetime-all access membership (worth of 1.2 million dollars, that includes ONLY super old games, which probably aint supported anymore and the probably expiring PS2)?
They need that money for a good headstart of PS:A, to support THAT game. DBG is a company and they have to pay their Devs and you need a lot of rescources and money to get a good game starting and supported and most important: Promoted and advertised!

Will PS2 survive? Probably... but my bets are that it will be included in PS:A as one of the game mods, after all servers have to merge...
The question after all is: What is your lifetime "all"access membership worth in - lets say - 2 years?

It sure could, and it is kind of strange that it isn't. It would be an ideal way to experiment, test out, and gather feedback on the game modes meanwhile producing PS:A. Last-Team-Standing for example, as an endgame alert mode, would be an actual innovation and unique selling point in the battle-royale scene.

At the same time I'm glad most of the stuff is separated into a separate game in for as much as many of the advertised features seem to appease to the ranting COD kids. I.e. the vocal minority complaining about max units and infils with no reasoning whatsoever other than an ideal that all classes should be equal. And in doing so failing to grasp what PS2 really is and how its combat capitalizes on things such as synergy and teamwork.

I'm pretty confident that PS:A will bring new players to PS:2. Moreover, for the time being, the dynamics DBG is showing regarding the parallel development of games, if it is maintained, can only be a good thing for PS:2.

I just hope that PS:A will attract and keep a lot of players, because from an objective point of view, this game can bring something really new to the BR universe so popular right now, and the other game modes, as well as the planned updates are looking very good too.
On my side, I have already pre-ordered PS:A.

To be continued,
Gabyfle.