Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,048
# 11
09-27-2013, 03:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by castsbugc View Post

5)Whose Department is it.? And this is a question we have been left with for a bit. Who exactly is in charge of the Foundry as it relates to STO? its not Geko, its not Dstahl. Crypticfrost, while diligent in cataloging things, is not in charge, and yet he reports his findings to SOMEONE. there is no single entity that we can go to and ask, whats going on with this? what would it take to get "x" done? What was so nuts about eppohs being called squirrels anyways?

Overall it feels sometimes as though the Foundry is a rudderless ship adrift at the whims of whatever budgetary scraps are left over. Frankly I look forward to all the points I have listed above to be completely refuted, because then we can perhaps get moving towards the next evolution of things, and see what we can make in the future.
I agree with every one of Cast's points here, but I think this is probably the most important point.

It's very clear to me from a recent interview with a Core dev, the Core team is unconcerned. In their mind, STO's Foundry is up to STO's devs. At the same time, the leadership of STO thinks of the Foundry as "not my department."

I will again rephrase something Dstahl said a long time ago after S4: "It's clear that having a core team just work on the Foundry and support both games isn't working."

Nobody seems to be in charge of STO's Foundry. It either falls or doesn't fall on a programmer's desk. It's a ship adrift. The admirals don't seem motivated to salvage it, while all of the captains under them have their hands full with whatever has become the next big thing.

We are approaching the 3 year mark, as far as when Foundry hit redshirt. At this point, the state of STO's Foundry is pretty embarrassing. Personally, I'm not very impressed by the choices with NW's Foundry. And, when the guy in charge of the Core team is unaware of a 3-month-old bug that made it nearly impossible for an author to make a STO Foundry mission during the Summer of 2014, that is the ultimate sign of a massive disconnect.

In this sense, STO's Foundry is a failure, due to a failure of leadership. Solution: Put somebody in charge, and give them a programmer and a STO version of Mapolis.

Last edited by kirksplat; 09-27-2013 at 03:16 PM.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,416
# 12
09-29-2013, 04:03 AM
I'm pretty sure I can say we all can agree that the team (Cryptic or PW) needs to care more about the Foundry. It honestly, bothers me that they go to these conventions and hype up the Foundry, but yet.... well I can't help picturing a Ferengi as a used car saleman hyping up a jalopy as a hotrod.

Given the lackluster true support, my guess is that UGC isn't working as intended for both Neverwinter and STO, where UGC really was the core of Neverwinter since that in turn is a core part of D&D with the focus on adventure. STO's Foundry works perfectly as a storytelling tool. As I said in other posts with the Foundry, if they should ever open up the Galaxy, the Foundry would be a perfect tool to allow players to create new life and new civlizations, while giving the STO Dev team the freedom to focus on new content and new storylines.

And now their competition is making their own UGC and expanding on it, that should speak volumes to executives at Perfect World.




As for The Foundry Team itself, how do suggest a fix? That's the trick. When it comes to the Foundry, money isn't talking that would get them to focus on improving the system?

Only thing that I could think of at the top of my head (and late at night) is by some miracle some major talent (well-known authors or maybe even someone from the Star Trek cast like Tim Russ) making content and actually get some notice to the Foundry.

Else, unless something changes in a big way, we will be lucky to get more attention than what the PvPers have in the past 3 years.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,048
# 13
09-29-2013, 04:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by azurianstar View Post
UGC isn't working as intended for both Neverwinter and STO, where UGC really was the core of Neverwinter since that in turn is a core part of D&D with the focus on adventure.
What's the biggest issue with NW? I have to admit that I was kind of shocked to see how dysfunctional some of the features were.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 844
# 14
09-29-2013, 06:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by azurianstar View Post
As for The Foundry Team itself, how do suggest a fix? That's the trick. When it comes to the Foundry, money isn't talking that would get them to focus on improving the system?
They haven't even tried to monetize the Foundry though. They totally could charge for things like adding rewards to the end of your mission. Hell, they could charge for having your mission featured higher on the list, kind of like how Google charges for ads at the top of the search results. They could even charge for the content, possibly, although you'd have to figure out how to do that without just turning everyone off to the Foundry.

But my basic point is that I don't agree with the idea that there's no way for them to make money off the Foundry. The problem is no one has even tried to figure out how to make the Foundry work. At this point, the whole core of the game has been altered to fit PWE's model of selling lockboxes. It's not exactly like they came in and said "Hmm, let me see what pay structure we can come up for this game...", instead they just implemented their standard monetization method. I have doubts that if the Foundry weren't already in development prior to the PWE purchase (and also basically expected for NW) that it would have been made at all. I just don't think the Foundry fits in with their idea of how to run a game, and as a result it gets treated as an afterthought.


Click here for my Foundry tutorial on Creating A Custom Interior Map.

Last edited by nagorak; 09-29-2013 at 07:02 PM.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,416
# 15
09-29-2013, 08:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kirksplat View Post
What's the biggest issue with NW? I have to admit that I was kind of shocked to see how dysfunctional some of the features were.
Wasn't it you guys on your podcasts that said NW's UGC is having their own challenges?

Quote:
Originally Posted by nagorak View Post
They haven't even tried to monetize the Foundry though. They totally could charge for things like adding rewards to the end of your mission. Hell, they could charge for having your mission featured higher on the list, kind of like how Google charges for ads at the top of the search results. They could even charge for the content, possibly, although you'd have to figure out how to do that without just turning everyone off to the Foundry.

But my basic point is that I don't agree with the idea that there's no way for them to make money off the Foundry. The problem is no one has even tried to figure out how to make the Foundry work. At this point, the whole core of the game has been altered to fit PWE's model of selling lockboxes. It's not exactly like they came in and said "Hmm, let me see what pay structure we can come up for this game...", instead they just implemented their standard monetization method. I have doubts that if the Foundry weren't already in development prior to the PWE purchase (and also basically expected for NW) that it would have been made at all. I just don't think the Foundry fits in with their idea of how to run a game, and as a result it gets treated as an afterthought.
Well when I meant monetizing I meant something like offering Asset packs to Foundry authors than them saying "hey want to add rewards to your mission, pay up!".

But maybe so, given their lackluster spirit with UGC, this is probably good enough and we get the occasional scrap from the table of development. Which is a shame because how Sony is going to capitalize off UGC and likely take possible interest from PW games. That's their choice then so be it.
Starfleet Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 594
# 16
09-30-2013, 12:31 PM
IT seems to me, you dont have to monetize the system to gain anything from it. Sure you will have those who argue that its free content that they dont have to lift a finger for and to some extent, they are correct in this statement. But at the same time, if the tool is supported, allowed to grow and can be proven to allow for interesting things, then at the same time this can be an avenue of growth for the game. If you can make it so that players are more willing to use the toolset, more readily allowed to create and design, then you can potentially pull a whole segment of people into the game. More people=more potential sources of revenue.

Now Im sure I am coming at this with rose colored glasses, thinking that if you build it, they will come. Unfortunately the gaming world is a fickle one and potentially the people the Foundry would most readily target are those that have already been burned by the fires of neglect and disinterest and are not likely to revisit the game. But who knows...
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,416
# 17
09-30-2013, 11:25 PM
I agree, but the idea really was if they monetize, then that would mean they would have additional responsibility to maintain the Foundry and keep it smoothly running. Also, lets say they offered stuff in the Foundry in the C-store that really added on, then perhaps it would encourage them to continue making stuff that improves the UGC toolset even further. Providing good sales of course.

But that's wishful thinking, not that I want to pay, just want the Dev Team to more care into the Foundry itself.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 547
# 18
10-01-2013, 12:59 AM
For the 12th time. We are too small a player base to supply any amount of money through "asset packs" for them to even use an unpaid intern on it.

The best use of foundry for monetization purposes is as a tool to provide more content for players to be exposed to the game and therefore want more things. This thought that if we were spending money on it directly would end up with it getting quicker service or more attention is a fallacy.

Yes, on some levels if you make something potentially lucrative you will get more attention to it. However, rationally, foundry authors are a fraction of a percent of any money base. Any money would probably not go for "what we want" if it was. It would more than likely limit what we can do. Heck, even if they through advertising banners such as, "If you liked this costume, check out this pack" it wouldn't do them much good.

I get it, we want things fixed. We are unhappy with how they are. Great, voice that. Just don't fall into the trap of life that gives the illusion that simply throwing money at a problem will fix it.

This presentation cryptic did spells out a lot of their views on UGC and the foundry. This is what they see with the numbers. Sure it doesn't say what they will or will not do but it still shows how they are informed and what their thoughts were at a year ago during Romulus' and Neverwinter's production. It flat out says it is a bad business idea to think "asset packs" or selling to the minimal author base is lucrative, let at all worth time.
Lieutenant
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 76
# 19
10-17-2013, 02:12 PM
Last I heard, EQ next only allows you to create assets and props, not entire quests and storylines. I didn't read anything about being able to create NPCs with conversation and dialogue trees, quest objectives and the like.

That alone kills it for me. I'm not interested in creating dungeon crawls. I want to tell stories.
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:51 PM.