Should veterans be sacrificed for new players?

[Shoah Kahn]

Should:
• new players will have lower standards, because they are unfamiliar with a given product and, therefore are easier to please; making game development easier / cheaper (stuff can be copy-pasted more liberally, for example)
• being less demanding, new players will more likely spend more money on the product (via DLC), than would more exacting players with higher standards
• everything "new" will have a given neuro-chemical dynamic that all but guarantees new players will have fun with a game they are willing to play; again, making development easier / cheaper

Should not:
• veterans are the demographic that make an I. P. a success and, thus, a market that should be held onto in order better ensure future success of that product line -- think: repeat customers
• newer players will not be able to provide the experienced input that can help make a product better; at least, not until they, too, become veterans
• veteran players who are happy with an iteration of an I. P. that they historically enjoy, will likely stick around much longer than new players will, and will then garner more revenue than the counterpart demographic (in the medium-to-longer term) -- think: "whales" in MMO's

What say you: Should veteran or long-time players of a given game I. P., genre, or brand be sacrificed at altar for a quick buck; or is it better to honour the commitment of those who have historically supported a franchise?

[Tenz]

Originally posted by Shoah Kahn:

Should:
• new players will have lower standards, because they are unfamiliar with a given product and, therefore are easier to please; making game development easier / cheaper (stuff can be copy-pasted more liberally, for example)
• being less demanding, new players will more likely spend more money on the product (via DLC), than would more exacting players with higher standards
• everything "new" will have a given neuro-chemical dynamic that all but guarantees new players will have fun with a game they are willing to play; again, making development easier / cheaper

Should not:
• veterans are the demographic that make an I. P. a success and, thus, a market that should be held onto in order better ensure future success of that product line -- think: repeat customers
• newer players will not be able to provide the experienced input that can help make a product better; at least, not until they, too, become veterans
• veteran players who are happy with an iteration of an I. P. that they historically enjoy, will likely stick around much longer than new players will, and will then become garner more revenue than the counterpart demographic (in the medium-to-longer term) -- think: "whales" in MMO's

What say you: Should veteran or long-time players of a given game I. P., genre, or brand be sacrificed at altar for a quick buck; or is it better to honour the commitment of those who have historically supported a franchise?

It worked for world, the most casual monster hunter of the series until wilds.

[Kabaale]

People have proven that they like eatin ♥♥♥♥.
So since it's easier to do...

[Shoah Kahn]

Originally posted by Tenz:

It worked for world, the most casual monster hunter of the series until wilds.

I don't know the numbers or revenue relative to development budget... but, I'll take your word for it. However, "worked" does not necessarily equate to should. That is, "worked" tends to imply only that something in the gaming industry made money; not that it did any service to the brand or I. P., or even its future profitability.

[zero]

nobody is being sacrificed for anyone else, you disliking the game is not a universal statement of vet vs newbie.

they have been making the same game for nearly a dozen times now, and has iterated on each one, thats literally what they do.

[BerserkGravy]

Sac and tap for resources.

[Mr2Thumbs]

Originally posted by Shoah Kahn:

Should:
• new players will have lower standards, because they are unfamiliar with a given product and, therefore are easier to please; making game development easier / cheaper (stuff can be copy-pasted more liberally, for example)
• being less demanding, new players will more likely spend more money on the product (via DLC), than would more exacting players with higher standards
• everything "new" will have a given neuro-chemical dynamic that all but guarantees new players will have fun with a game they are willing to play; again, making development easier / cheaper

Should not:
• veterans are the demographic that make an I. P. a success and, thus, a market that should be held onto in order better ensure future success of that product line -- think: repeat customers
• newer players will not be able to provide the experienced input that can help make a product better; at least, not until they, too, become veterans
• veteran players who are happy with an iteration of an I. P. that they historically enjoy, will likely stick around much longer than new players will, and will then become garner more revenue than the counterpart demographic (in the medium-to-longer term) -- think: "whales" in MMO's

What say you: Should veteran or long-time players of a given game I. P., genre, or brand be sacrificed at altar for a quick buck; or is it better to honour the commitment of those who have historically supported a franchise?

Tell that to Helldivers 2.

The devs nearly killed the game trying to cater to the 10k people that played Helldivers 1 and were searching for the same soul-crushing difficulty. Meanwhile, newer players were looking for a fun co-op horde shooter. As the devs steadily stripped away all the fun parts to cater to their and the veterans' original vision of the game, they lost all those new players. They never truly recovered, by the way.

For the first month after launch, they had 200k+ players on at almost all times. By the time they were done nerfing stuff, they had lost 90% of that playerbase, me included. After they decided that they did want people to play their game, they buffed everything again, and got some of their players back. On any given evening, you'll find 50-80k people on at a time. Still a far cry from what could have been.

My point is that while long term vets are important pillars of the community, they cannot be a community all on their own. If you can't keep the new players around, then your game will fail.

[Zugg3rnaught]

It's both, it's a "yes and" type solution here. Vets of the series will find their grind, albeit later on, something that provides the challenge they desire. However, with this game and how it has exploded, the on-ramp being forgiving will guide new or returning players further into the game. I think there will be much more to come, the things to come will be the great challenge that vets are hoping for - as always - the best course of action is to be patient.

Should they try to please the vets? Yes
Should they try to make on-boarding easier for newbies? Yes

Will they strike a balance? Yes

[Foxes Dance In Snow Storms]

Honestly Neither. I think for the main story and quests, a little easier a time is just fine which is great for New players, as well as ways to obtain otherwise hard materials slowly over time. For Veterans, there should be the optional missions, which in turn would reward hard gained materials far faster and probably armors otherwise unachievable. That's one thing I like about the title so far. They do generally keep the manageable monsters on the main straight and narrow. ... And then you have the quests like The Survivor, or Scores of Ores (I'm sure Worlds had some too and while I OWN Worlds, I have not gotten anywhere in it) where you earn your bloody keep, and by bloody... I mean Bloody.

I think there's a way to balance these things. Especially if you beat the tutorial phases and enter the Hard mode, or when there's an even harder mode past that (Again a LOT Of the MH Games doing so) which leads me to where I'm at. At the start, if things are easy, I can be okay with that. I'll enjoy a casual grind, watch our newbies joining, watch them grow up, run missions, smile and laugh as someone blows themselves up by a misplaced explosive or impromptu dining experience just before getting back handed by a Nargacuga.

And when the difficulty ramps up? When they release more updates, more difficulty, more easy missions, more difficult missions, THE NIGHTMARE MISSIONS THAT SHALL HAUNT YOUR DAMNED SOUL, I'll enjoy them. I'll also hope the newbies that join us shall enjoy them too.

But yes. I can appreciate if they sell us out for the new players... IF They are only doing so at the start... But in the end if I'm still able to sit down? I will be Sorely (But not Sore-Ly) disappointed to not have not just those new players, but myself adequately challenged.

[Evocaricus]

I would say make the start of the game cater more toward casuals and gradually ramp it up until the endgame is at veteran level, with lots for them to do.

Most casuals stop playing halfway through the game anyways and are onto the newest trending title.

[Kiririn]

Originally posted by Tenz:

It worked for world, the most casual monster hunter of the series until wilds.

I would argue Rise was even more casual and World pulls in way more daily players while being years older. There is a limit to where that works.

Elden Ring was also able to be more "friendly" to new players while still maintaining a challenge for the veteran players.

The idea that you can't have both is completely wrong. It's just that Capcom, unlike FromSoftware, can't figure it out.

[VDRSK]

Depending on what you consider vets, they are probably in the minority and thus to are at the whim of the many.

Thus you must do what all people of power must do: Make the many fight amongst themselves.

[Quagimus Decimus]

This ain't call of duty
it's monster hunter
You either buy what you like playing or you play something else.

[Demonsouls1993]

Originally posted by Shoah Kahn:

Should:
• new players will have lower standards, because they are unfamiliar with a given product and, therefore are easier to please; making game development easier / cheaper (stuff can be copy-pasted more liberally, for example)
• being less demanding, new players will more likely spend more money on the product (via DLC), than would more exacting players with higher standards
• everything "new" will have a given neuro-chemical dynamic that all but guarantees new players will have fun with a game they are willing to play; again, making development easier / cheaper

Should not:
• veterans are the demographic that make an I. P. a success and, thus, a market that should be held onto in order better ensure future success of that product line -- think: repeat customers
• newer players will not be able to provide the experienced input that can help make a product better; at least, not until they, too, become veterans
• veteran players who are happy with an iteration of an I. P. that they historically enjoy, will likely stick around much longer than new players will, and will then garner more revenue than the counterpart demographic (in the medium-to-longer term) -- think: "whales" in MMO's

What say you: Should veteran or long-time players of a given game I. P., genre, or brand be sacrificed at altar for a quick buck; or is it better to honour the commitment of those who have historically supported a franchise?

oh no new players oh dare they join a game that they want to try how about instead of being an elite asshat how about you help them learn instead of attacking them making them never want to play again

[Jerricky Jebates]

they know veterans are gonna pay regardless, they are trying to catch a different casual market.

[zero]

it is always a bit funny when "vets" of a series have such a strong victim complex about new players joining in the game.