A quick introduction: I'm Nept. I lead Omniscient, the team that took top honours in Hawken's competitive league (TPG), and whose membership includes Climatic, hestoned, IAreDave, Leonhardt, OmniStone, 7r1p, and Xacius. In order to avoid having our aimbots detected, I, alongside several longstanding community members, also act as the league's administrator. (That is a joke.)
Before the old forums disappeared, we were treated to several (dozen) posters tolling their I-told-you-so bells and blaming Hawken's state on balance decisions. Popular particulars included movement speed (e.g., �I wanted MechWarrior-style mechs�), game pacing (e.g., �This game is literally CoD�), mech types (e.g., �The Technician and/or Incinerator and/or Sharpshooter and/or Scout have ruined this game�), and matchmaking (e.g., �High MMR players are the devil�). In my opinion, however, these explanations miss their mark completely: Hawken � an arena-style mech game � was bound to falter because of the interaction between its funding pitch and its gameplay. No balance decisions were going to alter that scenario.
Through two waves of funding, Meteor entertainment raised roughly twenty-eight million on the claim that Hawken's numbers could compete with League of Legends': �Mark Long, CEO of Meteor Entertainment, believes Hawken can attract 10 million gamers in 2013 and generate over $100 million in revenue for the company, which is funded by the likes of Rustic Canyon Partners, Benchmark Capital and FirstMark Capital� [link]. The latter two firms, if you weren't aware, funded League's development and were obviously hoping that lightning would strike twice. Of course it didn't, and once the investors became aware of the obvious population issues, they refused to fund further development.
But why couldn't Hawken compete with those numbers? Anyone who followed the game's coverage (the investors amongst them, apparently), would've noticed the overwhelmingly positive reception received by the announcement trailers. Great reception equals great numbers, right? Evidently not. Apparently, the investment firms weren't sufficiently educated on arena shooters � shooters where skill ceilings are elevated through high mobility, high movement speeds, and high times-to-kill. Although some people enjoy the challenges and ability gaps brought about by such games, most people do not. Simply put, arena shooters have never enjoyed massive audiences.
Conclusion
Combining an arena shooter (and a mech game, to boot � another niche genre) with a funding pitch predicated on massive populations wasn't a great idea. Arguably, combining any shooter (that's not CounterStrike) with a funding pitch predicated on massive populations isn't a great idea. And although Hawken's development had issues apart from its source of funding, none of them (again, imo) tilted its ship so dangerously as this one. [Note: I'm considering Meteor's decision to develop their own delivery and purchase system as part and parcel with its funding pitch]
If you're planning on posting about the game's direction, please keep my thoughts in mind. We're a tad tired of seeing people claim that their balance/gameplay suggestion will revitalize the community and attract throngs of eager gamers. It won't. The people who are interested in playing an arena mech shooter will play Hawken. The people who aren't interested will not.
If we're discussing playerbase development and retention, I believe it better to focus on pay models and communication. Currently, many observers and casual players think that Hawken operates on a �pay2win� model � a perception that cannot be permitted to stand. Kill two birds with one stone by offering a package that includes all current mechs alongside their abilities, weapons, and internals. If you're planning on introducing new mechs (perhaps those that have already been developed), consider a �season pass� model that will provide people future access. Toss in some aesthetics if you're feeling generous. Blitz gaming news sites with the fact that Hawken's not pay2win; capitalize on your community communication by pitching the �New Hawken Developers Working Closely With Community� interview and headline. When you're ready to develop new content, focus on extending the scope of the game through maps and game modes rather than making major balance passes. Blame Saturnine for decisions which aren't well-received. Profit.
*Edited to include a question from, and response to, ROSING:
Sorry I am confused, and I mean no disrespect at all, but how will offering a package that will unlock all of the mechs and their attachments work against the game's perception as being a pay2win game? I'm probably missing something here...:T
But you raise some good points, and hopefully the Devs play their cards right and the odds are in their favor :)
No worries - at first glance the suggestion seems out of place.
When people complain about �pay2win,� they're typically doing so in the context of free-to-play games. By providing a complete package of mechs, abilities, items, and weapons at a reasonable price, the developers could convince potential customers that they're purchasing a full game. Players then have their choice of two options: purchase the full game, or play for free while grinding toward completion. Of course, this route would require strong communication from the developers. They would have to emphasize that non-paying players would have eventual full-game access through leveling, and that mech/weapon unlocks are sidegrades. (Yes, some changes would have to be made re: access to internals and items to ensure that they were truly sidegrades)
Also bears mentioning that developers (and forum communities) often underestimate the power of player ego. Although there were several factors that contributed to the pay2win perception surrounding Hawken, the most overlooked (and imo, the strongest) is the fact that players will look toward anything but themselves when explaining a loss. It's never their fault. No, it's the lag. Or the matchmaking. Or the hackers. Or the pay2win players in their pay2win mechs that are umpteen times better than yours. As a developer, you have to hammer into your playerbase (and any interviewers) the fact that pay2win mechanics are playing no part in their losses.
One last bit: Vanashinkaku (former developer) stated that their decision to include unlocks and levelling was based on data which demonstrated that players enjoy progression. At the same time, however, there were many players (and potential players) wanting to purchase a �full game� sans grinding. The aforementioned suggestions would satisfy both groups of players: those desiring a sense of progression (and to not pay), and those desiring the full game.
Edited by Nept, 23 March 2015 - 12:00 AM.