A Perfect Team Update!

[Markus Heinsohn]

Originally Posted by Marsupilami

can one play really competitive without mirco-transactions?
because in other games you can play for free, sure. but you are at a huge disadvantage. it usually is the more you pay the bigger the gap and the more likely you win

Our goal is to balance the system so that you can indeed play competitive without using micro-transactions.

[Déjà Bru]

Originally Posted by Cactusguy21

Ugh, I hope this doesn't end up replacing OOTP in the future. I hate this sort of thing.

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

Of course not! The team developing PT does not work on the core OOTP game, the only shared resource is basically myself and Daniel (our lead graphic designer), and I do not do much coding nowadays anyway (it's 70% project management and other CEO duties, which kind of sucks, lol).

Markus, you must realize and value the concern that your fans have for your game. Perhaps this is the greatest compliment that we can give to you and your team. Knowing this hopefully will boost your patience in dealing with these concerns. So far, you have done a very good job of it.

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by Orcin

This will require a diligent effort to prevent cheating and exploitation in order to be truly competitive. Can you elaborate on some of the safeguards that will be in place? For example, will the game files be stored on a secure server and therefore unavailable to the user for manipulation? Will the game be monitored for bot activity? Will cheaters face disciplinary action up to and including account bans?

So, no comment on this topic?

[subtle]

Thank you for posting the microtransaction explanation. I didn't see it earlier and I'm happy to hear some of your thoughts.

I don't think micro-transactions are evil: obviously they are wildly popular and have allowed developers to make games accessible to people with varied levels of interest and time commitments.

[Airdrop01]

Originally Posted by Orcin

So, no comment on this topic?

I’ll say this: Challenge Mode with small market teams is over for me if I want to do Perfect Game, unless there is a “bonus” for difficulty. Otherwise I’ll just have to get used to playing as the Dodgers, Nats or perhaps Cards, who at least are a biggish market.

[drewandpedey]

Very excited!

[spartaneers]

Should I be playing challenge mode now?

Or, will prior challenge mode achievements not mean anything until the perfect team update is live?

[neugey]

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

Our goal is to balance the system so that you can indeed play competitive without using micro-transactions.

Anyone worried that this mode will grow vicious, corrupt and money grubbing like Ultimate Team should check the track record of EA and compare it to the track record of Out of the Park Developments over the last 10-15 years. To me that puts most fears to ease.

[quillenl]

NM... same question 2 posts up.

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by Airdrop01

I’ll say this: Challenge Mode with small market teams is over for me if I want to do Perfect Game, unless there is a “bonus” for difficulty. Otherwise I’ll just have to get used to playing as the Dodgers, Nats or perhaps Cards, who at least are a biggish market.

I won't bother with Perfect Team if people can just exploit Challenge Mode to obtain cards. A look at the leaderboards shows what is possible with nothing at stake - imagine what people will do if they can obtain something of value.

[el_gringo]

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

But these sort of modes (EA's Ultimate Team, MLB the Show's Diamond Dynasty etc.) are very popular with sports gaming fans, and they are a good revenue stream for the companies. So, it's a win-win.

Hmm...

[Disclaimer up front: this is just my two cents, please feel free to ignore it all. Perhaps I'm completely misunderstanding something, and I mean no offense in any way regardless. That said, I want to voice a few concerns, which I hope prove invalid.]

I want to be reassured by your response to the question, and in some ways I am, but... to be honest, citing EA's model and other similar ones is ultimately more disconcerting than reassuring.

Often times 'popular with fans' and 'good revenue streams for the companies' are equated in a facile manner by game companies (I used to work at Ubisoft in the Market Intelligence/Strategic Planning department, trust me on this), and derived from a single data source: 'well, players are spending a ton of money, the must love it.' This can either be a correct analysis or an erroneous one, depending on circumstance.

People spend heavily on all sorts of things they hate and/or feel compelled to spend money on (again I will mention the inherently addictive, dopamine-trigger-fueled nature of any directly pay-to-win system); such a business model is effectively profit-maximizing for EA and the other companies you cite here for reasons that don't really seem applicable to your company or game, and I'm personally skeptical that their model will work for OOTP without significant modifications, which (if extant) have yet to be explained or mentioned in specific detail.

Most players would actually probably call EA's monetization strategy a 'win-lose,' where they are losing, but keep spending money anyways because the entire monetization strategy has been designed to induce such spending. Is that sustainable, or the goal, for PT? If not, why emulate EA and others like them? If so... really?

'Correctly balancing' a pay-to-win monetization system, especially in a niche game, so that it is fun for all is... a dubious proposition at best. The only truly healthy, long-term economic ecosystems I've ever seen are in games that have fully removed slot-machine-type pay-to-win schemes from their monetization strategy. TF2 is still going strong after more than a decade, while everyone hates EA and their monetization because it just feels bad.

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

We have chosen the basic approach other companies currently use, as it has been proven to work well for them and the users. Things obviously will evolve over time, depending on things like customer feedback or updated law (see Belgium for example). We'll see how it goes. For us, PT is a big investment (we have been working on it for over 2 years now) and something designed to help our company grow and make the game better as a whole.

Am I correct in reading 'We have chosen the basic approach other companies currently use' as 'yes, we will be selling packs directly to players (or obfuscated through a layer or several of in-game currency) for real money?'

Be careful, please. I want for the best for this mode, and I know you do too, given how much effort you've put into it.

Analogizing the monetization strategies of EA/etc. onto your product without sufficient customization accounting for the inherent differences in the nature of the products and fanbases risks undermining several years of hard work. Does there not seem to be a financially viable way to eliminate direct pack sales (and thereby eliminate pay-to-win slot-machine mechanics), thereby creating a more viable long-term PT ecosystem, and still make plenty of money to hire the additional developers you want? Is a cut of marketplace sales, and/or cosmetic upgrade sales, not viable/sufficient? Is the short-run financial benefit of selling packs directly worth the seemingly inevitable results on player base enthusiasm for PT in the long-run? If EA's game folds in a year or two, they move on and monetize a new game for as long as they can before moving on yet again. If PT becomes profoundly frustrating to play after only a year or two because the pay-to-win nature inevitably takes over, the result is very different.

Again, just my two cents. Sorry to be harsh or overly questioning if this comes across that way - I don't mean it to step over any lines, I just want PT to be all it can be, and I'm seeing potential red flags. Also, with regards to the shifting laws you mention, I should say that I have no legal background in any country, so I can't speak to how that influences this discussion at all.

Fingers crossed for the best...

[nutt]

The one constant I have noticed in my ten years of playing OOTP is that the developers, creators, and game designers do listen and also do provide great information upfront.

As a gamer from being out of diapers on the NES to the current PS4/XBO/PC state, microtransactions for an annual sports game for most companies is a way to make money off of a game once the sport is out of season. I actually like the notation that its not console based but still requires management skill, much like playing a game in OOTP (based off of what has been said).

I, like some, strongly dislike the micro transactions that come with Ultimate Team, Diamond Dynasty, the mode in NBA 2K (can't remember what its called), but the game is fun. Not to go off-topic but one mode that I always thought was under utilized by EA was the NCAA FUT. Not to mention their mini-game called "Tug of War," which was one down a side until one team scores (ex. If you won the coin toss, you get the ball at the 50. You have one down to score, if you don't, your opponent gets the ball next, same scenario, wherever on the field you were stopped).

Anyway, back on topic: My question is, will the cards, like most of us have seen and been created, be the authentic Topps, Upper Deck, Donruss, Bowman, etc.?

[Airdrop01]

Originally Posted by el_gringo

Hmm...

[Disclaimer up front: this is just my two cents, please feel free to ignore it all. Perhaps I'm completely misunderstanding something, and I mean no offense in any way regardless. That said, I want to voice a few concerns, which I hope prove invalid.]

I want to be reassured by your response to the question, and in some ways I am, but... to be honest, citing EA's model and other similar ones is ultimately more disconcerting than reassuring.

Often times 'popular with fans' and 'good revenue streams for the companies' are equated in a facile manner by game companies (I used to work at Ubisoft in the Market Intelligence/Strategic Planning department, trust me on this), and derived from a single data source: 'well, players are spending a ton of money, the must love it.' This can either be a correct analysis or an erroneous one, depending on circumstance.

People spend heavily on all sorts of things they hate and/or feel compelled to spend money on (again I will mention the inherently addictive, dopamine-trigger-fueled nature of any directly pay-to-win system); such a business model is effectively profit-maximizing for EA and the other companies you cite here for reasons that don't really seem applicable to your company or game, and I'm personally skeptical that their model will work for OOTP without significant modifications, which (if extant) have yet to be explained or mentioned in specific detail.

Most players would actually probably call EA's monetization strategy a 'win-lose,' where they are losing, but keep spending money anyways because the entire monetization strategy has been designed to induce such spending. Is that sustainable, or the goal, for PT? If not, why emulate EA and others like them? If so... really?

'Correctly balancing' a pay-to-win monetization system, especially in a niche game, so that it is fun for all is... a dubious proposition at best. The only truly healthy, long-term economic ecosystems I've ever seen are in games that have fully removed slot-machine-type pay-to-win schemes from their monetization strategy. TF2 is still going strong after more than a decade, while everyone hates EA and their monetization because it just feels bad.



Am I correct in reading 'We have chosen the basic approach other companies currently use' as 'yes, we will be selling packs directly to players (or obfuscated through a layer or several of in-game currency) for real money?'

Be careful, please. I want for the best for this mode, and I know you do too, given how much effort you've put into it.

Analogizing the monetization strategies of EA/etc. onto your product without sufficient customization accounting for the inherent differences in the nature of the products and fanbases risks undermining several years of hard work. Does there not seem to be a financially viable way to eliminate direct pack sales (and thereby eliminate pay-to-win slot-machine mechanics), thereby creating a more viable long-term PT ecosystem, and still make plenty of money to hire the additional developers you want? Is a cut of marketplace sales, and/or cosmetic upgrade sales, not viable/sufficient? Is the short-run financial benefit of selling packs directly worth the seemingly inevitable results on player base enthusiasm for PT in the long-run? If EA's game folds in a year or two, they move on and monetize a new game for as long as they can before moving on yet again. If PT becomes profoundly frustrating to play after only a year or two because the pay-to-win nature inevitably takes over, the result is very different.

Again, just my two cents. Sorry to be harsh or overly questioning if this comes across that way - I don't mean it to step over any lines, I just want PT to be all it can be, and I'm seeing potential red flags. Also, with regards to the shifting laws you mention, I should say that I have no legal background in any country, so I can't speak to how that influences this discussion at all.

Fingers crossed for the best...

This. Total Ludic Loop type stuff.

[Markus Heinsohn]

Originally Posted by Orcin

This will require a diligent effort to prevent cheating and exploitation in order to be truly competitive. Can you elaborate on some of the safeguards that will be in place? For example, will the game files be stored on a secure server and therefore unavailable to the user for manipulation? Will the game be monitored for bot activity? Will cheaters face disciplinary action up to and including account bans?

No worries, we are covered here, there is no way to cheat, as the simulations etc. run on secure servers that not even the OOTP client has access to.

[Markus Heinsohn]

Originally Posted by spartaneers

Should I be playing challenge mode now?

Or, will prior challenge mode achievements not mean anything until the perfect team update is live?

They will not count retro-actively, no.

[Markus Heinsohn]

Originally Posted by Orcin

I won't bother with Perfect Team if people can just exploit Challenge Mode to obtain cards. A look at the leaderboards shows what is possible with nothing at stake - imagine what people will do if they can obtain something of value.

Nope, we'll have plenty of safeguards here. Also, unlocked achievements do not equal cards 1:1, the pack output is balanced over time in order to prevent guys from force-quitting / reloading / replaying prior to certain achievements (eg. the end of season score).

[Markus Heinsohn]

Originally Posted by nutt

Anyway, back on topic: My question is, will the cards, like most of us have seen and been created, be the authentic Topps, Upper Deck, Donruss, Bowman, etc.?

No, Topps owns all the rights to these, and they are licensed exclusively to MLB the Show. We create our own card designs

[Markus Heinsohn]

Originally Posted by el_gringo

Does there not seem to be a financially viable way to eliminate direct pack sales (and thereby eliminate pay-to-win slot-machine mechanics), thereby creating a more viable long-term PT ecosystem, and still make plenty of money to hire the additional developers you want? Is a cut of marketplace sales, and/or cosmetic upgrade sales, not viable/sufficient?

That does not work. Taking a cut of a transaction which is only done via virtual currency (PerfectPoints) does not pay our bills, I'm afraid. And we cannot create a marketplace that uses "real" currency, as this would have so many potential legal and technical issues that I cannot even begin to count them.

Perfect Team is a journey for us, it will evolve over time, just like OOTP did. And we do our best to make it a fun experience while also earning some revenue with it, which we will then invest back into the company and make all our games better.

[Airdrop01]

Marcus: Is it possible to have some Challenge Mode weighting so that rewards with the Yankees, Dodgers, Angels, Red Sox, Cards, etc aren’t as lucrative as with the A’s or Royals, for example?

[Markus Heinsohn]

Originally Posted by Airdrop01

Marcus: Is it possible to have some Challenge Mode weighting so that rewards with the Yankees, Dodgers, Angels, Red Sox, Cards, etc aren’t as lucrative as with the A’s or Royals, for example?

I do not know how exactly how this will work, but we try to ensure that Challenge Mode cannot be taken advantage of in order to squeeze too many packs out of it.