Follow up on zOMG from the admins

[Red Kutai]

II HazelSkye II

Red Kutai

I'd be more willing to posit that the choice not to make a sitewide announcement is less motivated by avoiding public disapproval, than it is by public disinterest.

I dunno about that. There was at least a dev notice when they weren't going to bring back Frontier Skies.

And you believe this is equivalent? The decision not to return Frontier Skies is effectively permanent - the fact that zOMG! currently has no developers working on it is not. I think that many users are overestimating the impact of this decision, and what it means for zOMG!. Development is essentially 'on pause', until zOMG! becomes a more attractive investment (relative to the alternatives, naturally). Unless we assume that zOMG! is inherently worthless, and therefore incapable of becoming a reasonable investment, the assumption that this is a permanent state is utterly baseless. Personally, I just have trouble seeing how anyone could believe that... sweatdrop

[Miss-Maron-O]

Red Kutai

And you believe this is equivalent? The decision not to return Frontier Skies is effectively permanent - the fact that zOMG! currently has no developers working on it is not. I think that many users are overestimating the impact of this decision, and what it means for zOMG!. Development is essentially 'on pause', until zOMG! becomes a more attractive investment (relative to the alternatives, naturally). Unless we assume that zOMG! is inherently worthless, and therefore incapable of becoming a reasonable investment, the assumption that this is a permanent state is utterly baseless. Personally, I just have trouble seeing how anyone could believe that... sweatdrop

I agree with this. It is important for us to keep faith. If they wanted to cut off zOMG, I think it would be gone by now. How long was frontier skies released before it was cut off completely? Maybe a month or two? Anyway, that's irrelevant. I think zOMG still has a chance. Though I heavily agree that our questions should be answered point-blank and not beaten around the bush. We may be upset about the truth, but being decitful is what makes us more upset. Our human nature tells us we are being mistreated and need to cause a ruccus to get their attention, but I think we should be more respectful and professional, and perhaps then they will feel like they can confide in us.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I call it like I see it.

[David2074]

Red Kutai

II HazelSkye II

Red Kutai

I'd be more willing to posit that the choice not to make a sitewide announcement is less motivated by avoiding public disapproval, than it is by public disinterest.

I dunno about that. There was at least a dev notice when they weren't going to bring back Frontier Skies.

And you believe this is equivalent? The decision not to return Frontier Skies is effectively permanent - the fact that zOMG! currently has no developers working on it is not. I think that many users are overestimating the impact of this decision, and what it means for zOMG!. Development is essentially 'on pause', until zOMG! becomes a more attractive investment (relative to the alternatives, naturally). Unless we assume that zOMG! is inherently worthless, and therefore incapable of becoming a reasonable investment, the assumption that this is a permanent state is utterly baseless. Personally, I just have trouble seeing how anyone could believe that... sweatdrop

Gaia has posted about many things that were unlikely to be of interest to the majority of users.

Everything Gaia has said points to it being unlikely zomg will become economically viable for them.
It's true they didn't say flat out they will never consider it again. That would be silly of them to box themselves in for no reason. To paraphrase the stuff they have said though:

We spent over 5 million and only got about 20% of that back.
We've spent the last couple of years trying to figure out how to change zomg to make it economically viable and could not come up with a way.
We are devoting our resources to other games we feel have a much better chance of making us money.
We will try to fix some of the current issues with zomg but currently we have no plans for expanding it or putting any resources into it.

So, Gaia was having trouble getting zomg to fly when they were actively trying to do so. Now no new additions to the game, no new zomg cash items for sale and other supposedly great games coming to draw users away from zomg. At what point do you think zomg is just going to magically become economically attractive again to Gaia? Gaia has repeatedly said zomg failed as a business model and after repeated tries they were unable to fix it. Blame it on design, game interface, poor marketing or what ever you like but the hard fact of life is some software titles (as well as some movies) fail financially even though they have a core following who thinks they are great.

For you to say you have trouble seeing how anyone could believe Gaia is done with zomg sounds like you are letting your emotions do the thinking for you. As to zomg being worthless - yes, (or worse), if you are an accountant. If a product costs more to continue than the revenue it returns then it is worse than worthless even if it seems like a good item when you don't consider money. A good real life example is the housing market in the US. There are plenty of cases of home owners abandoning their houses because they owe the banks so much more on the property than what it is actually worth. Are those houses 'worthless' if you got them for free? No, of course not. But they are worthless to the home owners because they will never get out of them what it would cost them to own them. They are cutting their losses by walking away. That is what Gaia is doing with zomg. Sad but true.

[Red Kutai]

David2074

For you to say you have trouble seeing how anyone could believe Gaia is done with zomg sounds like you are letting your emotions do the thinking for you. As to zomg being worthless - yes, (or worse), if you are an accountant. If a product costs more to continue than the revenue it returns then it is worse than worthless even if it seems like a good item when you don't consider money. A good real life example is the housing market in the US. There are plenty of cases of home owners abandoning their houses because they owe the banks so much more on the property than what it is actually worth. Are those houses 'worthless' if you got them for free? No, of course not. But they are worthless to the home owners because they will never get out of them what it would cost them to own them. They are cutting their losses by walking away. That is what Gaia is doing with zomg. Sad but true.

Again, that notion is predicated upon the assumption that zOMG! cannot and will not ever turn a profit - that it is faulty by design, and thus unable to compete with 'real' games. As a designer, I believe that notion is ridiculous on its face. What's more, it seems absurd to me that anyone could believe that, and still expect - or even hope - that Gaia might invest in the game.

There is a slight difference-in-implications between your housing example and zOMG! - namely, that a person cannot keep living in their house once they have 'cut their losses'. zOMG! will continue to run and easily maintain its own minimum costs on Gaia - meaning that if ever zOMG! does present an attractive investment, Gaia will be fully available to make it. The decision in your example is permanent by necessity; decisions that Gaia makes in reference to zOMG! simply are not...

[All Honey]

DARKNRGY

We are going to continue our investigation into statements made regarding the Buccaneer Boardwalk area completion and the bugs with the DMS update. We've heard your concerns and we are looking into a resolution that is acceptable for the community. As the week is at its close, we will provide a status update next week.
(snip)
We're going to continue our analysis and provide updates as we learn of them. We'll have more for you next week. We'll try to provide a more concrete plan for zOMG at that time. Thanks for reading and have a great weekend.

Written by: Panagrammic, DARKNRGY, Swarf, Lanzer, Siskataya, and Narumi Misuhara

Alright it is now the end of "next week". We're still waiting.

[Brinstar Angelus]

All Honey

DARKNRGY

We are going to continue our investigation into statements made regarding the Buccaneer Boardwalk area completion and the bugs with the DMS update. We've heard your concerns and we are looking into a resolution that is acceptable for the community. As the week is at its close, we will provide a status update next week.
(snip)
We're going to continue our analysis and provide updates as we learn of them. We'll have more for you next week. We'll try to provide a more concrete plan for zOMG at that time. Thanks for reading and have a great weekend.

Written by: Panagrammic, DARKNRGY, Swarf, Lanzer, Siskataya, and Narumi Misuhara

Alright it is now the end of "next week". We're still waiting.

*Waits* confused

[David2074]

Red Kutai

David2074

For you to say you have trouble seeing how anyone could believe Gaia is done with zomg sounds like you are letting your emotions do the thinking for you. As to zomg being worthless - yes, (or worse), if you are an accountant. If a product costs more to continue than the revenue it returns then it is worse than worthless even if it seems like a good item when you don't consider money. A good real life example is the housing market in the US. There are plenty of cases of home owners abandoning their houses because they owe the banks so much more on the property than what it is actually worth. Are those houses 'worthless' if you got them for free? No, of course not. But they are worthless to the home owners because they will never get out of them what it would cost them to own them. They are cutting their losses by walking away. That is what Gaia is doing with zomg. Sad but true.

Again, that notion is predicated upon the assumption that zOMG! cannot and will not ever turn a profit - that it is faulty by design, and thus unable to compete with 'real' games. As a designer, I believe that notion is ridiculous on its face. What's more, it seems absurd to me that anyone could believe that, and still expect - or even hope - that Gaia might invest in the game.

There is a slight difference-in-implications between your housing example and zOMG! - namely, that a person cannot keep living in their house once they have 'cut their losses'. zOMG! will continue to run and easily maintain its own minimum costs on Gaia - meaning that if ever zOMG! does present an attractive investment, Gaia will be fully available to make it. The decision in your example is permanent by necessity; decisions that Gaia makes in reference to zOMG! simply are not...

It wasn't an assumption unless you consider the information from Gaia to be lies.
Gaia said flat out they tried everything they could think of and could not get zomg to turn a profit and that they had stopped trying. It is highly unlikely it will suddenly become profitable now that they have stopped trying. Perhaps if there is a sudden craze for animated plungers and garden gnomes they can tap into that.

You may be a designer but basic accounting says if a product is continually costing substantially more to produce than it returns in revenue it is a liability not an asset. The housing example was trying to get you to see that. Nor is the example that different. You speak of necessity. Gaia has said they found it necessary to walk away from a black whole they were pumping millions of dollars into with only about a 20 percent return. The move was a business necessity, not because they are hating on zomg. Simply continuing to host zomg on the servers and do some bug repairs does cost Gaia money, probably more than they will be taking in from new zomg related cash sales but certainly less than continuing to work on it full force. I'm glad you like zomg but I really think it is your emotions driving your 'logic' in thinking anyone who doesn't agree with you zomg is coming back is being unreasonable.

I guess we agree to disagree.
FWIW, I hope you are the one who is right. I like zomg. I bought a pendant and several buddies in the push to give it some more funds and I'm sad to hear it's being put out to pasture.

[Red Kutai]

David2074

It wasn't an assumption unless you consider the information from Gaia to be lies.
Gaia said flat out they tried everything they could think of and could not get zomg to turn a profit and that they had stopped trying. It is highly unlikely it will suddenly become profitable now that they have stopped trying. Perhaps if there is a sudden craze for animated plungers and garden gnomes they can tap into that.

There's a great deal of space between lying, and being unerringly accurate - I do believe Gaia has tried their best bets to make zOMG! successful, and that those attempts have yet to succeed. I don't take issue with that at all. I do, however, take issue with the assumption that if Gaia has yet to think of a way, then no such way exists - I believe that Gaia, particularly inasfar as it comes to running an MMO, is anything but infallible. As I've said, I believe that zOMG!'s core design is strong, and that the game is perfectly capable of being competitive - I believe that opportunities to make it so certainly exist, and that those opportunities have simply yet to be realised.

Quote:

You may be a designer but basic accounting says if a product is continually costing substantially more to produce than it returns in revenue it is a liability not an asset. The housing example was trying to get you to see that. Nor is the example that different. You speak of necessity. Gaia has said they found it necessary to walk away from a black whole they were pumping millions of dollars into with only about a 20 percent return. The move was a business necessity, not because they are hating on zomg. Simply continuing to host zomg on the servers and do some bug repairs does cost Gaia money, probably more than they will be taking in from new zomg related cash sales but certainly less than continuing to work on it full force. I'm glad you like zomg but I really think it is your emotions driving your 'logic' in thinking anyone who doesn't agree with you zomg is coming back is being unreasonable.

I believe I said the permanence of the decision was a necessity, in your example; one cannot stop paying on a home, then simply resume paying when the market is more agreeable to the investment - the choice of whether to stay or go is necessarily permanent. zOMG! is very different in that regard; the game will remain available as-is, and Gaia is more than capable of re-investing whenever such an investment proves sound. I fully understand the decision not to fund zOMG! at the moment, and I fully defend it; because it's foolish for a company to invest in something if they don't know how to make it work. However, it is equally absurd to think that simply because they do not understand how to make it work now, they never will; and that is the fallacy of the permanence of this decision.

Additionally, it's more-than-a-little condescending to assert that any line-of-reasoning which is not immediately obvious to you must be driven by emotion, rather than reason. While I fully understand that we disagree on the nature of this situation, to write off another's positions based solely on the assumption that they are an emotional creature is terribly presumptuous. One could just as easily assert that your more pessimistic conclusions are driven by the emotional response of despair - if you understand why it would be unfair of me to assume as much of you, you can understand why it is unfair of you to assume similarly of me...

EDIT: My apologies if I sounded curt, but you seem to have struck a nerve. It's a personal peeve of mine to be told that my voice is worthless, and the notion that one could predicate such a claim solely upon the fact that I'm an emotional creature - as we all are - was difficult for me to bear. In the end, the fact is that what I believe is either true or false on its own; whether my emotions drove me to that conclusion has no bearing on that, and focusing on whether my emotions factored into that conclusion only distracts from the real issue. As such, I must respectfully request that we not misdirect our focus onto such avenues, as I feel that such distractions do not truly further the discussion at hand...

[II_Kisame_II]

David2074

but basic accounting says if a product is continually costing substantially more to produce than it returns in revenue it is a liability not an asset.

Though your statements holds some truth, you have to realise that the years prior to 2011 had little to no efforts to monetize the game and it was only through community effort that things got moving and the zOMG revenue train really started steaming in the money. According to swarf 2011 was their best period and it was the year that saw increased monetisation effort. Both are correlated, you cant expect one (revenue) to happen if the other (monetisation) doesn't exist much. Heck if we include the sales of zOMG mini monsters for aquariums, we'd recoup more of its costs, but unfortunately the sales of mini monsters don't fall into the zOMG basket.

Gaia from the very start had a flawed selling strategy, whom thought power ups would bring in the cash, when in fact it didn't since managerial decisions proved to hinder the sales. For example the granting of free power ups and also having them unsoulbound meant people could buy a power up from the marketplace which wasn't bought from the cash shop, whilst at the same time the game was made easier which made power ups redundant. I believe at the time null fragments were selling very well, but later removed for some reason. Managerial decisions effect the outcome of accounting results, this is what happened to zOMG.

In 2010 there was little effort by the team to monetise it, they opted to find ways to make zOMG more sponsorship compatible whilst also working on new areas. I think HQ was partly to blame for not directing the team to increase efforts of monetisation at the time. This lead to the problems encoutered in late 2010 and early 2011, where zOMG wasn't making enough money to cover the costs. Again zOMG was too reliant on power up sales. A push by the comunity whom brought summons and more power ups and also head starts saw zOMG produce its best year in terms of revenue. To simply stop there while in 2012 is naive and again hinders its growth and its ability to recoup the cost of development. Given time zOMG can become profitable, it just needs smart decision making to produce the outcome.

[David2074]

Red Kutai

Additionally, it's more-than-a-little condescending to assert that any line-of-reasoning which is not immediately obvious to you must be driven by emotion, rather than reason. While I fully understand that we disagree on the nature of this situation, to write off another's positions based solely on the assumption that they are an emotional creature is terribly presumptuous. One could just as easily assert that your more pessimistic conclusions are driven by the emotional response of despair - if you understand why it would be unfair of me to assume as much of you, you can understand why it is unfair of you to assume similarly of me...

My assumption you are emotionally invested in your argument was based on the fact you keep using words like 'utterly baseless, absurd and ridiculous when referring to those whose opinions you disagree with. Please note I did not use phrases like that when disagreeing with you.

I do not "write off your position" because of your hyperbole. I disagree with you because I don't agree with your assumptions. The observation that you seem to be emotionally invested in your argument is secondary and did not change my opinion of the facts Gaia has presented to us or your apparent interpretation of them.

I will comment on one point you seem to be stuck on. You said,
"it is equally absurd to think that simply because they do not understand how to make it work now, they never will; and that is the fallacy of the permanence of this decision."

I don't think I or anyone in this thread has said there is no possible way that under just the right circumstances just maybe Gaia might take another crack at zomg. My belief and those of other users I have spoken to is that while this is "possible" it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY based on what Gaia has said. You appear to be arguing it as some version of "probable". If it helps you to have me acknowledge that when pigs fly zomg may return as a profitable game for Gaia then sure, I do. But what others are considering as a very small 'if' you seem to be considering as a 'when'. I don't consider the users who think of that situation as a very small if to be absurd and ridiculous. I consider them to be realistic.

[David2074]

II_Kisame_II

David2074

but basic accounting says if a product is continually costing substantially more to produce than it returns in revenue it is a liability not an asset.

Though your statements holds some truth, you have to realise that the years prior to 2011 had little to no efforts to monetize the game and it was only through community effort that things got moving and the zOMG revenue train really started steaming in the money. According to swarf 2011 was their best period and it was the year that saw increased monetisation effort. Both are correlated, you cant expect one (revenue) to happen if the other (monetisation) doesn't exist much. Heck if we include the sales of zOMG mini monsters for aquariums, we'd recoup more of its costs, but unfortunately the sales of mini monsters don't fall into the zOMG basket.

Gaia from the very start had a flawed selling strategy, whom thought power ups would bring in the cash, when in fact it didn't since managerial decisions proved to hinder the sales. For example the granting of free power ups and also having them unsoulbound meant people could buy a power up from the marketplace which wasn't bought from the cash shop, whilst at the same time the game was made easier which made power ups redundant. I believe at the time null fragments were selling very well, but later removed for some reason. Managerial decisions effect the outcome of accounting results, this is what happened to zOMG.

In 2010 there was little effort by the team to monetise it, they opted to find ways to make zOMG more sponsorship compatible whilst also working on new areas. I think HQ was partly to blame for not directing the team to increase efforts of monetisation at the time. This lead to the problems encoutered in late 2010 and early 2011, where zOMG wasn't making enough money to cover the costs. Again zOMG was too reliant on power up sales. A push by the comunity whom brought summons and more power ups and also head starts saw zOMG produce its best year in terms of revenue. To simply stop there while in 2012 is naive and again hinders its growth and its ability to recoup the cost of development. Given time zOMG can become profitable, it just needs smart decision making to produce the outcome.

Zomg was profitable in 2011 because a lot of us spent extra on the game in a last ditch effort to keep it from sinking. I own at least six or seven summons I don't really need because I was trying to support the game. We can debate all day as arm chair quarterbacks but the Gaia staff running the show have stated they were unable to devise a way to make zomg sufficiently profitable to keep them from diverting their resources elswhere to projects they consider (potentially) more profitable. In the end that's all that really matters because you or I have no control over the situation whether or not we agree with their conclusions.

[Red Kutai]

David2074

My assumption you are emotionally invested in your argument was based on the fact you keep using words like 'utterly baseless, absurd and ridiculous when referring to those whose opinions you disagree with. Please note I did not use phrases like that when disagreeing with you.

Note equally that each of those terms was, I believe, duely qualified. I said that unless you assume zOMG! will never be of worth, then the notion that it's reasonable for Gaia to permanently assume it to be worthless is baseless. I said that it would be absurd for an individual to expect Gaia to invest in a feature while acknowledging that to be a poor investment. And I said that in my opinion as a designer, it is ridiculous to think that zOMG! is entirely worthless. If your objection is to the presence of those terms, rather than to the statements in which they occur, I will aim to avoid those terms in future discussions with you; but do recognise that fails to actually address the issue at hand in any way.

Quote:

I will comment on one point you seem to be stuck on. You said,
"it is equally absurd to think that simply because they do not understand how to make it work now, they never will; and that is the fallacy of the permanence of this decision."

I don't think I or anyone in this thread has said there is no possible way that under just the right circumstances just maybe Gaia might take another crack at zomg. My belief and those of other users I have spoken to is that while this is "possible" it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY based on what Gaia has said. You appear to be arguing it as some version of "probable". If it helps you to have me acknowledge that when pigs fly zomg may return as a profitable game for Gaia then sure, I do. But what others are considering as a very small 'if' you seem to be considering as a 'when'. I don't consider the users who think of that situation as a very small if to be absurd and ridiculous. I consider them to be realistic.

I understand that you feel that it is highly unlikely, yes - it would be entirely unreasonable of me to assume you were speaking in absolutes. However, I believe that what you consider 'realism' is equally a misunderstanding of the situation. Based on the strength of zOMG!'s core design, I am confident that sufficient opportunities exist; based on the passion and intelligence of its community and developers, I am similarly confident that those opportunities will be identified; and based on Gaia's status as a profit-driven company, I am confident that those opportunities will be seized when presented. Without seriously undervaluing one of these factors, I simply do not understand how one might consider such developments "highly unlikely"...

[Starshine]

Even if it's no longer stickied, we can always bump it so that it's always on the first page of the forum.

[Res Integra]

Starshine

Even if it's no longer stickied, we can always bump it so that it's always on the first page of the forum.

Don't worry, Kutai's affair with David will last a looong time and will hopefully keep this thread afloat.

[Starshine]

twister of shadows

Starshine

Even if it's no longer stickied, we can always bump it so that it's always on the first page of the forum.

Don't worry, Kutai's affair with David will last a looong time and will hopefully keep this thread afloat.

You jinxed it! xd