Posted by kcsundevil on 7/14/2017 4:43:00 PM (view original):
I'd rather WIS invest those resources in letting the code monkeys gain a better handle on the code.

And I'm not saying that to be snippy. I think the monkeys got dealt a rough hand with specialized modules of code that have proven tough to reconfigure. But if this piece isn't dealt with, nothing else will matter.

100% agree.

Posted by kcsundevil on 7/14/2017 4:43:00 PM (view original):
I'd rather WIS invest those resources in letting the code monkeys gain a better handle on the code.

And I'm not saying that to be snippy. I think the monkeys got dealt a rough hand with specialized modules of code that have proven tough to reconfigure. But if this piece isn't dealt with, nothing else will matter.

I would too. Ads are better than nothing but it the end of the game is good, that is best for WIS.

Posted by kcsundevil on 7/14/2017 4:43:00 PM (view original):
I'd rather WIS invest those resources in letting the code monkeys gain a better handle on the code.

And I'm not saying that to be snippy. I think the monkeys got dealt a rough hand with specialized modules of code that have proven tough to reconfigure. But if this piece isn't dealt with, nothing else will matter.

As a software developer, is not sure whether to laugh or take offense to this..*sigh*

Posted by zagsrulez on 7/14/2017 5:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 7/14/2017 4:43:00 PM (view original):
I'd rather WIS invest those resources in letting the code monkeys gain a better handle on the code.

And I'm not saying that to be snippy. I think the monkeys got dealt a rough hand with specialized modules of code that have proven tough to reconfigure. But if this piece isn't dealt with, nothing else will matter.

As a software developer, is not sure whether to laugh or take offense to this..*sigh*

I hope you at least got the song reference.

Posted by kcsundevil on 7/14/2017 4:43:00 PM (view original):
I'd rather WIS invest those resources in letting the code monkeys gain a better handle on the code.

And I'm not saying that to be snippy. I think the monkeys got dealt a rough hand with specialized modules of code that have proven tough to reconfigure. But if this piece isn't dealt with, nothing else will matter.

At the end of the day, they're not going to allocate development resources to a game that doesn't make any money. While the game has issues, it's still good enough to keep users around. If they could get the worlds to fill up, they'd probably be pulling in enough money to make sense of allocating development hours to fixing game issues.

Sure it will help, but not as much as some assume. It's a specialty game with a niche audience. There are probably some for whom this is the game they never knew they wanted, but for the most part, Mike is right - people who want to play sports management sims know how to search for them.

As for "code" being an impediment to attracting or retaining players, I'm not sure there's a coherent argument here. What "code" specifically? The considering list glitch? Not prominent enough in gameplay to make much of a dent. The issues with the potential to have a real and significant effect on retention (job changes, reducing downtime between seasons) aren't code problems.

Posted by mbriese on 7/14/2017 6:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 7/14/2017 4:43:00 PM (view original):
I'd rather WIS invest those resources in letting the code monkeys gain a better handle on the code.

And I'm not saying that to be snippy. I think the monkeys got dealt a rough hand with specialized modules of code that have proven tough to reconfigure. But if this piece isn't dealt with, nothing else will matter.

At the end of the day, they're not going to allocate development resources to a game that doesn't make any money. While the game has issues, it's still good enough to keep users around. If they could get the worlds to fill up, they'd probably be pulling in enough money to make sense of allocating development hours to fixing game issues.

You might not be aware that WIS recently launched a significant recruiting module change to HD despite user population being flat.

Posted by pkoopman on 7/14/2017 6:29:00 PM (view original):
Sure it will help, but not as much as some assume. It's a specialty game with a niche audience. There are probably some for whom this is the game they never knew they wanted, but for the most part, Mike is right - people who want to play sports management sims know how to search for them.

As for "code" being an impediment to attracting or retaining players, I'm not sure there's a coherent argument here. What "code" specifically? The considering list glitch? Not prominent enough in gameplay to make much of a dent. The issues with the potential to have a real and significant effect on retention (job changes, reducing downtime between seasons) aren't code problems.

Your last sentence is nonsensical.

Posted by kcsundevil on 7/14/2017 6:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mbriese on 7/14/2017 6:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 7/14/2017 4:43:00 PM (view original):
I'd rather WIS invest those resources in letting the code monkeys gain a better handle on the code.

And I'm not saying that to be snippy. I think the monkeys got dealt a rough hand with specialized modules of code that have proven tough to reconfigure. But if this piece isn't dealt with, nothing else will matter.

At the end of the day, they're not going to allocate development resources to a game that doesn't make any money. While the game has issues, it's still good enough to keep users around. If they could get the worlds to fill up, they'd probably be pulling in enough money to make sense of allocating development hours to fixing game issues.

You might not be aware that WIS recently launched a significant recruiting module change to HD despite user population being flat.

You think 3.0 was launched "recently"? And how much work has been done since then?

Posted by kcsundevil on 7/14/2017 6:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 7/14/2017 6:29:00 PM (view original):
Sure it will help, but not as much as some assume. It's a specialty game with a niche audience. There are probably some for whom this is the game they never knew they wanted, but for the most part, Mike is right - people who want to play sports management sims know how to search for them.

As for "code" being an impediment to attracting or retaining players, I'm not sure there's a coherent argument here. What "code" specifically? The considering list glitch? Not prominent enough in gameplay to make much of a dent. The issues with the potential to have a real and significant effect on retention (job changes, reducing downtime between seasons) aren't code problems.

Your last sentence is nonsensical.

OK, have it your way, lets work backward from your incoherence. What issues are you talking about? What makes you think they are code programming issues that are "fixed" with more investment?

Posted by mbriese on 7/14/2017 7:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 7/14/2017 6:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mbriese on 7/14/2017 6:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 7/14/2017 4:43:00 PM (view original):
I'd rather WIS invest those resources in letting the code monkeys gain a better handle on the code.

And I'm not saying that to be snippy. I think the monkeys got dealt a rough hand with specialized modules of code that have proven tough to reconfigure. But if this piece isn't dealt with, nothing else will matter.

At the end of the day, they're not going to allocate development resources to a game that doesn't make any money. While the game has issues, it's still good enough to keep users around. If they could get the worlds to fill up, they'd probably be pulling in enough money to make sense of allocating development hours to fixing game issues.

You might not be aware that WIS recently launched a significant recruiting module change to HD despite user population being flat.

You think 3.0 was launched "recently"? And how much work has been done since then?

Recently is a relative term, granted.

Not much.

All I'm saying is 3.0 was a big development effort for a shrinking game.

I completely agree, but at its current rate of decline I can't see much of a reason for Fox to invest in too much development time.

That being said, it doesn't seem like they're keen to advertise either. This discussion has been going on once a month for the past 6 months in this forum. I know I'm biased, but I think a lot of change would come to the game with even a small investment in digital advertising.

Posted by pkoopman on 7/14/2017 6:29:00 PM (view original):
Sure it will help, but not as much as some assume. It's a specialty game with a niche audience. There are probably some for whom this is the game they never knew they wanted, but for the most part, Mike is right - people who want to play sports management sims know how to search for them.

As for "code" being an impediment to attracting or retaining players, I'm not sure there's a coherent argument here. What "code" specifically? The considering list glitch? Not prominent enough in gameplay to make much of a dent. The issues with the potential to have a real and significant effect on retention (job changes, reducing downtime between seasons) aren't code problems.

They didn't have issues filling the game for the first few years which is why they made new worlds, so the niche argument is somewhat flat. There has been virtually zero advertising for this game since I've been around (almost 10 years). Honestly, FOX taking over feels like the turning point. Many expected FOX to be this boon, but the game has been in decline with no effort to fix to bring in new users. I feel as though they just though word of mouth would keep the game running and now it feels more like it's dying.