Good luck convincing the actual developers of that. You can convince other players of that, but not the people who actually make the game.
You might think I'm using McDonalds analogies because that's how I reason out what the devs might be thinking. However, that's backwards. I use analogies like that to explain what the devs are thinking. The way I know what the devs are actually thinking is I just ask them.
Do you like playing MCOC? Do you want to continue playing it for the next 10 years? Then you'll have to accept that new champions will constantly be added to the game and with growing complexities, the game team is also making optimization with some of the old code to better incorporate new abilities.
New champions are a source of revenue and I'm pretty sure Marvel would be upset if they stopped releasing new champions when they probably have the whole next year of champion releases already planned. Stopping the release of new champions would hurt the game more than it would help.
Agreed.
But what value are new champs if the overall game experience is not great?
So you prefer no game at all then?
Are bugs frustrating, definitely. However what you're suggesting isn't fixing the bugs, you're suggesting for Kabam to close the game.
Bugs are a necessary evil that you have to deal with on a live service game that needs to run on a large array of hardware. Stopping champion releases won't magically fix the bugs. All that does is cut revenue which cuts staff which cuts ability to fix bugs and the ability to develop content which cuts the revenue which cuts the game.
Also agreed, but I never said stop making new champs. Just shift the priorities.
For example. Lets focus on 1-2 new champs every 3 months lets say. You can still market and work with that. You could also have a champ that already exists and make them better/more desirable.
Designers aren't the only ones that make champs. You need coders to incorporate abilities, how they interact with all other champs, AI integration, fixing BUGS with the new champs etc. Trust me, there is a lot of coding that goes into making new champs. Besides designers have over 200 champs to deal with.
Like I said, I'm not saying STOP making new champs, but to slow down. Thats really it
I’m not saying McDonalds should stop selling Big Macs, I’m just saying they should slow down how much food they sell so they can spend more time cleaning the restaurants.
The problem with these discussions is that they usually miss the point. It is not about which dev does what. It is not even directly about monetization. Fundamentally speaking, MCOC is a game as a service. Games as a service are a bit of a misnomer in a sense, because games as a service do not sell “service” rather they deliver *A* service. The service provided is the manufacture and selling of content. In MCOC, new champions are the primary new content that drives the company. Making new champions is not something they do as part of the game. Making new champions is the thing they do, from which the game is built on top. It is the core engine upon which the entire game, from the literal game we play to the entire business structure that operates the game is wrapped around.
The employees that work there are structured to power that engine. They have the correct amount of designers and artists and technicians to power that new champions cycle. The content is designed to feature those champions. The crystal economy is synchronized to it. The revenue models are build upon it. The progression system fully incorporates it. Change it, and you have to change everything. You have to lay off staff. You have to reorganize the entire company. You have to change business models., You have to renegotiate terms with Marvel., Literally everything changes.
It would be easier to turn Kabam into a PIzza Hut franchise.
Thanks for the comment! I enjoyed reading about it. However, you are comparing McDonalds to Kabam yet stating that there are difference in services a company can provide, so I don't think its a great comparison. I think a better example could be Overwatch as it has a similar service to MCOC. The game didn't die because there was a lack of skins, but it just wasn't fun anymore. The only reason why they are NOW getting a better reputation is because another company came by and made the same game, just more fun even with the lack of champs and skins that are free. So its clear there is something that can be done.
I could have 1,000 new champions in my roster, but what use are they if the content isn't fun? Perhaps they just do need to re-think what they are doing. 3-6 months for a new champ isn't unreasonable while each month they work on already existing champions.
For example, this live stream we already see existing champions coming in as 7*. That hyped us up? Yup, and is it behind a pay wall? Yup. So its clear there are options other than just straight up new champs. If they decided to do something like "Hey we are making champs every 3 months now... but by the way while you wait we will give you new difficulty on all the Back Issue quests" Bro! I'd be all over that, and guess what? You can do more deals on revives, health potions and other things. I'm just saying, there are options.
What you're not understanding is how the game is put together. Kabam is divided into departments and each of those have their own tasks.
Champ designers generally are working on champs for either 3 or 6 months. I can't remember which one they said. A single champ takes around 6 months in total to finish. But champ designers don't work on the UI of the game. They don't design quests. They don't work on offers. Those are all separate areas.
They have a team dedicated to making the game run, we call them "devs" but they handle things like the games engine. They are the ones usually tasked with fixing bugs. The game itself is worked on in a development world that isn't attached to the live client.
They don't have to stop making champs because it would have zero effect on whether intercepts work or not. I know that it's so easy in your head. I am sure you think there's some button to push to fix bugs but they aren't doing it. But what you're suggesting will have a negative impact on the game and zero impact on fixing bugs.
If @DNA3000 is just a regular player like me, why does he have access to their data and we don’t?
Seems like kind of an unfair advantage.
1. I'm not a regular player like you.
2. I don't really have access to any specific proprietary data in this context. None of this discussion involves proprietary data. In fact, most of the solid data involving Kabam's business that is floating around out there is data I myself analyzed from public sources.
Although, here's a true story. Once upon a time I decided to test my analysis skills by attempting to estimate how many featured champion crystals Kabam sells every time a new champion comes out. I won't repeat the calculations, but they required making reasonable estimates of a lot of things there's no public sources for, combined with all the public data that is out there (and almost no one pays attention to). I gave my guess to an econ person (not Crashed, this was I think before he joined the game) and I was told I landed within 5% of the correct value.
Getting within 5% was honestly a bit lucky on my part. But it is possible to figure things out if you're willing to do competent analysis, which is why I pay so much attention to Realm events (PS: my analysis of the last one is on the back burner, but I haven't forgotten about it. Its just much more tricky).
If DNA3000 is just a regular player like me, why does he have access to their data and we don’t?
Seems like kind of an unfair advantage.
Because he's not just a regular player. He's a guardian and they have access to the beta server and CCP discord. He's also proven himself over the years and has a relationship with the devs.
True, there are different teams. Designers hand off things to implementers, and implementers hand off to QA who test and that gets passed down to blah blah blah. I understand that
What I mean is this. (as an example) we let QA slow down, don't focus on the new champs, but QA other champs, their interactions like medium intercept. Its still QA, but no longer focusing on new champs, they now can focus on a different agenda or other priorities that they have on their plate.
Again.... they can still make NEW champs like every 3 months, they can STILL re-work old champs. But they can SLOW DOWN a little and work on bigger priorities.
Ok let’s say this is the way it works (it’s not but let’s have a thought exercise). You are now the king of Kabam and how are you going to make up for the revenue lost from reducing the number of new champs you release by 85%.
The way I see it you have 3 potential options: 1. You introduce more sales / monetization events. I’m sure the community would love that, I mean just look at how excited we all were after the March livestream when 4 new monetization events were announced. In order to make the deals worthwhile, the game economy speed would increase significantly and I’m sure there would be no negative repercussions of that (🙄) 2. You layoff employees in order to keep your profit number consistent with the drop in revenue. 3. You go to your bosses at netmarble and/or marvel and tell them your strategy and they should expect to see a decline in revenue and/or profit. You are promptly fired for a dumb strategy.
So tell me all high and powerful @GalioCube which option listed above, or one you have, are you taking?
Appreciate your feedback! But I don't think it comes down to just those 3 options, its more of a doomsday tone if I'm gonna be honest.
But if I were in charge? Instead of relying solely on new champs, I would shift focus to improving core systems, refreshing older champions, and creating meaningful event-driven content. These changes can keep players engaged and spending without overloading dev and QA teams. Monetization could come from champion rework bundles, or special event passes, heck maybe even cosmetics if they really wanted to (although I don't think I'd want that personally) — all while improving game quality and community trust. It’s not about doing less; it’s about doing smarter.
If @DNA3000 is just a regular player like me, why does he have access to their data and we don’t?
Seems like kind of an unfair advantage.
1. I'm not a regular player like you.
2. I don't really have access to any specific proprietary data in this context. None of this discussion involves proprietary data. In fact, most of the solid data involving Kabam's business that is floating around out there is data I myself analyzed from public sources.
Although, here's a true story. Once upon a time I decided to test my analysis skills by attempting to estimate how many featured champion crystals Kabam sells every time a new champion comes out. I won't repeat the calculations, but they required making reasonable estimates of a lot of things there's no public sources for, combined with all the public data that is out there (and almost no one pays attention to). I gave my guess to an econ person (not Crashed, this was I think before he joined the game) and I was told I landed within 5% of the correct value.
Getting within 5% was honestly a bit lucky on my part. But it is possible to figure things out if you're willing to do competent analysis, which is why I pay so much attention to Realm events (PS: my analysis of the last one is on the back burner, but I haven't forgotten about it. Its just much more tricky).
Point number 2. I’m not talking about public business data.
This is such bull. I read 3 and saw you for the liar you are. You feel good about that?
You absolutely have access to their data. Tell me I’m wrong.
If @DNA3000 is just a regular player like me, why does he have access to their data and we don’t?
Seems like kind of an unfair advantage.
1. I'm not a regular player like you.
2. I don't really have access to any specific proprietary data in this context. None of this discussion involves proprietary data. In fact, most of the solid data involving Kabam's business that is floating around out there is data I myself analyzed from public sources.
Although, here's a true story. Once upon a time I decided to test my analysis skills by attempting to estimate how many featured champion crystals Kabam sells every time a new champion comes out. I won't repeat the calculations, but they required making reasonable estimates of a lot of things there's no public sources for, combined with all the public data that is out there (and almost no one pays attention to). I gave my guess to an econ person (not Crashed, this was I think before he joined the game) and I was told I landed within 5% of the correct value.
Getting within 5% was honestly a bit lucky on my part. But it is possible to figure things out if you're willing to do competent analysis, which is why I pay so much attention to Realm events (PS: my analysis of the last one is on the back burner, but I haven't forgotten about it. Its just much more tricky).
Point number 2. I’m not talking about public business data.
This is such bull. I read 3 and saw you for the liar you are. You feel good about that?
You absolutely have access to their data. Tell me I’m wrong.
You're wrong. But now that I know you think I absolutely have access to their data and nothing will convince you otherwise, that opens the door to all sorts of interesting possibilities.
I am not allowed to misrepresent my affiliation with Kabam. However, I am unaware of any rule that forbids me from taking advantage of the deliberate fallacies of others.
I can hold off getting new champs if they focus on fixing the game
@Demonzfyre the quote getting too long but from your last post:
I know each department has different focus and timelines, like designers focus on champs, devs handle bugs, QA has its own lane, etc. But I'm not suggesting that champion designers just go and fix engines or new champs are the problem. I'm saying as a whole the studio could benefit from shifting overall priorities for a better more long-term experience.
I'm not advocating NO new champs. But maybe reduce the frequency (like 1-2 every 3 months) while placing more focus on polishing existing ccontent and champion interactions. We already see how hype builds around existing champs becoming 7* (like Apoc or Nick for example) or re-worked champs (like DPX) and shows there is value in refining what we have
But lets be real, players wont stick around just because there is a constant flow of new champs, that has been proven with many games that are free. People will move on if neglected. If we shift priorities, it allows the departments to clean up long-standing bugs and getting players more invested.
And if new champs are really the only thing keeping MCOC alive… is that really a sustainable business model?
If @DNA3000 is just a regular player like me, why does he have access to their data and we don’t?
Seems like kind of an unfair advantage.
1. I'm not a regular player like you.
2. I don't really have access to any specific proprietary data in this context. None of this discussion involves proprietary data. In fact, most of the solid data involving Kabam's business that is floating around out there is data I myself analyzed from public sources.
Although, here's a true story. Once upon a time I decided to test my analysis skills by attempting to estimate how many featured champion crystals Kabam sells every time a new champion comes out. I won't repeat the calculations, but they required making reasonable estimates of a lot of things there's no public sources for, combined with all the public data that is out there (and almost no one pays attention to). I gave my guess to an econ person (not Crashed, this was I think before he joined the game) and I was told I landed within 5% of the correct value.
Getting within 5% was honestly a bit lucky on my part. But it is possible to figure things out if you're willing to do competent analysis, which is why I pay so much attention to Realm events (PS: my analysis of the last one is on the back burner, but I haven't forgotten about it. Its just much more tricky).
Point number 2. I’m not talking about public business data.
This is such bull. I read 3 and saw you for the liar you are. You feel good about that?
You absolutely have access to their data. Tell me I’m wrong.
You're wrong. But now that I know you think I absolutely have access to their data and nothing will convince you otherwise, that opens the door to all sorts of interesting possibilities.
I am not allowed to misrepresent my affiliation with Kabam. However, I am unaware of any rule that forbids me from taking advantage of the deliberate fallacies of others.
So you are affiliated with them, stop pretending you’re not.
I don’t care that you are.
Just stop pretending to be this regular player voice of reason. You’re not.
But lets be real, players wont stick around just because there is a constant flow of new champs, that has been proven with many games that are free. People will move on if neglected. If we shift priorities, it allows the departments to clean up long-standing bugs and getting players more invested.
And if new champs are really the only thing keeping MCOC alive… is that really a sustainable business model?
This game is coming up on it's 11th year. We've had 2 champs every single month except a few months like in January where it was just one. If having 2 champs was the problem, the game would have died years ago.
The problem isn't that there are two champs or new MEQs each month. The problem is that MCOC was created using Unity. Kabam then wanted more freedom and decided to create their own game engine and in migrating to the new engine, they experienced many problems which is where things like lag or whiff attacks stem more from and most AI issues.
Much of the game still has the old code that it started with and that can get very complicated in how complex the game is and runs. Combine that with how many different devices they allow the game to run on and that's where we are today.
But reducing the amount of champs will kill the game. Polishing the existing content won't keep players around. Much of the player base, especially those who are inclined to spend money, have all the content done. So what would keep them playing for 3 months to wait on 1 champ?
Again, there's an entire team dedicated to designing quests, and content like AoL, Epoch, etc... that aren't designing champions. Instead of coming to the forums and pretending you know how to run a mobile game, why don't you use that time to give them feedback on what would make the game more fun for you. Because I can tell you right now, they aren't going to stop doing 2 champs per month. At least until they get closer to running out of champs.
If @DNA3000 is just a regular player like me, why does he have access to their data and we don’t?
Seems like kind of an unfair advantage.
1. I'm not a regular player like you.
2. I don't really have access to any specific proprietary data in this context. None of this discussion involves proprietary data. In fact, most of the solid data involving Kabam's business that is floating around out there is data I myself analyzed from public sources.
Although, here's a true story. Once upon a time I decided to test my analysis skills by attempting to estimate how many featured champion crystals Kabam sells every time a new champion comes out. I won't repeat the calculations, but they required making reasonable estimates of a lot of things there's no public sources for, combined with all the public data that is out there (and almost no one pays attention to). I gave my guess to an econ person (not Crashed, this was I think before he joined the game) and I was told I landed within 5% of the correct value.
Getting within 5% was honestly a bit lucky on my part. But it is possible to figure things out if you're willing to do competent analysis, which is why I pay so much attention to Realm events (PS: my analysis of the last one is on the back burner, but I haven't forgotten about it. Its just much more tricky).
Point number 2. I’m not talking about public business data.
This is such bull. I read 3 and saw you for the liar you are. You feel good about that?
You absolutely have access to their data. Tell me I’m wrong.
You're wrong. But now that I know you think I absolutely have access to their data and nothing will convince you otherwise, that opens the door to all sorts of interesting possibilities.
I am not allowed to misrepresent my affiliation with Kabam. However, I am unaware of any rule that forbids me from taking advantage of the deliberate fallacies of others.
So you are affiliated with them, stop pretending you’re not.
I don’t care that you are.
Just stop pretending to be this regular player voice of reason. You’re not.
What the hell is your problem? Why do you start acting like this all the time?
If @DNA3000 is just a regular player like me, why does he have access to their data and we don’t?
Seems like kind of an unfair advantage.
1. I'm not a regular player like you.
2. I don't really have access to any specific proprietary data in this context. None of this discussion involves proprietary data. In fact, most of the solid data involving Kabam's business that is floating around out there is data I myself analyzed from public sources.
Although, here's a true story. Once upon a time I decided to test my analysis skills by attempting to estimate how many featured champion crystals Kabam sells every time a new champion comes out. I won't repeat the calculations, but they required making reasonable estimates of a lot of things there's no public sources for, combined with all the public data that is out there (and almost no one pays attention to). I gave my guess to an econ person (not Crashed, this was I think before he joined the game) and I was told I landed within 5% of the correct value.
Getting within 5% was honestly a bit lucky on my part. But it is possible to figure things out if you're willing to do competent analysis, which is why I pay so much attention to Realm events (PS: my analysis of the last one is on the back burner, but I haven't forgotten about it. Its just much more tricky).
Point number 2. I’m not talking about public business data.
This is such bull. I read 3 and saw you for the liar you are. You feel good about that?
You absolutely have access to their data. Tell me I’m wrong.
You're wrong. But now that I know you think I absolutely have access to their data and nothing will convince you otherwise, that opens the door to all sorts of interesting possibilities.
I am not allowed to misrepresent my affiliation with Kabam. However, I am unaware of any rule that forbids me from taking advantage of the deliberate fallacies of others.
So you are affiliated with them, stop pretending you’re not.
I don’t care that you are.
Just stop pretending to be this regular player voice of reason. You’re not.
I have three affiliations with Kabam which have rules regarding representation. I am a forum guardian, I am a Discord moderator, and I am a member of the content creator program. As a forum guardian, I am a volunteer with access to some communications channels with the community management team and some limited access to forum administrative stuff. As a specific rule, I am required to state that none of my opinions on the official forums represent the opinions or the official positions of Kabam itself. As a Discord moderator, I am also a volunteer with similar limitations. As a member of the CCP, I am required to state that any information I use that is not yet publicly available but free from embargo is information acquired from the CCP program (which, as someone that doesn't make Youtube videos, doesn't tend to apply to me often).
None of those programs offers direct access to proprietary game data for its members per se. Although in the case of the CCP, players are sometimes told things covered by NDA that can include some small piece of data. Most questions directly involving proprietary game data cannot be answered by the devs even within that program.
However, I have never represented myself as a "regular player voice of reason" either. I'm not sure what that would even be. Nor do I think most people would describe me as a "regular player." I am not an employee, nor contractually working for Kabam in any capacity. My opinions are my own. But do I have more information than you do? Almost certainly yes. But who doesn't?
I have played many online games for which I have had some relationship with developers. I've studied game design for decades, and the online gaming industry in particular since the 2000s. I have even worked under contract for another game once (not MCOC, it was an MMO). And I've had different relationships with different members of the MCOC game team since maybe 2018. All of this is stuff I've said at various times and is relatively common knowledge.
True, there are different teams. Designers hand off things to implementers, and implementers hand off to QA who test and that gets passed down to blah blah blah. I understand that
What I mean is this. (as an example) we let QA slow down, don't focus on the new champs, but QA other champs, their interactions like medium intercept. Its still QA, but no longer focusing on new champs, they now can focus on a different agenda or other priorities that they have on their plate.
Again.... they can still make NEW champs like every 3 months, they can STILL re-work old champs. But they can SLOW DOWN a little and work on bigger priorities.
Ok let’s say this is the way it works (it’s not but let’s have a thought exercise). You are now the king of Kabam and how are you going to make up for the revenue lost from reducing the number of new champs you release by 85%.
The way I see it you have 3 potential options: 1. You introduce more sales / monetization events. I’m sure the community would love that, I mean just look at how excited we all were after the March livestream when 4 new monetization events were announced. In order to make the deals worthwhile, the game economy speed would increase significantly and I’m sure there would be no negative repercussions of that (🙄) 2. You layoff employees in order to keep your profit number consistent with the drop in revenue. 3. You go to your bosses at netmarble and/or marvel and tell them your strategy and they should expect to see a decline in revenue and/or profit. You are promptly fired for a dumb strategy.
So tell me all high and powerful @GalioCube which option listed above, or one you have, are you taking?
Instead of relying solely on new champs, I would shift focus to improving core systems, refreshing older champions, and creating meaningful event-driven content. These changes can keep players engaged and spending without overloading dev and QA teams. Monetization could come from champion rework bundles, or special event passes, heck maybe even cosmetics if they really wanted to (although I don't think I'd want that personally) — all while improving game quality and community trust. It’s not about doing less; it’s about doing smarter.
[this is all still operating under the hypothetical where it’s easy to just reallocate resources at will when we know the skill sets don’t allow for that in reality]
Glad to be having a good conversation. I don’t know all the inner workings but I assuming refreshing old champs and creating event-driven content requires just as much effort for dev and testing as creating new champs. Let’s just look at the cyclops buff, his entire kit, model, animation are all changing that’s basically building a new character from the ground up. Even if we take a buff that the kit changed but model and animations stayed the same (e.g., silver sable), I’m going to assume it took a good deal of dev and testing time; there’s likely a reason kabam changed the entire rebalance effort. So I’m not sure rebalances / reworks actually reduces dev/testing effort and even if they did DLL said in a recent stream kabam makes very little money on buffs compared to new champs.
The “easiest” option is to do what they’re doing with galan, apoc, nf, etc. and bring champs rarity locked in as 7*. There are ~100 champs that are rarity locked, but again I’m still not sure how much money that would bring in (galan will be an interesting test). A large portion of those either are too strong and wont be brought up (herc, cgr, ht, etc.) and a separate group would be extremely underwhelming, and therefore unprofitable, if brought up to 7* without a rebalance (cap, iron fist, symbiote spidey, etc.)
But lets be real, players wont stick around just because there is a constant flow of new champs, that has been proven with many games that are free. People will move on if neglected. If we shift priorities, it allows the departments to clean up long-standing bugs and getting players more invested.
And if new champs are really the only thing keeping MCOC alive… is that really a sustainable business model?
This game is coming up on it's 11th year. We've had 2 champs every single month except a few months like in January where it was just one. If having 2 champs was the problem, the game would have died years ago.
The problem isn't that there are two champs or new MEQs each month. The problem is that MCOC was created using Unity. Kabam then wanted more freedom and decided to create their own game engine and in migrating to the new engine, they experienced many problems which is where things like lag or whiff attacks stem more from and most AI issues.
Much of the game still has the old code that it started with and that can get very complicated in how complex the game is and runs. Combine that with how many different devices they allow the game to run on and that's where we are today.
But reducing the amount of champs will kill the game. Polishing the existing content won't keep players around. Much of the player base, especially those who are inclined to spend money, have all the content done. So what would keep them playing for 3 months to wait on 1 champ?
Again, there's an entire team dedicated to designing quests, and content like AoL, Epoch, etc... that aren't designing champions. Instead of coming to the forums and pretending you know how to run a mobile game, why don't you use that time to give them feedback on what would make the game more fun for you. Because I can tell you right now, they aren't going to stop doing 2 champs per month. At least until they get closer to running out of champs.
Well considering there is a potential boycott going on because players aren't happy with the game speaks pretty clearly that there is feedback on what would make the game more fun for most of us.
You have just described why the game is not fun to play. Again, if New champs are the only thing running the company, is that really a business model? Or a dying one?
But if you get a new champ, and no new content, where are you supposed to use the new champ? It takes so long to make 1 champ yet we can't use them anywhere, except for a new counter to some new champ. I have not seen 1 experienced player not excited for new content so they can test out their new champs to see how they do, like the new Jane Foster boss? Holy ****! Thats freaking awesome. Then they finish and guess what? They don't use those champs as much. Besides Prestige influences champion rank ups too, so new champs aren't necessarily the ones ranked up or even have effort put into them by players.
And if new champs are really the only thing keeping MCOC alive… is that really a sustainable business model?
Compared to what? What would you replace it with?
I said previously:
But if I were in charge? Instead of relying solely on new champs, I would shift focus to improving core systems, refreshing older champions, and creating meaningful event-driven content. These changes can keep players engaged and spending without overloading dev and QA teams. Monetization could come from champion rework bundles, or special event passes, heck maybe even cosmetics if they really wanted to (although I don't think I'd want that personally) — all while improving game quality and community trust. It’s not about doing less; it’s about doing smarter.
And if new champs are really the only thing keeping MCOC alive… is that really a sustainable business model?
Compared to what? What would you replace it with?
I said previously:
But if I were in charge? Instead of relying solely on new champs, I would shift focus to improving core systems, refreshing older champions, and creating meaningful event-driven content. These changes can keep players engaged and spending without overloading dev and QA teams. Monetization could come from champion rework bundles, or special event passes, heck maybe even cosmetics if they really wanted to (although I don't think I'd want that personally) — all while improving game quality and community trust. It’s not about doing less; it’s about doing smarter.
That's not an answer. Improving core systems doesn't replace new champion releases. It is a different thing to do. But it does not replace new champion releases as a monetization opportunity, it does not replace new champions as part of the larger narrative framework, or new content, or meta evolution, or any of the other things new champions do.
You seem to be saying do these other things, and the other stuff will just fix itself. You can't just say monetization "could" come from champion rework bundles or special event passes. We already have special event passes, you're going to add more? How many more? And you can only sell champion rework bundles if you actually rework champions, which often takes comparable levels of work to making new champions in at least some areas. You might not need as much artwork, but to be honest that won't matter if you reduce champion releases because with half the new champions released you're going to fire a lot of those artists anyway.
You have an idea of what you'd rather they work on. But the question is not what would you rather they work on. The question is how do you specifically plug all the holes in the game that reducing new champion releases would create. And how do you know you wouldnt torpedo the game while doing it. It is not like you can experiment with twelve new champs per year for a year and just see what happens. Everything that is going to replace those new champion releases must be ready to go on day one. There's no "could." You know exactly what's going to replace them, or you aren't going to just try it and see what happens.
Saying "if new champions are the only things keeping MCOC alive" is again missing the point. You still think new champions is just one thing the game does among many, instead of being the core thing the game actually is.
If @DNA3000 is just a regular player like me, why does he have access to their data and we don’t?
Seems like kind of an unfair advantage.
1. I'm not a regular player like you.
2. I don't really have access to any specific proprietary data in this context. None of this discussion involves proprietary data. In fact, most of the solid data involving Kabam's business that is floating around out there is data I myself analyzed from public sources.
Although, here's a true story. Once upon a time I decided to test my analysis skills by attempting to estimate how many featured champion crystals Kabam sells every time a new champion comes out. I won't repeat the calculations, but they required making reasonable estimates of a lot of things there's no public sources for, combined with all the public data that is out there (and almost no one pays attention to). I gave my guess to an econ person (not Crashed, this was I think before he joined the game) and I was told I landed within 5% of the correct value.
Getting within 5% was honestly a bit lucky on my part. But it is possible to figure things out if you're willing to do competent analysis, which is why I pay so much attention to Realm events (PS: my analysis of the last one is on the back burner, but I haven't forgotten about it. Its just much more tricky).
Point number 2. I’m not talking about public business data.
This is such bull. I read 3 and saw you for the liar you are. You feel good about that?
You absolutely have access to their data. Tell me I’m wrong.
You're wrong. But now that I know you think I absolutely have access to their data and nothing will convince you otherwise, that opens the door to all sorts of interesting possibilities.
I am not allowed to misrepresent my affiliation with Kabam. However, I am unaware of any rule that forbids me from taking advantage of the deliberate fallacies of others.
So you are affiliated with them, stop pretending you’re not.
I don’t care that you are.
Just stop pretending to be this regular player voice of reason. You’re not.
What the hell is your problem? Why do you start acting like this all the time?
But lets be real, players wont stick around just because there is a constant flow of new champs, that has been proven with many games that are free. People will move on if neglected. If we shift priorities, it allows the departments to clean up long-standing bugs and getting players more invested.
And if new champs are really the only thing keeping MCOC alive… is that really a sustainable business model?
This game is coming up on it's 11th year. We've had 2 champs every single month except a few months like in January where it was just one. If having 2 champs was the problem, the game would have died years ago.
The problem isn't that there are two champs or new MEQs each month. The problem is that MCOC was created using Unity. Kabam then wanted more freedom and decided to create their own game engine and in migrating to the new engine, they experienced many problems which is where things like lag or whiff attacks stem more from and most AI issues.
Much of the game still has the old code that it started with and that can get very complicated in how complex the game is and runs. Combine that with how many different devices they allow the game to run on and that's where we are today.
But reducing the amount of champs will kill the game. Polishing the existing content won't keep players around. Much of the player base, especially those who are inclined to spend money, have all the content done. So what would keep them playing for 3 months to wait on 1 champ?
Again, there's an entire team dedicated to designing quests, and content like AoL, Epoch, etc... that aren't designing champions. Instead of coming to the forums and pretending you know how to run a mobile game, why don't you use that time to give them feedback on what would make the game more fun for you. Because I can tell you right now, they aren't going to stop doing 2 champs per month. At least until they get closer to running out of champs.
Well considering there is a potential boycott going on because players aren't happy with the game speaks pretty clearly that there is feedback on what would make the game more fun for most of us.
You have just described why the game is not fun to play. Again, if New champs are the only thing running the company, is that really a business model? Or a dying one?
But if you get a new champ, and no new content, where are you supposed to use the new champ? It takes so long to make 1 champ yet we can't use them anywhere, except for a new counter to some new champ. I have not seen 1 experienced player not excited for new content so they can test out their new champs to see how they do, like the new Jane Foster boss? Holy ****! Thats freaking awesome. Then they finish and guess what? They don't use those champs as much. Besides Prestige influences champion rank ups too, so new champs aren't necessarily the ones ranked up or even have effort put into them by players.
The threat of a boycott did it's job. People were threatening to boycott because of BG changes and they were reverted. There's no boycott going on currently.
And if new champs are really the only thing keeping MCOC alive… is that really a sustainable business model?
Compared to what? What would you replace it with?
I said previously:
But if I were in charge? Instead of relying solely on new champs, I would shift focus to improving core systems, refreshing older champions, and creating meaningful event-driven content. These changes can keep players engaged and spending without overloading dev and QA teams. Monetization could come from champion rework bundles, or special event passes, heck maybe even cosmetics if they really wanted to (although I don't think I'd want that personally) — all while improving game quality and community trust. It’s not about doing less; it’s about doing smarter.
That's not an answer. Improving core systems doesn't replace new champion releases. It is a different thing to do. But it does not replace new champion releases as a monetization opportunity, it does not replace new champions as part of the larger narrative framework, or new content, or meta evolution, or any of the other things new champions do.
You seem to be saying do these other things, and the other stuff will just fix itself. You can't just say monetization "could" come from champion rework bundles or special event passes. We already have special event passes, you're going to add more? How many more? And you can only sell champion rework bundles if you actually rework champions, which often takes comparable levels of work to making new champions in at least some areas. You might not need as much artwork, but to be honest that won't matter if you reduce champion releases because with half the new champions released you're going to fire a lot of those artists anyway.
You have an idea of what you'd rather they work on. But the question is not what would you rather they work on. The question is how do you specifically plug all the holes in the game that reducing new champion releases would create. And how do you know you wouldnt torpedo the game while doing it. It is not like you can experiment with twelve new champs per year for a year and just see what happens. Everything that is going to replace those new champion releases must be ready to go on day one. There's no "could." You know exactly what's going to replace them, or you aren't going to just try it and see what happens.
Saying "if new champions are the only things keeping MCOC alive" is again missing the point. You still think new champions is just one thing the game does among many, instead of being the core thing the game actually is.
The point I’m making isn’t that we replace new champions outright, but that the current pace may be unsustainable without addressing foundational issues that have accumulated over time.
Yes, you're right that reworks take time and resources too—sometimes as much as new champions. But the key difference is that reworks stabilize the ecosystem. They reduce bloat, bring underused characters back into relevance, and create more consistent value across the roster. That’s a long-term investment in the health of the game.
You asked how we plug all the holes that reducing new champion releases would create. The honest answer is: we probably can't plug all of them—but the same is true for continuing at the current pace. More champions alone aren’t solving systemic issues like content burnout, progression bottlenecks, or champion redundancy. Those holes are already there. So the goal isn't perfection; it’s balance.
Instead of trying to endlessly scale one pillar (new champs), why not reinforce the others so that the entire structure holds up better? Champion releases can slow down a little if other systems—like progression, engagement, and variety in gameplay—are given real attention and development. If done thoughtfully, this doesn’t have to torpedo the game. It could actually give players more reasons to stay engaged long-term.
In short: yes, new champions are a core driver. But when the foundation is shaky, more weight isn’t always the answer. Sometimes you need to reinforce the frame before you add the next floor.
And if new champs are really the only thing keeping MCOC alive… is that really a sustainable business model?
Compared to what? What would you replace it with?
I said previously:
But if I were in charge? Instead of relying solely on new champs, I would shift focus to improving core systems, refreshing older champions, and creating meaningful event-driven content. These changes can keep players engaged and spending without overloading dev and QA teams. Monetization could come from champion rework bundles, or special event passes, heck maybe even cosmetics if they really wanted to (although I don't think I'd want that personally) — all while improving game quality and community trust. It’s not about doing less; it’s about doing smarter.
That's not an answer. Improving core systems doesn't replace new champion releases. It is a different thing to do. But it does not replace new champion releases as a monetization opportunity, it does not replace new champions as part of the larger narrative framework, or new content, or meta evolution, or any of the other things new champions do.
You seem to be saying do these other things, and the other stuff will just fix itself. You can't just say monetization "could" come from champion rework bundles or special event passes. We already have special event passes, you're going to add more? How many more? And you can only sell champion rework bundles if you actually rework champions, which often takes comparable levels of work to making new champions in at least some areas. You might not need as much artwork, but to be honest that won't matter if you reduce champion releases because with half the new champions released you're going to fire a lot of those artists anyway.
You have an idea of what you'd rather they work on. But the question is not what would you rather they work on. The question is how do you specifically plug all the holes in the game that reducing new champion releases would create. And how do you know you wouldnt torpedo the game while doing it. It is not like you can experiment with twelve new champs per year for a year and just see what happens. Everything that is going to replace those new champion releases must be ready to go on day one. There's no "could." You know exactly what's going to replace them, or you aren't going to just try it and see what happens.
Saying "if new champions are the only things keeping MCOC alive" is again missing the point. You still think new champions is just one thing the game does among many, instead of being the core thing the game actually is.
The point I’m making isn’t that we replace new champions outright, but that the current pace may be unsustainable without addressing foundational issues that have accumulated over time.
Yes, you're right that reworks take time and resources too—sometimes as much as new champions. But the key difference is that reworks stabilize the ecosystem. They reduce bloat, bring underused characters back into relevance, and create more consistent value across the roster. That’s a long-term investment in the health of the game.
You asked how we plug all the holes that reducing new champion releases would create. The honest answer is: we probably can't plug all of them—but the same is true for continuing at the current pace. More champions alone aren’t solving systemic issues like content burnout, progression bottlenecks, or champion redundancy. Those holes are already there. So the goal isn't perfection; it’s balance.
Instead of trying to endlessly scale one pillar (new champs), why not reinforce the others so that the entire structure holds up better? Champion releases can slow down a little if other systems—like progression, engagement, and variety in gameplay—are given real attention and development. If done thoughtfully, this doesn’t have to torpedo the game. It could actually give players more reasons to stay engaged long-term.
In short: yes, new champions are a core driver. But when the foundation is shaky, more weight isn’t always the answer. Sometimes you need to reinforce the frame before you add the next floor.
You gave it a shot. You failed, really bad, but at least you tried.
It takes a special person to say there's content burnout in one paragraph and the say they need to focus on content and variety of content in the next. Have you actually read anything that's being told to you? Because you're regurgitating the same points over and over. You didn't even answer DNAs questions either.
It's not the 2 champs that are the issue really, it's the 12 builds they release every 4-5 weeks, with 2 that are stacked in queue 8 weeks prior. Can they release 2 builds every 6 months with 12 new champs each build? Sure, they can do whatever they want. Will this elongated rollout time fix the bugs? Some of them, but they'll be replaced by others, because adding complexity increases opportunity for failure, and everything always looks fine till it doesn't. Will people still want to play a game where content doesn't change for 6 months even if it runs fairly smoothly? Cuss no.
From the corporate level, the game runs. It generates revenue. If it stays within a specific revenue threshold percentage based on year over year, no one's panicking if sales drop off a cliff in q1 2025. Player /revenue loss can be written off by any data analyst worth their beans with Economic Headwinds or Stressors in the Industry or Superhero Fatigue, and all it takes is a progression title or new level champ to boost numbers enough to lurch forward another fiscal year. Plus, Coming to Steam/PC!
The answer should have been MCOC2, releasing on PC and mobile, which wouldn't be saddled with the dead weight of 8ish years of content currently taking up space (back issues, rttl, whatever mode you haven't touched in years). Just a thought.
True, there are different teams. Designers hand off things to implementers, and implementers hand off to QA who test and that gets passed down to blah blah blah. I understand that
What I mean is this. (as an example) we let QA slow down, don't focus on the new champs, but QA other champs, their interactions like medium intercept. Its still QA, but no longer focusing on new champs, they now can focus on a different agenda or other priorities that they have on their plate.
Again.... they can still make NEW champs like every 3 months, they can STILL re-work old champs. But they can SLOW DOWN a little and work on bigger priorities.
Ok let’s say this is the way it works (it’s not but let’s have a thought exercise). You are now the king of Kabam and how are you going to make up for the revenue lost from reducing the number of new champs you release by 85%.
The way I see it you have 3 potential options: 1. You introduce more sales / monetization events. I’m sure the community would love that, I mean just look at how excited we all were after the March livestream when 4 new monetization events were announced. In order to make the deals worthwhile, the game economy speed would increase significantly and I’m sure there would be no negative repercussions of that (🙄) 2. You layoff employees in order to keep your profit number consistent with the drop in revenue. 3. You go to your bosses at netmarble and/or marvel and tell them your strategy and they should expect to see a decline in revenue and/or profit. You are promptly fired for a dumb strategy.
So tell me all high and powerful @GalioCube which option listed above, or one you have, are you taking?
Appreciate your feedback! But I don't think it comes down to just those 3 options, its more of a doomsday tone if I'm gonna be honest.
But if I were in charge? Instead of relying solely on new champs, I would shift focus to improving core systems, refreshing older champions, and creating meaningful event-driven content. These changes can keep players engaged and spending without overloading dev and QA teams. Monetization could come from champion rework bundles, or special event passes, heck maybe even cosmetics if they really wanted to (although I don't think I'd want that personally) — all while improving game quality and community trust. It’s not about doing less; it’s about doing smarter.
What youre suggesting genuinely would not give any incentive to spend to players though
But if I were in charge? Instead of relying solely on new champs, I would shift focus to improving core systems, refreshing older champions, and creating meaningful event-driven content. These changes can keep players engaged and spending without overloading dev and QA teams. Monetization could come from champion rework bundles, or special event passes, heck maybe even cosmetics if they really wanted to (although I don't think I'd want that personally) — all while improving game quality and community trust. It’s not about doing less; it’s about doing smarter.
Well, I'm just glad you're not. Me and my partner's favorite part of the month in MCOC is seeing who the new champ for the next month is and discussing their lore implication. The game gets stale, tbh, having something new to look forward regularly is whats keeping me here.
Comments
Champ designers generally are working on champs for either 3 or 6 months. I can't remember which one they said. A single champ takes around 6 months in total to finish. But champ designers don't work on the UI of the game. They don't design quests. They don't work on offers. Those are all separate areas.
They have a team dedicated to making the game run, we call them "devs" but they handle things like the games engine. They are the ones usually tasked with fixing bugs. The game itself is worked on in a development world that isn't attached to the live client.
They don't have to stop making champs because it would have zero effect on whether intercepts work or not. I know that it's so easy in your head. I am sure you think there's some button to push to fix bugs but they aren't doing it. But what you're suggesting will have a negative impact on the game and zero impact on fixing bugs.
2. I don't really have access to any specific proprietary data in this context. None of this discussion involves proprietary data. In fact, most of the solid data involving Kabam's business that is floating around out there is data I myself analyzed from public sources.
Although, here's a true story. Once upon a time I decided to test my analysis skills by attempting to estimate how many featured champion crystals Kabam sells every time a new champion comes out. I won't repeat the calculations, but they required making reasonable estimates of a lot of things there's no public sources for, combined with all the public data that is out there (and almost no one pays attention to). I gave my guess to an econ person (not Crashed, this was I think before he joined the game) and I was told I landed within 5% of the correct value.
Getting within 5% was honestly a bit lucky on my part. But it is possible to figure things out if you're willing to do competent analysis, which is why I pay so much attention to Realm events (PS: my analysis of the last one is on the back burner, but I haven't forgotten about it. Its just much more tricky).
But if I were in charge? Instead of relying solely on new champs, I would shift focus to improving core systems, refreshing older champions, and creating meaningful event-driven content. These changes can keep players engaged and spending without overloading dev and QA teams. Monetization could come from champion rework bundles, or special event passes, heck maybe even cosmetics if they really wanted to (although I don't think I'd want that personally) — all while improving game quality and community trust. It’s not about doing less; it’s about doing smarter.
I’m not talking about public business data.
This is such bull. I read 3 and saw you for the liar you are.
You feel good about that?
You absolutely have access to their data. Tell me I’m wrong.
I am not allowed to misrepresent my affiliation with Kabam. However, I am unaware of any rule that forbids me from taking advantage of the deliberate fallacies of others.
@Demonzfyre the quote getting too long but from your last post:
I know each department has different focus and timelines, like designers focus on champs, devs handle bugs, QA has its own lane, etc. But I'm not suggesting that champion designers just go and fix engines or new champs are the problem. I'm saying as a whole the studio could benefit from shifting overall priorities for a better more long-term experience.
I'm not advocating NO new champs. But maybe reduce the frequency (like 1-2 every 3 months) while placing more focus on polishing existing ccontent and champion interactions. We already see how hype builds around existing champs becoming 7* (like Apoc or Nick for example) or re-worked champs (like DPX) and shows there is value in refining what we have
But lets be real, players wont stick around just because there is a constant flow of new champs, that has been proven with many games that are free. People will move on if neglected. If we shift priorities, it allows the departments to clean up long-standing bugs and getting players more invested.
And if new champs are really the only thing keeping MCOC alive… is that really a sustainable business model?
I don’t care that you are.
Just stop pretending to be this regular player voice of reason.
You’re not.
The problem isn't that there are two champs or new MEQs each month. The problem is that MCOC was created using Unity. Kabam then wanted more freedom and decided to create their own game engine and in migrating to the new engine, they experienced many problems which is where things like lag or whiff attacks stem more from and most AI issues.
Much of the game still has the old code that it started with and that can get very complicated in how complex the game is and runs. Combine that with how many different devices they allow the game to run on and that's where we are today.
But reducing the amount of champs will kill the game. Polishing the existing content won't keep players around. Much of the player base, especially those who are inclined to spend money, have all the content done. So what would keep them playing for 3 months to wait on 1 champ?
Again, there's an entire team dedicated to designing quests, and content like AoL, Epoch, etc... that aren't designing champions. Instead of coming to the forums and pretending you know how to run a mobile game, why don't you use that time to give them feedback on what would make the game more fun for you. Because I can tell you right now, they aren't going to stop doing 2 champs per month. At least until they get closer to running out of champs.
None of those programs offers direct access to proprietary game data for its members per se. Although in the case of the CCP, players are sometimes told things covered by NDA that can include some small piece of data. Most questions directly involving proprietary game data cannot be answered by the devs even within that program.
However, I have never represented myself as a "regular player voice of reason" either. I'm not sure what that would even be. Nor do I think most people would describe me as a "regular player." I am not an employee, nor contractually working for Kabam in any capacity. My opinions are my own. But do I have more information than you do? Almost certainly yes. But who doesn't?
I have played many online games for which I have had some relationship with developers. I've studied game design for decades, and the online gaming industry in particular since the 2000s. I have even worked under contract for another game once (not MCOC, it was an MMO). And I've had different relationships with different members of the MCOC game team since maybe 2018. All of this is stuff I've said at various times and is relatively common knowledge.
Glad to be having a good conversation. I don’t know all the inner workings but I assuming refreshing old champs and creating event-driven content requires just as much effort for dev and testing as creating new champs. Let’s just look at the cyclops buff, his entire kit, model, animation are all changing that’s basically building a new character from the ground up. Even if we take a buff that the kit changed but model and animations stayed the same (e.g., silver sable), I’m going to assume it took a good deal of dev and testing time; there’s likely a reason kabam changed the entire rebalance effort. So I’m not sure rebalances / reworks actually reduces dev/testing effort and even if they did DLL said in a recent stream kabam makes very little money on buffs compared to new champs.
The “easiest” option is to do what they’re doing with galan, apoc, nf, etc. and bring champs rarity locked in as 7*. There are ~100 champs that are rarity locked, but again I’m still not sure how much money that would bring in (galan will be an interesting test). A large portion of those either are too strong and wont be brought up (herc, cgr, ht, etc.) and a separate group would be extremely underwhelming, and therefore unprofitable, if brought up to 7* without a rebalance (cap, iron fist, symbiote spidey, etc.)
You have just described why the game is not fun to play. Again, if New champs are the only thing running the company, is that really a business model? Or a dying one?
But if you get a new champ, and no new content, where are you supposed to use the new champ? It takes so long to make 1 champ yet we can't use them anywhere, except for a new counter to some new champ. I have not seen 1 experienced player not excited for new content so they can test out their new champs to see how they do, like the new Jane Foster boss? Holy ****! Thats freaking awesome. Then they finish and guess what? They don't use those champs as much. Besides Prestige influences champion rank ups too, so new champs aren't necessarily the ones ranked up or even have effort put into them by players.
But if I were in charge? Instead of relying solely on new champs, I would shift focus to improving core systems, refreshing older champions, and creating meaningful event-driven content. These changes can keep players engaged and spending without overloading dev and QA teams. Monetization could come from champion rework bundles, or special event passes, heck maybe even cosmetics if they really wanted to (although I don't think I'd want that personally) — all while improving game quality and community trust. It’s not about doing less; it’s about doing smarter.
You beat champ you’ve been stuck on thinking you’re great. Right?
You’re actually downplaying this?
Get that spike and it keeps them coming back.
You seem to be saying do these other things, and the other stuff will just fix itself. You can't just say monetization "could" come from champion rework bundles or special event passes. We already have special event passes, you're going to add more? How many more? And you can only sell champion rework bundles if you actually rework champions, which often takes comparable levels of work to making new champions in at least some areas. You might not need as much artwork, but to be honest that won't matter if you reduce champion releases because with half the new champions released you're going to fire a lot of those artists anyway.
You have an idea of what you'd rather they work on. But the question is not what would you rather they work on. The question is how do you specifically plug all the holes in the game that reducing new champion releases would create. And how do you know you wouldnt torpedo the game while doing it. It is not like you can experiment with twelve new champs per year for a year and just see what happens. Everything that is going to replace those new champion releases must be ready to go on day one. There's no "could." You know exactly what's going to replace them, or you aren't going to just try it and see what happens.
Saying "if new champions are the only things keeping MCOC alive" is again missing the point. You still think new champions is just one thing the game does among many, instead of being the core thing the game actually is.
Yes, you're right that reworks take time and resources too—sometimes as much as new champions. But the key difference is that reworks stabilize the ecosystem. They reduce bloat, bring underused characters back into relevance, and create more consistent value across the roster. That’s a long-term investment in the health of the game.
You asked how we plug all the holes that reducing new champion releases would create. The honest answer is: we probably can't plug all of them—but the same is true for continuing at the current pace. More champions alone aren’t solving systemic issues like content burnout, progression bottlenecks, or champion redundancy. Those holes are already there. So the goal isn't perfection; it’s balance.
Instead of trying to endlessly scale one pillar (new champs), why not reinforce the others so that the entire structure holds up better? Champion releases can slow down a little if other systems—like progression, engagement, and variety in gameplay—are given real attention and development. If done thoughtfully, this doesn’t have to torpedo the game. It could actually give players more reasons to stay engaged long-term.
In short: yes, new champions are a core driver. But when the foundation is shaky, more weight isn’t always the answer. Sometimes you need to reinforce the frame before you add the next floor.
It takes a special person to say there's content burnout in one paragraph and the say they need to focus on content and variety of content in the next. Have you actually read anything that's being told to you? Because you're regurgitating the same points over and over. You didn't even answer DNAs questions either.
From the corporate level, the game runs. It generates revenue. If it stays within a specific revenue threshold percentage based on year over year, no one's panicking if sales drop off a cliff in q1 2025. Player /revenue loss can be written off by any data analyst worth their beans with Economic Headwinds or Stressors in the Industry or Superhero Fatigue, and all it takes is a progression title or new level champ to boost numbers enough to lurch forward another fiscal year. Plus, Coming to Steam/PC!
The answer should have been MCOC2, releasing on PC and mobile, which wouldn't be saddled with the dead weight of 8ish years of content currently taking up space (back issues, rttl, whatever mode you haven't touched in years). Just a thought.