For those who don't bother reading earlier posts or understanding others' perspectives, here's a recap of my argument:
- My simple message is, if my "favourites" are 154 games, how can I justify paying premium to... not play them more often? I circumscribe my perspective to Real-time games, as therein lies my interest, for whatever my reasons are.
- It is a lack of leadership as BGA is an Asmodée venture and thus a business, it is not a work of love anymore. Real-time online play is an Asmodée product, through BGA.
- Only leadership can act and improve Real-time match-making.
I'll answer a few of the comments above, and probably let it go afterwards.
"Please link to a page, post, or announcement where this was promised."
In my perspective, that is inherent to the service offered. Eg: my home does not have a placard in the front promising me that it will keep me dry and warm. Let's forget about that comment there... The valid counter-argument is "Premium does not give you any preferential treatment. It just gives you, mostly, the ability of [starting] tables for premium games. If you want that, get the subscription. If that is not enough for you, don't." ... and that reinforces my point. It's not an objective, for me to start games. The objective is to play them.
"Surely you won't complain to the leadership for giving us a wider choice?"
That is valuable for people with a big online presence, or playing with regular virtual or real-world friends at planned encounters; maybe. I don't know what others do, I just know that's not what I do. I play with real people and my family, but not on BGA. On BGA, I expect to play with whomever is available at that time. I agree with "I will just [say] that having a lot of games to choose from forces me to be more open to the game I wanna play." I have my preferences, but am very flexible on gameplay options, & game selection. There are 154 games I'll play willingly and the only ones I can effectively play (most times) are "flavours of the day", which get redundant really fast. Very seldom do I have the patience to do something else while I wait for 30 minutes for a table to fill-up. This is not niche, it's 154/600 or approx 25% of the games on offer! Leadership figures that anything over 25% of their offer is niche, you think? This guy seems to think so: "They have no control over how many people are playing some niche game." This guys seems to share my perspective: "It is often hard for me to find people for Obsession or Beyond the Sun. Yahtzee or Azul? No problem."
The BEST comment I've read is: "What positive changes would you have them make? I am sure all of us who prefer real-time games would love to hear them."
- Marketing. "What are they supposed to do, run TV adverts saying "Play Insert on BGA"?" Well... yes! of course they should! Not for specific games as you disingenuously suggest, but for real-time play in general... yes! first and foremost.
- Review their algorithms. There, I'm awfully ignorant how that works. I can't suggest how, but at least they should test if that's the issue.
- Do away with the Arena system. I understand that some players are competitive to the point that internet fame is worth something to them. I'm not of that opinion. Arena takes away from the pool of potential real-time players I would be happy to play with, and if they're better they win, still getting the laurels to their ELO and getting some of that fame anyways. If that means rebranding BGA because it has the word "Arena", well it's leadership, they can do whatever they want!
- Do away with the fancy/obscure match-making of the new lobby. I really just don't understand the new lobby, and I won't expand here, there are tons of posts about it elsewhere. It just fits under my answer to "What positive changes would you have them make?"
- Marketing! Advertising real-time play should be first, and last!
So I return the excellent question to others: "What positive changes would you have them make? I am sure all of us who prefer real-time games would love to hear them."
Well, enough of me.
me
