Ashes of Creation: Pros vs Cons

Slapshot1188 · May 2017

Here is my list. This is MY list. I am sure a few of you (wink) will have different opinions. Also, because it's my nature, I will start with the Cons of course.

Cons:

Inexperienced startup including the CEO having zero industry experience and very light resumes on much of the existing team. Yes, one or two people played some significant, behind the scenes roles at SOE but of the 3 he really details: One is a programmer with experience, One (the Lead Developer) has 3 times more experience in customer service than game design and the actual design credits are stuff like "Primary accomplishments include: successfully evangelizing for new narrative techniques and story hooks" and the 3rd is an artist. Fluffery beside, these may be great guys and hidden geniuses in their craft, but not exactly pulled from the starting lineup.
Strange and "interesting" backstory for the CEO who fairly or unfairly has the stigma of Multi-Level-Marketing attached like a weight to his ankle
Very hard to get straight answers about the actual funding for the game. How much cash is ACTUALLY raised and in the bank
Very hard to get straight answers about what exactly is planned to be included as features of the "core"game, what ones are excluded?
Posted timeframe seems like the typical Kickstarter stretch. Currently they have tossed some store assets together which look pretty but are FAR from being a fully fleshed game. Do not see that happening by next year. Also, the stated planned spend ($30M) vs timeline does not matchup. Even doubling his staff it would be a burn rate of $2.2M a year x 2 years = $4.4M. Pretty far from $30. When in doubt follow the math.
Recruitment strategy pays REAL cash when people go and recruit players. This is NOT a pyramid scheme but IMHO it's roots are in the CEO's MLM background. Yes it is different, but really think long and hard about believing anything that someone says when they are monitarily incentivized to get you to click on the game and play.
A vocal core of the community (undetermined size) is really very difficult to deal with in a rational way.
Kickstarter...

Pros:

Seems to hold true to the non- P2W philosphy. These are the least P2W Kickstarter rewards I think I have ever seen. The biggest is just a small headstart (with some items turned off) and they promise non-headstart servers as well.
Sub based model. Yes this is a GOOD thing.
Refund promised for Kickstarter if the game doesn't launch. This is a GOOD thing... just wish they were upfront with what is to be included in launch as heck, you an simply turn it on at any point and say "it launched".
Full PvP. Yes it has flags, but these seem to be the least restrictive I have seen. You can apparently kill anyone in the game but doing so to non-combatants will have a significant negative affect on you. That's right Mr. Bandwagon PvPer who jumped into the 5 on 1 fight to kill me and laughed last week. You may have your "non-combatant flag" on today, but I'm going to hunt your ass down and gank you a few times anyhow. You too Mr. Cocky PvE player!

Neutral:

No box fee. Not a BAD thing, but I feel the box fee discourages a lot of bad bahavior
UE4... looks pretty but are there any MASSIVELY multiplayer games that have really successfully used it with thousands of players?

Rusque · May 2017

Pros: It's not released, therefore it's everything and anything you want it to be. That's why these kickstarters get money, people project their desires onto an imaginary product (even if it's partially ready/started).

Cons: You don't actually know if/when it will come out and if it will be the game you thought it was going to be.

Neutral: It's your money. Do whatever you want with it (doesn't mean people think it's a good idea).

Slapshot1188 · May 2017

Rusque said:

Pros: It's not released, therefore it's everything and anything you want it to be. That's why these kickstarters get money, people project their desires onto an imaginary product (even if it's partially ready/started).

Absolutely true, but is that really a "Pro"?

Vrika · May 2017

Slapshot1188 said:

Pros:
Refund promised for Kickstarter if the game doesn't launch. This is a GOOD thing... just wish they were upfront with what is to be included in launch as heck, you an simply turn it on at any point and say "it launched".

I wouldn't list this as a pro. The company already needs to fulfill all of its obligations, including delivering either the game or refund, as long as it doesn't go to bankrupt.

The added value of this promise is 0. It's just pretty words.

Wellspring · May 2017

I was trying to think up my own Pro's and Con's list, but then I realized, I have very little idea what the game is actually going to be like.

When I backed Pantheon, I knew exactly what I would be getting. With this, everything is so vague to me. Idk maybe I'm just not paying close enough attention, but I've gotten nothing concrete out of the QA videos so far. Especially gameplay wise.

What's the the death penalty?
Are there levels? I assume so, what's the max level?
How are class abilities earned, are they skill trees like WoW where you spend a limited amount of points?
What are the group sizes?
What are quests like? Are there quest hubs?
Will you be able to solo everything?
How much instanced content is there going to be?
Is there raid content? Is that instanced?
Is there going to be a dungeon finder/auto grouping?
What are these battleground PvP instances that were mentioned?
What kind of quick travel will there be?

Whether the game gets finished or not, how do I know if this game will even be fun for me? Really got me rethinking my pledge.

Dauzqul · May 2017

I can't stand kickstarters that have those big $500 package plans. People don't care about supporting the game... They just want to be the only ones walking around in that Gold Armor.

I miss the old days... when if you wanted to show something off, you had to earn it in the game.

cheyane · May 2017

More games should get these types of analysis since you can at one glance see every pro and con clearly. Good job Slapshot.

Slapshot1188 · May 2017

cheyane said:

More games should get these types of analysis since you can at one glance see every pro and con clearly. Good job Slapshot.

Thanks. I don't know that everyone's perception about pros and cons match mine but I thought there was some value in consolidating.

Jacobin · May 2017

Good list, but I would also add as a con that this project has the least amount of information about actual game mechanics of any MMO KS.

Is this based on vertical progression with 20 tiers of gear like ArcheAge and BDO?
Is there a level cap?
Is there RNG Crafting?
How important is PVE / Raiding?
Is there a linear ! quest path from lvl 1-MAX?

CU and CF were very clear about what they want to be. Horizontal progression, territorial pvp.

All we know about AoC is that it has flagging pvp and nodes which don't sound that much different than building up a castle in ArcheAge or Darkfall.

Steven Sharif seems to have a background in Lineage 2 and ArcheAge so those are likely the main influences but he has not said AoC is a PvP focused competitive game.

The scope of this project is highly unclear which leads to 2 big problems:

1) People are filling in the gaps with their own interpretations which leads to anger when decisions are made that do not mesh with what was in their head.

2) Feature creep, overruns and all of the problems that projects with much tighter scope still have.

At a minimum it will take 4 years for this to even get to a playable alpha stage and that is only if they can actually hire a much more talented team. This won't be easy because I doubt top talent will want to leave other companies and work for Steven Sharif due to his lack of experience and questionable background / nepotism (CFO).

Rusque · May 2017

Slapshot1188 said:

Rusque said:

Pros: It's not released, therefore it's everything and anything you want it to be. That's why these kickstarters get money, people project their desires onto an imaginary product (even if it's partially ready/started).

Absolutely true, but is that really a "Pro"?

It's a "pro" for them.

CrazKanuk · May 2017

Slapshot1188 said:

Here is my list. This is MY list. I am sure a few of you (wink) will have different opinions. Also, because it's my nature, I will start with the Cons of course.

Cons:

Inexperienced startup including the CEO having zero industry experience and very light resumes on much of the existing team. Yes, one or two people played some significant, behind the scenes roles at SOE but of the 3 he really details: One is a programmer with experience, One (the Lead Developer) has 3 times more experience in customer service than game design and the actual design credits are stuff like "Primary accomplishments include: successfully evangelizing for new narrative techniques and story hooks" and the 3rd is an artist. Fluffery beside, these may be great guys and hidden geniuses in their craft, but not exactly pulled from the starting lineup.
Strange and "interesting" backstory for the CEO who fairly or unfairly has the stigma of Multi-Level-Marketing attached like a weight to his ankle
Very hard to get straight answers about the actual funding for the game. How much cash is ACTUALLY raised and in the bank
Very hard to get straight answers about what exactly is planned to be included as features of the "core"game, what ones are excluded?
Posted timeframe seems like the typical Kickstarter stretch. Currently they have tossed some store assets together which look pretty but are FAR from being a fully fleshed game. Do not see that happening by next year. Also, the stated planned spend ($30M) vs timeline does not matchup. Even doubling his staff it would be a burn rate of $2.2M a year x 2 years = $4.4M. Pretty far from $30. When in doubt follow the math.
Recruitment strategy pays REAL cash when people go and recruit players. This is NOT a pyramid scheme but IMHO it's roots are in the CEO's MLM background. Yes it is different, but really think long and hard about believing anything that someone says when they are monitarily incentivized to get you to click on the game and play.
A vocal core of the community (undetermined size) is really very difficult to deal with in a rational way.
Kickstarter...

Pros:

Seems to hold true to the non- P2W philosphy. These are the least P2W Kickstarter rewards I think I have ever seen. The biggest is just a small headstart (with some items turned off) and they promise non-headstart servers as well.
Sub based model. Yes this is a GOOD thing.
Refund promised for Kickstarter if the game doesn't launch. This is a GOOD thing... just wish they were upfront with what is to be included in launch as heck, you an simply turn it on at any point and say "it launched".
Full PvP. Yes it has flags, but these seem to be the least restrictive I have seen. You can apparently kill anyone in the game but doing so to non-combatants will have a significant negative affect on you. That's right Mr. Bandwagon PvPer who jumped into the 5 on 1 fight to kill me and laughed last week. You may have your "non-combatant flag" on today, but I'm going to hunt your ass down and gank you a few times anyhow. You too Mr. Cocky PvE player!

Neutral:

No box fee. Not a BAD thing, but I feel the box fee discourages a lot of bad bahavior
UE4... looks pretty but are there any MASSIVELY multiplayer games that have really successfully used it with thousands of players?

Just a couple comments. Generally speaking, your con list doesn't really focus on the game.

1) Experience - I do agree with you on this, but I'm probably not someone to comment on their experience. Either way, this is always a risk, but it's a risk with every single KS that I can recollect.

2) I don't see how backstory of the person funding the project matters, but I tend to agree that escaping that stigma on the Internet where logic seems to elude people often, that could definitely be a distraction. However, I'm sure that there are drug dealers, drug addicts, adulterers, and all sorts of morally reprehensible people making games, but nobody seems to care about that, as long as they make a good game. Right?

3) On the whole "Very Hard to get answers" stuff, what are you looking for? I felt like he did a good interview with Massively here and answered the questions you're talking about. The answers may be ambiguous to an extent. I interpreted it as meaning he's already invested or set aside $30 million for the project of his own money and crowdfunding will simply add to that. Also that includes all features discussed in the KS. Why did you feel that was "hard" to get? They asked some difficult questions, probably more difficult than many interviews, and he answered them. I'm trying to understand what you might be looking for. He's actually on the site, so ask it here. Other than that, why would ANYONE give a detailed answer after SC? I certainly wouldn't. I'm was actually surprised by the level of detail of some of the answers. I'd say there are few games where the budget is given quite than openly, no?

4) Referral is a con? No, you've listed it as a con because you don't believe it to be real. People have asked for this since all the way back in the original WoW referral days. I remember lamenting with friends quite often about how it's bullshit that we only get a free month for referring someone to the game. In the end, there's actually not much difference here, although it's, apparently, in perpetuity. So is this about you not believing that it's something they'll actually follow through on? Or do you believe paying people to refer others to the game is a bad thing? If it's the later, you put the whole refund promise as a Pro, which is probably more difficult to believe, in my opinion, than paying someone to refer people to your game.

5) With regards to community, I would have to say that there is plenty of irrational people on both sides of the fence. Putting something like this on a con list simply makes you look biased.

Slapshot1188 · May 2017

CrazKanuk said:

Slapshot1188 said:

Here is my list. This is MY list. I am sure a few of you (wink) will have different opinions. Also, because it's my nature, I will start with the Cons of course.

Cons:

Inexperienced startup including the CEO having zero industry experience and very light resumes on much of the existing team. Yes, one or two people played some significant, behind the scenes roles at SOE but of the 3 he really details: One is a programmer with experience, One (the Lead Developer) has 3 times more experience in customer service than game design and the actual design credits are stuff like "Primary accomplishments include: successfully evangelizing for new narrative techniques and story hooks" and the 3rd is an artist. Fluffery beside, these may be great guys and hidden geniuses in their craft, but not exactly pulled from the starting lineup.
Strange and "interesting" backstory for the CEO who fairly or unfairly has the stigma of Multi-Level-Marketing attached like a weight to his ankle
Very hard to get straight answers about the actual funding for the game. How much cash is ACTUALLY raised and in the bank
Very hard to get straight answers about what exactly is planned to be included as features of the "core"game, what ones are excluded?
Posted timeframe seems like the typical Kickstarter stretch. Currently they have tossed some store assets together which look pretty but are FAR from being a fully fleshed game. Do not see that happening by next year. Also, the stated planned spend ($30M) vs timeline does not matchup. Even doubling his staff it would be a burn rate of $2.2M a year x 2 years = $4.4M. Pretty far from $30. When in doubt follow the math.
Recruitment strategy pays REAL cash when people go and recruit players. This is NOT a pyramid scheme but IMHO it's roots are in the CEO's MLM background. Yes it is different, but really think long and hard about believing anything that someone says when they are monitarily incentivized to get you to click on the game and play.
A vocal core of the community (undetermined size) is really very difficult to deal with in a rational way.
Kickstarter...

Pros:

Seems to hold true to the non- P2W philosphy. These are the least P2W Kickstarter rewards I think I have ever seen. The biggest is just a small headstart (with some items turned off) and they promise non-headstart servers as well.
Sub based model. Yes this is a GOOD thing.
Refund promised for Kickstarter if the game doesn't launch. This is a GOOD thing... just wish they were upfront with what is to be included in launch as heck, you an simply turn it on at any point and say "it launched".
Full PvP. Yes it has flags, but these seem to be the least restrictive I have seen. You can apparently kill anyone in the game but doing so to non-combatants will have a significant negative affect on you. That's right Mr. Bandwagon PvPer who jumped into the 5 on 1 fight to kill me and laughed last week. You may have your "non-combatant flag" on today, but I'm going to hunt your ass down and gank you a few times anyhow. You too Mr. Cocky PvE player!

Neutral:

No box fee. Not a BAD thing, but I feel the box fee discourages a lot of bad bahavior
UE4... looks pretty but are there any MASSIVELY multiplayer games that have really successfully used it with thousands of players?

Just a couple comments. Generally speaking, your con list doesn't really focus on the game.

1) Experience - I do agree with you on this, but I'm probably not someone to comment on their experience. Either way, this is always a risk, but it's a risk with every single KS that I can recollect.

2) I don't see how backstory of the person funding the project matters, but I tend to agree that escaping that stigma on the Internet where logic seems to elude people often, that could definitely be a distraction. However, I'm sure that there are drug dealers, drug addicts, adulterers, and all sorts of morally reprehensible people making games, but nobody seems to care about that, as long as they make a good game. Right?

3) On the whole "Very Hard to get answers" stuff, what are you looking for? I felt like he did a good interview with Massively here and answered the questions you're talking about. The answers may be ambiguous to an extent. I interpreted it as meaning he's already invested or set aside $30 million for the project of his own money and crowdfunding will simply add to that. Also that includes all features discussed in the KS. Why did you feel that was "hard" to get? They asked some difficult questions, probably more difficult than many interviews, and he answered them. I'm trying to understand what you might be looking for. He's actually on the site, so ask it here. Other than that, why would ANYONE give a detailed answer after SC? I certainly wouldn't. I'm was actually surprised by the level of detail of some of the answers. I'd say there are few games where the budget is given quite than openly, no?

4) Referral is a con? No, you've listed it as a con because you don't believe it to be real. People have asked for this since all the way back in the original WoW referral days. I remember lamenting with friends quite often about how it's bullshit that we only get a free month for referring someone to the game. In the end, there's actually not much difference here, although it's, apparently, in perpetuity. So is this about you not believing that it's something they'll actually follow through on? Or do you believe paying people to refer others to the game is a bad thing? If it's the later, you put the whole refund promise as a Pro, which is probably more difficult to believe, in my opinion, than paying someone to refer people to your game.

5) With regards to community, I would have to say that there is plenty of irrational people on both sides of the fence. Putting something like this on a con list simply makes you look biased.

On my phone do will just quickly address two points.

#3 Bree from Massively actually clarified that the $30M figure wasNOT what he as the sole investor had put into the project but what he thought was needed. It's discussed elsewhere.

#5 It's my personal Pro/Con list so of course it has my bias. What made you think otherwise? I even highlight the MY and state that others will have different opinions...

CrazKanuk · May 2017

Slapshot1188 said:

CrazKanuk said:

Just a couple comments. Generally speaking, your con list doesn't really focus on the game.

1) Experience - I do agree with you on this, but I'm probably not someone to comment on their experience. Either way, this is always a risk, but it's a risk with every single KS that I can recollect.

2) I don't see how backstory of the person funding the project matters, but I tend to agree that escaping that stigma on the Internet where logic seems to elude people often, that could definitely be a distraction. However, I'm sure that there are drug dealers, drug addicts, adulterers, and all sorts of morally reprehensible people making games, but nobody seems to care about that, as long as they make a good game. Right?

3) On the whole "Very Hard to get answers" stuff, what are you looking for? I felt like he did a good interview with Massively here and answered the questions you're talking about. The answers may be ambiguous to an extent. I interpreted it as meaning he's already invested or set aside $30 million for the project of his own money and crowdfunding will simply add to that. Also that includes all features discussed in the KS. Why did you feel that was "hard" to get? They asked some difficult questions, probably more difficult than many interviews, and he answered them. I'm trying to understand what you might be looking for. He's actually on the site, so ask it here. Other than that, why would ANYONE give a detailed answer after SC? I certainly wouldn't. I'm was actually surprised by the level of detail of some of the answers. I'd say there are few games where the budget is given quite than openly, no?

4) Referral is a con? No, you've listed it as a con because you don't believe it to be real. People have asked for this since all the way back in the original WoW referral days. I remember lamenting with friends quite often about how it's bullshit that we only get a free month for referring someone to the game. In the end, there's actually not much difference here, although it's, apparently, in perpetuity. So is this about you not believing that it's something they'll actually follow through on? Or do you believe paying people to refer others to the game is a bad thing? If it's the later, you put the whole refund promise as a Pro, which is probably more difficult to believe, in my opinion, than paying someone to refer people to your game.

5) With regards to community, I would have to say that there is plenty of irrational people on both sides of the fence. Putting something like this on a con list simply makes you look biased.

On my phone do will just quickly address two points.

#3 Bree from Massively actually clarified that the $30M figure wasNOT what he as the sole investor had put into the project but what he thought was needed. It's discussed elsewhere.

#5 It's my personal Pro/Con list so of course it has my bias. What made you think otherwise? I even highlight the MY and state that others will have different opinions...

I'll give you props for responding on your phone at all. For some reason my iPad hates this forum and will intermittently lock up.

Thanks for the clarification on the whole $30 mil thing. I missed that clarification. I'll have to go back through it.

You know what, I went back to the OP and I don't know if I skipped the first sentence or what, but I totally took you seriously at first. I didn't realize it was a parody. My bad.

Kyleran · May 2017

CrazKanuk said:

Slapshot1188 said:

CrazKanuk said:

Just a couple comments. Generally speaking, your con list doesn't really focus on the game.

1) Experience - I do agree with you on this, but I'm probably not someone to comment on their experience. Either way, this is always a risk, but it's a risk with every single KS that I can recollect.

2) I don't see how backstory of the person funding the project matters, but I tend to agree that escaping that stigma on the Internet where logic seems to elude people often, that could definitely be a distraction. However, I'm sure that there are drug dealers, drug addicts, adulterers, and all sorts of morally reprehensible people making games, but nobody seems to care about that, as long as they make a good game. Right?

3) On the whole "Very Hard to get answers" stuff, what are you looking for? I felt like he did a good interview with Massively here and answered the questions you're talking about. The answers may be ambiguous to an extent. I interpreted it as meaning he's already invested or set aside $30 million for the project of his own money and crowdfunding will simply add to that. Also that includes all features discussed in the KS. Why did you feel that was "hard" to get? They asked some difficult questions, probably more difficult than many interviews, and he answered them. I'm trying to understand what you might be looking for. He's actually on the site, so ask it here. Other than that, why would ANYONE give a detailed answer after SC? I certainly wouldn't. I'm was actually surprised by the level of detail of some of the answers. I'd say there are few games where the budget is given quite than openly, no?

4) Referral is a con? No, you've listed it as a con because you don't believe it to be real. People have asked for this since all the way back in the original WoW referral days. I remember lamenting with friends quite often about how it's bullshit that we only get a free month for referring someone to the game. In the end, there's actually not much difference here, although it's, apparently, in perpetuity. So is this about you not believing that it's something they'll actually follow through on? Or do you believe paying people to refer others to the game is a bad thing? If it's the later, you put the whole refund promise as a Pro, which is probably more difficult to believe, in my opinion, than paying someone to refer people to your game.

5) With regards to community, I would have to say that there is plenty of irrational people on both sides of the fence. Putting something like this on a con list simply makes you look biased.

On my phone do will just quickly address two points.

#3 Bree from Massively actually clarified that the $30M figure wasNOT what he as the sole investor had put into the project but what he thought was needed. It's discussed elsewhere.

#5 It's my personal Pro/Con list so of course it has my bias. What made you think otherwise? I even highlight the MY and state that others will have different opinions...

I'll give you props for responding on your phone at all. For some reason my iPad hates this forum and will intermittently lock up.

Thanks for the clarification on the whole $30 mil thing. I missed that clarification. I'll have to go back through it.

You know what, I went back to the OP and I don't know if I skipped the first sentence or what, but I totally took you seriously at first. I didn't realize it was a parody. My bad.

Er, I don't think the wink meant it was a parody. He can confirm.

Only con for me atm is its years from release. (assuming it ever does)

I'm bored l and need something new now.

CrazKanuk · May 2017

Kyleran said:

CrazKanuk said:

Slapshot1188 said:

On my phone do will just quickly address two points.

#3 Bree from Massively actually clarified that the $30M figure wasNOT what he as the sole investor had put into the project but what he thought was needed. It's discussed elsewhere.

#5 It's my personal Pro/Con list so of course it has my bias. What made you think otherwise? I even highlight the MY and state that others will have different opinions...

I'll give you props for responding on your phone at all. For some reason my iPad hates this forum and will intermittently lock up.

Thanks for the clarification on the whole $30 mil thing. I missed that clarification. I'll have to go back through it.

You know what, I went back to the OP and I don't know if I skipped the first sentence or what, but I totally took you seriously at first. I didn't realize it was a parody. My bad.

Er, I don't think the wink meant it was a parody. He can confirm.

Only con for me atm is its years from release. (assuming it ever does)

I'm bored l and need something new now.

No, I think he was. Especially with his last comment because it's contradictory to the rest of the post prior to that. Like he's making irrational arguments and then calls out everyone else for being irrational. It's like that woman who's husband was deported because she thought "Just the bad people were going to be deported". That's some funny shit. Just like reading this seems much more funny than serious if you work backwards through it. If it's serious then...... I don't know. Does that make it ironic?

Shaigh · May 2017

Pro: Its free entertainment watching the hype of another project that intend to revolutionize mmorpg, this time its from someone with zero game development experience.

Con: After pathfinder online, divergence online, the repopulation, shroud of the avatar and chronicles of elyria I'm running out of popcorn.

Slapshot1188 · May 2017

Shaigh said:

Pro: Its free entertainment watching the hype of another project that intend to revolutionize mmorpg, this time its from someone with zero game development experience.

Con: After pathfinder online, divergence online, the repopulation, shroud of the avatar and chronicles of elyria I'm running out of popcorn.

Too true...

CrazKanuk · May 2017

Shaigh said:

Pro: Its free entertainment watching the hype of another project that intend to revolutionize mmorpg, this time its from someone with zero game development experience.

Con: After pathfinder online, divergence online, the repopulation, shroud of the avatar and chronicles of elyria I'm running out of popcorn.

*pfft* Don't even get me started on movie popcorn!

MaxBacon · May 2017

Slapshot1188 said:
Sub based model. Yes this is a GOOD thing.

Now wouldn't we all wish this was true?

Because in reality, the majority that tried such model in past years failed one after the other, falling towards F2P + Optional Sub.

LIOKI · May 2017

Shaigh said:

Pro: Its free entertainment watching the hype of another project that intend to revolutionize mmorpg, this time its from someone with zero game development experience.

Con: After pathfinder online, divergence online, the repopulation, shroud of the avatar and chronicles of elyria I'm running out of popcorn.

Don't you know all you need is an internet connection and 25+ years of playing games to be qualified?

@Slapshot1188 you can make almost any type of game using the UE4 engine. The question is do these guys have the required C++ programming knowledge to make the engine fit their game needs? I doubt it. I said it before, this is just as fantasy as the game world they want to make.

CrazKanuk · May 2017

MaxBacon said:

Slapshot1188 said:
Sub based model. Yes this is a GOOD thing.
Now wouldn't we all wish this was true?

Because in reality, the majority that tried such model in past years failed one after the other, falling towards F2P + Optional Sub.

Depends on the reception of the whole cosmetic model they're implementing. It sounds like it's quite deep and it could be implemented in such a way that your armor doesn't actually affect your appearance, but your cosmetics do, in which case it could end up being more of a con.

Distopia · May 2017

Pros: it's a game

Cons: That is only a conceptual idea...

That's where I'm at with it.

Wellspring · May 2017

MaxBacon said:

Slapshot1188 said:
Sub based model. Yes this is a GOOD thing.
Now wouldn't we all wish this was true?

Because in reality, the majority that tried such model in past years failed one after the other, falling towards F2P + Optional Sub.

But, the real question you need to ask yourself is... Did these game fail because they used the sub model, or in spite of it?

MaxBacon · May 2017

CrazKanuk said:
Depends on the reception of the whole cosmetic model they're implementing. It sounds like it's quite deep and it could be implemented in such a way that your armor doesn't actually affect your appearance, but your cosmetics do, in which case it could end up being more of a con.

This is more business-wise. The sub will drive away a slice of the people who would be interested in play, and that is very well proven by many of the titles that came with Subs that failed because of small player pops.

We've seen this way too often, from ESO to SWTOR, Wildstar, Rift, Aion, and so forth.

With that said, I have great doubts Ashes of Creation would manage to be the exception.

Distopia · May 2017

Wellspring said:

MaxBacon said:

Slapshot1188 said:
Sub based model. Yes this is a GOOD thing.
Now wouldn't we all wish this was true?

Because in reality, the majority that tried such model in past years failed one after the other, falling towards F2P + Optional Sub.

But, the real question you need to ask yourself is... Did these game fail because they used the sub model, or in spite of it?

Why not both? WHich is probably closer to the truth. Because it's not just about any single game, it's more about what else a person can play, as well as perceived value of all that is on offer in the genre. A person looking for EVE's systems on the other hand well, we all know that story.

Just because you have good content doesn't mean you're a good value. Just because you have mediocre or outdated content doesn't mean you're not a great value. The latter explains the extreme popularity of F2P and now B2P games over the last decade, as well as why WOW is still so popular (you get a lot for your money). It's almost always going to be about what you get for your money.

That's probably a big reason many of us went to MMOs in the first place, the amount of game-play on offer just seemed like a better value than buying game after game after game at full retail price. I know it was a big part of my opinion back then. I used that as a justification of sticking to MMOs quite a bit back then. I can't imagine I'm the only one.

CrazKanuk · May 2017

MaxBacon said:

CrazKanuk said:
Depends on the reception of the whole cosmetic model they're implementing. It sounds like it's quite deep and it could be implemented in such a way that your armor doesn't actually affect your appearance, but your cosmetics do, in which case it could end up being more of a con.

This is more business-wise. The sub will drive away a slice of the people who would be interested in play, and that is very well proven by many of the titles that came with Subs that failed because of small player pops.

We've seen this way too often, from ESO to SWTOR, Wildstar, Rift, Aion, and so forth.

With that said, I have great doubts Ashes of Creation would manage to be the exception.

ESO and SWTOR "apparently" manage to have pretty high sub stats, though.

I'm also not sure about the whole sub model, but there do seem to be some upcoming games that are confident it will be the best way to go. Should be interesting to see how some of the games that are closer to realizing their goal end up making out with sub-only.

If the budget is $30 million that would effectively mean having 170,000 subscribers for an entire year. That's just covering the development cost of the game. So, realistically, you'd probably need to maintain 250,000 subscribers for 1 year in order to break even. *caveat* that's assuming their plan is to recoup costs over 1 year, which should probably be their Plan "A" goal considering how infamous the genre has become for chewing through users.

Howdy, Stranger!

Ashes of Creation: Pros vs Cons

Comments

Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Ashes of Creation: Pros vs Cons

Comments

Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV