At this point I've just about lost all interest in both.
Why? Endless updates without the actual finished product- i just dont care anymore
If they've fulfilled all their Kickstarter promises like Vrika said above then why don't they just launch?
On the front of my Steam Store feed today I saw that Atlas has a new DLC and I thought WTF! It's free, but the point being that if you're launching DLC for your game then take it out of Early Access! Things have gotten so stupid.
The consumer base is now okay with less finished products, which they clearly show by how fast they flock to early access and pre-alpha
IMO this is the single worst trend in modern game development and is where much of the blame for the current state of gaming falls squarely in the lap of the consumer.
When I recall how much crap Funcom got for the "lack of quality" of AOC at launch when it actually was hands downs better than almost any modern indie title to date its definitively a case of smh.
We don't need better games, we need smarter consumers.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
At the end of the day, investing in Kickstarter projects is a gamble; and if only these projects would put a little bit of honesty in their introductions- Like: "This may fall apart and not happen, so be aware you may be throwing your money away, but thank you for the leap of faith."
I have only personally witnessed ONE game project make it out of kickstarter, release, and actually be successful both financially and critically, and that one is Bloodstained: Ritual of the night.
Perhaps it just comes down to work ethics and actual loyalty to a fanbase and it's consumers.
Or maybe it's luck, you know- "Gambling"
75%+ of my KS “gambling” has paid of in the form of a fully launched game, whether is was good or bad is besides the point. I wouldn’t call it luck at all.
Some of my “gambling” was for:
Grim Dawn Earthlock Divinity: OS Divinity:OS 2 Insomnia Wasteland 2 Tides of Numera Broken Age Hexx Shroud of the Avatar Balrum
/Cheers, Lahnmir
'the only way he could nail it any better is if he used a cross.'
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
"For one, there are a lot of players (like me, for instance) who play at odd times and often alone due to work or family life. The game has to have systems for supporting solo players, and a rewarding PvE experience can be an important part of that."
This actually does not make a lot of sense. If there are "a lot" of players who play at odd times then there should be "a lot" of players at those times. There are certainly "some" players who play at odd times. But building a game to accommodate the "some" is probably not a great idea when it comes to spending limited development resources.
Your opinion can certainly be different, but to me... when you have limited resources you should target for the maximum benefit of the most potential players. I do not think solo players are their target audience. I do not mind the PvE adds, but they should stay in context of the greater group game. There should be large group objectives and small group objectives. I'm not really seeing Crowfall as a game that needs solo objectives.
Unlimited budget and resources? SURE... but given the constraints they are under I would rather they focus on making the CORE game as good as possible.
No it doesnt have to have rewards for solo players. The whole point of the game is to group up with people and conquer the other lands. If you don't have time for your hobby then maybe its not the hobby for you.
Red, your whole post is a dodge. You continue to make up numbers to build strawman arguments. Of COURSE if a dollar would get five times the retention doing something you would spend it there. That is why you focus on the core. Not on items to support people who are playing at off hours and supposedly are looking for solo PvE in a group based PvP game. There are a lot of games that people can already play that have great solo PvE. Crowfall is highly unlikely to ever successfully lure people from those games. It’s not meant to. At it’s heart it is a group based PvP game. Not a solo PvE game. There is no legitimate case to be made that a significant amount of solo PvE players are interested in Crowfall. If you have such numbers then share them. I think it’s a ludicrous argument.
You also make false assumptions and additional red herring statements like “You also make the bad assumption that what you’d like to see them do is what the majority would like them to do”. No, again that is your game, not mine. See above.
If they had a much larger budget then SURE... add more stuff. But they don’t. They have a fraction of the budget of the Amazons of the world. They cannot be all things to all people. They are already years behind schedule. Focus on the core. Be successful. Then build from there.
It's not strawman to defend your position, and everything I've discussed is directly tied to my position.
Maybe I'm not phrasing it well or something, but they're making a very sound business decision. No digital product targets a single demographic. I'm sure it's my failing somewhere in explaining this, but what you're talking about just doesn't make good business sense.
Any team that ran a project the way you're describing would fail. Even indie projects have to think about audience diversification.
Has this game launched yet, or is it one of those game which is in perpetual Early Access mode?
Personally I can't be bothered by those games still in a limbo.
In my opinion EA MMOs will never be successful as they spread their playerbase very thin throughout the years they are in EA mode.
It’s in pre-alpha
Still? On their website it says I can play now, there is no closed number. Anyone who buys the $199 pack can play it.
It looks EA to me.
Edit: I found this piece of information on their website. "About Early Access
“Early
Access” is a process that allows players to get a look at a game while
it is still in the early stages of development. While games in early
access are often very “buggy” and lack much of the content they need for
launch, it can be quite an interesting (and educational) experience to
see the behind-the-scenes development of a video game over time.
Crowfall® offers players the chance to participate in Early Access. Our backers (i.e. players who donate pledges to
help make Crowfall a reality) are assigned to “test groups” based on
which backer pack they select. The general order of testing is:
Pre-Alpha (Group 1, then 2), followed by Alpha (Group 1, then 2, then
3), followed by Beta (Group 1, then 2, then 3, etc.)"
Amazon didn't put together a Kickstarter and "Kickstart" their game with people's money intended to develop a game they pitched to the people. My point here being, Crowfall did and transparency to these people about goals, schedules, etc can and should be a fundamental requirement of this kind of model.
Honestly, why isn't it? They owe their community (Yes, not legally. But I'm not talking legally.) some sort of debt for trusting in them to do this. Why can't they do their part and keep the community in the loop about these things?
That's kind of what I'm saying, though. They have. They're WAY more open about their development than they would be had they followed the traditional model. Hence New World vs Crowfall, traditional vs crowdfunded. What you're saying isn't that they're not open, but that you think they should be more open than they are.
That's not an unfair point, but it's only a fair point if you don't gloss over the fact that you already are getting an incredibly open view of the project now.
...and I should point out that I really do empathize with the point, and it was a topic of conversation between the team and myself very early on. I'd covered Shroud of the Avatar and Star Citizen by the time Crowfall came around and had seen several different versions of "open development." ACE definitely drew some lines around what they were willing to share and what they weren't, and I even wrote an article about it (though, I forget which outlet it came out on).
I'm not sure I agree or disagree with their position. There are a lot of good reasons to have some barriers, as SotA found out, but then there's also a moral obligation to ensure you don't Ponzi your backers a la Star Citizen. They're the ones who have to decide where that line is for them, though. If they come out with a good product and then run another crowdfunded effort, you can decide whether you were happy in the end with the previous one and whether to back or not. If enough people agree, they'll change what they're doing.
Red, your whole post is a dodge. You continue to make up numbers to build strawman arguments. Of COURSE if a dollar would get five times the retention doing something you would spend it there. That is why you focus on the core. Not on items to support people who are playing at off hours and supposedly are looking for solo PvE in a group based PvP game. There are a lot of games that people can already play that have great solo PvE. Crowfall is highly unlikely to ever successfully lure people from those games. It’s not meant to. At it’s heart it is a group based PvP game. Not a solo PvE game. There is no legitimate case to be made that a significant amount of solo PvE players are interested in Crowfall. If you have such numbers then share them. I think it’s a ludicrous argument.
You also make false assumptions and additional red herring statements like “You also make the bad assumption that what you’d like to see them do is what the majority would like them to do”. No, again that is your game, not mine. See above.
If they had a much larger budget then SURE... add more stuff. But they don’t. They have a fraction of the budget of the Amazons of the world. They cannot be all things to all people. They are already years behind schedule. Focus on the core. Be successful. Then build from there.
It's not strawman to defend your position, and everything I've discussed is directly tied to my position.
Maybe I'm not phrasing it well or something, but they're making a very sound business decision. No digital product targets a single demographic. I'm sure it's my failing somewhere in explaining this, but what you're talking about just doesn't make good business sense.
Any team that ran a project the way you're describing would fail. Even indie projects have to think about audience diversification.
No Red. You are being stubborn. A startup business defines its core customer base and focuses on that until they prove to be successful. Amazon started with books, not healthcare and web services. I will say it again. Clear as day since I seem to be failing at explaining the concept:
No significant number of players are looking to play Crowfall as a solo PvE experience. There are already games that cater to that demographic. Crowfall is not going to attract significant numbers of those players.
And for the record, Strawman is defending your position against made up or falsely claimed attacks. An example would be when I point out that a team with limited resources should focus on their core game and maximize the impact of those resources. Your response was saying that if the company could get 5 times the retention per dollar by spending that on PvE solo players who play at off hours they should do that. Well of course they should, nobody said they shouldn’t. But that “if” is based on a very wrong premise. There is no 5 times retention return and it’s just more numbers you made up. How about if I do the same?
Artcraft should focus on their core because it will bring in 28 times more retention per dollar than spending it on an imaginary solo PvE off hour playerbase. Don’t you agree? I mean, college classes are taught around doing after the biggest return on your spend in video game development. It’s obvious right?
That is what it’s like discussing this with you. It’s all made up numbers which are then tied to some obvious conclusions based on those numbers.
Just so we are clear: There is no significant amount of PvE focused solo , off hours players that would justify diverting development dollars in that direction, and if there were... then there would be enough players that they could group. You started this discussion with your claim, so please show me some sort of data showing the demand for solo, off hours PvE in Crowfall. Quantify that demand for us so we can understand. Not your gut. Not some platitude about basic business. But show us some sort of proof that Crowfall’s “Play2Crush, Get Good” playerbase has such a demand.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
"The core module is estimated to be delivered by Winter 2016. First release (with partial functionality) will begin alpha testing in late Summer 2015."
Perhaps a more recent update?
"The team anticipates kicking off alpha testing at the end of the summer of 2018. After that, their march towards a beta phase will start."
I could go on, but you get the point, expectations have been set by the developers since day one, and continuously broken.
Now here you estimate they might be ready to move to alpha in the spring of 2020, but they aren't even willing to say so.
Judging from the track records of CU, and SC looks like 7, 8 or more years is how long, if so CF fans might be waiting until 2022 or beyond.
Not sure you backed the right horse.
Fair point. Their schedule has definitely slipped, though I'd argue in several cases it was really a term slip as much as timeline.
There have definitely been delays, I think they ended up taking about six months longer to get combat worked out than they'd planned, for one. It happens and there's not much you can do about it.
I don't think you can have the conversation totally out of context, though. To develop something on the scale that they're developing and with the size of their team, I'm not really that concerned. Pillars of Eternity raised over $4mil in addition to investor capital and their game still took three years to come out after that, which of course doesn't count the development effort prior to the Kickstarter campaign and that I'm pretty sure they refactored from another failed project. They have about 150-200 employees, though not all of them working on PoE. So PoE in three years with a slightly larger team and CF in 6-ish. Compare the delta in complexity.... and that's one of the reasons why I'm not particularly bothered.
That said, completely fair to call them out on schedule slippage. I always thought the schedule was too aggressive anyway, which maybe is why I don't care as much about them slipping.
IMO this is the single worst trend in modern game development and is where much of the blame for the current state of gaming falls squarely in the lap of the consumer.
When I recall how much crap Funcom got for the "lack of quality" of AOC at launch when it actually was hands downs better than almost any modern indie title to date its definitively a case of smh.
We don't need better games, we need smarter consumers.
lol oh man. You know how hacked off I was when I got past Tortage and into the "main game." That was a day full of righteous sound and fury, I'll tell you.
But yes, I would love to see a more educated consumer, but that's not likely to happen. The market has spoken loudly and clearly that they want it now, even if it's not finished.
At the end of the day, investing in Kickstarter projects is a gamble; and if only these projects would put a little bit of honesty in their introductions- Like: "This may fall apart and not happen, so be aware you may be throwing your money away, but thank you for the leap of faith."
I have only personally witnessed ONE game project make it out of kickstarter, release, and actually be successful both financially and critically, and that one is Bloodstained: Ritual of the night.
Perhaps it just comes down to work ethics and actual loyalty to a fanbase and it's consumers.
Or maybe it's luck, you know- "Gambling"
75%+ of my KS “gambling” has paid of in the form of a fully launched game, whether is was good or bad is besides the point. I wouldn’t call it luck at all.
Some of my “gambling” was for:
Grim Dawn Earthlock Divinity: OS Divinity:OS 2 Insomnia Wasteland 2 Tides of Numera Broken Age Hexx Shroud of the Avatar Balrum
/Cheers, Lahnmir
I can't even keep track of mine. I've also backed several Hairbrained Scheme games, and they've all come out well. I'd argue that purchasing Early Access or pre-ordering is really even the same thing.
Have had a few not come through, though. Hasn't happened often, but usually when the KS just fails outright.
"For one, there are a lot of players (like me, for instance) who play at odd times and often alone due to work or family life. The game has to have systems for supporting solo players, and a rewarding PvE experience can be an important part of that."
This actually does not make a lot of sense. If there are "a lot" of players who play at odd times then there should be "a lot" of players at those times. There are certainly "some" players who play at odd times. But building a game to accommodate the "some" is probably not a great idea when it comes to spending limited development resources.
Your opinion can certainly be different, but to me... when you have limited resources you should target for the maximum benefit of the most potential players. I do not think solo players are their target audience. I do not mind the PvE adds, but they should stay in context of the greater group game. There should be large group objectives and small group objectives. I'm not really seeing Crowfall as a game that needs solo objectives.
Unlimited budget and resources? SURE... but given the constraints they are under I would rather they focus on making the CORE game as good as possible.
No it doesnt have to have rewards for solo players. The whole point of the game is to group up with people and conquer the other lands. If you don't have time for your hobby then maybe its not the hobby for you.
If I log on to find no other players around on my faction free to group with me I'll log straight back out, is it really hardcore to sit around doing nothing in the hopes of others logging in? What are the chances of the person who logs in 10 minutes after me doing the same thing? If everyone who logs in has nothing to do unless they are lucky enough to have logged in when others are available how many people will stick around to even group with?
If I log on to find no other players around on my faction free to group with me I'll log straight back out, is it really hardcore to sit around doing nothing in the hopes of others logging in? What are the chances of the person who logs in 10 minutes after me doing the same thing? If everyone who logs in has nothing to do unless they are lucky enough to have logged in when others are available how many people will stick around to even group with?
Don't worry, there'll be a game loop for you. The game is specifically geared around PvP, but that doesn't mean there's not room for solo/off-peak players like us. Especially if you're into crafting and such. Just like all the best PvP games, CF will have an economy game loop that provides room for us, too.
Specifically, they've added some PvE content, and that should be the answer you were looking for. While it's directly in place to solve a number of game gaps, it ALSO happens to fill in some needed content for folks who tend to play off-peak hours or who prefer to go it alone. Plus, the cool thing about their system is that they'll probably even run Dying Worlds (servers) that have rule sets specifically designed to make solo play more viable.
I suspect you'll be good, but of course that's a subjective position and your mileage will vary.
Red, your whole post is a dodge. You continue to make up numbers to build strawman arguments. Of COURSE if a dollar would get five times the retention doing something you would spend it there. That is why you focus on the core. Not on items to support people who are playing at off hours and supposedly are looking for solo PvE in a group based PvP game. There are a lot of games that people can already play that have great solo PvE. Crowfall is highly unlikely to ever successfully lure people from those games. It’s not meant to. At it’s heart it is a group based PvP game. Not a solo PvE game. There is no legitimate case to be made that a significant amount of solo PvE players are interested in Crowfall. If you have such numbers then share them. I think it’s a ludicrous argument.
You also make false assumptions and additional red herring statements like “You also make the bad assumption that what you’d like to see them do is what the majority would like them to do”. No, again that is your game, not mine. See above.
If they had a much larger budget then SURE... add more stuff. But they don’t. They have a fraction of the budget of the Amazons of the world. They cannot be all things to all people. They are already years behind schedule. Focus on the core. Be successful. Then build from there.
It's not strawman to defend your position, and everything I've discussed is directly tied to my position.
Maybe I'm not phrasing it well or something, but they're making a very sound business decision. No digital product targets a single demographic. I'm sure it's my failing somewhere in explaining this, but what you're talking about just doesn't make good business sense.
Any team that ran a project the way you're describing would fail. Even indie projects have to think about audience diversification.
No Red. You are being stubborn. A startup business defines its core customer base and focuses on that until they prove to be successful. Amazon started with books, not healthcare and web services. I will say it again. Clear as day since I seem to be failing at explaining the concept:
No significant number of players are looking to play Crowfall as a solo PvE experience. There are already games that cater to that demographic. Crowfall is not going to attract significant numbers of those players.
And for the record, Strawman is defending your position against made up or falsely claimed attacks. An example would be when I point out that a team with limited resources should focus on their core game and maximize the impact of those resources. Your response was saying that if the company could get 5 times the retention per dollar by spending that on PvE solo players who play at off hours they should do that. Well of course they should, nobody said they shouldn’t. But that “if” is based on a very wrong premise. There is no 5 times retention return and it’s just more numbers you made up. How about if I do the same?
Artcraft should focus on their core because it will bring in 28 times more retention per dollar than spending it on an imaginary solo PvE off hour playerbase. Don’t you agree? I mean, college classes are taught around doing after the biggest return on your spend in video game development. It’s obvious right?
That is what it’s like discussing this with you. It’s all made up numbers which are then tied to some obvious conclusions based on those numbers.
Just so we are clear: There is no significant amount of PvE focused solo , off hours players that would justify diverting development dollars in that direction, and if there were... then there would be enough players that they could group. You started this discussion with your claim, so please show me some sort of data showing the demand for solo, off hours PvE in Crowfall. Quantify that demand for us so we can understand. Not your gut. Not some platitude about basic business. But show us some sort of proof that Crowfall’s “Play2Crush, Get Good” playerbase has such a demand.
I play the game now, this is what is being asked for. I do not have numbers to post, nor do I need them since your argument is based on conjecture and opinion. People that play, off Peak get bored trying to throw themselves at walls solo, or in small groups. The intent is to use PvE to focus on preparing for the weekend so one can be better prepared for PVP and sieges.
Furthermore, using Amazon is a great example. CF has been in "pre-alpha" for over a year now and they listen to their player base and make changes based on that, or as Red pointed out, based on sounds business principals. Amazon was treading into unexplored waters and based on feedback from customers and the market, did the same thing.
Also, Strawman is pretty much exactly what you have been doing. The only stubborn person here is you.
If you want a new idea, go read an old book.
In order to be insulted, I must first value your opinion.
Amazon didn't put together a Kickstarter and "Kickstart" their game with people's money intended to develop a game they pitched to the people. My point here being, Crowfall did and transparency to these people about goals, schedules, etc can and should be a fundamental requirement of this kind of model.
Honestly, why isn't it? They owe their community (Yes, not legally. But I'm not talking legally.) some sort of debt for trusting in them to do this. Why can't they do their part and keep the community in the loop about these things?
That's kind of what I'm saying, though. They have. They're WAY more open about their development than they would be had they followed the traditional model. Hence New World vs Crowfall, traditional vs crowdfunded. What you're saying isn't that they're not open, but that you think they should be more open than they are.
That's not an unfair point, but it's only a fair point if you don't gloss over the fact that you already are getting an incredibly open view of the project now.
...and I should point out that I really do empathize with the point, and it was a topic of conversation between the team and myself very early on. I'd covered Shroud of the Avatar and Star Citizen by the time Crowfall came around and had seen several different versions of "open development." ACE definitely drew some lines around what they were willing to share and what they weren't, and I even wrote an article about it (though, I forget which outlet it came out on).
I'm not sure I agree or disagree with their position. There are a lot of good reasons to have some barriers, as SotA found out, but then there's also a moral obligation to ensure you don't Ponzi your backers a la Star Citizen. They're the ones who have to decide where that line is for them, though. If they come out with a good product and then run another crowdfunded effort, you can decide whether you were happy in the end with the previous one and whether to back or not. If enough people agree, they'll change what they're doing.
Okay, I think I'm following what you're trying to say.
Here's the crux of my issue with a "lack of transparency" with the game: What're the dates for Pre-Alpha finish, Alpha finish, Beta finish, and Full release?
I'm not even looking for a set in stone date, I know those aren't realistic at this stage. An estimation would temporarily sate my need to know, a date that puts a light at the end of the tunnel.
When I don't see developers thinking of the end of a phase, I get nervous because it appears as though they can't see an end to it. Maybe they no longer want to give dates because they no longer want to disappoint the community? I can, grudgingly, accept that as a valid excuse for not keeping the community in the loop. But I haven't seen that yet, which makes me wonder: Are they too focused on expanding the game and in doing so risk losing the community by not moving development along or are they so mired in problems there is no end in sight?
Every time I revisit the forums on their website or here, I can rarely get any information. Transparency on development in the form of videos and blogs are great. It's lovely to be able to see some of the work being done. But I can't remember the last time I was given a date or any semblance of an idea when this game is going to be available without having to take a leap of faith and spend money on it, without an idea of when I'll see that "investment" come to fruition (A released, playable game).
Okay, I think I'm following what you're trying to say.
Here's the crux of my issue with a "lack of transparency" with the game: What're the dates for Pre-Alpha finish, Alpha finish, Beta finish, and Full release?
I'm not even looking for a set in stone date, I know those aren't realistic at this stage. An estimation would temporarily sate my need to know, a date that puts a light at the end of the tunnel.
When I don't see developers thinking of the end of a phase, I get nervous because it appears as though they can't see an end to it. Maybe they no longer want to give dates because they no longer want to disappoint the community? I can, grudgingly, accept that as a valid excuse for not keeping the community in the loop. But I haven't seen that yet, which makes me wonder: Are they too focused on expanding the game and in doing so risk losing the community by not moving development along or are they so mired in problems there is no end in sight?
Every time I revisit the forums on their website or here, I can rarely get any information. Transparency on development in the form of videos and blogs are great. It's lovely to be able to see some of the work being done. But I can't remember the last time I was given a date or any semblance of an idea when this game is going to be available without having to take a leap of faith and spend money on it, without an idea of when I'll see that "investment" come to fruition (A released, playable game).
Sorry, just needed to whine for a bit.
Ah hah. That's incredibly valid criticism and I can say with high degree of confidence that the developers have seen it. Though, I don't have great answers for the same reasons you don't, they don't really exist.
In part, they don't exist because that's just the nature of game development and you can't say precisely how long it'll take to invent and implement new ideas. You also have this constant innovation going on that changes how you planned to do things slightly and that causes additional delays (and sometimes also saves time). I've heard timelines kicked around, but that was in confidence and I wouldn't want to violate that trust.
I would say that looking at their pace of development, the publicly stated objectives, and where they're currently at... You'll get to a place that _I_ would consider launch candidate in the next several months. They won't say that because they don't want to call something finished until it's perfect, but the market is clearly happy with a point between here and there.
Another reason you're probably not seeing what you're looking for is also the market's fault, though. As you can see in this thread, anything the devs say can and will be used against them in the court of public opinion. Early unrealistic timelines are used to beat them about the head with some periodicity. They're gun-shy about making the same mistake again.
...and you should whine all you like. That's what forums and flame wars are all about. =P
Why are they monetizing the "block" system? I thought that was a core feature of the game.
Maybe monetizing the progression will not bring in enough money? Money, money, money, why do we as players need to be concerned about if a game will make enough money or not but I guess in PC MMO world 2019 that's what it's about, make the customer "feel" for you and give you money. Maybe that's why mobile and console are ahead cause they decided to keep their customers far away from stuff like that. Console still operates mostly on the old skool manufacture and sell product model and mobile has the stones to ask you outright for the money they want and provide you with what you paid for right on the spot.
At this point I could give a shit if they sell alternate world designs as an extra I'd just like to see the core game be improved like Slapshot said so that the game gets public ready sometime soon. Log in only to see it in the same state it's been for a while makes it feel like a con/scam job. Work on and add the extra stuff to sell after the base game is done and ready for public use.
Oh, and to respond to your other post Red, Linif summed up what I was going to say perfectly so felt no need to reply. I still stand by my original statement from over a year though that New World will never be released.
If I log on to find no other players around on my faction free to group with me I'll log straight back out, is it really hardcore to sit around doing nothing in the hopes of others logging in? What are the chances of the person who logs in 10 minutes after me doing the same thing? If everyone who logs in has nothing to do unless they are lucky enough to have logged in when others are available how many people will stick around to even group with?
Don't worry, there'll be a game loop for you. The game is specifically geared around PvP, but that doesn't mean there's not room for solo/off-peak players like us. Especially if you're into crafting and such. Just like all the best PvP games, CF will have an economy game loop that provides room for us, too.
Specifically, they've added some PvE content, and that should be the answer you were looking for. While it's directly in place to solve a number of game gaps, it ALSO happens to fill in some needed content for folks who tend to play off-peak hours or who prefer to go it alone. Plus, the cool thing about their system is that they'll probably even run Dying Worlds (servers) that have rule sets specifically designed to make solo play more viable.
I suspect you'll be good, but of course that's a subjective position and your mileage will vary.
Oh, I agree with you. I was replying to that person in regards to solo content but probably wasn't being clear. I meant to say even in group based games some solo content is necessary to keep people logged in so they are a resource pool for other players to tap in to.
It is kind of like how temp agencies help keep government organizations staffed. The organizations might not always need those people and the temps might not get the best benefits but there needs to be enough incentive to keep them registered so they can be utilized when needed and step into full time positions as long term employees leave. It is necessary for keeping fresh blood in the system.
Full time hardcore players can't keep a game afloat because circumstances change. They become disenchanted or bored or get jobs or leave due to in game drama or development decisions or a friend starts playing another game etc etc etc a whole host of reasons. On the same token, casual players can transition into hard core players over time. It would be madness for a studio to bank on attracting a niche hardcore crowd and hope they will all stay for the foreseeable future, it is short sighted for some people to think that would work long term.
At this point I've just about lost all interest in both.
Why? Endless updates without the actual finished product- i just dont care anymore
If they've fulfilled all their Kickstarter promises like Vrika said above then why don't they just launch?
On the front of my Steam Store feed today I saw that Atlas has a new DLC and I thought WTF! It's free, but the point being that if you're launching DLC for your game then take it out of Early Access! Things have gotten so stupid.
The Atlas "DLC" is actually just the guy who made Crystal Isles from Ark. They let him make a standalone zoned map with limited help from them. It costs nothing and was just a way to get players who were not interested in hosting or playing multiple grids (similar to Ark) to want to play. I for one, do not care about the new map, but just clarifying.
Red, your whole post is a dodge. You continue to make up numbers to build strawman arguments. Of COURSE if a dollar would get five times the retention doing something you would spend it there. That is why you focus on the core. Not on items to support people who are playing at off hours and supposedly are looking for solo PvE in a group based PvP game. There are a lot of games that people can already play that have great solo PvE. Crowfall is highly unlikely to ever successfully lure people from those games. It’s not meant to. At it’s heart it is a group based PvP game. Not a solo PvE game. There is no legitimate case to be made that a significant amount of solo PvE players are interested in Crowfall. If you have such numbers then share them. I think it’s a ludicrous argument.
You also make false assumptions and additional red herring statements like “You also make the bad assumption that what you’d like to see them do is what the majority would like them to do”. No, again that is your game, not mine. See above.
If they had a much larger budget then SURE... add more stuff. But they don’t. They have a fraction of the budget of the Amazons of the world. They cannot be all things to all people. They are already years behind schedule. Focus on the core. Be successful. Then build from there.
Honestly if you have been following this game and checking out various forum/Reddit posts, you'd see that one of the main drawbacks for people wanting to get in on Crowfall is the lack of solo and PvE content. They would not have implemented the feature if they did not see those posts. They also have their internal monitoring of what people are doing and asking for. This system was far too big to just be a whim. I am also one of those players who plays at odd times that are offpeak and played solo and was happy for this change. Coincidentally it was also one of the most discussed topics in New World.
getting an incredibly open view of the project now.
It is supposed to be geared around PVP but where is the PVP at? Their idea of PVP is attacking harvesters and players doing PVE. Along with a few sieges at specific times during the day and week that are bare minimum of what should be expected. Outside of that PVP consists of random fights with no real importance.
Several MMOs do all this and quite a lot more yet also have a lot more content and much better PVE. PVE in Crowfall so far is very basic for something coming out today or the near future. It's bad for something released 10 years ago.
We are not getting an incredibly open view to the project. Other kickstarters give more or at least more quality information. It is more then other projects, but they keep much close to the chest and the little they do talk about is vague or the typical "soon" style. Revealing something when it is near or complete is not being open, that's standard for EA games these days.
Comments
When I recall how much crap Funcom got for the "lack of quality" of AOC at launch when it actually was hands downs better than almost any modern indie title to date its definitively a case of smh.
We don't need better games, we need smarter consumers.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Some of my “gambling” was for:
Grim Dawn
Earthlock
Divinity: OS
Divinity:OS 2
Insomnia
Wasteland 2
Tides of Numera
Broken Age
Hexx
Shroud of the Avatar
Balrum
/Cheers,
Lahnmir
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
No it doesnt have to have rewards for solo players. The whole point of the game is to group up with people and conquer the other lands. If you don't have time for your hobby then maybe its not the hobby for you.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Maybe I'm not phrasing it well or something, but they're making a very sound business decision. No digital product targets a single demographic. I'm sure it's my failing somewhere in explaining this, but what you're talking about just doesn't make good business sense.
Any team that ran a project the way you're describing would fail. Even indie projects have to think about audience diversification.
On their website it says I can play now, there is no closed number. Anyone who buys the $199 pack can play it.
"About Early Access
“Early Access” is a process that allows players to get a look at a game while it is still in the early stages of development. While games in early access are often very “buggy” and lack much of the content they need for launch, it can be quite an interesting (and educational) experience to see the behind-the-scenes development of a video game over time.
Crowfall® offers players the chance to participate in Early Access. Our backers (i.e. players who donate pledges to help make Crowfall a reality) are assigned to “test groups” based on which backer pack they select. The general order of testing is: Pre-Alpha (Group 1, then 2), followed by Alpha (Group 1, then 2, then 3), followed by Beta (Group 1, then 2, then 3, etc.)"
Definetly EA.
That's not an unfair point, but it's only a fair point if you don't gloss over the fact that you already are getting an incredibly open view of the project now.
...and I should point out that I really do empathize with the point, and it was a topic of conversation between the team and myself very early on. I'd covered Shroud of the Avatar and Star Citizen by the time Crowfall came around and had seen several different versions of "open development." ACE definitely drew some lines around what they were willing to share and what they weren't, and I even wrote an article about it (though, I forget which outlet it came out on).
I'm not sure I agree or disagree with their position. There are a lot of good reasons to have some barriers, as SotA found out, but then there's also a moral obligation to ensure you don't Ponzi your backers a la Star Citizen. They're the ones who have to decide where that line is for them, though. If they come out with a good product and then run another crowdfunded effort, you can decide whether you were happy in the end with the previous one and whether to back or not. If enough people agree, they'll change what they're doing.
Right there with you...
Seaspite
Playing ESO on my X-Box
No significant number of players are looking to play Crowfall as a solo PvE experience. There are already games that cater to that demographic. Crowfall is not going to attract significant numbers of those players.
And for the record, Strawman is defending your position against made up or falsely claimed attacks. An example would be when I point out that a team with limited resources should focus on their core game and maximize the impact of those resources. Your response was saying that if the company could get 5 times the retention per dollar by spending that on PvE solo players who play at off hours they should do that. Well of course they should, nobody said they shouldn’t. But that “if” is based on a very wrong premise. There is no 5 times retention return and it’s just more numbers you made up. How about if I do the same?
Artcraft should focus on their core because it will bring in 28 times more retention per dollar than spending it on an imaginary solo PvE off hour playerbase. Don’t you agree? I mean, college classes are taught around doing after the biggest return on your spend in video game development. It’s obvious right?
That is what it’s like discussing this with you. It’s all made up numbers which are then tied to some obvious conclusions based on those numbers.
Just so we are clear: There is no significant amount of PvE focused solo , off hours players that would justify diverting development dollars in that direction, and if there were... then there would be enough players that they could group. You started this discussion with your claim, so please show me some sort of data showing the demand for solo, off hours PvE in Crowfall. Quantify that demand for us so we can understand. Not your gut. Not some platitude about basic business. But show us some sort of proof that Crowfall’s “Play2Crush, Get Good” playerbase has such a demand.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
There have definitely been delays, I think they ended up taking about six months longer to get combat worked out than they'd planned, for one. It happens and there's not much you can do about it.
I don't think you can have the conversation totally out of context, though. To develop something on the scale that they're developing and with the size of their team, I'm not really that concerned. Pillars of Eternity raised over $4mil in addition to investor capital and their game still took three years to come out after that, which of course doesn't count the development effort prior to the Kickstarter campaign and that I'm pretty sure they refactored from another failed project. They have about 150-200 employees, though not all of them working on PoE. So PoE in three years with a slightly larger team and CF in 6-ish. Compare the delta in complexity.... and that's one of the reasons why I'm not particularly bothered.
That said, completely fair to call them out on schedule slippage. I always thought the schedule was too aggressive anyway, which maybe is why I don't care as much about them slipping.
But yes, I would love to see a more educated consumer, but that's not likely to happen. The market has spoken loudly and clearly that they want it now, even if it's not finished.
Have had a few not come through, though. Hasn't happened often, but usually when the KS just fails outright.
Specifically, they've added some PvE content, and that should be the answer you were looking for. While it's directly in place to solve a number of game gaps, it ALSO happens to fill in some needed content for folks who tend to play off-peak hours or who prefer to go it alone. Plus, the cool thing about their system is that they'll probably even run Dying Worlds (servers) that have rule sets specifically designed to make solo play more viable.
I suspect you'll be good, but of course that's a subjective position and your mileage will vary.
Furthermore, using Amazon is a great example. CF has been in "pre-alpha" for over a year now and they listen to their player base and make changes based on that, or as Red pointed out, based on sounds business principals. Amazon was treading into unexplored waters and based on feedback from customers and the market, did the same thing.
Also, Strawman is pretty much exactly what you have been doing. The only stubborn person here is you.
If you want a new idea, go read an old book.
In order to be insulted, I must first value your opinion.
My goodness, I'm so glad I changed my mind!
Here's the crux of my issue with a "lack of transparency" with the game: What're the dates for Pre-Alpha finish, Alpha finish, Beta finish, and Full release?
I'm not even looking for a set in stone date, I know those aren't realistic at this stage. An estimation would temporarily sate my need to know, a date that puts a light at the end of the tunnel.
When I don't see developers thinking of the end of a phase, I get nervous because it appears as though they can't see an end to it. Maybe they no longer want to give dates because they no longer want to disappoint the community? I can, grudgingly, accept that as a valid excuse for not keeping the community in the loop. But I haven't seen that yet, which makes me wonder: Are they too focused on expanding the game and in doing so risk losing the community by not moving development along or are they so mired in problems there is no end in sight?
Every time I revisit the forums on their website or here, I can rarely get any information. Transparency on development in the form of videos and blogs are great. It's lovely to be able to see some of the work being done. But I can't remember the last time I was given a date or any semblance of an idea when this game is going to be available without having to take a leap of faith and spend money on it, without an idea of when I'll see that "investment" come to fruition (A released, playable game).
Sorry, just needed to whine for a bit.
In part, they don't exist because that's just the nature of game development and you can't say precisely how long it'll take to invent and implement new ideas. You also have this constant innovation going on that changes how you planned to do things slightly and that causes additional delays (and sometimes also saves time). I've heard timelines kicked around, but that was in confidence and I wouldn't want to violate that trust.
I would say that looking at their pace of development, the publicly stated objectives, and where they're currently at... You'll get to a place that _I_ would consider launch candidate in the next several months. They won't say that because they don't want to call something finished until it's perfect, but the market is clearly happy with a point between here and there.
Another reason you're probably not seeing what you're looking for is also the market's fault, though. As you can see in this thread, anything the devs say can and will be used against them in the court of public opinion. Early unrealistic timelines are used to beat them about the head with some periodicity. They're gun-shy about making the same mistake again.
...and you should whine all you like. That's what forums and flame wars are all about. =P
At this point I could give a shit if they sell alternate world designs as an extra I'd just like to see the core game be improved like Slapshot said so that the game gets public ready sometime soon. Log in only to see it in the same state it's been for a while makes it feel like a con/scam job. Work on and add the extra stuff to sell after the base game is done and ready for public use.
Oh, and to respond to your other post Red, Linif summed up what I was going to say perfectly so felt no need to reply. I still stand by my original statement from over a year though that New World will never be released.
It is kind of like how temp agencies help keep government organizations staffed. The organizations might not always need those people and the temps might not get the best benefits but there needs to be enough incentive to keep them registered so they can be utilized when needed and step into full time positions as long term employees leave. It is necessary for keeping fresh blood in the system.
Full time hardcore players can't keep a game afloat because circumstances change. They become disenchanted or bored or get jobs or leave due to in game drama or development decisions or a friend starts playing another game etc etc etc a whole host of reasons. On the same token, casual players can transition into hard core players over time. It would be madness for a studio to bank on attracting a niche hardcore crowd and hope they will all stay for the foreseeable future, it is short sighted for some people to think that would work long term.
The Atlas "DLC" is actually just the guy who made Crystal Isles from Ark. They let him make a standalone zoned map with limited help from them. It costs nothing and was just a way to get players who were not interested in hosting or playing multiple grids (similar to Ark) to want to play. I for one, do not care about the new map, but just clarifying.
Honestly if you have been following this game and checking out various forum/Reddit posts, you'd see that one of the main drawbacks for people wanting to get in on Crowfall is the lack of solo and PvE content. They would not have implemented the feature if they did not see those posts. They also have their internal monitoring of what people are doing and asking for. This system was far too big to just be a whim. I am also one of those players who plays at odd times that are offpeak and played solo and was happy for this change. Coincidentally it was also one of the most discussed topics in New World.
Several MMOs do all this and quite a lot more yet also have a lot more content and much better PVE. PVE in Crowfall so far is very basic for something coming out today or the near future. It's bad for something released 10 years ago.
We are not getting an incredibly open view to the project. Other kickstarters give more or at least more quality information. It is more then other projects, but they keep much close to the chest and the little they do talk about is vague or the typical "soon" style. Revealing something when it is near or complete is not being open, that's standard for EA games these days.