Glorious Alpha Two Testers!
Alpha Two Realms are now unlocked for Phase II testing!
For our initial launch, testing will begin on Friday, December 20, 2024, at 10 AM Pacific and continue uninterrupted until Monday, January 6, 2025, at 10 AM Pacific. After January 6th, we’ll transition to a schedule of five-day-per-week access for the remainder of Phase II.
You can download the game launcher here and we encourage you to join us on our for the most up to date testing news.
Alpha Two Realms are now unlocked for Phase II testing!
For our initial launch, testing will begin on Friday, December 20, 2024, at 10 AM Pacific and continue uninterrupted until Monday, January 6, 2025, at 10 AM Pacific. After January 6th, we’ll transition to a schedule of five-day-per-week access for the remainder of Phase II.
You can download the game launcher here and we encourage you to join us on our for the most up to date testing news.
Comments
"Never" is a strong word for this topic. A lot can change economically between now, release and the life of the game.
This is my personal feedback, shared to help the game thrive in its niche.
If the sub cost for Ashes is the same as other contemporaries then we can clearly look at the game experiences on offer for £15/month and decide which we like the best - this looks like it would put Ashes well ahead IMHO and would probably draw a large influx of players.
This is the scenario that many are expecting, I believe.
If the decision later became "$more per month" to play a great game or "$less per month" to play a poor alternative then we begin to deal with the slightly uncomfortable issue of 'what is value for money?'.
Price expectation plays a part.
Why $15/month? because other games charge that amount for (what we hope will be) inferior games.
There are all sorts of entertainment expenses that cost more - netflix premium, mobile phone contracts, gym membership, fast food outlets, coffee shops, etc.
If we paid $30/month for something that we enjoy do we consider ourselves mad for spending "so much"?
My answer: Only if we have been mentally conditioned with a price expectation.
I'm hoping that Ashes remains at the $15 rate for as long as possible, with it's economy of scale costs being reduced by high sub numbers. I want Steven to do well out of Ashes to reward him for putting his money where his heart is; a valuable lesson for other studios, which could actually improve how the gaming industry works long term.
There was also mention of discounted 12 month subs, which would help those able to commit upfront and stabilize Intrepid's income.
Well, we've been told that the game is fully financed to its completion by Steven's financial input, so the quality of the game shouldn't be affected by the sub fees, as it'll already be completed by that point. Expansions and updates, possibly, but they won't be enough to make a great game a poor alternative.
Bug fixing, design/balance issues and data analysis to identify those issues, continued content building, live gms, marketing to ensure the population is as big as possible to make certain game mechanics actually work long term, outreach and accessibility development, server costs, salaries to retain high quality staff that can easily resolve the above challenges... It's not a small machine to feed Davey Wavey. The quality of the game is absolutely effected long term without those things and if you can't pay for them long term you are going to start having problems retaining the population, which means less subs, which means less money to address issues, which creates a feedback loop.
This is a reason I think they would be better served by being headquartered in a different state or city that share Steven's values and desires for staff amenities but has less cost of living issues. But they already moved once so I doubt that can happen any time in the near future.
Yeah, I work in software. I'm well aware of the procedures involved. The point still stands: Since the game is already fully financed, the game on release being great or poor won't be affected by the subs that haven't yet even started to be paid. The value of the sub won't affect the game's release.
And if, as you say, you're trying to retain your players, you're not going to want to overprice it.
YES.
I don't really see how this would be the case.
$15 a month is 50 cents a day.
$20 a month is 66 cents a day.
I don't know if I could appreciably notice an additional 16 cents worth of enjoyment.
It is all subjective. For some $180 sound like a lot to pay for a game per year, and $240 sounds even more impressive. Telling that that is only a difference of 16 cents per day or only 0.01 cent per minute might sway someone but most people look at the price they paid for another online game and do not expect that much more without reasons to convince themselves to pay up. The reasoning that works for you, might not work for someone else.
This is why I stopped playing Blizzard-Acitivsions WoW in advance to blitz and Phone let alone the recent debacle.
If they implement more rewards for a higher tier of Sub, I'll be fine with them having the option of a 15$ USD/m and a 20$+ USD/m model for people that want to give a little more.
I am however not ok with them gutting the player base on a community driven game that needs a healthy population. If no one else has noticed we are going into a recession, I'm fine and have money stored in assets, but I doubt many people will be able to get through this and pay a sub once its all over.
This is poor logic. People do other things for fun and it's not only employed adults that will play this game. That's $120 for 6 months of playing this game vs $90. The difference adds up fast.
However, there are other reasons to add in a coin - to use as an add in to packs. The packs on the store now are an example of this.
If Intrepid allow players to purchase the exact number of embers they need to buy an item they want, rather than an amount in a pack that is pre-determined, then I have no issues at all.
Poor logic?
Are we talking about people who own internet and expensive PCs with monitors controls and what not, and your reasoning is "no.. we need to look deeper into this $5 extra a month.."
Not to mention that most people will definately waste money on at least one cosmetic, but ye.. let's keep talking about the five dollars...
Honestly and bluntly, I don't give a shit about your opinion, nor do I care about whether others could afford a higher price. This game should not demand a higher sub fee than the competitors. I could even bet that if the price was higher, people would not change games. There is a reason all mmos that still live have a specific sub fee (for me 10 GBP). WOW made the baseline and no one goes above it. Go above it and regardless of how good the game is, people will be hesitant to buy it. What YOU think doesn't matter at all.
MMO's were $15 a month for several years before WoW was released.
WoW may have been what set YOUR baseline, but all that proves is how objective this whole thing is, which in turn suggests that there is no actual reason a better game couldn't charge more.
Especially when the buying power of $15 is not set for all eternity.
This is my personal feedback, shared to help the game thrive in its niche.
Because times are a lot harder my friend money doesn't go as far and many with families have to to cut back on luxuries .
£10 might not sound a lot but it's a weeks worth of electricity or gas or heaven forbid a treat for the kids to enjoy, and yes these are the decisions a lot of people have to make before they even think about subscribing each month for them selves on a game.
The UK scoring an own-goal on it's economy for a generation is no real reason why a company from the other side of the world shouldn't charge a fair amount for it's product.
M8 the USA is in a worse state I know as I have friends there so this is not just a UK problem it's world wide open your eyes..
What is a fair amount to you may seem to much to others ..
What are you talking about? New games are still 60$ a box for a stand-alone game or 15$ a month for a live service... I have more buying power for video games than I have ever had in my life, as those costs for games have remained fixed at a very low rate.
Cyberpunk 2077 was 60$ at the start of the year when I bought it new day one. Right now, it is 24-30$ on Amazon new, depending on what system you want it for.
Imagine if a 2021 Tesla car was 60k new, but a 2020 Tesla car was 24-30k new? That is a massive value loss that no one in their right mind would let happen. Yet for some reason the video game industry just lets this happen year after year.
The video game industry is getting screwed, and you ask for more?
This is my personal feedback, shared to help the game thrive in its niche.
Edit: If the sub fee increases then our packages/free sub time will be worth more. However, there are players who purchased a lifetime sub and I imagine they would be happier if they dodged higher prices than lower prices.
Most of the world knows it is a short term issue.
By the time the game is ready for release, the bulk of the worlds economy will be back to what it was 18 months ago.
Oh god can of worms £50 for a one off is not £50 then a £10 every month on top of that to play the game.
Yes the car analogy some people will still have no option than to go buy go a cheaper second hand car . Why ???? Because that 24/30k is out of there price range.
You asking me to feel sry for the video game industry just because they only going to make a few million in profit instead of tens of millions .
Simple fact that extra couple of dollars, Pounds, which may not seem a lot to you may be the deciding factor to others. You need numbers to make this game work and succeed and if by lowering your profit a bit you get those numbers surely it's better than going in above the price point of the completion..