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 .
A few million when you have $40,000,000 of your own money invested is a loss.
This game needs to make tens of millions to break even. If it doesn't do that, Steven would be doing himself a disservice if he doesn't sell it to the highest bidder.
I'm not saying they need to increase the subscription fee in order for this to not happen, but I am saying that you aren't in a position to say it won't happen.
If you like Ashes as a concept, and still like it as a game once released, you should want Intrepid to make as much money off it as possible in order to insure the company remains independent.
While that little extra may indeed be a deciding factor to a few people, even if it is one in 20, Intrepid are still better off with the increase.
As long as the game is good (no P2W, everything they promised from nodes to ships to sieges is there and fun, gameplay in general is enjoyable, admins are active in keeping things in check), 20$ a month sounds reasonable.
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?
Time isn't the only factor. the game flopped, so the price dropped. You can go to GameStop and find a 6-year-old Mario game that was $60 new and it will still be $50 used because it was a good game and people love it.
$180 is the noticeable amount of money. That's the cost of three video games just to 'play' one video game. Raising the price from 15 to $20 increases that annual cost of four video games a year.
Could I afford raising it to $20? Sure. But I know there are people that couldn't and this would increase the barrier of entry to the game.
Time isn't the only factor. the game flopped, so the price dropped. You can go to GameStop and find a 6-year-old Mario game that was $60 new and it will still be $50 used because it was a good game and people love it.
$180 is the noticeable amount of money. That's the cost of three video games just to 'play' one video game. Raising the price from 15 to $20 increases that annual cost of four video games a year.
Could I afford raising it to $20? Sure. But I know there are people that couldn't and this would increase the barrier of entry to the game.
Other MMOs have given discounts on Yearly Subscription Payments. I would hope Ashes does the same.
Time isn't the only factor. the game flopped, so the price dropped. You can go to GameStop and find a 6-year-old Mario game that was $60 new and it will still be $50 used because it was a good game and people love it.
$180 is the noticeable amount of money. That's the cost of three video games just to 'play' one video game. Raising the price from 15 to $20 increases that annual cost of four video games a year.
Could I afford raising it to $20? Sure. But I know there are people that couldn't and this would increase the barrier of entry to the game.
Other MMOs have given discounts on Yearly Subscription Payments. I would hope Ashes does the same.
True
And I hope so too
But people still say wow is $14.99 not $12.99
M8 the USA is in a worse state I know as I have friends there so this is not just a UK problem it's world wide open your eyes..
What is a fair amount to you may seem to much to others ..
What are you talking about? New games are still 60$ 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?
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..
Doesn't matter if the game is p2w or not or doesn't have box price. What matters is the monthly sub. People are so used to the box price, they will ignore it and instead look at the sub price. If they see a more expensive monthly sub, many won't bother with the game. Monthly sub adds up far more than a mere box price
The way this game is planning to be financially structured is that there is no box cost. Stephen's own words were that he only wanted the sub-cost so that the barrier to entry is low so that more people can get into the game. I have concerns with that, but I'm sure they have been talked about inside of Intrepid plenty. Those concerns are mostly that the barrier to entry will be too low and we will run into an issue of too many people and having to start up too many servers. Inevitably afterwards some servers will need to be shut down and merged to other servers, which I know they are already thinking about how to accomplish that in case it needs to happen, but that is going to be a VERY chaotic situation if it ever does have to happen.
We also wouldn't want the barrier to entry to be too high. So for those who believe it should be higher, or are willing for it to be higher, I would ask what would that accomplish? If as a player you feel like the game deserves more money, give it more money in the cosmetic store. If you believe it deserves less money... don't play? At the end of the day, this is a business, and they need to make money to pay its developers and to continue making more content for us to enjoy.
MMO's in particular are not cheap projects and Stephen is taking a massive risk trying to make this as his first game. Luckily, he has the money to do it and so far it seems he has the support from some high-quality devs as well.
Doesn't matter if the game is p2w or not or doesn't have box price. What matters is the monthly sub. People are so used to the box price, they will ignore it and instead look at the sub price. If they see a more expensive monthly sub, many won't bother with the game. Monthly sub adds up far more than a mere box price
FFXIV did a very smart thing with its free starter trial.
While that little extra may indeed be a deciding factor to a few people, even if it is one in 20, Intrepid are still better off with the increase.
Yes, but that heavily depends on whether the assumption that it only will be a deciding factor for a few people will turn out to be correct. Difficult to predict, but I hope Intrepid will be able to hit the sweet spot by asking for just the right amount of money.
The verb, not the composer name.
0
Options
sockmnkeyMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
FFXIV did a very smart thing with its free starter trial.
FFXIV also didn't charge consumers to test the game.
Square Enix has buckets of money. If Intrepid had SE's budget I am sure Steven would love giving out the game for free on launch. IS should have such a thing down the road once profitability has been established.
Asking an indie dev to release their game for free to be 'pro consumer' like a giant corporation that's been around for decades and has comparative globs of money is the same bs logic that leads to companies demanding free labor during internships. 'You are untrustable and we are doing you the favor giving you the 'opportunity' to earn money down the road while having extremely high standards and demands of you because Karen does things super well with her decades of experience and is willing to work for less due to her super successful savings fund.'
These kinds of unreasonable demands and expectations set by big companies are exactly why it is so risky for smaller creative studios to actually take chances.
I wouldn't want the game for free after launch. I want decent expansions and a decent experience. Amazon had tons of money and New World is not my cup of tea. Also, New World has made so many changes its little like it was first promised. I'd rather take faith and direction over changes of direction and lost promises.
I'd rather take faith and direction over changes of direction and lost promises.
I'd rather take change of direction if it is determined that the previously promised direction was misinformed.
New World changing their direction wasn't the problem. The original idea they had for the game would be dead by now. The problem was they changed things in a way that made the game make no sense.
There are some things that have needed to change in Ashes from what we have been told (sieges not deleveling a node, as an example that has changed, family summons as an example of something still to change). This is what Intrepid need to do.
Them sticking to something they know is not the best way to do it just because they said they would do it is not good for anyone.
You've mentioned issues that relate to additions made after kickstarter. When I backed there was no node issues, there was no family teleport. There wasn't even Apoc when I backed. The devs have made weird decisions, but, those decisions were on them and not the community. I don't consider bug fixes to be a change in direction, or community requested additions that merge with the original designs. What I have an issue with is steven saying 'We don't want feedback related to changes outside the origional scope of the game' and brushing aside the dev threads which turn the promised features on their heads.
Yeah, I'm not too worried about the actual sub cost. In my mind, I will either love the game and stick with the game, or, I will use the free game time and never re-sub. So much can change between now and launch that I simply don't want to consider all the variables lol.
FFXIV also flopped on version 1...... just saying.
Yeah, testers who pay to test are often more diligent and the end products are often better. I'm a tester who paid much like most of us on the forum lol.
Well, I've closed beta tested a few MMOs and most of the time too many bugs, exploits, multiplication errors and duplication errors were found in the games after launch. I obviously didn't pay for those older betas though. One tester can't find all issues, especially the server capability issues.
I have no hard facts except my own experience. I've probably played some of those games you've implicated.
Right. So in my experience, I've seen the exact opposite. Most "testers" who pay to test keep the exploits to themselves and abuse them to get ahead of everyone else once the game goes live. Anyways, no need to hi-jack this thread.
The good news remains that we have multiple tests to be involved in before launch. I've seen some 'testers' refuse to give feedback from the tests on discord but obviously I don't know if they did send feedback etc. Some people paid to get 'ahead' and to 'learn the game' but so far reports and changes have been quite numerous so I hope honour is maintained. Anyway mate, I've finished my work for today and will head to bed now. Peace.
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 .
A few million when you have $40,000,000 of your own money invested is a loss.
This game needs to make tens of millions to break even. If it doesn't do that, Steven would be doing himself a disservice if he doesn't sell it to the highest bidder.
I'm not saying they need to increase the subscription fee in order for this to not happen, but I am saying that you aren't in a position to say it won't happen.
If you like Ashes as a concept, and still like it as a game once released, you should want Intrepid to make as much money off it as possible in order to insure the company remains independent.
While that little extra may indeed be a deciding factor to a few people, even if it is one in 20, Intrepid are still better off with the increase.
You may not be, but Intrepid would be.
M8 this aint personal , I dont care if he put 100 million quid of his own money in, if the game is good they will make a profit it's a plus to him . Isn't it better to take a bit longer to be in the red and have more people than take a year and put prospective players off ? Plus surly he isn't naïve and knows this is for the long haul not just a 2 year plan .
Edit ,, I don't care about Intrepid making money ( thats up to them) I care about the sub price same as many many people, your better off with a lower sub and more players than a higher sub and less players mmo's need community not just a niche crowd.
If you have ever played on a dyeing server you will understand this.
Saying that I understand they need to make a profit just don't price yourself out of the market.
God I sound harsh, guess we all want a good affordable game with lots of people to fill the world...
More useless comments arguing that IF the price ends up being higher it would be unfair.
I wonder if these people would be ok being paid at their work with salaries from 20 years ago.
I bet none of these people became good enough at their field to name their price.
Sucks to suck I guess.
lll be ok IF the sub goes a tiny bit higher than $15.
Currently I am paying ff14 a sub and there is fucko to do in the game.
I did the same with ESO from time to time despite that they charged extra for chApteRS and the only content was singleplayer questlines.
Hell, most ** * ** *s posting here have active subscriptions on more than one mmo plus more than one streaming service, yet IF AoC was to charge $60 more A YEAR, for a game that aims to have:
10k server population
Active GMs
MORE servers than ZOS (na/eu and they both perform like crap)
Open world PvP
Open world PvE progress
Guild gameplay (none of the top mmos right now have guild gameplay. It's all Raid party gameplay)
Meaningful economy designs (crafting, gathering, transporting)
Meaningful housing (as opposed to ESO and FF14)
Naval content
Ambitious class/weapon design (with which personally I disagree)
... I can keep going but I finished pooping so Ima have to get going now...
ye.. these people believe that the world would not pay. Pathetic and laughable principles they have.
Far out... give me a game worth justifying playing, let alone paying for, and take $5 more; with all the rubbish mmo-trynnabe singleplayer with vast but boring open worlds, and with the crap singleplayer/coop instanced mmorpgs.
I think it also depends on the target audience of AoC and the public that is not their target but who out of curiosity wanted to enter AoC.
If that non-target audience is given the options to stay then the sub-fee would depend much less on their target audience.
When young people in the early 2000s paid for MMOs (especially WOW) it was not so easy to pay monthly, but now those same people have the possibility of paying for Netflix, HBO, Amazon, etc. Therefore if the cost of the sub-fee were raised they could pay it.
What I would rather like is that the public, who would have a hard time paying it (like us in our days of students with WOW), have that option to be able to enter AoC to learn and to know more about an MMO.
I think that generation Z has not been able to live a good MMO as in the golden ages and I'm not sure if this generation could adapt to the standards of the MMOs of that time but I consider that AoC carried out properly can instruct and teach what it could generate a good MMO.
Who will be the vast majority of players in AoC, Gen X , Millennials or Gen Z?
Comments
This game needs to make tens of millions to break even. If it doesn't do that, Steven would be doing himself a disservice if he doesn't sell it to the highest bidder.
I'm not saying they need to increase the subscription fee in order for this to not happen, but I am saying that you aren't in a position to say it won't happen.
If you like Ashes as a concept, and still like it as a game once released, you should want Intrepid to make as much money off it as possible in order to insure the company remains independent.
While that little extra may indeed be a deciding factor to a few people, even if it is one in 20, Intrepid are still better off with the increase.
You may not be, but Intrepid would be.
Time isn't the only factor. the game flopped, so the price dropped. You can go to GameStop and find a 6-year-old Mario game that was $60 new and it will still be $50 used because it was a good game and people love it.
$180 is the noticeable amount of money. That's the cost of three video games just to 'play' one video game. Raising the price from 15 to $20 increases that annual cost of four video games a year.
Could I afford raising it to $20? Sure. But I know there are people that couldn't and this would increase the barrier of entry to the game.
Other MMOs have given discounts on Yearly Subscription Payments. I would hope Ashes does the same.
Better than it being a p2w and the game being ruined for everyone (those who play/would play and those who don't).
I agree but that's a different argument.
True
And I hope so too
But people still say wow is $14.99 not $12.99
This ^
We also wouldn't want the barrier to entry to be too high. So for those who believe it should be higher, or are willing for it to be higher, I would ask what would that accomplish? If as a player you feel like the game deserves more money, give it more money in the cosmetic store. If you believe it deserves less money... don't play? At the end of the day, this is a business, and they need to make money to pay its developers and to continue making more content for us to enjoy.
MMO's in particular are not cheap projects and Stephen is taking a massive risk trying to make this as his first game. Luckily, he has the money to do it and so far it seems he has the support from some high-quality devs as well.
FFXIV did a very smart thing with its free starter trial.
FFXIV also didn't charge consumers to test the game.
Yes, but that heavily depends on whether the assumption that it only will be a deciding factor for a few people will turn out to be correct. Difficult to predict, but I hope Intrepid will be able to hit the sweet spot by asking for just the right amount of money.
Square Enix has buckets of money. If Intrepid had SE's budget I am sure Steven would love giving out the game for free on launch. IS should have such a thing down the road once profitability has been established.
Asking an indie dev to release their game for free to be 'pro consumer' like a giant corporation that's been around for decades and has comparative globs of money is the same bs logic that leads to companies demanding free labor during internships. 'You are untrustable and we are doing you the favor giving you the 'opportunity' to earn money down the road while having extremely high standards and demands of you because Karen does things super well with her decades of experience and is willing to work for less due to her super successful savings fund.'
These kinds of unreasonable demands and expectations set by big companies are exactly why it is so risky for smaller creative studios to actually take chances.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Yhr9WpjaDzw
New World changing their direction wasn't the problem. The original idea they had for the game would be dead by now. The problem was they changed things in a way that made the game make no sense.
There are some things that have needed to change in Ashes from what we have been told (sieges not deleveling a node, as an example that has changed, family summons as an example of something still to change). This is what Intrepid need to do.
Them sticking to something they know is not the best way to do it just because they said they would do it is not good for anyone.
If all we do is adjust for inflation, $15 in 2017 is already worth $16.80.
By the time the game is released, that $15 from 2017 will likely be damn close to $20.
FFXIV also flopped on version 1...... just saying.
Yeah, testers who pay to test are often more diligent and the end products are often better. I'm a tester who paid much like most of us on the forum lol.
I have no hard facts except my own experience. I've probably played some of those games you've implicated.
M8 this aint personal , I dont care if he put 100 million quid of his own money in, if the game is good they will make a profit it's a plus to him . Isn't it better to take a bit longer to be in the red and have more people than take a year and put prospective players off ? Plus surly he isn't naïve and knows this is for the long haul not just a 2 year plan .
Edit ,, I don't care about Intrepid making money ( thats up to them) I care about the sub price same as many many people, your better off with a lower sub and more players than a higher sub and less players mmo's need community not just a niche crowd.
If you have ever played on a dyeing server you will understand this.
Saying that I understand they need to make a profit just don't price yourself out of the market.
God I sound harsh, guess we all want a good affordable game with lots of people to fill the world...
I wonder if these people would be ok being paid at their work with salaries from 20 years ago.
I bet none of these people became good enough at their field to name their price.
Sucks to suck I guess.
lll be ok IF the sub goes a tiny bit higher than $15.
Currently I am paying ff14 a sub and there is fucko to do in the game.
I did the same with ESO from time to time despite that they charged extra for chApteRS and the only content was singleplayer questlines.
Hell, most ** * ** *s posting here have active subscriptions on more than one mmo plus more than one streaming service, yet IF AoC was to charge $60 more A YEAR, for a game that aims to have:
10k server population
Active GMs
MORE servers than ZOS (na/eu and they both perform like crap)
Open world PvP
Open world PvE progress
Guild gameplay (none of the top mmos right now have guild gameplay. It's all Raid party gameplay)
Meaningful economy designs (crafting, gathering, transporting)
Meaningful housing (as opposed to ESO and FF14)
Naval content
Ambitious class/weapon design (with which personally I disagree)
... I can keep going but I finished pooping so Ima have to get going now...
ye.. these people believe that the world would not pay. Pathetic and laughable principles they have.
If that non-target audience is given the options to stay then the sub-fee would depend much less on their target audience.
When young people in the early 2000s paid for MMOs (especially WOW) it was not so easy to pay monthly, but now those same people have the possibility of paying for Netflix, HBO, Amazon, etc. Therefore if the cost of the sub-fee were raised they could pay it.
What I would rather like is that the public, who would have a hard time paying it (like us in our days of students with WOW), have that option to be able to enter AoC to learn and to know more about an MMO.
I think that generation Z has not been able to live a good MMO as in the golden ages and I'm not sure if this generation could adapt to the standards of the MMOs of that time but I consider that AoC carried out properly can instruct and teach what it could generate a good MMO.
Who will be the vast majority of players in AoC, Gen X , Millennials or Gen Z?