And should they have released a ½ finished mess like New World? It's impatient people like you, that is part of the reason whey the gaming industry is a joke. You would rather have a ½ finished game, full of buggs and exploits, than waiting for the game to be released.
If Ashes is still some years away from release. Then just think about the state it was in, when it should have been released.
Until a AAA studio announces an MMORPG with a no-p2w business model (and I need reason to believe they won't just change their mind one day and go for the cash grab - like NW) I don't see any significant / viable threat to Ashes' market share. If that ever happens then the masses will, individually, compare which game offers the best experience to determine market share and vote with their wallets.
All flash and no soul. While it looks more aesthetically appealing than Ashes, the combat has zero depth from what I can see, I'd definitely like to be proven wrong though.
Until a AAA studio announces an MMORPG with a no-p2w business model (and I need reason to believe they won't just change their mind one day and go for the cash grab - like NW) I don't see any significant / viable threat to Ashes' market share. If that ever happens then the masses will, individually, compare which game offers the best experience to determine market share and vote with their wallets.
Partially true but I'll give a 'competing' perspective.
There's always that 'pay for convenience' thing that people try to define. While it makes certain people design their games inconveniently, there are ways to do this that aren't just 'making life more difficult for freemium players FOR NO OTHER REASON'.
So if I have to choose between a game where I have to pay for access to something and a game where I don't, let's say 'dungeon keys', and (here's the extremely important part) every player/account can only buy a certain number of these keys per month maximum, then I don't consider this different from a Subscription game.
tl;dr it's only when a player can continually pay for the same advantage or chance, more than other players, until they are ahead using their money, that I distinguish between Subscription and Monetization models.
Comments
And should they have released a ½ finished mess like New World? It's impatient people like you, that is part of the reason whey the gaming industry is a joke. You would rather have a ½ finished game, full of buggs and exploits, than waiting for the game to be released.
If Ashes is still some years away from release. Then just think about the state it was in, when it should have been released.
Partially true but I'll give a 'competing' perspective.
There's always that 'pay for convenience' thing that people try to define. While it makes certain people design their games inconveniently, there are ways to do this that aren't just 'making life more difficult for freemium players FOR NO OTHER REASON'.
So if I have to choose between a game where I have to pay for access to something and a game where I don't, let's say 'dungeon keys', and (here's the extremely important part) every player/account can only buy a certain number of these keys per month maximum, then I don't consider this different from a Subscription game.
tl;dr it's only when a player can continually pay for the same advantage or chance, more than other players, until they are ahead using their money, that I distinguish between Subscription and Monetization models.