Azherae wrote: » KingDDD wrote: » Azherae wrote: » KingDDD wrote: » Fiddlez wrote: » Based on the idea that they keep exceeding expectations with their monthly video,...I doubt this will see small numbers once the hype is over. I suspect this game will probably grow past launch as well,maybe a small downturn but if Intrepid keeps it up I think everyone including Steven will be surprised. It's funny to me because the Mage combat video was way better then people realized. Crowfall bombed and probably not many played it but the combat was surprisingly good,visually basic but highly addicting. Group pvp sucked me in for months even though the rest of the game was pretty bad. Soon as I saw the spell mechanics in AoC and seeing spells with combo/slash mechanics. Let's just say I was stoked. Basically only Intrepid can mess this up but as long as it launches it should be super successful. The thing about Crowfall is they sold 70k+ copies of the game. While some of that's inflated by Kickstarter and people buying multiple copies, it still illustrates how this type of game can achieve relatively high sales numbers even with abysmal marketing. As long as ashes has content loops that facilitates making positive relationships and uses those to onboard players into the meat and potatoes of the game, the sky is the limit. There just isn't anything like ashes out there. For my clarity, if 70k is high, what do you consider 'low' sales numbers? High is relative based on the game. For a full loot, must have a guild, plagued by lag, no pve, cartoon art style, 0 marketing, Kickstarter game I'd say 100k sales with a 50% retention rate (dependent on shop purchases and monthly subs) is sustainable. The thing about Crowfall is while sales numbers were high enough to keep the game going, the retention rate was probably in the single digits. I'd say that my concern for Ashes is the same given the other similar games that probably will release before it, and how relatively quickly a bigger more experienced studio can add/pivot the features we value in Ashes given their historical experience with those features.
KingDDD wrote: » Azherae wrote: » KingDDD wrote: » Fiddlez wrote: » Based on the idea that they keep exceeding expectations with their monthly video,...I doubt this will see small numbers once the hype is over. I suspect this game will probably grow past launch as well,maybe a small downturn but if Intrepid keeps it up I think everyone including Steven will be surprised. It's funny to me because the Mage combat video was way better then people realized. Crowfall bombed and probably not many played it but the combat was surprisingly good,visually basic but highly addicting. Group pvp sucked me in for months even though the rest of the game was pretty bad. Soon as I saw the spell mechanics in AoC and seeing spells with combo/slash mechanics. Let's just say I was stoked. Basically only Intrepid can mess this up but as long as it launches it should be super successful. The thing about Crowfall is they sold 70k+ copies of the game. While some of that's inflated by Kickstarter and people buying multiple copies, it still illustrates how this type of game can achieve relatively high sales numbers even with abysmal marketing. As long as ashes has content loops that facilitates making positive relationships and uses those to onboard players into the meat and potatoes of the game, the sky is the limit. There just isn't anything like ashes out there. For my clarity, if 70k is high, what do you consider 'low' sales numbers? High is relative based on the game. For a full loot, must have a guild, plagued by lag, no pve, cartoon art style, 0 marketing, Kickstarter game I'd say 100k sales with a 50% retention rate (dependent on shop purchases and monthly subs) is sustainable. The thing about Crowfall is while sales numbers were high enough to keep the game going, the retention rate was probably in the single digits.
Azherae wrote: » KingDDD wrote: » Fiddlez wrote: » Based on the idea that they keep exceeding expectations with their monthly video,...I doubt this will see small numbers once the hype is over. I suspect this game will probably grow past launch as well,maybe a small downturn but if Intrepid keeps it up I think everyone including Steven will be surprised. It's funny to me because the Mage combat video was way better then people realized. Crowfall bombed and probably not many played it but the combat was surprisingly good,visually basic but highly addicting. Group pvp sucked me in for months even though the rest of the game was pretty bad. Soon as I saw the spell mechanics in AoC and seeing spells with combo/slash mechanics. Let's just say I was stoked. Basically only Intrepid can mess this up but as long as it launches it should be super successful. The thing about Crowfall is they sold 70k+ copies of the game. While some of that's inflated by Kickstarter and people buying multiple copies, it still illustrates how this type of game can achieve relatively high sales numbers even with abysmal marketing. As long as ashes has content loops that facilitates making positive relationships and uses those to onboard players into the meat and potatoes of the game, the sky is the limit. There just isn't anything like ashes out there. For my clarity, if 70k is high, what do you consider 'low' sales numbers?
KingDDD wrote: » Fiddlez wrote: » Based on the idea that they keep exceeding expectations with their monthly video,...I doubt this will see small numbers once the hype is over. I suspect this game will probably grow past launch as well,maybe a small downturn but if Intrepid keeps it up I think everyone including Steven will be surprised. It's funny to me because the Mage combat video was way better then people realized. Crowfall bombed and probably not many played it but the combat was surprisingly good,visually basic but highly addicting. Group pvp sucked me in for months even though the rest of the game was pretty bad. Soon as I saw the spell mechanics in AoC and seeing spells with combo/slash mechanics. Let's just say I was stoked. Basically only Intrepid can mess this up but as long as it launches it should be super successful. The thing about Crowfall is they sold 70k+ copies of the game. While some of that's inflated by Kickstarter and people buying multiple copies, it still illustrates how this type of game can achieve relatively high sales numbers even with abysmal marketing. As long as ashes has content loops that facilitates making positive relationships and uses those to onboard players into the meat and potatoes of the game, the sky is the limit. There just isn't anything like ashes out there.
Fiddlez wrote: » Based on the idea that they keep exceeding expectations with their monthly video,...I doubt this will see small numbers once the hype is over. I suspect this game will probably grow past launch as well,maybe a small downturn but if Intrepid keeps it up I think everyone including Steven will be surprised. It's funny to me because the Mage combat video was way better then people realized. Crowfall bombed and probably not many played it but the combat was surprisingly good,visually basic but highly addicting. Group pvp sucked me in for months even though the rest of the game was pretty bad. Soon as I saw the spell mechanics in AoC and seeing spells with combo/slash mechanics. Let's just say I was stoked. Basically only Intrepid can mess this up but as long as it launches it should be super successful.
Fiddlez wrote: » CROW3 wrote: » KingDDD wrote: » The thing about Crowfall is they sold 70k+ copies of the game. While some of that's inflated by Kickstarter and people buying multiple copies, it still illustrates how this type of game can achieve relatively high sales numbers even with abysmal marketing. Just to clarify, Crowfall’s failure wasn’t a marketing problem. It failed from the bottom up (just being a poor game with some terrible gameplay decisions) and from the top down (bad financial management, poor leadership, and short term thinking). They had something there but yeah there was definitely bigger problems. The core players playing it from closed beta even left. I personally think they were too invested in the Large scale.
CROW3 wrote: » KingDDD wrote: » The thing about Crowfall is they sold 70k+ copies of the game. While some of that's inflated by Kickstarter and people buying multiple copies, it still illustrates how this type of game can achieve relatively high sales numbers even with abysmal marketing. Just to clarify, Crowfall’s failure wasn’t a marketing problem. It failed from the bottom up (just being a poor game with some terrible gameplay decisions) and from the top down (bad financial management, poor leadership, and short term thinking).
KingDDD wrote: » The thing about Crowfall is they sold 70k+ copies of the game. While some of that's inflated by Kickstarter and people buying multiple copies, it still illustrates how this type of game can achieve relatively high sales numbers even with abysmal marketing.
KingDDD wrote: » Azherae wrote: » KingDDD wrote: » Azherae wrote: » KingDDD wrote: » Fiddlez wrote: » Based on the idea that they keep exceeding expectations with their monthly video,...I doubt this will see small numbers once the hype is over. I suspect this game will probably grow past launch as well,maybe a small downturn but if Intrepid keeps it up I think everyone including Steven will be surprised. It's funny to me because the Mage combat video was way better then people realized. Crowfall bombed and probably not many played it but the combat was surprisingly good,visually basic but highly addicting. Group pvp sucked me in for months even though the rest of the game was pretty bad. Soon as I saw the spell mechanics in AoC and seeing spells with combo/slash mechanics. Let's just say I was stoked. Basically only Intrepid can mess this up but as long as it launches it should be super successful. The thing about Crowfall is they sold 70k+ copies of the game. While some of that's inflated by Kickstarter and people buying multiple copies, it still illustrates how this type of game can achieve relatively high sales numbers even with abysmal marketing. As long as ashes has content loops that facilitates making positive relationships and uses those to onboard players into the meat and potatoes of the game, the sky is the limit. There just isn't anything like ashes out there. For my clarity, if 70k is high, what do you consider 'low' sales numbers? High is relative based on the game. For a full loot, must have a guild, plagued by lag, no pve, cartoon art style, 0 marketing, Kickstarter game I'd say 100k sales with a 50% retention rate (dependent on shop purchases and monthly subs) is sustainable. The thing about Crowfall is while sales numbers were high enough to keep the game going, the retention rate was probably in the single digits. I'd say that my concern for Ashes is the same given the other similar games that probably will release before it, and how relatively quickly a bigger more experienced studio can add/pivot the features we value in Ashes given their historical experience with those features. I think you're underestimating how long it takes to add large systems to a game. Using New World as an example, it took them 2 years to add the leveling and questing system to the game. This also came at a cost, they didn't add any end-game systems. Intrepid isn't a small indie studio. They have well over 100 employees and that doesn't count the 20-30 people they'll hire to do all the necessary things (like customer service) needed for a launched title. As I've said in this thread: as long as the money doesn't run out and the content is designed in such a way that new players can find their place in the world, ashes will be massive.
Noaani wrote: » JamesSunderland wrote: » If Ashes reach L2/AA Highest population peaks, i certainly believe Steven will be quite happy. The problem is, both of those games peaks are heavily reliant on the Korean market. Based on some discussions I've had recently with people that were in a position to know these things back in the day, the NA/EU population of EQ2 was higher than the NA/EU population of L2. I've said it a few times - the way Ashes is shaping up, it needs a solid marketing push in Korea. That said, the numbers in the above chart are not accurate. There were at least 7 MMO's that broke 1 million subscribers before 2008 on that list - but the chart only shows 4.
JamesSunderland wrote: » If Ashes reach L2/AA Highest population peaks, i certainly believe Steven will be quite happy.
Azherae wrote: » KingDDD wrote: » Azherae wrote: » KingDDD wrote: » Azherae wrote: » KingDDD wrote: » Fiddlez wrote: » Based on the idea that they keep exceeding expectations with their monthly video,...I doubt this will see small numbers once the hype is over. I suspect this game will probably grow past launch as well,maybe a small downturn but if Intrepid keeps it up I think everyone including Steven will be surprised. It's funny to me because the Mage combat video was way better then people realized. Crowfall bombed and probably not many played it but the combat was surprisingly good,visually basic but highly addicting. Group pvp sucked me in for months even though the rest of the game was pretty bad. Soon as I saw the spell mechanics in AoC and seeing spells with combo/slash mechanics. Let's just say I was stoked. Basically only Intrepid can mess this up but as long as it launches it should be super successful. The thing about Crowfall is they sold 70k+ copies of the game. While some of that's inflated by Kickstarter and people buying multiple copies, it still illustrates how this type of game can achieve relatively high sales numbers even with abysmal marketing. As long as ashes has content loops that facilitates making positive relationships and uses those to onboard players into the meat and potatoes of the game, the sky is the limit. There just isn't anything like ashes out there. For my clarity, if 70k is high, what do you consider 'low' sales numbers? High is relative based on the game. For a full loot, must have a guild, plagued by lag, no pve, cartoon art style, 0 marketing, Kickstarter game I'd say 100k sales with a 50% retention rate (dependent on shop purchases and monthly subs) is sustainable. The thing about Crowfall is while sales numbers were high enough to keep the game going, the retention rate was probably in the single digits. I'd say that my concern for Ashes is the same given the other similar games that probably will release before it, and how relatively quickly a bigger more experienced studio can add/pivot the features we value in Ashes given their historical experience with those features. I think you're underestimating how long it takes to add large systems to a game. Using New World as an example, it took them 2 years to add the leveling and questing system to the game. This also came at a cost, they didn't add any end-game systems. Intrepid isn't a small indie studio. They have well over 100 employees and that doesn't count the 20-30 people they'll hire to do all the necessary things (like customer service) needed for a launched title. As I've said in this thread: as long as the money doesn't run out and the content is designed in such a way that new players can find their place in the world, ashes will be massive. And there's the fundamental disagreement. I don't think I can say 'you are wrong' because even then I'm only calling on my own experience. Even Dygz, the person probably most qualified to speak on the matter, would still probably not be able to say 'you are wrong' about the development timeline in a way that would sway you. But I don't really have anything to go on except the experience of myself and people I talk to who do these things. I do have a question though. If ArcheAge 2 were to have most of what Ashes does and actually release in 2024/25, would there be any reason to play Ashes specifically other than 'guaranteed no P2W'? (note I am absolutely not saying 'AA2 will blow Ashes out of the water and no one will play Ashes', moreso saying that it would be a cointoss for many people, they'd go wherever their guild went).
KingDDD wrote: » Azherae wrote: » KingDDD wrote: » Azherae wrote: » KingDDD wrote: » Azherae wrote: » KingDDD wrote: » Fiddlez wrote: » Based on the idea that they keep exceeding expectations with their monthly video,...I doubt this will see small numbers once the hype is over. I suspect this game will probably grow past launch as well,maybe a small downturn but if Intrepid keeps it up I think everyone including Steven will be surprised. It's funny to me because the Mage combat video was way better then people realized. Crowfall bombed and probably not many played it but the combat was surprisingly good,visually basic but highly addicting. Group pvp sucked me in for months even though the rest of the game was pretty bad. Soon as I saw the spell mechanics in AoC and seeing spells with combo/slash mechanics. Let's just say I was stoked. Basically only Intrepid can mess this up but as long as it launches it should be super successful. The thing about Crowfall is they sold 70k+ copies of the game. While some of that's inflated by Kickstarter and people buying multiple copies, it still illustrates how this type of game can achieve relatively high sales numbers even with abysmal marketing. As long as ashes has content loops that facilitates making positive relationships and uses those to onboard players into the meat and potatoes of the game, the sky is the limit. There just isn't anything like ashes out there. For my clarity, if 70k is high, what do you consider 'low' sales numbers? High is relative based on the game. For a full loot, must have a guild, plagued by lag, no pve, cartoon art style, 0 marketing, Kickstarter game I'd say 100k sales with a 50% retention rate (dependent on shop purchases and monthly subs) is sustainable. The thing about Crowfall is while sales numbers were high enough to keep the game going, the retention rate was probably in the single digits. I'd say that my concern for Ashes is the same given the other similar games that probably will release before it, and how relatively quickly a bigger more experienced studio can add/pivot the features we value in Ashes given their historical experience with those features. I think you're underestimating how long it takes to add large systems to a game. Using New World as an example, it took them 2 years to add the leveling and questing system to the game. This also came at a cost, they didn't add any end-game systems. Intrepid isn't a small indie studio. They have well over 100 employees and that doesn't count the 20-30 people they'll hire to do all the necessary things (like customer service) needed for a launched title. As I've said in this thread: as long as the money doesn't run out and the content is designed in such a way that new players can find their place in the world, ashes will be massive. And there's the fundamental disagreement. I don't think I can say 'you are wrong' because even then I'm only calling on my own experience. Even Dygz, the person probably most qualified to speak on the matter, would still probably not be able to say 'you are wrong' about the development timeline in a way that would sway you. But I don't really have anything to go on except the experience of myself and people I talk to who do these things. I do have a question though. If ArcheAge 2 were to have most of what Ashes does and actually release in 2024/25, would there be any reason to play Ashes specifically other than 'guaranteed no P2W'? (note I am absolutely not saying 'AA2 will blow Ashes out of the water and no one will play Ashes', moreso saying that it would be a cointoss for many people, they'd go wherever their guild went). The example of New World makes sense (to me) as Amazon is a AAA company with the ability to hire folks with the necessary skill set to make the game in as efficient a manner as possible. While it's not a direct 1 to 1 comparison, you'd think Lumberyard and the studio, in general, weren't so incompetent that development was massively handicapped.
Azherae wrote: » KingDDD wrote: » Azherae wrote: » KingDDD wrote: » Azherae wrote: » KingDDD wrote: » Azherae wrote: » KingDDD wrote: » Fiddlez wrote: » Based on the idea that they keep exceeding expectations with their monthly video,...I doubt this will see small numbers once the hype is over. I suspect this game will probably grow past launch as well,maybe a small downturn but if Intrepid keeps it up I think everyone including Steven will be surprised. It's funny to me because the Mage combat video was way better then people realized. Crowfall bombed and probably not many played it but the combat was surprisingly good,visually basic but highly addicting. Group pvp sucked me in for months even though the rest of the game was pretty bad. Soon as I saw the spell mechanics in AoC and seeing spells with combo/slash mechanics. Let's just say I was stoked. Basically only Intrepid can mess this up but as long as it launches it should be super successful. The thing about Crowfall is they sold 70k+ copies of the game. While some of that's inflated by Kickstarter and people buying multiple copies, it still illustrates how this type of game can achieve relatively high sales numbers even with abysmal marketing. As long as ashes has content loops that facilitates making positive relationships and uses those to onboard players into the meat and potatoes of the game, the sky is the limit. There just isn't anything like ashes out there. For my clarity, if 70k is high, what do you consider 'low' sales numbers? High is relative based on the game. For a full loot, must have a guild, plagued by lag, no pve, cartoon art style, 0 marketing, Kickstarter game I'd say 100k sales with a 50% retention rate (dependent on shop purchases and monthly subs) is sustainable. The thing about Crowfall is while sales numbers were high enough to keep the game going, the retention rate was probably in the single digits. I'd say that my concern for Ashes is the same given the other similar games that probably will release before it, and how relatively quickly a bigger more experienced studio can add/pivot the features we value in Ashes given their historical experience with those features. I think you're underestimating how long it takes to add large systems to a game. Using New World as an example, it took them 2 years to add the leveling and questing system to the game. This also came at a cost, they didn't add any end-game systems. Intrepid isn't a small indie studio. They have well over 100 employees and that doesn't count the 20-30 people they'll hire to do all the necessary things (like customer service) needed for a launched title. As I've said in this thread: as long as the money doesn't run out and the content is designed in such a way that new players can find their place in the world, ashes will be massive. And there's the fundamental disagreement. I don't think I can say 'you are wrong' because even then I'm only calling on my own experience. Even Dygz, the person probably most qualified to speak on the matter, would still probably not be able to say 'you are wrong' about the development timeline in a way that would sway you. But I don't really have anything to go on except the experience of myself and people I talk to who do these things. I do have a question though. If ArcheAge 2 were to have most of what Ashes does and actually release in 2024/25, would there be any reason to play Ashes specifically other than 'guaranteed no P2W'? (note I am absolutely not saying 'AA2 will blow Ashes out of the water and no one will play Ashes', moreso saying that it would be a cointoss for many people, they'd go wherever their guild went). The example of New World makes sense (to me) as Amazon is a AAA company with the ability to hire folks with the necessary skill set to make the game in as efficient a manner as possible. While it's not a direct 1 to 1 comparison, you'd think Lumberyard and the studio, in general, weren't so incompetent that development was massively handicapped. Ahhh, there's the gap. Having seen most of New World's development, I definitely don't factor it. But I think you've clarified where the disconnect is really precisely as a result, so I thank you.
KingDDD wrote: » Azherae wrote: » KingDDD wrote: » Azherae wrote: » KingDDD wrote: » Azherae wrote: » KingDDD wrote: » Azherae wrote: » KingDDD wrote: » Fiddlez wrote: » Based on the idea that they keep exceeding expectations with their monthly video,...I doubt this will see small numbers once the hype is over. I suspect this game will probably grow past launch as well,maybe a small downturn but if Intrepid keeps it up I think everyone including Steven will be surprised. It's funny to me because the Mage combat video was way better then people realized. Crowfall bombed and probably not many played it but the combat was surprisingly good,visually basic but highly addicting. Group pvp sucked me in for months even though the rest of the game was pretty bad. Soon as I saw the spell mechanics in AoC and seeing spells with combo/slash mechanics. Let's just say I was stoked. Basically only Intrepid can mess this up but as long as it launches it should be super successful. The thing about Crowfall is they sold 70k+ copies of the game. While some of that's inflated by Kickstarter and people buying multiple copies, it still illustrates how this type of game can achieve relatively high sales numbers even with abysmal marketing. As long as ashes has content loops that facilitates making positive relationships and uses those to onboard players into the meat and potatoes of the game, the sky is the limit. There just isn't anything like ashes out there. For my clarity, if 70k is high, what do you consider 'low' sales numbers? High is relative based on the game. For a full loot, must have a guild, plagued by lag, no pve, cartoon art style, 0 marketing, Kickstarter game I'd say 100k sales with a 50% retention rate (dependent on shop purchases and monthly subs) is sustainable. The thing about Crowfall is while sales numbers were high enough to keep the game going, the retention rate was probably in the single digits. I'd say that my concern for Ashes is the same given the other similar games that probably will release before it, and how relatively quickly a bigger more experienced studio can add/pivot the features we value in Ashes given their historical experience with those features. I think you're underestimating how long it takes to add large systems to a game. Using New World as an example, it took them 2 years to add the leveling and questing system to the game. This also came at a cost, they didn't add any end-game systems. Intrepid isn't a small indie studio. They have well over 100 employees and that doesn't count the 20-30 people they'll hire to do all the necessary things (like customer service) needed for a launched title. As I've said in this thread: as long as the money doesn't run out and the content is designed in such a way that new players can find their place in the world, ashes will be massive. And there's the fundamental disagreement. I don't think I can say 'you are wrong' because even then I'm only calling on my own experience. Even Dygz, the person probably most qualified to speak on the matter, would still probably not be able to say 'you are wrong' about the development timeline in a way that would sway you. But I don't really have anything to go on except the experience of myself and people I talk to who do these things. I do have a question though. If ArcheAge 2 were to have most of what Ashes does and actually release in 2024/25, would there be any reason to play Ashes specifically other than 'guaranteed no P2W'? (note I am absolutely not saying 'AA2 will blow Ashes out of the water and no one will play Ashes', moreso saying that it would be a cointoss for many people, they'd go wherever their guild went). The example of New World makes sense (to me) as Amazon is a AAA company with the ability to hire folks with the necessary skill set to make the game in as efficient a manner as possible. While it's not a direct 1 to 1 comparison, you'd think Lumberyard and the studio, in general, weren't so incompetent that development was massively handicapped. Ahhh, there's the gap. Having seen most of New World's development, I definitely don't factor it. But I think you've clarified where the disconnect is really precisely as a result, so I thank you. So tell me about New World and why you feel the way you do. I'd love to hear your perspective on it.
KingDDD wrote: » The thing about Crowfall is they sold 70k+ copies of the game. While some of that's inflated by Kickstarter and people buying multiple copies, it still illustrates how this type of game can achieve relatively high sales numbers even with abysmal marketing. As long as ashes has content loops that facilitates making positive relationships and uses those to onboard players into the meat and potatoes of the game, the sky is the limit. There just isn't anything like ashes out there.
Azherae wrote: » KingDDD wrote: » Azherae wrote: » KingDDD wrote: » Azherae wrote: » KingDDD wrote: » Azherae wrote: » KingDDD wrote: » Azherae wrote: » KingDDD wrote: » Fiddlez wrote: » Based on the idea that they keep exceeding expectations with their monthly video,...I doubt this will see small numbers once the hype is over. I suspect this game will probably grow past launch as well,maybe a small downturn but if Intrepid keeps it up I think everyone including Steven will be surprised. It's funny to me because the Mage combat video was way better then people realized. Crowfall bombed and probably not many played it but the combat was surprisingly good,visually basic but highly addicting. Group pvp sucked me in for months even though the rest of the game was pretty bad. Soon as I saw the spell mechanics in AoC and seeing spells with combo/slash mechanics. Let's just say I was stoked. Basically only Intrepid can mess this up but as long as it launches it should be super successful. The thing about Crowfall is they sold 70k+ copies of the game. While some of that's inflated by Kickstarter and people buying multiple copies, it still illustrates how this type of game can achieve relatively high sales numbers even with abysmal marketing. As long as ashes has content loops that facilitates making positive relationships and uses those to onboard players into the meat and potatoes of the game, the sky is the limit. There just isn't anything like ashes out there. For my clarity, if 70k is high, what do you consider 'low' sales numbers? High is relative based on the game. For a full loot, must have a guild, plagued by lag, no pve, cartoon art style, 0 marketing, Kickstarter game I'd say 100k sales with a 50% retention rate (dependent on shop purchases and monthly subs) is sustainable. The thing about Crowfall is while sales numbers were high enough to keep the game going, the retention rate was probably in the single digits. I'd say that my concern for Ashes is the same given the other similar games that probably will release before it, and how relatively quickly a bigger more experienced studio can add/pivot the features we value in Ashes given their historical experience with those features. I think you're underestimating how long it takes to add large systems to a game. Using New World as an example, it took them 2 years to add the leveling and questing system to the game. This also came at a cost, they didn't add any end-game systems. Intrepid isn't a small indie studio. They have well over 100 employees and that doesn't count the 20-30 people they'll hire to do all the necessary things (like customer service) needed for a launched title. As I've said in this thread: as long as the money doesn't run out and the content is designed in such a way that new players can find their place in the world, ashes will be massive. And there's the fundamental disagreement. I don't think I can say 'you are wrong' because even then I'm only calling on my own experience. Even Dygz, the person probably most qualified to speak on the matter, would still probably not be able to say 'you are wrong' about the development timeline in a way that would sway you. But I don't really have anything to go on except the experience of myself and people I talk to who do these things. I do have a question though. If ArcheAge 2 were to have most of what Ashes does and actually release in 2024/25, would there be any reason to play Ashes specifically other than 'guaranteed no P2W'? (note I am absolutely not saying 'AA2 will blow Ashes out of the water and no one will play Ashes', moreso saying that it would be a cointoss for many people, they'd go wherever their guild went). The example of New World makes sense (to me) as Amazon is a AAA company with the ability to hire folks with the necessary skill set to make the game in as efficient a manner as possible. While it's not a direct 1 to 1 comparison, you'd think Lumberyard and the studio, in general, weren't so incompetent that development was massively handicapped. Ahhh, there's the gap. Having seen most of New World's development, I definitely don't factor it. But I think you've clarified where the disconnect is really precisely as a result, so I thank you. So tell me about New World and why you feel the way you do. I'd love to hear your perspective on it. Well first, a lot of context. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3ZMly9YAPA If you're already familiar, great, just let me know. If you don't want to watch it, that's also fine, but it's hard to explain why I'm not convinced of 'AAA level competence' without the ability to reference a lot of the obvious design decision errors listed here, so it may be better not to spend time on the conversation. EDIT: Also, I'm not sure this is worth either of our time either way, but if you come out of watching that entire video (somehow) with the same perspective as before, that Amazon was doing ok and New World is a game that can be used as a reference for average MMO development, let me know.
Fiddlez wrote: » Azherae wrote: » KingDDD wrote: » Azherae wrote: » KingDDD wrote: » Azherae wrote: » KingDDD wrote: » Fiddlez wrote: » Based on the idea that they keep exceeding expectations with their monthly video,...I doubt this will see small numbers once the hype is over. I suspect this game will probably grow past launch as well,maybe a small downturn but if Intrepid keeps it up I think everyone including Steven will be surprised. It's funny to me because the Mage combat video was way better then people realized. Crowfall bombed and probably not many played it but the combat was surprisingly good,visually basic but highly addicting. Group pvp sucked me in for months even though the rest of the game was pretty bad. Soon as I saw the spell mechanics in AoC and seeing spells with combo/slash mechanics. Let's just say I was stoked. Basically only Intrepid can mess this up but as long as it launches it should be super successful. The thing about Crowfall is they sold 70k+ copies of the game. While some of that's inflated by Kickstarter and people buying multiple copies, it still illustrates how this type of game can achieve relatively high sales numbers even with abysmal marketing. As long as ashes has content loops that facilitates making positive relationships and uses those to onboard players into the meat and potatoes of the game, the sky is the limit. There just isn't anything like ashes out there. For my clarity, if 70k is high, what do you consider 'low' sales numbers? High is relative based on the game. For a full loot, must have a guild, plagued by lag, no pve, cartoon art style, 0 marketing, Kickstarter game I'd say 100k sales with a 50% retention rate (dependent on shop purchases and monthly subs) is sustainable. The thing about Crowfall is while sales numbers were high enough to keep the game going, the retention rate was probably in the single digits. I'd say that my concern for Ashes is the same given the other similar games that probably will release before it, and how relatively quickly a bigger more experienced studio can add/pivot the features we value in Ashes given their historical experience with those features. I think you're underestimating how long it takes to add large systems to a game. Using New World as an example, it took them 2 years to add the leveling and questing system to the game. This also came at a cost, they didn't add any end-game systems. Intrepid isn't a small indie studio. They have well over 100 employees and that doesn't count the 20-30 people they'll hire to do all the necessary things (like customer service) needed for a launched title. As I've said in this thread: as long as the money doesn't run out and the content is designed in such a way that new players can find their place in the world, ashes will be massive. And there's the fundamental disagreement. I don't think I can say 'you are wrong' because even then I'm only calling on my own experience. Even Dygz, the person probably most qualified to speak on the matter, would still probably not be able to say 'you are wrong' about the development timeline in a way that would sway you. But I don't really have anything to go on except the experience of myself and people I talk to who do these things. I do have a question though. If ArcheAge 2 were to have most of what Ashes does and actually release in 2024/25, would there be any reason to play Ashes specifically other than 'guaranteed no P2W'? (note I am absolutely not saying 'AA2 will blow Ashes out of the water and no one will play Ashes', moreso saying that it would be a cointoss for many people, they'd go wherever their guild went). I think one thing we've seen from modern MMOs is that you can make all sorts of games almost exactly the same but if the core experience is the same then it's the same game. So while AA might be similar there's definitely a lot of room for variety. I just hope they have their own innovation or ideas like AoC.
Azherae wrote: » My point was that things are quick to add and the coding and design skill at Amazon, as well as Lumberyard itself, were not good enough to be used as a metric. In short, I would not use New World as a way to estimate how long anything takes to add to any MMO because they did not have the experience required to reach even average development time/quality of an AAA studio at any point during development. If you believe that the latter half of that video's issues, bugs, and design flaws are the result of the design change and not their skill/quality issues, then yeah, we should probably stop. This video focuses more on actual bugs than on the other design flaws I've studied from them (at least until 35:00 or so when it starts really getting into design decisions), but I'd like to say that I truly appreciate your willingness to engage with it enough to clearly give your stance without making accusations or whatever, it is refreshing.
KingDDD wrote: » Azherae wrote: » My point was that things are quick to add and the coding and design skill at Amazon, as well as Lumberyard itself, were not good enough to be used as a metric. In short, I would not use New World as a way to estimate how long anything takes to add to any MMO because they did not have the experience required to reach even average development time/quality of an AAA studio at any point during development. If you believe that the latter half of that video's issues, bugs, and design flaws are the result of the design change and not their skill/quality issues, then yeah, we should probably stop. This video focuses more on actual bugs than on the other design flaws I've studied from them (at least until 35:00 or so when it starts really getting into design decisions), but I'd like to say that I truly appreciate your willingness to engage with it enough to clearly give your stance without making accusations or whatever, it is refreshing. I'd say two years to make the amount of content they did is pretty impressive considering they had to code/make art for all the tools needed for designers to make a more indepth pve experience. Bugs like the window drag glitch were never found because QA/coders/designers were in perpetual crunch making the pve content. That has nothing to do with their competence but has everything to do with suits and release dates. Likewise to you. Some of the folks on these forums make me laugh.
Azherae wrote: » KingDDD wrote: » Azherae wrote: » My point was that things are quick to add and the coding and design skill at Amazon, as well as Lumberyard itself, were not good enough to be used as a metric. In short, I would not use New World as a way to estimate how long anything takes to add to any MMO because they did not have the experience required to reach even average development time/quality of an AAA studio at any point during development. If you believe that the latter half of that video's issues, bugs, and design flaws are the result of the design change and not their skill/quality issues, then yeah, we should probably stop. This video focuses more on actual bugs than on the other design flaws I've studied from them (at least until 35:00 or so when it starts really getting into design decisions), but I'd like to say that I truly appreciate your willingness to engage with it enough to clearly give your stance without making accusations or whatever, it is refreshing. I'd say two years to make the amount of content they did is pretty impressive considering they had to code/make art for all the tools needed for designers to make a more indepth pve experience. Bugs like the window drag glitch were never found because QA/coders/designers were in perpetual crunch making the pve content. That has nothing to do with their competence but has everything to do with suits and release dates. Likewise to you. Some of the folks on these forums make me laugh. Well, I do like to get clarity, so if you're willing... You're saying that you find it reasonable that the Window Drag glitch wasn't found back when the game was PvP focused? Or is it moreso that you think they 'didn't find it, but would have found it if they didn't have to suddenly build and test PvE content'? Because to me, the Window Drag glitch is a sign of relatively extreme inexperience, and every fix they attempted to apply to that glitch, like, the methods of their fix, were all signs of further inexperience. Same for most of their economic issues. Inexperience stacked on inexperience. Is it that you're saying that they were so crunched for time that they released poor/hackish solutions while unsure they would work and they were just 'hoping for the best' because of being under time pressure?
KingDDD wrote: » Azherae wrote: » KingDDD wrote: » Azherae wrote: » My point was that things are quick to add and the coding and design skill at Amazon, as well as Lumberyard itself, were not good enough to be used as a metric. In short, I would not use New World as a way to estimate how long anything takes to add to any MMO because they did not have the experience required to reach even average development time/quality of an AAA studio at any point during development. If you believe that the latter half of that video's issues, bugs, and design flaws are the result of the design change and not their skill/quality issues, then yeah, we should probably stop. This video focuses more on actual bugs than on the other design flaws I've studied from them (at least until 35:00 or so when it starts really getting into design decisions), but I'd like to say that I truly appreciate your willingness to engage with it enough to clearly give your stance without making accusations or whatever, it is refreshing. I'd say two years to make the amount of content they did is pretty impressive considering they had to code/make art for all the tools needed for designers to make a more indepth pve experience. Bugs like the window drag glitch were never found because QA/coders/designers were in perpetual crunch making the pve content. That has nothing to do with their competence but has everything to do with suits and release dates. Likewise to you. Some of the folks on these forums make me laugh. Well, I do like to get clarity, so if you're willing... You're saying that you find it reasonable that the Window Drag glitch wasn't found back when the game was PvP focused? Or is it moreso that you think they 'didn't find it, but would have found it if they didn't have to suddenly build and test PvE content'? Because to me, the Window Drag glitch is a sign of relatively extreme inexperience, and every fix they attempted to apply to that glitch, like, the methods of their fix, were all signs of further inexperience. Same for most of their economic issues. Inexperience stacked on inexperience. Is it that you're saying that they were so crunched for time that they released poor/hackish solutions while unsure they would work and they were just 'hoping for the best' because of being under time pressure? We don't know if it was even present in the game when they switched directions. When they redesigned the game generally every single system in the game had some form of code change to it. Yes to your second question. I'm sure Covid didnt help, but the amount of work hours they had to spend building the entire pve systems took so much effort that they never got the 6 months to a year necessary to solidify their code base, build the art to make areas unique, and test the game.
Azherae wrote: » KingDDD wrote: » Azherae wrote: » KingDDD wrote: » Azherae wrote: » My point was that things are quick to add and the coding and design skill at Amazon, as well as Lumberyard itself, were not good enough to be used as a metric. In short, I would not use New World as a way to estimate how long anything takes to add to any MMO because they did not have the experience required to reach even average development time/quality of an AAA studio at any point during development. If you believe that the latter half of that video's issues, bugs, and design flaws are the result of the design change and not their skill/quality issues, then yeah, we should probably stop. This video focuses more on actual bugs than on the other design flaws I've studied from them (at least until 35:00 or so when it starts really getting into design decisions), but I'd like to say that I truly appreciate your willingness to engage with it enough to clearly give your stance without making accusations or whatever, it is refreshing. I'd say two years to make the amount of content they did is pretty impressive considering they had to code/make art for all the tools needed for designers to make a more indepth pve experience. Bugs like the window drag glitch were never found because QA/coders/designers were in perpetual crunch making the pve content. That has nothing to do with their competence but has everything to do with suits and release dates. Likewise to you. Some of the folks on these forums make me laugh. Well, I do like to get clarity, so if you're willing... You're saying that you find it reasonable that the Window Drag glitch wasn't found back when the game was PvP focused? Or is it moreso that you think they 'didn't find it, but would have found it if they didn't have to suddenly build and test PvE content'? Because to me, the Window Drag glitch is a sign of relatively extreme inexperience, and every fix they attempted to apply to that glitch, like, the methods of their fix, were all signs of further inexperience. Same for most of their economic issues. Inexperience stacked on inexperience. Is it that you're saying that they were so crunched for time that they released poor/hackish solutions while unsure they would work and they were just 'hoping for the best' because of being under time pressure? We don't know if it was even present in the game when they switched directions. When they redesigned the game generally every single system in the game had some form of code change to it. Yes to your second question. I'm sure Covid didnt help, but the amount of work hours they had to spend building the entire pve systems took so much effort that they never got the 6 months to a year necessary to solidify their code base, build the art to make areas unique, and test the game. Alright, thanks. I'm sure you have your reasons for believing that, I hope you can understand why it might not be unreasonable for me to believe what I believe. I don't know your development experience (games or otherwise) and I don't think you'd have had any reason to search up mine, so rather than 'compare it' (which would be pointless even if we literally worked in the same circles of software development, far less game development) I'm definitely fine with leaving it there. Your claim is that I underestimate it. I have no counterclaim to make other than the original one, but we probably both understand where the other's position is now.
