Do you think you are a part of the "Target Audience"? Why or Why not?

I was going to ask this in the related thread, but I feel this question is specific enough to need a separate thread.

I'll start:

I think I am a part of the target audience. Here is why.

I value the emergent storytelling that comes from a persistent open world competitive environment as the apex of modern gaming. Games like Eve, Darkfall Online, Lineage 2, and Mortal Online have been among my favorite examples. Games where the world is not an instanced theme park, but a theater of war for real-world people to not have to role-play, but to actually be a part of a real war. To me, the drama and betrayal that comes from these environments is better than any book I can read or movie I can watch.

This is what Ashes is trying to do with the node and corruption systems. The node system turns the traditional MMORPG world into a living, breathing theater of war. No longer will zones, be static areas for developers to tell their stories, but instead they will be dynamic areas for players to live their stories.

What also appeals to me about Ashes is that, unlike the four games listed above. Ashes has what those games have, and the features of a modern MMORPG. Mounts, cosmetics, housing, and good graphics. I have always said that I love Sci-fi, but if there was a fantasy game that was like EVE with modern third-person combat. That would be the game for me. Ashes is not exactly that, but it is a close enough cousin to get me excited and accept some of the things I feel are flaws.

If you think I am not a part of the "Target Audience", based on anything I have just said. I invite you to tell me why as well.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Vhaeyne

I did not pre-order New World because things have been changing so much, the game is just unpredictable. It is the opposite of Mortal Online 2 and Pantheon in that I know what those games are and I have no fucking idea what New World will be. I am thus too worried about not liking it to even deal with it.

Ashes is consistent enough at a glance that the ambiguity that is there is harder to deal with when you realize it's there.

Azherae

Vhaeyne wrote: »

I did not pre-order New World because things have been changing so much, the game is just unpredictable. It is the opposite of Mortal Online 2 and Pantheon in that I know what those games are and I have no fucking idea what New World will be. I am thus too worried about not liking it to even deal with it.

Ashes is consistent enough at a glance that the ambiguity that is there is harder to deal with when you realize it's there.

My problem with Ashes is actually that all the things they are unambiguous about are good when they're done well and terrible to the point of painful when they are not. It's not usually things like 'There will be this ratio of instanced dungeons to non', it's stuff like 'we will be balancing around group PvP'. Uhhh....

And New World was just another reminder in a very long list of 'MMOs are really hard to make and require a rare skillset'. I watch it and think 'wait who signed off on this?' at least once per video. I find it incredibly hard to trust that MMO developers have thought their systems (or the lack of implementation of one) through.

When you've worked in a 100-person company that teeters along on the backs of 5 people who actually know what they're doing, you learn not to expect that specific type of competence. Fortunately, I do believe that just 'dedication' and 'willingness to think about it' goes a long way. At least moreso than 'having the Amazon name' or anything similar.

Vhaeyne

@Dygz

Let's try to have some fun. I am hoping/assuming you know very little about Mortal Online 2.

Reading this, do you think you are in Mortal Online 2's target audience?

Mortal Online 2 is a next generation, first-person, sandbox MMORPG set in a fantasy world.

In Mortal Online 2, players are never truly free from danger. There are no specific PvP or safe zones, only an open, realistic world where you are free to choose your own path. Experience true, real-time combat where outcomes are decided by skill rather than levels or gear.

Build your own house, create a guild, construct a keep and forge an empire. With enough power, violence or diplomacy, you and your allies may rule an entire nation.

Mortal Online caters to players of all shapes, sizes and playstyles. Become a legendary crafter whose goods are traded across the globe. Study the art of combat and become a famous warrior. Explore areas never before seen by other players. This is a world where your individual reputation is everything. No matter what path you decide to take, people will recognize you by the impact you’ve made on the world.

Dygz

Based on that quote, I am in their target audience, but there are flags that I wouldn't enjoy the game very much - which makes sense since I haven't played it and didn't follow its development.

First-person, sandbox...I don't particularly find either of those appealing.
Choose your own path doesn't necessarily sound appealing.
Skill rather than levels (and gear) doesn't sound appealing for an RPG.
I want to ever quest and experience a never-ending story - seems like Mortal Online 2 is too free form for that, based on the quote.

I think a significant difference between what Ashes says is their target audience and what Mortal Combat says is their target audience is that Ashes is a themebox, while Mortal Online is a sandbox.
Ashes is striving for hybrid Tab Target and Action Combat - seems like Mortal Online 2 does not have tab target. Etc..

But, whether I am in their target audience is mostly irrelevant.
What's relevant is whether or not they have enough of the features, systems and mechanics I want to entice me to play the game. Seems from that blurb that they don't. Regardless of who they are targeting.

Vhaeyne

Dygz wrote: »

Based on that quote, I am in their target audience, but there are flags that I wouldn't be very interested in the game - which makes sense since I haven't played it.

First-person, sandbox...I don't particularly find either of those appealing.
Choose your own path doesn't necessarily sound appealing.
Skill rather than levels (and gear) doesn't sound appealing for an RPG.
I want to ever quest and experience a never-ending story.

Yeah, based on what little I know about you, I did not get the idea you would like the skill over levels and gear part.

What I like about their description is that it starts strong with all of the things people would love or hate depending on the type of MMORPG player they are. In a way it kind of filters people out before they get in over their head with hopes and expectations.

Then it follows up with:

Mortal Online caters to players of all shapes, sizes and playstyles. Become a legendary crafter whose goods are traded across the globe. Study the art of combat and become a famous warrior. Explore areas never before seen by other players. This is a world where your individual reputation is everything. No matter what path you decide to take, people will recognize you by the impact you’ve made on the world.

Which in my opinion is not true. Mortal Online does not cater to players of all shapes, sizes and playstyles. Far from it. The game is brutal as can be and has lacks tons of things a mainstream MMORPG player would want.
It caters not to p2w players or PvE only players.

For some reason. Despite how deceptive, I think Mortal Online 2's description of itself is. Mortal Online 2 seems to have successfully found only its target audience.

I just wish things were more like that for Ashes.

Dygz

Sure, but the difference is that the Ashes devs are actually working on systems for almost every playstyle, while it's pretty clear up front that Mortal Online 2 is not working on Themepark or Tab Target systems.

Of course, Mortal Online 2 is only going to grab the sandbox audience if they don't have any themebox in their design or implementation. Of course, they will pretty much only grab the "action combat" audience if they have no tab target combat in their design or implementation.

Ashes actually has systems and features and mechanics to support almost every MMORPG playstyle in their design. Ashes target audience is "almost every" MMORPG "playstyle".
And you keep trying to narrow it down it to to whatever your vision is of the target audience.
The Ashes target audience - who the devs are designing systems for- is considerably broader than you want it to be.

Vhaeyne

Dygz wrote: »

And you keep trying to narrow it down it to to whatever your vision is of the target audience.
The Ashes target audience - who the devs are designing systems for- is considerably broader than you want it to be.

It's not that I keep trying to narrow down the target audience. The game's stated systems should be doing that on its own inherently. The problem is that we have contradictory statements from Intrepid that artificially expands the target audience to include people that will hate Ashes.

You stated early in this thread that everyone here is the target audience:

Dygz wrote: »

Everyone in the forums believe they are a part of the target audience.

This has been demonstrated to not be true. Only a handful of people have participated in this thread, and many of us are in here scratching our heads wondering if we are going to be in the target audience or not?

I don't know how you don't see the confusion as a problem. Especially in a climate where MMORPGs fail due to struggles to find their target audience. Which was part of the problem Jahlon was highlighting when he made the video that spawned these threads.

Is everyone wrong but you @Dygz ?

McMackMuck

@Vhaeyne
Am I part of the target audience?

A really good question.

https://ashesofcreation.com/news/2019-12-31-creative-directors-letter
invites us all to "the world we hope you'll call home."

I feel welcome. At face value the game features are appealing. I guess I'm within the target audience.

Ashes stands out as a beacon of hope for no p2w MMORPGs because it promises to deliver so many desirable systems. I don't feel the need to repeat the long list of game features that many other posters have so eloquently highlighted, other than to "+1" them.

As a minimum at launch, for me, the combat needs to be "4 out of 5 stars", the other systems could get away with averaging a mediocre "3 out of 5 stars". It would take several months to determine if the game will keep running with a healthy population, the more stars the better the prognosis. That might be an interesting poll - how bad can the game be at release and you would still play it for at least a year, providing that your server population stayed healthy and active?

The good thing about about the transparent development is that we can track the current state of the game against our own interpretation of the proposed expectation, making it much easier for individuals to judge when/if they want to financially commit.

Even if the game released in its current state (not going to happen!) I would probably sub for a month just to walk around the world and admire first hand the environmental art that Mr Bacon and team have worked on. Alpha1 vistas (I don't know the exact terminology) - the use of lower resolution rendering of distant objects to give a feel for the sheer size of the world - I found really (OMG) impressive.

akabear

I think if NW is able to provide meaningful updates and build the base game successfully from what they have now well, then they will be a strong contender for drawing away a portion of the player base from many mmorpg`s, including AoC. They have a 2-3 year head start on AoC.

Target audience will likely also be lost to a good number of players temporarily to some of the big ticket RPG games (not MMO) that are not so far around the corner too.

So timing when to release will be quite a strategy to get right.

bigepeen

akabear wrote: »

I think if NW is able to provide meaningful updates and build the base game successfully from what they have now well, then they will be a strong contender for drawing away a portion of the player base from many mmorpg`s, including AoC. They have a 2-3 year head start on AoC.

New World will be extremely popular in the first 6 months, after which popularity drops off a cliff. Their business model is to make the game appeal to as many people as possible for high volume of initial sales, then introduce a cash shop later to capitalize on that. I believe they recently delayed the game again, because they promised no "pay for convenience" items until 2022, and they want as many people as possible to buy cash shop items before they hit level 60 and quit. They realized that they needed to start introducing cash shop items less than 6 months after release to make as much money as possible.

The only good things about New World are graphics, action combat, and leveling progression. Once the majority of players hit 60, the game will be mostly dead. Open world PvP is meaningless and not rewarding with their flagging opt-in system, and the instanced PvP, while combat is good, is not more fun than playing a standard multiplayer game.

Dygz

Vhaeyne wrote: »

It's not that I keep trying to narrow down the target audience. The game's stated systems should be doing that on its own inherently. The problem is that we have contradictory statements from Intrepid that artificially expands the target audience to include people that will hate Ashes.

It's not contradictory. The devs have systems for "almost every" MMORPG playstyle.
What playstyle does Ashes not have systems for??

Vhaeyne wrote: »

You stated early in this thread that everyone here is the target audience:

Dygz wrote: »

Everyone in the forums believe they are a part of the target audience.

This has been demonstrated to not be true.

LMFAO
That statement is not the target audience.
That statement is about belief in the target audience.
You are right. My statement about belief has been demonstrated not be true.
I don't know why anyone would follow a game when they do not believe they are part of the target audience, but people do odd things.

The devs state that they want solo players in the game. The devs state that they have features designed for solo players. And yet a solo player states they don't believe they are in the target audience.
A fan not believing they are in the target audience does not mean that they actually aren't in the target audience. Just as someone believing that the Earth is flat doesn't mean the Earth is flat.

Leth mentions caravans as an example of where grouping will be necessary, but we can hire NPC guards for caravans, so solo player can hire NPCs rather than gather a group of players. And then, as the caravan travels, other players can choose to guard the caravan. There are mechanisms in place to support solo players.
Some people might not beware of all the systems and others might choose to ignore/dismiss the systems that don't fit their playstyle.

Vhaeyne wrote: »

Only a handful of people have participated in this thread, and many of us are in here scratching our heads wondering if we are going to be in the target audience or not?

You keep framing it as "target audience" and I keep telling you what you are talking about is different than "target audience".
What you are talking about is whether you will actually enjoy playing the game.

What is the target release date? Do you believe the target release date is actually the target? Why do believe it's not truly the target?
Whether you believe they will actually hit the target release date is a different question.
When Steven stated that their target release date was before 2020, I believed that was their target date because that was their target date.
I did not in any way believe they would actually hit that target.

Vhaeyne wrote: »

I don't know how you don't see the confusion as a problem. Especially in a climate where MMORPGs fail due to struggles to find their target audience. Which was part of the problem Jahlon was highlighting when he made the video that spawned these threads.

You still need to clarify what it is you think is not the target audience and why.

The devs state that they want solo players to be part of the playerbase. They have mentioned features and systems for solo players. Do you not believe solo players are part of the target audience? If not, why not?

The devs state that they want casual players to be part of the playerbase.
"The idea is to incorporate some significant chunk of time but still respect the casual player, because you know the way we respect the casual player is not everything is driven in our game through the adventuring progression line. Not everything is driven through your class level per-se. There's a lot of different progression paths that are available and make you relevant within certain systems and mechanics within the game; and some of those paths are more casual friendly and some of those paths are more hardcore friendly."
How is that confusing and why do you not believe them?

Again, the Ashes devs are definitely targeting me. I typically play on PvE-Only servers. They want me to play and they are hoping that the Corruption mechanic is a enough of a random gank deterrent that I will enjoy playing on their PvX-Only servers.
I believe I am in their target audience because - I am in their target audience.
Do I believe I will enjoy playing the final version of the game? Of that I'm not convinced. I will have to see if Corruption actually works as well as the devs think it will.
Target audience and whether I will enjoy the game are not the same thing.
Target playerbase and actual player base may not be the same thing.
Am I in their target playerbase? Yes.
Will I be in their actual playerbase at launch? I don't know.
I'm not confused about that.

I am confused by what it is that you are trying to figure out (and why), but I don't think it's about "target audience." The Ashes devs have been quite clear about their target audience:
They have features and systems in the design for almost every MMORPG playstyle.
The game is not just a sandbox, it is also a themepark - it is a themebox.
Their target/goal is for hybrid combat - not just tab target, but also action.
Whether or not I believe they will hit that target/goal is a different question than what the target/goal is.

The problem is that we have contradictory statements from Intrepid that artificially expands the target audience to include people that will hate Ashes.

What do you think are the artificial expansions - and what is the evidence that they are actually artificial?

Nerror

I am part of the target audience.

Why? I have a credit card and I am willing to pay good money for a good MMORPG experience.

The main feature that makes me believe in a good MMORPG experience in Ashes is the node system, with all it's derivative systems. I want to build up a good node, while destroying all competing nodes.

Azherae

Nerror wrote: »

I am part of the target audience.

Why? I have a credit card and I am willing to pay good money for a good MMORPG experience.

The main feature that makes me believe in a good MMORPG experience in Ashes is the node system, with all it's derivative systems. I want to build up a good node, while destroying all competing nodes.

The Node system, while great, and 'amazing that no one has actually implemented it before now on a big scale', is not hard to design, it's only moderately hard to implement.

If Ashes isn't good, then Wayward Realms will do it. If Wayward Realms fails at it, another will pop up with it. If not them, someone else. The fact that Steven was the first to commit to it is great and if the rest of the game suits a sufficient amount of people, then it will absolutely hold onto its pioneer spot.

But it's not as if this will be some 'completely unique' thing, especially once people see how Intrepid does it and start basic reverse engineering the design. It looks like just tiled weighting with architectural limits. I have a literal equation for this already that I use for a Tabletop.

Are you saying 'you will play Ashes even if you like Wayward Realms gameplay better'? Or just 'any game with a Node system includes you in its target Audience'?

CROW3

Nerror wrote: »

I am part of the target audience.

Why? I have a credit card and I am willing to pay good money for a good MMORPG experience.

The main feature that makes me believe in a good MMORPG experience in Ashes is the node system, with all it's derivative systems. I want to build up a good node, while destroying all competing nodes.

Just to be a pedantic ass. There's a difference (from a product perspective) between a customer (a consumer that purchases your product) and a targeted customer (a specific segment you are intentionally pursuing to purchase your product). For instance, a list of feature updates will be prioritized based on the segments they are targeting, not based on all customer feedback.

That's not arguing whether you are or are not part of the target audience (I personally would say you are). I just wanted to make the point above.

</pedantic asshat-ery>

JustVine

CROW3 wrote: »

Nerror wrote: »

I am part of the target audience.

Why? I have a credit card and I am willing to pay good money for a good MMORPG experience.

The main feature that makes me believe in a good MMORPG experience in Ashes is the node system, with all it's derivative systems. I want to build up a good node, while destroying all competing nodes.

Just to be a pedantic ass. There's a difference (from a product perspective) between a customer (a consumer that purchases your product) and a targeted customer (a specific segment you are intentionally pursuing to purchase your product). For instance, a list of feature updates will be prioritized based on the segments they are targeting, not based on all customer feedback.

That's not arguing whether you are or are not part of the target audience (I personally would say you are). I just wanted to make the point above.

</pedantic asshat-ery>

Thats why 'every mmo player' isn't a target audience. If your product is 'mmo' 'anyone who buys an mmo' isn't a target. People who think it is make watered down garbage 9 times out of 10 and not just mmos. Anything. It's like if Strickland Propane said 'our target audience is anyone who buys propane and propane accessories.' No Dale, your target audience is 'people with grills'.

CROW3

JustVine wrote: »

Anything. It's like if Strickland Propane said 'our target audience is anyone who buys propane and propane accessories.' No Dale, your target audience is 'people with grills'.

LOL! Well-wait-a-gosh-darn-min-der-dum-guy-wip-fsh-n-steak-jus-wan-eat-man-gsh-darn.

I miss Boomhauer.

Dygz

I agree. Just because you're making an MMORPG does not inherently mean every MMORPG playestyle is in your target audience.

But, if the devs state that their MMORPG has a role for almost every MMORPG playstyle and when you ask them about support for specific playstyles they tell you about the systems they've designed for those playstyles - and they actually have systems designed for almost every playstyle, then the target audience is almost every playstyle.
And then you have to determine which playstyle is not included in "almost every".

Dygz

Azherae wrote: »

If Ashes isn't good, then Wayward Realms will do it. If Wayward Realms fails at it, another will pop up with it. If not them, someone else. The fact that Steven was the first to commit to it is great and if the rest of the game suits a sufficient amount of people, then it will absolutely hold onto its pioneer spot.

But it's not as if this will be some 'completely unique' thing, especially once people see how Intrepid does it and start basic reverse engineering the design. It looks like just tiled weighting with architectural limits. I have a literal equation for this already that I use for a Tabletop.

I don't think Steven was the first to commit to Nodes.
It's very similar to the EQNext design. Which is great, since Steven has a bunch of SOE/Daybreak devs on his team.
I expect to see more of this in the future. Yes.

Nerror

Azherae wrote: »

The Node system, while great, and 'amazing that no one has actually implemented it before now on a big scale', is not hard to design, it's only moderately hard to implement.

If Ashes isn't good, then Wayward Realms will do it. If Wayward Realms fails at it, another will pop up with it. If not them, someone else. The fact that Steven was the first to commit to it is great and if the rest of the game suits a sufficient amount of people, then it will absolutely hold onto its pioneer spot.

But it's not as if this will be some 'completely unique' thing, especially once people see how Intrepid does it and start basic reverse engineering the design. It looks like just tiled weighting with architectural limits. I have a literal equation for this already that I use for a Tabletop.

Are you saying 'you will play Ashes even if you like Wayward Realms gameplay better'? Or just 'any game with a Node system includes you in its target Audience'?

Oh I didn't know about Wayward Realms. Looks potentially promising! But it's also a different genre than Ashes, so the two don't really compete. I can see myself playing both. I like the general concept of nodes/cities competing in general, but the MMO part of Ashes is what I think elevates it. Single-player just can't compete with player driven content in that regard IMO.

The node concept isn't new no, but Ashes is the first game to elevate it to this level and scale, where players build up a big city that changes the entire world around it, and then potentially destroy it again to open up new content.

CROW3 wrote: »

Just to be a pedantic ass. There's a difference (from a product perspective) between a customer (a consumer that purchases your product) and a targeted customer (a specific segment you are intentionally pursuing to purchase your product). For instance, a list of feature updates will be prioritized based on the segments they are targeting, not based on all customer feedback.

That's not arguing whether you are or are not part of the target audience (I personally would say you are). I just wanted to make the point above.

</pedantic asshat-ery>

I know, I was being rather tongue-in-cheek with that first part

I think the topic here is a bit moot. When you boil it down, I am in their target audience because I happen to like their design choices overall. It's not one specific thing. It's really that simple. I think a better way of framing this is something along the line of "What excites you the most about Ashes?", which I know has been done before.

Steven and Intrepid doesn't strike me as a company that sat down and designed a game based on a target audience other than themselves. It's closer to the whole "build it and they will come" way of doing things.

To oversimplify things perhaps, the only real target audience is Steven. He just hopes other people will like it in numbers big enough to have an mmorpg for him to enjoy, and for him to make some money too I am sure.

CROW3

Nerror wrote: »

I know, I was being rather tongue-in-cheek with that first part

I know - just couldn't help myself.

Nerror wrote: »

Steven and Intrepid doesn't strike me as a company that sat down and designed a game based on a target audience other than themselves. It's closer to the whole "build it and they will come" way of doing things.

To oversimplify things perhaps, the only real target audience is Steven. He just hopes other people will like it in numbers big enough to have an mmorpg for him to enjoy, and for him to make some money too I am sure.

I think there's a lot to be said there. I don't think Steven is being overly analytical when deciding core features that are in or out. I think a huge part is, "I want this," so it's in. I do think there has to be some discussion inside IS about, 'well, who do we actually think our core audience will be?'

Child Item