Mag7spy wrote: » Roelath wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Roelath wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Roelath wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Roelath wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Roelath wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Roelath wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » You really are not looking at the overall picture, there is a reason why games don't do a sub model anymore. You most likely don't understand tons of people out there that a sub model means they wont play the game. The larger that number the less players will be willing to play. And quite a lot of players are getting tired of the f2p+bp monetization scheme, especially when it's super obvious that the companies go for that scheme cause they're greedy, rather than cause they need the money to keep the lights on. People also FUCKING LOVE SUBS. Just look at all the services people pay for on monthly basis. The only thing that determines whether people keep that sub is the quality of the content (and the payers forgetfulness). If Ashes is great and people keep saying that it's great - it will have enough subs to pay the devs. Some people liking subs is not the majority you are coping (even more so if you are interacting with more people on forums and people from old school mmorpgs). There is a reason why AoC is not doing box / expansion cost. Most people prefer not paying monthly that is just a fact. And if you trying to convince me people will be fine paying 25$+ (BASE PRICE) is just wild. *EDIT So for me that would turn into 34$ a month lmfao. I prefer subs over buying an entry for $60 just to dislike the product and not have an alternative for a refund. Paying $15/m entry fee is far less than modern day gaming just in general. A lot of modern titles that involve the $60 price only last 30-40hours of actual gameplay before a player has finished the story campaign. You could play the entire game in ~3 weeks and still not yield the same amount as a subscription model. Though I find it humorous that you claim someone else is wrong & coping and then proceed to make the claim your stance is fact. Sounds like you have not being paying attention to modern games for awhile. If developers new subscription models worked tons of games would be actively doing it and pushing for it *ie destiny not having a active sub model and instead doing a box price every year as a work around to hide it. You are 100% coping as well gaming history tells you other wise, as you clearly don't have the grasp on the barrier of entry it creates. And you are losing the point of the conversation about increased price of a sub model to balance out inflation (ie you aren't paying 15$ you are paying more), instead of the pressure being put on other people using a battlepass. Again we are talking about what is successful monetization not you are fine with. You're comparing the market today that uses F2P to get people hooked onto their game and then utilizes Battlepasses as a means to increase revenue by doing barely anything. Modern gaming isn't anything to be praised for their current practices. They use FOMO, whales, gambling, and children to increase their revenue. These aren't pillars of morality or good faith between developers and the consumers that consume their products. The $15/m model works. I posted earlier in this thread that with the current staff the company would still yield $500million/yearly revenue after salary requirements with a 1/4 of WoW's peak numbers. The companies pushing for battlepasses, loot crates, fomo, etc are all bloated bureaucratic companies that are looking out for their investors and not their consumers interests. I see you have a skewed outlook on the F2P model and i don't really share that. If your standard of f2P is like a gotcha game that involves P2W. That isn't the standard for all F2P. Also this disccusion is not about AoC going F2P. If you think AoC will have millions of subs (2-3 months in) then there isn't much point in this discussion since they would be fine. And wouldn't need to rely on anything else. I'm not going to argue what they will have I'm trying to be mindful of what they need. And if they don't what are the options that aren't going to increase the barrier of entry or add p2w. A battlepass doesn't add any negative effects and do to the modern age people are accepting of paying extra money for one. F2P models when it comes to MMORPGs have always been bloated with ways to get to a player's credit card asap. They will pester and displays ads continually to get the player to fork over some cash. I don't want any annoyances when I boot up a game or when I'm playing one. I've tried a number of F2P MMOs and they've all acted similar to one another. It isn't about AoC going F2P but, discussing the current modern games that do utilize Battlepasses as a means for additional revenue. I personally find it lazy and obnoxious to the experience. What exactly do Battlepasses even offer? Vanity items. A cosmetic shop already exists so why does there need to be an additional vanity item revenue source? If the game is struggling and needs additional revenue than ultimately the game has failed on the premise of what it was offerring by not having the sub numbers to keep it afloat or the economy is destroyed to the point where people can't afford anything. Meaning that it won't just be Intrepid suffering and a Battlepass wouldn't solve that scenario. Ultimately it's either AoC is successful because it kept to its promises or it fails because it didn't. Even a game such as a "New World" is yielding 15million subscribers (Though I doubt that entirely). AoC yielding a couple million worldwide doesn't seem hard to imagine considering how many people there are that play videogames. I'm unsure where you are getting your numbers but whatever site you are using you should not be using. You are most likely getting bloated numbers from everything that are not nearly accurate. There are varying degrees of successes, i guess you could view Aoc as a success with it being indie studio and having 3 servers up per region. And cutting more than half the team size and making back money of the development after some years being a new studio. With much limited growth on the game do to the money it makes not enough enough for new growth. Ultimately again game development is expensive, a battle pass being cosmetics has 0 impact on any meaningful gameplay to you and can give additional revenue. Your negative view on it feels more out of spite than any reality where it effects you actually playing the game. If you don't open the store page I'm unsure how that is even affecting your viewing experience on the game to begin with, since you don't even see it. So what i see is something that has 0 impact, something you don't really see but you are saying its bad just cause. Even if it gives revenge to the game which helps it stay a float and have a stronger dev team. Expecting WoW level success i feel is not the best way to look at AoC, I feel it will have a lot of people at launch but what matters is 2-3 months after and the people that will keep playing the game and sustaining them for the rest of the year. Not the people trying it for 15$ and jumping out. What point i find interesting is how is a battle pass lazy and obnoxious to the experience. It really is just a progression path you increase and gain rewards for those interested. A way to milk impatient people, give people very limited free items to play the game. Yes, I found the source to be dubious at best but if the numbers are accurate even to 50% it goes well beyond the threshold I mentioned previously. I don't disagree with game development being expensive. I disagree with modern developer studios that have matured that can't produce functioning/fun games even with $200 million such as Skull & Bones being the standard of what to expect. You have to remember modern AAA gaming studios are no different from government entities with their expenses. Everything is incredibly expensive, bureaucratic, staff bloat, out of touch higher ups, etc. Ashes being an Indie developer doesn't suffer from this wastefulness. Stardock another Indie dev from 2008 produced a game costing around 1million in expenses but, yielded roughly $25million in revenue. I can understand the discussion of trying to make sure AoC survives if economic troubles comes afoot but, if they're struggling to get a base of subs they've failed already. It'll be another F2P MMO like many others that have come. MMORPGs have to yield subs if they are to survive without turning into a F2P because the subs are dying off. Battlepasses are a bandaid approach to revenue garnering when the game truly needs surgery if its going to survive the eventual F2P curse. Point is It isn't' IS job to change that and find some new creative solution to monetize people. They should do what works and focus on making a good game. I mentioned this earlier but low balling salary alone then its 12m a year, IS is very much a triple A budget right now. And Id rather not see half the dev team let go to reduce cost if the game can not make enough money so sustain all the different factors they will have to pay. They should do a bit of everything in order to keep the barrier of entry low so more people are willing to play, or will accept maybe the sub model isn't that bad if they try it. Again battle passes are not a band-aid approach games are all using this because it works and give profit. If battle-passes were band-aid companies would not be using the model. The point with AoC is not to be the main source but to have other incentives to spend money and keep people invested into the game. Essentially its a discount on a bundle of items with a requirement of playing the game and earning them over a period of time (unless you whale and buy level ups to get them faster which gives more profit to milk some whales.) Some people that might not buy things normally do to how common BP is might be more prone to spend money. Based on the market with games it is clearly successful, if they did it in AoC and no one spent money on it id expect they wouldn't continue it. And would look for other ways to monetize. Current staff is 200 people. Even if they're paid 200k/y that's $40mil/y expenses. A lot of the current modern studios are bloated with do nothing types and it's why their hiring practices are the way they are. They don't want warm bodies filling a seat producing this product. Which is where I acquired the 500mil/y revenue (post salary) with pure sub counts if it yielded a 1/4 of WoW's peak numbers (3million). They are a bandaid fix if the company is utilizing them because revenue is down and they need extra capital to sustain the existence of the company/product. I really don't care if a model is successful somewhere else. When it's applied to this genre it doesn't turn out well when said activities that BPs promote generally should be player and/or community driven decisions. Not an external system giving arbitrary missions for a player to do. I won't lie it works in other games but, I don't believe it's good for a MMORPG to have such a model. We can argue forever on the issue but, I don't find there will be a moment where we do agree on the approach on monetization practices of Battlepasses. Wherever you are getting your numbers from again you should not use that site. Something can't be a band-aid fix if they are using the model and growing their game off of it from the start. Saying its a band-aid fix makes 0 sense. It shows that there is a profit in that monetization without requiring any barrier to entry. Again AoC is a sub model the point is BP can help get more profits without increasing the barrier to entry. Lets not be using inaccurate numbers on top of WoW comparison. This is AoC not WoW2. Is that your point is that my numbers are inaccurate? The numbers I've looked into from a number of sources. Provide data that shows they're off or be quiet about it. Thus far you've been short of dubious with your constant remarks.https://growjo.com/company/Intrepid_Studioshttps://www.zoominfo.com/c/intrepid-studios/1102976203https://www.linkedin.com/company/intrepid-studios-inc/?originalSubdomain=ph There is no plan to have Battlepasses. The assumption is that they're going forward with their current plan of a sub to play method. There is no need for an additional revenue source and Battlepasses don't fit a MMORPG genre for the points I've made previously. Revenue for the sake of revenue at the cost of other areas is baseline foolish. Again, what inaccurate numbers concerning WoW? You make these constant claims that something else is false and provide zero evidence. You could just as easily google search "Peak wow sub count" and provide that I'm wrong about it being 12million subs. It seems you don't know what I'm talking about with numbers figured i was pretty clear as I had directly mentioned it multiple times. The sources you are getting numbers from how many people are subscribed to mmorpgs are wildly inaccurate. That has nothing to do with IS, my number about low balling how much they make though is based on how many people are in the company and doing the lowest low ball i could do. I'm well versed with linkedin
Roelath wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Roelath wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Roelath wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Roelath wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Roelath wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Roelath wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » You really are not looking at the overall picture, there is a reason why games don't do a sub model anymore. You most likely don't understand tons of people out there that a sub model means they wont play the game. The larger that number the less players will be willing to play. And quite a lot of players are getting tired of the f2p+bp monetization scheme, especially when it's super obvious that the companies go for that scheme cause they're greedy, rather than cause they need the money to keep the lights on. People also FUCKING LOVE SUBS. Just look at all the services people pay for on monthly basis. The only thing that determines whether people keep that sub is the quality of the content (and the payers forgetfulness). If Ashes is great and people keep saying that it's great - it will have enough subs to pay the devs. Some people liking subs is not the majority you are coping (even more so if you are interacting with more people on forums and people from old school mmorpgs). There is a reason why AoC is not doing box / expansion cost. Most people prefer not paying monthly that is just a fact. And if you trying to convince me people will be fine paying 25$+ (BASE PRICE) is just wild. *EDIT So for me that would turn into 34$ a month lmfao. I prefer subs over buying an entry for $60 just to dislike the product and not have an alternative for a refund. Paying $15/m entry fee is far less than modern day gaming just in general. A lot of modern titles that involve the $60 price only last 30-40hours of actual gameplay before a player has finished the story campaign. You could play the entire game in ~3 weeks and still not yield the same amount as a subscription model. Though I find it humorous that you claim someone else is wrong & coping and then proceed to make the claim your stance is fact. Sounds like you have not being paying attention to modern games for awhile. If developers new subscription models worked tons of games would be actively doing it and pushing for it *ie destiny not having a active sub model and instead doing a box price every year as a work around to hide it. You are 100% coping as well gaming history tells you other wise, as you clearly don't have the grasp on the barrier of entry it creates. And you are losing the point of the conversation about increased price of a sub model to balance out inflation (ie you aren't paying 15$ you are paying more), instead of the pressure being put on other people using a battlepass. Again we are talking about what is successful monetization not you are fine with. You're comparing the market today that uses F2P to get people hooked onto their game and then utilizes Battlepasses as a means to increase revenue by doing barely anything. Modern gaming isn't anything to be praised for their current practices. They use FOMO, whales, gambling, and children to increase their revenue. These aren't pillars of morality or good faith between developers and the consumers that consume their products. The $15/m model works. I posted earlier in this thread that with the current staff the company would still yield $500million/yearly revenue after salary requirements with a 1/4 of WoW's peak numbers. The companies pushing for battlepasses, loot crates, fomo, etc are all bloated bureaucratic companies that are looking out for their investors and not their consumers interests. I see you have a skewed outlook on the F2P model and i don't really share that. If your standard of f2P is like a gotcha game that involves P2W. That isn't the standard for all F2P. Also this disccusion is not about AoC going F2P. If you think AoC will have millions of subs (2-3 months in) then there isn't much point in this discussion since they would be fine. And wouldn't need to rely on anything else. I'm not going to argue what they will have I'm trying to be mindful of what they need. And if they don't what are the options that aren't going to increase the barrier of entry or add p2w. A battlepass doesn't add any negative effects and do to the modern age people are accepting of paying extra money for one. F2P models when it comes to MMORPGs have always been bloated with ways to get to a player's credit card asap. They will pester and displays ads continually to get the player to fork over some cash. I don't want any annoyances when I boot up a game or when I'm playing one. I've tried a number of F2P MMOs and they've all acted similar to one another. It isn't about AoC going F2P but, discussing the current modern games that do utilize Battlepasses as a means for additional revenue. I personally find it lazy and obnoxious to the experience. What exactly do Battlepasses even offer? Vanity items. A cosmetic shop already exists so why does there need to be an additional vanity item revenue source? If the game is struggling and needs additional revenue than ultimately the game has failed on the premise of what it was offerring by not having the sub numbers to keep it afloat or the economy is destroyed to the point where people can't afford anything. Meaning that it won't just be Intrepid suffering and a Battlepass wouldn't solve that scenario. Ultimately it's either AoC is successful because it kept to its promises or it fails because it didn't. Even a game such as a "New World" is yielding 15million subscribers (Though I doubt that entirely). AoC yielding a couple million worldwide doesn't seem hard to imagine considering how many people there are that play videogames. I'm unsure where you are getting your numbers but whatever site you are using you should not be using. You are most likely getting bloated numbers from everything that are not nearly accurate. There are varying degrees of successes, i guess you could view Aoc as a success with it being indie studio and having 3 servers up per region. And cutting more than half the team size and making back money of the development after some years being a new studio. With much limited growth on the game do to the money it makes not enough enough for new growth. Ultimately again game development is expensive, a battle pass being cosmetics has 0 impact on any meaningful gameplay to you and can give additional revenue. Your negative view on it feels more out of spite than any reality where it effects you actually playing the game. If you don't open the store page I'm unsure how that is even affecting your viewing experience on the game to begin with, since you don't even see it. So what i see is something that has 0 impact, something you don't really see but you are saying its bad just cause. Even if it gives revenge to the game which helps it stay a float and have a stronger dev team. Expecting WoW level success i feel is not the best way to look at AoC, I feel it will have a lot of people at launch but what matters is 2-3 months after and the people that will keep playing the game and sustaining them for the rest of the year. Not the people trying it for 15$ and jumping out. What point i find interesting is how is a battle pass lazy and obnoxious to the experience. It really is just a progression path you increase and gain rewards for those interested. A way to milk impatient people, give people very limited free items to play the game. Yes, I found the source to be dubious at best but if the numbers are accurate even to 50% it goes well beyond the threshold I mentioned previously. I don't disagree with game development being expensive. I disagree with modern developer studios that have matured that can't produce functioning/fun games even with $200 million such as Skull & Bones being the standard of what to expect. You have to remember modern AAA gaming studios are no different from government entities with their expenses. Everything is incredibly expensive, bureaucratic, staff bloat, out of touch higher ups, etc. Ashes being an Indie developer doesn't suffer from this wastefulness. Stardock another Indie dev from 2008 produced a game costing around 1million in expenses but, yielded roughly $25million in revenue. I can understand the discussion of trying to make sure AoC survives if economic troubles comes afoot but, if they're struggling to get a base of subs they've failed already. It'll be another F2P MMO like many others that have come. MMORPGs have to yield subs if they are to survive without turning into a F2P because the subs are dying off. Battlepasses are a bandaid approach to revenue garnering when the game truly needs surgery if its going to survive the eventual F2P curse. Point is It isn't' IS job to change that and find some new creative solution to monetize people. They should do what works and focus on making a good game. I mentioned this earlier but low balling salary alone then its 12m a year, IS is very much a triple A budget right now. And Id rather not see half the dev team let go to reduce cost if the game can not make enough money so sustain all the different factors they will have to pay. They should do a bit of everything in order to keep the barrier of entry low so more people are willing to play, or will accept maybe the sub model isn't that bad if they try it. Again battle passes are not a band-aid approach games are all using this because it works and give profit. If battle-passes were band-aid companies would not be using the model. The point with AoC is not to be the main source but to have other incentives to spend money and keep people invested into the game. Essentially its a discount on a bundle of items with a requirement of playing the game and earning them over a period of time (unless you whale and buy level ups to get them faster which gives more profit to milk some whales.) Some people that might not buy things normally do to how common BP is might be more prone to spend money. Based on the market with games it is clearly successful, if they did it in AoC and no one spent money on it id expect they wouldn't continue it. And would look for other ways to monetize. Current staff is 200 people. Even if they're paid 200k/y that's $40mil/y expenses. A lot of the current modern studios are bloated with do nothing types and it's why their hiring practices are the way they are. They don't want warm bodies filling a seat producing this product. Which is where I acquired the 500mil/y revenue (post salary) with pure sub counts if it yielded a 1/4 of WoW's peak numbers (3million). They are a bandaid fix if the company is utilizing them because revenue is down and they need extra capital to sustain the existence of the company/product. I really don't care if a model is successful somewhere else. When it's applied to this genre it doesn't turn out well when said activities that BPs promote generally should be player and/or community driven decisions. Not an external system giving arbitrary missions for a player to do. I won't lie it works in other games but, I don't believe it's good for a MMORPG to have such a model. We can argue forever on the issue but, I don't find there will be a moment where we do agree on the approach on monetization practices of Battlepasses. Wherever you are getting your numbers from again you should not use that site. Something can't be a band-aid fix if they are using the model and growing their game off of it from the start. Saying its a band-aid fix makes 0 sense. It shows that there is a profit in that monetization without requiring any barrier to entry. Again AoC is a sub model the point is BP can help get more profits without increasing the barrier to entry. Lets not be using inaccurate numbers on top of WoW comparison. This is AoC not WoW2. Is that your point is that my numbers are inaccurate? The numbers I've looked into from a number of sources. Provide data that shows they're off or be quiet about it. Thus far you've been short of dubious with your constant remarks.https://growjo.com/company/Intrepid_Studioshttps://www.zoominfo.com/c/intrepid-studios/1102976203https://www.linkedin.com/company/intrepid-studios-inc/?originalSubdomain=ph There is no plan to have Battlepasses. The assumption is that they're going forward with their current plan of a sub to play method. There is no need for an additional revenue source and Battlepasses don't fit a MMORPG genre for the points I've made previously. Revenue for the sake of revenue at the cost of other areas is baseline foolish. Again, what inaccurate numbers concerning WoW? You make these constant claims that something else is false and provide zero evidence. You could just as easily google search "Peak wow sub count" and provide that I'm wrong about it being 12million subs.
Mag7spy wrote: » Roelath wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Roelath wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Roelath wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Roelath wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Roelath wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » You really are not looking at the overall picture, there is a reason why games don't do a sub model anymore. You most likely don't understand tons of people out there that a sub model means they wont play the game. The larger that number the less players will be willing to play. And quite a lot of players are getting tired of the f2p+bp monetization scheme, especially when it's super obvious that the companies go for that scheme cause they're greedy, rather than cause they need the money to keep the lights on. People also FUCKING LOVE SUBS. Just look at all the services people pay for on monthly basis. The only thing that determines whether people keep that sub is the quality of the content (and the payers forgetfulness). If Ashes is great and people keep saying that it's great - it will have enough subs to pay the devs. Some people liking subs is not the majority you are coping (even more so if you are interacting with more people on forums and people from old school mmorpgs). There is a reason why AoC is not doing box / expansion cost. Most people prefer not paying monthly that is just a fact. And if you trying to convince me people will be fine paying 25$+ (BASE PRICE) is just wild. *EDIT So for me that would turn into 34$ a month lmfao. I prefer subs over buying an entry for $60 just to dislike the product and not have an alternative for a refund. Paying $15/m entry fee is far less than modern day gaming just in general. A lot of modern titles that involve the $60 price only last 30-40hours of actual gameplay before a player has finished the story campaign. You could play the entire game in ~3 weeks and still not yield the same amount as a subscription model. Though I find it humorous that you claim someone else is wrong & coping and then proceed to make the claim your stance is fact. Sounds like you have not being paying attention to modern games for awhile. If developers new subscription models worked tons of games would be actively doing it and pushing for it *ie destiny not having a active sub model and instead doing a box price every year as a work around to hide it. You are 100% coping as well gaming history tells you other wise, as you clearly don't have the grasp on the barrier of entry it creates. And you are losing the point of the conversation about increased price of a sub model to balance out inflation (ie you aren't paying 15$ you are paying more), instead of the pressure being put on other people using a battlepass. Again we are talking about what is successful monetization not you are fine with. You're comparing the market today that uses F2P to get people hooked onto their game and then utilizes Battlepasses as a means to increase revenue by doing barely anything. Modern gaming isn't anything to be praised for their current practices. They use FOMO, whales, gambling, and children to increase their revenue. These aren't pillars of morality or good faith between developers and the consumers that consume their products. The $15/m model works. I posted earlier in this thread that with the current staff the company would still yield $500million/yearly revenue after salary requirements with a 1/4 of WoW's peak numbers. The companies pushing for battlepasses, loot crates, fomo, etc are all bloated bureaucratic companies that are looking out for their investors and not their consumers interests. I see you have a skewed outlook on the F2P model and i don't really share that. If your standard of f2P is like a gotcha game that involves P2W. That isn't the standard for all F2P. Also this disccusion is not about AoC going F2P. If you think AoC will have millions of subs (2-3 months in) then there isn't much point in this discussion since they would be fine. And wouldn't need to rely on anything else. I'm not going to argue what they will have I'm trying to be mindful of what they need. And if they don't what are the options that aren't going to increase the barrier of entry or add p2w. A battlepass doesn't add any negative effects and do to the modern age people are accepting of paying extra money for one. F2P models when it comes to MMORPGs have always been bloated with ways to get to a player's credit card asap. They will pester and displays ads continually to get the player to fork over some cash. I don't want any annoyances when I boot up a game or when I'm playing one. I've tried a number of F2P MMOs and they've all acted similar to one another. It isn't about AoC going F2P but, discussing the current modern games that do utilize Battlepasses as a means for additional revenue. I personally find it lazy and obnoxious to the experience. What exactly do Battlepasses even offer? Vanity items. A cosmetic shop already exists so why does there need to be an additional vanity item revenue source? If the game is struggling and needs additional revenue than ultimately the game has failed on the premise of what it was offerring by not having the sub numbers to keep it afloat or the economy is destroyed to the point where people can't afford anything. Meaning that it won't just be Intrepid suffering and a Battlepass wouldn't solve that scenario. Ultimately it's either AoC is successful because it kept to its promises or it fails because it didn't. Even a game such as a "New World" is yielding 15million subscribers (Though I doubt that entirely). AoC yielding a couple million worldwide doesn't seem hard to imagine considering how many people there are that play videogames. I'm unsure where you are getting your numbers but whatever site you are using you should not be using. You are most likely getting bloated numbers from everything that are not nearly accurate. There are varying degrees of successes, i guess you could view Aoc as a success with it being indie studio and having 3 servers up per region. And cutting more than half the team size and making back money of the development after some years being a new studio. With much limited growth on the game do to the money it makes not enough enough for new growth. Ultimately again game development is expensive, a battle pass being cosmetics has 0 impact on any meaningful gameplay to you and can give additional revenue. Your negative view on it feels more out of spite than any reality where it effects you actually playing the game. If you don't open the store page I'm unsure how that is even affecting your viewing experience on the game to begin with, since you don't even see it. So what i see is something that has 0 impact, something you don't really see but you are saying its bad just cause. Even if it gives revenge to the game which helps it stay a float and have a stronger dev team. Expecting WoW level success i feel is not the best way to look at AoC, I feel it will have a lot of people at launch but what matters is 2-3 months after and the people that will keep playing the game and sustaining them for the rest of the year. Not the people trying it for 15$ and jumping out. What point i find interesting is how is a battle pass lazy and obnoxious to the experience. It really is just a progression path you increase and gain rewards for those interested. A way to milk impatient people, give people very limited free items to play the game. Yes, I found the source to be dubious at best but if the numbers are accurate even to 50% it goes well beyond the threshold I mentioned previously. I don't disagree with game development being expensive. I disagree with modern developer studios that have matured that can't produce functioning/fun games even with $200 million such as Skull & Bones being the standard of what to expect. You have to remember modern AAA gaming studios are no different from government entities with their expenses. Everything is incredibly expensive, bureaucratic, staff bloat, out of touch higher ups, etc. Ashes being an Indie developer doesn't suffer from this wastefulness. Stardock another Indie dev from 2008 produced a game costing around 1million in expenses but, yielded roughly $25million in revenue. I can understand the discussion of trying to make sure AoC survives if economic troubles comes afoot but, if they're struggling to get a base of subs they've failed already. It'll be another F2P MMO like many others that have come. MMORPGs have to yield subs if they are to survive without turning into a F2P because the subs are dying off. Battlepasses are a bandaid approach to revenue garnering when the game truly needs surgery if its going to survive the eventual F2P curse. Point is It isn't' IS job to change that and find some new creative solution to monetize people. They should do what works and focus on making a good game. I mentioned this earlier but low balling salary alone then its 12m a year, IS is very much a triple A budget right now. And Id rather not see half the dev team let go to reduce cost if the game can not make enough money so sustain all the different factors they will have to pay. They should do a bit of everything in order to keep the barrier of entry low so more people are willing to play, or will accept maybe the sub model isn't that bad if they try it. Again battle passes are not a band-aid approach games are all using this because it works and give profit. If battle-passes were band-aid companies would not be using the model. The point with AoC is not to be the main source but to have other incentives to spend money and keep people invested into the game. Essentially its a discount on a bundle of items with a requirement of playing the game and earning them over a period of time (unless you whale and buy level ups to get them faster which gives more profit to milk some whales.) Some people that might not buy things normally do to how common BP is might be more prone to spend money. Based on the market with games it is clearly successful, if they did it in AoC and no one spent money on it id expect they wouldn't continue it. And would look for other ways to monetize. Current staff is 200 people. Even if they're paid 200k/y that's $40mil/y expenses. A lot of the current modern studios are bloated with do nothing types and it's why their hiring practices are the way they are. They don't want warm bodies filling a seat producing this product. Which is where I acquired the 500mil/y revenue (post salary) with pure sub counts if it yielded a 1/4 of WoW's peak numbers (3million). They are a bandaid fix if the company is utilizing them because revenue is down and they need extra capital to sustain the existence of the company/product. I really don't care if a model is successful somewhere else. When it's applied to this genre it doesn't turn out well when said activities that BPs promote generally should be player and/or community driven decisions. Not an external system giving arbitrary missions for a player to do. I won't lie it works in other games but, I don't believe it's good for a MMORPG to have such a model. We can argue forever on the issue but, I don't find there will be a moment where we do agree on the approach on monetization practices of Battlepasses. Wherever you are getting your numbers from again you should not use that site. Something can't be a band-aid fix if they are using the model and growing their game off of it from the start. Saying its a band-aid fix makes 0 sense. It shows that there is a profit in that monetization without requiring any barrier to entry. Again AoC is a sub model the point is BP can help get more profits without increasing the barrier to entry. Lets not be using inaccurate numbers on top of WoW comparison. This is AoC not WoW2.
Roelath wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Roelath wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Roelath wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Roelath wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Roelath wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » You really are not looking at the overall picture, there is a reason why games don't do a sub model anymore. You most likely don't understand tons of people out there that a sub model means they wont play the game. The larger that number the less players will be willing to play. And quite a lot of players are getting tired of the f2p+bp monetization scheme, especially when it's super obvious that the companies go for that scheme cause they're greedy, rather than cause they need the money to keep the lights on. People also FUCKING LOVE SUBS. Just look at all the services people pay for on monthly basis. The only thing that determines whether people keep that sub is the quality of the content (and the payers forgetfulness). If Ashes is great and people keep saying that it's great - it will have enough subs to pay the devs. Some people liking subs is not the majority you are coping (even more so if you are interacting with more people on forums and people from old school mmorpgs). There is a reason why AoC is not doing box / expansion cost. Most people prefer not paying monthly that is just a fact. And if you trying to convince me people will be fine paying 25$+ (BASE PRICE) is just wild. *EDIT So for me that would turn into 34$ a month lmfao. I prefer subs over buying an entry for $60 just to dislike the product and not have an alternative for a refund. Paying $15/m entry fee is far less than modern day gaming just in general. A lot of modern titles that involve the $60 price only last 30-40hours of actual gameplay before a player has finished the story campaign. You could play the entire game in ~3 weeks and still not yield the same amount as a subscription model. Though I find it humorous that you claim someone else is wrong & coping and then proceed to make the claim your stance is fact. Sounds like you have not being paying attention to modern games for awhile. If developers new subscription models worked tons of games would be actively doing it and pushing for it *ie destiny not having a active sub model and instead doing a box price every year as a work around to hide it. You are 100% coping as well gaming history tells you other wise, as you clearly don't have the grasp on the barrier of entry it creates. And you are losing the point of the conversation about increased price of a sub model to balance out inflation (ie you aren't paying 15$ you are paying more), instead of the pressure being put on other people using a battlepass. Again we are talking about what is successful monetization not you are fine with. You're comparing the market today that uses F2P to get people hooked onto their game and then utilizes Battlepasses as a means to increase revenue by doing barely anything. Modern gaming isn't anything to be praised for their current practices. They use FOMO, whales, gambling, and children to increase their revenue. These aren't pillars of morality or good faith between developers and the consumers that consume their products. The $15/m model works. I posted earlier in this thread that with the current staff the company would still yield $500million/yearly revenue after salary requirements with a 1/4 of WoW's peak numbers. The companies pushing for battlepasses, loot crates, fomo, etc are all bloated bureaucratic companies that are looking out for their investors and not their consumers interests. I see you have a skewed outlook on the F2P model and i don't really share that. If your standard of f2P is like a gotcha game that involves P2W. That isn't the standard for all F2P. Also this disccusion is not about AoC going F2P. If you think AoC will have millions of subs (2-3 months in) then there isn't much point in this discussion since they would be fine. And wouldn't need to rely on anything else. I'm not going to argue what they will have I'm trying to be mindful of what they need. And if they don't what are the options that aren't going to increase the barrier of entry or add p2w. A battlepass doesn't add any negative effects and do to the modern age people are accepting of paying extra money for one. F2P models when it comes to MMORPGs have always been bloated with ways to get to a player's credit card asap. They will pester and displays ads continually to get the player to fork over some cash. I don't want any annoyances when I boot up a game or when I'm playing one. I've tried a number of F2P MMOs and they've all acted similar to one another. It isn't about AoC going F2P but, discussing the current modern games that do utilize Battlepasses as a means for additional revenue. I personally find it lazy and obnoxious to the experience. What exactly do Battlepasses even offer? Vanity items. A cosmetic shop already exists so why does there need to be an additional vanity item revenue source? If the game is struggling and needs additional revenue than ultimately the game has failed on the premise of what it was offerring by not having the sub numbers to keep it afloat or the economy is destroyed to the point where people can't afford anything. Meaning that it won't just be Intrepid suffering and a Battlepass wouldn't solve that scenario. Ultimately it's either AoC is successful because it kept to its promises or it fails because it didn't. Even a game such as a "New World" is yielding 15million subscribers (Though I doubt that entirely). AoC yielding a couple million worldwide doesn't seem hard to imagine considering how many people there are that play videogames. I'm unsure where you are getting your numbers but whatever site you are using you should not be using. You are most likely getting bloated numbers from everything that are not nearly accurate. There are varying degrees of successes, i guess you could view Aoc as a success with it being indie studio and having 3 servers up per region. And cutting more than half the team size and making back money of the development after some years being a new studio. With much limited growth on the game do to the money it makes not enough enough for new growth. Ultimately again game development is expensive, a battle pass being cosmetics has 0 impact on any meaningful gameplay to you and can give additional revenue. Your negative view on it feels more out of spite than any reality where it effects you actually playing the game. If you don't open the store page I'm unsure how that is even affecting your viewing experience on the game to begin with, since you don't even see it. So what i see is something that has 0 impact, something you don't really see but you are saying its bad just cause. Even if it gives revenge to the game which helps it stay a float and have a stronger dev team. Expecting WoW level success i feel is not the best way to look at AoC, I feel it will have a lot of people at launch but what matters is 2-3 months after and the people that will keep playing the game and sustaining them for the rest of the year. Not the people trying it for 15$ and jumping out. What point i find interesting is how is a battle pass lazy and obnoxious to the experience. It really is just a progression path you increase and gain rewards for those interested. A way to milk impatient people, give people very limited free items to play the game. Yes, I found the source to be dubious at best but if the numbers are accurate even to 50% it goes well beyond the threshold I mentioned previously. I don't disagree with game development being expensive. I disagree with modern developer studios that have matured that can't produce functioning/fun games even with $200 million such as Skull & Bones being the standard of what to expect. You have to remember modern AAA gaming studios are no different from government entities with their expenses. Everything is incredibly expensive, bureaucratic, staff bloat, out of touch higher ups, etc. Ashes being an Indie developer doesn't suffer from this wastefulness. Stardock another Indie dev from 2008 produced a game costing around 1million in expenses but, yielded roughly $25million in revenue. I can understand the discussion of trying to make sure AoC survives if economic troubles comes afoot but, if they're struggling to get a base of subs they've failed already. It'll be another F2P MMO like many others that have come. MMORPGs have to yield subs if they are to survive without turning into a F2P because the subs are dying off. Battlepasses are a bandaid approach to revenue garnering when the game truly needs surgery if its going to survive the eventual F2P curse. Point is It isn't' IS job to change that and find some new creative solution to monetize people. They should do what works and focus on making a good game. I mentioned this earlier but low balling salary alone then its 12m a year, IS is very much a triple A budget right now. And Id rather not see half the dev team let go to reduce cost if the game can not make enough money so sustain all the different factors they will have to pay. They should do a bit of everything in order to keep the barrier of entry low so more people are willing to play, or will accept maybe the sub model isn't that bad if they try it. Again battle passes are not a band-aid approach games are all using this because it works and give profit. If battle-passes were band-aid companies would not be using the model. The point with AoC is not to be the main source but to have other incentives to spend money and keep people invested into the game. Essentially its a discount on a bundle of items with a requirement of playing the game and earning them over a period of time (unless you whale and buy level ups to get them faster which gives more profit to milk some whales.) Some people that might not buy things normally do to how common BP is might be more prone to spend money. Based on the market with games it is clearly successful, if they did it in AoC and no one spent money on it id expect they wouldn't continue it. And would look for other ways to monetize. Current staff is 200 people. Even if they're paid 200k/y that's $40mil/y expenses. A lot of the current modern studios are bloated with do nothing types and it's why their hiring practices are the way they are. They don't want warm bodies filling a seat producing this product. Which is where I acquired the 500mil/y revenue (post salary) with pure sub counts if it yielded a 1/4 of WoW's peak numbers (3million). They are a bandaid fix if the company is utilizing them because revenue is down and they need extra capital to sustain the existence of the company/product. I really don't care if a model is successful somewhere else. When it's applied to this genre it doesn't turn out well when said activities that BPs promote generally should be player and/or community driven decisions. Not an external system giving arbitrary missions for a player to do. I won't lie it works in other games but, I don't believe it's good for a MMORPG to have such a model. We can argue forever on the issue but, I don't find there will be a moment where we do agree on the approach on monetization practices of Battlepasses.
Mag7spy wrote: » Roelath wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Roelath wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Roelath wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Roelath wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » You really are not looking at the overall picture, there is a reason why games don't do a sub model anymore. You most likely don't understand tons of people out there that a sub model means they wont play the game. The larger that number the less players will be willing to play. And quite a lot of players are getting tired of the f2p+bp monetization scheme, especially when it's super obvious that the companies go for that scheme cause they're greedy, rather than cause they need the money to keep the lights on. People also FUCKING LOVE SUBS. Just look at all the services people pay for on monthly basis. The only thing that determines whether people keep that sub is the quality of the content (and the payers forgetfulness). If Ashes is great and people keep saying that it's great - it will have enough subs to pay the devs. Some people liking subs is not the majority you are coping (even more so if you are interacting with more people on forums and people from old school mmorpgs). There is a reason why AoC is not doing box / expansion cost. Most people prefer not paying monthly that is just a fact. And if you trying to convince me people will be fine paying 25$+ (BASE PRICE) is just wild. *EDIT So for me that would turn into 34$ a month lmfao. I prefer subs over buying an entry for $60 just to dislike the product and not have an alternative for a refund. Paying $15/m entry fee is far less than modern day gaming just in general. A lot of modern titles that involve the $60 price only last 30-40hours of actual gameplay before a player has finished the story campaign. You could play the entire game in ~3 weeks and still not yield the same amount as a subscription model. Though I find it humorous that you claim someone else is wrong & coping and then proceed to make the claim your stance is fact. Sounds like you have not being paying attention to modern games for awhile. If developers new subscription models worked tons of games would be actively doing it and pushing for it *ie destiny not having a active sub model and instead doing a box price every year as a work around to hide it. You are 100% coping as well gaming history tells you other wise, as you clearly don't have the grasp on the barrier of entry it creates. And you are losing the point of the conversation about increased price of a sub model to balance out inflation (ie you aren't paying 15$ you are paying more), instead of the pressure being put on other people using a battlepass. Again we are talking about what is successful monetization not you are fine with. You're comparing the market today that uses F2P to get people hooked onto their game and then utilizes Battlepasses as a means to increase revenue by doing barely anything. Modern gaming isn't anything to be praised for their current practices. They use FOMO, whales, gambling, and children to increase their revenue. These aren't pillars of morality or good faith between developers and the consumers that consume their products. The $15/m model works. I posted earlier in this thread that with the current staff the company would still yield $500million/yearly revenue after salary requirements with a 1/4 of WoW's peak numbers. The companies pushing for battlepasses, loot crates, fomo, etc are all bloated bureaucratic companies that are looking out for their investors and not their consumers interests. I see you have a skewed outlook on the F2P model and i don't really share that. If your standard of f2P is like a gotcha game that involves P2W. That isn't the standard for all F2P. Also this disccusion is not about AoC going F2P. If you think AoC will have millions of subs (2-3 months in) then there isn't much point in this discussion since they would be fine. And wouldn't need to rely on anything else. I'm not going to argue what they will have I'm trying to be mindful of what they need. And if they don't what are the options that aren't going to increase the barrier of entry or add p2w. A battlepass doesn't add any negative effects and do to the modern age people are accepting of paying extra money for one. F2P models when it comes to MMORPGs have always been bloated with ways to get to a player's credit card asap. They will pester and displays ads continually to get the player to fork over some cash. I don't want any annoyances when I boot up a game or when I'm playing one. I've tried a number of F2P MMOs and they've all acted similar to one another. It isn't about AoC going F2P but, discussing the current modern games that do utilize Battlepasses as a means for additional revenue. I personally find it lazy and obnoxious to the experience. What exactly do Battlepasses even offer? Vanity items. A cosmetic shop already exists so why does there need to be an additional vanity item revenue source? If the game is struggling and needs additional revenue than ultimately the game has failed on the premise of what it was offerring by not having the sub numbers to keep it afloat or the economy is destroyed to the point where people can't afford anything. Meaning that it won't just be Intrepid suffering and a Battlepass wouldn't solve that scenario. Ultimately it's either AoC is successful because it kept to its promises or it fails because it didn't. Even a game such as a "New World" is yielding 15million subscribers (Though I doubt that entirely). AoC yielding a couple million worldwide doesn't seem hard to imagine considering how many people there are that play videogames. I'm unsure where you are getting your numbers but whatever site you are using you should not be using. You are most likely getting bloated numbers from everything that are not nearly accurate. There are varying degrees of successes, i guess you could view Aoc as a success with it being indie studio and having 3 servers up per region. And cutting more than half the team size and making back money of the development after some years being a new studio. With much limited growth on the game do to the money it makes not enough enough for new growth. Ultimately again game development is expensive, a battle pass being cosmetics has 0 impact on any meaningful gameplay to you and can give additional revenue. Your negative view on it feels more out of spite than any reality where it effects you actually playing the game. If you don't open the store page I'm unsure how that is even affecting your viewing experience on the game to begin with, since you don't even see it. So what i see is something that has 0 impact, something you don't really see but you are saying its bad just cause. Even if it gives revenge to the game which helps it stay a float and have a stronger dev team. Expecting WoW level success i feel is not the best way to look at AoC, I feel it will have a lot of people at launch but what matters is 2-3 months after and the people that will keep playing the game and sustaining them for the rest of the year. Not the people trying it for 15$ and jumping out. What point i find interesting is how is a battle pass lazy and obnoxious to the experience. It really is just a progression path you increase and gain rewards for those interested. A way to milk impatient people, give people very limited free items to play the game. Yes, I found the source to be dubious at best but if the numbers are accurate even to 50% it goes well beyond the threshold I mentioned previously. I don't disagree with game development being expensive. I disagree with modern developer studios that have matured that can't produce functioning/fun games even with $200 million such as Skull & Bones being the standard of what to expect. You have to remember modern AAA gaming studios are no different from government entities with their expenses. Everything is incredibly expensive, bureaucratic, staff bloat, out of touch higher ups, etc. Ashes being an Indie developer doesn't suffer from this wastefulness. Stardock another Indie dev from 2008 produced a game costing around 1million in expenses but, yielded roughly $25million in revenue. I can understand the discussion of trying to make sure AoC survives if economic troubles comes afoot but, if they're struggling to get a base of subs they've failed already. It'll be another F2P MMO like many others that have come. MMORPGs have to yield subs if they are to survive without turning into a F2P because the subs are dying off. Battlepasses are a bandaid approach to revenue garnering when the game truly needs surgery if its going to survive the eventual F2P curse. Point is It isn't' IS job to change that and find some new creative solution to monetize people. They should do what works and focus on making a good game. I mentioned this earlier but low balling salary alone then its 12m a year, IS is very much a triple A budget right now. And Id rather not see half the dev team let go to reduce cost if the game can not make enough money so sustain all the different factors they will have to pay. They should do a bit of everything in order to keep the barrier of entry low so more people are willing to play, or will accept maybe the sub model isn't that bad if they try it. Again battle passes are not a band-aid approach games are all using this because it works and give profit. If battle-passes were band-aid companies would not be using the model. The point with AoC is not to be the main source but to have other incentives to spend money and keep people invested into the game. Essentially its a discount on a bundle of items with a requirement of playing the game and earning them over a period of time (unless you whale and buy level ups to get them faster which gives more profit to milk some whales.) Some people that might not buy things normally do to how common BP is might be more prone to spend money. Based on the market with games it is clearly successful, if they did it in AoC and no one spent money on it id expect they wouldn't continue it. And would look for other ways to monetize.
Roelath wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Roelath wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Roelath wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Roelath wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » You really are not looking at the overall picture, there is a reason why games don't do a sub model anymore. You most likely don't understand tons of people out there that a sub model means they wont play the game. The larger that number the less players will be willing to play. And quite a lot of players are getting tired of the f2p+bp monetization scheme, especially when it's super obvious that the companies go for that scheme cause they're greedy, rather than cause they need the money to keep the lights on. People also FUCKING LOVE SUBS. Just look at all the services people pay for on monthly basis. The only thing that determines whether people keep that sub is the quality of the content (and the payers forgetfulness). If Ashes is great and people keep saying that it's great - it will have enough subs to pay the devs. Some people liking subs is not the majority you are coping (even more so if you are interacting with more people on forums and people from old school mmorpgs). There is a reason why AoC is not doing box / expansion cost. Most people prefer not paying monthly that is just a fact. And if you trying to convince me people will be fine paying 25$+ (BASE PRICE) is just wild. *EDIT So for me that would turn into 34$ a month lmfao. I prefer subs over buying an entry for $60 just to dislike the product and not have an alternative for a refund. Paying $15/m entry fee is far less than modern day gaming just in general. A lot of modern titles that involve the $60 price only last 30-40hours of actual gameplay before a player has finished the story campaign. You could play the entire game in ~3 weeks and still not yield the same amount as a subscription model. Though I find it humorous that you claim someone else is wrong & coping and then proceed to make the claim your stance is fact. Sounds like you have not being paying attention to modern games for awhile. If developers new subscription models worked tons of games would be actively doing it and pushing for it *ie destiny not having a active sub model and instead doing a box price every year as a work around to hide it. You are 100% coping as well gaming history tells you other wise, as you clearly don't have the grasp on the barrier of entry it creates. And you are losing the point of the conversation about increased price of a sub model to balance out inflation (ie you aren't paying 15$ you are paying more), instead of the pressure being put on other people using a battlepass. Again we are talking about what is successful monetization not you are fine with. You're comparing the market today that uses F2P to get people hooked onto their game and then utilizes Battlepasses as a means to increase revenue by doing barely anything. Modern gaming isn't anything to be praised for their current practices. They use FOMO, whales, gambling, and children to increase their revenue. These aren't pillars of morality or good faith between developers and the consumers that consume their products. The $15/m model works. I posted earlier in this thread that with the current staff the company would still yield $500million/yearly revenue after salary requirements with a 1/4 of WoW's peak numbers. The companies pushing for battlepasses, loot crates, fomo, etc are all bloated bureaucratic companies that are looking out for their investors and not their consumers interests. I see you have a skewed outlook on the F2P model and i don't really share that. If your standard of f2P is like a gotcha game that involves P2W. That isn't the standard for all F2P. Also this disccusion is not about AoC going F2P. If you think AoC will have millions of subs (2-3 months in) then there isn't much point in this discussion since they would be fine. And wouldn't need to rely on anything else. I'm not going to argue what they will have I'm trying to be mindful of what they need. And if they don't what are the options that aren't going to increase the barrier of entry or add p2w. A battlepass doesn't add any negative effects and do to the modern age people are accepting of paying extra money for one. F2P models when it comes to MMORPGs have always been bloated with ways to get to a player's credit card asap. They will pester and displays ads continually to get the player to fork over some cash. I don't want any annoyances when I boot up a game or when I'm playing one. I've tried a number of F2P MMOs and they've all acted similar to one another. It isn't about AoC going F2P but, discussing the current modern games that do utilize Battlepasses as a means for additional revenue. I personally find it lazy and obnoxious to the experience. What exactly do Battlepasses even offer? Vanity items. A cosmetic shop already exists so why does there need to be an additional vanity item revenue source? If the game is struggling and needs additional revenue than ultimately the game has failed on the premise of what it was offerring by not having the sub numbers to keep it afloat or the economy is destroyed to the point where people can't afford anything. Meaning that it won't just be Intrepid suffering and a Battlepass wouldn't solve that scenario. Ultimately it's either AoC is successful because it kept to its promises or it fails because it didn't. Even a game such as a "New World" is yielding 15million subscribers (Though I doubt that entirely). AoC yielding a couple million worldwide doesn't seem hard to imagine considering how many people there are that play videogames. I'm unsure where you are getting your numbers but whatever site you are using you should not be using. You are most likely getting bloated numbers from everything that are not nearly accurate. There are varying degrees of successes, i guess you could view Aoc as a success with it being indie studio and having 3 servers up per region. And cutting more than half the team size and making back money of the development after some years being a new studio. With much limited growth on the game do to the money it makes not enough enough for new growth. Ultimately again game development is expensive, a battle pass being cosmetics has 0 impact on any meaningful gameplay to you and can give additional revenue. Your negative view on it feels more out of spite than any reality where it effects you actually playing the game. If you don't open the store page I'm unsure how that is even affecting your viewing experience on the game to begin with, since you don't even see it. So what i see is something that has 0 impact, something you don't really see but you are saying its bad just cause. Even if it gives revenge to the game which helps it stay a float and have a stronger dev team. Expecting WoW level success i feel is not the best way to look at AoC, I feel it will have a lot of people at launch but what matters is 2-3 months after and the people that will keep playing the game and sustaining them for the rest of the year. Not the people trying it for 15$ and jumping out. What point i find interesting is how is a battle pass lazy and obnoxious to the experience. It really is just a progression path you increase and gain rewards for those interested. A way to milk impatient people, give people very limited free items to play the game. Yes, I found the source to be dubious at best but if the numbers are accurate even to 50% it goes well beyond the threshold I mentioned previously. I don't disagree with game development being expensive. I disagree with modern developer studios that have matured that can't produce functioning/fun games even with $200 million such as Skull & Bones being the standard of what to expect. You have to remember modern AAA gaming studios are no different from government entities with their expenses. Everything is incredibly expensive, bureaucratic, staff bloat, out of touch higher ups, etc. Ashes being an Indie developer doesn't suffer from this wastefulness. Stardock another Indie dev from 2008 produced a game costing around 1million in expenses but, yielded roughly $25million in revenue. I can understand the discussion of trying to make sure AoC survives if economic troubles comes afoot but, if they're struggling to get a base of subs they've failed already. It'll be another F2P MMO like many others that have come. MMORPGs have to yield subs if they are to survive without turning into a F2P because the subs are dying off. Battlepasses are a bandaid approach to revenue garnering when the game truly needs surgery if its going to survive the eventual F2P curse.
Mag7spy wrote: » Roelath wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Roelath wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Roelath wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » You really are not looking at the overall picture, there is a reason why games don't do a sub model anymore. You most likely don't understand tons of people out there that a sub model means they wont play the game. The larger that number the less players will be willing to play. And quite a lot of players are getting tired of the f2p+bp monetization scheme, especially when it's super obvious that the companies go for that scheme cause they're greedy, rather than cause they need the money to keep the lights on. People also FUCKING LOVE SUBS. Just look at all the services people pay for on monthly basis. The only thing that determines whether people keep that sub is the quality of the content (and the payers forgetfulness). If Ashes is great and people keep saying that it's great - it will have enough subs to pay the devs. Some people liking subs is not the majority you are coping (even more so if you are interacting with more people on forums and people from old school mmorpgs). There is a reason why AoC is not doing box / expansion cost. Most people prefer not paying monthly that is just a fact. And if you trying to convince me people will be fine paying 25$+ (BASE PRICE) is just wild. *EDIT So for me that would turn into 34$ a month lmfao. I prefer subs over buying an entry for $60 just to dislike the product and not have an alternative for a refund. Paying $15/m entry fee is far less than modern day gaming just in general. A lot of modern titles that involve the $60 price only last 30-40hours of actual gameplay before a player has finished the story campaign. You could play the entire game in ~3 weeks and still not yield the same amount as a subscription model. Though I find it humorous that you claim someone else is wrong & coping and then proceed to make the claim your stance is fact. Sounds like you have not being paying attention to modern games for awhile. If developers new subscription models worked tons of games would be actively doing it and pushing for it *ie destiny not having a active sub model and instead doing a box price every year as a work around to hide it. You are 100% coping as well gaming history tells you other wise, as you clearly don't have the grasp on the barrier of entry it creates. And you are losing the point of the conversation about increased price of a sub model to balance out inflation (ie you aren't paying 15$ you are paying more), instead of the pressure being put on other people using a battlepass. Again we are talking about what is successful monetization not you are fine with. You're comparing the market today that uses F2P to get people hooked onto their game and then utilizes Battlepasses as a means to increase revenue by doing barely anything. Modern gaming isn't anything to be praised for their current practices. They use FOMO, whales, gambling, and children to increase their revenue. These aren't pillars of morality or good faith between developers and the consumers that consume their products. The $15/m model works. I posted earlier in this thread that with the current staff the company would still yield $500million/yearly revenue after salary requirements with a 1/4 of WoW's peak numbers. The companies pushing for battlepasses, loot crates, fomo, etc are all bloated bureaucratic companies that are looking out for their investors and not their consumers interests. I see you have a skewed outlook on the F2P model and i don't really share that. If your standard of f2P is like a gotcha game that involves P2W. That isn't the standard for all F2P. Also this disccusion is not about AoC going F2P. If you think AoC will have millions of subs (2-3 months in) then there isn't much point in this discussion since they would be fine. And wouldn't need to rely on anything else. I'm not going to argue what they will have I'm trying to be mindful of what they need. And if they don't what are the options that aren't going to increase the barrier of entry or add p2w. A battlepass doesn't add any negative effects and do to the modern age people are accepting of paying extra money for one. F2P models when it comes to MMORPGs have always been bloated with ways to get to a player's credit card asap. They will pester and displays ads continually to get the player to fork over some cash. I don't want any annoyances when I boot up a game or when I'm playing one. I've tried a number of F2P MMOs and they've all acted similar to one another. It isn't about AoC going F2P but, discussing the current modern games that do utilize Battlepasses as a means for additional revenue. I personally find it lazy and obnoxious to the experience. What exactly do Battlepasses even offer? Vanity items. A cosmetic shop already exists so why does there need to be an additional vanity item revenue source? If the game is struggling and needs additional revenue than ultimately the game has failed on the premise of what it was offerring by not having the sub numbers to keep it afloat or the economy is destroyed to the point where people can't afford anything. Meaning that it won't just be Intrepid suffering and a Battlepass wouldn't solve that scenario. Ultimately it's either AoC is successful because it kept to its promises or it fails because it didn't. Even a game such as a "New World" is yielding 15million subscribers (Though I doubt that entirely). AoC yielding a couple million worldwide doesn't seem hard to imagine considering how many people there are that play videogames. I'm unsure where you are getting your numbers but whatever site you are using you should not be using. You are most likely getting bloated numbers from everything that are not nearly accurate. There are varying degrees of successes, i guess you could view Aoc as a success with it being indie studio and having 3 servers up per region. And cutting more than half the team size and making back money of the development after some years being a new studio. With much limited growth on the game do to the money it makes not enough enough for new growth. Ultimately again game development is expensive, a battle pass being cosmetics has 0 impact on any meaningful gameplay to you and can give additional revenue. Your negative view on it feels more out of spite than any reality where it effects you actually playing the game. If you don't open the store page I'm unsure how that is even affecting your viewing experience on the game to begin with, since you don't even see it. So what i see is something that has 0 impact, something you don't really see but you are saying its bad just cause. Even if it gives revenge to the game which helps it stay a float and have a stronger dev team. Expecting WoW level success i feel is not the best way to look at AoC, I feel it will have a lot of people at launch but what matters is 2-3 months after and the people that will keep playing the game and sustaining them for the rest of the year. Not the people trying it for 15$ and jumping out. What point i find interesting is how is a battle pass lazy and obnoxious to the experience. It really is just a progression path you increase and gain rewards for those interested. A way to milk impatient people, give people very limited free items to play the game.
Roelath wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Roelath wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Roelath wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » You really are not looking at the overall picture, there is a reason why games don't do a sub model anymore. You most likely don't understand tons of people out there that a sub model means they wont play the game. The larger that number the less players will be willing to play. And quite a lot of players are getting tired of the f2p+bp monetization scheme, especially when it's super obvious that the companies go for that scheme cause they're greedy, rather than cause they need the money to keep the lights on. People also FUCKING LOVE SUBS. Just look at all the services people pay for on monthly basis. The only thing that determines whether people keep that sub is the quality of the content (and the payers forgetfulness). If Ashes is great and people keep saying that it's great - it will have enough subs to pay the devs. Some people liking subs is not the majority you are coping (even more so if you are interacting with more people on forums and people from old school mmorpgs). There is a reason why AoC is not doing box / expansion cost. Most people prefer not paying monthly that is just a fact. And if you trying to convince me people will be fine paying 25$+ (BASE PRICE) is just wild. *EDIT So for me that would turn into 34$ a month lmfao. I prefer subs over buying an entry for $60 just to dislike the product and not have an alternative for a refund. Paying $15/m entry fee is far less than modern day gaming just in general. A lot of modern titles that involve the $60 price only last 30-40hours of actual gameplay before a player has finished the story campaign. You could play the entire game in ~3 weeks and still not yield the same amount as a subscription model. Though I find it humorous that you claim someone else is wrong & coping and then proceed to make the claim your stance is fact. Sounds like you have not being paying attention to modern games for awhile. If developers new subscription models worked tons of games would be actively doing it and pushing for it *ie destiny not having a active sub model and instead doing a box price every year as a work around to hide it. You are 100% coping as well gaming history tells you other wise, as you clearly don't have the grasp on the barrier of entry it creates. And you are losing the point of the conversation about increased price of a sub model to balance out inflation (ie you aren't paying 15$ you are paying more), instead of the pressure being put on other people using a battlepass. Again we are talking about what is successful monetization not you are fine with. You're comparing the market today that uses F2P to get people hooked onto their game and then utilizes Battlepasses as a means to increase revenue by doing barely anything. Modern gaming isn't anything to be praised for their current practices. They use FOMO, whales, gambling, and children to increase their revenue. These aren't pillars of morality or good faith between developers and the consumers that consume their products. The $15/m model works. I posted earlier in this thread that with the current staff the company would still yield $500million/yearly revenue after salary requirements with a 1/4 of WoW's peak numbers. The companies pushing for battlepasses, loot crates, fomo, etc are all bloated bureaucratic companies that are looking out for their investors and not their consumers interests. I see you have a skewed outlook on the F2P model and i don't really share that. If your standard of f2P is like a gotcha game that involves P2W. That isn't the standard for all F2P. Also this disccusion is not about AoC going F2P. If you think AoC will have millions of subs (2-3 months in) then there isn't much point in this discussion since they would be fine. And wouldn't need to rely on anything else. I'm not going to argue what they will have I'm trying to be mindful of what they need. And if they don't what are the options that aren't going to increase the barrier of entry or add p2w. A battlepass doesn't add any negative effects and do to the modern age people are accepting of paying extra money for one. F2P models when it comes to MMORPGs have always been bloated with ways to get to a player's credit card asap. They will pester and displays ads continually to get the player to fork over some cash. I don't want any annoyances when I boot up a game or when I'm playing one. I've tried a number of F2P MMOs and they've all acted similar to one another. It isn't about AoC going F2P but, discussing the current modern games that do utilize Battlepasses as a means for additional revenue. I personally find it lazy and obnoxious to the experience. What exactly do Battlepasses even offer? Vanity items. A cosmetic shop already exists so why does there need to be an additional vanity item revenue source? If the game is struggling and needs additional revenue than ultimately the game has failed on the premise of what it was offerring by not having the sub numbers to keep it afloat or the economy is destroyed to the point where people can't afford anything. Meaning that it won't just be Intrepid suffering and a Battlepass wouldn't solve that scenario. Ultimately it's either AoC is successful because it kept to its promises or it fails because it didn't. Even a game such as a "New World" is yielding 15million subscribers (Though I doubt that entirely). AoC yielding a couple million worldwide doesn't seem hard to imagine considering how many people there are that play videogames.
Mag7spy wrote: » Roelath wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Roelath wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » You really are not looking at the overall picture, there is a reason why games don't do a sub model anymore. You most likely don't understand tons of people out there that a sub model means they wont play the game. The larger that number the less players will be willing to play. And quite a lot of players are getting tired of the f2p+bp monetization scheme, especially when it's super obvious that the companies go for that scheme cause they're greedy, rather than cause they need the money to keep the lights on. People also FUCKING LOVE SUBS. Just look at all the services people pay for on monthly basis. The only thing that determines whether people keep that sub is the quality of the content (and the payers forgetfulness). If Ashes is great and people keep saying that it's great - it will have enough subs to pay the devs. Some people liking subs is not the majority you are coping (even more so if you are interacting with more people on forums and people from old school mmorpgs). There is a reason why AoC is not doing box / expansion cost. Most people prefer not paying monthly that is just a fact. And if you trying to convince me people will be fine paying 25$+ (BASE PRICE) is just wild. *EDIT So for me that would turn into 34$ a month lmfao. I prefer subs over buying an entry for $60 just to dislike the product and not have an alternative for a refund. Paying $15/m entry fee is far less than modern day gaming just in general. A lot of modern titles that involve the $60 price only last 30-40hours of actual gameplay before a player has finished the story campaign. You could play the entire game in ~3 weeks and still not yield the same amount as a subscription model. Though I find it humorous that you claim someone else is wrong & coping and then proceed to make the claim your stance is fact. Sounds like you have not being paying attention to modern games for awhile. If developers new subscription models worked tons of games would be actively doing it and pushing for it *ie destiny not having a active sub model and instead doing a box price every year as a work around to hide it. You are 100% coping as well gaming history tells you other wise, as you clearly don't have the grasp on the barrier of entry it creates. And you are losing the point of the conversation about increased price of a sub model to balance out inflation (ie you aren't paying 15$ you are paying more), instead of the pressure being put on other people using a battlepass. Again we are talking about what is successful monetization not you are fine with. You're comparing the market today that uses F2P to get people hooked onto their game and then utilizes Battlepasses as a means to increase revenue by doing barely anything. Modern gaming isn't anything to be praised for their current practices. They use FOMO, whales, gambling, and children to increase their revenue. These aren't pillars of morality or good faith between developers and the consumers that consume their products. The $15/m model works. I posted earlier in this thread that with the current staff the company would still yield $500million/yearly revenue after salary requirements with a 1/4 of WoW's peak numbers. The companies pushing for battlepasses, loot crates, fomo, etc are all bloated bureaucratic companies that are looking out for their investors and not their consumers interests. I see you have a skewed outlook on the F2P model and i don't really share that. If your standard of f2P is like a gotcha game that involves P2W. That isn't the standard for all F2P. Also this disccusion is not about AoC going F2P. If you think AoC will have millions of subs (2-3 months in) then there isn't much point in this discussion since they would be fine. And wouldn't need to rely on anything else. I'm not going to argue what they will have I'm trying to be mindful of what they need. And if they don't what are the options that aren't going to increase the barrier of entry or add p2w. A battlepass doesn't add any negative effects and do to the modern age people are accepting of paying extra money for one.
Roelath wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Roelath wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » You really are not looking at the overall picture, there is a reason why games don't do a sub model anymore. You most likely don't understand tons of people out there that a sub model means they wont play the game. The larger that number the less players will be willing to play. And quite a lot of players are getting tired of the f2p+bp monetization scheme, especially when it's super obvious that the companies go for that scheme cause they're greedy, rather than cause they need the money to keep the lights on. People also FUCKING LOVE SUBS. Just look at all the services people pay for on monthly basis. The only thing that determines whether people keep that sub is the quality of the content (and the payers forgetfulness). If Ashes is great and people keep saying that it's great - it will have enough subs to pay the devs. Some people liking subs is not the majority you are coping (even more so if you are interacting with more people on forums and people from old school mmorpgs). There is a reason why AoC is not doing box / expansion cost. Most people prefer not paying monthly that is just a fact. And if you trying to convince me people will be fine paying 25$+ (BASE PRICE) is just wild. *EDIT So for me that would turn into 34$ a month lmfao. I prefer subs over buying an entry for $60 just to dislike the product and not have an alternative for a refund. Paying $15/m entry fee is far less than modern day gaming just in general. A lot of modern titles that involve the $60 price only last 30-40hours of actual gameplay before a player has finished the story campaign. You could play the entire game in ~3 weeks and still not yield the same amount as a subscription model. Though I find it humorous that you claim someone else is wrong & coping and then proceed to make the claim your stance is fact. Sounds like you have not being paying attention to modern games for awhile. If developers new subscription models worked tons of games would be actively doing it and pushing for it *ie destiny not having a active sub model and instead doing a box price every year as a work around to hide it. You are 100% coping as well gaming history tells you other wise, as you clearly don't have the grasp on the barrier of entry it creates. And you are losing the point of the conversation about increased price of a sub model to balance out inflation (ie you aren't paying 15$ you are paying more), instead of the pressure being put on other people using a battlepass. Again we are talking about what is successful monetization not you are fine with. You're comparing the market today that uses F2P to get people hooked onto their game and then utilizes Battlepasses as a means to increase revenue by doing barely anything. Modern gaming isn't anything to be praised for their current practices. They use FOMO, whales, gambling, and children to increase their revenue. These aren't pillars of morality or good faith between developers and the consumers that consume their products. The $15/m model works. I posted earlier in this thread that with the current staff the company would still yield $500million/yearly revenue after salary requirements with a 1/4 of WoW's peak numbers. The companies pushing for battlepasses, loot crates, fomo, etc are all bloated bureaucratic companies that are looking out for their investors and not their consumers interests.
Mag7spy wrote: » Roelath wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » You really are not looking at the overall picture, there is a reason why games don't do a sub model anymore. You most likely don't understand tons of people out there that a sub model means they wont play the game. The larger that number the less players will be willing to play. And quite a lot of players are getting tired of the f2p+bp monetization scheme, especially when it's super obvious that the companies go for that scheme cause they're greedy, rather than cause they need the money to keep the lights on. People also FUCKING LOVE SUBS. Just look at all the services people pay for on monthly basis. The only thing that determines whether people keep that sub is the quality of the content (and the payers forgetfulness). If Ashes is great and people keep saying that it's great - it will have enough subs to pay the devs. Some people liking subs is not the majority you are coping (even more so if you are interacting with more people on forums and people from old school mmorpgs). There is a reason why AoC is not doing box / expansion cost. Most people prefer not paying monthly that is just a fact. And if you trying to convince me people will be fine paying 25$+ (BASE PRICE) is just wild. *EDIT So for me that would turn into 34$ a month lmfao. I prefer subs over buying an entry for $60 just to dislike the product and not have an alternative for a refund. Paying $15/m entry fee is far less than modern day gaming just in general. A lot of modern titles that involve the $60 price only last 30-40hours of actual gameplay before a player has finished the story campaign. You could play the entire game in ~3 weeks and still not yield the same amount as a subscription model. Though I find it humorous that you claim someone else is wrong & coping and then proceed to make the claim your stance is fact. Sounds like you have not being paying attention to modern games for awhile. If developers new subscription models worked tons of games would be actively doing it and pushing for it *ie destiny not having a active sub model and instead doing a box price every year as a work around to hide it. You are 100% coping as well gaming history tells you other wise, as you clearly don't have the grasp on the barrier of entry it creates. And you are losing the point of the conversation about increased price of a sub model to balance out inflation (ie you aren't paying 15$ you are paying more), instead of the pressure being put on other people using a battlepass. Again we are talking about what is successful monetization not you are fine with.
Roelath wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » You really are not looking at the overall picture, there is a reason why games don't do a sub model anymore. You most likely don't understand tons of people out there that a sub model means they wont play the game. The larger that number the less players will be willing to play. And quite a lot of players are getting tired of the f2p+bp monetization scheme, especially when it's super obvious that the companies go for that scheme cause they're greedy, rather than cause they need the money to keep the lights on. People also FUCKING LOVE SUBS. Just look at all the services people pay for on monthly basis. The only thing that determines whether people keep that sub is the quality of the content (and the payers forgetfulness). If Ashes is great and people keep saying that it's great - it will have enough subs to pay the devs. Some people liking subs is not the majority you are coping (even more so if you are interacting with more people on forums and people from old school mmorpgs). There is a reason why AoC is not doing box / expansion cost. Most people prefer not paying monthly that is just a fact. And if you trying to convince me people will be fine paying 25$+ (BASE PRICE) is just wild. *EDIT So for me that would turn into 34$ a month lmfao. I prefer subs over buying an entry for $60 just to dislike the product and not have an alternative for a refund. Paying $15/m entry fee is far less than modern day gaming just in general. A lot of modern titles that involve the $60 price only last 30-40hours of actual gameplay before a player has finished the story campaign. You could play the entire game in ~3 weeks and still not yield the same amount as a subscription model. Though I find it humorous that you claim someone else is wrong & coping and then proceed to make the claim your stance is fact.
Mag7spy wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » You really are not looking at the overall picture, there is a reason why games don't do a sub model anymore. You most likely don't understand tons of people out there that a sub model means they wont play the game. The larger that number the less players will be willing to play. And quite a lot of players are getting tired of the f2p+bp monetization scheme, especially when it's super obvious that the companies go for that scheme cause they're greedy, rather than cause they need the money to keep the lights on. People also FUCKING LOVE SUBS. Just look at all the services people pay for on monthly basis. The only thing that determines whether people keep that sub is the quality of the content (and the payers forgetfulness). If Ashes is great and people keep saying that it's great - it will have enough subs to pay the devs. Some people liking subs is not the majority you are coping (even more so if you are interacting with more people on forums and people from old school mmorpgs). There is a reason why AoC is not doing box / expansion cost. Most people prefer not paying monthly that is just a fact. And if you trying to convince me people will be fine paying 25$+ (BASE PRICE) is just wild. *EDIT So for me that would turn into 34$ a month lmfao.
NiKr wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » You really are not looking at the overall picture, there is a reason why games don't do a sub model anymore. You most likely don't understand tons of people out there that a sub model means they wont play the game. The larger that number the less players will be willing to play. And quite a lot of players are getting tired of the f2p+bp monetization scheme, especially when it's super obvious that the companies go for that scheme cause they're greedy, rather than cause they need the money to keep the lights on. People also FUCKING LOVE SUBS. Just look at all the services people pay for on monthly basis. The only thing that determines whether people keep that sub is the quality of the content (and the payers forgetfulness). If Ashes is great and people keep saying that it's great - it will have enough subs to pay the devs.
Mag7spy wrote: » You really are not looking at the overall picture, there is a reason why games don't do a sub model anymore. You most likely don't understand tons of people out there that a sub model means they wont play the game. The larger that number the less players will be willing to play.
Again, what inaccurate numbers concerning WoW? You make these constant claims that something else is false and provide zero evidence. You could just as easily google search "Peak wow sub count" and provide that I'm wrong about it being 12million subs.
Mag7spy wrote: » Again, what inaccurate numbers concerning WoW? You make these constant claims that something else is false and provide zero evidence. You could just as easily google search "Peak wow sub count" and provide that I'm wrong about it being 12million subs. I feel you really don't understand no mmo reach Peak WoW nor reach a faction of their population. No wonder your numbers are so out there. You are on the high copium. I'm rooting for AoC as well, ill be happy to be surprised but I'm not going to assume AoC is doing what no other mmorpg can do suddenly getting a faction of their peak and keeping that many subs.
Roelath wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Again, what inaccurate numbers concerning WoW? You make these constant claims that something else is false and provide zero evidence. You could just as easily google search "Peak wow sub count" and provide that I'm wrong about it being 12million subs. I feel you really don't understand no mmo reach Peak WoW nor reach a faction of their population. No wonder your numbers are so out there. You are on the high copium. I'm rooting for AoC as well, ill be happy to be surprised but I'm not going to assume AoC is doing what no other mmorpg can do suddenly getting a faction of their peak and keeping that many subs. No MMO has tried anything beyond being a half baked WoW clone with a few extra trinkets with numerous bugs and false promises.
Mag7spy wrote: » Roelath wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Again, what inaccurate numbers concerning WoW? You make these constant claims that something else is false and provide zero evidence. You could just as easily google search "Peak wow sub count" and provide that I'm wrong about it being 12million subs. I feel you really don't understand no mmo reach Peak WoW nor reach a faction of their population. No wonder your numbers are so out there. You are on the high copium. I'm rooting for AoC as well, ill be happy to be surprised but I'm not going to assume AoC is doing what no other mmorpg can do suddenly getting a faction of their peak and keeping that many subs. No MMO has tried anything beyond being a half baked WoW clone with a few extra trinkets with numerous bugs and false promises. You are suggesting AoC willl have more subs than wow at 1/4 sub count at their peak then (and again sustain it past 2-3 months) . do you not understand how wild that is? I fully believe AoC will have over 1m subs first month, but i know that number falls off after the first month.
Roelath wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Roelath wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Again, what inaccurate numbers concerning WoW? You make these constant claims that something else is false and provide zero evidence. You could just as easily google search "Peak wow sub count" and provide that I'm wrong about it being 12million subs. I feel you really don't understand no mmo reach Peak WoW nor reach a faction of their population. No wonder your numbers are so out there. You are on the high copium. I'm rooting for AoC as well, ill be happy to be surprised but I'm not going to assume AoC is doing what no other mmorpg can do suddenly getting a faction of their peak and keeping that many subs. No MMO has tried anything beyond being a half baked WoW clone with a few extra trinkets with numerous bugs and false promises. You are suggesting AoC willl have more subs than wow at 1/4 sub count at their peak then (and again sustain it past 2-3 months) . do you not understand how wild that is? I fully believe AoC will have over 1m subs first month, but i know that number falls off after the first month. New World obtained 1million on their start and that was with a lot of suspicion already regarding that MMO also it was Amazon creating it too. I could see AoC obtaining 2-3million subs if what they promised is kept. Will it be done day one? Not at all but if the game garners respect and is authentic it will reach that point in less than a years time. The market is already there. It's unfortnate how many scam MMOs and half baked ones have been released since WoW became popular.
Mag7spy wrote: » Roelath wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Roelath wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Again, what inaccurate numbers concerning WoW? You make these constant claims that something else is false and provide zero evidence. You could just as easily google search "Peak wow sub count" and provide that I'm wrong about it being 12million subs. I feel you really don't understand no mmo reach Peak WoW nor reach a faction of their population. No wonder your numbers are so out there. You are on the high copium. I'm rooting for AoC as well, ill be happy to be surprised but I'm not going to assume AoC is doing what no other mmorpg can do suddenly getting a faction of their peak and keeping that many subs. No MMO has tried anything beyond being a half baked WoW clone with a few extra trinkets with numerous bugs and false promises. You are suggesting AoC willl have more subs than wow at 1/4 sub count at their peak then (and again sustain it past 2-3 months) . do you not understand how wild that is? I fully believe AoC will have over 1m subs first month, but i know that number falls off after the first month. New World obtained 1million on their start and that was with a lot of suspicion already regarding that MMO also it was Amazon creating it too. I could see AoC obtaining 2-3million subs if what they promised is kept. Will it be done day one? Not at all but if the game garners respect and is authentic it will reach that point in less than a years time. The market is already there. It's unfortnate how many scam MMOs and half baked ones have been released since WoW became popular. Honestly i think you are on the copium, though I'm glad you have unmatched faith in how big it will be. Palworld reached 2m subs being a cheap game and was heavy on hype and pokemon nostalgia. And you feel it will be bigger than a game that every single type of player was into. Then i guess there is no need for you to worry about monetization and whatever i say really doesn't matter. AoC will be way to popular to be worry about money.
Roelath wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Roelath wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Roelath wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Again, what inaccurate numbers concerning WoW? You make these constant claims that something else is false and provide zero evidence. You could just as easily google search "Peak wow sub count" and provide that I'm wrong about it being 12million subs. I feel you really don't understand no mmo reach Peak WoW nor reach a faction of their population. No wonder your numbers are so out there. You are on the high copium. I'm rooting for AoC as well, ill be happy to be surprised but I'm not going to assume AoC is doing what no other mmorpg can do suddenly getting a faction of their peak and keeping that many subs. No MMO has tried anything beyond being a half baked WoW clone with a few extra trinkets with numerous bugs and false promises. You are suggesting AoC willl have more subs than wow at 1/4 sub count at their peak then (and again sustain it past 2-3 months) . do you not understand how wild that is? I fully believe AoC will have over 1m subs first month, but i know that number falls off after the first month. New World obtained 1million on their start and that was with a lot of suspicion already regarding that MMO also it was Amazon creating it too. I could see AoC obtaining 2-3million subs if what they promised is kept. Will it be done day one? Not at all but if the game garners respect and is authentic it will reach that point in less than a years time. The market is already there. It's unfortnate how many scam MMOs and half baked ones have been released since WoW became popular. Honestly i think you are on the copium, though I'm glad you have unmatched faith in how big it will be. Palworld reached 2m subs being a cheap game and was heavy on hype and pokemon nostalgia. And you feel it will be bigger than a game that every single type of player was into. Then i guess there is no need for you to worry about monetization and whatever i say really doesn't matter. AoC will be way to popular to be worry about money. That's fine if you do believe that. Palworld like you mentioned garnered 2million from a copy paste game with added mechanics and pets. Look at their previous title and you'll see it's a clone of an okay game they made. If AoC can't pull in a million people day1 I'd question the entire the market. If a game like SWTOR & New World can net that much day1 it shouldn't be a problem. I'd even go as far as to say the hype is far more real for AoC than New World was. At least we have gameplay and soon open Alpha2 for people to be aware of what it is going to offer.
Mag7spy wrote: » Roelath wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Roelath wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Roelath wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Again, what inaccurate numbers concerning WoW? You make these constant claims that something else is false and provide zero evidence. You could just as easily google search "Peak wow sub count" and provide that I'm wrong about it being 12million subs. I feel you really don't understand no mmo reach Peak WoW nor reach a faction of their population. No wonder your numbers are so out there. You are on the high copium. I'm rooting for AoC as well, ill be happy to be surprised but I'm not going to assume AoC is doing what no other mmorpg can do suddenly getting a faction of their peak and keeping that many subs. No MMO has tried anything beyond being a half baked WoW clone with a few extra trinkets with numerous bugs and false promises. You are suggesting AoC willl have more subs than wow at 1/4 sub count at their peak then (and again sustain it past 2-3 months) . do you not understand how wild that is? I fully believe AoC will have over 1m subs first month, but i know that number falls off after the first month. New World obtained 1million on their start and that was with a lot of suspicion already regarding that MMO also it was Amazon creating it too. I could see AoC obtaining 2-3million subs if what they promised is kept. Will it be done day one? Not at all but if the game garners respect and is authentic it will reach that point in less than a years time. The market is already there. It's unfortnate how many scam MMOs and half baked ones have been released since WoW became popular. Honestly i think you are on the copium, though I'm glad you have unmatched faith in how big it will be. Palworld reached 2m subs being a cheap game and was heavy on hype and pokemon nostalgia. And you feel it will be bigger than a game that every single type of player was into. Then i guess there is no need for you to worry about monetization and whatever i say really doesn't matter. AoC will be way to popular to be worry about money. That's fine if you do believe that. Palworld like you mentioned garnered 2million from a copy paste game with added mechanics and pets. Look at their previous title and you'll see it's a clone of an okay game they made. If AoC can't pull in a million people day1 I'd question the entire the market. If a game like SWTOR & New World can net that much day1 it shouldn't be a problem. I'd even go as far as to say the hype is far more real for AoC than New World was. At least we have gameplay and soon open Alpha2 for people to be aware of what it is going to offer. day one and 2-3+ months in is very different. Game successes really shouldnt be off day one for a mmo.
Mag7spy wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Some of you people are weird. Intrepid aren't planning on charging players for additional content post launch, so you're begging Intrepid to charge you for no content. It's almost like a case of Stockholm syndrome. You're so used to developers releasing minimal viable products that they couldn't convince players to pay a subscription for and so have to resort to hiding an ongoing fee - that you are again begging other developers to rip you off in the same manner. The fact that you are all talking about different versions of a battlepass seems to not have occured to most of the people wanting it in Ashes. Mag7spy wrote: » Most BP you just get general xp Right, so that is pay to win. Hard no. Love how we go to from leveling up a battle pass is now p2w lmao. This is a sign of someone does not play many modern games.
Noaani wrote: » Some of you people are weird. Intrepid aren't planning on charging players for additional content post launch, so you're begging Intrepid to charge you for no content. It's almost like a case of Stockholm syndrome. You're so used to developers releasing minimal viable products that they couldn't convince players to pay a subscription for and so have to resort to hiding an ongoing fee - that you are again begging other developers to rip you off in the same manner. The fact that you are all talking about different versions of a battlepass seems to not have occured to most of the people wanting it in Ashes. Mag7spy wrote: » Most BP you just get general xp Right, so that is pay to win. Hard no.
Mag7spy wrote: » Most BP you just get general xp
Noaani wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Some of you people are weird. Intrepid aren't planning on charging players for additional content post launch, so you're begging Intrepid to charge you for no content. It's almost like a case of Stockholm syndrome. You're so used to developers releasing minimal viable products that they couldn't convince players to pay a subscription for and so have to resort to hiding an ongoing fee - that you are again begging other developers to rip you off in the same manner. The fact that you are all talking about different versions of a battlepass seems to not have occured to most of the people wanting it in Ashes. Mag7spy wrote: » Most BP you just get general xp Right, so that is pay to win. Hard no. Love how we go to from leveling up a battle pass is now p2w lmao. This is a sign of someone does not play many modern games. I play a few modern games. Baulders Gate 3 is right up there with the game's I am playing most right now (which is a surprise to me). I haven't played Helldivers - because when I read the terms and conditions and saw the need to link to a Playstation account, I noped out. Same with a number of other games that seem to be in this conversation - I looked at them and noped out based on similar factors. The existence of a battlepass as you seem to be talking about them is something that would see me lose any and all interest in the game. Such a system is a clear corporate mechanism to keep people that would otherwise leave a game still interested in that game. As proof, find me a similar system in a game that doesn't require ongoing payment - you won't, because there is no reason for developers to add a system like this other than to get a few more recurring payments out of you than they would otherwise. It is literally the poster child of the corporate takeover of the games industry - and you are on your knees, with both hands stretched out, begging for more.
Mag7spy wrote: » I can understand why people don't want more monetization but for me personally I don't see us living in a perfect world. Sacrifices need to be made, if the game is super popular that is the best case situation since the subs will pay for it and they can add all the content into the game rather than spending time making content to sell.
Dygz wrote: » Otr wrote: » So I have no idea why this thread has so many posts. (and I even had the chance to quote the largest post ever - I got no achievement though) Most of the posts are about why people like or dislike Battlepasses. The vid you posted is from 2018, the first year of development. Battlepasses have become quite popular in the last 5 years. 2018 is a year or more before Intrepid developed their Battlepass for APOC. Everything is subject to change. Except no P2W. Battlepass fits in with a quarterly release of content. And it's not unusual for Battlepasses to have a free path as well as a premium/paid path. So... Battlepass is not a major tweak of those quotes.
Otr wrote: » So I have no idea why this thread has so many posts. (and I even had the chance to quote the largest post ever - I got no achievement though)
Mag7spy wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Roelath wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Roelath wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » You really are not looking at the overall picture, there is a reason why games don't do a sub model anymore. You most likely don't understand tons of people out there that a sub model means they wont play the game. The larger that number the less players will be willing to play. And quite a lot of players are getting tired of the f2p+bp monetization scheme, especially when it's super obvious that the companies go for that scheme cause they're greedy, rather than cause they need the money to keep the lights on. People also FUCKING LOVE SUBS. Just look at all the services people pay for on monthly basis. The only thing that determines whether people keep that sub is the quality of the content (and the payers forgetfulness). If Ashes is great and people keep saying that it's great - it will have enough subs to pay the devs. Some people liking subs is not the majority you are coping (even more so if you are interacting with more people on forums and people from old school mmorpgs). There is a reason why AoC is not doing box / expansion cost. Most people prefer not paying monthly that is just a fact. And if you trying to convince me people will be fine paying 25$+ (BASE PRICE) is just wild. *EDIT So for me that would turn into 34$ a month lmfao. I prefer subs over buying an entry for $60 just to dislike the product and not have an alternative for a refund. Paying $15/m entry fee is far less than modern day gaming just in general. A lot of modern titles that involve the $60 price only last 30-40hours of actual gameplay before a player has finished the story campaign. You could play the entire game in ~3 weeks and still not yield the same amount as a subscription model. Though I find it humorous that you claim someone else is wrong & coping and then proceed to make the claim your stance is fact. Sounds like you have not being paying attention to modern games for awhile. If developers new subscription models worked tons of games would be actively doing it and pushing for it *ie destiny not having a active sub model and instead doing a box price every year as a work around to hide it. You are 100% coping as well gaming history tells you other wise, as you clearly don't have the grasp on the barrier of entry it creates. And you are losing the point of the conversation about increased price of a sub model to balance out inflation (ie you aren't paying 15$ you are paying more), instead of the pressure being put on other people using a battlepass. Again we are talking about what is successful monetization not you are fine with. You're comparing the market today that uses F2P to get people hooked onto their game and then utilizes Battlepasses as a means to increase revenue by doing barely anything. Modern gaming isn't anything to be praised for their current practices. They use FOMO, whales, gambling, and children to increase their revenue. These aren't pillars of morality or good faith between developers and the consumers that consume their products. The $15/m model works. I posted earlier in this thread that with the current staff the company would still yield $500million/yearly revenue after salary requirements with a 1/4 of WoW's peak numbers. The companies pushing for battlepasses, loot crates, fomo, etc are all bloated bureaucratic companies that are looking out for their investors and not their consumers interests. you can still have a very very good game that also has a battlepass on top of that. just because there is a battle pass, doesn't mean the game is automatically bad or not very engaging and the engagement comes from the battle pass. wont argue that there are games like that, but these things arent mutually exclusive. edit: I still don't want a bp unless it doesn't require me to do things I don't want to do. for example, id hate a bp that asked me to level the spear weapon to level 10. id prefer a bp that tells me to level any weapon to level 10. Most BP you just get general xp, but you can do certain dailies you get more xp. If there is anything i don't want to do, i tend to ignore it 9not an exclusive thing to bp that includes lame quest in games as well)
Depraved wrote: » Roelath wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Roelath wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » You really are not looking at the overall picture, there is a reason why games don't do a sub model anymore. You most likely don't understand tons of people out there that a sub model means they wont play the game. The larger that number the less players will be willing to play. And quite a lot of players are getting tired of the f2p+bp monetization scheme, especially when it's super obvious that the companies go for that scheme cause they're greedy, rather than cause they need the money to keep the lights on. People also FUCKING LOVE SUBS. Just look at all the services people pay for on monthly basis. The only thing that determines whether people keep that sub is the quality of the content (and the payers forgetfulness). If Ashes is great and people keep saying that it's great - it will have enough subs to pay the devs. Some people liking subs is not the majority you are coping (even more so if you are interacting with more people on forums and people from old school mmorpgs). There is a reason why AoC is not doing box / expansion cost. Most people prefer not paying monthly that is just a fact. And if you trying to convince me people will be fine paying 25$+ (BASE PRICE) is just wild. *EDIT So for me that would turn into 34$ a month lmfao. I prefer subs over buying an entry for $60 just to dislike the product and not have an alternative for a refund. Paying $15/m entry fee is far less than modern day gaming just in general. A lot of modern titles that involve the $60 price only last 30-40hours of actual gameplay before a player has finished the story campaign. You could play the entire game in ~3 weeks and still not yield the same amount as a subscription model. Though I find it humorous that you claim someone else is wrong & coping and then proceed to make the claim your stance is fact. Sounds like you have not being paying attention to modern games for awhile. If developers new subscription models worked tons of games would be actively doing it and pushing for it *ie destiny not having a active sub model and instead doing a box price every year as a work around to hide it. You are 100% coping as well gaming history tells you other wise, as you clearly don't have the grasp on the barrier of entry it creates. And you are losing the point of the conversation about increased price of a sub model to balance out inflation (ie you aren't paying 15$ you are paying more), instead of the pressure being put on other people using a battlepass. Again we are talking about what is successful monetization not you are fine with. You're comparing the market today that uses F2P to get people hooked onto their game and then utilizes Battlepasses as a means to increase revenue by doing barely anything. Modern gaming isn't anything to be praised for their current practices. They use FOMO, whales, gambling, and children to increase their revenue. These aren't pillars of morality or good faith between developers and the consumers that consume their products. The $15/m model works. I posted earlier in this thread that with the current staff the company would still yield $500million/yearly revenue after salary requirements with a 1/4 of WoW's peak numbers. The companies pushing for battlepasses, loot crates, fomo, etc are all bloated bureaucratic companies that are looking out for their investors and not their consumers interests. you can still have a very very good game that also has a battlepass on top of that. just because there is a battle pass, doesn't mean the game is automatically bad or not very engaging and the engagement comes from the battle pass. wont argue that there are games like that, but these things arent mutually exclusive. edit: I still don't want a bp unless it doesn't require me to do things I don't want to do. for example, id hate a bp that asked me to level the spear weapon to level 10. id prefer a bp that tells me to level any weapon to level 10.
Otr wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Roelath wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Roelath wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » You really are not looking at the overall picture, there is a reason why games don't do a sub model anymore. You most likely don't understand tons of people out there that a sub model means they wont play the game. The larger that number the less players will be willing to play. And quite a lot of players are getting tired of the f2p+bp monetization scheme, especially when it's super obvious that the companies go for that scheme cause they're greedy, rather than cause they need the money to keep the lights on. People also FUCKING LOVE SUBS. Just look at all the services people pay for on monthly basis. The only thing that determines whether people keep that sub is the quality of the content (and the payers forgetfulness). If Ashes is great and people keep saying that it's great - it will have enough subs to pay the devs. Some people liking subs is not the majority you are coping (even more so if you are interacting with more people on forums and people from old school mmorpgs). There is a reason why AoC is not doing box / expansion cost. Most people prefer not paying monthly that is just a fact. And if you trying to convince me people will be fine paying 25$+ (BASE PRICE) is just wild. *EDIT So for me that would turn into 34$ a month lmfao. I prefer subs over buying an entry for $60 just to dislike the product and not have an alternative for a refund. Paying $15/m entry fee is far less than modern day gaming just in general. A lot of modern titles that involve the $60 price only last 30-40hours of actual gameplay before a player has finished the story campaign. You could play the entire game in ~3 weeks and still not yield the same amount as a subscription model. Though I find it humorous that you claim someone else is wrong & coping and then proceed to make the claim your stance is fact. Sounds like you have not being paying attention to modern games for awhile. If developers new subscription models worked tons of games would be actively doing it and pushing for it *ie destiny not having a active sub model and instead doing a box price every year as a work around to hide it. You are 100% coping as well gaming history tells you other wise, as you clearly don't have the grasp on the barrier of entry it creates. And you are losing the point of the conversation about increased price of a sub model to balance out inflation (ie you aren't paying 15$ you are paying more), instead of the pressure being put on other people using a battlepass. Again we are talking about what is successful monetization not you are fine with. You're comparing the market today that uses F2P to get people hooked onto their game and then utilizes Battlepasses as a means to increase revenue by doing barely anything. Modern gaming isn't anything to be praised for their current practices. They use FOMO, whales, gambling, and children to increase their revenue. These aren't pillars of morality or good faith between developers and the consumers that consume their products. The $15/m model works. I posted earlier in this thread that with the current staff the company would still yield $500million/yearly revenue after salary requirements with a 1/4 of WoW's peak numbers. The companies pushing for battlepasses, loot crates, fomo, etc are all bloated bureaucratic companies that are looking out for their investors and not their consumers interests. you can still have a very very good game that also has a battlepass on top of that. just because there is a battle pass, doesn't mean the game is automatically bad or not very engaging and the engagement comes from the battle pass. wont argue that there are games like that, but these things arent mutually exclusive. edit: I still don't want a bp unless it doesn't require me to do things I don't want to do. for example, id hate a bp that asked me to level the spear weapon to level 10. id prefer a bp that tells me to level any weapon to level 10. Most BP you just get general xp, but you can do certain dailies you get more xp. If there is anything i don't want to do, i tend to ignore it 9not an exclusive thing to bp that includes lame quest in games as well) That is not necessary to be a Battle pass. Anything a Battle pass brings can be a game update in the form of the DLCs which were promised to be free.
Otr wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Roelath wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Roelath wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Roelath wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Roelath wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » You really are not looking at the overall picture, there is a reason why games don't do a sub model anymore. You most likely don't understand tons of people out there that a sub model means they wont play the game. The larger that number the less players will be willing to play. And quite a lot of players are getting tired of the f2p+bp monetization scheme, especially when it's super obvious that the companies go for that scheme cause they're greedy, rather than cause they need the money to keep the lights on. People also FUCKING LOVE SUBS. Just look at all the services people pay for on monthly basis. The only thing that determines whether people keep that sub is the quality of the content (and the payers forgetfulness). If Ashes is great and people keep saying that it's great - it will have enough subs to pay the devs. Some people liking subs is not the majority you are coping (even more so if you are interacting with more people on forums and people from old school mmorpgs). There is a reason why AoC is not doing box / expansion cost. Most people prefer not paying monthly that is just a fact. And if you trying to convince me people will be fine paying 25$+ (BASE PRICE) is just wild. *EDIT So for me that would turn into 34$ a month lmfao. I prefer subs over buying an entry for $60 just to dislike the product and not have an alternative for a refund. Paying $15/m entry fee is far less than modern day gaming just in general. A lot of modern titles that involve the $60 price only last 30-40hours of actual gameplay before a player has finished the story campaign. You could play the entire game in ~3 weeks and still not yield the same amount as a subscription model. Though I find it humorous that you claim someone else is wrong & coping and then proceed to make the claim your stance is fact. Sounds like you have not being paying attention to modern games for awhile. If developers new subscription models worked tons of games would be actively doing it and pushing for it *ie destiny not having a active sub model and instead doing a box price every year as a work around to hide it. You are 100% coping as well gaming history tells you other wise, as you clearly don't have the grasp on the barrier of entry it creates. And you are losing the point of the conversation about increased price of a sub model to balance out inflation (ie you aren't paying 15$ you are paying more), instead of the pressure being put on other people using a battlepass. Again we are talking about what is successful monetization not you are fine with. You're comparing the market today that uses F2P to get people hooked onto their game and then utilizes Battlepasses as a means to increase revenue by doing barely anything. Modern gaming isn't anything to be praised for their current practices. They use FOMO, whales, gambling, and children to increase their revenue. These aren't pillars of morality or good faith between developers and the consumers that consume their products. The $15/m model works. I posted earlier in this thread that with the current staff the company would still yield $500million/yearly revenue after salary requirements with a 1/4 of WoW's peak numbers. The companies pushing for battlepasses, loot crates, fomo, etc are all bloated bureaucratic companies that are looking out for their investors and not their consumers interests. I see you have a skewed outlook on the F2P model and i don't really share that. If your standard of f2P is like a gotcha game that involves P2W. That isn't the standard for all F2P. Also this disccusion is not about AoC going F2P. If you think AoC will have millions of subs (2-3 months in) then there isn't much point in this discussion since they would be fine. And wouldn't need to rely on anything else. I'm not going to argue what they will have I'm trying to be mindful of what they need. And if they don't what are the options that aren't going to increase the barrier of entry or add p2w. A battlepass doesn't add any negative effects and do to the modern age people are accepting of paying extra money for one. F2P models when it comes to MMORPGs have always been bloated with ways to get to a player's credit card asap. They will pester and displays ads continually to get the player to fork over some cash. I don't want any annoyances when I boot up a game or when I'm playing one. I've tried a number of F2P MMOs and they've all acted similar to one another. It isn't about AoC going F2P but, discussing the current modern games that do utilize Battlepasses as a means for additional revenue. I personally find it lazy and obnoxious to the experience. What exactly do Battlepasses even offer? Vanity items. A cosmetic shop already exists so why does there need to be an additional vanity item revenue source? If the game is struggling and needs additional revenue than ultimately the game has failed on the premise of what it was offerring by not having the sub numbers to keep it afloat or the economy is destroyed to the point where people can't afford anything. Meaning that it won't just be Intrepid suffering and a Battlepass wouldn't solve that scenario. Ultimately it's either AoC is successful because it kept to its promises or it fails because it didn't. Even a game such as a "New World" is yielding 15million subscribers (Though I doubt that entirely). AoC yielding a couple million worldwide doesn't seem hard to imagine considering how many people there are that play videogames. I'm unsure where you are getting your numbers but whatever site you are using you should not be using. You are most likely getting bloated numbers from everything that are not nearly accurate. There are varying degrees of successes, i guess you could view Aoc as a success with it being indie studio and having 3 servers up per region. And cutting more than half the team size and making back money of the development after some years being a new studio. With much limited growth on the game do to the money it makes not enough enough for new growth. Ultimately again game development is expensive, a battle pass being cosmetics has 0 impact on any meaningful gameplay to you and can give additional revenue. Your negative view on it feels more out of spite than any reality where it effects you actually playing the game. If you don't open the store page I'm unsure how that is even affecting your viewing experience on the game to begin with, since you don't even see it. So what i see is something that has 0 impact, something you don't really see but you are saying its bad just cause. Even if it gives revenge to the game which helps it stay a float and have a stronger dev team. Expecting WoW level success i feel is not the best way to look at AoC, I feel it will have a lot of people at launch but what matters is 2-3 months after and the people that will keep playing the game and sustaining them for the rest of the year. Not the people trying it for 15$ and jumping out. What point i find interesting is how is a battle pass lazy and obnoxious to the experience. It really is just a progression path you increase and gain rewards for those interested. A way to milk impatient people, give people very limited free items to play the game. Yes, I found the source to be dubious at best but if the numbers are accurate even to 50% it goes well beyond the threshold I mentioned previously. I don't disagree with game development being expensive. I disagree with modern developer studios that have matured that can't produce functioning/fun games even with $200 million such as Skull & Bones being the standard of what to expect. You have to remember modern AAA gaming studios are no different from government entities with their expenses. Everything is incredibly expensive, bureaucratic, staff bloat, out of touch higher ups, etc. Ashes being an Indie developer doesn't suffer from this wastefulness. Stardock another Indie dev from 2008 produced a game costing around 1million in expenses but, yielded roughly $25million in revenue. I can understand the discussion of trying to make sure AoC survives if economic troubles comes afoot but, if they're struggling to get a base of subs they've failed already. It'll be another F2P MMO like many others that have come. MMORPGs have to yield subs if they are to survive without turning into a F2P because the subs are dying off. Battlepasses are a bandaid approach to revenue garnering when the game truly needs surgery if its going to survive the eventual F2P curse. Point is It isn't' IS job to change that and find some new creative solution to monetize people. They should do what works and focus on making a good game. I mentioned this earlier but low balling salary alone then its 12m a year, IS is very much a triple A budget right now. And Id rather not see half the dev team let go to reduce cost if the game can not make enough money so sustain all the different factors they will have to pay. They should do a bit of everything in order to keep the barrier of entry low so more people are willing to play, or will accept maybe the sub model isn't that bad if they try it. Again battle passes are not a band-aid approach games are all using this because it works and give profit. If battle-passes were band-aid companies would not be using the model. The point with AoC is not to be the main source but to have other incentives to spend money and keep people invested into the game. Essentially its a discount on a bundle of items with a requirement of playing the game and earning them over a period of time (unless you whale and buy level ups to get them faster which gives more profit to milk some whales.) Some people that might not buy things normally do to how common BP is might be more prone to spend money. Based on the market with games it is clearly successful, if they did it in AoC and no one spent money on it id expect they wouldn't continue it. And would look for other ways to monetize. It is also not your job to fight and convince people to accept changes to the declared way of monetization: monthly subscription and cosmetics in a store. Your argument that BP brings more money is not a reason for us to accept them. You have to say that you like them for another reason than feeling developers money gatherer. And so far I see DLCs are the way to bring changes into the game and BPs just another word for them.
Dygz wrote: » I just expect that Cosmetics Market to be in the form of a Battlepass.
NiKr wrote: » Google says average gamedev salary in Cali is ~130k. At 200 devs that's ~26mil a year. At 200k subs the game would be making 36mil a year. Let's say it's 30mil instead, because a part of those 200k would be outside of eu/us servers. That's still enough to pay the salaries and have stuff leftover, all w/o even counting all the cosmetics sales. And 200k for a good mmo is a fairly low estimate I'd assume. So, as I've been saying, as long as the game is good - we don't need a BP. Dygz wrote: » I just expect that Cosmetics Market to be in the form of a Battlepass. I think I forgot to ask this. Do you expect Embers to not exist then? And if you do think they'll still exist, then do you expect the BP to be on top of a direct purchase shop for cosmetics? Cause if you think that the BP will be the only way to get cosmetics with irl money - to me that sounds like Intrepid would've kinda lied that we'll be able to purchase cosmetics with them.
