Greetings, glorious testers!
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest news on Alpha Two.
Check out general Announcements here to see the latest news on Ashes of Creation & Intrepid Studios.
To get the quickest updates regarding Alpha Two, connect your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest news on Alpha Two.
Check out general Announcements here to see the latest news on Ashes of Creation & Intrepid Studios.
To get the quickest updates regarding Alpha Two, connect your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Concerns About Marketing and "Open Development" Approach
Falkath
Member, Alpha Two
Hey everyone,
First off, let me say that I absolutely love this project. Ashes of Creation is the only game I’m truly excited for, and I want to see it succeed more than anything. This isn’t about pointing fingers at the devs or Steven Sharif, but rather sharing some concerns that I think are causing frustration within the community, in the hope that they can be addressed. I won't talk about the FOMO marketing as people have already spoke about this one enough.
The Marketing Dilemma
The team has been marketing Alpha 2 for a while now, while consistently saying, “Don’t buy it; it’s a true alpha, not a finished game.” Yet, for the past three years, what we’ve been shown is the most polished version of the game possible. The livestreams, updates, and teasers look fantastic, almost bug-free. This doesn’t feel like a genuine attempt to gather feedback on core systems, but more like a polished marketing showcase.
This creates a disconnect between expectations and reality. We’re constantly shown the shiny, polished side of the game, but we know that’s not what a real alpha looks like. Where are the game-breaking bugs? The half-finished systems? By only showing the polished content, the expectation becomes that Alpha 2 will look as perfect as what we see in livestreams and that’s simply unrealistic.
The "Open Development" Issue
Which brings me to the question of open development. While Ashes is certainly more open than most other games, can it really be called open development when all we see are the successes and not the struggles? For example, Alpha 2 was initially slated for Q3 2024, but now the permanent phase isn’t expected until May 2025. Everyone understands that game development involves delays, but we don’t understand why these delays are happening. What went wrong? What challenges have the team encountered?
Right now, it feels more like marketed development than truly open development. And that’s frustrating the community. People don’t just want to see the highlights, as WE want to understand both the good and the bad.
A Path Forward
To address this, I think clearer communication is key. The community can handle knowing about delays and challenges, but we need to know why they’re happening. If a system isn’t working, or there’s a major issue causing a delay, be transparent with us. The community is deeply invested in this game, and we understand that development is messy. By sharing both the progress and the setbacks, the team can better manage expectations and maintain trust.
Again, I say this because I believe in this game and want to see it succeed. Many of us are here for the long haul, but we need a clearer, more honest picture of development and not just hidden marketing.
Thanks for taking the time to read this. I’m excited for what’s to come, and I hope this feedback helps us all stay on the same page as we move forward with Ashes of Creation.
First off, let me say that I absolutely love this project. Ashes of Creation is the only game I’m truly excited for, and I want to see it succeed more than anything. This isn’t about pointing fingers at the devs or Steven Sharif, but rather sharing some concerns that I think are causing frustration within the community, in the hope that they can be addressed. I won't talk about the FOMO marketing as people have already spoke about this one enough.
The Marketing Dilemma
The team has been marketing Alpha 2 for a while now, while consistently saying, “Don’t buy it; it’s a true alpha, not a finished game.” Yet, for the past three years, what we’ve been shown is the most polished version of the game possible. The livestreams, updates, and teasers look fantastic, almost bug-free. This doesn’t feel like a genuine attempt to gather feedback on core systems, but more like a polished marketing showcase.
This creates a disconnect between expectations and reality. We’re constantly shown the shiny, polished side of the game, but we know that’s not what a real alpha looks like. Where are the game-breaking bugs? The half-finished systems? By only showing the polished content, the expectation becomes that Alpha 2 will look as perfect as what we see in livestreams and that’s simply unrealistic.
The "Open Development" Issue
Which brings me to the question of open development. While Ashes is certainly more open than most other games, can it really be called open development when all we see are the successes and not the struggles? For example, Alpha 2 was initially slated for Q3 2024, but now the permanent phase isn’t expected until May 2025. Everyone understands that game development involves delays, but we don’t understand why these delays are happening. What went wrong? What challenges have the team encountered?
Right now, it feels more like marketed development than truly open development. And that’s frustrating the community. People don’t just want to see the highlights, as WE want to understand both the good and the bad.
A Path Forward
To address this, I think clearer communication is key. The community can handle knowing about delays and challenges, but we need to know why they’re happening. If a system isn’t working, or there’s a major issue causing a delay, be transparent with us. The community is deeply invested in this game, and we understand that development is messy. By sharing both the progress and the setbacks, the team can better manage expectations and maintain trust.
Again, I say this because I believe in this game and want to see it succeed. Many of us are here for the long haul, but we need a clearer, more honest picture of development and not just hidden marketing.
Thanks for taking the time to read this. I’m excited for what’s to come, and I hope this feedback helps us all stay on the same page as we move forward with Ashes of Creation.
6
Comments
And I'm also "here" because I like Ashes (or what is promised to me) but I am, as always, throwing in my critical perspective as devil's advocate because the gap between marketing/player attraction and open/agile development (which seems just to exist to get legitimation instead of real feedback to the struggles that were not shown to us until now) is just there, as you've already summarized well.
Communication is key.
"Neither of which are a game."
And last, the % of people that read this kind of reddit posts against the ones that only follow the game through the livestream is way too low. It's like shouting I'M SELLING THIS AMAZING PRODUCT but whispering after so many people pre-ordered the product : 'it's not quite like on the advertising btw"
All I'm saying is that what they should show be what they're saying, don't say the game is full of bugs if you don't show any.
When the problem is people not understanding, there isn't anything else that can be said.
I mean, you are even saying that you see they are saying "don't buy it", but you see something different when you look at the livestreams. That is you seeing something other than what they are saying - that is the problem you are having.
Obviously they are going to put their best foot forward with their livestreams, but they know what the rest of the game is like and you don't. Those people that know what the game is like are saying "don't buy it", and you are looking at a small portion of it and being like "but I really want to".
What else can be said, honestly?
Can I guarantee that that sort of realistic/pessimistic messaging wouldn't hurt his brand? No.
Is the way they're communicating now anywhere close to misleading or deceptive? Hell no.
In fact I think their communication is pretty responsible, and in my perception, the parts that are slightly too optimistic have more to do with Steven not distinguishing cleanly between "schedule" and "tasks steps", which isn't really that big of a deal.
Essentially, when he's announcing the next step, he's not saying: "This will be done in 1.5 months", he's saying: "This step is expected to be delivered after the step planned for 0.5 months and the step planned in 1 month, therefore 1.5 months - without going into the probability of each of those delivering." Because it ultimately really doesn't matter, as long as he has good reason to believe the game will be published one day.
unknownsystemerror did not merely claim that Steven is clear with his communication.
Rather, unknownsystemerror stated that Steven/Intrepid are as clear as they're going to be, already.
I've been waiting for the last two articles for Know Your Nodes for 5 years.
The first 4 of those years, I asked Steven and Margaret when we finally get to see them.
Margaret told me in 2019 that they were all written and just waiting on approval from Steven.
Steven said that the of the different Node Types are in flux and he doesn't want to share them until he feels like they won't change much.
I told him, "It's Alpha. We understand that everything is subject to change."
Steven replied that sometimes you don't get a chance for 2nd impressions, so he wants to wait until he feels the implementation of the designs are more solid.
Steven is not going to be more clear than he already is during interviews, Q&As and AMAs. Other than the clarifications he sometimes drops in Discord.
Especially not the degree you wish for.
The Hopium is strong within you!
Some of you are being very disingenuous in how you've chosen to interpret what's being said here.
'Open development' has recently been just polished game segments of systems we've already seen, and more focus on aesthetics than mechanical aspects like crafting, node advancements, how emergent content will form based on advancements.
I'd say most of us here are more interested in seeing the framework of the mechanical systems that drew us to Ashes as a concept, rather than pass three at lighting, or a standard raid fight with stiff animations, and demonstrations of the former have been scarce recently.
The gist of it is that "This is an Alpha, it's unfinished and unpolished and subject to change" is just words in the face of what has been chosen to be shown, which is for the most part, aesthetically driven, typically 'pretty' on par with a completed game, and lacks information on the development of the mechanical systems that drew this community to Ashes of Creation in the first place.
People retain much more of what they see than what they hear. That's just a simple and well-known fact of communication. So yes, it is concerning to notice a trend that they aren't showcasing unique, highly anticipated systems that have polish issues in their incomplete states (which is expected for an Alpha state) but they are showcasing what amounts to mostly-polished gameplay (which is not what I would expect from an Alpha state).
The message being sent visually and through showcases is 'this is a nearly finished game', while they tack on a 'this is a test phases' disclaimer verbally.
Maybe not on purpose, but that is how it's ended up for the past few livestreams.
What we've seen should be a big hint about where they are in the development.
That's different than Steven being more transparent than he already is.
And compared to what we typically get for MMORPG development, Steven is still being very transparent.
We would all still live to have more details. Of course.
Clearly stated as part of the original pledge without any specific package purchase. Now, with that being said, early development of games or software has trade secrets or intellectual property that they cannot allow competitors to have access to. Early stages of development require NDA’s for pretty much anything and everything, that means you do not get to look under the hood just because you want to. Are you prepared to sign an NDA and lose pretty much everything when you can’t keep your mouth shut and let information about the company’s intellectual property slip? Can the company risk letting tens or hundreds of thousands of people know the inner workings of their intellectual property? Do you really think a competitor will pass on a chance to get access to it? It is not feasible for them to allow everyone to have access, basic open and honest updates on development are more than enough. Again, I’m not sure about the packages after Kickstarter, before complaining about a lack of information be sure to check and see if you are indeed entitled to it with the package you purchased. If not, or if you haven’t supported the game in any way, be happy with the information you are getting for free.
While I understand it’s their quote and not yours. That is misleading wordplay that leads to suspicion. They need to knock it off, the sooner the better. While it is indeed true that Ashes of Creation the GAME is a product they are developing, I did not back Intrepid Stuidos in the development of their “products”. I backed the development of Ashes of Creation the GAME. As was clearly stated in multiple places all over the Kickstarter Campaign.
Clearly stated multiple times, it is a game. I know it may seem like a small thing, and it may indeed be a small thing. If it is then it’s no big deal to stop referring to it as a product and refer to it as what it actually is, a GAME. Product can mean anything really, maybe one day Intrepid Studios decides to start buying toilet paper in bulk and reselling it, maybe it’s eggs, or dish towels, or lawn furniture. Those are all products and none of them are what I backed for. I seriously doubt it will come to anything like that, but vague word games that leave things to interpretation, especially in this specific situation will and does lead to suspicion.
Steven was saying that people should not be giving Intrepid money for the game.
Give money to test the product (the product is a game), sure. However, that is not playing the game, it is testing the product.
The number of people that come here saying they have alpha access, where can they get the game to download and play points to exactly why Intrepid need to say what they say.
Alpha testing is not playing a game. You do not pay money to alpha test with the expectation that you have a game to play. All of those things in the pack you listed - they will all be a part of the game, when the game is released. However, alpha testing is not the game, so don't expect it to be a game.
If you want a game, wait. If you want to test a product, come this way.
That, from my perspective, is what Steven/Intrepid are trying to say.
This is the crux of the issue, though. Steven is saying it's an Alpha test state, but what is being showcased isn't reflective of an Alpha state.
The showcase content, what most people are watching and building hype off of, presents Ashes as a game in polishing stages when it most certainly is not. The focus on polished content also takes away from the community that wants to see some progress on the actual mechanisms that are supposed to be used to build up the world.
Yes, even if they're buggy! We want to know they're being worked on even if they look awful and aren't yet entirely functional.
I don't need to see another iteration on lighting that doesn't actually have any effect on the gameplay we're supposed to be testing in Alpha.
And I do not disagree, people that expect Alpha/Beta phases of any game development to be a completed game need to stick to consoles only. That does not mean Steven or Intrepid need to start using word play to camouflage the fact that some people are idiots, trust me, they will never learn if you leave the kiddie gloves on. Point them to the disclaimers they hopefully read, it's their fault if they didn't, and be done with it. Do not humor them any further.
Let me be clear, I am NOT saying Intrepid Studios are going to do this. I am saying it has happened somewhere, I'm saying it is happening somewhere, I'm saying it will happen again somewhere. It's so common there are literally many different terms for it. It's a legal loophole, a bait and switch, whatever you want to think of it as.
Lets do a mental experiment or mental theory craft.
What happens when someone is developing a game and suddenly a few years in they casually start referring to it as a product, unspecified of course, as now they are developing a product and talking about a game. After a while they slowly start to drop any association between the product they are developing and game they are talking about, over that time period they convince more and more people to disassociate the product from the game through simple repetition, "No, we are developing a product, it is not a game. That game will be awesome wickedly coolio when it's completed super bro." Time goes on and eventually release comes, you get a super calculator that can calculate in 7 different languages as long as its English. "Oh, you were expecting a game? Nah, we were developing a product, not a game. That was an awesome game though, right dude bro?"
It's simple, it's easy, it all starts with word games to disassociate and leave open to interpretation.
Sorry Noaani, you provided the perfect example of that interpretation.
And again I am NOT trying to say Steven or Intrepid Studios are trying to do that, I am not trying to stir up trouble about it. I am in fact trying to prevent future suspicious statements, as in the screen caps from unknownsystemerror it's clearly from the playbook.
Firmly states development of a product, casually refers to the game Ashes.
Clear, direct and firm dissociation between product and game.
It's a simple easy fix. Stop the word games.
Alpha means there are still features that need to be added.
And we still have plenty of features missing.[/quote]
What you're saying here is that the demos don't show a bunch of bugs.
Which makes sense. Because that's not really what demos are intended to do.
Some players may want to see the bugs.
A studio with a Marketing Director is probably not going to show a ton of bugs.
As soon as you have Marketing - there's going to be a push to show reasonably polished demos.
And you're right, people who don't like the game aren't forced to buy anything or even follow it. But a lot of people love the game and want to see it succeed, and if you can't handle their feedback when it's not only positive then don't read it
All we want is a real picture of the development so we can avoid the backlash that only showing the good stuff provoked.
I feel to are entirely missing the whole mark of the showcases where you want to see the buggy version with issues or incomplete things. Point of the showcase it to show features of alpha 2, which is the focus of these dev live streams.
Its not to give feedback on bugs or certain issues that is obvious they need to fix. Which only adds more feedback that clogs up the post with unnecessary comments.
I feel your main issue is looking at it in its polish state and reading more into it, then focusing on the feature they are trying to show, and the content people will be doing. Its not meant to be like what you see here is exactly what you get with no issues, etc.
You need to not look at it as a full game but more so look at the features they are showing and trying to get feedback on...
Where are the features though? A dungeon crawl and dragon fight with basic mechanics aren't exactly important features at this point when we still haven't seen the interaction of nodes with each other, which is the backbone for all subsequent content forming for players to tackle.
Now, had they demonstrated adaptive anti-zerg behavior in the stream, or showed both the attacker side of the dragon fight with the defender side of the dragon fight to showcase the various quest paths, we'd have some features to discuss, but we didn't see any of that.
I don't know how Intrepid could be any more clear than stating that if it is the game you want, wait for it to be released - which is what they have said.
Just because something hasn't been in the Livestreams doesn't mean it isn't in the game (or should I say "product"?
Node testing is in the 2nd Phase of Alpha-2 (starting late December) according to the roadmap.
Might be a good idea to brush up on your Wiki knowledge ...
If you think all of their past showcases collectively have not been features or worthy to be called features that is for you to decide its a waste of your time to watch, etc. Not really going to argue if their showcases are good enough for you to consider features and types of content of a game.
My previous point stands, as to what they want to get feedback of, and your expectations should be at the features and types of content they are showing for feedback. Not to show you what your alpha game experience will be, but the types of features / content you will be doing.
But we don't have a game yet, so why is it being showcased as one rather than showcasing some new features in more depth that we're going to be testing?
I gave examples before, but that dragon fight would have been a good time to show off some of the adaptive boss mechanics by spending some time to compare its behavior to a 40man raid vs 200 players. They also mentioned that a group could choose to defend the dragon, but we didn't see the branching quest feature either.
The point of the OP is that there is a game being showcased instead of a testing phase.
Yes, all of us here already know it's not going to be a functional game in Alpha 2. The 'expect to test' being touted to people who already expect it is blowing hot air, because obviously the people digging into the meat of it know that.
The issue is for everyone else that isn't on the forums or in discord. If the only source of their AoC knowledge is the streams and official new pages, they are being shown a playable game, and that's going to severely warp expectations through no fault of their own. That is what's going to cause hooplah and drama, because what's shown from Intrepid isn't going to match what people have actually bought into.
The Wiki isn't a failsafe indication of a feature existing unfortunately, as with the 'Hunters will have no interaction with world bosses' dropped on us during the last stream, which I still hope was Steven misspeaking as interconnectivity of crafters and raiders was at one point a key feature.
Hopefully you're right in that the features will be accurately displayed in future content streams from Intrepid once Alpha 2 is in full force, but unfortunately I doubt it's going to alleviate the grievances many people who joined in based on mostly-polished gameplay streams from feeling like they got bait-and-switched.
Showing the nitty gritty might not have been as visually pleasing, but it would have given people a more accurate expectation of what they'll be getting into.
It is through their own fault.
This is what people see when they go and try to purchase the game.
It very clarly says alpha. If someone is going through that page and not realizing that they are not purchasing a seat at an alpha test, that is 100% their fault. It isn't as if this is hidden.
The showcases also state that the game is in alpha - again, it isn't hidden.
They state the game is in Alpha, and the Alpha footage they show is that of a game in polishing stages. As far as all the new arrivals been shown from Intrepid, the livestreams are indicative of the experience that can expect from the Alpha 2.
Do you really not understand how that's going to cause problems when people realize it isn't like all the showcases they've been watching?
Edit: If it wasn't already clear, it's not what they're calling it that's the issue. The issue is what they've been showing, as the OP says, hasn't had any indication of the pitfalls we (who are reading the forums and talking on discord) know will be in the Alpha. Their expectations have been established around over-curated ingame footage of mostly-polished encounters.
Naturally, with such a wide range of classes, some imbalance issues will crop up—especially early on. These imbalances should be small and manageable, and there’s always room for adjustments and patches during the testing phases like Alpha or Beta. That’s likely one of the main purposes of those stages, to identify these sorts of issues.
When I talk about balance, I don’t expect perfection, but I question whether it’s feasible to fine-tune all these classes to a balanced or baseline level without an extensive team of experts—people with experience in reporting, testing, and analysis—working in sync to make it happen. Balancing this many variables in both PvE and PvP (PvX) is no small task, and it raises the concern of whether the resources and expertise will be enough to deliver the desired level of polish.
I suppose what I’d really like to see is more insight into that side of the development process, especially since it plays such a significant role in how players interact with each other in the game world.
And, how much of Nodes interacting do you expect to see in a 45 minute that includes bugs.
A Node progression demo would have to be heavily edited.
For the Citadel of the Steel Bloom Demo Steven wanted feedback on:
Combat; Group Combat; Raid Combat; Raid Boss Fighting; POI; Events
How many players comprise a zerg? Also, why are you expecting to see anti-zerg behaviors in A2 Phase 1??
Citadel of the Steel Bloom is a Raid. I didn't know there's supposed to be a different Quest path for the attackers and defenders, but this Raid was not intended to demo Quest paths. Maybe I need to review the demo again to learn more about the different Quest paths for attackers and defenders. I thought both would be competing to acquire the same Relic and have the same Quest.
But, we're really still more than a year away from seeing Secondary Archetype Augments and the 64 Classes.
Steven keeps telling people several times per month that testing Alpha 2 will not really be "fun"; instead It's going to be testing with tons of bugs.