Glorious Alpha Two Testers!
Alpha Two testing is currently taking place five days each week. More information about Phase II and Phase III testing schedule can be found here
If you have Alpha Two, you can download the game launcher here, and we encourage you to join us on our Official Discord Server for the most up to date testing news.
Alpha Two testing is currently taking place five days each week. More information about Phase II and Phase III testing schedule can be found here
If you have Alpha Two, you can download the game launcher here, and we encourage you to join us on our Official Discord Server for the most up to date testing news.
Steven, Please Rethink “Not for Everyone”
TheDarkSorcerer
Member, Alpha Two
1. Saying a game is “not for everyone” in 2025 just feels out of touch.
Steven recently said Ashes of Creation is “not for everyone.” And sure, maybe that’s meant to sound bold or unapologetic, but in reality, it’s a limiting take that could end up doing more harm than good.
In 2025, sticking to your vision doesn’t mean shutting people out. Look at Baldur’s Gate 3 or Expeditions. Both are turn-based RPGs, a genre that historically had “niche” written all over it. But those studios didn’t say “this isn’t for you.” Instead, they kept the heart of the game intact and made it easier for new players to jump in. Now look where they are.
Ashes should be doing the same. Saying "we're not for everyone" might feel like drawing a line in the sand, but it ends up sounding more like a closed door. And if the first impression people get is that this game isn’t welcoming or worth their time unless they’re already hardcore, you’re losing them before they even log in.
2. That mindset doesn't just affect the players, it affects the team too.
When the founder says something like that, it’s not just players listening. The industry is listening. And let’s be real, this isn’t 2015 anymore. It’s not an employer’s market. The best talent wants to work on games that feel exciting, future-facing, and like they’ll actually reach a big audience.
If Ashes is being positioned as a selective, high-barrier MMO, that narrows the pool of people who want to work on it. It’s not just about taste, it’s about stability. A game with long-term growth potential is way more appealing than one that already feels like it’s limiting itself before launch.
The game runs on a subscription model. That only works if new players are constantly coming in and sticking around. But right now, the early and mid-game experience feels like an afterthought. It’s all grindy, high-investment content focused on end-game PvP. Most players won’t even make it there. If the game doesn’t widen its reach, it’ll struggle to keep a big team employed, plain and simple.
3. The “not for everyone” line sends the wrong message.
Nobody’s saying Ashes should be watered down. No one’s asking it to become a theme park MMO. But when leadership says “this isn’t for everyone,” it feels like a warning instead of an invitation.
Ashes already has a lot going for it, complex systems, big ideas, and a community that wants this game to win. But the way it's being framed right now makes it feel like it's only meant for a specific type of player. That’s not how you grow a game. That’s how you shrink your audience before it even has a chance to expand.
Steven, with all respect, this isn’t just about wording. It’s about the message you're putting out into the world. And right now, that message feels a little too boxed in for a game that should be aiming way higher.
Steven recently said Ashes of Creation is “not for everyone.” And sure, maybe that’s meant to sound bold or unapologetic, but in reality, it’s a limiting take that could end up doing more harm than good.
In 2025, sticking to your vision doesn’t mean shutting people out. Look at Baldur’s Gate 3 or Expeditions. Both are turn-based RPGs, a genre that historically had “niche” written all over it. But those studios didn’t say “this isn’t for you.” Instead, they kept the heart of the game intact and made it easier for new players to jump in. Now look where they are.
Ashes should be doing the same. Saying "we're not for everyone" might feel like drawing a line in the sand, but it ends up sounding more like a closed door. And if the first impression people get is that this game isn’t welcoming or worth their time unless they’re already hardcore, you’re losing them before they even log in.
2. That mindset doesn't just affect the players, it affects the team too.
When the founder says something like that, it’s not just players listening. The industry is listening. And let’s be real, this isn’t 2015 anymore. It’s not an employer’s market. The best talent wants to work on games that feel exciting, future-facing, and like they’ll actually reach a big audience.
If Ashes is being positioned as a selective, high-barrier MMO, that narrows the pool of people who want to work on it. It’s not just about taste, it’s about stability. A game with long-term growth potential is way more appealing than one that already feels like it’s limiting itself before launch.
The game runs on a subscription model. That only works if new players are constantly coming in and sticking around. But right now, the early and mid-game experience feels like an afterthought. It’s all grindy, high-investment content focused on end-game PvP. Most players won’t even make it there. If the game doesn’t widen its reach, it’ll struggle to keep a big team employed, plain and simple.
3. The “not for everyone” line sends the wrong message.
Nobody’s saying Ashes should be watered down. No one’s asking it to become a theme park MMO. But when leadership says “this isn’t for everyone,” it feels like a warning instead of an invitation.
Ashes already has a lot going for it, complex systems, big ideas, and a community that wants this game to win. But the way it's being framed right now makes it feel like it's only meant for a specific type of player. That’s not how you grow a game. That’s how you shrink your audience before it even has a chance to expand.
Steven, with all respect, this isn’t just about wording. It’s about the message you're putting out into the world. And right now, that message feels a little too boxed in for a game that should be aiming way higher.
1
Comments
This game is too competitive, at too many points of its function, to not make sure people understand this.
Building a complicated competitive game almost guarantees that people need to approach it from the 'not for everyone' mindset from the beginning because certain styles of play appeal to vastly different types of people, and an MMO is among the most complex of these.
I still agree that even MMOs should generally design to fit as many as their core vision can reasonably fit in, but there are people out there who seriously say things like 'I had to grind for nearly a whole week to get to max level in this MMO so I quit, not for me', and it helps when those people know beforehand that they shouldn't try to get into your game, if your game is longterm/grindy, and the other side of that exists too.
Ashes can't help but give the impression that it is hardcore, as it is right now. It may never be able to 'escape' from giving that impression.
One of my biggest concerns is how this kind of messaging affects hiring. When a game is positioned as limited in scope or appeal, it doesn’t exactly inspire confidence, especially for top-tier talent looking for their next big opportunity. In today’s world, stability matters. People want to know they’re joining something with long-term potential, not something that might fizzle out a year after launch. If the perception is that the game is already putting a ceiling on its own growth, that makes the studio a much tougher sell to future employees.
Limiting your audience doesn’t just limit players. It limits the kind of people who want to help you build
I agree with this part a lot, but there's not a lot that one can do when developing a game that is already a 'known quantity', right?
And to be clear, I'm absolutely not saying this is good. The outcome of this in the space of genres I play (Fighting Games, Strategy Games, other MMOs) has been awful. Absolute garbage outcomes except for like, TL (possibly on its way there) and Predecessor (maybe the same, hard to say).
Game has 'flaws', only devs who somehow find those 'flaws' enjoyable or lack the experience to understand why they are problems, join the development (who can blame the others, right?), devs double down and make things worse to the point of studios having to issue public apologies for the quality of certain patches.
BG3 had the benefit of a clear vision and not a lot of exposure to 'people who didn't want to play BG3'. If another studio tried to copy their development style now, I'm not sure they'd make it. Happens all the time in media.
"Unplanned sequels to solid games/shows often suck because the only people willing to put in the work to make a 'replacement' for the well-loved experience, are people who didn't actually like that experience."
MMORPGs often become their own sequels, as their lifespan progresses.
I’m not saying everything needs to be fully fleshed out right now. But when most of what we’re shown or hyped about is late-game content like sieges and raid bosses, it creates the impression that the early game is just a grindy placeholder. That’s risky, especially for a game banking on long-term retention and word-of-mouth.
Players need to feel that spark from the start, even in alpha. If early game isn’t exciting now, it’s hard to imagine it magically becoming engaging by launch unless it’s made a clear priority.
here is where the problem is " 'I had to grind for nearly a whole week to get to max level in this MMO so I quit, not for me'
its not about leveling being slower ,its about "i had to grind" grinding is unfun and boring, if the leveling was fun no one would bother , grinding for a week to craft a low level bow is not fun on top of the crafting system being horribly complicated and overblown and very solo/casual unfriendly on top of grouping being forced on everything where u cant do ,progress or achieve anything on your own, same with the rest of the game.
pvp is fine and all other games that ashes trying to copy many systems from had open pvp and were fine they died mostly for greed and terrible decisions but they worked for a reason there, a good mmo is one that gives u a choice and for a sandpark mmo ashes takes away the choice from all of these systems "caravans being one big example compared to AA system" ,one of the most things most if not all people hate is being forced to do stuff non the less angry gamers, any forced grouping and grind should be done in small and rare situations like certain quests or parts of them , getting some hard mat or two for a craft from a dungeon boss/room not ..etc and crafting should be in steps where even highest tiers of craft should consist of easy,medium hard to get mats and piece or two or so of a really hard to get mat that you would need a group to go on adventure to get it like from a dungeon boss where you risk dying to get to it or fighting it or by other players where you need to grind boss a couple of times to get the mat from him, not grind 1000 trees to make 2 logs for a lvl 10 bow , not to say "REMOVE GROUPING" no it should be encouraged and more convenient to group up not forced and an example of that would be once again "AA pack runs" or "GW2 leveling where during my leveling that i did 3 times i had some quests that i straight up instantly tried to party with anyone i saw there cuz it was more convenient for me and cuz that was fun so i did party up a lot more even when i didnt need to"
a good game is one that you can log into and play for how much you want was it 30minutes or 13 hrs and you'd leave it feeling that you progressed , accomplished something and most importantly had fun
There are people who cannot seem to have 'fun' unless they're being handed something that makes them feel like they're progressing every FIVE MINUTES.
If we wanna just ignore those people, this conversation obviously can't go anywhere, but they will come, and they will try to play Ashes, and they will influence people who could enjoy Ashes.
I'd genuinely prefer that fewer of them even tried.
A better way to word the same sentiment would be to say "We are working to include as many players as possible into our game environment and hope you will enjoy our efforts, now and in the future as we evolve".
You nailed it with this!
Maybe I'm mistaken, but I believe they've essentially said that. With the caveat, "but the game is still not going to be for everyone."
For me personally, I want them to be as brutally honest about it as possible. Right now, the game is abysmally failing at the two things I care about most. Pvp and RMT/p2w. Pvp ranges anywhere from nonexistent to gimicky, zergy nonsense designed for mega guilds to dominate. And RMT is completely out of control and I haven't heard anything substantial from them so far about how they're actually going to stop Ashes from becoming the most p2w "non p2w" mmo ever.
Still plenty of time to come up with the very easy solutions to these things. But if and when they throw in the towel on these two issues, I don't want to hear half solutions, pleasantries or corporate nonsense. Just tell me this is the way it is and the game aint for me. I will appreciate the honesty.
I completely agree with this. The phrase “Not for everyone” raises concerns not just because of how it's worded, but because of how it tends to appear in conversations around legitimate, detailed feedback.
When players express concerns about things like floaty combat, janky animation transitions, or disconnected systems, and the response is simply “Well, it’s not for everyone,” it can feel like the discussion is being closed off — even if that’s not the intention.
Most players aren't asking the team to change their vision to please everyone. But many do hope for an open exchange, where feedback — especially on core mechanics — is acknowledged and reflected on. Saying “We aim to include as many players as possible while staying true to our design goals” would communicate that spirit much more constructively.
It’s not about diluting the design philosophy. It’s about showing that even critical voices are welcome in shaping a better version of what Ashes is meant to become.
But this is far from how they use this statement. The times they have said this it’s been referring to the core pillars of the game or things like no p2w or not going to hold your hand like most modern MMOs. All the other complaints are being heard but most people are just too impatient to wait for a fix and if it’s not done in their timeframe they shout “they aren’t listening to the feedback!”
Aren't we all sinners?
Thanks for the clarification — and I don’t think we’re actually that far apart.
You're absolutely right that when Intrepid uses the phrase “Not for everyone,” it’s typically in reference to core design pillars like no P2W, meaningful progression, or avoiding hand-holding. And I have no issue with that — I personally support those principles and respect the team’s commitment to them.
The concern I was raising isn’t really about when the devs use that phrase — but rather how it’s perceived, especially in broader discussions around more specific feedback like combat feel, animations, or system clarity.
Even if the original intention behind the phrase is focused on high-level design goals, the way it’s echoed in the community (sometimes by fans, sometimes just in the tone of conversation) can make it feel like detailed feedback is being brushed off or that critique isn’t welcome. It’s less about what’s said directly and more about the atmosphere that starts to form around that sentiment.
And to be clear — I’m not saying the team doesn’t listen. I believe they do. But perception matters too, especially in a game that’s still actively evolving. If players feel like some conversations are quietly being closed off — even unintentionally — it can undermine the very feedback culture the studio is trying to foster.
I just want to make sure the space stays open for all kinds of voices — not only those who agree with every development choice or direction, but also those who care deeply and want to help refine things.
You’re right on perception but I don’t see how they could do a better job at showing people they are listening. Over this last live stream so many of the devs repeated that our voices are being heard. In my opinion they have done an excellent job showing how they are listening to players by the things they are prioritizing while they also develop the rest of the game. With all that being said I know this game isn’t perfect and feedback is needed to make this game great.
I do agree that whoever uses this phrase for the feedback around this stuff is really wrong in that usage, though tbh I don't think I've seen this particular interaction. I mostly see (and use) the phrase for anyone who's targeting core features with HUGE changes.
As for any changes that might attract someone who's not in the direct target audience - I do believe those are still planned, but not implemented. Though with Steven saying that we'll still have some grind - I do think that the phrase is just too applicable to a lot of people not to use it.
Yes, a ton of people dislike grind, but that's simply the design Steven wants/believes in. And it'll keep the game niche, which almost exactly means that "it's not for everyone".
The man is going to do what he wants. We are just along for the ride.
This is my personal feedback, shared to help the game thrive in its niche.
Let me explain with one simple point: this game will never work as both a PvE and PvP game if, as he says, they plan to make the corruption system softer. If that happens, all Points of Interest will become unplayable. Groups won’t be able to defend themselves against both mobs and other groups looking to PvP. It will be a mess, and progression will come to a halt.
We can already see it happening: between players landing a single mezz on a healer and others falling behind, groups are wiping nonstop. So what are we doing here? Is this a PvE game? A PvP game? Or are we sticking to this meaningless hybrid system? They talk about risk vs. reward, but since October, what I’ve seen is a small group of players creating massive frustration, making the game unbearable for the majority. Many guilds and players have already quit because if you’re not in one of the top guilds, you simply can’t do anything.
So yes, Steven might end up creating a game for a minority of players. But here’s the real question: how is he going to pay 250 employees when that minority ends up making the game unplayable and pushes 80% of the server away?
This reminds me of Wildstar, when the devs proudly claimed only 1% of players would reach the endgame. I told them back then: “Great, guys, but when that 1% stops generating enough money to cover your costs, you’ll be out of a job.” And surprise didn’t take long before they sold the license and shut it down.
Same vibe here. Since October, top spots and bosses have been locked down by hardcore guilds, and everyone else is left to fend for themselves. The entire game is heading that way. Personally, I don’t care I didn’t invest tens of millions into this. But financial reality will catch up fast if they keep designing systems for a minority that simply won’t work on a larger scale.
A simple example of this is the Tank Participation thread they had a while back.
For the most part, Tanks being able to just 'always hold aggro, always see aggro, etc' is one style of game, Tanks having to work hard or let it be a team effort, is another style.
That isn't really the sort of thing you're talking about with the 'top players suppressing others', but it's closely related. If Ashes switches to 'Holding Aggro is now a simple/guaranteed part of Tanking', a nontrivial subset of Tanks will stop tanking, and be replaced by others, possibly more, who are now more able to do it because it's 'easier' in a specific way.
But then the game still isn't for everyone, because it's 'not for' Tanks that don't like holding aggro to be simple/guaranteed.
I agree with your point. Intrepid’s focus on late-game content ignores the reality: most sub-based players are casual and won’t grind that far. If the early and mid-game don’t hit, they’re just paying to get bored.
There are people out there who want this kind of game, and imo there's just enough of them to cover the costs of a studio like Intrepid (given that they'll almost definitely downsize after release).
Where exactly did they focus on that though? How is AoC's lategame any different from its early/mid game? You grind mobs, artisanry, commissions, quests all throughout your leveling experience. Sieges will supposedly have activities for the lowbies to do and general owpvp will work across all lvls, and will also defend lowbies from highbie attacks through the corruption system.
The only thing that might be way closer to endgame content is freeholds and guild wars, but FHs were always described as "you'll need to work for them" (which removes casuals from equation completely) and GWs are ultimately the same as NWs, and those will effect people all the way from lvl10 - so even those features are not really about early vs late game and more about just the playstyle of different people.
And we'll supposedly have a deep enough artisan systen and rich enough questing/module design where casuals will have stuff to do in the world. And the world itself will be big enough to let them do that stuff in relative peace.
So I really don't see where the supposed late-game focus is here.
Those people will RP though, and Ashes is rapidly on the track to be at least 4th in the running for dynamic MMORPG RolePlaying foundation games.
This is one of the few games where the drama and such of top players is explicitly content for lower level, less invested players, because of that.
And some such...
Come on now, I'm being serious. If the worldstate affects the top guilds (which it should), especially the events, and they're not all salty/butthurt over it and quit (I'd say about 1 in 5 top guilds takes it on the chin instead of ducking out), we could get some good content.
I'm talking 'a volcano erupted and affected crops in the region so the King had to respond' stuff.
But yes, Ashes will have even more kinds of impacts on political drama of the realm. I dearly hope that we can somehow get a fantasy EVE situation here, because I love EVE's political drama stories and I've always wanted to live in a world like that, but, outside of Space Rangers 2, starship gameplay was never really my thing.
I see. While I can't say that this is 'not enough' in general, I suspect it 'won't be enough' in Ashes, which is fine since they have the intent to have proper worldsim events.
Roleplayers don't need much, we'll convert patches, glitches, bugs, 'idiots who refuse to RP but are easy to mock in world chat...
I've attended a whole funeral, IN a graveyard, a whole guild (not mine) event for a character who got their name reported and force-changed, so they were having a funeral for [The old name] as if the character had died.
But I've also got to agree with OP, that if too much of it is based on things like 'someone with power over me did something I don't like for no reason and I can't do anything', it moreso seems to make the RP groups I know just disengage from it all.
In EVE it's better/different, but for now, in AoC, I'll take volcanoes/sandstorms over Politics, at least until I see that the top guilds at least aren't actively disruptive/hostile to the RP crowd (on at least one server).
It's worth noting that Steven Sharif has addressed this topic, emphasizing that the game's development journey is ongoing and may not appeal to all players at every stage. In response to community feedback, he stated:
"As I have said time and time again, this journey will not be for everyone... We still have a journey ahead of us. It is going to be a long road, and the testing environment in Alpha Two right now can sometimes feel like a game, but it isn't yet."
This transparency helps set realistic expectations for current and prospective players. It acknowledges that the game is still in development and that the experience will evolve over time.
Furthermore, the phrase "not for everyone" can serve as an invitation for players who are seeking a different kind of MMORPG experience—one that deviates from the mainstream and offers something distinct. It's about embracing a vision that may cater to a specific audience passionate about the game's unique features.
That said, it's crucial for the development team to maintain open communication and ensure that feedback from a diverse player base is considered. Balancing the game's core vision with accessibility and inclusivity can help broaden its appeal without compromising its identity.
In conclusion, while the phrase might initially seem off-putting, understanding its context and the intentions behind it can provide clarity. It's about aligning expectations and fostering a community that resonates with the game's direction.
Making a game for everyone is what killed MMOs. Every MMO became generic and designed to fit the biggest amount of players as they could. Targetting an aduance is a smart move. The problem here is making a type of game people are looking for but doing it in a way that makes a game with a target group that wants X game but works for hard core, every day gamers and casuals. That want a type of play style. You can make a MMO that targets only the most hard core players but the window will be so small that game will have an a very active group but not enough money to keep content rolling at a speed that will keep that hard core game ring playing. This is where Ashes is really failing. IS needs to make Ashes balance the three types of players looking for a game like this. That makes it meaningful and are for each group.
If you don't want to risk dying, bring more people
If you can't/don't want to do that, learn to cope with failure and loss.
If you don't want to make that concession, play a game whose design promises safety, and/or solo-friendliness.