Steven, Please Rethink “Not for Everyone”

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.

Find more posts tagged with

Staff

Comments

TheDarkSorcerer

Imanek wrote: »

The issue is that Steven keeps saying this game "isn't meant for everyone," but when you follow the development, it’s clear they’re actually trying to make an MMO that pleases everyone. And in the end, no one will be truly satisfied.

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.

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.

Ludullu

Imanek wrote: »

this game will never work as both a PvE and PvP game if, as he says, they plan to make the corruption system softer.

Except it worked in L2 and Steven is pretty much remaking L2 with a few more features at this point. Except he even said that Corruption will be harsher tuned than L2's was, which will hopefully cover the difference of player risk, cause in L2 there was no material loss on death.

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).

TheDarkSorcerer wrote: »

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.

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.

Azherae

TheDarkSorcerer wrote: »

Imanek wrote: »

The issue is that Steven keeps saying this game "isn't meant for everyone," but when you follow the development, it’s clear they’re actually trying to make an MMO that pleases everyone. And in the end, no one will be truly satisfied.

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.

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.

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.

Ludullu

Azherae wrote: »

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.

The king was kind to us and changed the castle taxes for this month BY ONE WHOLE PERCENT! Yet some bastards from the east are plotting to overthrow him and have been going to war against our lands. We're dying by the hundreds, because they have better weapons and stronger warriors, but we shall not surrender so easily! Our king is just and shall not fall!

And some such...

Azherae

Ludullu wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

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.

The king was kind to us and changed the castle taxes for this month BY ONE WHOLE PERCENT! Yet some bastards from the east are plotting to overthrow him and have been going to war against our lands. We're dying by the hundreds, because they have better weapons and stronger warriors, but we shall not surrender so easily! Our king is just and shall not fall!

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.

Ludullu

Azherae wrote: »

Come on now, I'm being serious.

I'm talking 'a volcano erupted and affected crops in the region so the King had to respond' stuff.

I was being serious as well. It rarely happened in L2, but if one of the castle holders put the taxes not at the max value (which made basic consumables cheaper) - people would support them in the next siege.

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.

Azherae

Ludullu wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Come on now, I'm being serious.

I'm talking 'a volcano erupted and affected crops in the region so the King had to respond' stuff.

I was being serious as well. It rarely happened in L2, but if one of the castle holders put the taxes not at the max value (which made basic consumables cheaper) - people would support them in the next siege.

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).

Vyllz

From my perspective, this statement isn't about exclusion but rather about setting clear expectations. Ashes of Creation aims to deliver a unique MMORPG experience, emphasizing player-driven content, open-world PvP, and complex systems like the node system. Such features might not align with everyone's gaming preferences, and that's okay.

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.

nanfoodle

TheDarkSorcerer wrote: »

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.

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.

Laetitian

Imanek wrote:

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.

In this thread: People who this game isn't for complaining that the game does too much to appeal to the audience it's meant for.

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.

Caww

Soluna wrote: »

....this game will never work as both a PvE and PvP game....

I actually think the game can succeed with both styles, using myself as an example, I'm here for the large scale PVP castle/war sieges but not the one-on-one PK BS throughout the game world. So, let me PVE in the great outdoors, craft, etc unmolested but then when the time arrives, join the huge 250/500 player pell mell battles that were hinted at when AoC was highlighting the technology to allow all these players to be active in the same area. That's what drew me in but if the game turns into a grind and die, continue to lose mats or what ever, then no, after all the package time has been used I'll be hard pressed to pay a sub for the indignity.

Imanek

I honestly wonder if we’re even playing the same game some of the responses seem completely disconnected from the reality of what’s happening in-game.

Right now, I can ruin the experience of entire groups solo, simply by using crowd control mechanics like mezz, stun, and other forms of lockdown. And I’m not theorizing I actually do it, easily. What I’m pointing out is that a small group of players can negatively affect the experience of the majority.

PvE is based on managing mob packs. So imagine if you’re actually playing the game what it looks like if corruption is made even more forgiving or removed altogether. How are players supposed to enjoy zones like the Church, HH, Sephilion, or the Citadel when groups get ambushed while fighting 5–6 mobs? It leads to nonstop wipes.

Today, if you want to engage a meaningful named boss, there are two options: either you’re in a big guild, or it’s simply not for you. And if you say otherwise, it likely means you’re not doing any, or you’re part of one of those dominant guilds.

You can’t design a game with difficult, punishing, and meaningful PvE, while letting other players come ruin the experience for others without consequences. The only game I’ve seen with a system like this was Age of Conan. And strangely enough, the PvP server quickly stopped functioning in favor of PvE.

Of course, there will always be those who say: “If you don’t like it, go play something else.” But let’s be realistic Intrepid has over 250 salaries to pay each month, and player retention right now is abysmal. I’ve been playing since October, and I’ve personally seen large guilds monopolize content, drive players away, and cause entire guilds to leave. Add to that a game still in development that’s not always fun, and you get servers nearly empty just two months after launch.

I’ve been playing MMOs for 27 years. And to me, killing someone already tanking 5 to 7 mobs? That’s not PvP. That just proves the system doesn’t work. And I’m sure some people enjoy it only because it gives them a feeling of power they don’t have anywhere else.

But if the devs continue to build this game for a minority at the expense of the broader community, they shouldn’t be surprised when financial reality catches up to them.

Azherae

You're not supposed to be able to CC NonCombatants, though.

Also, the type of PvE matters just as much, if not more, when it comes to 'how difficult it is to kill off a group fighting a boss'. This also applies to certain designs of 'packs' in terms of mob fighting.

I'd be more worried about Ashes falling into the trap of having too few areas with appropriately challenging mobs, but 'appropriately' matters by player skill, so that's really a question of 'insufficient content variety for very skilled players'.

Except that even though Steven has sorta 'rolled back' some of our expectations on PvE challenge, he hasn't mentioned any need to temper our expectations about PvE dynamism.

tl;dr if you can ruin the experience of entire groups solo, it's probably not intended

Aszkalon

TheDarkSorcerer wrote: »

1. Saying a game is “not for everyone” in 2025 just feels out of touch.

In one regard i must agree. Even while Ashes of Creation shall never change in the Core Mechanics as what it is intended to be,

maybe after the Game is released and finished -> Sir Steven and his mighty Team can add a few more Game Mechanics to the Game that will appeal towards others also instead of only the Hardcore-Guilds for example.

SOOOOOOOOOOO many People will suffer (lol) - and why ? Because they are not so much Teamplayers and more like Solo Players.

And if they want to actually get somewhere, they would need to succumb to the Game's intended Mechanics and play like a Madman in a Guild to support it. At least this is my Expression.

But who knows ? Maybe besides all of that, there will be things which they can easily to solo. And with that i mean a little bit more than just farm a few Zones in the Riverlands in Phase One.

Lark Wyll

The dev team has been very receptive to feedback on combat. Their initial class combat design heading into A2 was much different than it is now and that's because the community provided feedback after class demo live streams and the dev team moved in a different direction based on that feedback.

An example of that is for melee attacks there were obnoxious yellow swooshes after every swing that cluttered your screen. Another is for Ranger their auto attacks sounded like the old nerf football whistler screeching on every attack.

Tab target combat always feel floaty. It is more anchored than most tab combat games though.

I want action combat, but if the goal is to make a game for all, that necessitates tab-target combat.

allimartinez324

TheDarkSorcerer wrote: »

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.

This game is not meant for me.

But honestly, this isn’t really about Steven. It’s a loud minority of the community cherry-picking lines and pretending they reflect the whole picture — when they’re ignoring everything else he said, especially the parts aimed at more casual players.

Like, the other day he said “embrace the suck,” and now people are screaming “EVEN STEVEN SAYS THE GAME SUCKS,” when that’s not what he meant at all. He was saying this is still alpha. It’s not perfect, and that’s okay. Embrace the rough imperfections. That’s part of the process.

The whole “not for everyone” thing? I remember hearing that in TheLazyPeon’s video a few months back. ~13 minutes in, Steven was talking about the different alpha phases. Phases 1 and 2 are all about systems, performance, stability, optimization — boring but necessary stuff. Phase 3 is where more "casual friendly" content drops: balance, quests, solo play.

This game will be geared towards a hardcore crowd; he's setting that expectation. I'm in a season of my life where my kids' homework takes priority over logging in. The rest of the gaming community shouldn't have to cater to the casuals because of my priorities. Instead, I can have fun and enjoy it -- continue giving feedback and help Intrepid elevate the game despite my perspective and personal priorities. I've been impressed by all of the feedback you've written, so I hope you choose the same.

Ludullu

allimartinez324 wrote: »

The rest of the gaming community shouldn't have to cater to the casuals because of my priorities.

If only more people held this opinion...

unknown

This content has been removed.

Aszkalon

I see we are " STILL " in the tough-for-everyone's-Mind -kind of Phase. I personally hope DarkSorcerer and me will get a middle-thing.

Ashes won't change in it's Core-Mechanic at all. But "WILL" have additional Contents for Players not that suited for the Core-Mechanics.

Tamalou

I'm taking a break from Ashes, without much hope. Maybe the next phase will change my mind, but for now, the game feels like nothing more than a farming simulator. PvP is non-existent, and PvE is barely there.
I was hoping to find more structured systems, PvP zones or content, and mechanics, even imperfect ones, that reward risk-taking and make it engaging. Something, at least, that could hint at a future compelling enough to hold my interest. But that’s not the case.

I wish you the best in making it work by launch.

Child Item