Glorious Alpha Two Testers!

Alpha Two Phase III testing has begun! During this phase, our realms will be open every day, and we'll only have downtime for updates and maintenance. We'll keep everyone up-to-date about downtimes in Discord.

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.

No Loot, No Fun — What's the Point of Exploring?

12346»

Comments

  • ELRYNOELRYNO Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Sorry I'll get back in my box 😄
    Azherae wrote: »
    ELRYNO wrote: »
    Ludullu wrote: »
    ELRYNO wrote: »
    How will this impact exploration, economy, levelling and endgame? Has Intrepid taken this into account within their design of group content? How empty will such an expansive world feel with a minimal player count in a niche game with such high risk reward scenarios?
    Concurrents are usually around 1/6-1/8 of the overall playerbase. So 200-300k subs would support 3 servers in 3 regions. Even 200k subs is 36mil a year. And that's not counting cosmetics. If we assume median salary of $150k by release of the game, that's still ~200 employees with 6mil leftover +cosmetics income. Majority of companies downsize post-release, so going down to <=200 is expected.

    200k subs is more than doable for Ashes, as long as they actually manage to make a good game. More is definitely possible, if the east-eu/asian markets pick it up well, though they'll have lower paying power, so it'd still be a rough equivalent of 200k subs.

    @Ludullu

    This is good hypothetically for the economic viability of the game long term. However my main concern is the daily concurrent players If they are similar to the figures I presented earlier in the thread, e.g new world, throne and liberty, Albion online, etc (all of which are regularly less than 20k players concurrent) will AOC have robust mechanisms & solo levelling routes to combat low population? How this will impact the feeling of the world, given it's size and that it relies so heavily on group content / grinding.

    As always it bears repeating, any numbers you have for New World, TL, etc are not valid.

    They show you 'players on Steam' which is often less than half.

    I'm not saying it's massively different, but you should assume that if Steam shows you 20k Concurrent, the number is 50k.

    Let's say it is 50k heck even 100k, it's insane to think that the retention for concurrent players is that much less than it was at launch (on steam 900k so by your logic quite a lot more).

    My point still stands that if the retention for concurrent players is that low, will it impact the game? Or am I just barking up the wrong tree?
  • ELRYNOELRYNO Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Ludullu wrote: »
    ELRYNO wrote: »
    This is good hypothetically for the economic viability of the game long term. However my main concern is the daily concurrent players If they are similar to the figures I presented earlier in the thread, e.g new world, throne and liberty, Albion online, etc (all of which are regularly less than 20k players concurrent) will AOC have robust mechanisms & solo levelling routes to combat low population? How this will impact the feeling of the world, given it's size and that it relies so heavily on group content / grinding.
    If you do the math on my numbers I was literally talking about 3 fully stacked servers. 3 servers = ~30k ccp = ~200k playerbase.

    I did the math on your numbers, I just think 200k is extremely optimistic
  • AzheraeAzherae Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    ELRYNO wrote: »
    Sorry I'll get back in my box 😄
    Azherae wrote: »
    ELRYNO wrote: »
    Ludullu wrote: »
    ELRYNO wrote: »
    How will this impact exploration, economy, levelling and endgame? Has Intrepid taken this into account within their design of group content? How empty will such an expansive world feel with a minimal player count in a niche game with such high risk reward scenarios?
    Concurrents are usually around 1/6-1/8 of the overall playerbase. So 200-300k subs would support 3 servers in 3 regions. Even 200k subs is 36mil a year. And that's not counting cosmetics. If we assume median salary of $150k by release of the game, that's still ~200 employees with 6mil leftover +cosmetics income. Majority of companies downsize post-release, so going down to <=200 is expected.

    200k subs is more than doable for Ashes, as long as they actually manage to make a good game. More is definitely possible, if the east-eu/asian markets pick it up well, though they'll have lower paying power, so it'd still be a rough equivalent of 200k subs.

    @Ludullu

    This is good hypothetically for the economic viability of the game long term. However my main concern is the daily concurrent players If they are similar to the figures I presented earlier in the thread, e.g new world, throne and liberty, Albion online, etc (all of which are regularly less than 20k players concurrent) will AOC have robust mechanisms & solo levelling routes to combat low population? How this will impact the feeling of the world, given it's size and that it relies so heavily on group content / grinding.

    As always it bears repeating, any numbers you have for New World, TL, etc are not valid.

    They show you 'players on Steam' which is often less than half.

    I'm not saying it's massively different, but you should assume that if Steam shows you 20k Concurrent, the number is 50k.

    Let's say it is 50k heck even 100k, it's insane to think that the retention for concurrent players is that much less than it was at launch (on steam 900k so by your logic quite a lot more).

    My point still stands that if the retention for concurrent players is that low, will it impact the game? Or am I just barking up the wrong tree?

    I'm just making sure you have accurate numbers for your point.

    New World didn't release with a Console Version, it's just a matter of concurrent players now that is different because it has one now (so it's 900k vs 50k basically)

    Situations are similar for other games.

    I'd say 10% retention for an MMO is pretty good personally, but if you don't think it is, then yeah, the numbers support your point (I'm also not saying New World had good retention, or was generally good, nor that TL is, even though I personally believe that, my data isn't intended to convince you, just to make sure you have clearer numbers.

    I don't think there's a single popular current MMO whose Steam numbers are representative of more than 60% of the playerbase, if even that much.

    Similarly I agree that a million buy-ins for an Alpha only shows how much people want a new MMORPG to play for a bit, doesn't really indicate that they would actually stay.
    One of the most enduring 'fantasies' of the human spirit, is to either always have people willing to help... or to be strong enough to never need any.
  • GardosienGardosien Member, Alpha Two
    Still in Alpha wtf
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    ELRYNO wrote: »
    Ludullu wrote: »
    ELRYNO wrote: »
    This is good hypothetically for the economic viability of the game long term. However my main concern is the daily concurrent players If they are similar to the figures I presented earlier in the thread, e.g new world, throne and liberty, Albion online, etc (all of which are regularly less than 20k players concurrent) will AOC have robust mechanisms & solo levelling routes to combat low population? How this will impact the feeling of the world, given it's size and that it relies so heavily on group content / grinding.
    If you do the math on my numbers I was literally talking about 3 fully stacked servers. 3 servers = ~30k ccp = ~200k playerbase.

    I did the math on your numbers, I just think 200k is extremely optimistic

    As do I.

    If the server capacity is to remain as it is now, I can see Intrepid struggling to maintain 1 server in each major region populated long term.

    Smaller regions such as Brazil and Oceania have literally no chance of a long term server at that capacity.
  • nanfoodlenanfoodle Member, Founder, Kickstarter, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Ashes will need north of 250'000 active players a month and a concurrent 5k to 8k at perk hours. Thats if they want a flow of consistant content. Unless the cash shop is a huge hit.
  • EndowedEndowed Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Chicago wrote: »
    if you told me this, i would straight up say you are lieing, literally no one playing this game things the questing is in a good place, quests are suppose to introduce you to the lore, the world, the mechanics of the game, not kill 20 ravens, harvest 20 granite, quests can be long and fun and difficult whilst still being fun not tedious like everything else in this game.
    Agreed. Undoubtedly.
    Its seen as just an attempt by someone to try to play devil's advocate.

Sign In or Register to comment.