Enough hype? Enough funding?

MightyUnclean

I've really been looking into this game, and it's very interesting in concept.  However, I'm a little concerned about the apparent lack of community interest in the game.  The Shards Reddit is inactive, just a few recent posts.  There's only, what, 2,600 pledged backers of the game?  Will there be enough interest and funding to see the game through to completion?  Where are they getting the money for a full-fledged MMO?  I'm tempted to help them out by backing myself, but I'm hesitating for the reasons above.

Slapshot1188

Unfortunately I think most folks see the graphics and turn away.   

Do I think Shards is a world shaking title?  No, but it looks like it could be quite a bit of fun and put the creativity in the hands of the community.  I have been a backer from day one, but haven't played since the Kickstarter.  I figure I'll let them flesh out the game more fully before I dive in.

MightyUnclean

Do you really think the graphics are the reason there are so few backers?  They don't look awful to me.  Of course, I've been playing EQ lately...

Gardavsshade

Slapshot1188 said:

Unfortunately I think most folks see the graphics and turn away.   

Do I think Shards is a world shaking title?  No, but it looks like it could be quite a bit of fun and put the creativity in the hands of the community.  I have been a backer from day one, but haven't played since the Kickstarter.  I figure I'll let them flesh out the game more fully before I dive in.

  Quoted for truth in first sentence. I won't even consider a MMO unless it has full traditional third person view. I won't play a Diablo graphics style game. That is why I looked at Shards and never looked again.

I also won't generally play a MMO with cartoony graphics like WoW, in fact what keeps me from wanting to play WoW on a regular basis IS the cartoon style graphics.

There have been more than a few MMO I chose not to play because they looked either like WoW or Diablo or both.

MightyUnclean

Fair enough.  I started on a C64, so graphics mean little to me compared to gameplay and social interaction.  I mean, I don't want to look at total crap graphics, but they aren't the deciding factor for me.

Kilrain

MightyUnclean said:

Fair enough.  I started on a C64, so graphics mean little to me compared to gameplay and social interaction.  I mean, I don't want to look at total crap graphics, but they aren't the deciding factor for me.

I started on a C64 and that means nothing. I still like decent graphics and specific gameplay styles. You wont see me playing anymore text games.

reeereee

MightyUnclean said:

Fair enough.  I started on a C64, so graphics mean little to me compared to gameplay and social interaction.  I mean, I don't want to look at total crap graphics, but they aren't the deciding factor for me.

I don't think where you started has anything to do with what you can accept.  I started on Joust, but I don't really see going back.  I think some people just care more than others about graphics.  If you've played EQ1 lately then you're probably not someone who cares a lot about graphics.

Although throw art style into the mix aside form raw graphics.  If I like the art style it's much easier to overlook poor graphics.

Logrus_CS

I think that people have been burned many of the crowdfunded titles that have sought to develop over the last 2 years, and so there is much more frequency of the wait and see mind-set rather than the pre-development investment. 
There are a few titles that continue to do well in the crowd funding arena, though in most of those cases they usually have a couple of advantages that the majority of other studios dont have. 
1. An industry known name  within the project like Richard Garriot.  As in SoTA , Crowfall, etc
2. Usually they already have significant capital lined up prior to their crowdfunding campaign to develop the title, if the campaign proves there is enough interest for profit.

Many of the recent successful campaigns spent close to our entire development budget on marketing alone.

Personally even if I wasn't working on the game, I'd be backing and playing it because the style and gameplay appeal to me. The SO community is extremely dedicated, and while our backer pool is relatively small I expect the community to continue to grow as development progresses and more and more people get a taste.
I expect the game to gain success slow and steadily simply because of the capabilities being delivered, and the community input ensure the game is always being developed along a path ensuring enjoyment.

A few hundred thousand to spend on advertising would probably take that slow and steady to fast and furious, though if we had that I think it would probably be best spent on development

rodarin

Logrus_CS said:

Many of the recent successful campaigns spent close to our entire development budget on marketing alone.



A few hundred thousand to spend on advertising would probably take that slow and steady to fast and furious, though if we had that I think it would probably be best spent on development

You know what is good advertising? WORD OF MOUTH. Before June of 2015 had anyone heard of Ark? On July 4th it had sold a million copies, by Oct it had sold over 2 million.

Theyre the poster child of ANYONE who is thinking about making a game. it isnt like they werent making a game in an area that was already saturated too. Like it couldnt be panned as "oh its ANOTHER survival game'. Instead it did what it did for the reasons it did them and its still very popular. Which in this day and age is amazing considering most games are dead after 30 days. Now you might want to say its not released but for all intents and purposes it is. They spent the first 2 months (and continue) optimizing the game. Along with adding new and more 'content'.

Now the thing that they share with Shards is they allow mods and made a mod kit for guys ot use and they also allow hosting of servers for people to create their own rulesets. And they have a single player option. Those things probably sold their second million copies.

So while it is easy to say 'if we had this we could do that'. I dont think even after selling all that ARK has advertised anywhere. Only thing I have seen is steam greenlight and steam sales and people talking about the game. (not all positive either)

Make a game enough peopel like and you dont really need anything, ARK has basically proven that in spade the past 6months.

Nafunieru

I've been playing mmos since I was a kid back when the main ones only consisted of EQ, UO, and AC, and I'm definitely disappointed with how the genre has de-volved into its current state. While I always welcome when studios break out of the post-WoW trend and go with the traditional old-school mmo formula, I've been burned too many times by these smaller independent titles. That of course, leaves me very cautious about funding a small early access project that has a lot of ambitious features. That being said, I see a lot of promise behind Citadel and Shards Online and particularly like their Neverwinter Nights approach to community hosted servers that support modding. 

As someone that works full-time and has limited time for gaming, it also makes me hesitant to sink in hours into a game where its future is uncertain. I would hate to devote my time to developing a character in a game that a few months down the road will become a barren wasteland. I'm not saying that Shards Online will suffer that fate, but I've seen and experienced so many current mmos that have fallen victim to that, so my "hype" towards these ambitious titles seems to be quite low. 

I definitely do wish the devs all the success in the world and I personally hope this game does end up building a solid community, but I have my reservations and will proceed with caution. Unfortunately, we old-school mmo gamers seem to be few in numbers these days. As much as people complain about freemium games and WoW clones, those tend to be the games that sell copies and generate the most profit. Maybe the genre just isn't for me anymore, but I still have hope that there will come a day when we can get that feeling of playing a true mmorpg. Let's hope Shards Online can succeed in doing that. 

Octagon7711

Gotta have good graphics... among other things.

Nafunieru

Octagon7711 said:

Gotta have good graphics... among other things.

That's subjective though. I don't find Albion Online's graphics to be very appealing, but that game is very active even in its current state. Some mobas like League of Legends and Smite don't have very good graphics, and those games have a very large community. Now, if you have bad graphics and bad gameplay then that's a whole other problem. 

MightyUnclean

I want to believe! 

Will Shards be offered on Steam?  That might give them a much-needed boost in profile.

JamesGoblin

Logrus_CS said:

I think that people have been burned many of the crowdfunded titles that have sought to develop over the last 2 years, and so there is much more frequency of the wait and see mind-set rather than the pre-development investment. 
There are a few titles that continue to do well in the crowd funding arena, though in most of those cases they usually have a couple of advantages that the majority of other studios dont have. 
1. An industry known name  within the project like Richard Garriot.  As in SoTA , Crowfall, etc
2. Usually they already have significant capital lined up prior to their crowdfunding campaign to develop the title, if the campaign proves there is enough interest for profit.

Many of the recent successful campaigns spent close to our entire development budget on marketing alone.

Personally even if I wasn't working on the game, I'd be backing and playing it because the style and gameplay appeal to me. The SO community is extremely dedicated, and while our backer pool is relatively small I expect the community to continue to grow as development progresses and more and more people get a taste.
I expect the game to gain success slow and steadily simply because of the capabilities being delivered, and the community input ensure the game is always being developed along a path ensuring enjoyment.

A few hundred thousand to spend on advertising would probably take that slow and steady to fast and furious, though if we had that I think it would probably be best spent on development

@Logrus_CS ;If that is not a secret, what is SO's current total budget?

Logrus_CS

rodarin said:

Logrus_CS said:

Many of the recent successful campaigns spent close to our entire development budget on marketing alone.



A few hundred thousand to spend on advertising would probably take that slow and steady to fast and furious, though if we had that I think it would probably be best spent on development

You know what is good advertising? WORD OF MOUTH. Before June of 2015 had anyone heard of Ark? On July 4th it had sold a million copies, by Oct it had sold over 2 million.

Theyre the poster child of ANYONE who is thinking about making a game. it isnt like they werent making a game in an area that was already saturated too. Like it couldnt be panned as "oh its ANOTHER survival game'. Instead it did what it did for the reasons it did them and its still very popular. Which in this day and age is amazing considering most games are dead after 30 days. Now you might want to say its not released but for all intents and purposes it is. They spent the first 2 months (and continue) optimizing the game. Along with adding new and more 'content'.

Now the thing that they share with Shards is they allow mods and made a mod kit for guys ot use and they also allow hosting of servers for people to create their own rulesets. And they have a single player option. Those things probably sold their second million copies.

So while it is easy to say 'if we had this we could do that'. I dont think even after selling all that ARK has advertised anywhere. Only thing I have seen is steam greenlight and steam sales and people talking about the game. (not all positive either)

Make a game enough peopel like and you dont really need anything, ARK has basically proven that in spade the past 6months.

We are working on locking down the core aspects of fun gameplay with our offering. And as that gets one we expect word of mouth will carry it forward.

My comments were more in line with development budget and advertising as compared with other crowd funded indie titles. 


ARK has done extremely well, and is truly putting something splendid together. I am not gonna knock them at all. 

Though if you want to specifically talk about ARK as compared with SO.
ARK was -NOT-crowdfunded, and was essentially a well funded development collaboration with multiple studios.
ARK also came on the scene POST production. 
In addition to that, while they may not have spent much on advertising, I wouldnt discount the exposire gained from PlayStation and XBox online articles, blasts and promotions as word of mouth.
Even Steam greenlight requires your game to be in the final development stages before you are getting on there. Steam which if your game happens to be featured on the front page of the app is already boasting a user base > 75 million. 

So yeah it would be nice if we had their budget, backing, exposure or were at that stage of development where we'd already had the game built and were ready to sell, but we're not at that point yet.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

However, what we are doing is taking what resources we have, working on building a game/platform offering that while it may not sell $2 million copies, I think our small community is quite happy with the way it is progressing.

MightyUnclean

Is Shards going to Steam?

Logrus_CS

Well our budget was basically kickstarter + a bit from personal finances, friends, family, and team contributions etc. 

There's a very good chance we'll go to steam, though that would probably be late in alpha. We want as much polish on the game play as possible since we are in this for the long haul. 

MightyUnclean

I'm so tempted to buy in at $40. 

Let me ask, at this point, is there a playable game to test?  Or is it still testing of basic systems?

OhhPaigey

I remember the very first alpha test I got invited to, which was a surprise, for most games nowadays don't expect an invite unless you buy a founder's pack.

But then they decided to go down that same road as well.

/sigh

Tokken

I'm a backer and enjoy the game very much. I see a lot of potential for it.  I was a big UO fan back in the day and this feels like UO2 with improved graphics and other FUN things to do.  

Wizardry

It is really weird how gamer's tend to flock to very shallow ideas,it is like they are easily entertained.At the same time they are all over,it does not appear they want any long term goals or long term game but instead want instant arcade type game play.I thought how does that explain SC and i guess in a way shallow thinking again,just buy a ship no gaming to earn anything and instantly fly around,so i guess it holds true to form ,gamer's don't really want to game with any meaning or thought just instantly start shooting and killing stuff.

Then we had SOE sell instant max level characters,then Blizzard followed suit,before them Square Enix dumbed down grouping to fast soloing to again feed that instant gratification so it is not a hunch it is fact on what the majority of gamer's are like.

This is not a knock on any genre that is not a mmorpg but it definitely proves the majority of gamer's are not mmorpg gamer's and why they often scoff at any such game design or game mechanics.Need more proof look what happened when of the most shallow cheapest games to ever hit the market "Farmville" arrived,instant success millions of players,they had to hire tons of staff just to handle the fertilizer sales.

final verdict,we do not have a very long term attentive crowd of gamer's,most are arcade junkies.

Shards?? Yes i think it is a great concept,i will likely even play the game if it is not overboard too costly.Do io think it a great success,likely not as to why i posted those reasons.However i think it might fall somewhere in between ,sort of a fast jump in and you got it all but with some long term gaming as well,will have to see how much the game  offers.

MightyUnclean

Let me ask, at this point, is there a playable game to test?  Or is it still testing of basic systems?


Is anyone reading this far down in the post?  LOL!

JamesGoblin

MightyUnclean said:

Let me ask, at this point, is there a playable game to test?  Or is it still testing of basic systems?


Is anyone reading this far down in the post?  LOL!

@MightyUnclean Nobody here reads anything but titles or (with some luck) OPs. You must be new to the interwebz?

By the way, I am your friendly YouTube bot - and here is couple random SO results:

...or you can check, say, some of these.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

MightyUnclean

I never played NWN or UO, but I always wish I had.  Heard great things about them both.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.