With the exception of the Mondays In MMORPG episode on Group-Based Gameplay, 100% of your links are posts back from 2015.
Those posts were from 3+ years ago. Similarly, the MMORPG.com page for our game had/has information from 3+ years ago. We've updated a LOT of things since then.
Thankfully, the MMORPG staff seem to be working on it (based on the emails I've received today after the hoopalooza surrounding this post), so hopefully we should be able to get some better information out there to the public who prefer coming here for their information, as opposed to directly to our website (where our FAQ page has regular updates to keep folks up to speed).
Now, in regards to the Group-Based Gameplay post, let's not cherry-pick your quotes. Instead, let's talk about the WHOLE article, which revolves around this core aspect:
“It’s the tabletop scenario. Friends hanging out, socializing, overcoming overwhelming odds together, and ultimately experiencing a sense of accomplishment that can only happen when you achieve a goal alongside someone else, rather than on your own.”
That's not to say you can't do things on your own. But rather our preferred method of gameplay is group-based, and while you can do things on your own like in early Everquest, the majority of our gameplay is going to be for community-based players who enjoy grouping.
So you're saying the posts about grouping from 2015 are no longer accurate? Where was this announced? No where have I seen that "all posts about grouping before X date are no longer true".
It is not fair to read the newer articles and still think that everything else said before is valid?
Obviously the game is in development and things CAN change. But I guess I just missed the announcement where they DID change.
Anyways, it seems unreasonable to blame MMORPG for not keeping your page updated, when your own website isn't accurate.
Just as much as what LOTRO or WoW or ESO said on their forums in 2015 or 2008 or 2010 is no longer relevant compared to their *current FAQ page*, even *if* there are posts on their forums referring to the way things "used to be", things we have said on our forums 3+ years ago may be different than information on our *current FAQ page*.
And yes we *can* expect media outlets to keep their pages on games updated. That's part of their job. To reach out and gather information. To investigate. To interview. To make sure their information is accurate and up-to-date.
And also, as previously mentioned, our team (multiple people) had been reaching out since mid-2017 trying to get things updated, but for some reason (whether it was emails not going through or not) the messages just weren't getting through. Until today as a result of this post.
Thankfully, in the case of this media site, they are updating the page (according to emails from today). Now, to get some of the others to follow in their footsteps....
We update our FAQ page probably once every 90 days, just like every other company out there. Sometimes more frequently. It's not necessary to explicitly state when there is a change, as most folks know that the FAQ page is the first place to look for current information for any game/company/etc.
Appearances used to be something that was earned and something to play/work for, cash shops take that part of the game out, and are in that way counter productive to the game's survival.
In a perfect world, cash shops in any form need to go away and games need to be a complete product or service again.
We have had endless debates over the past year on the above.
Allowing players customization via cosmetics is a HUGE win in terms of keeping players in a game in the modern generation of streamers and gaming celebrities who focus on selfies and constantly tweaking the look of their toon.
But you completely lose the "earned" element, which means someone looking at you has no idea if you actually went out and spent time + effort to get that piece, or if you just paid for it with cash.
We're looking forward to tackle the appearance problem in our own unique way. We have nothing ready to announce publicly yet, but suffice to say we're looking into ways that we can include apperance options for players as part of their monthly subscription in a way that doesn't trivialize the items so that players will still be able to look at you and KNOW exactly where you got that armor, and that you earned it before you used it
Eh do you really think allowing people to buy anything for appearance really keeps them in the game longer? I don't think even the vain types that must buy things to stand out without earning them stay because of those things, it's just a perk and a shortcut, if the game wasn't interesting already they wouldn't stay just to buy the bling... and buying the bling is a short term fix that reduces the achievement factor that helps make the game interesting.
In the long run I still think selling these things is a shot in the foot, again when short term financials are taken out of it. It's like reducing the size of your fuel tank to gain fractionally more MPG... You're still reducing the range.
If a game is good enough, and for the most part nothing has been in the last good while, it should not need to sell cosmetics or anything in a cash shop. People are willing to put up with it though so games will keep doing it, but the gamers really are losing quality and equality because of it.
Gamers are not adverse to paying for good value, some even will spend small fortunes on content they desire but they are loath to spend even negligible amounts of money if it could be 'wasted"
MAany gamers are unwilling to pay a monthly sub and feel like they are wasting money if they aren't playing regularly.
This is the crux of the free-to-play gamer who only logs in 30 minutes here and there throughout the week, maybe logging in 4-6 hours todal in a given month.
It's not "worth it" to them to pay a monthly subscription because they don't play enough to warrant it.
Hell, I have this mobile pool game I play for like 30 minutes a day but I would never in a million years want to pay a monthly sub for it because it's a game I play when I'm waiting on a call, at the airport, and even when I'm taking a bio.
Meanwhile, I always sub my MMORPGs, because I play them for 10-15 hours a week, and that cost more than justifies getting ready of those annoying pay walls and giving me access to 100% of the game.
Going back to "gamers are not adverse to paying for good value" comes back to the studies we mention in the article; at the end of the day most gamers don't really care one way or another and will pay to play the game whether it's through a monthly sub OR through microtransactions, provided it's fun and immersive for them.
The worst part is though when you think the subscription is giving you 100% of the game but it really isn't, like when you can still buy labor pots and other things that put you further ahead like in Archeage's full on p2w.
A cash shop should not include anything that is not included with the sub.
Appearances used to be something that was earned and something to play/work for, cash shops take that part of the game out, and are in that way counter productive to the game's survival.
In a perfect world, cash shops in any form need to go away and games need to be a complete product or service again.
We have had endless debates over the past year on the above.
Allowing players customization via cosmetics is a HUGE win in terms of keeping players in a game in the modern generation of streamers and gaming celebrities who focus on selfies and constantly tweaking the look of their toon.
But you completely lose the "earned" element, which means someone looking at you has no idea if you actually went out and spent time + effort to get that piece, or if you just paid for it with cash.
We're looking forward to tackle the appearance problem in our own unique way. We have nothing ready to announce publicly yet, but suffice to say we're looking into ways that we can include apperance options for players as part of their monthly subscription in a way that doesn't trivialize the items so that players will still be able to look at you and KNOW exactly where you got that armor, and that you earned it before you used it
Eh do you really think allowing people to buy anything for appearance really keeps them in the game longer? I don't think even the vain types that must buy things to stand out without earning them stay because of those things, it's just a perk and a shortcut, if the game wasn't interesting already they wouldn't stay just to buy the bling... and buying the bling is a short term fix that reduces the achievement factor that helps make the game interesting.
In the long run I still think selling these things is a shot in the foot, again when short term financials are taken out of it. It's like reducing the size of your fuel tank to gain fractionally more MPG... You're still reducing the range.
If a game is good enough, and for the most part nothing has been in the last good while, it should not need to sell cosmetics or anything in a cash shop. People are willing to put up with it though so games will keep doing it, but the gamers really are losing quality and equality because of it.
The answer is a resounding YES, allowing people to customize their appearance keeps them in the game longer.
Now, as to whether or not it's a cash-based customization, or just a customization overall, isn't really the important thing.
What it really boils down to is the ability to customize their appearance in some way, shape, or form.
Dyes, faction armors, faction recipes, cash shops, and beyond...the ability to make one's avatar exactly how one wants it = an extremely powerful retainment tool.
Gamers are not adverse to paying for good value, some even will spend small fortunes on content they desire but they are loath to spend even negligible amounts of money if it could be 'wasted"
MAany gamers are unwilling to pay a monthly sub and feel like they are wasting money if they aren't playing regularly.
This is the crux of the free-to-play gamer who only logs in 30 minutes here and there throughout the week, maybe logging in 4-6 hours todal in a given month.
It's not "worth it" to them to pay a monthly subscription because they don't play enough to warrant it.
Hell, I have this mobile pool game I play for like 30 minutes a day but I would never in a million years want to pay a monthly sub for it because it's a game I play when I'm waiting on a call, at the airport, and even when I'm taking a bio.
Meanwhile, I always sub my MMORPGs, because I play them for 10-15 hours a week, and that cost more than justifies getting ready of those annoying pay walls and giving me access to 100% of the game.
Going back to "gamers are not adverse to paying for good value" comes back to the studies we mention in the article; at the end of the day most gamers don't really care one way or another and will pay to play the game whether it's through a monthly sub OR through microtransactions, provided it's fun and immersive for them.
The worst part is though when you think the subscription is giving you 100% of the game but it really isn't, like when you can still buy labor pots and other things that put you further ahead like in Archeage's full on p2w.
A cash shop should not include anything that is not included with the sub.
And yet almost all companies include cash shops with those types of items.
It's one of the reasons we said HELL NO to having a cash shop in our game. It's just annoying! 100% of the game or go home!
I remember Smedley saying he was going to just try on a couple servers the cash shop idea.Eventually the entire SOE gaming was a cash shop.Eventually they sold it because it was losing money.
This statement of choice is often a correct one but only on paper. A cash shop means the game WILL change and not be the best game it can be and having a paywall of restrictions means the players are unhappy.
The idea of choice works if you o a good job of misleading the users and then it is good for YOU the developer,it is not good for the players.
I have seen examples of games holding you hostage to a NORMAL baggage space and perhaps a mount costing more than a subscription.So how is less than .05% of the games content is more costly than a subscription and within 3 months as costly as an entire game that takes 5 years to make?
No this dude is not telling all the particulars,it works to mislead your player base and grind them for MORE than the game is worth IF your game is not good enough to support itself with subscriptions.Subscriptions also keep a developer honest at ALL times,if they get lazy for awhile,then subs drop and those numbers are posted everywhere and then the game takes a ton of backlash.
Bopttom line ,the cash shop..FREE moniker is misleading and dishonest,basicaly saying..."well if they are suckers to give us more than they should,great we will take it".
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
I stumbled across its website this last weekend. Kinda weird how it's getting a post here but I guess also good because i was curious about it. I did some major mmorpg hunting this weekend but didn't really come up with much I didn't already know about.
I stumbled across its website this last weekend. Kinda weird how it's getting a post here but I guess also good because i was curious about it. I did some major mmorpg hunting this weekend but didn't really come up with much I didn't already know about.
In development. Specifically, pre-alpha. Next test session for our early access community is December 8th - 14th for Release #11.
Alpha is coming in 2019. No release date atm (TBA).
It's funny but talking about MMOs these days is like talking about politics or religion... there is no answer that doesn't offend someone.
It's like we're all at a cage fight...
It used to be all gamers were united under a common flag. I can remember the late 90s/early 2000s and meeting other EQ players was an event where an angelic choir was singing in the background and everyone was hugging each other and every time was the BEST. DAY. EVER.
That's why we still play tabletop. That's why we're developing a group-based, community-driven game. That's why we love organizations like the SCA. Because if you look hard enough you can STILL find that.
Just not, unfortunately, at most gaming sites =P You gotta dig deeper and go to the source.
Basically their design has changed over time so in another 3 years all of the overland could be solo friendly is more or less because design plans do change.
Cannot really say that it will not happen because the game has already evolved from the original philosophy.
Will be interested to see how this and Pantheon competes for the same niche which is already a small niche can coexist.
No different than LOTRO, ESO, FFXIV, WoW, SWTOR, EQ1, EQ2, etc. etc. etc. etc. have evolved over time and all share the same space.
Love 'em all, play 'em all, happy to be a part of the industry. Can't wait to see what the future holds.
Nobody plays just "one" game these days. Most folks rotate throughout their favorite 3 - 5 games every time a new expansion drops playing a few months after each launch.
Looking forward to Pantheon as much as we are WoW Classic and LOTROs continued evolution and the next Star Wars MMO that's in development and much more beyond.
Gamers are not adverse to paying for good value, some even will spend small fortunes on content they desire but they are loath to spend even negligible amounts of money if it could be 'wasted"
MAany gamers are unwilling to pay a monthly sub and feel like they are wasting money if they aren't playing regularly.
This is the crux of the free-to-play gamer who only logs in 30 minutes here and there throughout the week, maybe logging in 4-6 hours todal in a given month.
It's not "worth it" to them to pay a monthly subscription because they don't play enough to warrant it.
Hell, I have this mobile pool game I play for like 30 minutes a day but I would never in a million years want to pay a monthly sub for it because it's a game I play when I'm waiting on a call, at the airport, and even when I'm taking a bio.
Meanwhile, I always sub my MMORPGs, because I play them for 10-15 hours a week, and that cost more than justifies getting ready of those annoying pay walls and giving me access to 100% of the game.
Going back to "gamers are not adverse to paying for good value" comes back to the studies we mention in the article; at the end of the day most gamers don't really care one way or another and will pay to play the game whether it's through a monthly sub OR through microtransactions, provided it's fun and immersive for them.
You missed my point, many gamers rotate thru multiple MMORPGs, (see @DMKano) perhaps playing each 10 to 15 hours a month.
A monthly sub is not a good value in their eyes, especially not for every MMO they play.
Hence why I suggested selling smaller game time increments and or letting them buy a months worth of game time but making it possible to "spend" it on their schedule instead of always keeping the meter running.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I read "The More Options You Provide a Player, the Better" on the front page. And so I clicked on the article, only to see your posts and your "Our game, our rules" mentality. I'm not sure you truly understand the concept of "more player options"
It's funny but talking about MMOs these days is like talking about politics or religion... there is no answer that doesn't offend someone.
It's like we're all at a cage fight...
It used to be all gamers were united under a common flag. I can remember the late 90s/early 2000s and meeting other EQ players was an event where an angelic choir was singing in the background and everyone was hugging each other and every time was the BEST. DAY. EVER.
That's why we still play tabletop. That's why we're developing a group-based, community-driven game. That's why we love organizations like the SCA. Because if you look hard enough you can STILL find that.
Just not, unfortunately, at most gaming sites =P You gotta dig deeper and go to the source.
Gotta stop making blanket statements like that. Gamers were never all united atleast not in the way you seem to imply. People will always differ in opinion as long as there is more than one option. We've never presented a united front. Sure two people who play ever quest get along but what if one of those guys played ultima? (Knife fight in the alleyway) Last time gamers were united was the atari. You know except for those snobs that owned a magnavox or vectrex.
Our world, our way. We aren't interested in names that break the immersion of our fantasy world.
Aren't you also basically developing around forced grouping as well?
You are severely limiting your already niche audience by creating these walls.
Nope, it's absolutely not forced grouping. That's a myth propogated by the misinformed.
As per our FAQ Page:
"If you make the decision to leave the safety of town and its guards, it’s not a decision you should be making lightly. While there are little things you can do on your own just outside of outposts and cities in micro-sessions of 30 minutes to 1.5 hours (gather pelts and harvesting supplies, take on small bandit outposts, etc.), the further you go afield, the less civilized the world is, and the more dangerous things become.
Think early EverQuest. You can head out, harvest a few things, craft a bit, kill a few mobs close to town within the safety of the guards if you need to run, but if you want to hit up Orc Hill you’ll need 3-4 other players, and if you want to head into Crushbone and handle the Throne Room, you’ll need a full group. You need a well-balanced group of adventurers to handle whatever you might come across in the wild. You need gear. You need supplies. Bandages. Potions. Scrolls. A pack mule. Rope. Never leave home without a good length of rope."
Wow. This game wasn't even on my radar, but after the above statement, I am totally going to follow this one. I loved early Everquest and the constant feeling of danger and adventure. A world that felt dangerous and was actually hard. I hope that you guys pull of a similar experience because I haven't found anything close since. Also I am TOTALLY behind the naming policy.
Nope, it's absolutely not forced grouping. That's a myth propogated by the misinformed.
As per our FAQ Page:
"If you make the decision to leave the safety of town and its guards, it’s not a decision you should be making lightly. While there are little things you can do on your own just outside of outposts and cities in micro-sessions of 30 minutes to 1.5 hours (gather pelts and harvesting supplies, take on small bandit outposts, etc.), the further you go afield, the less civilized the world is, and the more dangerous things become.
Think early EverQuest. You can head out, harvest a few things, craft a bit, kill a few mobs close to town within the safety of the guards if you need to run, but if you want to hit up Orc Hill you’ll need 3-4 other players, and if you want to head into Crushbone and handle the Throne Room, you’ll need a full group. You need a well-balanced group of adventurers to handle whatever you might come across in the wild. You need gear. You need supplies. Bandages. Potions. Scrolls. A pack mule. Rope. Never leave home without a good length of rope."
Wow. This game wasn't even on my radar, but after the above statement, I am totally going to follow this one. I loved early Everquest and the constant feeling of danger and adventure. I hope that you guys pull of a similar experience because I haven't found anything close since. Also I am TOTALLY behind the naming policy.
You sir, are why we are building this. Cheers, @Whiskyjumper
We see the same myth propogated across various media outlets (here, Massively, a couple of other places), and yet these outlets have never attempted to fix their reporting, despite our prolonged "we are NOT forced grouping" replies to folks.
It is what it is. That's "journalism" these days for ya.
We're no different than early EverQuest in our grouping mechanisms.
You can solo a bit close to towns, and with certain skills/gear/etc. you can solo further afield, but if you want to do dungeons it's 100% group.
Wow so you come in and bad mouth the staff here rather than reach out to the reporter or writer to perhaps offer an interview to clarify your stance or even a developer blog to get the word out the way you want it? Very nice.
Our site. Our reporting. As you say about SoL, you don't like it, feel free to leave if you're unwilling to engage in constructive dialog.
Appearances used to be something that was earned and something to play/work for, cash shops take that part of the game out, and are in that way counter productive to the game's survival.
In a perfect world, cash shops in any form need to go away and games need to be a complete product or service again.
We have had endless debates over the past year on the above.
Allowing players customization via cosmetics is a HUGE win in terms of keeping players in a game in the modern generation of streamers and gaming celebrities who focus on selfies and constantly tweaking the look of their toon.
But you completely lose the "earned" element, which means someone looking at you has no idea if you actually went out and spent time + effort to get that piece, or if you just paid for it with cash.
We're looking forward to tackle the appearance problem in our own unique way. We have nothing ready to announce publicly yet, but suffice to say we're looking into ways that we can include apperance options for players as part of their monthly subscription in a way that doesn't trivialize the items so that players will still be able to look at you and KNOW exactly where you got that armor, and that you earned it before you used it
Eh do you really think allowing people to buy anything for appearance really keeps them in the game longer? I don't think even the vain types that must buy things to stand out without earning them stay because of those things, it's just a perk and a shortcut, if the game wasn't interesting already they wouldn't stay just to buy the bling... and buying the bling is a short term fix that reduces the achievement factor that helps make the game interesting.
In the long run I still think selling these things is a shot in the foot, again when short term financials are taken out of it. It's like reducing the size of your fuel tank to gain fractionally more MPG... You're still reducing the range.
If a game is good enough, and for the most part nothing has been in the last good while, it should not need to sell cosmetics or anything in a cash shop. People are willing to put up with it though so games will keep doing it, but the gamers really are losing quality and equality because of it.
The answer is a resounding YES, allowing people to customize their appearance keeps them in the game longer.
Now, as to whether or not it's a cash-based customization, or just a customization overall, isn't really the important thing.
What it really boils down to is the ability to customize their appearance in some way, shape, or form.
Dyes, faction armors, faction recipes, cash shops, and beyond...the ability to make one's avatar exactly how one wants it = an extremely powerful retainment tool.
I completely disagree that whether the customization comes from earning it or from a cash shop isn't the important thing. Getting cool looking gear is important like you say, but short-cutting that out to cash shops rather than earning it removes that part of the motivation that person would have had to play the amount of time it would have taken to earn that gear.
I think you get that, but like other dev out there, you see an opportunity to make more money in the short term. I guarantee WOW and Everquest back when would not have been around as long as it they have been had they taken that approach. They had enough else going for them that they were able to make money without stooping to that. Maybe things have changed, but if someone builds a truly good game, people will support via sub just like they still do WOW, without that cash shop.
Wow isn't my favorite game to reference because they've taken shortcuts in their own ways too, but the reference works.
Gamers are not adverse to paying for good value, some even will spend small fortunes on content they desire but they are loath to spend even negligible amounts of money if it could be 'wasted"
MAany gamers are unwilling to pay a monthly sub and feel like they are wasting money if they aren't playing regularly.
This is the crux of the free-to-play gamer who only logs in 30 minutes here and there throughout the week, maybe logging in 4-6 hours todal in a given month.
It's not "worth it" to them to pay a monthly subscription because they don't play enough to warrant it.
Hell, I have this mobile pool game I play for like 30 minutes a day but I would never in a million years want to pay a monthly sub for it because it's a game I play when I'm waiting on a call, at the airport, and even when I'm taking a bio.
Meanwhile, I always sub my MMORPGs, because I play them for 10-15 hours a week, and that cost more than justifies getting ready of those annoying pay walls and giving me access to 100% of the game.
Going back to "gamers are not adverse to paying for good value" comes back to the studies we mention in the article; at the end of the day most gamers don't really care one way or another and will pay to play the game whether it's through a monthly sub OR through microtransactions, provided it's fun and immersive for them.
You missed my point, many gamers rotate thru multiple MMORPGs, (see @DMKano) perhaps playing each 10 to 15 hours a month.
A monthly sub is not a good value in their eyes, especially not for every MMO they play.
Hence why I suggested selling smaller game time increments and or letting them buy a months worth of game time but making it possible to "spend" it on their schedule instead of always keeping the meter running.
Maybe that's just because the games lately all suck and can't hold anyone's attention. Or they are streamers etc, can't really count them, they jump all over because they have to pump out content. I dunno if DMKano is a streamer much, but he's definitely not a typical gamer representative of the market.
So now my response is labeled a rant. I disagreed with your policy and posed another question about it and was dismissed. Your coming to these threads to comment is part of PR. You being rudely dismissive is poor pr. You never addressed the points raised in the follow up to your response.
My response was cordial in tone and simply raised the question of when was this supposed golden age. However since your are going to be antagonistic I'll be blunt. Your so called "Golden age" never existed. You probably Rp'd on EQ1 or ultima and were in a very serious guild that never broke character. Whenever someone challenges this illusion of nostalgia you become rude and antagonistic. I pointed out what I saw as flaws, in essence present you an opportunity to change my mind and the mind of other readers. You seem to be blind to the marketing troubles that the path your taking will lead to.
The game will already be niche. Now friends have to stay in character when talking in open chat or they will be reprimanded. Which will no doubt cause some to leave. Which in turn will make it harder to find groups for outside content. Which will cause more open an open complaint from a few. Which will result in a reprimand. You've already created a negative feedback loop for player growth.
But hey your world your rules, you know best. Im sure those millions of group content only players will be lining up to play your game that looks like it's being made on unity 3. It's not like that group has full time jobs. Your not going reach a new generation and frankly you dont seem willing to. And what 100 million players? Wow players? Ff14 players? Gw2? Eso? EQ1? Ultima? All of those together dont even make up a 100 million players. And most of those games group based content isnt even done by the majority of the player base in those. You're either misinformed delusional or both.
(Btw this ^ is what rant looks like)
They have a naming policy and there’s nothing else to say about it. No conversation needed. Your feelings are not anyone else’s responsibility but your own.
I read "The More Options You Provide a Player, the Better" on the front page. And so I clicked on the article, only to see your posts and your "Our game, our rules" mentality. I'm not sure you truly understand the concept of "more player options"
More options doesn't by necessity mean all options whether they mesh well with or at all with their design goals for their game.
They have an uncompromising naming policy, that I'm sure will provide plentiful options for setting appropriate choice. It wouldn't be necessary if they could count on players voluntarily choosing names that enhance the verity of their setting, but clearly any expectation of that on their part would be the height of naivete.
It is refreshing to once again see a MMORPG company that recognizes the importance of naming standards in helping to maintain the verisimilitude of their setting, which in turn aids in the suspension of disbelief that can make such games so compelling.
Comments
Just as much as what LOTRO or WoW or ESO said on their forums in 2015 or 2008 or 2010 is no longer relevant compared to their *current FAQ page*, even *if* there are posts on their forums referring to the way things "used to be", things we have said on our forums 3+ years ago may be different than information on our *current FAQ page*.
And yes we *can* expect media outlets to keep their pages on games updated. That's part of their job. To reach out and gather information. To investigate. To interview. To make sure their information is accurate and up-to-date.
And also, as previously mentioned, our team (multiple people) had been reaching out since mid-2017 trying to get things updated, but for some reason (whether it was emails not going through or not) the messages just weren't getting through. Until today as a result of this post.
Thankfully, in the case of this media site, they are updating the page (according to emails from today). Now, to get some of the others to follow in their footsteps....
We update our FAQ page probably once every 90 days, just like every other company out there. Sometimes more frequently. It's not necessary to explicitly state when there is a change, as most folks know that the FAQ page is the first place to look for current information for any game/company/etc.
In the long run I still think selling these things is a shot in the foot, again when short term financials are taken out of it. It's like reducing the size of your fuel tank to gain fractionally more MPG... You're still reducing the range.
If a game is good enough, and for the most part nothing has been in the last good while, it should not need to sell cosmetics or anything in a cash shop. People are willing to put up with it though so games will keep doing it, but the gamers really are losing quality and equality because of it.
A cash shop should not include anything that is not included with the sub.
The answer is a resounding YES, allowing people to customize their appearance keeps them in the game longer.
Now, as to whether or not it's a cash-based customization, or just a customization overall, isn't really the important thing.
What it really boils down to is the ability to customize their appearance in some way, shape, or form.
Dyes, faction armors, faction recipes, cash shops, and beyond...the ability to make one's avatar exactly how one wants it = an extremely powerful retainment tool.
And yet almost all companies include cash shops with those types of items.
It's one of the reasons we said HELL NO to having a cash shop in our game. It's just annoying! 100% of the game or go home!
Thanks to @SBFord and @BillMurphy for getting things updated over at https://www.mmorpg.com/saga-of-lucimia
Hopefully, that should clear up any confusion folks have about certain things that were part of our earlier iterations
I remember Smedley saying he was going to just try on a couple servers the cash shop idea.Eventually the entire SOE gaming was a cash shop.Eventually they sold it because it was losing money.
This statement of choice is often a correct one but only on paper.
A cash shop means the game WILL change and not be the best game it can be and having a paywall of restrictions means the players are unhappy.
The idea of choice works if you o a good job of misleading the users and then it is good for YOU the developer,it is not good for the players.
I have seen examples of games holding you hostage to a NORMAL baggage space and perhaps a mount costing more than a subscription.So how is less than .05% of the games content is more costly than a subscription and within 3 months as costly as an entire game that takes 5 years to make?
No this dude is not telling all the particulars,it works to mislead your player base and grind them for MORE than the game is worth IF your game is not good enough to support itself with subscriptions.Subscriptions also keep a developer honest at ALL times,if they get lazy for awhile,then subs drop and those numbers are posted everywhere and then the game takes a ton of backlash.
Bopttom line ,the cash shop..FREE moniker is misleading and dishonest,basicaly saying..."well if they are suckers to give us more than they should,great we will take it".
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
I stumbled across its website this last weekend. Kinda weird how it's getting a post here but I guess also good because i was curious about it. I did some major mmorpg hunting this weekend but didn't really come up with much I didn't already know about.
In development. Specifically, pre-alpha. Next test session for our early access community is December 8th - 14th for Release #11.
Alpha is coming in 2019. No release date atm (TBA).
More information can be found at https://sagaoflucimia.com/game/faq
It's funny but talking about MMOs these days is like talking about politics or religion... there is no answer that doesn't offend someone.
It's like we're all at a cage fight...
It used to be all gamers were united under a common flag. I can remember the late 90s/early 2000s and meeting other EQ players was an event where an angelic choir was singing in the background and everyone was hugging each other and every time was the BEST. DAY. EVER.
That's why we still play tabletop. That's why we're developing a group-based, community-driven game. That's why we love organizations like the SCA. Because if you look hard enough you can STILL find that.
Just not, unfortunately, at most gaming sites =P You gotta dig deeper and go to the source.
Hit us up in our Discord if you've got any questions. The saga-discussions channel usually has the most chatter with Q&A stuff.
Love 'em all, play 'em all, happy to be a part of the industry. Can't wait to see what the future holds.
Nobody plays just "one" game these days. Most folks rotate throughout their favorite 3 - 5 games every time a new expansion drops playing a few months after each launch.
Looking forward to Pantheon as much as we are WoW Classic and LOTROs continued evolution and the next Star Wars MMO that's in development and much more beyond.
A monthly sub is not a good value in their eyes, especially not for every MMO they play.
Hence why I suggested selling smaller game time increments and or letting them buy a months worth of game time but making it possible to "spend" it on their schedule instead of always keeping the meter running.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Wow. This game wasn't even on my radar, but after the above statement, I am totally going to follow this one. I loved early Everquest and the constant feeling of danger and adventure. A world that felt dangerous and was actually hard. I hope that you guys pull of a similar experience because I haven't found anything close since. Also I am TOTALLY behind the naming policy.
I think you get that, but like other dev out there, you see an opportunity to make more money in the short term. I guarantee WOW and Everquest back when would not have been around as long as it they have been had they taken that approach. They had enough else going for them that they were able to make money without stooping to that. Maybe things have changed, but if someone builds a truly good game, people will support via sub just like they still do WOW, without that cash shop.
Wow isn't my favorite game to reference because they've taken shortcuts in their own ways too, but the reference works.