MMORPG SotA Column: Concerns Worthy of Note

"Is ArcheAge free-to-play?
.... We will also offer optional Patron subscriptions and non-recurring passes that will grant a number of great benefits including the ability to own land in-game, a discount at the in-game store, boosts, and more." - ArcheAge Site

Founder Pack - Here

 

I don't think Archeage used crowdfunding to be made - at least I don't know - I do know that it has relied heavily on beta testers sells to fund the "localization"

They are using the "third" currency to become a sustainable game / from a financial stance / so no disagreement there

 

I was mainly referring to its development / not so much its monetization model / their potions are going to be their money maker (but I'm stop talking about Archeage - not my practice to talk smack about other games on other forums / except TESO

 

It's my understanding from watching their official videos, but please someone correct me if I'm wrong:

They didn't use crowd funding like a "kickstarter" because they're importing the game from Asia. This is a completely finished game in Asia that they are turning into an English speaking game.

The development team is American and they get their matching orders for Asia. So every month they get more assets and more information about the game they're "making" here in the US and Europe. So much of what we're calling "beta" is really just them opening up the existing world to the US and Europe.

It's a lot like when Pokemon is on season 458 in Japan but only season 5 here. (at least that's what my kids tell me)

So it's kind of a different animal. The money that people are paying now, that's probably like 80% profit for them.

 

I know I just didn't want to go into it / don't want to bring the ire of the Archeage fandom down upon me

 

I won't argue that or how it was made but is this so different from what we are doing?
Founder Pack - Here

Except here we do it to develop the game and there it is 'profit for them'?

Point was they offer items that people can pay for as well that help them in game. Anyway, enough said. What was the original post about again, I think we strayed a bit..

 

1. It has been early and oft stated that there will be a limited landmass here. Or, at least, there will be a limited number of plots available. Additionally, there will be no limit on how many lots a player can own, so there will be nothing stopping or inhibiting players who receive pledge or Addon Store houses from buying additional lots. I understand the lots that are being sold with pledges and through the Addon Store will work as a factor in deciding total number of lots available at release, but that is irrelevant. People who own these lots will have lots, no matter what, while people who don't will have to compete with those who bought a lot in this way for even the chance to purchase one lot / house, especially if those people want a Village or larger size lot.

2. Supporting the creation of the game is not cheating. Instantly acquiring items that have an impact on gameplay through a method that is independent of regular play is analogous to cheating. "Cheating" is used figuratively here, though, since the creators of the game support this method of acquisition. As to people's expendable income, I don't care what they do with it. I care that game developers allow people who have expendable income to buy an advantage in the game. There's a difference.

3. I heartily disagree. It's true that you can't "win" an MMO like this in the traditional sense. There are no built-in goals such that meeting the goal (like beating a boss) pops up the credits and ends the game. But the concept of "end-game" is well established in the MMORPG industry. End-game described the point in the game where you have achieved everything there is to achieve in terms of goals you might set for yourself, and it's generally qualified by the advancement of your player character to "maximum level". In some games it is further defined as literally having met all late-game goals, like acquiring a house, completing your raid progression, etc. I don't think there is room to argue, at this point, that house ownership will be anything other than a late-game or end-game goal. Because you "win" when you have earned for yourself all the in-game rewards you care to have, thus completing all the progress you care to make into the game, getting a lot instantly just gets you that much closer to "winning". Success isn't always a binary arrangement.

4. I was formerly a Lord Marshall. You yourself know the ways I've supported this game. I've lost a lot of heart, though, and I'm losing more at regular rates. I posted a long-winded explanation as to why some time ago. You can read it here if you haven't already. The reasons I'm still finding it hard to love this project are more complicated and not worth enumerating here. They have nothing to do with wanting rewards despite not having a pledge. That much I can assure you.

 

I hope it won't just be that. I hope people acquire houses, not to "win" the game, but because they want to participate in the game community and role-play; open up shops, stage events, etc. Same reason, hopefully, why people are acquiring player-run towns.

The only thing I'd worry about is if a lot of the people pledging for those accounts are gold farmers rather people interested in the game community. I wouldn't want gold farmers to crowd out role-players.

 

Trenyc, I like many of your posts and you've been helpful to me personally in the past when it came to the CoA so I have nothing against you but I think we can firmly agree to disagree on these particular points. I'll leave it at that and wish you well.

 

I think their items / and what they are doing is very different / from a "gamers" perspective ... but every company has the right to make money - its up to the consumer to decide where they want to spend their hard earn cash

 

Right, I agree. Personally, I don't view acquiring a house as "winning" exactly, and I've never played an MMORPG to end-game and felt like I've "won".Like you, I also wish that coming to own a house was solely a roleplaying thing and not something competitive. Limiting lot availability a la UO definitely has some positive impacts on gameplay, but it makes lot acquisition inherently competitive, even if the player's goal is to use the house for roleplaying. My prospects for RPing a shopkeeper look kind of abysmal if I can't secure a reasonable expectation of acquiring a property in a decent location.

I'm worried about the economy, too. Gold farmers look like they'll be welcomed here in SotA. I've sen that kind of economic manipulation totally wreck game economies. (Lineage II, anyone?) It can be unreal. The housing situation is extremely vulnerable to exploitation by those people, for sure.

Different people will have different perspectives on these issues. There is no right or wrong. I just feel these opinions need to be expressed. They are being expressed elsewhere. We tend not to see them here because this community is very tightly knit, and people always spring forward to defend the project where criticism arises. That can be quite intimidating. It's nice when courteous discussions happen here, especially where criticism of Portalarium or the SotA project are involved. Cheers Ravenclaw.

 

If I can't afford a house, my pledge dollars are going to develop assets I may never have a chance to acquire or display. Portalarium needs to guarantee housing for those who want to attain it.

 

FYI - That's exactly what I was talking about. UO, Darkfall, Mortal Online, ect. Those games are the sort that I've come to associate with "sandbox" and I really like that form of progression a lot.

Though, ArcheAge has taught me that I'm not as married to that system as I'd thought I was when I wrote the article, so I'm back on the team now. =)

 

Interesting.

I too enjoy the connection between what you do and what skills you build on. But it's also been my experience that it encourages scripting. So in the case of UO you end up with 40 guys standing around in the bushes practicing some skill that they wouldn't normally be able to perform if they didn't find some kind of 3rd party tool that helped them do all the "work" while they were at school or at their job. In Darkfall, I didn't see any of that because no one was ever online. But I can remember mindlessly making 500 pairs of armor leggings just so I could improve my skill in armor crafting or whatever it was. Of course, I couldn't sell the armor to anyone and I couldn't use it myself because the only armor worth using or trading was "the best", and I hadn't gained the skill to make that yet.

So I guess what I'm saying is that there are major flaws in the "skill use" system too. But being connected to the skills that you're using isn't one of them. I'm sure there's a compromise worth exploring somewhere.

What is it about the Archeage skill system that you like?

 

Purely and simply... why?

It has very obviously been part of their model from the start to make housing something that for the majority of players will be something of a lofty and perhaps unreachable goal. The closest they have come to waffling on this is the addition of player towns, ranging in size from a smallish village to something the size of Ardoris, or maybe even larger. Speaking of Ardoris, a quick peak at it reveals that it has at a minimum 140 player housing lots (the vast majority row lots, but they are still there). This is one of 5 major cities, out of a total of around 45ish cities, towns, villages, and outposts. I see the potential for around a thousand lots minimum, before you add in the dozen (+/- a few) player towns I have seen advertised or mentioned in posts, one of which adds another city sized development to the mix. I honestly don't think there is going to be some mad rush for housing that will make this goal unattainable immediately (or any time in the foreseeable future) after launch, but only time will tell if the Dev's are planning well enough or not.

Honestly, your argument is not really different from:

PK: Full loot or my money is going towards development of assets I may never have a chance to acquire/experience.
Gatherer: No PVP zone only resources or....
Anti-PVP Flag: No PVP flag or....
et cetera...

Do you see why?

Edit: Oh... if this does get past episode 1... then you have episode 2 possibly as soon as a year after release (doubtful, but that is what I remember reading), which may have its own hopefully-learned-from-the-mistakes-of-EP1 fund drive, wherein they will have an additional land mass equal to all of EP1, and more cities, towns, villages, outposts, player towns... with more lots... then episode 3... et cetera...

 

UO had what, 200k subscribers? How difficult would that be to provide housing for even half of that with this current model? This type of thinking is wonderful so long as the community supporting this game remains small. If you expect to have any sort of player base beyond a few thousand it quickly becomes untenable.

 

Which, I do believe, is entirely the point.

They didn't intend for anything near even the number of current backers to have houses, much less the potential masses beyond that.

Take a look at this:



Under their original plan, they only had plans for maybe 2400 housing lots (number of pledge lots, +~30%). The new plan with the roll out of the new rewards and lot sizes/allocations, that more than doubles due to the addition of rewards, and the increase in the number of pledge levels with a lot... probably to somewhere near 5500.

These are the number of lots that they plan on having. Period. Please note that we've put only about a 15% dent in just the 38k odd backers. They apparently have plans that the lots and houses will be sufficiently far off in the attainability end of things that even though the number of lots on the side will be a very small portion of the remaining pledgers and the incoming post-launch population, they are comfortable with the fact that players will be able to make owning one a serious goal and not worry about competition for some time.

This is take two on the whole thing, and it still doesn't come close to what you are demanding.

 

Exactly. The vast majority of backers are paying to create assets for the wealthiest among us.

Yep. That's fair and will reflect wonderfully on SotA in the press.

Of course, let's not put instanced housing in because that might upset the minority of players who've paid their way into having more influence over the rest.

 

That's about the only part of the argument I agree with. Instanced housing is a bad idea period.

 

The first point you're missing here is that this was the design from the start... before the very first backer pledged money.

The second is that those backers will occupy only 70% (or less) of the lots at launch. What is more, there are lots that won't even be available at launch time, as players will be required to have progressed through the story of the game far enough for them to open.

The third, well, they significantly lowered the bar for the ability to own a home pre-launch, which means that those who have backed at a level that affords them a home make up approximately 60% of total contributions as of May. What does this really mean? not a whole lot really... other than the fact that more than half of the money continued towards the success of this project was provided by less than ten percent of the total backer population.

People like to say risk vs reward a lot in the Ultima online community... well, those people took a Hell of a risk (still are, actually), and deserve to be rewarded in kind when the game launches. The other portion of the population risked less, whether because they could not afford more,tor because that is all they felt comfortable with, and so deserve rewards, yes, just not as great.

Instances housing may help relieve the issue you see, but it destroys the intrinsic value of the reward itself.