Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Crowfall is Shipping July 6!


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Ralathar44 said:

You don't have to list every individual area, you can just say WOW you know.  I didn't start breaking down every DAOC area :P.  Also I'm playing the game now and at release.  Win/lose/draw I'll be here for the launch of Crowfall.  I just keep my expectations realistic.  I'm not really the type to live and die on every upcoming crowd funded, early access, or release game. 

That's is a good part of why I was able to enjoy Cyberpunk 2077 so much, bugs and lack of full polish and all (though it helps alot I was on PC).  I never built it up into this Half Life 3 level release or GTA style game (which is farkin weird people convinced themselves it was a GTA style game...the only similarity is that it has a police star system lol), so my expectations didn't fall very far.  It was the first game of a new IP of a mid level game company who, on the third attempt at it, made a very good but flawed game.

I'm sure Crowfall will be the same.  I'll have modest expectations, it'll almost meet those, and I'll enjoy myself.  And then the internet will spend the next news cycle derging all over the game in oft highly inaccurate and hyperbolic fashion :D.

Good to know you will be here at launch and I mean that. I dropped my personal expectations about crowfall a long time back and  I will leave the success /failure predictions to the prognosticating prognosticators.  

I listed out the battlegrounds in WoW not to be condescending , but to illustrate that World of Warcraft offered a lot of PvP options; however I consider it a PvE game.   

And I would group ESO, GW2, as PvE games that offered PvP on the side.  And if DAoC has quest, missions, or story lines, I would put it in the same category but I have no direct experience with that game. On the other hand for better or worse crowfall was designed for sandbox PvP and added crafting and open world mobs for it's PvE options.

And you are correct there are other games that offer large scale PvP but it's  their PvE content that forms the foundations of these games. 

We are going to get 'what we get' on July 6th,and your attendance is requested, there will be sand to throw and salt to mine. Then some will light out to the territory ahead of the rest.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 241
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Crowfall is Shipping July 6   Highly anticipated Throne War PvP game announces launch date, and unveils animatic, “Eternal Heroes, Dying Worlds”   AUSTIN, Texas, June 3, 2021—Today, Ar

Has any MMORPG ever launched been "ready" to launch when it did?  I played through sb.exe, I played through F5ing the Darkfall store for days, I played through DF2 launching without 1/4 of the cl

2 minutes ago, corvax said:

Good to know you will be here at launch and I mean that. I dropped my personal expectations about crowfall a long time back and  I will leave the success /failure predictions to the prognosticating prognosticators.  

:).   Aye, we'll just play it at launch and it'll do how it does.  The % success check is more of the business evaluation side of me.  The gamer side of me is here to see it through either way hoping regardless of chances it pulls it out.
 

3 minutes ago, corvax said:

I listed out the battlegrounds in WoW not to be condescending , but to illustrate that World of Warcraft offered a lot of PvP options; however I consider it a PvE game.   

No worries, didn't take it that way.  PVP was definitely a sidequest to WOW's content but it had such a large playerbase that even the minority of PVP players were enough to justify a good bit of PVP zones.
 

4 minutes ago, corvax said:

And I would group ESO, GW2, as PvE games that offered PvP on the side.  And if DAoC has quest, missions, or story lines, I would put it in the same category but I have no direct experience with that game. On the other hand for better or worse crowfall was designed for sandbox PvP and added crafting and open world mobs for it's PvE options.

I'd say ESO and GW 2 were games that did both of them completely.  Both PVE and PVP.  They are not PVE games nor PVP games, they offer a full experience of both.  DAOC definitely has quests and PVe areas and etc but the primary reason people have ever played it is PVP.  The PVE was always a side quest.

To be completely blunt my % of PVE to PVP has been higher in Crowfall than it was in either GW 2 or DAOC.  (ESO has soo GD much good content that I spent tons of time in PVE there).  And really if I was to go at each game and say "if I just did PURE PVP which games would give me the best experience" Crowfall would be at the very bottom of that list. 

GW2, ESO, DAOC all let you progress either from level 1 or close exclusively via PVP.  Gear drops, gold, exp, etc.  You can get everything you need via PVP.  GW2 and ESO make you stronger if you're below the max level of that PVP area so low levels can fight too.  DAOC and ESO have level appropriate battlegrounds to keep you in the right power spectrums.  I've gone from like level 1/5 to max level exclusively PVP in each of those games.

Crowfall is different.  PVP provides zero rewards in your moment to moment gameplay.  All your exp, all your gear, all your materials, all your progression comes from PVE.  Or so close (99.99%) it makes no difference.  In Crowfall the only way to progress is PVE and the most efficient way to progress is to do as little PVP as possible.  This is actually one of my biggest issues with Crowfall.  Not only does it not have great (or in many cases ANY) incentives to PVP but it actively disincentives you.  The power difference between someone who's put in a ton of PVE and gotten geared and vesseled vs a 30 who's spent the same amount of time in PVP but doesn't have that gear/vesselage is immense.

In a sense I guess I'm saying that despite how it's presented to me Crowfall feels like less of a PVP game than the others because it's constantly giving me compelling reasons NOT to PVP and because PVP and progression are in direct conflict with one another.
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ralathar44 said:

 

Ironically the complete unwillingness for gamers to support free or cheap games they like is a large part of why monetization has gotten so scummy.  People just DON'T reward good business practices as much as they do scummy ones :(.

Counterpoint from a guy that has worked quite closely with monetization, and no longer does, and a forum badge carrying crowfall whale:

People don't want to "support" free games because they're designed to annoy you in to "supporting" them. "QOL upgrades" or "Optional Cosmetics" are in the business excercise of "create a problem and sell the solution" as opposed to the old sub model of "sell a product"

The free to play model, and by extension the microtransactions we see in paid games that spawned from it including this one didn't arise out of charity. It was built because it is successful at making more money by taking a thing that cost a flat rate with an equal experience for all users and rake in hundreds or thousands of dollars from a handful of users who are either wealthy or have exploitable psychological vulnerabilities.

Turns out hunting whales is a lot more profitable than just making a game that can justify its asking price.

Make no mistake. Microtransactions are not a good business practice, and they never have been. They're literally designed to withhold features or content from an audience to annoy their audiences in to spending more money than they would have spent just buying a game and paying a monthly sub. That is literally why they exist. Because they let you make a game that is intentionally less rewarding to play, more annoying to play, and still make more money off of a deliberately worse product.

Monetizing your game this way is a choice, and a choice dictated not by the realities of development costs but by the realities of investor expectations. Anyone investing in the expensive development costs of a video game now compares their ROI against its most efficient earners, and those most efficient earners pioneered the art of selling worse games to make more money.

That doesn't mean you shouldn't enjoy games with microtransactions, but don't fool yourself in to thinking you have a moral obligation to "support the developers" when they monetize a game this way. That extra profit doesn't actually go to the developers in most cases. It goes to whatever financial entity they signed that Faustian bargain with because it is now so difficult to secure funding without agreeing to do so. Nobody is doing you a favor by having a game supported by microtransations. Developers either gleefully or under duress do so explicitly to pressure spending, not provide access. They're intentionally making a worse game so they can sell them to you, and if you don't buy them they do not care about your experience and your function is to be content for the people that are paying them.

Microtransaction are literally designed this way. Nobody makes a free to play or microtransaction supported game under the assumption all or even most of the people playing it actually buy anything. Your "support" of the developers comes in the form of literally existing to drive less than ten percent of players in the whale spending bracket to the cash shop.

You work in the industry. Go attend a few talks about monetization. Talk to a monetization manager. This is literally the business model. Not in a few bad companies. In every single game that sells microtransactions. Create a system with no spending ceiling and an environment that is attractive to a small audience that will reward you for creating a game with no spending ceiling. The moment your monetization manager creates a system with a ceiling the first thing the analyst or consultant they bring in to solve the monetization problem will tell them is exactly this. Figure out how to remove the spend ceiling.

Buying them is not an act of moral obligation to support the developers. They designed a game that doesn't offer the reward or QOL feature they're asking you to buy. It is a transaction with a company that has opted to sell you a car with three tires just so they can turn around and charge you again for the fourth tire.

Never, and I mean never get it in your head that buying this stuff is about "supporting the developers" It is a transaction with a company that could have treated the customer better and chose not to. Every single time. That doesn't mean the games are terrible, but it does mean they could have been better and chose in stead to be more profitable.

Never ever buy a microtransaction or preorder or whatever to "support the developers" and never buy in to that narrative. Like when you pay your comcast bill, or sub to disney plus, or whatever, go in with eyes open that you're buying a product from a company that is kinda teerible and knows that you and it both know it is kinda terrible only because it is the gatekeeper to a thing you want and is able to set the price for it however it wants.

Edited by PopeUrban

PopeSigGIF.gif

Rub rock on face and say "Yes food is eaten now time for fight"

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ralathar44 said:

:).   Aye, we'll just play it at launch and it'll do how it does.  The % success check is more of the business evaluation side of me.  The gamer side of me is here to see it through either way hoping regardless of chances it pulls it out.
 

No worries, didn't take it that way.  PVP was definitely a sidequest to WOW's content but it had such a large playerbase that even the minority of PVP players were enough to justify a good bit of PVP zones.
 

I'd say ESO and GW 2 were games that did both of them completely.  Both PVE and PVP.  They are not PVE games nor PVP games, they offer a full experience of both.  DAOC definitely has quests and PVe areas and etc but the primary reason people have ever played it is PVP.  The PVE was always a side quest.

To be completely blunt my % of PVE to PVP has been higher in Crowfall than it was in either GW 2 or DAOC.  (ESO has soo GD much good content that I spent tons of time in PVE there).  And really if I was to go at each game and say "if I just did PURE PVP which games would give me the best experience" Crowfall would be at the very bottom of that list. 

GW2, ESO, DAOC all let you progress either from level 1 or close exclusively via PVP.  Gear drops, gold, exp, etc.  You can get everything you need via PVP.  GW2 and ESO make you stronger if you're below the max level of that PVP area so low levels can fight too.  DAOC and ESO have level appropriate battlegrounds to keep you in the right power spectrums.  I've gone from like level 1/5 to max level exclusively PVP in each of those games.

Crowfall is different.  PVP provides zero rewards in your moment to moment gameplay.  All your exp, all your gear, all your materials, all your progression comes from PVE.  Or so close (99.99%) it makes no difference.  In Crowfall the only way to progress is PVE and the most efficient way to progress is to do as little PVP as possible.  This is actually one of my biggest issues with Crowfall.  Not only does it not have great (or in many cases ANY) incentives to PVP but it actively disincentives you.  The power difference between someone who's put in a ton of PVE and gotten geared and vesseled vs a 30 who's spent the same amount of time in PVP but doesn't have that gear/vesselage is immense.

In a sense I guess I'm saying that despite how it's presented to me Crowfall feels like less of a PVP game than the others because it's constantly giving me compelling reasons NOT to PVP and because PVP and progression are in direct conflict with one another.
 

In my opinion, Crowfall is a 'meets minimum requirements' type of game. The devs didn't provide the players with much to do in PvE OR PVP. Here it's up to the players to make the content. It's also up to the players to document the game! Up to the players to market the game, etc

macdeath_sig.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PopeUrban said:

Counterpoint from a guy that has worked quite closely with monetization, and no longer does, and a forum badge carrying crowfall whale:

People don't want to "support" free games because they're designed to annoy you in to "supporting" them. "QOL upgrades" or "Optional Cosmetics" are in the business excercise of "create a problem and sell the solution" as opposed to the old sub model of "sell a product"

The free to play model, and by extension the microtransactions we see in paid games that spawned from it including this one didn't arise out of charity. It was built because it is successful at making more money by taking a thing that cost a flat rate with an equal experience for all users and rake in hundreds or thousands of dollars from a handful of users who are either wealthy or have exploitable psychological vulnerabilities.

Turns out hunting whales is a lot more profitable than just making a game that can justify its asking price.

Make no mistake. Microtransactions are not a good business practice, and they never have been. They're literally designed to withhold features or content from an audience to annoy their audiences in to spending more money than they would have spent just buying a game and paying a monthly sub. That is literally why they exist. Because they let you make a game that is intentionally less rewarding to play, more annoying to play, and still make more money off of a deliberately worse product.

Monetizing your game this way is a choice, and a choice dictated not by the realities of development costs but by the realities of investor expectations. Anyone investing in the expensive development costs of a video game now compares their ROI against its most efficient earners, and those most efficient earners pioneered the art of selling worse games to make more money.

That doesn't mean you shouldn't enjoy games with microtransactions, but don't fool yourself in to thinking you have a moral obligation to "support the developers" when they monetize a game this way. That extra profit doesn't actually go to the developers in most cases. It goes to whatever financial entity they signed that Faustian bargain with because it is now so difficult to secure funding without agreeing to do so. Nobody is doing you a favor by having a game supported by microtransations. Developers either gleefully or under duress do so explicitly to pressure spending, not provide access. They're intentionally making a worse game so they can sell them to you, and if you don't buy them they do not care about your experience and your function is to be content for the people that are paying them.

Microtransaction are literally designed this way. Nobody makes a free to play or microtransaction supported game under the assumption all or even most of the people playing it actually buy anything. Your "support" of the developers comes in the form of literally existing to drive less than ten percent of players in the whale spending bracket to the cash shop.

You work in the industry. Go attend a few talks about monetization. Talk to a monetization manager. This is literally the business model. Not in a few bad companies. In every single game that sells microtransactions. Create a system with no spending ceiling and an environment that is attractive to a small audience that will reward you for creating a game with no spending ceiling. The moment your monetization manager creates a system with a ceiling the first thing the analyst or consultant they bring in to solve the monetization problem will tell them is exactly this. Figure out how to remove the spend ceiling.

Buying them is not an act of moral obligation to support the developers. They designed a game that doesn't offer the reward or QOL feature they're asking you to buy. It is a transaction with a company that has opted to sell you a car with three tires just so they can turn around and charge you again for the fourth tire.

Never, and I mean never get it in your head that buying this stuff is about "supporting the developers" It is a transaction with a company that could have treated the customer better and chose not to. Every single time. That doesn't mean the games are terrible, but it does mean they could have been better and chose in stead to be more profitable.

Never ever buy a microtransaction or preorder or whatever to "support the developers" and never buy in to that narrative. Like when you pay your comcast bill, or sub to disney plus, or whatever, go in with eyes open that you're buying a product from a company that is kinda teerible and knows that you and it both know it is kinda terrible only because it is the gatekeeper to a thing you want and is able to set the price for it however it wants.

Dp you suspect that ACE has made such a minimal game on purpose so that once CF goes F2P, they can make a mint off us whales by selling the 'rest of the game' in the cash shop?  I've been known to fall for that in the past, put if it's crystal clear that they did it on purpose... I might cut my cash shop purchases IN HALF!

Edited by MacDeath

macdeath_sig.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, MacDeath said:

Dp you suspect that ACE has made such a minimal game on purpose so that once CF goes F2P, they can make a mint off us whales by selling the 'rest of the game' in the cash shop?  I've been known to fall for that in the past, put if it's crystal clear that they did it on purpose... I might cut my cash shop purchases IN HALF!

I think they're genuinely invested in making almost the best game they can make, as long as it means they can still make EK stuff annoying to grind so you feel compelled to buy it with crowns, ingame rewards visually boring so you feel compelled to buy skins with crowns, progression and resourcing slightly more grindy than they have to be so you feel compelled to buy VIP, and respecs annoyingly priced so you feel compelled to buy VIP.

I think they want to make a game that is irritating, but not so irritating you stop playing it, just like every other game developer.

PopeSigGIF.gif

Rub rock on face and say "Yes food is eaten now time for fight"

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, PopeUrban said:

I think they're genuinely invested in making almost the best game they can make, as long as it means they can still make EK stuff annoying to grind so you feel compelled to buy it with crowns, ingame rewards visually boring so you feel compelled to buy skins with crowns, progression and resourcing slightly more grindy than they have to be so you feel compelled to buy VIP, and respecs annoyingly priced so you feel compelled to buy VIP.

I think they want to make a game that is irritating, but not so irritating you stop playing it, just like every other game developer.

This isnt the case with games without microtransactions. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mystafyi said:

This isnt the case with games without microtransactions. 

To Clarify, every other game developer that uses microtransactions (which is most of them in the online gaming market these days)

Edited by PopeUrban

PopeSigGIF.gif

Rub rock on face and say "Yes food is eaten now time for fight"

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, PopeUrban said:

I think they're genuinely invested in making almost the best game they can make, as long as it means they can still make EK stuff annoying to grind so you feel compelled to buy it with crowns, ingame rewards visually boring so you feel compelled to buy skins with crowns, progression and resourcing slightly more grindy than they have to be so you feel compelled to buy VIP, and respecs annoyingly priced so you feel compelled to buy VIP.

I think they want to make a game that is irritating, but not so irritating you stop playing it, just like every other game developer.

Well, They already got me on minnow status all my accounts have VIP.

macdeath_sig.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, PopeUrban said:

To Clarify, every other game developer that uses microtransactions (which is most of them in the online gaming market these days)

Its part of the reason I prefer games with B2P and/or subscription. I would rather pay 200 out the door, or per year, whatever then nickel and dime for every inconvenience I can avoid for just another 99cents.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just hope the devs are really listening to the massive amounts of feedback players are giving in streams and in the forums and elsewhere. Cause there is alot of valid concerns. This is way too early. The short-term list doesnt even cover many of the issues the game has.

I think alot of players would really like more added and fixed to the game before a proper release and would be glad to test and see that progress

Edited by Einlu
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Toadwart said:

200 replies in this thread, almost all are negative.

What could go wrong?

I thought for sure by today some streamers would talk about CF launching. Only mmobyte mentioned in passing while he laughed. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Ralathar44 said:

Thats...not how it works.  You can't just pretend that pieces taken from one game put in another should be interpreted that way in both. 

I don't believe ESO is P2W as there isn't anything to win. My point is most MMOs are F2P with perks that if copied into a game like Crowfall would likely be seen as P2W due to the victory condition aspect of the game.

That is likely why ACE hasn't provided what VIP actually is with a month before launch.

People aren't paying for optional subs for the love of the company, they expect something in return which is fair.

I doubt people would pay for ESO sub if the only perks were free respecs and tools that last longer or whatever the last ideas ACE has tossed around for VIP.

To believe Crowfall will remain B2P for years seems silly IMO. Likely will go down in price then F2P. Prior or after, the cash shop will have to make up a good chunk of revenue. VIP was supposed to be bought by like ~25% of players while people like me already have years of it. How many $30 mounts are average players going to buy?

I have several accounts, years of VIP, more EK stuff then I have any use for, and no plan to buy $10+ cosmetics. While I paid a good deal over the typical game price, I am essentially no longer a paying customer. Guessing there are many like me that are in a similar position or will B2P and not have any need of anything else. That's not great for business long term. Most MMOs compensate with "P2W" type sub perks, expansions, and deep cosmetic shops. What's going to happen here a couple months post launch?

12 hours ago, Ralathar44 said:

Ironically the complete unwillingness for gamers to support free or cheap games they like is a large part of why monetization has gotten so scummy.  People just DON'T reward good business practices as much as they do scummy ones :(.

Are you ignoring the tons of games on Steam that are free/cheap that have made a good deal of money that aren't scummy?

I've spent a lot of money on DLC over the years, many times at a cost higher then the original game. Not because of scummy practices, but the nature of the platform.

Ex: Hero Siege has given me 7 years of fun, continued support, but today costs $7. DLC classes and skins cost $5-6. I have no issue paying almost the same price for a single class as the base game. 

Same goes for expansions in MMOs. Have no problem paying $50 or whatever for countless hours of content.

It's when usually big companies design games in a way that preys on player habits by locking convenience, progress, fun behind a pay wall that there are scummy practices happening. Regardless if the game is $50 or free, I've seen plenty of cash shop and optional sub perks that are a joke to even exist.

IMO a big cause of this was the boom of mobile gaming and the pay to play another round or get an extra life design. Big companies saw this gold mine of addicted gamers with open wallets and cashed in as well.

Still there are plenty of quality products being sold and supported for reasonable prices.

 


 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, APE said:

That is likely why ACE hasn't provided what VIP actually is with a month before launch.

This is a major red flag in any game. Less then one month out and nobody knows what will be in the store or what VIP will be. Normally this is done when marketing knows that players will get upset and dont want to give time for pitchforks to come out. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, mystafyi said:

I thought for sure by today some streamers would talk about CF launching. Only mmobyte mentioned in passing while he laughed. 

Youtube: 18k views, 39 comments
Facebook: 21 shares, 28 comments, 81 likes
IG: 25 likes, 0 comments
Twitter: 78 retweets, 17 comments, 161 likes

These are all numbers from the official Crowfall accounts where they posted about their launch date. They have had close to zero engagement for an MMO that's about to launch in less than a month.

The writing is on the wall. I doubt any streamer above 500 viewers is even going to give Crowfall a chance when it looks and feels like a game that's in early alpha. They'll take one look at a gameplay video and instantly say no thanks.

I suspect they will be getting a lot of negative feedback from Youtubers like TheLazyPeon, KiraTV, MMOByte, etc. as well.

I also doubt we'll even hear anything from J Todd Coleman or Gordon Walton. Maybe they will release some lawyer-speak statement post-launch about how great their game is how great it has done, even if it does extremely poorly.

7ug90hM.png


 


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, macavity said:

I suspect they will be getting a lot of negative feedback from Youtubers like TheLazyPeon, KiraTV, MMOByte, etc. as well.

I do know one big streamer wont be covering crowfall. They literally said on their stream that all their viewers tune out whenever they try to cover the game.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, mystafyi said:

I do know one big streamer wont be covering crowfall. They literally said on their stream that all their viewers tune out whenever they try to cover the game.

I've seen streamers sell out for some horrendous games so wouldn't be surprised to see a few sponsored streams soon. Usually streamers tongue n cheek the stream though so not sure it always goes the way the sponsor planned. Crowfall is far better then some I've seen sponsored, but MMO is a hard genre to stream to thousands, assuming it's an actual popular streamer. 

 


 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, APE said:

I've seen streamers sell out for some horrendous games so wouldn't be surprised to see a few sponsored streams soon. Usually streamers tongue n cheek the stream though so not sure it always goes the way the sponsor planned. Crowfall is far better then some I've seen sponsored, but MMO is a hard genre to stream to thousands, assuming it's an actual popular streamer. 

haha Perhaps they are waiting for ACE to pay them to cover it. Even then, you would have compare the amount received from CF compared to the blowback from their viewers. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...