$50 price tag is a big mistake

[Bloodsmith The Dragon]

They should have went for $30 and added some deluxe edition with cosmetics for a higher price.

Paying $50 for a PvP focused MMO won't bring a lot of players, and players is what you need to keep MMO alive.

[Cadiz Hexus]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von DAOWAce:

It's not an MMO; it's all server based like Funcom's previous game.

At least it's only $50, not the $70+ trend of modern AAA.

Still aint worth $50 though, especially not in its current state. Should be releasing as early access.

False. The game will be similar to Ark's Atlas, so cluster setup where each server is intended to be a part of the planet,hosted by Funcom.
No self-hosting like Funcom's previous game.

We have not seen the full game so we can't measure worth, but I agree a $30 EA with a $50 deluxe definitely would've won this much better.

[[SAP] TheLazySamurai [SCRUB]]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von BSCCadiz Hexus:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von SAP TheLazySamurai SCRUB:

Planetside 2 surviving on cosmetics? Its more like subs, and the P2W implant system that started out as little bonuses, but eventually became a standard in many loadouts that negate or enable specific mechanics. Plus it had a lot of optional subs to help it along.

Warframe instead? That is a gem that is PvE.

Gloria Victis, arguably the closest game I've played to what Dune: Awakening wants to be? It died because the cosmetic shop couldn't support the studio.

Runescape? Uh, that one is aggressively pushing in MTX where they not only have cosmetics, but also XP skips. Its been brought from being a great game, to making whales support the player base. Problem there is that you need a stable spending player base to do that. A new MMO will not have that. Also RS is more PvE focused, and has turned off PvP for all intents and purposes.

Star Trek Online? Again, mostly PvE focused, with very optional PvP. Cosmetics are the big thing here, but its also got a predatory system for power creep from everything I read in the community.

D&D Online? PvE focused again. I don't even know if there was PvP in it. There were cosmetics, but a lot of the funding was expansions, and unlocking new classes and races.

Foxhole is also close to Albion Online, also a strange hit. But against, different from Dune: Awakening. I read it so much online with people who find a strong difference between top down, and over the shoulder camera angles.

But again, we have the fatal flaw with how cosmetics end up running: it means that the best looking stuff will be paywall'd, and it requires a sizeable player base to support it.

Dune: Awakening having a cost up front to play the game is a double edged sword because it will give them revenue guaranteed per player and help prevent cheaters/hackers, but its also a barrier to entry for new players. If it wants to be an MMO, it wants more players, and more barriers to entry are bad for that aspect in new MMOs

See how you dodged all of my VERY SUCCESSFUL PvP focused games ignoring your logic.
Everything you named is not as successful MMO-wise or financially as the ones I listed either.
Its almost like you're wrong.

I didn't even think about my favorite game, Elder Scrolls Online. Cosmetics literally everywhere baked into the game's design. PvE-focused surrounding a PvP-focused center. Cyrodil is all pvp focused and standard caps out every night. Game's income is literally 9-digits annually. The OPTIONAL subscription lets you buy/access more cosmetics, gifting is also a thing.

I agree that $50 is a double-edged sword on release but at least its lower than standard price and because its a persistent MMO where risk can be mitigated by simply not going to PvP yourself and maintaining base upkeep, so $50 is also very acceptable for the PvE experience.

The stats lean in my favor.
An MMO doesn't require cosmetics, an MMO that wants to be successful and grow should want them.

I ignored the games that were not MMO's which supported your strawman argument. See the problem with that line of thinking is that ANY genre will play out the same as an MMORPG with over the shoulder camera angle and a PvP focus, etc, etc, etc. The fact is that the more layers of subgenre you apply, the smaller the audience.

Fortnite the horde shooter, those battle royals you mentioned, MOBAs, and hero shooters are all lobby based where the server requirements are far less demanding than MMOs due to their containment of players. So not as expensive to run.

Conan Exiles? You mean the game that I was interested in and though died a couple years after since nobody was talking about it by the time I had the time and money to play it? I wouldn't consider that successful enough to base the argument on.

Ark? Sure thats fair, but there are also private servers available, meaning that people could theoretically mod in their own cosmetics. So paid cosmetics seem counter intuitive. Plus player-hosted servers means less cost on the devs end.

Minecraft... again, privately hosted servers means less cost to the developer.

I'm not saying that cosmetics are not needed, nor that they do not make money; just that they are more difficult to make enough money to support a proper MMORPG. Eventually publishers find that the cosmetics aren't enough, and will demand P2W mechanics be put in.

How are we going to avoid the P2W stuff being added? By hoping that the devs made a good game, being patient with the stream of content, playing the game, and not complaining about every little issue that could make potential players believe that the game isn't worth playing.

Oh and as a side note, I tried ESO, and it honestly was so off putting that when I levelled up I lost HP, that after reading into the whole system I decided it wasn't the game for me. However knowing that you can gift things in the game that costs money is a very good thing. More MMOs need that so that vets can entice friends to come in as new players.

The optional subs are great when done right. I never said anything against them; but Planetside 2 made it so that the subscription gave extra resource generation which is used to spawn force multipliers, which is inherently P2W.

I never said that cosmetics should not be in the games, just that I've not seen PvP focused MMO games that solely rely on them, last for long. You said it yourself that ESO has an optional sub model, Planetside 2 has an optional sub model, Albion Online has an optional sub model, RS has an optional (albeit seemingly necessary) sub model supplemented by whales buying bonds to trade for GP so that some players can play without spending money, and D&D Online also has an optional sub model.

The only one that differs is Foxhole, and while that game is amazing, it still is only surviving on its initial cash infusion, but also that they are self-published, so much lower expected return on investment.

I honestly think that we are putting out two different arguments that are not mutually exclusive. I'm saying that a lot of games that are like Dune: Awakening is trying to be eventually die because they need more monetization due to the combination of shareholders expecting a return on investment, and the increased server costs due to the scope of the game. All while dealing with a more niche player base which has a lower chance to produce the desired income

[Cadiz Hexus]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von SAP TheLazySamurai SCRUB:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von BSCCadiz Hexus:

See how you dodged all of my VERY SUCCESSFUL PvP focused games ignoring your logic.
Everything you named is not as successful MMO-wise or financially as the ones I listed either.
Its almost like you're wrong.

I didn't even think about my favorite game, Elder Scrolls Online. Cosmetics literally everywhere baked into the game's design. PvE-focused surrounding a PvP-focused center. Cyrodil is all pvp focused and standard caps out every night. Game's income is literally 9-digits annually. The OPTIONAL subscription lets you buy/access more cosmetics, gifting is also a thing.

I agree that $50 is a double-edged sword on release but at least its lower than standard price and because its a persistent MMO where risk can be mitigated by simply not going to PvP yourself and maintaining base upkeep, so $50 is also very acceptable for the PvE experience.

The stats lean in my favor.
An MMO doesn't require cosmetics, an MMO that wants to be successful and grow should want them.

I ignored the games that were not MMO's which supported your strawman argument. See the problem with that line of thinking is that ANY genre will play out the same as an MMORPG with over the shoulder camera angle and a PvP focus, etc, etc, etc. The fact is that the more layers of subgenre you apply, the smaller the audience.

Fortnite the horde shooter, those battle royals you mentioned, MOBAs, and hero shooters are all lobby based where the server requirements are far less demanding than MMOs due to their containment of players. So not as expensive to run.

Conan Exiles? You mean the game that I was interested in and though died a couple years after since nobody was talking about it by the time I had the time and money to play it? I wouldn't consider that successful enough to base the argument on.

Ark? Sure thats fair, but there are also private servers available, meaning that people could theoretically mod in their own cosmetics. So paid cosmetics seem counter intuitive. Plus player-hosted servers means less cost on the devs end.

Minecraft... again, privately hosted servers means less cost to the developer.

I'm not saying that cosmetics are not needed, nor that they do not make money; just that they are more difficult to make enough money to support a proper MMORPG. Eventually publishers find that the cosmetics aren't enough, and will demand P2W mechanics be put in.

How are we going to avoid the P2W stuff being added? By hoping that the devs made a good game, being patient with the stream of content, playing the game, and not complaining about every little issue that could make potential players believe that the game isn't worth playing.

Oh and as a side note, I tried ESO, and it honestly was so off putting that when I levelled up I lost HP, that after reading into the whole system I decided it wasn't the game for me. However knowing that you can gift things in the game that costs money is a very good thing. More MMOs need that so that vets can entice friends to come in as new players.

The optional subs are great when done right. I never said anything against them; but Planetside 2 made it so that the subscription gave extra resource generation which is used to spawn force multipliers, which is inherently P2W.

I never said that cosmetics should not be in the games, just that I've not seen PvP focused MMO games that solely rely on them, last for long. You said it yourself that ESO has an optional sub model, Planetside 2 has an optional sub model, Albion Online has an optional sub model, RS has an optional (albeit seemingly necessary) sub model supplemented by whales buying bonds to trade for GP so that some players can play without spending money, and D&D Online also has an optional sub model.

The only one that differs is Foxhole, and while that game is amazing, it still is only surviving on its initial cash infusion, but also that they are self-published, so much lower expected return on investment.

I honestly think that we are putting out two different arguments that are not mutually exclusive. I'm saying that a lot of games that are like Dune: Awakening is trying to be eventually die because they need more monetization due to the combination of shareholders expecting a return on investment, and the increased server costs due to the scope of the game. All while dealing with a more niche player base which has a lower chance to produce the desired income

You want to be right about something so bad, you forgot what you typed. You said "PvP focused games", not MMOs. I point at plenty of examples and separated them appropriately.

Reminder: Your statement was "cosmetics don't work with PvP focused games" as a justification for a subscription model on top of Dune's box price

The market simply does not want to be reminded they do not own something they paid $50 for. Heck most don't want to be reminded of any lack of ownership they invested in.

and I hard-countered with successful pvp-focused titles that continue to succeed financially because cosmetics exist. There is no escaping the fact that the most played games are keeping the lights on using cosmetics right now. The most populated games are also PvP-focused.

Lastly, Sandbox Survival-craft games are not locked into niche audiences, Palworld proved that last year and PvP on day one would've sent it to the moon. Fun is the focus and the western market's craving for ownership is the money maker.

My argument: The subscription model is high risk in todays market for PVP games, and cosmetics are the superior push, whether sold in a cash shop, built into the game's design, or a modded in. All of it can be marketed to people for future buy ins somewhere. Even if its something as small as letting me hold my sword backwards for a new animation.

[AltVRat]

Hit me up @manchine

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Manchine:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von gorba:

I've played MMOs since Ultima Online when PVP-focused players were known as PKers (Player Killers). My first encounter with what I can only describe as a real-life psychopath—based on their in-game behavior—immediately turned me off from PVP. A brief stint in Asheron's Call's PVP-only server, Darktide, only reinforced my belief that many PVP enthusiasts tend to be unstable, antisocial types who enjoy making others suffer for their amusement. That's why my personal adage for MMOs has always been: "I am NOT here for YOUR enjoyment."

The reality is that PVP-only MMO games have never been widely popular because the majority of MMO players don't seek out grieving others for "lulz." Most prefer games where they can explore, cooperate, and enjoy the experience without being subjected to the whims of those who take pleasure in ruining it for others.

Sorry if I'm repeating myself, but MMOs that focus on PVP—even when it's just the endgame content—tend to be a miserable experience for anyone except those who actually enjoy bullying others.

I did the same Ultima Online and Asherons Call. In Conan I played in limited PVP. Ran away a lot and fought when I was ready in limited times. I became very good at Building and knowing when to fight and when not to fight. I have 1798 hours in the game. I haven't played that much in the last 2 years. Probable less than 200 hours.

Since not all of Dune is PvP I plan to do the exact same thing here. Limit my PvP to when I want to. Take chances when I need to and take out people that I can. Finally make a few friends along the way. Which will help out greatly. Of course RUN when I have to.

It all comes down to what you like and don't like. Me I evolved enjoying the group experience.

Hit me up. I'll be out tending my wind traps and sharpening my maker hooks.

[sk]

regional prices will be like 15$ or so

[TentacleMayor]

It really depends on how much content, longevity of player interest, and post-release support the game is going to have. That price is less than 4 months of being subscribed to Warcraft, so if it can keep players having fun past that, it's a better value. Hell, any game is well worth $50 if you have it as your main game for 4 months.

[jidaeng]

the price is okay, don't buy it directly on Steam but on a third party website for cheaper.

[[SAP] TheLazySamurai [SCRUB]]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von BSCCadiz Hexus:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von SAP TheLazySamurai SCRUB:

I ignored the games that were not MMO's which supported your strawman argument. See the problem with that line of thinking is that ANY genre will play out the same as an MMORPG with over the shoulder camera angle and a PvP focus, etc, etc, etc. The fact is that the more layers of subgenre you apply, the smaller the audience.

Fortnite the horde shooter, those battle royals you mentioned, MOBAs, and hero shooters are all lobby based where the server requirements are far less demanding than MMOs due to their containment of players. So not as expensive to run.

Conan Exiles? You mean the game that I was interested in and though died a couple years after since nobody was talking about it by the time I had the time and money to play it? I wouldn't consider that successful enough to base the argument on.

Ark? Sure thats fair, but there are also private servers available, meaning that people could theoretically mod in their own cosmetics. So paid cosmetics seem counter intuitive. Plus player-hosted servers means less cost on the devs end.

Minecraft... again, privately hosted servers means less cost to the developer.

I'm not saying that cosmetics are not needed, nor that they do not make money; just that they are more difficult to make enough money to support a proper MMORPG. Eventually publishers find that the cosmetics aren't enough, and will demand P2W mechanics be put in.

How are we going to avoid the P2W stuff being added? By hoping that the devs made a good game, being patient with the stream of content, playing the game, and not complaining about every little issue that could make potential players believe that the game isn't worth playing.

Oh and as a side note, I tried ESO, and it honestly was so off putting that when I levelled up I lost HP, that after reading into the whole system I decided it wasn't the game for me. However knowing that you can gift things in the game that costs money is a very good thing. More MMOs need that so that vets can entice friends to come in as new players.

The optional subs are great when done right. I never said anything against them; but Planetside 2 made it so that the subscription gave extra resource generation which is used to spawn force multipliers, which is inherently P2W.

I never said that cosmetics should not be in the games, just that I've not seen PvP focused MMO games that solely rely on them, last for long. You said it yourself that ESO has an optional sub model, Planetside 2 has an optional sub model, Albion Online has an optional sub model, RS has an optional (albeit seemingly necessary) sub model supplemented by whales buying bonds to trade for GP so that some players can play without spending money, and D&D Online also has an optional sub model.

The only one that differs is Foxhole, and while that game is amazing, it still is only surviving on its initial cash infusion, but also that they are self-published, so much lower expected return on investment.

I honestly think that we are putting out two different arguments that are not mutually exclusive. I'm saying that a lot of games that are like Dune: Awakening is trying to be eventually die because they need more monetization due to the combination of shareholders expecting a return on investment, and the increased server costs due to the scope of the game. All while dealing with a more niche player base which has a lower chance to produce the desired income

You want to be right about something so bad, you forgot what you typed. You said "PvP focused games", not MMOs. I point at plenty of examples and separated them appropriately.

Reminder: Your statement was "cosmetics don't work with PvP focused games" as a justification for a subscription model on top of Dune's box price

The market simply does not want to be reminded they do not own something they paid $50 for. Heck most don't want to be reminded of any lack of ownership they invested in.

and I hard-countered with successful pvp-focused titles that continue to succeed financially because cosmetics exist. There is no escaping the fact that the most played games are keeping the lights on using cosmetics right now. The most populated games are also PvP-focused.

Lastly, Sandbox Survival-craft games are not locked into niche audiences, Palworld proved that last year and PvP on day one would've sent it to the moon. Fun is the focus and the western market's craving for ownership is the money maker.

My argument: The subscription model is high risk in todays market for PVP games, and cosmetics are the superior push, whether sold in a cash shop, built into the game's design, or a modded in. All of it can be marketed to people for future buy ins somewhere. Even if its something as small as letting me hold my sword backwards for a new animation.

Last I checked, Dune: Awakening is considered an MMO, and because we are discussing that game within that game's community hub on Steam, I thought it would be natural to understand that we were talking about an MMO, and the sub-genres within. But if you desperately want to be pedantic, then sure we can go with that.

That just powers my argument that cosmetics alone are not enough when the player base is not large enough for a game that has high expected return on investment, and high server costs.

Again, I'm not saying that cosmetics are bad, nor are they not the superior choice. I'd prefere it if the games would be able to solely survive on cosmetics. I have issues with paid cosmetics looking better than in game earned cosmetics, and that I've seen MMO's that are PvP based use the same model (one time payment + cosmetic mtx) die because they couldn't make enough money.

Are you sure its not just that you are feeling personally attacked when I'm agreeing with your general argument about cosmetics being a good way, but that the capitalistic nature of the gaming industry causes it to be supplementary to another way to make money?

[IndianaJones]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Bloodsmith The Dragon:

They should have went for $30 and added some deluxe edition with cosmetics for a higher price.

Paying $50 for a PvP focused MMO won't bring a lot of players, and players is what you need to keep MMO alive.

IMHO that wonky gameplay looks like Free 2 Play game quality, $30 tops.

No gameplay demo before launch, not even spawn in first MMO hub, not a single stupid first mission. Many red flags this game has, just saying...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ud3EW5aAUZ8

[LooseCipher]

I want it to succeed, but I'll be quite honest...I think its gonna launch to mixed reviews at best on Steam...but it's going to make most of it's money back on launch.

[Captain Worthy]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von LooseCipher:

I want it to succeed, but I'll be quite honest...I think its gonna launch to mixed reviews at best on Steam...but it's going to make most of it's money back on launch.

It should get better launch reviews than Monster Hunter Wilds at least, that game has been hounded by technical issues.

[[SAP] TheLazySamurai [SCRUB]]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Captain Worthy:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von LooseCipher:

I want it to succeed, but I'll be quite honest...I think its gonna launch to mixed reviews at best on Steam...but it's going to make most of it's money back on launch.

It should get better launch reviews than Monster Hunter Wilds at least, that game has been hounded by technical issues.

God, I didn't even know a new MH game was in production, never mind being release, except that the news of how terrible its launch issues have been. I didn't even know the name of it, but I heard about how buggy it is.

I will be quite sad if Dune launches like that

[Captain Worthy]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von SAP TheLazySamurai SCRUB:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Captain Worthy:

It should get better launch reviews than Monster Hunter Wilds at least, that game has been hounded by technical issues.

God, I didn't even know a new MH game was in production, never mind being release, except that the news of how terrible its launch issues have been. I didn't even know the name of it, but I heard about how buggy it is.

I will be quite sad if Dune launches like that

Depends on whether Funcom cripples the game with DRM or not, MH Wilds is using two layers of DRM and that's why it has had such a wonky start.

From the benchmark tool Funcom gave us, we've seen that the game should run really well with the help of upscaling and frame generation.

[[SAP] TheLazySamurai [SCRUB]]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Captain Worthy:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von SAP TheLazySamurai SCRUB:

God, I didn't even know a new MH game was in production, never mind being release, except that the news of how terrible its launch issues have been. I didn't even know the name of it, but I heard about how buggy it is.

I will be quite sad if Dune launches like that

Depends on whether Funcom cripples the game with DRM or not, MH Wilds is using two layers of DRM and that's why it has had such a wonky start.

From the benchmark tool Funcom gave us, we've seen that the game should run really well with the help of upscaling and frame generation.

Ah... we cooked then...

[Captain Worthy]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von SAP TheLazySamurai SCRUB:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Captain Worthy:

Depends on whether Funcom cripples the game with DRM or not, MH Wilds is using two layers of DRM and that's why it has had such a wonky start.

From the benchmark tool Funcom gave us, we've seen that the game should run really well with the help of upscaling and frame generation.

Ah... we cooked then...

I wouldn't worry too much, Funcom is not as draconian as Capcom.