A game that boost PvP balance issues by only give 5% of the gamer's the choice to use magic in PvP is not a PvP game i would ever support. Developers even called those players that will be able to use magic close to something as a boss ingame, just hillarious how someone that want to make a OWPvP game same time don't seem to care a bit about balancing PvP.
I like balanced PvP which is something this game won't have.
Yeah that is already something known. But everybody knows that already, it's the game's design to be like this. Where the Soulbound engine is some kind of God in the game. That's why the game's concept is not for everyone. Because if you look at it that way, this game will be the most P2W game that ever will exist if it ever delivers atleast.
However if CoE happens to deliver, which would be a miracle, no one will call this game P2W because the system is designed to be this way. You enter this game knowing it will be like that. Just like RL where you are created with a certain body in a certain envirronment, which could be seen as totally unfair.
A game that boost PvP balance issues by only give 5% of the gamer's the choice to use magic in PvP is not a PvP game i would ever support. Developers even called those players that will be able to use magic close to something as a boss ingame, just hillarious how someone that want to make a OWPvP game same time don't seem to care a bit about balancing PvP.
I like balanced PvP which is something this game won't have.
So....you will not keep posting here and move on......or stick around and continue to explain why you have no interest in the game....
Games can change and i like a lot of what this game bring but not have a balanced PvP is a red light.
I was going to but then the whole permadeath thing made me walk away. Its tied into their payment model. You keep aging even when you're not playing. As a casual gamer, it just turned me off.
You do know that your 30$ life spark (one comes free when you buy the game) lasts 10-14 months, correct? You lose time based on death, and I believe you can only lose a certain amount in total off the "sub". 30$ for a year of play time? Yes please.
Also, the "perma-death" isn't really perma death. Your soul transfers into a new body, you gain boosts to training, keep all your actual housing, and most items. That is if I understood everything correctly.
It gives you 11 months of play time if you dont die. Funny thing is, I would give them 30 or even 60 bucks a year np but not for a char that will one day face permadeath. Not interested. I walked away from EQ1 for 6 years. Logging back on my main char. This first Avatar I ever played was a thrill. Knowing all the chars I have made and dressed over my 17-18 years of MMOing feels like I have accomplished something. Log in a few years later to this game and I get a crummy boost to leveling and skill and told to start over. No thanks. I am not a fan of leveling. Im all about hanging with my friends end game. Thats the biggest downfall. I play to play with friends. Sorry you just died, see you in a few weeks? Months? As a casual gamer, how long will it take to be back hanging with my friends?
@GeezerGamer ; I completely agree. Lets hope our friends will be happy with the results if anything materializes. Not everyone are capable to 'see' what you mean. Especially those who are deeply invested in this scam...
What he has written is silly.
Of course there is no game etc etc. That's why the developer requested funds through ks. If the game doesn't get finished I have lost nothing I couldn't afford to gamble away. What I've donated ($250). I have put more in a gambling machine in the pub
Saying one should or should not back a game is subjective. What is considered silly is also subjective. The reasons I stated as to why I won't back the game are not subjective. They are the truth. Citing non subjective truth is silly to you?
No it's silly because the game is in development and therefore it is obvious that there is no game yet. Pointing out something that is obvious to all already is silly.
The rest of my reply after the word silly was aimed at @OfficerFriendlyEQ2, since he states I am not able to see what you mean. I know exactly what you mean because I understand my donation is a gamble and I may not get what's promised.
Signed Davan Drakenhoff ruler of Castle Drakenhoff the impenatrable castle made from cardboard
show me a gameplay trailer ( a real one ) or a alpha demo for free or anything it can prove they have done something already on the games, papers and drawing dont qualify, im not a fool, i want a games of this genre but im not going go get stealt at all these news game who say everything any mmorpg players want and never releases.
A game that boost PvP balance issues by only give 5% of the gamer's the choice to use magic in PvP is not a PvP game i would ever support. Developers even called those players that will be able to use magic close to something as a boss ingame, just hillarious how someone that want to make a OWPvP game same time don't seem to care a bit about balancing PvP.
I like balanced PvP which is something this game won't have.
Yeah that is already something known. But everybody knows that already, it's the game's design to be like this. Where the Soulbound engine is some kind of God in the game. That's why the game's concept is not for everyone. Because if you look at it that way, this game will be the most P2W game that ever will exist if it ever delivers atleast.
However if CoE happens to deliver, which would be a miracle, no one will call this game P2W because the system is designed to be this way. You enter this game knowing it will be like that. Just like RL where you are created with a certain body in a certain envirronment, which could be seen as totally unfair.
Sorry I don't understand your point on the P2W model. Please explain why this game with no out of game shop, with no "win", and with no permanent items is P2W?
Signed Davan Drakenhoff ruler of Castle Drakenhoff the impenatrable castle made from cardboard
Zultra said:
It is good business practice to buy assets to save time, why make 100 types of trees and variations when you can get them from a store, it makes no business sense otherwise.
Buying "trees" won't save you much and your game will look generic and/or lacking identity.
A game that boost PvP balance issues by only give 5% of the gamer's the choice to use magic in PvP is not a PvP game i would ever support. Developers even called those players that will be able to use magic close to something as a boss ingame, just hillarious how someone that want to make a OWPvP game same time don't seem to care a bit about balancing PvP.
I like balanced PvP which is something this game won't have.
Yeah that is already something known. But everybody knows that already, it's the game's design to be like this. Where the Soulbound engine is some kind of God in the game. That's why the game's concept is not for everyone. Because if you look at it that way, this game will be the most P2W game that ever will exist if it ever delivers atleast.
However if CoE happens to deliver, which would be a miracle, no one will call this game P2W because the system is designed to be this way. You enter this game knowing it will be like that. Just like RL where you are created with a certain body in a certain envirronment, which could be seen as totally unfair.
Sorry I don't understand your point on the P2W model. Please explain why this game with no out of game shop, with no "win", and with no permanent items is P2W?
The criteria of labelling a game P2W range from very loose to very strict depending who you talk to.
CoE can certainly be labelled P2W if one applies a strict definition of the concept. People have different goals in games. As soon as any of those possible goals become achievable by paying real money for them, the game in question can be labelled P2W.
In CoE it may be a goal for some people to become a noble, build a house or commercial building, acquire a horse or a pet, learn how to construct a cart, discover seeds of a magical tree, and so on. Since these goals can be immediately achieved by paying real life money during crowdfunding campaign, the game falls under the category of P2W.
However, there aren't that many MMOs or persistent MMO-like games out there which have 0% P2W in them if they are examined with a strict definition of P2W. The only one that comes to mind is Baldur's Gate Online (and other NWN persistent worlds) because there is no way to pay real life money for anything inside the game and whoever does that is immediately discovered by game logs and game masters and CD-key or IP-banned. Some games based purely on monthly subscription fees don't have P2W officially, but in some of those games P2W exists "unofficially" due to gold farmers selling gold and items through other websites. Some games sell only cosmetic items. By the strict definition those games are somewhat P2W too because certain players collect unusual outfits as a goal and that goal is immediately achieved with real money in cosmetic item shop games.
A game that boost PvP balance issues by only give 5% of the gamer's the choice to use magic in PvP is not a PvP game i would ever support. Developers even called those players that will be able to use magic close to something as a boss ingame, just hillarious how someone that want to make a OWPvP game same time don't seem to care a bit about balancing PvP.
I like balanced PvP which is something this game won't have.
Yeah that is already something known. But everybody knows that already, it's the game's design to be like this. Where the Soulbound engine is some kind of God in the game. That's why the game's concept is not for everyone. Because if you look at it that way, this game will be the most P2W game that ever will exist if it ever delivers atleast.
However if CoE happens to deliver, which would be a miracle, no one will call this game P2W because the system is designed to be this way. You enter this game knowing it will be like that. Just like RL where you are created with a certain body in a certain envirronment, which could be seen as totally unfair.
Sorry I don't understand your point on the P2W model. Please explain why this game with no out of game shop, with no "win", and with no permanent items is P2W?
The criteria of labelling a game P2W range from very loose to very strict depending who you talk to.
CoE can certainly be labelled P2W if one applies a strict definition of the concept. People have different goals in games. As soon as any of those possible goals become achievable by paying real money for them, the game in question can be labelled P2W.
In CoE it may be a goal for some people to become a noble, build a house or commercial building, acquire a horse or a pet, learn how to construct a cart, discover seeds of a magical tree, and so on. Since these goals can be immediately achieved by paying real life money during crowdfunding campaign, the game falls under the category of P2W.
However, there aren't that many MMOs or persistent MMO-like games out there which have 0% P2W in them if they are examined with a strict definition of P2W. The only one that comes to mind is Baldur's Gate Online (and other NWN persistent worlds) because there is no way to pay real life money for anything inside the game and whoever does that is immediately discovered by game logs and game masters and CD-key or IP-banned. Some games based purely on monthly subscription fees don't have P2W officially, but in some of those games P2W exists "unofficially" due to gold farmers selling gold and items through other websites. Some games sell only cosmetic items. By the strict definition those games are somewhat P2W too because certain players collect unusual outfits as a goal and that goal is immediately achieved with real money in cosmetic item shop games.
You see I would disagree with that because collectors editions came long before people yelled P2W.
You claim early back rewards are P2W, but in my opinion pay 2 win is paying real life money to gain an advantage over everyone else that they can not obtain in the game. Therefore I don't see this model as pay to win but hey everyone to their own opinion right?
Signed Davan Drakenhoff ruler of Castle Drakenhoff the impenatrable castle made from cardboard
Talents may give an edge to a player, or they may not, It depends on the talent.
This is not pay to win though because you can not buy a talent.
Yes you can buy souls. Yes 5% of those souls will have talents.
You will still need a spark of life for each soul to activate it to the world.
The reason this is not pay to win is because you will not know if your character has a talent until you activate it, and then spend your lifetime hoping to discover it.
There will be many that may have a talent, but will never actually discover it in there lifetime.
Zultra said:
It is good business practice to buy assets to save time, why make 100 types of trees and variations when you can get them from a store, it makes no business sense otherwise.
Buying "trees" won't save you much and your game will look generic and/or lacking identity.
I don't fully agree with this. For indie companies this can be a good choice to cut back on the insane amount of work that has to be done.
But with the amount of promised features the fans started seeing this as a AAA game which can easily backfire.
The aging has zero appeal for me - zero. Until that feature is killed or rendered optional, I'm not putting a penny towards this turd.
And to people who keep saying that the aging/death adds depth to the game, or realism... what the hell are you on? There's nothing realistic about soul-transfer, or bizarro, instantaneous reincarnation. That doesn't make the world deep, and it certainly doesn't prompt me to become more invested in my characters - far from it.
There are some pretty decent indy projects right now in Camelot Unchained (if they can ever solve their chronic animation issues) and Crowfall (the subject matter looks first rate)... but I would tier CoE far behind those other two because I find the root mechanics so abhorrent. The developers had to know they were going to permanently turn away a lot of potential players at the door with that feature... well, count me standing outside looking in, and not even slightly interested in jiggling the lock.
Dakeru said:
I don't fully agree with this. For indie companies this can be a good choice to cut back on the insane amount of work that has to be done.
But with the amount of promised features the fans started seeing this as a AAA game which can easily backfire.
I didn't mean it as a blanket statement rather than pointing out that "buying assets" is nothing as simple as it seems.
Like with any middleware, it is crucial to understand the limitations and downsides of 3rd party assets and often it does not save you resources but on the contrary largely increase your budget.
I think CoE changed the engine for their client couple times already, that is quite a lot of wasted development time. This isn't a matter of indie companies only, SWTOR budget bloated greatly due issues with customizing Hero engine.
You always have to gauge not just direct development costs but the possible outcome too - you save some resources on art but it will take it's toll on how the game look, feel and perform.
There is a reason why companies usually go with developing their own art assets.
Dakeru said:
I don't fully agree with this. For indie companies this can be a good choice to cut back on the insane amount of work that has to be done.
But with the amount of promised features the fans started seeing this as a AAA game which can easily backfire.
I didn't mean it as a blanket statement rather than pointing out that "buying assets" is nothing as simple as it seems.
Like with any middleware, it is crucial to understand the limitations and downsides of 3rd party assets and often it does not save you resources but on the contrary largely increase your budget.
I think CoE changed the engine for their client couple times already, that is quite a lot of wasted development time. This isn't a matter of indie companies only, SWTOR budget bloated greatly due issues with customizing Hero engine.
You always have to gauge not just direct development costs but the possible outcome too - you save some resources on art but it will take it's toll on how the game look, feel and perform.
There is a reason why companies usually go with developing their own art assets.
Hmm I know where swtor cut back the costs. I remember the first time my sage strolled around and found a lake.. I move a little forward to explore it.. *screen flashes red* ... big letters are telling me I am taking environmental damage and my character burst into flames..
I didn't know Jedi react to water this badly haha
But yeah I meant no offense I just think assets CAN be a good thing for small companies. Maybe not for Soulbound though as they have 5 times as many artists as developers.
Dakeru said:
Hmm I know where swtor cut back the costs. I remember the first time my sage strolled around and found a lake.. I move a little forward to explore it.. *screen flashes red* ... big letters are telling me I am taking environmental damage and my character burst into flames..
I didn't know Jedi react to water this badly haha
...I think you can do better than silly rants.
I am not saying buying assets can't be beneficial, I am just pointing out it ain't as simple - if the assets are "simple", you won't save much, if they are "larger or complex", it can be very tricky.
I think with the assets the benefit is not directly cost. It is time. You have your environmental artist focusing on the things that are unique to your world, really communicate the style of your game. They do not have to spend the time on the mundane. That to me makes sense. However, that comes from a player that just wants a world that feels right. It would not worry me if every single asset had been used in another game if when combined here they felt like Elyria. That is subjective though, some people find 'repeats' jarring. I just hope for them the game is engaging enough they hardly ever notice!
The reason I am buying this game is for the feel. So far it feels like the only game I can loose myself in. I do not have to fight, there are so many other roles, other mechanics, other skills to master. That is what I want from an MMO, I want that RPG tag to be firmly fixed on the end of it.
@GeezerGamer ; I completely agree. Lets hope our friends will be happy with the results if anything materializes. Not everyone are capable to 'see' what you mean. Especially those who are deeply invested in this scam...
What he has written is silly.
Of course there is no game etc etc. That's why the developer requested funds through ks. If the game doesn't get finished I have lost nothing I couldn't afford to gamble away. What I've donated ($250). I have put more in a gambling machine in the pub
Saying one should or should not back a game is subjective. What is considered silly is also subjective. The reasons I stated as to why I won't back the game are not subjective. They are the truth. Citing non subjective truth is silly to you?
No it's silly because the game is in development and therefore it is obvious that there is no game yet. Pointing out something that is obvious to all already is silly.
The rest of my reply after the word silly was aimed at @OfficerFriendlyEQ2, since he states I am not able to see what you mean. I know exactly what you mean because I understand my donation is a gamble and I may not get what's promised.
Zultra said:
It is good business practice to buy assets to save time, why make 100 types of trees and variations when you can get them from a store, it makes no business sense otherwise.
Buying "trees" won't save you much and your game will look generic and/or lacking identity.
I don't think i've ever played any mmo for the first time and thought "My god... look at those unique hand-crafted trees.... this is the game for me"
If they can more quickly fill the world with things like rocks and trees and things like that which we won't be focusing on, I think that's smart.
Vucar said:
I don't think i've ever played any mmo for the first time and thought "My god... look at those unique hand-crafted trees.... this is the game for me"
If they can more quickly fill the world with things like rocks and trees and things like that which we won't be focusing on, I think that's smart.
Players certainly do focus on visuals and it would be foolish to underestimate or even deny that.
Bought art assets are very fine for 2d graphics, icons and such but with 3rd graphics it is more complicated because there is a severe impact on performance so it does matter what kind of "trees" you have there.
Having good looking and well performing visuals is probably the hardest thing artists/graphics have to deal with.
Like I said before, it ain't as simple even with something so seemingly trivial as "tree".
@GeezerGamer ; I completely agree. Lets hope our friends will be happy with the results if anything materializes. Not everyone are capable to 'see' what you mean. Especially those who are deeply invested in this scam...
What he has written is silly.
Of course there is no game etc etc. That's why the developer requested funds through ks. If the game doesn't get finished I have lost nothing I couldn't afford to gamble away. What I've donated ($250). I have put more in a gambling machine in the pub
Saying one should or should not back a game is subjective. What is considered silly is also subjective. The reasons I stated as to why I won't back the game are not subjective. They are the truth. Citing non subjective truth is silly to you?
No it's silly because the game is in development and therefore it is obvious that there is no game yet. Pointing out something that is obvious to all already is silly.
The rest of my reply after the word silly was aimed at @OfficerFriendlyEQ2, since he states I am not able to see what you mean. I know exactly what you mean because I understand my donation is a gamble and I may not get what's promised.
Clearly it's not as obvious as you think. This whole crowd funding movement has brought exactly how many MMORPGs to release? It's a zero percent success rate track record. With MMORPG titles costing tens of millions if not hundreds, we get these dreamers who tell us they are going to do it with 2 or 3? And yet, people line up to throw money at them with no promise of success. Now THAT is silly.
Okay, I'm a skeptic - of most things not just CoE. So don't take my questions/comments as an intent to attack or be negative.
1. Yes, I do remember failed promises and poor deliveries. People said great things about the ideas and the teams behind them then too. Why is CoE exempt from the same fate?
2. We need more games like this? What kind of game is this? It's currently a feature list, and I've seen lots of fantastic feature lists over the years, but they haven't all translated into the end product. So I'm not sure we need more games like this until this comes out and we know what kind of game it is.
3. We did get out of the themepark doldrums. I feel like I'm in a time warp whenever people say this. The last 3-5 years have been dominated by OWPvP concepts. FFARR is the most recent "doldrum themepark" and it came out in 2013 as a re-release of it's failed original version.
4. I don't know of CoE will make it, based on what I've seen, I'd say no. But if you have some compelling footage, I'm happy to take a look and change my mind.
5. I look forward to seeing their development progress, like I said, I'm a skeptic which isn't a synonym for a naysayer. So if things are looking good, I'm happy to jump in.
1. They are not. That is why I said "$25" not "$25,000". Risk v Reward; if you are rich you can afford to lose a lot more if the project does not pan out as intended. No-one is immune to risk, even the game you buy off the shelf or Steam might not deliver gameplay you like. We never really know until we actually play it... but that's no different to watching a movie, may of which suck.
2. A game with a deep skill tree, player control over the world, no classes, and strong risk/reward gameplay that combines player skill (twitch) with toon skill (RPG). We know all that works well, from Darkfall (original); we also know it is overshadowed by WoW derivative games.
3. We're in a time warp because so many games that try to break the mold fail. That's the blunt truth. But that does not mean trying is bad: sooner or later they will make it. Star Citizen is trying to break the mold too: its a sci fi not fantasy, but it looks likely to actually shatter the glass ceiling for the OWPvP genre.
4. Keep an eye out for footage. As the title progresses, more revealing footage will turn up. Things like their snow accumulation tech demo to me are far more telling that big show and tell presentations. It isn't about whether they did anything particularly special in this footage: its that they actually made it all work *before* the kickstarter, and the quality of the score. Watch it in HD to see the footprints. I don't care about how many other people COULD code that demo - I care that Soulbound Studios DID code it. They have the fundamental capacity to actually make stuff, that's way better than a blank page.
5. That's a valid view, but the $25 deal will not be available after KS. Personally I like seeing a community come together as well, which is happening in CoE already. if you want to be random peasant #3132 on day 1, by all means wait and buy it on launch day along with most other players. If you want to be a major player on day 1 then I really do recommend you plonk down $25; no-one will take your aspirations for world dominance seriously if you have not even backed the game.
Note I am not pushing anyone to go beyond that: great if you want to, but personally I make no distinction between backers and rich backers. You either supported the game getting made, or not. It's fine to take either path: but in a social game, you cannot complain if the core of the community who took the risk backing the game have developed a rich and diverse RP community without you.
Quite simply because this genre needs games like this.
I don't believe that we need yet another MMO (anyone still counting?) to force PvP on everyone. It will -like the 642 others before it- be a "king of the hill" match.
For PvP to be fun, you need to win. The first few weeks there will be a lot of rubbish players, so winning will be easy. Then the rubbish players will quit, because it isn't fun to lose every fight. Then the mediocre players will start losing every fight and eventually quit. And so on, untill the game is left with a few dozen very good players indeed who now hates the game and the developers and call it a big FAIL ghost-town ragequit.
We have all seen this happen over and over and over and over again and STILL .... every game developer in existence keep insisting that "PvP MUST be forced upon everyone always, it is a core principle to us." Sigh....
I do agree with the OP that it is probably worth whatever they charge for it though, for a few weeks of great fun. That's what MMOs have become - a few weeks of fast fun every time a new game launches.
I like what @Bjelar says here. CoE appears to have some interesting ideas, but despite that, they aren't really doing anything different. The everybody PVPs mindset is detrimental to games, and some of the ideas that CoE are promoting (killing low ranking people doesn't hit your karma as bad as killing the 'important' people) is just going encourage the ganking. Might as well pin a sign on my character's back that reads "OPEN SEASON".
What CoE appears to be is yet another MOBA trying to pass itself off as a persistent world.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Comments
However if CoE happens to deliver, which would be a miracle, no one will call this game P2W because the system is designed to be this way. You enter this game knowing it will be like that. Just like RL where you are created with a certain body in a certain envirronment, which could be seen as totally unfair.
Let's hope developers listen to common sense.
Pointing out something that is obvious to all already is silly.
The rest of my reply after the word silly was aimed at @OfficerFriendlyEQ2, since he states I am not able to see what you mean. I know exactly what you mean because I understand my donation is a gamble and I may not get what's promised.
Signed Davan Drakenhoff ruler of Castle Drakenhoff the impenatrable castle made from cardboard
Please explain why this game with no out of game shop, with no "win", and with no permanent items is P2W?
Signed Davan Drakenhoff ruler of Castle Drakenhoff the impenatrable castle made from cardboard
The criteria of labelling a game P2W range from very loose to very strict depending who you talk to.
CoE can certainly be labelled P2W if one applies a strict definition of the concept. People have different goals in games. As soon as any of those possible goals become achievable by paying real money for them, the game in question can be labelled P2W.
In CoE it may be a goal for some people to become a noble, build a house or commercial building, acquire a horse or a pet, learn how to construct a cart, discover seeds of a magical tree, and so on. Since these goals can be immediately achieved by paying real life money during crowdfunding campaign, the game falls under the category of P2W.
However, there aren't that many MMOs or persistent MMO-like games out there which have 0% P2W in them if they are examined with a strict definition of P2W. The only one that comes to mind is Baldur's Gate Online (and other NWN persistent worlds) because there is no way to pay real life money for anything inside the game and whoever does that is immediately discovered by game logs and game masters and CD-key or IP-banned. Some games based purely on monthly subscription fees don't have P2W officially, but in some of those games P2W exists "unofficially" due to gold farmers selling gold and items through other websites. Some games sell only cosmetic items. By the strict definition those games are somewhat P2W too because certain players collect unusual outfits as a goal and that goal is immediately achieved with real money in cosmetic item shop games.
* more info, screenshots and videos here
You claim early back rewards are P2W, but in my opinion pay 2 win is paying real life money to gain an advantage over everyone else that they can not obtain in the game. Therefore I don't see this model as pay to win but hey everyone to their own opinion right?
Signed Davan Drakenhoff ruler of Castle Drakenhoff the impenatrable castle made from cardboard
This is not pay to win though because you can not buy a talent.
Yes you can buy souls. Yes 5% of those souls will have talents.
You will still need a spark of life for each soul to activate it to the world.
The reason this is not pay to win is because you will not know if your character has a talent until you activate it, and then spend your lifetime hoping to discover it.
There will be many that may have a talent, but will never actually discover it in there lifetime.
But with the amount of promised features the fans started seeing this as a AAA game which can easily backfire.
And to people who keep saying that the aging/death adds depth to the game, or realism... what the hell are you on? There's nothing realistic about soul-transfer, or bizarro, instantaneous reincarnation. That doesn't make the world deep, and it certainly doesn't prompt me to become more invested in my characters - far from it.
There are some pretty decent indy projects right now in Camelot Unchained (if they can ever solve their chronic animation issues) and Crowfall (the subject matter looks first rate)... but I would tier CoE far behind those other two because I find the root mechanics so abhorrent. The developers had to know they were going to permanently turn away a lot of potential players at the door with that feature... well, count me standing outside looking in, and not even slightly interested in jiggling the lock.
Like with any middleware, it is crucial to understand the limitations and downsides of 3rd party assets and often it does not save you resources but on the contrary largely increase your budget.
I think CoE changed the engine for their client couple times already, that is quite a lot of wasted development time. This isn't a matter of indie companies only, SWTOR budget bloated greatly due issues with customizing Hero engine.
You always have to gauge not just direct development costs but the possible outcome too - you save some resources on art but it will take it's toll on how the game look, feel and perform.
There is a reason why companies usually go with developing their own art assets.
I remember the first time my sage strolled around and found a lake.. I move a little forward to explore it..
*screen flashes red* ... big letters are telling me I am taking environmental damage and my character burst into flames..
I didn't know Jedi react to water this badly haha
But yeah I meant no offense I just think assets CAN be a good thing for small companies.
Maybe not for Soulbound though as they have 5 times as many artists as developers.
I am not saying buying assets can't be beneficial, I am just pointing out it ain't as simple - if the assets are "simple", you won't save much, if they are "larger or complex", it can be very tricky.
I think with the assets the benefit is not directly cost. It is time. You have your environmental artist focusing on the things that are unique to your world, really communicate the style of your game. They do not have to spend the time on the mundane. That to me makes sense. However, that comes from a player that just wants a world that feels right. It would not worry me if every single asset had been used in another game if when combined here they felt like Elyria. That is subjective though, some people find 'repeats' jarring. I just hope for them the game is engaging enough they hardly ever notice!
The reason I am buying this game is for the feel. So far it feels like the only game I can loose myself in. I do not have to fight, there are so many other roles, other mechanics, other skills to master. That is what I want from an MMO, I want that RPG tag to be firmly fixed on the end of it.
If they can more quickly fill the world with things like rocks and trees and things like that which we won't be focusing on, I think that's smart.
Bought art assets are very fine for 2d graphics, icons and such but with 3rd graphics it is more complicated because there is a severe impact on performance so it does matter what kind of "trees" you have there.
Having good looking and well performing visuals is probably the hardest thing artists/graphics have to deal with.
Like I said before, it ain't as simple even with something so seemingly trivial as "tree".
Just an inspiration how "tree" may look like in UE4: http://80.lv/articles/getting-macro-environment-right-with-simon-barle/
1. They are not. That is why I said "$25" not "$25,000". Risk v Reward; if you are rich you can afford to lose a lot more if the project does not pan out as intended. No-one is immune to risk, even the game you buy off the shelf or Steam might not deliver gameplay you like. We never really know until we actually play it... but that's no different to watching a movie, may of which suck.
2. A game with a deep skill tree, player control over the world, no classes, and strong risk/reward gameplay that combines player skill (twitch) with toon skill (RPG). We know all that works well, from Darkfall (original); we also know it is overshadowed by WoW derivative games.
3. We're in a time warp because so many games that try to break the mold fail. That's the blunt truth. But that does not mean trying is bad: sooner or later they will make it. Star Citizen is trying to break the mold too: its a sci fi not fantasy, but it looks likely to actually shatter the glass ceiling for the OWPvP genre.
4. Keep an eye out for footage. As the title progresses, more revealing footage will turn up. Things like their snow accumulation tech demo
5. That's a valid view, but the $25 deal will not be available after KS. Personally I like seeing a community come together as well, which is happening in CoE already. if you want to be random peasant #3132 on day 1, by all means wait and buy it on launch day along with most other players. If you want to be a major player on day 1 then I really do recommend you plonk down $25; no-one will take your aspirations for world dominance seriously if you have not even backed the game.
Note I am not pushing anyone to go beyond that: great if you want to, but personally I make no distinction between backers and rich backers. You either supported the game getting made, or not. It's fine to take either path: but in a social game, you cannot complain if the core of the community who took the risk backing the game have developed a rich and diverse RP community without you.
What CoE appears to be is yet another MOBA trying to pass itself off as a persistent world.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.