Player-driven MMO Ashes of Creation wows Kickstarter

The big-money early days of video game crowdfunding may be over but lawks, look at fantasy MMORPG Ashes of Creation [official site] go! Gabbing about a world where quests can have dramatic lasting effects, crafting matters, and players can build, run, and destroy cities, Ashes of Creation hit its initial Kickstarter goal of $750,000 (£580k) in under one day. Developers Intrepid Studios say they’ve got enough money in private backing to make a basic version but they will use Kickstarter cash to fancy up their gamebicycle with stickers, reflectors, spoke beads, and clackers. They also make a curious promise to refund everyone if Ashes doesn’t come out. Check out the pitch:

Alternatively, here are some words. Ashes of Creation is a fantasy MMORPG which talks up choice and change, where players are free to build cities and tear down empires – if they can manage to do it – and where quests and events can permanently alter the world. It all looks a bit like the player-driven worlds of EVE Online and Wurm but built upon a traditional-ish fantasy MMORPG. Intrepid say:

“But change for change’s sake means nothing without consequence. That means that these changes and these choices must have repercussions, they must be *felt* throughout the rest of the world. It means that when a player makes a choice in a quest, that choice can’t be undone. It means that when that volcano erupts and destroys a city, the landscape is forever altered. It means that when a tyrant makes life difficult for his citizens, his citizens can rise up against him. Players have choices to make, those choices lead to change, and that change has consequence. Day to day, server to server, the world will be in flux, and history will remain where it always should, in the hands of the player.”

World-changing quests and events are dreams which make me squint and ask “Yeah, but how often will you actually do this?” It’s a nice dream but is a huge task. Even simple MMORPGs are not cheap or easy to make. Let’s say I want to believe.

Evidently plenty of people do believe, as the Kickstarter is past $900,000 (£695k) with 30 days still to go. Stretch goals include tavern games, group mounts, more ships and exploration at sea, and I’m sure a great many things yet-unrevealed.

Intrepid say, “in the case that Ashes of Creation does NOT launch, we promise to refund all backers in full.” That’s a bold promise. Given that money raised in crowdfunding tends to go on paying salaries, licenses, fees, rents, and whatnot, their backers must have mighty deep pockets to cover that promise. Though I suppose having $900,000 in loose change puts one in a world where pockets are seen as ‘quaint’ and the fashion is to instead pay a street magician to swallow Krugerrands then follow one around as a human wallet burping up gold coins on demand.

From this site

57 Comments

  1. dylan says:

    I haven’t been this excited since Age of Conan made these exact same promises a decade ago.

  2. Premium User Badge

    Drib says:

    I feel like (as Dylan mentions above me) these promises have been made before.

    Repeatedly.

    But all you have to do to is look at an old, unregulated minecraft server to see what happens when every player has a choice. Chaotic destruction and disaster, mostly.

    It’s just not reasonable.

    It would be nice, though.

    • Snowskeeper says:

      It’s not reasonable to give everyone equal power, but this would not be the first MMO to give players unequal power.

  3. mercyRPG says:

    Kickstarter takes 5% fee, payment processing fees (between 3% and 5%). So they are saying they pay out 10% more of what they got from Kickstarter if they fail to deliver? Um…

    • Snowskeeper says:

      “Developers Intrepid Studios say they’ve got enough money in private backing to make a basic version but they will use Kickstarter cash to fancy up their gamebicycle with stickers, reflectors, spoke beads, and clackers.”

      Presumably this promise applies to their supporters, not the private backers.

  4. Zhiroc says:

    It sounds to me like the game has non-consensual PvP, which is pretty much a deal-breaker to me as I loathe PvP of any type.

  5. Samudaya says:

    On Kickstarter everyone is Peter Molyneux.

  6. SaintAn says:

    What is the payment model? P2P, B2P, or F2P? The payment model is a big sign if this will be a cash grab scam or not. If it’s F2P or B2P it’s a cash grab scam with no future and really shouldn’t even be called an MMO, if it’s P2P there is potential if they can deliver on their promises and create a living breathing world with large and frequent high quality content updates that the P2P model allows. I used to really really love MMO’s and watched the genre wither up and die with WoW clones, failed ideas, then once people realized they can’t get that WoW money scam after scam, and I would really love a real MMO again. All that’s left of the genre is a corpse covered in F2P/B2P maggots scamming the lowest common denominator.

    I won’t donate and I won’t even bother following it until it’s about to launch and has its open beta for me to try it (since I can’t rely on other peoples opinions about gaming these days).

    • AngoraFish says:

      I haven’t backed or followed the campaign closely, but all their backer tiers offer X months of gameplay at fairly pricey amounts for a FTP, so looks to me like they’re aiming for a monthly subscription model.

      Which, unlike yourself, I think is a mistake. FTP is a proven model nowadays while monthly subs are a relic from 2005. What FTP games offer everyone is a decent player base, while empty/dead servers are the biggest killer of otherwise good MMORPGs bar none.

      • Dinges says:

        I’m of a different opinion – I think a subscription is an excellent filter for those who want to actually play a game with likeminded people who can communicate. Free games attract all kinds of folk that I do not enjoy playing with.

        • draglikepull says:

          I’d say a subscription filters out anyone who is not willing to dedicate a considerable number of hours to a game over a long period of time. We can debate whether that’s good or not, but I think buying a game *and* paying a subscription fee on top is a non-starter for most people who aren’t interested or able to play the same game for several hours a week for months on end.

          • Zhiroc says:

            One issue I have with games in the MMO or even just loot-progression genres (e.g., Destiny, Division) is that they make them such that the game has to become almost a “lifestyle choice” if you are going to be serious about it. In other words, games that almost preclude playing any other game due to the time commitment required.

            And a sub exacerbates this by making you feel like if you’re not playing, you’re wasting money.

          • Hyena Grin says:

            For what it’s worth, they have said that the game does not have a purchase price, it’s just the monthly fee.

            Which I can get behind. If I spend 60 bucks on a game and get ~6 months of play, it doesn’t really matter. It’s rare that I’ll play any game for 6 months, and if I play more than that, the game has probably earned my additional money.

            I do agree with the full price + sub thing though, that always struck me as gauging. I always felt like buying a full-price MMO should come with AT LEAST three months of time, if not more, but I can’t think of a single one that didn’t come with exactly one month.

    • Unclepauly says:

      That was hard to read. You would lead into a subject then completely switch mid sentence into another subject. phew

    • Ezzekhiel says:

      Actually it’s P2P, according to the FAQ section of the Kickstarter campaign. No box cost, monthly fee + in-game cash shop for cosmetics. No auction house.

      What I am most concerned about are the bots and gold sellers who will probably be swarming the place after 1 week.

  7. Sound says:

    They mention different servers. I think that’s a mistake. But frankly, it’s part of the same mistakes just about every MMO has been making. A good MMO among other things needs to maximally leverage the social element(or else, why not just make a single player game?).

    If this developer made it single-server, single-character, then they’d be moving in the right direction. When people are insulated from the effects of their actions, behavior, reputation, etc, the community’s potential for constructive, cooperative, or complex behaviors plummets right down the drain. When you’ve got little to lose, chaos ensues.

    • Scott says:

      Yes, I feel a lot of Eve’s success is due to the single shard and therefore the natural shared history that spreads across the playerbase as a result.

      Most modern MMOs have moved away from specific server communities anyway – see WoW, ESO, and GW2.

      • Premium User Badge

        Captain Narol says:

        Agreed, Eve Online is the only MMO who feels like a alternative real world with a consistent history, because everyone is on the same server and players really influence the general storyline with their collective actions.

        • Zhiroc says:

          It’s been a long time since I played Eve (about 3 yrs from its launch), but one thing I never associated with Eve was “story”. Sure, it had some lore, but it could be just about totally ignored. The players did not build “story” in an in-character sense but rather dealt with the game largely in an OOC manner, about as much as a game of Risk or Diplomacy. So it never felt like it has any RPG trappings to me.

      • Hyena Grin says:

        The difference between EVE and this game is that EVE takes place in space, and most of its content is procedurally generated. They have an entire galaxy to expand into. There are basically no borders on their sandbox.

        This game doesn’t have that luxury. They have a handcrafted world. If there was only one server;

        1) The world-building content would either get eaten up extremely fast, or progress would take so long that it would be prohibitively grindy to the point where it doesn’t feel like individual progress is meaningful.
        2) Space is limited. Nobody likes being in an area trying to do quests or mine resources with a two dozen other people. They can’t just procedurally generate a bunch of asteroids in a massive open space.
        3) Expanding the game world to account for content depletion would be a lot more difficult, requiring hand-built areas, with all of the scripting and planning involved in the specific way they plan to do node-progress. That is, unlike in EVE where corps just plop down stations and the like in empty space, the nodes have to develop sensibly and actually look good within the context of the world. Quests and NPCs are related to the surrounding area. Dungeons need to be hand-crafted for the area, etc.

        Scale is important. Player impact is important. A few thousand people in a smaller space is just as good as a few tens of thousands in a much larger space.

  8. AngoraFish says:

    On a related note, Astrobase Command needs some love people. A really well developed space station builder and crew sim that’s already a long way into development. The developers are great friendly people and have been communicating regularly since an earlier failed Kickstarter a couple of years ago.

  9. Poetsaurus says:

    Shame it’s yet another bog-standard European-medieval high fantasy setting.

    • brucethemoose says:

      Agreed.

      If this were sci fi, I’d kickstart it right now. And ever since I got burned by Planetary Annihilation and StarForge, I swore never to do that again.

  10. Shuck says:

    “That means that when that volcano erupts and destroys a city, that’s 50,000+ work hours lost forever!”
    There’s a reason why you don’t see games – in particular 3D MMOs – with these kind of features. Because there’s an enormous amount of labor required to put together content, and when that content is removed, an enormous amount of labor to craft replacement content. So as a developer you have three options: allow changes to the world that aren’t meaningful, have changes to the world that are rare and ultimately just timed, scripted events, or have a rapidly decreasing amount of things to do in the world and/or a sandbox that devolves into chaos.
    Most games go with the first option and then try their darndest to create the illusion that player actions actually have meaningful consequences (e.g. by having parts of the world pre-created in several different states that players can trigger switches between). When developers promise more than this, I fear they either don’t have experience developing MMOs, they’re over-promising on the quality of their illusions, or they’ve got unrealistically ambitious plans that are unlikely to see fruition.

    • brucethemoose says:

      The idea is that the players create their own content and tear it down, ala Minecraft PVP servers. This could potentially include community leaders organizing things (aka server admins and plugin coders on MC servers), which helps a ton.

      That’s the theory anyway… But this isn’t exactly a voxel game with a moddable server, so I fear you are right.

      • Shuck says:

        So it’s the “sandbox that devolves into chaos,” then? Those things don’t scale well. I can’t really tell from the Kickstarter – reading more of it, it seems like the world is just created with various areas having multiple states that it can switch between based on player actions. Which would suggest less flexibility than they hint at, and a whole lot of upfront content creation on their part to make it work. (There’s also a potential issue of over-ambitious – or at the very least, untested – tech, but things are vague enough that I can’t tell if that’s the case.)

    • Hyena Grin says:

      The way the game is set up, only a certain number of nodes can be ‘worked’ at any given time, meaning that in order for a new part of the world to develop, other parts have to be torn down. I’m not sure exactly how this will play out, system-wise, but it does mean that a town destroyed by a volcano is a bittersweet scenario, because although it means that a lot of time and labor is gone, it opens the world up for new change to take place. Suddenly people will be out in the world trying to establish new nodes that couldn’t be developed before.

      In practice, it may not work as well as they are imagining. But it’s not as simple as merely undoing the work of the players.

  11. brucethemoose says:

    The troll:player ratio is going to be VERY important here. You just can’t implement these kind of mechanics if a big chunk of your userbase just wants to make people rage via any means necessary.

    And that largely depends on the payment model. A 1-time or subscription model is a pretty good troll filter. Sure you’ll get plenty of “bandit” players, but that’s fine, as the people who just want to make a dozen trash accounts are the real issue.

    • Dinges says:

      As long as griefing and trolling are legit ways to play the game, then it’s fine. Look at Eve Online, where wrecking a player-driven region is pretty much business as usual. Key is that this is a feature of the game and that the players doing this are just that – players, who actually bought a subscription and have to dedicate time and money to accomplish something in the game.

      Free games do not have this barrier.

    • Chaz says:

      That’s the problem with these types of things isn’t it? It all sounds great on paper, but it relies on the vast majority of players playing the game “properly” as intended. However as we all know, there will be groups who will look for and use and abuse every exploit and loop hole that they can to steam roller over everything. Unless your systems are as tight as a gnat’s chuff, which is unlikely in a game with such broad loose scope as this, then folks are just going to start driving wedges into the gaps and whack them with sledgehammers.

      There’s quite a few of these “player driven” games being kickstarted and developed, and by and large I just don’t think they work. The crux of the issue is that by and large people don’t behave online like they do in real life. When a group decides to engage in antisocial behaviour in one of these games and ruin things for others, unlike in real life there is no police force, no courts of law or military powers to keep them in check. Then the devs are forced to make sweeping changes to the detriment of everyone in order to stop the disruption caused by the few.

      You only need to look at Elite Dangerous to see this kind of behaviour in operation with depressing regularity. And that is in a game that is still largely controlled and curated by the devs. There are players out there that are willing to spend a huge amount of time and effort in order to be a nuisance to everyone else. It only takes a small determined group of these people to ruin things for many others.

  12. BaronKreight says:

    This is from Guild Wars 2 website:

    Guild Wars 2 defines the future of online roleplaying games with action-oriented combat, customized personal storylines, epic dynamic events, world-class PvP, and no subscription fees!
    The living world of Guild Wars 2 is filled with thousands of dynamic events that constantly change based on the actions of players like you. You never know what you’ll discover when you log in!
    Guild Wars 2 is YOUR story. Your choices determine how your personal story evolves; no two players will have the exact same experience.

    And this is from Ashes of Creation website:
    Ashes of Creation is an upcoming MMORPG, set in a high fantasy open world. We believe in choice, organic events, player narratives and massive communities. All of these come together in what we call our “Reactive World.” Players will shape the world we create through dynamic quests, castle sieges, our Node system, an economy that goes well beyond the auction house, and player housing (among many other systems). We’ll set up the initial state, you decide where it goes from there.

    And this is from Dark and Light website:
    Massive Sandbox environment. Immerse yourself in Dark and Light’s vast world, which combines hardcore open-world sandbox and fantasy RPG game mechanics to create an exciting, constantly changing environment for you to explore and conquer.

    Sounds familiar? You bet! Nevertheless the game does sound interesting. We’ll see.

    • Sound says:

      I often wonder whether or not it’s necessary/best practice to use corp-market-consumer speak when making a pitch like this. Most of the pitch video was phrased in this manner. A lot of vague feelgood and aspiration, little in the way of real, tangible highlights.

      Would we be more interested if he actually got into deep details about “what’s wrong with all those other MMO’s”? And what mechanics tweak he’d do precisely differently to get some holy grail alternative result? Would we have more faith in his vision, and feel the hype?

      I feel like the answer to that is ‘yes,’ but I mean… of course I’d say that.

  13. malkav11 says:

    I wonder who keeps backing these things? 1) The single most successful gaming Kickstarter of all time might arguably have generated enough funding to build a small scale and not particularly ambitious MMO. And then again, maybe not. MMOs are pretty much the most expensive game genre and Kickstarter generates mid-tier developer level money at best (even then, a lot of those projects are getting a good chunk of their money other ways). 2) The pitch is extremely ambitious in a way that literally no one has ever accomplished in the genre, much less on such a small budget. 3) Has any Kickstarted MMO ever actually come out and successfully operated? The closest thing I can think of would be Elite: Dangerous, and that’s not an MMO per se.

    It just seems like a great way to throw money down a hole, to me.

    • Shuck says:

      “The single most successful gaming Kickstarter of all time might arguably have generated enough funding to build a small scale and not particularly ambitious MMO”
      Actually, not so much – Starcitizen raised MMO-levels of money, but generated almost all of its funds outside of Kickstarter. The biggest game Kickstarters have only raised single-digit millions, i.e. enough funds to make a fairly modest single-player game at best.
      “Kickstarter generates mid-tier developer level money at best”
      And only then when pitching AAA games. (Also, “mid-tier” is generous.) It scales with the project – if you pitch a huge game, at best you’ll raise a modest amount of money; if you pitch a modest game, you’ll only be able to raise small amounts of money. The rule of thumb for game Kickstarters is that you can – if you’re “successful” – raise 10% to 25% of your game budget. (And that’s assuming single-player or simple multi-player games.)
      If these people don’t have someone giving them many, many times what they’ve raised via crowdfunding, they’re going nowhere. Even if that’s the case, the odds of success still aren’t great – as you say, MMOs are really expensive (and hard to make).

      • malkav11 says:

        By gaming Kickstarter I refer to anything in that category on the site. I’m pretty sure Oculus or something hardwareish raised like 8 or 9 million, and if not there are some boardgames that have. Which would still be inadequate.

        • Shuck says:

          Yeah, even if we look at the most successful game hardware and board/card game Kickstarters, it’s very modest single-player (e.g. isometric RPG) game budgets at best. Ouya raised something like eight million dollars, as have a card game or two. Shemue III was another big one, raising about six million – which was not even remotely enough to make their game. All the other big successes on Kickstarter are a few million each. (In comparison, the original Fallout, adjusted for inflation, had a development budget of about four and three-quarter million dollars.) Prison Architect almost raised a (small) AAA development budget, but again it was done entirely off of Kickstarter. Crowdfunding is generally a lousy way to raise development funds and doing it on Kickstarter is apparently even worse.

    • Zhiroc says:

      FYI, I’m as skeptical of the success of this game like you, but to be fair, the Kickstarter is NOT the sole source of funding. From their FAQ: “This project is primarily self funded, and we’re dedicated to staying true to our vision and not being compromised. The core product can be delivered with our current capital and the crowdfunding goal.”

      • malkav11 says:

        So either they have vastly more money in the bank than they asked for on KS (like, 10+ times as much, probably), in which case one rather wonders why bother with crowdfunding since they’re pretty much just self-funding anyway, or they have wildly unrealistic expectations about how much these things cost, or they’re deliberately defrauding people. Good times.

  14. nim.was.taken says:

    Seems interesting. I’ll be keeping an eye on it, but I’m not really interested in backing anything this ambitious right now. Besides, they’ve already reached their initial goal so it’s not like they “need” my pledge.

    To be fair, I tend to get pretty excited any time SWG is brought up, but I’m already sitting on a stack of Early Access titles so… yeah.

    I wish them the best of luck.

  15. Czrly says:

    And, in other news, Kickstarter users prove that they still have not learned a thing, sadly. The very definition of stupidity.

    This is going to be a farce.

    Firstly, the concept of freedom that they promise won’t work, online. I’ve been on the Internet – I know! It could only possibly work if people were able to host their own servers. Private, modded servers. Servers on which a group of friends played. Being trolled by your friends is somwhat OK so the sandbox can work in those cases.

    Secondly, it looks like they are opting for the traditional MMORPG pricing model of a monthly subscription. Why is this still a thing? Because I want to spend hundreds of dollars on Kickstarter exclusives, only to have to pay hundreds of dollars in up-keep to not loose access to that? Why do people still buy this “pay to use what you’ve already bought” model? (I know, “servers, hosting, wotnot…” but that’s bull-excrement. Give me what I buy and let me host it, myself, and mod it, or play it offline, or single-player. They’ll charge for expansions, regardless.)

    Thirdly, it looks like the team’s *relevant* experience is mostly Star Wars MMOs and Everquests – about as traditional as you get. Remind me how the latest Everquest faired? I played 2, and it was OK, but it was nothing special. It was bog standard for the era and I only enjoyed it because I was playing with my brother who had moved to the other side of the world and needed something to do during the Scandinavian winter season.

    Fourthly, none of these promises are novel – they have all been made, before. During the MMO craze, basically *every* new stock-fantasy MMO promised all these things. Also, a lot of these promises actively detract from the experience. Change the world, you say? What if I want to experience the world’s whole story? What if I don’t want to miss out? I rather think that “Fear of Missing Out” is precisely the emotion that they want to evoke and, in my experience, it is a terrible reason to buy a game.

    Lastly, just look at the croud-funding campaign. Look at all those exclusives! Yes, here is a game in which you can play the role of a character, be anything, do anything, change the world… but not enjoy it as much as the rich buggers who could spend hundreds of dollars during the Kickstarter and got all the exclusives.

    No thanks. Do not want. Others can happily waste their money. Please, though, can we not have a repeat of the NMS incident during which RPS became a place to avoid because there was nothing to see but NMS for weeks, simply because NMS was so big. I don’t care who cons Kickstarter backers out of their dosh but I do care to read RPS.

    • malkav11 says:

      To be fair, the most recent Everquest (i.e. “EQ Next”) had very similarly ambitious goals, to the point where I almost tend to read this pitch as trying to crowdfund keeping that particular dream alive. Then again, it kind of abjectly failed without ever reaching playable state and even the vastly less ambitious Minecraft wannabe that did turn up in its wake for a while is now defunct. So it’s relevant experience…but also a cautionary tale as to why this sort of game is a sucker’s bet even coming from a traditional publisher, much less on crowdfunding money.

  16. sp0q says:

    Mmm, a month of game time for 25 bucks? No thanks.

  17. foop says:

    If you want to put your investigative journalism hat on, you might want to look at the guy behind this. He appears to have got his money from a multi-level marketing company.

    It’s entirely possible that this is completely above-board, but Ashes of Creation has a slightly odd referral scheme that will reward backers who get other people to back it. It has certainly rustled the jimmies of Reddit, but Reddit’s jimmies are constantly a-quiver anyway.

    • Zhiroc says:

      Hadn’t noticed that. One of the other games that seemed to try this approach was the Stargate MMO, and it crashed and burned, hard, before it even got out too far into beta.

  18. DThor says:

    The sales force is strong in this one.
    I too am amazed the great unwashed continue to be taken in by this sort of obvious bafflegab. He is promising everything, and nothing.
    Starting a world with no civilization and building it up makes a solid attraction for a single player game, but how can that possibly work in an MMO? How can a level one character stand beside a level 30 and have one standing in a swamp and the other in a town? You can’t, of course, so obviously the only people standing in a swamp are day one users. Or, different zones are locked into different levels of development? I’m doubting that.
    Anyway, spidey sense tingling on this one. Well done, Kickstarter, for fulfilling the One Born Every Minute rule…

  19. Pigswillfly says:

    Would it not be possible for one of these many kickstarters to actually aim at a fantasy version of EVE Online? Or would that be a planning task too difficult to achieve in a land based game?

    I would also point out that the subscription service did work for many years for EVE and only recently have they implemented a F2P option to draw in new comers.

    • Zhiroc says:

      It depends on the the level of “worked for Eve” that the developers and their publisher wants. Eve had a *very* slow uptake of subs. I was there when it was 30k or less within about a year of its launch. Even years later when I left, it wasn’t great, probably in the 100k or so range. Even now, it’s probably respectable in the 300-500k range, and while that worked for them (they bought out their publisher so they only had themselves to account to), it might not for others.

      The style of play in Eve is pretty niche, and getting and retaining subs has always been a huge challenge. A hard-core PvP design is not in the sweet-spot of the gaming population these days, though it does have its supporters.

    • Premium User Badge

      Captain Narol says:

      I think that’s what Crowfall is aiming to do, which is why it generates quite some hype !

    • Shuck says:

      Eve has spacecraft (effectively unanimated characters) in space (mostly empty), and character interactions, when they involve something more than changing numbers, don’t involve many assets either. So the asset costs for Eve are orders of magnitude smaller than human-scale, planet-based games, which allowed them to make a game with an absolutely tiny development team. A “fantasy Eve” would involve all sorts of systems and assets that the usual “theme park” MMO doesn’t have, further driving up costs. Eve-level subscriber numbers wouldn’t be enough to support that.

  20. tomimt says:

    Damn… they’ve collected over 1 million dollars from less than 6000 backers. Talk about solid average for a game.

  21. Generico says:

    I feel like this game is going to fail because it’s too in the middle. It’s not theme park enough for the legions of casual players WoW built its success on, and it’s not sandbox enough for the niche of hardcore fans that EVE built its success on.

    I think their node system has promise, but it still sounds too structured to really generate the kind of player driven narratives that make for a truly dynamic game world.

  22. Cerulean Shaman says:

    Let’s just be real here. The moment they realize the ship is sinking they’ll release a map with one mob and go “Whelp, there you go, it came out, now we don’t have to refund you in full! KTHX!”

    It IS a weird promise because they’re either really ignorant, overconfident, or flat out lying. None of them are good and all that promise has made me do is turn away.

    Still waiting for Crowfall, Camelot Unchained, or Star Citizen to actually ever release before I still giving crowd founded MMORPGs a real glance again.

    • Vizeroh says:

      I *was* following the game for awhile. The last video with the so called failed ESO Youtuber was the nail in the coffin for me. After reading into what they was saying, along with their vision of the game its not going to work out at all. It’ll end up just being an imbalance towards something that they make the most money from in the end.

      Right now the only MMO I want to play is Camelot Unchained, others was just to keep be busy until then.

  23. Vizeroh says:

    This game will fail pretty badly. The so called foundation pillars will ruin the game for most people. Will they be able to crave out a little market? Maybe. But the systems they will put in place will not be able to do their foundation pillars, and keep PvE and PvP players happy.

Comment on this story

XHTML: Allowed code: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>