Interesting (Splitting Single-Player from Multiplayer?)

There's nothing that says they can't still bundle it all together. They could give three options:

1. Single Player OFFLINE.
2. Upgrade DLC to Multiplayer.
3. Deluxe Package with Single Player Offline and Multiplayer.

This is consistent with many other games that I've purchased on Steam.

 

It's a little different. Star Citizen has a whole single player campaign that has nothing to do with the MMO game.

SOTA has the same campaign in both offline and online. Certain things will just function differently. Doesn't really make sense the same way.

 

And then they have to start all over and ask for a refund. I just don't see it working very well. Free trials would probably work better.

 

You just mean they can be played independently of one another.

That's not a good enough reason to sell them as two individual experiences.

The only good justification I could see for doing that was if both experiences truly stood apart from one another, and were 'separated' by more than whether or not one needs an internet connection, by which I mean SP offline was built ground-up and designed as an SP game.

In other words, if the people paying for an SP offline game were getting a game designed to be an SP offline game.

 

Aren't they?

https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/f.../single-player-offline-unique-features.21739/

 

I believe the jury is still out on that question.

 

Well sure...

But no more than the jury is out on the Bard's Tale or Underworld Ascendant. Two games that I backed during the Kickstarter's that I have almost zero visibility on. So why are people holding SOTA to a higher standard than any other game? I swear it's like some people can't help but hold SOTA to a standard that uses it's own transparency against it as if the lack of evidence in current development is somehow proof that nothing good will be accomplished, all the while these other games haven't shown squat about what they're doing and not doing or how many bugs they have or how much fun the game is at this stage of development and no one cares. It's really funny to compare the day to day questioning of SOTA verses just about anything else in development.

 

I think it is an interesting concept. I can see the pros for the cash side. I can see massive negatives for offline only backers and to the press and to those who already scream foul play at everything the devs do.

I honestly don't feel the offline mode is likely to be sufficient as a stand alone game, unless there was a massive price reduction. My opinion might change when we get closer to the non-existent launch, but currently, including the stuff they say they are planning to implement, I don't feel selling the offline only would be a good decision. As a few people have said, once the game is actually complete and proves my fears and concerns unwarranted, then yes it might be a good idea to do a shift like that. The suggestion isn't horrid, as some seem to indicate, but in my opinion I don't think it would benefit Port enough in the long run to make it worth the short term heartache it would cause. It wouldn't be even remotely difficult to do because offline is already separated. I just think it would be bad PR for a game that already has a fair bit of naysayers.

SC can get away with it because as a few have said, the gaming experiences are 100% different. Ours isn't.

 

Sounds like the "Greed" monster has hit you, looking for ways to milk it for all its worth, also sounds like a cop out to me, charging twice for the same thing... Besides, it's already set up this way, I'm sure they have better things to do with their time than to change course mid stream. I think too many ppl think this is already Pay2Win, so what kind if signal would this change send? Not a very good one I'm sure... We're supposed to build a reputation, not tear it down, don't you think? Steam has already discounted it 50% (I'm not impressed with steam anyways, seems like a very combative group, more interested in destroying games, than promoting them)...

 

Not sure about you but I get updates from the dev teams for both of those games fairly regularly, or at least I did until recently... I pledged for beta access though so maybe that's why. Did you fill out your backer info on their sites so they can contact you? Anyways, I only said the jury's out because honestly, we actually have seen virtually no feedback for single player SotA (except maybe the companions will follow you around, and you'll be able to save your game progress - oooh! ahhh! yay!!!) since day 1, and we're almost into "alpha"-alpha already.

By the way, since it sounds like you might be wondering, from what I've seen of Bard's Tale and UA so far they both look pretty awesome.

P.S. Not trying to be a jerk, just backing up my original statement. Cheers!

 

The explanation seems rather simple to me.
Der Fluch der guten Tat. Roughly translated: The curse of the good deed.
If you don't show your development people can't judge so they don't even try. If you do it like sota they will judge every step. Be it extremely good or bad, doesn't matter.
Or in other words: People being people.

 

We don't know yet.

There are two possible outcomes here:

1. SP is grafted to the MP experience, and includes features that make it more accessible to those who play solo offline.
2. SP offline is built as an SP experience, wholly separate from MP design choices.

The second option I would be far more likely to support being sold as its own game (hell, I'd even cheer for it!) because it's been designed to be its own game and requires a helluvalot more work to create. I would consider that extra work justifiable cause to treat it as its own entity and sold as such.

I don't know which outcome we will get. I am saying there are fundamental design differences between these two possibilities, and that not all outcomes are equal. Portalarium could sell either one separately, but being able to do something doesn't mean one should.


(I doubt they would do it in either case, anyway. Not only has RG stated that he hopes everyone tries playing SotA online, he also considers MP a core requirement of the Ultimate RPG Experience, which is what he's trying to make. He'll want everyone to have access to MP just on the hope offliners will try it out at some point.)

 

I would even support another Kickstarter campaign if this means SP offline would become a real SP experience free of all MMO design choices.

 

Hah, truth be told I've become too jaded to back another KS on the back of this one. It's too late for that -- for me, at least. But I'd probably buy it once it was released, if my Ultima-loving friends hyped it to me enough.

 

Be so kind and name them.
Maybe I am finally able to understand what you are trying to achieve.

 

So consider this..

The game is currently a single package bundle and being developed as a single game with one set of install files. None of that should change.

Here is what changes...

Portalarium makes episode 1 in single player offline mode a free to play "trial experience" for episode 1 only. No change for multiplayer episode one as it will still require the minimum tier pledge to play as it is now.

Once episode 2 releases, single player offline is made available, with all future episodes included with only a minimum level pledge purchase and as a result ALSO provides access to multiplayer online episode 1.

So now, with the purchase of the minimum level pledge, you own the full offline game AND episode 1 multiplayer online.

The free to play episode one encourages a modest purchase of single player offline mode which also gives you access to episode 1 multiplayer online, which encourages the purchase of future episodes of multiplayer and tiered pledges.

This may seem confusing at first, but if it's structured in phased releases as I've outlined, it's no different than purchasing new releases of any other game when new phases of content are released, for example, upgrading from vanilla wow to the burning crusade, then later to wrath of the lich king, then to that goofy panda BS.

+1, this has potential.

 

I am sorry but it has no potential.
This is almost absurd complicated and sounds like a idea a Korean indi-mmo developer would have Oo

 

Open your mind to the possibility and it becomes very simple, especially over the course of a 5-7 year release schedule.

 

Thanks but I am not the open minded one. I am sure you have already realized that.

If you want to bring more money into this game why don't 'you people' with all those ideas do the easiest thing first?
Write positive reviews on every page you can find. Make commercials in every forum you are in.
Instead you guys start a post with a ton of awkward ideas that only scares off potential new players.
Sota already has the reputation of a money grab game and this whole posting doesn't help with that.
I know I am slightly overreacting but this starts to be tiresome.

 

This wouldn't be a bad idea, if they decided to do it for later releases, but it's pretty much too late now to make SPO a trial mode for Ep 1, since it was included as a feature at the time folks bought it. My other concern has been (for awhile now) that most pledge levels after a certain point have included Ep 2-5 as well. That means those are already essentially bought and paid for, and Portalarium has to deliver them with the monies already gathered.

That's been the rub for me; how are they planning on making it financially feasible for the long term development and maintenance? There's no subscription fee, and since they're currently looking at a niche "Early Access" market (in their own words, they're not planning to advertise or drum up new players until official "release"), any other monies basically have to come from the Add-On store to offset whatever other copies they do sell. I dunno, there's only so many digital dogs and hats you can really buy before it putters out.

It wouldn't be a bad idea to split the concept for the later releases to apply after a cut-off point like SC has done.