Interesting (Splitting Single-Player from Multiplayer?)

At this point, it feels like it would be a lot more headache and mess trying to split the two apart than would be worth the cost. As others stated, you'd end up having to have extra teams, separate guidelines, etc for essentially developing two independent games. I'm sure it could be done, but at this late of a stage before rolling out the permanent world, I think it would end up with a lot more drama and frustration by throwing the gears in reverse.

I also agree that the push for financing has been more geared towards online mode, so removing that for players would probably be counterproductive.

 

My vote is No. Trying to make them equal when separate would be harder.

I will be playing both single player offline and multiplayer online.

 

Joe average gamer doesn't like change - that's what I'm hearing.

Personally I'd see a move like this to mean that Portalarium thought so highly in their ability to sell the single player game as a stand alone product that they split it from the other features. If today you could buy both for $45 but tomorrow you could buy both for $75, I don't really see what the controversy would be all about.

As for claims of elitism, I think that's a conversation that is dismissive at it's core. If people believe something is elitism, there's nothing anyone is going to be able to tell them that will change their minds. There's a lot I could say in defense of SOTA that there's nothing elitist about it, but every conversation I've been in like that is me saying facts and other people saying how they "feel". It's pretty frustrating.

 

I have contended forever that the two games are different animals, but proof awaits release. I contend that splitting the two would take less planning and easier execution than the present system. I also think it makes better business sense to sell both separately.

 

Lol, speaking of dismissive.

I just think this idea is garbage.

How many of the below game points would be messed up with this idea?

Episodic Content: Shroud of the Avatar will consist of five episodes that will tell a series of virtue based stories created by Richard Garriott and Tracy Hickman. All supported by a series of prequel novels starting with Blade of the Avatar.

Single Player Offline Mode: Players will adventure through over 40 hours of story in an interactive world where their choices have consequences, ethical paradoxes give them pause, and they play a vital part in weaving their own story into the immersive world and lore surrounding them.

Selective Multiplayer Modes: If you want to go through the story online you can play with everyone in a single world with three different online modes (Single Player, Friends Only, and Open).

Classless Character System: Vast customization options with hundreds of skills and spells in over 20 different skill trees.

Skillful Combat: A new way to prepare and fight in an RPG by building custom decks of skills and dynamically activating them in combat.

PVP: Consensual with Open PVP flags, zones, and Guild Warfare.

Player Housing: Non instanced, finite, and embedded in the world with multiple group living options.

Player Driven Economy: Deep crafting system where the best items are made by players and player items are the main source of loot found in the game.

Pay Once to Play: No subscription fees. Each episode (released approximately annually) is a one time fee and everything in the game can be purchased with in game gold that can be earned (except for some exclusive backer rewards).

Social: Full Guild System, Highly Active Community and Player Owned Towns.

Crowd Sourced & Funded: Support the project by contributing content (and receive compensation) or by pledging (and receive exclusive rewards).

Open Development: Players help shape the game by giving feedback on monthly early access releases, videos, weekly updates, blog postings, forums, chat, etc.

Edited: For a nicer tone.

 

Joe average gamer....
Ok. Before I fly into a rage, please point out the points I am not able too see. Just count them down please. I am really not even remotely able to see why this is a brilliant idea.

 

That's what I mean, Kvow. You think this idea is "garbage". Which is fine with me. So I'll just agree to disagree with you. I don't think the idea is garbage, nor do I think that we have a problem with elitism here.

I'm not sure why you listed all those points, I don't see where there's a disconnect between paying for a single player game or paying for a mulitplayer game, or paying for both. I don't see where Star Citizen would have that problem anymore than we would. But we disagree, and that's fine.

 

Because we'd be offering two games instead of one and we'd make more money that way?

 

But we do not offer two games. We offer a Single player game and the same game in an online Version.

 

Currently, yes.

All I'm trying about doing is offering the single player (non-online) version separately as a stand alone game. And only for new backers starting at some date in the future (just like Star Citizen). This wouldn't impact current backers at all.

 

Sounds good. I appreiate that you can understand I specifically said the idea and not you. It's not a personal attack. Thanks for noticing that.

I'm already tired of explaining the tiers and tiers of rewards to people. This would just add to the mess in my opinion.

Carry on!

 

Nope. It's far too late to be trying massive changes like this. Polish, Finish, Optimize, Stability. This is the final stretch before persistence, not 3+ years ago when they should have had this as a core feature.

So, my response is a hearty: Hells no!

 

It's not a massive change. They're just changing their pricing model. heh

It's probably as easy as Dallas or Starr changing some verbiage on the website, and then someone pushing a single player only version to steam.

 

Split the list into things you can do in SPO and things you can do in MPO and see that the game has less to offer to siloed sales.

 

How about we wait and see how the game sells after "Final" wipe. If it starts to explode (like Star Citizen), consider two separate games for full release.

Early adopters, all of us, already received a lot of rewards and benefits for pledging early. Lets not create an even large chasm for the newcomer.

All of our rewards for pledging early will be virtually worthless if the game doesn't have a vibrant community.

 

This thread is getting such a weird reaction that I never imagined it would receive. I mean, this is basically like saying "hey gamers if you only like the single player aspects of what we're offering, here's another option for your to purchase only what you're interested in!" Why that would be considered a bad thing, I don't know.

 

Save that they're not two games... they're different modes of playing the same game, using the same code base, running on the same hardware.

 

The rest of us have everything so why wouldn't someone want that?

MPO is a barely functioning one leg stool. That being said it's the first thing to head out the door in 5.5 months. SPO will only have one of the three working questlines by that time.

Perhaps this idea is 2 years ahead of itself?

 

My expectation would be that they would sell single player only access for the actual launch of single player.

 

You can't split a game into two games, when one game is not even complete yet.. why am I even wasting time replying? This is a bad idea. And the thought of 'joe gamer'... isn't that who is responsible for WOW and all the other 'theme park' mmo's? So we would lose a lot of what we are trying to build.