Why the needless emphasis on housing?

Oh this is no surprise to me at all!
My post concerns that advertisement and rhetorics used to describe housing is disconnected from some of the other actions and information they provided. This creates the colliding expectations seen in mny of the housing threads.
Thus the title of the thread, in particular the word "needless". If housing is a small perk not central to the game, why advertise it as a "core feature". These were not my words after all =)
I think it is not unreasonable to point this out.

Some people here seem to have a certain presumption of what irks me in this thread, yet the title and first post already state it.

 

I don't think there is an ignore feature for the forums (or maybe just not for Tapatalk.) Maybe there is and it would explain why that Michael Moore guy finally quit yelling about trust fund kids. Besides, you don't post that you're ignoring someone you do it and let them figure it out...
Hey, how come that German dude with all of the comma's stopped talking to me. He was kinda cute... Waitaminute!

sent from the future using my Coleco Adam

 

Being optimist doesnt help tbh. Funding is includes paying the various artists, developers, hardware costs, taxes, etc. Purely traditional funding in these days where there are other games which are fully free could mean shortening of the game's life expectancy.

 

No problem. If Tolkien was your first exposure to the English language that explains a lot. I was never able to read his books because of that. Great stories but I am not sure Linguists are meant to be Writers.

This is where we continue to disagree. Funding marketing HAS to different than marketing the final game. These are 2 completely different audiences and marketing is always tailored to an audience if you want it to be successful. People that fund ideas are not the same people that buy products, and this is one of the major problem with people new to crowdfunding experience. Anything you do to market an unfinished product to someone that buys end product will always be disappointed, and in the end will turn off most crowdfunders who might see you being too far along to need funding.

This is really why this funding model does not work for everyone. Housing is being pushed because that is one of the major drivers for pledges at the higher levels, or people willing to buy from the add-on store. You have no idea what they will focus on marketing wise for the final product because that is over a year away. Very, very few people not already invested will remember any of this when the product is actually released, so I doubt any of this will affect sales of the final game. The state of the final game will determine that.

Well there is a bigger problem. UO has a varied user base. If these forums are any example PVP is the only thing most care about. Seriously though many different people played UO: some cared for housing, RP, PVP, etc. Until there is more information about the game you are not going to recruit people except those that already have passion for RG, Ultima and want to help the game not knowing how it will turn out. Give it time and you will have more information to try and hook them on.

As for Pay to Win, that is an unwinnable argument. Everyone has a different opinion on what the definition is and any game that allows you to buy anything for use in-game can be considered pay to win. Since SOTA is in the crowdfunding phase it is hard to separate rewards of pledges from in-game purchases, so its just not a worthy argument at all. There is already a few threads on this within our own community. In the end, these people will need to wait until the game is released and the in-game purchasing policy is defined before you can convince them differently than they think already.

Exactly, so until SOTA is released you cannot compare them. LOL had $15 million secured in funding from private companies to build the game. Although we don't know exactly how much Portalarium had on-hand before the campaign, but we just hit $3 million. You don't think its unfair to judge them on the selling of limited housing to be able to make this game at all?

Not to mention LOL is an arena game which is really so much smaller in scale than the sandbox game SOTA is being designed as. I will admit I have not played it because I do not like these sorts of games, but from what I have seen the model is not different: especially since we do not know what in-game purchases will be. Right now there are more exclusive items than housing in the pledge levels. We can actually get emotes that will not be available in the game for anyone else. Housing does not work that way. You can be guaranteed a lot at launch by pledging, but you will be able to get a lot in-game using in-game money. The only difference is there will be a limited number of plots available, so eventually these will fill up _IF_ housing actually becomes a popular feature. However, that is unknown as there as still a lot of housing slots open in the pledge levels even if they are high priced. In addition, Portalarium has complete control on the availability of housing. More will be added in each episode, and even in episode one - if housing is popular - they could add a new town or city to open up more slots.

As for EP2-5, we don't know what kind of need for funding there will be. We don't even know what the game will sell for and there is no subscription fee. In micro-transactions don't do well and the game profit margin does not cut it then there very well might be the need for another round of funding. Personally, I would rather they come back to us then get in bed with a publisher.

 

@3devious
You can ignore someone via the full website, not on tapatalk. You click on the user's name, just below their image on the left side of the page. A small window will pop up, where you will see an ignore option.

I highly recommend it for members who cannot get along. As long as everyone stays civil and can agree to disagree, I see no use for it.

 

OP titled this thread "Why the needless emphasis on housing?" But then that is all this thread is about, housing. Then he actually participates in it bashing the housing system and the game at the same time. I think that would make a good eCard or something.


From: Houses & Plots

From:Housing Plots Soldout Question

From: Cost

And of course this thread. This is a tired subject and we really don't need another thread about it.


Edit: Oh you sneaky sneaky mods

 

I see it as pretty simple. There are two factors leading to the emphasis on housing.

One, it's what is done already. It was one of the easier things to implement, it was done first and is both easy and flashy to show off.

And the other, which is more subtle, is that right now, they are 'advertising' directly to existing backers, or trying to attract new backers. For backers, the housing will be a major feature. Once it is live, housing will not be as major a feature of the game, because it will be harder for those who join post-launch to attain property, though it will no doubt remain something to strive for. Of the total population, they are aiming at roughly 20% being able to own a home. However, among backers that number is probably much higher, especially among forum-goers... and they are trying to drive that percentage higher still, because yes, this is how the game is getting funded. People would scream bloody murder if they offered a major combat advantage... so instead they are offering a major cosmetic advantage... a lovely, custom designed house, and property.

 

Let me try to find a middle ground here. Full disclosure - shortly after release 1, a lot of threads popped up complaining about the emphasis on housing (catalyzed by, but not totally caused by, release 1) and I chimed in basically in agreement - I see combat, crafting, and questing as a much more core features, and am pretty upset that even rudimentary combat is being pushed back to R4.

People - in this thread, and others - have made reasonable points that housing is a big part of the funding for this project. It's also (at least partially because of the funding issue) the part they have worked on most, and something that's easy to showcase. The team is still trying to raise money, so it's no surprise that we're still hearing a lot about housing.

On the other hand, many have complained about the lack of communication of details of other core systems. This is the reason for the creation of the new "Weekly developer Q&A" in the Developer Depot - a lot of people are unhappy about the lack of substantial content on the Founders Developer Blog, and lack of discussion of game mechanics in the updates, and this was taken seriously and led to the idea of a weekly Q&A. I think the devs basically agreed that this was a reasonable request, and everyone left a bit happier (this thread, if anyone's interested: https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/forum/index.php?threads/forum-titles-gone.5936/). Point is, people had a legitimate grievance about the lack of information, and I think a lot of those frustrations are shared here.

In the threads that popped up shortly after release 1, many people said "Well, that is just because release 1 was the housing release - I'm sure we'll hear more about crafting leading up to release 2, and combat leading up to release 4". It's a week and a half from release 2, and there has been very little official talk of crafting. I was expecting a few recipes to be released, some talk about the different levels of tools/workbenches, and other basic features of the crafting system to get everyone excited for what's to come. Yet so far, nothing substantial. I don't blame the devs too much for this - I think they're working super hard and they're taking on a hard job of trying to keep all of us happy while trying to make a game on a very tight schedule. But I don't think it's unreasonable for people to speak up and basically say "Hey, how about we get to learn about how all these features are going to work, instead of just being told about new house decorations?"

None of this is to say that we should continue arguing for pages about how few houses there are going to be and how this is so unfair. I think the more reasonable thing to do is say "Well, I don't know how big a deal housing is going to be, but combat/questing/crafting is going to affect us all, tell us more about that!"

tl;dr: There are totally understandable reasons (on the dev side) for why housing has been a focus, but I think it's reasonable (on the user side) to want to hear about other features more.

 

Just a point to consider in this... I think this release is actually the hardest one on the team, because they are SO close together, they had to add in a whole new unplanned system (jumping), AND there was a big break right in the middle of their already tight schedule.

Not saying I don't agree with you, but those factors make me a little more understanding than otherwise.

 

Just saving us all some trouble down the road.

 

I think the house emphasis is brilliant! Housing is NOT required for the game itself NOR does it give away any of the lore. People that are not happy with the choice of housing to raise money, what else would you suggest?

People don't like Pay to Win so anything (weapons, skills, etc) that would actually impact the game itself would run into much resistance from the community.

Housing seems like a great emphasis to raise real money to me (just my humble little opinion)...

 

If it is a tired subject, just ignore it!
Yet I insist that the thrust of argument in 3 of the 4 threads is distinctively differnt, and the fourth is locked. The meta-discussion evolving in all threads could be avoided by people staying on topic.
As you had nothing to say about the topic, you help create it =)
So what exactly is your issue?

 

Sure, I agree. That's why I backed too.

Since everything is uncertain, let's think out a scenario (because we do have to think of various aspects of how to obtain and retain customers): If they made housing available to everyone who wanted to earn it (and not limited).

What do you think the original investors, the ones who spent $500 or more to own rent-free property and houses, would think of that plan? Would that not devalue the trading or selling price of their home? Would you like your original investment devalued? In fact, some probably count on the price escalating, which is why some are investing in more than one property.

What will new game owners think (that weren't around during backing) when they aren't able to access owning a plot or deed as early backers (because they're quickly sold out -- remember, it's been stated repeatedly that plots will be limited to <20%)? That they have to wait 2 or more years for a house or lot to decay, or someone to sell them a rare deed, or expensive plot?

Will decorating or owning houses be a non-issue to non-backers, making it a "meh" commodity? If so, why even bother investing expensive development time into crafting and decorating houses if <20% of players will even own one? Only for game launch? That's expensive development just to get backers.

I suppose people on both sides may not take issue with any of it. They might just shrug their shoulders and say, "meh." Some might say, "Wow, I can't wait to take 2 or more years to finally own my own house! That's one of the great challenges of the game!" But it's still worth thinking about both sides in a game design, to maximize player retention for the full series, and maximize profits due to happy customers.

 

What I don't understand with percentages being thrown around, even by SOTA is..

20%… Does that mean they already know how many players will purchase and play??
Will they remove lots from the game is they don't get as many buyers as they thought they would???

 

I really liked all of your post, but wanted to say, I haven't seen anyone in this thread complaining or stating the housing is unfair. I see people questioning the business model (even in the OP's title of the thread), and that is a fair point to discuss. When talking about game longevity, customer retention, and overall satisfaction, one must consider these issues in advance, not after a disaster happens. I call the latter "fire station management." We really don't want that, do we?

 

In each of these threads, those admonishing Portalarium for this decision say they would make more money by letting everyone have a house whether or not they will play online or even want one. Whenever a company raises the price on a product, they KNOW they will lose customers. There are formulas that help them determine how much they can raise a price and still make the revenue they want. Not everyone is as stupid as you suggest. If Portalarium did not use a good model for these projections and just sat around letting yesmen lie to them like whoever originally funded Vanguard, they deserve what they get. Sitting around carping about it does nothing other than spread negativity in the community.

sent from the future using my Coleco Adam

 

I don't know if there are answers to this. But when I personally started a thread, asking if it was a risk/gamble to buy a house deed and not a plot, I was told emphatically yes. So this percentage must be coming from somewhere on high, and spoken by RG himself. Instanced housing has also been discussed, and turned down, from what I've seen in threads.

 

I don't know about other threads, but where in this thread is someone admonishing? Are you saying that backers shouldn't have a discussion about business models? We shouldn't share an opinion in hopes it opens a discussion that helps the longevity of the game, and increased sales?

 

The plot is the important thing. The plot is what is needed to actually have a space to put a house. It's like owning a deed to land. You can put whatever you want on the land (with obvious restrictions to size, zoning, what have you) but you can't just take a house and place it nowhere. I'm almost certain you'll be able to have a plot of land with nothing on it if you choose to, but that plot is what will secure your ability to have a house placed wherever you use the plot.

 

Its obviously a rough guess since there is no way they know how many players they will have and it not good to just count pledgers. The only solid/controllable number at this point would be the number of plots in EP1. They may have that number now, but unless they plan on adding housing plots as the user pool grows - which they could do - its unlikely a solid number. More likely they are making assumptions on what their player base might be and using a percentage of what they would like. However, I have not heard a solid percentage from the Dev's. Around 10-20% has been mentioned in a non-committal, generic type of way, so I would take the percentage with a grain of salt. The only certainty is they plan on house ownership being a minority.

I doubt they will remove housing plots. I don't really think this is about keeping housing really rare and keeping players from owning houses: Although they do like the idea of this being something openly traded and not something everyone has. The main goal is to have non-instanced housing without the land sprawl problem that existed in UO. There is just no way to have a town that looks natural for the game setting yet have everyone own a house: either you would have a endless rows of houses or instanced housing that is more like apartments where multiple people magically vanish through the same door to the same structure.