To call ashes of creation “crowd funded” without explaining the >60 million dollar investment by the principal and how there are no corporate investors or publishers to muck it up seems, well, to be blunt, dishonest.
@MikeKibby That's a fair criticism, I should have been clearer! My point wasn't that it's a scam, but to draw parallels to Star Citizen in that I have little faith it'll come out anytime soon, given its long, arduous and constantly _changing_ development cycle. I felt I needed to point it out since I was talking about the alpha 2 coming out. Though I'll keep in mind that I need to be clearer about these things when I talk about AoC next time, so thanks for pointing that out! I actually do think this game will release eventually, which is why I recommend people wait till it does rather than pay 100USD to play an alpha, which I still think is insane. Crowdfunded or not, this new trend of studios asking us to pay to test their product is pretty crazy to me. What do you think?
@@ketsandhisgames IMO you have given misinformation regarding Ashes of Creation saying it is "buy to play" is wrong it is a subscription, not giving the context of why there has been changes to development is also giving the wrong information.
@@alfeena9630 Neither of those is misinformation though. It _is_ buy to play because you have to buy a package to play, the same as FFXIV is buy to play. A subscription on top of that doesn't change that. As for the development, no context changes the fact that it's been in development for close to 10 years and the issues that come with that involve concerns over whether the team is capable of setting proper targets and scope. The point Mike brought up above regarding funding is a valid one but the rest seems like fair criticism to me.
@@stephanpsillos1883 I _do_ recommend AoC! Just not right _now_. I approve of AoC fully WHEN it comes out, because I do think it would be genuinely amazing, but it's hard to recommend the alpha phase of a game that started development a decade ago imo.
@@ketsandhisgames I get that, but it is better to be patient for a good game than to rush a game and it be terrible. People have to remember that games release and are in Betas or Alphas for years.
@@stephanpsillos1883 Oh for sure, for sure, and I did want to be clear which why AoC got two seals haha, one of disapproval for now (since they're selling access to the alpha phase for high prices) and one for approval for whenever it does actually release (because the promise of the game is incredible).
@@ketsandhisgames I agree with you. It's hard to trust a developer charging you for doing a favor. And the way most MMO's flop your assessment was more than fair.
@PirateSloth I feel you tbh, I almost didn't include it but it's such a big release I couldn't keep it out. The worst part is they want you to pay to play an alpha *like* it's a full game :') Brighter Shores looks so good though, I'm actually so, so excited for it. Hopefully I'll see you in game!
Good video. I'm not completely agreeing with the "insane" amount of P2W in Throne & Liberty. As long as F2P players are able to join the leaderboards, I think you can't tag it as "insane". Edit: Not going in-depth to keep the comment short.
I'm glad you liked it! Perhaps "insane" was too strong a word tbh, but to me there's two things in T&L that kinda drive me crazy. The first is the premium battlepass giving out growthstones, and the other is the fact that the premium currency is what's used in the player marketplace. The latter is especially egregious because it's pretty much the definition of pay-to-win isn't it, since it's directly converting real money into high end gear? Still though, you're not wrong that it's a hella fun game even if you're fully f2p so I'll definitely be playing it on release!
To call ashes of creation “crowd funded” without explaining the >60 million dollar investment by the principal and how there are no corporate investors or publishers to muck it up seems, well, to be blunt, dishonest.
@MikeKibby That's a fair criticism, I should have been clearer! My point wasn't that it's a scam, but to draw parallels to Star Citizen in that I have little faith it'll come out anytime soon, given its long, arduous and constantly _changing_ development cycle. I felt I needed to point it out since I was talking about the alpha 2 coming out. Though I'll keep in mind that I need to be clearer about these things when I talk about AoC next time, so thanks for pointing that out!
I actually do think this game will release eventually, which is why I recommend people wait till it does rather than pay 100USD to play an alpha, which I still think is insane. Crowdfunded or not, this new trend of studios asking us to pay to test their product is pretty crazy to me. What do you think?
@@ketsandhisgames IMO you have given misinformation regarding Ashes of Creation saying it is "buy to play" is wrong it is a subscription, not giving the context of why there has been changes to development is also giving the wrong information.
@@alfeena9630 Neither of those is misinformation though. It _is_ buy to play because you have to buy a package to play, the same as FFXIV is buy to play. A subscription on top of that doesn't change that.
As for the development, no context changes the fact that it's been in development for close to 10 years and the issues that come with that involve concerns over whether the team is capable of setting proper targets and scope.
The point Mike brought up above regarding funding is a valid one but the rest seems like fair criticism to me.
A little suprised that AoC was disapproved but you approved two huge P2W games. That seems silly to me, but if you enjoy P2W, rock on.
@@stephanpsillos1883 I _do_ recommend AoC! Just not right _now_. I approve of AoC fully WHEN it comes out, because I do think it would be genuinely amazing, but it's hard to recommend the alpha phase of a game that started development a decade ago imo.
@@ketsandhisgames I get that, but it is better to be patient for a good game than to rush a game and it be terrible. People have to remember that games release and are in Betas or Alphas for years.
@@stephanpsillos1883 Oh for sure, for sure, and I did want to be clear which why AoC got two seals haha, one of disapproval for now (since they're selling access to the alpha phase for high prices) and one for approval for whenever it does actually release (because the promise of the game is incredible).
@@ketsandhisgames I agree with you. It's hard to trust a developer charging you for doing a favor. And the way most MMO's flop your assessment was more than fair.
Btw. since when the alpha version is considered as a game release? :( But thanks to you I have discovered Brighter Shores exist
@PirateSloth I feel you tbh, I almost didn't include it but it's such a big release I couldn't keep it out. The worst part is they want you to pay to play an alpha *like* it's a full game :')
Brighter Shores looks so good though, I'm actually so, so excited for it. Hopefully I'll see you in game!
@@ketsandhisgames definitely see you there! I will continue watching your videos till then. I like your voice
Good video. I'm not completely agreeing with the "insane" amount of P2W in Throne & Liberty. As long as F2P players are able to join the leaderboards, I think you can't tag it as "insane". Edit: Not going in-depth to keep the comment short.
I'm glad you liked it! Perhaps "insane" was too strong a word tbh, but to me there's two things in T&L that kinda drive me crazy. The first is the premium battlepass giving out growthstones, and the other is the fact that the premium currency is what's used in the player marketplace. The latter is especially egregious because it's pretty much the definition of pay-to-win isn't it, since it's directly converting real money into high end gear?
Still though, you're not wrong that it's a hella fun game even if you're fully f2p so I'll definitely be playing it on release!