blundertwink

The technology to prevent that without blockchains is there. It is standard for online banking, credit cards and even small online shops. Money duplication is pretty much non-existing. The only way to "cheat" here is to hack accounts and steal existing money (unless you are a bank that creates checkbook money, but that is another story). If MMOs have problems with exploits than not by missing technology but by bad design and programming. Block chains without proper implementation wouldn't solve this problem. And whoever can implement them properly would also be able to do it the traditional way, which is much faster and cheaper.

The only point to playing is to throw money at NQ so they can spend it elsewhere 🤷‍♂️  Not exactly the most honest way to run a studio, but I guess that's how they approach PR in general. 
 
As for their other project, here's what their CEO posted a few hours ago:
 

 
NQ's higher ups don't view DU the same as players.
 
To them, it's still a stroke of genius and all about "breaking boundaries" and innovation. This is how web3/crypto people think, though -- they don't care about use case or implementation or game design or anything else that exists in the real world. These sorts can't distinguish between "innovative" and "good" -- novelty isn't always intelligent. 
 
This general lack of humility is why NQ's next venture will turn out no different than their previous one. They still don't understand why game design matters more than tech or innovation...and it's shocking to me that they'd actually work on another game with this mindset, having learned nothing from the last 8 years of failure. 
 
If all you can see is how great you are, you'll never learn from past mistakes -- and NQ has shown over and over that they don't learn from past mistakes. 

But NQ isn't really working on DU anymore, so....you literally care more about seeing the game improve than they do. It isn't going to change, certainly not anytime soon.  
 
We're talking about a game that has had fewer and fewer DAUs since release -- a steady, linear decline driven by churn that's never shown even a hint of reversing or even plateuing. 
 
NQ has been clear that their focus is on a new gaming project, not DU.
 
Whatever ideas you have about improving the game are not going to be listened to...and even if they are, whatever skeleton crew is still working on DU isn't going to be in a hurry to patch the game because it has no commercial future at all. 
 
My suggestion is to not post ideas here, because this idea that NQ is trying to make this game work long-term isn't based on reality and fact. All evidence points to the idea that they've given up on DU and are focused on new projects. 

Blockchains make sense for decentralised systems. But MMO's are usually hosted by a vendor with a central server or server grid constituting the single source of truth. In this case it is much better to permit and log all transactions server-side without excessive encryption.

Considering the insane amount of scams and issues in Crypto I hope they pass more legislation. I haven't met a single average person that Crypto has impacted positively... the few people I knew who invested lost A LOT, lost most of it. 
 
I'm all for a NFT Crypto game, just don't taint it by trying to tie it into an unregulated financial service, aka coins 4 cash. And if game companies did that, they wouldn't need to sign that letter or worry about financial regulations. Nothing stops them from selling traditional MTX tied to an item on the block chain to ensure authenticity. It only gets dicey when they add the ability to cash out tokens for money... that invites all the money laundering and other financial crimes. 
 
'It's a fun game that also makes you money' - Logan Paul, founder of Crypto Zoo game/scam. 
 
Crypto bros have lead sheep to the largest scams in the history of human civilization. You just have to tell the sheep to hodl, and they won't know your fleecing them, such a neat trick.
 
"By number of Ponzi schemes there are way more in crypto, kinda per capita, than in other places." - Sam Bankman Fried
 
Hey, didn't NQ just spend years to deliver a game that wasn't as advertised? With kickstarter items still not shipped on a game that launched last year? With many customers calling it a scam because of these and many other valid issues? NQ will fit right in then.  

The only point to playing is to throw money at NQ so they can spend it elsewhere 🤷‍♂️  Not exactly the most honest way to run a studio, but I guess that's how they approach PR in general. 
 
As for their other project, here's what their CEO posted a few hours ago:
 

 
NQ's higher ups don't view DU the same as players.
 
To them, it's still a stroke of genius and all about "breaking boundaries" and innovation. This is how web3/crypto people think, though -- they don't care about use case or implementation or game design or anything else that exists in the real world. These sorts can't distinguish between "innovative" and "good" -- novelty isn't always intelligent. 
 
This general lack of humility is why NQ's next venture will turn out no different than their previous one. They still don't understand why game design matters more than tech or innovation...and it's shocking to me that they'd actually work on another game with this mindset, having learned nothing from the last 8 years of failure. 
 
If all you can see is how great you are, you'll never learn from past mistakes -- and NQ has shown over and over that they don't learn from past mistakes. 

The only point to playing is to throw money at NQ so they can spend it elsewhere 🤷‍♂️  Not exactly the most honest way to run a studio, but I guess that's how they approach PR in general. 
 
As for their other project, here's what their CEO posted a few hours ago:
 

 
NQ's higher ups don't view DU the same as players.
 
To them, it's still a stroke of genius and all about "breaking boundaries" and innovation. This is how web3/crypto people think, though -- they don't care about use case or implementation or game design or anything else that exists in the real world. These sorts can't distinguish between "innovative" and "good" -- novelty isn't always intelligent. 
 
This general lack of humility is why NQ's next venture will turn out no different than their previous one. They still don't understand why game design matters more than tech or innovation...and it's shocking to me that they'd actually work on another game with this mindset, having learned nothing from the last 8 years of failure. 
 
If all you can see is how great you are, you'll never learn from past mistakes -- and NQ has shown over and over that they don't learn from past mistakes. 

I am not disagreeing at all. Ideas are worthless without a functional implementation.
 
But NQ's leadership still has to at least pretend that they have a plan for the future and act accordingly, be it NFT or getting bought or whatever. The alternative is to close doors and admit that all the invested money has been lost.

The only point to playing is to throw money at NQ so they can spend it elsewhere 🤷‍♂️  Not exactly the most honest way to run a studio, but I guess that's how they approach PR in general. 
 
As for their other project, here's what their CEO posted a few hours ago:
 

 
NQ's higher ups don't view DU the same as players.
 
To them, it's still a stroke of genius and all about "breaking boundaries" and innovation. This is how web3/crypto people think, though -- they don't care about use case or implementation or game design or anything else that exists in the real world. These sorts can't distinguish between "innovative" and "good" -- novelty isn't always intelligent. 
 
This general lack of humility is why NQ's next venture will turn out no different than their previous one. They still don't understand why game design matters more than tech or innovation...and it's shocking to me that they'd actually work on another game with this mindset, having learned nothing from the last 8 years of failure. 
 
If all you can see is how great you are, you'll never learn from past mistakes -- and NQ has shown over and over that they don't learn from past mistakes. 

It provides actual security by encrypting requests and replies. 
 
Without it, the communication between your browser and a server is sent in plain-text. A third party could easily intercept data being sent between client and server, and that can be very bad news.
 
There's a reason Google sounds so many alarms and doesn't want to auto-fill your credit card on a non-https site! As evil as they are, they aren't always wrong. 
 
So SSL/TLS does provide "actual" security. The web is far safer with every site being forced to use it (although not really "forced" since you can ignore Chrome's warnings). 
 
Even if you're feeding data to a scammer behind an HTTPs site, it's better that some third party isn't also intercepting and using that data. SSL/TLS is about the protocol, not the site or the content or the organization. No one clicks on that lock icon to verify the organization; that's one facet of security but not the most important one.  
 
That anyone can use it doesn't make it inherently "not useful" -- but again, in this case it's about protocol and not content. 
 
I think I took this thread wildly off topic to talk about security in general, so I do apologize to the OP!
 
TLDR is that cybersecurity is complicated and it's better to be paranoid and never underestimate malicious actors. 

Code signing isn't an example of this, though....it's absurdly cheap and there's a billion different vendors. It isn't that hard to swap vendors. 
 
Neither is TLS/SSL (which is also free and extremely easy nowadays via services like LetsEncrypt).
 
At least in my opinion, there are far greater examples of "walled gardens" (like AWS) that are far more complex, more vendor locked, and more problematic for consumers overall. 
 
These security concepts are very, very, very minor inconvenience to developers and a minuscule cost of doing business compared to any other facet of development like staff, hardware, or platforms.
 
Especially concepts like TLS/SSL -- it takes devs 10 minutes or less to install a free LE cert (assuming they even need to do this themselves, which is hardly typical) but it does give a lot of benefit to end users.
 
There's a reason it's standard practice and there's no reason any site without SSL should be trusted in 2023 considering how damn easy it is to install relative to the benefit! Either they are too lazy to care, or too incompetent to be trusted. 
 
Ultimately, a world without code signing or TLS/SSL would be a less secure place.
 
I'm not saying there's no such thing as scammy anti-virus BS or that every security feature is valid, but IMO this isn't an example of big tech walled gardens or other BS like that...these are just common sense standard security practices that are a tiny, tiny, tiny effort/cost, especially compared to many other more scammy concepts in tech.

As anyone can plainly see, NovaQuark is looking for people to join their team: https://www.welcometothejungle.com/en/companies/novaquark/jobs 
 
The top open position is for a Monetization Designer.
 
That means one thing: DU is getting in app purchases, and I'd expect is going free to play long-term.
 
The sub model doesn't work for a game of this scale and never will...Regardless of your feelings on free to play as a model, this is what MMOs that don't work as subs invariably do because it sometimes works...and there's really no other option. 
 
Here are the responsibilities for the new role in case you think this means something else: 
 
Product owner for the monetization design. Design flexible monetization and economy systems and features (progression & reward structures, currencies, sinks & sources etc.) with coherent KPIs and testing plans. Work closely with Design on progression, unlocks, economy and with Art on new content definition & production Collaborate with Finance & Producers on KPIs & Business Plan and with Live Ops/Data regarding new content & key KPIs Work closely with UI & Engineers regarding backend tools and with Marketing on asset production for new content Day-to-day contact for all internal teams when it comes to building and delivering monetization features Write and maintain design documentation that will serve as a reference to guide interdependent teams. Provide your input on in-game content and pricing + come up with suggestions to refine designs.  
As has been said many times, if DU is going to survive....it can't survive as a subscription game. 
 
Unfortunately, I tend to think this will freeze feature dev for a long while (as if it has ever been a priority for the past years lol).
 
This will mean many more refactors to core systems to make the game work around monetization, which is time that won't be spent on things like TW. 
 
What do you think about DU getting IAPs? Do you think DU going free to play is inevitable with this...or will they still cling to the delusion of a sub? 

I'm not convinced that terrain modification of any sort is practical at scale for most MMOs.
 
The benefits it brings are overrated relative to the complexity and inherent scaling issues. 
 
Even with simplistic cube-based voxels, terrain modification can't scale without hard limits in any MMO -- especially in a single shard subscription MMO where there's no mechanisms to control traffic or monetize users beyond the one flat fee (which can't scale due to increasing costs over time).
 
The problem isn't their implementation of terrain systems, it's the core design...voxels don't solve anything at all with the fundamental problem! 
 
The issue has never been the way terrain is rendered (voxels vs. mesh), it's the scale of terraforming that doesn't work with an MMO like DU, period. 
 
If NQ had asked the question "how will this scale?" early on, they'd have saved a lot of time and money that could have been invested elsewhere....but again, the founder started this project with no game dev experience (and limited career experience outside academia). He cared more about metaverse fantasy than real-life engineering.
 
Honestly, there are a lot of great ideas that would "improve" DU, but finding great ideas that are practical, scalable, and realistic to implement for a team of their size...? Very difficult if not impossible. 

I understand that perspective 100% -- and can't really defend the integrity of the company, overall.
 
That said...the definition of "scammy" has sadly evolved in even the last few years.
 
For all their faults, NQ spent 8 years trying to make this game. It was absurdly ambitious, poorly funded from the start (relative to the genre), but they did invest time in an effort to make a game.
 
I think that effort is still worth some level of respect, especially for the devs that invested so much time for relatively little reward (as game devs are notoriously underpaid). 
 
There are "play to earn" MMOs (like this one) that really epitomize what "scam" means in the modern game industry. 
 
NQ is far from perfect and hardly the most honest company or a company with great PR / communication skills...but I don't think it's a full on "scam" compared to many of the seedier players in this industry today. They could have spent a ton less effort to make a lot more money if they really wanted to be like that.
 
Not saying I trust NQ or view them as a company with a lot of honesty, but I'd learn toward "they tried but didn't have the experience" versus "this was all a scam from the start". 
 
Of course...for all I know, NQ's next project is some sort of similar web3 / NFT / play to earn BS -- NQ's leadership hasn't been shy about embracing these silly concepts...so I guess we'll see...? 

Wrong. 
 
First, it helps people that are interested in the game -- they deserve to know if the developer charging them month-to-month is actually focused on the game. 
 
Second, it helps people that are already subscribed...NQ is clearly saying "we're working on other things", they just aren't keen on announcing it in places that most gamers see. People have every right to know what they're paying for and if DU is NQ's main priority, because the actual evidence sure doesn't indicate it is. 
 
Third, I'm not obligated to "help or get out of the way" (as if a post that no one reads is somehow "getting in the way" lol). If you disagree with my opinion, fine...you're free to articulate your opinion and explain your reasoning, too. 
 
But you aren't lord of the forum that gets to brand opinions or observations they don't like as "trolling".
 
To me, trolling people is attacking people personally instead of discussing the topic or focusing on opinions about the game.

I do find it a bit funny that some people insist that the game is not only great, but that it's popular.
 
When you mention Steam stats they get really mad and insist that Steam "means nothing" because it's only one part of the picture...which is true.
 
There's also an ocean of bad reviews (both from players and press), no social growth at all in years, no one watching on twitch, no major dev progress for a long time now, and both the CEO and NQ's open job postings clearly stating that they are working on multiple projects other than DU. 
 
The last new feature (that wasn't merely refactoring concepts they already had) was what...? Alien Cores and the new FTUE introduced around April of 2022...?
 
The only new "content" announced after 4 months of horrible release numbers is what...one PvE mission? 
 
But sure, DU is the one magical product in the universe that's growing organically while showing no growth across social, negative growth on Steam, little press, no ads, and no major feature development. Sounds reasonable to me. 🤷‍♂️

Yet NQ is still claiming that their tech is absolutely groundbreaking and cutting edge. This is from the CEO's public post just today: 
 
 
There's a fine line between being proud of the tech they made (which is fair for such a small studio) and arrogance about shit that's never worked at scale...
 
This idea that NQ was so advanced back in 2020 and so "ahead of the game" is so weird to me...almost as weird as using the term "metaverse frenzy" as if it became some explosively popular concept. 
 
This is how web3 / blockchain people often think, though...they care only about the idea, not the implementation or use case...and certainly not scale. 
 
I understand that NQ is doing what they think is best to survive, but I am really doubtful that they've learned any humility from their experience with DU as they continue to insist their tech stack is actually amazing despite legendarily poor performance, an ocean of bugs, and no proven ability to scale. 

As anyone can plainly see, NovaQuark is looking for people to join their team: https://www.welcometothejungle.com/en/companies/novaquark/jobs 
 
The top open position is for a Monetization Designer.
 
That means one thing: DU is getting in app purchases, and I'd expect is going free to play long-term.
 
The sub model doesn't work for a game of this scale and never will...Regardless of your feelings on free to play as a model, this is what MMOs that don't work as subs invariably do because it sometimes works...and there's really no other option. 
 
Here are the responsibilities for the new role in case you think this means something else: 
 
Product owner for the monetization design. Design flexible monetization and economy systems and features (progression & reward structures, currencies, sinks & sources etc.) with coherent KPIs and testing plans. Work closely with Design on progression, unlocks, economy and with Art on new content definition & production Collaborate with Finance & Producers on KPIs & Business Plan and with Live Ops/Data regarding new content & key KPIs Work closely with UI & Engineers regarding backend tools and with Marketing on asset production for new content Day-to-day contact for all internal teams when it comes to building and delivering monetization features Write and maintain design documentation that will serve as a reference to guide interdependent teams. Provide your input on in-game content and pricing + come up with suggestions to refine designs.  
As has been said many times, if DU is going to survive....it can't survive as a subscription game. 
 
Unfortunately, I tend to think this will freeze feature dev for a long while (as if it has ever been a priority for the past years lol).
 
This will mean many more refactors to core systems to make the game work around monetization, which is time that won't be spent on things like TW. 
 
What do you think about DU getting IAPs? Do you think DU going free to play is inevitable with this...or will they still cling to the delusion of a sub? 

I agree completely, which is why I believe that DU is going free to play...or at the very least dropping the sub in favor of an initial purchase price plus IAPs. 
 
The barrier to entry for a sub is remarkably high today. Consumers don't view it the same as merely buying a $15 game -- and I think most people understand why, especially with the glut of subscription products across every vertical. 
 
I think the idea that more people would try DU if there was no sub or initial commitment is valid. As with everything, success depends on the implementation.
 
I can easily see how it would lead to new players, but will those new players be engaged long enough to buy IAPs? The end result might be a wealth of rapidly churning new players that increase costs without leading to more revenue. 
 
This is why they're looking for an actual specialist in monetization design...to try to manipulate that math such that it's a sure win and to make sure KPIs are carefully tracked. 
 
Which means bad things for DU's design, most likely...there can be no "permanently safe" bases in a FTP model. But then, we all knew that wasn't sustainable since they day they announced the revamped FTUE. 

今更？！！ 　As we say in Japan, "Ima sara?"..... Oh, so *now* we're down to a double digit player base they are talking about monetization?
Another one we use in situations like this is...
後の祭り! Ato no matsuri..... meaning, "the festival is already over..."

Microtransactions with the current population is going to be pretty much the death throes of DU. There is no way MTs can raise useful amounts of cash with these numbers. Unless MTs stands for Mega Transactions.

All evidence points to DU having a very minimal dev team, as NQ's CEO has repeatedly stated their focus is on projects other than DU. That obviously means resources are being spent elsewhere. 
 
Do they test? Probably not very much, all things considered.
 
They've been on the struggle bus in terms of technical debt for many years now, and that will only get worse over time because the game has failed commercially. It would be absurd to suggest that NQ will hire more devs to waste on this product. The few devs they have now can't possibly grow or fix the game on their own. 
 
All in all, the game is still a vastly unfinished mess after over 8 years of development and over 5 months of launch. The idea that they might someday pull a "NMS" and turn it around is just pure fantasy -- not with dwindling resources, dwindling players, and an overall crap design, a design which isn't even close to being finished even if it were engaging for more than a few niche players. 

I don't really agree, that they've had updates isn't the same thing as developing the game. What real features were added in 1.1 and 1.2? It's 5+ months after release now...clearly it isn't enough. Why would anyone think that 1.3 is going to be a big feature...?
 
We're talking about one single PvE mission when having PvE content over 5 months after release for an MMO is not exactly something to celebrate when the expectations from every other product in this genre is that this is standard.
 
I don't view NQ's slow and minor updates as real development...but I'll agree that's entirely subjective and it's up to players to decide if their new skins and one new mission is enough to grow the game. I don't see it. 
 
 
Except that DU hasn't had more than 1,000 concurrent players on Steam ever...its active player count has cratered since release down to barely over 100 people a day!
 
There's an ocean of difference between DU and a game like PUBG or EQ. Those games have had some level of scale in their life, DU hasn't. Even NQ's CEO describes DU as a "moonshot". 
 
There's a huge, huge difference between "doomsaying" -- declaring something without any evidence -- and DU, where there's no objective evidence to indicate actual player growth. 
 
Occupied territory count is a far worse metric than Steam stats because of what I've already explained -- the only metrics tell you anything for a subscription product are churn rate and number of subs. Steam stats are the closest thing to churn rate we can see because it measures DAUs -- territory counts do not. A few hundred new players every few weeks is really, really bad even if you assume a conservative churn rate based on known metrics. That's not growth. 
 
We're talking about a game that as I'm writing this has 19 people playing it on Steam. That's what death looks like. 
 
There's more people playing 2015's "Corgi Warlock" on Steam than DU, an MMO that's not been out a year. That's not a growing, alive game. 

I don't really agree, that they've had updates isn't the same thing as developing the game. What real features were added in 1.1 and 1.2? It's 5+ months after release now...clearly it isn't enough. Why would anyone think that 1.3 is going to be a big feature...?
 
We're talking about one single PvE mission when having PvE content over 5 months after release for an MMO is not exactly something to celebrate when the expectations from every other product in this genre is that this is standard.
 
I don't view NQ's slow and minor updates as real development...but I'll agree that's entirely subjective and it's up to players to decide if their new skins and one new mission is enough to grow the game. I don't see it. 
 
 
Except that DU hasn't had more than 1,000 concurrent players on Steam ever...its active player count has cratered since release down to barely over 100 people a day!
 
There's an ocean of difference between DU and a game like PUBG or EQ. Those games have had some level of scale in their life, DU hasn't. Even NQ's CEO describes DU as a "moonshot". 
 
There's a huge, huge difference between "doomsaying" -- declaring something without any evidence -- and DU, where there's no objective evidence to indicate actual player growth. 
 
Occupied territory count is a far worse metric than Steam stats because of what I've already explained -- the only metrics tell you anything for a subscription product are churn rate and number of subs. Steam stats are the closest thing to churn rate we can see because it measures DAUs -- territory counts do not. A few hundred new players every few weeks is really, really bad even if you assume a conservative churn rate based on known metrics. That's not growth. 
 
We're talking about a game that as I'm writing this has 19 people playing it on Steam. That's what death looks like. 
 
There's more people playing 2015's "Corgi Warlock" on Steam than DU, an MMO that's not been out a year. That's not a growing, alive game. 

I don't really agree, that they've had updates isn't the same thing as developing the game. What real features were added in 1.1 and 1.2? It's 5+ months after release now...clearly it isn't enough. Why would anyone think that 1.3 is going to be a big feature...?
 
We're talking about one single PvE mission when having PvE content over 5 months after release for an MMO is not exactly something to celebrate when the expectations from every other product in this genre is that this is standard.
 
I don't view NQ's slow and minor updates as real development...but I'll agree that's entirely subjective and it's up to players to decide if their new skins and one new mission is enough to grow the game. I don't see it. 
 
 
Except that DU hasn't had more than 1,000 concurrent players on Steam ever...its active player count has cratered since release down to barely over 100 people a day!
 
There's an ocean of difference between DU and a game like PUBG or EQ. Those games have had some level of scale in their life, DU hasn't. Even NQ's CEO describes DU as a "moonshot". 
 
There's a huge, huge difference between "doomsaying" -- declaring something without any evidence -- and DU, where there's no objective evidence to indicate actual player growth. 
 
Occupied territory count is a far worse metric than Steam stats because of what I've already explained -- the only metrics tell you anything for a subscription product are churn rate and number of subs. Steam stats are the closest thing to churn rate we can see because it measures DAUs -- territory counts do not. A few hundred new players every few weeks is really, really bad even if you assume a conservative churn rate based on known metrics. That's not growth. 
 
We're talking about a game that as I'm writing this has 19 people playing it on Steam. That's what death looks like. 
 
There's more people playing 2015's "Corgi Warlock" on Steam than DU, an MMO that's not been out a year. That's not a growing, alive game. 

I'm sorry, but this idea is absurdly bad for any subscription based MMO.
 
To me, it betrays a complete misunderstanding of how subscription-based monetization works at a fundamental level. 
 
This idea that once someone's sub lapses, they ought to be completely purged from the game is immensely counter-productive. From a business perspective, it makes zero sense. 
 
This is because every subscription-based product faces high month-to-month churn, and with DU that's especially so. Every churned user then becomes a potential customer, because reengaging lapsed subscribers is a huge facet of any viable subscription service.
 
Consider what percent of active Netflix subscribers has at one point paused or cancelled their sub. I'd wager it's a vast majority. This is just a core concept with how subscriptions work, and any sub-based product that decides to ignore this is not going to last very long. 
 
Deciding to make it so there's no reason for lapsed users to return is an objectively stupid idea for any subscription...especially one that suffers from as much churn as DU. 
 
The push and pull between DU keeping tiles and reclaiming them has been discussed for a long, long time -- the flaw is inherent in the design of this game and the solution that NQ already has makes a lot more sense than this suggestion.
 
Hell, I'd argue timers should be even higher, because 3 months is not nearly enough time to re-engage a lapsed sub, and that's the whole point. 
 
TLDR: a game with so few subs can't be so arrogant in deleting old stuff to "make room" for new players, because there are no new players and regardless, all new players eventually become churned players (especially with DU's high churn rates), so this "strategy" is horribly counter-productive in every conceivable way.