BlorgonSlayer

There's a difference between being able to and wanting to. This post is a long and convoluted way of saying you can afford them if you want to, which yeah, duh, but what you fail to realize, is that some don't want to. If there is a free to play option, as it seems DAC promises, then people want that, and want to know it is possible by putting a reasonable amount of time into earning DAC in game.

I wonder whether all Stargates will be publicly available for use, or if it would be possible to make them private, so if you want to pioneer a particular area without competition, it would be possible.

You point to all these games that have done f2p poorly, I could point to many games that have a sub system that are still garbage. Having one or the other doesn't make a game good or bad. I do hear you and agree about the loot box issue. That is a bane to the gaming industry, and I wish it would go away forever. However, things like microtransactions, if done right, can be just fine. I mean, DU already has a microtransaction system planned with the DACs. Other games have done microtransactions well, like SWTOR for example, that has the cartel market. These items are purely aesthetic, and don't affect gameplay at all. I really don't see why this couldn't be a viable business model for DU. The things that get unlocked for those who subscribe or those who buy credits to the premium market could be costume pieces, building textures, and other fancy looking, but purely aesthetic, items. It would not affect gameplay in any way whatsoever, only allow you to build cooler looking things. I'm just saying, I guaruntee there is going to be a whole segment of the market that will not even play the game, because they don't want to (or simply can't) pay over $100 a year for a game. Yes, there is DAC you can earn in game, but I'm skeptical of that working until I see it actually working. . At the very least, I think a trial period would be good, to let people understand what it is they are shelling money out for and so they can decide whether it's actually worth it for them to subscribe. During the trial period, you could earn DAC if you want to continue, thus basically allowing the game to be f2p if you work hard enough at it.

In defense of NQ, there is definitely "content" in terms of drag and drop components, i.e. thrusters, generators, lights, etc, as well as plants, wildlife, and natural textures. All of this will be improved as the game is developed, and I could see them putting out new designs of all these things over time. Whether that justifies the subscription model is another question. Many other AAA games offer endless updates of content, with high server loads, and yet they somehow manage a f2p model just fine. Of course, they're technically freemium, and a subscription will get you more benefits, content, aesthetics, etc. So I don't really get why the subscription model is an absolute *must have* for this game, but I will say it's a smart business move, for sure.

Even with all those people, they are still saying it will take a long time to actually build stuff. We'll see I guess.

If you found Empyrion boring, I'm not sure why you think you'll like a game where it takes 100 times longer to build anything, lol. But you're right, it is subjective, and to each their own. I just thought maybe there was something I was missing here, but I guess not.

I'm just going to reiterate, that the things that many people are mentioning here as "different" are not really different at all. Other games have the freedom to explore, the freedom to build, the freedom to be what you want, all in the context of a space sim. Other games have the voxel aspect which allows you to dig real minerals out of the ground and leave a hole where those minerals were, even carve out the side of a mountain and build a base there. Other games have (or plan to have) a fully functioning, player driven economy, bounty systems, warring factions, and all these things that DU claims will make it stand out from the crowd. And yes, even as it is in Empyrion, when you die in DU, you will simply get more resources and move on with your life. They are almost the identical game, except in DU, the players are not given the tools of "god" to customize their universe and play in their own customized universe with their friends as they see fit. So basically, it's like Empyrion and Star citizen had a baby, but had less features than both. I mean, I am going to be keeping my eye on the game, and seeing what they bring to the table, but I'm seriously skeptical. There is definitely a lot of hype around this game, considering how much money they've raised and how many people are in the community. I hope it turns out something truly unique and interesting. But for now, I'll stick to the games that already exist and are doing it better.

I definitely get what you're saying. The thing that makes DU different than a game like Empyrion is the MMO aspect, and having a single persistent universe. What I'm saying is that perhaps the things that sets it apart is also the thing that makes it shallow and unable to live up to the hype that surrounds it currently. So you can mine and build a big ass city and trade and fight. What is the end goal here? What happens after you have a nice city, and the most impressive fleet in the Galaxy so no one can dare attack your city, and you have all the resources you need well guarded, and others have the same that they put hours upon hours of work into and don't want to provoke others to destroy their work? It seems that on one hand, there is a linear progression to the game, and after that point, you'll probably be pretty bored, and on the other hand, there is so much work that goes into building that I can't see why anyone would want to invite harm on their creations. The scale they're talking here of months to years to build something, seems to preclude the most interesting aspects of this sort of game. Maybe some people will want to do it, but I'd be surprised if anyone actually fights because of the work involved in building. People say Empyrion is grindy. Multiply that by 100. So I'm just saying, I want to believe in this game, based on how exited people are about it, but it really doesn't seem like anything special to me, just because of the type of game they are building. There are other games out there that offer similar things, without the limitations that this game has imposed on itself.

The point remains, even at the level of customization that exists now, it is more than will ever exist in DU. Also, I'm not sure how you could downplay the immersion in EGS. You literally have to eat multiple times a day to survive, and you can get a poisonous spider bite and die if you don't treat it. These aspects are being further developed in coming updates as well, where simple medical issues can progress to more severe issues. So I'm not sure how you could think there is minimal immersion there. It's one of the most immersive games I've ever played tbh.

Yes, in 7.x and earlier, this is the case. However, check out what is being planned for 8.0. Not only will you be able to customize the biomes of a planet, in a very specific way, but the planets are growing a whole lot, up to over 2000+ square km. Yes, still a whole lot smaller than the scale of what is being planned for DU, but it will no longer be possible to walk around planets in one sitting. https://empyriononline.com/threads/road-to-alpha-8-development-update-ii.36744/

This is kind of the point of this thread. Yes, it is different from the majority of other games, for sure. However, it is drawing heavily from some other games that are in development now, and due to the approach they are taking in combining all these aspects, I'm not sure they are going to do it better than those doing these things independently. Yes, the graphics are amazing, but due to the voxel system, star citizen's graphics will always be better. Yes, it is an exciting open world sandbox space sim, but due to the graphics and single shard, it is less immersive and realistic than something like Empyrion. So yes, it is different, in that it is combining all these different aspects, but is it better than the games it is combining? I'm not sold that it is. I do understand that this is extremely early to be making such judgements, and time will tell how the game develops, but at this state, given the limitations that have been set up from the get go, I'm skeptical of the hype.

All these are good points, but there are two further points I would like to make here, that have me skeptical of this game. The first is that with the ambition that the game has, to have one single shard universe, with highly rendered graphics, and everything being completely user interactive, I feel there will inevitably be sacrifices made in certain areas. For example, there will be no water physics, or collision physics, because of the layer of complexity that these things add. I've also read that things like air tightness will not be considered at all, and survival mechanics are not a major priority either. So you may be living in a very realistic looking universe, but because all the resources are being dedicated to making it look good at every scale, and making it so thousands of players can play at once, a lot of other areas will suffer. The second issue is that having a single shard universe whose planets and systems are completely created by the devs, means that the players have no control or say over the parameters of the universe at all. Contrast this to a game like Empyrion, which allows you to completely tweak the universe to your preference, and is now introducing multiple biomes to planets, which are based on parameters like humidity, temperature, etc. I'd be surprised if NQ was doing anything like this, and they definitely won't be putting such tools into the hands of the players. Sure, the players do guide the development of the civilizations to every degree, but Empyrion already allows this if you want to set up your own server in such a way, except the server owner can manipulate the planet conditions as well. There may be fewer players in one place, but there is greater customization, flexibility, and realism, because of how they have decided to approach multiplayer, and because they are not trying to make their game look like the real world in every respect. So I definitely think there are pluses and minuses to the approach that NQ is taking. I'm still skeptical that it will be better than what exists or is in development currently, but I guess time will tell.

Ah, I was not aware of this. Good to know. So based on that alone, it seems that what DU is trying to accomplish is quite revolutionary, especially in the voxel game space.

EGS has two main modes - single player and multiplayer. The single player is obviously offline. The multiplayer mode is online, with over 1500 servers to choose from. Some have as few as 4 people on the server, and the largest ones have up to 200-300 people on the server. Each server has their own rules and scenarios, based on how the server admin sets it up. The admin can set up each planet however they want, create points of interest for players to interact with, and set rules for each planet, with some being all pvp based, and others with set pvp planets and other pve planets. I honestly think I like this approach better than a single shard universe, because it allows users to not just drive content in terms of how the civilizations are built, but also in terms of how the planets themselves are designed, how populated with wildlife and resources they are, etc. I don't see anything like this in DU a of yet. It's true that the single shard has the advantage in terms of networking and density overall. It's definitely true. However, for the above mentioned reasons, I think the single shard has some trade offs as well. See my newly created thread on this subject where we can discuss this topic in more depth and not take away from the original intent of this thread.

What makes this game stand out from other games that exist already? The overall single detailed universe is being done by Star Citizen. The space sandbox builder has been done by several other games already, such as Empyrion Galactic Survival and Space Engineers, as well as others. To me, it seems the primary differences are as follows: 1.) Top notch graphics (better than EGS and SE, but maybe on par or a bit below star citizen). 2.) Single shard universe (again, not the first to do it, see Star Citizen, EVE, but first to do it in a highly rendered voxel world) 3.) Completely user driven content - this one seems to be the most unique of all of them (although perhaps there is a game out there that had this, like minecraft, not sure) So it seems the main differences are not necessarily differences, but the fact that they are taking all these elements that other games have done and combining them into one game. Is this a correct assessment? What do you think makes the game stand out the most? Edit: Also, let's discuss the pros and cons of combining all of these components into one game. What tradeoffs are there compared to these other games that DU draws from?

It is an MO. Missing the "massively" part, since the largest servers only have 200-300 people, but it is still an entertaining online experience, complete with factions and pvp that is very similar to what DU is proposing. Again, one of the few things that distinguishes DU from EGS is the single server. It seems NQ is putting a lot of stock in that idea. Anyway, this is a bit divergent from the OP here. I may start a new thread on this subject where we can discuss the similarities/differences between other games in more depth.

Empyrion Galactic Survival

Another poll worth doing is "what game brought you to this one", or "how did you hear about this game". For me, it was the chatter over on the EGS forums. I'm a new player there, and heard people mentioning that this game was good/bad, so I thought I'd check it out for myself. I'm still not convinced that this game has anything unique to offer that EGS hasn't done already, except maybe better graphics and a single unified server. Not sure that's worth a monthly subscription when I can play EGS for a one time payment.

I'll just add a voice of support for having animals *at some point in development*. I wouldn't mind if they weren't added till late beta, but I do think that the game would not be complete without at least some critters running around, some of which are slightly dangerous. It would be fine if it turned out that we were the only highly intelligent humanoids in the universe, and all other creatures are just basically wild animals, so as to not get involved with any sort of npc space fighting AI, but that would be cool if you did decide to add it at a very later stage. Overall though, I don't think the universe should be riddled with hostiles. Think of real life. You go for a long hike in the wilderness, and you may or may not encounter any wildlife at all. Maybe a squirrel or bird or other small critter. If you're really unlucky, you might run into a bear or mountain lion, and that creature may decide that you look tasty. So overall, I think that if creatures are added, they should be hard to come by in most cases, and that you really need to hunt them down if you want to have a wild caught dinner. Then again, this could also really depend on the habitat you're in. More tropical biomes have a lot more diversity and density of wildlife than say an arctic biome. So I think if it is implemented, the frequency of animal sightings should vary by biome. Again, overall, I understand that this adds a layer of extreme complexity that is not really a priority at this time for the devs, so don't worry about it right now. I would love to see it eventually though.

Ok, this all makes a lot more sense now. Those with RL money can use DAC to get ahead in the game, while basically subsidizing the ability of those without RL money to keep playing, as long as they work for it in game. I like it actually. Sounds good. I do hope they are not lootable, considering it is something that is directly tied to RL money. They should be some kind of digital item that is kept in extreme security, and only transferable voluntarily. At least that's my opinion of it anyway.

So if DAC is more expensive than sub price, why would anyone buy it IRL in the first place? This doesn't make sense to me.

So I guess if this is the case, it would end up being a very rare commodity, that people would sell for a very high price in game. I guess this allays my concerns, so long as it's not something you can farm or hoard, and that is in very scarce supply overall. From what I read, they made it seem like you could just earn it in game, making paying a real world subscription obsolete. I guess technically this is true, but only once you've gotten yourself really well established with enough credits to buy them, and also only if you can find them for sale. I'd imagine them to be a very hot commodity.

Sorry if this has been discussed to death elsewhere, and if so, feel free to direct me there, but I'm just wondering how hard it will be to get DAC, so that you can pay for a subscription over a certain period, and then stop paying. If it is easy, I wonder how this will be a long term sustainable financial model for the company, and how they will monetize things if everyone can just earn a subscription by doing some simple tasks in game. If they are harder to get, I am worried that that is all people will focus on doing. I don't know enough about the economy system yet, so I'm not sure if there will be set prices or if it will be player determined prices, but I would think that the concept of DAC would lead to farming, for the purpose of hoarding DAC, and that whole businesses would be built around obtaining and selling this commodity that is not even related to the actual gameplay. So how will DAC work overall, and how will NQ address some of my concerns above?

I think attacking a ship full of minerals on it's way to or from a secure area would still be perfectly viable. Likewise, if orgs get into a disagreement over minerals rights in a certain area, then they could certainly go to war over it. So I think there will be lots of loss and pvp, but MSAs just ensure that no one loses it all, and have something to work with if their ship full of minerals is hijacked by pirates.

Assuming the game will have a living breathing economy complete with job boards, I don't see why someone couldn't be a freelance, aligning themselves with whoever they choose as it suits their needs for the moment. Yes, joining an org will make things much easier, but for those who prefer to be the lone wolf, I don't see why it would be impractical at all. You could start out with odd jobs planetside, such as mining or whatever other manual labor people need, to earn enough credits to build or buy a ship, then do either escort/defense, transport/cargo, or whatever other jobs require a ship of some kind. Or you could start your own small scale mining/forestry company. Or you could design some simple ships or bases and earn royalties on their designs as people buy them. Or you could specialize in crafting rare or custom items and selling them on the galactic market. Then, once you've made enough money to be self sufficient, you could pursue your dream of retiring into solitude in some remote corner of the Galaxy. So it would certainly be more difficult than aligning with an org, but the way I'm imagining the game, I think it would be perfectly feasible for those who wanted to try it that way. Who knows, maybe at the end of the day, you'll end up like Han Solo, who clearly preferred to roll alone, but ended up in a loose alliance with the rebels.