Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Borb_1

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. @xlDvSlx @DvS_UK You both have failed to structure a coherent argument. Your writing is interlaced with emotional noise. Could I request that either or both of you, provide a summary of your arguments in clear statments. It would help if you can remove your emotional issues as it would be clearer to understand your arguments then. If so, thank you. Point of order: Please use correct form to argue otherwise it is polluted by too much "noise". Please avoid "over-familiarity" in your language, "appelations" such as "oi mate!" are petty attention-seeking indicators. Please remove these to make your arguments clearer. I would like to understand your arguments as I think you raise some interesting points about the monetization of Dual Universe. The above are provided as pointers to help you achieve this result. I will strike out on a limb and try nonetheless to follow the incoherent ramblings you have both produced, however: 1. You deem subscriptions to be an acceptable PAYMENT MODEL. 2. You deem MTX for "skins" etc to be acceptable additional REVENUE STREAMS. 3. You deem DACs to lead to P2W as it involves direct cash for in-game currency. You make a lot of invisible assumptions about context around these points however and exhibit a narrow view without using appropriate terminology: These need to be addressed before you can proceed with your arguments. The main gist of your argument is of the kind: "All life eventually degenerates hence cancer cells; therefore all life is cancer!" The rest of the language you use is juvenile and cannot be taken seriously until the above are addressed. For recommendation: Please elaborate on point 3 above as well as consider a wider context as well. Then your arguments can be taken seriously and usefully discussed. Until then it is classified as rambling from any random comment in any random forum and hence noise to be ignored. Finally, as it stands I don't dispute the gist of your argument that P2W in some form is implicit in the the use of DACs. But you've not even done the basics in reference to WHY it was in some senses successful solution for EVE, before elaborating further!
  2. The immediate value is very apparent to me: 1. I've never seen a comparable MMO with such "VAST 3D-ness". I honestly cannot think of another MMO with that sense of gigantic space all around, instead of a 2d plane to traverse. 2. I'm assuming there will be high numbers able to play in a shared locality that again I've always found other MMOs flunk at irrespective of advertising at being able to do this eg large battles. 3. This does not appeal to me personally, but I am estimating that the voxel "minecrafting-just-one-more-blockalizing...before bed," addictive/creative gameplay will explode for other players in a big way. 4. Put all those together. What I think this will translate to is stored gameplay sessions over time and thus when you play I am hoping some real accumulation of your time invested before benefiting your current play sessions (more and moreso). A lot of MMOs have suggested this but in my experience, I've never actually played an MMO that really delivered this to a realistically experienced degree. So I think DU will go places. The bit that appeals to me is just to be a grunt in someone else's war and pvp on planets, spacestations and space battles! But with the prior background making the pvp not mindless one-offs but all part of a long saga/story. It's not the pvp combat per se, but the quality of stories it generates given fun moments chained together. Seeing an enormous ship either destroyed or hijacked alone sparkles with such quality potential for example. On all that basis it is worth a sub: Doubly so as such a game world would be more rewarding than the sterile trope filled, sci-fi movies from say Hollywood. Interesting to wonder if such a game might even rival boxed tv sets even.
  3. There's any number of these subscriptions however; off the top of the head: 1. Monthly gym membership 2. Music streaming sub 3. Amazon prime or somesuch 4. Steam Sales or somesuch 5. Charity per month or somesuch 6. MMO sub... So it's as much the cumulative burden of all these services that is the issue as well as most MMOs are simply terrible and not increasing in returns the longer you play (which is how they need to be). If I am honest, it's less the price that concerns me, as you say, assuming the quality of this game is about "up there" then it's going to be brilliant fun. It's more the time I have available to COMMIT to it that concerns me. That said, I think a huge world like this could kill off interest in a lot of other genres so it does make sense if it's up to quality to allocate a certain time to the game if that criteria is filled.
  4. No you should not get it - yet. You're on the fence and the information is not visible enough for you to make a purchase decision based around, considering the normal assumption of "opportunity cost" and also "locked cost" once you purchase. Just be patient, there's any number of other things to do until the game is more developed and more info is available on more features which are more polished and PLAY-ABLE. That said, from my own objective point of view: The TREND of development: It's RATE and QUALITY (ie timeliness of meeting milestones that are significant and not superficial) is impressive for a game of this scope! So that is the very positive side to waiting atm. Personally I am waiting as I always said for Alpha 3. For a few reasons: 1. I knew the milestones for Alpha 1 and 2 would BOTH come with a few extra months delays so it was worth just waiting longer. 2. By Alpha 3 I presume the base game it's CORE FOUNDATION will be more solid (the building, crafting, economy stuff and performance of course). This is already a WORLD of gameplay interest and creativity alone. 3. Building on the above, a first glimpse of PvP is WORTH 60$ to me in such a large and player made ship MMO multi-crew game, and I can buy a more powerful spec ready machine for that time too for better price with all the above already in place making other players busy and hence generating not blind nonsense pvp but some interesting REASONS for pvp. 4. It will be interesting to feed back to the devs that PvP will be a very careful system to implement. This system will take a long time to integrate correctly and all the while the devs can improve the ship combat itself for fun reasons while ensuring it serves a useful role in the actual overall game world itself. 5. I think if the devs are successful at hitting this part even in NDA, the game is going to start catching a lot of interest... we might see a lot of our friends from Star Citizen and other space games come along and check out the interesting possibilities for interaction in DU. 6. It's still ALPHA. Even then and will take even longer to get to BETA which is really where most people should consider the first place to start. But if you are asking now then I'd say Alpha 3 for people like you who are already considering at this very early stage esp. given getting into good orgs and making an economic impact and so forth are going to be valuable more early on. Hope that helps.
  5. https://www.raphkoster.com/2019/01/30/what-drives-retention/ Dual Universe has A LOT MORE GaaS features than other games in one game and the scope is much bigger too. As for "revenue models" =/= GaaS as per Koster; then the players to then sell in game creations (& whatnot); which naturally will knock on effect with the in-game currency and out-game investment as well. I think that is quite interesting to think about.
  6. Possibly in time. But probably not immediately. The other issue is that with NQ as the effective central banker that can track everything, that's a critical developer function for a virtual world with a virtual economy - certainly to mature the economy first to a sufficiently robust place. I do like the suggestions of financial gameplay (some cool boardgames of various types here iirc), but big BUT!
  7. Fun but probably disastrous for the economy's internal growth. Exponential growth in the wrong direction is no fun either just a huge waste of effort by most and perhaps a lot of fun by a few. Bit like real world banking...
  8. JC provides more (high level) context here: https://medium.com/@jcbaillie/dual-universe-redefines-the-meaning-of-massively-multiplayer-with-over-30-000-a04c0e8b4106 He mentions it's not fully comparable to EVE's large battles (high interaction load) of ~6k but on the other hand 30k headless clients (although again not necessarily testing the full wilds of the internet) makes for "ecosystemic / network effect " scaling up on player interaction + persistence change. Namely, boardgames as a form of small group game are very effective mediums. Whereas networked computers imo have not really pushed (certainly graphically) what is achievable at much larger game number of players that is possible. DU is heading in that direction which is good. I'd disagree with the definition of metaverse but it certainly ticks the "flash" coinage needed to sell the idea so not going to get into flame wars over cross-purposes!! ?
  9. Quite "incredible" when it is also combined with the other technologies as well as one can see from the video: the realized spheroid planets of voxels, the constructs (is that the scene of the snow castle from inception?) Inner space suddenly looks very large. It would seem that this result is the result of good decisions and hard work made by NQ team. Good going and keep on going.
  10. Yes, at present this seems the simplest and therefore most robust and most flexible direction of unfolding of gameplay by player behaviour in DU (that might happen). I agree. Note, emphasis: Building is probably a very rewarding activity at a very basic level of interaction for MOST potential players of DU. Thus building to start with and alone is sufficient FUN. Add to that then next designing and tweaking and interacting and sharing and memory forming and property and social (all without any combat or military interest) SAFELY and you have yourself a huge enterprise already - in game. Note, such agglomerations increase social osmosis / ambience which a lot of players enjoy as well as opposed to a 1984 style of anxiety from threat of constant attack. The fact of the matter is, the exploring, scanning, planning, mining, "secure the area", logistics, consuming time, grindy stuff and risk of loss is a very different type of gameplay appealing to large groups who are more "hardcore"/competitive minded than the above but nonetheless can supply the above players with the necessary "stuff" to do their gameplay - and compete with each other to do so. Given the gigantic size of the game world, seems there's space enough for everyone.
  11. Lethys has covered every pertinent point, perfectly. Also plenty of players will want replica/antique SC, SW or ST etc et al ships with their owns standards of design, don't forget. The odd name change and appearance tweak to suffice. Likewise scavenging appeals to me but there's zero indication at present it would even be a feature. So let's see what problems arise then players will find solutions as opposed to solutions looking for problems. As said orgs will probably have most need to mass produce to a standard that is effective in use and efficient in production. Public will want all sorts of crazy designs no doubt, which is a good thing: Personal expression and aesthetics will often have personal value beyond in-game economic value.
  12. Blown Away! I know that's an over-used expression but it applies. The whole collection of entries is in fact more impressive than the 3 winners. Ie the diversity and style variety and quality. Thanks a todos / tout le monde
  13. One of the previous limitations was "no automated actions without a nearby player" to limit server load, to also consider with respect to static automatic turrets. Someone will have to be on hand, perhaps fingering the console control GUI (sorry conscious ape-thinking AI, you'll have to rise the robots in another universe!)? So we'll have to see what PvP players actually do, is my guess (to each other to note!). Perhaps in Alpha 3 we can "would you like to learn more?"? But noted with respect to the sheer amount of "space" that PvP'ers will operate over. That will be very interesting.
  14. Yes, this hits the nail on the head with respect to INTEGRATED PvP gameplay +/With Civilization (aka building "the sims") Gameplay. If this is the underlying basis then it makes sense for some form of fortification/defences eg automated turrets and timers and whatnot. It's an excellent point to assert before then suggesting how to defend eg turrets. Perhaps the strongest case is for such provisions outside safe zones to be possible? So it goes back to what will be the right balance of safe zones to pvp fortified zones? That's an interesting question. I've tended to err on the side of parsimony: People who want to build want to build with 100% guarantees that their time and money investment is secure whenever they return to it and pvp'ers in general will concentrate on pvp and domination and competition. But a a halfway house, the idea that fortifications can create PvP cities for pvp'ers: It's a good call in that scenario though I doubt it will be the major scenario: Mostly a project of prestige or "power projection": Though such a project would be a flame to moths or more appropriately, a giant moth to many flames. Taxing for protection or security money is an interesting way to integrate cities and combat. Though as above, the problem is 2 different game plays ; what role cities to pvp'ers who would want to convert every profit into muscle power or hive fleet numbers and secondly even with protections it's almost as if such a project would attract even more interest by those who enjoy destroying! I mean to claim you sack a huge city and toppled it to the ground is probably one of the most rewarding stories possible in game to boast about... and thus paying taxes for this result is ultimately money down the drain proposition?
  15. As to the theme genre = sci-fi, No true sci-fi and all that? Hell there probably wouldn't even be human meat-sacks but some sort of AI transferrable over some new super fast wave form across robotic physical infrastructure! Let's not go down that road. ? The first assumption is that automated turrets are needed? For what? People who want "cities in space" probably don't want combat but building. Hence it's already counter-productive to include PvP in such areas. People who want combat probably will need to do so for economic reasons to make pvp integrated into the game for long-term (re-)cycling of gameplay. They'll be interested in actual human to human combat gameplay eg ships and base attacks of other pvp-economic groups who want to control the money and resources and networks in the game to supply the cities. Hence auto-defences seem like a non-starter. If players are involved in the above, they'll need to grow into behemoth groups in the first place and with enough players online to either attack or defend - and inevitably be stretched thus creating natural distribution of groups in dynamic equilibrium of contest. Anything else? It sounds like a lot of assumptions and complexity for a result that may not arise and may not even be noticed or even be fun. No defences which can be automated with players around to run them from control panels in the base? For sure! The question is? What permanent structure is ever going to be worth a pvp economic org's time? They'll put weapons and manpower up where it's at the sharp end - which presumably is a "movable feast"?? Just asking some "check questions?" Not necessarily asserting the above over other claims to the contrary... ?
  • Create New...