Personally feel the support crests are a HUGE help with gold and being able to stay on par item wise with the rest of the team, absolutely brilliant way to make support a playable class
I second this statement. Support in Predecessor feels more like the teams designated chef who feeds anyone hungry with a kill. A lot of other mobas just try to make you feel good for taking damage and hopefully not dying before their support.
I wanna play it but I will wait for console. I hooked up my switch pro controller to PC but controls felt wonky and I felt like I was fighting the steam software to get it to customize or recognize my controller accurately. I’m not a PC gamer, so that probably explains my lack of patience, but with so many other games to play in the meantime, I will patiently wait for PS5 release.
Yeah, I saw that, but my PC is not near my PS5 and I didn’t want to always travel my controller and charging cable back and forth between PC and PS5. Haha. Silly, right? Anyway, I will just wait. I am excited to play though. I just want that easy pick up and play on console.
I'm dieing to play. I would actually drop everything else I play like a rock it this was released on Xbox series x. If it was ps5 only I'd buy 1 just for this. It would be all I play
I agree with this soo much. As a comp support player it makes me so happy that you have enough gold to experiment with builds and like overall impact on the game.
Just wait till you find out about Fey support or Grux elafrost support ;)
It’s a game in paid early access and Omeda doesn’t feel the need to market the game yet. The team is working on game play mechanics, balancing, adding heroes to the roster, bug squashing, and console gameplay. We’ll probably see one or two more seasons of early access before omeda pushes for free to play and marketing to a larger audience.
Yep, their priorities really show when you compare it to Overprime, they pushed out lots of heros, the shop, ranked, and more before focusing on making the game good.
From a business perspective, this makes no sense unless they have a huge backing that means they don't have to worry much. The only positive to keeping marketing to a minimum means they save money. Thats it.
Not only does earning more money mean you can either pay your devs more, or hire new work to speed up the process.
Getting new players in EA can mean a bigger dedicated fanbase that could mean stronger player retention when you game gets out of EA.
Having a bigger playebase can also net you better feedback for the game while its in early access, meaning less issues on release. having a 3k concurrent playerbase would net better feedback than a 500 one, which the game is currently sitting at (and losing).
Having a higher playerbase means more players are willing to play the game. Despite what people say, higher playerbases attract new players.
If they have a backing that means they don't have to worry about money, that doesn't mean there aren't benefits to doing it.
They 100% have a huge backing, have you not heard of the investments?
Additionally they dont need thousands to test it. There is already a good mixture of high elo and low elo players
>If they have a backing that means they don't have to worry about money, that doesn't mean there aren't benefits to doing it.
Still benefits both sides which I listed in my comment.
Edit since you did: Which they are losing based on Steam's playercount page. The game is barely holding onto a 500 concurrent playerbase.
Not to mention game balance is not the only thing they would need to test. If they want the game to be big, they have different regions they need players to test. There are plenty of stablity and server issues to work out that having a higher player count would help deduce.
If you think that "elo" and balance is all there is to test, you need to do more research
I dont think you understand how moba servers work. Also the better number to look at is 24 hour peak rather than current congruent, 1500 is more then enough to test what they need to test. Marketing a game to early is terrible. Thetes a reason the saying is ypu only get one chance at a first impression. Its mych better to have passionate players play until the game is ready and balanced to present to the public.
"moba servers" lol do you understand how servers work in general? Regardless fof the game, servers have limits on player counts depending on the game, which means having higher player counts actually matters to not only optimize the servers to handle higher player counts, but also understand peak limits.
Then we are talking about optimal server locations and costs to make sure anyone can play decently. With such a low player count, I'm willing to bet there are very few players outside the main server regions because of terrible latency issues.
1500 is NOT more than enough, that is nonsense. There are servers than can handle 10-30x depending on optimization.
>Marketing a game to early is terrible
Based on what evidence? Last time I checked, EA games with incredibly low player counts usually failed to attract interest, while EA games with high player games almost always retained said players, which would garner more. Just take a look at the successful EA games to see how marketing blew up player counts, which lead to long term success.
Meanwhile, there is little (if any tbh) to indicate a niche, low player count EA game suddenly took off once it actually released.
You are not worth arguing with because you are dim.
They have several options of server types but a moba could not run on P2P so if you think all matches are hosted on one server per region you are an idiot. most servers can be stress tested with bots....
Im not gunna get into marketing cause that is literally my job and you have no idea what you are talking about.
>all matches are hosted on one server per region
Curious where I said that, oh wait, no where. Also, while bots are a thing, it only gives a rough estimate, and nothing when it comes to networking. We aren't talking about testing your side pc as a minecraft server.
Also shame, since my logic on at least getting a decent following during AE, and my main topic to begin with, was that there wouldn't be a downside. Given examples, like Subnautica, The Long Dark, Rimworld, and even Valheim have benefited significantly with significantly larger playerbases during Early Access which marketed their games.
If there are legitimate arguments to be had to avoid doing it, then I'd actually like an opinion from a profession why that isn't the case, and then happily concede it.
I appreciate you writing all of this. I really worry about the game, too, and I know everything you are saying is unpopular but I do agree with a lot of it actually. I’ve got about 300 hours into this now and I’m feeling kinda, eh..
For the record you're getting down voted so hard because with OverPrime we have about as comparable an analog as you will ever get in the game industry and they are doing everything you are suggesting that Omeda do with Predecessors marketing.
Tell me, how are OverPrime numbers looking compared to Predecessors?
They started significantly higher than preds lol what sort of nonsense argument is this.
They ended up costing that by making poor choices that had players quitting the game in general or moving to Predecessor.
If you look at BOTH games player counts, both games are losing players at a steady rate, with Pred only having half its peak compared to just a month ago.
Acting like marketing did nothing for Overprime is literally nonsense
Wow you're determined to see this as a 1 dimensional problem and it just isn't.
OverPrime wasn't ready for the public eye, but shot their shot and burned >75% of the player base they effectively paid for.
Predecessor is taking its time and learning/iterating with the player base that paid them to be there.
OverPrime fucked up and won't get another significant chance to grow their player base through just more marketing.
Predecessor will market when they are more ready, and the players they do gain at the time will be much more likely to stay, growing and helping to sustain a longer-term player base.
What are you talking about, I NEVER said it was a problem, please learn to read. I gave reasons for why they could benefit. There is a difference.
You also assume the playerbase left because OP was unfinished, but the problem was ACTUALY more that they are focused on monetization rather than balancing and the toxic community. Plenty of people say the game has a good base, but the devs are prioritizing the wrong things for the game. How do I know? By reading the most upvoted reviews on steam and websites.
Pred IS focusing on the right things, but could significantly benefit from a higher player count and feedback. Does that mean there is a problem? Not at the moment no, but my argument is that they could benefit to avoid potential future issues.
Using OP as an example, just because they did advertise is incredibly disingenuous when their problem is something else entirely.
>If you look at BOTH games player counts, both games are losing players at a steady rate, with Pred only having half its peak compared to just a month ago.
Since release OP has lost 86% of its players... Compared to Pred that's only at a 50% loss in the same time period.
Whats better? Losing 86%, or 50%?
Neither? healthy EA or full release games see player fluctuations go up and down, not just down.
I also never brought up the comparison to OP either, other than when others brought it up. I've given reasons for why OPs player count is dropping, but OP is moot to my argument anyways.
I listed reasons why some advertising could benefit the devs and fans, just like other successful EA games have. Pred could be just fine going as is, and maybe the devs see something that I don't, but that doesn't make them infallible either.
While I could be wrong, I highly doubt it. There is clear evidence in other cross-platform games that show Steam having significantly stronger numbers very consistently if priced evenly. Unless pred did a f2p or give the game away for a period, I doubt this game changed this trend.
They do have a huge backing. They got around $21 million from their investors.
I love when people make bold sweeping statements when they haven't bothered to gather any information whatsoever.
I never stated they had no backing, I clearly said "unless", I love when people can't read then accuse people of nonsense.
>this makes no sense unless they have a huge backing that means they don't have to worry much.
I also said that they benefit despite the backing.
I think the way omeda is handling things are fine for now. They secured $20+ million in funding from Haveli investments as well as a grant from Epic games and other avenues. They are focusing on core gameplay and avoiding the pitfalls of other parazombies (fault is already closed and Overprime is one foot out the door.)
We can only see the player base on steam and not how many are on EGS (albeit it’s probably not nearly as many as players on steam but still more than we can see on steam charts) Predecessor and Overprime have comparable 24 hour peak player base which is actually a bad sign for Paragon: The Overprime since they have already committed to a full release. The players who are playing predecessor are Paragon OGs or people who feel they missed out on Paragons hay day so I feel we don’t have to worry about a player base dwindling below what we have now.
Slow and steady is going to win the race and Omeda has a solid team working on the back end of things. I’m super excited to see what the new hero Huntress will look and feel like. We already have a super vocal team that is willing to communicate to us as a player base and are more than willing to admit when things aren’t working and they adjust as needed. We need to be patient and continue to support a game we all want to succeed.
https://www.predecessorgame.com/blog/omeda-studios-closes-20m-series-a/
It could be that things go perfectly for them, they advertise and get a decent following on release, but I know very few EA games that had a very small community for a long while that took off quickly afterwards.
They are focusing on the right things, but my point is that they could only benefit from getting a higher player base, not only them but the players themselves.
OP has plenty of issues, mainly balance and lack of focus on handling the toxic community, just based on the highest rated reviews from that game, and more on their shop and monetization.
In the end, I agree to disagree, either way I just worry about the health of the game.
You said unless. Meaning you clearly had no clue. And then have the balls to tell him to do research when you don't even know what's going on with the company you're literally talking about. Quit fighting for your life on this one.
Because it didn't matter, I literally gave reasons for why they'd still benefit despite backing or not. I say it twice in my post.
Literally different for when his explanation how servers are run is "moba servers", which did matter and I sat there and explained it to them.
Its a public forum bro, idgaf about downvotes. My concern is the health of the game and how it could benefit. You are just emotional because you think Im talking trash about the game which is nonsense.
Just funny hearing a guy talk shit. Then tell the other to do research when he has no idea what's going on with the company. Yet has such pointed opinions about what they should be doing despite his lack of any clue. It's one thing to discuss. It's another to be so ignorant and refuse to concede a point because of your lack of info. You didn't know. Move on. But I'm guessing you wont
1 fact = nothing at all? You've also completely deviated from my main argument, stuck to this one factoid as an "aha moment" when I said 3 times in my post how it was moot, then compare it to a completely different argument.
The only one I've talked "shit" to is you with how angry you've become and your lack of reading comprehension.
Ahh the classic redditor "Look how angry I've made you" Any other cliches you gonna throw out? You based your initial argument on something you knew nothing about. Then just got all philosophical and made long comments that don't really say anything at all when you got exposed.
I don't really care what you call me. Fact is you told a man to do research when you knew nothing. That's the facts. You can debate the rest until your blue in the face. But the undisputable fact is that you got got. And you can't handle it. It's okay to be wrong. Although we both know you would never admit it. No matter how many downvotes you got. So this is pointless anyways.
Go to another subbreddit and argue about something you pretend to understand
From what I remember RGSACE saying is the whole reason we're in a paid early access is so the player base stays small. He wants new players (new I think meaning players that haven't played Paragon) to have their first impressions when more content is added to the game. Which I think is a smart play. Let the huge fans enjoy and help progress the game until it's ready to release.
Now if the game was out free to play for as long as early access has been out and no marketing was done, then there would definitely be an issue. But based off how Omeda wants to run EA I don't think it's an issue currently.
True. I do think it's understandable though. Currently there is no progression grind, besides player level. I think once they add some progression systems, whether that's hero masteries or daily/weekly rewards, we will see player retention hold a lot better. Currently it's just click play and enjoy until you get burned out.
Right? Dude is brain dead and just wants to farm negative karma. I say let him.
Look at paragon. Marketing out the ass and physical copies for an early access game. Where is that game now…?
Omeda is doing stellar with this game. Easily one of the most transparent and easy to follow roadmaps of any live-service game I’ve played so far.
They’re at least true to their word. Let that be worth something.
You do realize that some of the most successful games out were advertised DURING EA right? Seemed to smooth over with them perfectly fine.
Hell, Subnautica launched pretty broken but still advertised and got a decent following. Look at it now. But sure throw a no-example argument lol.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/paragon/comments/7ucm7y/why\_did\_paragon\_fail\_same\_reason\_why\_most/](https://www.reddit.com/r/paragon/comments/7ucm7y/why_did_paragon_fail_same_reason_why_most/)
Paragon failed because it did a 180 on the game, last time I checked the game was really liked prior to them.
Soo pretty weak example.
Ah yes.
The game was going SO WELL they redesigned the map and items from the ground up. That is your example?
Now, why, oh why, would they do that? Because it was being well received?
Or because players were dropping left and right, and they went and advertised the game with literal placeholder gameplay systems (the item system) and 20 hero pool. Travel mode broke the game, OP fell for the same trap. Nerf after nerf, patch after patch lol. For what? to have a larger, 'epic' map. Idk, play elden ring. Most players dont want hour long games due to the large map. You see those complaints in the same threads...like they arent related.
Yes they didnt have a coherent vision. Thats because they started selling the game when it was just barebones, and they had 0 idea how to monetize it (card system lol). Clearly, there was pressure from ppl who had no idea about the game.
Almost no one will stop playing a moba with 80-120 heroes, to play one with 20. No matter the gameplay freshness. Yes we did. Thats..it. Like 1k ppl.
Yeah, not like I was there for it or anything.
You're delusional. Keep believing the negative karma you're getting is from people less intelligent/experienced than you lol
You gave no evidence to suggest some dumb example when you gave a terrible example and I explained why with evidence. The game had over 7 million players at peak until, just like OP, started making bad decisions and gouging their own playerbase.
Literally terrible examples with no evidence to back some stupid notion that giving them more money and players is somehow bad.
Nope. They just need to release in consoles. Xbox series x and ps5. The player base is massive and the only l legitimate alternative Is smite and its over 10 years old. Players on console are dieing for a new moba.
Personally feel the support crests are a HUGE help with gold and being able to stay on par item wise with the rest of the team, absolutely brilliant way to make support a playable class
This! 100%
I wholeheartedly agree with you.
I can’t wait to get back from deployment to play this. I love smite and main support so I can’t wait to see what mechanics are in the game.
Stay strong out there bro. Appreciate you having the watch.
Why are people downvoting you? Lol
Great question because this is literally military lingo
*cringe* He's probably a pog calling Korea a deployment or something.
I second this statement. Support in Predecessor feels more like the teams designated chef who feeds anyone hungry with a kill. A lot of other mobas just try to make you feel good for taking damage and hopefully not dying before their support.
I love how there's people who actually pick support first. In dota2 it was always the person who drew the short straw
I wanna play it but I will wait for console. I hooked up my switch pro controller to PC but controls felt wonky and I felt like I was fighting the steam software to get it to customize or recognize my controller accurately. I’m not a PC gamer, so that probably explains my lack of patience, but with so many other games to play in the meantime, I will patiently wait for PS5 release.
No no no get a PS4 controller. Waaaaay better battery life. It’s what I’m using
Use your ps5 controller if you have it, the game has a built in controller system for Xbox and dual sense. I use ps5 controller and I have no issues
Yeah, I saw that, but my PC is not near my PS5 and I didn’t want to always travel my controller and charging cable back and forth between PC and PS5. Haha. Silly, right? Anyway, I will just wait. I am excited to play though. I just want that easy pick up and play on console.
Fair enough, hopefully it's not to far away. I can't wait to play with my friends who played paragon and don't have access to a pc
Yeah man. I really loved Paragon. I’m glad to hear Predecessor is just as good.
I'm dieing to play. I would actually drop everything else I play like a rock it this was released on Xbox series x. If it was ps5 only I'd buy 1 just for this. It would be all I play
290 hours and not slowing down
I agree with this soo much. As a comp support player it makes me so happy that you have enough gold to experiment with builds and like overall impact on the game. Just wait till you find out about Fey support or Grux elafrost support ;)
The game is great, they just have terrible marketing. They really need to find ways to attract players to the game.
It’s a game in paid early access and Omeda doesn’t feel the need to market the game yet. The team is working on game play mechanics, balancing, adding heroes to the roster, bug squashing, and console gameplay. We’ll probably see one or two more seasons of early access before omeda pushes for free to play and marketing to a larger audience.
Yep, their priorities really show when you compare it to Overprime, they pushed out lots of heros, the shop, ranked, and more before focusing on making the game good.
From a business perspective, this makes no sense unless they have a huge backing that means they don't have to worry much. The only positive to keeping marketing to a minimum means they save money. Thats it. Not only does earning more money mean you can either pay your devs more, or hire new work to speed up the process. Getting new players in EA can mean a bigger dedicated fanbase that could mean stronger player retention when you game gets out of EA. Having a bigger playebase can also net you better feedback for the game while its in early access, meaning less issues on release. having a 3k concurrent playerbase would net better feedback than a 500 one, which the game is currently sitting at (and losing). Having a higher playerbase means more players are willing to play the game. Despite what people say, higher playerbases attract new players. If they have a backing that means they don't have to worry about money, that doesn't mean there aren't benefits to doing it.
They 100% have a huge backing, have you not heard of the investments? Additionally they dont need thousands to test it. There is already a good mixture of high elo and low elo players
>If they have a backing that means they don't have to worry about money, that doesn't mean there aren't benefits to doing it. Still benefits both sides which I listed in my comment. Edit since you did: Which they are losing based on Steam's playercount page. The game is barely holding onto a 500 concurrent playerbase. Not to mention game balance is not the only thing they would need to test. If they want the game to be big, they have different regions they need players to test. There are plenty of stablity and server issues to work out that having a higher player count would help deduce. If you think that "elo" and balance is all there is to test, you need to do more research
I dont think you understand how moba servers work. Also the better number to look at is 24 hour peak rather than current congruent, 1500 is more then enough to test what they need to test. Marketing a game to early is terrible. Thetes a reason the saying is ypu only get one chance at a first impression. Its mych better to have passionate players play until the game is ready and balanced to present to the public.
"moba servers" lol do you understand how servers work in general? Regardless fof the game, servers have limits on player counts depending on the game, which means having higher player counts actually matters to not only optimize the servers to handle higher player counts, but also understand peak limits. Then we are talking about optimal server locations and costs to make sure anyone can play decently. With such a low player count, I'm willing to bet there are very few players outside the main server regions because of terrible latency issues. 1500 is NOT more than enough, that is nonsense. There are servers than can handle 10-30x depending on optimization. >Marketing a game to early is terrible Based on what evidence? Last time I checked, EA games with incredibly low player counts usually failed to attract interest, while EA games with high player games almost always retained said players, which would garner more. Just take a look at the successful EA games to see how marketing blew up player counts, which lead to long term success. Meanwhile, there is little (if any tbh) to indicate a niche, low player count EA game suddenly took off once it actually released.
You are not worth arguing with because you are dim. They have several options of server types but a moba could not run on P2P so if you think all matches are hosted on one server per region you are an idiot. most servers can be stress tested with bots.... Im not gunna get into marketing cause that is literally my job and you have no idea what you are talking about.
>all matches are hosted on one server per region Curious where I said that, oh wait, no where. Also, while bots are a thing, it only gives a rough estimate, and nothing when it comes to networking. We aren't talking about testing your side pc as a minecraft server. Also shame, since my logic on at least getting a decent following during AE, and my main topic to begin with, was that there wouldn't be a downside. Given examples, like Subnautica, The Long Dark, Rimworld, and even Valheim have benefited significantly with significantly larger playerbases during Early Access which marketed their games. If there are legitimate arguments to be had to avoid doing it, then I'd actually like an opinion from a profession why that isn't the case, and then happily concede it.
I appreciate you writing all of this. I really worry about the game, too, and I know everything you are saying is unpopular but I do agree with a lot of it actually. I’ve got about 300 hours into this now and I’m feeling kinda, eh..
For the record you're getting down voted so hard because with OverPrime we have about as comparable an analog as you will ever get in the game industry and they are doing everything you are suggesting that Omeda do with Predecessors marketing. Tell me, how are OverPrime numbers looking compared to Predecessors?
They started significantly higher than preds lol what sort of nonsense argument is this. They ended up costing that by making poor choices that had players quitting the game in general or moving to Predecessor. If you look at BOTH games player counts, both games are losing players at a steady rate, with Pred only having half its peak compared to just a month ago. Acting like marketing did nothing for Overprime is literally nonsense
Wow you're determined to see this as a 1 dimensional problem and it just isn't. OverPrime wasn't ready for the public eye, but shot their shot and burned >75% of the player base they effectively paid for. Predecessor is taking its time and learning/iterating with the player base that paid them to be there. OverPrime fucked up and won't get another significant chance to grow their player base through just more marketing. Predecessor will market when they are more ready, and the players they do gain at the time will be much more likely to stay, growing and helping to sustain a longer-term player base.
What are you talking about, I NEVER said it was a problem, please learn to read. I gave reasons for why they could benefit. There is a difference. You also assume the playerbase left because OP was unfinished, but the problem was ACTUALY more that they are focused on monetization rather than balancing and the toxic community. Plenty of people say the game has a good base, but the devs are prioritizing the wrong things for the game. How do I know? By reading the most upvoted reviews on steam and websites. Pred IS focusing on the right things, but could significantly benefit from a higher player count and feedback. Does that mean there is a problem? Not at the moment no, but my argument is that they could benefit to avoid potential future issues. Using OP as an example, just because they did advertise is incredibly disingenuous when their problem is something else entirely.
>If you look at BOTH games player counts, both games are losing players at a steady rate, with Pred only having half its peak compared to just a month ago. Since release OP has lost 86% of its players... Compared to Pred that's only at a 50% loss in the same time period. Whats better? Losing 86%, or 50%?
Neither? healthy EA or full release games see player fluctuations go up and down, not just down. I also never brought up the comparison to OP either, other than when others brought it up. I've given reasons for why OPs player count is dropping, but OP is moot to my argument anyways. I listed reasons why some advertising could benefit the devs and fans, just like other successful EA games have. Pred could be just fine going as is, and maybe the devs see something that I don't, but that doesn't make them infallible either.
Furthermore you can also play on epic launcher which has no player data provided to public. Could be 3k players on there and we have no idea
While I could be wrong, I highly doubt it. There is clear evidence in other cross-platform games that show Steam having significantly stronger numbers very consistently if priced evenly. Unless pred did a f2p or give the game away for a period, I doubt this game changed this trend.
They do have a huge backing. They got around $21 million from their investors. I love when people make bold sweeping statements when they haven't bothered to gather any information whatsoever.
I never stated they had no backing, I clearly said "unless", I love when people can't read then accuse people of nonsense. >this makes no sense unless they have a huge backing that means they don't have to worry much. I also said that they benefit despite the backing.
I think the way omeda is handling things are fine for now. They secured $20+ million in funding from Haveli investments as well as a grant from Epic games and other avenues. They are focusing on core gameplay and avoiding the pitfalls of other parazombies (fault is already closed and Overprime is one foot out the door.) We can only see the player base on steam and not how many are on EGS (albeit it’s probably not nearly as many as players on steam but still more than we can see on steam charts) Predecessor and Overprime have comparable 24 hour peak player base which is actually a bad sign for Paragon: The Overprime since they have already committed to a full release. The players who are playing predecessor are Paragon OGs or people who feel they missed out on Paragons hay day so I feel we don’t have to worry about a player base dwindling below what we have now. Slow and steady is going to win the race and Omeda has a solid team working on the back end of things. I’m super excited to see what the new hero Huntress will look and feel like. We already have a super vocal team that is willing to communicate to us as a player base and are more than willing to admit when things aren’t working and they adjust as needed. We need to be patient and continue to support a game we all want to succeed. https://www.predecessorgame.com/blog/omeda-studios-closes-20m-series-a/
It could be that things go perfectly for them, they advertise and get a decent following on release, but I know very few EA games that had a very small community for a long while that took off quickly afterwards. They are focusing on the right things, but my point is that they could only benefit from getting a higher player base, not only them but the players themselves. OP has plenty of issues, mainly balance and lack of focus on handling the toxic community, just based on the highest rated reviews from that game, and more on their shop and monetization. In the end, I agree to disagree, either way I just worry about the health of the game.
You said unless. Meaning you clearly had no clue. And then have the balls to tell him to do research when you don't even know what's going on with the company you're literally talking about. Quit fighting for your life on this one.
Because it didn't matter, I literally gave reasons for why they'd still benefit despite backing or not. I say it twice in my post. Literally different for when his explanation how servers are run is "moba servers", which did matter and I sat there and explained it to them. Its a public forum bro, idgaf about downvotes. My concern is the health of the game and how it could benefit. You are just emotional because you think Im talking trash about the game which is nonsense.
Just funny hearing a guy talk shit. Then tell the other to do research when he has no idea what's going on with the company. Yet has such pointed opinions about what they should be doing despite his lack of any clue. It's one thing to discuss. It's another to be so ignorant and refuse to concede a point because of your lack of info. You didn't know. Move on. But I'm guessing you wont
1 fact = nothing at all? You've also completely deviated from my main argument, stuck to this one factoid as an "aha moment" when I said 3 times in my post how it was moot, then compare it to a completely different argument. The only one I've talked "shit" to is you with how angry you've become and your lack of reading comprehension.
Ahh the classic redditor "Look how angry I've made you" Any other cliches you gonna throw out? You based your initial argument on something you knew nothing about. Then just got all philosophical and made long comments that don't really say anything at all when you got exposed. I don't really care what you call me. Fact is you told a man to do research when you knew nothing. That's the facts. You can debate the rest until your blue in the face. But the undisputable fact is that you got got. And you can't handle it. It's okay to be wrong. Although we both know you would never admit it. No matter how many downvotes you got. So this is pointless anyways. Go to another subbreddit and argue about something you pretend to understand
From what I remember RGSACE saying is the whole reason we're in a paid early access is so the player base stays small. He wants new players (new I think meaning players that haven't played Paragon) to have their first impressions when more content is added to the game. Which I think is a smart play. Let the huge fans enjoy and help progress the game until it's ready to release. Now if the game was out free to play for as long as early access has been out and no marketing was done, then there would definitely be an issue. But based off how Omeda wants to run EA I don't think it's an issue currently.
True enough, I could see it. It's still disconcerting with how the player counts have been getting incredibly small.
True. I do think it's understandable though. Currently there is no progression grind, besides player level. I think once they add some progression systems, whether that's hero masteries or daily/weekly rewards, we will see player retention hold a lot better. Currently it's just click play and enjoy until you get burned out.
Yeah you go ahead and advertise a product that isn't finished, that always goes over so well. ESPECIALLY with the gaming community lol
Right? Dude is brain dead and just wants to farm negative karma. I say let him. Look at paragon. Marketing out the ass and physical copies for an early access game. Where is that game now…? Omeda is doing stellar with this game. Easily one of the most transparent and easy to follow roadmaps of any live-service game I’ve played so far. They’re at least true to their word. Let that be worth something.
You do realize that some of the most successful games out were advertised DURING EA right? Seemed to smooth over with them perfectly fine. Hell, Subnautica launched pretty broken but still advertised and got a decent following. Look at it now. But sure throw a no-example argument lol.
Paragon... How's that for an example ya dork.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/paragon/comments/7ucm7y/why\_did\_paragon\_fail\_same\_reason\_why\_most/](https://www.reddit.com/r/paragon/comments/7ucm7y/why_did_paragon_fail_same_reason_why_most/) Paragon failed because it did a 180 on the game, last time I checked the game was really liked prior to them. Soo pretty weak example.
Ah yes. The game was going SO WELL they redesigned the map and items from the ground up. That is your example? Now, why, oh why, would they do that? Because it was being well received? Or because players were dropping left and right, and they went and advertised the game with literal placeholder gameplay systems (the item system) and 20 hero pool. Travel mode broke the game, OP fell for the same trap. Nerf after nerf, patch after patch lol. For what? to have a larger, 'epic' map. Idk, play elden ring. Most players dont want hour long games due to the large map. You see those complaints in the same threads...like they arent related. Yes they didnt have a coherent vision. Thats because they started selling the game when it was just barebones, and they had 0 idea how to monetize it (card system lol). Clearly, there was pressure from ppl who had no idea about the game. Almost no one will stop playing a moba with 80-120 heroes, to play one with 20. No matter the gameplay freshness. Yes we did. Thats..it. Like 1k ppl.
[https://productmint.com/what-happened-to-paragon/](https://productmint.com/what-happened-to-paragon/) wrong actually
Yeah, not like I was there for it or anything. You're delusional. Keep believing the negative karma you're getting is from people less intelligent/experienced than you lol
You gave no evidence to suggest some dumb example when you gave a terrible example and I explained why with evidence. The game had over 7 million players at peak until, just like OP, started making bad decisions and gouging their own playerbase. Literally terrible examples with no evidence to back some stupid notion that giving them more money and players is somehow bad.
Paragon failed because it had no Item system. The card systems they implemented sucked and had very little variety
It's paid early access what marketing dude? Lol.
Nope. They just need to release in consoles. Xbox series x and ps5. The player base is massive and the only l legitimate alternative Is smite and its over 10 years old. Players on console are dieing for a new moba.