Are you going to kill this game like Kingdom Under Fire II?

  • I am intrested in this game but considering how botched the Tera transfers were and How Kufii died I'm hesitant. What are you doing different with this game vs your previous failures.

  • I am intrested in this game but considering how botched the Tera transfers were and How Kufii died I'm hesitant. What are you doing different with this game vs your previous failures.

    Kuf2 was killed by the developers, who are essentially scammers who wander from region to region and try to sell the game by assuring that they will continue development and blaming the past publishers for all failures.

  • I am intrested in this game but considering how botched the Tera transfers were and How Kufii died I'm hesitant. What are you doing different with this game vs your previous failures.

    Kuf2 was killed by the developers, who are essentially scammers who wander from region to region and try to sell the game by assuring that they will continue development and blaming the past publishers for all failures.

    Yeah because Gameforge totally released everything that they had for Kingdom under fire II they also didn't lose any ones Teras accounts.

  • Are they going to kill this game like their recent victim, Soulworker. Or does it the developers fault?

    Since Gameforge doesnt own the developers, developers do what they want and if they want to turn game into junk, thats what they do.

    I dont see how its Gameforge fault. It could be bit I just dont see it...

  • It is much easier to blame the publisher for everything and not pay attention to what mistakes the developer makes and what a terrible state of the game in the developers' home country.

  • Camist

    Added the Label Other
  • I was also apprehensive after playing both Aion and TERA under Gameforge, and honestly this will be the last game i play under their management if they choose to go P2W or suchlike again.


    I've been looking forward to SOLO for some time so i currently have every bone in my body crossed that it's going to be great! :D

  • You can't put full blame on the publisher, the developer plays a role too. Both usually share the blame on a failing game, sometimes one more than the other.

    From the looks of it, it seems like the developer of SOLO is very keen on keeping the game's monetization through Gametime + cosmetics only store. In the other regions, they do a p2p system + cosmetic store. Since the p2p approach they do there wouldn't work here in the west, Gameforge more than likely negotiated for a b2p approach + the devs wish for a cosmetics-only store. If we assume that a contract was made somewhat in the lines of this, then for the first year we have nothing to worry about. The issue comes when the initial contract timer runs out and Gameforge are able to renegotiate their contract again.


    If Gameforge made back what they invested into the game to bring it over to the west + continues to make a decent revenue then they are more inclined to treat the game as a long-term investment and wouldn't be looking to change what they're currently doing.

    However, if they haven't made back their original investment or if the continued revenue is looking slim/below their expectations, then there is a high chance that they will renegotiate their contract with the developer.

    If we continue to assume that the developers strongly wish to keep the store cosmetics-only, then we can at the very least rule out the store containing any major p2w elements. What we can assume is them looking to introduce cosmetics in a similar way they did in game-like Tera, through lootboxes. This is probably the outcome we'd get due to both the developers and publishers having to meet somewhere in the middle. If Gameforge doesn't make back what they invested, the developers will have to meet their request in further monetization to a certain extent.

  • 1. 1 server per region, some red flags in this alone

    2. 1 time payment models never work, there will be many microtransactions. Eventually they will reach the point of pay to win to attract more buyers.


    I havent actually got into the game yet but these are just a few points that stood out to me about the longevity.

  • 1. 1 server per region, some red flags in this alone

    2. 1 time payment models never work, there will be many microtransactions. Eventually they will reach the point of pay to win to attract more buyers.


    I havent actually got into the game yet but these are just a few points that stood out to me about the longevity.

    Good analysis from the sofa, haven't played but I judge. How does GW2 exist with a similar model ?

  • Good analysis from the sofa, haven't played but I judge. How does GW2 exist with a similar model ?

    microtransactions?


    And yes, I haven't played the game yet because it's still downloading, however right out the gate things are pretty obvious. It doesn't really matter how "good" the game is if there is no one playing it in a year because everyone got scared off due to poor server performance (by having thousands of players in the same area on one server), few updates to actual game content vs many cash shop updates, etc.


    I don't think the publisher will actively try to kill it if they can avoid it, but i've seen many of these types of games with the same models. Some are successful, like GW2, but many, many, MANY are not.


    Obviously I'm rooting for them because I have already prepurchased the game, but this is just.... couch observation, yes.

  • microtransactions?

    Solo have microtransactions too and battle pass.

    What reason is there to say that the game will become p2w if it has been successfully distributed in the home country for several years and the developer still has not introduced p2w elements into the game to increase revenues. We should also not forget that the publisher can not add anything to the game without the direct participation of the developer, obviously the absence of p2w in the game is a principled position of the developers and there is no reason to say that this position will change in the near future.


  • microtransactions?

    Solo have microtransactions too and battle pass.

    What reason is there to say that the game will become p2w if it has been successfully distributed in the home country for several years and the developer still has not introduced p2w elements into the game to increase revenues. We should also not forget that the publisher can not add anything to the game without the direct participation of the developer, obviously the absence of p2w in the game is a principled position of the developers and there is no reason to say that this position will change in the near future.


    I'm fully in love with SOLO and fully support the game, but I kinda agree that there may be more microtransactions needed on top of having cosmetics in the store. I assume perhaps in the future gameforge will have to look at some sort of premium subscription based thing for extra perks like BnS has for a solid source of revenue.

    Like Deadlight mentioned, the game has survived for many years in China, but their model is buying time to play which is kind of like a subscription based model so they also have a concrete source of revenue.

    I think it would to obvious to approach SOLO with a grain of salt if you're (no specific you) skeptical of gameforge publishing it, but maintaining a positive outlook will help you enjoy the game more! (: