SWG closed in 2011. At that time many games were still sub based, but it quickly went the other way. ETA: it wasn’t until 2015 that WoW offered their F2P “Starter Edition” mode.
So, it doesn’t matter that the game is a hot mess?
Pretty bad take on the situation. The people leaving have legitimate reasoning for the most part, and those problems that are there will make it so others are hesitant to even buy the game.
You think an initial sale is all AGS was thinking about and not longevity? That would be a pretty piss poor, short sighted business plan, and would also result in a resentful customer base that won’t support them in the future when they try to release another game. There’s been plenty of studios that have crumbled because a bad release, and if they don’t remedy the glaring problems, AGS will be another on the pile.
Don’t get me wrong, I love the concept of the game, and it is fun up to a certain point. I want it to succeed badly, and I want to play for years. But in the current state, I already stopped logging in this week, and now I have another game being released this week that may pull me further away from coming back anytime soon. If there wasn’t so many bugs, glitches, dupes, and there was an actual endgame, other said game wouldn’t have even been considered. Now, they will have to work harder to entice players like me to come back, and I am certainly not alone in that regard.
1 Like
hhmmm, dunno. if the game was more polished, i feel like i’d pay a monthly. you’d most likely have cosmetics to earn then eh?
can’t say for sure obviously, but new world kinda sets itself apart, now i know that they wanted to make a different game before, but that’s also what counts towards “polished” for me.
or rather, at this point i feel like i’d get more out of new world than wow
In a short-term world where memory is very brief, then ripping people off MAY gain you a net benefit.
In a long-term world, where transactions occur and reoccur over months and years, ripping people off will most definitely get you a net detriment.
When you are doing business with people, you want them to be so happy, they will recommend your business to others. And they will be eager to return to you again.
The business model for this game is not a one-time “Haha! Gotcha!” It is a long-term model based on people loving the game, continuing to play it, and spending money on customization, expansion packs, etc.
Moreover, a healthy population is the most vital part of the game. A lot of the content is player-driven: wars, invasions, trading, companies. The game does not feel the same at all on an empty server.
1 Like
Showcasing AWS Services? Seem to be not able to have ACID transactions…
The showcase did hurt more than it helped…
1 Like
I think enough people genuinely understand that “ha ha, suckers!” is not a sustainable business model.
More importantly, I’m reasonably confident that AGS genuinely understands this, and while the game may be a hot mess right now, they are committed to making New World successful in the long term, because that’s how to build a brand now and make more money later.
You might want to reconsider the idea that pissing off potential repeat customers, acquiring a bad reputation and shutting the door to future revenue is a good way for a business to operate.
Or not, your choice.
1 Like
I agree.
True, but this game also does not have a subscription so less people also could just mean that they shut the game down completely.
I still believe stay on their server but do not buy in game store stuff or expansions, make them fix the game.
I do not consider any of the recent games that came out to be AAA games. Amazon Games Studios is a brand new company so I do not consider them a Triple A Game maker yet, not even close. They are an indie developer to be honest.
less play time means less likely to buy extra crap like costumes. and if you quit, youre spending your money elsewhere.
its not a good thing. at all. for anyone.
Just a reminder that this is their THIRD attempt at developing and managing a video game. The other two were shutdown.
No but it just means you dont touch them with a shitty stick on future or anything they publish or back in future.
This op’s post is stupid you really think AGS has recouped its money back from sales? And keeping players is essential given it has a store to try and help fund the game going forward.
ofc they will improve it. because guess what, when they release paid expansion these millions of ppl will buy it again 
they just need a carrot like ‘the game works now’
Def. I was disappointed to find it had no subscription. A subscription puts in place a certain expectation for the future. It would also weed out a lot of people who aren’t really interested in playing and who end up spending all their time trying to sabotage the game on forums.
EA is laughing at your comment
I think many folks here have a very short term view of money.
AGS originally set to work on three games, (breakaway crucible and new world), Breakaway was cancelled mid way in development. Crucible was cancelled after that leaving many devs from the first tow projects to come over to the new world team. New World was in development for 5 years.
If the average dev on the game earned 50k a year over those 5 years than would cost 40 million dollars which would account for box sales but not the 30% that steam gets. That also does not include the bandwidth and server usage for the game to run on or the equipment cost to equip 100+ dev’s.
Do they have the $40 from every player? Yep! Will they get any more money from most of those players, probably not. Will a failing game of less than 100k players (could happen in a few more weeks at this rate) attract enough interest in their game engine or other services, again probably not.
Bezo’s didn’t make his money by making something awesome at the start. If you look at the history of Amazon it lost quite a bit of money in those first years. Bezo’s is a patient man and long term strategist. He knows he will need to keep improving the game and build the player base before he can earn a profit for the game studio. While some folks are mad, that anger will dissipate over the coming year or two and with enough improvements to the game, they will be back. It wont cost them anything to jump back in.
So does reduced player numbers mean that much? Maybe today or this year but not in the long run, assuming things get better…
2 Likes
This is actually a major misconception.
Corporations like Amazon do not really care about the puny 40 bucks you can throw their way. Paying customers are a lot less relevant than you think. A lot of services they launch aren’t actually all that profitable. They might expect to make a return eventually, over a long enough time, but that isn’t really the primary goal.
You see, all the actual money is with the rich people. Rich people “invest” in rising companies by buying their shares, because they hope the value of those shares will further increase. In doing so they are increasing the value of those shares. The more people want a thing, the more it is worth. You don’t even need to sell a product, you literally make money by making money. Because money is fake and the stock market will destroy us all.
The point of New World is not to be a successful game. The point is to gain market share. Right now it is a pretty cheap game for a tripple-A with barely any microtransactions and no paid DLC in the near future. Amazon is almost certainly losing money on this project, for now- and anticipating to do so for at least a few more years. But also that doesn’t matter. What does matter is whether or not AGS can sustain the image of a successful company to potential investors. The right type of public outrage actually does a lot for the success or failure of the game, much more than refunds or boycotts.
This means that if you want to punish Amazon Game Studios, the probably best way of doing so is by bringing any kind of issue with the game to the attention of actual news outlets and other publications. Though it is also worth keeping in mind that this has the very real potential of killing a game that could otherwise have become great.
did it ever occured to you that people buy skins in game ? and AGS had decent plans for the monetization of skins and cosmetics, did you know that in a lot of games its a big part of their revenu, so yeah they probably made their money but they are 100% passing on more profits by launching an unfinished product and some people will remember this fiasco before buying another game from AGS !
+1 to everyone who pointed out the game’s revenue model depends on an in-game store to keep the servers running and make a profit i.e. the whole point of Amazon’s existence. Box price was to pay for development, in-game store keeps staff hired and updates coming.
1 Like
A theoretical person might have paid money for it, hated it, and then bombed it on the net, but if enough people give the movie bad reviews, it will turn off other potential movie goers from paying to watch the movie.
In other words, less profit.
On another note, yeah you paid for the game, but logically you would assume that Amazon was hoping for further revenue from selling skins and cosmetics to the player base.
So basically, if your player numbers dropped off a cliff, there is less potential revenue to be made.