Stardock loves real-time strategy games. Our customers love real-time strategy games (Sins of a Solar Empire remains our best selling game of all time). And we want your opinion on something important to us.
When Stardock sold off its digital distribution business to GameStop in 2011, we took that capital to help found a number of new studios including Soren Johnson's Mohawk Games, Mothership Entertainment, Stardock Towson and Oxide Games. Our goal was to build new technology and studios that would create innovative new games.
In short, we've been pretty busy.
Of these new games, the first to ship was Ashes of the Singularity. It is the first game to use the new Nitrous engine developed by Oxide Games.
Nitrous is an amazing engine and all our new games are standardizing on it. What makes it special is that it is core-neutral. That is, the more CPU cores you have, the more it can do. It scales almost linearly as you can more CPU cores. This means we can do interesting things like object space lighting, handle thousands of light sources, do all kinds of interesting things with AI, simulations, etc.
Since Ashes of the Singularity was the first engine to use it, we were cautious as to how much we would invest into the game itself. Nitrous is amazing but it was new. And the things we were trying to do had never been done before. There was no DirectX 12 or Vulkan when we started working on it. We were building it based on the theory that such a graphics platform would have to be made and got super lucky that they were made before the game shipped.
On DirectX 11, you need a pretty powerful machine to run Ashes of the Singularity (on DirectX 12 or later Vulkan, you can run it on a potato practically, that's how much better DX12/Vulkan are).
But, like I said, there was no DirectX 12 or Vulkan back then so we designed the game to appeal to as many people as possible while still showing off what the engine could do. If all went well, the game would sell around 50,000 units in its first year. That would be a very respectable release for a game that could only run on a fraction of the PCs available at the time.
I can't even begin to tell you how much of a game-changer DirectX 12 was. Suddenly, this game that was going to require a monster machine to run could run on much more reasonable hardware. That's because DirectX 12 lets every CPU core talk to the graphics card at the same time. On DirectX 11, only 1 CPU core can talk to the GPU at once. As some may recall, people were dubious about the game's benchmark results on DirectX 12. But as people quickly saw, it was a massive difference.
During the early access program, there requests, often strident, for features that we felt would alienate the mainstream gamers. While we personally liked the features they wanted (upgradeable defenses, strategic zoom, more unit progress, etc.) we felt that this would create a learning curve that would keep us from even getting to the mere 50,000 units we hoped to sell to break even.
Ashes delivered massive-scale warfare across a planet
When the game shipped, it quickly reached a user base of over a hundred thousand players not counting the hundreds of thousands of players who got the game as part of their video card purchase.
It also became apparent that many of them wanted an RTS a lot more depth where depth meant things like strategic zoom, upgradeable defenses, more resources, lots more unit classes, etc. But doing so, we felt, would be a bait-and-switch. I realize that some hard-core RTS fans can't imagine not wanting to have dozens of unit types but as someone who has tried and failed to get their friends to play FAF, learning curve matters.
So we decided to create a new SCU for those players who wanted a "bigger" RTS. Escalation.
Escalation caters to the more dedicated RTS fan. Strategic Zoom, Upgradeable defenses, Specialized units
Last fall, Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation was released. It's a stand-alone game with an $20 upgrade price for people who have the base game. It got universally favorable reviews (lowest review being a 75) in the media and has a 81 Steam score.
Meanwhile, the base game didn't fare as well . A lot a lot of passionate RTS players who had lobbied for what was in Escalation felt they were being asked to pay again for the game they wanted in the first place. Thus, the base's games Steam score went from "Mostly Positive" to something like "This game will kill your pets" on Steam even though the game has continued to get frequent updates, new units, etc.
One engine: Two games. The base game for the mainstream and Escalation for the dedicated RTS fanbase. Which game do people want us to focus our energy on?
And so here we are with the debate unresolved. Which kind of RTS do people want us to focus on? In the long-run, we need to focus on one RTS.
So here is the plan: Let the market decide.
What we want to do is give everyone who bought the game in early access or earlier a copy of Escalation (provided Steam and GOG are okay with this). Everyone who bought the upgrade from Ashes to Escalation will get a season pass to the DLC we're adding to Escalation.
Then, with user bases a bit more equal, we can see which game people prefer. Let the players choose which game they prefer based on what they actually play.
Feature difference between the two.
The game's hardware requirements today (4 core CPU, 2GB of video memory, 1920x1080 resolution min) ensure that it won't be a mass market game either way for some time. And we are fine with that. In the not-so-distant future, these hardware requirements will be mainstream and by that point, both games will have evolved.
The base game will evolve so that it becomes easier to pick up and play. The price will continue to get reduced. The unit mix will continue to evolve (i.e. we may replace units with better, more interesting ones but keep the unit count reasonable). It'll still get new races to play, new campaigns and so on. But the game play will focus on being intuitive.
Escalation will evolve to have more depth. Naval units, additional resources, lots more units, more tech progression.
There is a case to be made for both. It'll be interesting to see which one becomes dominant.
Escalation provides many more types of units and defenses to craft ever more sophisticated strategies
Which game fits you the best? The base game or Escalation? And why?
So if i bought Escalation on top of the original game i bought back around November 2015, which IIRC was at the time in Early Access, am i going to get additional DLCs to Escalation now for free? Am i reading this right? Will naval units/gameplay be in one of these DLCs?
Regarding merging and whatnot, i think you are making it complicated to yourself for no reason. Escalation is superior game to the original the same way Rebellion is to original 2008 Sins.
IMO anyone who likes Ashes and plays it, will, if not budget constrained, buy Escalation, cause will be naturally curious about additions and wants to have the most complete experience possible and not to lose on something. People who bought Ashes and found out they did not like it that much, wont probably buy Escalation, but they are very likely not playing original game anymore anyway.
If you give Escalation to owners of original game for free, i would be extremely surprised if the original game would turn out to be the one played by more people down the road.
Yep. You'll get Escalation DLC for free.
As for what will be in the DLC, naval units would be a DLC which you'd get.
I personally believe Escalation as it was released was a mistake, and a big one at that.
Please don't get me wrong, it was a great addition to the game, BUT it shouldn't have been made a standalone expansion. It would have been far better to use it to improve upon the base game.
What exactly did you guys expect to happen if you make a standalone expansion with all kinds of fancy stuff like upgradeable defenses, etc. Of course people will facor the expansion and ignore the base game. Plus the expansion gives a contrast which makes the base game appear worse (in terms of features).
What I recommend is to show mercy and merge the main game and the expansion into one solid product and as suggested earlier, give those who got themselves both a season pass.
Advantages of this:
In a nutshell: Merging both games leaves both sides happy
Provided that the community is, hopefully, still allowed to speak its polite but honest mind in here, as much as on steam i mean, grant me the favor to put this the direct way this time :
Once again, the marketing discourses are evolving way quicker than the promises are kept or the content delivered. Believe me, less and less people are fooled.
Don't you think that your question is a bit convenient, in order to give the community the illusion of being in charge of a decision that has already been taken for us with Escalation? Is it easier to make people think that they allowed you to drop your previous, and still pending, engagements? What tomorrow? tricking us out into accepting to forget other promises again, or to pay happily, twice, for each one of them with a new season pass, then a micro DLC? And a last time at the end to obtain the ultimate "Champion Enhanced Edition" when you, as eloquently as today, will decide to sell us that all the rest has become "a background" as well?
Instead, why not beginning by telling us, reliably for once, what we can expect to obtain in the 2017 free season pass?
October 26 : Not particularly old. Just as a reminder about the notion of reliability :
"Q: So will the base game continue to receive updates?
Absolutely. We will be updating Ashes for years to come both in terms of new DLC and content for those who prefer its more streamlined game play. We will also evolve Escalation to be more sophisticated."
There is no choice behind your question. Not more than there are two different games when we compare base Ashes with Escalation. Just drop the act. The former was a Beta, and the latter is a step closer to a finished game. Some of the old promises for the base game were implemented in Escalation, in exchange for an almost mandatory fee, but that's all. Many more were meant to be fulfilled at the present time. And the whole thing still needs a solid pass of balance and polish.
You already know that Escalation is going to win all the votes. Of course. But you need us to validate this new process and bless the result. That's a bit insulting.
Believe me. I personally like the game, but, with all due respect, and as the time passes, less and less people are fooled.
Escalation.
been RTS fan since 95 and i want more. the base game is that, a start.
i want more option, more unit. more map.
give me map interaction, pts to capture that give me some advantage. make the map more a live. give some unit activable power.
cant wait for naval unit, more tech and more resources (hope they have a special harvesting mechanic).
But i agree, you should focus on one game not both. Escalation is the way to go. people will learn i dont see why people would want just the base game.
Yep. You'll get Escalation DLC for free.As for what will be in the DLC, naval units would be a DLC which you'd get.
Very nice, thank you, for both response and the gesture itself.
This actually sounds like a good way to handle it, and I don't see any disadvantages by going this route...well, at least not from a consumer point of view. Steam side, I am unsure how it would be handled.
Here it comes:
Galactic Star Control of the Offworld Singularity III
... an early access beta for alpha founding founders who may, or who may not, have purchased some previous DLC, on a Tuesday, when the moon was full
... and who will therefore receive...
... harrumph.
Sounds to me like SD is making acquisitions and building-up tech, marching gradually and and methodically towards the simiest sim ever.
We're talking uber-ur-simulation with everything from ship building, to economy, to warfare, to tech trees, cultural development, starbases, diplomacy, dozens of resources, trade, micro, macro... oh goodness, I think I just popped.
Funny OP, really.
Implies a lot, and doesn't seem to know where it is going.
Starts with concept of "merge" ... and talks about "one game" ... but then also addresses the long term plan for BOTH games, and how they will evolve.
There is a bit in the middle that makes sense, though -- where the OP talks about giving away lots of copies of the game.
Click bait, you say?
I'm dubious.
I'm thinking OP had other motivations...
Maybe...
Or not...
Meh... who knows... or cares...
Just keep working on Escalation, guys.
As to which will survive:
You guys must think we're very silly.
No doubt, you already know the plan.
Stardock is really good at making games where you can config the options...
One game, lots of options.
Duhh.....
(go ahead, call me nuts, but let's just see what happens in the so-called "long run")
ONE GAME TO RULE THEM ALL...
[something noteworthy about darkness here]
ADDITIONAL:
Yeah, I think the market has already spoken on this point.
Hint hint.. maybe something important in preceding observation?
Obvious conclusion, in case no one is sure:
I guess this means the market overwhelmingly wants the base game, really.
SERIOUSLY????!!!!
COULD ANYONE AT SD POSSIBLY BE CONFUSED ON THIS POINT???!!!
The market chose Escalation over the base game, that is pretty obvious. This entire blog seems rhetorical in nature.
But what I really want to have is a roadmap for Escalation. Something that has been lacking for the last few months now. There are features and updates that were promised, some all the way since the base game, that we are still not sure when and how they are arriving:
I and most others realise that things aren't so simple in development. We know that one of the devs took ill over the holidays for instance. But you were doing so well with updating a roadmap for Ashes before and have since just stopped doing it. These marketing strategy posts are not what the players want to see right now and gamers generally aren't business strategists anyway. What we do want to hear, see and talk about is the actual game and what is being added to it.
There was a post last month which made it seem like the Juggernauts were only weeks away from being released and that was the closest we got to any indication of the progress of upcoming updates to Escalation. I feels like half of the communication recently has been about the base game and throwing strategies up for making people happy, from giving free copies of it, free DLC, tournament edition and now this. Brad, please, focus on the game and not this damage control for something that happened last year. This is not helping people see a future in Ashes and just opening old wounds.
This.
PM: "We're out of $$."
Boss: "We'll have to sell the work we have been doing."
PM: "Seems fair... But the community is complaining."
Boss: "Just explain to them that this was always the plan. They'll understand."
PM: "Uh, they aren't buying that line of thinking. And steam score is suffering."
Boss: "Persevere..."
PM: "But we now have to maintain two codebases. This could get even more expensive."
Boss: "Oh yeah... good point... Darnit.... it was really one game all along anyhow."
[laugh track]
I. So. Agree.
WTF.
Feels a little insulting, in a certain sense.
I think we just funded the christmas bonus, boys.
Banks aren't the only ones giving credit loans these days, if you play your cards right.
If you're a smart CEO, you don't even need kickstarter.
You just tell the community they need to buy a new game, and then subsequently reveal that that everyone actually contributed funds for one-in-the-same game...
And once you finish all the upgrades, everyone feels like they were made whole.
Hrm.
Some of these were NOT always promised.
Hrm. Some of these were NOT always promised.
I never said they were always promised. But all of these have either been on a roadmap, promised or cited when discussing future plans (like the factions and T5s). I could add more things but those are enough examples for my point of needing a new roadmap. We only hear about these things from random comments now.
Greetings!
I dont actually think that making escalation a standalone game or a separate game was a good idea originaly. Dont get me wrong, escalation is a good game. From what i understand Stardock wanted to not only create a game for the most hardcore RTS players out there (but yeah, who else plays RTS nowadays ), but also attract some new players and help them adapt to "the wonderfull world of RTS". And i see some major problems in this scenario:
- Escalation is not that complicated, so that only hardcore players can get into it. It actually is very new player friendly. So we dont actually need a "light" version of game;
- Dividing ashes from escalation also divides the playerbase, which is not that big atm to support two similar games;
- Casual players are not getting attracted by ashes, because ashes doesnt have anything that casual players like in a game. And before you go all like "what do you want from a RTS", lets look at sc2 for example. Sc2 had introduced that allied commander mode, that attracts a lot of softcore/casual players by putting "achievs", dailies, rpg elements and so on. That actually helps people that doesnt like pvp or competetive MP, to get into a game and have some fun roflstomping some bots. And the fun part is - it is all automated. Sure even in ashes or escalation we can manually set up a custom game and invite players to play against AI. But i dont actually think many actually do it.
- If developers thinks that escalation is too difficult for majority of players why not make an ingame option to select "rule sets" via presets. For example "ashes rules" where only ashes units and mechanics are availible. Make a few divisions of ranked games - ashes version, escalation version. But i dont think that it is actually a good idea. We need to further increase our playerbase not divide it.
So im not the one to give suggestions to devs, but i do think you should focus on merging the games together and further develop the game based on escalation version of the game, thats what Haalee would do!
I tried this for the first time recently.
Strongly recommend it to everyone.
It is epicly fun.
I usually do the campaign and then focus on competitive ladder.
But coop against CPU in ashes was really quite good.
It's the huge team factor and "Smart" AI that makes it a lot of fun.
Probably the best game mode, in many respects.
Og is dumb.
Og can't cope with too many Blinkies on screen.
Og will go bang rocks together instead.
Really.
Too difficult?
(Wonders what this says about RL.)
Frankly, unlike SD, I would recommend Ashes and Escalation to anyone.
... As long as they can bang the rocks together.
I prefer Escalation because I really like complex challenging RTS games with lots of units, big maps and strategic zoom.
The base game as an entry level version for getting friends quicker into the genre would be nice, but after playing Sins, FAF and other games which have strategic zoom (including Escalation now), I couldn't get used to play it without strategic zoom and got quite frustrated trying it since I joined the founders program.
Also I have the feeling that by limiting itself the base game will be more exposed to competition from Star Craft and similar games with a relativley small scope.
So with the current feature sets of the base game and Escalation, I am only interested in Escalation.
Merge the games!
Then when in multiplayer, people can select what they want to play, give them the options.
Singularity mode is the original game.
Escalation mode is with the extras.
Whatever next mode can be the game with the dlc and new races and naval tech dropped in.
Really thing a merge is the way to go, especially with bringing the player bases together. Seemed dumb to split them in the first place. Escalation seemed like an experiment gone awry.
Bring everyone together, throw a season pass at em. See what the future then brings.
firstly, thanks again for the gracious gesture. i appreciate it. next, isnt this thread a giant rheotorical question? u know escalation is directed at "hard core" RTS gamers.. and who are the majority of the players that come to these forums... so why would u ask the group of players, that escalation is directed at, which of the 2 is better? if u had asked this on steam (im assuming u have) this would make sense, but it does not make sense being asked on a forum that predominantly consists of players who would naturally prefer escalation over vanilla...
someone sure does love the look of their own text.. maybe u should start ur own thread instead of hijacking someone else's...
I certainly think the majority of forum users prefer Escalation.
What isn't obvious is whether people would prefer a $20 Ashes base game vs. a $40 Escalation game.
As others have pointed out, in the long-run, there can only be one if for no other reason is that you can't have the player bases split.
Thus, we can either continue to argue it endlessly on forums, or we can make sure people who were in early access for Ashes also have Escalation and then we can see what they actually play.
BTW, @Fantst, I don't think you know very much about Stardock. Most of our money comes from software, not games. And frankly, after we sold Impulse to GameStop, we have the luxury of doing pretty much anything we want including giving away millions of dollars in licenses to our early access customers as a gesture of good will.
I realize you weren't a Founder but anyone who was can tell you that yea, the base game was explicitly what we had intended down to every single unit and feature.
Escalation came up because 1) the base game sold so well and 2) there was a lot of requests for features that were explicitly rejected for the base game.
As I have said regularly, there's a reason why Supreme Commander 2 went in a different direction. It's because SupCom and SupCom:FA lost millions of dollars. They were not profitable. The market for hard-core RTS games is limited. That was our thinking when designing Ashes.
But Escalation's popularity gives credence that the market might be large enough to make the hard-core RTS fan the target rather than the mainstream gaming market which, I assure you, is a different demographic.
My only thing I'd add is this: RTS by its very nature, is a niche market. So keeping a "mainstream" attitude on it is pointless (Grey Goo got obliterated, Command and Conquer disappeared after it tried to be simpler, etc). Cater to the niche. Starcraft is obnoxiously difficult for new players, and yet still stands as the most successful RTS around. Supreme Commander might not have made a ton of money, but I can promise you it did better than Supreme Commander 2. On top of that, while a casual player might pick up a game, continuing to sell to them is a hit-or-miss preposition. A player who has their niche catered to won't hesitate to spend money on expansions, and continue to follow new releases from a company.
So, my own not-an-expert opinion would be: Focus on Escalation. It's what your players want, and they'll be happy to reward you if they get what they want.
Thats true but SupCom FA lost millions but players just love it.
So the lession we take from it is that players wont have any great RTS game in next years like FA ,PA, Ashes and Escalation and thats what we have to understand.
We hardcore RTS gamers know very well that rts games are pass the worst time ever, because what we knew has rts games now dont sell and thats really a problem....
I fear that most dev afraid risk because that, and i kind understand, to make a good oldschool RTS in this days a company, cant worry about losing money.
And thats almost impossible....
Thats true but SupCom FA lost millions but players just love it.So the lession we take from it is that players wont have any great RTS game in next years like FA ,PA, Ashes and Escalation and thats what we have to understand.We hardcore RTS gamers know very well that rts games are pass the worst time ever, because what we knew has rts games now dont sell and thats really a problem.... I fear that most dev afraid risk because that, and i kind understand, to make a good oldschool RTS in this days a company, cant worry about losing money. And thats almost impossible....
In Stardock's case, since Ashes had a budget of around 1/9th of SupCom it was profitable within its first month of release.
Thus, we suddenly found ourselves with the option to explore the question: Did the people who bought Ashes sight unseen do so in the hope of having a new, next-generation RTS engine to be introduced to. OR was it mostly RTS veterans looking for something that would take the existing RTS genre to the next level?
If you read the reviews of Ashes and the news stories about it, our goal was pretty clear: We wanted to build an "old school" RTS but with modern tech.
Escalation, by contrast, was designed around taking the RTS genre to the next step.
I see people assuming that the bulk of the early access players would have preferred Escalation. But I don't see a lot of evidence for that. Otherwise, they would have mostly upgraded to it already. The only way to really tell will be to give early access players copies of Escalation and see which game, in the long-run, has a bigger player base.
As a relative noob and single-player only, my humble 2 cents is that Ecalation is not too complex. It's easy to outgrow the base Ashes. It's ironic that the people I see asking for the base game to continue are multiplayers, who are no doubt the most skilled.
But - there may be a market for the base game and Stardock really wants to have a low-$$ offering.
So...
You could have one product with both "Ashes Classic" and "Ashes Escalation" choices on the intro screen. For $20 only Classic is available. Pay $40, or upgrade, and the Escalation option opens up. If a player has both, either can be set as the default i.e. optional to skip the intro screen entirely.
Within, the Classic would merely be a restricted version of Escalation... some units and campaign scenarios not available. This will create some balance issues in Classic (assuming Escalation values rule). You could have two separate template sets, but the goal is to keep as much as possible the same and not be maintaining distinct games in the future, so Classic must take a back seat in this scheme. I think 90% of those who buy the base game and play it much at all will want to upgrade anyway. It's soon apparent that the the engine is just too good to miss out on what it can do.
Then you have only one product overall. This is like the traditional "base" and "pro" versions of software utilities.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
