It's hard to give an unbiased opinion on this. For me personally, I was unaware of the kickstarter until after it passed, so I guess I'm not currently slated to get any access to the game before the general public. That said, if there's another round of fundraising I will absolutely be in there, regardless of its particular form.

But I have to say, one of the main reasons I have more confidence in this game than any other CoH spiritual successor is because you have shown patience in developing the game in the best manner you can. If there were to be some form of early access, and if that generated negative publicity in the way so many early access games have, it would be an awful shame to damage the game's chances of long-term success.

Arguably, you are already offering early access by planning to launch below the intended level cap; I think going much further than that is likely to do more harm than good.

I agree with the general consensus so far. Do it VERY carefully and conservatively, or not at all.

Being accused of being vaporware isn't nearly as bad as being publicly panned early on for being a bad or broken game--and we've clearly seen that early peeks are often met with unfair criticism due to lack of undertanding and impatience.

Also, from a risk/reward perspective, from all the failed or foundering early-access games we can clearly see the risk. I'm not sure the potential reward is even close to worth it.

PS- I guess the excetion to this would be if our early acces was just unarguably amazing. If we really blew people away with it. That'd be a win, of course. But short of that... seems dangerous, and for what?

The first time I read the words 'Early Access', I thought it meant 'early start before official game launch', like the head-start that CoH had. I soon learned it was more like, 'pay us to play our product and give us feedback which we may never implement in a game that may never launch', which I consider to be more like a closed-ish beta. Closed in the sense that there is a barrier to entry, which is the fee or charge or pay-to-play or whatever you wish to call it.

Much like how going free-to-play was previously viewed as being the death knell for a game, it seems the current impression of Early Access is that it's basically a money-grab taking advantage of eager fan-players of the product. And while it may not actually be that duplicitous, and it may never have been intended to be as such, perception is reality, especially on the internet, and may change over time if developers do EA and do EA correctly.

If you are going to do a real beta to receive feedback, don't charge people money for it. That seems like dirty pool and the true crux of the Early Access perception problem. After all, there are other, what I would consider more legitimate, ways to solicit for additional monies. I already have money invested in this game in more than one way, but I still wouldn't pay for Early Access.

I understand that with four CoH successors, there will be benefits to going first. And if you can go first as an 'early access' game, then there's your value. But if you don't give a good experience, you could at best drive people to the other three or at worst pollute the waters so badly that no one is interested in the other three.

There is also value at letting another game go to early access first, and lurk on the discussion forums to see the kind of feedback they get; all the while running your own closed alphas and betas.

I've played in a few closed betas that made it to open beta but never went beyond that. Those were good experiences but the games were unfinished, poorly translated or otherwise not ready. [b]You never get a second chance to make a first impression.[/b]

I'd rather see a big hype train for an official launch with head-start access available to people willing to pay for it.

One of my most personally impressive interactions with a GM/Dev was in 'Age of Conan' and well after any alpha/beta period, when the game was fully live. The 'tutorial' in that game is 20 levels worth of content packed into a single cluster of zones and in playing it, I had discovered a serious problem. In one particular location, it was a trivial matter to accidentally slip through the geometry and fall several "hundred feet" (subjective) to one's death.

I fell and died, so I submitted a bug report and continued to play, but when I fell through a second time and got hung-up, embedded in the geometry, then I hollered for a GM to come pull me out. The amazing thing is, the guy came to look at me in 'invisible angel' fashion, said it should be impossible for me to have gotten where I was, then asked if I minded helping him document the issue. I agreed, and spent the next half-hour being teleported and resurrected over and over, as I Deliberately explored the limits of that invisible hole. The GM was very pleasant to work with in chat and used his incorporeal status to fly all over with a virtual camera shooting movies of my repeated horrible deaths.

It turns out, what I had run into was a place where a stairwell, a floor, and a wall came together, and the underlying structure had a gap between those interacting surfaces. It was not obvious, because the Texture overlays overlapped and interpenetrated properly. So I'd found a spot where one could walk along innocently, slip through a crack and fall for 100K damage.

And, after the next patch, it was no longer possible to fall through at that spot. I was seriously impressed!

This kind of respectful Player/GM interaction is something I've never encountered elsewhere... except 'way back when' in EverQuest. I certain that, if I run into any trouble playing City of Titans, my interactions with GMs will be similar.

On topic, though, I have to agree that any sort of 'Early Access' program should not happen until after 'closed beta', or as part of it. I'd almost have to expect it would be limited to 'genuine citizens' of the community and might include a brief NDA. I think there might need to be multiple rounds of 'open beta', as well, and I would run it in a 'Test Server' environment, where nothing was permanent.

Be Well!
Fireheart

I'm not personally looking forward to ultra-early access and debugging the game. I want to play the finished product more than anything else. If that means making most of the testing open only to devs and maybe a few select Kickstarters, fine by me. I'd even give up any beta access to someone else if they have a person in mind that could be more helpful in actually fixing problems than I would be.

My only early access experience (Killing Floor 2 if it matters )was gifted to me by a friend for my birthday. Although I enjoyed playing it and seeing the various changes as the game was figured out, I think the overall effect it had on the player base was negative.

I look forward to the open betas and if tapped I'd love to help with closed testing, but I don't think early access would help.

How many sessions of betas are you planning ? Just one,before launch ? Or maybe 2 or 3 sessions ? So as to detect errors and then correct defore an early access ?
To my opinion, an early access should be after the last beta session. Early access means what it means :) Access the game earlier than other. But, it's not a beta.

Don't either forget that early access could also be a good way to stream (make the game famous) the game inside communities, friends, etc but it can also "disguss" some players that are quickly fed up with new things.
What is great with early access is to have a feedback from users to point what to do before launching the game, but it means having an early access, then, before the beta than after.

Indeed, it depends on what you need :) An early access is not a bad thing, unless you have a plan for it to aim a fixed goal :)

Please don't rush this game, I have high hopes for this to be the revival of CoH. There's definitely a lot of work to be done to live up to that expectation. To put in my 2 cents, I really think the story needs to be strong and to be honest I'm not feeling the prototypes for the current team to be. I'm really looking forward to seeing the end product and will for sure be keeping tabs on CoT.

If Early Access is sort of a late beta thing, when the game is pretty well done, it can be beneficial. As others have said, though, there is a very negative view of it, these days....and if it's done too early, it can hurt the game in the long run. I'd be for a very late early access, but nothing of the sort that say....VO is doing. I like where VO is going, but I also realize that I have a better understanding of the development process than the average user. The average user will make harmful assumptions about an unfinished product.

I'm with Halae here. I think Alpha should be in shop. Now there are some that did good Subnautica is a game I Early Accessed to and didn't feel like it was not finished. Even when I bought it the thing was beautiful and still growing. That said it's the DEVs that make an Early Access worth it. Same with Kirble Space Program the Devs were very open and honest about what's being done.

I ran around VO and felt I was in a place with cardboard cut out buildings. The magic wasn't there yet and haven't logged back in.

So I say Early Access should be Beta stage at least. Enough done to have something rememberable, but not having players feel they are in an empty world. I been in a few Beta's including Elder Scrolls Online.

"When is it right to offer access to the game?"
Sorry Doc for speaking more to the thread conversation than the specific question. I suspect that it will be ready to release once the experience is sufficiently positive for most players to want to play more. Also it needs to be good enough that any overly negative critics will need to think twice for concern of seeming out of touch or just flat out wrong.

By the way, given some of the recent updates I think this project is headed in that direction. It's starting to look like COH was a proof of concept for COT. Please let me know if you have need of a Jenkins build master.

"THE TITANS ARE COMING! THE TITANS ARE COMING!"

Redlynne wrote:

There's a difference between "early access" and a "launch head start" ... with the former being unacceptable while the latter is in keeping in the spirit of precedent.
For too many other games, "early access" turns into a sort of Eat Your Cake Before It's Baked kind of thing, where it's very possible to "take the money and run" leaving behind broken promises and an unfinished broken game.
And I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned yet that in the context of City of Titans, the only EARLY ACCESS release the game ought to have is ... the Avatar Builder. Seriously ... the Avatar Builder and being able to load up a collection of Hellwreckage soundtracks ought to be all the hype building the game should need while the finish and polish gets put onto the game itself.

I completely agree and I was going to comment to that effect.

The early access method is too risky. The game's draw is forging your own story, exploring the world and working with/against others. Why spoil that experience? Why allow what I presume to be an unfinished product shape those perceptions of the game? Communities like Twitch will scoop CoT up like the daily special, chew on it for a couple days then spit it out (to whatever end). The Character Creator in CoX was basically a game within itself. You got to create a super that conformed to your own expectations and desires without having to take one step into the game. It did help to know how powers functioned within the game, but conceptually you could play out your own mental version of your character within the confines of the character creator.

The Avatar Builder should be the primary publically facing element of the game. Let the public fill in the gaps with their hopes, dreams and desires (pull an Inception on us). I'll get into the Beta style testing element later, but at its core, the game experience should be available no earlier than a "launch head start".

Redlynne wrote:

load up a collection of Hellwreckage soundtracks

Speaking of which, weren't two tracks being finished and the soundtrack was supposed to be released?

Consider my vote going into the "please don't do early access" column. We have too many cautionary tales out now, imo. Too many games that used 'early access' as an excuse to release empty, unfinished products. Not saying you guys would do that, but it just screams of bad idea to me nonetheless.

As an original kickstarter backer, I'll be happy to participate in the bugfinding mish that is beta. But beyond that I want launch to be launch, and none of that early access stuff.

I do not know the composition of the MWM crew. There is a non-insignificant need for a tester role in software development. If you have that covered, great. If you don't, you cannot rely on DEV to properly test the software. They can test the code, but testing the software is a different matter. For one, their time is better spent creating the code. Secondarily, they do not have the perspective to be an advocate for the user.

My frame of reference defines Alpha as functional code that allows you to test a narrow set of functionalities at an early stage of development. It provides you with the capability to walk through a scenario; something as simple as dying in combat and reviving at the hospital to accepting a quest, completing it and turning it in. The software is not bug free and it is not complete. The only people looking at the software are internal to the company.

My frame of reference defines Beta as being code complete (i.e. all planned code has been finished). All of the features are accessible, it is not bug free, and any features that the team wants to add are budgeted & scheduled. End to end scenarios are feasible at this point. In a closed Beta, only the team and a select set of users that fit a profile or have influence on end to end scenarios have access (NDA for anyone not on the team). In a wide Beta, the net gets cast a little bigger (in your case, probably KS backers).

Given my 'extensive' understanding of MWM dynamics and scheduling my suggestion would be as follows:
* Use the Avatar Builder as your first and primary publically facing exposure. Make sure you have information easily available to the public that wants to know more (release schedule, concept info and scope for the game, links to the dev videos, etc).
* Keep Closed Beta and/or Wide Beta as restricted as possible. NDAs all around for everyone. Maybe tap into the KS backer pool to help test and find bugs.
* If you do a load test, restrict the scope of the playable area to something like the CoV prison breakout. Stick to whatever parameters you set, get the data, then pull the plug.
* Do a launch head start for the KS backers

This is the part where I lament not knowing about the KS when it was open.

What I am about to say is meant in no way derogatorily towards the other successor projects, it is meant as a statement about the current position of this project and is relevant to the topic of early access--and more.

With the cancellation of SoH's kickstarter and their decision to now follow a limited/early release strategy that is similar to the tack that Valiance has taken, combined with the fact that Heroes and Villains is not planning on producing anything playable anytime soon, and the fact that all three of these games seem to be planning on staying nearly identical in look and play-style to their predecessor--I think that Missing Worlds Media and City of Titans are in a perfect position to distinguish themselves with the full launch of a true, AAA MMORPG that is (as planned) not as much a re-make of City of Heroes as a next-gen game that takes the look and gameplay further.

I also think that the timing might be perfect in that MWM seems to be reaching a point where they are capable of releasing the kind of things most people seem to want to see as teasers for a game, rather than the unavoidable "sausage making" that they've been limited to releasing due to both the nature of having Kickstarted a game from effectively (with the engine change) day one and the fact that they (wisely) chose a "modular" development strategy where various facets of the game are worked on fairly independently and not merged until necessary.

Essential to taking advantage of this opportunity is, secondarily, getting the game released while there is still a relative vacuum of a fully-released successor to City of Heroes, but, primarily, that the game be a good, full AAA game that will not get broadly panned (other than by the run-of-the-mill haters who pan everything) and that is engaging to play, not just for CoH Refugees or Superhero fans, but as an MMORPG in general.

This last, primary point is intensified by the fact that City of Titans is not bringing a known IP to the table like DCUO or Marvel Heroes, so the game has to stand on it's own merits fully and completely to truly succeed. So when it comes, it has to bring it.

I truly believe that the opportunity that I have outlined above is real and can be taken advantage of with an heroic effort.

But, then, that's what we do.

Hear, Hear!

Good way to get some extra cash AND beta testers!

EA is great in the right hands. Ark Survival Evolved just single handily annihilated people's perception of EA. These people had the nerve to release a paid DLC to pass it along as testing, and the fanbase actually brought into that garbage and defend them. These folks will not even optimize the game. They prioritize content over development.

If CoT where to do a EA, it would go well. The game is well known as the the most successful successor. Many have been waiting for it and do not know what happened. The issues i have with EA are dependent on the people doing it. I would not bother with EA if VO released it.

The problem with recent EA games is that their intentipn was never to really use it for optimization or to better the game as a whole, but as for money, as most know, in the business world, everyones favorite color is green. Its amazing how Ark has been "Early Access" for what, two years? Yet hasn't really changed much.

This has clearly left a smear on peoples perception of EA as Ark wasnt the only game to do it at that time.

I do believe CoT devs have no intention of anything like this, so EA might be a good idea, but it might be in your best interest to put big red text saying "This is not a projection of the final product" if EA does come around. I myself find that the main page updates are sufficient to keep me coming back.

zyric wrote:

I prefer the the closed alpha->closed beta->open beta model. I like the way the old MMOs like Everquest did it. Where you could buy a preorder of the game that guaranteed you access to open beta but you had to apply for closed beta and be invited. That method should help people realize that if they are in closed beta, they are testers and the game can change at any moment. Personally, I don't do closed beta or alphas any more because I find it very frustrating to get used to a system, such as crafting, and then have it be completely changed. I don't mind dealing with lag, or bug hunting, which in my mind is what open beta is for, stress testing and finding those bugs that having a ton of people on would flush out. I also don't think open beta should be much more than a couple of weeks. As far as Alpha and closed Beta go, I think they should go on for as long as they need to to get the game done.

Except so many companies are now using the closed alphas and betas as their own fund-raising versions of Early Access to the extent that the only difference between them is whether they are on Steam or not.

I have played more than a few closed betas that never left beta before the game disappeared. And after the fact, it was clear that it was all just a money grab. The most glaring example was Black Gold Online, which was a very ambitious game, but it was in a constant state of Beta for its entire life.

Huckleberry wrote:

Except so many companies are now using the closed alphas and betas as their own fund-raising versions of Early Access to the extent that the only difference between them is whether they are on Steam or not.

I have played more than a few closed betas that never left beta before the game disappeared. And after the fact, it was clear that it was all just a money grab. The most glaring example was Black Gold Online, which was a very ambitious game, but it was in a constant state of Beta for its entire life.

That is true now but, as I mentioned, I like the model the MMOs used to use. You couldn't buy your way into Alpha or closed Beta. They were invite only. You could only buy your way into open Beta, which was only a couple of weeks long, so it gets rid of the money grab issue because the company doesn't make most of their money until the game is released. I honestly don't mind doing community funding by selling badges, costumes, mounts, ect as long as it doesn't include Alpha or closed Beta access. That should be reserved for testers, not whoever happens to have the money to buy their way in. When the original preorders were introduced you paid $5 for the preorder, which was applied to the final purchase of the game when it was released. If you happen to buy it at a brick and mortar store, you didn't even have to buy the full game, and online they didn't bill you the full price until the game was actually released. If you wanted to you could buy the preorders from the various different distribution channels to get all of the in game goodies, but the cost of the full game was only reduced by one preorder. This is the model I prefer.

If MWM really needs a cash infusion then I think putting out a few founders packs would be way better than launching it as EA. Wouldn't mind if the higher versions gave access to a few beta weekends or weeks that focused more on stress testing but of course proper testing of mechanics would be by invite only and they have constant access.

I hereby volunteer for any level of testing, whether it is alpha, beta, gamma, Early Access or Late Access. I really don't care, but I'd like to have an opportunity to help get the final stitches in place before we send this monster up to the roof in the thunderstorm.

Brainbot wrote:

This is a perfect example of what I meant by EA games shaping public perception about that program and casual consumers becoming more and more wary/resistant of early access.
Elios, I don't think developers who use the EA program are motivated purely by greed. There are unscrupulous developers of course but they are exceptions not the rule.
You could not have picked a worse example than Ark to claim developers don't work on games in EA. Of all the games I have seen in EA, Ark is the most consistently updated and improved game there is. Their sin is not under development its over development. They have what amounts to a completed game but they missed their release date in order to add new features and they even released a paid expansion while in EA.
This is the biggest problem with EA (IMO), there is no incentive to leave the EA program. It is unregulated monetization, especially in North America. Steam only just started being restrictive in what it allows to be in the program over a year ago.
Also, 2 years in EA is actually a bit below the average for those in the program. Kerbel, Plague Inc and Speedrunners all were in EA for at least 2 years. The more complex a game is, the longer it needs in development logically.
I agree that EA is poorly perceived but we should be factual in our arguments.
If, big if, MWM decided to adopt the EA program in any form I don't think they would abuse the system or treat it as a midnight cash grab. But the program is currently tainted by misconceptions and a lack of education about it. All games released with an Early Access sticker will have a stigma associated with it and this game in particular, with the way it is generally viewed outside of these forums, would be facing more public trust issues than most. I don't think EA is a good fit for CoT.

Maybe I shouldve done more research...

Brainbot wrote:

I'm sorry Elios, I should have made it clear that my reply was not meant to paint you in poor light. I was just using your post as a way to illustrate my point about public perception. I hope you don't feel embarrassed or insulted because IMO there is no reason to be. The opinions you have about EA are by far the most common out there and perfectly understandable.
If you had said 'DayZ instead of Ark I probably wouldn't have said anything. DayZ is currently stuck in a update and rollback development cycle.
There are quite a lot of games in early access that are not cash grabs and if you are looking for a good sandbox survival type game Ark is one of the better ones. 7 Days to Die is another good one and it is also in early access.

Nah its all good, I said something wrong, better to be corrected than to keep saying false information.

Thats almost the definition of stupidity

I would snort this game like coke from a hookers behind... With that said, early access it more of a terrible gimmick than a functional tool. Not that it CAN'T be a functional tool. A lot of people here have pointed out a lot of great pros and cons. Realistically, I would say get it into a full functioning beta state before letting it out to the wild. With Valiance online, they let it open (for free) but there was nothing to do and nothing to see. Had they asked money for that, people would have killed that game, then and there. Money from early access would be great for the first expansion/dlc and great for those of us who are dedicated followers since we're getting in at a possible half price.

I want this game. I want it bad. Unfortunately for me, i would rather get a proper closed beta than paying for alpha time. With how many things could go wrong in early gameplay, people would be all too eager to bury a game for the slightest bug over early access. I'd say no but kick myself the whole time.

If you consider the increased level cap, the new archetypes, the new city zones, etc as an expansion rather than just being part of the full game then people shouldn't have a problem with it.

Neither should people have a problem with a very transparent "This is planned for release, this is planned for later" statement.

Granted this is all "should". I am aware some people are Unreasonable. But if the game said (if it was going to do an early access thing) when we release we'll have all this stuff and it does... Well, promise fulfilled. Thus far the Cost devs have been pretty clear about what they're going to have upon initial release and what will come later.

The idea that because stuff comes out later that the product you buy isn't the full product is absurd.

As far as I know they only get backlash when they don't release a complete version (a non early access version), or when they start releasing stuff to make money while it's in early access like a cash shop, or an expansion, etc.

I like more to wait for until the game is ready. I think this is better for the game also.

I've thought about this question for a while, and realized that I can't offer a good response, because IRL my training is in science, not business.

You need to make this decision in a way that best fits your mission statement, business model, and quality control regimen.

Of course we players want to get into the game ASAP. On the other hand, we want a thoroughly polished experience. We want the game to have good reviews, bring in lots of new fans, and be around a while. We want all kinds of things that may or may not be achievable.

When it comes to business decisions like this, you probably ought not take too seriously what we think. If you need advice, hire a professional who specializes in these sorts of things. Otherwise, you should just trust your team to arrive at the best decision they can.

I know you can do it.

City of heroes closed on November 30 so maybe the city of titans developers can do a 2nd Kickstarter on November 30 this year :-) as a titans reborn from the ashes Kickstarter

They should not only have Early Access, but give us a badge celebrating the early access :)

;)

RandomZombie wrote:

I'm not against an early access. I think "early access" started off as something that was really cool, basically an alpha/beta to try out the game and find bugs or stress test servers, but then got turned into something completely different by developers who abused it. Now it's just a way for them to make money off an unfinished product, potentially allowing them to never actually finish the product.
But I think if MWM does decide to do it... Don't call it early access. :P Just call it a beta test. And as said above, don't advertise it much. Or just keep it invite only. Even if you slap BETA TEST in large, flashing bold letters everywhere around it, people will still go into it thinking it's the full release and leave disappointed. Thinking it's just another failed early access game.

The thing is, I don't think that selling access directly to "early access" (regardless of what it's called) is a very good idea, ever. If they have to "do it" then it should be part of a bigger package, like the Kickstarter tiers or a Founders Pack.

Airhead wrote:

Brand X wrote:

;)

The badge you get with your early access should be origin-specific and give your mastermind pets double strength stat during the early access

You forgot about the one-time only early access cape that you can never get anywhere else and the specialized one-time only early access "elitist skip" travel power that'll be twice as fast as the standard Super Speed. ;)

In many ways an MMO thrives on new players and a supportive community to welcome them. "Veteran" perks are nice if they can be reasonably acquired by new players and even better if they in some way allow us to help other new players; facilitating a lineage of community support in game design.

Beeker wrote:

In many ways an MMO thrives on new players and a supportive community to welcome them. "Veteran" perks are nice if they can be reasonably acquired by new players and even better if they in some way allow us to help other new players; facilitating a lineage of community support in game design.

I never saw a problem with rewards that were based on time spent with the game, the problem was other people who cried when they came late to the game and some of them were because "I just didn't think the game would be this good." Well then, suffer with the consequences. :p

Mind you, I didn't care for certain costume pieces being in those vet rewards, when I thought they should've just been given to everyone (Belly Tees!) However, more unusual costume pieces would be a different story.

Brand X wrote:

I remember CoH had some special cape kinda like that and no one ever really used it :p

[img]https://paragonwiki.com/w/images//b/b2/DVD_Edition_Cape.jpg[/img]

That would be the Cape of the Four Winds.

Kiyori Anoyui wrote:

Radiac wrote:
On a serious note, let's not forget that the people who adopt a game early and play it a lot tend to have more IGC and items than those who just started playing. As such, there's already a bit of a barrier to entry in the second year or so of a game and after. There's no need to add insult to injury and concoct excessive amounts of extra stuff that only the veterans can have, plus that doesn't make any money, takes resources to produce, and tends to shun newbies from trying your game.
I personally want CoT to be as newbie friendly as possible to ensure a good supply of new players on an ongoing basis.
Unless all currency and items got reset after the early alpha/beta was concluded. Then it wouldn't really matter one way or the other

Just in the general sense, not in specific reference to open betas per se (and as such, this is a pretty off-topic post, for which I apologize), a player that has played a game for like a year will generally have more IGC and/or more items (certainly BETTER items) than a person who just got the game and has been playing for a week. So right there, we need to recognize that long-time players are already walking around with the rewards from all of their previous game play in the many forms that takes (IGC earned/spent, items acquired/bought, etc). Giving them MORE stuff to commemorate a year spent in the game is a nice way to mark a personal anniversary, but let's not go nuts on that stuff, please. I would rather make the game super-newbie friendly and attract new players than worry about veteran reward stuff.

1. Newbie friendly policies = attracting new players = more people taking up the game = more money in purchases of the game, if nothing else.

2. Veteran rewards = reward players that we already have for play that they've already done = promote elitism

Note how line 1. leads, possibly, to increased revenue for the game, and line 2 does not.

Project_Hero wrote:

The best way to have exclusive things would to have timed exclusives. Things that go away after a while or become available to everyone.

Things that are presented as "limited exclusives" are fine for games like this. Just like many of the CoT Kickstarter items where the thing you get will be exclusive for up to one year or four Issues. After that the item becomes available to anyone.

Project_Hero wrote:

Sure a first anniversary badge and title, but it goes away after 6 months or a year. It fulfills the "exclusivity" requirement while also not being a thing other people can't get, cause after it's gone -no one- gets it.

While I get that having exclusive items eventually "disappear" is one way to "solve" the problem of permanently exclusive awards I honestly don't think that would be the ideal solution.

Like in your example of the "disappearing" first anniversary badge - wouldn't it just be easier/better to not have such a badge in the game in the first place than to have it be something that SOME people get then it vanish at a later date?

Why not offer "character anniversary" badges (a.k.a. birthday badges) as an alternative? Instead of being linked to real world dates that happen only once a "character anniversary" badge would be linked to whenever a character was created. This way a player's character would ALWAYS eventually be able to get the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and so on badge because they are not tied to dates in the real world.

The only viable "solution" to anything that would be permanently exclusive in a game like this is to not design it to be permanently exclusive in the first place.

Exclusive "get it now or cry forever" items are just complete and utter BUNK in online gaming. That kind of exclusivity is almost always reserved for "cash grab" moves by the company done as Limited Offers to get people to buy buy buy.

Thanks ... but NO THANKS.
Games have a tendency of lasting well beyond the "buy by" date on these kinds of thing, after which the exclusivity becomes an impediment rather than an advantage, because if you didn't get it then ... to bad, so sad ... you can NEVER get it now ... even long after the "we made a promise" excuse has outlived its usefulness.

So exclusivity time windows are just bad and dumb for the long term health of the game. It creates artificial divides between the HAVES and the HAVE NOTS. It also has a tendency to create "orphaned" bits of game stuff that need to be accounted for in the grand scheme of things, but which an increasingly small minority of players possess (or make use of) over time.

The closest I'd want to get to this sort of thing would be a sort of "subscribers first, freeloaders later" kind of deal, where if you're a subscriber to the game you get the "new stuff" immediately as a part of your subscription, but then the F2P crowd can pay (Stars) later on to acquire it too (a la carte) AFTER some time has passed (6 months?) such that there's an obvious advantage to being a subscriber. This would be a form of Preferential Treatment towards subscribers (get the new stuff sooner) that avoids the trap of exclusivity, simply because everything becomes available to everyone EVENTUALLY. I don't have a problem with subscribers getting Preferential Treatment in getting access to new features and "stuff" sooner than the freebie people (in part since that means the subscribers help to TEST everything before it goes into totally open circulation), but there shouldn't be anything where if someone joins the game later on there's a whole bunch of stuff that they just can't get anymore because the window to acquire it has closed (and will NEVER reopen).

Radiac wrote:

1. Newbie friendly policies = attracting new players = more people taking up the game = more money in purchases of the game, if nothing else.
2. Veteran rewards = reward players that we already have for play that they've already done = promote elitism
Note how line 1. leads, possibly, to increased revenue for the game, and line 2 does not.

If veteran rewards are rewards for time subscribed, as they were in the old game, then I see them differently. They are a reward to a player for being a long-term revenue stream -- income that the game has definitely received, rather than potential future income. That is income that seems well worth rewarding, in my book. And they can serve as an incentive to keep subscribing, in which case they also potentially increase future income as well. They are also not exclusive, in that anyone can earn them if they remain subscribed long enough.

Note that time subscribed does not necessarily equal time played, so the premise that anyone earning a vet reward will already have more stuff accumulated in the game won't necessarily be true for every player.