08 May 21, 05:39PM
I'm really glad to see the old-school devs are back and finally there is a plan from those who really care about AC to organize the game. The model seems to be nice and wise, but I believe there are some errors in the syntax that lead to a big error. I'd assume two most predictable scenarios below :
Scenario 1 (Pessimistic) : driAn and other active devs and close friends take the leads on all the community, committee, platform and the dev teams and everything works well as it's planned for the probably first 6 months or a year(until driAn leaves) and the chaos starts when a group of "rich kids" decide to own the game. They don't necessarily need to be the majority at first. Actually I believe 5 rich kids are enough to influence the game by taking the Committee leads and influence the other members of community to change the game to their own personal benefits. Every year on Feb there will be a fight of rich kids to own the game with $25. Soon the other "poor kids" get frustrated to change AC to better and leaves AC, the rich kids soon finds a game without actual players but themselves and las long as they would lose nothing but a few dollar, they'll leave AC to die. The End.
Scenario 2 (Optimistic) : again driAn and the friends leads the game, until he leaves and gives AC to others according to the model. The community decides for changes but as long as the dev team is working for free, they'd prefer to work on their motivated fields. The community vs the devs team.
The community has two options now: 1.To exclude the dev team members or 2.To stay deal with the dev team members and let them do whatever they like. Both options lead to failure since we are already lacking coders in the community and even if community finds another coder to replace, sooner or later scenario 2 would be repeated again. Somehow in an optimistic scenario with sufficient amount of coders, a minor update each year can be predicted and by this dropping amount of players each year, the end of the game is so predictable in less than a decade.
In case option 2 happens the community loses its power and there will be noone who would like to pay $25 for nothing back.
Personally if we were back to 2009 and I wanted to pay $25 for a game like AC, I'd rather to download CS and own it fully instead of paying $25 per year. IMO, this method is against AC's moral which is an absolutely free game.
As long as there is no money for the devs, noone can expect them to dedicate their life to AC. In fact all they're doing now is all from the passion and love for AC. A model that guarantees the consistent revenue to maintain the masterservers or even more to compensate their efforts might be the answer.
Scenario 1 (Pessimistic) : driAn and other active devs and close friends take the leads on all the community, committee, platform and the dev teams and everything works well as it's planned for the probably first 6 months or a year(until driAn leaves) and the chaos starts when a group of "rich kids" decide to own the game. They don't necessarily need to be the majority at first. Actually I believe 5 rich kids are enough to influence the game by taking the Committee leads and influence the other members of community to change the game to their own personal benefits. Every year on Feb there will be a fight of rich kids to own the game with $25. Soon the other "poor kids" get frustrated to change AC to better and leaves AC, the rich kids soon finds a game without actual players but themselves and las long as they would lose nothing but a few dollar, they'll leave AC to die. The End.
Scenario 2 (Optimistic) : again driAn and the friends leads the game, until he leaves and gives AC to others according to the model. The community decides for changes but as long as the dev team is working for free, they'd prefer to work on their motivated fields. The community vs the devs team.
The community has two options now: 1.To exclude the dev team members or 2.To stay deal with the dev team members and let them do whatever they like. Both options lead to failure since we are already lacking coders in the community and even if community finds another coder to replace, sooner or later scenario 2 would be repeated again. Somehow in an optimistic scenario with sufficient amount of coders, a minor update each year can be predicted and by this dropping amount of players each year, the end of the game is so predictable in less than a decade.
In case option 2 happens the community loses its power and there will be noone who would like to pay $25 for nothing back.
Personally if we were back to 2009 and I wanted to pay $25 for a game like AC, I'd rather to download CS and own it fully instead of paying $25 per year. IMO, this method is against AC's moral which is an absolutely free game.
As long as there is no money for the devs, noone can expect them to dedicate their life to AC. In fact all they're doing now is all from the passion and love for AC. A model that guarantees the consistent revenue to maintain the masterservers or even more to compensate their efforts might be the answer.