Yeah, as I want to see the game do well for continued support I worry about the whole standalone thing. Potentially too many people with thoughtless knee jerk reaction...sadly hardly a rare thing on the internet.

And I do remember the gaming scene in the 90s and 00s. Having such a vast choice of games now, from so many new ones every year, to the ever growing back catalogue...such a tough industry to stand out in. Don't forget the iffy main stream media and the foibles of the netizens of the world too  

Looking forward to more info about Escalation.

Regarding the development of Ashes may I suggest that when you add further language support, which I think is really needed, that you don't add audio for all the languages like you did with German, and just provide subtitles, menus and UI with the different languages. This way you save money, have better quality control on voice actors as it's all in English, and finally if you want to edit the mission dialogues you can do so more easily as you will only need to re-translate some texts instead of bringing in the voice actors again. I realise you probably leave the voice actors till the end when everything is meant to be nailed down, but skipping this part could make final development logistics easier. A lot of big games with bigger budgets only offer subtitles and menus in the different languages and not the audio. I just feel this way you may be able to speed up the language work, as I think it would help get the game into more peoples hands, which is win-win for all of us.

Final thought. I did notice the performance boost on my 970. I was looking for it because the patch notes did mention the shader optimisations. I can now hit high 50s and 60FPS on Extreme settings at 1200p, so those are new highs for my system with a significant increase, good stuff!

I was the same as you a few months ago and shelved the game for a month and a half due to the dreadnaught selection issue (might be a small issue to some but for me it was a showstopper) and I was very critical (in a constructive manner) I'm a strong believer that if people show respect then they should receive it back (referring to the devs). But anyway, I was particularly hard on the game and devs and posted quite a few times because I honestly feel this game has so much potential but I also took into account the budget the devs are working with, the size of their development team so I waited it out. I'm glad i did, they fixed the dreadnaught issue and I'm happier with the game because of it. 

I still think the base game still needs work, it's not quite mature enough and I know it could be so much more, though I do realise they are working on a budget so I don't post too much. This is what many people will not see and sympathise with or to the point, refuse to acknowledge. 

Escalation gives you more imo (or on paper it seems to) so I had no problem in pre-ordering and even purchased the DLC's even though I didn't need them. I still feel the best is yet to come from ashes whether it's under the hood changes/improvements (that many won't appreciate) to more content and features (which I think the base game still needs). But I am patient and then devs have met the roadmap milestones so I don't think I can regret purchasing. Infact, I'm glad I did and for the amount of hours I've played the game vs money spent it's been real good value. 

I think how far the game has come from early this year to now, the developers have done an excellent job  and it's evolved for the better. Anyway, sometimes people will complain just for the sake of complaining. Keep up the excellent work and i can say for this customer you're efforts are very much appreciated.  

*coughs* more info and screenshots of escalation *coughs* 

I think most confusion its most from players.

Like you Draginol i have pass all electronic games since slot machines where play and insert coins in games like out run was more then enouth to ower pleasure after school.

That was the time i start on MS-dos just for the fun instal a cassete game with something i done, i have ask my father to buy me a ms-dos book to learn that i still have it today , in that time just make a simple square hit something was so good

Pass some years playing on megadrive or sega saturn make us have good times alone and with ower friends , because like you say the few couple dozen choices where easy to choose what game to buy.

I have Mame32 instal just for some times remember all that games.

Todays games are diferent , has a oldschool gamer like you personaly i see so mush worry about grafic quality and less contact with complex ideas to the games .

The best exemple i have its the 1 tomb raider , doom, Dune, red alert, TA, Sould ripper and later a game that no one will ever do something like that not many players now it ( Prey ) a game that was made in 10 years and i never have play nothing like that game comes from future.

What i mean is some ideas to make the players feel to be in the game have been lost, and i feel that Dev have a bit afraid use old ideas that always have work.

I dont think also its dev fault because many new players dont know what they really like, i saw some fantastic games been crush by bad critics that make me wonder what kind games they like.

For me todays PCs are winning Consoles by far , but there was a time that pcs were dying but finaly now all want have the real pleasure play in a pc like a real player.

If we think well me like most here pass all technology history that make me proud, i start see tv black and white with some square buttons , in my town when we knew some one receive a coulor tv we where about 30 kids try to see how it was ,until this time that we worry about if Dx11 have bether performance then Dx12.

For me Aots its a fresh game like no other and has a modder  i find in ashes so many ideas that can be work that its impossible count.

But not all like me and most dont even care about all the work a team have to make a game, i hate WoW but wy is or was the most playble game....Make me think what the players real like this days.

Then comes you and your team that i so mush respect, it cant be easy make games for todays players no matter the decisions you think its the right ones.

Will be always a % that will hate but you guys live from this and we showld help you and most dev team and try to understand teams like Stardock that real care about the players.

You know im crasy about FAF because  i play it all days since 2007 1/2 games like i play and use Aots since the 1 beta day, but lately i see that ashes its becoming bether and bether then FA, from the units response to quality from units , just a pleasure saw all that obvius always something that miss to complet the player experience but thats with time.

Stardock in 2016 you all rock in this hard game industry just keep it that you become the next genaration cya on Escalation and pls dont forget my tools

READY

> 10 print " All buy the Escalation because will be fantastic and share the game information has mush you can"

> 20 goto 10

> run

I actually do remember times when our local game shop had like 20 games available and it was considered one of the biggest ones. 

I also do remember that when you bought a game you actually get a full game with all of intended content.

I also do remember that when a expansions came, they were expandind the universe of the game not adressing issues in core games desing. Btw those expansions costed somewhat 30-50% of the core game value. 

What we have nowadays? Early access, that is considered somewhat an alpha or beta test, but you pay money for it (full price). Then game goes on release but it has like 1/2 of the intended functionality and content, and you pay money for it (full price if you havent bought EA). Then DLCs start spawning like zerglings with some fixes and missing content/functionality added (you pay some more money for it). Then another DLC.... another DLC.... so 3-6 dlcs later an expansion is announced, and guess what you either have to buy expac for the same price as core game is (with much less content then in core game), or expandalone which raises the question - what did i payed for while i backed this studio in EA, core game release, dlcs. 

So instead of getting a full product for a fixed price, you get almost perma drained for more money to ofc support the developer. 

The problem with this model is that i as a buyer actually feel cheated. 

For example ive bought cossacks 3 last week, which is actually a remaster of 15 year old game for 28 eur. And you know what? It does actually feel like a complete game. The replayability is colosal, mechanics are deep. Sure there were some bugs and balance problems, but they actually fix them asap. And that 28 eur deal came with a year of dlcs for free. Is it a good deal? i think so. 

As for ashes... Brad, in every post and topic i see only one well advertised argument from your side - the ashes game engine. Im no engineer, i cant tell a difference between various engines. I am a gamer, a player, a customer, and what a gamer wants to see is interesting game full of content and well FUN. Maybe you are correct and that engine is masterpiece, but all i can see and rate is gameplay, story, design, sounds, visuals. 

As for steam reviews, you might actually think that im one of these people that puts a negative review to a game when he disagrees with game development, but tbh i didnt actually rated ashes and i am not going to, because i cant put a positive review because of games currents state. Putting a negative review may hurt game development and still wouldnt change a thing, so my "blank" possition i think is quite reasonable as i can see. If ashes somehow would actually get better i promise i would put a good positive review. 

Its not to be honest. There are a few things that can be "thrown" at ashes, but not the whole paragraph. 

I do agree that making a remake is easier, but the point here is that its actually fun to play, considering that many of steam reviewers consider that game not worth it price. For me as a customer there are a few criteria that i always think of when deciding on buying a game. Fun/price coeficent. If i get a lot of fun content for a lot of money, im ok with that. If i get a lot of content for medium price (like witcher 3) i am so happy. If i get small ammount of content for a small price its fine too. But i certanly do not feel ok when i have small content for high price, and thats where the game industry is going atm. 

Thats the point. 

Dont get me wrong, i am willing to pay for content. I think that hard work should be paid for. I am happy when a decent DLC or expansion arrives in games i own. 90% of games i own i eventually get all the expacks or dlcs or i get them at first sight (depends on the game ofc). But i do want to pay for a good quality content, not just some maps (hi ashes). You may know a game called Age of Wonders 3. They had 2 dlc/expansions come out, that actually expanded the universe and added a lot of content to a TBS game (which is kinda on par with RTS). Im ok with that kind of expacks or dlcs and i would always buy that sort of content. 

Fully agree.

Another problem i see is that stardocks invested too much money and effort towards that new engine they made. From what i see its like 3/4 of the whole budget, and the other 1/4 of budget made the gameplay/content of ashes. But hey, im not a specialist here, thats how i see it, and i may be wrong. 

As for the escalation expack, i think ill wait some time before considering on buying it or not, maybe after its released ill watch some youtube vids

There's a lot of rose colored glasses in this post imo.

I'll try to address the points here:

Re "I remember when you got the full game..."

What you remember is that games were released and abandoned.  You also paid a lot more for them.  That was the retail model.

Re "I remember when expansions 30% to 50% and expanded the universe.."

The typical price for an expansion for many years was $29.99. This was in 1990s and that price held for years.  The base game's price was typically $49.99 or $59.99.

The model today is vastly better for gamers.  The games cost a lot less, the expansions cost less.  

Re "I feel cheated"

Your example of a good deal is paying for a remaster of a 15 year old game.  That's a bit of an edge case imo.

I can't help how you feel.  No one has gotten rich making RTS games.  Those of us making them are doing them because we love making them and the communities.

I can tell you that the seemingly endless complaining from what is, after all, a relatively small community, can discourage developers from supporting the genre. I know of at least two RTS developers that have given up on the genre because of what they feel are unreasonable expectations of the RTS community.

Few people enjoy being called scammers or crooks or what have you.  I know the folks at Uber have taken a lot of abuse and while someone might think they deserve it, I can assure you, no one at Uber got rich making Planetary Annihilation.  Supreme Commander basically ruined GPG.  StarCraft survives because people are willing to pay $40 for new campaigns for StarCraft 2.  

In other words, developers aren't feeling the love from RTS players and are moving on to genres where they can make a fun game at a relatively modest budget and get praised.

Re "Ashes is mostly known for its new engine"

That is because that is what the press chose to cover.  It was the first DirectX 12 game. The first gen 4 RTS. So it's natural that's going to get coverage.  But the game will live and die based on how good of a game it is. 

Re Steam reviews

That's fair enough.  I am working on an article for Gamasutra that basically says "Are gamers entitled? Yes. And why shouldn't they be?"  It is very hard for a 2016 game to compete against every game that has ever been released.

A 2016 game with a $3 million budget is still going to have a hard time competing against a 2007 game with a $28 million budget.  There is no way around that because while tech and engines and such have come a long way. There is no substitute for time and content.

But here's the thing: That 2007 game won't be getting updated.  If you like games of a certain genre and want new work in those areas, you have to vote with your wallet (one way or the other).

I'm perfectly happy making games for other genres.  Genres where $3 million can make something pretty amazing for that genre.   But we wanted to make an land-based RTS and $3 million doesn't get you far.  Planetary Annihilation cost something like $11 million (not counting Titans).   

After Escalation, if the sales aren't there and, more importantly, the player reviews aren't there then fair enough.  We'll just focus our attention on more popular genres where our budget is more than enough to compete with what's already there.

The only way the RTS market is worthwhile for new IP is either if you can invest $10+ million OR if the RTS community is willing to support a long-term commitment to development to get the content and niceties in there.  

Ultimately, the market will decide.  

I'm in. Keep working.

Steam "Mixed" review is given to games below 70%...all the way down to less than 50%?! Mixed is already very harsh if you have over 60% but less than 70%. I'll always have 70% in my head as if you got that in a masters it was considered excellent, 60%-70% good, and 50%-60% pass. So Mixed for 68% or whatever Ashes has seems pretty harsh, especially if a game with 50% gets the same label.

Addendum: Found this chart, not sure if it is still accurate but no reason to doubt it from game store review observations:

• 95 - 99% : Overhwelmingly Positive
• 94 - 80% : Very Positive
• 80 - 99% + few reviews: Positive
• 70 - 79% : Mostly Positive
• 40 - 69% : Mixed
• 20? - 39% : Mostly Negative
• 0 - 39% + rew reviews: Negative
• 0 - 19% : Very Negative
• 0 - 19% + many reviews: Overwhelmingly Negative
• I really think the Mixed range is far too massive. 69% being mixed and not positive is ridiculous.

Sad that game developers are leaving over Steam reviews. I can understand though, so many reviews have 0 thought put into them, must be demoralizing. And to be honest, I fear they create a culture of having to pander to the lowest common denominator, which is not a healthy thing for the industry. 

I literally haven't touched anything other than ashes rts wise in 5 years.   I think I played lots of sins but that was a while ago.  used to play forged alliance but I'm talking when it was run officially.  Before that the usual rts classics.   

there doesn't seem to be any rts games worth buying, maybe there is but it's hard to know it exsiste unless you see it on the steam home page.   the games you listed don't interest me if that's the current offering.  I brought pa, but never played it.  Not sure why tbh I think it was the carton style that was off putting or more likely just saw it in a steam sale. 

Ashes is the last rts hope as far as I'm concerned and today i played 1 ranked it turned into a game of basically Building a giant line of obitAl nullifies all the way across the map.  The units half went one way half went another and wouldnt move when i ordered them too.  ememy moved in a cut them to bits, most units just spinning not sure what to do.   I find i have to do most of my group movements un grouped then group at the last second for the battle benifits or things like that happen if you rely on the metas units path finding / group dynamic.  I rebuilt and enemy used nuke to kill my whole army even though it had a nulifier because you can launch the nuke on the edge of a nullifier and it reaches half way under the nulifiers radius.  I quit out and I'm going to wait till escalation like everyone else by the sounds of it.   This game is good on the smaller maps but it falls apart if you try and play bigger maps / end game match which is what the marketing blurb says the game is about.   I especially liked the group of units I had going from one point to the next capturing them but every point they missed some units yet still moved on to the next.  So when I looked at the top of the map expecting to see a nice line of blue it was grey grey grey grey blue.  

as others have said it's the game which does the talking with regard reviews.  But the reason people think escalation should have been with the base ashes is pretty obvious if you playing it, your still finishing ashes in my opinion.  

Obviously im grateful to you for making ashes,I brought the game at twice the full price and left a positive review.   but I don't see the point in just telling you that everything's great and fine when it's not The whole point of the forums is feedback.   And escalation can't come soon enough. 

2 player or more scenarios is certainly something people are asking for and would be a good thing for sure.

 I am clad you used "" for the word evolving, because what people often mean in gaming circles when they suggest gearing something towards casual players is normally called devolving. No thanks! And I am pretty confident I am not alone in that view. 

Upgradable T3s seems to fill much of this already, and there are lots of games which have this sort of thing if someone must have heroes. One reason I like this game is because it doesn't have heroes. T3s will be getting more levels and upgrades at some point and should the tech tree be fleshed out a bit then I think that should be sufficient for people who must have a bit of this sort of thing. 

catch 22, you have to get the game to the point when it's consistently getting postive reviews.  and no one can do that other than stardock. 

I have no problem buying games and neither does any other gamer I'm sure, my biggest problem is actually playing the game after I have brought it.   any game can get sales, but not any game can retsin a player base, very few can actually grow that player base. 

You should focus less on sales numbers and reviews and more on concurrent online users and if they arnt there, ask why they aren't there.   the bigger the player base the more it attracts new players because it must be good if it can hold players nowadays. 

The ammount of games I've brought and played less than 10hrs is shocking.  It's really not a big deal getting sales.  It's so not the measure of a games success. 

I think the issue RTS games are having, which Frogboy has alluded to, is that they're really hard to evolve.  A well balanced RTS can be played for a long time which isn't true for most other game types.  And 4x games have been able to expand the scope of the product.  

Starcraft is certainly one big exception, although it's riding off success in the RTS golden age and delivers both a strong campaign/story and strong multiplayer (in part thanks to a large budget).

Ashes is a great game, as I've said elsewhere probably the best strategy game I ever played.  It has a chance to really turn into something if players are willing to give it a chance.  I really hope that happens.  

That just seems like a whole lot of negativity.  Criticism/counter-point is certainly fair but it just seems you're just complaining about literally everything. I mean you little say "social media... ugh more idiots".