Prediction: This is how foundry will end.

dread4moor · April 2017

@ambassadorkael#6946 said:
"the Star Trek Online Gateway system will be shutting down on April 13th. While some members of the community enjoyed it, the system never garnered enough interest to warrant further support. There are no plans for a similar feature at this time, and we apologize for any inconvenience it’s removal may cause."

Insert the word "Foundry" instead of "STO Gateway".
STO experienced the same pattern with their gateway as we are with Foundry.
1) Developer neglects a popular (but not money-making ) game feature.
2) Players complain, use the feature less
3) Repeat 1 and 2 until use of the feature is so low that it can be quietly killed with little resistance.
Sound familiar?

https://www.arcgames.com/en/forums/startrekonline/#/discussion/1230325/the-end-of-gateway?sso=eyJuYW1lIjoiIiwicGhvdG91cmwiOiIiLCJjbGllbnRfaWQiOiIxNDQzOTY4OTgxIn0=+98538a04af79c7106b0f7d06bcc40478ad6cba47+1492090037+hmacsha1

beckylunatic · April 2017

My understanding of STO's Gateway was that you could remote-view a few things and it had no (?) interactivity. Unlike NW's departed Gateway, there was nothing that could be botted, but that means it also wasn't a particularly functional tool. It sounds like there was little reason for most people to want to use it.

I would not say the same of NW's ~~Gateway~~ Foundry. It's currently not being used because it's broken, not because people don't want to.

dread4moor · April 2017

beckylunatic said:
My understanding of STO's Gateway was that you could remote-view a few things and it had no (?) interactivity. Unlike NW's departed Gateway, there was nothing that could be botted, but that means it also wasn't a particularly functional tool. It sounds like there was little reason for most people to want to use it.

I would not say the same of NW's Gateway. It's currently not being used because it's broken, not because people don't want to.

The analogy was between STO Gateway and NWO FOUNDRY not NWO Gateway (a much more complicated story).

STO Gateway was not used because promised features kept being disabled or not maintained.
The point:
1) Cryptic failing to support and maintain a promised feature
2) Low Cryptic support causes low use of that feature.
3) Cryptic justifies deletion of a feature on the basis of low use (which they caused).

beckylunatic · April 2017

Please understand that I wrote the wrong word.

dread4moor · April 2017

No disrespect was intended @beckylunatic.
But what do you think?
Could they have planned this long before?
Is this the same pattern?
Neglect the foundry until no one uses it then kill it without resistance BECAUSE no one uses it?

beckylunatic · April 2017

I perhaps don't have any contextual understanding of unfulfilled promises made to expand the functionality of STO's Gateway, but I don't believe it was ever highlighted as a major draw to the game. I'd also say they could not really develop it further because of what happened with NW's Gateway. What direction would have been left to take it?

I don't think they're the same, and I believe that Foundry is actually something Thomas Foss feels strongly about and would fight for.

robzilla45 · April 2017

I would like to add to this discussion the FACT that one of the major attractions of Dungeons and Dragons is the ability to create your own adventure. We waited for many, many years to have the technological ability to render our fantasy creation in anything more than pen and paper. The computer opened up many new possibilities but somehow there was something missing compared to the original role-playing experience. That 'missing' element was finally fulfilled, to some degree, with the Foundry.

Unfortunately, it seems as though this company never intended to fully support this feature. It was simply a sales gimmick, used to attract customers to their game. It was akin to the old 'bait n switch' or 'planned obsolescence' used by every corporation on this planet. Over the years, myself, and millions of others, have spent thousands of dollars on our gaming hobby. The books, the various games, the dice... I personally have probably spent at least a thousand bucks on graph paper alone...

The Foundry is the only reason many people ever looked at the game twice. This feature, and this feature alone makes this game completely different than every other game on the market. For this company to "not have the budget" is just nonsense. Obviously, the foundry, by itself, is not the money-maker... but it is the one feature that makes this game anything other than another bad game.

I will spend no more of my money on any product by this company bu I am going to keep it installed on my computer... I've already spent a lot on this stupid game. I'll check back in from time to time. It is my sincere hope that this company fixes this product and I will eat every negative word I have written ... bu, somehow, I don't think that is going to happen.

dread4moor · April 2017

@beckylunatic
"I don't think they're the same, and I believe that Foundry is actually something Thomas Foss feels strongly about and would fight for."
Yes, that's what @mimicking#6533 said in the lifestream.
I sincerely hope you are correct.
Would gladly be proven wrong... still waiting for any evidence/action that shows this "strong feeling" though.

mrgiggles651 · April 2017

robzilla45 said:
I would like to add to this discussion the FACT that one of the major attractions of Dungeons and Dragons is the ability to create your own adventure. We waited for many, many years to have the technological ability to render our fantasy creation in anything more than pen and paper. The computer opened up many new possibilities but somehow there was something missing compared to the original role-playing experience. That 'missing' element was finally fulfilled, to some degree, with the Foundry.

Sorry, but next year that ability will have been around officially and DnD licensed for 25 years, and running your own little mmo has been around for 16.

phoenicianson · April 2017

They recently announced that they have 15 million subscribers, or "players". Whether or not that 15 million represents active players is an entirely different issue altogether, and of course does not make for a great PR release: "We have 15 million accounts, with 2 million active", and whether that number is 2 million, 4, 10 or even 15 million active. Regardless, I think that announcement in itself may shed light on the intentions.

I will start by stating that I am an avid Foundry fan and participant. There was nothing more exciting than to create your own story, publish it, market/announce it in the forums to garner playtime, soak in the reviews, and improve from that point forward. However, there is only so much money that the company makes with so much support that this money must cover. Whether or not the developer can spare the money to fund a facet of the game that they earn no money supporting may be the whole factor in whether or not they are willing to continue that support.

The real fix... figure out a way to make the Foundry earn money for the title, and the Foundry will again become relevant and receive its needed support. They could make available purchasable items that could enhance both the creator and the participant's experience, such as by mere example, not necessary suggestion:

1. Zen charge to exceed asset cap per map or per compaign
2. Asset packs, to add more customization to environments and or NPCs
3. Better gear
4. Additional "Pay" tab, for priority placement of your quest for participants
5. Zen Charge to add more campaigns over the current cap (I believe 18)

Simple, and minor, adjustments that can garner income to support the vertical may be the only means left to salvage the Foundry, and people will pay as the Foundry has the following and I, myself, as an author would without question drop down real money for an environmental cap boost from 1700 to 2500 for example. Additionally, in order to create more campaigns than the 18 max that can be created and published per account currently.

It does not take much to save the Foundry than a little effort, and an upfront investment from the Devs. The opportunity for financial gain is there but they have to take the next step to implement it and perhaps there may be some concern of negative feedback since traditionally, the creator facet of the game was never charged additionally to the purchase of the title.

However, if they were to adopt a premium pay feature or features to the Foundry, I would like to think that less people would bark at its facilitation than they would if they retire it completely.

Prediction: This is how foundry will end.

Comments