Completely agree.  More exposure is all well and good but (and pardon me for being blunt) if the game continues to be glacially paced with the same relatively bland and often unresponsive units, you're just going to see a repeat of the anemic long-term turnout (and the subsequent mediocre reviews) that you have now. 

I know there are people wanting to believe that "everyone would appreciate the genius of this game if only they could see it!" but the game itself should be able to tell its own story to keep people around and so far, it doesn't seem to be doing that.  Of course, I obviously don't have statistics to show what actually happened in terms of player retention after the recent sales so correct me if I'm wrong.  I'm just going by forum activity being a small step above 'dead' and the fact that we're having this conversation.

So we'll see what impact Escalation has but as-is, I don't think giving away a pile of free multiplayer keys (which, again, less enthusiastic users probably wouldn't even bother handing out) will have much of a long-term effect.

Ashes still a very new game.

And it's a great game, but it doesn't yet have its "formula" perfected.

When the game gets there, there WILL inevitably be more players.

But it isn't going to happen overnight.

So, I'm sticking I'm sticking to my guns.

I strongly agree with those who have indicated that the BEST thing for the game is continued development, increased depth, ongoing improvement of the UI, improvement of unit AI (esp. pathing, and combat behaviors), improvement of unit selection, elimination of aggravating issues, etc.

It will take work and ongoing tweaking. 

And this costs money...

So, as far as I am concerned, SaaS is the way to go, with a very low bar to entry (a couple of dollars).

Perhaps this could be combined with the "free key" concept, though.

I think it would be more than sufficient to provide buyers with a couple of keys that they can re-assign from one person to another, whenever they feel like it.

Eight might be overkill, and might hurt sales in the long run.

I also agree with the person who said that they didn't buy the game for the story. 

having a tournement edition is a great thing, however the question is how it is done.

what i suggest is to make the tournement version of the game an event, where people sign up before a certain date.

(like in the end of the month from the start of the month)

the stardock streams can provide a link from when people can sign up and when the sign up time will end. (basicly a time limited event for when you can sign up) 

while keys shoulde be something as a reward, you can have after you have signed up for, like 2-4 times (for the tournement edition) you get a key that gives one person acess to the ashes tournement edition (one time to two times)

meaning the key can be used to join the ashes tournement, even after the time limited link is expierd.

(but has to be sign in before 24 hours before the tournement begins)

lastely its important to have replays acess to the game, during the tournement edition acess, (the main reason why i suggest this is beacause new players need information about how to play and best prepeard themself before the event.

(some videos/replays of how the last tournement was fought woulde be good enough+commentators if possible)

i have seen so many new players never taking the eco controll thing seriusly and the unit counter system. (never fully understanding it and this is the great difference between the good players and the bad players.)

also make sure the bugs and so on is fixed before you put out the tournement system in place. (it will affect the first impression of the game, and its very vital that does not hit the bad draw.)

I agree with what has been said already: The invites don't sound like the best idea, but a free multiplayer only edition (with tutorials) sounds great. It could only contain one race and exclude the highest graphics options as well. I can't recall how it's currently, but the last part of the included tutorial should be a replayable full on skirmish.

I agree that the hardware requirements are an issue in 2016.  Ultimately, you have to have a 2GB video card to play the game.  We can't really change that without completely gimping the game.

Now, depth and gameplay are prerequisites so I don't go into that very much.  The Tournament edition would be based on what's in Escalation which has vastly more content (and strategic zoom).

Most RTS games fall into stale end-game mechanics.  Nearly every SupCom game ends in a nuke battle (You can watch most any Gyle stream of expert players and it's just nukes).   StarCraft has a lot more dynamics to it but that comes at the expense of strategy (StarCraft is closer to a chess game at the pro level in that it's about knowing the specific tactics and timings of those tactics).

after the expansion i'm hoping it will add more depth to the game, i would prefer a third race for this tournament idea of yours, even though players probably will play 1 faction a lot less but it provides options..but since it cant wait..im thinking maybe have a limited edition ? say ok you give steam keys to existing players then the tournament idea would only go on for maybe 2 months? then just take it down and make these keys invalid..off course advertise you will do this..this way people from single player wont feel its a mp focus game as tick mentioned and it alleviates the problem that people will just play custom games from friends..this way the player base grows exponentially..and after its taken down, people who enjoyed it and are active will most likely buy it.

Giving a free version to the game may work but its not a good idea.

I prefer you make more discounts on the game more often than give it for free.

A lot of Players will pay US$60+ for AAA games without bitching. Some times I think money is not the problem here.

AOTS is a great game! it really is, i do think that if you want to get more people to the game you need to add more in-depth game-play like:

• A real research tree
• 1 or 2 new factions
• Naval Units
• Rivers, weather, landscape Destruction
• Multiplayer Co-op Scenario/missions
• Custom auto-match non ranked
• Make Air units feel like real air units
• Give us better Modding support
• A real map maker that will let us transfer the fan-made maps in an easy way without all the hassle

I am not saying you need to do that right now but please work on it for Future DLC's and expansions.

I am sure many of us here don't want to see a Starcraft copy, or company of Heroes copy, or any of that.

You guys are promoting this game a massive real-time strategy game . I really want to see that happening in AOTS, I don't see it yet, still need work

It will be nice to see and play the first ground 4x RTS game ever. If Nitrous can handle it, then that means you guys can do it.

In the end I am against giving part of the game for free, it may destroy what you are trying to build and expand in AOTS.

Yes.Definitely.

Yes.

Maybe? Not sure what this means.

Mmrpphmm... Kinda sorta. Some games yes. Some no.

I think this is probably my final thought. I may be wrong but it is quite the risk, and if it went bad: people annoyed they spent money when all they do are ranked and custom games, people dismissing the whole game as MP centric, people seeing Ashes as a failure as its gone part free to play so don't go near it, and people who are happy to try it but get their fix and move on without buying the base game. Some of those would be hard or impossible to come back from. Sometimes best to stick with the tried and tested formula: continued development and visibility, game promotions and bundles, good value expansions.

(some of those may not happen if it was just a few Steam keys to existing game owners instead of free to all, but I think that way of doing it, as mentioned above by myself and others, would get you very little return for the effort)

SaaS with one year commit would solve some of this.

Just sayin'.

For some reason, I am reminded of that classic Nielson study where they found that if they offered $5 for a survey response, they would get none, whereas if they offered only $1, they would get a lot of responses.

Not same, I know... but perceived value concept is definitely relevant.

As is concept of investment, and it's relation to endorsement (increased probability of endorsement if you can get someone to make commitment and investment).

Just think... with SaaS, you could have lots of little endorsers all running around for a one year period, pushing the "crack" on their friends.

"Cummon man, just $2 and you can have some too."

Obviously, the game needs to continue developing and pushing the envelope... quality needs to be there to make this happen as planned... but that's the whole point.

(It. Costs. Money.)

People only push crack because they get addicted to it.  It's not the sales method that makes money, it's the game.

Sales method and marketing tactics matter quite a bit too.

And perhaps you didn't notice my comment about game quality?

I really like the idea of a research tree.  It's something we have, extensively, considered. We have been worried that the pacing of Ashes is too fast for people to be comfortable with a tedch tree.

The tech tree approach in SupCom2 was almost universally disliked. I think you can flesh out he current upgrades and add a fair amount of depth that way.