If you've been waiting to play Illuvium, you will have to wait a little longer. The alpha for Illuvium Zero, a city building "mini-game," will be out in 4-8 weeks instead of 4 weeks, as was initially announced. The open beta for the main game was pushed back by another two quarters (Q3 or Q4 vs. Q2).

The community, in general, hasn't responded well to these delays. With over 200k people in their discord, there are various points of view, but those critical of the team's ability to execute have become more frequent and prominent. There has been more and more pressure to release something.

I think these calls are misguided. While the delays are disappointing, I think they speak more to a brand new studio having difficulty estimating the time and work required rather than an inability to execute. I don't believe these delays will impact Illuvium long-term and are the right decision.

To explain why I feel this way, I'm going to talk about

• The impact of first impressions

• What makes games sticky

• The triple constraints triangle

• Illuvium's runway

• Competition

• Late and good > Early or On-time and bad

First impressions matter.

They create an anchor that is hard to overcome, regardless of how much the product improves in the future. Fallout 76 and Cyberpunk 2077 are great examples of being unable to overcome not getting it right the first time.

Illuvium is also a brand new studio releasing its first game, so there won't be any goodwill to draw from if the launch goes poorly. It's therefore critical to make an excellent first impression.

What makes games sticky

There are a few reasons someone might stick with an existing game or studio instead of switching to something new.

Money. If someone has a lot of money invested in a game, they will likely want to continue getting value from that investment by playing it and using the purchased good. This stickiness factor goes away with web3, but web3 games will still need to draw customers away from traditional games.

Time. If someone has invested a lot of time in a game, they may feel like switching to something new is effectively "throwing out" the time they've spent in the game.

Emotions. Spending time or money on a game can lead to an emotional attachment. If you love the characters, the story, and the universe, you'll likely want to continue experiencing and investing your resources in further exploration and experiences.

It's good enough. The competition isn't better enough than the existing product to overcome the money, time, or emotional investment. The rule of thumb is that a competitor must be 9x better than an existing product to get people to switch(1).

The Triple Constraint Triangle

In project management, there's a concept called the triple constraint triangle. It says that you can't change the time to deliver, resources available, or scope of the project without impacting at least one of the other factors.

How does this relate to Illuvium? Building Illuvium is essentially just a giant tech project.** **

Plenty of Runway

I don't have the specific numbers available, but Kieran has mentioned in interviews that Illuvium has plenty of runway even in a bear market and without additional capital raises.

When considering delays, it's crucial to consider whether the project will run out of capital before a product is ready and cashflows begin. Based on Kieran's comments, this doesn't seem like a constraint that anyone should be worried about at the moment.

Competition

Illuvium likely doesn't have to be concerned about web3 competition until at least 2023. AAA games take time to make; I generally hear a minimum of 3-5 years (2). There is no active competition ahead of Illuvium. If a big player decided to enter the fray, they still wouldn't have anything ready before the end of the year.

However, you can't discount traditional gaming. Existing studios have a head start on building the studio and development teams (i.e., they already exist) and can quickly copy competing products using existing brands. For example, Activision pivoted to a free-to-play battle royale game with Call of Duty: Warzone when they saw Fortnite's success.

In Conclusion - Delayed + Good > On-time + Bad/Not Ready

Illuvium has enough resources to get through even the most pessimistic timeline, so we don't need to factor runway into this decision.

Let's revisit some things we know now.

• First impressions matter.

  • It's difficult to impossible to recover after making a poor first impression.

• Illuvium is unlikely to have blockchain competition until 2023 at the earliest.

  • Even under the most pessimistic timeline, Illuvium will likely have the first movers advantage in the AAA web3 space.

• People will stick to their current product due to investment in money, time, or emotions.

  • Even under the most pessimistic timeline, it's unlikely that a web3 competitor will come out far enough in advance of Illuvium to build a time or emotional moat. The monetary investment is unlikely to be a powerful moat since people can sell and recoup their investments.

  • Traditional gaming competitors already have a head start that Illuvium will have to overcome; delaying won't change this.

• A new product needs to be 9x better for people to switch.

  • Illuvium must get it right the first time.

• The three constraints in a project are time, resources, and scope. If you change one constraint, you must change at least one more (e.g., adding scope requires adding time or resources).

  • Changing scope (including unexpected events like the sILV hack) necessitates resource or timeline changes. Illuvium is ramping up its team quickly, but there are limits on how fast it can effectively grow.

• Existing gaming studios can copy and pivot quickly.

  • Once existing gaming studios see Illuvium, they can pivot quickly, leaving little wiggle room for Illuvium to backtrack and fix things.

When you take all these points together, it's clear the best approach for Illuvium is to let the product drive the timeline and release when it's ready. Illuvium's mistake was setting an aggressive timeline that didn't correctly account for unknowns. They're building the studio while building the game, so giving them wiggle room in their timelines makes sense for now. They might have also failed to realize how impatient all the leaks would make the community :)

(1) Eager Sellers and Stony Buyers: Understanding the Psychology of New-Product Adoption by John T. Gourville. Harvard Business Review, June 2006. https://hbr.org/2006/06/eager-sellers-and-stony-buyers-understanding-the-psychology-of-new-product-adoption

(2) How much time does it normally take to make triple-A games? gamedev.net https://www.gamedev.net/forums/topic/693558-how-much-time-does-it-normally-take-to-make-triple-a-games/5363051/

This blog post is part of the ✨Shiny Shards✨ content creators network.

Disclosure: I invested in ILV and have been waiting for this game since last July. I did my best to provide my unbiased thoughts, but I’m human and some may have snuck in.

Tags: #games #illuvium #shinyshards

If you've been waiting to play Illuvium, you will have to wait a little longer. The alpha for Illuvium Zero, a city building "mini-game," will be out in 4-8 weeks instead of 4 weeks, as was initially announced. The open beta for the main game was pushed back by another two quarters (Q3 or Q4 vs. Q2).

The community, in general, hasn't responded well to these delays. With over 200k people in their discord, there are various points of view, but those critical of the team's ability to execute have become more frequent and prominent. There has been more and more pressure to release something.

I think these calls are misguided. While the delays are disappointing, I think they speak more to a brand new studio having difficulty estimating the time and work required rather than an inability to execute. I don't believe these delays will impact Illuvium long-term and are the right decision.

To explain why I feel this way, I'm going to talk about

• The impact of first impressions

• What makes games sticky

• The triple constraints triangle

• Illuvium's runway

• Competition

• Late and good > Early or On-time and bad

First impressions matter.

They create an anchor that is hard to overcome, regardless of how much the product improves in the future. Fallout 76 and Cyberpunk 2077 are great examples of being unable to overcome not getting it right the first time.

Illuvium is also a brand new studio releasing its first game, so there won't be any goodwill to draw from if the launch goes poorly. It's therefore critical to make an excellent first impression.

What makes games sticky

There are a few reasons someone might stick with an existing game or studio instead of switching to something new.

Money. If someone has a lot of money invested in a game, they will likely want to continue getting value from that investment by playing it and using the purchased good. This stickiness factor goes away with web3, but web3 games will still need to draw customers away from traditional games.

Time. If someone has invested a lot of time in a game, they may feel like switching to something new is effectively "throwing out" the time they've spent in the game.

Emotions. Spending time or money on a game can lead to an emotional attachment. If you love the characters, the story, and the universe, you'll likely want to continue experiencing and investing your resources in further exploration and experiences.

It's good enough. The competition isn't better enough than the existing product to overcome the money, time, or emotional investment. The rule of thumb is that a competitor must be 9x better than an existing product to get people to switch(1).

The Triple Constraint Triangle

In project management, there's a concept called the triple constraint triangle. It says that you can't change the time to deliver, resources available, or scope of the project without impacting at least one of the other factors.

How does this relate to Illuvium? Building Illuvium is essentially just a giant tech project.** **

Plenty of Runway

I don't have the specific numbers available, but Kieran has mentioned in interviews that Illuvium has plenty of runway even in a bear market and without additional capital raises.

When considering delays, it's crucial to consider whether the project will run out of capital before a product is ready and cashflows begin. Based on Kieran's comments, this doesn't seem like a constraint that anyone should be worried about at the moment.

Competition

Illuvium likely doesn't have to be concerned about web3 competition until at least 2023. AAA games take time to make; I generally hear a minimum of 3-5 years (2). There is no active competition ahead of Illuvium. If a big player decided to enter the fray, they still wouldn't have anything ready before the end of the year.

However, you can't discount traditional gaming. Existing studios have a head start on building the studio and development teams (i.e., they already exist) and can quickly copy competing products using existing brands. For example, Activision pivoted to a free-to-play battle royale game with Call of Duty: Warzone when they saw Fortnite's success.

In Conclusion - Delayed + Good > On-time + Bad/Not Ready

Illuvium has enough resources to get through even the most pessimistic timeline, so we don't need to factor runway into this decision.

Let's revisit some things we know now.

• First impressions matter.

  • It's difficult to impossible to recover after making a poor first impression.

• Illuvium is unlikely to have blockchain competition until 2023 at the earliest.

  • Even under the most pessimistic timeline, Illuvium will likely have the first movers advantage in the AAA web3 space.

• People will stick to their current product due to investment in money, time, or emotions.

  • Even under the most pessimistic timeline, it's unlikely that a web3 competitor will come out far enough in advance of Illuvium to build a time or emotional moat. The monetary investment is unlikely to be a powerful moat since people can sell and recoup their investments.

  • Traditional gaming competitors already have a head start that Illuvium will have to overcome; delaying won't change this.

• A new product needs to be 9x better for people to switch.

  • Illuvium must get it right the first time.

• The three constraints in a project are time, resources, and scope. If you change one constraint, you must change at least one more (e.g., adding scope requires adding time or resources).

  • Changing scope (including unexpected events like the sILV hack) necessitates resource or timeline changes. Illuvium is ramping up its team quickly, but there are limits on how fast it can effectively grow.

• Existing gaming studios can copy and pivot quickly.

  • Once existing gaming studios see Illuvium, they can pivot quickly, leaving little wiggle room for Illuvium to backtrack and fix things.

When you take all these points together, it's clear the best approach for Illuvium is to let the product drive the timeline and release when it's ready. Illuvium's mistake was setting an aggressive timeline that didn't correctly account for unknowns. They're building the studio while building the game, so giving them wiggle room in their timelines makes sense for now. They might have also failed to realize how impatient all the leaks would make the community :)

(1) Eager Sellers and Stony Buyers: Understanding the Psychology of New-Product Adoption by John T. Gourville. Harvard Business Review, June 2006. https://hbr.org/2006/06/eager-sellers-and-stony-buyers-understanding-the-psychology-of-new-product-adoption

(2) How much time does it normally take to make triple-A games? gamedev.net https://www.gamedev.net/forums/topic/693558-how-much-time-does-it-normally-take-to-make-triple-a-games/5363051/

This blog post is part of the ✨Shiny Shards✨ content creators network.

Disclosure: I invested in ILV and have been waiting for this game since last July. I did my best to provide my unbiased thoughts, but I’m human and some may have snuck in.

Tags: #games #illuvium #shinyshards