User comment history
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 ] Older >
| News Comments > Battleground Europe/WW2 Online Now Free-to-Play |
 |
| 9. |
Re: Battleground Europe/WW2 Online Now Free-to-Play |
Aug 11, 2012, 10:35 |
Sleep |
|
|
WyldKat wrote on Aug 11, 2012, 05:58: ...no thanks. I'll just wait for Planetside 2. Yeah, if you think WWIIOL is anything like what PS was or PS2 will be, you're exactly the type of player who'll end up complaining about not finding enemy infantry or no kill cams or flying being too hard. You're way better off waiting. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Battleground Europe/WW2 Online Now Free-to-Play |
 |
| 6. |
Re: Battleground Europe/WW2 Online Now Free-to-Play |
Aug 11, 2012, 03:00 |
Sleep |
|
|
Amazing game if yuo ever wanted high a reality tank or plane combat sim (minus the plane markers) but not a good infantry combat game. The sub was way too much too, should be 10 bucks not 18.
As to how it has survived? Because theres nothing else like it, but with a steep learning curve. If youre fighting alone or cant find any enemy, youre doing it wrong dweeb, but the game doesnt help you get it right. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > DayZ Modification for Arma II |
 |
| 23. |
Re: DayZ Modification for Arma II |
May 16, 2012, 13:07 |
Sleep |
|
|
Note well - the game is in alpha, has received massive attention (it has by itself increased arma 2 sales 5 times and made CO the top seller on Steam) and the infrastructure is fucked. Major issues connecting, not just finding space but also connecting to the game once youre on a server, especially during evening.
Expect heavy delays, frustration and moaning!!! If that turns you off, play something else for a couple of months, we can live without the extra load! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Star Wars: The Old Republic Free Passes |
 |
| 22. |
Re: Star Wars: The Old Republic Free Passes |
Mar 13, 2012, 18:24 |
Sleep |
|
|
deqer wrote on Mar 13, 2012, 17:44: furthermore, why the fuck would anyone want to spend 3 days on an mmo game? why not be real and provide realistic trials, such as 1 month or 3 months. but noooooo, that apparently is just asking too much now, isn't it. Genius if you think about it. A casual player will be getting his light sabre about then, little realising the high point of this turd is behind him. He'll buy the game, realising within the week what mistake that was. EA can release a quarterly about X thousand new players and give themselves another 3 months, hoping to god 1.2 can reverse the fail. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Star Wars: The Old Republic Patch Plans |
 |
| 18. |
Re: Star Wars: The Old Republic Patch Plans |
Feb 26, 2012, 15:19 |
Sleep |
|
|
Stellar reviews yeah - by companies too shit scared to piss of EA. Everywhere ive seen word of mouth, on forums for instance and even on the official friggin forum, that word has mostly been 'unsubbed'. This is a turd of an MMO, all the cash went into the voice acting, but whats the point when youre on rails? they could be speaking mud and it wouldnt make the damnedest bit of difference. Play a Republic murdering git across the universe, attend jedi council meetings! So much for feeling a disturbance in the force. No LFG, no addons, INSTANCED!!! Seriously, an MMO where youre instanced, wtf??? No matter what they do, they cant fix the crap theyve done to the HERO engine, so the very engine of the game is screwed.
I reckon the SW franchise is cursed. How else could you take a successful single player game, spend $150 million on it and turn it into a tedious single player game masking as an MMO? im playing TERA now, at least its differentish. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > The Old Republic Cancellation Issues; Trailer |
 |
| 49. |
Re: The Old Republic Cancellation Issues; Trailer |
Jan 19, 2012, 17:35 |
Sleep |
|
|
Dev wrote on Jan 19, 2012, 17:30:
ASeven wrote on Jan 19, 2012, 17:29:
Dev wrote on Jan 19, 2012, 17:28:
ASeven wrote on Jan 19, 2012, 17:26: If the cost rumors are anywhere close to the target, if SWTOR fails, if, then EA's future may be at risk. If the $300M number is anywhere correct, never mind the $500M number, EA won't recover from such a hit no matter what they do. I don't think you have a grasp on how large EA is. I suggest checking annual reports. A $500 million failure wouldn't doom the company.
I do, it is part of my job after all. They haven't had profits for 3 years now, which means they cannot withstand a huge loss. In fact they have $1.5 billion in CASH at the moment, per their last annual. http://investor.ea.com/financials.cfm
Edit: down to around $1 billion cash as of last quarterly. Still plenty enough to sustain a $500 million loss. Kodak has $5 Billion in assets. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > The Old Republic Cancellation Issues; Trailer |
 |
| 47. |
Re: The Old Republic Cancellation Issues; Trailer |
Jan 19, 2012, 17:32 |
Sleep |
|
|
Dev wrote on Jan 19, 2012, 17:28:
ASeven wrote on Jan 19, 2012, 17:26: If the cost rumors are anywhere close to the target, if SWTOR fails, if, then EA's future may be at risk. If the $300M number is anywhere correct, never mind the $500M number, EA won't recover from such a hit no matter what they do. I don't think you have a grasp on how large EA is. I suggest checking annual reports. A $500 million failure wouldn't doom the company. the loss itself isnt the problem, although it is of course to the balance sheet. the loss of the predicted sales and subs would be a much larger headache for the company and the stock value would reflect that. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > The Old Republic Cancellation Issues; Trailer |
 |
| 31. |
Re: The Old Republic Cancellation Issues; Trailer |
Jan 19, 2012, 16:59 |
Sleep |
|
|
Drezden wrote on Jan 19, 2012, 16:51:
eunichron wrote on Jan 19, 2012, 16:44:
Drezden wrote on Jan 19, 2012, 16:30: Most of the complaints in general chat are about minor bullshit that might I remind you. EVERY MAJOR MMO has gone through. And the only reason it is acceptable is because players like you allow it. Why did "good enough" become the standard for MMOs?
Mind you, I like SW:TOR. I'm enjoying it very much, most of the bugs I have encountered do not make the game unplayable, but it obviously needed more time in testing and development. They would have been much better off waiting for a Summer '12 release, and including the 1.1 content at launch, rather than releasing it when they did and in the state that they did. I didn't say it was acceptable. I said every other major MMO has had similar bugs and issues (barring Ilum which was a disaster, but honestly not too far off from Wintergrasp in terms of retarded design). But since I enjoy the game, I am not going to throw a hissy fit and cancel my account over said bugs that WILL get fixed down the road. I think people are being ridiculous about it. Yes it could have used more time, I was in the last 5 betas and felt like it was only about 80% complete by the time the Open beta began. But EA forced them to push it out and you can't go back. So like I said, going to continue enjoying the game and when shit gets fixed it gets fixed. It's sure as hell better than playing WoW or Rift. Yeah im sure the 10 million wow subscribers agree with you. Seriously, so you like the game, why attack people who dont? Were not saying youre being a frikkin idiot for paying to test EA's lame ass single player game with co-op elements are we? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > WWII Online Welcome Back Event |
 |
| 11. |
Re: WWII Online Welcome Back Event |
Nov 20, 2011, 14:48 |
Sleep |
|
|
| Dont worry about it kids. The average subber isnt a graphics whore with the attention span of a goldfish so go play MW dudes its aw3sum!!!!111! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > No Medal of Honor Sales on US Bases |
 |
| 27. |
Re: No Medal of Honor Sales on US Bases |
Sep 3, 2010, 07:52 |
Sleep |
|
|
Hellbinder wrote on Sep 2, 2010, 21:57: This kind of GARBAGE has nothing to do with blah blah *drivel* troll, at least try and make some sense. Bad troll, in every way possible.
Anyway back on topic, the only people who will be pissed by this are the soldiers. I saw a documentary the other day and the day roooms were packed with soldiers playing MW2. This just smacks of some corporate fuckwittery. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > WWII Online Patched, Welcome Back Plans |
 |
| 14. |
Re: WWII Online Patched, Welcome Back Plans |
Jul 17, 2010, 14:32 |
Sleep |
|
|
Syd wrote on Jul 17, 2010, 12:42: 23 people on the GHC official ts server, nough said 23 German High Command players, pretty impressive. Must be a push going on. *edit ah no its a last stand, allies breaking through at weert and Tilburg. Looks like campaigns almost over. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > WWII Online Patched, Welcome Back Plans |
 |
| 11. |
Re: WWII Online Patched, Welcome Back Plans |
Jul 17, 2010, 12:33 |
Sleep |
|
|
Syd wrote on Jul 17, 2010, 11:50: yeah tell that to your empty gameworld/offical teamspeak servers, they have soooo many players that they do welcome backs on a monthly basis nowadays lmfao. You clearly havent played in a while. I havent either (for about a year and a bit) and ive never seen a welcome back so i think youre wrong on that front too. There is a 14 day free trial but everyone has those.
The gameworld is well populated (thanks to all the players being concentrated by the AOs you didnt like) and large battles are expected these days to the point the battle usually ends because ones side supply is depleted. Squads have their own vox servers, I didnt even know there were game teamspeak servers and I was playing for 2 years.
I really dont worry about wwiiol enough to argue its merits for someone who has made up their mind, all i would say is that if you want the old days back, itll never happen. CRS recognised that they couldnt live long-term on the few players running around the map free to do anything anywhere even if they were really really keen (and got upset when anyone new started playing) but more importantly, it wasnt fun except for the few - so theyve built them out of the game. thanks for keeping it going during the hard times but like everything it had to grow, even if it left you behind. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > WWII Online Patched, Welcome Back Plans |
 |
| 9. |
Re: WWII Online Patched, Welcome Back Plans |
Jul 17, 2010, 11:40 |
Sleep |
|
|
Syd wrote on Jul 17, 2010, 09:09: Well they had players back then so your argument is invalid Its been going for 9 years, supporting a development team, there are plenty of players willing to pay, even more with the china expansion. It'll never go back to those days of it being a massive sandbox for the 6 players bothering to play against town ai. thank god. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > WWII Online Patched, Welcome Back Plans |
 |
| 6. |
Re: WWII Online Patched, Welcome Back Plans |
Jul 17, 2010, 08:26 |
Sleep |
|
|
fun game too. But if youre expecting MMO Counter Strike better stay away. If youre interested in wwii combat, its a good un. Personally Im a flier, but dabble in tanks and infantry. Havent played for a year, but going to resub for the new patch, the graphics are much improved with better gameplay. But like I said - be warned NOT DoD Source on a large scale. You often never see who shot you, and (before the patch, cant say recently) it was a lot more original CS on a baud modem.
As to the poster below, seriously original wwiiol was AWFUL. Anyone could spawn anywhere meaning you could never find a fight. People were spawning in 3 or 4 locations and never seeing another person. Two guys (one spawning a truck and the other riding) could take literally half of france. The new system forces three or four battles across the map with the winner deciding where to attack next, counter attacks etc. Way more realistic but the average joe cant decide where to attack next only the high command. The people who enjoyed getting in a truck and being their own massive counter attack rage quit and went and played civ. Cest la vie.
The 'welcome back' will be a seperate event which will be based on monte cassino so that will be a real test of their ability to do it right. should be real interesting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
70 Comments. 4 pages. Viewing page 2.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 ] Older > |
|