CrabbyGnome wrote on Jul 3, 2012, 12:27:This.
I don't see $50 + $15 a month working anymore for an MMO unless your WoW.
D_K_night wrote on May 7, 2012, 23:32:Well since you haven't gotten a response yet, here's my take. I think it's because those games didn't have enough to do besides combat, and the combat was too boring. WoW, for example, has never had particularly spectacular combat, but at release there was just enough other things to do to keep it interesting. Things like cooking and fishing, and then there's engineering which was way cool back in Vanilla. They also had a pretty good progression pace back then. This kept content relevant a lot longer as compared to new games like Rift and SW:TOR, where the content can be played through with one character by an average player in a matter of 2-6 months. WoW took that long just to hit level cap originally.
Well there have been tons of games which didn't totally copy WoW, but came out with variations on combat systems and so on. Would you be able to explain why those games didn't work out?
NKD wrote on May 4, 2012, 08:46:I'm 100% with you, even though I never got to play EQ back in its prime.LgFriess wrote on May 4, 2012, 08:22:
Ugh. After seeing this in yesterdays thread, I'm even more disappointed.
When I cancelled my SWTOR account, a survey popped up asking why. After writing the numerous reasons basically stating "boredom" I finished with, "WoW burnout has caused me to cancel my SWTOR subscription." I actually ENJOYED both games. Played WoW for years. SWTOR for 4 months. But that game style is just so dead. At least for a game that will want you to play for a long stretch of time.
Being a veteran of EQ and its various descendants over the years, I think a large part of the problem with where that style of MMO has gone is the overt focus on making things easier and easier and more casual. Yes, that approach nets you a larger subscriber base, but a simple fact of life is that, with few exceptions, you don't value something that came to you at no effort. That's true online and offline. I think most of us had parents, grandparents, or teachers that told us that things which come at great effort taste so much sweeter.
It's the reason I have never sold my EQ1 account. I put a lot of blood sweat and tears into that shit. Even though I haven't played in 8 years, I'm not getting rid of it. But my WoW account? I've put even more years into that than I did into EQ, but I don't care about it one bit, because while I invested more years, I invested significantly less effort.
The major appeal that style of MMO had was that it was sort of like real life for regular people. You got out of it what you put into it. You had to really put in a lot of effort if you wanted to succeed beyond the average joe.
But now it's more like real life for celebrities than real life for regular people. Loot and accomplishment thrown upon you for little to no effort. And we know how that often ends for celebrities: They end up dying of a drug overdose because despite having everything they could want, none of it had any meaning, just like a lot of today's MMOs.
Now MMOs are less and less about making a virtual world in which you can carve out a virtual life, and more about just being a giant, disposable, forgettable theme park.
Detractors of the MMO genre often say they don't want their games to feel like work. That's fine for any other game, but once you try to make a virtual world, the only thing that gives anything value or meaning is the effort you put into it. It has no inherent value of its own.
I want MMOs to get back to being products for those of us who really enjoy the concept of a virtual world, not just a product designed to cash in on popped collar bros looking for a Facebook-with-swords concept.
Bhruic wrote on May 3, 2012, 12:46:No it's not. And the word you were looking for is "semantics". If you were correct, and it was just an argument about semantics, that would mean that Steam actually is a publisher in all but name, which is not the case at all. Therefore, you're completely wrong.SimplyMonk wrote on May 3, 2012, 12:19:Bhruic wrote on May 3, 2012, 12:14:
If having a publisher automatically removed you from consideration as an "indie" game, then every game on Steam automatically loses that label.
Steam is in no way a publisher. They are a digital storefront and distribution network. That is not the same in any sense of the word. Except the wrong sense.
That's just a semantic arguement.
Steam itself isn't a publisher, but if you look at the game descriptions for indie games, they all list either a separate publisher, or the developer as the publisher. In either case, they are listed as having an actual publisher.Which has nothing to do at all with the post you responded to, or your claim about the post being "just about semantics". SimplyMonk never said whether they might have other publishers. He said Steam is not a publisher.
Beamer wrote on May 1, 2012, 13:08:But that's how it should be. I mean, think about it. It's an investment. No investment is risk-free. If you buy a stock, there's no money-back guarantee if it goes downhill, or even if the company goes bankrupt. So as with stock, if you're looking at investing in a Kickstarter project, do as much research as you can and hope for the best.
I don't even get why these guys did this much of a scam.
Just discuss an awesome idea, show some concept art, put the figure low by saying you have some personal financing, and get $10k-$20k of free money.
Then say the project fell through. No one can really do anything to prove otherwise, and I don't believe there's any accountability.
Steele Johnson wrote on Apr 13, 2012, 18:42:Well we definitely need some merged servers soon, or at least free moves. My server is becoming deserted enough that it's nearly impossible to find a group for any flashpoint other than end-game. I can't even get a group with my tank characters.
free gifts ->> merged servers ->> going free to play ->> good night
Bhruic wrote on Apr 13, 2012, 11:40:I'm in the same boat, and slightly more upset than you, though not really pissed. But you're wrong in your last paragraph. What they SHOULD have done is give 30 free days to everyone who has an active subscription and has paid for at least 3 months. That makes much more sense and is a lot less arbitrary than simply having a level 50. I could have had a level 50 in the first 3-4 weeks, without pushing myself. But I chose to pace myself more to play with my IRL friends, and made a ton of alts (I'm using all 8 slots on the server I play on).
Read elsewhere that some players are pissed that it only applies to accounts with a lvl 50 character, but I guess you can't please everyone
Well, that is rather annoying. I could have got a level 50 char easily, but I wanted to check out some of the other stories, so I've been spreading my time among a bunch of other chars. So I'm going to miss out on 30 free days because I didn't stick to a single char.
But I guess there's really nothing short of "free 30 days for all" they could have done that wouldn't have been equally arbitrary.
Jerykk wrote on Apr 9, 2012, 17:12:People mind paying extra for things they feel should have come with the game. They don't mind paying extra for things that are clearly fluff and extraneous.Are you sure about TF2? Quake Live didn't generate much, and all of the "pay more for more weapons" games have failed to do much of anything.
That's pretty much why Quake Live fails as a F2P game. It doesn't have any microtransactions or unlockables. Conversely, TF2 has tons of cosmetic items that apparently sell really well.
Smooth Gravy wrote on Apr 3, 2012, 18:07:Likewise here, as this skill system to me offers a great deal more what I'm looking for than GW2.
I'm excited to play this. I like the idea behind skill wheel system and the setting. Every game that comes out has issues nowadays. From what little I've been hearing, they have admitted to the flaws of AoC and they have teams spending equal amounts of time on each phase of the game up through end game. I'm looking forward to this more than GW2 myself. To each their own.
Fion wrote on Mar 23, 2012, 14:27:I guess for me, GW was all about the skill system. GW2 offers so much less flexibility here, it's not even in the same universe. With GW2, half your skill bar is determined by the weapon you're using. (That's somewhat OK if you're playing a warrior, but not at all for any other class.) Since there's only going to be a handful of different weapons truly useful for any given class, that doesn't give you as much flexibility as you might think. Of the other half, one of them has to be a very specific type of skill. And for the rest, you're stuck with choosing skills from just one class. It might still be OK, but it's going to be a pale shadow of what GW offered.
I wouldn't say it looks more like GW than GW2 does at all. It certainly offers a huge variety of skills to combine that will lead to a lot of meta. GW2 does the same, to a lesser extent. But beyond that I don't see any GW similarities.
On topic, that's a sweet video. I'm a big Funcom fan (despite their stumble on AoC) so I'm looking forward to this one. Not so much as I am GW2, but still quite a lot.