Teddy wrote on Mar 21, 2012, 13:04:Of course they're going to have to "cross the line" with GW2. It's an actual MMO. It's going to cost a lot more money to run than GW1 does. You say you're still playing GW, how can you not see this? It's the same move as Blizzard going from Diablo 2 to WoW. I fully expect to see most of the standard fare you see in totally F2P MMOs. Going by what other MMOs charge in subscription fees or what they make you want to buy in cash shops, $60 per player should be enough for about 3-6 months, maybe 8 tops. We all know they won't have a new expansion ready by then (and even if they did, expansions aren't cheap to develop either). So with no subscription fee, where the hell do you think the money is going to come from? An extra character slot or recustomization now and then? You know that's not enough revenue to keep things going.
Having played (or rather still playing) the original Guild Wars, I've seen what they did with the microtransactions (MT's) in that and it gives some hope. Most of the MT's in that were related to costumes or polymorphs that had no impact on the game itself. Another big one was the ability to bring one of your previous characters along as a hero character when creating/leveling an alt. The most questionable one was the ability to unlock huge chunks of skills in game, though you still had to spend the time/effort in game to buy them after they were unlocked. It just saved you the grind of running around looking for mobs that had those skills to capture for yourself.
They may cross the line with GW2, but I found what was there in GW1 to be fairly well balanced, nothing that dramatically changed the way you played the game. Most of the things I thought were absurdly overpriced as well, but that's me.
InBlack wrote on Mar 21, 2012, 11:16:
But they are still using the F2P model...
LoL guys, did any of you really, REALLY believe that they can keep an MMO the size and scope of GW2 running on the initial purchase price alone?? Well in theory maybe they could. Apparently it worked for GW1. Afaik the first was basically a slightly more expanded version of Diablo2. This second one is supposed to be a persistent world MMO right??
Its Microstransactions all the way to the bank for Arenanet. I dont understand the nerdrage, they gotta make the money somehow...
venomhed wrote on Mar 16, 2012, 13:02:
Also this MMO could benefit greatly from the game Mount & Blade. Ditch the idea of "levels" where people become too powerful.
Imagine and MMO without levels, but maybe with skills? This would force people to stick and work together because someone that plays the game 1 year would be really good, but he could get ganked by 3-4 players that have just started the game the past week.
Don't think this is possible? Ultima Online was this way for about 6-9 months. At first it was chaos. You left a town, people would hide in the tree's and kick your ass in. Eventually mobs of real people would go out and murder the real bandits and hunt them down. It was incredibly tense and fun, people would help you, heal you etc. etc. The other aspect is that you ACTUALLY LOST THE ITEMS YOU HAD ON YOU! None of this zero death penalty. So when you got snuffed you could lose that sweet armor, weapon, gold, your horse. Made you think twice.
MMO's today are a friggin treadmill of grinding with no penalty for jack all. BORING
Prez wrote on Mar 15, 2012, 17:20:
I'll admit ignorance here because I never played Diablo online. But let's look at Dungeon Defenders, which in some ways is very similar to Diablo. They have an online single-player and an offline single-player. You can mod, cheat, use trainers, etc to your heart's content in the "Open" mode (offline single-player and coop). But if you want to have your stats tracked, and want to play in sanctioned tournaments and events, coop or singleplayer, you need a completely separate set of characters and equipment, and as far as I've seen this works perfectly. I certainly won't accept that a cash-strapped indie with a fraction of the talent and resources of a mega-studio like Blizzard is capable of pulling off what Blizzard can't. Eliminating "They can't do it", which seems logical to do, leaves "They refuse to do it", which I find irksome to say the least.
Darks wrote on Mar 13, 2012, 10:12:Ripperjack wrote on Mar 13, 2012, 10:05:
Since when did games start at $60?? Bloody EA and their price gouging!
Yea, the whole 60 dollar thing is getting out of hand. And yes EA and Activision are fricking responsible for this happening. Greedy bastards!!
Verno wrote on Mar 13, 2012, 10:07:They won't be subsidizing monthly fees. They'll have a cash shop that while not quite as necessary as in most F2P titles, will still be necessary enough to influence many players to spend money every month. They were able to get by without that in the first GW because of the instanced design (it was basically Diablo II but with 3D towns instead of text lobbies for meeting up with other players). A persistent world is going to take a lot more hardware and a lot more bandwidth, and their previous revenue model isn't going to be sufficient.Ripperjack wrote on Mar 13, 2012, 10:05:
A friends trial offer, so soon after release? This game WILL go F2P within 6 months, if this keeps up. Then you can play your WoW with glow sticks for free, each month.
Every game should have a friends trial at launch IMO, most don't because they want the launch copy money so badly. The Guild Wars model is pretty close to F2P already so that wouldn't be a bad thing or something. I'm still amazed they subsidize monthly fees with how crazy expensive it is to make an MMO.
DrEvil wrote on Mar 5, 2012, 11:02:Maybe. I'm starting to wonder if Windows 7 will be the last Microsoft OS I use.Creston wrote on Mar 5, 2012, 10:52:
Indeed, and it looks like Windows 8 is the new Windows ME / Vista disaster for desktops.
Maybe Windows 9 will actually be suitable for desktops.
Teddy wrote on Feb 29, 2012, 18:54:Clearly you didn't even bother to read the post you quoted. You briefly skimmed it, saw the word "rape" and promptly started constructing your straw man.Prez wrote on Feb 29, 2012, 15:02:Except that I'm not the one that said it. I'm repeating what someone else brought as their argument. To be a strawman argument, I'd have to be misrepresenting what was said. I'm not.
You deliberately used it in a manner completely out of context from the way it was said, so yeah, strawman. In fact, I can't think of a more perfect illustration of the deliberate misrepresentation of an argument that constitutes the exact kind of unfair debating that makes the internet such a waste of time to debate on.
I took nothing out of context. I stated previously that he had agreed to a software agreement wherein the provider had given themselves the 'right' to scan a system to provide better service. He then attempted to oversimplify and draw an ad absurdum argument wherein rape was equivalent to scanning hard drives within the context of a software agreement.
That's the exact context the argument was made, and the exact context I took it when I stated that EA was being made out to be the equivalent of rapists.
If you can't see that in obvious clarity, then yes, debating is a waste of time.
Asmo wrote on Feb 29, 2012, 17:57:I stand by what I said earlier. It doesn't translate well to any video game, because what makes it great is the story and the characters. As soon as you change either one, it's no longer the same thing. The fantasy world of A Song of Fire and Ice has nothing really all that interesting or unique about it compared to any other of dozens of fantasy worlds to make it a compelling backdrop for a video game.
GoT would work with a game format like Mortal Online, but atm it just seems they're wringing every last concept out of it purely because it's popular on TV (rather than preserving the integrity of the franchise...). How bloody unusual...
The pickle wrote on Feb 29, 2012, 18:03:First, it's neither "Orgins" nor "Origins".
people who complain about Orgins & use steam = Hyprocrites!!
Slashman wrote on Feb 29, 2012, 10:51:Exactly. What makes his work great is the characters, the drama, the story. None of it translates all that well really to any video game format, and particularly not an MMO.
I just don't see this working out.
I love Martin's work...but it doesn't really make me want to play games based on it.
Creston wrote on Feb 27, 2012, 14:25:Lorcin wrote on Feb 27, 2012, 02:16:Creston wrote on Feb 26, 2012, 23:51:
On topic : Has anyone played through several of the classes' storylines? Are they different enough to warrant playing through them, or are even those just variations of "go here and kill X of Y?"
There's a Class plot line per planet but that is maybe 5 missions which is specfic to the class. The other missions you pick up on each planet are the same as the other classes.
Shit. So much for this being 8 single player games in one...
Thanks Lorcin. Edit : Thanks as well Jonny!
, MCV also points out that Destructoid recently put on a green visor to do some accounting to tally up what it would cost to get all the DLC planned for Mass Effect 3. This results in an eye-popping $869.91 price tag
Fion wrote on Feb 24, 2012, 01:44:Or more likely they figured they're going to pay for another year of WoW anyway, may as well get a free game out of it.eunichron wrote on Feb 23, 2012, 23:15:
I'm sure that has absolutely nothing to do with the 1 year free Diablo 3 subscription plan they offered in that quarter.
Funny thing is you could purchase Diablo III three times over for the price of a year of WoW. All those idiots bored to death of the game signed up for a year just to get it free, not even realizing that lol.
Creston wrote on Feb 1, 2012, 21:22:Normally that's how it gets tallied. But keep in mind, with SW:ToR you MUST subscribe to play the game at all, even for your first month. So technically, whatever number they hit for active accounts, that same number was also their active subscriptions.
I thought active subscribers meant people who signed up after their free month?
Alamar wrote on Jan 25, 2012, 19:02:Obviously you've never played GW, but I'm still baffled just how you imagine people grinding for skills and abilities.
As if grinding for gear isn't bad enough, at least we don't have to grind for skills and abilities...
Nomaar wrote on Jan 25, 2012, 13:08:Some people did, but many people also just bought the items (or materials to craft items) from other players who got lucky.Endo wrote on Jan 25, 2012, 12:24:
"and grinding for gear doesn't cut it."
Uh, yeah... but that's generally the entire purpose for increasing the level cap: to force everyone to grind for gear all over again. That's THE biggest reason I don't like level cap increases.
GW kept adding new skills and abilities to collect as a way to keep advancing your character. New gear was available from the new dungeons and other content they added, but the stats were the same as the old gear. They just had new cool skins, which as it turns out is plenty incentive for people to put in lots of effort to acquire them.
But above all, the new content was just fun to play through.
Don't get me wrong, GW wasn't perfect. There's many reasons I quit playing it. But this is one area where they definitely got things right.
So what you're saying is that people still grinded for new gear in the GW expansion, but they did it to look cool, instead of getting more stats. What is so innovative about this? And all MMORPGs usually include new skills and abilities in their expansions, as well as new content to play through.
nin wrote on Jan 25, 2012, 11:58:Same here.Beelzebud wrote on Jan 25, 2012, 11:45:
I still can't believe that Mists of Pandaria isn't a practical joke on the gaming community.
Oh well, it assures I am really done with WoW!
While I do miss WOW, I miss what it was, and not what it is now, or what MOP will bring to the table.
Frijoles wrote on Jan 25, 2012, 10:24:Yes. Players don't need a "carrot & stick" to keep playing. They just need fun content. Guild Wars proved quite well all by itself that level cap increases aren't necessary, but it's not alone. GW had its share of shortcomings, but at least ArenaNet got that part right.
Are you saying MMOs shouldn't increase levels with their expansions?