I am now concerned about this game

kishe

They got 25 public computers running TSW all weekend at PAX this weekend...just saying!

Sevenwind

Originally posted by Worstluck

Possibly.  But there is a way of talking about features and releasing information about a game without 'hyping' it.  Either many features are incomplete or they just don't want people finding out excactly what kind of game it is.  It's in testing period so an NDA is understandable.  Just bothers me when companies (EDIT:  companies like Funcom, with their reputation of poor launches) ask you to pay sums of money for preorders and character slots and fancy starter weapons money before they drop the NDA.  Then again I don't preorder games, so maybe I am different.

All of the packages they offer now will be in after launch. Get into the open beta to try the game out before you hand over your money. Even the lifetime offer will be there after launch.

Spellforged

Well, all I can say is that I'll definitely be playing TSW eventually, but I won't be preordering it.  I'm under the impression that it will have more than a couple issues at launch and will convert to some form of Free to Play model eventually.  Honestly, I just don't know if Pay to Play is a good payment model anymore.

fenistil

Originally posted by Ujirik

 Honestly, I just don't know if Pay to Play is a good payment model anymore.

It all depends imho on a game a type of it.  Bit of what game design is and a bit just on case to case basis.

For example I would consider P2P as best model for sandbox mmorpg (but without additional even cosmetic CS) ,but on the other hand games like GW2 are propably best with B2P and MOBA games with F2P.

Themepark mmorpg's best business model?  No idea. Propably case by case basis is best. 

Not to mention imo future is multiple business models for one game , this is not an option for all games obviosuly but for some surely is.  Some servers F2P , some P2P , some freemium or soemthing else ,etc 

I think it just all depend on a game.

Uccisore

Originally posted by GeezerGamer

 

My arguement is simple:

Why charge for a 4th slot if only 3 are ever neede?

Your argument is confusing:

They charge for a 4th slot because you only need 3.

So if I want a 4th, Why should I pay more than a box and a sub?

50 bucks plus anthoer 15 isn't enough?

 

You're not making any sense.  Funcom is a company, they are trying to make money by definition. Screaming "AHA, I CAUGHT YOU TRYING TO MAKE MONEY!!!" is not a criticism to anybody that understands what a business is. That said,

If you don't want a 4th character slot, don't buy one.

You're much less likely to need a 4th character slot in THIS game than you are in other, class-based games.

That's why you're complaint doesn't make any sense- you're crying about a company trying to sell you something you most likely don't even want.

 

At the end of the day, I concede that Funcom has been 0//2 when it comes to launching games- they suck at it, and people ought to be wary about buying it instantly. On the other hand, Anarchy Online and Age of Conan have been my two favorite MMORPGs period, once the bugs were worked out.  The first for the awesome, detailed advancement schema, and the second for the setting.  The Secret World stands to beat both of those games in both of those respects.

 

Keyh

Originally posted by Ujirik

 Honestly, I just don't know if Pay to Play is a good payment model anymore.

It is a good payment model, but the model everyone uses is dated and stupid.

Most games I'm sure would see more subs if they offered cheaper, limited access (either playtime or content) packages in addition to the $15 'all you can eat'.

 

kishe

Considering you can max all skills and abilities in the game with just one character, three slots are there just so you can try other factions and extra slots are for sale if you just want to make alt to look pretty.

 

 

GeezerGamer

Originally posted by Uccisore

Originally posted by GeezerGamer

 

My arguement is simple:

Why charge for a 4th slot if only 3 are ever neede?

Your argument is confusing:

They charge for a 4th slot because you only need 3.

So if I want a 4th, Why should I pay more than a box and a sub?

50 bucks plus anthoer 15 isn't enough?

 

You're not making any sense.  Funcom is a company, they are trying to make money by definition. Screaming "AHA, I CAUGHT YOU TRYING TO MAKE MONEY!!!" is not a criticism to anybody that understands what a business is. That said,

If you don't want a 4th character slot, don't buy one.

You're much less likely to need a 4th character slot in THIS game than you are in other, class-based games.

That's why you're complaint doesn't make any sense- you're crying about a company trying to sell you something you most likely don't even want.

 

At the end of the day, I concede that Funcom has been 0//2 when it comes to launching games- they suck at it, and people ought to be wary about buying it instantly. On the other hand, Anarchy Online and Age of Conan have been my two favorite MMORPGs period, once the bugs were worked out.  The first for the awesome, detailed advancement schema, and the second for the setting.  The Secret World stands to beat both of those games in both of those respects.

 

Stop playing semantics to make something look like something else. There is a huge difference between a company turning a profit and a company fleecing it's customers.  It's called value. That's where you pay a fair price and in return recieve a product or service in return worth equally the same amount as the money paid. This is not happening here.

Funcom is implementing an unprecidented revenue model. At least one that hasn't succeeded yet. Even that isn't enough. Asking large sums of money doesn't have a limit for this company.

It's OK, to charge a box fee then ask for $15/mo and THEN on top of that treat everyone as if they just downloaded some F2P Turbine game or EQ2 with limited access and you have to pay even more? We haven't even addressed the fact that there is little to no transparency surrounding this game and yet they feel it's perfectly acceptable to ask for lifetime subs? You don't even know what's going to be in that cash shop, but I can tell you they lied about what they put in the anarchy online cashshop. They said they wouldn't sell power and yet in a game where credits can buy you anything in the game whatsoever, including NODROP boss drop raid items, they set up their own RMT trade through the cash shop, you most certainly can buy power. That in and of itself doesn't bother me so much because of the nature of the current playerbase. Most don't really need it and in the end it does offer the opportunity for noobs to catch up if they wish to spend money. But it doesn't change the fact that they lied about it.

All the responses to my question are the same. The 4th slot is not needed. So if it is of little to no value, why charge a fee for it? It's an industry standard for Theme Park MMOs to offer a lot of Alt slots.

I'll tell you what. After I shell out $65 bucks just to log in and play, and another $15/month going forward to log into what then becomes a standard F2P model, I'll decide if I need that 4th slot, not you. And if it is desireable, then this game is a complete scam. (All that is assuming that I even decide to buy it)

The only games that have any reason to limit the number of alts a player can have are sandboxes with 100% player driven economies.

GeezerGamer

Originally posted by Ujirik

Well, all I can say is that I'll definitely be playing TSW eventually, but I won't be preordering it.  I'm under the impression that it will have more than a couple issues at launch and will convert to some form of Free to Play model eventually.  Honestly, I just don't know if Pay to Play is a good payment model anymore.

The origianl P2P plan is fine. Rift has no issues surrounding it's revenue model.

It's when companies try to get "creative" and hybrid P2P with F2P to some degree or another. 

Theocritus

Originally posted by Ujirik

Well, all I can say is that I'll definitely be playing TSW eventually, but I won't be preordering it.  I'm under the impression that it will have more than a couple issues at launch and will convert to some form of Free to Play model eventually.  Honestly, I just don't know if Pay to Play is a good payment model anymore.

      I get the feeling that more games are leaning towards get as much as we can in the first year or two of the game, then go with a f2p option which will bring in more players and make the money through the cash shop at that point.....I enjoyed Anarchy Online but there is no way I will blindly pay anything for TSW without trying it first.

Boatsmate

Originally posted by Kyleran

C'mon, you pair up Funcom with EA and you just know there's going to be some shenanigans.

Sort of like pairing up bad and evil. 

Definitely won't be pre-ordering.

 

Mental image of heavy ,locked door with Funcom-EA printed on it, weird smoke streaming out from the bottom and wicked ,video game, howling laugh from behind door.

Emwyn

Originally posted by Theocritus

      I get the feeling that more games are leaning towards get as much as we can in the first year or two of the game, then go with a f2p option which will bring in more players and make the money through the cash shop at that point.....I enjoyed Anarchy Online but there is no way I will blindly pay anything for TSW without trying it first.

that seems to be the case sadly.

Shadanwolf

What's the resume of FUNCOM look like ? Do they have a history of producing great games...or something else......

 

After ANARCHY and AOC...how can you get excited about Secret World ?

TheSedated

Originally posted by GeezerGamer

Stop playing semantics to make something look like something else. There is a huge difference between a company turning a profit and a company fleecing it's customers.  It's called value. That's where you pay a fair price and in return recieve a product or service in return worth equally the same amount as the money paid. This is not happening here.

You know, value is a highly subjective thing... Some people spend thousands and thousands of Dollars, Euros, Pounds or whatever currency for rare Matchbox cars. Would I pay 100€ for a single Matchbox car? Hell, no! I'm not interested in these things so I wouldn't pay so much. Same thing goes for most other things. It's a part of a free economy.

Funcom is implementing an unprecidented revenue model. At least one that hasn't succeeded yet. Even that isn't enough. Asking large sums of money doesn't have a limit for this company.

It's OK, to charge a box fee then ask for $15/mo and THEN on top of that treat everyone as if they just downloaded some F2P Turbine game or EQ2 with limited access and you have to pay even more? We haven't even addressed the fact that there is little to no transparency surrounding this game and yet they feel it's perfectly acceptable to ask for lifetime subs?

They don't ask for lifetime subs, they offer them. If someone is willing to spend this amount of money on something like that with the information he has on this product, he's totally free to do so. Funcom doesn't push anyone to buy it, they just offer it. And it's totally legit for them to do so, because Funcom is not responsible for the customers actions, the customers are. If they choose to buy a lifetime sub it's their own choice.

You don't even know what's going to be in that cash shop, but I can tell you they lied about what they put in the anarchy online cashshop. They said they wouldn't sell power and yet in a game where credits can buy you anything in the game whatsoever, including NODROP boss drop raid items, they set up their own RMT trade through the cash shop, you most certainly can buy power. That in and of itself doesn't bother me so much because of the nature of the current playerbase. Most don't really need it and in the end it does offer the opportunity for noobs to catch up if they wish to spend money. But it doesn't change the fact that they lied about it.

Oh, yeah, I see. Funcom is clearly responsible when players sell items (especially tokens and items from the OFAB vendors) to other players for ingame money, just to spend this ingame money on lootrights for NODROP items. The only thing where Funcom is sleeping here, in my opinion, is that they don't prevent people from selling lootrights. Do they sell power? If you count tokens (which aren't hard to get through playing) and victory points as power, then yes. Do they sell rare and powerful NODROP items in the shop? No. Players sell lootrights for these things ingame that you can buy if you purchase tokens in item shop, sell these tokens to other players and buy the lootrights from others. That's totally Funcom selling power in the shop, yeah... -.-

All the responses to my question are the same. The 4th slot is not needed. So if it is of little to no value, why charge a fee for it? It's an industry standard for Theme Park MMOs to offer a lot of Alt slots.

I'll tell you what. After I shell out $65 bucks just to log in and play, and another $15/month going forward to log into what then becomes a standard F2P model, I'll decide if I need that 4th slot, not you. And if it is desireable, then this game is a complete scam. (All that is assuming that I even decide to buy it)

The only games that have any reason to limit the number of alts a player can have are sandboxes with 100% player driven economies.

Why not charge a fee for it if it has so little value and hardly anyone needs it? You can get a fifth chromed rim for your spare wheel also. Do you need it? No. Is the possibility high you'll ever see it on your car? No. Do you have to pay for it if you want one? Yes. You already said, you decide if you need a fourth character slot. Everyone decides for himself if he needs a fourth character slot in TSW. And if he thinks he needs it, he decides if he needs it so badly that he thinks it's worth the 10 bucks for him.

And why do only sandbox games should have a reason to limit number of charslots? Could you explain that for me, because from what I see, a lot of things known about TSW are really sandboxish. The only major difference is that it's not a 100% player driven world like EVE for example.

 

synn

Originally posted by Crunchy221

This game is going to generate a lot of hate regardless of how good it is, its funcom and people are still hurt over AoC's launch.  I really just wish GW2 would launch before TSW to suck up all the wow-park pvpers and keep them occupied for that month before they go looking for a new game.

it really doesn't matter which game was launching first....there's more then enough haters to go around. I'm sure with all the hype GW2 has following it the hate train is gonna be rolling out in full force to bring that game to its knees. ppl will always find something to complain about example: http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/345861/Anyone-else-bothered-by-the-lack-of-theme.html

GeezerGamer

Originally posted by TheSedated

You know, value is a highly subjective thing... Some people spend thousands and thousands of Dollars, Euros, Pounds or whatever currency for rare Matchbox cars. Would I pay 100€ for a single Matchbox car? Hell, no! I'm not interested in these things so I wouldn't pay so much. Same thing goes for most other things. It's a part of a free economy.

What most would consider as a value in these situations is based on what the market does. Within the gaming industry and the MMO market, this is  delivering far less for the same cost.To an objective person comparing what you get vs. what you pay for against different products, It doesn't add up.

They don't ask for lifetime subs, they offer them. If someone is willing to spend this amount of money on something like that with the information he has on this product, he's totally free to do so. Funcom doesn't push anyone to buy it, they just offer it. And it's totally legit for them to do so, because Funcom is not responsible for the customers actions, the customers are. If they choose to buy a lifetime sub it's their own choice.

 We are going to split that hair? "Ask" vs "Offer"? They want people's money up front. It sounds like we are playing word games.

Oh, yeah, I see. Funcom is clearly responsible when players sell items (especially tokens and items from the OFAB vendors) to other players for ingame money, just to spend this ingame money on lootrights for NODROP items. The only thing where Funcom is sleeping here, in my opinion, is that they don't prevent people from selling lootrights. Do they sell power? If you count tokens (which aren't hard to get through playing) and victory points as power, then yes. Do they sell rare and powerful NODROP items in the shop? No. Players sell lootrights for these things ingame that you can buy if you purchase tokens in item shop, sell these tokens to other players and buy the lootrights from others. That's totally Funcom selling power in the shop, yeah...

I said I didn't care about AO selling power in the shop. It doesnt bother me. AO has different circumstances with buying Power. Most players already have all they need, it's mostly for alts. My issue is that they said one thing and did another.

Why not charge a fee for it if it has so little value and hardly anyone needs it? You can get a fifth chromed rim for your spare wheel also. Do you need it? No. Is the possibility high you'll ever see it on your car? No. Do you have to pay for it if you want one? Yes. You already said, you decide if you need a fourth character slot. Everyone decides for himself if he needs a fourth character slot in TSW. And if he thinks he needs it, he decides if he needs it so badly that he thinks it's worth the 10 bucks for him.

If I was buying a car and every other dealer included a chromed rim and Funcom didn't, then yeah, I'd expect it. Some people want a full spare tire because they rotate all 5 tires periodically and include the spare. And so, if I want what comes standard in other games, I have to pay 10 bucks. So now it's $75 to play for a month and $15 there after. Too much for me. And I like alts.

And why do only sandbox games should have a reason to limit number of charslots? Could you explain that for me, because from what I see, a lot of things known about TSW are really sandboxish. The only major difference is that it's not a 100% player driven world like EVE for example.

SWG was a good example. Basically in a player driven economy if you have alts you can become 100% self sufficient and that becomes counter productive to the virtual economy. If TSW's ecoomy is player driven, meaning all the desirable gear is crafted by other players, then I'll withdraw my arguement. 

Otherwise, I'll still believe that the only purpose to limit player slots is to charge money that by industry standard, I should already have paid for.

 

 

Azrile

Originally posted by evilastro

Originally posted by BadSpock

I really hope Funcom finally breaks their own mold and releases a game that is actually what it was advertised as at launch instead of months/years after.

Competition is good for the genre, any new high-quality MMO people enjoy is good for the genre.

We don't need another flop.

 

I agree. This game does look promising to me, but because it is Funcom I refuse to leap before I look. I will wait a few months after launch to see what the player response is like. But I am hopeful for the game. I just hope they can change the terrible casting animations too.

That is my thought.  Maybe another developer I might give benefit of the doubt.. but with funcom, they absolutely NEED to have a fairly long open beta where players can play most of the content (not the lvl 20 crap like aoc) and report freely about it.

The open beta can´t be short (less than 2 weeks) and it can´t have restricted content.

Honestly, after seeing the gameplay video.. this is most certainly a near-scam again.  There is no way the game can go from that state to ready for release in 2 months.  If they really expect people to buy a lifetime membership, they should have had some quality gameplay vids.

It is not going to be AOC all over again because they aren´t overhyping it and they certainly are not going to sell anywhere near 1M boxes..  but the actual gameplay will be terrible fore the people who jump in on day 1.

But again, a full open beta that gives players enough time to get through most of the content would help wonders.

.adslot-overlay {position: absolute; font-family: arial, sans-serif; background-color: rgba(0,0,0,0.65); border: 2px solid rgba(0,0,0,0.65); color: white !important; margin: 0; 2147483647; text-decoration: none; box-sizing: border-box; text-align: left;}.adslot-overlay-iframed {top: 0; left: 0; right: 0; bottom: 0;}.slotname {position: absolute; top: 0; left: 0; right: 0; font-size: 13px; font-weight: bold; padding: 3px 0 3px 6px; vertical-align: middle; background-color: rgba(0,0,0,0.45); text-overflow: ellipsis; white-space: nowrap; overflow: hidden;}.slotname span {text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-transform: capitalize;}.revenue {position: absolute; bottom: 0; left: 0; right: 0; font-size: 11px; padding: 3px 0 3px 6px; vertial-align: middle; text-align: left; background-color: rgba(0,0,0,0.45); font-weight: bold; text-overflow: ellipsis; overflow: hidden; white-space: nowrap;}.revenue .name {color: #ccc;}.revenue .horizontal .metric {display: inline-block; padding-right: 1.5em;}.revenue .horizontal .name {padding-right: 0.5em;}.revenue .vertical .metric {display: block; line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;}.revenue .vertical .name, .revenue .vertical .value {display: block;}.revenue .square .metric, .revenue .button .metric {display: table-row;}.revenue .square .metric {line-height: 1.5em;}.revenue .square .name, .revenue .square .value, .revenue .button .value {display: table-cell;}.revenue .square .name {padding-right: 1.5em;}.revenue .button .name {display: block; margin-right: 0.5em; width: 1em; overflow: hidden; text-overflow: clip;}.revenue .button .name:first-letter {margin-right: 1.5em;}a.adslot-overlay:hover {border: 2px solid rgba(58,106,173,0.9);}a.adslot-overlay:hover .slotname {border-bottom: 1px solid rgba(81,132,210,0.9); background-color: rgba(58,106,173,0.9);}a.adslot-overlay:hover .revenue {border-top: 1px solid rgba(81,132,210,0.9); background-color: rgba(58,106,173,0.9);}div.adslot-overlay:hover {cursor: not-allowed; border: 2px solid rgba(64,64,64,0.9);}div.adslot-overlay:hover .slotname {border-bottom: 1px solid rgba(128,128,128,0.9); background-color: rgba(64,64,64,0.9);}div.adslot-overlay:hover .revenue {border-top: 1px solid rgba(128,128,128,0.9); background-color: rgba(64,64,64,0.9);}

Asuran24

Originally posted by Azrile

Originally posted by evilastro

Originally posted by BadSpock

I really hope Funcom finally breaks their own mold and releases a game that is actually what it was advertised as at launch instead of months/years after.

Competition is good for the genre, any new high-quality MMO people enjoy is good for the genre.

We don't need another flop.

 

I agree. This game does look promising to me, but because it is Funcom I refuse to leap before I look. I will wait a few months after launch to see what the player response is like. But I am hopeful for the game. I just hope they can change the terrible casting animations too.

That is my thought.  Maybe another developer I might give benefit of the doubt.. but with funcom, they absolutely NEED to have a fairly long open beta where players can play most of the content (not the lvl 20 crap like aoc) and report freely about it.

The open beta can´t be short (less than 2 weeks) and it can´t have restricted content.

Honestly, after seeing the gameplay video.. this is most certainly a near-scam again.  There is no way the game can go from that state to ready for release in 2 months.  If they really expect people to buy a lifetime membership, they should have had some quality gameplay vids.

It is not going to be AOC all over again because they aren´t overhyping it and they certainly are not going to sell anywhere near 1M boxes..  but the actual gameplay will be terrible fore the people who jump in on day 1.

But again, a full open beta that gives players enough time to get through most of the content would help wonders.

.adslot-overlay {position: absolute; font-family: arial, sans-serif; background-color: rgba(0,0,0,0.65); border: 2px solid rgba(0,0,0,0.65); color: white !important; margin: 0; 2147483647; text-decoration: none; box-sizing: border-box; text-align: left;}.adslot-overlay-iframed {top: 0; left: 0; right: 0; bottom: 0;}.slotname {position: absolute; top: 0; left: 0; right: 0; font-size: 13px; font-weight: bold; padding: 3px 0 3px 6px; vertical-align: middle; background-color: rgba(0,0,0,0.45); text-overflow: ellipsis; white-space: nowrap; overflow: hidden;}.slotname span {text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-transform: capitalize;}.revenue {position: absolute; bottom: 0; left: 0; right: 0; font-size: 11px; padding: 3px 0 3px 6px; vertial-align: middle; text-align: left; background-color: rgba(0,0,0,0.45); font-weight: bold; text-overflow: ellipsis; overflow: hidden; white-space: nowrap;}.revenue .name {color: #ccc;}.revenue .horizontal .metric {display: inline-block; padding-right: 1.5em;}.revenue .horizontal .name {padding-right: 0.5em;}.revenue .vertical .metric {display: block; line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;}.revenue .vertical .name, .revenue .vertical .value {display: block;}.revenue .square .metric, .revenue .button .metric {display: table-row;}.revenue .square .metric {line-height: 1.5em;}.revenue .square .name, .revenue .square .value, .revenue .button .value {display: table-cell;}.revenue .square .name {padding-right: 1.5em;}.revenue .button .name {display: block; margin-right: 0.5em; width: 1em; overflow: hidden; text-overflow: clip;}.revenue .button .name:first-letter {margin-right: 1.5em;}a.adslot-overlay:hover {border: 2px solid rgba(58,106,173,0.9);}a.adslot-overlay:hover .slotname {border-bottom: 1px solid rgba(81,132,210,0.9); background-color: rgba(58,106,173,0.9);}a.adslot-overlay:hover .revenue {border-top: 1px solid rgba(81,132,210,0.9); background-color: rgba(58,106,173,0.9);}div.adslot-overlay:hover {cursor: not-allowed; border: 2px solid rgba(64,64,64,0.9);}div.adslot-overlay:hover .slotname {border-bottom: 1px solid rgba(128,128,128,0.9); background-color: rgba(64,64,64,0.9);}div.adslot-overlay:hover .revenue {border-top: 1px solid rgba(128,128,128,0.9); background-color: rgba(64,64,64,0.9);}

Lol so what you are sayihng is that since funcaom has had afew issues with game launches (yet several of their games turned out pretty good for many players) that you want to be able to play a demo/beta of the game without any restriction on where or how high you can go? Which to me sounds like you want to play a mmo for free minus if you are fine paying the fee foor the download/box for the game, and if you do not like it beable to walk away free an clear losing nothing really, yet gaining all fo the playtime you had in the game. I am sorry but what you seek would be a player created scam. Those that have these kinds of restrictions that needed to be placed on a game a dev or company creates, should stop playing mmoos (or just from that company.). The lifetime membership is not mandatory, and is able to be bought later, as such no need to have anythign as those that feel the game warrent it will do so when they feel as such. Also the man behind tsw has two other games that are rather liked by many players that play them, and so on that fact i would not doubt we might see people opt out of wanting to show their trust in this dev as well as his team.

GeezerGamer

Originally posted by Asuran24

.adslot-overlay {position: absolute; font-family: arial, sans-serif; background-color: rgba(0,0,0,0.65); border: 2px solid rgba(0,0,0,0.65); color: white !important; margin: 0; 2147483647; text-decoration: none; box-sizing: border-box; text-align: left;}.adslot-overlay-iframed {top: 0; left: 0; right: 0; bottom: 0;}.slotname {position: absolute; top: 0; left: 0; right: 0; font-size: 13px; font-weight: bold; padding: 3px 0 3px 6px; vertical-align: middle; background-color: rgba(0,0,0,0.45); text-overflow: ellipsis; white-space: nowrap; overflow: hidden;}.slotname span {text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-transform: capitalize;}.revenue {position: absolute; bottom: 0; left: 0; right: 0; font-size: 11px; padding: 3px 0 3px 6px; vertial-align: middle; text-align: left; background-color: rgba(0,0,0,0.45); font-weight: bold; text-overflow: ellipsis; overflow: hidden; white-space: nowrap;}.revenue .name {color: #ccc;}.revenue .horizontal .metric {display: inline-block; padding-right: 1.5em;}.revenue .horizontal .name {padding-right: 0.5em;}.revenue .vertical .metric {display: block; line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;}.revenue .vertical .name, .revenue .vertical .value {display: block;}.revenue .square .metric, .revenue .button .metric {display: table-row;}.revenue .square .metric {line-height: 1.5em;}.revenue .square .name, .revenue .square .value, .revenue .button .value {display: table-cell;}.revenue .square .name {padding-right: 1.5em;}.revenue .button .name {display: block; margin-right: 0.5em; width: 1em; overflow: hidden; text-overflow: clip;}.revenue .button .name:first-letter {margin-right: 1.5em;}a.adslot-overlay:hover {border: 2px solid rgba(58,106,173,0.9);}a.adslot-overlay:hover .slotname {border-bottom: 1px solid rgba(81,132,210,0.9); background-color: rgba(58,106,173,0.9);}a.adslot-overlay:hover .revenue {border-top: 1px solid rgba(81,132,210,0.9); background-color: rgba(58,106,173,0.9);}div.adslot-overlay:hover {cursor: not-allowed; border: 2px solid rgba(64,64,64,0.9);}div.adslot-overlay:hover .slotname {border-bottom: 1px solid rgba(128,128,128,0.9); background-color: rgba(64,64,64,0.9);}div.adslot-overlay:hover .revenue {border-top: 1px solid rgba(128,128,128,0.9); background-color: rgba(64,64,64,0.9);}

Lol so what you are sayihng is that since funcaom has had afew issues with game launches (yet several of their games turned out pretty good for many players) that you want to be able to play a demo/beta of the game without any restriction on where or how high you can go? Which to me sounds like you want to play a mmo for free minus if you are fine paying the fee foor the download/box for the game, and if you do not like it beable to walk away free an clear losing nothing really, yet gaining all fo the playtime you had in the game. I am sorry but what you seek would be a player created scam. Those that have these kinds of restrictions that needed to be placed on a game a dev or company creates, should stop playing mmoos (or just from that company.). The lifetime membership is not mandatory, and is able to be bought later, as such no need to have anythign as those that feel the game warrent it will do so when they feel as such. Also the man behind tsw has two other games that are rather liked by many players that play them, and so on that fact i would not doubt we might see people opt out of wanting to show their trust in this dev as well as his team.

"A few issues" Really?

Well anyway, Yes, FC can make a fun game. IMO, AO was my favorite. AO has it's problems to this day, The game is fun. It's really worth playing. but that is inspite of Funcom not because of them. Yes they made a very forward game that has not been duplicated since. (sadly) I believe they have the creative talent to make an awesome game, But they still have to prove they can launch one. I do belive that TSW will get there.

Will it be there on day one? I have my doubts. And why? Because of those "few issues"

You really can't tell someoen they are wrong for not wanting to jump in the pool with both feet on opening day.

Some of us still remember what Funcom did in their pool when they said "come on in the water's warm"

gaeanprayer

I'm not sure why lifetime subs set off a red flag for people. It doesn't necessarily mean the developers aren't confident in their game, it's just as likely that they simply need the capital to keep them afloat and developing that first year. The first year for MMOs as dangerous, they haven't found their audience yet and may not have that back-up money to keep the full team employed without that extra monetary boost. Game development is an extremely expensive venture these days.

If anything the red flag should be the gameplay videos and the fact that it's Funcom *whistle* I won't be getting the lifetime, I'm going to wait and see how the game shapes up 6 months from release. Knowing Funcom, it won't be playable until then anyway. I'm probably one of the few people here that went after AO day 1 of release, and it was just as cruddy and buggy as AoC was (which I also day 1'ed). Lesson learned.

Asuran24

Originally posted by GeezerGamer

Originally posted by Asuran24

.adslot-overlay {position: absolute; font-family: arial, sans-serif; background-color: rgba(0,0,0,0.65); border: 2px solid rgba(0,0,0,0.65); color: white !important; margin: 0; 2147483647; text-decoration: none; box-sizing: border-box; text-align: left;}.adslot-overlay-iframed {top: 0; left: 0; right: 0; bottom: 0;}.slotname {position: absolute; top: 0; left: 0; right: 0; font-size: 13px; font-weight: bold; padding: 3px 0 3px 6px; vertical-align: middle; background-color: rgba(0,0,0,0.45); text-overflow: ellipsis; white-space: nowrap; overflow: hidden;}.slotname span {text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-transform: capitalize;}.revenue {position: absolute; bottom: 0; left: 0; right: 0; font-size: 11px; padding: 3px 0 3px 6px; vertial-align: middle; text-align: left; background-color: rgba(0,0,0,0.45); font-weight: bold; text-overflow: ellipsis; overflow: hidden; white-space: nowrap;}.revenue .name {color: #ccc;}.revenue .horizontal .metric {display: inline-block; padding-right: 1.5em;}.revenue .horizontal .name {padding-right: 0.5em;}.revenue .vertical .metric {display: block; line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;}.revenue .vertical .name, .revenue .vertical .value {display: block;}.revenue .square .metric, .revenue .button .metric {display: table-row;}.revenue .square .metric {line-height: 1.5em;}.revenue .square .name, .revenue .square .value, .revenue .button .value {display: table-cell;}.revenue .square .name {padding-right: 1.5em;}.revenue .button .name {display: block; margin-right: 0.5em; width: 1em; overflow: hidden; text-overflow: clip;}.revenue .button .name:first-letter {margin-right: 1.5em;}a.adslot-overlay:hover {border: 2px solid rgba(58,106,173,0.9);}a.adslot-overlay:hover .slotname {border-bottom: 1px solid rgba(81,132,210,0.9); background-color: rgba(58,106,173,0.9);}a.adslot-overlay:hover .revenue {border-top: 1px solid rgba(81,132,210,0.9); background-color: rgba(58,106,173,0.9);}div.adslot-overlay:hover {cursor: not-allowed; border: 2px solid rgba(64,64,64,0.9);}div.adslot-overlay:hover .slotname {border-bottom: 1px solid rgba(128,128,128,0.9); background-color: rgba(64,64,64,0.9);}div.adslot-overlay:hover .revenue {border-top: 1px solid rgba(128,128,128,0.9); background-color: rgba(64,64,64,0.9);}

Lol so what you are sayihng is that since funcaom has had afew issues with game launches (yet several of their games turned out pretty good for many players) that you want to be able to play a demo/beta of the game without any restriction on where or how high you can go? Which to me sounds like you want to play a mmo for free minus if you are fine paying the fee foor the download/box for the game, and if you do not like it beable to walk away free an clear losing nothing really, yet gaining all fo the playtime you had in the game. I am sorry but what you seek would be a player created scam. Those that have these kinds of restrictions that needed to be placed on a game a dev or company creates, should stop playing mmoos (or just from that company.). The lifetime membership is not mandatory, and is able to be bought later, as such no need to have anythign as those that feel the game warrent it will do so when they feel as such. Also the man behind tsw has two other games that are rather liked by many players that play them, and so on that fact i would not doubt we might see people opt out of wanting to show their trust in this dev as well as his team.

"A few issues" Really?

Well anyway, Yes, FC can make a fun game. IMO, AO was my favorite. AO has it's problems to this day, The game is fun. It's really worth playing. but that is inspite of Funcom not because of them. Yes they made a very forward game that has not been duplicated since. (sadly) I believe they have the creative talent to make an awesome game, But they still have to prove they can launch one. I do belive that TSW will get there.

Will it be there on day one? I have my doubts. And why? Because of those "few issues"

You really can't tell someoen they are wrong for not wanting to jump in the pool with both feet on opening day.

Some of us still remember what Funcom did in their pool when they said "come on in the water's warm"

Yeah afew issues as not everyone is going to nickpick a game to the point some will, i know of many that actually found the games very fun as well as interesting to be playing in those launch period times (did they see isues of course, but they also saw what might be, and chose to strive for the latter over forcusing on issues that could be fixed over time.). THe games that i have played from funcom had their problem, yet what game at launch does not have any issues, actually most are completely weighted down by their issues at launch (so funcom launches can be said to be the norm, not a abnormality.). Oh yes you can tell people they are wrong for not jumping in with both feet, just as you can tell people they are wrong for jumping in on first day, it comes to the fact of weither you can see past the past events to what good will/could come later. Those that seek to actually show support are not wrong to overlook the past launches, since how offen does a game's launch come, and instead look to what comes after the launch. Without players actually populating the game world, playing the content, and actualy paying how can you expect to get to the better times when any issues that arise are fixed. 

GeezerGamer

Originally posted by Asuran24

 

Yeah afew issues as not everyone is going to nickpick a game to the point some will, i know of many that actually found the games very fun as well as interesting to be playing in those launch period times (did they see isues of course, but they also saw what might be, and chose to strive for the latter over forcusing on issues that could be fixed over time.). THe games that i have played from funcom had their problem, yet what game at launch does not have any issues, actually most are completely weighted down by their issues at launch (so funcom launches can be said to be the norm, not a abnormality.). Oh yes you can tell people they are wrong for not jumping in with both feet, just as you can tell people they are wrong for jumping in on first day, it comes to the fact of weither you can see past the past events to what good will/could come later. Those that seek to actually show support are not wrong to overlook the past launches, since how offen does a game's launch come, and instead look to what comes after the launch. Without players actually populating the game world, playing the content, and actualy paying how can you expect to get to the better times when any issues that arise are fixed. 

In the end it boils down to arguing over what may or maynot be.

On one hand you have the "believe in and support your developer" arguement and on the other it's the "err on the side of caution" arguement.

I choose the latter.

aesperus

Originally posted by GeezerGamer

In the end it boils down to arguing over what may or maynot be.

On one hand you have the "believe in and support your developer" arguement and on the other it's the "err on the side of caution" arguement.

I choose the latter.

This ^.

To be honest, Funcom's track record is against them. Yet they make stylistically awesome looking games. However, they always seem to come with quite a heavy price (being lackluster in quite a few of the other components of the game). They've started showing demos, there are already signs that the game may not live up to their promises. Combine that with the promises they've failed to live up to in the past, and.. . well I too choose the side of caution.

thark

Originally posted by Shadanwolf

What's the resume of FUNCOM look like ? Do they have a history of producing great games...or something else......

 

After ANARCHY and AOC...how can you get excited about Secret World ?

 They have a history of creating games that belong in the better category, and one can even argue that they have created 2 of the best MMO's there is..So yes It's a huge enough reason to be really exited about The Secret World.. 

Funcom is a great MMO developer that dares to try new things, more than you can say about most of the other developers out there...

 

plzignoreme

Originally posted by thark

Originally posted by Shadanwolf

What's the resume of FUNCOM look like ? Do they have a history of producing great games...or something else......

 

After ANARCHY and AOC...how can you get excited about Secret World ?

 They have a history of creating games that belong in the better category, and one can even argue that they have created 2 of the best MMO's there is..So yes we are defenatly entiteled to be exited about TSW.

 

.. You know. If you're going to promote the game on this site, you might want to sound less like a Norwegian typing English.

Just a hint.