"We are very excited about introducing an in-game store already from launch. Being able to integrate the store into the actual design of the game pre-launch gives us opportunities you do not normally get when introducing a store after you have launched a game."
-this was released during Funcom’s quarterly financial presentation.
Knowing this....it sucks. Double dipping won't win any brownie points with too many people, purely on principle.
And I did find on the video that, although interesting, after re-watching, I did notice an abundance of the phrases "No Classes". As though that was their winning bid.
I have to say, lots of games try this approach, like Rift for example. "World events constantly". It became very old..very fast..and pretty soon, the game lost the "edge" it gloated about for so long.( I still get their e-mails begging me to come back for a "free week")
But that also being said, GW2 claims to have an individualized experience for every player.
As in, I burn down a bridge, and the whole player-base is affected.<-- Although I wonder how it will work out since there will be hundreds of players and how many bridges? And what then happens? Do ALL the hypothetical bridges stay burned down for good? Until they run out? Or does somebody else start a quest to re-build the bridge, and make my little feat of "architectural arson" redundant.
End of the day I don't know about certain "Hypes", but all you can hope for is an all-round good game that keeps you happy. I will buy any game to try it out. I don't consider myself a sucker for "Giving FUNCOM my money".
The game may just be brilliant! Or it may be a disappointment. Either way, I like the "gamble", plus if it pays off, *YAY*, if not...then so what, not the first time it has or will happen.
And it at least provided SOME level of entertainment. In fact, if I didn't "Gamble" on some games, there are PLENTY of gems like TES: Morrowind that I would NEVER have played.
2) We should hope both GW2 and The Secret World are good. Am I right ?
3) My fear of GW2...I think, and it's ONLY my opinion is that the B2P model will be shorter than people think, surprisingly short. This will shock everyone, piss many players off. Two weeks after release will be confronted with an expansion for us to buy. Hay, It's taking long for this release, what do you think ANet is doing with their free time...Making all the expansions !
- Why is it taking so long ?
- What does GW1 releasing expansions once a year have to do with GW2 ?
- It's better Marketing to quickly release expansions. Get them while its hot !
- If it takes x amount of years to make the core game, how long does it take to make expansions ?... If it were me, make them all at the same time.
To make a long story short :
Who knows ?....Video game developers could get away with a lot of crap, as with all of them. Let's hope for the best BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW until bata testers tell us. you should know this by now !
I wholeheartedly agree. People should be searching for as much gameplay as they can find before committing to a purchase. The slicker a trailer is, the more I want to go searching for actual footage.
2) We should hope that all games are good because it's going to give players more quality options and drive competition to make better games.
3) B2P is going to be proven as a perfectly viable way to support a AAA game. For one thing, GW2 hasn't been in development forever, it's been about 4.5 years, so that's not excessive for an MMO at all.
With B2P, the expansions are non-mandatory and people need to make a conscious effort to purchase them. That's a hell of a lot harder to do than to just let them keep charging your credit card every month. ArenaNet has a lot of goodwill right now and I'm sure the last thing they want to do is ruin it in a cash grab. All it takes is one bad expansion, or one small expansion coming right on the heels of the previous one and people are going to start getting wary.
Originally posted by Chivalry1978
Now b2p v p2p really shouldnt matter when it comes to quality of play.. b2p may seem logical, but p2p means constant support. Not just in expansion releases...
I wasn't going to reply to this originally for fear of thread derailing, but if the OP is talking about B2P vs P2P...
The thing is that upkeep/servers/maintenance/bandwidth is a small percentage compared to developer salaries. Development pays the salaries of people working on future development.
With P2P, you pay every month and get "free" content updates. With B2P, you pay for expansions. The thing is that with P2P, what you're getting is only dependent on how much the company needs you. Rift, for instance, puts out content at a much faster rate than WoW, despite having vastly fewer subs. With a sub game, they only need to keep you happy enough to not leave.
With a B2P game, you need to purchase the expansions, which as I said, are not mandatory (at least in ArenaNet's games). If expansions cost too much, or you don't think they look good, you don't have to buy. The pressure is on ArenaNet to deliver the content or else they don't get paid.
That's 55 updates since 11/2/2010, an average of almost one per week. This is a game that is not only B2P, it also hasn't even put out paid content since 2007 and never will again.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it."-Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
This is biggest no no for me. I could actualy live with that its developed by Funcom - they at least try new things . But I still might give the game chance.
But that also being said, GW2 claims to have an individualized experience for every player.
As in, I burn down a bridge, and the whole player-base is affected.<-- Although I wonder how it will work out since there will be hundreds of players and how many bridges? And what then happens? Do ALL the hypothetical bridges stay burned down for good? Until they run out? Or does somebody else start a quest to re-build the bridge, and make my little feat of "architectural arson" redundant.
I really don't want to derail this thread by turning it into a GW2 discussion. If you post this question in the GW2 forum I'll be happy to answer it.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it."-Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
The thing I'm wary with about The Secret World is combat itself. Now, I love that the game seems to not be about *only combat*, seeing as it's my biggest peeves... But it seems like combat is still going to be the main form of gameplay here, and well, Funcom's not done too god in that department, in my opinion. Many people like AOC's combat, but to me it's gimmicky, unwieldy and not really fluid, I also find the animations disjointed. Even in AO, I was more into builds than combat itself. Other than that, The Secret World is definitely more my kind of MMO than GW2 or anything else in the near future, and this includes ArcheAge, which I have high hopes for.
On the other hand, just going on my experience with GW, I fully expect GW2 to play quite well, and I'm hoping I will enjoy playing it on and off for quite some time - especially the PVP.
For a completly dynamic involvement game like gw2 claims I can see this easily owning gw2 in all but pvp aspect still dont know enough about tsw to know how the pvp interaction will be...I know enough about gw2, but I think if the pvp is any where near decent then tsw is the gw2 killer....
This morning you posted
Originally posted by Chivalry1978
5.Dynamic events, If the game is anything like the first guild wars then to be honest its more of a single player game with a chat box, Sure you may need a group for the harder parts, but guess what YOU CAN ACTUALLY GET npc mercs to fill in for that...Im not really seeing that as a selling point.
This post is entirely incorrect.
GW2 is absolutely nothing like GW1 except for the lore, and even that is set 250 years in the future of the first game.
GW2 is a true MMORPG, not a CORPG like GW1.
One of the major goals of GW2 is to encourage community and socialization.
The whole point of DEs is to be able to play with other players in the open world without needing to group.
There are no NPC mercs in GW2.
If you want to learn about GW2, by all means come to the GW2 forum, read the stickies, watch some video, ask some questions and I'm sure myself or someone else will be happy to help answer them. But until you do, please stop bashing a game you clearly don't know the first thing about.
On topic: I'm cautiously optimistic about TSW.
For one thing, they haven't talked about the payment model, but it's supposed to be P2P and I just can't really get excited about it with GW2 going B2P.
I would worry that certain builds would be optimal and result in defacto classes, especially if the gameplay lends itself more towards a holy trinity style where you need to specialize towards healer, tank or dps archetypes. If you need to be able to do multiple things well, then I think this system has great potential. If you ever have to make maximizing dps your sole focus, there will be a best build to accomplish that. There must be.
Also, it's Funcom. I wasn't around for AO and didn't buy AoC, but I've heard enough. Their TSW phase 1 countdown event broke the website. They posted that it was delayed for 4 hours and then 28 hours after that they finally updated Facebook to let people know it was delayed indefinitely. Then finally two days later they posted again saying it was running. It's just not an auspicious beginning. I'd wait for reviews on this one.
The Secret World will have the Tanks, DPS and Healers. In watching one of the prod cast, it talked about If your group needed one of the three, you can change around your seven active skills from your inventory to satisfy your group needs. I'm not sure if its on the fly or before an event.
theres these things called anima well dotted about where you can change your 14 skills for free (providing you have earned spare skills).
some of these wells appear in dungeons, as its necessary to change spec within the dungeon for certain encounters. For example one boss hits so hard you cant tank or heal through him, but there is cover in place that prevents damage, so its highly recommended that for that fight all players in the party switch to a rdps spec and make use of the environment for protection. (I won't spoil it by saying who the boss is).
Lower "level" PVE instances are very flexible though, you don't need the trinity to complete them, they just used the trinity in the presentation, because they were presenting to industry suits, to whom the terms "wow" and "mmo" are like "hoover" and "vacumn cleaner".
on a side note:
I don't get the GW2 vs TSW thing, I wan't both games to do well for trying to do something different and shake the genre up a bit. All Kudos to Arenanet and Funcom for not churning out YAEQCs*
Its FPS style gameplay with the camera pulled back a notch add RTS elements and multiplayer (which anything that has more than ten people in it these days is called an MMO)
Its FPS style gameplay with the camera pulled back a notch add RTS elements and multiplayer (which anything that has more than ten people in it these days is called an MMO)
Looks fun though.
yeah as if definition of what is MMO is marked in stone right?
You must not lose faith in humanity. Humanity is an ocean; if a few drops of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty -- Mahatma Gandhi
Doesn't this entirely depend on price of the sub, prices in the shop, and value of the product? Just Sayin'
I can imagine a hypothetical MMO where I would pay a sub and then occassionally buy things in the shop. As a complete tangent, I don't think this game exists. And probably won't for at least 10 years or until the MMO market completely crashes and then the industry recovers into something that's more about the "game" rather than the "business of making games."
I guess the problem is that in the current enviornment I think cash shop + sub carries a lot of risk -- exploiting the customer; lazy design, or worse - business-driven design; pyschological manipulation. We live in an industry where if you do it "right" you come up with the business model before you come up with the game. The first question that gets asked is "okay... how do we monetize this?" Not like... "what would be an awesome game we could make, that customers would pay for because they see value because there is no other game out there which delivers this experience" Of course when you make any product you want to know how you are going to sell it, and deliver it. That's a huge part of a business.
But I feel when you are making entertainment, the most important thing is making something entertaining. Not making something that hits all the right bullets that your market-analyists and executives have identified as the features to maximize revenue, because "Well if we don't have X feature in our game, how can we ever expect to hit Y users and make Z profit?!." At anything above the indie / small company level, this is how games often get designed.
The game engine they used for AoC wasn't very good for an mmorpg (very beautiful but very heavy, too many "loading")
After that, demon hunting urban mmorpg, thats a good idea to change with pure fantasy. I hope that will success in.
i just wonder is it is real open world (i mean we can go where we want, stay in town , visiting open house, stay somewhere farming, killing mobs...) or a more linear
It's Funcom...and my past history with them (a long battle about how crafting should be a larger focus in AOC during the pre launch era...then them subsequently caving in to my point (not necessarily me, just my point) months/years after launch) which prevents me from pre-ordering TSW or really following it at all.
That said I wish it a ton of success and it may be a game I pick up a few months to a year after launch if it hasn't gone F2P. I wish it grand success if only to prove the folks who aren't capable of playing anything that isn't a level/class based, structured hand-holding progression system that classless, skill based systems do work...again.
Again, during their time, UO and SWG(pre CU/NGE) were very successful games subscription wise.
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
But that also being said, GW2 claims to have an individualized experience for every player.
As in, I burn down a bridge, and the whole player-base is affected.<-- Although I wonder how it will work out since there will be hundreds of players and how many bridges? And what then happens? Do ALL the hypothetical bridges stay burned down for good? Until they run out? Or does somebody else start a quest to re-build the bridge, and make my little feat of "architectural arson" redundant.
I really don't want to derail this thread by turning it into a GW2 discussion. If you post this question in the GW2 forum I'll be happy to answer it.
Way to remove a small piece of my post and take it entirely out of context.
I was posting in RE to other posters about how "The Classless system"in TSW could be just another Pre-Game-Hype that every game seems to flaunt 1 or 2 of. (Such as Rift, or GW2, and still TSW)
In no way was I aiming at SPECIFICALLY targetting or bad mouthing GW2.
Please don't accuse me of derailing a thread because I used the name of another game as an example of current "Advertising Trends".
But that also being said, GW2 claims to have an individualized experience for every player.
As in, I burn down a bridge, and the whole player-base is affected.<-- Although I wonder how it will work out since there will be hundreds of players and how many bridges? And what then happens? Do ALL the hypothetical bridges stay burned down for good? Until they run out? Or does somebody else start a quest to re-build the bridge, and make my little feat of "architectural arson" redundant.
I really don't want to derail this thread by turning it into a GW2 discussion. If you post this question in the GW2 forum I'll be happy to answer it.
Way to remove a small piece of my post and take it entirely out of context.
I was posting in RE to other posters about how "The Classless system"in TSW could be just another Pre-Game-Hype that every game seems to flaunt 1 or 2 of. (Such as Rift, or GW2, and still TSW)
In no way was I aiming at SPECIFICALLY targetting or bad mouthing GW2.
Please don't accuse me of derailing a thread because I used the name of another game as an example of current "Advertising Trends".
I was not accusing you of derailing a thread. I was saying that my answering your questions on how GW2 works here in this thread instead of the GW2 forums would be derailing.
You claim you wrote that to talk about hype. First you're saying that Rift did something but it didn't live up to the hype. Had you followed it up with something like "GW2 is also promising something, will that live up to the hype?" then that would be one thing. But instead of doing that, you're asking very specific questions about how GW2 works. They're questions which, to be honest, show that you don't really understand how GW2 works at all.
I was trying to help you by suggesting that you post those questions in the appropriate forum where I'd be happy to help you again by answering them. That offer still stands if you're interested.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it."-Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
As for my statement of society yes it is relevant as what we experience in life we tend to bring to all things. We tend to frown of racism thus its not allowed in mmo's, We tend to act like jerks in reality thus we act like jerks in forums. So it is not a far stretch for me to take the rather vindictive nature of humanity as a basis for why people will judge something off one mistake rather then look at the item as a whole and see all the things in brought. Pardon me for not focusing only on a negative aspect of something. If that was the case no new medications would ever come to light to save lives. Every thing in life is a trade off of one thing or another. Those who play chess will tell you this.
{mod edit}
Lol...try not to be so sensitive. There were no veiled insults. Your analogy is terrible. That's it. Nothing personal meant by it. Anyways, yes, TSW has a lot of potential. We'll see how it pans out. I'm watching it, but I can certainly understand why some would be wary about Funcom. Yes, mmo launches have had their issues but if you have been around as long as you say playing these games then you know well as I do that launches have come a long way compared to how they used to be. Some have actually been rather impressive. As they should...live and learn they say.
{mod edit}
1. For god's sake mmo gamers, enough with the analogies. They're unnecessary and your comparisons are terrible, dissimilar, and illogical.
2. To posters feeling the need to state how f2p really isn't f2p: Players understand the concept. You aren't privy to some secret the rest are missing. You're embarrassing yourself.
3. Yes, Cpt. Obvious, we're not industry experts. Now run along and let the big people use the forums for their purpose.
Originally posted by Highttower Don't forget, AO is still alive and kicking. So they must have done something right.
Not only that, a major percentage of their funding for TSW is coming from AoC. Their 'failure' with AoC is leading to the development of a whole new MMORPG. They are doing something right.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Don't forget, AO is still alive and kicking. So they must have done something right.
Not only that, a major percentage of their funding for TSW is coming from AoC. Their 'failure' with AoC is leading to the development of a whole new MMORPG. They are doing something right.
problem is this reminds me of Daoc to Warhammer, the ealier one was 100x better than the newer one. Some ppl just dont ever learn from their mistakes.
That would be killer if the game had risk vs reward so I could actually get scared of dying.
NEWS FLASH!"A bank was robbed the other day and a man opened fire on the customers being held hostage. One customer zig-zag sprinted until he found cover. When questioned later he explained that he was a hardcore gamer and knew just what to do!" Download my music for free! I release several albums per month as part of project "Thee Untitled" . .. some video game music remixes and cover songs done with instruments in there as well! http://theeuntitled.bandcamp.com/Check out my roleplaying blog, collection of fictional short stories, and fantasy series... updated on a blog for now until I am finished!https://childrenfromtheheavensbelow.blogspot.com/Watch me game on occasion or make music... https://www.twitch.tv/spoontheeuntitled and subscribe! https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUvqULn678VrF3OasgnbsyA
Whats the obsession with classless ? I will never get it. Is it now getting so crazy that a simple "this game has no classes" will already earn you a big "oooh wonderful best game ever" now ???
Other than that, the OP said NOTHING which was ANYTHING unusual. Could have as well talked about Darkfall or Archeage or whatever. And in fact the later two have more appealing world settings.
And I'm not going to follow links to figure out what the OP *possibly* actually liked about the game to praise it that skyhigh. If he cant say it himself - meh.
Whats wrong with you ?....Do we need to dial 9-1-1
The game is developed by Funcom. Before you get all mad, I'm willing to give them another chance. After all, they did put there hart into making Age Of Conan. I would guess they had learned their lesson.
They made the same mistake with AoC that they made with Anarchy Online, releasing it well before it was ready. AO became a good game as did AoC but they effectively killed the game from a popularity standpoint due to the terrible launches. Funcom has made some very good games and this could be good, so long as they don't release an what amounts to an alpha or early beta version of a game like they did with their two other MMOs.
The game itself, beyond Funcom's track record of releases does look very cool.
What about EA? Eh...bioware? Apparenlty people reject them all the time, yet they forgive them so they can play ToR?
People will change their minds. It is inevitable, though some people will not, but that is life.
Either way the game "looks" promising, but there are new things i'm finding out here and there that dishearten me...such as the fact that the 3 sides are more of a "cooperation" and can group and have fun together, instead of the 3 sides being enemies, and harboring ill-will toward the other sides.
Oh well, we shall see though!
I am entitled to my opinions, misspellings, and grammatical errors.
Don't forget, AO is still alive and kicking. So they must have done something right.
Yes, TSW team is the same as AO team (at least partialy). But I get more doubtful lately, cus all this monsters and less or even non existant "secret" in the demos, videos and all the information. They focus too strongly on the monster killing part, where many players will be very please to have a game where killing isnt the only way to play. It could be just to early for this information... will see...
Comments
"We are very excited about introducing an in-game store already from launch. Being able to integrate the store into the actual design of the game pre-launch gives us opportunities you do not normally get when introducing a store after you have launched a game."
-this was released during Funcom’s quarterly financial presentation.
Knowing this....it sucks. Double dipping won't win any brownie points with too many people, purely on principle.
And I did find on the video that, although interesting, after re-watching, I did notice an abundance of the phrases "No Classes". As though that was their winning bid.
I have to say, lots of games try this approach, like Rift for example. "World events constantly". It became very old..very fast..and pretty soon, the game lost the "edge" it gloated about for so long.( I still get their e-mails begging me to come back for a "free week")
But that also being said, GW2 claims to have an individualized experience for every player.
As in, I burn down a bridge, and the whole player-base is affected.<-- Although I wonder how it will work out since there will be hundreds of players and how many bridges? And what then happens? Do ALL the hypothetical bridges stay burned down for good? Until they run out? Or does somebody else start a quest to re-build the bridge, and make my little feat of "architectural arson" redundant.
End of the day I don't know about certain "Hypes", but all you can hope for is an all-round good game that keeps you happy. I will buy any game to try it out. I don't consider myself a sucker for "Giving FUNCOM my money".
The game may just be brilliant! Or it may be a disappointment. Either way, I like the "gamble", plus if it pays off, *YAY*, if not...then so what, not the first time it has or will happen.
And it at least provided SOME level of entertainment. In fact, if I didn't "Gamble" on some games, there are PLENTY of gems like TES: Morrowind that I would NEVER have played.
I wholeheartedly agree. People should be searching for as much gameplay as they can find before committing to a purchase. The slicker a trailer is, the more I want to go searching for actual footage.
2) We should hope that all games are good because it's going to give players more quality options and drive competition to make better games.
3) B2P is going to be proven as a perfectly viable way to support a AAA game. For one thing, GW2 hasn't been in development forever, it's been about 4.5 years, so that's not excessive for an MMO at all.
With B2P, the expansions are non-mandatory and people need to make a conscious effort to purchase them. That's a hell of a lot harder to do than to just let them keep charging your credit card every month. ArenaNet has a lot of goodwill right now and I'm sure the last thing they want to do is ruin it in a cash grab. All it takes is one bad expansion, or one small expansion coming right on the heels of the previous one and people are going to start getting wary.
I wasn't going to reply to this originally for fear of thread derailing, but if the OP is talking about B2P vs P2P...
The thing is that upkeep/servers/maintenance/bandwidth is a small percentage compared to developer salaries. Development pays the salaries of people working on future development.
With P2P, you pay every month and get "free" content updates. With B2P, you pay for expansions. The thing is that with P2P, what you're getting is only dependent on how much the company needs you. Rift, for instance, puts out content at a much faster rate than WoW, despite having vastly fewer subs. With a sub game, they only need to keep you happy enough to not leave.
With a B2P game, you need to purchase the expansions, which as I said, are not mandatory (at least in ArenaNet's games). If expansions cost too much, or you don't think they look good, you don't have to buy. The pressure is on ArenaNet to deliver the content or else they don't get paid.
I disagree with the notion that B2P won't have constant support. Look at GW1. http://www.guildwars.com/support/gameupdates/
That's 55 updates since 11/2/2010, an average of almost one per week. This is a game that is not only B2P, it also hasn't even put out paid content since 2007 and never will again.
There's also this quote about how GW2 is going to have people adding dynamic events constantly from launch so that there will be added replayability. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=wyYe1JKdrdI#t=2912s
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it." -Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
This is biggest no no for me. I could actualy live with that its developed by Funcom - they at least try new things . But I still might give the game chance.
I really don't want to derail this thread by turning it into a GW2 discussion. If you post this question in the GW2 forum I'll be happy to answer it.
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/forum/996
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it." -Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
The thing I'm wary with about The Secret World is combat itself. Now, I love that the game seems to not be about *only combat*, seeing as it's my biggest peeves... But it seems like combat is still going to be the main form of gameplay here, and well, Funcom's not done too god in that department, in my opinion. Many people like AOC's combat, but to me it's gimmicky, unwieldy and not really fluid, I also find the animations disjointed. Even in AO, I was more into builds than combat itself. Other than that, The Secret World is definitely more my kind of MMO than GW2 or anything else in the near future, and this includes ArcheAge, which I have high hopes for.
On the other hand, just going on my experience with GW, I fully expect GW2 to play quite well, and I'm hoping I will enjoy playing it on and off for quite some time - especially the PVP.
sry but, if anything, people are jumping in the funcon hate train.
theres these things called anima well dotted about where you can change your 14 skills for free (providing you have earned spare skills).
some of these wells appear in dungeons, as its necessary to change spec within the dungeon for certain encounters. For example one boss hits so hard you cant tank or heal through him, but there is cover in place that prevents damage, so its highly recommended that for that fight all players in the party switch to a rdps spec and make use of the environment for protection. (I won't spoil it by saying who the boss is).
Lower "level" PVE instances are very flexible though, you don't need the trinity to complete them, they just used the trinity in the presentation, because they were presenting to industry suits, to whom the terms "wow" and "mmo" are like "hoover" and "vacumn cleaner".
on a side note:
I don't get the GW2 vs TSW thing, I wan't both games to do well for trying to do something different and shake the genre up a bit. All Kudos to Arenanet and Funcom for not churning out YAEQCs*
*Yet Another Everquest Clone
Is this "inovative" or has it already been done in other MMO?
Dynamic Lighting
Its FPS style gameplay with the camera pulled back a notch add RTS elements and multiplayer (which anything that has more than ten people in it these days is called an MMO)
Looks fun though.
yeah as if definition of what is MMO is marked in stone right?
You must not lose faith in humanity. Humanity is an ocean; if a few drops of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty -- Mahatma Gandhi
Doesn't this entirely depend on price of the sub, prices in the shop, and value of the product? Just Sayin'
I can imagine a hypothetical MMO where I would pay a sub and then occassionally buy things in the shop. As a complete tangent, I don't think this game exists. And probably won't for at least 10 years or until the MMO market completely crashes and then the industry recovers into something that's more about the "game" rather than the "business of making games."
I guess the problem is that in the current enviornment I think cash shop + sub carries a lot of risk -- exploiting the customer; lazy design, or worse - business-driven design; pyschological manipulation. We live in an industry where if you do it "right" you come up with the business model before you come up with the game. The first question that gets asked is "okay... how do we monetize this?" Not like... "what would be an awesome game we could make, that customers would pay for because they see value because there is no other game out there which delivers this experience" Of course when you make any product you want to know how you are going to sell it, and deliver it. That's a huge part of a business.
But I feel when you are making entertainment, the most important thing is making something entertaining. Not making something that hits all the right bullets that your market-analyists and executives have identified as the features to maximize revenue, because "Well if we don't have X feature in our game, how can we ever expect to hit Y users and make Z profit?!." At anything above the indie / small company level, this is how games often get designed.
The game engine they used for AoC wasn't very good for an mmorpg (very beautiful but very heavy, too many "loading")
After that, demon hunting urban mmorpg, thats a good idea to change with pure fantasy. I hope that will success in.
i just wonder is it is real open world (i mean we can go where we want, stay in town , visiting open house, stay somewhere farming, killing mobs...) or a more linear
It's Funcom...and my past history with them (a long battle about how crafting should be a larger focus in AOC during the pre launch era...then them subsequently caving in to my point (not necessarily me, just my point) months/years after launch) which prevents me from pre-ordering TSW or really following it at all.
That said I wish it a ton of success and it may be a game I pick up a few months to a year after launch if it hasn't gone F2P. I wish it grand success if only to prove the folks who aren't capable of playing anything that isn't a level/class based, structured hand-holding progression system that classless, skill based systems do work...again.
Again, during their time, UO and SWG(pre CU/NGE) were very successful games subscription wise.
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
Chavez y Chavez
Way to remove a small piece of my post and take it entirely out of context.
I was posting in RE to other posters about how "The Classless system"in TSW could be just another Pre-Game-Hype that every game seems to flaunt 1 or 2 of. (Such as Rift, or GW2, and still TSW)
In no way was I aiming at SPECIFICALLY targetting or bad mouthing GW2.
Please don't accuse me of derailing a thread because I used the name of another game as an example of current "Advertising Trends".
I was not accusing you of derailing a thread. I was saying that my answering your questions on how GW2 works here in this thread instead of the GW2 forums would be derailing.
You claim you wrote that to talk about hype. First you're saying that Rift did something but it didn't live up to the hype. Had you followed it up with something like "GW2 is also promising something, will that live up to the hype?" then that would be one thing. But instead of doing that, you're asking very specific questions about how GW2 works. They're questions which, to be honest, show that you don't really understand how GW2 works at all.
I was trying to help you by suggesting that you post those questions in the appropriate forum where I'd be happy to help you again by answering them. That offer still stands if you're interested.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it." -Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
Don't forget, AO is still alive and kicking. So they must have done something right.
Lol...try not to be so sensitive. There were no veiled insults. Your analogy is terrible. That's it. Nothing personal meant by it. Anyways, yes, TSW has a lot of potential. We'll see how it pans out. I'm watching it, but I can certainly understand why some would be wary about Funcom. Yes, mmo launches have had their issues but if you have been around as long as you say playing these games then you know well as I do that launches have come a long way compared to how they used to be. Some have actually been rather impressive. As they should...live and learn they say.
{mod edit}
1. For god's sake mmo gamers, enough with the analogies. They're unnecessary and your comparisons are terrible, dissimilar, and illogical.
2. To posters feeling the need to state how f2p really isn't f2p: Players understand the concept. You aren't privy to some secret the rest are missing. You're embarrassing yourself.
3. Yes, Cpt. Obvious, we're not industry experts. Now run along and let the big people use the forums for their purpose.
Not only that, a major percentage of their funding for TSW is coming from AoC. Their 'failure' with AoC is leading to the development of a whole new MMORPG. They are doing something right.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
problem is this reminds me of Daoc to Warhammer, the ealier one was 100x better than the newer one. Some ppl just dont ever learn from their mistakes.
oooOOOOOo zombies!!
I want to play just because it has zombies.
lol
That would be killer if the game had risk vs reward so I could actually get scared of dying.
NEWS FLASH! "A bank was robbed the other day and a man opened fire on the customers being held hostage. One customer zig-zag sprinted until he found cover. When questioned later he explained that he was a hardcore gamer and knew just what to do!" Download my music for free! I release several albums per month as part of project "Thee Untitled" . .. some video game music remixes and cover songs done with instruments in there as well! http://theeuntitled.bandcamp.com/ Check out my roleplaying blog, collection of fictional short stories, and fantasy series... updated on a blog for now until I am finished! https://childrenfromtheheavensbelow.blogspot.com/ Watch me game on occasion or make music... https://www.twitch.tv/spoontheeuntitled and subscribe! https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUvqULn678VrF3OasgnbsyA
ArenaNet > Funcom
GW2 > TSW
2 - 0
But that's just me.
"My Fantasy is having two men at once...
One Cooking and One Cleaning!"
---------------------------
"A good man can make you feel sexy,
strong and able to take on the whole world...
oh sorry...that's wine...wine does that..."
Whats wrong with you ?....Do we need to dial 9-1-1
They made the same mistake with AoC that they made with Anarchy Online, releasing it well before it was ready. AO became a good game as did AoC but they effectively killed the game from a popularity standpoint due to the terrible launches. Funcom has made some very good games and this could be good, so long as they don't release an what amounts to an alpha or early beta version of a game like they did with their two other MMOs.
The game itself, beyond Funcom's track record of releases does look very cool.
It's funny how people are like... Funcom? No.
What about EA? Eh...bioware? Apparenlty people reject them all the time, yet they forgive them so they can play ToR?
People will change their minds. It is inevitable, though some people will not, but that is life.
Either way the game "looks" promising, but there are new things i'm finding out here and there that dishearten me...such as the fact that the 3 sides are more of a "cooperation" and can group and have fun together, instead of the 3 sides being enemies, and harboring ill-will toward the other sides.
Oh well, we shall see though!
I am entitled to my opinions, misspellings, and grammatical errors.
Yes, TSW team is the same as AO team (at least partialy). But I get more doubtful lately, cus all this monsters and less or even non existant "secret" in the demos, videos and all the information. They focus too strongly on the monster killing part, where many players will be very please to have a game where killing isnt the only way to play. It could be just to early for this information... will see...