It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Originally posted by Loke666 I can kinda see his point as well. When I started with Meridian 59 in 1996 bandwidth was a huge cost and there were no alternatives. Sure, 15 bucks today is less than the 10 (I think it was 10, it was a really long time ago) in 1996 but TSW do have a cashshop I decided when cashshops became common to never start with a game that have both cashshop and monthly fees, that is robbery. That was the reason I didnt buy the game at launch, I have no problem with paying 15 bucks a month all inclusive or even 20 but my principles forbid me to buy the game right now just as it did with Diablo 3. To be honest didnt I quit EQ2 when they added the cashshop, I just whined and I did look really hard on TSW when it launched, I like the world. But box cost + montly fees + itemshop = expensive in my book and I support P2P.
Well yeah, in that regard - but I was only looking at Box + Sub. When cash shops are added to that, well - the subject definitely gets a bit mired. Personally, vanity items have never really bothered me - but that's with just pure vanity items. When it goes beyond that, it changes whether or not the game's worth the sub - the Freemium games - well, I wouldn't consider them worth a sub.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
Originally posted by kanezfan Originally posted by VirusDancer Originally posted by Z3R01 I would have purchased this day one if it was Buy to play. The games not worth a subscription. Honestly I don't think any game on the market is worth a subscription...
I hate when people make this argument. It doesn't matter what was happening in 1997, TSW is NOT competing with games from 1997. It's competing with games in 2012 and when you take a look at what's out there, no it's not worth a sub fee.
It doesn't matter to you, and I can respect that. Different people will have different things that matter. I can go get a $1 burger from a fast food joint or I can spend $10+ to get one from a restaurant. To some, they will see those as competing - to me, that's not the case in the least. So in this regard, I'm going to compare whehter the expensive burger today is still worth being expensive in comparison to the cheaper burger. If the quality of it has dropped, if there's not as much of a difference between the two, etc, etc, etc.
Originally posted by Z3R01 Originally posted by VirusDancer Originally posted by Z3R01 I would have purchased this day one if it was Buy to play. The games not worth a subscription. Honestly I don't think any game on the market is worth a subscription...
Do games offer as much if not more than they did back in 1997? Keeping in mind that while it may be a case of not necessarily liking what they offer...do they offer as much if not more? Did you not pay subs back in 1997? If the answer to both of those is yes, how could you say that no game on the market is worth a sub?
Those games, UO, EQ, DAoC, SWG, EVE and even WoW that were good enough have been changed so drastically that they are no longer the same experiences... so no they are not worth the subscription price.
In this day and age with the way the economy is and how much competition the market has to ask for 180+ dollars for one game yearly is assaine.
I don't think any game will ever be worth a subscription fee again.
The sub fee's increased by about 50% in 15 years. A movie ticket's increased by about 260% in the same time period. Look at the prices of books, music, movies, comics, etc, etc, etc.
I can see it's going to be a case of disagreeing on the value of something and whether something should be paid for; so there's really no point in continuing that discussion - those never go anywhere, heh...neither of us is wrong, we're entitled to our opinions.
I was just curious about your reasoning behind that. Thanks for answering.
Sad news. This is not looking good.
Though the animations and combat in TSW really really disappointed me, the game is at least something different, the writing has its moments, and the atmosphere is probably the best there is in any MMO.
All in all, some creative stuff as far as the mostly-uninspired-genre called MMORPG goes.
So maybe I should resub... Gotta support such stuff, after all. Who knows, maybe I could convince a few friends while I'm at it.
well some reminders to all the ppl who declare funcom as a failure company :
The longest journey series ...the best ever made adventure game
Anarchy Online huge fun MMO
Age of Conan today seems to be quite stable
TSW has rare negative responses and seems to be a great mmo
Soo Funcom got all the bad reputation from 1 single release with AOC?
God bless all companies in the future , one mistake and youre done
Originally posted by Pumuckl71 Soo Funcom got all the bad reputation from 1 single release with AOC? God bless all companies in the future , one mistake and youre done
Heh, it started with the AO release. Repeated with the AoC release. So it's not surprising when Funcom releases a game for folks to think about waiting to play. Not that they won't play, but just that they should wait to play...
...unfortunately with that, the timing set them up to deal with the GW2, WoW, RIFT, et al crowds.
Originally posted by VirusDancer Originally posted by Z3R01 I would have purchased this day one if it was Buy to play. The games not worth a subscription. Honestly I don't think any game on the market is worth a subscription...
You know this depends on personal opinion.
I would say there isn't a current A-Tittle MMORPG that comes close to the content and feature's Star Wars Galaxies offered. While I am sure some will say that SWG had everything but content, because a fairly comment back in the day was that the game didn't offer enough content, though what we didn't know at the time is that plenty of people seem to want ot be guided and due to experiance I have noticed that games that do not guid you most of the time will be complained about lack of content, while a sandbox type of gamer will understand the content and knows how to use it.
Today's MMORPG offere so much less. The only difference is better graphics but allot lot less content but allot more guidens.
Oh and there is nothing wrong that many people like to be guided thru out their game, but it's a shame they often don't understand it when someone speaks about the old being far more filled with content.
As for the temp. layoffs/ closing etc, it's expected, especially in these economic unstable times in all industry's.
Originally posted by shinkan What funcom should do is continue to cater for its current audience, and build its niche slowly. Do something similar to Eve Online, if you can make your current audience happy you will slowly attract new players.
Eve caught lightning in a bottle though....Even today there really isn't any game like it....Unfortunately TSW doesn't really do anything all that great...It has a unique atmosphere and story but that only takes you so far.....TSW has zero replayability and its story based.....For many, once that story is over the game is over...In Eve the story is never over.
Originally posted by Yuui Anyway, as long as Ragnar remains, there won't be any no big problems with game's direction and game won't be affected that much.
In the spirit of disclosure, here is some first-hand info Mr. Fanboi
Ragnar is an awesome storyteller, a mediocre writer, and a horrible director.
Martin was a fun guy with no experience of design other than having played a few MMOs
Joel is a slob who takes credit for everyone else's work and ideas, and rose to his current position by badmouthing everyone.
Honesly if TSW was such a big fail (and I don't think it was that bad), all three of those, and a couple more producers should have been replaced with experienced and motivated people. Unfortunately when shit hits the fan, a(a)sses rise to the ocasion :P
How do I know this?
I work for Funcom
Originally posted by Flutterbug Originally posted by Yuui Anyway, as long as Ragnar remains, there won't be any no big problems with game's direction and game won't be affected that much.
Then please tell us what the heck is really going on over there. I would be nice to know whats happening and why if your statement is true they not let go of the incompetent folks.
Seem's like the 14 + days of being banned because of this company are now coming to light and when the light of truth shines the rouches scatter or are gotten rid of.
For the same reason no one really complained that "subs weren't a good model" back then.
For the same reason they didn't blame failed MMOs on "their revenue model"
For the same reason they didn't opine that "F2P was the future" or, as it is now, "B2P is the future".
Because they had subscription-based games, and it was fine. If they didn't feel it was worth a sub it was simply because they didn't like the game enough. That's perfectly reasonable and understandable. But that was the end of it. And that's still the end of it. The whole "it should be F2P because it isn't worth a sub" is simply people trying to get something they enjoy for nothing; a product of the rather entitled, "torrent everything, pay for nothing" generation we live in. The whole "F2P/B2P is the future and subs are dead" is wishful thinking.
There's an undercurrent to most of the complaints I see against sub-based MMOs these days, and it is this: People would rather play the game for free than have to pay anything to do so. When it comes right down to it, if they like the game enough, they'll pay for it, sub or otherwise. That's not just me "theorizing". I've seen it in action.
Some or all may be aware that for upwards of a year, SE had halted subscriptions on FFXIV. Some called it "F2P" during that period, but that wasn't the case. It was never F2P. They just froze subs for an indefinite amount of time while they picked up the pieces and decided what they'd do with the game. It was an extended "free time 'cause we screwed up badly" situation. Anyway, when the time came that SE felt it was ready to reinstate subscriptions, and made the announcement that they would be, a number of people on the official forums flipped their lids.
All the familiar threats and arguments came out. "I'll cancel the day they reinstate subs!"; "This game is not ready for subs!"; "FFXIV is not worth a sub!"; "I'm not going to pay for Beta!" (a ridiculously ignorant statement, that one - but whatever "sounds good" I guess...); "Subs are dead! F2P is he future!"; "FFXIV will fail if they make people pay for it!", and on and on and on. There was thread after thread about it, and most all of them went on for pages and pages of people expressing their outrage over the idea that they would soon be charged a subscription again - something SE explained was their intention quite clearly about a year earlier.
What was interesting about it, is that some of the most vocal and "outraged" about it, were those who'd played the hell out of the game. They had every class at level 50, had done a ton of the content and were quite clearly playing the game quite a bit. So it's obvious they were enjoying the game to have poured so much time into it. But they were complaining still.
Anyway, a lot of them threatened to quit themselves, warned that "everyone they knew" (the ever popular appeal to popularity) would quit and that the game would fail if they charged subs.
Wouldn't you know it that a month or so later, when SE reinstated subs as they said they would, that most every single one of those people became paying players? They're still on the forums to this day. For those who don't know, you need to have an active account with at least one active character in order to post on the official forums. So, despite all their screaming and yelling and pouting and stomping and complaining and threatening and warning... when it came time, they paid.
Funnier still, the game is more populated and active now with active subs, than it ever was during the frozen subs period. Imagine that.
So what did that illustrate to me? People - as always - are willing to pay for something if they find it enjoyable enough. Some just try a bit harder than others not to.
The subscription model is fine. It's not "outdated". It's not "archaic". It doesn't need to "go away". It's an option that is better suited for some games than for others. For some setups, B2P may be better. For others, F2P may be better.
I'm not personally a fan of cash shops at all, as I don't like the idea of a game being designed entirely around trying to "monetize me" as much as possible. What I really don't like is the idea of subs with a cash shop. That's screwed up and overtly "double-dipping", to me. Some will argue, "why do you care if there's an option to buy something from a cash shop?". They're asking the wrong question, in my opinion. The better question is, why should I have to make that choice in the first place? And what if I decide I would like something on offer in the cash shop - some frilly item or a mount or whatever - and find it's only available in the cash shop? What's my choice then? I have to pay extra $$$, or do without. Not much of a choice, if you ask me.
Originally posted by erictlewis Originally posted by Flutterbug Originally posted by Yuui Anyway, as long as Ragnar remains, there won't be any no big problems with game's direction and game won't be affected that much.
Office politics is what's going on. If you're old enough to have a job you will know about the people who work hard and ask for nothing in return, and the ones who shout loudest to cover their incompetence, and the sneaky ones who find and report faults with others and lie to make their own position stronger, and the schmuck who will bake cookies for the managers to get "cookie points", and the slut who will do anything for a better position, and the manager who takes credit for what his team has done but never acknowledges the work on his team. Unfortunately when it's time to cut it is the guys who did their job well who get cut first just cause they are not part of the management/suckup/slut "cabal".
Going forward I don't see this changing, but I do feel we will be more focused. Even though we might not have manpower to stick to all schedules. Funcom does have a long history of making a game work in the end. That's where we're going. Will the game change directions? No. Will there be improvement? Some. How long till we have a game on the content/polish level of AoC today? 1 1/2 to 2 years. Should you wait for F2P? Maybe. But you won't get as good a game. F2P changes all of the priorities and this would make marketing take over design considerations. Will the company recover to make another game? I think it will - Ole is cleaning house and the shareholders seem to have started caring.
"What was interesting about it, is that some of the most vocal and "outraged" about it, were those who'd played the hell out of the game. They had every class at level 50, had done a ton of the content and were quite clearly playing the game quite a bit. So it's obvious they were enjoyingthe game to have poured so much time into it. But they were complaining still.
Wouldn't you know it that a month or so later, when SE reinstated subs as they said they would, that most every single one of those people became paying players? They're still on the forums to this day. For those who don't know, you need to have an active account with at least one active character in order to post on the official forums. So, despite all their screaming and yelling and pouting and stomping and complaining and threatening and warning... when it came time, they paid."
^^ This. Never underestimate the vocal zealotry of people who want something for nothing. The "free" mentality has disrupted and destroyed so many businesses (see the newspaper industry for an example), it's ridiculous. And these same people are surprised when a company can no longer afford to exist by giving everything away. Actually, they aren't surprised -- they just move on to the next sucker company and start complaining about why they have to pay for their services. The internet started all this with the "information is free" thinking, and companies quickly realized they shot themselves in the foot. The New York Times finally wised up and started charging again for their online news -- so nice to be able to pay their writing staff, I guess.
I am willing to bet that people who scream the loudest about f2p are kids who don't even own a credit card yet, and are far from working a job. Why? Because they are the same ones who locust through the content in 2 days and then complain developers didn't create more (free) content for them.