Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

$18 a month

2»

Comments

  • angriffangriff Behind You, TXPosts: 154Member

    Originally posted by MouzurX

    Again guys:
    Free:


    Free unlimited play,  limited access(only rifleman/smg)

    Free 14 day trial, full access.


    Pay:


    $20  for the game/serial where you get 1 month free.

    $18 for 1 month payment.

    $45 for 3 months payment;  $15  per month

    $75  for 6 months payment;  $12,5 per month

    $130 for 12 months payment; $10,8 per month


     

    World of Warcraft:

    1 month: $14.99 *

    3 months: $41.97 ($13.99 per month) *

    6 months: $77.94 ($12.99 per month) *


     

    1 month payment is $3 cheaper in WoW per month

    3 month payment is $1,5 cheaper in WoW per month

    6 month payment is $0,5 more expensive in WoW per month

    12 month payment is $2,19 more expensive in WoW per month.



     

    You are actually comparing a worthless fantasy game like WOW to WWII Online?   It is not the same genre. at all.  You are comparing Pizza with Salami.  It just makes no sense.

     

    Aces High  $14.95 two week free trial

    Warbirds $ 13.95  one month free

    AAR3 - Free

    IL2 - Free

    If you must go to the fantasy/sci fi

    Eve - $14.95

    Just to name a few.

     

    The real question is for that money is all you get is online time or real develepment.  Almost all the above games give you real development.  Only WWII Online gives you poorly thought out and repeated rework of the same GUI an countless of bugs for years that are never fixed.  The reason is the game is so niche that there are not enough players in the game to support any broad based development

  • StugStug Coffee County, TNPosts: 387Member Uncommon

    Care to post the recent Bug Fixes in some of the recent patches Angriff?

  • bezadobezado Posts: 1,126Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by [Mordecai]

    Well if you do simple inflation of about 3% a year (about the average in the US) from 1999 til today the 14.99 that the game cost per month back in 1999 should be  $20.14/month today. So in reality its actually cheaper today paying about $18/month than it was pay $15/month back in 1999.
    And also you have to make a better comparative analysis to what you like and what you are getting for your money. Some games have chosen to go the "Free-to-play" route but they are hardly free to play and many people will end up paying a lot more than $15 a month in the end. Also, WW2 Online has had pretty regular and constant updates since its initial release and I dont think they have ever charged for 1 of them. Other games release expansions once or twice a year with a cost that is similar to a whole new game. Then you need to compare what type of enjoyment you may get out of a game like this vs some other activity or hobby. Maybe you like going fishing instead of playing video games but that will end up costing you a fortune for rods, reels, bait, lures, etc. If you own a boat, the upfront cost, maintenance and gas will be $100s or $1000s every month.
    Its all relative...don't just balk at the price because other games arent "directly" doing the same thing.

    You forgot that inflation doesn't mean same costs of living. The costs of living has sky rocketed, so the inflation your saying doesn't really matter as people are paying into higher costs of living making it even from back then to now. So justifying a $17.99 subscription fee is simply stupid by this game.

    I bet it totally falls under within 6 months.

    image

    image
  • angriffangriff Behind You, TXPosts: 154Member

    Originally posted by Stug

    Care to post the recent Bug Fixes in some of the recent patches Angriff?

    If you think it is such an advancement that you fix bugs that are created by previous patches and that the ones the provide in depth game play like the Fairmille not being able to  load infantry  out of the water that has been broken for 5 or 6 years is important why dont  you post them.

    I remember one of my more interesting times in this game was before under that table supply depots,  paraunits and even the Troop Transports  were in the game and you actually had to invade the Axis held contient   using fairmilles.  One fairmille that had 10 infantry loaded on it was sunk and two other support Fairmilles with more troops onboard picked up the troops swimming in the water and continued  the commando raid.  This type of cooperatiive action is no longer possible.

  • levsixlevsix Philadelphia, PAPosts: 363Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by angriff


    Originally posted by Stug


    Care to post the recent Bug Fixes in some of the recent patches Angriff?

    If you think it is such an advancement that you fix bugs that are created by previous patches and that the ones the provide in depth game play like the Fairmille not being able to  load infantry  out of the water that has been broken for 5 or 6 years is important why dont  you post them.

    I remember one of my more interesting times in this game was before under that table supply depots,  paraunits and even the Troop Transports  were in the game and you actually had to invade the Axis held contient   using fairmilles.  One fairmille that had 10 infantry loaded on it was sunk and two other support Fairmilles with more troops onboard picked up the troops swimming in the water and continued  the commando raid.  This type of

    I agree with Angriff.  I played from day 1 before there were ranks (on dial-up) and last played after the graphics revamp went live.

    For over a decade, I have come back to this game time and time again. I turned my friends onto it and they suscribed. As excited as we were about the rag doll physics, and graphics update, etc,  we tried the new engine on well above the  "recommended specs" gaming rigs and the performance was not so great. That in itself began to disrupt our  long history of returning to the game. To be fair, this was when it was just implemented and there have likely been significant improvements in this regard.

    Out of the 10 people I know who play, 0 will return with this sub fee. Whether or not WW2 is worth it is irrelevant. Even if it is completely irrational for people to avoid the game because of the increase, the fact remains that it creates a new barrier.

    I fear the increase in subscription will do more harm than good in the long run. While it may very well be worth it for the reasons argued in this thread,  this is not the company that should be trailblazing for a new higher sub cost in the industry.  I say that as someone who wants the game to continue to survive and thrive with huge subscription numbers. This isn't a viable route for meeting that goal.

    Sure, there are still things to do in WW2 Online, but the dynamics and the battles just aren't as epic as they used to be. Some of my greatest PvP memories online are from this game, too. I've played most of the major known PvP games over the years,from MUDs in the 80s to Quake to Warhammer.

    They need to start thinking outside of the box with their business model instead of just increasing the fee. It is deeply unimaginative and counterproductive (unless it is a money grab).

    I wish the game and its future development all the best. This post is something I have been thinking for a year now and thought I'd just throw it out there since I know that they actually read these forums.

    Have a winner and don't go on a game over! Does your avatar make you powerful in real life? Check out the Mystical Enders gaming community. www.mysticalenders.com

  • TontomanTontoman Toronto, ONPosts: 196Member

    Yeah I remember the teamwork of the old days.  Not a day oner, but way before depots.  I love the truck rides in, the closer you got to the city before receiving fire told you how well the battle was going heh.  That was the one thing that kept the battles spread out all over the city and the outskirts.  Little point now when one truck behind the city spawns an army.

    It's funny, if you didn't know WWIIOL history and asked if a game could survive wtih 2-5 min truck rides into action (or at least inf combat, not counting strafing runs) any developer would tell you it would be suicide for a game.  But when WWIIOL had those truck rides and the old system, it had way more players and of those players way more year to year renewals.   Showed there was a large and dedicated playerbase ready for a developer to supply them with a niche game.   It's when they went to the mainstream, more instant action crowd that they lost their playerbase.  Not unique enough to keep the hard core guys, didn't have the looks and play for the mainstream guys.

     

  • MiguelAngeloMiguelAngelo Brooklyn, NYPosts: 28Member

    I played from day one this game, and things you mentioned about the game were spot on. I used to take my squad, all spawn from one spot, tanks inf all kinds of support, agree on what target to attack and head out, the rides took anywhere from 15 minutes to half hour, yet anticipating what was coming and constantly changing plans on our way there due to recon and or being spotted by enemy recon. The game was awesome back than, but once they started messing with the cap system, than after that so many changes were made that i cant begin to mention them. Like you said it took the imagination and player immersion out of the game and favored it all for instant gratification.

     Sitting in a town waiting for anyone to roll in, letting your imagination run wild, sitting waiting thinking that at anytime, anything could show up, than having 2 enemy infantry being driven in by truck and having a little firefight, it was worth it, the wait the emotions the fight, youd kill em than go back to defending the town, than youd hear that it was all a quick divertion, and that the main assault was at the town next to ya or even behind you. Flanking was possible, extreme flanking was possible, many things were possible before, than the game changed and not for the better. I played it for 4 years than off and on for couple more, than just completely gave up/ Dont get me wrong, the game is still great for what it does, but im more in love of what it used to do and thats where my memories remain.

    PS......

  • antipropaantipropa Urban, KSPosts: 21Member
    I missed the old game to.  That is why I returned, plus all those spamming pleading emails from crs/playnet.  But the game sucks now.  Action is limited and confined to 1 or 2 ao's.  The Americans they were so proud of are not even "IN" until the end of a map.  I guess that was to quiet the whinning axis finacial backers of the game.  Sad deal.
  • f0dell54f0dell54 Des Moines, IAPosts: 329Member Common
    Originally posted by Stug
    Originally posted by [Mordecai]
    Well if you do simple inflation of about 3% a year (about the average in the US) from 1999 til today the 14.99 that the game cost per month back in 1999 should be  $20.14/month today. So in reality its actually cheaper today paying about $18/month than it was pay $15/month back in 1999.

    Interesting point.

     

    Except for the fact that all the AAA that have subs are still $14.99. That kind of eliminates any point that he was trying to make.

2»
Sign In or Register to comment.