Originally posted by gadunk In Rift, Trion put out a quality game at release. I'm confident in this one as well and looking forward to it. Especially sitting my fat butt on the couch playing on the 55" via xbox
Or, playing it infront of the 55", controller in hand via PC
Originally posted by Volkon I recall with GW2 that most of the zones were never opened until after release, could be something similar as well.
GW2 and many other games never opened later zones for public testing, but they tend to show videos from those zones or something similar. I don't remember how it was with older titles well enough to say for sure, but I know one of the first things we saw from GW2 was the Shatterer event, which is pretty late in the game. They also showed the first dungeon and other stuff like that.
I haven't seen anything similar from Defiance, but then again, I haven't been following the game that closely.
Frankly... 60 bucks and the fact that they're promoting DLC so hard right up front makes me want to avoid this game. Even the season pass is 40 bucks and only offeres a discount on the DLC...
I'm not putting a penny into this game until I have some idea about the content we get for 60 bucks and just how stupid they're going to be with DLC (i.e. new instance and a few skins being 20 bucks or something stupid).
Welcome to the evolution of online gaming. $60 for the game, and $40 bucks for the DLC.....
Or you can stick with WoW and pay $60 bucks for the game, and another $60 bucks for each add on, plus $15 dollars a month, which adds up to $180 in subscription fees....
Or maybe Call of Duty? $60 for the game, another $80 for the Elite service which gives you all of the DLC?
I don't think te pricing was too bad on this game. If you are not sure about it, get one of the free beta keys and check it out, or worse case, buy just the game, and if you like it buy the DLC package, if not, your only out the $60...
Where are you getting your prices from? name 1 wow expansion that costs 60$ also elite doesn't cost anywhere near 80$, elite was free this year and last year it cost 50$. Don't try to make your weak argument stronger with false prices
The only people who know anything like the full truth are those of us in alpha testing but even we won't know the whole truth until the game goes live. What I see in this thread are posts from people who either don't have a clue because they're not in the alpha test or are deliberately trying to spread misinformation. As always, those of us who actually respect the NDA we signed, are prevented from responding with the truth.
The NDA as far as the beta is concerned is lifted tomorrow and even that will show what a load of bs some of the posters here have been spouting. The alpha remains under wraps though so you still won't be able to see everything that will be in the final game.
this can be answered without violating the NDA. On their weekly live streams they have shown, Mt. Tam starting zone, another called Madera, Marin & Sasaulito. They have also spoke about San Fransisco, but they haven't shown it.
So to answer your question there will be more than just Mt. Tam. From listening to OverloadUT & Dahanese there will be at least 5 zones at launch.
Originally posted by evemaster00 That's because the zone you start in is the whole game. It's one fairly large zone and that's it, sure it's seemless and that's great, but it's still not much in comparison to most mmos. Then again Defiance isn't really an mmo, it's a shooter with mmo lite features.
this is relative
people think the various guild wars 2 maps are huge because there are no mounts and only a couple of classes can maintain a constant 25% bonus speed, and only two classes able to maintain permanent swiftness.
the individual maps are actually quite small. the ones that feel large have crazy mob density that slows you down, making them feel larger
the zones in this game when you consider how fast the mounts move are much, much larger
gw2 only showed the starting zones and a single 20-35 zone until launch. i don't think this game will launch with such a massive world map as gw2 did but you never know. the bay area is actually rather large. (i live here)
Welcome to the evolution of online gaming. $60 for the game, and $40 bucks for the DLC.....
Or you can stick with WoW and pay $60 bucks for the game, and another $60 bucks for each add on, plus $15 dollars a month, which adds up to $180 in subscription fees....
Or maybe Call of Duty? $60 for the game, another $80 for the Elite service which gives you all of the DLC?
I don't think te pricing was too bad on this game. If you are not sure about it, get one of the free beta keys and check it out, or worse case, buy just the game, and if you like it buy the DLC package, if not, your only out the $60...
Besides the fact that you're over inflating WoW's prices and underinflating the typical cost of DLC (and not saying a word about the size of a full MMO expansion versus the content of DLC at the same price), you're forgetting the other option which is don't play of the options you listed. (Say any of the F2P/B2P/cheaper subcription options). Nor did you mention anything about a cash shop/mictrotransactions...
If, as a consumber, you're not at least a little wary of a system that promotes higher profits for the company by releasing less and less content for higher and higher costs then I'm not sure you should be spending money without some kind of supervision. Do people honestly think that DLC was created for the benefit of consumers? Really?
Edit: Just to be prefectly clear.. I am not commenting on the quality/size/scope of the game. I'm simply expressing concern about paying a bunch of cash upfront for something isn't known (release content) and will probably not be known for a long time (what exactly the DLC will be). This is the same concern I expressed when people were paying 200+ bucks up front for lifetime subs that ended up getting completely reworked in >year...
Oh.. And if it was really "only 60 bucks" then they'd give the game away since that money doesn't matter, right? >.<
Welcome to the evolution of online gaming. $60 for the game, and $40 bucks for the DLC.....
Or you can stick with WoW and pay $60 bucks for the game, and another $60 bucks for each add on, plus $15 dollars a month, which adds up to $180 in subscription fees....
Or maybe Call of Duty? $60 for the game, another $80 for the Elite service which gives you all of the DLC?
I don't think te pricing was too bad on this game. If you are not sure about it, get one of the free beta keys and check it out, or worse case, buy just the game, and if you like it buy the DLC package, if not, your only out the $60...
Besides the fact that you're over inflating WoW's prices and underinflating the typical cost of DLC (and not saying a word about the size of a full MMO expansion versus the content of DLC at the same price), you're forgetting the other option which is don't play of the options you listed. (Say any of the F2P/B2P/cheaper subcription options). Nor did you mention anything about a cash shop/mictrotransactions...
If, as a consumber, you're not at least a little wary of a system that promotes higher profits for the company by releasing less and less content for higher and higher costs then I'm not sure you should be spending money without some kind of supervision. Do people honestly think that DLC was created for the benefit of consumers? Really?
Edit: Just to be prefectly clear.. I am not commenting on the quality/size/scope of the game. I'm simply expressing concern about paying a bunch of cash upfront for something isn't known (release content) and will probably not be known for a long time (what exactly the DLC will be). This is the same concern I expressed when people were paying 200+ bucks up front for lifetime subs that ended up getting completely reworked in >year...
Oh.. And if it was really "only 60 bucks" then they'd give the game away since that money doesn't matter, right? >.<
One thing that really annoys me these days are freeloaders, devs put millions of dollars and many hours into hard work to create these games and yet people think its their right to get everything for free.
I actually think that $60 is a good one off price to purchase the game.
Now as for DLC I rather pay for that than to pay a sub, its your choice if you want the extra content or not
One thing that really annoys me these days are freeloaders, devs put millions of dollars and many hours into hard work to create these games and yet people think its their right to get everything for free.
I actually think that $60 is a good one off price to purchase the game.
Now as for DLC I rather pay for that than to pay a sub, its your choice if you want the extra content or not
Who said anything about free? I know I didn't. The one thing that really annoys me these days are people who reply to people, make up fake counter arguments, and then argue against something no one said to prove their opinion is right.. >.<
Originally posted by evemaster00 That's because the zone you start in is the whole game. It's one fairly large zone and that's it, sure it's seemless and that's great, but it's still not much in comparison to most mmos. Then again Defiance isn't really an mmo, it's a shooter with mmo lite features.
People who arent in alpha and clearly have no idea what theyre talking about are so amusing.
One thing that really annoys me these days are freeloaders, devs put millions of dollars and many hours into hard work to create these games and yet people think its their right to get everything for free.
I actually think that $60 is a good one off price to purchase the game.
Now as for DLC I rather pay for that than to pay a sub, its your choice if you want the extra content or not
Who said anything about free? I know I didn't. The one thing that really annoys me these days are people who reply to people, make up fake counter arguments, and then argue against something no one said to prove their opinion is right.. >.<
You were complaining about paying for extra content which none of us have any idea of what content will be released in each DLC pack. The amount of content even without the dlc extras is still a very large play area and if a dlc pack doesn't interest you then don't buy it, its as simple as that.
So, in all the OFFICIAL (notice: "offical") videos, clips, features and interviews, i've only seen Trion showing the starting zone.
With the release in less than two weeks and nobody seem to have seen any more zones yet, I'm a little suspicious that game will be released with the featured initial zone only and further zones will get unlocked or offered a DLCs as the tv-series progresses. This would make sense in order to keep the game and the tv-show rather close to each other in terms of the main story...at least i'd guess so.
Add to that the fact that Rift started with the probably tiniest ingame-world any game got released with, i wouldn't be surprised if what we've seen to far from Defiance is all that Trion has to offer at release.
Hence my question: Has anyone read an official statement regarding the landmass Defiance will start with?
*Please refrain from NDA-breaking information and stick with infos which are public so far.
I assure you it's not just the starter zone the map is quite a bit larger than what you see in the betas. Press M and look at the map a good chunk of that is accessible to people that had been playing the alpha. There is no massive different jumps to hugely different areas its all around the bay area which is about 6k sq miles... They have said in the video themselves publicly and during the betas that the arae you have access to is limited or did you not bother reading the beta notes during updates?
Originally posted by evemaster00 That's because the zone you start in is the whole game. It's one fairly large zone and that's it, sure it's seemless and that's great, but it's still not much in comparison to most mmos. Then again Defiance isn't really an mmo, it's a shooter with mmo lite features.
It's an MMOTSP you are still in a massively multiplayer online world but it is shooter based making it an mmo.... while its not an mmorpg that doesn't mean its not an mmo
Comments
No no 60" with the ps3 is the way to go
It is common in Beta to have zones closed off.
GW2 and many other games never opened later zones for public testing, but they tend to show videos from those zones or something similar. I don't remember how it was with older titles well enough to say for sure, but I know one of the first things we saw from GW2 was the Shatterer event, which is pretty late in the game. They also showed the first dungeon and other stuff like that.
I haven't seen anything similar from Defiance, but then again, I haven't been following the game that closely.
Where are you getting your prices from? name 1 wow expansion that costs 60$ also elite doesn't cost anywhere near 80$, elite was free this year and last year it cost 50$. Don't try to make your weak argument stronger with false prices
The only people who know anything like the full truth are those of us in alpha testing but even we won't know the whole truth until the game goes live. What I see in this thread are posts from people who either don't have a clue because they're not in the alpha test or are deliberately trying to spread misinformation. As always, those of us who actually respect the NDA we signed, are prevented from responding with the truth.
The NDA as far as the beta is concerned is lifted tomorrow and even that will show what a load of bs some of the posters here have been spouting. The alpha remains under wraps though so you still won't be able to see everything that will be in the final game.
this can be answered without violating the NDA. On their weekly live streams they have shown, Mt. Tam starting zone, another called Madera, Marin & Sasaulito. They have also spoke about San Fransisco, but they haven't shown it.
So to answer your question there will be more than just Mt. Tam. From listening to OverloadUT & Dahanese there will be at least 5 zones at launch.
this is relative
people think the various guild wars 2 maps are huge because there are no mounts and only a couple of classes can maintain a constant 25% bonus speed, and only two classes able to maintain permanent swiftness.
the individual maps are actually quite small. the ones that feel large have crazy mob density that slows you down, making them feel larger
the zones in this game when you consider how fast the mounts move are much, much larger
gw2 only showed the starting zones and a single 20-35 zone until launch. i don't think this game will launch with such a massive world map as gw2 did but you never know. the bay area is actually rather large. (i live here)
Besides the fact that you're over inflating WoW's prices and underinflating the typical cost of DLC (and not saying a word about the size of a full MMO expansion versus the content of DLC at the same price), you're forgetting the other option which is don't play of the options you listed. (Say any of the F2P/B2P/cheaper subcription options). Nor did you mention anything about a cash shop/mictrotransactions...
If, as a consumber, you're not at least a little wary of a system that promotes higher profits for the company by releasing less and less content for higher and higher costs then I'm not sure you should be spending money without some kind of supervision. Do people honestly think that DLC was created for the benefit of consumers? Really?
Edit: Just to be prefectly clear.. I am not commenting on the quality/size/scope of the game. I'm simply expressing concern about paying a bunch of cash upfront for something isn't known (release content) and will probably not be known for a long time (what exactly the DLC will be). This is the same concern I expressed when people were paying 200+ bucks up front for lifetime subs that ended up getting completely reworked in >year...
Oh.. And if it was really "only 60 bucks" then they'd give the game away since that money doesn't matter, right? >.<
One thing that really annoys me these days are freeloaders, devs put millions of dollars and many hours into hard work to create these games and yet people think its their right to get everything for free.
I actually think that $60 is a good one off price to purchase the game.
Now as for DLC I rather pay for that than to pay a sub, its your choice if you want the extra content or not
Who said anything about free? I know I didn't. The one thing that really annoys me these days are people who reply to people, make up fake counter arguments, and then argue against something no one said to prove their opinion is right.. >.<
People who arent in alpha and clearly have no idea what theyre talking about are so amusing.
You were complaining about paying for extra content which none of us have any idea of what content will be released in each DLC pack. The amount of content even without the dlc extras is still a very large play area and if a dlc pack doesn't interest you then don't buy it, its as simple as that.
I assure you it's not just the starter zone the map is quite a bit larger than what you see in the betas. Press M and look at the map a good chunk of that is accessible to people that had been playing the alpha. There is no massive different jumps to hugely different areas its all around the bay area which is about 6k sq miles... They have said in the video themselves publicly and during the betas that the arae you have access to is limited or did you not bother reading the beta notes during updates?
It's an MMOTSP you are still in a massively multiplayer online world but it is shooter based making it an mmo.... while its not an mmorpg that doesn't mean its not an mmo