Howdy, Stranger!

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

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

[Dev Journal] General: Pathfinder Online’s Ryan Dancey Defends Elder Scrolls Online and Subscription

123578

Comments

  • bamwallabamwalla kalispell, MTPosts: 86Member Uncommon
    hurray!  Let's all build our speculation off of others speculation because of what someone said at some time some where which was also speculation.  Congrats folks.
  • CazNeergCazNeerg Puyallup, WAPosts: 2,198Member
    Originally posted by syriinx

    This article disgusts me.

    Small budget game developer writing about how he can best exploit the players.

    Games that handle microtransactions well:  EQ2, WoW

    Games that don't:  LOTRO, Rift

    and here is why:  as a subber in EQ2 or WoW Im not bombarded with the cash shop.  EQ2 gives me a popup upon logging in.  WoW you wouldnt know its there if you didnt press the new UI button.  Im not bombarded with shitty gimmick lock boxes.

    Lotro Im reminded of the shop constantly.  And Rift, for its player friendly model, has an immersion breaking, enormous cash shop every single time you vendor. 

    If you want my money, micro transactions are ok for cosmetics.  mounts, special furniture, etc.  but i dont want to be reminded of it while playing.  It makes it seem like you dont give a fuck about your game world, just about money. 

    And you said you were planning micro transactions later-that better be clear to everyone from day one.  No bait and switch.  And if you are planning a f2p option but dont launch with it, then fuck you and I hope your company goes bankrupt.  You are a large part of what is wrong with the industry.  Dont exploit your customers.  Dont bait and switch.  Be honest from the start. 

    Yes, how dare they!  How dare a for profit business try to turn a profit!  How dare they adjust their business model to fit the performance of their product! How dare they prepare for the possibility they will need to go freemium, but launch sub only, rather than screwing themselves out of a lot of revenue by doing freemium from day one!

    Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
    Through passion, I gain strength.
    Through strength, I gain power.
    Through power, I gain victory.
    Through victory, my chains are broken.
    The Force shall free me.

  • bakon2bakon2 northern, CAPosts: 123Member

    Uhwop, "Game isn't just being made for PC, it's also being made for console, and in order to play it on the console you have to pay TWICE. 

    Try and tell all the console gamers that purchased Skyrim and Oblivion that in order to play the new Elderscrolls game they'll need to pay $15 on top of whatever they pay for Playstation plus in order to play games online. "

     

    to be honest...you are not paying twice unless you specifically purchase plus or gold and do not use it for anything else.  Most people already have Playstation Plus or an xbox gold membership...

     

    As for the subscription...I am glad that there is one.  It cuts down on gold farmers spamming, it does raise the level of maturity of the people that play, IMHO.  I played LotRo from the start until it went F2P now I might log in once every other month or so.  Same thing for SWTOR, Rift, Conan and Aion.  I stopped playing them once they went F2P.  I am just speaking from my experience.  And I have not had any awesome experiences with F2P games...

     

    image
  • StarIStarI waka wakaPosts: 924Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Nephelai

    None of this matters. If a gaming company produces a quality game with great service people will pay a fair value under any model to be entertained by it. All this reverse engineering trying to predict a games success based on its payment system after we know the results of other games is arse backwards. Games go B2P or F2P because they either don't have confidence in their product/service to command a sub (or even a higher price) or they are facing financial ruin.

    Only took 2 posts to get a true answer to all of this. In other words, writing the OP was kind of a waste of time.

    If the game turns out to be top notch AAA delivered product with good content that people like, they may as well make a trade in goods model and will still become rich.

  • happyfartshappyfarts bzPosts: 85Member Uncommon

    From a personal stand-point I prefer p2p

    Reasons being:

    1. No ads, no marketing bs ... straight plain gaming time whilst logged in. No immersion breakers or time wasters, you can just focus on your playtime (fact!)
    2. Gamer loyalty - normally ppl who are paying a sub are more likely to dedicate time to that particular MMO. Ppl who play free MMOs have no such commitment, and can potentially hop from 1 F2P to another, whoring around. (Guess! A fact I pulled out my ass but seems likely)
    3. Dev Company get a steady Cashflow, i.e. stability - Though it does not directly influence the player, in the long run if you like the game and you want it care properly for this should improve longevity (Yes, another Guess!)
    I'm sure there are more reasons I'm not thinking of. The only time I prefer the MTX model or the F2P is when either I not that into the MMO or else my play time is considerably limited.
  • ChaserzChaserz South Jordan, UTPosts: 83Member Uncommon
    I'll pay a sub fee for an Elysium MMO so I can escape the droves of movie piraters and "full time gamers" that live with their parents at 25+ years old drawing unemployment for 3+ years.
  • syriinxsyriinx New York, NYPosts: 1,059Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by CazNeerg
    Originally posted by syriinx

    This article disgusts me.

    Small budget game developer writing about how he can best exploit the players.

    Games that handle microtransactions well:  EQ2, WoW

    Games that don't:  LOTRO, Rift

    and here is why:  as a subber in EQ2 or WoW Im not bombarded with the cash shop.  EQ2 gives me a popup upon logging in.  WoW you wouldnt know its there if you didnt press the new UI button.  Im not bombarded with shitty gimmick lock boxes.

    Lotro Im reminded of the shop constantly.  And Rift, for its player friendly model, has an immersion breaking, enormous cash shop every single time you vendor. 

    If you want my money, micro transactions are ok for cosmetics.  mounts, special furniture, etc.  but i dont want to be reminded of it while playing.  It makes it seem like you dont give a fuck about your game world, just about money. 

    And you said you were planning micro transactions later-that better be clear to everyone from day one.  No bait and switch.  And if you are planning a f2p option but dont launch with it, then fuck you and I hope your company goes bankrupt.  You are a large part of what is wrong with the industry.  Dont exploit your customers.  Dont bait and switch.  Be honest from the start. 

    Yes, how dare they!  How dare a for profit business try to turn a profit!  How dare they adjust their business model to fit the performance of their product! How dare they prepare for the possibility they will need to go freemium, but launch sub only, rather than screwing themselves out of a lot of revenue by doing freemium from day one!

     

    i dont have a problem with it if they announce before launch "we will offer a freemium model in 6 months".  Part of the draw of a sub model in today's age is you dont have to deal with crap like lock box keys and in your face cash shops.  This stuff degrades the game experience for some.

    Of course they should try to turn a profit, but do it in honest ways.  A bait and switch is dishonest, and it also shows a lack of faith in your product. Planning to go freemium clearly states 'we doubt the lasting appeal of our product".

    MMORPG developers need to focus on how to make their product have staying power.  Instead they are content with repeating the mistakes of other games and finding the best way to milk the few customers they have while they put out the same lazy product.

  • InktomiInktomi merrick, NYPosts: 663Member
    Great article. You made some solid points and I agree completely with your philosophy.
  • MadnessRealmMadnessRealm Montreal, QCPosts: 2,716Member Uncommon

    "I also didn’t include games like Webkinz or Maple Story because they’re not really MMORPGs, nor is a service like Second Life. "

     

    I'm no fan of MapleStory but you are wrong, it is an MMORPG. I'm not really sure I understand why you wouldn't consider it as such.

    ------
    Your daily dose of common sense since 2009!

  • OzmodanOzmodan Hilliard, OHPosts: 7,183Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by syriinx

    This article disgusts me.

    Small budget game developer writing about how he can best exploit the players.

    Games that handle microtransactions well:  EQ2, WoW

    Games that don't:  LOTRO, Rift

    and here is why:  as a subber in EQ2 or WoW Im not bombarded with the cash shop.  EQ2 gives me a popup upon logging in.  WoW you wouldnt know its there if you didnt press the new UI button.  Im not bombarded with shitty gimmick lock boxes.

     

    Lotro Im reminded of the shop constantly.  And Rift, for its player friendly model, has an immersion breaking, enormous cash shop every single time you vendor.

     

    If you want my money, micro transactions are ok for cosmetics.  mounts, special furniture, etc.  but i dont want to be reminded of it while playing.  It makes it seem like you dont give a fuck about your game world, just about money.

     

    And you said you were planning micro transactions later-that better be clear to everyone from day one.  No bait and switch.  And if you are planning a f2p option but dont launch with it, then fuck you and I hope your company goes bankrupt.  You are a large part of what is wrong with the industry.  Dont exploit your customers.  Dont bait and switch.  Be honest from the start.

     

    Well I have to completely disagree with that diatribe.  Nothing wrong with the item shops in either Rim or Lotro, I don't see the difference between EQ2 or Wow at all.   I really question whether you have ever played either.  If any game where is the cash shop is quite invisible it is Rift, I never spent a dime on the game and have several maxed out characters.  I did try subbing, but they could not process a credit card for some reason.  Same with Lotro, have less than $60 in that game and I have two maxed out characters and several others on two different accounts.

    Right now I have subs in Eve and Lotro.  Only games I find any enjoyment currently.

  • FlyByKnightFlyByKnight Algo Star SystemPosts: 647Member Uncommon

    Subscription models don't kill games, a developers inability to create content that justifies a subscription kills games.

     

    It doesn't matter how wealthy somebody is, it's simply is not practical to pay monthly for a game that only gives major updates every quarter or more.

     

    Back when subscriptions were very prominent we must also remember these games were bigger outlets to socialize with friends and family.  That role has also diminished.

     

    I don't mind paying a sub as long as I feel it's worth it. Nowadays they aren't worth it. Most developers are trying to squeeze as much out of as little as possible.

  • Paradigm68Paradigm68 New York, NYPosts: 884Member Uncommon
    Make the game worth a sub, people will pay a sub.
  • mbrodiembrodie MelbournePosts: 1,008Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by iridescence

    The truth is you can have sub games that justify their sub price by constantly compelling content updates which are included in the sub price, you can have F2P games which really are free to play if you only want the basic experience. Both those models are fine with me. Then you have your sub games that only give a yearly expansion you have to pay extra for or your F2P models that nickle and dime you for things you actually do need to play the game properly like extra hotbars or reasonable bag space. I hate both those models.

    The fault of the Forbes article is saying "Sub is bad!" which is ridiculous. There's no reason a good game can't thrive and be loved by its playerbase with a sub and a bad game will be a bad game no matter what payment model it uses. Sure bad games can sometimes be financially successful with slot machine mechanics and other things which exploit some players' base greed but onl a complete non-gamer or fool would argue for more of those type of games.

     

     

     

    then you have games like rift, that give you access to all the content for free without any restrictions and are constantly patching and updating the game, possibly even faster then they did pre free to play and the benefits of subbing are basically for vanity things... like daily boosters n stuff, which is the free model every MMO should aim for... the likes of TERA, Aion, Rift etc... not like other free to play models which lock you out of content or restrict you to the point you have to buy extra action bars etc...

  • CazNeergCazNeerg Puyallup, WAPosts: 2,198Member
    Originally posted by syriinx
    Originally posted by CazNeerg
     

    i dont have a problem with it if they announce before launch "we will offer a freemium model in 6 months".  Part of the draw of a sub model in today's age is you dont have to deal with crap like lock box keys and in your face cash shops.  This stuff degrades the game experience for some.

    Of course they should try to turn a profit, but do it in honest ways.  A bait and switch is dishonest, and it also shows a lack of faith in your product. Planning to go freemium clearly states 'we doubt the lasting appeal of our product".

    MMORPG developers need to focus on how to make their product have staying power.  Instead they are content with repeating the mistakes of other games and finding the best way to milk the few customers they have while they put out the same lazy product.

    That's not how it works.  They offer a freemium model when their subscription numbers drop to the point where they think it is a smart move.  It would be a bad idea for them to publish what that number will be, because then some people would try to drive them in that direction faster by not subbing.  And no, planning how they will go freemium if they do does not state that they doubt the lasting appeal.  It states that they recognize the fundamental reality of MMOs that content consumption necessarily outpaces content creation.  If your definition of "lasting appeal" is sufficient content on launch day to keep the majority of players willing to pay $15 a month for multiple years, no game launches with that.  Not a single one.

    Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
    Through passion, I gain strength.
    Through strength, I gain power.
    Through power, I gain victory.
    Through victory, my chains are broken.
    The Force shall free me.

  • ThelricThelric Woodbury, NJPosts: 26Member
    Enough loyal fanboys to the IP will keep the freemium population out.
  • LeirosLeiros Nashville, TNPosts: 238Member Uncommon

    I have to say, I enjoyed this article. Personally I love a good AAA themepark mmorpg and would be willing to pay a premium monthly fee for one. However, I also agree with what someone else posted when they said the reason ESO will fail has nothing to do with its subscription model. If anything, ESO will fail because people are expecting "Skyrim Online" instead of a themepark MMORPG.

     

    Well written article. Kudos.

    image
  • ComafComaf Chicago, ILPosts: 1,154Member Common
    Originally posted by Nephelai

    None of this matters. If a gaming company produces a quality game with great service people will pay a fair value under any model to be entertained by it. All this reverse engineering trying to predict a games success based on its payment system after we know the results of other games is arse backwards. Games go B2P or F2P because they either don't have confidence in their product/service to command a sub (or even a higher price) or they are facing financial ruin.

    Yes!  Thank you. 

    image
  • GonadaGonada calgary, ABPosts: 3Member
    Originally posted by Comaf
    Originally posted by Nephelai

    None of this matters. If a gaming company produces a quality game with great service people will pay a fair value under any model to be entertained by it. All this reverse engineering trying to predict a games success based on its payment system after we know the results of other games is arse backwards. Games go B2P or F2P because they either don't have confidence in their product/service to command a sub (or even a higher price) or they are facing financial ruin.

    Yes!  Thank you. 

    this, and this quote:

    Subscription models don't kill games, a developers inability to create content that justifies a subscription kills games.

     

    are the gospel

  • TorvalTorval Oregon CountryPosts: 7,195Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Comaf
    Originally posted by Nephelai

    None of this matters. If a gaming company produces a quality game with great service people will pay a fair value under any model to be entertained by it. All this reverse engineering trying to predict a games success based on its payment system after we know the results of other games is arse backwards. Games go B2P or F2P because they either don't have confidence in their product/service to command a sub (or even a higher price) or they are facing financial ruin.

    Yes!  Thank you. 

    No. It's not. For some people that may be true, but for a lot of others it is not. All of these upcoming games are probably going to be great, but I'm not paying a subscription for them. I just don't play sub-locked games. Now when, and if, they convert to sub-free and they have promo then I might buy in before conversion to reap the benefits, but that's about it.

  • combatcasualtycombatcasualty Chelsea, MAPosts: 3Member

    Show me 1 decent restaurant where 2 people can have a nice dinner and a couple drinks or glasses of wine for at least $60. Im a disabled combat Veteran receiving less than $1200 a month and still pay rent for $650, buy my own food, etc. Even I can say that $15 is NOTHING. I buy all games NEW and have most available systems. I rarely skip a game release as well and still find money for multiple MMO subs. To balk at $15 is ridiculous and I just don't understand it. The amount of content and gameplay offered is the absolute best deal in entertainment , ever. I'd love one example of $15 buying more than an entire month of game time with evolving content. It's like buying one movie ticket and getting to watch everything that comes out in that theater as often as you'd like for the month except the movies are 6 hours long and with variations every time you watch them. (considering the average $40 million cost of film budgets and a smaller workforce and the extremely shorter development time required.) 

    The average game buyer is in their early 30's so we aren't kids with allowances here and I make barely enough to be above the poverty line (Thanks America!) so I don't understand it. Also when I compare what I spend on MTX vs subs I always spend way more on MTX considering you always have to buy a set value in gems or diamonds or coins and almost everything that a daily player needs (sort of) costs something. Take SWTOR, I still play from time to time but my active sub makes every new alt a breeze with full storage, bars and early mounts.

    I simply don't understand the mindset of people who object to $15. Do they think they are being taken advantage of? Do they think it's not worth it? Do they not really like games to begin with? Maybe people don't understand whats involved in producing a game and how many people put in time and effort. This isn't the movies where one idiot gets $50 million, while not perfect at least games are more balanced than that and I honestly think they deserve that money and I'm grateful for the games they provide and supporting the studio's next effort and ensuring future content & titles.  

    ATTN: I'd like to hear a reasonable argument that explains why someone feels $15 is too much for an MMO sub. I'm not being sarcastic and I don't want to argue. I am genuinely interested in some perspective from the other side on this. How important is the $15 vs the fact that they ask for monthly fee's? How do you reconcile the fact that people who want all the unlocks from a sub have to pay more in MTX while a sub doesn't prevent or impede any MTX players. Is it really not fun enough to justify the $.50 a day? Maybe we can both help each other understand a little more and gain some intel on opposing views here.. 

  • CazNeergCazNeerg Puyallup, WAPosts: 2,198Member
    Originally posted by Gonada
    Originally posted by Comaf
    Originally posted by Nephelai

    None of this matters. If a gaming company produces a quality game with great service people will pay a fair value under any model to be entertained by it. All this reverse engineering trying to predict a games success based on its payment system after we know the results of other games is arse backwards. Games go B2P or F2P because they either don't have confidence in their product/service to command a sub (or even a higher price) or they are facing financial ruin.

    Yes!  Thank you. 

    this, and this quote:

    Subscription models don't kill games, a developers inability to create content that justifies a subscription kills games. 

    are the gospel

    These ideas are not consistent with observable reality.  It's not a quality issue, it's a quantity issue.  For a new game, the rate of content consumption outpaces the rate at which new content can be created.  It's inevitable.  People will run out of anything but repetitive endgame content to engage in, and most of them will then leave, unless they are given an option that lets them stick around without paying the sub.  Many of them will come back when/if there is an expansion, but they won't just sit there and wait for it to come while shelling out monthly, no matter how good the content is.

    Sub only is a logical place to start, and Freemium is the logical place to end up once most of your player base starts running out of content.

    Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
    Through passion, I gain strength.
    Through strength, I gain power.
    Through power, I gain victory.
    Through victory, my chains are broken.
    The Force shall free me.

  • 3dom3dom MoscowPosts: 3Member

    Creator of an ugly game with outdated business model defend bad decisions of devs of another ugly game with the same outdated business model and expect people to be so naive they'll believe he is right and they should pay sub fee for both mediocreware products.

    It's so cute.

    P. S. Skipping both games. Too ugly to worth anything. Use CryEngine 3 next time.

    Thank you for your time!

  • SatariousSatarious Kansas City, MOPosts: 1,075Member
    Originally posted by brihtwulf

    I'll have to disagree with you completely.  As a player of every major MMO out there throughout the last decade and a half, as well as someone who has worked in the video game industry, I'll have to call you out on your estimates and process.

    Firstly, it's highly unscientific and your "estimates" are more of an opinion than based on any actual facts.  Secondly, the original article wasn't talking about the "hybrid" model as ESO is not planning on using that model.  What we DO know, is that with the exception of EVE Online (which we do not know the specific number of North American subscribers), subscription numbers have been plummeting.  Particularly looking at World of Warcraft in North America, which has lost millions of subscribers since its peak years ago.

    Your chart on monetization flow is inaccurate.  The number of players in "free-to-play" or hybrid games who do NOT subscribe are the vast majority.  The way these companies are making their money is NOT by attracting new subscribers, but rather their staggered transactions for content.  Most players are not happy paying $15 every month for content.  The number of casual players has increased as the overall MMO player numbers have gone up throughout the last decade.  This means people who don't feel they put in the time to justify a monthly subscription.

    "Most players are not happy paying $15 every month for content."

    It's ironic that you lambaste the author of the article for not dealing in facts and basing his argument on guesses, and yet you turn around and do the exact same thing.  The fall in # of subscribers in the industry has absolutely nothing to do with paying $15 a month.  It's hilarious to me how people whine and complain about $15.  It may be an issue for some kid below the age of 16 who doesn't have a job, but $15 a month is a drop in the bucket for even somebody working at McDonald's making minimum wage.  Give me a break.  The drop in subscriptions has absolutely NOTHING to do with the cost of the subscription.  It's CONTENT, stupid.  The quality of content has stagnated in MMOs over the past decade.  Every company is either chasing the WoW dream with their own craptacular WoW-clone or just trying to be different for difference-sake and flopping big time.

  • azzamasinazzamasin Butler, OHPosts: 3,066Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by brihtwulf

    I'll have to disagree with you completely.  As a player of every major MMO out there throughout the last decade and a half, as well as someone who has worked in the video game industry, I'll have to call you out on your estimates and process.

    Firstly, it's highly unscientific and your "estimates" are more of an opinion than based on any actual facts.  Secondly, the original article wasn't talking about the "hybrid" model as ESO is not planning on using that model.  What we DO know, is that with the exception of EVE Online (which we do not know the specific number of North American subscribers), subscription numbers have been plummeting.  Particularly looking at World of Warcraft in North America, which has lost millions of subscribers since its peak years ago.

    Your chart on monetization flow is inaccurate.  The number of players in "free-to-play" or hybrid games who do NOT subscribe are the vast majority.  The way these companies are making their money is NOT by attracting new subscribers, but rather their staggered transactions for content.  Most players are not happy paying $15 every month for content.  The number of casual players has increased as the overall MMO player numbers have gone up throughout the last decade.  This means people who don't feel they put in the time to justify a monthly subscription.

    Games like The Lord of the Rings Online, Star Wars: The Old Republic, and Rift are making paying for the content you use easier.  MORE players are in the game making SMALLER transactions.  This is the "high volume - low dollar" method that made fast food explode.  You get millions of people stopping in (a majority of which are spending small amounts on the food they buy).  Sure, you have people dropping $10 at McDonald's, but those people are few and far between.  The situation in the MMO industry is similar.  Small transactions by more players for overall increased revenue and player numbers.

    I would agree with the stance of the Forbes article, considering the pattern in the recent years when games HAVE chosen to go with a subscription model.  Most of the games you mentioned started off attempting to get the subscription-only model working, but eventually backtracked to the hybrid model themselves.  The same will likely be true for ESO, unless they stubbornly refuse and buckle under the lack of revenue.  While the Elder Scrolls series is a well-known and beloved one, so is The Lord of the Rings, and Star Wars.  Major names and big budgets cannot guarantee success.

    The trends indicate that both ESO and Wildstar will fall prey to the same pressure of previous recent MMO's, and there is no evidence to indicate otherwise.  The information provided was mostly filled with unscientific guesses, without any actual evidence.  Everyone is titled to their opinion, but you can't present guesses as facts.  I can respect what your opinion is and the hopefulness of it, but we'll eventually know the outcome only after the fact.

    100% accurate and well written rebuttal. Kudos to you sir.

    Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!

    Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!

    Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!

    image

  • azzamasinazzamasin Butler, OHPosts: 3,066Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Satarious
    Originally posted by brihtwulf

    I'll have to disagree with you completely.  As a player of every major MMO out there throughout the last decade and a half, as well as someone who has worked in the video game industry, I'll have to call you out on your estimates and process.

    Firstly, it's highly unscientific and your "estimates" are more of an opinion than based on any actual facts.  Secondly, the original article wasn't talking about the "hybrid" model as ESO is not planning on using that model.  What we DO know, is that with the exception of EVE Online (which we do not know the specific number of North American subscribers), subscription numbers have been plummeting.  Particularly looking at World of Warcraft in North America, which has lost millions of subscribers since its peak years ago.

    Your chart on monetization flow is inaccurate.  The number of players in "free-to-play" or hybrid games who do NOT subscribe are the vast majority.  The way these companies are making their money is NOT by attracting new subscribers, but rather their staggered transactions for content.  Most players are not happy paying $15 every month for content.  The number of casual players has increased as the overall MMO player numbers have gone up throughout the last decade.  This means people who don't feel they put in the time to justify a monthly subscription.

    "Most players are not happy paying $15 every month for content."

    It's ironic that you lambaste the author of the article for not dealing in facts and basing his argument on guesses, and yet you turn around and do the exact same thing.  The fall in # of subscribers in the industry has absolutely nothing to do with paying $15 a month.  It's hilarious to me how people whine and complain about $15.  It may be an issue for some kid below the age of 16 who doesn't have a job, but $15 a month is a drop in the bucket for even somebody working at McDonald's making minimum wage.  Give me a break.  The drop in subscriptions has absolutely NOTHING to do with the cost of the subscription.  It's CONTENT, stupid.  The quality of content has stagnated in MMOs over the past decade.  Every company is either chasing the WoW dream with their own craptacular WoW-clone or just trying to be different for difference-sake and flopping big time.

     

    I have friends, real life friends at work who adore games like Path of Exile, Neverwinter and GW2 but have never played or more importantly paid for a subscription to an MMO.  Their argument is you don't get your money's worth because the majority of the content is released for guys who play 12+ hours a day and have big socio-economic guilds to assist.  Yet these same guys will happily play the aforementioned F2P games with no care in the world because they know if they want to drop $15 on the game, their getting something they can use right now.  These are guys who make 60k+ a year and play only 2-3 nights a week.  This is the majority of the market and it stands to reason in order to attract numbers you plan for these casual gamers.

    Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!

    Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!

    Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!

    image

Sign In or Register to comment.