Howdy, Stranger!

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

$15.00/Month gets me what?

2»

Comments

  • epicorepicor Member Posts: 60

     I have serious reservations about APB.  To me it reads more like CoH merged with GTA.  Neither of those games held any interest to me after only a couple hours.  So i guess its an agree to disagree situation.

    As for content and gameplay i can tell you from my perspective the $15 will be worth it.  I just tried to play TF2 and was bored out of my skull after about an hr. 

    Neither of those things are to say that APB won't be a good game.  It looks like there are some really kool features.

    Just a couple notes:

    The small scale maps in GA are done on purpose to encourage tactics and discourage zergs.

    APB reads as though it will be cash shop, though that isn't certain.  (HUGE deterrent for me)

    I don't see any room for progression in APB.  Do you level up?  Control land?  Raid 'dungeons'?

  • SwaneaSwanea Member UncommonPosts: 2,401
    Originally posted by Douhk


    To be honest, I don't see why I would pick this game over APB, which is esentially the same thing except in a different theme with an open world over a closed arena-type battleground. In fact, I'm not really sure why I would play this game over a game like Call of Duty. And on top of that, expecting an extra $15 bucks a month for most likely less polish / balance than CoD will inevitably provide? Even with the list that's given within the first page (which, essentially, is almost all provided in a game like CoD) there really isn't much justification.
    I could see how people would prefer this game over the standard MMOs like WoW, as it's a different playstyle. ButI just don't see this game possibly being able to survive / have any more than a 25k subscribers at best for charging the MMO standard fee for essentially another FPS where the actual standard is no monthly charge. I don't see many people choosing this game over other FPSs like T2F, CoD, Counterstrike, or even APB once it comes out. There just isn't enough there for it to deserve the standard MMO monthly charge.

    While I don't know too much about GA, I don't recall anything in CoD about groups/factions/teams that fight over zones that they control, that brings in resources, that gives you things to craft with...MW2 will have that? Wow!

  • Slashed316Slashed316 Member UncommonPosts: 151

     Once you play GA you will see why the $15/month will be money well spent. Once the NDA is lifted ill be glad to share my experience with you all, but if you are a fan of shooters then this will probably be an MMO for you.

    image
  • BobthenecroBobthenecro Member Posts: 28

    TBH  with this game i think we will have to wait till OB-Live to judge if it is 15$ a monthe worthy.

    With the features that they promise i would say they can pull it off that is why i am keeping active with this game.

    Kinda hard to explain with the NDA and all but just play close attention to the videos that are show on the website, and read up on the details and you can probably judge for yourself.

  • majinantmajinant Member UncommonPosts: 418
    Originally posted by mThree3

    This is a TRUE fps. The only reason they are making it p2p is because they can add MUCH more content to it then COD4 and ARMA2 can or EVER will.
     
     

     

    P2P doesn't mean better. Look at Guild Wars... Great. Now Guild Wars 2... OMG, Aweomse!!! 

    Both free after purchase!



  • FreddyNoNoseFreddyNoNose Member Posts: 1,558
    Originally posted by Avathos


    As fellow gamer I really want to see as many games deviate from the typical elf,  dwarf mediaval fantasy mold to succeed. I have considered GA and  I am not giving up on this game yet, but really please be honest with me without flaming
    What do I get for $15.00 month?
    1- 4v4, 6v6 and maybe 16v16 content?
    2- Some sort of lobby with maybe a map where I can see if other missions succeed for my team to do mine?
    I guess GA will have a similiar set as DDO, Huxley or maybe Diablo I and II?
    If were a new player (costumer) how would sell the subscription to me?
    Please dont say: "for $15.00 a month you a lot hours of FUN" Because I can play true FPS like  ARMA 2 and COD4 without a monthly fee
     



     

    $15.00 a month gets  you what those other games give  you for $15.00 per month. Access.

  • spLaggerspLagger Member UncommonPosts: 130

    yea P2P or F2P, it's all a different mind set. Neither worse or better than the other IMO, just different.

     

    I honestly think we really just have to wait and see if it's worth 15 bucks a month. Can't really pass judgment on it until everyone actually starts playing it for several months and such. I mean even beta testers can't really give you the whole scoop since it's a different environment for them having the fun of being the first and seeing the progression.

     

    Just have to wait for the game to be out and test it yourself. And come on, please stop making black and white comparison with this and other FPS. There's a lot more depth to this game than COD or TF2.... otherwise they wouldn't need a P2P model and from what has been released whether good or bad it's a lot more indepth that other regular FPSs.

  • DouhkDouhk Member Posts: 1,019
    Originally posted by Swanea

    Originally posted by Douhk


    To be honest, I don't see why I would pick this game over APB, which is esentially the same thing except in a different theme with an open world over a closed arena-type battleground. In fact, I'm not really sure why I would play this game over a game like Call of Duty. And on top of that, expecting an extra $15 bucks a month for most likely less polish / balance than CoD will inevitably provide? Even with the list that's given within the first page (which, essentially, is almost all provided in a game like CoD) there really isn't much justification.
    I could see how people would prefer this game over the standard MMOs like WoW, as it's a different playstyle. ButI just don't see this game possibly being able to survive / have any more than a 25k subscribers at best for charging the MMO standard fee for essentially another FPS where the actual standard is no monthly charge. I don't see many people choosing this game over other FPSs like T2F, CoD, Counterstrike, or even APB once it comes out. There just isn't enough there for it to deserve the standard MMO monthly charge.

    While I don't know too much about GA, I don't recall anything in CoD about groups/factions/teams that fight over zones that they control, that brings in resources, that gives you things to craft with...MW2 will have that? Wow!



     

    There are differences, yes. But I don't honestly see where the $15 bucks / month is justified. Basically, crafting, "progression", group and guild orientation and faction control. These are some of the main features I've been seeing touted for this game, but is that seriously it (Beyond what the standard no monthly fee FPS can offer)? And I ask that with sheer curiousity and in no way an attempt to insult, as I really am curious as to why they are actually charging $15 bucks a month. I just don't see how this would appeal beyond those that absolutely love this type of setting in a FPS (and quite frankly, I can surely find plenty of biotech / super soldier FPSs).

    Heck, two of those features are actually in CoD now that I think about it. "Progression" as you gain levels offers better weapons and perks. There is also a strong "guild" orientation with the clans, appealing to more hardcore players. Just no crafting and no faction control. Is there more that isn't already in your regular run of the mill FPS?

    image If only SW:TOR could be this epic...

  • PalebanePalebane Member RarePosts: 4,010

    I sympathize with the OP. FPS players are not going to pay $15/month for something that a real FPS does better for free. They've never had to pay to play thier games. No way is server maintainance and data storage worth $15/ month.

    Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.

  • EkibiogamiEkibiogami Member UncommonPosts: 2,154
    Originally posted by Palebane


    I sympathize with the OP. FPS players are not going to pay $15/month for something that a real FPS does better for free. They've never had to pay to play thier games. No way is server maintainance and data storage worth $15/ month.



     

    Thats kinda the point here. Its NOT a normal FPS.... Honestly. Wait till the NDA is lifted and see whats really diffrent.

    Your makeing a Ignorant attack that its a Normal FPS. And I would Be Ignorant to Defence that the game is Trully worth 15 a month W/O more Details.

    If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude; greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.
    —Samuel Adams

  • spLaggerspLagger Member UncommonPosts: 130

    plus this is more of a Third Person Shooter/Platformer most of the game play you can see is less of a FPS honestly. I mean unless it is and only the game play footage is partial or something.

  • risenbonesrisenbones Member Posts: 194

    Well from what I can tell by reading stuff what you get for the $15 a month over the traditional FPS is

    Deeper character development

    Crafting and harvesting

    Persistant territory control

    Winning and losing a match means something changes the face of the political map not just a matter of oh well we lost that one just reset the map and go again.

     

    Weather or not thats worth $15 a month to you is pretty much up to you.  However I will add this thought.  What differences are there between WOW and a single player RPG now a days that makes WOW worth $15 a month to several million people?  Not really expecting anyone to publicly answer that but something I figure you should ask yourself when you ask such questions of other games that charge a subscription to play.  Forget about what you consider is a MMO or what isn't and think about what your willing to pay $15 a month for.

    The lesser of two evils is still evil.

    There is nothing more dangerous than a true believer.

  • spLaggerspLagger Member UncommonPosts: 130

    iono, wow you can actually get around 9 bucks a month if you just buy the cards from game shops, which kids do since they don't have a credit card to do it on their site. WoW does offer quite a bit of content, albeit repetitive at times.

    Maybe I'm wrong, but it does take a lot to run servers.... I mean leaving your computer on 24/7 a month with the monitor can actually sometimes add up to A LOT! Usually the basic break down is a nickle per hour for your monitor and a nickle for your computer in just electricity consumption. Sure I bet they have those SUPER expensive servers that run on lower wattages. But just say one regular server is costing them 1 nickle per hour, that's still 36 bucks a month in just electricity for a single CPU computer. Then they have to pay for maintenance, hardware upkeep, bandwidth, server space, paying employees to keep on the servers itself. And if they don't get many subscribers in the beginning they're eating it. And I'm sure there are multiple things that I don't know about that they have to pay for. And also usually electricity works in a tiered system. And it's opposite of buying bulk product, the more electricity you use the higher the rate will be, so if they use enough electricity they'll get bumped into a bigger bracket where the dollar to wattage consumption will increase. But yes it's still profitable since this is a business after all.

    Regular FPSs can get away with not charging a monthly fee because there is little over head since most of the hosting is not on the business end it's on the client end.

  • risenbonesrisenbones Member Posts: 194

    Well the point I was trying to make was that you pay a sub for WOW and the differences between WOW and a single player RPG are not really that much.  All I see really is a persistant world and the number of players you can game with maybe crafting to some extent.  Just speaking generally here but alot of single player RPG's have as much character depth and better storylines than MMO's at least in my opinion.  However I still shell out a sub to play an MMO cause to me in certain enviroments that sub is worth it.  I lose a little story and gain a shared experiance of a game world.

     

    As to GA over a traditional FPS I think your getting alot more with your sub than a traditional MMO over a Single player RPG.  Weather or not thats worth it to you is for you to decide it's your money spend it how you see fit.  Me I'll just see how it all goes and how things get implimented before I hand over my hard earned like I do with everything else that comes with a monthly payment.

    The lesser of two evils is still evil.

    There is nothing more dangerous than a true believer.

  • spLaggerspLagger Member UncommonPosts: 130

    I really don't understand how you can compare a single player RPG to a MMORPG? They're very different animals. One being a server has to be kept running 24/7 (except with maintenance) otherwise it stops being the game style it is. Plus the game style tends to be more of a tree branching system like the old days of Escape Velocity (1996) probably not the first to explore the game format by any means but is a great example of one of the early single player games that felt like how current MMOs are. Every time the story is split up like that it's always going to feel weak in comparison to a single straight line plot line. In MMOs like Atlantica Online or Drift City, their story lines tend to be like single player RPGs, but can be played in a broader co-op sense. But they still need to be on live servers because instead of tons of NPCs you have fewer NPCs and more player controlled people. In single player games you can craft, do everything you want that you could do in a MMORPG. The main point of a MMORPG is the MMO side of things.



    So in the end it doesn't matter if it's good or bad how the story is or available content, you're paying for servers that stay online 24/7, people making sure the game is not being abused, tech support, etc. And that's not free by any means. So if you want to play a game by yourself that's fine, but that's kind of an odd thing to bring up on a site called MMORPG.com.

     

    Same goes for GA. The game requires the same level of upkeep and service as any other game that requires extensive server use.

     

    As a lot of people yea, people will wait and see if it's worth the money. Some people though have to try it out so that others can find out if they like it. So there will be plenty of people who will try it out by just what the read about the game just the sound of the game type.

     

  • risenbonesrisenbones Member Posts: 194

    You know what I think we actually agree.

     

    Yes an MMORPG is a diffent animal to a single player RPG.  In much the same way that Global agenda is going to be a different animal to an FPS. 

     

    The OP was asking what do they get for their sub?  I gave a list on the aditional gameplay features GA is saying it will provide over an FPS.  But I also added that if your going to ask these questions of GA then maybe we should look at what we get when we pay a sub for an MMORPG over playing it's single player counterparts as well.  You are correct what we are mostly paying a sub for is the MMO part that means running servers all day and providing massive amounts of customer support.  GA will have these costs as well.

    The point remains GA is saying it will provide

     

    deeper character development

    deeper crafting/resouce gathering

    player effected territory control

    battles that actually matter to more than the individual and not just a map reset.

    On top of that you have the persistant world and all the server running costs and live support staffing of an MMO that will need a monthly fee to keep running.

     

     

    What it seems to be sacrificing at the moment

     

    smaller battlefield maps

    and smaller numbers of participants in individual battles  12 vs 12 as opposed to the 32 vs 32 of most FPS games

     

    Is that worth a monthly fee?  Up to you really.

    The lesser of two evils is still evil.

    There is nothing more dangerous than a true believer.

  • VexeVexe Member Posts: 549

     I think for me, a smaller sub fee would be more fitting. Especially if we have to buy the game first. I haven't looked at the business model, myself, so I'm not sure. But from the list of features I think a 5.00 or even 7.50 $ system would be more fitting.

  • spLaggerspLagger Member UncommonPosts: 130
    Originally posted by risenbones



    Is that worth a monthly fee?  Up to you really.

     

    Ditto!

  • spLaggerspLagger Member UncommonPosts: 130
    Originally posted by Vexe


     I think for me, a smaller sub fee would be more fitting. Especially if we have to buy the game first. I haven't looked at the business model, myself, so I'm not sure. But from the list of features I think a 5.00 or even 7.50 $ system would be more fitting.

     

    I think there is a bit of a marketing issue by charging a lower monthly fee. It's the same thing when it goes for cars. Even if the car is worth less than it's competitor they may not want to charge less because then it's preceived to be "cheap." Same may go for video games. If they charge something small it may make people think "oh this must suck or not offer anything if they are charging so little." Just like the stigmatism with F2P games where people get this idea that "oh people can buy stuff in the game, must suck monkey balls"

     

    They can always offer lower rates through other means, just like WoW does with game cards you can buy at shops in RL.

  • RazzielAEtilRazzielAEtil Member Posts: 4
    Originally posted by risenbones

    The point remains GA is saying it will provide

     

    deeper character development

    deeper crafting/resouce gathering

    player effected territory control

    battles that actually matter to more than the individual and not just a map reset.

    On top of that you have the persistant world and all the server running costs and live support staffing of an MMO that will need a monthly fee to keep running.

     

     

    What it seems to be sacrificing at the moment

     

    smaller battlefield maps

    and smaller numbers of participants in individual battles  12 vs 12 as opposed to the 32 vs 32 of most FPS games

     

    Is that worth a monthly fee?  Up to you really.

     

    If you ask me, saying that they're sacrificing by only having X vs X rather than Y vs Y just isn't accurate. While many people want to have those huge battles, it doesn't take all that much to turn a good tactical FPS into a slaughter field. I won't play on the largest sized TF2 servers because it feels like you have no real impact on the game and it's more luck than skill that you walk out of a door when there aren't 5 snipers aiming at it.

     

    Another side to this is map design.  Some games have huge maps/areas where it can take 100s of players for the maps/areas to feel active.  Planetside was one of those games.  This also suffers from winding up with hundreds of players in a tight space where tactics matter far less than numbers and explosives.  If the maps are laid out in such a way that they always feel active and players always feel important, I'm happy with smaller numbers per skirmish.

  • epicorepicor Member Posts: 60

    Well said razz.  My man razz coming in to save the day.  haha.

    Anyway, yah i agree.  Its not so much about numbers in GA as it is about teamplay and playing well.  The 12v12 max was done on purpose to stop zerging.  How many times (in both rpg BGs and FPSs) have you been defending a point only to have 30 people charge the point.  There is no way to defend against it and it becomes a sensless melee.

    GA is set up so that you could litereally have an entire team attacking a point, but it would be to their detriment because they wouldnt have any defense.  The other team's snipers/assault would just blast them away.  If you want to zerg something, fine, go play a zergy game.  If you want to get into a team, coordinate with other people and play well, then GA a game you might want to try out.

  • DavrynDavryn Member Posts: 39

    Don't know if this has been posted yet, but here's an interview with Hi-Rez:

    www.tentonhammer.com/node/75772

Sign In or Register to comment.