If you go into a game, expecting it to be better than the one you were just playing, and continually compare apsects of the games; you've just wasted your money and have nobody to blame but yourself.
IMO of course. I've done this far too many times and have games that failed me because I made comparisons.
Raquelis in various games Played: Everything Playing: Nioh 2, Civ6 Wants: The World Anticipating:Everquest NextCrowfall, Pantheon, Elden Ring
I can't say for everyone else, but it would certainly help with me. Not to the extent im hurting for money, it's the ethics behind it. If i'm not having a decent amount of fun in a game and paying a monthly fee, it feels quite wrong to me and eventually turns me off. It doesn't necessarily determine whether I quit it or not, but it certainly factors in. I get a very strong Guild Wars-esque feel from this game as well, I think it is the presentation, not necessarily the mechanics. I played Guild Wars for quite awhile, simply because it was free, and it seemed like amazing value, though enjoying PVE+PVP I eventually left. When it comes down to it however, I would rather WAR have been an incredibly addicting game for 20-25$...As opposed to what it is, which has already caused me to cancel my sub for 15$. It's really a sad state of affairs when I think of it, I am willing to overpay for something that seems so dried up. While it makes sense in an economics arena, it's quite disheartening as a gamer.
except you haven't paid 15 bucks for the month yet, you are still in your free first month
Quite irrelevant to the point I was trying to make.
I'm unsure of that, as that limits the businesses overall growth. Companies are making most of their money on subscriptions, despite popular belief that they make most from retail boxes, it's for the most part and the long run 70% the subs (I'd consider the other 30% the miscellaneous areas, such as marketting gains or whatnot). Then again, I'm pulling that percentage out of my ass. But I'm pretty sure it's safe to assume that a large amount of their income comes from subs.
This wouldn't necessarily effect the costs of making an MMO since people don't subscribe to MMOs when making them. So technically, you could make a quality MMO and begin the prices at $5 a month. The troubles where this begins is maintaining that quality without upping the prices.
Without a doubt, if a game was marketted at the hype levels of this game or AoC, had the quality of WoW, and was going for $5 bucks a month, people would be more then willing to try this out. It's a great marketting ploy. But when it comes to maintaining the quality, at only $5 a month per subscriber, it will be difficult. Eventually the prices would have to be raised or countless expansions would have to be made to keep the content running. Of course, many players would be upset by this. It's difficult to determine whether in the long run it would be better for a company to give an MMO off for $5 bucks a month over $15 bucks a month.
Then there's the arguement of $5 a month over no monthly fee. I think this is difficult to determine as well; we could take a gander at GWs as the only greatly successful MMO (I think at this point it is currently the #2 most played MMO) that did not have a subscription fee. But there is something to people with the idea of monthly fees... many MMO players would possibly feel disgusted with an online MMO that came out without sub fees because they have a bad reputation for having low quality (which is actually pretty true, sadly...). Having at least $5 a month, though, I'm not sure would make a difference with this thinking. It would still be thought by many to be of lesser quality, and chances are it would still have equal quality to that of a subless game.
What I'm curious to see is how a game with a monthly sub and no box purchase required would work out. The first month would act as your trial month and to continue on that account would require you to pay $15 dollars. I'm not going to guess how that would turn out because I'm unaware of a company that has done this ever. Though there must be a reason since I've never seen this. Anyone know anything about an MMO using a system like this?
TL;DR: Overall, I think you would get the same effect by selling the game off for $10 a month over $5 a month. Overall I think this would be a great idea for a new MMO coming out. It gives the same mentality of "let's try this out because it's slightly cheaper" no matter if it's $5 bucks or $10 bucks.
Obviously, some people in this thread don't remember the days when MUDs cost $10 an hour. There were even a few graphical MMORPGs in the very early days (Neverwinter Nights) that had similar ludicruously expensive pricing schemes.
I'm assuming you're not referring to the PWs created by people via the Neverwinter Nights released by Atari right? Because I've never paid a single red cent to play on any of those.
I'm assuming you mean its predecessor... wasn't it through AOL or something?
"If you just step away for a sec you will clearly see all the pot holes in the road, and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
Well, if your definition of 'instanced pvp' would be: 'fighting between large groups of players for control of countless objectives out in the open, non instanced game world', you would be right. I'm having a lot of fun doing that every day since launch, a heck of a lot of fun, tbh.
Level 24, renown rank 22, two titles regarding keep sieging, an active guild and a daily warband for fighting over the the tier 2 and 3 zones. Hell, I'm lovin' it.
Obviously you have only played this game for a short while and focussed on only one aspect and now, a few weeks after launch without giving the Devs even the slimmest chance to review what needs to be changed, you are a digruntled troll who thinks he has seen the whole game. If else why would you write something which would be more applicable on AoC or WoW then on WAR?
Well, if your definition of 'instanced pvp' would be: 'fighting between large groups of players for control of countless objectives out in the open, non instanced game world', you would be right. I'm having a lot of fun doing that every day since launch, a heck of a lot of fun, tbh. Level 24, renown rank 22, two titles regarding keep sieging, an active guild and a daily warband for fighting over the the tier 2 and 3 zones. Hell, I'm lovin' it. Obviously you have only played this game for a short while and focussed on only one aspect and now, a few weeks after launch without giving the Devs even the slimmest chance to review what needs to be changed, you are a digruntled troll who thinks he has seen the whole game. If else why would you write something which would be more applicable on AoC or WoW then on WAR?
Good for you. Too bad the general populace doesn't share your experience. Also, I've played WAR since beta. I saw this coming miles away, but no one did anything about it. People gravitate to whatever rewards them the most, thus scenarios it is.
And what I write about WAR does apply to WoW too. Too bad WoW has many more features that WAR doesn't. Where does this leave WAR at? A stripped down WoW at best.
Well, if your definition of 'instanced pvp' would be: 'fighting between large groups of players for control of countless objectives out in the open, non instanced game world', you would be right. I'm having a lot of fun doing that every day since launch, a heck of a lot of fun, tbh. Level 24, renown rank 22, two titles regarding keep sieging, an active guild and a daily warband for fighting over the the tier 2 and 3 zones. Hell, I'm lovin' it. Obviously you have only played this game for a short while and focussed on only one aspect and now, a few weeks after launch without giving the Devs even the slimmest chance to review what needs to be changed, you are a digruntled troll who thinks he has seen the whole game. If else why would you write something which would be more applicable on AoC or WoW then on WAR?
Good for you. Too bad the general populace doesn't share your experience. Also, I've played WAR since beta. I saw this coming miles away, but no one did anything about it. People gravitate to whatever rewards them the most, thus scenarios it is.
And what I write about WAR does apply to WoW too. Too bad WoW has many more features that WAR doesn't. Where does this leave WAR at? A stripped down WoW at best.
With the 'minor' difference of WAR having only just launched and still in the process of adjusting rewards per content aspect:
"1. Open RvR is crucial to this game's success. If we don't have enough people doing open RvR, the game will not succeed as much as it could and should. We're looking at all the data from the servers and if what is being reported here is true (too much emphasis on scenarios), we will certainly look at encouraging people to get involved in oRvR earlier than they may be doing right now. This will not involved nerfing of scenario exp, rp, etc. though.
2. We will have an improved chat interface/filters very quickly (hopefully in the next version). As I've said before, we really messed up on the presentation of the chat system. It really is quite powerful but too many people just didn't know what they could do to make their lives easier. That's our fault and we will correct that. Once I had my chat system set up properly, I was very pleased with the results. So, the next version you will see will have: a) more tabs by default; b) more filters; c) a reminder on how to set things up your way. Further down the road I want to see a chat editor similar to our layout editor. I also sent an idea to the team about a simple slash command (and then a button) to make gold spammer reporting quite easy.
3. I love the core crafting system and we definitely want to add a lot more stuff to it as the game evolves.
As to what else is coming, well, that would be telling but I guarantee that you'll like what we are going to do before the year is out and afterward. As I promised before we launched, we are keeping the team on WAR and not moving them on to the expansion pack yet. Launching was only the first step...
Comments
If you go into a game, expecting it to be better than the one you were just playing, and continually compare apsects of the games; you've just wasted your money and have nobody to blame but yourself.
IMO of course. I've done this far too many times and have games that failed me because I made comparisons.
Raquelis in various games
Played: Everything
Playing: Nioh 2, Civ6
Wants: The World
Anticipating: Everquest Next Crowfall, Pantheon, Elden Ring
except you haven't paid 15 bucks for the month yet, you are still in your free first month
Quite irrelevant to the point I was trying to make.
oops...nevermind, misread the point you were trying to make
Not sure what server some of these haters play on, but there is definately alot of Open RvR on Ostermark.
STOP WHINING!
I'm unsure of that, as that limits the businesses overall growth. Companies are making most of their money on subscriptions, despite popular belief that they make most from retail boxes, it's for the most part and the long run 70% the subs (I'd consider the other 30% the miscellaneous areas, such as marketting gains or whatnot). Then again, I'm pulling that percentage out of my ass. But I'm pretty sure it's safe to assume that a large amount of their income comes from subs.
This wouldn't necessarily effect the costs of making an MMO since people don't subscribe to MMOs when making them. So technically, you could make a quality MMO and begin the prices at $5 a month. The troubles where this begins is maintaining that quality without upping the prices.
Without a doubt, if a game was marketted at the hype levels of this game or AoC, had the quality of WoW, and was going for $5 bucks a month, people would be more then willing to try this out. It's a great marketting ploy. But when it comes to maintaining the quality, at only $5 a month per subscriber, it will be difficult. Eventually the prices would have to be raised or countless expansions would have to be made to keep the content running. Of course, many players would be upset by this. It's difficult to determine whether in the long run it would be better for a company to give an MMO off for $5 bucks a month over $15 bucks a month.
Then there's the arguement of $5 a month over no monthly fee. I think this is difficult to determine as well; we could take a gander at GWs as the only greatly successful MMO (I think at this point it is currently the #2 most played MMO) that did not have a subscription fee. But there is something to people with the idea of monthly fees... many MMO players would possibly feel disgusted with an online MMO that came out without sub fees because they have a bad reputation for having low quality (which is actually pretty true, sadly...). Having at least $5 a month, though, I'm not sure would make a difference with this thinking. It would still be thought by many to be of lesser quality, and chances are it would still have equal quality to that of a subless game.
What I'm curious to see is how a game with a monthly sub and no box purchase required would work out. The first month would act as your trial month and to continue on that account would require you to pay $15 dollars. I'm not going to guess how that would turn out because I'm unaware of a company that has done this ever. Though there must be a reason since I've never seen this. Anyone know anything about an MMO using a system like this?
TL;DR: Overall, I think you would get the same effect by selling the game off for $10 a month over $5 a month. Overall I think this would be a great idea for a new MMO coming out. It gives the same mentality of "let's try this out because it's slightly cheaper" no matter if it's $5 bucks or $10 bucks.
I'm assuming you're not referring to the PWs created by people via the Neverwinter Nights released by Atari right? Because I've never paid a single red cent to play on any of those.
I'm assuming you mean its predecessor... wasn't it through AOL or something?
and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
Your denial amuses me. Enjoy your instanced PvP.
Well, if your definition of 'instanced pvp' would be: 'fighting between large groups of players for control of countless objectives out in the open, non instanced game world', you would be right. I'm having a lot of fun doing that every day since launch, a heck of a lot of fun, tbh.
Level 24, renown rank 22, two titles regarding keep sieging, an active guild and a daily warband for fighting over the the tier 2 and 3 zones. Hell, I'm lovin' it.
Obviously you have only played this game for a short while and focussed on only one aspect and now, a few weeks after launch without giving the Devs even the slimmest chance to review what needs to be changed, you are a digruntled troll who thinks he has seen the whole game. If else why would you write something which would be more applicable on AoC or WoW then on WAR?
My brand new bloggity blog.
Good for you. Too bad the general populace doesn't share your experience. Also, I've played WAR since beta. I saw this coming miles away, but no one did anything about it. People gravitate to whatever rewards them the most, thus scenarios it is.
And what I write about WAR does apply to WoW too. Too bad WoW has many more features that WAR doesn't. Where does this leave WAR at? A stripped down WoW at best.
Good for you. Too bad the general populace doesn't share your experience. Also, I've played WAR since beta. I saw this coming miles away, but no one did anything about it. People gravitate to whatever rewards them the most, thus scenarios it is.
And what I write about WAR does apply to WoW too. Too bad WoW has many more features that WAR doesn't. Where does this leave WAR at? A stripped down WoW at best.
With the 'minor' difference of WAR having only just launched and still in the process of adjusting rewards per content aspect:
"1. Open RvR is crucial to this game's success. If we don't have enough people doing open RvR, the game will not succeed as much as it could and should. We're looking at all the data from the servers and if what is being reported here is true (too much emphasis on scenarios), we will certainly look at encouraging people to get involved in oRvR earlier than they may be doing right now. This will not involved nerfing of scenario exp, rp, etc. though.
2. We will have an improved chat interface/filters very quickly (hopefully in the next version). As I've said before, we really messed up on the presentation of the chat system. It really is quite powerful but too many people just didn't know what they could do to make their lives easier. That's our fault and we will correct that. Once I had my chat system set up properly, I was very pleased with the results. So, the next version you will see will have: a) more tabs by default; b) more filters; c) a reminder on how to set things up your way. Further down the road I want to see a chat editor similar to our layout editor. I also sent an idea to the team about a simple slash command (and then a button) to make gold spammer reporting quite easy.
3. I love the core crafting system and we definitely want to add a lot more stuff to it as the game evolves.
As to what else is coming, well, that would be telling but I guarantee that you'll like what we are going to do before the year is out and afterward. As I promised before we launched, we are keeping the team on WAR and not moving them on to the expansion pack yet. Launching was only the first step...
Mark "
My brand new bloggity blog.