played M59,UO,lineage,EQ,Daoc,Entropia,SWG,Horizons,Lineage2.EQ2,Vangaurd,Irth online, DarkFall,Star Trek and many others that did not make the cut or i just plain forgetting about.
Originally posted by MMO_Doubter Here's what should be done with MMOs: Offer the box for say - $5 which includes two weeks of play time. To continue the account, charge the remainder of the standard box price. This alone would put an end to the P2P MMO scams which are plauging the hobby.
This is a pretty good idea.
MMO companies are insulated from the affects of poor quality products in ways few other businesses are. This is partly because gamers historically take whatever is out there and partly because "quality" in MMOs has not been thoroughly defined. Just how much "entertainment" should one expect for their $50 (not even considering the subscription fee)? A week? Two weeks? A month?
You know, a new blender costs about $50. I would expect to get more than a few weeks or a month "entertainment" out of it.
A movie can easily cost you 20 bucks or more for up to a 3 hour movie, more than not they are usually around 90 minutes. Do you honestly feel you got 20 dollars worth of entertainment out of it? Even if it was a blockbuster hit and you loved it, would it be worth the 20 bucks? If you answer yes to that, then you answered your own question. "entertainment" is a very broad term. What is great to one person, another may thinks it sucks. Here is a trial for you. Go rent the movie, Morons from Outerspace and think if that 2 hour movie was worth the 5 bucks to rent it. I can guarantee that I don't think it is. I can even say that I don't think the makers of that movie could pay me enough for the 2 hours of my life that I lost watching that god aweful movie. But I bet you someone out there just loved it!
So back to free trials. How long should they give you? I mean, think about it, A car salesman is going to let you test drive a car for like 10-20 minutes and your probably going to own that car for the next 5 years. How many games do you know that people are still playing in 5 years? In 4, 3 2 or even 1? People think they should give you a two week free trial. Wow, I have to say that is extremely generous. I mean a car is going to cost you on average 20k and you get to test drive it for 10-20 minutes. A 50 dollar game gets you two weeks? Holy crap that is one heck of a deal. See what I mean by it just being unfathomable that people want to demand this kind of crap?
Thing is you can rent a movie for less than the cost of buying it (most places rent dvds for $1 a night now) thus you only waste $1 if the movie sucks. Music can be heard on teh radio or on TV, so you get to sample it again for far less than it would cost to buy it.
MMO software on teh other hand is tricky. Without a free trial you are blindly buying a product; a product that cannot be easily returned or refunded in the US. So you end up wasting the retail amount (say $50), and while yeah, its just $50 yada yada yada.... to some people its a waste.
Now, MMO_Doubter has what I would consider an awesome Idea. Buy the game retail for say like $5 (get say maybe 7 days to try it out) then if you like it you could pony up the rest and get the full game (as well as the 30day free time). This way the company still makes some money at release, players dont get stuck with a turkey (well at least they would be able to make a more informed opinion) and those who are really unsure of even buying the game could at least try the game right then and there without having to wait 6 month to a year for a trial. As for those who want to, they could just buy the full game right there if they wanted to.
I mean sure, its not a perfect option, but better than what consumers have right now.
As for my expectations for STO: I feel for myself it will be a fun game. It might not be the best MMO ever, but should at least give me something to do in teh Trek universe when I feel upto logging in.
There are 3 types of people in the world. 1.) Those who make things happen 2.) Those who watch things happen 3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
Originally posted by DoomsDay01 Yes reviews are subjective and its up to the consumer to do his own research before he buys but even that does not guarantee you will get what you expected. Case in point. I loved all the COD games that came out and when COD:MW2 came out with a 60 buck price tag, I figured, hey, I loved all the other ones, what should be different about this one other than I am paying an extra 10 bucks more for it, for no good reason that I could see. Well, Beat it in 6.5 hours, was disappointed in the overall progression through the game and definitely did not like the ending. Now, did I hate the game? No, It was OK, but it was a big let down compared to the other COD's that I played. Should I get my money back? No, I played the game. I definitely did not get 60 bucks worth of enjoyment out of it, but I don't feel the game company owes me anything for me not liking it as well. You take a chance on anything you buy. Even that test drive of the car is but only a few minutes. How about asking them to let you test drive it for 4 weeks to let you to "decide" if you want it. I mean, cars are expected to last you for 5+ years, compared to a video game that might hold a persons interest for 1 month to a year if your lucky. Dont you think that 4 weeks should be given for the test drive? Oh and while your at it, make sure that they throw in the gas that you will use for the next four weeks also. Show me how many car dealerships are going to answer yes to that one. Actually, there are several dealers in my town that will let you hold onto a car for a few days while you decide to buy. You do have to buy your own gas, though.
What I do not understand is the laissez faire attitude given to games that one would not apply to any other product. You know why you did not expect a refund for that $60 game? Because you've been conditioned not to expect a refund for a subpar experience. If you had gone to a restaraunt, spent $60 on dinner and your steak was cold, I bet you'd demand a refund or, at least, a partial. And you would get it.
People act like it costs nothing to give a free trial. That is not the case. They have bandwidth and server costs to consider while doing that, not to mention the entire problem of gold sellers that pray on free trials like salt on a slug. Yes, it would be nice if companies gave free trials but people act like its a right for them to have it and its not. It is very simple. Buy it, dont buy it, it's your choice. Then companies need to come up with alternatives, such as what MMO_Doubter offers, or make it easier to return subpar games for at least partial refunds. How can you classify a game with say a program like Photshop. You know what photoshop is used for and that is why you bought it. Should you get your money back because you don't like how they did their menus? The program works perfectly fine, but you don't like the menus because they go down the side instead of going across the top. A game on the other hand is HIGHLY subjective in if the person will consider it fun or not. Do you ever see a game box saying, You will have fun or your money back! I am going to go out on a limb here and say, you probably have not. Sorry, like I said, I just can not understand that thinking. It goes beyond the subjectiveness of "fun." MMOs are notoriously buggy. Does anyone doubt STO will be any different? Yet, again, gamers are conditioned to accept that subpar quality and even be grateful just for the chance to play. Even the suggestion that we should expect a bug-free launch will get you flamed out here. Yet, if that $50 blender threw its blades into the kitchen wall the first time you start it up, would you simply shrug and say "Well, that's just part of the experience?"
I have for years preached (often to the wall) that we gamers should expect and recieve no less level of quality from the games we buy than what we expect from any other product we purchase.
Originally posted by MMO_Doubter Here's what should be done with MMOs: Offer the box for say - $5 which includes two weeks of play time. To continue the account, charge the remainder of the standard box price. This alone would put an end to the P2P MMO scams which are plauging the hobby.
This is a pretty good idea.
MMO companies are insulated from the affects of poor quality products in ways few other businesses are. This is partly because gamers historically take whatever is out there and partly because "quality" in MMOs has not been thoroughly defined. Just how much "entertainment" should one expect for their $50 (not even considering the subscription fee)? A week? Two weeks? A month?
You know, a new blender costs about $50. I would expect to get more than a few weeks or a month "entertainment" out of it.
A movie can easily cost you 20 bucks or more for up to a 3 hour movie, more than not they are usually around 90 minutes. Do you honestly feel you got 20 dollars worth of entertainment out of it? Even if it was a blockbuster hit and you loved it, would it be worth the 20 bucks? If you answer yes to that, then you answered your own question. "entertainment" is a very broad term. What is great to one person, another may thinks it sucks. Here is a trial for you. Go rent the movie, Morons from Outerspace and think if that 2 hour movie was worth the 5 bucks to rent it. I can guarantee that I don't think it is. I can even say that I don't think the makers of that movie could pay me enough for the 2 hours of my life that I lost watching that god aweful movie. But I bet you someone out there just loved it!
So back to free trials. How long should they give you? I mean, think about it, A car salesman is going to let you test drive a car for like 10-20 minutes and your probably going to own that car for the next 5 years. How many games do you know that people are still playing in 5 years? In 4, 3 2 or even 1? People think they should give you a two week free trial. Wow, I have to say that is extremely generous. I mean a car is going to cost you on average 20k and you get to test drive it for 10-20 minutes. A 50 dollar game gets you two weeks? Holy crap that is one heck of a deal. See what I mean by it just being unfathomable that people want to demand this kind of crap?
Thing is you can rent a movie for less than the cost of buying it (most places rent dvds for $1 a night now) thus you only waste $1 if the movie sucks. Music can be heard on teh radio or on TV, so you get to sample it again for far less than it would cost to buy it.
MMO software on teh other hand is tricky. Without a free trial you are blindly buying a product; a product that cannot be easily returned or refunded in the US. So you end up wasting the retail amount (say $50), and while yeah, its just $50 yada yada yada.... to some people its a waste.
Now, MMO_Doubter has what I would consider an awesome Idea. Buy the game retail for say like $5 (get say maybe 7 days to try it out) then if you like it you could pony up the rest and get the full game (as well as the 30day free time). This way the company still makes some money at release, players dont get stuck with a turkey (well at least they would be able to make a more informed opinion) and those who are really unsure of even buying the game could at least try the game right then and there without having to wait 6 month to a year for a trial. As for those who want to, they could just buy the full game right there if they wanted to.
I mean sure, its not a perfect option, but better than what consumers have right now.
As for my expectations for STO: I feel for myself it will be a fun game. It might not be the best MMO ever, but should at least give me something to do in teh Trek universe when I feel upto logging in.
Movies: Yep you sure can. But you don't get to watch that blockbuster movie on the day it releases for a buck. You usually have to wait 3 months or more for it to hit the dollar theatre and 6 months or more to get to the movie rental places. You get to sample the mmo about as much as you get to sample the music on the radio. Even before the game releases there are tons of videos showing different aspects of the game. I would claim that is the exact same as listening to that song on the radio. But here is a problem with the radio analogy. Many people can't tell a difference between what they hear on the radio vs buying the cd. So what do they do, they record off the radio and burn it to a cd. Again, some people will find a game fun, some wont. 5 bucks for the game eh? I wonder how much a box it actually costs them for the box, the artwork, the packaging and oh, the game cd and case. lol, it might be like a buck for it all, I don't know but it could also be a lot more than we think.
Originally posted by DoomsDay01 A movie can easily cost you 20 bucks or more for up to a 3 hour movie, more than not they are usually around 90 minutes. Do you honestly feel you got 20 dollars worth of entertainment out of it? Even if it was a blockbuster hit and you loved it, would it be worth the 20 bucks? If you answer yes to that, then you answered your own question. "entertainment" is a very broad term. What is great to one person, another may thinks it sucks. Here is a trial for you. Go rent the movie, Morons from Outerspace and think if that 2 hour movie was worth the 5 bucks to rent it. I can guarantee that I don't think it is. I can even say that I don't think the makers of that movie could pay me enough for the 2 hours of my life that I lost watching that god aweful movie. But I bet you someone out there just loved it! So back to free trials. How long should they give you? I mean, think about it, A car salesman is going to let you test drive a car for like 10-20 minutes and your probably going to own that car for the next 5 years. How many games do you know that people are still playing in 5 years? In 4, 3 2 or even 1? People think they should give you a two week free trial. Wow, I have to say that is extremely generous. I mean a car is going to cost you on average 20k and you get to test drive it for 10-20 minutes. A 50 dollar game gets you two weeks? Holy crap that is one heck of a deal. See what I mean by it just being unfathomable that people want to demand this kind of crap?
Another bad example, DoomsDay. I only purchase "favorite" movies I know I will rewatch. So over the course of a decade (or more), I'm getting quite a bit of viewing for myself ,my family and friends off that $20 (which, just myself and the wife, we will blow on tickets alone for one movie at the theatre). I never buy a DVD just to watch once. So that $20 gets stretched quite well.
Maybe you spend twenty bucks on a movie you only watch once, by yourself. I'd recommend against that. Try RedBox @ $1.99 a shot.
Free trials: Again, I really like MMO_Doubter's idea. $5, two weeks and if you stay, the company gets full box price. If not, they at least get $5, which should cover the bandwidth, et al, for the 14 days.
Yeah, free trial if poss then will see if STO is worthy of a sub.
I really don't understand this way of thinking. If they dont give it to me for free, then I aint buying it. Doesn't that just sound wrong? And people wonder why game companies go under. If its not pirated or free, we just wont buy it. Sorry, but I feel this is the kind of attitude that makes our world a worse place to live in. When I see stuff like this, I always have this vision in my head of some dude going into a Mcdonalds and says, Hey I want to try one of them thar Big Macs. If I like it, I might actually pay for the next one but I figure I wont like it anyways so dont actually expect me to buy one.
It doesn't sound wrong at all. Nobody is asking for the company to give them something for free; just a taste before shelling out $50. A two week game trial is hardly equivalent to eating a whole Big Mac, unless the game in question is very weak on content.
Reviews are subjective and and box cover descriptions are notoriously inaccurate (really, is every game "new and exciting?") It is usually impossible to return a game for full refund if it does not meet your expectations. I don't know about you, but anything that costs $50 that didn't work as expected, I would return it in a heartbeat. Games should be no different.
Yes reviews are subjective and its up to the consumer to do his own research before he buys but even that does not guarantee you will get what you expected. Case in point. I loved all the COD games that came out and when COD:MW2 came out with a 60 buck price tag, I figured, hey, I loved all the other ones, what should be different about this one other than I am paying an extra 10 bucks more for it, for no good reason that I could see. Well, Beat it in 6.5 hours, was disappointed in the overall progression through the game and definitely did not like the ending. Now, did I hate the game? No, It was OK, but it was a big let down compared to the other COD's that I played. Should I get my money back? No, I played the game. I definitely did not get 60 bucks worth of enjoyment out of it, but I don't feel the game company owes me anything for me not liking it as well. You take a chance on anything you buy. Even that test drive of the car is but only a few minutes. How about asking them to let you test drive it for 4 weeks to let you to "decide" if you want it. I mean, cars are expected to last you for 5+ years, compared to a video game that might hold a persons interest for 1 month to a year if your lucky. Dont you think that 4 weeks should be given for the test drive? Oh and while your at it, make sure that they throw in the gas that you will use for the next four weeks also. Show me how many car dealerships are going to answer yes to that one.
People act like it costs nothing to give a free trial. That is not the case. They have bandwidth and server costs to consider while doing that, not to mention the entire problem of gold sellers that pray on free trials like salt on a slug. Yes, it would be nice if companies gave free trials but people act like its a right for them to have it and its not. It is very simple. Buy it, dont buy it, it's your choice.
How can you classify a game with say a program like Photshop. You know what photoshop is used for and that is why you bought it. Should you get your money back because you don't like how they did their menus? The program works perfectly fine, but you don't like the menus because they go down the side instead of going across the top. A game on the other hand is HIGHLY subjective in if the person will consider it fun or not. Do you ever see a game box saying, You will have fun or your money back! I am going to go out on a limb here and say, you probably have not. Sorry, like I said, I just can not understand that thinking.
I don't understand your thinking. You should blindly just buy an MMO? Is that what your stating? I mean sure Devs say the game will have this and that and while you can argue they don't actually say your garunteed to have fun they do there best to imply it and they do so in order to boost box sales. I mean just look at any games Cinematic trailer for an idea of what I'm talking about. War is a good example. The cinematic looks AWSOME, but the game doesn't come close to the cinematic. The combat isn't as smooth and fast, the graphics aren't as good and there is a lot implied in the cinematic that just isn't possible in the game.
How about MO? They tried passing off there cinematic as in game footage for a bit early on and that was debunked the first time a beta vid hit youtube.
Then you have the issue of the NDA's. Sure they are there for a reason, part of it is to keep some of the inner workings of the game a secret from there competitors... the other part is they really don't want you to see the nitty gritty of the game. They want your decision based off of hype and what they said they were doing with the game, it's rare if ever a Dev or a publisher lets a game stand or fall by it's own merit.
Free trials at this point in time are pretty much needed. Many gamers are simply tired of being lied to repeatedly. Devs talk big early on to boost pre-order sales, then of course after launch the sob story comes. Oh were just a small team, Oh no MMO has launched feature complete, Oh MMO's are an ever changing thing and start out small, Oh we never "promised" we simply meant we would like to.
I mean look at what Cryptic did with people in CO. Daeke one of the Devs made a post stating those that bought the 6 month sub and life time sub promotional offers has priority garunteed access to STO's beta. Customer service was telling people this was correct over the phone. It was a lie to keep people from canceling them lol.
Look at Mourning and DnL, I believe many would have appreciated being able to see a product before just tossing money at these people.
If you do not understand why someone would want a free trial before buying into an MMO now days then I must say the problem is with your thinking, not theres.
Many people now days want to see a game before throwing there money at another dev that is only trying to make sure they get enough money to profit. If the game makes it after that great, but it doesn't seem long term is the focus anymore. Short term return, bank, drag everyone along for as long as there willing to put up with you and start on the next project.
I mean look what we've got now days. MMO's like STO, CO and MO thinking that a pump and dump style development is a grand idea. Get it out fast and cheap and cut what corners you have to, money first quality if we decide to at a later date. MO wants to launch in a few weeks and there no where near ready, but there likely going to anyways. They tried to do to much in to little time while you could argue that are "feature Complete" there features either do not work or do not work well. STO will launch next month if Atari and Cryptic have there way, quality and content got cut here in order to get it out the door quickly.
Your way of thinking is leading us down a road that deems quality and content as low on the list of priorities. Fast and cheap is what your type of thinking brings us.
Originally posted by DoomsDay01 A movie can easily cost you 20 bucks or more for up to a 3 hour movie, more than not they are usually around 90 minutes. Do you honestly feel you got 20 dollars worth of entertainment out of it? Even if it was a blockbuster hit and you loved it, would it be worth the 20 bucks? If you answer yes to that, then you answered your own question. "entertainment" is a very broad term. What is great to one person, another may thinks it sucks. Here is a trial for you. Go rent the movie, Morons from Outerspace and think if that 2 hour movie was worth the 5 bucks to rent it. I can guarantee that I don't think it is. I can even say that I don't think the makers of that movie could pay me enough for the 2 hours of my life that I lost watching that god aweful movie. But I bet you someone out there just loved it! So back to free trials. How long should they give you? I mean, think about it, A car salesman is going to let you test drive a car for like 10-20 minutes and your probably going to own that car for the next 5 years. How many games do you know that people are still playing in 5 years? In 4, 3 2 or even 1? People think they should give you a two week free trial. Wow, I have to say that is extremely generous. I mean a car is going to cost you on average 20k and you get to test drive it for 10-20 minutes. A 50 dollar game gets you two weeks? Holy crap that is one heck of a deal. See what I mean by it just being unfathomable that people want to demand this kind of crap?
Another bad example, DoomsDay. I only purchase "favorite" movies I know I will rewatch. So over the course of a decade (or more), I'm getting quite a bit of viewing for myself ,my family and friends off that $20 (which, just myself and the wife, we will blow on tickets alone for one movie at the theatre). I never buy a DVD just to watch once. So that $20 gets stretched quite well.
Maybe you spend twenty bucks on a movie you only watch once, by yourself. I'd recommend against that. Try RedBox @ $1.99 a shot.
Free trials: Again, I really like MMO_Doubter's idea. $5, two weeks and if you stay, the company gets full box price. If not, they at least get $5, which should cover the bandwidth, et al, for the 14 days.
wait... you pay $1.99 for RedBox rentals?
ouch...
Only $1 here :P
There are 3 types of people in the world. 1.) Those who make things happen 2.) Those who watch things happen 3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
Originally posted by DoomsDay01 Yes reviews are subjective and its up to the consumer to do his own research before he buys but even that does not guarantee you will get what you expected. Case in point. I loved all the COD games that came out and when COD:MW2 came out with a 60 buck price tag, I figured, hey, I loved all the other ones, what should be different about this one other than I am paying an extra 10 bucks more for it, for no good reason that I could see. Well, Beat it in 6.5 hours, was disappointed in the overall progression through the game and definitely did not like the ending. Now, did I hate the game? No, It was OK, but it was a big let down compared to the other COD's that I played. Should I get my money back? No, I played the game. I definitely did not get 60 bucks worth of enjoyment out of it, but I don't feel the game company owes me anything for me not liking it as well. You take a chance on anything you buy. Even that test drive of the car is but only a few minutes. How about asking them to let you test drive it for 4 weeks to let you to "decide" if you want it. I mean, cars are expected to last you for 5+ years, compared to a video game that might hold a persons interest for 1 month to a year if your lucky. Dont you think that 4 weeks should be given for the test drive? Oh and while your at it, make sure that they throw in the gas that you will use for the next four weeks also. Show me how many car dealerships are going to answer yes to that one. Actually, there are several dealers in my town that will let you hold onto a car for a few days while you decide to buy. You do have to buy your own gas, though. Thats pretty nice of them. I don't see that happening around here. What I do not understand is the laissez faire attitude given to games that one would not apply to any other product. You know why you did not expect a refund for that $60 game? Because you've been conditioned not to expect a refund for a subpar experience. If you had gone to a restaraunt, spent $60 on dinner and your steak was cold, I bet you'd demand a refund or, at least, a partial. And you would get it. At one time, I would have agreed with you on the conditioning. However, after I spent 2 years working at Microsoft and seeing what people expected for support and what they got vs other companies out there, It really changed me in what I came to expect from customer support and other things. Take a look at the reviews for COD:MW2. They are out of this world. People love that game, yet I only though it was ok. I haven't been conditioned not to expect a refund, as a matter of fact, probably the exact opposite. But, I did have fun in the game, maybe not 60 bucks worth, but it was ok. Why should I get to play the game, think its ok, then turn around and demand my money back. People think its all about the consumer, the customer is always right. Well, I hate to tell you this, But their not. As for the restaurant, I did have something like that happen once. I told the waitress, she took it back and I got a new plate and it was heated. I didn't demand my money back or a refund. Sometimes people make mistakes, all they did was cause me to eat 10 minutes later than I would have when it came out the first time. People act like it costs nothing to give a free trial. That is not the case. They have bandwidth and server costs to consider while doing that, not to mention the entire problem of gold sellers that pray on free trials like salt on a slug. Yes, it would be nice if companies gave free trials but people act like its a right for them to have it and its not. It is very simple. Buy it, dont buy it, it's your choice. Then companies need to come up with alternatives, such as what MMO_Doubter offers, or make it easier to return subpar games for at least partial refunds. The problem with that is that they have already used the code that came with the game. The shop can't turn around and sell it to someone else now.
How can you classify a game with say a program like Photshop. You know what photoshop is used for and that is why you bought it. Should you get your money back because you don't like how they did their menus? The program works perfectly fine, but you don't like the menus because they go down the side instead of going across the top. A game on the other hand is HIGHLY subjective in if the person will consider it fun or not. Do you ever see a game box saying, You will have fun or your money back! I am going to go out on a limb here and say, you probably have not. Sorry, like I said, I just can not understand that thinking. It goes beyond the subjectiveness of "fun." MMOs are notoriously buggy. Does anyone doubt STO will be any different? Yet, again, gamers are conditioned to accept that subpar quality and even be grateful just for the chance to play. Even the suggestion that we should expect a bug-free launch will get you flamed out here. Yet, if that $50 blender threw its blades into the kitchen wall the first time you start it up, would you simply shrug and say "Well, that's just part of the experience?"
Its not just MMO's. All programs are buggy to a certain extent. heck, even the guys that write one of our in house apps, are always updating the thing on a weekly basis because they find more bugs. And this is a small app compared to a giant game with millions of lines of code in it. I fly RC planes and helicopters. I bought a helicopter from a company and I got 10 flights on it before the circuit board burnt out on it. That thing cost me $120. That equals about 10 bucks or so a flight. No wrecks, no damage to the heli, it just went out. I contact the company that sold it to me. No refund. I contact the maker of the helicopter. Sorry, no refund. But if I could find the QA number on the box, they would fire that employee immediately. LOL. yeah right. So, what do you do then other to never buy their product again. I bought another helicopter for 150 bucks. I have over 120 flights on it, still going strong. It has had a minimum of 60 crashes with almost no damage. 1 broken blade grip. A little super glue and it was flying in 5 minutes.
I have for years preached (often to the wall) that we gamers should expect and recieve no less level of quality from the games we buy than what we expect from any other product we purchase.
yeah but who decides that level of quality? What may be perfectly fine for me, may make you throw up and think its the worst game ever. Its a lot different than buying a lamp. lamp works or it doesn't, games can not be judged on such a simple principle, at least in my opinion.
That $5 trial is interesting. I wonder if it would have place in the industry though. Recently released titles usually do not give any kind of trial (except for maybe beta access, but then you are flawed by a "beta" thought that you can't judge the game by its beta, or maybe I'm the old one who hasn't updated their "beta" definition yet).
When they do, it is part of a marketing campaign to promote the game after its initial subscriber "burst" (and somewhere along the stagnation or even decay of numbers). And they give it for free, they are the ones in need now.
So I doubt this can come from the companies themselves, unless it comes in the form of a law to defend the consumers from this "$50 wasted in one hour" scenario... otherwise they will rely on the entry costs for as long as it represents a profitable venue, even if the retention rate sucks way too bad but a lot of people people are still purchasing the game.
We could always be more responsible in this regard though to pressure companies, and that means postponing the purchase of the game until they offer trials of some kind on the release version. For example, I'm still waiting for a Darkfall trial.
@ OP - Expectations for STO
Wait... you can PAUSE the game in instances? Wow...
Anyway my expectations are pretty low based on what we currently know, but since it's Star Trek I will be eventually playing it giving it a chance to entertain me, that is when they offer trials, even in the $5 format it would be acceptable. I'm just not into spending $50 for something that will last me one week, we're talking about MMOs here, not single-player games or real life entertainment.
Keeping expectations low is sometimes the key to find a hidden jewel.
I don't understand your thinking. You should blindly just buy an MMO? Is that what your stating? I mean sure Devs say the game will have this and that and while you can argue they don't actually say your garunteed to have fun they do there best to imply it and they do so in order to boost box sales. I mean just look at any games Cinematic trailer for an idea of what I'm talking about. War is a good example. The cinematic looks AWSOME, but the game doesn't come close to the cinematic. The combat isn't as smooth and fast, the graphics aren't as good and there is a lot implied in the cinematic that just isn't possible in the game.
No, you don't blindly buy anything. You do your research and decide based upon what is out there on if you want to play it or not. You dont have to buy the game on day 1. You can wait till real people buy it and give their opinions if thats what you want to do. However, you do pay a price for being the "first" folks to play it. You may or may not like it based off company spin.
How about MO? They tried passing off there cinematic as in game footage for a bit early on and that was debunked the first time a beta vid hit youtube.
Then you have the issue of the NDA's. Sure they are there for a reason, part of it is to keep some of the inner workings of the game a secret from there competitors... the other part is they really don't want you to see the nitty gritty of the game. They want your decision based off of hype and what they said they were doing with the game, it's rare if ever a Dev or a publisher lets a game stand or fall by it's own merit.
Yes and no. The other problem with NDA's is to prevent people from jumping the gun and declaring a game is crap while it is still in BETA stages and changing almost every single day. Why stop there, why dont we go to alpha stages and let people yell how sucky this game is when it has barely even been written? See my point there?
Free trials at this point in time are pretty much needed. Many gamers are simply tired of being lied to repeatedly. Devs talk big early on to boost pre-order sales, then of course after launch the sob story comes. Oh were just a small team, Oh no MMO has launched feature complete, Oh MMO's are an ever changing thing and start out small, Oh we never "promised" we simply meant we would like to.
Again, if you had to buy it on day 1, it was your choice and you didnt research it enough.
I mean look at what Cryptic did with people in CO. Daeke one of the Devs made a post stating those that bought the 6 month sub and life time sub promotional offers has priority garunteed access to STO's beta. Customer service was telling people this was correct over the phone. It was a lie to keep people from canceling them lol.
not exactly true. They were guaranteed beta access, not Priority, that was assumed by the user. Heck, I almost did it myself. Glad I didnt though.
Look at Mourning and DnL, I believe many would have appreciated being able to see a product before just tossing money at these people.
If you do not understand why someone would want a free trial before buying into an MMO now days then I must say the problem is with your thinking, not theres.
Again, why do they have to have one? Just like ANY video game, you only have to go by what the game company says or you wait till it gets in peoples hands and read their comments. You still have to do your own research. I bought dragon age: origins. Great game as touted by just about anyone who bought it. I thought it was only ok. It was full of bugs and that game took 5 years to make. Not only are you dealing with software here, but your also dealing with hardware and the game companies can not guarantee that its going to work on every piece of hardware known to man. Even with system requirements met, some motherboard from bill and teds excellent motherboards might have a bad chip on it and the only game that shows that flaw may be the game you bought.
Many people now days want to see a game before throwing there money at another dev that is only trying to make sure they get enough money to profit. If the game makes it after that great, but it doesn't seem long term is the focus anymore. Short term return, bank, drag everyone along for as long as there willing to put up with you and start on the next project.
Thats why you wait and watch the thousands of videos that will get posted onto youtube. Again, User has to do his own research.
I mean look what we've got now days. MMO's like STO, CO and MO thinking that a pump and dump style development is a grand idea. Get it out fast and cheap and cut what corners you have to, money first quality if we decide to at a later date. MO wants to launch in a few weeks and there no where near ready, but there likely going to anyways. They tried to do to much in to little time while you could argue that are "feature Complete" there features either do not work or do not work well. STO will launch next month if Atari and Cryptic have there way, quality and content got cut here in order to get it out the door quickly.
I wont argue to much on quality with you. But that to is in the eye of the beholder.
Your way of thinking is leading us down a road that deems quality and content as low on the list of priorities. Fast and cheap is what your type of thinking brings us.
I dont think it does. People can still pay with their wallets. If they don't like the game, and nobody is paying for it, they wont last long. The problem here is not that anything is fast or cheap, Its if it is fun or not. And fun can not be solidified into a form that can force game companies to be held accountable. You go to a restaurant and decide to try the special on the menu. There is nothing wrong with it other than you just didnt like the way it tasted. Do you demand a refund for that? I watch people rate food recipes and they will go through and rate things 1 star without even trying it. Complaining that its to high in salt or the calorie count is to high. You got others that will rate 1 star on a dill pickle recipe and then say they tried it and didnt like it. Oh btw, they hate dill pickles. Why the heck would you try and rate a dill pickle recipe if you know you dont like dill pickles? Sorry, I really do not see this as a problem with me, I see this as people wanting stuff for free.
yeah but who decides that level of quality? What may be perfectly fine for me, may make you throw up and think its the worst game ever. Its a lot different than buying a lamp. lamp works or it doesn't, games can not be judged on such a simple principle, at least in my opinion.
The customers as a whole naturally have to determine whether the level of quality is sufficient to warrant continued business. Companies get to decide if they can make a profit on that. (Well, the relationship is generally a bit more complicated than that, but that's sufficient for our purposes). Generally though customers in the video game market have shown they are willing to put up with buying crap for 50-60 dollars. So that's the system we have because we accept it. In other markets that would never be acceptable, but that's how it goes for games atm. I do find it perfectly reasonable when people say we shouldn't put up with that, and that gamers should demand higher quality. Right now we settle for low quality and even products where we agree to a contract BEFORE purchase or even seeing that contract (I refer to, of course, the TOS). It's crazy.
While games ARE more complicated, generally a good game sells well and a bad game does not. If returns were allowed, then there'd be stronger feedback on what games were bad (they'd get returned) and good games would be affected to a very small extent. Heck, people are pretty lazy, so even the number of people that opted to return a bad game wouldn't be as large as the people that thought it was bad. It might well affect MMOs the most, since MMOs right now have a lot of duds among them. It would probably do a lot to help an industry that is badly in need of some direction and more pain for bad products. The idea that codes couldn't be dealt with is ridiculous btw, when a game is returned you cancel the old code and issue a new one -- it's pretty simple. Heck, with how the internet is this day and age, you could handle most things online. Codes could be issued to one's email upon registering the product and the game would be purchased online if a company wants to avoid handling returns -- and the proper code would be required for every install. In short, it could be made to be very low-cost. The main obstacle at the moment to any change in how the industry works is that customers are largely (and by this I mean in aggregate) willing to put up with large amounts of bad treatment and ridiculous constraints.
I think it fairly obvious that if any industry could use more quality control feedback from the public, it is the MMO industry.
@ Trial subject That $5 trial is interesting. I wonder if it would have place in the industry though. Recently released titles usually do not give any kind of trial (except for maybe beta access, but then you are flawed by a "beta" thought that you can't judge the game by its beta, or maybe I'm the old one who hasn't updated their "beta" definition yet). When they do, it is part of a marketing campaign to promote the game after its initial subscriber "burst" (and somewhere along the stagnation or even decay of numbers). And they give it for free, they are the ones in need now. So I doubt this can come from the companies themselves, unless it comes in the form of a law to defend the consumers from this "$50 wasted in one hour" scenario... otherwise they will rely on the entry costs for as long as it represents a profitable venue, even if the retention rate sucks way too bad but a lot of people people are still purchasing the game. We could always be more responsible in this regard though to pressure companies, and that means postponing the purchase of the game until they offer trials of some kind on the release version. For example, I'm still waiting for a Darkfall trial.
@ OP - Expectations for STO Wait... you can PAUSE the game in instances? Wow... Anyway my expectations are pretty low based on what we currently know, but since it's Star Trek I will be eventually playing it giving it a chance to entertain me, that is when they offer trials, even in the $5 format it would be acceptable. I'm just not into spending $50 for something that will last me one week, we're talking about MMOs here, not single-player games or real life entertainment. Keeping expectations low is sometimes the key to find a hidden jewel.
LOL, yeah thats what I said about pausing instances. Read the article on here about part 1 of the beta. They mentioned it in that article.
But, single player games falls under the exact problem as these people have with MMO's. You buy a single player game, dont like it, oh well, cant return it. You buy an mmo, dont like it, oh well you cant return it. At least you dont have to pay a monthly fee now. The difference is that many single player games don't provide demos. Some do. They all cost about the same when they first come out so you tell me what the difference is.
I don't understand your thinking. You should blindly just buy an MMO? Is that what your stating? I mean sure Devs say the game will have this and that and while you can argue they don't actually say your garunteed to have fun they do there best to imply it and they do so in order to boost box sales. I mean just look at any games Cinematic trailer for an idea of what I'm talking about. War is a good example. The cinematic looks AWSOME, but the game doesn't come close to the cinematic. The combat isn't as smooth and fast, the graphics aren't as good and there is a lot implied in the cinematic that just isn't possible in the game.
No, you don't blindly buy anything. You do your research and decide based upon what is out there on if you want to play it or not. You dont have to buy the game on day 1. You can wait till real people buy it and give their opinions if thats what you want to do. However, you do pay a price for being the "first" folks to play it. You may or may not like it based off company spin.
How about MO? They tried passing off there cinematic as in game footage for a bit early on and that was debunked the first time a beta vid hit youtube.
Then you have the issue of the NDA's. Sure they are there for a reason, part of it is to keep some of the inner workings of the game a secret from there competitors... the other part is they really don't want you to see the nitty gritty of the game. They want your decision based off of hype and what they said they were doing with the game, it's rare if ever a Dev or a publisher lets a game stand or fall by it's own merit.
Yes and no. The other problem with NDA's is to prevent people from jumping the gun and declaring a game is crap while it is still in BETA stages and changing almost every single day. Why stop there, why dont we go to alpha stages and let people yell how sucky this game is when it has barely even been written? See my point there?
Free trials at this point in time are pretty much needed. Many gamers are simply tired of being lied to repeatedly. Devs talk big early on to boost pre-order sales, then of course after launch the sob story comes. Oh were just a small team, Oh no MMO has launched feature complete, Oh MMO's are an ever changing thing and start out small, Oh we never "promised" we simply meant we would like to.
Again, if you had to buy it on day 1, it was your choice and you didnt research it enough.
I mean look at what Cryptic did with people in CO. Daeke one of the Devs made a post stating those that bought the 6 month sub and life time sub promotional offers has priority garunteed access to STO's beta. Customer service was telling people this was correct over the phone. It was a lie to keep people from canceling them lol.
not exactly true. They were guaranteed beta access, not Priority, that was assumed by the user. Heck, I almost did it myself. Glad I didnt though.
Look at Mourning and DnL, I believe many would have appreciated being able to see a product before just tossing money at these people.
If you do not understand why someone would want a free trial before buying into an MMO now days then I must say the problem is with your thinking, not theres.
Again, why do they have to have one? Just like ANY video game, you only have to go by what the game company says or you wait till it gets in peoples hands and read their comments. You still have to do your own research. I bought dragon age: origins. Great game as touted by just about anyone who bought it. I thought it was only ok. It was full of bugs and that game took 5 years to make. Not only are you dealing with software here, but your also dealing with hardware and the game companies can not guarantee that its going to work on every piece of hardware known to man. Even with system requirements met, some motherboard from bill and teds excellent motherboards might have a bad chip on it and the only game that shows that flaw may be the game you bought.
Many people now days want to see a game before throwing there money at another dev that is only trying to make sure they get enough money to profit. If the game makes it after that great, but it doesn't seem long term is the focus anymore. Short term return, bank, drag everyone along for as long as there willing to put up with you and start on the next project.
Thats why you wait and watch the thousands of videos that will get posted onto youtube. Again, User has to do his own research.
I mean look what we've got now days. MMO's like STO, CO and MO thinking that a pump and dump style development is a grand idea. Get it out fast and cheap and cut what corners you have to, money first quality if we decide to at a later date. MO wants to launch in a few weeks and there no where near ready, but there likely going to anyways. They tried to do to much in to little time while you could argue that are "feature Complete" there features either do not work or do not work well. STO will launch next month if Atari and Cryptic have there way, quality and content got cut here in order to get it out the door quickly.
I wont argue to much on quality with you. But that to is in the eye of the beholder.
Your way of thinking is leading us down a road that deems quality and content as low on the list of priorities. Fast and cheap is what your type of thinking brings us.
I dont think it does. People can still pay with their wallets. If they don't like the game, and nobody is paying for it, they wont last long. The problem here is not that anything is fast or cheap, Its if it is fun or not. And fun can not be solidified into a form that can force game companies to be held accountable. You go to a restaurant and decide to try the special on the menu. There is nothing wrong with it other than you just didnt like the way it tasted. Do you demand a refund for that? I watch people rate food recipes and they will go through and rate things 1 star without even trying it. Complaining that its to high in salt or the calorie count is to high. You got others that will rate 1 star on a dill pickle recipe and then say they tried it and didnt like it. Oh btw, they hate dill pickles. Why the heck would you try and rate a dill pickle recipe if you know you dont like dill pickles? Sorry, I really do not see this as a problem with me, I see this as people wanting stuff for free.
You keep treating this like it's a refund lol. Whats being discussed is a free trial. A free trial is testing the product to see if you fell it's something you may be interested in, the only reviewer worth his or her salt is "you" and by "you" I mean every individual is the only one they can rely on to give a review they will agree with 100%. Examples of free trials...
Sample packs of Comet that are mailed out.
Vitamin C samples at GNC
Test Drives on the cars you are thinking about purchasing.
Free samples in the grocery stores.
Game demo's that are given out in magazines, downloaded from websites, given out at Gamestop, that come in other games.
Block buster generally has the newest movie playing on the TV's that are hanging from the ceiling while you are browsing.
The problem is most definetly with you my friend lol. Most people like to know what there buying, otherwise there likely to end up with a copper engraving of Abraham Lincoln thats worth 1 cent even though they just spent $19.99.
Try it before you buy it keeps the salesmen honest. You can say what you want and make any claims you wish but when it comes down to it, actions speak louder than words and whats being asked for is more action less talk.
In any case lol, it's probably in developers and publishers best interest to start doing the free trials at launch now anyways. More and more people are learning that if they don't feel they recieved what they were told they were paying for a simple phone call to your bank or CC company gets the ball rolling on that charge back I've done it twice this year.
The reason this hurts the Devs and publishers is because not only do they lose money but to many charge backs and they lose the right to accpet credit cards lol.
@ Trial subject That $5 trial is interesting. I wonder if it would have place in the industry though. Recently released titles usually do not give any kind of trial (except for maybe beta access, but then you are flawed by a "beta" thought that you can't judge the game by its beta, or maybe I'm the old one who hasn't updated their "beta" definition yet). When they do, it is part of a marketing campaign to promote the game after its initial subscriber "burst" (and somewhere along the stagnation or even decay of numbers). And they give it for free, they are the ones in need now. So I doubt this can come from the companies themselves, unless it comes in the form of a law to defend the consumers from this "$50 wasted in one hour" scenario... otherwise they will rely on the entry costs for as long as it represents a profitable venue, even if the retention rate sucks way too bad but a lot of people people are still purchasing the game. We could always be more responsible in this regard though to pressure companies, and that means postponing the purchase of the game until they offer trials of some kind on the release version. For example, I'm still waiting for a Darkfall trial.
@ OP - Expectations for STO Wait... you can PAUSE the game in instances? Wow... Anyway my expectations are pretty low based on what we currently know, but since it's Star Trek I will be eventually playing it giving it a chance to entertain me, that is when they offer trials, even in the $5 format it would be acceptable. I'm just not into spending $50 for something that will last me one week, we're talking about MMOs here, not single-player games or real life entertainment. Keeping expectations low is sometimes the key to find a hidden jewel.
LOL, yeah thats what I said about pausing instances. Read the article on here about part 1 of the beta. They mentioned it in that article.
But, single player games falls under the exact problem as these people have with MMO's. You buy a single player game, dont like it, oh well, cant return it. You buy an mmo, dont like it, oh well you cant return it. At least you dont have to pay a monthly fee now. The difference is that many single player games don't provide demos. Some do. They all cost about the same when they first come out so you tell me what the difference is.
What planet are you from? lol... you don't like your single player game then you should have played the demo. And most single player games have a demo, I played the Dragon Age demo before I bought Dragon Age. If you can't find a demo available rent it from block busters or Gamefly or any other of a thousand places for a couple of bucks.
If you buy it and don't like it sale it to game stop lol.
Welcome to earth, your statements don't make it sound like you've been here for very long.
yeah but who decides that level of quality? What may be perfectly fine for me, may make you throw up and think its the worst game ever. Its a lot different than buying a lamp. lamp works or it doesn't, games can not be judged on such a simple principle, at least in my opinion.
I think it fairly obvious that if any industry could use more quality control feedback from the public, it is the MMO industry.
But its not just the mmo industry. Its the video game genre as a whole. Do you know how many crap single player games there are out there? TONS more than there are MMO's. I won't deny the need for more QA in any form, however, what does that do to the cost of the video game? What if they hire bunches of people to do QA and the quality gets much better but now games are $130 instead of $50?
At what point do you draw the line? I think the gaming companies and their customers drew that line at around 50 bucks. Heck, remember that old football handheld game that came out like 30 years ago. It cost 50 bucks then and it only cost them around 1.50 in parts. You certainly can't buy labor like that for that price nowadays. Programmers are NOT cheap.
Originally posted by DoomsDay01 LOL, yeah thats what I said about pausing instances. Read the article on here about part 1 of the beta. They mentioned it in that article. But, single player games falls under the exact problem as these people have with MMO's. You buy a single player game, dont like it, oh well, cant return it. You buy an mmo, dont like it, oh well you cant return it. At least you dont have to pay a monthly fee now. The difference is that many single player games don't provide demos. Some do. They all cost about the same when they first come out so you tell me what the difference is.
A single-player game has a MUCH greater amount of time to earn its price for what it is worth. An MMO you buy has to be worth it within 30 days or the cost of it goes up. A single-player game you can play a little bit each month or even wait a year and come back to it and it won't cost any more. In this way a poor to mediocre single-player game can slowly earn its cost whereas a poor to mediocre MMO could well not be able to.
Oh, and as to my expectations for STO. I expect it will initially sell well, and over the first 3 months it will lose a significant majority of its subs. It will probably limp along after that, similar to Star Wars: Galaxies, the IP will probably keep it alive in some form (the natural game to compare it to in this regard is CO, I think, which doesn't benefit from an IP even a tenth as strong and was made in a similar manner). I expect the game to play well initially, but have very poor randomly generated content (seriously, it seems so bad no one bothers to even preview it much), fair to middling episodic content, poor non-combat challenges, and very poor game balance. These things being what they are, it will not bother people so much at first, but will wear heavily on subscribers after they've played through the episodic content. Game balance problems, as is typical, won't be noticed at first (except perhaps by PvPers), but they'll also take a toll as a time goes on and people learn the system. The 45-day mark after release for more content I expect will get delayed or re-visioned as just an extensive patch as the developers work desperately to address the many balance and other complaints about a game so clearly rushed. Not sure when proper Klingon content will arrive, if it ever does, but I expect a hacked-together bit of random PvE content will come long before they get anything remotely episodic.
@ Trial subject That $5 trial is interesting. I wonder if it would have place in the industry though. Recently released titles usually do not give any kind of trial (except for maybe beta access, but then you are flawed by a "beta" thought that you can't judge the game by its beta, or maybe I'm the old one who hasn't updated their "beta" definition yet). When they do, it is part of a marketing campaign to promote the game after its initial subscriber "burst" (and somewhere along the stagnation or even decay of numbers). And they give it for free, they are the ones in need now. So I doubt this can come from the companies themselves, unless it comes in the form of a law to defend the consumers from this "$50 wasted in one hour" scenario... otherwise they will rely on the entry costs for as long as it represents a profitable venue, even if the retention rate sucks way too bad but a lot of people people are still purchasing the game. We could always be more responsible in this regard though to pressure companies, and that means postponing the purchase of the game until they offer trials of some kind on the release version. For example, I'm still waiting for a Darkfall trial.
@ OP - Expectations for STO Wait... you can PAUSE the game in instances? Wow... Anyway my expectations are pretty low based on what we currently know, but since it's Star Trek I will be eventually playing it giving it a chance to entertain me, that is when they offer trials, even in the $5 format it would be acceptable. I'm just not into spending $50 for something that will last me one week, we're talking about MMOs here, not single-player games or real life entertainment. Keeping expectations low is sometimes the key to find a hidden jewel.
LOL, yeah thats what I said about pausing instances. Read the article on here about part 1 of the beta. They mentioned it in that article.
But, single player games falls under the exact problem as these people have with MMO's. You buy a single player game, dont like it, oh well, cant return it. You buy an mmo, dont like it, oh well you cant return it. At least you dont have to pay a monthly fee now. The difference is that many single player games don't provide demos. Some do. They all cost about the same when they first come out so you tell me what the difference is.
What planet are you from? lol... you don't like your single player game then you should have played the demo. And most single player games have a demo, I played the Dragon Age demo before I bought Dragon Age. If you can't find a demo available rent it from block busters or Gamefly or any other of a thousand places for a couple of bucks.
If you buy it and don't like it sale it to game stop lol.
Welcome to earth, your statements don't make it sound like you've been here for very long.
I been on your wonderful earth for 42 years. And no, not all games have demos. Sure, DA might have had one, but again, I have liked most stuff that company has put out so I figured I would like that one to. As for gamefly, hrmm, dont you have to have a subscription to them to do that? Thats more money out of your pocket. Besides my point of not liking the game isn't that I cant sell it. Its that you got hundreds of thousands of people who seem to love it yet I only felt it was ok and buggy as hell. Its another point that fun can not be solidified into something that can hold game companies accountable because we as a species can't even determine what that is and thats because everyone is different in what they think is fun.
yeah but who decides that level of quality? What may be perfectly fine for me, may make you throw up and think its the worst game ever. Its a lot different than buying a lamp. lamp works or it doesn't, games can not be judged on such a simple principle, at least in my opinion.
I think it fairly obvious that if any industry could use more quality control feedback from the public, it is the MMO industry.
But its not just the mmo industry. Its the video game genre as a whole. Do you know how many crap single player games there are out there? TONS more than there are MMO's. I won't deny the need for more QA in any form, however, what does that do to the cost of the video game? What if they hire bunches of people to do QA and the quality gets much better but now games are $130 instead of $50?
At what point do you draw the line? I think the gaming companies and their customers drew that line at around 50 bucks. Heck, remember that old football handheld game that came out like 30 years ago. It cost 50 bucks then and it only cost them around 1.50 in parts. You certainly can't buy labor like that for that price nowadays. Programmers are NOT cheap.
The market favors rushed and poorly thought-out games today because of the current conditions. No returns means a game can be successful largely based on hype. There ARE companies able to make good games in this market (Bioware, Blizzard, and even some that don't begin with a "b"), but the fact is companies which pop up to put out some bad games with a lot of hype amidst the rare good ones are successful because the customer has no method to punish a bad product. Testing a product with a demo would help, but simply being able to return a product deemed inferior would do the industry a world of good. Bad games would no longer be profitable and good games which can ALREADY exist under the current system would still be around.
Companies don't need to hire more QA people, I don't think, but they do need to think out their products more and plan better. The companies doing badly should take their lead from the companies that know what they are doing. Companies known for good products don't make them more expensively necessarily,* but they nonetheless have consistent results.
*Certainly they don't have to sell them at a higher price point.
@ Trial subject That $5 trial is interesting. I wonder if it would have place in the industry though. Recently released titles usually do not give any kind of trial (except for maybe beta access, but then you are flawed by a "beta" thought that you can't judge the game by its beta, or maybe I'm the old one who hasn't updated their "beta" definition yet). When they do, it is part of a marketing campaign to promote the game after its initial subscriber "burst" (and somewhere along the stagnation or even decay of numbers). And they give it for free, they are the ones in need now. So I doubt this can come from the companies themselves, unless it comes in the form of a law to defend the consumers from this "$50 wasted in one hour" scenario... otherwise they will rely on the entry costs for as long as it represents a profitable venue, even if the retention rate sucks way too bad but a lot of people people are still purchasing the game. We could always be more responsible in this regard though to pressure companies, and that means postponing the purchase of the game until they offer trials of some kind on the release version. For example, I'm still waiting for a Darkfall trial.
@ OP - Expectations for STO Wait... you can PAUSE the game in instances? Wow... Anyway my expectations are pretty low based on what we currently know, but since it's Star Trek I will be eventually playing it giving it a chance to entertain me, that is when they offer trials, even in the $5 format it would be acceptable. I'm just not into spending $50 for something that will last me one week, we're talking about MMOs here, not single-player games or real life entertainment. Keeping expectations low is sometimes the key to find a hidden jewel.
LOL, yeah thats what I said about pausing instances. Read the article on here about part 1 of the beta. They mentioned it in that article.
But, single player games falls under the exact problem as these people have with MMO's. You buy a single player game, dont like it, oh well, cant return it. You buy an mmo, dont like it, oh well you cant return it. At least you dont have to pay a monthly fee now. The difference is that many single player games don't provide demos. Some do. They all cost about the same when they first come out so you tell me what the difference is.
What planet are you from? lol... you don't like your single player game then you should have played the demo. And most single player games have a demo, I played the Dragon Age demo before I bought Dragon Age. If you can't find a demo available rent it from block busters or Gamefly or any other of a thousand places for a couple of bucks.
If you buy it and don't like it sale it to game stop lol.
Welcome to earth, your statements don't make it sound like you've been here for very long.
I been on your wonderful earth for 42 years. And no, not all games have demos. Sure, DA might have had one, but again, I have liked most stuff that company has put out so I figured I would like that one to. As for gamefly, hrmm, dont you have to have a subscription to them to do that? Thats more money out of your pocket. Besides my point of not liking the game isn't that I cant sell it. Its that you got hundreds of thousands of people who seem to love it yet I only felt it was ok and buggy as hell. Its another point that fun can not be solidified into something that can hold game companies accountable because we as a species can't even determine what that is and thats because everyone is different in what they think is fun.
No idea what you were trying to say with most of that. We as a species may not be able to decide whats good or fun for everyone, but we sure as heck can decide for ourselves whats fun and whats not which is where the free trial comes in.
I mean you basically just said why reading a review about a game is worthless. Nobody but YOU knows what you find fun and entertaining.
Originally posted by DoomsDay01 LOL, yeah thats what I said about pausing instances. Read the article on here about part 1 of the beta. They mentioned it in that article. But, single player games falls under the exact problem as these people have with MMO's. You buy a single player game, dont like it, oh well, cant return it. You buy an mmo, dont like it, oh well you cant return it. At least you dont have to pay a monthly fee now. The difference is that many single player games don't provide demos. Some do. They all cost about the same when they first come out so you tell me what the difference is.
A single-player game has a MUCH greater amount of time to earn its price for what it is worth. An MMO you buy has to be worth it within 30 days or the cost of it goes up. A single-player game you can play a little bit each month or even wait a year and come back to it and it won't cost any more. In this way a poor to mediocre single-player game can slowly earn its cost whereas a poor to mediocre MMO could well not be able to.
Oh, and as to my expectations for STO. I expect it will initially sell well, and over the first 3 months it will lose a significant majority of its subs. It will probably limp along after that, similar to Star Wars: Galaxies, the IP will probably keep it alive in some form (the natural game to compare it to in this regard is CO, I think, which doesn't benefit from an IP even a tenth as strong and was made in a similar manner). I expect the game to play well initially, but have very poor randomly generated content (seriously, it seems so bad no one bothers to even preview it much), fair to middling episodic content, poor non-combat challenges, and very poor game balance. These things being what they are, it will not bother people so much at first, but will wear heavily on subscribers after they've played through the episodic content. Game balance problems, as is typical, won't be noticed at first (except perhaps by PvPers), but they'll also take a toll as a time goes on and people learn the system. The 45-day mark after release for more content I expect will get delayed or re-visioned as just an extensive patch as the developers work desperately to address the many balance and other complaints about a game so clearly rushed. Not sure when proper Klingon content will arrive, if it ever does, but I expect a hacked-together bit of random PvE content will come long before they get anything remotely episodic.
But doesn't the same rules apply to all video games? People say that MMO's have to hit you right off the bat! Isn't this true with all video games? As for waiting a year to play it after you bought it, you could do that with an mmo to. the only one you can't do that wouldn't cost you extra is try it now and decide to wait a month and play it a little more.
I am a little more optimistic about STO. I think it will start off strong, there will be people that are unhappy with it but I am betting its because it didn't fit into "their" vision of what they wanted it to be. As for bugs, we all know its going to be there, its something that simply can not be helped, but we can hope that its not overwhelmingly bad. That will cause people to quit due to aggravation. I can't say for sure, but I hope that it will have a good following and do the IP proud. I will know more when it releases but from what I have seen, I think I am going to like it a lot. At least, I hope I do.
I been on your wonderful earth for 42 years. And no, not all games have demos. Sure, DA might have had one, but again, I have liked most stuff that company has put out so I figured I would like that one to. As for gamefly, hrmm, dont you have to have a subscription to them to do that? Thats more money out of your pocket. Besides my point of not liking the game isn't that I cant sell it. Its that you got hundreds of thousands of people who seem to love it yet I only felt it was ok and buggy as hell. Its another point that fun can not be solidified into something that can hold game companies accountable because we as a species can't even determine what that is and thats because everyone is different in what they think is fun.
No idea what you were trying to say with most of that. We as a species may not be able to decide whats good or fun for everyone, but we sure as heck can decide for ourselves whats fun and whats not which is where the free trial comes in.
I mean you basically just said why reading a review about a game is worthless. Nobody but YOU knows what you find fun and entertaining.
Thats not entirely true. Just like you have book reviewers and movie reviewers and gaming reviewers. People find others that have near the same tastes they do in certain areas. You learn that if you research your stuff a lot. Its no guarantee that it will be a 100% match, but you can usually judge if they are a good fit for you. I once read a company stating that places like metacritic didn't affect them at all, which I disagree with. I found, at least for console games, That certain reviewers there shared a lot of my same tastes in games. I have bought many and not bought many based on those reviews. So, Yes you can read reviews and get a general idea if a game is right for you.
I been on your wonderful earth for 42 years. And no, not all games have demos. Sure, DA might have had one, but again, I have liked most stuff that company has put out so I figured I would like that one to. As for gamefly, hrmm, dont you have to have a subscription to them to do that? Thats more money out of your pocket. Besides my point of not liking the game isn't that I cant sell it. Its that you got hundreds of thousands of people who seem to love it yet I only felt it was ok and buggy as hell. Its another point that fun can not be solidified into something that can hold game companies accountable because we as a species can't even determine what that is and thats because everyone is different in what they think is fun.
No idea what you were trying to say with most of that. We as a species may not be able to decide whats good or fun for everyone, but we sure as heck can decide for ourselves whats fun and whats not which is where the free trial comes in.
I mean you basically just said why reading a review about a game is worthless. Nobody but YOU knows what you find fun and entertaining.
Thats not entirely true. Just like you have book reviewers and movie reviewers and gaming reviewers. People find others that have near the same tastes they do in certain areas. You learn that if you research your stuff a lot. Its no guarantee that it will be a 100% match, but you can usually judge if they are a good fit for you. I once read a company stating that places like metacritic didn't affect them at all, which I disagree with. I found, at least for console games, That certain reviewers there shared a lot of my same tastes in games. I have bought many and not bought many based on those reviews. So, Yes you can read reviews and get a general idea if a game is right for you.
No lol, apparently "You" can. I however can not. There have been tons of movies that recieved raving reviews that just sucked imho. I mean reviewers were giving Shaft great reviews... I walked of the theater on it because god was it bad. Then other movies get bad reviews or go un-aknowledged and they were great imho.
I do research, but I preffer getting a sample to go with that research. I mean Sex and the City seemed to have the Critics all hooked, I watched an episode lol. The show sucked bad.
With MMO's and games in general a large part of it is money = good review. No money = a fair review some times. Then you must take into account the fact that reviewers aren't always the same style of player, sadly many of them try to come off as "Yeah I'm the same as you".
Before I pay to go see a movie I look at who's in it and watch the previews "Free trial".
Before I buy a game I play the demo or rent it "Free trial"
Before I buy a car I test drive it "Free Trial"
I am generally happy with my purchases and rarely suffer from buyers remorse because I do actually do my research and look for the "Free Trials". I still get the occasional buyers remorse, but thats likely to happen anyways in those situations the only person I have to blame is myself and I don't feel cheated by the company because I tried it and made the decision to buy it regardless.
New MMO's are where a lot of my buyers remorse comes from though when I do have it. The reviewers don't seem to ever play them most of the time lol. I was in the DFO beta and the good and bad reviews just had to many factual errors. I know for a fact that the STO reviews are off on a lot of things. Then you have to try and figure out what kind of player the reviewer is. They like to come off as one of you regardless of who "You" is. "I'm a hardcore casual gamer thats into nothing but PvE, PvP and Crafting. Here's my review".
The no free trial thing has made it to where I will rarely make a leap of faith on an MMO anymore. I will wait it out until a free trial comes along before I really look at it. Serve's me well. I didn't like War but I waited on the free trial, so no biggy. I didn't like EvE even though it is deffinetly a quality game, no loss because I tried the free trial. LoTRO I didn't like, but I tried the free trial so no loss to me. EQ2 I did like, found that out durring the free trial.
Some things I got to pass up lol, I didn't fall for the mourning fiasco as many others did. Why? Because I waited patiently on the free trial. DnL... waited there as well. Hellgare london? Waited lol. I've skipped some doozies of a nightmare simply by waiting on the free trials.
If I were to have gone by reviews, I would have been out a good bit of cash on games I did not like.
Odd fact, I've only bought one console game I did not like. Rent or Demo first (Free trial)
yeah but who decides that level of quality? What may be perfectly fine for me, may make you throw up and think its the worst game ever. Its a lot different than buying a lamp. lamp works or it doesn't, games can not be judged on such a simple principle, at least in my opinion.
I think it fairly obvious that if any industry could use more quality control feedback from the public, it is the MMO industry.
But its not just the mmo industry. Its the video game genre as a whole. Do you know how many crap single player games there are out there? TONS more than there are MMO's. I won't deny the need for more QA in any form, however, what does that do to the cost of the video game? What if they hire bunches of people to do QA and the quality gets much better but now games are $130 instead of $50?
At what point do you draw the line? I think the gaming companies and their customers drew that line at around 50 bucks. Heck, remember that old football handheld game that came out like 30 years ago. It cost 50 bucks then and it only cost them around 1.50 in parts. You certainly can't buy labor like that for that price nowadays. Programmers are NOT cheap.
The market favors rushed and poorly thought-out games today because of the current conditions. No returns means a game can be successful largely based on hype. There ARE companies able to make good games in this market (Bioware, Blizzard, and even some that don't begin with a "b"), but the fact is companies which pop up to put out some bad games with a lot of hype amidst the rare good ones are successful because the customer has no method to punish a bad product. Testing a product with a demo would help, but simply being able to return a product deemed inferior would do the industry a world of good. Bad games would no longer be profitable and good games which can ALREADY exist under the current system would still be around.
Companies don't need to hire more QA people, I don't think, but they do need to think out their products more and plan better. The companies doing badly should take their lead from the companies that know what they are doing. Companies known for good products don't make them more expensively necessarily,* but they nonetheless have consistent results.
*Certainly they don't have to sell them at a higher price point.
I can't really argue that. But lets look at STO for instance. Now I can't say if this is true or not, but just the gut feeling I am getting from the overall picture. Verant had the ST IP and didn't do anything with it. Then Perpetual got it and basically didn't do much with it either. That is already at least, what, 7 years. Then Cryptic gets it and by this time CBS wants results and wants them fast. Its already been 7 years and they got nothing. So cryptic is having to burn the midnight oil and get out as much as they can as quickly as they can. Im not saying that another year wouldn't hurt, but I think they are under terrible time pressures and just have to get something out. Will it be great? Maybe, maybe not, but at least they are trying. As a star trek fan that has wanted to play a ST MMO, I have been waiting as long as the IP has been out there in the market and sadly, like CBS, I want it now to! So do many other fans.
Originally posted by DoomsDay01 I can't really argue that. But lets look at STO for instance. Now I can't say if this is true or not, but just the gut feeling I am getting from the overall picture. Verant had the ST IP and didn't do anything with it. Then Perpetual got it and basically didn't do much with it either. That is already at least, what, 7 years. Then Cryptic gets it and by this time CBS wants results and wants them fast. Its already been 7 years and they got nothing. So cryptic is having to burn the midnight oil and get out as much as they can as quickly as they can. Im not saying that another year wouldn't hurt, but I think they are under terrible time pressures and just have to get something out. Will it be great? Maybe, maybe not, but at least they are trying. As a star trek fan that has wanted to play a ST MMO, I have been waiting as long as the IP has been out there in the market and sadly, like CBS, I want it now to! So do many other fans.
Explaining WHY a game was rushed does not change the fact that it was rushed. It certainly doesn't mean you should then go out and buy it. Fans invariably favor games that weren't rushed, whatever they might say beforehand. Rushed games simply don't do well in the long run.
Explaining WHY a game was rushed does not change the fact that it was rushed. It certainly doesn't mean you should then go out and buy it. Fans invariably favor games that weren't rushed, whatever they might say beforehand. Rushed games simply don't do well in the long run.
Except that claiming all over the place that the game was rushed doesn't make it necessarily so, no matter how much you want it to be. Fans will favour games that are good, whether they were rushed, as you claim, or not.
"Because it's easier to nitpick something than to be constructive." -roach5000
Comments
For the game to be fun for more than 30 days
played M59,UO,lineage,EQ,Daoc,Entropia,SWG,Horizons,Lineage2.EQ2,Vangaurd,Irth online, DarkFall,Star Trek
and many others that did not make the cut or i just plain forgetting about.
This is a pretty good idea.
MMO companies are insulated from the affects of poor quality products in ways few other businesses are. This is partly because gamers historically take whatever is out there and partly because "quality" in MMOs has not been thoroughly defined. Just how much "entertainment" should one expect for their $50 (not even considering the subscription fee)? A week? Two weeks? A month?
You know, a new blender costs about $50. I would expect to get more than a few weeks or a month "entertainment" out of it.
A movie can easily cost you 20 bucks or more for up to a 3 hour movie, more than not they are usually around 90 minutes. Do you honestly feel you got 20 dollars worth of entertainment out of it? Even if it was a blockbuster hit and you loved it, would it be worth the 20 bucks? If you answer yes to that, then you answered your own question. "entertainment" is a very broad term. What is great to one person, another may thinks it sucks. Here is a trial for you. Go rent the movie, Morons from Outerspace and think if that 2 hour movie was worth the 5 bucks to rent it. I can guarantee that I don't think it is. I can even say that I don't think the makers of that movie could pay me enough for the 2 hours of my life that I lost watching that god aweful movie. But I bet you someone out there just loved it!
So back to free trials. How long should they give you? I mean, think about it, A car salesman is going to let you test drive a car for like 10-20 minutes and your probably going to own that car for the next 5 years. How many games do you know that people are still playing in 5 years? In 4, 3 2 or even 1? People think they should give you a two week free trial. Wow, I have to say that is extremely generous. I mean a car is going to cost you on average 20k and you get to test drive it for 10-20 minutes. A 50 dollar game gets you two weeks? Holy crap that is one heck of a deal. See what I mean by it just being unfathomable that people want to demand this kind of crap?
Thing is you can rent a movie for less than the cost of buying it (most places rent dvds for $1 a night now) thus you only waste $1 if the movie sucks. Music can be heard on teh radio or on TV, so you get to sample it again for far less than it would cost to buy it.
MMO software on teh other hand is tricky. Without a free trial you are blindly buying a product; a product that cannot be easily returned or refunded in the US. So you end up wasting the retail amount (say $50), and while yeah, its just $50 yada yada yada.... to some people its a waste.
Now, MMO_Doubter has what I would consider an awesome Idea. Buy the game retail for say like $5 (get say maybe 7 days to try it out) then if you like it you could pony up the rest and get the full game (as well as the 30day free time). This way the company still makes some money at release, players dont get stuck with a turkey (well at least they would be able to make a more informed opinion) and those who are really unsure of even buying the game could at least try the game right then and there without having to wait 6 month to a year for a trial. As for those who want to, they could just buy the full game right there if they wanted to.
I mean sure, its not a perfect option, but better than what consumers have right now.
As for my expectations for STO: I feel for myself it will be a fun game. It might not be the best MMO ever, but should at least give me something to do in teh Trek universe when I feel upto logging in.
There are 3 types of people in the world.
1.) Those who make things happen
2.) Those who watch things happen
3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
I have for years preached (often to the wall) that we gamers should expect and recieve no less level of quality from the games we buy than what we expect from any other product we purchase.
This is a pretty good idea.
MMO companies are insulated from the affects of poor quality products in ways few other businesses are. This is partly because gamers historically take whatever is out there and partly because "quality" in MMOs has not been thoroughly defined. Just how much "entertainment" should one expect for their $50 (not even considering the subscription fee)? A week? Two weeks? A month?
You know, a new blender costs about $50. I would expect to get more than a few weeks or a month "entertainment" out of it.
A movie can easily cost you 20 bucks or more for up to a 3 hour movie, more than not they are usually around 90 minutes. Do you honestly feel you got 20 dollars worth of entertainment out of it? Even if it was a blockbuster hit and you loved it, would it be worth the 20 bucks? If you answer yes to that, then you answered your own question. "entertainment" is a very broad term. What is great to one person, another may thinks it sucks. Here is a trial for you. Go rent the movie, Morons from Outerspace and think if that 2 hour movie was worth the 5 bucks to rent it. I can guarantee that I don't think it is. I can even say that I don't think the makers of that movie could pay me enough for the 2 hours of my life that I lost watching that god aweful movie. But I bet you someone out there just loved it!
So back to free trials. How long should they give you? I mean, think about it, A car salesman is going to let you test drive a car for like 10-20 minutes and your probably going to own that car for the next 5 years. How many games do you know that people are still playing in 5 years? In 4, 3 2 or even 1? People think they should give you a two week free trial. Wow, I have to say that is extremely generous. I mean a car is going to cost you on average 20k and you get to test drive it for 10-20 minutes. A 50 dollar game gets you two weeks? Holy crap that is one heck of a deal. See what I mean by it just being unfathomable that people want to demand this kind of crap?
Thing is you can rent a movie for less than the cost of buying it (most places rent dvds for $1 a night now) thus you only waste $1 if the movie sucks. Music can be heard on teh radio or on TV, so you get to sample it again for far less than it would cost to buy it.
MMO software on teh other hand is tricky. Without a free trial you are blindly buying a product; a product that cannot be easily returned or refunded in the US. So you end up wasting the retail amount (say $50), and while yeah, its just $50 yada yada yada.... to some people its a waste.
Now, MMO_Doubter has what I would consider an awesome Idea. Buy the game retail for say like $5 (get say maybe 7 days to try it out) then if you like it you could pony up the rest and get the full game (as well as the 30day free time). This way the company still makes some money at release, players dont get stuck with a turkey (well at least they would be able to make a more informed opinion) and those who are really unsure of even buying the game could at least try the game right then and there without having to wait 6 month to a year for a trial. As for those who want to, they could just buy the full game right there if they wanted to.
I mean sure, its not a perfect option, but better than what consumers have right now.
As for my expectations for STO: I feel for myself it will be a fun game. It might not be the best MMO ever, but should at least give me something to do in teh Trek universe when I feel upto logging in.
Movies: Yep you sure can. But you don't get to watch that blockbuster movie on the day it releases for a buck. You usually have to wait 3 months or more for it to hit the dollar theatre and 6 months or more to get to the movie rental places. You get to sample the mmo about as much as you get to sample the music on the radio. Even before the game releases there are tons of videos showing different aspects of the game. I would claim that is the exact same as listening to that song on the radio. But here is a problem with the radio analogy. Many people can't tell a difference between what they hear on the radio vs buying the cd. So what do they do, they record off the radio and burn it to a cd. Again, some people will find a game fun, some wont. 5 bucks for the game eh? I wonder how much a box it actually costs them for the box, the artwork, the packaging and oh, the game cd and case. lol, it might be like a buck for it all, I don't know but it could also be a lot more than we think.
Another bad example, DoomsDay. I only purchase "favorite" movies I know I will rewatch. So over the course of a decade (or more), I'm getting quite a bit of viewing for myself ,my family and friends off that $20 (which, just myself and the wife, we will blow on tickets alone for one movie at the theatre). I never buy a DVD just to watch once. So that $20 gets stretched quite well.
Maybe you spend twenty bucks on a movie you only watch once, by yourself. I'd recommend against that. Try RedBox @ $1.99 a shot.
Free trials: Again, I really like MMO_Doubter's idea. $5, two weeks and if you stay, the company gets full box price. If not, they at least get $5, which should cover the bandwidth, et al, for the 14 days.
I really don't understand this way of thinking. If they dont give it to me for free, then I aint buying it. Doesn't that just sound wrong? And people wonder why game companies go under. If its not pirated or free, we just wont buy it. Sorry, but I feel this is the kind of attitude that makes our world a worse place to live in. When I see stuff like this, I always have this vision in my head of some dude going into a Mcdonalds and says, Hey I want to try one of them thar Big Macs. If I like it, I might actually pay for the next one but I figure I wont like it anyways so dont actually expect me to buy one.
It doesn't sound wrong at all. Nobody is asking for the company to give them something for free; just a taste before shelling out $50. A two week game trial is hardly equivalent to eating a whole Big Mac, unless the game in question is very weak on content.
Reviews are subjective and and box cover descriptions are notoriously inaccurate (really, is every game "new and exciting?") It is usually impossible to return a game for full refund if it does not meet your expectations. I don't know about you, but anything that costs $50 that didn't work as expected, I would return it in a heartbeat. Games should be no different.
Yes reviews are subjective and its up to the consumer to do his own research before he buys but even that does not guarantee you will get what you expected. Case in point. I loved all the COD games that came out and when COD:MW2 came out with a 60 buck price tag, I figured, hey, I loved all the other ones, what should be different about this one other than I am paying an extra 10 bucks more for it, for no good reason that I could see. Well, Beat it in 6.5 hours, was disappointed in the overall progression through the game and definitely did not like the ending. Now, did I hate the game? No, It was OK, but it was a big let down compared to the other COD's that I played. Should I get my money back? No, I played the game. I definitely did not get 60 bucks worth of enjoyment out of it, but I don't feel the game company owes me anything for me not liking it as well. You take a chance on anything you buy. Even that test drive of the car is but only a few minutes. How about asking them to let you test drive it for 4 weeks to let you to "decide" if you want it. I mean, cars are expected to last you for 5+ years, compared to a video game that might hold a persons interest for 1 month to a year if your lucky. Dont you think that 4 weeks should be given for the test drive? Oh and while your at it, make sure that they throw in the gas that you will use for the next four weeks also. Show me how many car dealerships are going to answer yes to that one.
People act like it costs nothing to give a free trial. That is not the case. They have bandwidth and server costs to consider while doing that, not to mention the entire problem of gold sellers that pray on free trials like salt on a slug. Yes, it would be nice if companies gave free trials but people act like its a right for them to have it and its not. It is very simple. Buy it, dont buy it, it's your choice.
How can you classify a game with say a program like Photshop. You know what photoshop is used for and that is why you bought it. Should you get your money back because you don't like how they did their menus? The program works perfectly fine, but you don't like the menus because they go down the side instead of going across the top. A game on the other hand is HIGHLY subjective in if the person will consider it fun or not. Do you ever see a game box saying, You will have fun or your money back! I am going to go out on a limb here and say, you probably have not. Sorry, like I said, I just can not understand that thinking.
I don't understand your thinking. You should blindly just buy an MMO? Is that what your stating? I mean sure Devs say the game will have this and that and while you can argue they don't actually say your garunteed to have fun they do there best to imply it and they do so in order to boost box sales. I mean just look at any games Cinematic trailer for an idea of what I'm talking about. War is a good example. The cinematic looks AWSOME, but the game doesn't come close to the cinematic. The combat isn't as smooth and fast, the graphics aren't as good and there is a lot implied in the cinematic that just isn't possible in the game.
How about MO? They tried passing off there cinematic as in game footage for a bit early on and that was debunked the first time a beta vid hit youtube.
Then you have the issue of the NDA's. Sure they are there for a reason, part of it is to keep some of the inner workings of the game a secret from there competitors... the other part is they really don't want you to see the nitty gritty of the game. They want your decision based off of hype and what they said they were doing with the game, it's rare if ever a Dev or a publisher lets a game stand or fall by it's own merit.
Free trials at this point in time are pretty much needed. Many gamers are simply tired of being lied to repeatedly. Devs talk big early on to boost pre-order sales, then of course after launch the sob story comes. Oh were just a small team, Oh no MMO has launched feature complete, Oh MMO's are an ever changing thing and start out small, Oh we never "promised" we simply meant we would like to.
I mean look at what Cryptic did with people in CO. Daeke one of the Devs made a post stating those that bought the 6 month sub and life time sub promotional offers has priority garunteed access to STO's beta. Customer service was telling people this was correct over the phone. It was a lie to keep people from canceling them lol.
Look at Mourning and DnL, I believe many would have appreciated being able to see a product before just tossing money at these people.
If you do not understand why someone would want a free trial before buying into an MMO now days then I must say the problem is with your thinking, not theres.
Many people now days want to see a game before throwing there money at another dev that is only trying to make sure they get enough money to profit. If the game makes it after that great, but it doesn't seem long term is the focus anymore. Short term return, bank, drag everyone along for as long as there willing to put up with you and start on the next project.
I mean look what we've got now days. MMO's like STO, CO and MO thinking that a pump and dump style development is a grand idea. Get it out fast and cheap and cut what corners you have to, money first quality if we decide to at a later date. MO wants to launch in a few weeks and there no where near ready, but there likely going to anyways. They tried to do to much in to little time while you could argue that are "feature Complete" there features either do not work or do not work well. STO will launch next month if Atari and Cryptic have there way, quality and content got cut here in order to get it out the door quickly.
Your way of thinking is leading us down a road that deems quality and content as low on the list of priorities. Fast and cheap is what your type of thinking brings us.
Another bad example, DoomsDay. I only purchase "favorite" movies I know I will rewatch. So over the course of a decade (or more), I'm getting quite a bit of viewing for myself ,my family and friends off that $20 (which, just myself and the wife, we will blow on tickets alone for one movie at the theatre). I never buy a DVD just to watch once. So that $20 gets stretched quite well.
Maybe you spend twenty bucks on a movie you only watch once, by yourself. I'd recommend against that. Try RedBox @ $1.99 a shot.
Free trials: Again, I really like MMO_Doubter's idea. $5, two weeks and if you stay, the company gets full box price. If not, they at least get $5, which should cover the bandwidth, et al, for the 14 days.
wait... you pay $1.99 for RedBox rentals?
ouch...
Only $1 here :P
There are 3 types of people in the world.
1.) Those who make things happen
2.) Those who watch things happen
3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
I have for years preached (often to the wall) that we gamers should expect and recieve no less level of quality from the games we buy than what we expect from any other product we purchase.
yeah but who decides that level of quality? What may be perfectly fine for me, may make you throw up and think its the worst game ever. Its a lot different than buying a lamp. lamp works or it doesn't, games can not be judged on such a simple principle, at least in my opinion.
@ Trial subject
That $5 trial is interesting. I wonder if it would have place in the industry though. Recently released titles usually do not give any kind of trial (except for maybe beta access, but then you are flawed by a "beta" thought that you can't judge the game by its beta, or maybe I'm the old one who hasn't updated their "beta" definition yet).
When they do, it is part of a marketing campaign to promote the game after its initial subscriber "burst" (and somewhere along the stagnation or even decay of numbers). And they give it for free, they are the ones in need now.
So I doubt this can come from the companies themselves, unless it comes in the form of a law to defend the consumers from this "$50 wasted in one hour" scenario... otherwise they will rely on the entry costs for as long as it represents a profitable venue, even if the retention rate sucks way too bad but a lot of people people are still purchasing the game.
We could always be more responsible in this regard though to pressure companies, and that means postponing the purchase of the game until they offer trials of some kind on the release version. For example, I'm still waiting for a Darkfall trial.
@ OP - Expectations for STO
Wait... you can PAUSE the game in instances? Wow...
Anyway my expectations are pretty low based on what we currently know, but since it's Star Trek I will be eventually playing it giving it a chance to entertain me, that is when they offer trials, even in the $5 format it would be acceptable. I'm just not into spending $50 for something that will last me one week, we're talking about MMOs here, not single-player games or real life entertainment.
Keeping expectations low is sometimes the key to find a hidden jewel.
I don't understand your thinking. You should blindly just buy an MMO? Is that what your stating? I mean sure Devs say the game will have this and that and while you can argue they don't actually say your garunteed to have fun they do there best to imply it and they do so in order to boost box sales. I mean just look at any games Cinematic trailer for an idea of what I'm talking about. War is a good example. The cinematic looks AWSOME, but the game doesn't come close to the cinematic. The combat isn't as smooth and fast, the graphics aren't as good and there is a lot implied in the cinematic that just isn't possible in the game.
No, you don't blindly buy anything. You do your research and decide based upon what is out there on if you want to play it or not. You dont have to buy the game on day 1. You can wait till real people buy it and give their opinions if thats what you want to do. However, you do pay a price for being the "first" folks to play it. You may or may not like it based off company spin.
How about MO? They tried passing off there cinematic as in game footage for a bit early on and that was debunked the first time a beta vid hit youtube.
Then you have the issue of the NDA's. Sure they are there for a reason, part of it is to keep some of the inner workings of the game a secret from there competitors... the other part is they really don't want you to see the nitty gritty of the game. They want your decision based off of hype and what they said they were doing with the game, it's rare if ever a Dev or a publisher lets a game stand or fall by it's own merit.
Yes and no. The other problem with NDA's is to prevent people from jumping the gun and declaring a game is crap while it is still in BETA stages and changing almost every single day. Why stop there, why dont we go to alpha stages and let people yell how sucky this game is when it has barely even been written? See my point there?
Free trials at this point in time are pretty much needed. Many gamers are simply tired of being lied to repeatedly. Devs talk big early on to boost pre-order sales, then of course after launch the sob story comes. Oh were just a small team, Oh no MMO has launched feature complete, Oh MMO's are an ever changing thing and start out small, Oh we never "promised" we simply meant we would like to.
Again, if you had to buy it on day 1, it was your choice and you didnt research it enough.
I mean look at what Cryptic did with people in CO. Daeke one of the Devs made a post stating those that bought the 6 month sub and life time sub promotional offers has priority garunteed access to STO's beta. Customer service was telling people this was correct over the phone. It was a lie to keep people from canceling them lol.
not exactly true. They were guaranteed beta access, not Priority, that was assumed by the user. Heck, I almost did it myself. Glad I didnt though.
Look at Mourning and DnL, I believe many would have appreciated being able to see a product before just tossing money at these people.
If you do not understand why someone would want a free trial before buying into an MMO now days then I must say the problem is with your thinking, not theres.
Again, why do they have to have one? Just like ANY video game, you only have to go by what the game company says or you wait till it gets in peoples hands and read their comments. You still have to do your own research. I bought dragon age: origins. Great game as touted by just about anyone who bought it. I thought it was only ok. It was full of bugs and that game took 5 years to make. Not only are you dealing with software here, but your also dealing with hardware and the game companies can not guarantee that its going to work on every piece of hardware known to man. Even with system requirements met, some motherboard from bill and teds excellent motherboards might have a bad chip on it and the only game that shows that flaw may be the game you bought.
Many people now days want to see a game before throwing there money at another dev that is only trying to make sure they get enough money to profit. If the game makes it after that great, but it doesn't seem long term is the focus anymore. Short term return, bank, drag everyone along for as long as there willing to put up with you and start on the next project.
Thats why you wait and watch the thousands of videos that will get posted onto youtube. Again, User has to do his own research.
I mean look what we've got now days. MMO's like STO, CO and MO thinking that a pump and dump style development is a grand idea. Get it out fast and cheap and cut what corners you have to, money first quality if we decide to at a later date. MO wants to launch in a few weeks and there no where near ready, but there likely going to anyways. They tried to do to much in to little time while you could argue that are "feature Complete" there features either do not work or do not work well. STO will launch next month if Atari and Cryptic have there way, quality and content got cut here in order to get it out the door quickly.
I wont argue to much on quality with you. But that to is in the eye of the beholder.
Your way of thinking is leading us down a road that deems quality and content as low on the list of priorities. Fast and cheap is what your type of thinking brings us.
I dont think it does. People can still pay with their wallets. If they don't like the game, and nobody is paying for it, they wont last long. The problem here is not that anything is fast or cheap, Its if it is fun or not. And fun can not be solidified into a form that can force game companies to be held accountable. You go to a restaurant and decide to try the special on the menu. There is nothing wrong with it other than you just didnt like the way it tasted. Do you demand a refund for that? I watch people rate food recipes and they will go through and rate things 1 star without even trying it. Complaining that its to high in salt or the calorie count is to high. You got others that will rate 1 star on a dill pickle recipe and then say they tried it and didnt like it. Oh btw, they hate dill pickles. Why the heck would you try and rate a dill pickle recipe if you know you dont like dill pickles? Sorry, I really do not see this as a problem with me, I see this as people wanting stuff for free.
yeah but who decides that level of quality? What may be perfectly fine for me, may make you throw up and think its the worst game ever. Its a lot different than buying a lamp. lamp works or it doesn't, games can not be judged on such a simple principle, at least in my opinion.
The customers as a whole naturally have to determine whether the level of quality is sufficient to warrant continued business. Companies get to decide if they can make a profit on that. (Well, the relationship is generally a bit more complicated than that, but that's sufficient for our purposes). Generally though customers in the video game market have shown they are willing to put up with buying crap for 50-60 dollars. So that's the system we have because we accept it. In other markets that would never be acceptable, but that's how it goes for games atm. I do find it perfectly reasonable when people say we shouldn't put up with that, and that gamers should demand higher quality. Right now we settle for low quality and even products where we agree to a contract BEFORE purchase or even seeing that contract (I refer to, of course, the TOS). It's crazy.
While games ARE more complicated, generally a good game sells well and a bad game does not. If returns were allowed, then there'd be stronger feedback on what games were bad (they'd get returned) and good games would be affected to a very small extent. Heck, people are pretty lazy, so even the number of people that opted to return a bad game wouldn't be as large as the people that thought it was bad. It might well affect MMOs the most, since MMOs right now have a lot of duds among them. It would probably do a lot to help an industry that is badly in need of some direction and more pain for bad products. The idea that codes couldn't be dealt with is ridiculous btw, when a game is returned you cancel the old code and issue a new one -- it's pretty simple. Heck, with how the internet is this day and age, you could handle most things online. Codes could be issued to one's email upon registering the product and the game would be purchased online if a company wants to avoid handling returns -- and the proper code would be required for every install. In short, it could be made to be very low-cost. The main obstacle at the moment to any change in how the industry works is that customers are largely (and by this I mean in aggregate) willing to put up with large amounts of bad treatment and ridiculous constraints.
I think it fairly obvious that if any industry could use more quality control feedback from the public, it is the MMO industry.
LOL, yeah thats what I said about pausing instances. Read the article on here about part 1 of the beta. They mentioned it in that article.
But, single player games falls under the exact problem as these people have with MMO's. You buy a single player game, dont like it, oh well, cant return it. You buy an mmo, dont like it, oh well you cant return it. At least you dont have to pay a monthly fee now. The difference is that many single player games don't provide demos. Some do. They all cost about the same when they first come out so you tell me what the difference is.
I don't understand your thinking. You should blindly just buy an MMO? Is that what your stating? I mean sure Devs say the game will have this and that and while you can argue they don't actually say your garunteed to have fun they do there best to imply it and they do so in order to boost box sales. I mean just look at any games Cinematic trailer for an idea of what I'm talking about. War is a good example. The cinematic looks AWSOME, but the game doesn't come close to the cinematic. The combat isn't as smooth and fast, the graphics aren't as good and there is a lot implied in the cinematic that just isn't possible in the game.
No, you don't blindly buy anything. You do your research and decide based upon what is out there on if you want to play it or not. You dont have to buy the game on day 1. You can wait till real people buy it and give their opinions if thats what you want to do. However, you do pay a price for being the "first" folks to play it. You may or may not like it based off company spin.
How about MO? They tried passing off there cinematic as in game footage for a bit early on and that was debunked the first time a beta vid hit youtube.
Then you have the issue of the NDA's. Sure they are there for a reason, part of it is to keep some of the inner workings of the game a secret from there competitors... the other part is they really don't want you to see the nitty gritty of the game. They want your decision based off of hype and what they said they were doing with the game, it's rare if ever a Dev or a publisher lets a game stand or fall by it's own merit.
Yes and no. The other problem with NDA's is to prevent people from jumping the gun and declaring a game is crap while it is still in BETA stages and changing almost every single day. Why stop there, why dont we go to alpha stages and let people yell how sucky this game is when it has barely even been written? See my point there?
Free trials at this point in time are pretty much needed. Many gamers are simply tired of being lied to repeatedly. Devs talk big early on to boost pre-order sales, then of course after launch the sob story comes. Oh were just a small team, Oh no MMO has launched feature complete, Oh MMO's are an ever changing thing and start out small, Oh we never "promised" we simply meant we would like to.
Again, if you had to buy it on day 1, it was your choice and you didnt research it enough.
I mean look at what Cryptic did with people in CO. Daeke one of the Devs made a post stating those that bought the 6 month sub and life time sub promotional offers has priority garunteed access to STO's beta. Customer service was telling people this was correct over the phone. It was a lie to keep people from canceling them lol.
not exactly true. They were guaranteed beta access, not Priority, that was assumed by the user. Heck, I almost did it myself. Glad I didnt though.
Look at Mourning and DnL, I believe many would have appreciated being able to see a product before just tossing money at these people.
If you do not understand why someone would want a free trial before buying into an MMO now days then I must say the problem is with your thinking, not theres.
Again, why do they have to have one? Just like ANY video game, you only have to go by what the game company says or you wait till it gets in peoples hands and read their comments. You still have to do your own research. I bought dragon age: origins. Great game as touted by just about anyone who bought it. I thought it was only ok. It was full of bugs and that game took 5 years to make. Not only are you dealing with software here, but your also dealing with hardware and the game companies can not guarantee that its going to work on every piece of hardware known to man. Even with system requirements met, some motherboard from bill and teds excellent motherboards might have a bad chip on it and the only game that shows that flaw may be the game you bought.
Many people now days want to see a game before throwing there money at another dev that is only trying to make sure they get enough money to profit. If the game makes it after that great, but it doesn't seem long term is the focus anymore. Short term return, bank, drag everyone along for as long as there willing to put up with you and start on the next project.
Thats why you wait and watch the thousands of videos that will get posted onto youtube. Again, User has to do his own research.
I mean look what we've got now days. MMO's like STO, CO and MO thinking that a pump and dump style development is a grand idea. Get it out fast and cheap and cut what corners you have to, money first quality if we decide to at a later date. MO wants to launch in a few weeks and there no where near ready, but there likely going to anyways. They tried to do to much in to little time while you could argue that are "feature Complete" there features either do not work or do not work well. STO will launch next month if Atari and Cryptic have there way, quality and content got cut here in order to get it out the door quickly.
I wont argue to much on quality with you. But that to is in the eye of the beholder.
Your way of thinking is leading us down a road that deems quality and content as low on the list of priorities. Fast and cheap is what your type of thinking brings us.
I dont think it does. People can still pay with their wallets. If they don't like the game, and nobody is paying for it, they wont last long. The problem here is not that anything is fast or cheap, Its if it is fun or not. And fun can not be solidified into a form that can force game companies to be held accountable. You go to a restaurant and decide to try the special on the menu. There is nothing wrong with it other than you just didnt like the way it tasted. Do you demand a refund for that? I watch people rate food recipes and they will go through and rate things 1 star without even trying it. Complaining that its to high in salt or the calorie count is to high. You got others that will rate 1 star on a dill pickle recipe and then say they tried it and didnt like it. Oh btw, they hate dill pickles. Why the heck would you try and rate a dill pickle recipe if you know you dont like dill pickles? Sorry, I really do not see this as a problem with me, I see this as people wanting stuff for free.
You keep treating this like it's a refund lol. Whats being discussed is a free trial. A free trial is testing the product to see if you fell it's something you may be interested in, the only reviewer worth his or her salt is "you" and by "you" I mean every individual is the only one they can rely on to give a review they will agree with 100%. Examples of free trials...
Sample packs of Comet that are mailed out.
Vitamin C samples at GNC
Test Drives on the cars you are thinking about purchasing.
Free samples in the grocery stores.
Game demo's that are given out in magazines, downloaded from websites, given out at Gamestop, that come in other games.
Block buster generally has the newest movie playing on the TV's that are hanging from the ceiling while you are browsing.
The problem is most definetly with you my friend lol. Most people like to know what there buying, otherwise there likely to end up with a copper engraving of Abraham Lincoln thats worth 1 cent even though they just spent $19.99.
Try it before you buy it keeps the salesmen honest. You can say what you want and make any claims you wish but when it comes down to it, actions speak louder than words and whats being asked for is more action less talk.
In any case lol, it's probably in developers and publishers best interest to start doing the free trials at launch now anyways. More and more people are learning that if they don't feel they recieved what they were told they were paying for a simple phone call to your bank or CC company gets the ball rolling on that charge back
I've done it twice this year.
The reason this hurts the Devs and publishers is because not only do they lose money but to many charge backs and they lose the right to accpet credit cards lol.
LOL, yeah thats what I said about pausing instances. Read the article on here about part 1 of the beta. They mentioned it in that article.
But, single player games falls under the exact problem as these people have with MMO's. You buy a single player game, dont like it, oh well, cant return it. You buy an mmo, dont like it, oh well you cant return it. At least you dont have to pay a monthly fee now. The difference is that many single player games don't provide demos. Some do. They all cost about the same when they first come out so you tell me what the difference is.
What planet are you from? lol... you don't like your single player game then you should have played the demo. And most single player games have a demo, I played the Dragon Age demo before I bought Dragon Age. If you can't find a demo available rent it from block busters or Gamefly or any other of a thousand places for a couple of bucks.
If you buy it and don't like it sale it to game stop lol.
Welcome to earth, your statements don't make it sound like you've been here for very long.
yeah but who decides that level of quality? What may be perfectly fine for me, may make you throw up and think its the worst game ever. Its a lot different than buying a lamp. lamp works or it doesn't, games can not be judged on such a simple principle, at least in my opinion.
I think it fairly obvious that if any industry could use more quality control feedback from the public, it is the MMO industry.
But its not just the mmo industry. Its the video game genre as a whole. Do you know how many crap single player games there are out there? TONS more than there are MMO's. I won't deny the need for more QA in any form, however, what does that do to the cost of the video game? What if they hire bunches of people to do QA and the quality gets much better but now games are $130 instead of $50?
At what point do you draw the line? I think the gaming companies and their customers drew that line at around 50 bucks. Heck, remember that old football handheld game that came out like 30 years ago. It cost 50 bucks then and it only cost them around 1.50 in parts. You certainly can't buy labor like that for that price nowadays. Programmers are NOT cheap.
A single-player game has a MUCH greater amount of time to earn its price for what it is worth. An MMO you buy has to be worth it within 30 days or the cost of it goes up. A single-player game you can play a little bit each month or even wait a year and come back to it and it won't cost any more. In this way a poor to mediocre single-player game can slowly earn its cost whereas a poor to mediocre MMO could well not be able to.
Oh, and as to my expectations for STO. I expect it will initially sell well, and over the first 3 months it will lose a significant majority of its subs. It will probably limp along after that, similar to Star Wars: Galaxies, the IP will probably keep it alive in some form (the natural game to compare it to in this regard is CO, I think, which doesn't benefit from an IP even a tenth as strong and was made in a similar manner). I expect the game to play well initially, but have very poor randomly generated content (seriously, it seems so bad no one bothers to even preview it much), fair to middling episodic content, poor non-combat challenges, and very poor game balance. These things being what they are, it will not bother people so much at first, but will wear heavily on subscribers after they've played through the episodic content. Game balance problems, as is typical, won't be noticed at first (except perhaps by PvPers), but they'll also take a toll as a time goes on and people learn the system. The 45-day mark after release for more content I expect will get delayed or re-visioned as just an extensive patch as the developers work desperately to address the many balance and other complaints about a game so clearly rushed. Not sure when proper Klingon content will arrive, if it ever does, but I expect a hacked-together bit of random PvE content will come long before they get anything remotely episodic.
LOL, yeah thats what I said about pausing instances. Read the article on here about part 1 of the beta. They mentioned it in that article.
But, single player games falls under the exact problem as these people have with MMO's. You buy a single player game, dont like it, oh well, cant return it. You buy an mmo, dont like it, oh well you cant return it. At least you dont have to pay a monthly fee now. The difference is that many single player games don't provide demos. Some do. They all cost about the same when they first come out so you tell me what the difference is.
What planet are you from? lol... you don't like your single player game then you should have played the demo. And most single player games have a demo, I played the Dragon Age demo before I bought Dragon Age. If you can't find a demo available rent it from block busters or Gamefly or any other of a thousand places for a couple of bucks.
If you buy it and don't like it sale it to game stop lol.
Welcome to earth, your statements don't make it sound like you've been here for very long.
I been on your wonderful earth for 42 years. And no, not all games have demos. Sure, DA might have had one, but again, I have liked most stuff that company has put out so I figured I would like that one to. As for gamefly, hrmm, dont you have to have a subscription to them to do that? Thats more money out of your pocket. Besides my point of not liking the game isn't that I cant sell it. Its that you got hundreds of thousands of people who seem to love it yet I only felt it was ok and buggy as hell. Its another point that fun can not be solidified into something that can hold game companies accountable because we as a species can't even determine what that is and thats because everyone is different in what they think is fun.
yeah but who decides that level of quality? What may be perfectly fine for me, may make you throw up and think its the worst game ever. Its a lot different than buying a lamp. lamp works or it doesn't, games can not be judged on such a simple principle, at least in my opinion.
I think it fairly obvious that if any industry could use more quality control feedback from the public, it is the MMO industry.
But its not just the mmo industry. Its the video game genre as a whole. Do you know how many crap single player games there are out there? TONS more than there are MMO's. I won't deny the need for more QA in any form, however, what does that do to the cost of the video game? What if they hire bunches of people to do QA and the quality gets much better but now games are $130 instead of $50?
At what point do you draw the line? I think the gaming companies and their customers drew that line at around 50 bucks. Heck, remember that old football handheld game that came out like 30 years ago. It cost 50 bucks then and it only cost them around 1.50 in parts. You certainly can't buy labor like that for that price nowadays. Programmers are NOT cheap.
The market favors rushed and poorly thought-out games today because of the current conditions. No returns means a game can be successful largely based on hype. There ARE companies able to make good games in this market (Bioware, Blizzard, and even some that don't begin with a "b"), but the fact is companies which pop up to put out some bad games with a lot of hype amidst the rare good ones are successful because the customer has no method to punish a bad product. Testing a product with a demo would help, but simply being able to return a product deemed inferior would do the industry a world of good. Bad games would no longer be profitable and good games which can ALREADY exist under the current system would still be around.
Companies don't need to hire more QA people, I don't think, but they do need to think out their products more and plan better. The companies doing badly should take their lead from the companies that know what they are doing. Companies known for good products don't make them more expensively necessarily,* but they nonetheless have consistent results.
*Certainly they don't have to sell them at a higher price point.
LOL, yeah thats what I said about pausing instances. Read the article on here about part 1 of the beta. They mentioned it in that article.
But, single player games falls under the exact problem as these people have with MMO's. You buy a single player game, dont like it, oh well, cant return it. You buy an mmo, dont like it, oh well you cant return it. At least you dont have to pay a monthly fee now. The difference is that many single player games don't provide demos. Some do. They all cost about the same when they first come out so you tell me what the difference is.
What planet are you from? lol... you don't like your single player game then you should have played the demo. And most single player games have a demo, I played the Dragon Age demo before I bought Dragon Age. If you can't find a demo available rent it from block busters or Gamefly or any other of a thousand places for a couple of bucks.
If you buy it and don't like it sale it to game stop lol.
Welcome to earth, your statements don't make it sound like you've been here for very long.
I been on your wonderful earth for 42 years. And no, not all games have demos. Sure, DA might have had one, but again, I have liked most stuff that company has put out so I figured I would like that one to. As for gamefly, hrmm, dont you have to have a subscription to them to do that? Thats more money out of your pocket. Besides my point of not liking the game isn't that I cant sell it. Its that you got hundreds of thousands of people who seem to love it yet I only felt it was ok and buggy as hell. Its another point that fun can not be solidified into something that can hold game companies accountable because we as a species can't even determine what that is and thats because everyone is different in what they think is fun.
No idea what you were trying to say with most of that. We as a species may not be able to decide whats good or fun for everyone, but we sure as heck can decide for ourselves whats fun and whats not which is where the free trial comes in.
I mean you basically just said why reading a review about a game is worthless. Nobody but YOU knows what you find fun and entertaining.
A single-player game has a MUCH greater amount of time to earn its price for what it is worth. An MMO you buy has to be worth it within 30 days or the cost of it goes up. A single-player game you can play a little bit each month or even wait a year and come back to it and it won't cost any more. In this way a poor to mediocre single-player game can slowly earn its cost whereas a poor to mediocre MMO could well not be able to.
Oh, and as to my expectations for STO. I expect it will initially sell well, and over the first 3 months it will lose a significant majority of its subs. It will probably limp along after that, similar to Star Wars: Galaxies, the IP will probably keep it alive in some form (the natural game to compare it to in this regard is CO, I think, which doesn't benefit from an IP even a tenth as strong and was made in a similar manner). I expect the game to play well initially, but have very poor randomly generated content (seriously, it seems so bad no one bothers to even preview it much), fair to middling episodic content, poor non-combat challenges, and very poor game balance. These things being what they are, it will not bother people so much at first, but will wear heavily on subscribers after they've played through the episodic content. Game balance problems, as is typical, won't be noticed at first (except perhaps by PvPers), but they'll also take a toll as a time goes on and people learn the system. The 45-day mark after release for more content I expect will get delayed or re-visioned as just an extensive patch as the developers work desperately to address the many balance and other complaints about a game so clearly rushed. Not sure when proper Klingon content will arrive, if it ever does, but I expect a hacked-together bit of random PvE content will come long before they get anything remotely episodic.
But doesn't the same rules apply to all video games? People say that MMO's have to hit you right off the bat! Isn't this true with all video games? As for waiting a year to play it after you bought it, you could do that with an mmo to. the only one you can't do that wouldn't cost you extra is try it now and decide to wait a month and play it a little more.
I am a little more optimistic about STO. I think it will start off strong, there will be people that are unhappy with it but I am betting its because it didn't fit into "their" vision of what they wanted it to be. As for bugs, we all know its going to be there, its something that simply can not be helped, but we can hope that its not overwhelmingly bad. That will cause people to quit due to aggravation. I can't say for sure, but I hope that it will have a good following and do the IP proud. I will know more when it releases but from what I have seen, I think I am going to like it a lot. At least, I hope I do.
No idea what you were trying to say with most of that. We as a species may not be able to decide whats good or fun for everyone, but we sure as heck can decide for ourselves whats fun and whats not which is where the free trial comes in.
I mean you basically just said why reading a review about a game is worthless. Nobody but YOU knows what you find fun and entertaining.
Thats not entirely true. Just like you have book reviewers and movie reviewers and gaming reviewers. People find others that have near the same tastes they do in certain areas. You learn that if you research your stuff a lot. Its no guarantee that it will be a 100% match, but you can usually judge if they are a good fit for you. I once read a company stating that places like metacritic didn't affect them at all, which I disagree with. I found, at least for console games, That certain reviewers there shared a lot of my same tastes in games. I have bought many and not bought many based on those reviews. So, Yes you can read reviews and get a general idea if a game is right for you.
No idea what you were trying to say with most of that. We as a species may not be able to decide whats good or fun for everyone, but we sure as heck can decide for ourselves whats fun and whats not which is where the free trial comes in.
I mean you basically just said why reading a review about a game is worthless. Nobody but YOU knows what you find fun and entertaining.
Thats not entirely true. Just like you have book reviewers and movie reviewers and gaming reviewers. People find others that have near the same tastes they do in certain areas. You learn that if you research your stuff a lot. Its no guarantee that it will be a 100% match, but you can usually judge if they are a good fit for you. I once read a company stating that places like metacritic didn't affect them at all, which I disagree with. I found, at least for console games, That certain reviewers there shared a lot of my same tastes in games. I have bought many and not bought many based on those reviews. So, Yes you can read reviews and get a general idea if a game is right for you.
No lol, apparently "You" can. I however can not. There have been tons of movies that recieved raving reviews that just sucked imho. I mean reviewers were giving Shaft great reviews... I walked of the theater on it because god was it bad. Then other movies get bad reviews or go un-aknowledged and they were great imho.
I do research, but I preffer getting a sample to go with that research. I mean Sex and the City seemed to have the Critics all hooked, I watched an episode lol. The show sucked bad.
With MMO's and games in general a large part of it is money = good review. No money = a fair review some times. Then you must take into account the fact that reviewers aren't always the same style of player, sadly many of them try to come off as "Yeah I'm the same as you".
Before I pay to go see a movie I look at who's in it and watch the previews "Free trial".
Before I buy a game I play the demo or rent it "Free trial"
Before I buy a car I test drive it "Free Trial"
I am generally happy with my purchases and rarely suffer from buyers remorse because I do actually do my research and look for the "Free Trials". I still get the occasional buyers remorse, but thats likely to happen anyways in those situations the only person I have to blame is myself and I don't feel cheated by the company because I tried it and made the decision to buy it regardless.
New MMO's are where a lot of my buyers remorse comes from though when I do have it. The reviewers don't seem to ever play them most of the time lol. I was in the DFO beta and the good and bad reviews just had to many factual errors. I know for a fact that the STO reviews are off on a lot of things. Then you have to try and figure out what kind of player the reviewer is. They like to come off as one of you regardless of who "You" is. "I'm a hardcore casual gamer thats into nothing but PvE, PvP and Crafting. Here's my review".
The no free trial thing has made it to where I will rarely make a leap of faith on an MMO anymore. I will wait it out until a free trial comes along before I really look at it. Serve's me well. I didn't like War but I waited on the free trial, so no biggy. I didn't like EvE even though it is deffinetly a quality game, no loss because I tried the free trial. LoTRO I didn't like, but I tried the free trial so no loss to me. EQ2 I did like, found that out durring the free trial.
Some things I got to pass up lol, I didn't fall for the mourning fiasco as many others did. Why? Because I waited patiently on the free trial. DnL... waited there as well. Hellgare london? Waited lol. I've skipped some doozies of a nightmare simply by waiting on the free trials.
If I were to have gone by reviews, I would have been out a good bit of cash on games I did not like.
Odd fact, I've only bought one console game I did not like. Rent or Demo first
(Free trial)
yeah but who decides that level of quality? What may be perfectly fine for me, may make you throw up and think its the worst game ever. Its a lot different than buying a lamp. lamp works or it doesn't, games can not be judged on such a simple principle, at least in my opinion.
I think it fairly obvious that if any industry could use more quality control feedback from the public, it is the MMO industry.
But its not just the mmo industry. Its the video game genre as a whole. Do you know how many crap single player games there are out there? TONS more than there are MMO's. I won't deny the need for more QA in any form, however, what does that do to the cost of the video game? What if they hire bunches of people to do QA and the quality gets much better but now games are $130 instead of $50?
At what point do you draw the line? I think the gaming companies and their customers drew that line at around 50 bucks. Heck, remember that old football handheld game that came out like 30 years ago. It cost 50 bucks then and it only cost them around 1.50 in parts. You certainly can't buy labor like that for that price nowadays. Programmers are NOT cheap.
The market favors rushed and poorly thought-out games today because of the current conditions. No returns means a game can be successful largely based on hype. There ARE companies able to make good games in this market (Bioware, Blizzard, and even some that don't begin with a "b"), but the fact is companies which pop up to put out some bad games with a lot of hype amidst the rare good ones are successful because the customer has no method to punish a bad product. Testing a product with a demo would help, but simply being able to return a product deemed inferior would do the industry a world of good. Bad games would no longer be profitable and good games which can ALREADY exist under the current system would still be around.
Companies don't need to hire more QA people, I don't think, but they do need to think out their products more and plan better. The companies doing badly should take their lead from the companies that know what they are doing. Companies known for good products don't make them more expensively necessarily,* but they nonetheless have consistent results.
*Certainly they don't have to sell them at a higher price point.
I can't really argue that. But lets look at STO for instance. Now I can't say if this is true or not, but just the gut feeling I am getting from the overall picture. Verant had the ST IP and didn't do anything with it. Then Perpetual got it and basically didn't do much with it either. That is already at least, what, 7 years. Then Cryptic gets it and by this time CBS wants results and wants them fast. Its already been 7 years and they got nothing. So cryptic is having to burn the midnight oil and get out as much as they can as quickly as they can. Im not saying that another year wouldn't hurt, but I think they are under terrible time pressures and just have to get something out. Will it be great? Maybe, maybe not, but at least they are trying. As a star trek fan that has wanted to play a ST MMO, I have been waiting as long as the IP has been out there in the market and sadly, like CBS, I want it now to! So do many other fans.
Explaining WHY a game was rushed does not change the fact that it was rushed. It certainly doesn't mean you should then go out and buy it. Fans invariably favor games that weren't rushed, whatever they might say beforehand. Rushed games simply don't do well in the long run.
Except that claiming all over the place that the game was rushed doesn't make it necessarily so, no matter how much you want it to be. Fans will favour games that are good, whether they were rushed, as you claim, or not.
"Because it's easier to nitpick something than to be constructive." -roach5000